SALT LAKE CITY - Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public land is the issue this week in a Salt Lake courtroom. On Tuesday, the first of six Resource Management Plans by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will come under fire from conservation groups. It is a battle that started in 2008, when they first challenged the Richfield Resource Management Plan (RMP) for south central Utah.

Attorney Steve Bloch with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), said his group believes the plan puts too much emphasis on off-roading and oil and gas development in areas that deserve greater protection.

"What we're seeking at this hearing on Tuesday is to bring some balance back to how the public lands are managed," Bloch said. "It's our position that designating more than 4,200 miles of dirt roads and trails, in this office alone, is not a balanced decision."

Supporters of keeping the Richfield RMP as it is have pointed out that it resulted from six years of input and is a compromise plan, so none of the parties involved got exactly what they wanted. The conservation groups' challenge has languished in Washington, D.C., for the past few years until being reassigned to the federal district court in Salt Lake City, where oral arguments will be heard on Tuesday.

According to Bloch, the BLM used existing county road and trail maps to make its OHV travel plans, without doing sufficient field work to follow up. He said his group and other challengers are not against off-roading in general, but they warn it should not be allowed in sensitive areas.

"There are roads and trails that should be closed to protect a whole host of resources," Bloch explained. "And even if those are closed, there will be hundreds - if not thousands - of miles of roads and trails still available in this part of the state and, surely, statewide."

He added that none of the six RMPs discuss the combined effects of off-roading and climate change, from dust storms to stream degradation. Instead, they state that other decisions will be made later. The Richfield plan covers an area of roughly 2 million acres of public land across five Utah counties.

More information is available on the BLM Richfield RMP website, www.blm.gov. Information about the SUWA protest is at http://action.suwa.org.


get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups, tribes and community organizers are praising President Joe Biden's decision Thursday to expand two national monuments in California.

Together, the monuments will gain about 120,000 acres. The Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument is 90 minutes northwest of Sacramento and the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument lies just east of Los Angeles.

Brenda Gallegos, public lands manager for the nonprofit Hispanic Access Foundation, said millions of urban families live close to the San Gabriel Mountains.

"A lot of our Latino communities don't have access to nature, prominently, like 67% of Latino communities don't have access to green spaces or blue spaces," Gallegos pointed out. "Having these expansions designated today brings us closer to closing that nature gap."

The president used his powers under the Antiquities Act to expand the monuments in order to increase public access and protect the watershed and wildlife habitat. The move also makes progress toward Biden's goal of protecting 30% of the country's public lands by 2030.

Gallegos said Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in Lake County will include an area previously known as Walker Ridge, now renamed Moluk Loyuk, which means Condor Ridge in the Patwin tribal language.

"This is important because it establishes a co-stewardship with federally recognized tribes and will return the indigenous names of these lands to them," Gallegos explained. "This continues to build that great relationship with tribes."

Land managers will now create a new management plan for the area, which could include new campsites, hiking and mountain biking trails, and even off-highway vehicle-designated routes.

The Bureau of Land Management recently released its final Public Lands Rule, which is set to put conservation on equal footing with other multiple uses taking place on public lands.

The state of Utah has come out in opposition, pointing to the impact it could have on the almost 23 million acres of BLM land in Utah.

Redge Johnson, director of the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, said the state supports conservation efforts but called the rule a "solution looking for a problem."

"What we have already put into conservation designations and then what you have for the acts that promote the conservation of the lands, why do you need to level that playing field?" Johnson questioned. "The playing field has more than leveled over the past 40, 50 years with the passage of all these acts."

Johnson contended Utah's lands and wildlife will suffer as a result of the rule and added it'll make mining critical metals used for batteries even more difficult. He and others, like Gov. Spencer Cox, called on the BLM to immediately withdraw the rule and work with stakeholders on more practical solutions.

Conservationists see the rule as a big win for restoring and sustaining public lands for future generations.

Johnson described Utah's public lands a "fire dependent ecosystem," adding fuel loads have accumulated drastically due to over a century's worth of fire suppression. He argued the rule will make executing and continuing vegetation management projects more difficult, including reducing the threats posed by fuel loads.

"One of the biggest contributors we have to carbon dioxide right now are wildfires, at least in the West," Johnson asserted. "Transportation, all the others, yes absolutely. But wildfires are a huge contributing factor to that. One of the best things we could do is reduce the fuel loads on some of these areas to reduce the fire risk and this rule puts that at risk."

The rule also creates the frameworks for "restoration and mitigation leases," which will allow groups to restore public lands or to offset the effects of a particular use. Johnson argued the leases will leave too many loopholes but the BLM said they will not "disturb existing authorizations."


get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups are rejoicing over the decision Friday by the Biden administration to reject a proposed mining road in Alaska.

The 211-mile Ambler Road would have sliced through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, severing the migration route for a Western Arctic Caribou herd.

Alex Johnson, interior Alaska director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said it was important for the feds to take a stand in Alaska so mining interests do not start eyeing other national parks.

"This is a very expensive, destructive and just highly speculative project that does not in any way support our clean energy goals as a country," Johnson contended. "And ultimately would permanently threaten the health and well-being of local communities and the tribes."

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski slammed the decision, warning it could limit jobs and tax revenues for Alaska by preventing exploration for minerals she said are important to national security, like copper, cobalt, gallium and germanium.

Jayme Dittmar, a photographer and filmmaker from Fairbanks, said the road would have been very disruptive to the 66 Native American villages along the proposed route.

"That'd be 168 trucks passing through close vicinity to the villages," Dittmar pointed out. "There would be hundreds of bridges built. It would dismantle a subsistence livelihood that's been in place for thousands and thousands of years."

The road was seen as a negative for tourism to the Brooks Range area. According to the Alaska Travel Industry Association, Californians make up 9% of visitors to Alaska.