. Welcome to the Landscape, your show about America's parks and public lands. I'm Erin Weiss with the Center for Western Priorities in Denver this week. And I'm Kate Retinger in Salt Lake City. Today on the pod, we're talking about a new plan from the BLM that closes a number of dirt roads around Moab in order to better protect the back country. You may have seen it in the news lately.
It's called the Labyrinth Canyon Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan, and off-roading groups are not happy about it. We've got Southern Utah Wilderness Attorney Laura Peterson here to tell us more about the plan. But before we get to that, let's do the news. A coalition of senators led by the Colorado and New Mexico delegations are pushing the Bureau of Land Management to finish updating its bonding requirements for oil and gas companies that drill on American public lands.
The agency, of course, is in the process of raising those rates through a formal rulemaking process, but some Republican members of Congress are trying to derail that proposed rule before it ever gets to the finish line. Right now, as we are taping this on Thursday morning, the house is considering an amendment to the interior department's spending bill that would stop the rulemaking entirely.
That amendment and a matching standalone bill are being sponsored by Colorado's own national embarrassment, Congresswoman Lauren Bobert Bonding requirements you'll recall are essentially collateral payments that companies put up to ensure there's enough money to plug and remediate and clean up oil and gas wells when they finish producing oil. Now, unfortunately, M's. Current bonding requirements haven't been updated in 50 years. They are woefully inadequate to cover the actual cleanup costs.
The government accountability office flagged this issue back in 2019. It warned the agency that it needed to raise rates in order to protect taxpayers from being stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cleanup potentially. So each new, well that is permitted today with an inadequate bond represents potentially thousands of dollars that taxpayers could end up on the hook for. Also, it's Native American Heritage Month.
There's a lot of exciting stuff going on in the realm of tribal co-management these days. According to an article by Anna V. Smith in High Country News, from the development of a management plan for Bears Ears to the recent creation of the BJJ Nav show, IITA Coveney and ancestral footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, the interior department is looking to tribes more than ever to help manage public lands between 2021 and 2022.
The interior department and the USDA signed 20 new COS stewardship Agreements with Tribal nations with another 60 in development. That was according to a press release from last November. We'll drop a link to that article in the show notes. We're joined today by Laura Peterson, staff attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to talk about a new BLM plan for recreation in the Moab area, specifically a travel plan that prioritizes conservation by limiting off-Road
travel in some areas. Laura, thanks for being here. Thanks so much for having me. All right. So let's start with the basics. What is a motor? What is ABLM motorized vehicle travel management plan in general? And why are, are these necessary? So a travel management plan determines where motorized vehicles are
allowed to travel across BLM lands. So it designates a route network, and the reason why they're important and why they're significant is because it has a really large impact on how the agency manages land. You know, motorized vehicles have a pretty significant impact on natural cultural resources. So where there's sort of concentrated use, there's a lot of sacrifice of resources, and then, you know, they can sort of make conservation decisions in a way by, um, how they designate that network.
And just to clarify, we're talking mostly about dirt roads, right? Yes. This is all dirt roads and many of these roads are really, um, you know, there are a few roads here that are like graded dirt roads, easy to travel in a sedan, but most of these are like four-wheel drive dirt roads or motorcycle dirt bike routes, that kind of thing. So is are, are motorized vehicle travel management plans, do these exist on all public lands everywhere or is this something that we see a
lot of in particular in southern Utah? Because off-roading is so, so big. So they, the travel management plans are on BLM Lands, forest Service lands. Um, what you see in BLM, whether, you know, what we're talking about here in terms of why it's significant is a lot of like UTV side-by-side, ATV, um, dirt bike kind of use. Um, it does designate routes for all motorized vehicles, but the sort of more controversial routes are those that are most, um, suitable for those kind of vehicles.
So we're, we're talking off-roading, here is the controversy. Right? Absolutely, yeah. All right. Well, on that note, let's get specific and talk about this Labyrinth Canyon plan. Which lands are included in this plan, and how many miles of road are on those lands currently? So the Labyrinth, rims, genera, Gemini Bridges area, it's like a 300,000 acre area that's just outside of Moab.
It's a popular destination. So currently, um, there are over 1200 miles of designated routes, which makes it nearly impossible to escape sort of the site and sound of off-road vehicles. You know, we've looked at the density of routes in that area. So right now, 94% of that entire 300,000 acre area is within half mile of a designated route, and less than 0.5% of that land area is a mile or more from designated route. So it is a really incredibly dense network.
That's crazy. 'cause you know, I, I mean, I haven't been out specifically in that area, but you think about Moab and you think about going into the back country, and it's not really back country if you, with you're within a mile of a road in any spot in that whole area, is it. It's really not. And you know, it's, it just prioritizes one user group to the expense of, um, not only other resource users.
There's a lot of quiet recreational uses in that area that are impacted by motorized vehicles, but also, you know, there's pretty important wildlife habitat there. There's a lot of cultural sites, um, and those other things that are impacted by that use. Tell us about Labyrinth Canyon. Why, why is this area so special? Why is it so popular? Obviously with off roaders, but, but others as well. What makes this area, uh, such a draw?
So I think, you know, one of the things is Labyrinth Canyon itself, which is just a really quintessential and unmatched place. You know, it is, um, in Utah, um, you have the Labyrinth Canyon section of the Green River, which is a flat water section, um, which is suitable for boaters of kind of all experience levels. And you're floating through these towering Red rock cliffs and incredible side canyons, and you have just this amazing topography all over.
And so that's why it is such a draw is it's just like an incredibly scenic and beautiful area. Um, the other thing that's important to point out is that as part of the Dingle Act, the west side of the river is designated wilderness. The river corridor itself is a designated scenic river, and the east side of the river is not protected as wilderness, though it is, there's proposal to protect it as wilderness.
And so as you're floating the river right now, you know, it's this incredible wilderness river experience. And then you get to a certain point and all of a sudden on the Grand County side of the river, there's, you know, UTVs and vehicles kind of roaring up and down the side of the river, which just really takes away from that experience. So with all of that background, let's talk about what the plan actually did.
How many miles of dirt road did the BLM close with the plan and what was their reasoning for doing so? So the BLM actually only closed about 300 miles. And so there's still more than 800 miles of routes in that area. You know, it's not, the plan certainly isn't perfect, um, but it was a really important step forward. And what it did, um, most significantly is it closed routes in that river corridor, in these sensitive side canyons, and then pulled back some of the routes from the canyon rims.
And they really fo you know, I think focused on protecting, um, high value areas. You know, like the Labyrinth Canyon riparian areas in desert are rare. They're really significant. And so it's important to make sure we preserve those spaces. And so that's what the agency did here. Really quick, I wanna sort of circle back for a second.
Will you describe the issue with off-Road vehicles, why they are a threat to re like, um, wildlife desert, specifically the desert around Moab and the Cryptobiotic soil and things like that? Sure. So, you know, off-Road vehicles, they certainly provide a form of recreation, but they really do have a disproportionate impact on resources.
And it's because of that disproportionate impact, because of the impact, um, they have on natural resources, cultural resources that the use of those vehicles really does need to be, um, carefully thought out and planned. And the impact that those have, you know, crypto, you mentioned cryptobiotic soils, that's a soil crust essentially that keeps dust down, that is easily disturbed by things like motorized vehicles.
And so you then generate a lot of fugitive dust. They, uh, really impact riparian areas in terms of facilitating erosion. There's often non-native species like vegetation that is brought in by motorized vehicles, it's on tires, and that can really impact native plant species in those areas. And I just wanna clarify, you say cryptobiotic soil, I'm going to assume by the name this is then not just dirt.
Right? It's really important. , it's a really important function in terms of protecting, you know, the vegetation and the soil itself, you know, that it keeps it down essentially. So, so BBL m proposes this plan, uh, proposing closing, uh, quite a bit of, uh, of, of dirt roads and uh, and motorized trails. What are the responses, uh, to that plan from the motorized recreation community and the non-motorized folks?
So, you know, from the motorized community, that's been a lot of sort of the sky is falling rhetoric, you know, we're getting shut out of these places, you know, and I think it's important to point out that that's not true. There's not cutting off access. There is still 800 miles of routes in this gen in this specific area. When you get into the greater Moab area, there's more than 5,000 miles of designated routes. So closing these 300 really is a, a minor step forward,
an important one, but a minor one. Um, and you know, there's still access to the river by motorized vehicles. There's still viewpoints. Um, and so it's just honestly inaccurate to say that there is cutting off access. And in terms of non-motorized users, river runners, other folks who mountain bike hike in that area, people are happy. You know, they're feeling like there is a place for them in this area.
They want to go out there, um, and want to be able to experience these places without that impact. And we've had a lot of folks reach out and are excited to run Labyrinth again and go there without those sort of impacts. Yeah, I imagine Ed Abby would be pretty happy with this plan, or he would probably want more closures, but like you said, this is a small step forward. Um, so I did see that the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which is an off-road advocacy group, um,
said they're planning to sue over this plan. Now, um, you're an attorney, so I'm curious to get your opinion. What do you, do you think they have a legal leg to stand on there? I don't, you know, I think that this is true of Forest Service BLM when they, when those agencies designate routes for motorized vehicles, they have a legal obligation to minimize damage to watersheds, to soils, to wildlife, to wildlife habitat, um, to cultural sites. And they have to show that they've done that,
that when they're designating these route next they're minimizing damage. Um, they don't have an obligation to designate every route everywhere that people would like to travel on at some point. Um, and so I think the agency has done that here. They've shown that they're minimizing damage to important resources. They're, um, they've done the environmental analysis to support the decision, and I think it will hold up.
Uh, Sue, as I understand, was involved in what led to the creation of this plan. I mean, how, what is the process that led us here to begin with and how does that fit into this ongoing threat of, of litigation? Does, is there a chance you think that this finally gets settled and implemented soon? So as with I think most public lands issues in Utah, it's a long history , um, , but I can go through it, uh,
relatively quickly. In 2008 at the end of the Bush administration, the BLM pushed out a number of what's called resource management plans, which are broader agency documents, um, in different field offices that give like management direction on different, um, programs, oil, gas, travel, um, those sorts of things. They, those plans across the six that were pushed out at that time designated more than 30,000 miles of off-road vehicle routes. Um, it's an incredible dense map when you look at it.
And so the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, along with a number of other conservation organizations, um, sued over those plans. In 2008. There's one plan that was kind of a test plan, um, that went to trial first. Um, we won on that, where the ag was found that the agency didn't minimize impacts, uh, mini minimize damage to resources, um,
didn't adequately account for cultural resources. Um, and so eventually we settled that litigation in 2017. And part, as part of that settlement, the agency has to do 11 new travel management plans for, um, 11 areas. So this is actually the third of those 11. So there are eight more coming down. I, I wanna go back to Blue Ribbon Coalition for a moment.
As a party that appears to be ready to litigate here, I I seem to be noticing them turning up in other things that seem to be unrelated at first glance to, to motorized recreation. They turned up at this stop 30 by 30 summit, uh, that, uh, just conservation opponents held in Texas last month. In your view, as someone who's encountered this group, have they changed over the years? Are they actually advocating for off-Road users, or are they just an an anti conservation group at this point?
You know, I am not as familiar with the long history of Blue Ribbon as some other folks, but it, it does seem, you know, they've also gotten involved in like Lake Powell in terms of filling Lake Powell. Um, seems like there's perhaps some, a wider ranging mission than maybe they once started off as. But I think if you look at the rhetoric mm-hmm, , um, that they're putting out there for this plan for other plans, it is more of like an anticon conservation agenda.
So let's talk about this plan in comparison to the other two that you said have been finalized. Um, I either wasn't paying close attention or wasn't here when those plans came down. Um, how does this one compare to them? So this one is really the first one where I think the agency took, uh, an important step forward and did close routes, um, and close routes in a way to protect resources.
Um, the Canyon, the Canyon Rims plan, which is an area just south of Moab, it made some pretty minor changes. Um, there was the Centerfield Desert Plan, which came out actually, um, the end of the Trump administration. That one was sort of predictably bad. It blanketed the area more than doubled the mileage of off-road vehicle routes in that area. ua, um, sued over that plan and then eventually settled.
And so the BLM kind of did a bit of a new process there and eventually closed about 120 miles of routes that they had previously designated. And truly, these were routes that like did not exist on the ground served absolutely no purpose or need. And so what we're seeing here in Labyrinth, which is a little different is the agency being a little bit more thoughtful.
You know, I think what we often see in these travel plans and these kind of decisions is where the agency just kind of uses an inherited network of routes and doesn't think about like, what are these for? How are we, how can we provide access? Can we provide recreation opportunities, provide people the ability to go to scenic viewpoints while also protecting the reason that folks wanna go here in the first place, you know,
which is to visit Utah's incredible back country. Um, and so I think for the first time we're seeing some forward thinking out of the BLM when it comes to travel planning. Hmm. So I have a question that gets to that, um, historic network of roads you just mentioned. I lived in San Juan County for a while, and folks down there were just kind of a obsessed with these things called RS 2 4 7, 7 Roads , um, which, you know, really rolls off the tongue, but like they would like the, the county on it.
The main page of the county website in San Juan County was like this PSA that was like, go out and like document your grandfather's road that he used to go water his cows. Um, what are these RS 2, 4, 7, 7 roads and do they like play into these management plans? Like what's the nexus there? So they're actually, um, is not a nexus as much here because, um, the travel plans specifically say that these plans, these route designations have no kind of bearing on those RS
2, 4, 7, 7 claims. The RS 2, 4, 7, 7 claims, which it's not an area of expertise for me, but is, you know, they stem from the mining law of 1870 and give rights of way over public lands for certain things and have been,
especially in Utah litigated for decades. And it's still ongoing. Uh, what you see here is doesn't really bear on that in the sense that like they, there's no legal determination, but it is the same idea of like every road that has ever existed is very important and we need to designate it. I think you'll see out of some counties you did not see that here, grand County, which is the county within which this travel management area lies, was supportive of the BMS plan here.
And I guess that brings up the question of what's next going forward, um, with Grand County on board and supporting, are there ways to do this going forward since we have eight more plans to go that hopefully minimize the chances for litigation and smooths the path to, uh, to, if not an all out consensus, at least a, a solution that everyone can, can live with.
You know, just because Utah is the way it is, I don't know that there's way to avoid litigation wholesale going forward, um, but there are some really important plans coming up. Um, there's one coming up for the San Rafael swell area of Utah, um, which I think will be, you know, another important area where the agency should make some decisions to protect areas to pull back some of the motorized, uh, use in that area and just make sure it's more carefully planned and managed.
And then there's some plans outside of Kanab as well as in the vernal area that will be coming over the next few years. So we're hopeful that this plan was an indicator that the agency is kind of starting to do things right. We hope they will continue to do things right. You know, this plan wasn't perfect. We would've liked to see, you know, less than 800 miles and some other, but it's, it's progress and I think that's really important.
Okay. Laura, before we let you go, I have to ask a dumb question, which is they close these routes on paper, but what does that actually mean on the ground? Do they just go out there and put logs across the road? So I think it'll mean different things for different routes. Um, some of these routes as we saw in the San Rafael Desert are really like reclaiming non-existent on the ground, not ones that folks drive on.
So those are pretty easy. Some of the bigger routes I would imagine will be, you know, signs hopefully in the middle of the route, not to the side of the route that show that they're closed and doing that sort of masking so that with logs and other things. So it doesn't look like a route is there. And so it'll eventually look like that. It takes some time. Cool. All right. Well, Laura Peterson with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Thank you so much for joining us. This was really elucidating and um, like really an exciting conservation win. Yeah, it was, it was exciting for us here in Utah for sure. And thank you so much for having me. Hey, a quick postscript here since we've recorded that interview.
An Anticon conservation group that claims to represent off roaders as well as the state of Utah have already filed administrative appeals over the travel plan Utah Governor Spencer Cox accused the BLM of blatant federal overreach this Tuesday saying the agency ignored off-Road users in the creation of the plan that just as a reminder leaves hundreds of miles open to off-road users. Uh, Utah Senator Mitt Romney also weighed in along those same lines, according to the state's appeal,
the plan violates the RS 2, 4 7, 7 statute. Well, one of our favorites that gives counties and states a right of way across federal lands for essentially cow paths that they claim are roads. We don't have time to get into all of that here. Utah loves its RS 2, 4 7 7 claims. It is a whole thing that we should probably unpack in another episode. And separately, the Blue Ribbon Coalition claims the plan violates the National Environmental
Policy Act, or nepa. NEPA of course, requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects and seek public comment before making major land management decisions. There was, of course, a whole public comment period involved in this travel management plan. Now, the BRC also argues the plan violates the Dingle Act claiming under that ACT designation of certain wilderness areas like Labyrinth Canyon would not lead to restrictions seeping into the surrounding areas.
But that is not what the Dingle Act says. The Dingle Act says that Congress didn't intend for new wilderness designations to create buffer zones around the new wilderness. It doesn't say that BLM can't continue to make management plans for those surrounding areas, which is what's happening here. And BLM is not making buffer zones. I am looking at this final map right now. There are still, of course, hundreds of miles of trails opened off-roading around Labyrinth Canyon.
Many of those trails going literally right up against the edge of the wilderness areas. So good luck with that buffer zone argument in court. Uh, we will drop that map into the show notes so you can take a look for yourself. Alright, here's some good news to close out the episode. The plan that Arizona, California, and Nevada came up with to cut Colorado River water use should be enough to keep Lake Mead and Powell producing hydropower for a few years.
That's according to the Interior Department, which said the federal government won't impose new cuts on the states for now. However, this plan is just a stopgap measure until the government can create a new long-term plan for the river. That plan is due by 2027 and we could see a draft environmental review of it by the end of next year. And that will do it for this episode of the landscape.
If you enjoy what you heard here, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening, and feel free to send us feedback. We love it podcast@westernpriorities.org. And if you get a chance, go see what CWP is doing on TikTok these days. Kate's posting videos. Sterling is posting videos. It's uh, it's really good stuff. It is. It's harder than it looks. Two folks, I'll let you know that . All right, well thank you to Laura Peterson for coming on the show today.
And as always, thank you for listening to. The landscape.