BLM Director
Attention: Protest Coordinator (HQ210)
Denver Federal Center, Building 40 (Door W-4)
Lakewood, CO 80215
RE: Bears Ears National Monument RMP (DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2022-0030-RMP-EIS)
Also see:
July 1, 2024 Bears Ears National Monument Resource Management Plan Comments (06/11/24 comments can be found here)
Dear BLM Director:
Please accept this protest from the above organizations regarding the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS).
1. Background of Our Organizations
In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following four groups:
Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group based out of Buena Vista Colorado whose mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy. CORE achieves this through trail adoptions, trail maintenance projects, education, stewardship, outreach, and collaborative efforts.
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.
Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.
Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands to diverse multiple-use recreation opportunities.
2. Interest of Our Organizations and Issues
The Organizations have an interest in the BENM RMP and would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS. As the Organizations stated in our DRMP comments (enclosed):
“In addition to advocating access for responsible OHV riding, the Organizations have spent countless hours partnering with agencies to effectively manage motorized recreation, which cannot be substituted by other stakeholders. Of course we also recognize the contributions of other OHV groups such as SPEAR, the input of local government such as San Juan County, and indigenous Americans particularly when it comes to managing cultural sites. Specific to BENM, RwR and its contributors have spent several-hundred hours maintaining motorized singletrack like Vega Creek, Shay Mountain, and Indian Creek, on ATV trails like Gooseberry and Shay Ridge, and on primitive roads like Chicken Corners. We are one of the many stewards of BENM that the Lead Agencies should encourage rather than marginalize.”
In multiple ways, all of these recreational interests would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.
3. Parts of the Plan being Protested and their Adverse Effects
In addition to five other parts of the plan that are listed in Section 5, the Organizations primarily protest the thin analysis and extreme outcome of the:
- OHV Area designations as well the underlying designations, specifically the
- Remote Zone and
- Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) that would be managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics.
The PRMP/FEIS appears to deny adverse effects of these three designations by stating that only 32 miles of motorized routes would be closed. However, relatively few motorized routes are designated open across the 1.36 million-acre planning area, and most routes greatly contribute to the overall network’s quantity, quality, and variety.
These three designations would hobble management of the motorized routes that are currently designated open. For example, the OHV Closed area boundaries run up to the sides of many routes, thereby preventing reroutes that could otherwise be done to reduce resource impacts or increase public safety. Another example is LWC management to protect wilderness characteristics that may prohibit using heavy equipment to maintain routes. Even the LWC management that merely minimizes impacts to wilderness characteristics, and even the mere proximity to the Remote Zone or similar designations, would set the stage for more route closures during subsequent travel planning if history is any guide.
These three designations would obstruct the due consideration to re-open many other existing routes, including hundreds of miles of primitive roads claimed by San Juan County and the State of Utah. For one thing, the R.S. 2477 bellwether case in Utah District Court recently favored Garfield and Kane counties, putting onus on the BLM to refute R.S. 2477 claims rather than operating as if the claims are unaffected by closing more routes and areas in southern Utah. For another thing, even when it comes to existing routes not claimed by the counties or state, such routes were not necessarily given a fair shake by the travel management plan (TMP) that was wrapped into the 2008 Monticello RMP. Persistent controversies could be partly resolved by more thorough travel planning, but such planning would be precluded by the designation OHV Closed, Primitive Zone, or LWCs to be managed for wilderness characteristics.
Finally these three designations would prematurely prevent future planning of a single mile of new route across 637,615 acres that would be OHV Closed. Granted, new routes are rarely approved in national monuments, especially BENM given that 381,920 acres is comprised of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and 46,430 acres is comprised of Dark Canyon Wilderness. However the monument and WSA status ensure that route proposals would have to meet an especially-high standard, which is all the more reason to let such proposals be addressed rather than being preemptively denied. The fact is that motorized access facilitates the enjoyment of monument resources and the appreciation of monument objects. Across most of the monument, planners should retain the option of adding a route as technology, society, and environmental conditions change. This managerial flexibility should extend to mechanized travel such as mountain biking. Designating 587,582 acres as a Remote Zone “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation” would prevent bicycling from ever being considered in nearly half of the planning area.
These adverse effects add up to an offensively grim outlook for recreation that depends upon motorized or mechanized access, not just in the WSAs, but across the other hundreds-of-thousands of acres that would be engulphed by the designations of OHV Closed, Remote Zone, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.
4. Explanation of how the PRMP/FEIS is Flawed
The most extensive part of the Organizations’ DRMP comments is Section 11, “Preserve OHV Area zoning that have worked well for decades,” which begins:
The DRMP/EIS fails to justify drastically expanding OHV Closed area zoning. Similar to ROS, OHV Limited zoning does not require a minimum density of routes, and designated routes in OHV Limited zones occupy far less than 1% of the ground. It gives lead agencies flexibility to add a route which, in the case of BENM, would have to meet the threshold of being for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects. This threshold is plausible when it comes to major reroutes, e-bike trails, or campground loops to concentrate impacts.
Although the proposed plan spared over 200,000 acres of LWC from becoming OHV Closed, it still would manage nearly all of those acres to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, which greatly constrains motorized recreation and management. Further there’s also over 200,000 acres of LWC that the proposed plan would convert from OHV Limited to OHV Closed. This sweeping action was done in spite of the many substantive points raised in Section 11 of our DRMP comments, which weren’t addressed by the BLM response to comments.
A. Regulatory Context
Consider the statutory authority for OHV area designations, which the BLM identifies through Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989. These orders, issued before FLPMA had been implemented, were intended to further the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. When invoking fifty-year-old executive orders, agency actions should firstly remain grounded by the underlying legislation, and secondly employ executive orders and agency rules conservatively.
Executive Order 11644 as amended states:
Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted…
When issuing the orders, did presidents Nixon and Carter regard “areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted” to include a 637,615-acre area prohibiting all mechanized travel by the public? When passing NEPA in 1969, is this the extent of authority that Congress intended to delegate? Even BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:
OHV Closed Areas. OHV use is prohibited in a closed area. Areas should be designated closed when limitations on OHV use will not suffice to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts.
This BLM guidance calls for designating OHV Closed areas when an OHV Limited designation “will not suffice.” For each of the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even asked the question of whether an OHV Limited designation will not suffice, let alone answered it affirmatively.
NEPA and FLMA require the BLM to invite meaningful public participation, and Executive Order 11644 as amended states “The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section.” Accordingly 43 CFR § 8342.2(a) Public Participation states:
The designation and redesignation of trails is accomplished through the resource management planning process described in part 1600 of this title. Current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. Prior to making designations or redesignations, the authorized officer shall consult with interested user groups, Federal, State, county and local agencies, local landowners, and other parties in a manner that provides an opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given consideration.
For each of the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t provide analysis of the current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses, which is needed for the public to meaningfully participate.
One might argue that OHV Closed designations and other layers of “protection” are justified merely by virtue of the national monument status, but it’s another example of the executive branch going out on a limb, as BENM wasn’t established through legislation. Regardless of monument status, RMPs in this planning area should be moderate in order to provide lasting guidance, and the current Monticello and BENM RMPs wisely relied on existing “protections” such as WSA and national-monument status covering half the planning area rather than piling additional layers onto hundreds-of-thousands of additional acres. If natural and social resources have suffered, it’s only because managerial resources have been diverted to satisfy a heavy-handedness of the executive branch, not because the current RMPs lack the designations of OHV Closed, Remote Zone, or LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.
B. Purpose, Need, and Analysis of Environmental Impacts
Since the OHV Closed area would cover the WSAs, Primitive Zones, and roughly half of the LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics, its purpose is presumably to further the purposes of these designations. The purpose and boundaries of the WSAs are clear but, given that the WSAs already cover 381,920 acres, the need for a Remote Zone and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics is highly unlikely. In any case, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t make the case for LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics or a Remote Zone covering nearly half of this massive monument.
i. Remote Zone
The proposed plan would place 587,582 acres into a Remote Zone, which is one of four recreational zones the agencies created to zone BENM. These zones don’t come from agency guidance documents, but the most applicable guidance seems to be BLM Handbook 8342, Recreation and Visitor Services Planning. The Remote Zone is most equivalent to the Primitive Zone in this handbook. The handbook’s example characteristics for the Primitive Zone state that it’s at least 1/2-mile from any motorized route, while the Remote Zone in BENM would be as little as 1/8-mile from any motorized route, which greatly expands the Remote Zone while encroaching on motorized routes. The encroachments upon motorized routes wouldn’t be as problematic if the Remote Zone weren’t exclusively non-motorized, and in fact the DRMP didn’t specify that the Remote Zone would be non-motorized. However the PRMP/FEIS inserts that the Remote Zone is explicitly “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation.”
The PRMP/FEIS mentions the recreation zones deriving from a mapping exercise and Outcomes-Focused Management (OFM) surveys conducted by the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but it doesn’t meet the OFM goal found in BLM Handbook 8342 that “Visitors, partners, and stakeholders are a primary source of information to determine which recreation opportunities to offer and which outcomes to target.” The recreation zones of the proposed plan haven’t adequately incorporated the input of visitors (most of which are motorized when one considers the entire planning area), partners (including the Organizations and local OHV groups like SPEAR), and stakeholders (many of which depend upon motorized use and/or somewhat developed settings).
The PRMP/FEIS appears to assume that the Remote Zone designation would benefit natural resources even though it would be less accessible for active and adaptive management. It appears to assume that the Remote Zone designation would benefit solitude seekers and primitive opportunities even though most of those acres can only be reached by an overnight backpacking trip. While a much higher density of routes may indeed detract from solitude and primitive opportunities, such a low current density of routes makes most of the acres inaccessible for typical day hiking, yet this tension is not handled by the PRMP/FEIS.
ii. LWCs Managed for Wilderness Characteristics
Likewise managing LWCs for wilderness characteristics could wind up hampering their very purpose. For example, BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:
6.5 Travel and Transportation Management within Presidential and Congressional Designations or Similar Allocations
F. BLM Manual 6320 – Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the following apply:
1. In lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the BLM will not designate primitive roads and motorized/mechanized trails and will not classify them as assets within lands managed for wilderness characteristics protection in land use plans.
Therefore converting more LWCs to manage for wilderness characteristics would prevent managers from ever adding a route even for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects.
In addition to undermining their very purposes, designating a huge Remote Zone and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics simply isn’t needed. The PRMP/FEIS hasn’t demonstrated that demand for such things isn’t met by the current RMPs, let alone identifying why the demand is unmet, as the answer could be a lack of motorized access among other things. The PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-75 asserts:
OHV use can impact the naturalness of LWC due to vegetation loss, increased erosion, wildlife disturbances, degraded water quality, introduction of noxious weeds, and damage to cultural resources. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation can be degraded by the noise and dust of motor vehicles and increased presence of other visitors.
All of these impacts can be minimized through good management, and the impacts are almost entirely confined to the vicinity of the designated routes, which occupy anywhere from 1% to 0% of a given LWC unit. Further, as San Juan County and the State of Utah have repeatedly shown, most of the planning area that hasn’t already been designated as wilderness or a WSA indeed doesn’t qualify.
Even if a purpose and need were established to designate a huge Remote Zone and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics, changing those areas to OHV Closed isn’t needed. Albeit uncommon, it’s possible to add existing routes to the TMP in those areas, and eliminating that possibility altogether isn’t needed.
iii. OHV Closed
Leaving the Remote Zone and LWC status aside, the OHV Closed designation isn’t needed to cover 637,615 acres, and the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t adequately demonstrate otherwise. Granted, the wilderness and WSA acreage would remain OHV Closed, which presumably went through a process that addressed specific resources in specific locations. For the rest of the 637,615 acres that would be OHV Closed, no such specificity is provided, other than the apparent request of Canyonlands National Park that will be covered later in this document.
Beyond the Remote Zone, LWC, and WSA designations, the purpose and need for an enormous OHV Closed designation is claimed by statements like “the management of these areas as closed to OHV uses is consistent with the requirement at 43 CFR 8342.1, which includes minimization of impacts to cultural resources, soundscapes, wildlife, wilderness characteristic policy for the BLM, and limit recreational conflicts.” However the PRMP/FEIS lacks details. The agencies’ response to comments includes that the “effects of those area designations are addressed in several sections of the EIS including, but not limited to the Paleontological Resources and Geology, Water Resources, Terrestrial Habitat, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Wildlife and Fisheries, Recreation and Travel and Transportation Management sections in Chapter 3.” However the sections merely make generalized assertions, many of which pertain to misuse that is clearly not a matter of managerial designations, rather one of law enforcement, education, and perhaps trail work. The PRMP/FEIS must become far more specific about the problems and potential solutions in each location of the planning area. If major negative impacts are occurring, demonstrate them as well as a comprehensive analysis of alternative actions along with their positive and negative effects, as it would be far more fruitful than simply converting nearly half of the planning area from OHV Limited to OHV Closed. The Organizations are aware of the four criteria from Executive Order 11644 as amended, but the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even begun to show the BLM’s work of applying these criteria to the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, especially the hundreds-of-thousands of acres beyond the WSAs.
As with the huge Remote Zone and managing LWC for wilderness characteristics, OHV Closed designations could actually lead to more negative impacts upon natural and social resources. As the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges, motorized recreation has grown and is on track to continue. For this and other forms of recreation on motorized trails, the carrying capacity is a function of the motorized trails, themselves. This recreational use is likely to be displaced when additions to a TMP are prohibited from being considered due to OHV Closed designations, and when subtractions to a TMP are made virtually inevitable by new restrictive layers of management such as a huge Remote Zone and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. Therefore these three designations of the PRMP/FEIS would increase the likelihood of motorized and mechanized travel that’s unauthorized across the entire planning area and, on the routes that remain open after the subsequent TMP revision, would increase the likelihood of crowding, conflict, and degradation of the routes.
C. National Park proximity as justification for widespread restrictions
The only geographically-specific justification that the PRMP/FEIS provides for choosing OHV Closed and LWC managed for wilderness characteristics is that parts of BENM are within several miles of Canyonlands National Park. Specifically it argues that OHV Closed and LWC management is needed to provide continuity with the national park. However one could argue that the national park should be OHV Limited instead. Regardless, the distinction between OHV Closed and OHV Limited is irrelevant to visitors because they just need to know that motorized travel is limited to designated routes, which is already the case in both BENM and the national park. Further, although the goal to effectively expand Canyonlands National Park was a major motivation for wilderness-expansion groups to parlay the proposed Cedar Mesa National Monument into a much larger Bears Ears National Monument, the actual proclamations for Bears Ears do not direct the agencies to buffer around Canyonlands. In fact, Proclamation 9558 doesn’t even mention Canyonlands, and Proclamation 10285 only mentions it when listing all boundaries of BENM. Congress certainly didn’t direct a buffer, but Congress did establish the Canyonlands boundary, thus it should be honored by the agencies.
D. Travel Management Planning
The PRMP/FEIS essentially dismisses concerns about travel management planning since it will be done subsequently, but the PRMP/FEIS would in fact make travel planning decisions that would be irreversible without amending the RMP. It would close 32 miles of routes that may be of lower use levels but are also of higher recreational value to motorized trail enthusiasts due to their more primitive characteristics. The Organizations’ DRMP comments carefully provided descriptions and photographs of two of these routes, specifically the winter access road to Beef Basin northwest of Boundary Butte (D1870) and John’s Canyon western overlook road (D0053), yet the agencies have provided no response.
The PRMP/FEIS seems to imply that thorough travel planning of these routes is unwarranted because the agency proposes to close the entire area rather than closing just the routes. However, the area of closure includes the designated routes (along with other existing routes, along with proposed ones), so the fact that the BLM proposes to close more than just the routes doesn’t justify shortchanging the meaningful public participation of these proposed actions. The PRMP/FEIS provides no analysis because it provides no route reports. Far beyond the 32 miles of route, the PRMP/FEIS makes major travel planning decisions by removing hundreds of thousands of acres from any further discussion. This enormous area goes far beyond the WSAs and wilderness area. It contains county-claimed roads, other existing routes, and locations where a new route may become entirely appropriate for some kind of mechanized use over the lifecycle of an RMP. Aside from the areas that are currently OHV Closed, only by leaving most areas OHV Limited can the BLM truly leave travel planning decisions to the subsequent TMP revision. Sticking with the current OHV Limited acreage will allow travel planning to genuinely occur, while existing parameters such as WSA status will ensure the protection of BENM objects and resources.
5. Additional Points of Protest
A. SRPs
Over 200,000 acres of LWCs that would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics would also prohibit SRPs for all motorized or mechanized use. One of the DRMP alternatives would’ve prohibited SRPs for commercial motorized or mechanized use, but now the proposed plan extends to SRPs for non-commercial use as well. This change is excessively strict given the wide variety of potential commercial and non-commercial uses, many of which are entirely consistent with the protection of monument objects. Further, the decision to prohibit even non-commercial SRPs is outside the decision space of the DRMP.
B. Soundscape Management Plan
The PRMP directive to develop a soundscape management plan appears to be based on an unjustified goal of virtually guarantying that visitors won’t hear even the faintest of motor sounds for their entire day across hundreds of thousands of acres.
C. DRMP inaccuracies of ROS zones and currently designated routes
The PRMP/FEIS finally shows the current ROS zones and current designated routes accurately and completely for the first time in the Bears Ears planning process, but the fact that these things were portrayed inaccurately (in both text and maps) during all of the comment periods should compel the agencies to initiate another round of public comments before the protest period. Accurately portraying the status quo is fundamental to NEPA compliance.
Granted, the PRMP/FEIS wouldn’t zone the national forest OHV Closed (other than in the Dark Canyon Wilderness), but the public comment period was still based on widespread inaccurate information in the DEIS about the current network of routes designated open for motorized use. Further the PRMP would effectively zone much of the forest as OHV Closed via the Remote Zone, thereby straitjacketing routes like Shay Mountain Trail that could benefit from rerouting.
D. Recognizing recreation as instrumental to conservation
The proposed plan seems to fundamentally regard recreation as more of a nuisance than a key tool to promote the health of visitors and ultimately the health of the surrounding resources because recreationists value public lands. As Section 5 of the Organization’s DRMP comments explained, Monument objects simply cannot be protected without the RMP providing an ample quantity, quality, and variety of recreational opportunities.
In fact IMBA’s DRMP comments may have said it best:
Providing access, and public appreciation to the objects contained within the boundaries that warrant this monument is just one of them but likely the most important method of how these landscapes relate and create value for the public. Without diverse, sustainable and compatible recreation, the public might cease to support these designations. Therefore, we provide our comments as a perspective that is shared by many across the country and as a desire by our members to experience wild places via the efficient and sustainable transportation by bicycle. This perspective is that bicycle use on trails and rural remote dirt and gravel roads on public lands is an appropriate and sustainable activity that should be provided for in ample supply due to its inherent sustainability. Recreational trails, such as those authorizing bicycle use, are effective tools for conservation of natural resources. Trails direct people onto planned and managed linear features that have been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the extent possible and minimize unauthorized off trail impacts that might occur where demand exists yet trails may lack.
E. The PRMP/FEIS has not adequately defined monument objects along with other concepts such as Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship
The PRMP/FEIS repeatedly asserts that recreation is secondary to monument objects, yet it doesn’t clearly establish those objects, most notably cultural landscapes. Proclamation 9558 asserts that “Bears Ears” is “one of the densest and most significant cultural landscapes in the United States.” Proclamation 10285 reiterates this assertion about “the Bears Ears landscape.” Then it describes one part of BENM, the South Cottonwood Canyon region, as an isolated area that “contains intact cultural landscapes of early Ancestral Pueblo communities.” Thus is describes multiple cultural landscapes within the Bears Ears cultural landscape.
The proposed land management plan (LMP) of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (BEITC), which was wholly adopted by the Bears Ears Commission (BEC), doesn’t formally define the term cultural landscape, nor the Bears Ears cultural landscape in particular. It states that “The cultural landscape comprises both the natural and built environments.” In addition to the Bears Ears cultural landscape, the BEITC LMP refers to multiple cultural landscapes within BENM, specifically “the sacred and cultural landscapes of BENM.” It also refers to the Navajo cultural landscape and Zuni cultural landscape, “which covers all of the territory crossed by their ancestors during migrations to the center place.” The BEITC LMP refers to other cultural landscapes that extend beyond BENM, such as “the cultural landscape the Bear’s Ears region.” Another instance is the BEITC LMP statement “This mill is outside of BENM but does affect the broader cultural landscape of the region.”
Likewise the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t define the term cultural landscape, nor the Bears Ears cultural landscape in particular. Likewise it refers to a single BENM cultural landscape, multiple cultural landscapes within BENM, and cultural landscapes that extend beyond BENM. It does appear consistent in pertaining to indigenous cultural landscapes and not to other ethnicities, nor to other aspects of culture beyond ethnicity. The PRMP/FEIS doesn’t explain this focus on ethnicity or the specific ethnicities of indigenous cultures.
The semantics of monument objects such as cultural landscapes have serious ramifications to management due to the claimed primacy of monument objects, the reliance on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, and the commitment to tribal co-stewardship. For example, Page 3-284 of the PRMP/FEIS states “Close coordination between federal land managers and the BEC on the development and implementation of management of BENM will allow for active and appropriate management of holistically defined cultural resources including cultural landscape use and its traditional cultural and religious underpinnings.” Further Page 3-429 describes Alternative E, which is the basis for the proposed plan, stating:
The management outlined in Alternative E is centered on the perspective of the Tribal Nations of the BEC, who do not view many forms of recreation as an appropriate use of the BENM cultural landscape (BEC 2023). Traditional Indigenous Knowledge represents the Bears Ears cultural landscape as a sacred place. Culturally appropriate ways of visiting should therefore be practiced, and recreation should be managed to preserve and protect the cultural values of this landscape (BEC 2023).
The Organizations’ concerns are not alleviated by PRMP/FEIS assertions such as the agencies’ response to our comments on Page U-149:
See the Proposed Plan under the Recreation and Visitor Services section in Chapter 2. There is no prohibition on off-trail hiking in the Proposed Plan. Additionally, there is no prohibition on off-trail hiking under any alternative in the Draft Resource Management Plan. The language under Alternative E reads, “the public would be encouraged to stay on trails when hiking in the Monument.”
Actually the Proposed Plan under the Recreation and Visitor Services section in Chapter 2 states “The agencies, working collaboratively with the BEC, would identify whether specific areas need to be closed to cross-country hiking to protect BENM objects, including cultural resources and wildlife, as informed by Traditional Indigenous Knowledge.” While this idea may be reasonably applied to discrete archaeological sites, the BENM objects include one or more cultural landscapes, thus an extensive restriction on off-trail hiking is clearly within the parameters of the proposed plan.
Another example of potential consequences from co-stewardship based on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge of ill-defined monument objects pertains to seasonal closures or other time-based restrictions, which the PRMP/FEIS modestly refer to as resource rest. The PRMP/FEIS on Page 2-116 states “Agencies would collaborate with the BEC to identify seasonal motorized use area closures as needed to provide for resource rest.” Presumably seasonal closures would undergo a public review process, which is key since the Organizations believe we have as much expertise about managing motorized use as any other stakeholder. Even with public review in place, the proposed plan still alarms us given its basis for “resource rest,” such as the Page 2-80 statement “Traditional Indigenous Knowledge provides that the cultural landscape of the Monument requires rest during certain seasons of the year.” Given that the cultural landscape(s) encompass BENM and beyond, the Organizations wonder not just about the seasons in question, but about the Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship as they are slated to affect motorized recreation. Rather than clearly establishing these concepts, the PRMP/FEIS combines them, which compounds the scope of problems that would result from the proposed plan.
6. Conclusion
In all of the aforementioned ways, the Organizations urge BENM planners to more fully develop an RMP.
Sincerely,
Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect
Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance
Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise
Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative
