Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE), Ride with Respect (RwR), and Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) filed an appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan (TMP) and its associated Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). See the press release here: www.coloradotpa.org/2025/04/21/press-release-rider-groups-appeal-blms-labyrinth-gemini-bridges-travel-management-plan-citing-legal-violations
PDF’s of the appeal and all 7 exhibits:
Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Utah Bar No. 17731
Great Western Resources
216 W. St. George Blvd., Ste. 200 St. George, Utah 84770
(435)899-1520
info@greatwesternresources.org
Attorney for Appellants:
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise,
Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance
IN THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS
|
COLORADO OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION, COLORADO OFF ROAD ENTERPRISE, RIDE WITH RESPECT, and TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,
Appellants,
v.
|
IBLA Appeal No. 2024-0043
Appeal of the Moab Field Office’s September 28, 2023 Decision Record, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan
|
|
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
|
DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0097-EA |
APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
On September 28, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) released its final “Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment”1 (hereinafter the “TMP” or “EA”) as well as its final Decision Record (“DR” or “Decision”) and related Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). The TMP designates an off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) route network within the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges (“LRGB”) Travel Management Area (“TMA”). The TMA encompasses about 303,994 acres of BLM land in the Moab Field Office, comprised of four units, primarily in Grand County, Utah and generally west of Arches National Park, east of the Green River, south of Interstate 70, and north of Canyonlands National Park.2
Within the TMA, motorized vehicles must use designated routes except in the 1,866-acre White Wash Sand Dunes Open Area.3 BLM designates routes within the TMA as OHV-Open (open to all motorized vehicle travel); OHV-Limited (open with limitations, usually by use season or vehicle type); or OHV-Closed (closed to public motorized use).4 Route designations do not apply to “authorized uses” such as grazing permittees accessing their allotments.5
The draft EA included four action alternatives, each closing various routes. In the DR, the BLM ultimately selected a hybrid of Alts. B and C from the draft EA, referred to as the “Selected Network.” The Selected Network revises the pre-existing OHV route network that consisted of approximately 1,127.7 miles of designated routes available for motorized use, almost all of which were designated as OHV-Open.6 The TMP reduces the network to 810.5 miles of routes available for use by OHVs, with 712.1 miles designated as OHV-Open and 98.4 miles as OHV-Limited.
The BLM began planning for the LRGB TMA pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (“SUWA”) and the BLM dated January 13, 2017 (the “2017 Settlement Agreement”), which stemmed from SUWA’s challenge to numerous BLM Resource Management Plans (“RMPs”) issued in 2008, including the BLM’s Moab Field Office RMP (the “2008 Moab RMP”). See SUWA et. al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., U.S. District Court (D. Utah) Consolidated Case No. 2:12-cv-257. The 2017 Settlement Agreement required the BLM to prepare eleven new TMPs in Utah, including the LRGB TMA.
The Appellants in this matter are Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (“CORE”), Ride with Respect (“RwR”) and Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) (collectively the “Appellants” or the “Rider Groups”). On October 30, 2023, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal of the DR, EA and FONSI (collectively the “Decision Record”) of the BLM on the LRGB TMP. The Notice of Appeal was timely served upon the decision maker Nicollee Gaddis-Wyatt, BLM Canyon Country District Manager and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of the Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.401(c) and 4.413(a).
The BLM furnished the Administrative Record (via SharePoint) on January 16, 2024. In February 2024, Appellants’ counsel requested missing documents, and on April 18, 2024 the BLM furnished 20 additional records with its “Notice of Completion of Administrative Record.” The IBLA granted extensions of time to file the Appellants Statement of Reasons, ultimately pushing the deadline to April 21, 2025.7 Pursuant to the March 10, 2025 Scheduling Order, and under 43 C.F.R. § 4.412, the Appellants now file their Statement of Reasons.
II. STANDING
To maintain an appeal before the IBLA, an Appellant must (1) be a party to the case; and (2) be adversely affected by the decision being appealed. See 43 C.F.R. §4.410(a); see also W. Watersheds Project (WWP) 185 IBLA 293, 298 (2015). All four of the Appellants satisfy both of these requirements and are thus parties who are adversely affected.
1. The Appellants are a Party to the Case
Founded in 2002, Ride with Respect (“RwR”) is a registered Utah non-profit corporation whose stated mission is “to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings through field work, education, and advocacy of responsible recreation opportunities.” The leadership team at RwR is intimately familiar with the LRGB TMA as “the founders of Ride with Respect are based in Moab, Utah.”8 RwR represents the broad interests of recreationists and promotes responsible outdoor recreation, applying sustainable recreation concepts, like “Tread lightly!”, to practical use with tangible results.”9 Over 750 individuals have contributed money or time to RwR, totaling over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands including several-thousand hours in the TMA, such as rerouting two dozen trails away from sensitive resources through amendments to the 2008 Moab RMP.
The Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a registered Colorado non- profit corporation “formed in 1987 by a group of leaders from the four wheel drive, motorcycle, snowmobile, and ATV communities…to promote legislation and regulation favorable toward responsible OHV recreation.”10 COHVCO through the years has “established relationships with Federal and State legislators and Land Managers to enhance OHV opportunities” and works “closely with local clubs, state and national OHV organizations, as well as other trail and recreational coalitions to promote OHV opportunities.”11 COHVCO promotes OHV opportunities while simultaneously advocating for sound environmental policies rooted in scientifically based standards.12 COHVCO is a 2017 Settlement Agreement signatory, the genesis of the LRGB TMP, and has an interest in seeing the 2017 Settlement Agreement terms upheld.
The Colorado Off Road Enterprise (“CORE”) is a registered Colorado non-profit corporation that is “a 4×4 advocacy group working to keep offroad trails in Colorado and Utah open” because “public land roads and trails are the common thread holding all recreation groups together, giving us access to the backcountry.”13 To keep recreation assets open for all of the public to use, CORE promotes “education, ethics and stewardship for all public land users” and “works on and volunteers across the state” while working “with land managers as advocates for 4×4 trails and participate in land use projects to ensure our access stays open.”14
The Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a registered Colorado non-profit corporation “with its principal goal focused on preserving the sport of motorized single-track trail riding…[and]… supports all forms of [OHV] recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for OHV recreation and takes the necessary actions to ensure that both the U.S. Forest Service and the [BLM] allocate a fair and equitable percentage of access to trail riding on public lands, educating user groups on trail etiquette.”15 TPA’s efforts are crucial for land access because “an estimated 40% of all visitors to public lands nationwide participate in motorized recreation – over half of which includes OHV use.”16 TPA is a 2017 Settlement Agreement signatory, the genesis of the LRGB TMP, and has an interest in seeing the 2017 Settlement Agreement terms upheld.
To be a party to the case, a person or group must have actively participated in the decision making process regarding the subject matter of the appeal. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(b). Here, all four Appellants have been active participants in the decision making process. All four Appellants submitted comment letters to the BLM regarding the LRGB TMP project. As reflected in the BLM’s “Scoping Report” dated August 2021, CORE submitted an extensive Scoping Comment dated April 25, 2021 (Scoping Report Letter 24).17 Further reflected in the BLM’s “Scoping Report” dated August 2021, COHVCO, RwR and TPA submitted an extensive joint Scoping Comment dated April 26, 2021 (Scoping Report Letter 35).18
In addition to the Scoping Comments, TPA and RwR also submitted a joint in-depth comment letter on the Draft EA. These comments are dated October 21, 2022 and are incorporated herein by reference as if stated in full. Together, the Rider Groups submitted extensive route-by- route comments, suggestions and input, which although not heeded by the BLM, is at the very least acknowledged in the Final EA. See EA at 213 – 297.
The formal written comments outlined above are sufficient to show active participation in the decision making process, satisfying the “party to a case” qualification. Still, the Rider Groups’ involvement in the TMA goes beyond just comments. E.g., “the Rider Groups have been involved in discussions regarding access to areas in the TMA for decades…COHVCO and TPA are signatories to the subject 2017 Utah Statewide TMP Court Settlement Agreement. They along with RwR have been active advocates in the [LRGB] TMA. Specifically within this area, since 2008 RwR has contributed several thousand hours of high-quality trail work to assist BLM in implementing and refining its travel plan. With many volunteers who were also part of COHVCO and the TPA, RwR has blocked-off closed routes, delineated the open routes, repainted blazes on slickrock, and installed hundreds of signs, dozens of fences, and a half-dozen cattle guards. With grants from the Utah OHV Program, they implemented a dozen major reroutes to move trails away from sensitive resources [promoting] sustainability, safety, and the satisfaction of various trail users.” 19
For the examples cited above, all of the Appellants meet the “party to a case” qualification.
2. The Appellants are Adversely Affected by the Decision
To demonstrate that it will “be adversely affected by the decision being appealed,” a party must demonstrate a legally cognizable “interest” and that the decision appealed has caused or is substantially likely to cause injury to that interest. Glenn Grenke v. BLM, 122 IBLA 123, 128 (1992); 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(d). This requisite “interest” can be established by cultural, recreational, or aesthetic uses as well as enjoyment of the public lands. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 127 IBLA 325, 326 (1993).20 The IBLA does not require a showing that an injury has actually occurred. Rather, a “colorable allegation” of injury suffices. Powder River Basin Resource Council, 124 IBLA 83, 89 (1992). Moreover, “one may also establish he or she is adversely affected by setting forth interests in resources or in other land or its resources affected by a decision and showing how the decision has caused or is substantially likely to cause injury to those interests.” Coalition of Concerned National Park Retirees, et al., 165 IBLA 79, 84 (2005).
Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Declaration of Clif Koontz. It shows he is the Executive Director of Ride with Respect, and has been a board member since its founding in 2002. See Exhibit 1 at ¶1. Mr. Koontz is also an agent of COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, and has been active in these capacities since 2016 for COHVCO and TPA, and since 2018 for CORE. Id. His Declaration shows he personally regularly uses and enjoys public lands in the LRGB TMA for recreational enjoyment purposes, and that he intends to return to the area for enjoyment. Id. at ¶3. In fact, Mr. Koontz moved to Moab in 2001 to be closer to the world class routes available surrounding Moab, especially those in the TMA. Id. Closures of the 317 miles of routes within the TMA has diminished his recreational enjoyment of those public lands. Id. at ¶4. In his executive director role for RwR and his agent roles for COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, Mr. Koontz has represented all four organizations in working with the BLM’s Moab Field Office (Moab BLM) in doing groundwork, resource inventorying, photographing, studying aerial and satellite photography, attending meetings, submitting comments, reports and other pertinent materials and input to the Moab BLM for multiple years, in an effort to help the Moab BLM during a NEPA process to develop the LRGB TMP in LRGB TMA. Id. at ¶2, 4. This work in which Mr. Koontz was personally involved included engaging in and advocating for motorized recreation opportunities on the roads and trails in the LRGB TMA. Id.
Mr. Koontz’s declaration establishes that he also represented and worked on behalf of COHVCO and TPA to further their interests in the negotiations leading to the approval of the 2017 Settlement Agreement – the genesis of the LRGB TMP. Id. at ¶6.
Mr. Koontz’s declaration establishes that the BLM’s decision to approve the LRGB TMP will adversely affect his recreational interests, which are legally cognizable, in the TMA through limited access or completely no access to approximately 317 miles of motorized routes. Id. at ¶10.
Further, these harms are not speculative as the TMP closing routes within the TMA is now in effect, diminishing Mr. Koontz’s ability to recreate in the TMA. Id.His declaration establishes that a favorable ruling in this appeal would remedy his diminished enjoyment of public lands in the TMA area resulting from the closure of the 317 miles of routes under the TMP. Id. Thus, Clif Koontz’s Declaration establishes that the BLM’s decision adversely affects COHVCO, CORE, RwR, and TPA
In short, Moab, Utah’s world-class signature OHV trail system is the LRGB TMA. Users and dozens of user groups, including the Appellants and their contributors, rank it as unprecedented. A closure of this magnitude (317 miles) in such a world-class, high-demand destination as the LRGB TMA, will severely concentrate the public’s use of the remaining roads/trails. This immediate over-crowding21 and related road/trail degradation will irreparably harm Appellants’ investment of countless hours and thousands of dollars partnering with the BLM to improve, develop and preserve the integrity of LRGB TMA roads/trails for the benefit of recreation, natural resources, and cultural resources alike. Local ancillary businesses (hotels, restaurants, OHV outfitters and guides, &c.) all have an immense interest in maintaining the open status quo of the 317 miles of roads/trails slated for closure in the DR, and will be economically harmed by the loss of access. Id. at ¶15; see also Exhibit 7. This irreparable damage to the important value of diverse recreation in the LRGB TMA so essential to Appellants and their contributors will be felt immediately. In short, the Appellants and their members/contributors are losing the opportunity to use these world-class roads and trails, quite literally, forever.
III. STATEMENT OF REASONS
Having established that the Appellants are proper parties to pursue this appeal, they now turn to their specific statement of reasons.22 The Appellants request that the IBLA declare and set aside the BLM’s DR for the LRGB TMP as unlawful for the four main reasons set forth below, namely the DR violates (1) NEPA, (2) the Dingell Act, (3) the APA, and (4) FLPMA.
1. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., declares a national policy to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man…” Id. The goal of encouraging a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, and the ultimate stimulation of the health and welfare of man seems to have been overlooked in the current TMP. “NEPA does not mandate any particular substantive result … it ‘prescribes the necessary process’ that must accompany agency action,” Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2020), and that forces agencies to take a “hard look at the environmental consequences of its actions,” Wyoming, 661 F.3d at 1264. While NEPA dictates processes, not results, it appears that here the decision making process was geared towards a singular goal – limiting OHV access in the TMP.
As stated, NEPA requires all federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of their decisions before the decision is made. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 72 F.4th 1166, 1178 (10th Cir. 2023); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). “The three levels of NEPA review are Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”23
A. The BLM Failed to Conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, Despite Significant Impacts to the Human and Socio-economic Environment.
An EIS is required whenever a “major Federal action[] significantly affect[s] the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C). A major federal action is one that “requires substantial planning, time, resources, or expenditure.” Nat’l Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Grant, 341 F. Supp. 356, 366 (March 15, 1972). Typically, a project is considered a major federal action when it is funded with federal money.” Southwest Williamson County Comty. Ass’n v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270, 278 (6th Cir. 2001).
NEPA requires “all agencies of the Federal Government … [to] include [an EIS] in every recommendation or report on proposals for … major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Louisiana Crawfish Producers Ass’n-W. v. Rowan, 463 F.3d 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2006); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2). An EIS is not necessary when the federal action is not major or does not have a “significant impact on the environment.” Id.; citing Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 677. To determine whether an EIS is necessary, an agency will perform an EA. Id.; citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 802 (5th Cir.1994); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1) (defining an EA as a “concise public document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact”). An EA is “a rough cut, low-budget environmental impact statement designed to show whether a full-fledged environmental impact statement…is necessary.” Id.; citing Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 677. Thus, an EA will result in a finding that an EIS is necessary or in a FONSI, indicating that no further study of the project’s environmental impact is necessary. Id.
In short, an EA is a rough cut, low-budget environmental impact statement designed to show whether a full-fledged environmental impact statement or a Finding or No Significant Impact (FONSI) is needed. If any ‘significant’ environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency action then an EIS must be prepared before agency action is taken.” Sierra Club v. Peterson, 230 U.S.App. D.C. 352, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1983)….
An agency decision that an EIS is not required may be overturned “only if it was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.” Sierra Club v. United States Dep’t of Transportation, 243 U.S.App. D.C. 302, 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C.Cir.1985)…. “Under the long-established standard…the court reviews an agency’s finding of no significant impact to determine whether: First, the agency [has] accurately identified the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must have taken a ‘hard look’ at the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that the changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.” Town of Cave Creek, Arizona v. F.A.A., 325 F.3d 320, 327 (D.C. Cir. 2003); citing Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n v. U.S. Postal Serv., 159 U.S.App. D.C. 158, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1973).
In the current TMP, the BLM has chosen to conduct an EA and FONSI, foregoing the more extensive EIS process, finding their closure of 317.2 miles of routes, lawfully utilized for decades, had no significant impact on the human environment. As stated above, “If any ‘significant’ environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency action then an EIS must be prepared before agency action is taken.” Sierra Club v. Peterson, 230 U.S.App. D.C. 352, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1983).
Here, the decision to close 317 miles of routes within the TMA (a reduction of roughly 28%) is a significant environmental impact, and the amount of planning that went into the TMP is significant. The DR shows each route and explanation for opening/closing the route with hundreds of miles inventoried and hundreds of “route reports” issued where multiple experts considered the natural, recreational, commercial, cultural and historical value of the routes. See, e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Route Report for B1118 (March 11, 2019). As shown in that one route report, there were 16 evaluators for just one route.24 It is impossible to say that the TMP did not take substantial planning, time, resources, and expenditures.
In justifying the decision to conduct an EA, the BLM District Manager concluded that “[b]ecause all action alternatives would continue to provide recreation opportunities to a variety of user types…significant effects to recreation opportunities would not occur as a result of the action alternatives.” FONSI at 18. This conclusion is misleading, because as shown, the TMP reduces available routes by approximately 28%. Truly, there are still recreational opportunities available, but a reduction of 28% of open routes certainly constitutes a significant effect to recreation opportunities. The closure of 317 miles of established, globally known and recognized routes, constitutes an “impact” to the human, socio-economic environment that is truly “significant” for NEPA purposes, and the BLM has failed to make a convincing case otherwise.
Accordingly, the BLM wrongly issued a FONSI and should have conducted an EIS. Such an action violates NEPA and the TMP should be set aside pending a full EIS.
B. The BLM Limited/Closed Routes that were Never Considered for Limitations/Closures under any Alternative
In the final DR, the BLM limited and closed routes that were never considered for limitations or closures under any of the four alternatives analyzed in the EA. Their closure/limitations constitute a violation of NEPA as the decision falls outside of the decision space. Two examples of these routes are as follows.
i. Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1)
The DR prohibits the use of ATVs (under fifty inches in width) on this trail even though all four EA alternatives allow such use. Therefore this prohibition falls outside of the decision space. Appellants assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2013 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since, utilizing a $6,750 award by the Polaris ‘T.R.A.I.L.S.’ Grant Program, which is specifically for projects open to use by ATVs. The route is almost entirely on slickrock and old constructed roads that are entirely suitable for ATV use. Though most use of the route is by motorcycle, some ATV riders seek narrower trails, and the DR prohibits the use of ATVs, despite never analyzing that option prior to the DR. Exhibit 1 at ¶28.
ii. Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B)
This road provides views of the Green River as well as providing a “bailout” for riders of Dead Cow Loop. The DR closes this road to all motorized use even though the route is left open in all four alternatives in the EA. Therefore this closure falls outside of the decision space. Rationale for this closure include reducing “fragmentation in desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat and in pronghorn fawning habitat.” However, according to the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan maps, this road isn’t in bighorn sheep lambing habitat nor pronghorn fawning habitat. Rationale for this closure also includes “minimizing potential for soil erosion” despite no significant erosion present, nor is there significant potential given the shallow bedrock along most of the route and low grade along all the route. The DR closes this road to all motorized use, despite never analyzing that option prior to the DR. Id. at ¶29.
By closing/limiting routes that were never considered or analyzed under any of the four alternatives in the EA, the BLM has adopted decisions that were never given the requisite “hard look” under NEPA and has adopted a Decision that is outside the decision space – violating NEPA. The TMP should be set aside as being based on a flawed decision-making process.
C. The BLM Failed to Take a “Hard Look” at Route Closures by Applying General Minimization Criteria Contrary to Route Specific Input.
As stated, NEPA requires all federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of their decisions before the decision is made. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 72 F.4th 1166, 1178 (10th Cir. 2023); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The NEPA’s “hard look” requirement is anchored in Supreme Court case law, which instructs that “[t]he sweeping policy goals announced in § 101 of NEPA[45] are … realized through a set of ‘action- forcing’ procedures that require that agencies take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.”…“While the parameters of the ‘hard look’ standard have not been defined with granular precision, the aim of the requirement is clear: an agency must identify and evaluate ‘the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action.’…More concretely, in taking a “hard look” at environmental consequences, agencies “must consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action.”…“In each of these contexts, the agency must evaluate the ‘ecological, … economic, [and] social’ impacts of a proposed action.” Friends of the Floridas v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1149 (D.N.M. 2024).
Further, the arbitrary and capricious standard in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), “includes a requirement that the agency … respond to ‘relevant’ and ‘significant’ public comments.” Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014).25 An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally “demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not ‘based on a consideration of the relevant factors.’” Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014).26
Here, the DR provides rationale for closing each route, but many of the reasons listed are completely inaccurate and unapplicable while others are generic statements such as closure “minimizes impacts to soil” without demonstrating that substantially adverse impacts have occurred or even have significant potential to occur to these routes. In the Appellants’ “Petition for a Stay of Decision Pending Appeal” filed herein on October 30, 2023, the Appellants provided an in depth showing of the inaccuracies in the DR where the BLM’s listed reasons for closure are inaccurate, unapplicable or simply an unsupported generic statement, providing examples from the Tenmile Point area of the LRGB TMA (which is part of the LRGB SRMA). Said analysis is found in Paragraphs 17 through 31 of the “Petition for a Stay of Decision Pending Appeal” which is incorporated by reference herein as if stated in full.27
Said Paragraphs 17 through 31 cite to specific routes as examples of the unsupported rationale for route closures, including an analysis of the following 12 routes:
- All routes north of Trin-Alcove Bend and Tenmile Point graded roads (B377/ B336).
- Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1)
- Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B)
- East end of Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (DC2 northeast of D2761B)
- Southeast end of Dead Cow Loop (DC2 southwest of D2761B)
- South half of Dead Cow Cutoff (the part of DC3A that’s between DC3 and DC2)
- Dead Cow Loop (DC3A except for the part that’s between DC3 and DC2)
- Road south of F Canyon (D2845)
- South Tenmile Point Road (D2840)
- East end of Five Miles of Whoops (DC1)
- Shortcut between Tenmile Point and Red Wash graded roads (D2863)
- Tenmile Wash – Tenmile Point Cutoff Road (Object ID 42353 / Route Plan ID 36)
The analysis found in Paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Appellants’ “Petition for a Stay of
Decision Pending Appeal” provides approximately 9 pages of detailed explanations as to why the BLM’s listed reasons for closure are inaccurate, unapplicable or simply an unsupported generic statement, using these 12 routes as examples. The route closures highlighted above from just one small portion of the LRGB TMA provide a glimpse into the many unfounded claims that the DR made to justify closing the subject 317 miles of routes.
All four Rider Groups submitted extensive public comment throughout the TMP planning process, including in-depth route-by-route analysis. E.g., the Appellants TPA and RwR submitted a joint in-depth comment letter on the Draft EA. These comments are dated October 21, 2022 and contain 12 exhibits, which are incorporated herein by reference as if stated in full. As stated in the RwR/TPA Comment Letter dated October 21, 2022:
“…see Exhibit “12” entitled “Labyrinth Rims TMP route-specific letter from RwR,” which is incorporated into these comments to be analyzed by the BLM, not merely as a reference document. The Organizations support this letter, which highlights the value of some key routes, and suggests mitigation measures as alternatives to route closure.
Note that the Exhibit “12” only makes route-specific comments that weren’t already covered in the October 6th letter submitted by Colorado Offroad Trail Defenders (COTD). Please regard the COTD letter as incorporated into these comments to be analyzed by the BLM. In 527 pages, the COTD letter painstakingly documented observations that are accurate and relevant to reach conclusions that are reasonable and thus supported by the Organizations.”
The Rider Groups’ extensive route-by-route comments, suggestions and input, although not heeded by the BLM, were at the very least acknowledged in the Final EA. See EA at 213 –
297. Appendix M.2 of the EA contains 84 pages of “route-by-route public comments”, including a table showing the source of the comment, the comment summarized and the BLM’s response. Id. The BLM abbreviates the source of comments, listing Ride with Respect as RwR. The RwR comments referenced in this appendix, while submitted by RwR, were submitted on behalf of the other Rider Groups as well. In the 84 pages of Appendix M.2, RwR commented on 48 individual routes justifying their remaining open.28
Despite this heightened level of route specific input submitted by the Appellants, the DR remains full of arbitrary and capricious closures, such as the examples cited above in the Tenmile Point area of the LRGB TMA, and the BLM provided “boiler plate” responses based on general minimization criteria for each of the at least 48 routes highlighted by the Appellants. An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally “demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not ‘based on a consideration of the relevant factors.’” Lilliputian Sys., Inc.
v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Failure to rely on all of the relevant factors, as well as the use of general minimization criteria for each of these routes fall short of the “hard look” requirement to consider the “’ecological, … economic, [and] social’ impacts of a proposed action.” Friends of the Floridas v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1149 (D.N.M. 2024).
D. The BLM Failed to Provide a “Reasonable Range of Alternatives”
Under NEPA, the BLM is required to provide “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action…that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(C)(iii). As stated in the EA, the purpose and need for the current LRGB TMP is three-fold. First, to comply with the 2017 Settlement Agreement,29 and second, “to ensure the network designated in the 2008 RMP continues to meet the goals and objectives of the resource values and uses and evaluate whether previously designated routes still have a purpose and need.”30 Third, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and two Executive Orders.31
As to the first two identified items, in 2003 (for the 2008 Moab RMP), the BLM conducted an extensive route inventory in the TMA, and then closed approximately half of those routes. See Exhibit 2. At that time, the BLM closed 766 miles of inventoried routes (a 40.4% reduction of inventoried routes including Class B roads32, or a 45% reduction excluding Class B roads). Id. The current 2023 plan closes an additional 317 miles of inventoried routes (an additional 28% reduction of designated routes including Class B roads, or an additional 34% reduction of designated routes excluding Class B roads). Id. In short, since 2003 when the inventory was conducted, 57% of the inventoried routes have been closed – a total loss of 1,083 miles of routes. Id.
The 2017 Settlement Agreement was a direct result of challenges to the allegedly flawed NEPA planning process, and directed the BLM to revisit the 2008 Moab RMP as it relates to travel management within the TMP. Because the 2017 Settlement Agreement was a result of challenges to an allegedly flawed NEPA process, the BLM should have begun its analysis of open/limited/closed routes within the TMA afresh (i.e., a new analysis of all inventoried routes from 2003 if not an inventory of routes missed in 2003 or at least a public invitation to submit those missed routes). Instead, the starting point or “baseline” for the current TMP (Alternative A) was all routes left open under the 2008 RMP and did not include the full inventory from 2003. Because the current TMP was revisiting the 2008 RMP (and seeking compliance with the 2017 Settlement Agreement) the current EA should’ve included all routes originally inventoried as part of the 2008 planning process and not just those left open in the 2008 RMP. At the bare minimum, the inventory for the current TMP should have included all routes considered in 2008.
By failing to analyze the routes “closed” in 2008, the BLM has failed to provide a reasonable range of alternatives that meets the purpose and need, thus violating NEPA.
2. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates the Dingell Act
The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 (the “Dingell Act”), 16 U.S.C. §1132 et seq., P. Law 116-9, is a sweeping omnibus public lands act that (among other things) created numerous “Wilderness Areas” and other specially managed conservation areas in Utah and the United States. One such Wilderness Area is the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, designated in Section 1231(a)(7) of the Dingell Act. The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness makes up much of the western border of the LRGB TMA (separated by the Green River) and is managed by the BLM in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §1131 et seq. In short, “the wilderness area designation seeks to preserve these areas in a condition that emphasizes their very natural and unmodified (by humans) characteristics. Wyoming
v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 570 F. Supp 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008).
While creating wilderness areas, the Dingell Act expressly forbids restrictions in a designated wilderness area from seeping into adjacent areas. The text of Section 1232(e) of the Dingell Act (entitled “Adjacent Management”) is clear that “Congress does not intend for the designation of wilderness areas to create protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness areas.” Dingell Act §1232(e)(1). Further, “the fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness shall not preclude the conduct of those activities or uses outside the boundary of the wilderness area.” Dingell Act §1232(e)(2). The prohibition of a “buffer zone” appears 21 times in the Dingell Act, and the prohibition of a “protective perimeter” appears 12 times in the Dingell Act. The care that Congress took to include these two terms throughout the text of the Dingell Act, alongside the plain language of Section 1232(e), shows a clear Congressional intent that the designation of wilderness areas does not create an adjacent “protective perimeter” or “buffer zone.”
Despite the clear prohibition of “protective perimeters” or “buffer zones” around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, the DR attempts to do just that in the TMA. The DR creates no de jure buffer zones, but closes long segments of routes along the Green River, creating a de facto buffer zone adjacent to the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. See DR at A1-4. The only routes left open along the wilderness area border were Class B roads and the first half-mile of D1526 for boaters to connect the Green River with Spring Canyon Road. Id. The DR avoids calling these closures an outright buffer zone, but then explains these closures in a way that can only be characterized as a buffer zone. E.g., in justifying the closure of Routes D1223, D1526, D1527, D2759, and D2763 the DR states the closure is meant “to minimize known visual and noise- induced conflicts with non-motorized users on the Green River.” DR at A2-123; see also DR at A2-125, 157. Despite the Dingell Act’s forbiddance of creating a buffer zone around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, that is precisely what the BLM has done here, particularly since non- motorized users on the Green River will continue to be exposed to motorboat use of the Green River.
In addition to violating this express language, the DR conflicts with Congressional intent as it pertains to the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968, wherein Congress created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. P.L. 90-542; U.S.C. 1271 et seq. To preserve wild and scenic rivers, Congress created different classifications of rivers based on road accessibility. 16 U.S.C. 1273(b). Congress defined “Scenic River Areas” as “[t]hose rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” Id. In contrast, Congress separately defined “Wild River Areas” as “[t]hose rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.” Id.
In Section 1241 of the Dingell Act, Congress added segments of Utah’s Green River to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, specifically the segment of the Green River immediately adjacent to the LRGB TMA was designated as a “Scenic River” with the classification “accessible in places by roads.” Dingell Act at §1241. Congress clearly contemplated using the more restrictive “Wild River” designation along the Green River and did in fact designate a more northerly segment of the Green River as a “Wild River”. Congress’s selection of the “Scenic River” designation in lieu of the “Wild River” designation demonstrates congressional intent to protect existing road access along the Green River in the vicinity of the LRGB TMA.
Congress never delegated authority to the BLM to change management of the Labyrinth Canyon stretch of the Green River from a “Scenic River” to a “Wild River”. The distinguishing difference between “Wild Rivers” and “Scenic Rivers” is the presence of roads, and it is clear that Congress intended for existing roads within the scenic river segment of the Green River to remain open, otherwise it would have designated it a wild river. Yet the BLM closed virtually all motorized routes within the Labyrinth Canyon along all but the last mile of its 45-mile length relying on the “minimization criteria” found at 43 C.F.R. §8342.1(c), to justify the closure of these routes. Closing such overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon that are ~1,000 ft. above the Green River, can hardly be considered necessary to minimize user conflict as non-motorized river runners barely see or hear people at those overlooks. Here, by applying “Wild River” management to a segment of the Green River that Congress explicitly categorized as a “Scenic River” accessible by roads, the BLM has violated the Dingell Act, and is therefore unlawful.
3. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP is Arbitrary, Capricious and an Abuse of Discretion under the APA
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (the “APA”), 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq., provides standards for judicial review of an agency action, stating in part that “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. §702. The scope of review section under the APA dictates that a reviewing court “shall…hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law[.]” (emphasis added). 5
U.S.C. §706(2)(A)-(D).
Under 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), “an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency (1) entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view of the product of agency expertise, (3) fail[s]
to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or (4) ma[kes] a clear error of judgment” (emphasis added). New Mexico Health Connections v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1138, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019).
Applying this standard to the current TMP, the BLM’s actions were both arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion for reasons as follows.
A. The Decision Record Fails to Rely on the Best Available Science
There are multiple examples of a failure to rely on the best available science throughout the DR. E.g., the DR’s estimation that motorized recreation comprises only 6% of the recreational use in the LRGB TMA has no basis in fact. The DR cites Manti-La Sal National Forest, but the draft Land Management Plan of that forest actually states “Motorized trail activity in general is reported as a main activity for approximately 20 percent of all visitors to the Forest in 2016 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2017) and 32 percent in 2021 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2023).” Compared to national forests, the portion of visitation to the LRGB planning area that’s motorized trail riding is almost certainly larger. The DR also cites a 2007 study of recreation in the Moab Field Office that was designed to test the accuracy of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) methodology of the USFS when applied to BLM lands. The results demonstrate that NVUM methodology is inaccurate especially when applied to activities such as motorized trail riding that are highly dispersed (which makes riders harder for surveyors to reach) and of a faster pace (that makes riders far less likely to voluntarily participate). These sampling biases could easily have led to motorized trail riders being underrepresented by a factor of six and, since 2007, motorized trail riding has grown faster than most other forms of outdoor recreation in the LRGB TMA. Exhibit 1 at ¶24 and Exhibit 5.
Returning to the standard set forth above, “an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency (1) entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view of the product of agency expertise, (3) fail[s] to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or (4) ma[kes] a clear error of judgment” (emphasis added). New Mexico Health Connections v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1138, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019). By failing to base its motorized recreational use numbers on the best available science, the BLM’s decision fails to consider the relevant factors, and makes a clear error judgment, rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious.
B. The Decision Record Provides Flawed and Inconsistent Rationale for Closing Routes Due to Wildlife Concerns
The BLM failed to use its own scientific evidence (let alone the best available science), as it relates to wildlife and bighorn sheep concerns, when closing routes. As stated in the RwR/TPA Comment Letter dated October 21, 2022, referring to the letter’s Exhibit 10, “the wildlife analysis demonstrates that the best available science justifies few if any of the closures…” Said Exhibit 10 contains a detailed wildlife analysis for the TMP prepared by Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, addressing many of the wildlife inconsistencies inherent in the TMP. E.g.:
“Desert bighorn sheep are not the fragile creatures, or as susceptible to human disturbance, as they have been portrayed in the EA. Instead, these animals live in extreme environments, are well adapted to avoid predation by mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, and golden eagles. And where human activities are predictable and non-threatening, bighorn sheep habituate to human activity…”
Dr. Ramey continues by showing that “in the field of desert bighorn sheep research, there is an absence of clearly defined, scientifically defensible, causal link between human recreational disturbance and reduced bighorn survival or habitat abandonment ultimately resulting in population decline.” Id. Despite these persuasive public comments, the BLM justified many route closures on reducing conflicts with bighorn sheep habitat. See e.g., DR at A2-157 – 59.
The conclusions submitted by Dr. Ramey are very similar to BLM’s own documents, which acknowledge that wildlife, including bighorn sheep, are more disturbed by hikers and rock climbers than OHVs. See BLM, Limited Roped and Aerial Activities in Mineral and Hell Roaring Canyons, Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0068, at 9 (August 2020). This EA, concluded in 2020, acknowledges that bighorn sheep are more sensitive to hikers because of the unpredictability of their locations and are more likely to be found off-trail, unlike road traffic. Id. at 33, 35. Bighorn sheep “coexist best with people when human activity in sheep habitat is predictable.” Id. at 34. Nevertheless, under the TMP, these routes allegedly disturbing bighorn sheep habitat remain open to hikers and closed to OHVs.
The boiler-plate rationale for closing many of these routes is to minimize habitat fragmentation, but these primitive singletracks and doubletracks appear unlikely to fragment habitat. They’re far less obtrusive than modern highways, and many wildlife tracks can be seen across these primitive routes. Exhibit 1 at ¶22. Not only does this decision/rationale run contrary to best available science, it runs contrary to the BLM’s own science and is inconsistent with previous BLM action. “Unexplained inconsistency between agency actions is ‘a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change.’” Organized Vill. Of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015).33
C. The TMP Fails to Properly Consider the Effects Which Route Closures Will Have on the Human Environment.
While the EA does contain a section addressing effects to the human environment, the BLM’s analysis is lacking. This section is only a page and a half long, despite BLM’s acknowledgement that “[t]ourism and recreation account[] for 48.9% of the Grand County economy.” EA at 88. The DR closes many routes because there was no known recreation destination, e.g., DR at A2-6, however, experiencing the routes within the LRGB TMA is a destination in and of itself. Many recreationists prefer the unique qualities of motorized trail riding. Depending on form, motorized trail riding can provide physical exercise, a mental challenge of one’s focus and skills, and a sense of flow or harmony with nature. This is the key difference between a transportation and recreation analysis. In recreation, the trail itself is often the destination (e.g., Mashed Potatoes),34 for factors such as undulations, challenge, variety of terrain, and the DR fails to acknowledge these characteristics. Other routes were closed as “redundant” due to proximity to a graded road. A non-graded route that provides a different type of experience is not redundant, even if next to a graded road.35
In many cases, routes were closed because they were considered “low use.” This justification is contradictory because if it’s low use, then there are no impacts truly being mitigated. In many instances, low use of a route is a desired condition. Even motorized users desire remoteness and solitude and spending time on a low use route is one way to find these types of recreational qualities that were never considered in the DR or EA.
Further, many members of the public require motorized travel due to physical limitations and disabilities, yet still desire to visit some of the remote areas of the LRGB TMA. These limitations were never analyzed in the DR. In short, the BLM has failed to properly consider the effects which route closures will have on the human environment.
D. The BLM Allowed Its (then) Principal Deputy Director to Participate in the Decision-Making Process Despite Her Previous Involvement as Counsel for a Plaintiff in the 2017 Settlement Agreement
The Wilderness Society was a party to the 2017 Settlement Agreement, the “genesis” of the current TMP. See Exhibit 3. The Wilderness Society was represented by an individual who was later appointed as the BLM’s Deputy Director for Policy and Programs in February 2021, and subsequently promoted to the BLM’s Principal Deputy Director. Exhibit 3 at 33. Under good faith and belief, despite being counsel to a plaintiff signatory to the 2017 Settlement Agreement, the BLM’s Principal Deputy Director did not recuse herself but instead was directly involved in the development of the DR for the LRGB TMP. Exhibit 4 at 5. Here, the BLM abused its discretion by failing to exclude this official with a clear conflict of interest from the decision making process. In sum, the BLM failed to consider the best available science, the TMP contains unexplained inconsistencies between the current bighorn sheep findings and previous agency actions, the BLM failed to properly consider effects to the human environment, and allowed an officer with a conflict of interest to participate in the planning process, rendering the BLM’s Decision arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.
4. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates FLPMA
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (“FLPMA”), the guiding principle in the management of public lands is multiple-use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. §1732(a). As such, RMPs and TMPs must account for various resources, including “recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values” while striving for “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high- level annual or regular periodic output of various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” Id. §1702(c), (h).
The DR closed routes based upon a rationale that often fails to account for the multiple uses called for under FLPMA including recreation. Keeping existing routes open helps minimize conflicts among various uses of the public lands,” among other benefits. 43 C.F.R. §8342.1. The BLM’s DR violates FLPMA by failing to manage the public lands of the LRGB TMA in accordance with principles of multiple use and sustained yield and is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. §706.
Under Loper Bright Ent. V. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 392 (2024), courts are not required to give any deference to the agency’s interpretation of the FLPMA, as the APA “prescribes no deferential standard for courts to employ in answering those legal questions.” Accordingly, the IBLA should find that the BLM simply does not have the discretion to omit recreation from its designation criteria under principles of multiple-use and sustained yield, and no deference is owed to the BLM’s interpretation of FLPMA in this regard.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons discussed herein, the Appellants request the IBLA declare the BLM’s decision in the Decision Record/Environmental Assessment as a violation of NEPA, FLPMA, the Dingell Act and at a minimum vacate the Decision as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion in violation of the APA, and order such other relief as the Board may deem appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2025.
Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Attorney for Appellants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 19th day of April, 2025, I caused a copy of the foregoing APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF REASONS to be served in accordance with the applicable rules and transmitted as follows:
By Email
(Pursuant to the February 25, 2025 “Standing Order on Electronic Transmission” of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals)
Interior Board of Land Appeals
801 N. Quincy St., MS-300-QC
Arlington, Virginia 22203
ibla@oha.doi.gov
By Email
(In accordance with counsel’s waiver of service by U.S. Mail)
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region
Leah Peterson
6201 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1180
leah.peterson@sol.doi.gov
Respondent Intervenor – SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Laura Peterson
Hanna Larsen
425 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 l
aura@suwa.org
hanna@suwa.org
Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Attorney for Appellants
- BLM, Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020- 0097, BLM National NEPA Reg., available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2001224/570 (2025).
- Id. at 2.
- Id. at 2 n.4; see also TMP at 3 (stating that the TMP does not alter any OHV area designations); Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan at 92 (Oct. 31, 2008), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/66098/80422/93491/Moab_Final_Plan.pdf (2008 RMP).
- EA at 13; see also TMP at 3 (summarizing route classifications).
- TMP at 4; see also EA at 13-14.
- EA at 15-16 (describing existing network under “no action/current management” alternative).
- See IBLA Order dated March 10, 2025.
- Exhibit 1 at ¶1.
- RwR, Mission, Ride with Respect, available at: https://www.ridewithrespect.org/ (2025).
- COHVCO, COHVCO, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, available at: https://cohvco.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=0&club_id=95320 (2025).
- Id.
- COHVCO, About COHVCO, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, available at: https://cohvco.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=95320&module_id=203228 (2025).
- CORE, CORE, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, available at: https://www.keeptrailsopen.com/ (2025).
- Id.
- TPA, What we do & who we are, Trails Preservation Alliance, available at: https://www.coloradotpa.org/ (2025).
- Id.
- BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 14 – 19, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf (2021).
- BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 82 – 92, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf (2021).
- BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 82 – 83, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf (2021).
- See also Animal Protection Institute of America, 117 IBLA 208, 210 (1990).
- See Exhibit 6.
- The TPA and RwR submitted an extensive comment letter dated October 21, 2022 (along with 12 exhibits) to the BLM on the Draft EA. That comment letter and attached 12 exhibits, outlines various deficiencies with the Draft EA. As many of those same deficiencies remain intact in the DR and Final EA, this Statement of Reasons incorporates those October 21, 2022 comments and 12 exhibits herein by reference as if stated in full.
- FAA, What are the levels of Environmental Review the FAA considers as they follow NEPA?, Federal Aviation Administration, available at: https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-are-levels-environmental-review-faa-considers-they-follow-nepa (2025).
- Id. (Evaluators included a GIS specialist, aquatic ecologist, archaeologist, policy analyst, local official, wildlife biologist, geologist and others).
- See also Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C.Cir.1993) (quoting Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 & n. 58 (D.C.Cir.1977)); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1042 (D.C.Cir.2012).
- See also Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 409 (D.C.Cir.1984).
- See also Exhibit 1 at ¶¶ 26 – 38.
- EA at 213 – 297 (The individual routes listed as being commented on by the Rider Groups in Appendix M.2 that were still ultimately closed, despite the Rider Groups significant and specific input are: BT1, BT2, D2405, D2529, D2533, D2577, D2581A, D2588A, D2748, D2759A, D2763B, D2771, D2793, D2863, D2909, D2925, D2936, D2945, D3035, D3101A, D3114, D3130A, D3171, D3263, D3270, D3503, D3571, D3802, D3810, D3811, D3828, D3872, D3925, D3926, D7066, D7400, D7428, D8399, D9099, DC2, DC3, DFT1, EL2A, EL8, OWW1, SF1, SW1, and TT1).
- EA at 2.
- Id.
- EO 11644 and 11989.
- The inclusion of Class B roads in the TMP analysis is inappropriate as the BLM lacks jurisdiction to close them. See Grand County v United States, 2:12-cv-00466-CW. Accordingly, their inclusion in OHV route inventories is inappropriate and skews the number of routes left open or limited.
- See also Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005)).
- See Exhibit 1 at ¶13; see also Exhibit 6.
- These graded roads are Class B County Roads, and their inclusion in the TMP analysis is inappropriate as the BLM lacks jurisdiction to close them. See Grand County v United States, 2:12-cv-00466-CW. Accordingly, their inclusion in OHV route inventories is inappropriate. For full analysis on this issue, see RwR comments incorporated by reference dated October 21, 2022.
Representing Western Colorado’s dirt bike community since 1989, the Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (MTRA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit led by a volunteer board and powered by annual memberships, donations, and grant support. MTRA has built a strong reputation for collaborative partnerships with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Grand Valley Trail Alliance (GVTA), Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), and other user groups.
We’re honored to announce a new partnership with the legendary Colorado 500, which has selected the TPA as the beneficiary of a three-year, $225,000 fundraising campaign to support advocacy, stewardship, and responsible motorized recreation across Colorado.
In May, the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) made a strategic trip to Washington, DC to strengthen our voice at the federal level. Executive Director Chad Hixon, Legal Counsel Kent Holsinger, and Erica Tergeson, Principal of Crosswinds Solutions, held a fast-paced series of meetings with five legislators, two congressional committees, and senior staff from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
In 2025, we are launching the TPA Trail Crew, a dedicated team of experienced professionals focused on improving trail maintenance across Colorado. Inspired by the USFS Statewide Trail Crew, this team will be:
