Uncategorized

Open access paper in PNAS Nexus:

Near-term investments in forest management support long-term carbon sequestration capacity in forests of the United States

Abstract

We use data from >130,000 national forest inventory (NFI) plots to clarify the potential effects of planting and increased fuel management on carbon trajectories in the conterminous United States (Fig. 1). We constructed 30-year projections of the NFI based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 [13] and five general circulation models under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 to assess forest carbon stocks and fluxes associated with two fuel treatment levels and one planting scenario (Fig. 1, SI Appendix).

Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 is a “middle of the road” narrative, while RCP8.5 is considered an extreme scenario that essentially assumes no future efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2. Some call it implausible.

Why not include a more optimistic scenario to balance the extreme RCP8.5? Or just go with the middle of the road model?

OSU “scientists,” citing taxpayer-funded and peer-reviewed economic, forestry, and climate research, have determined that “climate change” has cost Northwest tree farmers a loss of $6 billion dollars over the past 20 years. This “finding” is being sensationalized in much of the press, but even the more sober and usually realistic Oregon Business is reporting that: “The increased prevalence of wildfires and droughts due to climate change did not account for all of the value depreciation, but it was a significant driver. The study suggests that recent climate change is responsible for lowering timberland values by $6.2 billion, or 55% of the total devaluation.”

Here is the link: https://oregonbusiness.com/osu-study-wildfires-drought-have-reduced-the-value-of-west-coast-timber-by-11-2-billion/

The assumption seems to be that increased wildfires are a direct result of drought caused by climate change, resulting in risks to landowners causing decreases in property values that are apt to reduce tax rolls if we don’t do something about it. Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope:

“Our research results indicate that any policy that can successfully reduce the spread of wildfire could reduce risks for timberland owners and provide economic benefits in the form of higher land values,” writes David J. Lewis, a natural resource economist at Oregon State, who coauthored the study, in an email to Oregon Business. “The key question (not answered in our research) is whether the administration’s new wildfire strategy will actually be successful in reducing wildfire risks,” referring to the White House’s plans to develop a national strategy to estimate the impacts of climate change on the value of the nation’s natural capital, including forests, minerals, oceans and rivers.

An underlying problem is that no one has demonstrated that the climate is actually changing in this region, that droughts have resulted, or that the increase in regional wildfires is a result of those speculations. On the other hand, the regional increases in wildfire severity and extent have been clearly predicted using traditional scientific research methodology for more than 30 years because of radical changes in federal forest management policies and practices.

And these fires are occurring almost exclusively on public lands, and not private — even though the climate is remarkably similar for both ownerships. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good sales pitch. University professors need to eat, too.

FOREST SERVICE

• Custer Gallatin NF wilderness fish poisoning

New lawsuit:  Wilderness Watch v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Mont.)

On November 8, Wilderness Watch filed a complaint against the Buffalo Creek Project in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  The Project would use helicopters to supply rotenone to poison non-native rainbow trout in over 40 miles of stream, and introduce Yellowstone cutthroat trout.  Yellowstone cutthroat trout were not naturally found in this stream reach, but removing rainbow trout would benefit native Yellowstone cutthroat downstream in Yellowstone National Park.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the Wilderness Act.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

• Ochoco NF wild horse removal

Court decision in Central Oregon Wild Horse Coalition v. Vilsack (D. Oregon)

On November 14, the district court adopted a magistrate judge’s findings and agreed that the Ochoco National Forest did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act or the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by approving a forest plan amendment for the Big Summit Wild Horse Territory that would reduce its current wild horse population by more than half.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

BLM

• Wyoming BLM Converse County Oil & Gas Project

Court decision in Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U. S. Dept. of Interior (D. D.C.)

On November 6, the district court denied a preliminary injunction sought against the Converse County Oil & Gas Project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, comprised of 407 separate applications for permits to drill, and a land-use-plan amendment to the Casper RMP.  The court determined that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims against the APDs, “because they have not alleged an affected area for any of the APDs they challenge, and therefore have not alleged that any of their members use the affected areas such that enjoining the APDs would provide the relief they seek.”  That the APDs “collectively contribute to a vast affected area which can be gleaned from Defendants’ environmental analysis in their final EIS” was insufficient to establish standing.

However – plaintiffs did have standing to make NEPA claims against the plan amendment and its EIS because they had established use of the larger “project area.”  The court found a low likelihood of success or irreparable harm and did not issue an injunction.  (One of the factors in the harm analysis was plaintiff’s delay in bringing the lawsuit, in part because they “lacked the financial and human capital” to do so for two years.)

This is the second recent case by this judge where standing was denied for failure to establish effects on plaintiffs from specific locations (see the New Mexico and Wyoming drilling case here).  (Judge Chutkan is also the judge presiding over the January 6 case against former president Trump.)

• Oregon BLM timber project

New lawsuit:  Willamette Riverkeeper v. Teitzel (D. Oregon)

On November 7, Willamette Riverkeeper, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management over the agency’s authorization of the Big League Project in the Calapooia and Mohawk River Watersheds.  The Project includes over 1000 acres of timber harvest, and was based on an EA.  Issues include impacts on endangered salmon, recently burned forest, spotted owl habitat and carbon storage in older forests.  (This article has a link to the complaint.)

• Alaska BLM Willow oil & gas drilling

Court decision in Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Alaska)

On November 9, the district court dismissed two challenges against ConocoPhillips’ Willow project within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, saying plaintiffs failed to show that the federal government made significant mistakes when it approved the project.  This lawsuit followed a successful challenge in 2020 to block the project after the Trump administration approved it.  After that suit, federal agencies involved in the approval process revised their analysis, and in March the Biden administration approved a project slightly smaller than the one approved by Trump.  The main issues involved greenhouse gases, and the judge found, “there is a limited scientific capability in assessing, detecting, or measuring the relationship between a certain GHG emission source and localized climate impacts in a given region.”  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

• Nevada BLM Thacker Pass lithium

Court decision

The Nevada federal district court has dismissed claims by three local Native American tribes against the Thacker Pass lithium mine on BLM lands.  The plaintiffs had argued that the BLM had failed to consult with the tribes.  The court agreed with the government’s argument that the consultation is ongoing and therefore not ripe for legal challenge (despite the fact that construction of the mine is also ongoing).  An earlier district court decision is currently on appeal to the 9^th Circuit.  (Some of our earlier discussion of this project is here.)

• Nevada BLM petroglyph theft

Criminal conviction

The Nevada federal district court sentenced a Nevada man to six months in prison to be followed by one year of supervised release and $7,303.05 in restitution for damaging and removing part of a centuries-old petroglyph at Gold Butte National Monument in southeastern Nevada, a felony violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

• Nevada BLM wild horse removal

New lawsuit

A second lawsuit has been filed regarding the management of the Stone Cabin herd of wild horses on BLM and national forest land east of Tonopah, Nevada.  In October, a rancher sued the BLM because they weren’t moving fast enough to round up horses on land where he has permits to graze cattle. Wild Horse Education has now challenged BLM’s 10-year horse gather decision for the herd based on an EA.  They allege it ignores a 1983 Herd Management Area Plan, and seek to stop any further roundups.  They say the BLM “will often jump into a settlement with a permittee without hesitation.”

• Utah BLM highway

Court decision/settlement in Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Dept. of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On November 17, the district court agreed to the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service’s request to remand the BLM’s grant of a right-of-way to the Utah Department of Transportation for construction of a new four-lane highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in southwest Utah, a critical habitat for the Mojave Desert tortoise.  The Utah Department of Transportation and Washington County, Utah (intervenors) had opposed the settlement, and the court did not vacate the right-of-way.  This press release includes links to the opinion and the announcement of the review by the agencies.

OTHER

• Colorado wolf reintroduction (not litigation)

On November 7, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the designation of an experimental population of gray wolves in Colorado under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. This was in response to a statewide voter-led initiative passed in November 2020, which we discussed here.  The designation provides greater management flexibility.

• Mountain Valley Pipeline protesters

New lawsuit:  Mountain Valley Pipeline v. Daniel Guidry and Ashley Stecher Wagner (W.D. Virginia)

On November 8, the developers of the Mountain Valley Pipeline sued two protesters it says blocked construction by illegally attaching themselves to the land and construction equipment being used to build a segment of the pipeline in the Jefferson National Forest last month.  The developer is asking for undisclosed compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction barring Guidry and Wagner from entering the construction area, blocking access to it or helping others interfere with construction.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

• Coal mining and ESA

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement (D. D.C.)

On November 8, CBD and Appalachian Voices alleged that the Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service are violating the Endangered Species Act by allowing continued harm from coal mining to the endangered Guyandotte River crawfish, threatened Big Sandy crawfish, and the endangered candy darter (a fish).  The species are found in West Virginia, Virginia and/or Kentucky.  The claims revolve around a 2020 Biological Opinion addressing permits to mine private land pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.   Coal mining facilities can impact species up to 12 miles downstream.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

• Sierra Pacific spotted owls

New lawsuit:  Environmental Protection Information Center v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

On November 9, plaintiffs targeted a September 2020 incidental take permit issued to Sierra Pacific Industries for its plans to conduct logging operations on more than 1.5 million acres of Northern California over a 50-year period.  The permit would allow death from logging activity of 115 northern spotted owls and 649 California spotted owls.  Plaintiffs argue that additional protection is needed due to climate change.  More in this article.

• Tire chemicals

New lawsuit

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources filed a lawsuit against 13 tire manufacturers in U.S. District Court in San Francisco alleging that toxic concentrations of 6PPD-quinone, a chemical that extends the life of tires, is killing coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and other wildlife.  They allege that ESA requires an incidental take permit before allowing such harm to these listed species.

• Local connectivity regulations

Court decision in California Construction and Industrial Materials Association v. County of Ventura (California Court of Appeal)

On November 13, the California Court of Appeals, upheld a set of land use ordinances to protect creeks, rivers, and other pathways used by wildlife to travel between key habitat areas including the Los Padres National Forest.

Synchronistically, given yesterday’s Wilderness discussion, I happened to be with some younger people (this covers a lot of age terrain, at my age) who decided to discuss William Cronon’s 1995 essay “The Trouble With Wilderness or Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.  They had actually read this essay during college (!).  Perhaps many of us older folks are unfamiliar with this essay; sometimes books like Uncommon Ground are a big slog for those of us less philosophically inclined, if we are not assigned them. We could wait until the essay is 30 years old, but some of us might not be readily accessible for commenting by then.

Anyway, the topic of the discussion yesterday was “what strikes us about this essay, now almost 30 years old?”  Which I think is also a good question for TSW readers. Here’s a link to the essay.

Here are a few of my excerpts and thoughts, please add your own.

Thus the decades following the Civil War saw more and more of the nation’s wealthiest citizens seeking out wilderness for themselves. The elite passion for wild land took many forms: enormous estates in the Adirondacks and elsewhere (disingenuously called “camps” despite their many servants and amenities), cattle ranches for would-be rough riders on the Great Plains, guided big-game hunting trips in the Rockies, and luxurious resort hotels wherever railroads pushed their way into sublime landscapes. Wildernes suddenly emerged as the landscape of choice for elite tourists, who brought with them strikingly urban ideas of the countryside through which they traveled. For them, wild land was not a site for productive labor and not a permanent home; rather, it was a place of recreation. One went to the wilderness not as a producer but as a consumer, hiring guides and other backcountry residents who could serve as romantic surrogates for the rough riders and hunters of the frontier if one was willing to overlook their new status as employees and servants of the rich.

A few years ago I went to Alaska and noticed that many of my fellow travelers (spending more money to go deeper into the wilderness) were financially favored folks- almost like a curated Wilderness Experience.  I’m not criticizing them nor the guides that support them. Just pointing out it’s not like someone from Bend hiking into Sisters Wilderness for the day.  There are all kinds of wilderness experiences.

There were other ironies as well. The movement to set aside national parks and wilderness areas followed hard on the heels of the final Indian wars, in which the prior human inhabitants of these areas were rounded up and moved onto reservations. The myth of the wilderness as “virgin,” uninhabited land had always been especially cruel when seen from the perspective of the Indians who had once called that land home. Now they were forced to move elsewhere, with the result that tourists could safely enjoy the illusion that they were seeing their nation in its pristine, original state, in the new morning of God’s own creation.  Among the things that most marked the new national parks as reflecting a post-frontier consciousness was the relative absence of human violence within their boundaries. The actual frontier had often been a place of conflict, in which invaders and invaded fought for control of land and resources. Once set aside within the fixed and carefully policed boundaries of the modern bureaucratic state, the wilderness lost its savage image and became safe: a place more of reverie than of revulsion or fear. Meanwhile, its original inhabitants were kept out by dint of force, their earlier uses of the land redefined as inappropriate or even illegal. To this day, for instance, the Blackfeet continue to be accused of “poaching” on the lands of Glacier National Park that originally belonged to them and that were ceded by treaty only with the proviso that they be permitted to hunt there.

I was hoping that this had changed; Montanans know more about this than I do..but I did find this fairly recent article from the Columbia Climate School.  In those day, climate had yet to become everything-ized, so that’s a definite change.

Facing starvation in 1895, the Blackfeet were essentially coerced into selling part of their land, which they call the “backbone of the world,” to the United States government for $1.5 million. This 1895 agreement was supposed to secure the region as federal forest land, and the United States government had agreed that the Blackfeet would always have access to it for hunting, fishing, gathering, and other uses. But in 1910, the northern half of the territory was turned into Glacier National Park — which had not been written into the original 1895 agreement. Once this happened, the Blackfeet no longer had access to hunting or gathering there.

So this was actually a “Parkifying” issue and not a Wildernessing issue, sounds like.

“But, having said that,” LaPier added, “we still cannot hunt. We still cannot gather [legally] on Glacier Park land.” Hunting is hard to hide from park rangers, but some Blackfeet can get away with hunting in Glacier during the winter. Gathering, on the other hand, can be done alone and quietly. “Tribal members believe it’s their right to gather on that land, and so they do,” she said.

*********************
Back to Cronon:

The removal of Indians to create an “uninhabited wilderness”-uninhabited as never before in the human history of the place-reminds us just how invented, just how constructed, the American wilderness really is. To return to my opening argument: there is nothing natural about the concept of wilderness. It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny.

***

To do so is merely to take to a logical extreme the paradox that was built into wilderness from the beginning: if nature dies because we enter it, then the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves. The absurdity of this proposition flows from the underlying dualism it expresses. Not only does it ascribe greater power to humanity that we in fact possess-physical and biological nature will surely survive in some form or another long after we ourselves have gone the way of all flesh -but in the end it offers us little more than a self-defeating counsel of despair. The tautology gives us no way out: if wild nature is the only thing worth saving, and if our mere presence destroys it, then the sole solution to our own unnaturalness, the only way to protect sacred wilderness from profane humanity, would seem to be suicide. It is not a proposition that seems likely to produce very positive or practical results.

Why, for instance, is the “wilderness experience” so often conceived as a form of recreation best enjoyed by those whose class privileges give them the time and resources to leave their jobs behind and “get away from it all”? Why does the protection of wilderness often seem to pit urban recreationists against rural people who actually earn their living from the land (excepting those who sell goods and services to-the tourists themselves)? Why in the debates about pristine natural areas are “primitive” peoples idealized, even sentimentalized, until the moment they do something unprimitive, modern, and unnatural, and thereby fall from environmental grace?

This reminds me of the Native Americans who want a pipeline, or have supported the Willow Project, or the people of King Cove who want a road (I’m not sure either that the Izembeck Refuge is Wilderness).   I’m a general fan of Jimmy Carter but as he weighed into the latter controversy in the May of 2022 (granted that he was 97),

In response to questions from The New York Times, Mr. Carter wrote that the law “may be the most significant domestic achievement of my political life.”

“Our great nation has never before or since preserved so much of America’s natural and cultural heritage on such a remarkable scale,” he added.

In his brief, Mr. Carter wrote that he, like many Americans, had experienced Alaska’s public lands many times. In his response to The Times’s questions, he described one visit, to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the largest expanses of wilderness in the United States, as “one of the most unforgettable and humbling experiences” of his life.

“We had hoped to see a few caribou during our trip, but to our amazement, we witnessed the migration of tens of thousands of caribou with their newborn calves,” he wrote.

****************
My guess is that in the last 30 or so years, we have become less consciously attached to the Eden and wasteland ideas of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. We have become more aware of Indigenous people, although perhaps our efforts to re-empower them have run into various roadblocks (lack of interest perhaps, on the R side, and difficulties with ENGO calling the shots on the D side). There remains a certain macho-hood of some Wilderness ideas, including the necessity of large dangerous carnivores for the best experience. And the size and influence of the anthropogenic global warming/climate change bandwagon means that ideas of static Nature best left alone are more difficult to support. That’s my take.. read the essay and see what you think!

The Northwest Forest Plan Area Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) will meet on Nov. 14 – 16, 2023, at the Edgewater Hotel, 2411 Alaskan Way in Seattle, Washington.

For those who wish to attend the meeting virtually, please click the link below to join the live stream: https://encoreglobal.zoom.us/j/95745343302?pwd=OVAyWTlUUlpZeEZEWkp3UW1kcXJKUT09

​Along with presentations from forest managers, the FAC will discuss how experience with forest management can inform the agency in considering updates to the Northwest Forest Plan. The NWFP FAC Agenda details can be found on the NWFP FAC website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r6/nwfpfac

All FAC meetings are open to the public and include opportunity for public comments. Note that registrations for in-person oral comments or written public comments for this meeting has closed. Comments received after the deadline will be provided to the Forest Service.  The Committee will not have adequate time to consider them prior to the November meeting, however, they will be considered for the January 30-February 1, 2024, meeting.

Details about future Committee meetings and opportunities to provide comments for them will be posted on the Forest Service’s regional website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r6/nwfpfac.

The FAC was established by the Secretary of Agriculture as part of ongoing efforts to amend the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the FAC is to bring together diverse perspectives representing the experiences of communities, experts, Tribes, and other interested parties across the Northwest Forest Plan landscape to inform ways that forest management can effectively conserve key resources while considering social, ecological, and economic conditions and needs.

The Federal Advisory Committee does not replace the public involvement process or the public’s opportunity to engage directly with the Forest Service regarding Northwest Forest Plan amendment efforts during the planning process and future engagement and comment opportunities will be provided.

The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands in northwestern California, western Oregon, and Washington. It was established in 1994 to address threats to threatened and endangered species while also contributing to social and economic sustainability in the region. After nearly 30 years, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated to accommodate changed ecological and social conditions.

Additional information about the Northwest Forest Plan is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev2_026990 .

For future Northwest Forest Plan Amendment updates please sign up using USDA Forest Service (govdelivery.com)

[Note: This editorial was published last week in azcentral.com, a “Part of the USA Today Network.” Bruce Whiting’s account takes place in Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, but the story is much the same for all federal forestlands in the western US, including Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. BZ]

Opinion: Four generations of my family helped responsibly thin the forests. Then came the lawsuits, and companies like mine simply could not survive.

Bruce Whiting
opinion contributor

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2023/10/26/logging-stop-forest-fires-industry-never-return/71306702007/

For the past 25 years, I have watched with great sadness as beautiful forest has burned, destroying homes, decimating communities and negatively impacting lives.

Even after all these years, I ask myself what else I could have done to prevent this tragedy.
My family spent four generations operating sawmills and working in the forests of Arizona, Utah and Colorado.

Today, our family-owned sawmills are all gone, and I only wish that there would be some way for the next generation to turn the tide and save our forests before they all burn.

Groups began fighting timber sales

Sixty-five years ago, my father moved our family to Fredonia to help operate the sawmill owned by my grandfather and his brothers.

Over the generations, we worked with thousands of wonderful employees, civic leaders and federal officials to care for the Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National Forests, along with forests in other states.

We prided ourselves in working as responsible stewards.

Then, in the early 1990s, I started losing the battle on forest thinning and was forced to close our sawmill in Payson.

Why Arizona simply cannot let its pine forests burn

Groups like the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and Center for Biological Diversity had made it their mission to block every timber sale offered by the U.S. Forest Service through the utilization of the legal process.

These groups openly admitted to me that they wanted to force the closure of all lumber companies and return the forest back to Mother Nature.

I had no other option but to close in Fredonia, and the results were that hundreds of hard-working men and women lost their jobs.

With little timber, we couldn’t survive

No matter how many times we tried to tell these groups, they persisted with their ill-conceived notion that we could revert back to letting Mother Nature thin the forest.

Regulations protecting the northern goshawk and the Mexican spotted owl, plus a string of environmentalist lawsuits, had ended government timber sales in our areas.

The national news heard about the plight of so many small lumber communities, and in 1995 I was interviewed by Tom Brokaw and his staff for a segment in a series about government red tape.

During our visit, we talked about Fredonia and how it — like many other small communities that were once thriving sawmill towns — were experiencing closure after closure, and that there would not be anyone left to work with the U.S. Forest Service.

I told them that we were starting the slippery slope toward massive fires that would destroy entire forests, homes and lives.

Then in 1997, I lost the final battle in Panguitch, Utah, to keep our last remaining sawmill open.
More than 25 years later, nearly all of the sawmills are gone and devastating fires, like the Dude Fire, are the norm.

Forests are being allowed to grow and grow, building up fuel loads, until disaster strikes.

The logging we need will never return

Where are the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and Southwest Forest Alliance when fires continue to break out all over the West?

Mother Nature has indeed taken vicious control over the forest, after we humans failed to care for it.
And even though it’s needed desperately, the forest product industry and sawmills will never return.

You would have to be crazy to invest that kind of money, not knowing if the Forest Service will be permitted to sell timber on land that needs thinning and cleanup, because extremists are there, waiting in the wings, to shut it down again.

They like to blame global warming so that they do not have to face the results of their actions, but let’s face it: the Forest Service’s options for wise forest management are extremely limited now that they no longer have the sawmill industry as a partner.

Bruce Whiting is the former president of Kaibab Industries and Kaibab Lumber Co.

We haven’t had much for our recreation friends lately.. so here is a link to a post by Jonathan Thompson in his Land Desk newsletter.  Apparently he is not a fan of (some? all?) OHVers.  Which is OK. Another writer might have said “OHV groups appeal decision which has had a lot of local input and compromise.”  I mean this is a good argument (if true) but some of us could apply that to say.. the Rock Springs proposed RMP alternative, or numerous lawsuits against collaboratively produced fuels treatment projects.  But do we know what litigants “really want”?  I would say that we do not.  This goes back to intention, and I’m not much of a fan of digging into other peoples’ brains.

The appellants claim the plan — which closes some motorized routes — violates federal law, is “arbitrary and capricious,” and is even unconstitutional.

But really they’re just miffed that they can’t continue to ride their OHVs just about everywhere.

The plan, long in the making, was intended to strike a balance between motorheads’ desire for unfettered access and the urgent need to mitigate the impacts of a burgeoning number of OHVs, especially side-by-sides, on public lands. But even this “balance” was tilted toward the OHVs: Of the 1,120 miles of existing motorized routes in the 469-square-mile planning area, more than 800 miles will remain open to motorized travel. Only 317 miles, or less than one-third of the total, will be closed.

But the Blue Ribbon Coalition, other motorized access groups, and, for that matter, most Utah politicians, have an ideological intolerance to any road closures whatsoever — whether those roads go anywhere or not. The state and various county commissions have spent millions of dollars fighting road closures. They’ve led illegal and damaging protest rides into closed areas and subjected BLM staffers to threats and intimidation. County sheriffs of a certain ilk have even attempted to press criminal charges against federal employees simply for doing their jobs.

This case is a bit different, because the local county commission favors the BLM compromise. In fact, they advocated for a more restrictive plan that would have closed 437 miles of trails. In 2021, the commission urged the BLM to create a rational plan that would remedy the existing situation, in which 95% of the planning area was within a half mile of a motorized route and less than 1% was a mile or more away from a road. “In particular, it is important to provide opportunities for quiet forms of recreation, out of earshot of motorized trails,” they wrote. “We think the travel plan should ensure that a reasonable percentage of the planning area is more than one mile from a road or motorized trail.”

Instead of wielding ol’ RS-2477, the 157-year-old defunct statute giving the right to build highways across public lands to access mines, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and friends are attempting other spurious arguments, such as:

• The plan violates the Dingell Act, the 2019 legislation designating Labyrinth Canyon as a wilderness area. Congress emphasized that the act was meant only to protect the designated wilderness areas, not “to create protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness areas.” The appellants claim this plan is an attempt to do just that. But the argument falls flat when you consider how many routes near the wilderness remain open. That’s no buffer.
• The closures violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Okay, this one’s so goofy I’m not even going to get into it. (Basically they’re saying the BLM’s district manager doesn’t have the authority to make any decisions because they aren’t elected or directly appointed by the president).
• The decision is arbitrary and capricious. Not! The BLM has been working on this plan for more than five years and has accepted and considered thousands of comments. If anything was arbitrary it was the establishment of more than 1,000 miles of roads and paths across the landscape over the last century.

Chances of the appeal actually going somewhere are pretty slim, given these arguments. It’s a colossal waste of time nevertheless.

It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story. I’m hoping some TSW readers will weigh in.