WE ARE NOT ALONE - OPPOSITION TO BLM CONSERVATION RULE GROWS

OUR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR

OPPOSITION TO BLM CONSERVATION RULE GROWS 

 

 I first want to thank all the growing number of OHV and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts, organizations, clubs, and businesses who have answered the call to send comment letters and alert their rider networks to the BLM regarding their Proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (PR).

 

I also want you to know that OHV recreation and other multiple-use interests are not fighting this battle alone.  Besides a number of OHV recreation and powersports associations submitting substantive comments urging the BLM to withdraw this ill-advised, counter-productive, most likely illegal, and highly divisive PR, we have support from the U.S. Small Business Administration and Governors from six western states that are challenging the plan.

 

SBA COMMENT LETTER

https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BLM-Conservation-Letter-FINAL.pdf

 

The Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration states, that BLM’s proposed rule may be contrary to the statutory land management principles laid out in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). Furthermore, BLM’s proposed rule does not adequately consider the impacts to small businesses as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

 GOVERNORS JOINT LETTER

https://governor.mt.gov/Governors-Letter-to-Sec-Haaland-on-BLM-conservation-rule-June-14-2023.pdf

 

The Governors’ letter states, This Proposed Rule, if adopted, could fundamentally alter the future management of BLM lands to the detriment of recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, renewable energy production, and other common uses on BLM lands.

 

The letter goes on to state, In 1976, Congress declared in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) that the BLM must manage its lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.

 

Yet this Proposed Rule seeks to define “conservation” as a “use” within FLPMA’s multiple use framework. This reframing of the term “multiple use” would contravene FLPMA and violate Federal case law in Public Land Council v. Babbitt, where the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the BLM lacks the statutory authority to prioritize conservation use to the exclusion of otheruses.

 

The Proposed Rule could push BLM lands into a protection-oriented management regime more akin to the National Park Service than an agency statutorily obligated to promote multiple use and sustained yield.

 

The letter closes by urging the BLM to set aside the Proposed Rule in favor of a new, collaborative process with states, local governments, and stakeholders coming to the table.

 

In closing, I urge each rider, family, club, or business to send in a comment letter – by the July 5 deadline - on how this PR will affect you including any economic impacts such as loss of employment if your shop closes or if you are a restaurant that is supported by recreation tourism that might be forced to close if outdoor recreation use is prohibited.

BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

BLM's Fort Sage OHV Area - Special Recreation Management Area

Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, CA

OPINION

 By Don Amador

 June 23, 2023

  

BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

 

 Nobody in the OHV public land policy arena supports conservation of federal lands to protect natural resources - while still providing access to environmentally sound multiple-use recreation – more than I.  A lot of that support includes active participation on trail stewardship, restoration of lands damaged by illegal OHV use, and pre-fire fuel reduction and post-fire recovery projects.

 

Most, if not all, of those projects are done in collaboration with the Forest Service, BLM, agency partners, and volunteers with grant support from the powersports industry and the California State Parks OHV Grant Program.

 

The proposed 2023 BLM planning rule redefines the term Conservation, creates Conservation leases managed by private sector interests, and emphasizes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as the sole designation for protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources.

Current Restoration Project at Fort Sage OHV Area

Conservation is a key element of land management today that protects natural resources and also provides sustainable recreation for OHV and other activities that families enjoy.  Traditional Conservation includes maintaining trails to reduce soil loss, restoration, and post-fire recovery.   However, under this rule proposal Conservation efforts would be restricted to “protection” and “restoration.”

 

The proposed rule would direct BLM staff to identify and mitigate “disturbances” and restore the land to its natural state.  Authorized officers would be required to avoid authorizing any use of the public lands that permanently impairs ecosystem resilience.  Staff would also be directed to review and mitigate OHV and other recreation uses at designated intensive use areas such as the BLM Fort Sage OHV Area in California and the BLM Knolls OHV Area in Utah.

Current Post Wildfire Conservation Project

Fort Sage OHV Area

The new mitigation hierarchy would be to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to all public land resources.

 

The new concept of private sector managed Conservation leases on BLM lands is also troubling for OHV access since the strict prohibition of OHV activity is a core tenet of most, if not all, private, state, and federal conservation lease plans and programs.

 

Many recreation and other multiple-use interests objected to the BLM’s 2017 2.0 Planning Rule because it created a vague set of hard to follow or implement standards that would have resulted in confusion, chaos and a loss of OHV access for casual use and permitted events such as amateur competition and club rides.  For those and other reasons, Congress and the President repealed the rule.

 

If this new rule is enacted it will also create confusion and chaos.  Agency staff will no longer have time to authorize permitted OHV events or do travel plans.  Designated OHV sites would most likely see a loss of opportunity including entire areas being closed due to new definitions.

 

I believe the agency should redraw this proposal that appears to have been crafted behind closed doors with little if any substantive input from diverse multi-use stakeholders.  The public, partners, and agency staff that we work with deserve better.

 

LINK to BLM PROPOSED PLANNING RULE – Public Comments Due by July 5, 2023

https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0001-0001

 

 

 

 

  

QWR OPINION - BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

BLM Fort Sage OHV Area - Special Recreation Management Area

BLM Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, CA

OPINION

 By Don Amador

 June 23, 2023

  

BLM 3.0 - SEISMIC SHIFT IN BLM PUBLIC LAND POLICY

 

Nobody in the OHV public land policy arena supports conservation of federal lands to protect natural resources - while still providing access to environmentally sound multiple-use recreation – more than I.  A lot of that support includes active participation on trail stewardship, restoration of lands damaged by illegal OHV use, and pre-fire fuel reduction and post-fire recovery projects.

 

Most, if not all, of those projects are done in collaboration with the Forest Service, BLM, agency partners, and volunteers with grant support from the powersports industry and the California State Parks OHV Grant Program.

 

The proposed 2023 BLM planning rule redefines the term Conservation, creates Conservation leases managed by private sector interests, and emphasizes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as the sole designation for protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources.

RESTORATION PROJECT UNDER CURRENT BLM STANDARDS

BLM Fort Sage OHV Area, Eagle Lake Field Office

 

Conservation is a key element of land management today that protects natural resources and also provides sustainable recreation for OHV and other activities that families enjoy.  Traditional Conservation includes maintaining trails to reduce soil loss, restoration, and post-fire recovery.   However, under this rule proposal Conservation efforts would be restricted to “protection” and “restoration.”

 

The proposed rule would direct BLM staff to identify and mitigate “disturbances” and restore the land to its natural state.  Authorized officers would be required to avoid authorizing any use of the public lands that permanently impairs ecosystem resilience.  Staff would also be directed to review and mitigate OHV and other recreation uses at designated intensive use areas such as the BLM Fort Sage OHV Area in California and the BLM Knolls OHV Area in Utah.

CURRENT POST FIRE RECOVERY CONSERVATION PROJECT

BLM Fort Sage OHV Area, Eagle Lake Field Office

 

The new mitigation hierarchy would be to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to all public land resources.

 

The new concept of private sector managed Conservation leases on BLM lands is also troubling for OHV access since the strict prohibition of OHV activity is a core tenet of most, if not all, private, state, and federal conservation lease plans and programs.

 

Many recreation and other multiple-use interests objected to the BLM’s 2017 2.0 Planning Rule because it created a vague set of hard to follow or implement standards that would have resulted in confusion, chaos and a loss of OHV access for casual use and permitted events such as amateur competition and club rides.  For those and other reasons, Congress and the President repealed the rule.

 

If this new rule is enacted it will also create confusion and chaos.  Agency staff will no longer have time to authorize permitted OHV events or do travel plans.  Designated OHV sites would most likely see a loss of opportunity including entire areas being closed due to new definitions.

 

I believe the agency should redraw this proposal that appears to have been crafted behind closed doors with little if any substantive input from diverse multi-use stakeholders.  The public, partners, and agency staff that we work with deserve better.

 

LINK to BLM PROPOSED PLANNING RULE – Public Comments Due by July 5, 2023

https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0001-0001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION ALERT – Comment on FS Special Use Permit Proposal

Don Amador on Event Trail 

Eldorado National Forest

ACTION ALERT – Comment on FS Special Use Permit Proposal

 

Comments due: June 20, 2023

 

 

I first want to thank my counterpart at AMA, Nick Haris, for bringing this issue to my attention as it has the potential to increase the red-tape and costs of obtaining a special use permit for OHV and even non-motorized clubs if fees are charged to attend a competition or group event.

 

The Forest Service has proposed to amend its special use regulations to update the processing and monitoring fee schedules based on current Agency costs; to provide for recovery of costs associated with processing special use proposals, as well as applications; and to remove the exemption for commercial recreation special use applications and authorizations that involve 50 hours or less to process or monitor.

 

 

LINK TO FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/19/2023-10436/land-uses-special-uses-cost-recovery-strict-liability-limit-and-insurance

 

LINK TO PROPOSED RULE

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-05-19/pdf/2023-10436.pdf

 

 

QWR believes the proposed rule amendments with their collective weight will disenfranchise important partners by creating a significant fiscal hardship on the motorcycle clubs, riders, and families that use FS lands.  Many clubs, are 501 (c) 7 volunteer-based social clubs or have some other non-profit classification. 

 

QWR believes the loss of the 50-hour exemption and other proposed, yet vague, fee increases will force many partner clubs to cease applying for a special use permit since events such as an amateur enduro  are many times a “break-even” proposition since the entry fees will not cover the club’s expense for items such as on-site medical services, communications, and other event materials.  This proposal threatens those important partnerships and the pre-event volunteer trail work they do.

 

In 2011, I was part of a national effort that called for reform of the permitting process because it had become so complicated and costly that most "non-profit club events" could simply not comply with the requirements. In addition, historic and popular competitive events occurring without problems had been subjected to arbitrary fees where permit fees were raised from $500 to $10,000 -$20,000 or more. In some areas, the application process to obtain a special use permit was used to prohibit and/or severely restrict otherwise allowable activities.

 

QWR is urging our motorized and non-motorized recreation group partners to review the proposal and  urge the agency to amend the proposal to address  concerns you may have.  The comment period ends on June 20, 2023.  Thanks for your review of this important topic.