Last month I challenged the claims that staff of Emery County made in their article reassuring recreationists that displaying motorized routes on the Emery County bill’s map would protect access. When that article was written, they knew that displaying such routes would be for reference only (with no legal significance) in the bill’s next version. In fact, the latest version of the bill omits the routes entirely, yet the Emery County staff’s latest article still declares that they “have delivered on the promise to protect motorized routes” merely by naming the San Rafael Swell a “recreation area” instead of a “conservation area.” (See No New Roads… published on October 11th.)
Looking beyond the press releases to the bill itself (S. 2809 ANS), you’ll find that it doesn’t even acknowledge motorized recreation as part of the recreation area’s purpose. In fact, the entire bill refers to motorized travel only in terms of restrictions, not access. Most notably, “No new permanent or temporary roads or other motorized vehicle routes shall be constructed within the Recreation Area after the date of enactment of this Act.” Motorized enthusiasts have proposed very few new routes in the Swell since it became limited to designated routes fifteen years ago, but we cannot accept forever prohibiting BLM from even considering a new mile of route for automobile, OHV (4WD, ATV, motorcycle), or e-bike (electric-assisted bicycle) use. And, since this prohibition has no administrative exemption, would it preclude BLM from constructing a non-motorized trail with motorized equipment?
The Emery County staff’s latest article asserts that no motorized routes have been established or even realigned since 1989 yet, there are many examples to the contrary. In the Temple Mountain area alone, reroutes have been done on the Red Trail motorized singletrack, Behind The Reef ATV trail, and 4WD trails like Upper Little Wild Horse, not to mention Goblin Valley Road before it was paved. In terms of new trail, a couple more miles would need to connect the motorcycle trails with Goblin Valley Road so that Orange Trail isn’t the only feeder, thereby dispersing tread wear and creating a loop.
The article claims that the 1989 realignment would be allowed by the bill’s permission to perform “necessary maintenance to existing roads.” Oddly this permission omits trails, but the omission is moot, as maintenance is not what’s in jeopardy. Ride with Respect has performed over three-dozen reroutes on motorcycle/ATV/4WD trails, nearly all of which were a win-win for riders and natural resources. The majority of them were on BLM land, where BLM went through environmental assessments because the agency did not regard the reroutes as maintenance. Therefore the bill’s construction ban would likely hobble the BLM from responding to flash floods, rock slides, and other erosion in a way that improves design rather than just throwing good money after bad design. Beyond natural disasters, building sustainable trails can be a tremendously powerful tool for safety, recreation, and conservation.
At the October 2nd commission meeting, an Emery County consultant was asked “In the bill, we can build new trails?” The consultant responded “Actually in the bill we identify and direct BLM to go out and identify and create, not only new trails, but specifically for bicyclists because bicyclists are not allowed to go in Wilderness and so forth, and so we felt it was very important for us to identify that particular user group.” Although the conversation had centered around motorized recreation, the consultant inexplicably didn’t mention that new motorized trails would be banned from any future consideration. As a final question regarding the Emery County bill, the consultant was asked if “we could lose one mile of road or trails if this passes?” The consultant responded “If we do, it will be because of the current settlement, not because of our legislation.” Actually the bill is quite likely to close routes because, for example, a route could be deemed potentially damaging to an adjacent cultural site. Normally BLM would work with OHV volunteers to reroute away from the cultural site, as was done in several spots around Chimney Rock. However in the proposed Swell recreation area, this solution would be banned, leaving the BLM with little choice when faced with potential damage to cultural sites, water sources, wildlife habitat, etc.
Even President Obama’s proclamation for Bears Ears National Monument left some discretion for route construction. Likewise the Utah Public Lands Initiative left such discretion, plus it would have protected access in perpetuity on a route-specific basis. In the Emery County bill, OHV riders trimmed their request to protect access on a net basis across the Swell. Instead, the latest version of the bill just offers to call the Swell a “recreation” area along with words like “western heritage” and “historic mining.” That makes for a nice entrance sign, but behind the sign, the place would be worse off.
This blanket ban on even considering the construction of any motorized route is an unprecedented poison pill that’s being spoon fed to us as medicine against a monument. Previous bills were developed by Emery County collaboratively, but the current bill has been doctored up beyond recognition. If the sponsors can’t restore balance for diverse recreation opportunities and flexibility for effective management, then they should go back to the drawing board, as their proposed cure is worse than the potential illness.
Clif Koontz
Moab
ETV 10 News invites you to share your opinions with its readers. Letters to the editor should include your full name, address and phone number. Only your name and the city you live in will be published. We do not publish anonymous letters. Letters can be emailed to sdraper@emerytelcom.com or mailed to ETV 10 News, 625 E 100 N, Price, UT 84501.
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in Letters to the Editor are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of ETV 10 News or Emery Telcom.