BLM 2021 Travel Management Plan
Summary: (See more details below.) After several years and several BLM drafts, each followed by comments from the Pryors Coalition and others, BLM released its final Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the Pryors in April 2021. Although, for the first time ever, BLM’s Plan designated a few foot-trails, we found it very inadequate in providing hiking opportunities – compared to more than ten times as many miles of designated motorized routes.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) we had 60 days to appeal the Plan to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). We did so. Then, according to the CFR, BLM had 60 days to Answer or Appeal. They did not. Instead, BLM and their attorney took advantage of the quasi-legal (or faux-legal) aura of this appeal to bureaucratically stall the process for more than 10 months! (This administrative appeal is not litigation. BLM, their attorney, and the IBLA are all part of the Department of Interior.)
Finally, in April 2022, a year after the release of the Travel Plan, BLM submitted their Answer to our Appeal. According to the CFR we were allowed 15 days to reply to BLM’s answer, but actually says that appellants are “discouraged” from doing so. However the substance in BLM’s very belated Answer compelled a reply. So we did.
Now we wait until the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reviews our Appeal, BLM’s Answer, and our Reply. We expected it would be several months before the IBLA made a decision. (Still waiting March, 2023 - 21 months after our Appeal - 10 months after BLM’s Answer to our Appeal and our final Reply.)
More details in Reverse Chronological Order
May 3, 2022: We submitted a Reply to BLM’s Answer. Despite the fact that BLM took ten months to Answer our Appeal, we had only 15 days to Reply (according to the Code of Federal Regulations). We did so. See our Reply.
April 19, 2022: BLM finally submitted their Answer to our June 17, 2021 appeal of their April 28, 2021 Pryors Travel Plan
According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) we were required to submit any appeal of BLM’s final TMP decision within 60 days. We did - June 21, 2021. Then, according to the CFR, BLM was required to Answer our appeal within 60 days after our appeal. BLM didn’t. That would have been late August 2021. Instead they bureaucratically stalled the process for ten months.
BLM and IBLA Stall: Instead of submitting an Answer to our Appeal in the allotted 60 days, BLM filed a Motion to Dismiss our Appeal. We, of course, submitted an objection two days later. BLM also complained that we had not submitted Statements of Standing. (It had to be obvious to BLM that we had Standing to appeal given our years of involvement in the planning process.).
It took four months for the IBLA to respond – including:
“We therefore deny BLM’s motion for summary dismissal … Although Appellants were not required to file a statement of standing …. we order Appellants to file a brief addressing each Appellant organization’s standing to appeal BLM’s decision.”
The CFR did not say we needed to file a Statement of Standing with our Appeal. The IBLA allowed us 14 days to submit Statements of Standing. Which we did.
It took nearly another three months for the IBLA to conclude that we did have standing, and that BLM must submit an Answer to our Appeal within 60 days – beginning then.
June 21, 2021: The Pryors Coalition et al. submitted a Statement of Reasons for appealing BLM’s 2021 Travel Plan Decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). Among other issues we claim that the TMP does not satisfy BLM’s stated purpose and need for the TMP. It perpetuates the management focus for the Pryor as a motorsport park with a 122 mile network of open motor vehicle routes, but fails to designate a network of wheel-free, non-mechanized foot-trails (human or horse). Only 11 miles of such trails are designated, Also we think the EA misrepresents the impact of the motorized network on natural and cultural resources of this very special landscape. See our full Statement of Reasons for Appeal.
On the first page of their environmental assessment for the Pryors Travel Management Plan, BLM writes (emphasis added):
“The purpose of the action is to provide a logical and sustainable travel and transportation network that addresses the diversity of access and recreational needs of the public...,” and “The multiple use mission of the BLM requires consideration of diverse and competing recreational interests, including hiking, mountain biking, equestrian use, various forms of motorized uses, and newly emerging uses such as e-bikes”
Elsewhere in the EA and TMP BLM writes:
“BLM proposes to design and implement a trail system incorporating existing routes that would focus on a balance of motorized and non-motorized use....” (EA page 2-8, TMP 2&3).
“Specifically, desired future conditions include:
“A wide variety of trail-based recreational opportunities (e.g., hiking, ... horseback riding) in a manner that reduces existing user conflicts.” (TMP page 11, EA page 95)
Yet nowhere in the three years of planning documents is there any indication that anyone from BLM ever asked, let alone answered, this question for any route:
Which designation for this route - hiking, or motorized use - best satisfies the stated purpose and need of the Travel Management Plan and the desired future conditions?
BLM’s Pryor Mountain Travel Plan, which we have appealed, designates 122 miles of motorized routes versus 11 miles of foot-trails.
April 28, 2021: BLM released the final Pryor Mountain Travel Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Record of Decision.
December 12, 2020: The Pryors Coalition et al. submitted a detailed comment letter on BLM’s updated 2020 Draft TMP. We objected, among other things, to the inadequate number and miles of designated wheel-free foot-trails, and again proposed several routes to be designated foot-trails. BLM had even dropped some foot-trails they had proposed. We also objected to an excessive number (~60 miles) of routes designated for administrative use without a clearly identified purpose. We showed how BLM had misinterpreted their own own data which indicated the TMP would increase impacts on soils, bighorn sheep, sage-grouse and cultural resources. See our full 2020 Comment Letter.
November 13, 2020: BLM released an updated Draft Pryors Travel Plan and Environmental Assessment for public comment.
December 6, 2019: The Pryors Coalition et al. submitted a detailed comment letter on BLM’s 2019 Draft TMP. See our full 2019 Comment Letter.
November 15, 2019: BLM released a Draft Pryors Travel Plan and Environmental Assessment for public comment. There was a very confused roll-out of the Draft TMP. In response to our query, a July 2016 email from Dave Lefevre, BLM’s Billings Field Office Manager, included:
“We are waiting on approval to post the draft EA. It's hard to explain. I'll give you a heads up when it is ready.”
The first we heard of the draft TMP/EA was November 14, 2019, but it had vanished from BLM’s website. About 8 AM, November 15, after we asked, Dave Lefevre emailed:
“The travel plan was temporarily taken down to incorporate new direction from a recent Secretarial order. It will be made available again in the very near future and we will accommodate public comment for an extended period to make sure everyone has a chance to provide input. Sorry for the confusion.”
Then about noon the same day he emailed:
“The EA is back on line and available for comment. The comment period was extended to 12/6.”
This was only 21 days to study the draft and comment. Some of this confusion may be due to difficulty with the William Perry Pendley crowd in BLM’s Washington D.C. office. That might also explain why the TMP is so bad.
December 3, 2018: While BLM was beginning work toward the 2019 Draft TMP, we had several face-to-face meetings regarding our hopes for the upcoming Pryors Travel Plan including that it be a collaborative effort with the Forest Service. In December 2018 we sent BLM and CGNF a detailed letter, including rationale and maps, of our proposal for abundant motorized and motor-free recreation opportunities in the Pryors. Our proposal included a comprehensive network of non-motorized and non-mechanized horse and human foot-trails. See our December 2018 Letter.
Before 2018 — The 2015 Resource Management Plan (RMP): The 2013 draft RMP included site-specific travel planning. At that time we objected to its failure to include any non-motorized routes. The 2015 proposed final RMP did designate a few non-motorized routes in its travel management section. We objected to the inadequate designation of foot-trails. All site-specific travel planning was removed from the approved 2015 RMP. But this early travel planning became the starting point for later travel Planning in the Pryors.