Win a $74k+ Custom Side-by-Side & Trailer Package  –  Click Here

725 Miles of Routes Up for Grabs in Middle Gila, Arizona

Mar 16, 2023

Why you should submit here, even if you already have elsewhere!

We keep them honest. If everyone only comments through the government/agency site, we have to take their word on how many comments were received. By submitting through BRC, we create an independent record of our community’s response that can’t be buried or under-reported.

We protect your voice. If this fight ends up in court, having our own record of submitted comments means we don’t have to wait a year or more for a government agency to turn over documents. We can move quickly with proof that thousands of you spoke up.
We keep you in the loop. When you comment through our site, we can send you updates on what comes next. If you only use the government/agency site, you’re depending on them to tell you what happens next — and they won’t.

Double coverage matters. Even if you’ve already commented through the government/agency site, submitting through ours makes your voice count twice — once in their system, and once in ours. That way they know the OHV community is watching and tracking every move.

For years, BRC has been trusted to run action alerts like this. Thousands of members and supporters have used this system effectively to defend access to public lands. This isn’t about collecting your info — it’s about building the strongest, most transparent record possible to hold agencies accountable.

Why you should submit here, even if you already have elsewhere!

We keep them honest. If everyone only comments through the government/agency site, we have to take their word on how many comments were received. By submitting through BRC, we create an independent record of our community’s response that can’t be buried or under-reported.

We protect your voice. If this fight ends up in court, having our own record of submitted comments means we don’t have to wait a year or more for a government agency to turn over documents. We can move quickly with proof that thousands of you spoke up.

We keep you in the loop. When you comment through our site, we can send you updates on what comes next. If you only use the government/agency site, you’re depending on them to tell you what happens next — and they won’t.

Double coverage matters. Even if you’ve already commented through the government/agency site, submitting through ours makes your voice count twice — once in their system, and once in ours. That way they know the OHV community is watching and tracking every move.

For years, BRC has been trusted to run action alerts like this. Thousands of members and supporters have used this system effectively to defend access to public lands. This isn’t about collecting your info — it’s about building the strongest, most transparent record possible to hold agencies accountable.

Bureau of Land Management near Tucson has initiated public scoping for the Middle Gila South Access and Transportation Plan. This is located near Florence, AZ and other small towns and communities in Pinal, Pima, Cochise, and Gila counties, and includes approximately 725 miles of existing undesignated access routes. It is a popular area for full size 4×4 recreation.

There is already congressionally designated Wilderness such as White Canyon Wilderness and other restrictive areas within and surrounding the project area such as the Tonto National Forest. Over 700 miles of trails are used by a wide variety of recreation users. There also appears to be many trails that are missing from the inventory. It is during this scoping period of the process that it is most advantageous to share missing routes with the BLM.

BLM is in an “inventory” phase where they are addressing access needs and the purpose and need for each mileage of trail. Specific knowledge of the area and trails will be crucial in this planning process. They have developed three preliminary alternatives in addition to Alternative A, which is current management where no mileage of trails are officially designated within the project area of 212,000 acres. You can compare the various alternatives in the below maps. Alternative D states that its focus is to consider access needs and reduce user conflicts and resource impacts. Often times user conflicts aren’t properly defined, reported or documented but simply non-motorized groups complaining about motorized users. BLM is obligated to not favor one user group over another.

There is currently an issue of locked gates closing off access to users. This needs to be addressed as the BLM creates the official alternatives.

Alternative D states, “Under Alternative D, existing routes with limited function would be designated open to OHV use but not maintained. New access routes would be constructed to bypass locked gates blocking public access to existing route networks.”

Please submit a comment to the BLM to let them know that a modified Alternative D needs to be selected in order to accommodate use in the area and mitigate impacts.

Appreciate What We Do?

It takes a team of people to investigate, review, advocate and litigate in order to protect your rights to public lands. Please consider donating today so we can defend your ground.

Latest Articles
Grand Staircase-Escalante CRA: What Critics Are Getting Wrong

Grand Staircase-Escalante CRA: What Critics Are Getting Wrong

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen a familiar coordinated push claiming that congressional action on the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) management plan would be “undemocratic” and lead to “chaos.” This is the kind of push that usually feels more...

Categories