Out of 85 park system units in the sprawling Intermountain Region, the National Park Service has singled out only those in Utah with an order that they open their park roads to ATVs/NPS

Editor's note: This updates with comment from National Park Service.

Work for the National Park Service in Utah and you best be prepared to serve the best interests of Utah politicians.

Don't think that's the case? 

Why else, after Park Service staff at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area spent nine years working on the requisite environmental studies and public comment periods to allow ATV use in the NRA, would the agency's regional director issue a directive that all national parks in the state open their dirt and paved roads to ATVs without similar studies as seemingly required under the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 1.5).

(b) Except in emergency situations, a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely affect the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, or is of a highly controversial nature, shall be published as rulemaking in the Federal Register. -- 36 CFR 1.5

Chip Jenkins, normally the superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park in Washington who has been "acting" as the Intermountain Region's director, didn't return a phone call Sunday to discuss his order or say why it applied only to the Utah park units and not any of the other 72 units in his region. On Monday he had a member of his communications staff, Vanessa Lacayo, call to explain the action, which she said was more than a decade in making.

The directive, she said, can be traced back to 2008 when the Utah Legislature passed a law that allowed licensed and registered ATVs access to all state and county roads. Since that law was passed, the Park Service has been in talks with the Interior Department's solicitor's office, park superintendents, Utah officials, and ATV groups to see how those vehicles could be allowed in Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion national parks, along with the national monuments in the state.

"We’ve been having these conversations with our solicitor’s office, with our parks, for several years now. And ultimately that’s kind of where we landed," Lacayo said of the decision to open the parks to ATVs. "In order to be legally defensible, we have to default to 36 CFR 4.2, which aligns us with the state on this issue.”

The reason why Glen Canyon staff went through NEPA with its ORV plan, the spokeswoman said, was because it went beyond just travel on roads in the NRA.

While 36 CFR 4.2 does direct federal agencies to bow to state vehicle laws, the regional director still is overlooking the controversial nature of ATVs and the requirements of 36 CFR 1.5. Look across other public lands in Utah and elsewhere in the West managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service and evidence of illegal ATV travel is easy to spot. Then look at some of the advertising for these vehicles. ATV manufacturers say their vehicles allow users to take "command of the outdoors" with vehicles that offer "unmatched off-road capability," and pair those words with brawny vehicles in off-road settings. These vehicles were designed for off-road fun, not cruising on a park road.

Indeed, the Park Service long had blocked ATV access on dirt roads through Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion national parks, along with the national monuments in Utah, concerned that they couldn't be adequately policed.

"No reasonable level of law enforcement presence would be sufficient to prevent ATV and OHV use off roads," reads a 2008 Park Service memo obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune. "Park rangers will have no ability to pursue and apprehend vehicle users off road without adding to the damage they cause to park resources.”

That remains the case. While Lacayo did say the Park Service could reverse itself if damage occurs and block ATV access, why not go through the NEPA process upfront and more deeply explore the issues with public involvement rather than trying to shut the door after problems arise?

"We’re aligning ourselves with state law, but we still absolutely have the discretion to put forward a closure where that makes sense," she said.

Think all ATV drivers will stay on approved roads, especially when the parks don't have adequate staff to monitor visitor use? Look no further than Death Valley National Park, where off-road vehicles have fashioned donuts in the dry playa of "The Racetrack," or look at what happened at Joshua Tree National Park early this year during the partial government shutdown.

Arches National Park long has banned ATV and UTV use, pointing out how they can damage natural resources and be a noisy nuisance to other park visitors, and, frankly, are inappropriate in the parks.

This policy is based on the potential these machines possess for resource damage to soils, vegetation and wildlife, and for the visual and noise disturbance to other people and on requirements of executive orders 11644 and 11989 and 36 CFR 1.5 and 4.10. Executive Orders 11164 and 11989 require land managers to reasonably regulate the use of vehicles on federal lands.

The National Park Service areas have been given the mandate of preservation by Congress. Public use must be balanced against: (1) the preservation of the natural and cultural resources in perpetuity; (2) the enjoyment of the parks by people visiting the parks for the greatest common good and in keeping within the purposes for which the parks were established; (3) safety for visitors to the parks, to the operators themselves, and to other people; and (4) minimization of conflicts among the various users of park lands. Also, OHVs are often ridden as a recreation in themselves and as such are considered an inappropriate use in the parks.

Canyonlands National Park's ban against ATVs goes back to 1995, and it took hold after three years of study and public comment. What will the Park Service do if other Western states, seeing what Utah accomplished, pass similar ATV laws? Here's what the staff at Death Valley currently says regarding ATVs and other off-road vehicles:

To protect the fragile and beautiful desert environment for future generations of visitors, Death Valley National Park does not allow OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) use within park boundaries. ATVs, Quads, Dune Buggies, Sand Rails and California "Green Sticker" vehicles may not be operated in the park.

John Freemuth, the Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Cecil Andrus Endowed Chair of Environment and Public Lands at Boise State University, said he'd be surprised if the Park Service isn't sued over this directive.

"Since there was no public comment period and this has a strong  potential to degrade park resources I am sure there will be a lawsuit focusing on the lack of an (environmental impact statement)," he said Sunday. "This is no different than the push for mountain bikes in wilderness, and the vain GoPro thrill seeker that has been created by technology and Outside Magazine, for all its good journalism. Also, it asks the eternal question of what parks are for. These activities can be done anywhere, but are there places best suited without them? I’d say so."

The professor, who earlier in his career spent time as a ranger at Glen Canyon, added that, "Having been a ranger at Glen there is no way you will catch all the bad actors and we know, empirically, that is some percentage of these folks."

As for the Park Service's rationale that it simply was following the CFR requirements for adhering to state laws pertaining to traffic, Freemuth was of the opinion that "that was written more in terms of consistent on road law enforcement rather than allowing an activity that clearly could create conflict with leaving parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The sway of Utah politicians isn't limited to ATV use in the parks. The state's congressional delegation played a huge role in getting President Trump to erase the boundaries of both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, and when Arches proposed a plan to reduce overcrowding in the park with a reservation system, it disappeared and was replaced with a call for more study of options. One option, proposed by Utah's governor, was to blaze a second access road into the park. There's been no public update on where that effort is today.

And might Utah politicians be keeping Zion officials from implementing a reservation system of some sort to cope with crowds there? It's been more than three years since the park released a report that stated, "increasing visitation has led to concerns among park managers about overcrowding, infrastructure limitations, and resource protection. Increasing visitation also affects the availability of recreational opportunities for visitors."

And it was two years ago, during the summer of 2017, that Zion offered its proposed reservation system for public consideration. But since then, silence.

Sadly, politics, both state and national, are grabbing too much sway over a National Park System that in theory is equally shared by all Americans and which, by design, was to be overseen by an agency mandated to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."