BLM Trail Canyon OHV Plan Near Kanab: How to Comment by July 22

Typically, riders learn about trail closures only after they occur. In this case, the routes remain open, the decision is pending, and there is still one day to submit comments.

The Bureau of Land Management is accepting comments through Wednesday, July 22, 2026, on its Draft Environmental Assessment for the Trail Canyon Travel Management Plan near Kanab, Utah. One alternative would reduce the fully open off-highway vehicle network by 124 miles and designate 141 miles in total as closed to public OHV use.

This outcome is not final. The BLM is considering four alternatives, has not selected a preferred option, and may modify or combine alternatives in its final decision. This is a genuine decision point, not a procedural comment period, so please submit your comments now.

The Trail Canyon Plan Covers Far More Than One Trail

Despite its name, Trail Canyon refers to a large travel-management area, not a single trail.

The planning area encompasses approximately 326,376 acres in Kane County, including roughly 182,766 acres of BLM-managed land. It is bounded by Dixie National Forest to the north, Zion National Park to the west, U.S. Highway 89 to the east, and the Utah-Arizona line to the south. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park are nearby.

The BLM evaluated approximately 469 miles of existing routes. The area supports side-by-side riding, hunting, sightseeing, dispersed camping, hiking, and backpacking, as well as access to trailheads and other recreation destinations.

According to the draft, 277 evaluated routes provide primary access to destinations such as undeveloped campsites, scenic overlooks, parking areas, trailheads and staging areas. About one-third of the routes provide access to dispersed campsites.

The current planning process stems partly from a 2017 settlement resolving legal objections to the BLM’s 2008 Kanab Field Office plan. The agency is now reconsidering which routes should be open, limited, or closed to public OHV travel. The official BLM project page includes the draft documents, maps and comment portal.

Four Alternatives Put Very Different Networks on the Ground

The route totals below come from Figure 1 and the alternative descriptions in the BLM’s June 2026 Draft Environmental Assessment.

Alternative B is the most restrictive option. The BLM says it would prioritize closures in wilderness study areas, BLM Natural Areas, lands with wilderness characteristics, threatened or endangered species habitat, and riparian areas.

Alternative C retains considerably more motorized access while closing or limiting selected routes to reduce resource effects and potential user conflicts.

Alternative D would keep approximately 95% of the evaluated network open. It prioritizes motorized access but closes routes where the BLM has identified resource concerns. The BlueRibbon Coalition supports a version of Alternative D, stating it provides the strongest realistic foundation toward maintaining route connectivity. This is BRC’s advocacy position, not the BLM’s preferred alternative.

The Draft’s Mileage Does Not Line Up Perfectly

The BLM document contains a significant numerical inconsistency.

The draft says the agency evaluated 469 miles. Its comparison chart shows Alternative A with 450 miles open and 19 miles closed, for a total of 469 miles. However, the Alternative A narrative says 473 miles would be open.

The background section helps explain the discrepancy. It says the 2008 plan originally opened 449 miles, before approximately 24 miles of adjudicated R.S. 2477 rights-of-way were added, resulting in a 473-mile figure. Those miles do not appear to be handled consistently in the draft’s apples-to-apples alternative comparison.

Therefore, the most accurate comparison uses the 469-mile evaluated network shown in Figure 1. In this comparison, fully open mileage decreases from 450 miles in Alternative A to 326 miles in Alternative B, a difference of 124 miles.

Since Alternative B includes two miles designated for e-bike use only, stating that 124 miles are removed from fully open status is more accurate than suggesting all would be closed to every form of motorized use.

The BLM should clarify these totals in its final document. Riders are encouraged to highlight this variation in their comments to ensure the agency addresses it directly.

Alternative B Would Affect More Than Trail Mileage

A route’s value is not always measured by its length. A short connector can determine whether riders have a complete loop, reach a campsite or access miles of routes on adjoining land.

The BLM’s recreation analysis says Alternative B would leave 182 routes providing OHV access to recreation destinations, a 29% reduction from Alternative A. The agency also estimates that the number of access routes associated with camping would fall 27%, while access associated with hunting would fall 49%.

Inside the Moquith Mountain Special Recreation Management Area, Alternative B would reduce OHV-open route mileage from approximately 29 miles to 15 miles. It would close the evaluated half-mile route inside the Orderville Canyon management area.

The tradeoff is that Alternative B would produce the lowest potential for motorized and nonmotorized user conflict, according to the agency. It could also reduce disturbance around cultural sites, wildlife habitat, fragile soils and wilderness-quality landscapes.

An OHV-closed designation does not necessarily close the land to everyone. It prohibits public OHV travel on the designated route. Hiking and horseback riding may continue, while ranchers, landowners, permit holders and other authorized users may receive or retain separate access.

Alternative D Preserves Access, but Comments Need More Than Voting

Alternative D would leave 446 miles open and designate 23 miles closed. Compared with the draft’s 450-mile current-management baseline, that represents only about four miles removed from fully open status.

It also maintains all evaluated routes for OHV use inside the Moquith Mountain and Orderville Canyon recreation areas. The BLM says Alternative D would preserve a level of OHV-supported recreation access similar to current management.

The trade-off is a denser motorized network, greater potential for user conflict, and potentially greater effects on wildlife habitat, natural sound, and the experience of intact landscapes.

Based on the draft, Alternative D appears to provide the best foundation to sustain motorized connectivity while permitting route-specific mitigation where the BLM identifies legitimate concerns. It is important to submit comments that go beyond simply stating support for Alternative D and to explain what new information the agency should consider.

The public comment period is not a vote. The BLM evaluates the substance of comments, not the number of identical submissions. Ensure your comment is specific enough to inform the agency’s review.

How to Submit a Useful Comment by July 22

The BLM requires that comments be received by July 22. Given the approaching deadline, riders should use the web portal or email rather than postal mail, and are encouraged to submit comments promptly.

Online

1. Open the Trail Canyon Travel Management Plan project page.
2. Select Documents.
3. Find the Draft EA comment entry and select Participate Now.
4. Enter the requested information and submit the comment before the deadline.

Email

Send comments to:

blm_ut_kn_mail@blm.gov

Use a clear subject line such as:

Trail Canyon TMP EA — DOI-BLM-UT-P020-2026-0003-EA

The BLM warns that comments, including personal identifying information, may become publicly available. It accepts requests to withhold personal information but does not guarantee that it can do so.

What to Put in the Comment

A useful comment should provide the BLM with specific information to evaluate or correct. Use the following points to strengthen your comment and increase its effectiveness. Explain the connection to the area honestly. That could include past trips, planned travel, hunting, camping, guided tours, accessibility needs, or concern about connected motorized recreation on federal land.

• Identify a route number, location, or alternative whenever possible. Use the BLM map and route reports rather than guessing at local trail names.
• Describe what the route provides. Examples include loop connectivity, access to a campsite, hunting access, a trailhead, an overlook, a neighboring route system, or an option appropriate for older or mobility-limited visitors.
• Address the draft’s analysis. Riders can ask the BLM to clarify the 450-versus-473-mile baseline, explain why a complete closure is needed on a particular route, or examine whether the plan adequately measures lost connectivity.
• Suggest a practical alternative. Seasonal restrictions, width limits, signage, barriers against off-route travel, monitoring, or a short reroute may protect a resource without eliminating the entire motorized connection.

Individuals who have not visited Kanab are still welcome to comment, but should not claim local knowledge they do not possess. A truthful comment about a planned trip, national public-land access, mobility, network connectivity, or the management of motorized dispersed camping is more effective than a generic request to “keep everything open.” Submit a comment that reflects your actual use and concerns.

ORBA’s Trail Canyon guidance similarly recommends determining specific routes, explaining how they are used and describing the real effect of a closure.

The Economic Assumption Deserves Local Evidence

The draft estimates approximately 445,796 annual visitor days in the Trail Canyon area and models roughly $30.6 million in regional economic output. The key takeaway is that it assumes visitation will remain essentially the same across all alternatives.

This does not necessarily mean the estimate is incorrect, but it is an assumption, not evidence, that major route changes would have no business impact.

Local outfitters, lodging operators, campgrounds, dealers and event organizers who expect particular closures to change trip length, bookings or customer demand should provide actual evidence. This comment period is the place to put that information into the administrative record.

The Decision Has Not Been Made

No new Trail Canyon closures have taken effect through this draft process. After the comment period, the BLM can revise its analysis, select one alternative, modify an alternative, or combine route designations from multiple alternatives.

The agency has not published a final-decision date.

For riders, the key point is that Alternative B would substantially change the Kanab-area motorized network, whereas Alternative D would keep nearly all routes open. The most effective response is a specific, accurate comment that identifies which access is important, explains why, and suggests how resource concerns could be addressed without removing valuable routes.

Comments must be received by Wednesday, July 22, 2026.

Sources

• Bureau of Land Management — Trail Canyon Travel Management Plan Project Home — updated June 25, 2026 — Confirmed the July 22 deadline, submission methods, project status and public-information warning.
• Bureau of Land Management — Trail Canyon Draft EA Documents — June 2026 — Confirmed the alternatives, route mileage, recreation effects, socioeconomic assumptions, decision scope and mileage inconsistency.
• Bureau of Land Management — BLM Advances Travel Management Planning Across Utah With Three Initiatives — June 22, 2026 — Confirmed the 326,376-acre planning area, approximately 182,766 BLM-managed acres, 469 evaluated route miles and comment dates.
• BlueRibbon Coalition — Trail Canyon Travel Management Plan Could Close Off-Road Trails Near Kanab — June 22, 2026 — Confirmed BRC’s support for a version of Alternative D and its calculation that Alternative B affects 124 currently open miles.
• Off-Road Business Association — ORBA Action Alert: Trail Canyon Travel Management Plan — July 13, 2026 — Confirmed route-specific commenting recommendations and the official email submission method.