Council approves Garfield County grader, presses for limits; recommends coordination and alternatives for Sanpete trail dozer

The Utah WHP Advisory Council narrowly approved a Garfield County equipment request after an extended debate about whether a large grader or dozer would alter the character of two‑track recreational routes.

Members raised concerns that using a heavy blade across many miles could transform narrow, two‑track experiences into wider, graded roads. "I have some heartburn about just dropping the blade on 400 miles of two tracks — that would change the experience for a lot of people," said Mike Cook, the OHV Council safety representative. Several members urged alternatives such as leasing equipment for a season or buying a tracked skid‑steer with attachments that would allow spot maintenance without wholesale regrading.

Council members emphasized the need for clearer application details — especially maps, the exact mileage proposed for work, and documentation of any matching funds. Staff noted some applications had been submitted quickly after an over‑cycle transfer and recommended applicants provide more complete bids in future rounds.

The final approval for Garfield County includes contract language and stipulations: the funding is conditioned on coordination with local user groups and a requirement that work be limited to already‑maintained roads and spot maintenance rather than wholesale regrading. Council members also requested that Garfield provide maps showing specific miles to be worked and consider leasing as a lower‑cost alternative.

On a related item, Sanpete County’s request for a trail dozer prompted members to ask staff and the county to consult with the Manti‑La Sal Forest Service and local OHV groups (Castle Country OHV and related clubs) to determine the most suitable machine. Several members said a mid‑sized tracked skid‑steer with a dozer blade and attachments would better meet trail maintenance needs and reduce the risk of unintended regrading. The council approved Sanpete’s funding contingent on contract language requiring that coordination and permitting the county to select the most cost‑effective machine that meets the approved scope.

What remains: applicants who receive equipment awards were asked to provide clarifying documentation (maps, specific locations and miles, and vendor bids) before final reimbursement. Staff said they will draft contract language reflecting the council’s conditions and stated that award recipients must submit standard invoices and proof of payment for RTP reimbursement.