UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No: _________________________

TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,
SAN JUAN TRAIL RIDERS, PUBLIC
ACCESS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE; SAN JUAN NATIONAL
FOREST; KARA CHADWICK, Forest Supervisor;
DEREK PADILLA, Dolores District Ranger,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

___________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief addressing the Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) Project Final Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement and associated actions (the “Decision”) issued by the Dolores Ranger District, San Juan National Forest (the “Forest Service”). The Decision was issued on July 30, 2018.
2. The Decision reduces trails designated for single track motorized travel by roughly 30 percent. These reductions, unsupported by logic and contrary to law, will create substantial adverse impacts to the human environment and to Plaintiffs, their members, and other recreationists. These impacts include concentration of motorized travel on remaining routes, disruption of connectivity within the trail network, impacts to recreational and aesthetic interests increased risk to public safety, socioeconomic impacts and disruption of access, including to the town of Rico.
3. The trails closed by the Decision have received environmentally conscious and sustainable motorcycle travel for over 40 years. As part of the evolving and increasing scrutiny of recreation on Forest Service lands, the agency in 2009 entered an order that eliminated cross- country motorized vehicle travel in the Rico West Dolores area. Not satisfied with that development, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Colorado Chapter, represented by the University of Colorado Law School Clinic, filed a lawsuit, seeking to close the long-traveled trails in the Rico West Dolores area to motorcycle use. They moved for a preliminary injunction, which was denied, and wound the case through the Tenth Circuit of Appeals, which ruled, in a decision by then Judge Gorsuch, that Backcountry “may be a victim of its own success” and that the case be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Colorado Chapter v. U.S. Forest Service, Case Nos. 13-1216 & 14-1137 (10th ), Order and Judgment date May 27, 2015. Part of the basis for that ruling was that the Forest Service was working toward “a more permanent replacement policy” for the Rico West Dolores area. Id.
4. The Forest Service did undertake a process to institute this “more permanent” policy. This process culminated in the Decision. While the Forest Service was successful in defending the existing management scheme in the above-described litigation, it nevertheless determined in the “replacement policy” process to make significant changes. These changes coincided with many items on the “wish lists” of Backcountry and other interested parties such as special use permittees, seasonal “residents” and the world renown Dunton Hot Springs ecotourism resort, including closures near the Resort, in Bear Creek, around the town of Rico, and along Ryman Creek which provides an important connection to riders in the Telluride area.
5. Plaintiffs, and others, objected to the Draft Record of Decision in accordance with applicable regulations. The objectors and the Forest Service explored alternative scenarios, but in the end these discussions did not produce a resolution, and the Forest Service formalized the closures through the Decision.
6. Plaintiffs have little recourse but to seek judicial action to set aside and declare unlawful at least certain aspects of the Decision, and to determine the appropriate remedy, guidance and/or interim management direction for the Forest Service on remand.
7. This action arises under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4331, et seq. (“NEPA”); the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq. (“NFMA”); the Forest Service Travel Management Rule, 36 C.F.R. part 212; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq. (the “APA”), and any implementing regulations for these statutes.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the laws of the United States. The conduct complained of creates an actual, justiciable controversy and is made reviewable under the APA.
9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a substantial number of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred, or, a substantial part of the property that is the subject of these claims is situated, within the District of Colorado. The Dolores District is comprised of lands within Dolores and Montezuma Counties in Colorado.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public land managers, working with land management agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to preserve the sport of trail riding and multi-use recreation. TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that land managers allocate access to a fair and equitable percentage of public lands for diverse multi-use recreational opportunities. TPA members have used, and hope in the future to use, motorized and nonmotorized means, including off-highway vehicles, horses, mountain bikes, and hiking, to access federal lands throughout the United States, including in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest.
11. Plaintiff San Juan Trail Riders (“SJTR”) is a Colorado nonprofit corporation with approximately 400 members. SJTR is based in Durango and its members are primarily from Colorado. SJTR’s goals and purposes include to provide an organized network for trail enthusiasts, to promote active participation in off-highway vehicle management, to maintain a focused dialogue with the San Juan National Forest, to educate land managers about “Tread Lightly” and other trail conservation practices, and to encourage cooperation and coordination between user groups and engaged interests. SJTR members have used and have concrete plans in the future to use motorized and non-motorized means, including off-highway vehicles, horses, mountain bikes, and hiking, to access federal lands throughout the United States, including Forest Service-managed lands in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest.
12. Plaintiff Public Access Preservation Association (“PAPA”) is a Colorado nonprofit corporation with approximately 300 participants. PAPA is based in Telluride and its members are primarily from Colorado. PAPA protects and promotes public land access, primarily through advocacy and on-the-ground support such as volunteering for trail projects, event support or similar activities as authorized by the Forest Service and other PAPA members regularly use Forest Service lands throughout the United States, including the Rico West Dolores area, for recreational and aesthetic purposes including off-highway vehicle, motorcycle, mountain bike, equestrian, or hiking travel on trails or primitive roads.
13. Defendant United States Forest Service is a federal agency within the United States Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service is charged with administering and overseeing United States National Forest System lands in accordance with applicable law.
14. Defendant San Juan National Forest is a subunit of the United States Forest Service within the agency’s Rocky Mountain Region covering approximately 1.8 million acres of land in the southwest corner of Colorado. The Forest’s main office is located in Durango.
15. Defendant Kara Chadwick is the Forest Supervisor for the San Juan National Forest. She is the supervisor for the Forest and is the ultimate authority for the procedures, actions and decisions of the Forest and is ultimately charged with ensuring the Forest complies with applicable law. She is sued solely in her official capacity.
16. Defendant Derek Padilla is the District Ranger for the Dolores Ranger District, which is a subunit of the San Juan National Forest and contains the entire Rico West Dolores Area. Mr. Padilla signed the Final Record of Decision and is responsible for interpreting and implementing the Decision’s prescriptions on the Rico West Dolores area. He is sued solely in his official capacity.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

17. The APA addresses and regulates the function of executive branch administrative agencies within our system of open government. Among such functions, the APA represents a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States and outlines the circumstances in which “final agency action” may be subject to judicial review, as well as the standards of review to be applied in such challenges. Since many statutes and regulations do not provide for a private right of action, the APA provides the jurisdictional basis for judicial review of administrative decisions by federal land management agencies applying statutes like NEPA and NFMA and regulations with force and effect of law to public lands in places like the Forest.
18. NFMA provides the statutory framework for management of the National Forest System. In NFMA and other statutes, “Congress has consistently acknowledged that the Forest Service must balance competing demands in managing National Forest System lands. Indeed, since Congress’ early regulation of the national forests, it has never been the case that “the national forests were…to be ‘set aside for non-use.’” The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 989 (9th 2008) (en banc) (citations omitted). Additional guidance, incorporated expressly within NFMA, is found in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (“MUSYA”), which provides that the various surface resources be managed “so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people” and to “achieve[ ] and maintain[ ] in perpetuity [ ] a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.” 16 U.S.C. § 531(a) (definition of “multiple use”) and (b) (definition of “sustained yield”); 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g) (incorporating MUSYA provisions in NFMA).
19. MUSYA further directs “that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” 16 U.S.C. § 528.
20. NFMA requires each Forest to prepare and revise a Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”). 16 U.S.C. § 1604. A Forest Plan lays out broad guidelines to advance numerous goals and objectives, including to “insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resource, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish….” Id. at (g)(3)(A). These plans contain desired conditions, objectives and guidance for project and activity decision making, but do not approve or execute projects and activities. The guidance in the Forest Plan is subject to change through plan amendment in site-specific or project-level planning, or through revision of the Forest Plan itself.
21. A Forest Plan is the governing land use plan for an individual National Forest. A Forest Plan is strategic in nature, and does not make commitments to selection or specifications of any particular project or daily activities. The Forest Plan also identifies standards and guidelines to govern specific activities subject to more detailed project-level or site-specific planning.
22. Project level planning occurs for a broad spectrum of projects and activities within the Forest Service system, including vegetation management and timber projects, mining plans of operation, ski area development and operations, special use management such as guiding and outfitting, and travel management. This more detailed site-specific planning  includes analysis of on-the-ground management options and associated effects to the human environment for each specified option.
23. An example of project-level planning affecting Plaintiffs occurs in “travel planning” when the Forest implements the agency’s Travel Management Rule. See, “Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use.” 70 Fed.Reg. 68264-68291 (Nov. 9, 2005). The Travel Management Rule generally “requires designation of those roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicle use…and will prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that is not consistent with the designations.” Id. at 68264. The Decision reflects this type of project-level planning for the Rico West Dolores area.
24. NEPA represents “our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. NEPA does not impose substantive requirements, but creates a series of “look before leaping” procedures which are designed to disclose and analyze potential effects of proposed federal actions. Central among these is the requirement to prepare a written environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for public review and comment. The agency “shall ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses” in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. NEPA’s protections of the “environment” refer to the “human environment” which “shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14. Thus, the agency’s duty to analyze impacts does not end with impacts to the physical environment, because “[w]hen an [EIS] is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the [EIS] will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.” Among its numerous purposes, NEPA procedures are designed to foster informed agency decision making based upon meaningful public participation.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

1. The Project Area and Background

25. The San Juan Forest includes about 1.8 million acres located in southwestern Colorado. The Rico West Dolores analysis area is located with the Forest’s Dolores Ranger District, and contains approximately 244,554 acres of National Forest system lands and 11,702 non-Forest Service lands (the “Area”).
26. The Area includes mesas, aspen stands, steep slopes of dense conifers, and snow- covered peaks. The area is bisected by Highway 145, which follows the Dolores River. The  west side of the Area is bordered by private land and the Boggy-Glade travel management area, the north side includes a portion of the Lizard Head Wilderness, and the east side of the Area is the spine of the La Plata Mountains, and the Colorado Trail (a statewide non-motorized trail). Communities within and nearby the Area include Cortez, Dolores, Dove Creek, the Town of Rico, and Telluride.
27. The roads and trails in the Area developed along historic pathways originally created largely for mining or domestic livestock grazing. This network was expanded to include roads constructed to access timber sales in spruce, fir and aspen forest types.
28. Modern use of the Area has focused continuation of mining, livestock grazing, and timber, as well as in diverse forms of recreation. Like nearly all of western Colorado, the area includes popular big game hunting areas, with an assortment of seasons for different species and weapon types. Virtually all hunters rely on some form of motorized conveyance to gain access to their chosen hunting/camping area(s), if not as an aid to their hunting activity.
29. Motor vehicle travel on the National Forest System was long conducted on an “open unless designated closed” policy, which allowed for at least the legal possibility of cross- country travel. Despite this possibility, topography, vegetation and other factors caused vehicle riders to travel along the network of established roads and trails in the Area. These routes are depicted on various maps going back to the origins of the Forest.
30. More recently management of the San Juan National Forest was governed by the 1983 Forest Following that Plan, the Forest instituted various actions affecting travel management, specifically including adoption of a 1994 Travel Management Map, and issuance of a 1999 Closure Order that restricted on-trail travel to those motorized uses permitted on the 1994 Map. These actions tended to formalize the historical use patterns and motorcycle travel limited to existing trails in the Area.
31. While travel occurred along routes in much of the Area, a trend toward more intensive travel management solidified with adoption of the agency-wide Forest Service Travel Management Rule on November 9, 2005. The Rule signified a shift to designation of roads, trails and areas for motorized vehicle travel. Outside the prescribed travel on these roads, trails, and area, motor vehicle travel would be prohibited.
32. Following adoption of the Travel Management Rule, the Forest undertook efforts to implement the Rule and adopt new travel management decisions. The Dolores Ranger District decided to complete three separate decisions to address each of it’s identified “travel management landscapes,” of which one was the Rico West Dolores Area.
33. A planning process occurred for the Area which included circulation of an Environmental Assessment under NEPA and issuance of a 2009 Decision Notice, which would have prohibited cross-country motorized travel and designated specific routes for motorized and non-motorized travel. Various parties appealed this Decision, and the reviewing officer recommended reversal, including on the grounds that a more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement should have been prepared. The Forest Supervisor in 2010 followed this recommendation, reversed the Decision and vacated the new trail designations, while issuing an interim order closing the Area to cross-country motorized travel.
34. One of the successful appellants to the aforementioned Decision, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Colorado Chapter, filed a lawsuit in 2011 asking the Court to declare the 2010 “decision” unlawful and/or issue an injunction prohibiting motorized use of 14 trails in the Rico West Dolores Area. See, Case No. 11-cv-3139-MSK-KLM (D. Colo.). An order on the merits was issued in that case on March 21, 2013, denying Petitioner’s claims and directing that judgment be entered in favor of the Forest Service. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers appealed their adverse judgment to the Tenth Circuit.
35. Following withdrawal of the 2009 Decision and during the pendency of the above-described lawsuit, the Forest decided to complete the long-pending revision of the San Juan Forest Plan. A Record of Decision for the Revised Forest Plan was published on September 13, 2013.
36. The Tenth Circuit ruled on the Backcountry appeal in an Order and Judgment signed by Judge Gorsuch on May 27, 2015, holding that Backcountry lacked standing, and remanding the matter to the district court with instructions to vacate the earlier judgment and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. This Order acknowledged the effect of the 2010 “temporary” order and Forest Service intention to devise “a more permanent replacement policy” to govern motorized vehicle travel in the Area.

2. Chronology of the Travel Management

37. The Rico West Dolores Travel Management Project represents the “more permanent replacement policy” to designate roads, trails and areas for motorized use in the Area. The Project was formally initiated in December 2014 with publication of a proposed action, which was subject to public comment until January 30, 2015. Plaintiffs submitted comments on the proposed action.
38. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) was released for public comment on May 6, 2016.
39. While evaluating comment on the DEIS, the Forest Service apparently determined that it would be helpful to clarify whether or how the agency would identify the “minimum road system” under 36 C.F.R. part 212, subpart A, for the Area. A Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”) was published on July 7, 2017.
40. The DEIS and SDEIS outlined five (5) alternatives to be considered in detail. In general terms, Alternative A was the legally-required “no action” alternative intended to outline the pre-decisional existing condition. Alternative B was the “proposed action” which was described as the December 2014 proposed action “with refinements.” Alternative C would “reestablish motorcycle use on some, but not all, of the trails that would be closed to motorcycle use under Alternative B.” Alternative D would provide a motorcycle trail system similar to Alternative C but would reduce motorcycle riding and focus on a “semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation setting” in the Bear Creek drainage. Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D, but extend the “semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation setting” to North Calico Trail and connecting trails.
41. In terms of trail mileage for motorcycle use, the DEIS/SDEIS alternatives covered
    

    the following range:
    Alternative	A	B	C	D	E
    Miles Designated Open to Motorcycles	114	86	100	88	65

42. Another important component of the alternatives was seasonal timing restrictions, defining times during which trails would be open/closed to motorcycle travel. Under the “no action” Alternative A, there would be no timing restrictions. Under Alternative B, trails would be open for motorcycle travel from July 1 to September 8, and closed from September 9 to June 30 Under Alternatives C, D and E trails would be open for motorcycle travel from June 1 to October 30, and closed from November 1 to May 30.
43. Approximately 1,100 letters, emails or phone logs were received in response to the DEIS and SDEIS. Plaintiffs submitted written comments.
44. A Draft Record of Decision (“Draft ROD”) and initial Final Environmental Impact Statement (“Initial FEIS”) were issued on November 14, 2017. The Draft ROD proposed adoption of Alternative B Modified. In broad terms, the Draft ROD proposed to identify a minimum road system, to create a new designation on 19 miles of trails in the Black Mesa area for motorized vehicles up to 62 inches in width, to designate 83 miles of trail for motorcycle use, and to impose seasonal restrictions whereby motorcycles would be allowed on designated trails from June 1 to October 30 and prohibited from November 1 to May 31.
45. Under applicable regulations, the Draft ROD was subject to a “predecisional administrative review” which allows specified forms of “objection” within 45 days.
46. Twenty (20) objections letters from 14 unique objectors were presented to the Draft ROD. These objections were considered by an Objection Reviewing Officer within the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region office.
47. Extensive efforts were made in accordance with regulations allowing the Reviewing Officer to explore “resolution” of the objections, which included telephonic meetings on February 22, March 7 and March 16 of 2018, as well as the exchange of written proposals between some of the objectors and the Forest Service. A resolution was not reached.
48. Upon determining that a resolution to the objections would not be reached, the Reviewing Officer issued a formal written response to the objections dated April 4, 2018 (“Objection Response”).
49. The Objection Response constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture. No further administrative review of the Decision from any other Forest Service or Department of Agriculture official is available.
50. Following the aforementioned Objection Response, the Dolores Ranger District issued a Final Record of Decision dated July 30, 2018 (“Final ROD”). The Final ROD tracked the Draft ROD, with two additional modifications. First, motorcycle use was prohibited on the entire East Fall Creek Trail, extending this closure to include a one-half mile section that had been proposed for continuing motorcycle use in the Draft ROD. Additionally, a dual designation for Forest Service Road 692A was added to allow for motorcycle use, contingent upon approval in a separate analysis of a new motorcycle trail named Spring Creek Extension that would connect to the end of Road 692A.

3. General Overview of Travel Plan Restrictions.

51. From Plaintiffs’ perspective, the Final ROD imposes a series of significant restrictions on motorcycle travel:
    1. motorcycle travel was prohibited on Winter, West Fall and East Fall Creek Trails, in the vicinity of the private Dunton Hot Springs Resort, which perhaps not coincidentally facilitates a non-motorized loop trail experience directly from the Resort property, in addition to the abundance of similar opportunity accessible by a short drive (or hike) to the Lizard Head Wilderness;
    2. Motorcycle travel was reduced by roughly 85 percent in the Bear Creek drainage as requested by special use interests and a few seasonal residents, leaving only a “pass through” connection between Grindstone and Gold Run Trails and along 1.72 miles near the middle of the Bear Creek Trail;
    3. Motorcycle trail connection to the Town of Rico was eliminated, through closure of the Burnett Creek and Horse Creek Trails;
    4. Motorcycle travel was prohibited on Ryman Creek Trail, which was a desirable 5 mile trail segment providing important connectivity for riders in the Telluride area and to adjacent trail systems in the Hermosa area;
    5. Motorcycle travel was eliminated from the last remaining sections of the Spring Creek and Wildcat Trails;
    6. Motorcycle travel on designated trails can only occur from June 1 to October 30, and is prohibited from November 1 to May 31.
52. In broad terms, the Final ROD designates a total of 84 miles of trail for motorcycle use, down from 114 miles authorized for travel prior to the Decision. Aside from the arithmetic reduction of mileage, the changes greatly impact the connectivity, ability to ride loops, aesthetic experience, and safety for motorcycle riders in the area.

COUNT ONE: ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IMPOSITION OF MOTORIZED TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
54. The APA allows an aggrieved party to seek review of final agency action, and empowers a reviewing court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [or] (C) short of statutory right; [or] (E) unsupported by substantial evidence….” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
55. Relevant procedures and guidance pertaining to action like the Travel Management Project are further outlined in NEPA, NFMA, the Travel Management Rule, implementing regulations, and other applicable law.
56. The Final ROD and associated documents impose arbitrary, inconsistent or undocumented restrictions on motorized travel, which include, but are not necessarily limited to:
    1. Closures to enhance elk habitat and/or hunter experience;
    2. Closures to address watershed impacts or fisheries habitat;
    3. Closures to improve wetlands habitat or fens;
    4. Closures that are designed to, or have the plain effect of, imbuing private and/or specially permitted interests with unique benefit and economic advantage;
    5. Seasonal restrictions on vehicle travel.
57. The Final ROD and associated documents impose additional closures based on misinterpretation of Forest Service obligations or short of statutory right, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, imposition of a nonexistent duty to procure access across private property and misinterpretation of and/or failure to defend real property interests of the public acquired through easements granting rights to the United States.
58. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
59. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
60. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT TWO: LACK OF SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

61. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
62. NFMA and its implementing regulations, including the Travel Management Rule, require the Forest Service to act in accordance with specified procedures and guiding principles in making management decisions affecting access to the National Forest System and the Area.
63. These procedures and guidance are further specified in the Travel Management Rule, and other applicable law which requires supportable findings on a variety of site-specific criteria in making road, trail and area designations.
64. Site-specific analysis is particularly important when changing long-established uses or interrelated activities as occur upon an area-wide transportation network. Imposing excessive or poorly-considered restrictions can have the effect of concentrating uses that threaten to exceed an area’s carrying capacity, or otherwise create new impacts or new levels of impact in remaining open areas.
65. The Final ROD and Travel Plan impose arbitrary, inconsistent or undocumented restrictions on motorized travel, not supported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
66. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
67. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
68. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT THREE: IMPROPER RELIANCE ON USER CONFLICT TO JUSTIFY MOTORIZED TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

69. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
70. NEPA, NFMA and the Travel Management Rule outline various procedures and criteria that govern the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel in the National Forest System and the Area.
71. In particular, the aforementioned criteria include those laid out in 36 C.F.R. § 212.55, and require the “responsible official” to “consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing” various elements, including “[c]onflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System land or neighboring Federal lands.”
72. In acting upon these duties, Defendants improperly considered a vague or generalized sense of “user conflict” through which some Area visitor might have a preference for some abstract recreational opportunity.
73. Assuming “user conflict” can be a proper basis for motorized use designations, other subunits of the National Forest System have conducted scientific analysis of conflict, or otherwise attempted to analyze and address user conflict, in some fashion that would satisfy the APA standards and other legal requirements. Defendants did not attempt any such scientific analysis here.
74. Notwithstanding Defendants’ deficient or nonexistent analysis, the Decision includes specific restrictions on motorized travel or exclusion of certain routes from motorized travel designations purportedly based on user conflict.
75. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
76. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
77. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT FOUR: IMPROPER RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO RICO 

78. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
79. The Town of Rico lies within the Area, and is an unincorporated “mountain town” that is home to a few year-round residents, a larger collection of seasonal occupants, and a handful of small retail businesses providing services that include gas, basic groceries, lodging, and restaurants.
80. Recreational visitors to the Area often visit the Town of Rico, out of curiosity, habit or necessity, depending on either planned or unplanned developments in their travels.
81. NEPA, NFMA and the Travel Management Rule outline various procedures and criteria that govern the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel in the National Forest System and the
82. In particular, the aforementioned criteria include those laid out in 36 C.F.R. § 212.55, and require the “responsible official” to “consider effects on” various factors including public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, and access needs.
83. The applicable regulations further direct the responsible official consider “[c]onflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses” and “[c]ompatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors” Id. at (b)(4) and (5). Specific criteria for designating roads require consideration of “[s]peed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads” and “[c]ompatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.” Id. at (c).
84. The Decision eliminates motorcycle trail connection to the Town of Rico.
85. Following the Decision, the only way to lawfully access the Town of Rico from the Area’s motorcycle trail network is to ride along one of several trails to Highway 145, and then ride at least five (5) miles along Highway 145 to Rico.
86. Highway 145 is a paved two lane highway, with a posted speed limit of at least 55 mph that is traveled by full size automobiles. It is not advisable, and in some instances could be unsafe and/or illegal, for off-road motorcycles to travel regularly or for meaningful distances along a route like Highway 145.
87. The Decision could actually cause redundant and unnecessary motorcycle travel within the Town of Rico, as riders attempt to travel the road system to the Burnett Creek trailhead, only to find that route is closed and be forced to backtrack through town and eventually settle on the above-described egress from Rico via Highway 145.
88. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
89. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
90. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT FIVE: IMPROPER IDENTIFICATION OF A MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM

91. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
92. On January 12, 2001, a Final Rule was published addressing identification of a “minimum road system” for units of the National Forest System. 66 Fed.Reg. 3206 (Jan. 12, 2001). The minimum road system regulations, codified at 36 C.F.R. part 212, subpart A, were not produced at the same time or in concert with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.
93. The Project did not originally include analysis of a minimum road system, but sometime after release of the DEIS the Forest Service apparently decided that consideration of a minimum road system was necessary and this component was added to the SDEIS.
94. As a result of this belated approach, or other oversight, the Forest Service misinterpreted applicable regulation and/or failed to properly include the public or follow governing procedures in identifying a minimum road system.
95. The Final ROD and Decision identify a minimum road system.
96. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
97. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
98. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT SIX: FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE ROAD DECOMMISSIONING ACTIONS

99. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
100. The Final ROD and Decision documents refer to “an implementation program that is progressive in nature, ranging from signing to recontouring, ripping, seeding, and placing physical barriers.” FEIS at 15, 53. Specific routes are listed to receive some version of this treatment, which is often referred to as “decommissioning.”
101. Under NEPA and applicable regulations, as well as internal Forest Service determinations, ground-disturbing decommissioning actions must undergo site-specific NEPA analysis.
102. The Final ROD and Project documents do not contain site-specific analysis for road/trail decommissioning.
103. Decommissioned routes, depending on the decommissioning techniques employed, can range from difficult to nearly impossible upon which to subsequently resume travel. Techniques such as “ripping,” “recontouring” and “reseeding” involve physically removing the road/trail prism and/or altering the landscape to modify erosion, promote revegetation, or prevent recreation of access along the prior route.
104. Routes that are decommissioned, including during the pendency of this action, would likely not be viable candidates for further analysis or reconsideration of their designation status.
105. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
106. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
107. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT SEVEN: FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENT 

108. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
109. NEPA and applicable regulations require agencies to respond to public comments submitted on a DEIS and proposed action. In particular, “[a]n agency preparing a final [EIS] shall assess and consider comments…and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating its response in the final statement.” 40 CFR § 1503.4(a). There are five “possible responses” described, all of which necessitate identification of both the particular comment, as well as the specified response. Id. at (1)-(5). The regulations further provide “[a]ll substantive comments received on the draft statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement whether or not the comment is thought to merit individual discussion by the agency in the text of the statement.” Id. at (b).
110. Defendants attempt at responding to comments here occurred in Appendix K to the FEIS. Appendix K does not comply with the above-cited regulations.
111. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
112. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
113. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT EIGHT: ACTIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SAN JUAN FOREST PLAN

114. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
115. Under NFMA, Forest Service actions must be consistent with the governing Forest Plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i).
116. The governing 2013 San Juan Forest Plan contains direction relevant to the Project. The Plan contemplates shared use of recreational trails “based on mutual courtesy and on a strong stewardship ethic that is primarily self-enforced and maintained by individuals and user groups.” FEIS at 183 (quoting Forest Plan desired condition). This directive “points toward collaboration between motorized, mechanized and nonmotorized user groups….” Id.
117. The Final ROD and Decision documents do not explain how elimination of one form of user is consistent with these concepts and directives.
118. The Forest Plan also contains specific direction for elk habitat and management. In general, a desired condition for all terrestrial wildlife states “[e]cosystems and habitat conditions for terrestrial wildlife species sensitive to human disturbance are maintained.” Forest Plan Desired Condition 2.3.9. Similarly, guidelines for ungulates state that “to provide for healthy ungulate populations capable of meeting state populations objectives, anthropomorphic activity and improvements across the planning area should be designed to maintain and continue to provide effective habitat components that support critical life functions.” Forest Plan Guideline 2.3.63; see also, Guideline 2.3.62 (projects or activities “should be designed and conducted in a manner that preserves and does not reduce habitat effectiveness”).
119. Rather than “maintain” or “continue to provide” or “not reduce” habitat, the Decision tries to enhance or exceed relevant metrics for elk management.
120. Defendants’ actions described above are made reviewable through the APA and are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
121. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
122. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

COUNT NINE: VIOLATION OF THE APA 

123. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each statement and allegation previously made.
124. Defendants’ failure(s) described above to comply with NEPA, NFMA, regulations and the APA are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; short of statutory right; or otherwise in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and should therefore be declared unlawful and set aside by this Court.
125. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies required by law in order to seek relief from Defendants’ actions addressed in this claim for relief.
126. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm and injury to their legal interests arising from and associated with their use and enjoyment of the Area as a result of the allegations contained in this claim for relief, and these injuries will go unredressed absent judicial relief.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, having alleged the above-described violations of law, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor on each and every claim alleged herein, and request that the Court rule, adjudge, and grant relief as follows:

1. Declare unlawful and set aside the Final ROD and/or Decision;
2. Remand the applicable matters inadequately addressed in the ROD and Decision for further analysis and action in accordance with applicable law;
3. Award the Plaintiffs their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses of litigation as allowed by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 241 et seq. and other applicable law or rule of court; and
4. Grant such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated:  September 14, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

    /s/ Paul A. Turcke
Paul A. Turck
MSBT Law, Chtd.
7699 West Riverside Drive Boise, ID 83714
Telephone: (208) 331-1800
Facsimile: (208) 331-1202
pat@msbtlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Download the pdf 

This effort will move towards greater transparency in the land management process and hopefully reduce the use of the endangered species act as an alternative to planning by those opposed to multiple use.

Letter dated September 13th from Tim Williams, Deputy Director External Affairs, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior:

On  Friday, September 7, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke signed a Secretarial Order to prevent the practice known as “sue and settle” by promoting public engagement, transparency, and accountability in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements.

Over the past five years, the Department of Interior (DOI) has been party to a staggering number of settlement agreements and consent decrees, often with no input from or even notice to the American people, leaving the door open for potential abuse.  

Between  January 1, 2012, and January 19, 2017, DOI agreed to enter into over 460 settlement agreements and consent decrees (an average of over 90 per year) and agreed to pay over $4.4 billion in monetary awards. From January 1, 2016 through January 19, 2017 alone,  DOI entered into approximately 96 settlement agreements or consent decrees, agreeing to pay over $1.7 billion in monetary awards.  This high number of settlement agreements and consent decrees and accompanying tab has sparked concerns that taxpayer dollars and DOI’s regulatory agenda are being handed off to special interest groups, contrary to the wishes of Congress and the American voters.

Secretarial Order 3368 is intended to alleviate concerns the litigation process has been used to undermine the procedural safeguards Congress put in place by giving the American people a window into where the money is going and a voice before DOI makes a recommendation to accept or enter into a settlement with large policy or budgetary implications.

Main points of the Secretarial Order (See link below for more detail):

• Within  30 days, DOI will establish a publicly accessible “Litigation” webpage that is prominently linked from the Office of the Solicitor’s homepage.
• Within  90 days,  DOI will post a searchable list of final judicial and administrative consent decrees and settlement agreements that continue to govern Departmental actions, including a brief summary of each decree or agreement, a note of any attorney’s fees or costs paid, and a link to the text of the decree or agreement.
• Any proposed consent decree or settlement agreement that commits DOI to seek a particular appropriation or budget authorization from Congress or formally reprogram appropriated funds, and/or places obligations on the Department that extend beyond five years at the top of the Litigation page, publish notice of the proposed consent decree or settlement agreement in the Federal Register, and provide a public comment period of at least 30 days.
• DOI,  including any agency or bureau thereof, will not recommend that the Department of Justice enter into a consent decree or settlement agreement that:
  • Converts into a mandatory duty the otherwise discretionary authority of the Secretary and/or his designees (including bureau and office heads) to revise, amend, or promulgate regulations.
  • Commits DOI or any of its bureaus and offices thereof to expend funds that Congress has not appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the action in question.
  • Requires  DOI or any subdivision thereof to pay attorney’s fees and costs unless the plaintiff or petitioner has established a strong likelihood of obtaining such fees under the law.
  • Prohibits  public disclosure of any consent decree or settlement agreement, except to the extent necessary to protect proprietary information, such as trade secrets, or otherwise mandated by law.

Here is a link to SO 3368. 

DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT

Conceptual paper on Continental Divide Wilderness and Recreation Act Proposal (HR 2554) for discussion purposes only December 13, 2016

Who we are:

We start first with a brief description of each Organization, in order to allow a complete understanding of our concerns. The Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. There are 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA seeks to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling in Colorado by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a Colorado based 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA is an advocate of the sport and takes necessary actions to help insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

The Off-Road Business Association (ORBA) is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner based in California.

Landscape Concerns

1.  Any previous Congressional boundaries for existing Wilderness or release of areas for multiple use or prohibitions on buffer managements and designations must be honored as previous legislation was badly out of balance in terms of protecting usages and often we are now talking about designation of areas previously released.
2. Resolution of WSA issues is a priority for the motorized community in numerous areas.

General concerns regarding Continental Divide Wilderness and Recreation Act Proposal (HR 2554)

1. Overall HR 2554 is a Wilderness bill designating 35,449 acres of Wilderness and another 16,621 where public access is restricted despite the already high levels of Wilderness designated in the State. Currently 15.7% of USFS lands in Colorado are designated as Wilderness. By comparison, less than 2% of USFS lands are designated as Wilderness in New Mexico.
2. While Colorado has historically been effective in moving large areas of public lands into Wilderness designations, there has been no release or protection of lands to balance usages and protections in previous legislation. As a result of the lack of balance in previous Legislation a very small amount of lands is suitable for new Wilderness designations but there are many areas where uses could be protected and Wilderness study area reviews can be permanently resolved. Recreational usage of these areas represent major economic drivers for local communities and once management clarity is provided in Legislation additional funding for maintenance and improvement of these important resources can move forward.
3. Colorado has a benchmark for a balanced land use bill that can be supported by a truly diverse range of interests in the Hermosa Watershed Legislation that was passed into law in 2014. When compared to the Hermosa Legislation, HR 2554 falls well short of obtaining the diversity benefit for multiple use and other interests that are claimed. In Hermosa, access to public lands was provided at a more than two to one ratio when compared to designated Wilderness in the Hermosa Legislation.
4. Similar to previous legislative actions designating Wilderness, current versions of HR 2554 provides no new opportunity areas for multiple use or increases protection of multiple use access areas for the general public. This is contrary to claims of balance in the Proposal. It is our position HR 2554 simply results in a significant net trail loss as almost every area proposed to be designated as Wilderness negatively impacts multiple use recreation at some level.
5. HR 2554 creates a single Special Management Area (Ten Mile) where multiple use is alleged to be balanced. This area has exceptionally limited opportunities currently (less than 10 miles of route) and minimal opportunity for growth due to topography of area and the value of this area for multiple use is questionable at best. The Tenmile SMA protects significantly less miles of routes than are lost in other areas of the Proposal (Spraddle Creek, Williams Fork)
6. Many of the areas that we are requesting to be Congressionally designated as a “special management area” have been the basis of on-going discussions for possible Wilderness designations since the area was declined for suitability either through the RARE process or WSA inventory process in the late 1970’s. We would like to confirm/protect multiple use in these areas by designation of SMA. The SMA principal, with the proper criteria, appears to be effective vehicle to achieve this goal based on the Hermosa Legislation implementation.
7. Many of the areas proposed to be Wilderness in HR 2554 were analyzed for possible Upper Tier Roadless designation in the 2011 Colorado Roadless Rule. After these areas were found unsuitable for Upper Tier designation in the Roadless Rule process, many view the Legislation as another route to obtain closure of these areas and another step in the never ending discussion working towards a Wilderness designation.
8. Most areas proposed to be classified as Wilderness under HR 2554 are not currently managed as recommended Wilderness in existing planning and as a result designation as Wilderness could impact many other uses.
9. Our Proposal extends outside Congressman Polis district, as we simply cannot balance the impact of 60k acres of Wilderness/closure with the opportunities in that district. Much of our Proposal in Congressman Polis district asks that commitments made in previous Wilderness Legislation be honored. Support from Udall/Polis/Bennett Offices to move forward with honoring these commitments (Rollins Pass Road) has been non-existent to date.

Existing trail areas that would be lost under current version of HR 2554

1. Spraddle Creek Potential Wilderness area §2(a) pg 4 line 9 – 2,338 acres proposed- MAJOR IMPACT TO CURRENT ACCESS

1. The Spraddle Creek Potential Wilderness contains an extensive high quality summer trail network for motorized and bicycle community centered around FSR 700/719 that would be lost. These are important routes due to their proximity to local population centers. There are more miles of multiple use routes are lost in the Spraddle Creek Potential Wilderness area than are protected in Tenmile SMA.
   

   Spraddle Creek Summer MVUM

   Spraddle Creek Current Snowmobile Suitability

   (Each represents lost opportunity with expanded Wilderness)

2. The Potential Spraddle Creek Wilderness represents an important snowmobile opportunity areas that would be lost.
3. Many users believe that closure of this area was due to 10th mtn. hut in area. Almost all 10th mtn. division huts now have a buffer area, as a result of recent planning which has resulted in the long term loss of motorized opportunities around huts. Users are very sensitive to additional lost opportunity around any of the huts.
4. Is there precedent for automatic change of any area to Wilderness designation merely with the passage of time? Adopting such a principal could set a dangerous precedent moving forward and HR 2554 provides no requirement that mitigation measures be completed prior to moving to the Wilderness designation. Mitigation measures can frequently take more than the 10 years to complete.

2. Spraddle Creek Wilderness- §2 pg 4 line 3 MAJOR IMPACT TO CURRENT ACCESS

1. Numerous summer routes in the new Spraddle Creek Wilderness area and this area is an expansion area for future winter motorized usage. Motorized routes 786 and 719 currently exist in the area and dead-end at two scenic overlooks. With the addition of the Spraddle Creek Wilderness access to these overlooks would be lost and 786 and 719 outside the Wilderness would be at risk for closure moving forward as these trails would now just dead-end at the Wilderness boundary.
2. The snowmobile community worked hard with the USFS in recent planning to establish a boundary that was easily enforceable in the area for snowmobile usage(currently on top of a cliff). Expanding the Wilderness would again move the boundary into an area where enforcement would be difficult at best and probably result in a large amount of conflict and enforcement expense. Relevant maps are included with #1 above.

3. Williams Fork Wilderness §2(a)(25) 9,338 acres- MAJOR IMPACT TO CURRENT ACCESS

1. There are significant miles of multiple use routes in the northern end of the proposed Wilderness area addition that would be lost. These routes are all heavily used routes in the summer due to their proximity to Green Mountain Reservoir and other developed recreational resources such as campgrounds. The entire area that is proposed to be designated Wilderness is an expansion area for future snowmobile usage

Williams Fork Wilderness Current Summer MVUM

Williams Fork Wilderness Winter Suitability

(Each represents lost opportunity with expanded Wilderness)

4. Freeman Creek Wilderness – §2 pg 3 line 23 – 1,290 acres – significant long term concerns due to proximity

1. Expansion of Wilderness in this area could prohibit OSV usage connecting Spraddle Creek area to Spring Creek groomed network north of Eagles Nest Wilderness. This type of a connection was left as a long term option in the recent travel plan for the area. We understand there is some conflict over exact location of Wilderness boundary and any groomed route developed in the area in the future. This is a major concern as any possible routes that could connect the areas are limited due to rugged topography of the area.
2. A connection of Spraddle Creek and Spring Creek areas would be highly valued by OSV community as currently Spring Creek trailhead is a lengthy drive (more than 1 hour) on US 9 north of Frisco. With this connection, access to the Spring Creek area would be a short drive outside Frisco.
3. We are concerned that the proximity of a possible groomed route/existing designated summer route and this Wilderness boundary. Our concern is the expanded boundary would result in significant conflict between users and also present a major management issue for the USFS due to increased signage etc. The close proximity of these management areas has resulted in significant conflict in other areas.

5. Ute Pass Wilderness/Acorn creek/Ptarmigan Addition – §2(a)(1) Acres 6349- Significant long term concerns due to expansion

Entire area is available for expansion of OSV usage in the future – – maps are attached in item #3.

6. No Name Wilderness Significant long term concerns due to proximity and expansion

Ute Pass Wilderness/Acorn creek/Ptarmigan Addition – Winter suitability currently

Ute Pass Wilderness/Acorn creek/Ptarmigan Addition – Current summer travel

(Each represents lost opportunity with expanded Wilderness)

1. Entire No Name area is a winter expansion area in the future and would convert FSR703 to a cherry stem into an important OSV area for winter usage as there would now be Wilderness on both sides of the route.
2. FSR703 is the Holy Cross City route that is consistently identified as one of the top ten OHV routes in the country.
3. Additionally, the eastern Boundary is a currently designated summer route and expanding the boundary would result in conflict between usages.

7. Hoosier Ridge Wilderness Area significant long-term concerns due to proximity to heavily used areas

Boreas Pass area is a major summer destination area. Given the proximity of the Wilderness to highly used routes, conflict between these uses would be a concern.

8. Tenmile Wilderness

Minimal concerns as area is closed to motorized and not an expansion area for snowmobile usage in the future

9. Porcupine Gulch Protection area – §4

Prohibits motorized and mechanized travel-
Tenderfoot Mountain project is within the boundary and would be lost Heavily used winter trail network in the area that would be lost?

10. Tenmile Special Management Areas – §3 pg 8 line 6 -Acres 11,417 – very minimal benefit

1. There is an exceptionally limited benefit to the multiple use community from proposed designations/usages of the SMA due to small amount of routes in the SMA. The SMA also prohibits any road development in the future in this area, which is more restrictive than current management of the area. Non-motorized usages does not appear to be subject to this limitation.
2. There are only a small amount of roads in the area and is a limited long-term opportunity area given the difficult topography of the area. Despite claims of high-value recreational opportunity from these protections, the area is not a high priority for the motorized community. We must question value to any user group given the topography and restrictions moving forward.
3. The criteria for management of the area are a concern as multiple usages are not a characteristic to be protected and preserved in the area. pg 9 line 4 . Multiple usage must be on balance with other usages or these usages will diminish moving forward.
4. Designation of the Tenmile SMAV expands impact of Hardscrabble SRMA closures in recent BLM Colorado River Valley RMP on motorized community. Hardscrabble remains a difficult topic with many users in the area as trails built and maintained by motorized are now open only to bicycles.
5. The SMA relies heavily on the principal of a “vehicle class” which is not defined in the Legislation and is not a term defined in standard USFS travel planning. This principal is probably a major barrier to new usages of the area due to hybridization of recreational activities.

Current commitments in Congressman Polis District to be resolved prior to exploring additional 60,000 acres Wilderness/restricted access in HR 2554

1. Rollins Pass Road issue on Boulder RD

Existing Legislative commitments should be honored prior to any discussions about additional Wilderness in the District.

1. The Rollins Pass Road issue is one of the few concessions that was made in previous Wilderness Legislation to try and balance multiple usages. This concession has been of no value to date due to the failure to implement commitments on the ground. The highly detailed commitment was made to reopen a route in this area in 2002 James Peak Wilderness expansion legislation. This commitment was to be implemented if one of three identified counties made a request.¹ This commitment has never been followed through with despite numerous requests from multiple counties every year since 2002 and numerous requests in writing to both Sen. Udall and Congressman Polis office’s from user groups and numerous public meetings to gauge continued public support in the route.
2. A connector route between Winter Park and Front Range in this corridor would be a valuable route for a wide range of user groups.’
3. We are unsure if roadblock on issue is USFS or Boulder County in honoring commitment made in previous legislation.
4.  We would seek a merged alternative of existing legislation requirements and resources on the ground due to deterioration of road referenced in legislation/maps.
   (i) seasonal high clearance road connecting Winter Park and Rollinsville areas utilizing corridor between James Peak Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness that generally honors legislative requirements;
   (iii) hard deadline for project completion; and
   (iv)source of funding for part/all of the project.

Our Ask for Rollins Pass Road Issues

This is a previous commitment regarding an important motorized route that must be honored prior to new commitments being made in Representative Polis district around any Wilderness proposals.

2. Lefthand Canyon OHV Area in Boulder RD –

Existing NEPA planning should be honored in the area and there are serious concerns that the area may never reopen to multiple use.

• Only area open to OHV usage within a short travel time of the North Denver area.
• Primary access route and area partially damaged due to 2013 flooding.
• Access remains closed due to the placement of small creek in the primary access road to the area after lead remediation efforts needed due to illegal shooting in the areas. No public input on the location of the creek in the road.
• We know of no planning in place for reopening of the area, even in a preliminary stage. Frequently funding is identified as a concern in reopening the area but the USFS will not support any grant applications for the area.
• Lefthand OHV remains closed to motorized usage despite significant motorized money, obtained without a grant submission being used to repair area after the flood, which we believe is a violation of state law regarding use of OHV fun.
• Possible designation of the area as a special management area based on 2006 NEPA for the area that has never been completed.
• Requires that no fees for usage of the area despite review in 2006 NEPA.
• Strong partnerships for the area are in place but not being used.

Our Ask for Lefthand Canyon OHV area –

Designate area as SMA for world class motorized recreational usage in order to compel managers to take steps to reopen the area in a timely manner

Designations to reopen historical access and new protections for existing usage in Congressman Polis district

1. Pennsylvania Gulch area on Dillon Ranger District

For purposes of this section is referring to Pennsylvania Gulch as the area generally south and east of Breckenridge running east of Route 9 to Boreas Pass and associated fingers to the north as generally outlined in green below

Pennsylvania Gulch – Suitability prior to winter travel plan

Pennsylvania Gulch – Current summer MVUM

(Each represents lost opportunity with expanded Wilderness)

• Snowmobile access was closed in recent travel planning to expand non-motorized opportunities.
• No one is using the area in the winter as it is too difficult to access without motorized means or packed ungroomed routes from OSV travel.
• Boreas Pass/Pennsylvania Gulch area also a very important area for summer OHV as well.
• Southern portions of Pennsylvania Gulch was included for Wilderness designations in original version of Hidden Gems.
• Also proposed to be Upper Tier Roadless and not designated.

Our Ask for Pennsylvania Gulch

Designate the area as SMA for world-class motorized recreational usage in summer and winter in order to restore winter access and protect summer.

2. Area northwest of Eagles Nest – Dillon RD Acreage per HG 37,800 acres

• High-quality motorized area both summer and winter at issue all the time for possible Wilderness/closures etc.
• Identified as Crazy Horse Creek, Lower Piney and Elliot Ridge in Hidden Gems

Hidden Gem Wilderness Proposal in Area

Hidden Gem Wilderness Proposal in Area – Current MVUM for area

Hidden Gem Wilderness Proposal in Area – Winter Suitability under current planning

(Each represents lost opportunity with expanded Wilderness)

Our Ask for North Eagles Nest Area

Designate the area as SMA for world-class motorized recreational usage in summer and winter.

Areas outside Congressman Polis District where historical usage restored or existing usage protected.

1. North Sand Hills WSA/ISA release in Kremmling FO outside Walden CO 600 acres -protects existing usage

North Sand Hills – Reference map of the area from BLM shows more than release area

• Congressman Tipton’s HR 5570 proposes release
  • Highly valued by the motorized community
  • Truly broad coalition of users already in place to support the release
  • Only about 600 acres in size for WSA/ISA release

Our Ask for North Sand Hills

Release area from WSA/ISA designations and designate area as SMA for world-class motorized recreational usage in summer and winter

2. Uranium mesas east of Gateway – GJFO – Rep. Tipton District Acres TBD – protects existing usage

An important area where planning was deferred in recent planning efforts for GJFO causing concerns for the long-term access to the area.

Uranium mesas east of Gateway – Current version of travel management sought to be protected

Levels of closures in draft plan were much higher than the final version- making us very concerned for the long-term future of the multiple use access to the area

Uranium mesas east of Gateway – Proposed closures in draft RMP

(these maps are included to create understanding in the basis for our concern)

• There are a lot of high-quality riding opportunities in the area that could be at risk in future planning due to proposed closures in recent RMP.
• While the current field office staff has been supportive of usage we are concerned that if there was a staff change these areas would be at risk of closure again.

Our Ask for Uranium Mesas

Designate the area as SMA for world-class motorized recreational usage in summer and continue current access levels

3. North Desert area outside Grand Junction – GJFO – Rep. Tipton District Acres TBD- protects existing usage

An important area where planning was deferred in recent planning efforts for GJFO.

Grand Junction – Current Version of travel management we would like to protect

Grand Junction – Proposed closures in draft RMP

(these maps are included to create understanding in the basis for our concern)

• Area was very hard hit with proposed closures in the draft RMP.
• There are a lot of high quality riding opportunities in the area that could be at risk in future planning.
• While the current field office staff has been supportive of usage we are concerned that if there was a staff change these areas would be at risk of closure again.

Our Ask for North Desert

Designate the area as SMA for world class motorized recreational usage in summer and continue current access levels

4. DeBeque single track area- GJFO – Tipton District Acres TBD- restores historic usage

HIGHLY valued areas outside DeBeque Colorado that was closed in recent BLM planning

DeBeque – red routes on map above represent closures of DeBeque Trail network

• Can honestly be summarized as some of the best single track trail riding in the multi-state region.
• Political working group already in place on the issue – believed to include Brian Meinhart with Congressman Tipton; Mesa County; Town of DeBeque; Betsy Bair with Sen Gardner Office and State Rep Willette.
• Long history of legal motorized and multiple use trail usage in the area.
• BLM used motorized groups to “voluntarily close” routes prior to plan and then RMP closed all routes anyway.
• Detailed proposal for area is attached.

Our Ask for DeBeque

Designate the area as SMA for world-class motorized recreational usage in summer and restore access to something similar to previous levels

5. Red Table/Adam Mountain/Woods Lake and related areas- Mostly Rep. Tipton – protects existing usage Acres 1,750/6,900/11,970

Important multiple use recreational area that struggles from ongoing possible designation as Wilderness despite numerous unsuccessful attempts to designate the area. Also was reviewed and found unsuitable for upper tier designation as part of the Roadless Rule.

Red Table – Hidden Gems Proposal

Summer MVUM of Red Table area

Winter suitability of Red Table area

• Large amount of motorized recreation in this area both summer and winter.
• Proposed Wilderness in HG that was removed early in the discussion .
• Large portions of the area were again proposed to be Upper Tier Roadless and then declined for designation.
• Any trail construction or maintenance in the area remains problematic due to previous Wilderness discussions.
• Specific boundaries are open for discussion.

Our Ask for Red Table and related

Designate area as SMA for world class motorized recreational usage in summer and winter

1 See PL 107-216 at §7b.

DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT

GMUG National Forest
Att: Planning Team Revision
2250 South Main Street
Delta, CO 81416

Re: GMUG RMP Revision Wilderness Inventory

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the Organizations identified above with regard to the draft Wilderness Evaluation report of the GMUG RMP (“Evaluation”). We welcome this opportunity to provide input addressing the complete failure of the wilderness evaluation to provide a transparent inventory of the Wilderness suitability that is broad and inclusive of all factors that are required to be analyzed. This inventory is woefully inadequate and fails to satisfy NEPA and other requirements for Wilderness inventory process and as a result directly impairs the public ability to provide meaningful comment on the management of these areas.  While the evaluation provides significant analysis of reasons why to designate an area as recommended Wilderness, the evaluation fails:

1. to address numerous Congressional actions that directly impact the availability of many areas for designation as Wilderness on the GMUG;
2. Many existing and legal uses of the areas are not addressed in the inventory;
3. Operates on the foundation that the Continental Divide Trail is a proper basis for recommendation of Wilderness; and
4. Fails to address all citizen Wilderness proposals addressing lands within the GMUG.

Prior to providing initial thoughts and concepts on the development of the GMUG Wilderness evaluation, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding.  The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado.  CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators. For purposes of this document CSA, COHVCO and TPA are identified as “the Organizations”.

In these comments, the Organizations have provided a detailed analysis of the extensive and highly detailed reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which occurred before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. None of this information is even mentioned in the current inventory.  These multiple reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in Congressional decisions:

1. Releasing significant portions of the GMUG from further inventory and requiring non-wilderness multiple use management moving forward;
2. Prohibiting buffer areas around Wilderness areas;
3. Repeal of primitive area designations on large portions of the GMUG; and
4. Explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations that they are.

USFS inventory requirements specifically require that such Congressional actions be honored and addressed in the Wilderness inventory process but the GMUG has chosen not to provide this information in violation of federal law and USFS planning requirements.

These Wilderness and Wilderness release determinations by Congress have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in Colorado history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas. Again, none of this the weak legislative history around the citizen Wilderness proposals is mentioned in the inventory, despite the fact that some of these proposals have been in existence for more than 20 years and barely received any Congressional support.

The honoring of all aspects of federal land management legislation is critically important to the Organizations as the Organizations have devoted years of effort to obtaining balance in recent land management legislation that has actually been passed into law by Congress.  This is directly evidenced by the Hermosa Watershed Legislation on the San Juan NF,[1] which did designate a sizable Wilderness area but also released the remaining portions of the West Needles Wilderness Study area and specified the area must be used for motorized recreation and also designated a special management area where motorized recreation was a characteristic of the area due the ongoing Wilderness recommendation for the area in forest planning. It is interesting to note that when this legislation was moved forward, BLM managers sought to manage the West Needles area as a WSA despite the fact the Congressional designation had been revoked in 1993 and this decision was roundly criticized by all parties in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation.  If designations requiring non-Wilderness management are not honored and may simply be cast aside at will, the Organizations would note that such a casting aside would impair community efforts for land management decisions in the future.

In addition to the Congressional determinations regarding the usage of many areas of the GMUG, the USFS has recently completely inventoried the GMUG again to review the lesser classification of upper tier roadless designation.  The inventory again fails to provide this information to the public, despite the chronological relevance of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development and USFS planning requirements requiring Roadless characteristics be addressed in the Wilderness inventory process.

2a.  The current Wilderness inventory fails to address all citizen Wilderness proposals for lands on the GMUG.

The Organizations have been heavily involved in Wilderness discussions for more than a decade in areas throughout the State of Colorado and as a result have developed their own Wilderness Legislative Proposal for use in Forest Plan development and Legislative discussions. This proposal has been reviewed by Congressman Tipton’s Office and Senator Gardner’s office when discussions around obtaining balance in usage in any piece of federal land management legislation.  A copy of this proposal has been provided for your reference and we can assist you in clarifying the status of this proposal with our various elected officials. [2] Given that compliance with existing federal law determinations protecting multiple use is a cornerstone of this proposal, the Organizations submit that such a proposal must be equally weighted with the various Wilderness proposals that are recognized in the inventory already.  The fact that we are asserting federal law must be honored also weighs in favor of addressing these areas in the inventory.

2b. The Gunnison Public lands initiative is not supported by the motorized community.

The Organizations have previously identified the opposition of the motorized community to the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative efforts as this process starts from the position that all lands are suitable for Wilderness designation and then requires the public to provide input as to why they disagree with that. Often many of our members that have sought to provide input have not received a warm welcome at public meetings, which is troubling for a proposal that asserts to seek broad community support.

We have prepared detailed comments on this issue which were submitted to this planning process as there appears to be growing confusion in these efforts between the participation of Organizations and support for the recommendations of the efforts. The Organizations have attempted to provide in person meetings but have been told they only occur in the Gunnison area and anytime we have been in the Gunnison area, GPLI representatives have been too busy to meet with us.  The motorized community has participated but does not support the Proposal. Generally, the public process around the entire discussion is badly flawed and far from complete and at best objectives of the planning process that have not been achieved are often presented as goals of the process that have been achieved. This entire process should be approached with great caution by planners.

3a.  Many of the areas found to be suitable for recommended Wilderness designation have been previously found unsuitable for designation by Congress.

Prior to addressing the specific and extensive history of areas on the GMUG of areas being reviewed by Congress and specifically identified as unsuitable for designation as Wilderness, the Organizations must address two significant landscape level concerns that have arisen around many of the recommended Wilderness areas from the 2007 draft RMP. Our first landscape level concern involves the relationship of the site-specific inventory of much of the GMUG by Congress and specific release of many areas from further review for possible designation as Wilderness in the future by Congress.  The specific release of areas by Congress from future designation as Wilderness greatly outweighs the fact that there may be legislation now before Congress on this issue in the form of a citizen-based Wilderness proposal.  Any other conclusion lacks any basis in law or fact.

USFS guidance regarding citizen Wilderness proposals specifically requires that the relevant dates for citizen proposals be addressed in the Wilderness inventory as follows

“The Interdisciplinary Team shall record all lands included in the inventory on a map of the planning area.  In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

Congressionally designated wilderness study areas, and any wilderness proposals pending before Congress. Indicate relevant statutory dates, if any.” [3]

While USFS requirements specifically address the need for dates to be addressed in the inventory process regarding citizen Wilderness proposals, there is simply no mention of any relevant dates for hearings, submission of Proposals to Congress or any other relevant information. This is a direct violation of the USFS planning requirements.  The addition of this information to the inventory process provides direct evidence of the comical lack of support for these proposals rather than a valid planning requirement, especially when proposals such as the “citizen Wilderness” proposals are not identified or locatable on the internet.

There is great pressure on land managers to recognize legislative drafts that have been before Congress, sometimes for decades, in planning but the Organizations must note that the decision NOT to list these areas as Wilderness that actually passed Congress and became law must be properly weighted again the existence of a legislative proposal that has not passed either house of Congress and often completely lacks even a sponsor in the House of Representatives.  Any argument that a stalled legislative proposal should carry more weight than a site-specific analysis and decision that has actually passed Congress regarding the ineligibility of the area for future designation is probably lacking legal and factual basis.  The Organizations submit that many of the citizen Wilderness proposals that are currently addressing GMUG lands are not moving because they are simply badly out of balance and would designate Wilderness in areas that were released in previous Wilderness legislation.

Here the need to properly weigh proposed legislation in relation to current federal law is valuable and will provide more clarity to why we are asserting the mere proposal of Wilderness on the GMUG is not a management or analysis issue for planners. Planners must insure that Congress has not spoken affirmatively against the Proposal.  This comparison involves mountain bike usage in Wilderness areas.  Similar to the San Juan and Continental Divide legislation now before the US Senate, there was also draft legislation in the 115^th Congress to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness (HR 1349) that actually moved out of the House committee hearing. After passing committee, HR 1349 moved no further in the House and failed to obtain any Senate sponsors. Clearly this type of legislation could not be applied by land managers in the planning process to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness areas, as it directly contradicts federal law despite the draft Legislation being proposed. Congress has spoken on this issue and there is no basis to overturn that position without further action actually passing Congress.

The application of standards for the treatment of proposed legislation by land managers must be consistently applied.  If Congress has said “no” that determination must be consistently applied rather than being recognized as a basis for new Wilderness and ignored when it states the area is unsuitable for Wilderness.  Planners certainly would not address mountain bikes in Wilderness due to the conflict with federal law and for the same reasons there should be no recommendation of Wilderness designations in GMUG areas already repeatedly addressed by Congress and found unsuitable and released back to multiple use. Each is a direct violation of federal law, despite what has been asserted by those advocating for more Wilderness. Existing federal law must outweigh proposed legislation in the planning process.

Any assertion of a valid basis for management of areas recommended for Wilderness in proposed legislation instead of recognizing existing federal law ignores the weak legislative support for these types of proposals in Colorado.  The history of both the Continental Divide Proposal, and earlier versions of this legislation that trace back to the original Hidden Gems Proposal and San Juan Wilderness Proposals by Senator Bennett clearly shows the lack of support for the expanded designations across larger communities.  Rather than being a basis for management of these areas as recommended Wilderness these proposals provide a concrete basis for management of these areas in compliance with existing federal law mandating multiple use.

A brief history of the San Juan Wilderness Legislation reveals a long history of nonsupport for the proposal in Congress, as there has never been a house sponsor even named for the Proposal[4]. Even in the Senate, the proposal has moved to hearings on several occasions and while it has gotten out of committee, the larger Senate has never even voted on this Proposal. This is a strong indication of the LACK of support for the Proposal. Even more troubling is the fact that the San Juan Legislation has not even been introduced in the Senate since 2013.  The Organizations submit that the 5-year hiatus for the legislation speaks volumes to the true amount of support for the Legislation.

While the Continental Divide Legislation does not address lands on the GMUG, it provides further basis for the caution that land managers should be approaching any proposal with.  The Legislative history of the Continental Divide Legislation provides no basis for management decision as this Proposal has been submitted in various forms for almost a decade and has also not moved beyond committee hearing, and many years has been unable to even get a hearing. This Legislation was originally proposed in Congress in 2010 with claims of broad support and extensive vetting of the Proposal through the Hidden Gems based discussions.  Vetting of the proposal provided to be less than complete and many problems were immediately identified and as a result the Central Mountains version of Hidden Gems was reworked several times as exemplified by the Rocky Mountain Recreation and Wilderness Preservation Act of 2012[5].  This did little to build community support for the Proposal.  Recently the legislative name was changed and minor changes to the proposal were undertaken, and this version again failed to move.

The Organizations would be remiss if the troubling legislative history of other proposals that have incorporated San Juan and Continental Divide boundaries was not addressed, such as Congresswoman Dianna DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act that was originally introduced in 1999 was not mentioned[6].  These Proposals have also failed to move beyond a committee hearing despite being introduced for almost two decades as well.  As result, managers now have a clearly identified basis to not incorporate these legislative proposals into planning as there is clearly defined track record of minimal public support for the Proposals.  The failure of these proposals in Congress simply does not create a valid basis for planning actions by Congress.

This lack of support for the San Juan and Continental Divide version of Hidden Gems, is further evidenced by the fact that while these proposals have languished in Congress for more than two decades in one form or another, other land use legislation including Wilderness designations has been developed and rapidly moved through Congress regarding Colorado public lands.  This legislation would be the Hermosa Watershed Legislation of 2013, which was developed, passed into law and subsequent planning completed in a decade less time than San Juan and Continental Divide have been languishing in Congress without larger support.  While the mandates of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation are not legally binding on the GMUG, the factual differences are highly relevant to the value of land management legislation that does not move.  In 2013, the Hermosa Watershed Legislation[7] was not even a Legislative Proposal but this legislation was developed from the ground up, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President while other pieces of legislation remained stalled. [8] While the Hermosa Watershed Legislation does not impact GMUG planning the rapid movement of this legislation through Congress speaks volumes to the lack of support around the other pieces of Legislation that have been in existence for much longer and simply never moved. Their value in planning is marginal at best.

While USFS policy asserts that citizen Wilderness proposals be addressed in the planning process, the Organizations vigorously assert that the mere existence of a Proposal is not enough review for the planning process.  The Organizations submit that the entirety of the history of these citizen Proposals must be reviewed in the planning process as many of the areas have been the basis of citizen Wilderness Proposals since before 1980 as directly evidenced by the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act[9] when the boundaries of many of these areas were established and drawn to protect many of the same usages that remain in these areas to this day.  The boundaries proposed for many areas on the GMUG in planning are the same areas that Congress specifically excluded from Wilderness when the areas were designated, as exemplified by the discussions of why wilderness boundaries are in the locations they currently are as provided on page 7 of House Report 96-617 issued in conjunction with the passage of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.  Those provisions are discussed in greater detail in subsequent portions of these comments.

The second landscape level concern around merely designating recommended Wilderness based on citizen proposals for Wilderness is a policy concern and involves a consistent position taken by land managers that the public should work together attempt to bring solutions to issues to them. When land managers are recommending areas for possible designation that have been previously released by Congress, the managers are now working against the public collaborations that were the basis for the release of the area back to non-wilderness multiple use.   If there is a consensus position regarding the management of areas that has been achieved and passed into law by Congress it should be enforced with regard to all interests, regardless of the position. Consensus positions should be supported and defended by land managers in Colorado as there has been a lot of balancing and collaboration that has gone into the Congressional action for management of public lands for decades. When land managers recommend Wilderness for areas that have been specifically inventoried by Congress and found ineligible, land managers are undermining a consensus position that was achieved. Despite insisting that collaborative efforts targeting consensus management are needed here, managers would be undermining the very consensus they seek to obtain by trying to recommend Wilderness in many areas on the GMUG. Additionally, recommending Wilderness based on these proposals would undermine the public process as the legislation is simply badly out of balance in terms of land use and as a result has little support from the general public.

3b. The extensive history of Congressional action addressing non-wilderness use of public lands on the GMUG must be addressed in the inventory and has been ignored.

There is a long and vigorous history of Congress specifically addressing the non-Wilderness management of public lands on the GMUG and of those protections being able to move land management legislation through Congress. It is troubling that many of the areas that have been specifically identified for non-Wilderness multiple use management in order to develop a balanced land management bill that would move through Congress were recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP for the GMUG. Congressional protections of multiple use on lands recommended for Wilderness include:

1. Non-wilderness multiple uses being identified for areas not designated as Wilderness;
2. No restrictions of usages outside Wilderness areas to create buffer areas for the Wilderness;
3. Specifically crafting boundaries to protect existing usages outside the Wilderness; and
4. Removal of primitive area designations.

The Organizations submit the 2007 RMP recommendation fails to account for previous Congressional actions regarding these areas and directly undermines the ability of balanced land management legislation to move at the landscape level and will result in land management that directly conflicts with federal law.  Many of the same flaws that plagued the 2007 GMUG RMP are carried forward into this version of the draft RMP, despite the per se violation of federal law governing many of the areas.

The Organizations are very concerned regarding the overly narrow view of Wilderness inventory that is provided in the January 2018 Wilderness Inventory guidance on the Forest, as this document completely fails to address the extensive Congressional actions that have been taking regarding management of lands on the GMUG for Wilderness and other uses. The overly narrow scope of analysis in the inventory is reflected as follows:

“After applying the size and improvements criteria, the handbook directs the Responsible Official to review information provided through public participation during the assessment phase of the plan revision process, including areas that have been proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through a previous planning process (i.e., the 2007 GMUG Proposed Plan), collaborative effort, or in pending legislation. With respect to areas proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through collaborative efforts, two citizen proposals for wilderness and other special designations were submitted to the GMUG during the assessment phase. These proposals will be considered in combination with other public comments received throughout the GMUG wilderness process.” [10]

While addressing issues involving legislative history may seem unnecessary, it is important as many of the areas recommended for addition to the Wilderness system in the 2007 Draft RMP Proposal have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since well before the Wilderness Act was originally passed in 1964. As a result, the lack of success around recent efforts to add these areas is important but also the history of not only each Wilderness areas that were designated and also areas that were not designated is important as   A large portion of the areas recommended for Wilderness in the Draft 2007 RMP have been specifically reviewed and released from further management by Congressional action to be managed under non-Wilderness standards.   In addition to the determinations of why these areas were found unsuitable for Congressional designation, these areas have been the basis of extensive inventory by the USGS and Bureau of Mines pursuant to §3b of the Wilderness Act as these were existing Primitive Areas when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.  Given the specific review and release of many of these areas from further designation by Congress, the Organizations must question how the same areas could be recommended for Wilderness in the USFS planning process, despite what has been more than 50 years of review of possible basis for designation. Additionally, many of the areas were also found unsuitable still for even Roadless area upper tier areas under the Colorado Roadless Rule.

3b (1).  Congressional determinations of non-wilderness management are not addressed in the inventory.

As previously noted there is a long history of Congressional determinations around usages of lands on the GMUG and throughout Colorado and these determinations are simply never mentioned in the inventory of the GMUG despite the fact it is existing federal law which must be recognized in planning under basic principles of law and under Forest Service requirements for the development of Wilderness areas in planning.  Forest Service guidance documents governing Wilderness inventory specifically require federal determinations of areas for non-wilderness usages MUST be recognized as follows:

“In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

National Forest System lands statutorily designated for management for nonwilderness purposes. Indicate effective dates, if any.” [11]

Given the repeated decisions of Congress specifically identifying areas on the GMUG for multiple use and unsuitable for designation as Wilderness the Organizations assert strict application of the above standard could easily result in an RMP recommendation that conflicts with federal laws specifically governing these areas. This must be avoided and currently these types of determinations are not even mentioned in the inventory.

This clarity of Congressional action regarding non-wilderness usages on large areas of the GMUG and throughout the state is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. Given the high levels of relevance of this legislation to these discussions of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, a copy has been enclosed for your convenience as exhibit 3. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act specifically spoke of the need to protect non-wilderness multiple use in areas it was not designating as Wilderness as follows:

“SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to……. Insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.” [12]

The desire of Congress to return non-Wilderness uses to areas not designated as Wilderness is evidenced by the fact that this desire was stated twice in the 1980 version of the Colorado Wilderness Act. Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”[13]

Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the non-Wilderness management of so much of the GMUG planning area, the Organizations are HIGHYLY frustrated by the fact that at no point in the inventory are these provisions even recognized.  This frustration is compounded by the fact that many areas identified for non-Wilderness usages were recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 RMP draft. Any assertion that such an oversight is permissible lack basis in fact and law and directly contradicts both federal law and Forest Service inventory requirements to recognize these areas specifically in the inventory.

Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and should be honored.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area. Also, recommendations of Wilderness in these areas must at least recognize the previous legislative determinations and explain why these determinations are not controlling for these areas any longer and why these areas may again be recommended for designation as Wilderness by Congress.

3(b)(2). Many of recommended Wilderness areas directly violate Federal law prohibiting buffer areas around many Wilderness areas on the GMUG.

As identified above there have been significant Congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the GMUG planning area for more than 50 years. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act specifically released areas not designated back to non-wilderness multiple use.  The 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas.  Congress has specifically reviewed these areas and determined where the boundaries should be located.  Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, and both of these pieces of legislation specifically required no buffer requirements as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” [14]

While federal law is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside Wilderness areas this clarity is not conveyed even generally in the Evaluation despite the fact that almost every Wilderness area on the GMUG is subject to these restrictions in the federal legislation that designated the Wilderness.   Again, these are specific Congressional determinations that must be addressed in Wilderness inventory under USFS requirements as follows:

“5.  Evaluate the degree to which the area may be managed to preserve its wilderness characteristics.  Consider such factors as:

c. Specific Federal or State laws that may be relevant to availability of the area for wilderness or the ability to manage the area to protect wilderness characteristics;” [15]

Despite this clear mandate, at no point are buffer areas being designated for multiple use even raised in the inventory.    Rather that addressing specific determinations on the lack of buffers for Wilderness many of the designations are based on the idea that such a boundary change would make preservation of Wilderness characteristics of the areas easier to manage.  Asserting such a basis for management designation would be exactly the type of buffer that is specifically prohibited under the Colorado Wilderness Act and its amendments.

The complete failure to recognize existing federal law requiring “no buffers” for Wilderness is exemplified by the repeated recognition of the positive effects of an area to provide additional buffers for existing Wilderness areas in the inventory.

The shocking disregard for the Congressional determinations regarding the Congressional determinations of the lack of necessity for additional buffers in the Wilderness Inventory is exemplified by the following portions of the inventory. In the Tellurium G11 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between travel routes and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness.”[16]

In the Taylor Canyon G15 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between NFSR 742 and both Fossil Ridge Wilderness and Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area.”[17]

In the Slumgullion P5 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between NFSR 709/private property and West Elk Wilderness.”[18]

The complete disregard for the “no buffer” provisions for Colorado Wilderness areas currently existing in federal law that is displayed by these portions of the USFS is astonishing and is vigorously opposed by the Organizations. What is even more frustrating is the fact that many of these buffer areas were actually recommended for Wilderness management in the 2007 draft RMP despite the clear Congressional determination that non-wilderness usages were permissible in these buffer areas.

3d.  A large portion of the GMUG has been inventoried as primitive areas and released back to multiple use by Congress.

In addition to the extensive Congressional action specifically drawing many of the boundaries of Wilderness areas on the GMUG, Congress additionally reviewed the inventory of three primitive areas that were existing in the southern portions of the GMUG when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. These three primitive areas were identified as the Uncompahgre Primitive area, Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive area and the Wilson Mtn Primitive areas.   Again, when the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act was passed these inventories were reviewed for possible designations by Congress and areas that were found suitable for designation were designated as Wilderness and the primitive areas were abolished and returned to multiple use.

The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act clearly abolished exiting primitive areas designations areas as follows:

“The previous classifications of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas and Wilson Mountain Primitive area are hereby abolished”  [19]

In the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, Congress then clearly identified in §101 of this Legislation the fact that any areas not designated as Wilderness was to be released back to non-wilderness multiple use as follows:

“(b) The purposes of this title are to—

(2) insure that certain other National Forest System lands in

the State of Colorado be available for nonwilderness multiple

uses.”

The Organizations submit that any assertion that the primitive area designations existing on the GMUG and specifically released for non-wilderness multiple use could again be recommended for Wilderness by the USFS defies both legal and logical defense. Despite specific federal law on this issue, these previous designations are not even addressed in the inventory.

These types of determinations regarding primitive areas are again clearly identified to be within the scope of the Wilderness Inventory process as follows:

“The Interdisciplinary Team shall record all lands included in the inventory on a map of the planning area.  In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

1.Existing designated wilderness and primitive areas….

4. National Forest System lands statutorily designated for management for nonwilderness purposes. Indicate effective dates, if any.”[20]

While Congress has designated extensive portions of the GMUG as possible primitive areas in the past and then removed these designations with a specific requirement of using these areas for non-wilderness multiple usage in areas not designated as Wilderness, these determinations are again not even addressed in the Wilderness evaluation.

We have enclosed the complete inventory of each of these primitive areas as Exhibit 4 to allow planners to fully understand the detail and scope of these inventories and understand the scope of what was released by Congress for non-wilderness multiple use and then recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP and again not even addressed in the current Wilderness evaluation report. After a detailed review of these reports, it should be noted that many of the pre-existing usages recognized in these reports and inventory that prohibited Congressional designation of these areas as Wilderness in 1980 have existed in these areas since at least the early 1970s.  These usages and management challenges often remain in the areas that were recognized by the Department of Interior and Bureau of Mines, adding more credibility to the USFS inventories of these areas subsequently undertaken.  Again, we simply cannot understand a fact pattern where Congress could specifically decline an area for designation as Wilderness, protect the non-Wilderness multiple use and then land managers would again recommend the same areas for designation in the planning process. Such a position simply lacks rational basis in facts or law.

3e. Specific boundaries of the Uncompahgre (Big Blue) and Mt. Sneffels Wilderness were drawn with great detail by Congress.

In addition to the release of the large primitive areas that predated the 1964 Wilderness Act and comprised a large amount of the southern portions of the GMUG, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act addressed the specific locations for the boundaries of both the Uncompahgre and Mount Sneffels Wilderness with unusually high levels of detail.  The value of this level of detail should not be overlooked and again would draw any assertion of suitability for these areas as recommended Wilderness in the RMP into question.

Section 9 of the House Report issued for the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act provides a large amount of highly site-specific detail into the scope of analysis undertaken by Congress in developing this legislation and why boundaries are in the locations they are in. This bill memo provides:

“9. Lizard Head, Mount Sneffels, and Big Blue Wildernesses: These three separate wilderness proposals of 40,000, 16,200, and 100,000 acres, respectively, comprise what many feel is the most scenic and spectacular area in the entire State of Colorado, and is sometimes called the “Switzerland of America”. The area’s outstanding beauty and wild nature has been officially recognized since 1932 when the Wilson Mountains and Uncompahgre Primitive Areas were established by administrative regulation. In accordance with section 3 (b) of the Wilderness Act, the wilderness character of the two primitive areas was reviewed, and a wilderness recommendation on five separate tracts was forwarded to Congress in 197 4. The RARE II process resulted in further wilderness recommendations on lands contiguous to three of the five tracts. The Committee reviewed the Administration’s recommendations and determined that the 16,200-acre Mount Sneffels proposal was adequate to protect the highly scenic country north of Telluride. To the south west, the Committee proposes a 40,000-acre Lizard Head Wilderness to link up the Administration’s Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak recommendations and include the headwaters of the Dolores River plus the landmark Lizard Head and Wilson Meadows. These additional lands largely lie within the existing Wilson Mountains Primitive Area and have important wildlife values as well as superlative wilderness qualities. The Committee therefore determined that wilderness should replace the current primitive area designation.

Similarly, the Committee recommends a 100,000-acre Big Blue Wilderness to join the Administration’s Big Blue and Courthouse Mountain proposals. The Committee additions include the heart of the eastern urut of the Uncompahgre Primitive Area and such outstanding natural features as Matterhorn Peak, Wetterhorn Peak, Precipice Peak, Dunsinane Peak, Cow Creek and portions of the West, Middle and East Forks of the Cimarron River. The Committee feels the addition of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas, and therefore amended the bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part of the way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude about 1,500 acres which are used by grazing permittees for frequent motorized access and intensive management activities associated with livestock grazing. The bill abolishes the Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountain Primitive Area designations for those residual Primitive Area lands lying outside the boundaries of the three proposed wildernesses. Most of these remaining lands are so interspersed with patented mining claims that their management as wilderness would prove infeasible.”

A complete copy of this House Report memo outlining the high levels of sight specific analysis that was undertaken by Congress is attached to these comments for your reference.  Given that many of the uses that Congress wanted to avoid impacting are still existing in these areas and have been specifically protected by federal law the Organizations must ask why manager would ever want to violate the clear statements of Congress as to the location of these Wilderness boundaries.

When both the Mt Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness Areas were designated as Wilderness in 1980, the following provisions were included in the preamble of that legislation:

“(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral,

timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws.”[21] 

The Organizations must question why areas that have been specifically released by Congress for multiple use management and consistently found unsuitable for designation as Wilderness would ever be found now available for Wilderness designation. The Congressional release of roadless areas, such as Sunshine, Wilson Mesa, Whitehouse and Liberty Bell is highly relevant due to the proximity of many of the new proposed Wilderness Area additions to both the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness and that these areas were specifically excluded by Congress from Wilderness management previously.

3f. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations wish to highlight the repeated exclusion of many areas now sought to be identified as recommended Wilderness in the RMP from lower levels of management in previous administrative reviews as part of the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule. Again, USFS requirements for the Wilderness Inventory process require inclusion of this information as follows:

“The Interdisciplinary Team shall record all lands included in the inventory on a map of the planning area.  In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

3.Areas identified in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 2, November 2000), or in a Forest Service State-specific roadless rule, or identified as undeveloped or for primitive nonmotorized management in the current land management plan.”

While Roadless inventory information is specifically required in the inventory process at no point in the GMUG wilderness inventory is the conclusions of the 2012 Roadless Rule inventory for the proposed area even mentioned. Throughout the Roadless area inventory process many conclusions regarding the unsuitability of areas for recommended Wilderness were again reached in the development of the 2012 Roadless Rule.  The systemic conclusions that many of these areas were never suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness system started with the RARE and RARE 2 inventories due to the high levels of existing usages of these areas included high levels of recreational value. These areas would include the Wilson Mesa area, Sunshine, Whitehouse, Liberty Bell and many other areas.[22] While the site-specific information from the RARE and RARE 2 process is available for review if your office should desire such a discussion, these conclusions are not discussed at length in these comments as they are repetitive to the conclusions of the Colorado Roadless Rule development in 2012.  The Organizations must ask why these areas, which have never been suitable for designation as Wilderness, despite almost 50 years of inventory, would now be thought suitable for designation as Wilderness?  The question about the need for Wilderness designations becomes more concerning when Congressional action has previously returned these areas to multiple use management.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored.  Unlike the single standard of management in the national roadless rule, in the Colorado Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas.  In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process.  As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now recommended Wilderness were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development.  Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be recommended Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times. Clearly this is information that must be included in the Wilderness inventory and has not been.

In the Colorado Roadless Rule development extensive portions of public lands were inventoried for various levels of management.  Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below.[23]  The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventories are reflected in the map below:

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now recommended Wilderness with a HIGH designation was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for the lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation.   In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided.  The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the recommendation of any of these areas as Recommended Wilderness in the draft RMP.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness recommendations in a Forest Plan, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier Roadless designation.  Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use but such a discussion is simply not provided in the Wilderness Inventory.

5a. The multiple use Continental Divide Trail is not the basis for designation of recommended Wilderness.

The Organizations have participated in a large number of planning efforts throughout the western United States where an unusual issue has come up in the planning process, mainly public pressure around the need to designate exclusionary corridors around routes designated under the National Trails System Act, which would be most commonly the Continental Divide Trail on the GMUG. The Organizations are surprised at this effort as the management of these routes has been a long-settled issue under federal law and not been a basis for significant concern on most forests in the Western United States. As a result, the entire concept of an exclusionary corridor is both creating a problem where on simply does not exist currently but also would be implementing management that Congress has specifically forbidden with numerous revisions of the NTSA. This issue has again reared its head in the Wilderness Inventory on the GMUG as repeatedly the mere presence of the CDT is cited as a reason for the designation of the area as Wilderness.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to any decisions with regard to the need for an exclusionary corridor or landscape exclusion of motorized usage from the CDT as such a position would be completely without basis in law or fact.  As accurately noted in the CDT plan more than 14% of CDT is currently on a motorized road and an unspecified percentage more is located on motorized trails and significant portion of the CDT are groomed for winter motorized recreational usage.  All these management decisions have been in place for decades and operate without major conflict. The long history of successful management of these areas for the benefit of all is simply never addressed by those seeking a landscape level exclusion nor is the conflict between proposed exclusions and existing federal law resolved or even addressed by those seeking an exclusion.  As a result, the Organizations are vigorously opposed to any closures of lands adjacent to the CDT to multiple use. Congress has consistently moved to protect multiple use access to the CDT with every amendment to the NTSA.

5b. Designations of recommended Wilderness due the CDT directly conflict with federal law.

The Organizations are also vigorously opposed to the repeated reliance on the existence of the Continental Divide Trail in particular locations as a factor weighing in favor of recommending Wilderness in a particular area. The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only 1968 legislation is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA in 1968.  Significant clarity in addressing the Congressional desire for multiple use management has been added with every amendment to the NTSA since 1968.  Multiple uses of corridors and trails was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed.  HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”[24]

The Organizations note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail.  Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

HRep 1631 clearly addresses the intent of Congress, and the internal Congressional discussions regarding implementation of the NTSA provisions for the benefit of all recreational activities as follows:

“however, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”[25]

Subsequent amendments to the NTSA the need to balance all uses is a concern that Congress has consistently and repeatedly addressed with higher levels of clarity in the NTSA.   Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the first time when agency planning sought to implement restrictions on other usages around a NTSA route in contradiction to federal law.

Subsequent to the passage of the NTSA in 1968, Congress further refined and clarified the management practices for public lands with the passage of Federal Land and Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”) of 1976.  While FLPMA did not specifically address the relationship of its provisions with the NTSA, FLPMA altered the entire landscape of federal lands management and the implementation of multiple use mandates for the agencies. Subsequent to the adoption of FLPMA, the NTSA was amended in 1983 to clarify that FLPMA and multiple use principals controlled the management of not only the footprint of NTSA routes but also the corridors around those routes with the passage of Public Law 98-11. The 1983 NTSA amendments removed any basis for the principal of management of adjacent lands for the benefit of the route and replaced the adjacent lands concept with the following provisions:

“in selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”

In addition to clearly stating multiple use principals controlled NTSA routes and areas, Congress clarified the usages of NTSA designated routes by directly stating motorized usages in all forms were permitted by adding 16 USC 1246 (j), which remains in place to this day.  This provision states:

“Types of trail use allowed Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include but are not limited to…the following: snowmobiling, …Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles.”

7c continues with extensive guidance regarding multiple uses on the CDT as follows:

“Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail”[26]

The Organizations vigorously assert that any USFS guidance should not be placing one of the conflicting usages above another in a manner that directly conflicts with clearly stated guidance from Congress but rather should be identifying the conflict clearly and then assisting managers in resolving this conflict in a manner that addresses the clearly stated intent of Congress, which is the NTSA was intended to benefit all activity. Again, this situation must be reviewed and corrected.

5c. The CDT plan does not support designation of recommended Wilderness as there are extensive provision for management of multiple uses.

The 2009 CDT plan also provides high quality information regarding levels of usage that the 2016 USFS CDT guidance appears to assert are prohibited.  A meaningful and complete review of the CDT plan reveals it clearly states:

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”[27]

In addition to the 14% of the CDT that is a motorized road, there are extensive but unspecified portions of the CDT located on motorized trails and significant portions of the CDT are groomed by the motorized community to access backcountry recreational areas for decades.  This simply cannot be reconciled with exclusionary corridors.

It is significant to note that Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) plan has adopted a blanket recognition of relevant travel management of areas around the CDT in its management plan. The 2009 CDT Plan provisions are as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and……. (5) Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:

(a) The vehicle class and width were allowed on that segment of the CDNST prior to November 10, 1978, and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST or

(b) That segment of the CDNST was constructed as a road prior to November 10, 1978; or

(6) In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”^[28]

Given the fact that the CDT plan specifically states the need to recognize travel management as the controlling factor for use of the trail tread and adjacent corridors in a manner consistent with multiple use requirements, the Organizations vigorously assert that these portions of the CDT plan would be rendered irrelevant with the designation of exclusionary corridors.  This is a direct indication there is a problem with the corridor concept being recommended.

The failure to accurately review all relevant decision documents is even more problematic when site specific Congressional action on a particular trail is brought into the discussion.  While our Organizations do not have guidance documents regarding the PCT, these concerns regarding this type of conflict are highlighted on the PCT, which is also a designated route under the NTSA.  Congress has specifically identified crossing points that are to be reopened on the PCT as exemplified by the designation of two crossing locations on the Bridgeport Ranger District of the Humbolt-Toiyabe NF.[29]  Again the Organizations must express serious concerns about any landscape level guidance documents for a NTSA route excluding motorized usage that brought management into clear conflict with these Congressional actions and related planning efforts.

5d.  While the CDT is referenced throughout the inventory, no mention is made of the extensive motorized trails in many of the recommended areas.

The Organizations would be remiss if the conflicting treatment of trails in the inventory process was not raised as well.  While the CDT appears to be relied on as a basis for designation of the area for Wilderness there is no mention of the extensive motorized trail networks, both summer and winter, that are present in many of these areas.  This is simply unacceptable as many of these trail networks have existed for decades in these locations without issue and the groomed winter trail network is highly valued by all users as this network is relied upon by all users to gain access to the backcountry.   If trails are going to be addressed, and we submit an extensive trail network in any area is evidence of trammeling by man, then all trail networks should be treated equally. Land managers should not be able to include trails when it supports a decision and then exclude other trails that don’t support the decision.  That is an exceptionally poor way for the managers to build partnerships with the community and is also a violation of NEPA and numerous other federal planning requirements.

6. Conclusion.

We welcome this opportunity to provide input addressing the failure of the wilderness evaluation to provide a transparent inventory of the Wilderness suitability that is broad and inclusive of all factors that are required to be analyzed. This inventory is woefully inadequate and fails to satisfy NEPA and other requirements for Wilderness inventory process and as a result directly impairs the public ability to provide meaningful comment on the management of these areas.  While the evaluation provides significant analysis of reasons why to designate an area as recommended Wilderness, the evaluation fails:

1. to even mention numerous Congressional actions that directly impact the availability of many areas for designation as Wilderness on the GMUG;
2. Operates on the foundation that the continental Divide Trail is designated as Non-motorized only;
3. Many existing and legal uses of the areas are not addressed in the inventory; and
4. Fails to address all citizen Wilderness proposals addressing lands within the GMUG.

In these comments, the Organizations have provided a detailed analysis of the extensive reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which occurred before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. None of this information is even mentioned in the inventory.  These multiple reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in Congressional decisions:

1. Releasing significant portions of the GMUG from further inventory and requiring non-wilderness multiple use management moving forward;
2. Prohibiting buffer areas around Wilderness areas;
3. Repeal of primitive area designations on large portions of the GMUG; and
4. Explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations that they are.

USFS inventory requirements specifically require that such Congressional actions be honored and addressed in the Wilderness inventory process but the GMUG has chosen not to provide this information in violation of federal law and USFS planning requirements.

These Wilderness and Wilderness release determinations by Congress have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in Colorado history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas. Again, none of this the weak legislative history around the citizen Wilderness proposals is mentioned in the inventory, despite the fact that some of these proposals have been in existence for more than 20 years and barely received any Congressional support.

The honoring of all aspects of federal land management legislation is critically important to the Organizations as the Organizations have devoted years of effort to obtaining balance in recent land management legislation that has actually been passed into law by Congress.  This is directly evidenced by the Hermosa Watershed Legislation on the San Juan NF,[30] which did designate a sizable Wilderness area but also released the remaining portions of the West Needles Wilderness Study area and specified the area must be used for motorized recreation and also designated a special management area where motorized recreation was a characteristic of the area due the ongoing Wilderness recommendation for the area in forest planning. It is interesting to note that when this legislation was moved forward, BLM managers sought to manage the West Needles area as a WSA despite the fact the Congressional designation had been revoked in 1993 and this decision was roundly criticized by all parties in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation.  If designations requiring non-Wilderness management are not honored and may simply be cast aside at will, the Organizations would note that such a casting aside would impair community efforts for land management decisions in the future.

In addition to the Congressional determinations regarding the usage of many areas of the GMUG, the USFS has recently completely inventoried the GMUG again to review the lesser classification of upper tier roadless designation.  The inventory again fails to provide this information to the public, despite the chronological relevance of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development and USFS planning requirements requiring Roadless characteristics be addressed in the Wilderness inventory process.

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities and any other challenges that might be facing the GMUG moving forward at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact  Don Riggle at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs, 80906, Cell (719) 338- 4106 or Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504.  His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, ESq.
CSA President
TPA & COHVCO Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

[1] See, A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

[2] A copy of this Proposal is attached as exhibit A to these comments.

[3] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (2).

[4] More information on this Proposal is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1635?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s1635%22%5D%7D&r=1

[5] More information on this legislation is available here:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1701?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221701%22%5D%7D&r=79

[6] More information on this legislation is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/829?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22degette+colorado+wilderness+act%22%5D%7D&r=12

[7] A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

[8] Various press coverage of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed legislation as part of the National defense Authorization act of 2014 is available here: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3209

[9] See PL 96-560

[10] See, GMUG Wilderness inventory process document- January 2018 at pg 2.

[11] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (3)(4)

[12] See, PL 96-560 at §101.

[13] See, PL 96-560 at §107.

[14] See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3).  Similar provisions are found in section 110 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.

[15] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (5).

[16] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 31.

[17] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 36.

[18] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 70.

[19] See, Public Law 96-560 at §102(b).

[20] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (1) & (4).

[21] See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

[22] See, USDA Forest Service; FEIS Roadless Area Review and Evaluation; Appendix E; January 1979 at pg. 216  & 220.

[23] A complete electronic version of the conclusions of these inventory process for Colorado Roadless Rule upper tier designation is available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5366289.pdf

[24] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.

[25] See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.

[26] See, 16 USC §1246(c)

[27] See, 2009 CDT Plan at pg. 19.

[28] See, USFS, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan 2009 at pg. 19.

[29] See, generally Omnibus Public Lands Management Bill of 2009 and various supporting analysis available here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/73978_FSPLT2_059530.pdf

[30] See, A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) has staff with substantial experience with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division’s (CPW) Trails Program.  This statewide program within CPW provides grants for trail-related projects on an annual basis.  Local, county, and state governments, federal agencies, special recreation districts, and non-profit organizations with management responsibilities over public lands may apply for and are eligible to receive non-motorized and motorized trail grants.

The Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) (aka motorized) Program seeks to improve and enhance motorized recreation opportunities in Colorado while promoting safe, responsible use of OHVs. The grant program combines OHV registration and permit fees with federal Recreation Trails Funds (RTP) to fund the annual OHV trail grant process. OHV Grants are available for projects related to recreational use of OHVs on lands open to the public.

The TPA can provide OHV grant application review services, technical assistance, and consultation for those clubs/organizations seeking and preparing CPW OHV grants.  The TPA cannot prepare the actual grant application but will provide advice and expertise with the intent to improve a club/organization’s competitiveness of an individual grant application.  The TPA can also help mentor and coach persons preparing to make presentations to the CPW OHV Subcommittee.

OHV programmatic or competitive project grants can address the full spectrum of OHV recreation support needs in Colorado. Eligible grant-funded activities may include:

• Construction, reconstruction or maintenance of OHV routes or multi-use trails that allow for motorized use
• Crossing structures, bridges, railings, ramps, and fencing
• Bank stabilization and retaining structures
• OHV trail corridor re-vegetation and erosion control
• Trailhead development and/or support facilities related to OHV or multi-use trails including parking areas, restrooms, and related facilities
• Project Materials, Tools, and Supplies
• Equipment needed to build or maintain OHV trails
• Fleet vehicle(s) for trail crewmembers – fixed and variable expenses, fuel and fluids.
• Normal maintenance and repairs on trail machines (trail bikes, ATV’s) and equipment (dozers, chainsaws, generators, etc.), fuel and fluids.
• Signs – directional, regulatory, and interpretive signage for OHV routes
• Printing – maps/guides, safety and educational materials Programs, publications and videos on safety and OHV recreation
• OHV trail or system planning, engineering, or design
• Land acquisition or easement projects. NEPA review and environmental compliance work required under NEPA or other statutes
• Restoration of closed trails or damaged areas where a nexus exists between OHV misuse and needed repairs
• Salary, compensation, and benefits for crew members or project employees
• Employment-required immunizations, background checks
• Law enforcement wages for enforcing State OHV Law (CRS 33-14.5)
• OHV Education and safety programs
• Liability and Workers Compensation Insurance required for OHV projects.
• Insurance coverage for physical damage and theft on equipment purchased with OHV funding that is valued at over $10,000

Provided below are some useful links to the CPW OHV Grant Program:

• Grant program: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHV.aspx
• Previously selected grants: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHVApps.aspx
• CPW OHV Program: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHVApps.aspx

Dirt bike, motorcycle or OHV clubs that are interested in requesting support from the TPA during the preparation of a CPW, OHV grant application can contact the undersigned at (719) 338-4106 or at info@coloradotpa.org to discuss a proposed OHV grant and needs for support.

E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Council on Environmental Quality
Att: Edward Boling, Assistant Director of NEPA
Via portal only@ www.regulations.gov

Re: CEQ-2018-0001

Dear Mr. Boling:
The above Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and CEQ process to develop a more efficient and effective management process. After reviewing each of the 20 specific questions that were provided in the Federal Register notice on a variety of issues around the Endangered Species Act planning process and related topics, the Organizations above would answer each question in the affirmative.

The Organizations additionally would like to comment on two significant barriers to the efficient implementation of NEPA on public lands:

1. Executive orders addressing travel management are simply out of date and require extensive re-analysis of issues resolved under planning requirements subsequently passed by Congress;
2. Wilderness inventory processes in planning is cumbersome and redundant as planner often re-inventory areas Congress has specifically determined stated are not available for Wilderness designation and often directly contravenes the determinations in areas where multiple agencies have reviewed areas and determined them to be unsuitable.

The Organizations would also like to thank the CEQ for undertaking this review, as often planning documents and concepts are put in place and never reviewed again for basic relevance and meaning after the passage of time. Often this failure to review NEPA requirements results in repetition and confusion in the NEPA process that often generates only minimal on the ground benefits. It is not the Organizations intent to provide a complete list of these challenges but rather to highlight two of the more repetitive and confusing issues that are involved in the NEPA process..

1. Who we are.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns, our Organizations have regarding the NEPA process to date and streamlining of the process moving forward, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport.

The Off-Road Business Association (“ORBA”) is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue.

The Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is a recognized, statewide collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts and others that will identify and work together on recreation issues in cooperation with land managers, legislators and the public to ensure a positive future for responsible outdoor recreation access for everyone, now and into the future.

One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration. One Voice provides a unified voice for motorized recreation through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community. For purposes of this correspondence TPA, COHVCO, CSA, ORBA, IRC and One Voice will be referred to as “The Organizations”.

Collectively the Organizations have been actively involved in easily thousands of NEPA actions throughout the Western United States over their more than 30 years of existence with US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of Defense, and Bureau of Reclamation ranging from the recent landscape level forest plan amendments involving Sage Grouse and previous efforts on the Canadian Lynx to planning efforts involving management plans on a particular Forest or Field Office to small level planning efforts involving only a small portion of a field Office or Ranger District.

2. Landscape Concerns.

The CEQ has asked a series of general questions in the Federal Register notice on this issue and the Organizations would answer each of these questions in the affirmative. While we have not included a detailed response to each of the particular questions identified in the Federal Register notice, the Organizations have provided a full copy of the comments previously submitted with regard to the USFS planning revision process, commonly identified as the EADM process, and our comments submitted relative to the Western Governors Association efforts targeting Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Reform. The Organizations have been active participants in these processes and are aware there is a significant amount of overlap between these efforts and the current proposal from the CEQ. The Organizations hope that by providing more detailed information and input on our experiences with the NEPA process on a wide range of public lands issues in the hope that previous mistakes will not be repeated and that this information will allow the CEQ to develop a Proposal that addresses challenges in the most effective and cost-efficient way possible.

The Organizations are providing these more extensive comments as we are aware that often the “why” behind a position that is taken is as important as the position itself. In these comments, the Organizations are targeting changes that can be undertaken in the planning process under the current legislative systems. While the Organizations support changes to the Legislative structure that governs planning, such as revising and updating the Endangered Species Act, the Organizations are also aware that such changes are outside the scope of the request from your Office.

3a. Maintenance backlogs, partner resources and NEPA.

The Organizations are intimately aware of the challenges faced on Federal public lands in terms of limited maintenance budgets and barriers to the effective use of partnerships to address maintenance issues as a result of the administrative barriers that in place as part of the current NEPA review process. While many in the recreational community are asserting volunteers are sufficient to address the maintenance backlog, this position fails to recognize that many maintenance issues simply cannot be solved with some hoes and shovels, regardless of how well intentioned any volunteer group maybe. Any effort at the levels necessary to address these levels of backlogs require funding and equipment, which the motorized community has provided for decades through their OHV registration programs. Often these funds are not fully utilized or matched due to land management budgets being directed to administrative inefficiency and the need to reconfirm decisions that have already been made. Resolving these inefficiencies would allow more funding to be available for basic maintenance and for the more effective engagement of partners on the ground.

These inefficiencies can result from the lack of clarity around Executive Orders and existing planning requirements in efforts to implement forest level planning obligations in subsequent site specific NEPA efforts. This lack of clarity in the decision making process often results from planners being forced to reopen decisions in site specific planning that were already resolved in landscape level NEPA to insure that conflicts and confusion in planning requirements are resolved. As President Trump accurately summarized in EO 13807:

“The poor condition of America’s infrastructure has been estimated to cost a typical American household thousands of dollars each year. Inefficiencies in current infrastructure project decisions, including management of environmental reviews and permit decisions or authorizations, have delayed infrastructure investments, increased project costs, and blocked the American people from enjoying improved infrastructure that would benefit our economy, society, and environment.”¹

The confusion and conflict from overlapping or conflicting planning obligations is a major barrier to the effective use of partner resources to address infrastructure issues on public lands. The Organizations are aware that federal funding for maintenance of infrastructures on public lands is limited but partner resources are significant as the voluntary registration programs in many states more than double the amount of funding available to land managers for maintenance and operations. The voluntary registration programs adopted by the OHV community have created exceptional state partners for the management of federal lands The California OHV registration program has now contributed more than $500 million in partner funding to land managers², and the Colorado motorized registration program is approaching $100 million in funding for land managers³. while these programs are highlighted in these comments, they are no means an anomaly as most western states have developed highly effective voluntary registration programs which institutionalize partnering with the federal lands managers. The motorized community is highly vested in resolution of these issues and is intimately aware of the barriers to effective management and full utilization of existing resources that are presented by the often repetitive or conflicting NEPA requirements for resolution of recreational infrastructure projects on the ground.

3b. Economic benefits of recreation limited by NEPA.

As President Trump also accurately identified, recreational activities on federal lands is also a major economic driver for local communities. The Department of Commerce recently concluded that recreational spending contributed more than 2% of the Gross Domestic product and was growing faster than the Gross Domestic Product as follows⁴:

The Department of Commerce further concluded that the overwhelming portion of this economic benefit flows from motorized access and usage. The Department of Commerce conclusions on this were stark as follows:

Motorized Vehicles was the largest activity within conventional outdoor recreation in 2016, accounting for $59.4 billion of gross output. Recreational vehicles accounted for more than half of this value at $30billion.

Many state level research efforts have targeted this question with more detail, such as the 2012 Economic Contribution study from the State of Colorado, which concluded this activity contributed more than $2.3 billion in spending to the state economy and most of this was centered in small communities that are now overly reliant on recreational activity for basic sustainability of the community. A copy of this study is enclosed with these comments.

Documentation is major barrier despite USFS desire to expand usage of partners and volunteers and passage of the National Forest System Trails Stewardship act by Congress in 2016. In these comments, the Organizations are not attempting to provide an exhaustive list of the challenges that are faced by the voluntary registration programs in their partnerships with land managers but rather identify major systemic challenges that consistently reduce the effectiveness of current monies on the ground.

4. Executive Orders regarding travel management are simply out of date and are a major barrier to effective infrastructure investment.

As noted previously, the Organizations have participated in thousands of NEPA actions throughout the Western United States over the last 40 years and one of the most consistent barriers to effectively managing issues on the landscape is the Executive Orders governing what has become known as the Travel Management Orders and Rule. The original Travel Management Order was issues by President Richard Nixon in 1972 (EO 11644) and was only substantively updated by President Carter in 1977(EO 11989). Planning agencies have updated internal requirements around travel management but even most recent of those was 2005. The fact that the Travel Management Orders were issued almost 50 years ago and have not been meaningfully reviewed speaks volumes to the need for this type of review to insure basic relevance of these orders to issues on the ground.

While the age of these Orders alone would pose a minimal issue, the age becomes more problematic when subsequent Congressional actions regarding management of public lands is integrated into the planning process. Congress enacted FLPMA in 1976 which has guided the management of public lands since its enactment and required identification of goals and objectives for particular areas on public lands, including the density or intensity of development allowed inn particular planning designations. As a result of the FPLMA planning process, the travel orders are almost entirely redundant with FLPMA requirements. As federal land managers are now moving forward with updating the first round of landscape level management plans created under FLPMA, the conflict and confusion between FLPMA processes and the TO is becoming more of an issue. Planners are unsure if these are separate planning goals, can be combined and often over-plan and analyze as a result in the hope of avoiding litigation on decisions being brought. Significant public pressure from those opposed to the general principal of multiple use is applied and seeks to determine that existing forest planning and minimization criteria are entirely separate planning requirements and that minimization must be done at every step of the planning process.⁵

The age and overlap of these Orders results in a large amount of conflict and confusion in the planning process over time and artificial elevation of travel management to levels of priority that simply are not warranted on the ground. This artificial elevation of travel management would be exemplified by planning to address trails on a forest or ranger district where tree mortality has exceeded 90%. There can be no rational argument that planning for roads and trails should be a higher priority in this situation but often pressure is applied to move forward with minimization of impacts from roads and trails. In addition to the hot bed of litigation against the agencies, the lack of clarity in the planning process results in efforts that are taken to address issues impacting resources due to flooding or fires are often delayed for years in the NEPA process. Rather than moving forward with funding that might be available almost immediately, federal land managers are forced to enter into lengthy NEPA planning efforts in order to explain the decision being made.

Additionally there are concepts in these Executive Orders that are older than every forest plans created in the first rounds of planning under FLPMA. Everyone agrees those forest plans are comically out of date and badly in need of updating, and similar concerns could be raised about the age of the Executive Orders addressing travel management. The age and overlap of these orders is often a hot bed for litigation challenging the end result of any NEPA process as often the redundancy of these orders and FLPMA making full documentation a long and drawn out process that has minimal impacts or benefits on the ground. Often these Executive Orders introduce concerns into the NEPA process that are entirely redundant with planning requirements that are now required by Federal Management requirements under FLPMA and other planning requirements. Minimization criteria in these Executive Orders would be one example of the redundancy that has resulted from these orders not being updated to reflect actions by Congress subsequent to the issuance of these orders, such as FLPMA.

Additional redundancy of planning and the minimization criteria required under the Executive Orders results from the diversity of paths taken by land managers in complying with these requirements. Some forests addressed minimization at the landscape level and developed forest level travel maps that were often unrelated to conditions on the ground, while other forests addressed with site specific planning efforts on an as needed basis. Each of these issues present separate and unique challenges in planning but both are impacted by the high levels of employee turnover within federal agencies and often poor retention of planning records. While challenges are often brought against both processes, site specific planning also allows litigation against the overall process by groups that participated in the original site specific planning and failed to raise any concerns about compliance with landscape level planning requirements at the local level. These issues are compounded by the fact that managers are now having to manage documents that were created almost 40 years ago. Documentation of decisions was complied with an entirely different levels 50 years ago simply due to the evolution of technology.

Further delay in management and maintenance of public lands results from the Executive Orders results from the fact that minimization of impacts is often a major concern in subsequent smaller scale planning to advance usage in areas that might be identified as high usage areas in existing forest level planning. This confusion is despite the fact that minimization has already occurred at the Forest level and the area has been identified for high levels of usage.

The conflict and confusion between the Executive Orders, which are now badly in need of updating and FLPMA is compounded by the fact that many forests are now moving to update forest level planning document under FLPMA. With these efforts, there is now significant pressure being applied for managers to start from scratch on minimization questions, even when there is a solid paper trail in place to explain the process to date on the forest. When managers are not able to document minimization, that pressure is increased as would be exemplified on the recent litigation surrounding the Pike/San Isabel (“PSI”) National Forest in Colorado. The PSI was sued in 2010 and that litigation was settled in 2016 due to the fact managers could not document the organization of their site specific travel planning process. As a result, a forest level travel plan was to be developed and the minimization criteria have become a major hurdle in that process, which alone raises concern on the conflict due to the fact that the PSI forest plan was completed almost a decade after the issuance of the Executive Orders and passage of FLPMA. There can be no rational argument made that the forest plan did not comply with these requirements, but since managers are not able to justify the decisions made more than 3 decades ago, planning is again brought to the forefront.

The PSI litigation and subsequent settlement provides for another opportunity for redundant and burdensome planning requirements as the PSI is planning to update their Forest plan immediately after the issuance of the Forest level travel decision. As part of the development of the second Forest Plan, the minimization criteria must again be addressed due to forest management goals objectives changing. Essentially the PSI will have to comply with the minimization criteria in the Executive Orders, create a forest plan and re-minimize under the new forest plan criteria. This is the pinnacle of redundant and ineffective governmental process as decades of planning efforts, millions in resources which will improve not single acre of land on the forest or the growing maintenance backlog of facilities on the forest.

A second example of how the Executive Orders age and redundancy are resulting in a horribly inefficient utilization of resources and delaying improvement of conditions on the ground is provided in the recent elevation of the entire winter travel management process for over the snow vehicles (“OSV”) travel. This would be another example of where the travel management orders could be refined and updated in order to obtain significant new efficiency in the NEPA process. Despite recent court actions, winter travel management has already occurred on overwhelming portion of forests with snow and again the planning process was highly divergent on forests throughout the country as some forests never got snow, others only received snow on a small portion of the forest while others received significant snow across the forest. While there was not a national policy or other national action, the diversity of planning made a lot of sense on the ground due the highly variable nature of weather and snowfall. Many forests effectively engaged a diverse range of interests and concerns in the development of snowmobile plans for areas and these areas have been effectively managed for many decades. The successful and effective management of OSV issues is again an issues as much of this planning occurred several decades ago and most decision makers have retired and documentation has been lost. The conflict and confusion of existing planning under FLPMA and the Executive Orders is again coming to the forefront.

The conflict between the Executive Orders, FLPMA and the age of forest plans has resulted in widespread litigation of existing snowmobile planning, as demonstrated by recent litigation against several forests in California around their winter grooming programs, the challenge to the entire winter planning process brought in Idaho courts and subsequent challenges to forests that have moved forward under the terms of the settlement agreements. Now planners are being forced to return to an issue most offices thought were settled and defend decisions that have been effectively managing issues for decades as a result of litigation being brought. The conflict and confusion between the Executive Orders and forest planning requirements has resulted in land managers poorly defending winter travel decisions. Winter travel is an issue that was resolved under FLPMA planning without objection from those now challenging these decisions many decades later, but must be re-reviewed to insure impacts have been minimized as required under Executive Orders. Conflict between FLPMA planning and the Executive Orders is again raised as a major planning concern by those seeking to restrict usage and public access to infrastructure.⁶

The Organizations encounter the conflict and confusion that results from the conflict between the outdated Executive Orders and existing FLPMA planning which has complied with NEPA on an almost daily basis. This conflict and confusion slows the effective engagement of partners to improve recreational infrastructure on public lands and reduces economic benefits to local communities, both of which were clearly identified in President Trump’s EO 13807.

Possible resolutions of Travel Management Rule issues:

• Update out of date Executive Orders targeting travel management;
• Provide presumption that minimization in second round of forest planning is complied with unless can be proven otherwise;

5. Wilderness inventory process and WSA management provide areas where significant efficiency is now available.

A second area where significant efficiency gains could be achieved is through the re-review and updating of conflicting management guidance the inventory and planning for future Wilderness designations in the FLPMA/NEPA planning process. Many of the concepts that are identified in the Wilderness Act for the inventory of public lands are simply out of date and again result in numerous extra steps in the planning and analysis process. While much of this inventory process is mandated under the Wilderness Act, there is extensive efficiency gains that could be achieved in the second round of NEPA planning under FLPMA by limiting the scope of review to areas that are available for designation and currently managed for such an objective. Managers should also be made aware of the fact that the mere inventory of areas for Wilderness suitability often makes any subsequent management of the area for multiple use more complex.

When the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, there was simply very limited data even available regarding the characteristics of undeveloped tracts of federal land. Over the next 50 years, undeveloped lands under federal management have been the basis for extensive federal analysis and discussion and hundreds of thousands of public lands have been protected by Congressional action. While extensive tracts of land were designated as Wilderness, extensive other areas were consistently identified as unsuitable for designation in the inventory process and a smaller portion were released by Congress from the need for further review. While extensive areas have never been suitable for designation, managers are forced to re-inventory these areas in each planning process.

Given this extensive inventory and subsequent Congressional action that has occurred since passage of the Wilderness Act, there can be no factually based assertion there are large areas to be inventoried for possible Wilderness for the first time, as there is a finite number of acres of public lands and these have been repeatedly inventoried and addressed by Congress. The possibility of finding new lands that might be suitable for Wilderness designation is minimal at best. While the probability of finding new Wilderness is very limited, land managers are often forced to re-inventory areas found unsuitable previously or areas that have been specifically released by Congress or are hesitant to rely on previous determinations excluding an area from designation due to a particular usage even when that usage is still present in the areas being inventoried.

While there is minimal chance of finding new Wilderness areas for designation in second rounds of planning, there is no process to recognize the repeated inventory of lands and Congressional action in new rounds of planning or NEPA analysis. Without this type of a presumption, land managers are often forced to fully review areas that have never been suitable. Managers must also inventory lands released back to multiple use as part of previous Congressional actions, simply because of the requirement that citizen Wilderness petitions are specifically identified as a planning element in the inventory process. Often these citizen petitions fail to recognize previous Congressional action releasing areas or protecting multiple usage and garner little support from the public in the Legislative process. Despite these facial failures to establish a valid planning issue, land managers are forced to address these citizen petitions. Clarifying that areas not managed for Wilderness are probably not suitable for future designation would significantly streamline planning and NEPA analysis and allow for the more efficient management of federal lands.

An examples of the administrative burdens and inefficiency that result from the repetitive nature of the Wilderness inventory process is exemplified by management history of significant acres on the GMUG and San Juan national forest. Significant portions of the forest were found unsuitable in RARE 1&2 processes, unsuitable in Primitive Area analysis by Bureau of Mines and were released by Congress after highly site specific analysis and discussion with diverse interests in Wilderness legislation due to high levels of recreational activity in these areas. Land managers are still forced to address these areas for possible Wilderness designation in the future due to citizen inventories and legislative proposals that have been introduced since previous Congressional determinations on the areas. Land managers feel compelled to re-inventory these areas despite the fact that legislative proposals expanding these designations have never moved forward in the legislative process despite being introduced for decades and the clear Congressional action releasing the area from future Wilderness inventory.

The inefficiencies and barriers to utilization of these areas is presented by the ongoing Wilderness inventory process involving the North Sand Hills area outside Walden Colorado. This area provides a unique recreational opportunity that local, state and federal managers would like to expand and improve. This expansion and improvement is functionally prohibited by the fact that the area was inventoried as a WSA due to existing primitive area designation when the Wilderness Act was passed. Development is functionally prohibited despite the area being found unsuitable in original rounds of inventory. Motorized access to sand dune type riding exceptionally limited in Rocky Mountains and the opportunities provided in the North Sand Hills is probably unique in the Nation in the fact that users can ride sand dunes in the morning and then connect to extensive trail network in Rocky Mountains in the afternoon. Currently rustic camping and minimal services are provided on North Sand Hills. Everyone would like to expand these opportunities to improved camping facilities and integrated trail network to provide a solid economic driver for local communities. This expansion which has been supported by wide range of interests including Wilderness Society and other conservation groups. While this area has been the basis of specific WSA release legislation that legislation has not moved due to the exceptionally small size of the area. ⁷ The barrier to management and utilization of this area due the lingering WSA designation functionally prohibits expansion and utilization of the area due the possible designation of the area as Wilderness.

These lingering inventory and designation issues are not isolated to a small number of sites, but rather impact a large number of acres of public lands and result in other challenges that limit the effective and efficient utilization of these lands for the benefit of local communities. The ongoing inventory requirements lead to conclusions that are simply beyond rational description being made in the land management process as exemplified by the management of the West Needles WSA outside Durango, CO. This area was identified as a WSA in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act⁸ and subsequently inventoried in 1982, where a large portion was suitable for designation and a small portion was found unsuitable due to high levels of usage in that area. This recommendation was moved forward in 1993 Colorado Wilderness designations and the WSA designation was repealed.⁹ Despite this repeal of the WSA designation, the WSA designation remained in place due to the inventory of the area once and these existing usages were again put at risk in 2012 when land managers sought to close these usages due to the previous inventory. This issue was finally resolved when Congress again sought to release the area with the designation of the area as an SMA for motorized usage, which was passed into law in 2014.1⁰ While the issue was legislatively resolved, the inefficiency and limitation on utilization of the area is immediately apparent.

These issues are not limited to Colorado as similar challenges have been encountered in Idaho, where certain Roadless areas were specifically identified as areas where access is to be expanded in previous Congressional action but continue to be inventoried or managed for Wilderness. In the 1980 Idaho Wilderness Act, use of numerous backcountry airstrips was specifically excluded and protected¹¹, but despite these protections, land managers have continued to have to manage these airstrips as if they were impairing Wilderness. This process has again complicated maintenance of these areas and limited the economic benefit from these areas.

Possible resolutions of Wilderness inventory issue:

• Provide presumption that areas previously found unsuitable or released have not become suitable merely due to the passage of time

6. Conclusion

The above Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and CEQ process to develop a more efficient and effective management process. After reviewing each of the 20 specific questions that were provided in the Federal Register notice on a variety of issues around the Endangered Species Act planning process and related topics, the Organizations above would answer each question in the affirmative.

The Organizations additionally would like to comment on two significant barriers to the efficient implementation of NEPA on public lands:

1. Executive orders addressing travel management are simply out of date and require extensive re-analysis of issues resolved under planning requirements subsequently passed by Congress;
2. Wilderness inventory processes in planning is cumbersome and redundant as planner often re-inventory areas Congress has specifically determined stated are not available for Wilderness designation and often directly contravenes the determinations in areas where multiple agencies have reviewed areas and determined them to be unsuitable.

The Organizations would also like to thank the CEQ for undertaking this review, as often planning documents and concepts are put in place and never reviewed again for basic relevance and meaning after the passage of time. Often this failure to review NEPA requirements results in repetition and confusion in the NEPA process that often generates only minimal on the ground benefits. It is not the Organizations intent to provide a complete list of these challenges but rather to highlight two of the more repetitive and confusing issues that are involved in the NEPA process.

If you have questions please feel free to contact either Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504. His phone is 518-281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com or Fred Wiley, ORBA’s Executive Director at 1701 Westwind Drive #108, Bakersfield, CA. Mr. Wiley phone is 661-323-1464 and his email is fwiley@orba.biz .

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO & IRC Authorized Representative;
CSA President

Fred Wiley, ORBA President and CEO;
Authorized Representative of One Voice

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

CC: Vickie Christiansen, Chief USFS

1 Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017
2 For more information on the California program please see: http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/
3 For more information on the Colorado OHV/OSV programs please see: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHV.aspx
4 A complete copy of this research is available here: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/orsa/orsanewsrelease.htm
5 This documentation is exemplified by the following document: https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/ORV%20Minimization%20Criteria%20White%20Paper—May%202016.pdf
6 This conflict is again exemplified by the following guidance documents from those opposing multiple usage: https://winterwildlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BMP-Final.pdf
7 See, HR 5570 of 114 Congress.
8 See, PL 96-150 §105(a)(9)
9 See, PL 103-77 §4a
10 See, PL 113-291 §3062
11 See, PL 94-951 §7a.

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Att: Chairman John Barrasso
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Re: Endangered Species Act Amendments of 2018

Dear Senator Barrasso:

Governors Association collaborative meetings addressing species conservation and ESA reform and are thrilled to see that process continue to move forward. The Organizations have also participated in a wide range of cooperative efforts around specific species, and it has been our experience that in these cooperative meetings that almost all species specific information, including population counts; specific habitat management actions public and private lands and other critical information that is being provided is coming from state species managers rather than federal species managers. Poor implementation of species management standards after a species is listed on the ESA is a major challenge that is faced by those seeking access to public lands in a sustainable manner. Many of these challenges are addressed by the Proposal.

Prior to addressing our basis for support of the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

ORBA is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner. One Voice is a grassroots Organization that focuses on insuring that local experiences and challenges are conveyed to decision makers in Washington overseeing these areas and issues for resolution. Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is a recognized, statewide, collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts and others that will identify and work together on recreation issues in cooperation with land managers, legislators and the public to ensure a positive future for responsible outdoor recreation access for everyone, now and into the future. The Idaho Recreation Council is a collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts on the following activities: 4 x 4, Equestrian, Backcountry Aviators, Mountain Biking, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Rafts/Jet boats and ATV/UTV’s. Collectively TPA, ORBA, One Voice, IRC CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations”.

While the primary mission of the Organizations most directly relates to motorized recreation, the overall scope of the Organizations efforts has a larger impact as motorized recreation and access can take many forms and involve many activities, including camping, hunting and fishing and other recreational activities where motorized access to public lands is critical but not the primary recreational activity sought. Under federal land management standards, when an area is open to motorized access it is rarely closed to any other activity.
The Organizations welcome the Proposal review and updating of the Endangered Species Act (“the Act”) as this review and updating is badly needed based our experiences with ESA issues and efforts with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department. Currently, the Endangered Species Act is simply not reflecting the management situation on the ground for many species, and this has become a major hurdle to species management. The Organizations believe that the ESA must become both more efficient and more consistent in its impacts between species over time and effectively achieve species populations that allow for the delisting of species. The Organizations have been heavily involved in a wide range of Endangered Species management efforts including listing, delisting and more generally focused habitat conservation efforts throughout the Western United States, addressing species including the Canadian Lynx, Wolverine, Sage Grouse and numerous plant and mollusk species based in the California desert area. Additionally, our involvement with habitat challenges facing all species have included more generalized efforts targeting landscape level efforts around poor forest health and the impacts of various invasive species that have severally negatively impacting both terrestrial and aquatic habitats for all species. Often simply streamlining landscape level planning on forest health has to start with a major effort simply targeting ESA management issues that are being applied in the area, despite the fact that these standards often are out of date.

These experiences have allowed the Organizations to identify process related restrictions in efforts to avoid listings of species and delist species once they are listed. It has been our experience that much of the concerns that are driving possible listings of species are based on a lack of scientific research around the species and challenges that may be resulting in the decline of the population, as exemplified around the management of the Canadian Lynx after listing on the ESA. The lack of science for management results in efforts that in no way relates to the challenges facing the species and in some situations has resulted in further negative impacts to the population. The Proposal facilitates the development of high quality scientific information around issues prior to listing rather than listing the species with the hope of development of science at some point later, which can often take decades to develop while faulty science is applied on the ground.

The lack of certainty around the basis for listing of a species also greatly complicates any efforts to delist the species as there is simply insufficient information for subsequent efforts to provide a defensible basis for delisting a species. The implementation of population goals that automatically trigger delisting efforts for any species has become a major hurdle as often the desire to simply have more of a species trumps the desire to have a sustainable population of that species. As a result of the difficulty in delisting a species, too often the ESA listing process has also become an alternative method of challenging projects for those that have chosen not to participate in the more general NEPA process around the project.

While the Organizations believe the proposed amendments are a major step towards making the Endangered Species both a more effective species management tool and more cost effective, the Organizations would like to address possible negative impacts from provisions that are providing expanded information privacy for personal information, such as those found generally found in §301 of the Proposal. While the Organizations are highly supportive of protecting personal information in the listing and recovery process, based on the experiences outlined in WGA meetings, the Organizations are also intimately familiar with the misuse of confidentiality provisions in the development and management of possible historic sites in the development of land management plans.

The Organizations would also like to raise the opportunity for additional clarity in management during the times when state recovery teams are working. In the Proposal, a recovery team process is anticipated to take several years. The Organizations welcome this timeframe as developing high quality management for the species must be the standard rather than simply seeking fast management solutions for the species. The Organizations would like to see additional clarity around the use of a possible listing during the recovery team process, as it has been our experience that these time periods often run much longer than expected and managers often rely on this ambiguity as the basis for closure or restrictions in the planning process.

The Organizations look forward to participating in further discussions as this Legislation and issue moves forward. Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or via telephone at 518-281-5810.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
ORBA/TPA/COHVCO
Representative CSA President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Fred Wiley, CNSA Past President
ORBA President and CEO
One Voice Authorized Representative

Sandra Mitchell, Executive Director
Idaho Recreation Council

Email from Chad Hixon centralcoloradomountainriders@gmail.com

Hello CCMR!

We are very pleased to announce that the first in a series of signs to be installed on multi use trails throughout the Salida Ranger District and part of the Gunnison Ranger District is complete. On Wednesday, June 13th a group of CCMR volunteers and members of the Forest Service installed a 3 panel kiosk at the top of Monarch Pass and the beginning of the Monarch Crest Trail.

This project has been over a year in the making and has had the involvement of a multitude of recreational user groups and the Forest Service. The project, as most of you already know, was spearheaded by CCMR and made possible by private donations and a cost share agreement with the FS.

Again this is the first one to be completed at arguably one of the busiest multi use trails in the state. Look for more similar signs to be installed throughout this summer on other multi use trails.

Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen.

Check out the photos below!

By Paul Turcke
Lead Counsel
Sharetrails.Org/BRC

We’re working on some important projects, during which several participants have remarked at the “strange” or “convoluted” US Forest Service administrative process. It might be a good time to review the structure of this process and some note-worthy elements and effective strategies.

There are no simple answers or magic slippers. Solid participation is important, but this is not a voting process. Technology makes it ever easier to generate tens of thousands of form comments. These are noted and largely discounted by the agency and are even counter-productive. Nor is there a way to rig the outcome through personal back channels or some scientific trump card. A winning strategy might vary for each project and reflect a blend of law, history, science, site characteristics, local/national politics, and personalities of key participants.

It’s always important to understand the basic rules of the game. Most National Forests now conduct vigorous “scoping” at the outset of a travel planning process and seek comments on the purpose of and potential alternatives. From this input, and internal specialist feedback, the National Forest might announce a draft range of alternatives, or proceed to a draft environmental review document. For our discussion, we will assume this will be a draft environmental impact statement, or ‘DEIS,’ as opposed to the supposedly less rigorous environmental assessment.

The DEIS is a key stage in the process. Where comments count, it is here. For jurisdictional purposes, one cannot advance issues in an administrative challenge or future litigation that were not raised or contemplated by one’s DEIS comments. This is often the best, and perhaps last, chance to modify the National Forest’s vision for the project. The agency’s investment in an outcome will develop and grow from here. If you hope to engage brilliant professional consultants, including lawyers, this is the time to do it.

The next step, which can take a year or more, is to release a Draft Record of Decision (‘ROD’) and final environmental impact statement (‘EIS’). Where we are dealing with a “project or activity” decision, formal publication of the Draft ROD triggers a 45 day period to file “objections.” The current review process was adopted in 2013 and is called a “predecisional administrative review” and supposedly reflects a more efficient approach modeled after the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Readers here know that the words “efficiency” and “US Forest Service” cannot realistically appear in the same sentence. This “project or activity” review process is outlined at 36 CFR part 218, while a slightly different process for Forest Plan amendments is found in the adjacent part 219.

The process is conducted by a ‘Reviewing Officer’ who typically occupies an office on step above that of the ‘Responsible Official’ who made the objected-to decision. The process includes the opportunity for a “resolution,” which the Reviewing Officer has broad latitude in deciding whether or how to explore. A resolution is difficult to achieve, but might offer a big upside for all involved, through certainty and avoidance of litigation costs. It is not entirely clear to what extent a resolution can change the Draft ROD. Objectors who agree to a resolution will likely waive future rights to litigate, but what about objectors who don’t sign off on the resolution, or participants who never objected because they favored the Draft ROD, but oppose changes in the resolution? The answer may involve the extent to which the resolution lies within the DEIS range of alternatives, but the safest approach will be to conduct further process or at least re-open a new 45 objection period within which to object to the resolution.

These mind-numbing possibilities may be one reason why resolutions rarely occur. Instead, the Reviewing Officer typically issues a “response.” This must be in writing, and occur in a relatively short timeframe, within 45 days of the objection deadline, which can be extended once an additional 30 days. A response will likely say “nice try but the Draft ROD is valid” or “the Draft ROD is valid but I instruct the Responsible Official to clarify (read “fortify”) these specified issues.” A response which upholds an objection(s) and directs the National Forest to start over is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

Regardless, some period of time typically follows before the Responsible Official issues a Final ROD. Based on the Reviewing Officer’s instructions, if any, there might be slight tweaks to the decision. However, as noted before, the agency forms a vision relatively early in the process, and deviating from that vision is not only expensive, but might create procedural risk. Perhaps Congress felt good calling this a “predecisional” review process, but a review process conducted within the same agency by people who know one another on a first name basis will unsurprisingly tend to rationalize decisions previously made.

This might seem a dark view of the process, but our purpose is quite the contrary. Savvy participants should understand the procedural roadmap, seize opportunities to make a difference and conserve resources otherwise spent pounding at a figurative brick wall. Before you embark on your first or next journey in the process, consider calling us here at Sharetrails.org/BRC.

GMUG National Forest
Att: Planning team revision
2250 South Main Street
Delta, CO 81416

Re: GMUG Resource Management Plan Revision

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the Organizations identified above with regard to the Proposed Revision of the GMUG RMP. We welcome this opportunity to provide input following the first round of public meetings addressing the proposed forest plan revision.   We would like to provide input on a few components in the final RMP which we believe could streamline planning significantly moving forward, provide new information and address several issues that consistently arise early in the Forest Service planning process on other forests in the hope of partnering with the GMUG to develop an effective long-term plan for the forest.  These comments are submitted as a supplement to the site-specific input provided from the local clubs on a wide range of issues, such as culvert size and future utilization of decommissioned roads as trails.  The Organizations vigorously support the input from these local clubs.

Prior to providing initial thoughts and concepts on the development of the GMUG RMP, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding.  The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado.  CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators. For purposes of this document CSA, COHVCO and TPA are identified as “the Organizations”.

As we discussed in far more detail in earlier submissions, there is a critical need to develop an RMP that is reasonably brief and easy for the public to use and understand.  While we will not be discussing that issue in great detail in these comments, these goals and objectives remain critically important.  The Organizations continue to support the recognition of the need to expand access on the GMUG in a thoughtful and planned manner for all recreational activity, as already recognized in the assessments.

In this round of comments, we are providing a detailed legal history of the lack of Congressional support for designation of exclusionary corridors around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) and other routes designated under the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”).  While we are not aware of this issue being raised in scoping to date, we are aware of the immense pressure on other forests to create such corridors.  It is our position that such corridors are illegal under federal law and also fail to balance multiple uses along the trails inn violation of NEPA planning requirements.

In addition to outlining the extensive Congressional action that has been taken around the need to benefit all uses with an NTSA route, the Organizations have also provided a detail analysis of the extensive multiple agency reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which have been occurring since before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. These multiple agency reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in releasing significant portions of the GMUG back to multiple use requirements and explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations are in the places that they are.  This history is critically important given the fact that many of these areas found specifically unsuitable for Wilderness designations previously were again recommended for Wilderness designation in the draft 2007 RMP.  The Organizations are aware such action is theoretically legally possible, the Organizations submit that such a recommendation is factually confounding and should be avoided.

These Congressional actions have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in the states history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas.

The final general issue we would like to provide input on is snow sciences around OSV management.  The Organizations are all too familiar with the large amounts of unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted with regard to many USFS planning efforts, on what appears to be a position that there is no science on many of these challenges.  The Organizations submit there is extensive science on most of these issues and that the peer reviewed high-quality science that is available does not support management of issues in the manner recommended in this citizen science. Rather the best available science supports existing management and highlights the low-quality nature of the citizen science being submitted, such as the fact that citizen researchers seek to recommend management based on snow depth but fail to prepare their research in a manner that even arguably complies with BMPS for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service.  Land managers must exhibit a high level of caution in relying on citizen science that fails to clear even such basic hurdles in the scientific process.

1a. Corridors around NTSA routes are illegal.

The Organizations have participated in a large number of planning efforts throughout the western United States where an unusual issue has come up in the planning process, mainly public pressure around the need to designate exclusionary corridors around routes designated under the National Trails System Act, which would be most commonly the Continental Divide Trail on the GMUG. The Organizations are surprised at this effort as the management of these routes has been a long-settled issue under federal law and not been a basis for significant concern on most forests in the Western United States. As a result, the entire concept of an exclusionary corridor is both creating a problem where on simply does not exist currently but also would be implementing management that Congress has specifically forbidden with numerous revisions of the NTSA.  Any decisions with regard to the need for an exclusionary corridor or landscape exclusion of motorized usage from the CDT would be completely without basis in law or fact as more than 14% of CDT is currently on a motorized road and an unspecified percentage more is located on motorized trails and significant portion of the CDT are groomed for winter motorized recreational usage.  All these management decisions have been in place for decades and operate without major conflict. The long history of successful management of these areas for the benefit of all is simply never addressed by those seeking a landscape level exclusion nor is the conflict between proposed exclusions and existing federal law resolved or even addressed by those seeking an exclusion.  As a result, the Organizations are vigorously opposed to any closures of the CDT to multiple use. Congress has consistently moved to protect multiple use access to the CDT with ever amendment to the NTSA.

1b. Mandatory exclusionary corridors directly conflict with the Congressional language and intent when NTSA was passed.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only 1968 legislation is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA in 1968.  Significant clarity in addressing the Congressional desire for multiple use management has been added with every amendment to the NTSA since 1968.  Multiple uses of corridors and trails was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968.  While there are numerous Congressional reports referenced in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance, many of which have not been provided to the Congressional offices for release to the public, HRep 1631 is simply never mentioned despite it being a foundational document in the discussion.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed.  It is deeply troubling to the Organizations that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents, many of which are unavailable to the public,[1] but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”[2]

The Organizations note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail.  Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

While HRep 1631 is not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance, the direct conflict of the agency guidance and this report simply cannot be overlooked.  Much of the information and analysis provided in HRep 1631 is highly relevant to the authority of USFS guidance assertions that 1-mile corridors are mandatory or even recommended. HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation.  HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”[3]

Congress also clearly identified that exclusionary corridors would significantly impair the ability of the agencies to implement the goals and objectives of the NTSA as follows:

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”[4]

HRep 1631 clearly addresses the intent of Congress, and the internal Congressional discussions regarding implementation of the NTSA provisions for the benefit of all recreational activities as follows:

“however, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”[5]

Rather than conveying the clear intent of Congress to avoid corridors as a part of management of an NTSA route, on page one of the 2016 CDT guidance clearly states that such a corridor is the preferred management tool, stating as follows:

“The CDT corridor/MA should be wide enough to encompass the resources, qualities, values, associated settings and primary uses of the Trail. The 0.5-mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDT must be a primary consideration in delineating the CDT corridor/MA boundary (FSM 2353.44b (7)).”[6]

The Organizations are simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA and the 2016 CDT guidance can be reconciled as Congress specifically stated that corridors should not be applied and managers retain authority to address site specific issues and challenges. This is deeply concerning given the fact that if Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic.  This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. The Organizations vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

1c.  The recommended 1-mile corridor around NTSA in 2016 USFS guidance directly conflicts with 1983 NTSA amendments.

The balancing of multiple uses on NTSA routes and adjacent corridors has been an issue that Congress has struggled with for an extended period of time and repeatedly addressed with growing clarity. As clearly stated in HRep 1631, when the NTSA was passed Congress sought to balance all uses in the vicinity of any route designated under the NTSA.  Given the subsequent amendments to the NTSA the need to balance all uses is a concern that Congress has consistently and repeatedly addressed with higher levels of clarity in the NTSA.   Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the first time when agency planning sought to implement restrictions on other usages around a NTSA route in contradiction to federal law.

Subsequent to the passage of the NTSA in 1968, Congress further refined and clarified the management practices for public lands with the passage of Federal Land and Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”) of 1976.  While FLPMA did not specifically address the relationship of its provisions with the NTSA, FLPMA altered the entire landscape of federal lands management and the implementation of multiple use mandates for the agencies. Subsequent to the adoption of FLPMA, the NTSA was amended in 1983 to clarify that FLPMA and multiple use principals controlled the management of not only the footprint of NTSA routes but also the corridors around those routes with the passage of Public Law 98-11. The relationship between the passage of PL 98-11 in 1983 further clarifying Congressional desires that the NTSA was to benefit a wide range of interests and specifically stated the concept of corridors and crossing points were not acceptable concepts for management of NTSA previously. The response of Congress was the 1983 NTSA amendments which are the single largest and most relevant legislative actions to the concept of management corridors around NTSA routes. These concepts and clear statements of law in the NTSA remain law today and superseded many of the 1968 provisions that those seeking corridors and exclusions seek to have applied as if the laws were still in place.   In a troubling turn of events, the 1983 amendments and FLPMA passage are not addressed in the Law[7] or Legislative history[8] sections of the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at all, while minor revisions to the NTSA are discussed in some detail.

The 1983 NTSA amendments removed any basis for the principal of management of adjacent lands for the benefit of the route and replaced the adjacent lands concept with the following provisions:

“in selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”

In addition to clearly stating multiple use principals controlled NTSA routes and areas, Congress clarified the usages of NTSA designated routes by directly stating motorized usages in all forms were permitted by adding 16 USC 1246 (j).  This provision states:

“Types of trail use allowed Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include but are not limited to…the following: snowmobiling, …Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles.”

Rather than addressing these clearly stated uses of an NTSA area and applied FLPMA management standards to NTSA areas, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance consistently relies on the artificially created versions of the NTSA to support exclusionary corridors being recommended. The Organizations are unable to determine the basis for such a decision as the 2016 USFS Guidance and the clear language of the 1983 amendments directly conflict.  In this situation, federal law clearly and directly controls and minimizing impacts and maximizing values for all interests cannot be achieved with implementation of a mile-wide corridor excluding most usages.

1d. The scope of USFS NTSA guidance is artificially limited to support management that conflicts with NTSA provisions.

The 2016 USFS CDT Guidance systemically provides partial summaries of the NTSA provisions that simply do not reflect the entire provision being cited for the basis for the management decision and further relies on numerous legislative reports that are simply not available. While some NTSA provisions are sometimes directly contradictory in identifying usages, USFS Guidance should be reflecting this conflicting guidance for managers to understand in the implementation process.  Rather than reflecting this conflict, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance chooses one usage and crafts guidance language in furtherance of that interest without mention of the conflict and seeking to rely on supporting documentation that may not even exist. While non-existent documents are relied on, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance simply ignores other easily accessible guidance from Congress. The end result of this guidance document is that forest staff will be lead to a single conclusion for management of both National Trails System routes and corridors and this single conclusion directly conflicts with the direct language of the NTSA.

This conflict is exemplified Page 6 of 2016 USFS CDT Guidance which states as follows:

“Sec. 7(c): The use of motor vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited…but limited motorized use may be allowed to: meet emergencies, provide landowner access, provide for motor vehicle crossings.”

Clearly a blanket prohibition as recommended would immediately conflict with federal laws requiring that an NTSA designation benefit all users of the area. The Organizations do not contest these words are present in §7c of the NTSA but §7c continues with extensive guidance regarding multiple uses on the CDT as follows:

“Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail”[9]

The Organizations vigorously assert that any USFS guidance should not be placing one of the conflicting usages above another in a manner that directly conflicts with clearly stated guidance from Congress but rather should be identifying the conflict clearly and then assisting managers in resolving this conflict in a manner that addresses the clearly stated intent of Congress, which is the NTSA was intended to benefit all activity. Again, this situation must be reviewed and corrected.

1f. Accurate summaries of NTSA plan provisions often simply omitted from Guidance.

In addition to failing to accurately summarize conflicting provisions of the NTSA, the 2016 USFS CDT guidance fails to accurately summarize USFS planning documents that clearly were available when the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance was prepared.  Again, the specific interests of some users are elevated and an inaccurate summary of Trail specific documents is provided in the Guidance.  This is exemplified on Page 2 of the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance which states:

“Motorized vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDT, unless such use is consistent with the applicable policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.”

This simply is not accurate as the NTSA clearly states that forest planning goals and objective control lands in the Corridor and that travel management decisions control lands in the corridor.[10] In addition to these provisions, the 2009 CDT Plan provides pages of management decisions regarding placement of the trail foot prints and proper management of the CDT in areas where other uses predate the development of the CDT.  This simply is never mentioned in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance.

The 2009 CDT plan also provides high quality information regarding levels of usage that the 2016 USFS CDT guidance appears to assert are prohibited.  A meaningful and complete review of the CDT plan reveals it clearly states:

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”[11]

In addition to the 14% of the CDT that is a motorized road, there are extensive but unspecified portions of the CDT located on motorized trails and significant portions of the CDT are groomed by the motorized community to access backcountry recreational areas for decades.  This simply cannot be reconciled with exclusionary corridors.

It is significant to note that Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) plan has adopted a blanket recognition of relevant travel management of areas around the CDT in its management plan. The 2009 CDT Plan provisions are as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and……. (5) Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:

(a) The vehicle class and width were allowed on that segment of the CDNST prior to November 10, 1978, and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST or

(b) That segment of the CDNST was constructed as a road prior to November 10, 1978; or

(6) In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”^[12]

Given the fact that the CDT plan specifically states the need to recognize travel management as the controlling factor for use of the trail tread and adjacent corridors in a manner consistent with multiple use requirements, the Organizations vigorously assert that these portions of the CDT plan would be rendered irrelevant with the designation of exclusionary corridors.  This is a direct indication there is a problem with the corridor concept being recommended.

The failure to accurately review all relevant decision documents is even more problematic when site specific Congressional action on a particular trail is brought into the discussion.  While our Organizations do not have guidance documents regarding the PCT, these concerns regarding this type of conflict are highlighted on the PCT.  Congress has specifically identified crossing points that are to be reopened on the PCT as exemplified by the designation of two crossing locations on the Bridgeport Ranger District of the Humbolt-Toiyabe NF.[13]  Again the Organizations must express serious concerns about any landscape level guidance documents for a NTSA route excluding motorized usage that brought management into clear conflict with these Congressional actions and related planning efforts.

1g.  Significant alterations of any NTSA location require Congressional approval.

Throughout the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance, the concept of managers simply moving uses on and off the CDT by changing route location is embraced. The NTSA also provides guidance on the large-scale relocation of any Congressionally designated scenic trail from its original location as the NTSA continues as follows:

“relocation of a segment of national, scenic or historic trail….A substantial relocation of the rights of way for such a trail shall be by Act of Congress.” [14]

While Congress was clear on the desire to retain authority over the alteration of any National Trail, the failure to define “significant” places any changes in a national scenic trail from its original location, in the case of the CDT the 1977 report to Congress outlining its location, on questionable legal basis.

The Organizations are again concerned regarding the basis for this management guidance as no provisions are made for addressing these long-term impacts of numerous site-specific changes of Congressionally approved routes is provided.  This is again a concern as Congress specifically and clearly retained the authority to approve but no methodology is provided for in guidance to provide for such a review.

1h.  Economics and equity must be addressed in NTSA area management by Congressional declaration and Executive Order.

While the NTSA guidance fails to provide accurate guidance on numerous issues identified above, the NTSA guidance is clear on issues involving equity and usage of NTSA routes and the need to balance multiple usage based on these factors.   On these issues, there is a huge amount of consensus between the Executive Orders of both Presidents Obama (EO 13553 of 2011) and President Trump (EO 13771 of 2017) and the provisions of the NTSA, which provide as follows:

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”[15]

Clearly this balancing of competing economic and social benefits cannot be furthered with the recommended management standards as these guidance documents have already decided the balance is in favor of certain users and not others. While there is a huge level of consensus across political parties and government branches on the need for a cost benefit analysis of management decisions and equity in these management decisions around NTSA designations, these issues simply are not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance. This concern is highly relevant as the CDT is traversed by dozens of visitors per year[16] and only hundreds traverse the entirety of the PCT per year[17]. The lack of equity in requiring landscape level exclusionary corridors for the management of dozens of users per year is immediately apparent. Cleary this is an issue where guidance should be provided and has not been raised due to the immediate conflict that will result, as this type of analysis would contradict the recommended exclusionary corridors.

Given the systemic protection of multiple uses on NTSA routes and repeated opportunity Congress has had to require exclusionary corridors and exclusion of multiple from NTSA routes, it must not be overlooked that the Congressional actions have consistently protected multiple uses with stronger and stronger standards and requirements in the law.  This action in federal law prohibits the implementation of any landscape closures of an NTSA route or area and as a result the Organizations are opposed to any alternative being developed that would bring such a concept forward as such a concept is no more acceptable than a forest recommending motorized trail usage in a Wilderness area.

2a. Financially sustainable recreational opportunities must be required in the RMP.

After reviewing the recreational assessment for the Proposal, the Organizations were thrilled that GMUG managers were seeking to proactively address expansion of recreational opportunities in areas where it was appropriate. The Organizations vigorously support the expansion of recreational opportunities on public lands, but such a position is not without limit.  The Organizations submit that financial sustainability of any new routes must also be clearly addressed in the expansion of any recreational opportunities, as there is a very limited amount of funding for trail development and maintenance.  The Organizations have provided detailed input previously regarding the benefits of the State OHV trails program to land managers, but other groups simply have failed to step up to this level. While the OHV and OSV program is vigorous in Colorado, it is also not enough and land managers partner with the funding from the state to make much of this effective and the Organizations would be very concerned with the large-scale expansion of projects that did not address the ongoing need for maintenance and upkeep of facilities as these partnerships currently in place would be put at risk.

When other trail uses are expanded without specific funding sources and a hard look at resources available to support the long-term success of the project, existing partnerships are strained and resources are stretched beyond capacity for maintenance. This is simply unfair and undermines the partnerships that the motorized community has worked hard to establish.  Simply accepting a group assertion that trails can be maintained is not enough and land managers must take a hard look at the capacity to maintain new routes with existing resources.  Often managers are asked to move forward with expansions of trails by hundreds of miles for a small user group when that user group is asserting maintenance of these networks can be achieved with a trailer, some hand tools and volunteers.  Everyone knows that simply is not possible. Concerns on this type of maintenance are expanded when the fact that many of these groups are asserting this type of maintenance is available on trails across management boundaries or at the landscape level.  Often trail advocates are asserting to be able to maintain routes on several forests, field offices and local municipal areas at the same time and often the track record for this type of maintenance is marginal at best.

Such a position also fails to recognize that much of the maintenance necessary may be occurring at trailheads and parking lots with the ongoing need to maintain toilets and trash bins and grading the parking areas and access roads.  These are projects that simply cannot be undertaken with hand tools.  The lack of factual sustainability of such a position is further evidenced by the fact that the single largest challenge often facing recreation managers working on trails on the GMUG is the large amounts of dead trees that can rapidly obstruct a route under normal conditions.  These obstructions can become much worse with even a minor weather event and pose a costly issue for maintenance. We have enclosed a copy of our comments on the Plunge Project[18] outside Palisade Colorado as an example of the type of project that would evidence why we are raising this issue in the comments as this proposal is steep, remote, and on highly erosive soils and is crossing jurisdictional boundaries. This is a good example of the projects that must be approached with high levels of caution and could easily put the strong partnerships at risk of failure in the long term on the GMUG.

2b.  Colorado recreational trends should be recognized and Forest level experiences with recreational visitation must be relied on.

In the recreational assessment, significant amounts of data from national trends and analysis in recreation are solely relied on for establishing trends in recreational usage.  While we understand that exact recreational visitation may be difficult to obtain, relying solely on national data and trends is problematic as it overlooks the fact that visitation to recreational facilities in Colorado is growing across all interests and concerns due to the fact that the Colorado population is explosively growing.  As a result, the Organizations would be concerned about any planning assumptions on the GMUG that expected visitation for any recreational activity to go down.

The Organizations would note that while some actions may have seen declines in participation at the national level, the Organization would be hard pressed to identify any activity that is declining in visitation in Colorado.  As more specifically identified below, both OHV and OSV registrations with the State of Colorado have seen consistent increases over the last decade as reflected in the following charts from Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding the steadily growing demand for registration of these vehicles.

The Organizations would note that such a recognition of the consistent growth of state registrations is important given the fact that OSV travel is thought to be declining in visitation and other usages are thought to be explosively growing based on the Cordell national study. [19] The Organizations experiences with outdoor recreation in general, the demand for all recreational opportunities and visitation to Colorado public lands has been explosively growing across all user groups, which directly contradicts the information provided by the Cordell study regarding national demand for particular opportunities. The Organizations would note that such a decline in OSV recreation would not be supported by Colorado Snowmobile registration numbers, which CPW recognizes have held pretty steady in the last decade.  Our experiences are that most winter trailheads visitation is at levels we have never experienced before, as the Grand Mesa area is rapidly becoming a national destination for OSV recreation and more and more people are visiting Colorado from further and further away. Similar experiences can be seen regarding the explosive growth in demand for recreational opportunities on the GMUG over the last decade.

We would also note that many areas of the country experienced marginal snow years around 2010 and as a result many snowmobiles in extensive regions of the country never even got registered due to the lack of snow.   Again, this was not the experience in Colorado as some of these years were well above average in terms of snowfall and visitation.   While light registrations of OSV in NY or Vermont due to limited snowfall may be an interesting topic for discussion nationally, this issue is simply not relevant as a planning tool for the GMUG. As an industry or national trend, the mountain snowmobiling experience is now the most sought-after snowmobile experience in the nation and the GMUG has rapidly become a national destination for those seeking the mountain riding experience.

The Organizations are also concerned that throughout the recreational assessment the use of percentages of changes in visitation are often relied on for analysis. This is problematic as many of the interests that are reflected in the assessment are exceptionally small user groups, such as exemplified by mountain climbers. While mountain climbing is clearly a planning interest for the GMUG, this is a relatively small user group overall and a 100% increase in demand for these opportunities may only draw a small number of actual people to the GMUG. By Comparison, many large groups of visitors, such as camping or OHV, may see small percentages of growth nationally, but these are large groups to start with and as a result a small percentage of change in these groups may result in huge planning concerns for the GMUG as thousands of people may be represented in that small percentage of change in visitation.

The Organizations are very concerned that in the discussions around the winter recreational opportunities that is provided in the recreation assessment there is no mention of the importance that winter grooming plays in providing basic access to winter recreational opportunities on the GMUG. As a result, a critical factor in this opportunity comparison is missed, mainly that any recreational access is provided as a result of the OSV registration and grooming program in place on the forest and this grooming program has been a critical factor in the winter trail network developing in the manner that it has.

3. Reopening of the Alpine Tunnel historic district to all forms of motorized recreation

The Organizations would suggest goal and objective to restore access to the Alpine Historic District for all forms of travel as a goal in RMP.  General public access to the area has been blocked by the natural deterioration of the road in spots, which could be easily repaired but access was more immediately challenged by more extensive damage to the roadway as a result of a winter avalanche.  While this could be repaired, it is a more significant undertaking. This area is hugely unique and valuable recreational opportunity and experience to the public, especially with detailed historical information that is available to further expand the public understanding around the unique nature and history for the areas.[20]  The Organizations would like to see restoring access to these unique recreational opportunities identified as a management priority in the RMP.

3a. Lynx Management standards in the Proposal directly conflict with best available science and USFS guidelines on the issue.

The Organizations are deeply troubled that the Proposal is carrying forward many of the outdated and superseded management standards that have plagued Lynx management for decades and have been specifically debunked.  The continued reliance on this information is highly frustrating to the Colorado motorized community as we have been directly supporting lynx research throughout the region for almost a decade in an effort to develop best available science.  This has included the direct funding of lynx and wolverine research conducted by John Squires and his team in partnership with the Idaho Snowmobile Association and the logistical support for lynx research efforts of the Rocky Mountain Research Station with Liz Roberts on both the White River and San Juan national forests seeking to better understand the response of lynx to higher levels of recreational activity. CSA attempted to donate a snowmobile to researchers but was not successful as the unit needed to be returned to the association after completion of research.  Despite this setback the Association was able to provide significant amounts of fuel, oil on the ground knowledge and numerous recovery efforts for snowmobiles used by researchers that became stuck in the backcountry with CSA grooming equipment over several years.

While the 2013 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy is mentioned in the index of the terrestrial species assessment the application of standards in the assessment is completely inaccurate and reflects more of review is of information that has been superseded than up to date information.  The conflict between standards applied in the Species Assessment and the 2013 LCAS is stark when comparisons are made.   The assessment specifically provides as follows:

“Road, trail and recreational activities that results in snow compaction may facilitate increased access into lynx habitat and competition for food resources by competitors (primarily coyotes). Over-the-snow vehicle use and additional modes of winter recreation are anticipated to increase on the GMUG National Forests.” [21]

The Organizations wanted to highlight some of the more significant changes in lynx management standards in the 2013 LCAS including:

• Recreational usage of lynx habitat is a second level threat and not likely to have substantial effects on the lynx or its habitat. Previous theory and management analysis had placed a much higher level of concern on recreational usage of lynx habitat; ^[22]
• Lynx have been known to incorporate smaller ski resorts within their home ranges but may not utilize the large resorts.  Dispersed motorized recreational usage certainly does not create impacts that can be equated to even a small ski area; ^[23]
• Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;^[24]
• There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; ^[25]
• Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;^[26]
• Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; ^[27]
• Winter recreational usage of lynx habitat should only be “considered” in planning and should not be precluded given the minimal threat this usage poses to the lynx; and ^[28]
• Failing to manage habitat areas to mitigate impacts of poor forest health issues, such as the spruce and mtn pine beetle, is a major concern in lynx habitat for a long duration.^[29]

The Organizations are aware that the 2013 LCAS represents a significant change in management standards for a wide range of issues from the 2000 LCAS and Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.  It is our intent in providing a copy of the 2013 LCAS at this time that complete incorporation of this best available science, which reflects the minimal impacts of recreational usage of lynx habitat will streamline any site-specific planning issues in the future.

The fact that snow compaction is a natural force across the globe is addressed in significantly more detail in other parts of these comments.

4. Recreation Economics

The Organizations would like to provide new additional information regarding the importance of multiple use recreational access and related benefits to communities relying on recreational activity to provide critically needed tax revenue. The Organizations are aware that many counties in the vicinity have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago, as exemplified by Summit County Colorado identification as number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list of 21^st Century Ghost Towns.^[30]  Unfortunately, many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents.  Many of these communities might include Paonia, Almont or Marble as examples.   Given the importance of recreation to these communities and many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the GMUG National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities both in terms of revenue to local communities but also direct employment.  The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs^[31]:

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity and other activities that would be prohibited in the Proposal to local communities when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of these activities outpace all other.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce.  This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product as recreational spending accounts for more than 2% of the GDP.^[32] This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited when multiple use recreational access is lost in any area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited.  The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.^[33] Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. ^[34]  The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located on USFS lands is within Wilderness areas.  Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding and weighs heavily against expansion of any recommended Wilderness or other exclusionary designations in the planning process.  As we have previously notes, those types of designations are some of the most underutilized areas in Colorado for recreational activity.

The basis for the disparate economic benefits from recreational resources is easily identifiable when USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared in the research below: ^[35]

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in many restricted or limited access management areas.  Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning.  Nationally, congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.^[36]  In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness^[37] but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.7% of visitor days on the GMUG National Forest.^[38] As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

As we have previously noted in greater detail in previous comments, motorized recreation provided $2.2 billion dollars to the Colorado economy and accounted for more than 15,000 jobs in 2014.  A copy of the complete COHVCO study that is the basis for this information has been provided with previous input from the Organizations.

5a.  Many of the areas found to be suitable for recommended Wilderness designation have been previously found unsuitable for designation by Congress.

Prior to addressing the specific and extensive history of areas on the GMUG of areas being reviewed by Congress and found unsuitable for designation as Wilderness, the Organizations must address two significant landscape level concerns that have arisen around many of the recommended Wilderness areas from the 2007 draft RMP. Our first landscape level concern involves the relationship of the site-specific inventory of much of the GMUG by Congress and specific release of many areas from further review for possible designation as Wilderness in the future by Congress.  This release of areas by Congress from future designation greatly outweighs the fact that there may be legislation now before Congress on this issue in the form of a citizen-based Wilderness proposal.  The Organizations are aware there is great pressure to recognize these legislative drafts that have been before Congress sometimes for decades but the Organizations must note that the decision NOT to list these areas as Wilderness that actually passed Congress and became law must be properly weighted again the existence of a legislative proposal that has not passed either house of Congress and often completely lacks even a sponsor in the House of Representatives.  Any argument that a stalled legislative proposal should carry more weight than a site-specific analysis and decision that has actually passed Congress regarding the ineligibility of the area for future designation is probably lacking legal and factual basis.  The Organizations comments on both legislative proposals is attached to these comments as Exhibit 3. The Organizations submit that many of the citizen Wilderness proposals that are currently addressing GMUG lands are not moving because they are simply badly out of balance and would designate Wilderness in areas that were released in previous Wilderness legislation.

Here a comparison of weighting proposed legislation at a higher level than current federal law is valuable and will provide more clarity to why we are asserting the mere proposal of Wilderness on the GMUG is not a management or analysis issue for planners.  This comparison involves mountain bike usage in Wilderness areas.  Similar to the San Juan and Continental Divide legislation now before the US Senate, there was also draft legislation in the 115^th Congress to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness (HR 1349) that actually moved out of the House committee hearing on the issue. After passing committee, HR 1349 moved no further in the House and failed to obtain any Senate sponsors. Clearly this type of legislation could not be applied by land managers in the planning process to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness areas, as it directly contradicts federal law despite the draft Legislation being proposed. Congress has spoken on this issue and there is no basis to overturn that position without further action actually passing Congress.  The Organizations believe the basis for the two decisions by land managers must be consistently applied, and there should be no mountain bikes in Wilderness due to the conflict with federal law and no recommendation of Wilderness designations in planning efforts for GMUG areas already repeatedly addressed by Congress and found unsuitable and released back to multiple use. Each is a direct violation of federal law, despite what has been asserted by those advocating for more Wilderness. Existing federal law must outweigh proposed legislation in the planning process.

The history of both the Continental Divide Proposal, and earlier versions of this legislation that trace back to the original Hidden Gems Proposal and San Juan Wilderness Proposals by Senator Bennett clearly shows the lack of support for the expanded designations across larger communities.  Rather than being a basis for management of these areas as recommended Wilderness these proposals provide a concrete basis for management of these areas in compliance with existing federal law mandating multiple use. A brief history of the San Juan Wilderness Legislation reveals a long history of nonsupport for the proposal in Congress, as there has never been a house sponsor even named for the Proposal[39]. Even in the Senate, the proposal has moved to hearings on several occasions and while it has gotten out of committee, the larger Senate has never even voted on this Proposal. This is a strong indication of the LACK of support for the Proposal. Even more troubling is the fact that the San Juan Legislation has not even been introduced in the Senate since 2013.  The Organizations submit that the 5-year hiatus for the legislation speaks volumes to the true amount of support for the Legislation.

The Legislative history of the Continental Divide Legislation provides no basis for management decision as this Proposal has been submitted in various forms for almost a decade and has also not moved beyond committee hearing, and many years has been unable to even get a hearing. This Legislation was originally proposed in Congress in 2010 with claims of broad support and extensive vetting of the Proposal through the Hidden Gems based discussions.  Vetting of the proposal provided to be less than complete and many problems were immediately identified and as a result the Central Mountains version of Hidden Gems was reworked several times as exemplified by the Rocky Mountain Recreation and Wilderness Preservation Act of 2012[40].  This did little to build community support for the Proposal.  Recently the legislative name was changed and minor changes to the proposal were undertaken, and this version again failed to move.

The Organizations would be remiss if the troubling legislative history of other proposals that have incorporated San Juan and Continental Divide boundaries was not addressed, such as Congresswoman Dianna DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act that was originally introduced in 1999 was not mentioned[41].  These Proposals have also failed to move beyond a committee hearing despite being introduced for almost two decades as well.  As result, managers now have a clearly identified basis to not incorporate these legislative proposals into planning as there is clearly defined track record of minimal public support for the Proposals.  The failure of these proposals in Congress simply does not create a valid basis for planning actions by Congress.

This lack of support for the San Juan and Continental Divide version of Hidden Gems, is further evidenced by the fact that while these proposals have languished in Congress for more than two decades in one form or another, other land use legislation including Wilderness designations has been developed and rapidly moved through Congress regarding Colorado public lands.  This legislation would be the Hermosa Watershed Legislation of 2013, which was developed, passed into law and subsequent planning completed in a decade less time than San Juan and Continental Divide have been languishing in Congress without larger support.  While the mandates of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation are not legally binding on the GMUG, the factual differences are highly relevant to the value of land management legislation that does not move.  In 2013, the Hermosa Watershed Legislation[42] was not even a Legislative Proposal but this legislation was developed from the ground up, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President while other pieces of legislation remained stalled. [43] While the Hermosa Watershed Legislation does not impact GMUG planning the rapid movement of this legislation through Congress speaks volumes to the lack of support around the other pieces of Legislation that have been in existence for much longer and simply never moved. Their value in planning is marginal at best.

While USFS policy asserts that citizen Wilderness proposals be addressed in the planning process, the Organizations vigorously assert that the mere existence of a Proposal is not enough review for the planning process.  The Organizations submit that the entirety of the history of these citizen Proposals must be reviewed in the planning process as many of the areas have been the basis of citizen Wilderness Proposals since 1980 as directly evidenced by the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act[44] when the boundaries of many of these areas were established and drawn to protect many of the same usages that remain in these areas to this day.

The second concern around citizen proposals for Wilderness is a policy concern and involves a consistent position taken by land managers that the public should work together attempt to bring solutions to issues to them. When land managers are recommending areas for possible designation that have been previously released by Congress, the managers are now working against the public collaborations that were the basis for the release of the area back to multiple use.   If there is a consensus position regarding the management of areas that has been achieved and passed into law by Congress it should be enforced with regard to all interests, regardless of the position. Consensus positions should be supported and defended by land managers in Colorado as there has been a lot of balancing and collaboration that has gone into the Congressional action for management of public lands for decades. When land managers recommend Wilderness for areas that have been specifically inventoried by Congress and found ineligible, land managers are undermining a consensus position that was achieved. Despite insisting that collaborative efforts targeting consensus management are needed here, managers would be undermining the very consensus they seek to obtain by trying to recommend Wilderness in many areas on the GMUG. Additionally, recommending Wilderness based on these proposals would undermine the public process as the legislation is simply badly out of balance in terms of land use and as a result has little support from the general public.

5(a)(2). The extensive history of Congressional action addressing public lands on the GMUG must be addressed.

As we have noted, the legislative inaction around many of the citizen-based Wilderness proposals for lands under GMUG management must be addressed in decision making as well as each of these citizen proposals have a long and weak history of support in larger legislative efforts.  The fact that some of these proposals have been in existence for almost 2 decades and are no close to passage now than when they started must be a factual concern in forest planning.  While there is minimal support for many of these citizen proposals, there is a long and vigorous history of Congress specifically addressing management of public lands on the GMUG and being able to move land management legislation through Congress. It is troubling that many of the areas that have been specifically identified for multiple use management in order to develop a balanced land management bill that would move through Congress were recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP for the GMUG. The Organizations submit this recommendation fails to account for previous Congressional actions regarding these areas and directly undermines the ability of balanced land management legislation to move at the landscape leve

The Organizations are very concerned regarding the overly narrow view of Wilderness inventory that is provided in the January 2018 Wilderness Inventory guidance on the Forest, as this document completely fails to address the extensive Congressional actions that have been taking regarding management of lands on the GMUG for Wilderness and other uses. The overly narrow scope of analysis in the inventory is reflected as follows:

“After applying the size and improvements criteria, the handbook directs the Responsible Official to review information provided through public participation during the assessment phase of the plan revision process, including areas that have been proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through a previous planning process (i.e., the 2007 GMUG Proposed Plan), collaborative effort, or in pending legislation. With respect to areas proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through collaborative efforts, two citizen proposals for wilderness and other special designations were submitted to the GMUG during the assessment phase. These proposals will be considered in combination with other public comments received throughout the GMUG wilderness process.” [45]

The Organizations would note that the compliance with federal law currently governing these areas may be implied in the above standards, it is not stated or otherwise addressed in the inventory documents currently available for public inspection.  Given the repeated decisions of Congress specifically identifying areas on the GMUG for multiple use and unsuitable for designation as Wilderness the Organizations assert strict application of the above standard could easily result in an RMP recommendation that conflicts with federal laws specifically governing these areas. This must be avoided.

While addressing issues involving legislative history may seem unnecessary, it is important as many of the areas recommended for addition to the Wilderness system in the 2007 Draft RMP Proposal have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since well before the Wilderness Act was originally passed in 1964. As a result, the lack of success around recent efforts to add these areas is important but also the history of not only each Wilderness areas that were designated and also areas that were not designated is important as   A large portion of the areas recommended for Wilderness in the Draft 2007 RMP have been specifically reviewed and released from further management by Congressional action to be managed under non-Wilderness standards.   In addition to the determinations of why these areas were found unsuitable for Congressional designation, these areas have been the basis of extensive inventory by the USGS and Bureau of Mines pursuant to §3b of the Wilderness Act as these were existing Primitive Areas when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.  Given the specific review and release of many of these areas from further designation by Congress, the Organizations must question how the same areas could be recommended for Wilderness in the USFS planning process, despite what has been more than 50 years of review of possible basis for designation. Additionally, many of the areas were also found unsuitable still for even Roadless area upper tier areas under the Colorado Roadless Rule.

The 2007 Draft RMP provides the following map of recommended Wilderness:

These recommended Wilderness designations were applied despite the high levels of clarity around previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in GMUG planning areas.  This clarity of Congressional action is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness act specifically spoke of the need to protect multiple use in areas it was not designating as Wilderness as follows:

“SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado possess outstanding natural characteristics which give them high values as wilderness and will, if properly preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for the benefit of the American people;

(2) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System’s share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management

planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to……. Insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.” [46]

Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”[47]

The scope of the areas that were inventoried is addressed with more detail in subsequent portions of these comments. Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the management of so much of the GMUG planning area, the Organizations must question what has changed in these areas and why would the previous consensus positions now need to be changed in terms of management of these areas. Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and should be honored.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area. Also, recommendations of Wilderness in these areas must at least recognize the previous legislative determinations and explain why these determinations are not controlling for these areas any longer and why these areas may again be recommended for designation as Wilderness by Congress.

5a (3). Many of recommended Wilderness areas in the 2007 plan directly violate Federal law prohibiting buffer areas around many Wilderness areas on the GMUG.

As identified above there have been significant Congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the GMUG planning area for more than 50 years. The 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas.  The Organizations are aware that many of the additions of areas adjacent to existing Wilderness areas in citizen recommendations and proposals are based on the idea that such a boundary change would make preservation of Wilderness characteristics of the areas easier to manage.  Asserting such a basis for management designation would be exactly the type of buffer that is specifically prohibited under the Colorado Wilderness Act and its amendments.

When implemented by Congress these “no buffer” protections were put in place to facilitate the consensus of multiple users and interests in these lands.  The Organizations can see no reason why these consensus positions should be changed now as such a designation would be a direct violation of federal law specifically prohibiting the creation of buffer areas to protect wilderness areas that were designated. Congress has specifically reviewed these areas and determined where the boundaries should be located.  Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, and both of these pieces of legislation specifically required no buffer requirements as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” [48]

While existing federal law, reflecting the consensus position that was reached in the 1980 and 1993 Wilderness Expansion Legislation, is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside these Wilderness areas. These pieces of federal law also clearly state that there shall NOT be any buffers around these new Wilderness areas, many citizen proposal and the 2007 draft RMP openly asserts that the basis for the designation of these areas is to provide a buffer for the Wilderness area. Such basis for designation would be a direct violation of federal law prohibiting management creation of buffers.

5b.  A large portion of the GMUG has been inventoried as primitive area and released back to multiple use.

In addition to the extensive Congressional action specifically drawing many of the boundaries of Wilderness areas on the GMUG, Congress additionally reviewed the inventory of three primitive areas that were existing in the southern portions of the GMUG when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. These three primitive areas were identified as the Uncompahgre Primitive area, Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive area and the Wilson Mtn Primitive areas.   Again, when the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act was passed these inventories were reviewed for possible designations by Congress and areas that were found suitable for designation were designated as Wilderness and the primitive areas were abolished and returned to multiple use.

The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act clearly abolished these areas from further possible management as Wilderness as follows:

“The previous classifications of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas and Wilson Mountain Primitive area are hereby abolished”  [49

We have enclosed the complete inventory of each of these primitive areas as Exhibit 4 to allow planners to fully understand the detail and scope of these inventories and understand the scope of what was released by Congress and then recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP. After a detailed review of these reports, it should be noted that many of the pre-existing usages that prohibited Congressional designation of these areas was recognized in these reports and inventory that began in the early 1970s.  These usages and management challenges often remain in the areas that were recognized by the Department of Interior and Bureau of Mines, adding more credibility to the USFS inventories of these areas subsequently undertaken.  Again, we simply cannot understand a fact pattern where Congress could specifically decline an area for designation as Wilderness and then land managers would again recommend the same areas for designation in the planning process. Such a position simply lacks rational basis in facts or law.

5c. Specific boundaries of the Uncompahgre (Big Blue) and Mt. Sneffels Wilderness were drawn with great detail by Congress.

In addition to the release of the large primitive areas that predated the 1964 Wilderness Act and comprised a large amount of the southern portions of the GMUG, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act addressed the specific locations for the boundaries of both the Uncompahgre and Mount Sneffels Wilderness with unusually high levels of detail.  The value of this level of detail should not be overlooked and again would draw any assertion of suitability for these areas as recommended Wilderness in the RMP into question.

Section 9 of the House Report issued for the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act provides a large amount of highly site-specific detail into the scope of analysis undertaken by Congress in developing this legislation and why boundaries are in the locations they are in. This bill memo provides:

“9. Lizard Head, Mount Sneffels, and Big Blue Wildernesses: These three separate wilderness proposals of 40,000, 16,200, and 100,000 acres, respectively, comprise what many feel is the most scenic and spectacular area in the entire State of Colorado, and is sometimes called the “Switzerland of America”. The area’s outstanding beauty and wild nature has been officially recognized since 1932 when the Wilson Mountains and Uncompahgre Primitive Areas were established by administrative regulation. In accordance with section 3 (b) of the Wilderness Act, the wilderness character of the two primitive areas was reviewed, and a wilderness recommendation on five separate tracts was forwarded to Congress in 197 4. The RARE II process resulted in further wilderness recommendations on lands contiguous to three of the five tracts. The Committee reviewed the Administration’s recommendations and determined that the 16,200-acre Mount Sneffels proposal was adequate to protect the highly scenic country north of Telluride. To the south-west, the Committee proposes a 40,000-acre Lizard Head Wilderness to link up the Administration’s Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak recommendations and include the headwaters of the Dolores River plus the landmark Lizard Head and Wilson Meadows. These additional lands largely lie within the existing Wilson Mountains Primitive Area and have important wildlife values as well as superlative wilderness qualities. The Committee, therefore, determined that wilderness should replace the current primitive area designation.

Similarly, the Committee recommends a 100,000-acre Big Blue Wilderness to join the Administration’s Big Blue and Courthouse Mountain proposals. The Committee additions include the heart of the eastern route of the Uncompahgre Primitive Area and such outstanding natural features as Matterhorn Peak, Wetterhorn Peak, Precipice Peak, Dunsinane Peak, Cow Creek and portions of the West, Middle and East Forks of the Cimarron River. The Committee feels the addition of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas, and therefore amended the bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part of the way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude about 1,500 acres which are used by grazing permittees for frequent motorized access and intensive management activities associated with livestock grazing. The bill abolishes the Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountain Primitive Area designations for those residual Primitive Area lands lying outside the boundaries of the three proposed wildernesses. Most of these remaining lands are so interspersed with patented mining claims that their management as wilderness would prove infeasible.”

A complete copy of this House Report memo outlining the high levels of sight specific analysis that was undertaken by Congress is attached to these comments for your reference as Exhibit 5 to these comments.  Given that many of the uses that Congress wanted to avoid impacting are still existing in these areas, the Organizations must ask why manager would ever want to violate the clear statements of Congress as to the location of these Wilderness boundaries.

When both the Mt Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness Areas were designated as Wilderness in 1980, the following provisions were included in the preamble of that legislation:

“(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws.”[50]

The Organizations must question why areas that have been specifically released by Congress for multiple use management and consistently found unsuitable for designation as Roadless areas would ever be found now available for Wilderness designation. The Congressional release of roadless areas, such as Sunshine, Wilson Mesa, Whitehouse and Liberty Bell is highly relevant due to the proximity of many of the new proposed Wilderness Area additions to both the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness and that these areas were specifically excluded by Congress from Wilderness management previously.

5c (2). Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area must be managed to protect management objectives set for the area by Congress.

The failure to address previous Congressional actions in many of the citizen Wilderness proposals is highlighted by the fact that the Fossil Ridge Management area prescriptions are simply never addressed in the by many of the citizen Wilderness Proposals that are currently under development. Most of these proposals simply fail to even recognize the Congressional designation of this area. Again, the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area was specifically included in the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, which designated the Fossil Ridge Wilderness. The Organizations are unable to understand how the Congressional requirements for the management of this area could be reconciled with a recommended Wilderness type management as Congress has again found this area unsuitable for Wilderness.

The 1993 Colorado Wilderness act also specifically created the Fossil Ridge Recreation management zone, which specifically addressed multiple use recreational access in the SMA as follows:

“(g) OFF-ROAD RECREATION. —Motorized travel shall be permitted within the recreation management area only on those established trails and routes existing as of July 1, 1991, on which such travel was permitted as of such date, except that other trails and routes may be used where necessary for administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency. No later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall identify such routes and trails and shall prepare and make available to the public a map showing such routes and trails. Nothing in this  subsection shall be construed as precluding the Secretary from closing any trail or route from use for purposes of resource protection or public safety.”

The current boundary of Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area is provided below:

In addition to the above protections the Fossil Ridge area is also the subject of extensive site-specific management areas standards.[51] In a very troubling course of conduct, again these provisions simply are not addressed in the Proposal, despite being specifically provided for in two pieces of legislation more than 10 years apart and the result of extensive public input and collaboration in their development.

5d. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations wish to highlight the repeated exclusion of many areas now sought to be designated as Wilderness from lower levels of management in previous administrative reviews mandated by Congress. Many of the same conclusions regarding the unsuitability of many areas recommended as Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP were again reached in the development of the 2012 Roadless Rule, more than 5 years after the draft RMP was released.  The systemic conclusions that many of these areas were never suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness system started with the RARE and RARE 2 inventories due to the high levels of existing usages of these areas included high levels of recreational value. These areas would include the Wilson Mesa area, Sunshine, Whitehouse, Liberty Bell and many other areas.[52] While the site-specific information from the RARE and RARE 2 process is available for review if your office should desire such a discussion, these conclusions are not discussed at length in these comments as they are repetitive to the conclusions of the Colorado Roadless Rule development in 2012.  The Organizations must ask why these areas, which have never been suitable for designation as Wilderness, despite almost 50 years of inventory, would now be thought suitable for designation as Wilderness?  The question about the need for Wilderness designations becomes more concerning when Congressional action has previously returned these areas to multiple use management.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process.  As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development.  Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas.  In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility.

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below.  The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation.   In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided.  The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the recommendation of any of these areas as Recommended Wilderness in the draft RMP.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness recommendations in a Forest Plan, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation.  Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use.

Congress has spoken regarding the management of these areas and the Organizations are unable to identify any reason to disturb these conclusions other than the desire of parties to that Legislation failing to accept the compromise position that was reached.  The Organizations submit that these provisions were designed to end discussions around possible designations and the Organizations submit that instead of providing recommendations for designating these areas as Wilderness, any RMP should be clearly identifying and protecting existing usages of these areas through an SMA type designation.

5e. Gunnison Public lands Initiative.

The Organizations have previously identified the opposition of the motorized community to the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative efforts. We have subsequently prepared detailed comments on this issue which area also attached as Exhibit 6 and submitted to this planning process as there appears to be growing confusion in these efforts between the participation of Organizations and support for the recommendations of the efforts.  The motorized community has participated but does not support the proposal. Generally, the public process around the entire discussion is badly flawed and far from complete and at best objectives of the planning process that have not been achieved are often presented as goals of the process that have been achieved.

6a. Winter travel must be based on best available science and funding resources.

The Organizations are aware that the GMUG is not undertaking winter travel management as part of the RMP development but are compelled to address winter travel related issues as a result of the large amount of questionable citizen science that has been submitted to the GMUG as part of the planning process on many issues involved in winter travel management.[53] We appear to be the only group that recognized winter travel was not occurring in conjunction with the RMP.  While certain portions of the research may appear to be credible on first review, much of this information and citizen science fails to even attempt to address best management practices for much of the analysis and makes critical flaws in the scientific process for development of the research that directly undermines the value of the research for management.

The Organizations have taken the opportunity to review several of the comments that were provided in response to the scoping of the Proposal and also summarize input that has been received in response to planning efforts on other national forests in California that are addressing winter travel, as we are sure much of this work will be appearing in the public comment on the GMUG as well. The Organizations immediately became concerned with the large amount of scientifically questionable materials that had been provided under the guise of best available citizen science on snow related issues in these processes, such as those summarized in the Winter Wildlands BMPs for OSV travel brochure. Many comments included unpublished articles or articles published in journals of small circulation regarding the negative impacts to a wide range of management concerns from OSV travel, and these articles were asserted to be “new science” on the issue despite the fact the article had not been published and/or peer reviewed and as a result failed to comply with many basic standards in snow analysis research methods.  It is unfortunate to have to recognize the relationship that locally recognized academic institutions are playing in developing this unpublished science.  Other articles simply fail to account for any type of financial limitation in the ability to provide winter recreational opportunities, which is concerning for the Organizations, which are intimately aware of how crushingly expensive providing winter opportunities truly is.

Our first concerns would be around the twisting of the determinations of the Olsen[54] work, which is reasonably important to us as our members were heavily involved in the development of the data supporting this work.  We believe this is highly interesting work, and the data that was developed regarding the desired recreational opportunity is interesting but we are also concerned that one foundational factor was badly missed in the assessment of recreational activity.  That is the fact that the motorized community provides the overwhelming means of access to the winter backcountry through the CPW winter grooming program that has operated on the GMUG for decades. All money for the operation of this program comes from the motorized community, both through grants from CPW and from the funding and volunteer efforts that are marshalled through local clubs. Without this program, access to any backcountry recreational opportunities would be almost non-existent but there are limitations on this program as funding does not go far enough and all funding must be used to provide access to motorized users as they are the funding source for the entire program. While these conclusions might be relevant in a financially perfect world, both the Organizations and GMUG planners are aware of the exceptionally limited resources that are available to provide even basic shared winter access to public lands.

The funding question and limitations simply was never addressed in the Olsen work, and as a result the Organizations must question the value of this research as a management tool as we are intimately aware of the funding restrictions on the program. Money simply never goes far enough and while carving the accessible forest into sections around the motorized trail network may appear as a management solution it fails to address the entire scope of opportunities on the forest. Could non-motorized users obtain solitude in Wilderness areas if there were non-motorized grooming programs?  That answer is clearly yes, but for reasons that remain unclear those types of programs have been actively fought and those seeking solitude in the winter backcountry have consistently sought to reduce existing access to create solitude rather than funding a program to improve access to areas that already have solitude available. Rather than carving up existing resources and trying to create solitude managers should be looking at expanding access into new areas that have solitude or other characteristics that a user group is seeking to obtain.

The Organizations would also note that the attempts to administratively create solitude within the existing opportunity spectrum has always created huge amounts of controversy and the GMUG planners have effectively performed winter travel management decisions to mitigate possible impacts.  The success of these efforts is clear and must be addressed in planning and the fact that the motorized community stepped up and is grooming snow for the benefit of all winter recreational users of the GMUG free of charge should not result in lost opportunities for the motorized community. This simply sends the wrong message to one of the strongest partners with the GMUG, mainly the harder you work in providing opportunities free of charge the more acreage you will be losing for the benefits of others that simply do not want to step up at the same level.   That is simply wrong.

The Organizations would also note that the GMUG planners were some of the first in the Nation to undertake winter travel management and that those planning efforts have been highly effective in minimizing resource impacts and providing a high quality recreational experience.   One of the foundational pieces of this management is the operation of the CPW grooming program in partnership with local clubs, which has minimum snow amounts for triggering travel and grooming and recognition that OSVs simply will not function without sufficient snow to cool themselves, making minimum snow amounts almost academic as the equipment simply fails when there is not sufficient snow on the ground to cool the motors.

6b. Snow depth amounts for usages.

The following portions of these comments and the snow measurement BMP discussion are provided in response to the submission of research outlining minimum snowfall requirements and the need to restrict OSV travel outlined in the unpublished Hatchett[55] Article. While this article is submitted as best available science on many issues, it is the Organizations position that the article fails basic structural requirements for the scientific process, as the measurement process provided to measure snow depth violates almost every BMP for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service and also completely fails to address the fact that snow compaction at any location is predominately a natural process. Rather than recognizing the impacts of natural forces of compaction and heating on snow, the Hachett article simply starts from a position that snow compaction is only caused by snowmobiles, which all planners have known to be incorrect for decades.

Clearly these types of factors must be taken into account when scientific research is seeking to analyze factors outside the natural process or they can lead to results that simply conflict with globally recognized conclusions. An example of the conflicting conclusions would be:

“How can snow that naturally compacts to between 550-800kg per square meter (as dozens of experts conclude in the Haeberli text) be further compacted by the actions of an average snowmobile that applies only .5 psi on the snow?”

The answer to the question above is easily identified as “it can’t”. The Organizations and GMUG planners have known the answer to the above question ad have effectively planned for it. As a result, the Organizations submit planners much approach this work with extreme caution as it is a good example of research to avoid creating management plans in reliance on.

The Organizations are enclosing a copy of significant new scientific snow management standards and analysis from globally recognized experts to support the snowfall amounts in the revised alternative and addressing compaction of snowfall and how protection of resources increases with the natural process of snow compaction.  This summary of best available science regarding snow in general is summarized in the first four chapters of the 2016 textbook entitled “Snow and Ice related hazards, risks and disasters” edited by Wilfried Haeberli.[56]  The Organizations are aware that submitting a complete textbook is unusual for a public comment process, but also believe the scientific credibility of the work is as valuable as the conclusions itself.   This document has been reviewed by numerous editors of the text but is also a summary of work from literally hundreds of globally recognized experts on snow as is exemplified by the numerous pages of authorities outlined at the end of each chapter.

This best available science also clearly concludes that the results of snow compaction via natural processes results in snow that is far heavier and denser than could ever result from snow only compacted by OSV usage.    Given this recognition in best available science, much of the citizen science that is being submitted must be drawn into question as it asserts impacts from snow compaction by OSV usages well beyond that of natural processes.  Best available science is clearly concluding that snow compaction from natural forces is far more significant than that of OSV travel and that as snow compacts resource protection actually increases in many cases. The analysis of snow compaction should be helpful to planners and allow planners to rebut what will certainly be a wave of citizen snow measurement reports asserting OSVs have been the major degrader of the snow buffer and major factor in snow compaction.  This new science clearly concluded natural forces have created a buffer that is far more resistant to any compromises than anyone thought previously and such new science clearly allows the GMUG planners to defend the highly successful OSV management decisions on the forest that have taken place previously.

6c. BMP for snow measurement must be relied on when reviewing citizen science.

Snow depth and triggers for winter travel was an issue that a significant portion of our original comments were devoted too but it appears that there are questions about many of the preliminary steps in the snow measurement process that we failed to clarify our concerns regarding. This is a concern as much of the “new science” being submitted is approaching the idea of snow measurement and snow compaction as an area that has simply never been researched.  Such a position could not be further from the truth as there is a rapidly evolving body of research resulting from landmark research occurring across the globe on these issues.  The rub for many conducting the unreviewed research being submitted to the USFS is the fact that the global scientific conclusions clearly move towards the fact that OSV travel in no way impacts resources in the manner the groups supporting this new research would like.

While minimum snowfall, measurement of snow and the behavior of snow after it falls is a new concept for the US Forest Service, National Weather Service has been calculating and measuring snowfall and depth for more than a century and the BMPs for snow measurement from the National Weather Service are best available science on this issue.  The conflict with much of the “new science” that was submitted and we believe will be the basis of subsequent litigation against the USFS and actual best available science on these issues is stark.  We are submitting this information to further clarify our previous thoughts and input on specific uses in relation to snowfall and to allow managers to understand the basic structural and research process failures in much of the analysis provided in this citizen science now being submitted. Best available science at the global level simply must be relied on.

When much of the new citizen science and analysis that has been submitted regarding OSV travel is compared to National Weather Service Best Management Practices for snowfall measurement, the immediate failures of the process relied on to develop the new science and management standards asserted as necessary to govern OSV travel is immediate.  This conflict begins with something as simple as the process relied upon to measure snow depth as most studies rely on repeated measurement of snow depth by humans at very limited locations and fails to even provide a basic summary of how the measurement locations were chosen.  This type of analysis process directly conflicts with the BMPs for snow measurement that have been in place with the National Weather Service for decades.    Colorado State University in partnership with National Weather Service provides the following BMPs for measuring snowfall:

1. “Ideal location for snow measurement is open, level, grassy area naturally shielded from the wind in all directions.
2. Where obstructions cannot be avoided, snow measurements should be taken a minimum of twice the distance from the obstacle as that obstacle is high.
3. Avoid drainage areas or areas prone to flooding during heavy rain or snowmelt.
4. Avoid slopes greater than 5°.
5. Avoid south-facing slopes because of faster melt-out.
6. Avoid, to the greatest extent possible, areas prone to drifting and wind scour.
7. All sensors come with 61 m cables which will restrict distance from power source. Dataloggers will be housed indoors in a heated and protected environment.”^[57]

While these BMPs have been in place for more than a decade, the unreviewed citizen science entirely fails to address these BMPS and simply starts from a position that snowfall measurement is consistent at every location and outside the need to be corrected for natural processes such as wind-based compaction, drifting or melting from other water sources.  Clearly that assumption is incorrect when compared to the National Weather Service BMPs.  The BMPs for such basic activities as snow depth measurement are simply never addressed in much of the new citizen science and research and as a result of this failure the conclusions of the research regarding impacts to various resources or activities must be drawn into question, as there is no way to confirm how much snow is actually on the ground when subsequent analysis of impacts is performed.

In addition to the BMPs identified above the National Weather Service also notes that researchers only get one attempt at the measurement of snow depth in a location most of the time^[58]  as the measuring process alters the measurement and requires researchers to move to other locations to measure snow depth. Much of the citizen science being provided simply measures snow in a single location completely relying on manual observations and tools such as measuring sticks to gauge snow depth.  Again, these manual observations are simply not acceptable with the National Weather Service measuring protocols, which clearly state as follows:

“A major assumption of this work is that manual observations are the ‘ground truth’ measurement; however, snow measurements can be quite subjective and that is amplified even further with the storm magnitude and the windblown snow. Manual observations can vary from site to site and observer to observer creating biases in the data.^[59]

Again, the citizen science being submitted fails to account for such process related issues, such as the fact that the measurement process can alter the results when repeatedly applied in the same location. If the process to acquire basic data is contaminated, how can conclusions based on the process be relied upon?

The National Weather Service also recommends a constant monitoring of measuring equipment during a snowfall event or at least once every six hours.^[60] Clearly this is not viable for the USFS management at the landscape level but periodic measurements would be a critical factor in the analysis of snowfall measurement in order to address possible impacts from a particular activity and could be undertaken when conducting research on a limited number of sites.  Again, these measurement BMPs simply also never addressed in much of the citizen science that is being submitted to the USFS.  While constant monitoring of multiple locations scattered across a forest is nearly impossible, monitoring of locations for scientific research in this manner is clearly a viable option. When there are failures of such basic measurement and analysis process as this, how can managers be expected to implement the conclusions of the research?

The NWS also clearly states that automated processes for the measurement of snow are difficult to compare.^[61] Each unit or model of snow depth measurement equipment has its own quirks and measures snowfall differently. For the small portion of citizen science that has access to automated measuring equipment, this type of basic measurement protocol is not addressed in the citizen science that is now being submitted in relation to the Proposal and many other USFS planning efforts on OSV travel.  Many of these citizen-based researchers simply continue to manually measure snow depth in the same location over and over again and rely on this information as the foundation for any research that is being conducted.  This is concerning to say the least and falls well short of best management practices for snow measurement and given the foundational nature of the measurement of snow depth to much of the subsequent management decisions that are made, the Organizations must question any of the research and conclusions when basic BMPs are simply not addressed.  Given the myriad of issues that need to be addressed with automated snow measurement process, manufactures of this equipment are now providing instruction manuals of more than 40 pages in length to attempt allow researchers to compare results from identical pieces of measuring equipment. The Organizations have never seen citizen science that confirms measurement equipment is set up per manufacturers specifications.

With the recognition of the difficulty of comparing mechanical measurement processes, the manner that collection related issues are addressed is also critically important and never recognized in most citizen science.  The NWS BMPS recommend recording the greatest accumulation of snow on the measuring device^[62] to address possible snow melt in the capturing process and to offset the impacts of winds on the capturing and measuring process as the NWS also notes:

“As winds increase, gauges collect less and less precipitation than actually falls.  Generally speaking, the stronger the wind and drier the snow, the less is captured in the gauge”^[63]

In these situations, the impacts of wind and compaction are so severe that the National Weather Service allows averaging of reports from monitoring locations as follows:

“When strong winds have blown the snow, take several measurements where the snow is least effected by drifting and average them.  If most exposed areas are either blown free of snow while others have drifts, again try and combine visual averaging of measurements to make your estimate.”^[64]

Again, issues such as drifting and possible wind compaction are never addressed in citizen science that is being developed. The Organizations are concerned that much of the unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted to the USFS has serious basic flaws in the process for analysis and development of the study, which directly draws the conclusions of this research into serious question.  Rather than adopting the globally recognized protocols for much of the process, these unreviewed works appear to start from a position that there is no BMPs for the research process.  Not only is this starting point completely inaccurate, it draws any asserted conclusions of that work into serious question and provide absolutely no basis for the revision of current management in any manner.

6d. Snow compaction is a natural occurrence throughout the world.

The Organizations concerns about the failures of citizen science around OSV questions is simply not limited to how snow is measured but also extends to the troubling nature of many of the basic premises for research regarding OSV travel and possible impacts to resources under the snow that are now being submitted to the USFS as new or best available science. The systemic failure plaguing development of much of the citizen science developed in response to the lawsuits and conflict around OSV management now facing the USFS is the fact that many researchers appear to fail to address that snow compaction is a natural process and start with the assumption that snow only compacts as a result of OSV travel. While such as oversight seems comical, often these oversights are not addressed in research and can directly impact the credibility of the findings of these unpublished works despite the facial appearance of credibility in these works.

The basic failure of this newly developed research and documentation targeting OSV activity overlooks the fact that there is an exceptionally well-developed body of research regarding snow compaction from natural processes and is commonly identified as snow sintering or snow metamorphosis in scientific communities. This large body of research is most directly targeting avalanche safety but also is directly involved with issues such as large construction projects on snow such as roads or mines, the monitoring of polar ice cap activity with satellites^[65], flooding in high alpine communities and the advancements in the construction of ice breaking vessels. Additionally, the Department of Defense has a well-developed guidance protocol for the operation of military basis in arctic climates. The Organizations would note that many of the assumptions made in peer reviewed or unpublished research documents now commonly submitted to the USFS are directly in conflict with this rapidly growing body of research addressing other activities on snow. The Organizations assert that snow compaction is the same regardless of how it is compacted and the conclusions of research should be the same regardless of what continent the research is performed on. While the rates of compaction may change at specific locations due to variations in specific forces at the location, the overall process is similar in terms of physical and thermal forces being applied and end results of these forces

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations are not seeking to provide a complete outline of this rapidly developing snow science body of research. In order to provide a complete review of this evolving body of global knowledge around snow behavior, snow metamorphosis or sintering the Organizations have enclosed a complete copy of the 2016 textbook entitled “Snow and Ice Related Hazards, Risks and Disasters” edited by Wilfried Haeberli as exhibit 2 of these comments.  The Organizations would direct GMUG managers attention generally to Chapters 2 through 4 of the text as an introduction to the compelling body of work that now supports snow sintering and metamorphosis and significant data that clearly can be relied on in defense of the varying snowfall totals based on surfaces under the snow that are provided in the revised DEIS.  While this text has only become publicly available recently, this text appears to be the most complete peer reviewed body of work on this issue and represents a consolidation of an enormous number of articles from globally recognized leaders in snow science. This text provides significant scientific data and research to improve the scientific defensibility of something we in the snowmobile community have known for years, mainly how to identify rideable snow and avoid non-rideable snow that can result in immediate damage to equipment.

Prior to addressing the specific data around the natural process of snow sintering, the Organizations would like to identify something that is not addressed in the Haeberi textbook, which is possible impacts of man moving on snow on that snow.  Clearly if the activities of man were an issue, they would have been addressed at some point in a snow sciences book such as this.  Given the lack of discussion of such issues, clearly these are minimal impacts on snow on even a regional or forest level.

This global summary of snow science research starts with the recognition that:

“Modeling of fresh snow density remains highly uncertain, due to the large number of factors and range of environmental conditions through which snow falls before reaching the ground.  Once deposited on the Earth’s surface, snow and fin density increases through metamorphism, eventually approaching the density of ice.  Metamorphism is a combination of both physical and thermal properties of snow.” ^[66]

Given this conclusion, any assertion that there should be a single snow depth across the nation or even at a regional level to trigger OSV travel is simply not based on science and must be avoided. While we have all known that snow in California is different than snow in Colorado, which is still different than snow in Maine, this recognition by best available science on this issue should not be overlooked and clearly rebuts any basis for a national or regional snowfall trigger for OSV travel.  The proper level to address snowfall is at the forest level with adoption of standards similar to those proposed in the GMUG and that different activities can be addressed differently.

For purposes of this document a comparison of this conclusions of this body of work regarding pressures on snow and the impacts of compaction and much of the unpeer reviewed research that has been submitted to the USFS is sufficient as the faults of much of the unpeer reviewed work is immediate.   Generally, snow scientists recognize that:

“Although it is much less variable than microstructure, natural snow density varies more than the density of most earth materials, ranging from an order of magnitude in seasonal snow (10-550 kg/m) and increasing by almost another factor of two in perennial snowfields.”^[67]

Additional information about the impacts of compaction of snow into snowpack provides as follows:

“New snow generally has the lowest densities with about 100 kg/m -3 and densities increase with aging snowpack due to metamorphism to about 350-400 kg/m -3 for dry old snow and up to 500 kg/m -3 for wet old snow.” ^[68]

Given that a snowmobile only applies .5 lbs. per inch on the snow, and natural processes result in pressures many hundreds of times that of an OSV clearly the natural rates of snow compaction are significant factors that must be addressed in any research addressing additional impacts to compacted snow from OSV travel. None of the unpeer reviewed research we have seen prepared around the OSV questions now facing the Forest Service even attempts to correct or exclude the impacts of natural process on snow after it falls in the research process.  Rather each of these works starts with the fact that snowmobiles compact snow in a manner more significant than natural processes and questions regarding basic scientific process are replaced with an artificial urgency to act and protect resources from damage, despite the lack of scientific basis for such a position.

While not as developed to the research and analysis levels referenced above, the Organizations believe the position of the downhill ski industry regarding the impacts of snow sintering or metamorphosis is also very important to this discussion as the downhill ski industry has developed extensive technologies to improve mechanical grooming of downhill ski runs to address the continued impacts of sintering after the initial grooming of ski runs.^[69] These technologies are relevant to this discussion as downhill ski grooming and snowmobile trail grooming occur with the same pieces of equipment and there is no question that the sintering process continues after the grooming has completed.  Why is the ongoing sintering or metamorphosis process an issue for the downhill ski community?  The industry is trying to resolve the problem of skiers “catching an edge” on a ski run which often results in the skier falling down, which at best provides for a lower quality skiing experience for users and can also result in serious injury or death to skiers if an edge is caught at the wrong time or locations or occurs under competition conditions. Asserting that sintering does not continue after grooming simply is not an option in the downhill skiing community, and the Organizations believe this compaction is equally relevant in the OSV world as a result of natural processes snow compacts into stronger and stronger layers and into layers that are far more compacted that could ever result from OSV traveling over the snow. While not as developed as the scientific research identified previously, the recognition of that sintering continues after grooming is entirely consistent with the conclusions of the scientific research identified above.  That consistency is highly valuable even if it is obtained in less formal means.

The Organizations also are aware that often significant amounts of snow are held by trees for a short period of time after a snowfall, which results in the snow falling in large quantities to the ground in rather abrupt manners.  Experts estimate that the average tree can hold more than 3,000 kg of snow^[70] and clearly that amount of snow moving even a short distance could result in high levels of snow compaction.  While the impacts are minimal when a single tree is reviewed for compaction issues, when these types of impacts are addressed at the landscape level, and the millions of trees that drop snow with every storm, the landscape levels of snow compaction from this natural process are significant and clearly far exceed the .5 psi of pressure that is applied to the snow by an OSV.

With this information, the Organizations are attempting to add scientific credibility and defensibility to the basic understanding and experiences of all involved in the winter sports community.  The largest factors impacting snow persistence in areas are highly local and often highly site-specific factors such as drifts, streams, north/south facing slopes and the mechanical movement of snow to particular locations, such as the moving of snow onto groom routes to protect the road from grooming activities. These issues are probably too small to manage at the landscape, and evidence the remains of landscape level activity that the USFS should be basing management on. Can the planning address some issues, such as the mechanical movement of snow onto routes to improve access and protect resources? Of course, the answer is yes but this level of detail simply is not necessary for most issues, such as possible negative impacts to mole or vole populations.

Too much of citizen science that is being submitted either seeks to apply standards at too large a level such as regional level analysis of snow based on satellite imagery of the entire southern California region or applies management at too fine a level, such as research targeting creatures that may live under the snow, such as moles or voles or creatures that are hibernating in soil buried under snow. Often the failure to properly determine the appropriate scale of these issues results in issue being artificially elevated as a management challenge, which can lead to incorrect conclusions such as management that sought to address OSV access to avoid snow compaction but failing to address the fact that snow compaction is a natural process and that everyone knows that when the snow melts, it melts at the landscape level and does not persist for significantly longer periods of time because of OSV usage.

6e.  The cumulative impacts of failures to comply with BMPs in the scientific process can lead to conclusions that are comically incorrect.

The Organizations are aware of a recent study of snow compaction occurring in partnership with a credible college institution that sought to identify impacts to resources from OSV snow compaction by comparing snow at a nationally recognized snowmobile location and snowfall on an experimental forest on the other side of the valley and more than 70 miles away from the OSV area. While the researchers provided large amounts of data and analysis in their analysis and immediately concluded OSVs must be compacting the snow, they simply failed to address such basic questions as did the two locations even get the same amount of snow from the storms (as they were more than 70 miles apart); any BMPs for snowfall measurement; and that snow compaction was a natural process and that the study needed to correct for such forces in the study methodology.

When this research was presented to local forest service managers and members of the local snowmobile community, a good chuckle was had by each as both laypersons immediately saw the flaw in the research and its conclusions.  The highly used snowmobile area that was the basis of this research was immediately adjacent to a large non-motorized recreation area that never saw OSV travel at any point in the winter and both areas were also immediately south of a large Wilderness area, and either location would have provided a better comparison for snowfall than driving 70 miles across the valley.  Both parties immediately knew that the snow on both sides of the motorized/non-motorized administrative boundary always melted off at the same days of the year without fail.   Clearly, if the conclusions of the study were accurate, snow would be remaining on the motorized side of the pass longer than the non-motorized side of the pass but that never happened as snow sintering occurred at a rate higher than that of OSV compaction. Rather than proving compaction was driven by OSVs, the study did identify the two locations got different amounts of snow and that snow melt off occurred at different paces at different locations.

Why is this example even raised?  This is an example of the type of unreviewed citizen science that must not be relied on for management decisions by the USFS. When the scientific process breaks down, even the most educated can be led to conclusions that make no sense, and basing management decisions on science that reaches conclusions that simply are inaccurate will not result in effective management. A copy of this research is available on request but has not been provided with these comments.

7. Ophir Boundary Adjustment

The Organizations are aware that numerous clubs and other local partners on the GMUG have submitted extensive comments on site specific or trail specific issues they are encountering.  The Organizations vigorously support all this input even though much of it is not reflected here, simply to avoid repetition of that input.

The Organizations are also aware of a critical safe access issue that is being encountered with the many in the Ophir Colorado snowmobile community and are including in our comments as many of these riders are CSA members and also belong to other clubs in the area but we are concerned this issue may be overlooked. This issue involves amending planning for the OSV boundary line modification implemented by Curtis Keetch (the interim USFS Norwood Ranger in 2016) on February 26, 2016 and then later retracted it on March 8, 2016.  This is the ideal OSV boundary line within the Ophir valley, which allows for a safer OSV snowpack evaluation and access to the Red Mtn. Pass open OSV riding zones.

This boundary adjustment is reflected in the map below:

The Organizations would request that the boundary line in the area for OSV travel be amended as outlined above in order to provide safe access to existing opportunities to the north.  The current boundary needs to be amended as it simply fails to provide a safe access route for snowmobilers in the area as they are forced to sidehill across steep avalanche prone terrain to ride rather than using the bottom of the valley to cross the avalanche chutes and then climbing out of the valley bottom outside the risk areas.

Conclusion.

We welcome this opportunity to provide input following the first round of public meetings addressing the proposed forest plan revision.   We would like to provide input on a few components in the final RMP which we believe could streamline planning significantly moving forward, provide new information and address several issues that consistently arise early in the Forest Service planning process on other forests in the hope of partnering with the GMUG to develop an effective long-term plan for the forest.  These comments are submitted as a supplement to the site-specific input provided from the local clubs on a wide range of issues, such as culvert size and future utilization of decommissioned roads as trails.  The Organizations vigorously support the input from these local clubs.

As we discussed in far more detail in earlier submissions, there is a critical need to develop an RMP that is reasonably brief and easy for the public to use and understand.  While we will not be discussing that issue in great detail in these comments, these goals and objectives remain critically important.  The Organizations continue to support the recognition of the need to expand access on the GMUG in a thoughtful and planned manner for all recreational activity, as already recognized in the assessments.

In this round of comments, we are providing a detailed legal history of the lack of Congressional support for designation of exclusionary corridors around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) and other routes designated under the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”).  While we are not aware of this issue being raised in scoping to date, we are aware of the immense pressure on other forests to create such corridors.  It is our position that such corridors are illegal under federal law and also fail to balance multiple uses along the trails in violation of NEPA planning requirements.

In addition to outlining the extensive Congressional action that has been taken around the need to benefit all uses with an NTSA route, the Organizations have also provided a detail analysis of the extensive multiple agency reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which have been occurring since before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. These multiple agency reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in releasing significant portions of the GMUG back to multiple use requirements and explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations are in the places that they are.  This history is critically important given the fact that many of these areas found specifically unsuitable for Wilderness designations previously were again recommended for Wilderness designation in the draft 2007 RMP.  The Organizations are aware such action is theoretically legally possible, the Organizations submit that such a recommendation is factually confounding and should be avoided.

These Congressional actions have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in the State’s history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas.

The final general issue we would like to provide input on is snow sciences around OSV management.  The Organizations are all too familiar with the large amounts of unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted with regard to many USFS planning efforts, on what appears to be a position that there is no science on many of these challenges.  The Organizations submit there is extensive science on most of these issues and that the peer reviewed high-quality science that is available does not support management of issues in the manner recommended in this citizen science. Rather the best available science supports existing management and highlights the low-quality nature of the citizen science being submitted, such as the fact that citizen researchers seek to recommend management based on snow depth but fail to prepare their research in a manner that even arguably complies with BMPS for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service.  Land managers must exhibit a high level of caution in relying on citizen science that fails to clear even such basic hurdles in the scientific process.

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities and any other challenges that might be facing the GMUG  moving forward at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact  Don Riggle at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs, 80906, Cell (719) 338- 4106 or Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504.  His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, esq.
CSA Vice President
TPA & COHVCO Authorized Representative

D. E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

[1] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9 – Senate Report No 95-636, 1978 is not available to the public- when searched on the Congressional history the following report is provided: “As of 12/15/2017 the text of this report has not been received.”

[2] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.

[3] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3861.

[4] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.

[5] See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.

[6] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.

[7] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Page 6.

[8] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Page 9.

[9] See, 16 USC §1246(c)

[10] See, 16 USC §1244 (a)(5).

[11] See, 2009 CDT Plan at pg. 19.

[12] See, USFS, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan 2009 at pg 19.

[13] See, generally Omnibus Public Lands Management Bill of 2009 and various supporting analysis available here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/73978_FSPLT2_059530.pdf

[14] See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).

[15] See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

[16] See, http://continentaldividetrail.org/cdtc-official-list-of-cdt-thru-hikers/

[17] See, https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/thru-hiking-long-distance-hiking/2600-miler-list/

[18] See Exhibit 1.

[19] See, GMUG recreation assessment pg. 24.

[20] http://narrowgauge.org/alpine-tunnel/html/auto_tour.html

[21] See, GMUG Terrestrial Species Assessment at pg. 49.

[22] 2013 LCAS at pg. 94.

[23] 2013 LCAS at pg. 83.

[24] 2013 LCAS at pg. 95.

[25] 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

[26] 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[27] 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

[28] 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[29] 2013 LCAS at pg 91.

[30] See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21^st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011

[31] See, USDA Forest Service; “GMUG  NF- Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 A complete copy of this research is available here https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-GMUG.pdf

[32] See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.

[33] See, USDA Forest Service; National Forest Support a Recreation Economy- a complete study copy is available here: http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/national-forests-support-recreation-economy/

[34] See, Holmes & White; National & Community Market Contributions of Wilderness; Society & Natural Resources; An International Journal; Volume 30 2017

[35] See, UDSA Forest Service; White & Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; Joint venture between USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University; November 2011 at pg. 6.

[36] See, USDA Forest Service, National Visitor Use Monitoring; “National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results; National Summary Report; Data collected FY 2012 through FY 2016”; 2016 at pg. 1.

[37] See, USDA Forest Service; 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Environmental Impact Statement; May 2012 pg. 19

[38] See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; GMUG National Forest; Round 3; last updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.

[39] More information on this Proposal is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1635?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s1635%22%5D%7D&r=1

[40] More information on this legislation is available here:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1701?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221701%22%5D%7D&r=79

[41] More information on this legislation is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/829?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22degette+colorado+wilderness+act%22%5D%7D&r=12

[42] A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

[43] Various press coverage of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed legislation as part of the National defense Authorization act of 2014 is available here: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3209

[44] See PL 96-560

[45] See, GMUG Wilderness inventory process document- January 2018 at pg 2.

[46] See, PL 96-560

[47] See, PL 96-560

[48] See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3).

[49] See, Public Law 96-560 at §102(b).

[50] See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

[51] https://www.western.edu/sites/default/files/media/raw/Fossil%20Ridge%20Wilderness.pdf

[52] See, USDA Forest Service; FEIS Roadless Area Review and Evaluation; Appendix E; January 1979 at pg. 216  & 220.

[53] This would be exemplified by the comments of the Colorado Mountain Club et al available here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=51806&List-page=3

[54] See, Lucretia E. Olson, John R. Squires, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Aubrey D. Miller, Jacob S. Ivan, and Mark Hebblewhite, 2017. Modeling large-scale winter recreation terrain selection with implications for recreation management and wildlife. In Applied Geography, Volume 86, Pages 66-91.

[55] Hatchett, Ben. May 15, 2017. Evaluation of Observed and Simulated Snow Depths for Commencing Over Snow Vehicle Operation in the Sierra Nevada, Prepared for the Winter Wildlands Alliance.

[56] A complete copy of this text has been enclosed as Exhibit 5 to these comments.

[57] See, Ryan et al; Preliminary results from ultrasonic snow depth sensor testing for the National Weather Service (NWS) snow measurements in the United States; Hydrologic Processes (2008) complete study available at

https://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/RyanDoeskenFassnacht_HydrolProcess(2008).pdf18.

[58] See, Kinar and Pomeroy; Measurement of physical properties of the snowpack; American Geophysical Union 10/2015 at pg. 51.

[59] See, Ryan et al  supra note 3 at pg. 7.

[60] See, https://www.weather.gov/gsp/snow ; see also Ryan et al

[61] See, Kinar supra note 4 at pg. 50.

[62] See, https://www.weather.gov/gsp/snow

[63] See, https://weather.gov/gsp/snow

[64] See, https://weather.gov/gsp/snow

[65] See, Arthern et al; In situ measurements of Antarctic snow compaction compared with predictions of models; JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, F03011, doi:10.1029/2009JF001306, 2010

[66] See, Haeberli at pg. 38.

[67] See, Haeberli et al; Snow and ice related hazards, risks and disasters; Elsevier publishing 2016 at pg. 38.

[68] See, Haeberli et al at pg. 101.

[69] For a representation of this technology please see https://www.prinoth.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/prinoth_snowdepthmeasurement_EN_NA_01.pdf

[70] See, Haeberli at pg. 146.

Travel Management
Pike & San Isabel National Forests
2840 Kachina Dr.
Pueblo, CO 81008

Submitted via email to: comments@psitravelmanagement.org

Re: Pike & San Isabel National Forest, Travel Management EIS Comments regarding NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch)

Dear Supervisor Connelly:

Please accept these comments regarding the Pike & San Isabel National Forest Travel Management EIS Project on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”).

A recent update to the Pike & San Isabel National Forest Travel Management EIS Project’s website posted a “Tabular Summary” of the Draft DEIS Action Alternatives (Alternatives B-E) of roads and trails for motorized vehicle use on the Pike & San Isabel National Forest (PSI). In review of that tabular summary, the TPA and COHVCO observed that NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch) on the Pikes Peak Ranger District has proposed actions to “convert to admin use only road (ML2)”, from mileposts 1.00 to 2.57 for all Alternatives B through E.

During the Project Scoping Phase, a preponderance of public comments (over 80 individual statements) were made testifying to the public’s desire that NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch) remain open to public access, yet the DEIS appears to be completely ignoring those public comments and public sentiment and currently proposes to close NSFR 346 to the public. The DEIS does not include in Alternatives B-E even a single course of action that responds to the stated public requests to keep access to NFSR 346 unrestricted and open to public motorized use. The TPA & COHVCO contend that during the Scoping Phase, there is likely to be no other single road that received as many public comments expressing support to keep NFSR 346 open to public access, yet the USFS has chosen to ignore those public comments and fails to offer a reasonable alternative that adequately addresses the desires of the public to keep access to NFSR 346 open. This disregard for the public’s input and comments undermines the integrity of the USFS’s EIS process and credibility with the public. It is simply disingenuous and insincere to ask for the public’s input and then so purposely and callously ignore the public’s desire. The TPA and COHVCO request that the entire length (i.e., MP 0.00 to MP 4.90) of NFSR 346 have a proposed action of “keep as is” in at least Alternatives C & D, that the ongoing analysis includes keeping NFSR 346 open to public access (i.e., “keep as is”) and that the DEIS be modified accordingly.

As stated previously in our comments, we do not agree or support any action that limits access or closes public access to NFSR 346. NFSR 346 is the only east-west connection between State Highway (SH) 67 and NFSR 300 (AKA Rampart Range Road) between Woodland Park and Rainbow Falls. NFSR 346 provides a critical recreational access for multiple-use travel between the Front Range and recreational opportunities to the west. It provides a critical route and corridor for Dual Sport motorcycles and others utilizing NFSR 320 (AKA Mount Herman Road) and NFSR 300 to connect with the North Divide, Rainbow Falls, North Rampart, South Rampart, South Park, and other recreational areas. NFSR 346 also provides beneficial connectivity for hunters and mountain bikes. Although Recreational Use is “moderate” (as designated by the 2014 TAP) this road provides the only east-west link within the 10-mile corridors of SH 67 and NFSR 300. The roadside vegetation along NFSR 346 is well established and stable for the entire length from SH 67 to NFSR 300 and the number of stream crossings is nil. The soil types within the watershed are typical of the entire Rampart Range. The slope aspects along with the soils have resulted in well-established vegetation with natural erosion control measures, the road tread is offset from any ephemeral channels, the road surface shows minimal signs of erosion and rutting (except for a very short segment just north of the intersection with NFSR

346.B which could easily be mitigated with minor grading), and hillslope vegetation is well established and very mature. In order to maintain public access, we would support conversion of NFSR 346 to a Full-Size Trail or “trail open to all vehicles”.

We thank you for reviewing and considering these comments and suggestions. The TPA and COHVCO would welcome a discussion of this issue at your convenience. Our point of contact for this project will be William Alspach, PE at 675 Pembrook Dr., Woodland Park, CO, cell 719-660-1259.

Scott Jones, esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President
508 Ashford Dr.
Longmont, CO 80504
(518) 281-5810
scott.jones46@yahoo.com

D. E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance
725 Palomar Ln.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
(719) 338-4104
info@coloradotpa.org

Gunnison Public Lands Initiative

Via email only @ info@gunnisonpubliclands.org

 RE: Gunnison Public Lands Initiative

Dear Sirs;

Please accept this correspondence as the preliminary input of the above Organizations vigorously opposing the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative (“The Proposal”). The Organizations general concerns are generally summarized as follows:

1. While the Proposal asserts there is no lost opportunity for the motorized community, this position simply lacks any factual basis as the Proposal closes extensive portions of the planning area currently open to motorized usage;
2. The Planning area is not the basis for significant conflict in the recreational community, but the Proposal would create immense conflict for the future of these areas;
3. The extensive conflict between the Proposal and existing federal laws for management of many of these areas that resulted from extensive consensus processes previously;
4. The complete lack of scientific basis for much of the recommended management;
5. The complete failure to relate management standards to on the ground conditions as exemplified by conflicts in forest health management treatments; and
6. Claims of balance in the Proposal are not supported by management standards for most areas.

The Proposal appears to start with the position that the entire Gunnison Valley is suitable and available to be designated as Wilderness and asks the public to provide reasons that areas should not be designated as Wilderness. In a troubling turn of events, there is simply no effort provided in the Proposal to outline current management of areas and any priority management issues in the areas and as a consequence the Proposal would have significant negative impacts on the issues that it is alleged to be addressing. The Organizations must question the value of any public input received as the public is forced to perform hours of research simply to understand the change in management for the area under the Proposal. While the Proposal asserts balance in the Proposal, the Organizations are simply unable to identify a single benefit to the multiple use community as a huge number of the management areas would result in the immediate loss of existing opportunities for multiple use and more troubling, almost every area currently discussed places a cap on existing abilities to expand or improve multiple use opportunities for access, such as Crystal Peak, Lotus Creek, Union Park, East Gunnison, Matchless and many others.

The Organizations have participated in a large number of consensus efforts over the years and throughout these efforts current efforts on issues have always displayed a high level of respect for the conclusions of previous consensus-driven efforts, which has not been displayed here. In addition to failing to provide any benefits to the multiple use community, the Proposal fails to address many of the protections and other management standards that have resulted from previous consensus-driven efforts, such as those that resulted in the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Legislation. Public input has also been consistently provided regarding the management of much of the Gunnison Valley in NEPA processes that have guided planning for public lands in the area for decade. NEPA processes with the USFS have always been successful in obtaining public input and the failure of the Proposal to address this public input is deeply troubling. The Proposal also fail to address existing federal laws that are in place in these areas and as a result many of the Proposals standards and basis for area designations are now directly in conflict with these laws. The Organizations must question the validity of any consensus process that does not comply with federal laws as we have found the desire to comply with federal law an issue where a high degree of consensus is always achieved in the collaborative process. A project that seeks to develop public consensus management for the area that does not start with the consensus management recommendations already in place is off to a troubling start in our position.

The Proposal simply lacks any factual examination of proposed standards and the on the ground conditions in the area. This is exemplified by the fact that the Proposal identifies climate change impacts on habitat as a major concern for the Proposal but fails to relate what is a small land management proposal in Colorado to any identified impact to a global challenge. The failure to meaningfully address the basis for designations has resulted in concrete challenges that are directly degrading habitat in the Proposal area, such as the impacts of pine and spruce beetle on a huge number of trees in the areas actually more difficult to address. Again, this draws the management decisions made in the Proposal into question and directly conflicts with the recommended management standards for many of the species in the area, such as cutthroat trout and other goals of the plan, such as protecting water quality.

1. The Organizations collaborate with diverse interests throughout the state on trails projects.

Prior to addressing the specifics of our concerns around the Proposal, the Organizations believe it is important to explain our history and background on working on tough issues with a diverse range of interests with public land managers throughout the state. Even in situations where other user groups have not become involved in discussions for reasons that remain unclear, the Organizations have strived to achieve benefits for all interests and users. A list of a few of the examples of our recent collaborative efforts include:

1. SB 17-100- The Organizations spearheaded passage of this Legislation in 2017 that significantly reduced the liability for clubs performing stewardship actions on public lands in Colorado, while the legislation protected all users the only group that showed up and supported these efforts was the Nature Conservancy;
2. CPW LEAN Event – This was almost a years’ worth of collaborative efforts from the Organizations with CPW, State Treasurers Office and numerous others regarding how to achieve more timely implementation of grants from the trails program and as a result of these efforts all grants are now available to the applicants almost 1 year earlier than before the LEAN event, while these efforts again benefitted all grant applicants there was no support from any other user groups;
3. Tenderfoot Mountain Project on Dillon Ranger District– trail was constructed to benefit a wide range of interests including motorized and mechanized users with improved wildlife habitat in the area after years of collaborative meetings, this project remains ongoing but has extended more than 5 years;
4. Bear Creek Trails Project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District – where an entire trail network was moved and rebuilt from scratch to address generically pure cutthroat trout habitat being impacted by the existing trail next work- this took more than 4 years;
5. Hermosa Watershed Legislation outside Durango– here first of its kind federal legislation resulted from years of collaboration of interests ranging from water, ranching, local government, snowmobile, summer motorized and mechanized and the Wilderness Society and this effort took almost a decade;
6. Badger Flats Campground project on South Park Ranger District – the Organizations collaborated with the Wilderness Society, campers, local property owners and other interests to renovate a poor managed area into a regional trails hub and camping facility with an extensive multiple use trails network effort here remain ongoing but have already covered more than 5 years;
7. Bangs Canyon SMA outside Grand Junction – a collaborative effort spanning more than a decade on GJFO where again a diverse range of interests collaborated to develop a multiple use area that also improved wildlife habitat and protected cultural resources and this project has taken more than a decade;
8. 667 Trails Projection Pikes Peak Ranger District– restoration of a heavily used trail network lost in Hayman Fire and then heavily impacted by flooding which took almost 20 years to complete;
9. Hartman Rocks area on the Gunnison BLM Field Office – a multiple use were ongoing efforts longer than a decade have leveraged resources to develop a unique trails-based recreation area that has been highly successful;
10. Canadian Lynx research with USFWS- in this project CSA partnered with the USFWS to facilitate targeted lynx research by providing resources and expertise to researchers working to understand the relationship between lynx habitat and recreation. This support ranged from removing snowmobiles broken or stuck in the backcountry during blizzards with CSA grooming equipment to oil and gas for basic operation to educating researchers how to ride and operate equipment in the backcountry.

The Organizations are proud of the history of collaborative projects that has been developed across often wide interest’s groups with benefits for all parties involved. In these efforts, often laying the groundwork has been very slow and often verging on shaky but throughout these efforts the strong foundation has been important in uniting the groups and interests as the projects moved forward and resulted in quality projects being developed and being successful in the long run.

The Organizations would also note that even in situations where other groups could be excluded from benefits of collaborative efforts because of their failure to become in any manner in the discussions or efforts (such as SB17-100, CPW Lean, Lynx research) these groups have not been excluded. Rather than pursuing true collaboration in the Proposal, such as would be provided in a complete review of existing planning and Legislative efforts, the interests of a single group have been placed above all others and pushed forward at breakneck speeds. Rather than a strong foundation resulting from the shaky slow start, this collaborative effort appears to be put at risk for reasons that simply make no sense to the Organizations.

1b. The Colorado Trails Program protects resources and benefits all users.

In addition to the above collaborative projects, the Organizations have supported the development and implementation of the voluntary registration programs for both summer and winter recreation that is coupled with the funding from the Federal Recreational Trails Program. This program provides almost $8 million (or $1.25 for every resident of the State) per year for trails of all kinds which is almost entirely funded by the motorized community for more than 20 years. The motorized portion of the program provides for almost 60 maintenance crews based throughout the State which are well equipped for both summer and winter maintenance needs. This program actually protects resources in a proactive manner, and this benefit would be lost when trails are closed to multiple use. This program maintains routes for the benefit of all users, as all motorized roads and trails are open to all other forms of recreation and this funding is now critical in providing basic access due to among other things, the Gunnison Valley being some of the hardest hit areas in the country in terms of mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle infestations.

The lion’s share of the projects is now directed towards basic maintenance of existing facilities for a variety of reasons including decades of communication with USFS and BLM staff which have consistently identified that proving basic maintenance is the most effective manner to keep routes open. The importance of the $4.3 million to USFS recreational budget is reflected in the tile below from the 2015 OHV workshop presentation from the USFS:

In addition to the $4.3 million in OHV funding the funding is leveraged with an additional $1.1 million dollars for winter recreational route maintenance and almost $2.4 million in funding for maintenance for non-motorized recreation. The Program is providing a massive portion of the funding for basic recreational activity on USFS and BLM lands in the State of Colorado, the motorized community has also been repeatedly identified in Volunteer Stewardship reports prepared by the State of Colorado as the single largest source of volunteer support for trails in the State. Failing to address these direct benefits of multiple use access in the Proposal is unacceptable as there are 3 maintenance crews for summer usage and 2 winter recreation working the Proposal area to protect resources in addition to providing millions for maintenance on an as-needed basis for further leveraging of these maintenance crews.

2a. Public input process is in need of improvement.

As the Organizations have noted above, the Organizations are heavily involved in a wide range of collaborative efforts on often wide-ranging and difficult topics. It has been the Organizations experience that often the process relied on to develop a consensus position for these challenging issues tells the story as to the value of a minority position or the desire to truly seek consensus. When consensus or balance in the development process is not meaningfully addressed, the end result often directly contradicts the basic purpose and need for the project and does not represent viable balanced position. Rather than consensus of all users, the failure to address minority position concerns results in a weak foundation for the proposal and the views of a small cross-section of the interests in the proposal. The impacts of failing establish a proper foundation on large-scale planning can be seen with the complete failure of the Desert Renewable Energy Project in southern California to approach consensus and resolution of the goals and objectives of that effort. This should be avoided.

This is the first concern with the GPLI as while we have not participated directly in the meetings, our Organizations have received many questions regarding the process from those that have attended the meeting, both as members of local clubs and as members of the public. Often the response from these attendees has not been positive regarding the meeting process and engagement of the general public that is attending. That is concerning as many of the public may be deeply interested in an issue but also have traditional employment situations and are not able to attend extended meetings during the day on any issue. Generally, the public needs to take time off from work to attend meetings and as a result they may only be able to provide limited input. Any collaborative process should be geared to address this situation and given the response from our members this type of input is not well received.

Our process concerns around development of the Proposal are emphasized by the fact that there are no meeting minutes are available for the public to review regarding the basis for the Proposal. Providing this type of basic information about the proceedings would be critically important in developing true public input as many of the public simply will not be able to attend meetings in person for a variety of reasons. This type of general information on the Proposal would be highly valued by the public in identifying factors or information that might have been overlooked it the development of the Proposal. Again, this is basic information that should be available to the public for inspection if collaboration and public input is actually being sought.

2b. Participation does not always mean support.

As the Organizations have stated previously, a complete representation of all interests in collaborative efforts is critical to developing a balanced proposal. The Organizations are very concerned that much of the public participation in the process is being misunderstood as support for the Proposal, especially from the motorized community, as reflected by the numerous pictures of motorized usages that are spread throughout the Proposal. Many of the members we have spoken to about the Proposal are simply opposed to the recommendations completely. There is a significant difference between participation and support and often the Organizations participate in processes that will never be supported by the membership. There is also a significant difference between seeking a group support and actually obtaining that groups support. The need to comment on such basic issues again makes the Organizations concerned that there is very little interest in developing a consensus position but rather the interest in the Proposal is seeking to create the appearance of public support for a decision that has already been made. These are two very different processes and basis for seeking public consensus.

3a. Many of the foundational assumptions are simply incorrect regarding OSV travel in the area.

Throughout the Proposal, numerous assertions about possible impacts to various recreational activities are made without any basis for such positions, such as the assertion that the Proposal does not affect popular over the snow riding areas.1 CSA submits this position is completely inaccurate and much of the designations in the Proposal would close highly valued recreational areas for the OSV community. This is highly frustrating to the OSV community as we have worked hard to collaborate with many of the same interest groups and people participating in the GPLI process to develop collaborative management on the GMUG for OSV usage that satisfied a broad range of interests and users. For those efforts to now be simply cast aside is highly frustrating and causes us to question why we would ever get involved in collaborative efforts to resolve issues, when the partners in those efforts simply cast the conclusions and effective management conclusions that have been reached so easily.

The map below is the current OSV travel restricts from the USFS and the systemic conflict between this decision document and any assertion of consistency of the Proposal is immediate. ²

While the above map addresses collaborative efforts in the Crested Butte area with the USFS, this is by no means the only location the OSV community has collaborated on in Gunnison County.

A complete review of the GMUGOSV planning that has been done to date is available on the USFS website.³ AAt no point in the discussions is there any analysis regarding the current management of any of the proposal areas but rather the discussion starts from a position that there is no conflict with the Proposal and current management. This failure to address the current management of these areas is highly frustrating as the GMUG has along a successful history of collaboratively addressing OSV travel in the Proposal area. The Organizations submit that the complete lack of factual accuracy around the position that the Proposal does not close OSV areas is troubling at a minimum.

3b. Many of the foundational positions are simply incorrect regarding OHV travel in the Proposal area

The complete lack of factual basis for many of the assertions made in the Proposal is also exemplified by the analysis of multiple use summer recreation is exemplified as the Proposal starts from a position that no roads or trails will be closed by the GPLI proposal⁴. Again, no basis is provided for this position and the Organizations vigorously assert that this position entirely lacks merit, as the Proposal would have a massive impact on future development of OHV roads and trails. Many of the areas addressed in the GPLI are currently managed for the long-term expansion of multiple use recreation. Even in SMA areas whereOHV usage is addressed, each of these areas provides for a cap on any expansion in terms of mileage but fails to provide any protection for the levels of activity that are currently allowed and have been occurring for an extended period of time without issue.

These failures in the factual analysis are deeply troubling as the message from the consistent assertion of inaccurate information on recreational activity would be that motorized access to the Gunnison Valley was the single largest threat to resources in the valley. Clearly, that issue is not supported by factual analysis given that the northern portions of the Gunnison Valley are some of the hardest hit in terms of poor forest health as in many areas, tree mortality has easily exceeded 50% kill rates and is significantly higher in many locations.

3c (1). Much of the Proposal directly contradicts with federal law for the management of Proposal areas.

The lack of factual consistency of the Proposal with the broad and vigorous history of collaboration in the Gunnison Valley is not limited to motorized recreational issues, as the clarity of previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in Gunnison County is also not addressed. Rather the Proposal appears to simply start from a position that Congress has not spoken on the management of these areas and that these areas are not currently the basis for the previous Congressional decision that sought to bring balance to previous consensus positions for these areas. There is a long and highly specific history of Congressional action on these areas and the extensive discussions that have taken place trying to provide some type of balance in the usage of areas not designated as Wilderness. The Organizations must question the value of any consensus process that does not recognize the value in the determinations of consensus and community groups that is previously been undertaken.

The high levels of clarity around previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in Gunnison County is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness act specifically spoke of the need to protect multiple use in areas it was not designated as Wilderness as follows:

SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado possess outstanding natural characteristics which give them high values as wilderness and will, if properly preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for the benefit of the American people;

(2) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System’s share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to…….. Ensure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.”

Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”

Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the management of so much of the Proposal area, the Organizations must question what has changed in these areas and why would the previous consensus positions now need to be changed in terms of management of these areas. Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and should be honored. The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area.

3c (2). Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area

The failure to address previous Congressional actions in the Proposal area is highlighted by the fact that the Fossil Ridge Management area prescriptions are simply never addressed in the Proposal. These concepts were again specifically included in the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, which designated the Fossil Ridge Wilderness. The 1993 Colorado Wilderness act also specifically created the fossil ridge recreation management zone, which specifically addressed multiple use recreational access in the SMA as follows:

“(g) OFF-ROAD RECREATION. —Motorized travel shall be permitted within the recreation management area only on those established trails and routes existing as of July 1, 1991, on which such travel was permitted as of such date, except that other trails and routes may be used where necessary for administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency. No later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall identify such routes and trails and shall prepare and make available to the public a map showing such routes and trails. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as precluding the Secretary from closing any trail or route from use for purposes of resource protection or public safety.”

The current boundary of Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area is provided below:

In addition to the above protections the Fossil Ridge area is also the subject of extensive site-specific management areas standards.⁵ In a very troubling course of conduct, again these provisions simply are not addressed in the Proposal, despite being specifically provided for in two pieces of legislation more than 10 years apart and the result of extensive public input and collaboration in their development. The existence of the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area should at least be addressed in the Proposal management zones in these areas but simply is never mentioned.

3c (3). Many of the Proposal areas directly violate Federal law specifically stating there shall be no buffer areas around many Wilderness areas.

As identified above there have been significant congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the upper Gunnison Valley for more than 50 years that are not addressed in the Proposal. The 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas. Clearly, these “no buffer” protections were put in place to facilitate the consensus of multiple users and interests in these lands. The Organizations can see no reason why these consensus positions should be changed now. There are several areas in the Proposal such as Crystal Creek, Lottis Creek, Matchless and Signal Peak areas that propose to manage areas in direct violation of federal law addressing the areas. Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act both of which specifically subject to no buffer requirements provided in the pieces of legislation as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”⁶ 

While existing federal law, reflecting the consensus position that was reached in the 1993 Wilderness Expansion Legislation, is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside these Wilderness areas and that there shall not be any buffers around these new Wilderness areas, the Proposal openly asserts that the basis for the designation of these areas is to provide a buffer for the Wilderness area.

An example of the cavalier disregard the Proposal has for previous consensus efforts now reflected in federal law is evidenced by the following statements around the Lottis Creek addition:

“Primary Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
• Improved Wilderness boundary management for the USFS
• Wilderness characterRationalefor RecommendationThe Working Group is unaware of any existing uses that are not compatible with Wilderness in this area. A Wilderness addition would improve the integrity of the Fossil Ridge Wilderness, maintain the wilderness character of the area, and improve the ForestService’s ability to manage the existing Fossil RidgeWilderness.
Next steps
• This area is ready for a final review to ensure that the boundary is identifiable on the ground and that the designation will not have unintended consequences.”⁷

The Organizations vigorously assert that most of the Proposal designations are direct violation of federal laws developed and specifically addressing the Lottis Creek area and many others. Similar basis for designations and management are reflected in virtually every designation around the Fossil Creek Wilderness and other Wilderness areas within the Proposal boundaries but are not reflected here simply to avoid repetition. This is deeply troubling to the Organizations as most consensus efforts we have participated in start from a position that any recommendation be in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. It is even more troubling the large public efforts that surrounded these legislative efforts that are now simply being overlooked based on an assertion of seeking consensus.

3c (4). Congress has looked at many of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness and specifically spoke to why they were not designated previously, such as the northern boundary of the Big Blue/Uncompahgre Wilderness.

Congressional action regarding the management of public lands in Gunnison County has not been limited to the identification of usages in buffer areas and the release of proposed areas back to multiple use. The Organizations must highlight the exceptional detail that Congress looked at balancing usages and drawing boundaries for Wilderness areas in the southern portions of Gunnison County when the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation was developed. House Report 96-617 provides a detailed analysis of why the northern boundaries of the Big Blue/ Uncompahgre and Powderhorn look the way they do. This report provides as follows:

“The committee feels the additions of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognized that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas and therefore amended the Bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River Drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude 15000 acres which are used by grazing permittee for frequent motorized access and intensive management……”⁸

The desire of Congress to address boundary areas with such detail is unusual and provides a compelling basis for the Wilderness designation boundaries being drawn in the manner they were. Clearly Congress anticipated discussions such as this occurring in the future and this explains why this information is recorded with such high levels of detail. In a troubling turn of events, many of the specific areas that Congress released in 1980 due to high-value multiple use interests are again being proposed as Wilderness as part of the Uncompaghre and Powderhorn additions. Not only does this violate the no buffer principals it violates the direct statements of Congress in 1980 that the public access to these areas was critically important.

3c (5). Wilson Mtn., Uncompahgre and Uncompahgre Contiguous Primitive areas were released in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.

The Organizations would be remiss if the broad nature of the consensus process around both the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts was not discussed. The additional clarity of Congressional action regarding the desire to provide for future multiple use of the planning areas was provided for with the additional step of removing both the Wilson Mtn. and Uncompahgre Primitive area designations that had encompassed a large portion of Southern Gunnison County. The USGS inventory of these areas extended outside formal primitive area boundary as was directly evidenced by the inventory of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas adjacent process as well. Copies of these detailed reports are available upon request. As a result of the existence of these primitive areas before the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, these areas were also reviewed by the US Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines. These detailed site-specific analyses were incorporated in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act as Congress clearly stated they balanced interest in the areas by drawing boundaries in the way they did as Congress felt the areas not designated as Wilderness were unmanageable due to the large number of private inholdings.

Again, Congress has clearly spoken about the desire to manage public lands in this area with the abolition of both the Wilson Mtn., Uncompahgre and Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive areas with the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, and the Organizations can see no reason for this to change. These are issues that directly contradict the Proposal management recommendations and draw any assertion of consensus position into question.

4a. First round RARE inventory

Most of these areas were inventoried for possible roadless designations in USFS RARE inventory process and were subject to specific release by Congress in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act as previously addressed in these comments. It is significant to note that many of the uses that were found to be the basis for unsuitability in the original RARE inventories in the 1970’s and early 1980’s remains in these areas. Given these usages, the Organizations must again highlight how many determinations have been made against the recommended management for many of these areas in the Proposal.

4b. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process. As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development. Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas. In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility.

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below. The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation. In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided. The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the Proposal and many management standards.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness designations when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation. Any assertion of a factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use.

5. Economics of Wilderness Recreation.

The Organizations are also very concerned that much of the Proposal management directly conflicts with best available science on issues. Our concerns on the basic conflict will be highlighted in comparing habitat issues and economics. The Organizations are aware that many counties in the vicinity have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago, as exemplified by Summit County Colorado identification as number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list of 21st Century Ghost Towns.9 Unfortunately many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents. Many of these communities might include Paonia, Almont or Marble as examples. Given the importance of recreation to these communities and many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted. Significant new information identifies the strong negative relationship between Wilderness designations and local economic activity involving recreation.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the GMUG National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. TheUSFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs¹⁰:

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity and other activities that would be prohibited in the Proposal to local communities, when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of these activities outpace all other usages combined by a factor of more than 12.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce. This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.11 This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited in a Wilderness area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited. The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.¹² Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally.¹³ The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located onUSFS lands is within Wilderness areas. Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding. The basis for the underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared in the research below:

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded from Wilderness areas, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in these areas. Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning. Nationally, congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.15 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness16 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.7% of visitor days on the GMUG National Forest.17 As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

6a. Habitat change in being impacted by poor forest health in a far more direct manner than climate change.

The Organizations are highly frustrated with the fact that the Proposal claims to be seeking benefits to habitat in the management area but really never addresses many of the challenges that are directly impacting habitat quality in the area. The Proposal repeatedly identifies the need for management changes to address climate change but completely fails to address the fact that much of the Proposal area has been heavily impacted by poor forest health conditions that have resulted from the fact land managers have simply been unable to cut trees in Colorado for decades. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to continuing to manage Colorado public lands in this manner as the exceptionally poor quality of Colorado Forests provides a compelling reason for active management of the issue. The following photo provides a compelling reason for active management of public lands:

Pictures such as the one above is entirely too frequent in Colorado and are offensive to the Organizations. While the Proposal identifies that trees and forests serve as a sink for possible negative impacts of climate change, this position is based on the fact that the forest is healthy. This position simply is not relevant in Colorado as the overwhelming portion of Colorado forests area dead and unlike live trees, dead trees don’t serve as a sink for anything. In addition to the negative impacts that poor forest health has had on a huge amount of natural resources in Colorado, the dead and falling trees are probably the single largest management challenge that is encountered by the recreational community. When these foundational issues are not addressed, the Organizations are concerned about the scientific foundation for much of the Proposal as best available science is a critical tool in developing planning and management of public lands.

6b. Much of the recommended management direction in the Proposal completely conflicts with SBEADMR determinations

The Organizations would be remiss if the immediate and direct conflict with much of the recommended management in the Proposal has with the Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response (SBDEARMR) process that was recently concluded on the GMUG¹⁸ was not addressed. Almost every recommendation in the Proposal would change or complicate management of forest health issues in the Proposal area, but no basis for these changes is addressed. This management is critical in preserving recreational opportunities as poor forest health is the single largest challenge facing the recreational community in Colorado. The Organizations vigorously supported the proactive and vigorous response of GMUG planners to the poor forest health issue that now plagues so much of Colorado. The Organizations believe this management is critically needed to bring balance back into the forest and protect all resources in the future. If there is a management recommendation that is provided in the Proposal that conflicts with the SBDEARMR it should be specifically addressed.

The following map reflects the priority treatment areas identified in the SBEARMR project in the Proposal area:

While almost every area in the Proposal is a priority management treatment area in the SBEADMR project, these conflicts are only recognized in three of the management designations. Again, this causes serious concern for the Organizations regarding the scientific basis for the Proposal and any claimed benefits.

6c. Best available science on water quality does not support the management direction in the Proposal.

Throughout the Proposal the protection of water quality is identified as a management objective in the Proposal, but at no point is the strong negative relationship between poor forest health and water quality compared to the management recommendations in the Proposal. Best available science on this relationship has consistently identified the compelling need for active management of poor forest health to protect water quality. Strong correlation between water quality and production in areas impacted by the pine/spruce beetle epidemic is reflected in the following summary of the situation:

“Changes in annual water yield following beetle kill were variable (Figure 4). We expected an increase in annual water yield with increased beetle killed area. Instead, we detected water yield decreases, that is less water yield than before the beetle kill. With further examination, we found that not all forest stands infected by beetles are equal.”¹⁹

Colorado State Forest Service has provided decades of high-quality site-specific information on the negative impacts on water quality from the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and actually devoted their entire 2016 annual report to the issue. The highlights of the 2016 report are as follows:

-8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;²⁰

– the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;²¹

– Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range, hillslope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be up to 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.2²

– A 2011 study involved monthly monitoring of stream chemistry and sediment in South Platte River tributaries before and after fire and showed that basins that burned at high severity on more than 45 percent of their area had streams containing four times the amount of suspended sediments as basins burned less severely. This effect also remained for at least five years post-fire.2³

– High-severity wildfires responsible for negative outcomes are more common in unmanaged forests with heavy fuel loads than in forests that have experienced naturally recurrent, low-intensity wildfires or prior forest treatments, such as thinning. It is far easier to keep water in a basin clean, from the source headwaters and through each usage by recipients downstream, than to try and restore water quality once it is degraded.²⁴

–During 2016’s Beaver Creek Fire, which burned 38,380 acres northwest of Walden, foresters and firefighters were given a glimpse into likely future challenges facing wildfire suppression and forest management efforts. These include longer duration wildfires due to the amount and arrangement of heavy fuels. Observations from fire managers indicated that instead of small branches on live trees, the larger, dead fuels in jackstraw stands were the primary driver of fire spread…. “The hazards and fire behavior associated with this fuel type greatly reduce where firefighters can safely engage in suppression operations”²⁵

A copy of this report and many other detailed planning tools addressing the impacts of not managing for poor forest health is available on the state forest service website. ²⁶ Additionally, the critical need for active management of watersheds as a result of the mountain pine beetle impacts is also highlighted in the Front Range Fuels treatment partnership. ²⁷ This group highlighted impacts as follows:

The front range partnership outlined management needed as follows:

Given the strong corollary between best available science regarding the need for active management of water resources in poor forest health areas, the basic direction of management prescriptions in the Proposal is very concerning. Any recommendation in the Proposal should be reflecting best available science regarding the need for the management in the area and what the actual on the ground conditions and challenges are for that area.

7. Conclusion

The Organizations have serious concerns about many of the positions that are being taken in the Proposal such as not impacting multiple use access to the area and as a result must vigorously oppose the Proposal. This simply is untrue as many of the areas that are would be closed to multiple use in the Proposal are currently open to multiple use and represent important expansion areas for these uses in the future. Additionally, large amounts of the Proposal management directly conflict with the numerous inventory of characteristics of areas by the agency, such as the roadless inventories of the upper Gunnison Valley, which is concerning given the huge amounts of public input that were received during these agency inventories.

Further many of the recommendations now made in the Proposal, are directly in conflict with the conclusions Congress has made about the suitability of these areas for this type of management, such as the areas north of the Uncompahgre Wilderness that were specifically released back to multiple use management in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation. Other Congressional mandates, such as the lack of buffer areas around many of the Wilderness areas simply are never addressed.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. if you should wish to discuss any of the issues that have been raised in these comments further. His contact information is Scott Jones, Esq., 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont Colorado 80504; phone 518-281-5810; email Scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO/TPA Authorized Representative
CSA President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

1. See, Proposal at pg. 9.
2. For a detailed version of this map, please see https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5397031.pdf
3. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fseprd488168
4. See,Proposal at pg.10.
5. https://www.western.edu/sites/default/files/media/raw/Fossil%20Ridge%20Wilderness.pdf
6.  See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3)
7. See, Proposal at pg. 44.
8. See House Report 96-617 paragraph 9. A copy of this report has been attached for your convenience.
9. See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011
10. See, USDA Forest Service; “GMUGNF-Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 Acomplete copy of this research is available herehttps://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-GMUG.pdf
11. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
12. See, USDA Forest Service; National Forest Support a Recreation Economy- a complete study copy is available here: http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/national-forests-support-recreation-economy/
13. See, Holmes & White;National & Community Market Contributions of Wilderness; Society & Natural Resources; An International Journal; Volume30 2017
14. See, UDSA Forest Service; White & Stynes;Updated Spending Profiles for National ForestRecreation Visitors byActivity; Joint venture between USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University; November 2011 at pg. 6.
15. See, USDA Forest Service, National Visitor Use Monitoring; “National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results; National Summary Report; Data collected FY 2012 through FY 2016”; 2016 at pg. 1.
16. See, USDA Forest Service; 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Environmental Impact Statement; May 2012 pg. 19
17. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; GMUG National Forest; Round 3; last updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
18. https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42387
19. See, Stedneck et al; Effects of Pine Beetle Infestations on Water Yield and Water Quality at the watershed scale in Northern Colorado;
20. http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/
21. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 6
22. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
23. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
24. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
25. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5
26. https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2017/02/CSU_304464_ForestReport-2016-www.pdf
27. See, Le Master et al; PROTECTING FRONT RANGE FOREST WATERSHEDS FROM HIGH-SEVERITY WILDFIRES AN ASSESSMENT BY THE PINCHOT INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION FUNDED BY THE FRONT RANGE FUELS TREATMENT PARTNERSHIP; a copy of this document is available here. http://www.frftp.org/research_education

Access to public lands, it’s more than just OHV recreation…

• Many forms of recreation on public lands depend upon “access” by motorized vehicle to reach the desired recreational opportunities, activity and experience.
• Travel Management on USFS lands and similar processes on BLM lands do not exclusively affect Off-highway vehicle (OHV) users, the process affects anyone and everyone who travels upon roads and motorized trails on public lands. Driving to a trailhead, a fishing spot or just driving to sightsee puts the act of driving to the destination into the category of “motorized use” and subject to all of the benefits and restrictions that result from the Travel Management process.
• USFS and BLM roads and motorized trails (aka routes) serve many purposes, just to name a few:
  1. These routes provide access for public land visitors to travel to the point where they can begin their desired recreational activity,
  2. These routes by themselves provide recreational opportunities for visitors to recreate upon the route and
  3. These routes provide access to forest/land management activities, access to property, access to utility infrastructure, firefighting tasks, etc.
• Motorized use on public lands is not an activity limited to Off-Highway vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs, UTVs, 4WDs, etc.) but is an activity that nearly all public lands visitors participate in. Driving to a trailhead to begin a hike, driving to a stream to fish, to begin a bicycle ride, to access a picnic area, to explore the surrounding environment along with the many other activities that require visitors to use motorized means and travel using the variety of roads and or motorized trails to gain access to the chosen recreational activity.
• Very few will be able to enjoy the forest and all of the resources the forest has to offer if adequate motorized routes and access is not provided. Multiple-use and motorized recreation is indeed a bona fide form of recreation on public lands and not an activity to be minimized or eliminated on public lands.  Just as it is important to maintain the quality of visitor experiences for non-motorized use, it is equally important to maintain the quality of visitor experiences for motorized use.
• USFS Travel Analysis is the Forest Service’s science-based process developed in response to the 2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.  The Rule has three subparts:  Subpart A — Administration of the Forest Transportation System; Subpart B – Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; and Subpart C — Use by Over-Snow Vehicles. The Rule has existed for many years with varying subparts prior to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, and it has been updated several times, most recently in 2005. Along with Part 212, Parts 251 (Land Uses), 261 (Prohibitions), and 295 (Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads) were updated to provide national consistency and clarity on motor vehicle use with the National Forest System.
• All OHVs owned and operated in Colorado must display current Colorado OHV registration or permit stickers when in an OHV staging area or operated on any designated OHV trails or routes in Colorado.
  • Roads open to OHVs means federal roads specifically open (through MVUM or RTMP) to OHV use or state, county, or municipal open to OHV use through ordinance and signage.
  • The designation of “Jeep trails” means trails as noted by MVUM or RTMP as being “open to any full-sized vehicles” and labeled as trails and specifically not as roads.
  • Any vehicle traveling on a designated OHV trail or route is considered an OHV and is therefore required to display a current Colorado OHV permit or registration sticker. This can include vehicles traveling to trailheads or other destinations on designated OHV routes and are not necessarily exclusive to OHV recreation.
  • Per the Stay the Trail website, in addition to the many miles of Off-Highway Vehicle trails and “roads open to all vehicles”, there are a number of Full-Size Trails open for recreational travel in Colorado. Although these trails allow for full-width vehicles, they differ from most BLM and U.S. Forest Service roads as they are designed for recreational, motorized use rather than simply for transportation. A Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Permit is required on any licensed/plated vehicle that is used for recreation on these trails.  A list of these trails can be found at the following web link: http://staythetrail.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=266593&module_id=247561
  • Stay the Trail provides additional information regarding OHV Permits and Registrations at http://staythetrail.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=266593&module_id=228438

USDA Forest Service
Region 2 Rocky Mountain Region
Attn.: Objection Reviewing Officer
1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

RE: Objections to the DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BADGER FLATS MANAGEMENT PROJECT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PIKE NATIONAL FOREST, SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO March 2018

Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

The following objections are submitted in regards to Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Badger Flats Management Project, U.S. Forest Service, Pike National Forest, South Park Ranger District on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”). The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 150,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.” The Organizations previously submitted Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project, Environmental Assessment, South Park Ranger District, Pike & San Isabel National Forest, October 2016, in a letter dated November, 2016 citing similar objections to those listed below. The Organizations’ objections to the Proposed Decision and Action prepared for the Badger Flats Management Project are listed below:

1. The Proposed Decision and Action intends to close NFSR 44 (along with NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and NFSR 280) on the west side of La Salle Pass. The Organizations contend that only NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and 280 need consideration of curtailment of access. That NFSR 44 should remain open to public access, or if absolutely necessary the alignment of NFSR 44 could be adjusted, re-routed or offset. The Organizations contend that the existing centerline of NFSR is ½ mile or more from the terrain suitable for cliff-nesting raptors. NFSR 44 is one of the primary and often the preferred route for motorized travel over La-Salle Pass. That NFSR 44 and NFSR 44.2A together provide a loop opportunity, and an opportunity to disperse recreational uses on the west side of La Salle Pass. Closure of NFSR 44 (a primary route to La Salle Pass) to public access will concentrate all use onto 44.2A completely eliminating the unique experiences to travel through the center and northern portions of the open meadow landscape. Additionally, NFSR 44.2A is the more difficult route and includes rock obstacles that some users may not desire to traverse.
2. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration for an open riding area specifically for motorized trials bike riding. Historically the Rocky Mountain Trials Association (RMTA) has worked with the South Park Ranger District to obtain land use permits for observed trials riding in the Thorpe Gulch area. A request was specifically made in our previous comments to consider a designated open riding area for the purpose of motorized trials riding. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration of an open trails riding area in the vicinity of Thorpe Gulch or anywhere else with the Badger Flats Management Project Area. The Organizations remedy for this objection would be that the South Park Ranger District confers with the RMTA and that the Proposed Decision and Action be revised to include a suitable designated area specifically for open motorized trials riding (i.e., without a special use or other permit and open for use year round). The TPA supports RMTA’s objection comments submitted under a separate document and the club’s proposals for providing open trials riding areas.
3. The Proposed Decision and Action proposes to decommission NFSR 214.B, a connecting segment that our previously submitted comments specifically requested be kept open to public use. The Environmental Assessment for this project provides no reasonable justification for the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B. NFSR 214.B provides a direct connection between two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and failure to keep access open on NFSR 214.B results in a dead- end, no direct connection between the two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and completely eliminates a popular looped recreational opportunity. Remedy of this objection can be accomplished by eliminating the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B and keep NFSR 214.B open to public use.
4. The Proposed Decision and Action does not go far enough in converting “roads/NFSR” to “trails open to all vehicles/NFST” (aka “Full-size Trails). The primary use of roads in the Badger Flats area is indeed for “recreation”. Trails are well suited to recreational uses and are often preferred for recreational purposes. The level of maintenance can be reduced for trails vs. roads, conversion of roads to trails can make the route eligible for State OHV grant funding, travel speeds on trails can be reduced and therefore improve the safety of the route, and finally volunteers can be employed to help maintain routes designated as trails. The Proposed Decision and Action needs to designate and convert the majority of roads in the Badger Flats area as “trails open to all vehicles” and remove the routes from the formal “roads inventory”.
5. The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these objections at your convenience. Our point of contact for this project will be William Alspach, P.E. at 675 Pembrook Dr., Woodland Park, CO, cell 719-660-1259, e-mail: williamalspach@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

D.E. Riggle,
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO

cc Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park District Ranger

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is once again hosting the Partners in the Outdoors Conference in Breckenridge 9-11 May, 2018 at the Beaver Run Resort (http://cpw.state.co.us/partners2018).  The Partners in the Outdoors Conference brings together organizations, agencies, schools, businesses and communities engaged in the future of Colorado’s conservation and outdoor recreational opportunities.   The TPA attended the conference last year and was one of the only representatives advocating for multiple-use and motorized recreation at the conference.  This year the TPA decided to increase its participation and support of motorized recreation by leading one of the conference’s “break out” sessions.  The session is titled “Management of Multiple-use Recreation on Public Lands” (http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/2018-Partners-Conference-Session-Schedule.aspx ).  The Director of Colorado’s Office of Outdoor Recreation Industry, Luis Benitez has agreed to moderate the TPA sponsored session that will include panelists from the USFS, BLM, COHVCO, TPA and non-motorized use.  The public is invited to register and attend the conference, so join us at this year’s conference and help be an advocate for motorized and multiple use recreation.