Author Archive | Christina

Senator Michael Bennet
Att: John Whitney
835 East 2nd Ave
Suite 206
Durango, CO 81301

Senator Cory Gardner
Att: Betsy Bair
400 Rood Ave,
Federal Bldg.- Suite 220
Grand Junction CO 81501

Congressman Scott Tipton
Att: Brian Meinhart
225 North 5th Street
Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Re: San Juan Wilderness Proposal

Dear Senator Bennet;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above referenced Organizations vigorously opposing the San Juan Wilderness Proposal hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Generally, the maps surrounding the Proposal are of low quality and make any meaningful review of possible impacts difficult if not impossible for the public to undertake. The Organizations also still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

Compounding our concern about the Proposal is the fact that many of the areas now proposed to be designated as Wilderness were specifically released back to multiple management as part of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case as the Proposal would immediately undermine protections of multiple use interests that were passed in 2014 and only recently implemented by the USFS.

Before the Organizations address the specific impacts of the Proposal to recreational access to areas previously released from possible Wilderness designation by Congress, the Organizations believe a review of four landscape level topics around Wilderness designations must be addressed as there is significant new research that weighs heavily against proposed designations and management restrictions. These four topics are:

1. The imbalance of demand for Wilderness recreation with the opportunity provided in the planning area;
2. The cost/benefit of providing recreational opportunities in the Proposal areas that have been heavily impacted by poor forest health;
3. The inability to understand the management concerns that are driving the perceived need to designate these areas as Wilderness; and
4. The significant negative economic impacts that result to local communities from Wilderness designations.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns around the Proposal, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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 these comments, TPA, CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. National trail opportunities and trail visitation are badly out of balance.

Prior to addressing the specific negative impact to all recreational opportunities that would result from the Proposal at a site-specific level, the Organizations believe it is important to establish a strong factual foundation for our concerns regarding recreational impacts from any Legislation that restricts multiple use access on public lands. The Organizations believe that any legislation must be based on best available science for management of the area to ensure that balance of goals and objectives and opportunities is achieved in the Legislation.

The first new piece of science and analysis that must be addressed in the Proposal is the imbalance in supply of trails in Wilderness when compared to the demand for these opportunities. The US Forest Service recently updated its National Trail mileage allocation, which is reflected in the chart below¹:

Our concerns regarding the imbalance in miles of routes and possible impacts from any further expansion of routes in Wilderness are based on a comparison of the 20% of all trails are currently in Congressionally Wilderness, which is badly out of balance with the levels of visitation to these areas on the national level. In 2016, the US Forest Service research indicates that while 20% of all trail mileage is located in a Wilderness area, these routes are visited by only 4% of all USFSvisitors.² The Organizations simply do not believe that expanding this imbalance any further makes sense from a management perspective as 96% of USFSvisitation is being forced to recreate on a smaller and smaller portion of forests (80%). The Organizations believe this simply makes little sense as land managers should be seeking to provide the best opportunity for the largest percentage of visitors as all visitors to public lands should be treated equally. Additionally, with this inability to disperse use, impacts at developed sites will continue as more of the public will be forced to recreate on smaller and smaller portions of public lands in the Proposal area.Generally, the Organizations support allocations of resources based on demand for that resource and right now that relationship is simply badly out of balance with Wilderness based recreation.

1b. Local opportunities and visitation for trails is even more out of balance than nationally.

When USFS research is reviewed to determine recreational visitation to the land management offices involved in the Proposal area, it is determined that 6.7% of all visitors to the San Juan National Forest reported visiting a Congressionally Designated Wilderness area,³ despite more than 700,000 acres of the San Juan NF 1.8 million acres (38%) being currently designated as Wilderness areas.⁴ This low level of visitation to the San Juan National Forest is compounded by the fact that the SJNF has several Wilderness areas that are experiencing comparatively high levels of visitation, such as the Weminuche. In order to balance this relationship, the Organizations submit there has to be large numbers of Wilderness areas designated on the SJNF that see almost no visitation throughout the year. As a result, the Organizations must question any factual basis that would assert recreational benefits from the Proposal, as currently there is almost twice the national average for Wilderness recreational opportunities but the usage of these opportunities is well below the national average.

Given the current imbalance of recreational demand with opportunities, both nationally and locally, the Organizations must question any assertion of a recreational benefit that could result from the Proposal, as currently these types of opportunities are horribly out of balance in the planning area when the supply of routes and trails is compared to the exceptionally low visitation overall. Rather that expanding opportunities for recreation on the forest, the Proposal would result in an even greater imbalance in usage than is currently on the SJNF.

1c. Forest Health, Recreation and Trails.

The Organizations are very concerned about the general scientific basis for the designation of any areas as Wilderness, as we are generally unsure of what management concerns are believed to be the basis for the special designations in the Propsoal. Without a clear management need, any discussion around the designations is difficult at best and the Organizations must question why such management changes would be undertaken. Our research indicates that the areas proposed for some type of Wilderness or Special Management Area type authority are some of the hardest hit areas in the nation when forest health issues are addressed. That weighs heavily in our position against the Proposal as it has been our experience that these are areas badly in need of active management for forest health issues. These treatments could quickly mitigate fire risks in impacted areas and speed restoration of these acres to healthy and vibrant habitat for a wide range of species. These negative impacts to treatment abilities should not be overlooked.

The Organizations are aware that both Senator Bennet has been very supportive of federal actions to address poor forest health conditions in Colorado, such as the Senator championing of wide revisions to USFS contracting authority to address forest health issues in the 2012 Farm Bill and his offices efforts to move firefighting budgets out of the USFS budget and into FEMA management. The Organizations vigorously support and appreciate these efforts but must ask why this issue and concerns expressed in other legislation have not been addressed with the creation of the Proposal in order to minimize possible conflict between management guidance that is provided in these pieces of legislation.

The scale of the management challenge surrounding poor forest health is an issue where significant new research has been provided by land managers seeking to address this issue, and the conclusions of this research provide a compelling basis to avoid further management complexity on this issue. In 2015, the USFS completed national level research projecting the impacts of poor forest health on the national forests over the next 25 years and unfortunately the federal resources in the state of Colorado did very poorly in this analysis as:

– the State of Colorado was identified as 5th in the country in terms of acres at risk due to poor forest health⁵;

– both Rocky Mountain National Park and Great Sand Dunes NP were both identified as two of the hardest hit national parks in the Country⁶; and

– Colorado National Forests dominated the list of those forests hardest hit by poor forest health in the country as 5 of the top 7 hardest hit forests are immediately adjacent to the areas to be designated as Wilderness.⁷ 

It is unfortunate that Colorado does so well in these types of comparisons and analysis and the Organizations submit Colorado must be striving to resolve these issues rather than making these challenges more difficult. This type of research provides significant credible foundation for serious concern around a scientific basis for the Proposal and significant conflicts in national management standards implemented to address landscape issues and the site specific standards in the Proposal.

Newly released joint research from the USFS and Colorado State Forest Service research provides the following graphical representation of the poor forest health in the vicinity of the proposed Wilderness and management areas as follows: ⁸

Figure 3. Annual acres affected by spruce beetle in Colorado.

Figure 4. Spruce Beetle activity in Colorado 1996-2015.

The Organizations believe that the poor forest health throughout the western United States is the single largest challenge facing public lands in our generation. Given that the areas proposed to be managed as Wilderness or other special management designation are in the hardest hit areas in the state for tree mortality, the Organizations believe that the first question with any legislative action must be:

“How does this Legislation streamline land managers ability to respond to the poor forest health issues in the area?”

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal is a major step in the wrong direction when addressing the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health concerns in these areas, as rather than streamlining the response to poor forest health issues, most areas are functionally precluded from management. Even where management is allowed the Proposal, the Proposal would result in another layer of NEPA analysis that would need to be completed prior to any management of the issue. Requiring yet another layer of NEPA from land managers who are seeking to address this issue makes little sense and the abnormally severe wildfires that result from poor forest health often render recreational access to burn areas unavailable for decades.

Many of the routes impacted by the 2002 Hayman Fire have only been recently reopened and many of the routes impacted by the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire will remain closed for many years to come.

While the graphical representation of the poor forest health in the area of the Proposal is compelling, the scope of these impacts is even more compelling when reviewed in terms of the sheer scale of the issue. The scale of the challenge was clearly identified in new research from the 2016 Colorado State Forest Service’s annual forest health report. The highlights of the 2016 report addressing the sheer scale of impacts are as follows:

• 8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;⁹
• the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;¹⁰
• 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.¹¹ 
• 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.¹²
• 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.¹³
• 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”¹⁴

The concerns raised in the Colorado State ForestService research are by no means an anomaly.Wildernessandimproperly managed Roadless areas were previously identified by the ForestService as a significant factor contributing to and limiting the ability to manage the mountain pine beetle epidemic and poor overall forest health. The2011 USFSresearchprepared at the request of then-Senator Mark Udall’s office on this issue clearly concludes as follows:

“The factors that limited access to many areas for treatments to maintain foreststands—steep slopes, adjacency to inventoried roadless areas, prohibition of mechanical treatments in designated wilderness—are still applicable today.”¹⁵

The Udall Forest Health report continues on this issue as follows:

“• Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).”¹⁶

This report is not discussed at length in these comments as previous comments have addressed this report. Since the release of this Forest Service report, additional Colorado Forest Service researchers have reached the same conclusions as the USPS Research Station did in theUdallForestHealth Report. The ColoradoState Forest Service’s 2011Forest Health report specifically identifies a major contributing factor to the spruce beetle outbreak as:

“Outbreaks typically occur several years after storms cause windthrow in spruce trees, which are susceptible to blowdown because of their shallow root system.Spruce beetles initially breed in the freshly windthrown trees, and subsequent generations attack and kill live, standing trees.”¹⁷

The lack of access to Wilderness areas to manage blow down areas is specifically identified as a major limitation in forest managers ability to address spruce beetle outbreak. These blow downs are directly identified as causing the spruce beetle outbreaks. The 2011 State Forest Service report specifically states:

“Many areas where spruce beetle outbreaks occur are remote, inaccessible or in designated wilderness areas. Therefore, in most cases, foresters can take little or no action to reduce losses caused by this aggressive bark beetle. However, individual trees can be protected on some landscapes.”¹⁸ 

The Organizations must note the 2011 State Forest Service report extensively discussed how EVERY major spruce beetle outbreak in the state of Colorado was associated with a major wind event in a Wilderness area, which could not be managed by foresters due to Wilderness designations. Given the clear conclusions of best available science, that Wilderness and other management restrictions are contributing to and limiting the ability of land managers to respond to the single largest management challenge that will be experienced in our generation, the Organizations must question why such a decision to further limit the authority of land managers to respond to this challenge would ever be made. Such a position would not be based on best available science and could negatively impact a wide range of recreation opportunities both inside and outside the newly designated Wilderness areas.

1c. Wildlife habitat is degraded when management authority is restricted.

The Organizations are aware that generalized statements that the Proposal would improve wildlife habitat in the areas have been relied on previously, but the Organizations are not aware of any scientific basis for such a position. The Organizations are concerned about wildlife impacts due to the fact that many of our members are hunters and fisherman and directly benefit from healthy wildlife populations in the area. In addition to these consumptive wildlife concerns, many of the public are non-consumptive users of the large wildlife populations in the Proposal area and are provided a superior recreational experience from the large and healthy wildlife populations in the proposal area. The Organizations would also note that the delisting of any endangered or threatened species is often heavily reliant on a stable and healthy habitat for the species, and this is not provided by lands heavily impacted by poor forest health issues. Delisting of threatened or endangered species must also be considered in any management decisions as well, as degraded habitat will make species recovery more difficult both inside and outside any special management area designations.

The Organizations wish to highlight several new pieces of research that address the need for active management of public lands and the need for a healthy forest for wildlife in the planning area. In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released its State Wildlife Action Plan(“SWAP”), which provided a brief summary of the challenges facing species of conservation concern and threatened and endangered species in the State of Colorado. The SWAP provides the following summary of the impacts to wildlife at the landscape level from poor forest health:

“Timber harvesting within lodgepole pine at the appropriate sites and scale is needed to maintain pure lodgepole pine stands for lodgepole obligate wildlife species. Continuing to increase stand heterogeneity to reduce large, continuous even-aged stands will help reduce risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and large-scale pine beetle outbreaks in the future.”¹⁹

In addition to the above quote addressing the landscape level concerns around poor forest health, more than a dozen species are identified where the degradation of habitat due to beetle kill was specifically identified as a significant threat to the species.20 These types of concerns and impacts are simply not resolved with additional restrictions on the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health challenges. Management must remain on target in addressing these challenges in order to respond to these unprecedented tasks in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible.

In addition to the newly released SWAP, significant new research has been provided that clearly identifies the need to address poor forest health concerns for many other species. Forest fires have been identified as a major threat to habitat for the Endangered Colorado Cutthroat trout, both during the fire itself and from the condition of riparian area after a fire. The Forest Service species conservation report specifically states:

“Lack of connectivity to other populations renders them vulnerable in the short term to extirpation from natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods….”²¹

The Conservation Report also noted the significant impact that woody matter has on the cutthroat trout habitat. The Conservation Report notes the impact of fire and insect infestation are both major impacts on woody matters stating:

“large wood (also known as coarse woody debris) plays a dominant role in many montane streams where greenback cutthroat trout persist. Deposition of large wood affects sediment scour and deposition, energy dissipation, and channel form (Montgomery et al. 2003), and creates pools, stores spawning gravels, affords overhead cover, and provides refuge during high flows…… Inputs of large wood are controlled by a variety of processes. Mass mortality of riparian stands from fire, insect damage, or wind is important sources.” 22

Fire is specifically identified as a disturbance that results in trout habitat being unsuitable for centuries, stating:

“In particular, disturbances that dramatically alter channels or riparian zones—debris torrents…and severe fires—will change the discharge-sediment transport regime, re-set forest succession and large wood dynamics, and redistribute suitable and unsuitable habitat in a basin, sometimes for decades or centuries…” ²³

This research notes the significant difference in impact to the cutthroat trout between conditions existing before the fire, during the fire and after the fires that are now occurring at unprecedented levels from the poor forest health existing in Colorado Forests. Given that the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is one of dozens of fish species currently at risk due to the poor forest health on the SJNF, the Organizations submit best available science for species management weighs heavily against any expansion of Wilderness like management in the planning area.

2a. All recreational opportunities would be exceptionally impacted due to extensive restrictions on how basic maintenance of routes may be performed in new Wilderness areas.

Given the Proposal has asserted to be driven by recreational interests, the Organizations believe this issue warrants a more complete review and analysis of impacts and benefits from the Legislation at a more localized level than the national update on recreation that was previously provided. This is another issue where the benefits of the Legislation are unclear. While the benefits are unclear, the significant negative impacts are immediately clear as any efforts to provide basic maintenance and management of existing opportunities in the areas where Wilderness management is expanded become far more difficult and available funding is significantly diminished.

It has been the Organizations experience that land managers are struggling badly with providing basic maintenance and safe access to existing recreational opportunities in the planning area even when mechanical means and tools are available to maintain these areas. This is simply due to the large number of falling trees that block or otherwise impact recreational routes in the area. As the Organizations have previously noted, Colorado is some of the hardest hit areas in the Country in terms of poor forest health and logic would conclude that recreational management challenges would also be the largest in Colorado in allowing recreational usage of beetle kill areas. The challenge is immense even with the most advanced mechanical maintenance equipment available and is realistically beyond cost effective management without mechanical maintenance equipment. While the OHV/OSV community provides a large amount of maintenance resources for trails outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often matched with agency funding and the benefits are expanded on the ground. When agency resources are limited for maintenance, it impacts the entire management area regardless of Congressional designations.

While the Organizations are aware that stating the maintenance challenges facing managers relating to recreational routes and facilities are immense has some level of value, there is also no replacement for hard numbers when assessing impacts. New research has been performed by the USFS in the State of California regarding the scope of the challenges facing land managers in maintaining recreation on three Southern California Forests heavily impacted by poor forest health. The USFS conclusions on these forests are as follows:

The Organizations believe any assertion that maintenance of existing recreational opportunities and resources encompassing more than 4,000 miles of roads and trails and 141 recreational facilities impacted by poor forest health without mechanical assistance would lack factual or rational basis. This type of challenge is even more difficult in Colorado as research previously identified finds that Colorado forests are significantly harder hit than the three forests in California that are the target of the above research. The Organizations are intimately aware that existing resources for maintenance of recreation facilities and routes in Colorado struggle badly to maintain opportunities with mechanical resources and management being allowed.

In this situation the Organizations must question why streamlining the land managers ability to provide safe high quality recreational opportunities is not the priority of the Legislation. Instead of streamlining efforts, the Legislation provides a new and significant barrier to land managers responding to the issue. While these comments are centering on the maintenance impacts from poor forest health, there are numerous other challenges in providing basic maintenance such as rock removal, which in a Wilderness must be done by hand instead of mechanized equipment and simply transporting equipment to sites, which must be done by hikers or horseback instead of with trucks and trailers. This review is needed in order to fully understand the basis of our concerns around overall impacts to recreation and federal budgets that are required to fund maintenance with exceptionally expensive methods.

The most common manner of removing downed trees or hazard trees in a Wilderness based recreation area of Colorado is with a large cross cut saw operated by two people such as that pictured below: ²⁵

Removing a tree such as that pictured above could be achieved in under an hour with mechanical means, but a similar removal could easily take all day without mechanical assistance. While a manual cross cut saw might be able to deal with isolated trees, such as these pictured above, the removal of hazard trees such as those photographed below are far more problematic.

The ability to safely removal a tree blocking a route in the manner pictured above is difficult even with mechanized assistance but becomes far more concerning when hand tools must be used simply due to the extended amount of time sawyers must be in proximity to the hanging tree and the fact that twice as many sawyers are needed for the removal of the tree. Even when dealing with an isolated tree crossing a trail, costs and risks associated with basic maintenance are greatly increased with the prohibition of mechanical upkeep and this results in significant limitations on all maintenance activity in the planning area.

While there are concerns about the safety and cost of maintenance of Wilderness routes on a per tree level, concerns are expounded when maintenance is needed around larger wind events or larger scale tree fall issues such as those now commonly seen in beetle kill areas in the state. As a result of the serious limitations on how basic maintenance can be performed for major events like the blowdown that is currently blocking all public access to the Hunts Lake Trail on the Pike San Isabel photographed below are almost prohibitions on reopening routes:

Reopening of the Hunts Lake Trail would be a significant challenge with mechanized assistance but removing this number of downed trees without mechanical assistance would result in something that is a significant challenge to a project that might easily take months or years of effort if weather was uncooperative. These types of secondary impacts from Congressional action should not be overlooked as these impacts reduce funding available for any recreational management in the planning area.

Ignoring these types of on the ground impacts from expansion of management restrictions from the Proposal makes little sense and erodes any basis for claiming recreational benefits from the Proposal. There is simply limited funding available for recreation and that money must be applied in the most effective manner possible to protect existing recreational opportunities both inside and outside of Congressionally Designated Wilderness areas.

2b. Trail maintenance resources are greatly reduced in Wilderness areas.

As the Organizations have noted already, costs associated with basic maintenance of recreation facilities and opportunities are significantly increased with any Wilderness designations. Based on the Organizations experiences with the Colorado State Trails Programs grants, Wilderness Trial Maintenance costs are consistently identified as being something to a factor of 100x the cost of mechanized trail maintenance in grant applications to partner programs. The average mechanized maintenance crew can easily clear and maintain 100 to 200 miles of trail per year, while similar levels of funding and partner efforts utilizing non-mechanized means can only address 1-2 miles of trail per year. The cost benefit relationship is simply not comparable.

In addition to the exponentially increased costs of maintenance for recreational opportunities in Wilderness area, the amount of funding that is available for maintenance is greatly reduced. The USFS estimates the $4.3 million in funding available from the State of Colorado’s voluntary OHV registration program almost doubles the amount of funding available for summer recreational maintenance programs as follows:

This disparity of funding is even more problematic when the more than $1.5 million in additional maintenance funding that results from the Colorado Voluntary Snowmobile Registration Program is included in this equation. Often winter grooming activities are maintaining routes throughout the winter that are used throughout the year and result in trees being removed throughout the year rather than only during the summer season.

The direct impacts of the voluntary OHV/OSV program funding are:

1. EVERY Ranger District in the State of Colorado has access to a well-equipped trail maintenance crew funded by the voluntary OHV tax on a prioritized basis;
2. Most ranger districts have a dedicated motorized trail crew for summer maintenance; and
3. Most Ranger Districts also a winter maintenance crew from snowmobile registration funds.

The availability of these crews directly contrary to the national situation facing the forest service where most Ranger Districts have no maintenance crews at all. While these teams have been hugely successful, their effectiveness is restricted by available funding limits and when existing resources are used for maintenance in ways that are 100x less effective it impairs recreational experiences for all the public, not just those choosing Wilderness based recreation. The Organizations believe that any legislation addressing recreational access and maintenance must be looking at how to making existing funding go further, rather than making existing funding less effective by a factor of almost 100, as is the result of Wilderness recreation.

Why are the economic resources available for maintenance of Wilderness recreation a concern for the Organizations, as our activities have been prohibited? While the voluntary OHV and snowmobile funds greatly expand the resources that are available to land managers for maintenance of facilities outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often leveraged with USFS budgets for maintenance of these areas. When the match to the funds provided through the voluntary OHV funds is asked to become less effective by a factor of as much as 100 for the benefit of less than 4% of all visitors to USFS land, the Organizations are immediately concerned that the match to the OHV program funds will be reduced. This reduction is concerning as no additional benefit is achieved with these funds but resources being leveraged for maintenance outside Wilderness are significantly reduced and the Organizations are intimately aware that these funds are often stretched very thin already. This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations.

3. Economics Contributions of Wilderness Recreation.

The Organizations are aware that many counties in the planning area have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago. 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 Mancos, Placerville and Rico as examples. Given the importance of recreation to these communities and that 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 San Juan National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs²⁷:

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity to local communities, as economic benefits of recreation and FS management of recreational facilities outpace all other activities combined on the SJNF.

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.28 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.29 Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. 30 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.

The economic underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when economic activity of recreational users is compared. This research is summarized below:³¹

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments on earlier versions of this legislation, 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.32 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness33 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 6.7% of visitor days on the San Juan National Forest.34 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.

4a. Many of the areas now proposed for Wilderness designation have a long history of being found unsuitable for designation.

Many of the areas to be added to the Wilderness system in the Proposal have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since the RARE inventories were conducted in the 1970’s. While many of these areas were found suitable for inclusion and added to the Wilderness System in 1980, the areas within the current Proposal have been consistently identified as unsuitable for designation for a variety of reasons and were specifically released from possible future designation by the same legislation. As a result, the Congressional standards addressing the need for multiple use management of these areas must not be overlooked as this was the balance that was struck for these areas previously. The rather systemic lack of regard for consensus positions could not be reflected more perfectly than by the fact that the Proposal seeks to overlook the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act and already seeks to alter the consensus position that was achieved with the Hermosa Watershed Legislation in 2014. This is exceptionally troubling as the USFS has only completed planning required for the Hermosa area less than a year ago.

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 inn previous administrative reviews mandated by Congress. 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.35 While the site-specific information 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.

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 legislation.

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 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.

5a. Previous Congressional protections of multiple use must be honored.

Prior to addressing the site-specific impacts to trails and access currently within the expanded Wilderness and SMA boundaries the Organizations believe a review of the existing protections of usages in the planning areas is an important component of why the Organizations are opposing the Proposal. The specific release of many of these areas back to multiple use management by previous Congressional action is an important component of any balance, however limited, to the 1980 legislation that moved many areas into Wilderness management in the planning area. The Organizations are unable to identify any reason to review these previous consensus positions and actions of Congress.

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.”³⁶ 

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.

In addition to the recognition of multiple use management standards for many of the proposed Wilderness areas, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act also specifically identified that there should be no buffer around any of the newly designated Wilderness areas as follows:

“SEC. 110. Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado lead to the creation of protective perimeters of buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”³⁷

In addition to the specific provisions of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation clearly returning many of the areas to multiple use management, the Proposal also seeks to amend the management prescriptions recently passed as part of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. This is highly frustrating as the Hermosa Legislation was the result of many years of collaborative efforts across a wide range of community interests including Senator Bennet’s Office. The immediate desire to change the Hermosa Watershed management is astonishing and simply provides another troubling example were consensus positions simply are not honored by those that actively participated in the process. If consensus positions are changed immediately after consensus management is implemented, the Organizations would question the value of the consensus process and note that the community support would be difficult to reconvene in the future on other issues. This should be avoided.

Congress has spoken regarding the management of these areas and the Organizations are unable to identify any reason to disturb these conclusions with this legislation. The Organizations submit that these provisions were designed to end discussions around possible designations and the Organizations submit that instead of providing Legislation designating these areas as Wilderness, any Legislation should be clearly identifying and protecting existing usages of these areas through an SMA type designation.

5b. Sheep Mountain SMA closes opportunities and would overturn consensus management positions reached in the Hermosa Watershed legislation of 2014.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to what is a legislative attempt to designate 21,620 acres where permittees and guides would be provided superior rights of access over the public. This position is simply offensive. This exclusionary management is exceptionally painful for the usage of the area, where outfitter/guides would be provided by Congressional action the right to always allow their clients to get first tracks in any powder in the SMA as public access to exceptional winter motorized opportunities in the area would be lost but permitted heli-skiing operations would be permitted to continue. The Sheep Mtn. area has also been the basis of ongoing conflict between snowmobile users, who have legally used this area for decades and permittees. This area has historically provided high quality recreational opportunities for intermediate and advanced riders, which have been the target of consistent harassment about possible private land incursions made by land owners who have historically misstated property boundaries and asserted the area was closed by the USFS. USFS has worked with those landowners to try and provide accurate information but these efforts have had marginal success. The Organizations believe that these landowners are affiliated with business interests that are now seeking to apply the arbitrary exclusion standards in the SMA to close the area to public access. This simply compounds the vigor of the Organizations opposition to the SMA, as bad behavior and intolerance should not be rewarded with passage of federal law.

The lack of any rational basis for the Sheep Mtn. decision is highlighted by the fact that previous versions of the San Juan Legislation asserted a benefit to big horn sheep that might be in the area with the added SMA management. Such a position was removed when the public noted that big horn sheep response to a helicopter landing in the backcountry to drop off skiers would clearly be higher than any dispersed snowmobile type impacts simply due to the volume of sound produced by the helicopter.

In addition to providing a Congressional preference for permittees in the SMA area, the SMA would significantly alter many of the designations and decisions that were made in the Hermosa Watershed Legislation that was passed less than 3 years ago with broad community support and sponsored by Sen Bennet, Sen Udall and Congressman Tipton³⁸. The desire to overturn a broadly supported piece of legislation such as the Hermosa Watershed Legislation highlights the need for a complete review of existing Legislative protections of lands in the Proposal area. The Organizations are deeply troubled that the San Juan Legislation would seek to overturn the clear mandates made in the Hermosa Legislation so quickly.

In addition to providing an offensive preference against public access to the Sheep Mountain SMA, there is an extensive multiple use trail network in the area that would be lost with passage of the SMA. Protection of these routes and areas was a major concern in the Hermosa Legislation. These networks are identified in the maps below.

2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM 

2014 Summer MVUM – Columbine Ranger District 

5c. Wilson Wilderness and Sunshine

The Organizations are opposed to the Wilson and Sunshine Area Wilderness additions due to the large number of trails and trailheads in this area that provide high quality multiple use recreational opportunities that would be lost. The previous Congressional action to protect these uses in these areas compounds the vigor of our Organizations opposition. These trail networks are represented in the Motor Vehicle Use Maps outlined below:

2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM 

5d. Whitehouse additions would close important trail networks in the area.

The Organizations are again opposed to the Wilson and Sunshine Area Wilderness additions due to the large number of trails and trailheads in this area that provide high quality multiple use recreational opportunities. The previous Congressional action to protect these uses in these areas compounds the vigor of our Organizations opposition. These trail networks are represented in the Motor Vehicle Use Maps outlined below:

5. Conclusion.

After a detailed review of the Proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. Rather than streamlining the management of these areas, the Proposal would create a major management barrier and greatly increase the costs of any management activities that might be undertaken in these areas. This will negatively impact recreational access both in the Proposal area and in areas that are outside the new management standards in the Proposal. While there are significant lost opportunities, there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation.

The opposition to the Proposal is based on the consistent conclusions of decades of administrative review of these areas of these areas for possible designation by Congressional mandate. These areas have been consistently found ineligible for designation and specifically released back to multiple use. The imbalance of the current Proposal is compounded by the fact that the Proposal would alter the management prescriptions previously provided by Congress for protection of multiple uses in these areas both in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation and only recently passed as part of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

The Organizations still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas and after a review of best available science the Organizations can find no basis for the Legislation as the Proposal would provide a major barrier to the maintenance of recreational facilities in the planning areas.

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.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

1 See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for a Sustainable Trails System; December 30, 2016 at page 2.

2 See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results –National Summary Report–data collected FY2012 through FY2016;December2016 at pg. 10.

3 See,USDA Forest Service; VisitorUse Report;San Juan NF; USDA Forest Service Region 2 National Visitor UseMonitoring Data; Collected through FY 2012 Last Updated June20, 2012 at pg. 9.

4 See,https://www.fs.usda.gov/recmain/sanjuan/recreation

5 See, USDA Forest Service; Tkacz et al; 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; 2015 at pg. 36. Hereinafter referred to as the “USDA Risk Assessment”.

6 See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 50.

7 See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 51.

8 A complete review of this data is available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd490230.pdf

9 http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/

10 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 6

11 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

12 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

13 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

14 See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5.

15 See, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Review of the Forest Service Response to the BarkBeetle Outbreak in Colorado and Southern Wyoming; A report by USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of Senator Mark Udall; September 2011 at pg. 5.

16 See, Udall Forest Health Report at pg. I

17 See, Colorado State Forest Service;2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 9.

18 See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 11.

19 See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan at pg. 279.

20 This list of species includes: Albert Squirrel; American Marten; Hoary Bat; Snowshoe Hare and Luck spine moth.

21 See, USFWS; Dr. Michael Young; Greenback Cutthroat Trout; A Technical Conservation Assessment; February 6, 2009 at pg. 3.

22 See, Young @ pg. 20.

23 See, Young @ pg. 21.

24 See, USDA Forest Service; Pacific Southwest Region Research Station; Forest Service Response to Elevated Tree Mortality; prepared at the request of California State Association of Counties; March 24, 2016 at pg. 14.

25 Photo included with application of Divide Ranger District application for maintenance in the Weminuche Wilderness to Colorado State Trails Program for maintenance funding.

26 See, USFS presentation of Scott Haas, Region 2 Recreation Coordinator at the 2016 Colorado OHV Workshop. Full copy of presentation available on request.

27 See, USDA Forest Service; “San Juan 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-SanJuan.pdf

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

29 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/

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

31 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.

32 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.

33 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

34 See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; San Juan National Forest; Round 2; For data collected through 2011; last updated June 2012 at pg. 9.

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

36 See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

37 See, PL 96-560 @ §110.

38 See, PL 113-291 @ §3062.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Santa Fe National Forest
Att: Maria Garcia, Forest Supervisor
11 Forest Lane
Santa Fe, NM 87508

Re: Santa Fe NF Planning 

Dear Ms. Garcia:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) with regard to the Santa Fe National Forests Resource Management Plan revision (“the Proposal”). Prior to addressing the specific concerns on the Proposal, TPA believes a brief summary of the Organization is necessary. 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.

TPA comments will be focused on two issues: 1. Generally restrictive standards that are being placed on the transportation network in the new RMP; and 2. The direct conflict of proposed management standards around the CDT with relevant federal law. TPA submits these are issues that must be resolved prior to release of the final version of the RMP in order to create a high-quality planning document that will remain relevant over the life of the Proposal and in compliance with relevant federal laws.

TPA is very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts. While only the CDT is directly mentioned in the Proposal, there are numerous other NTSA routes on the Santa Fe, such as the Canones, Frijoles Canyon, Winsor and Jicarita Peak Trails. While these routes are not included for corridors in this version of the Proposal, if the course of planning seen in other forests holds true, there will be significant pressure to apply corridors around all NTSA routes as well. This is simply unacceptable.

1. Flexibility must be provided.

Throughout the Proposal, there are many new standards that are placed on the existing road and trail network on the Forest, as exemplified by section 12 of the Proposal and many of these general management standards simply have very limited flexibility. It has been TPA’s experience that often overly strict standards become a significant burden on planners towards the end of the expected life of RMPs and often the reason for the strict standard has simply been forgotten. TPA submits that two issues directly highlight the need for additional flexibility in the management of the road and trail network on the Forest. These two issues are:

1. Population of adjacent cities is expanding and visitation to the Forest is also increasing; and
2. There are many management challenges that simply cannot be accurately addressed at the current time and flexibility may be necessary to address these issues.

TPA submits that many of the standards must be clarified and rather than speaking to absolute standards provide flexibility to achieve the goals and objectives of relevant management areas under the RMP. The strict application of these standards is entirely possible as there are often no standards to create balance in the management of these areas. Inclusion of a standard such as maintaining high-quality recreational opportunities on the Forest would be beneficial to bringing balance to restrictive management standards. The Proposal also completely fail to identify areas where existing facilities could be expanded, which will be a major concern for the Forest, as visitation to the Forest will continue to grow as populations in adjacent municipalities continues to expand.

This management flexibility regarding the road and trail network will also be necessary to address management challenges that are facing the forest, such as declining forest health. Both the US Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service recently jointly identified:

“These issues emphasize the continued need for managers to develop and conduct silvicultural treatments to reduce tree density on much of the state’s forests and woodlands. Insect infestations and forest disease complexes (many interacting factors) are nearly impossible to suppress or control once in place; therefore, prevention is the proper forest health strategy. Prevention is achieved by restoring the capacity of a forest ecosystem to resist disturbance, recover quickly, and retain vital structure and function. This is called forest resiliency. Without resilient forests, damage will continue until the responsible agent(s) run out of hosts.”¹

TPA is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is TPA concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner.Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

2a. CDTcorridors conflict with federal law.

TPA must express serious concern regarding the direct conflict between federal law and management standards and guidelines proposed for both the direct footprint and are as surrounding the Continental Divide Scenic Trail.Under the Proposal, the following goals and objectives would guide the CDT:

“Standards

4. Motorized events and motorized special use permits shall not be permitted or authorized on the CDT.

Guidelines

1. To retain or promote the character for which the CDT was designated, new or relocated trail segments should be located primarily within settings consistent with orcomplementingPrimitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes. Road and motorized trail crossings and other signs of modern development should be avoided.
2. To protector enhance the scenic qualities of the CDT, management activities should be consistent with, or make progress toward achieving, Scenic IntegrityObjectives of High or Very High within the foreground of the trail (up to 0.5 mile either side).
3. The CDT corridor is consistent with a Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized setting and may intermittently pass through more developed settings. The CDT provides for a continuous route through predominately undeveloped settings.” ²

In addition to conflicting with federal law, the concept of a corridor around the CDT also conflicts conflict with landscape level desired conditions for recreation identified in the plan, which are as follows:

“Recreation use levels are compatible with multiple uses (e.g. timber harvest, water quality, wildlife, historic properties, etc.).”³

TPA is concerned that according to the CDT management plan 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads, and a higher level of the CDT is located on motorized trails and even more trails cross the CCT but are never collocated on the trail footprint but would be directly impacted by exclusionary corridor type management. Given the direct conflict with both federal law and general planning goals and objectives for the Santa Fe, TPA must question why this type of management standard would be explored.

2b. Continental Divide Trail management and corridor usage must be governed by multiple use principals.

TPA is aware of extensive discussions and pressure from certain interest groups surrounding the management of National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails on numerous other forests, as exemplified by discussions around the Pacific Crest Trail as it travels through the Lassen, Tahoe, Stanislaus and Plumas National Forests in California and similar standards are now proposed on the Rio Grande and GMUG in Colorado. While these discussions are often passionate and filled with an artificial urgency to save the trail from some unknown threat, this position simply lacks any basis as it conflicts with the direct language of the National Trails System Act, the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA, the specific language of the Trail related NEPA plans and numerous other Executive Orders regarding recreation and cost benefits analysis. TPA is concerned that as the concept of a corridor moved forward on the California forests, multiple use concepts and existing routes were immediately excluded under the new Forest Plans.

There are numerous standards that are proposed in the Santa Fe NF RMP that could result in exclusionary corridors being developed in subsequent site-specific planning around the CDT or simply expanded into the preferred alternative of the RMP. Often pressure and efforts of groups asserted that national trails system routes must be non-motorized under the National Trails Act are based on incomplete or inaccurate reviews of the National Trails System Act. These inaccurate summaries can be easily achieved due to the poor drafting of the NTSA and the following provisions are included in the hope of bringing balance to these discussions. Unfortunately, these incomplete and conflicting summaries have now been included in USFS Guidance on NTSA designated routes. TPA must briefly address the management history of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDT and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDT. Prior to addressing the clarity of the current NTSA, a review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the NTSA is relevant. Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values, fails from a cost/benefit perspective and economic contribution analysis and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only summaries of legislative language 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. Additionally, every time Congress has spoken regarding these alleged conflicts the NTSA has been amended to include stronger language in favor of multiple use and opposing corridors. Extensive background regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968. A complete copy of this report is submitted with these comments for your convenience. 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. Such conflicts should be problematic for managers seeking to implement recommendations of USFS Guidance on the NTSA as Congress has repeatedly had the opportunity to require exclusionary corridors around NTSA routes but has consistently moved towards more clarity in addressing multiple usage of these areas.

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 TPA that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents that were related to but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. Further drawing the USFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the NTSA was passed in 1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. TPA simply has no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

amendments no longer even in the NTSAandmany of which are unavailable to the public,⁴butthis highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance.Further drawing theUSFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the TSA was passed in1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. TPA simply has no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSAin 1968, 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.”⁵

TPA 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 even beforeFLPMA was adopted into federal law. 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 and FLPMA 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 ½ mile corridors is 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.”⁶

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.”⁷ 

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.”⁸

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)).”⁹

TPA submits that the intent of Congress was clear when the NTSA was passed in 1968, and the clarity of managing the trail footprint and any areas around a trail was clearly impacted by FLPMA, which is the foundation of the concept of Resource Management Plans and area specific goals and objectives. The primacy of FLPMA requirements over NTSA provisions was confirmed again by Congress in 1983, when the NTSA was completely reconstructed by Congress with the passage of PL 98-11. This revision removed any concept of the corridor from the NTSA and clearly identified that multiple use principals and FLPMA were to govern NTSA routes and areas. Again, this is simply never addressed in USFS guidance and is directly contrary to any concept of a corridor being implemented in forest level planning.

TPA is simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA in 1968, the subsequent adoption of FLPMA 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. TPA vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

2c. Congress has consistently declined to require minimum exclusionary corridors around NTSA trails.

Management of the CDT is specifically governed by the National Trail System Act (NTSA) which specifically addresses multiple usage of areas adjacent to trails and how these multiple use mandates will relate to management of the trail. The NTSA provides as follows:

“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.”¹⁰

TPA believe that Congress was very clear in these provisions, as they clearly stated maximum benefits from the land and harmony with multiple use planning was the objective. TPA submit that maximum benefits from the land as a management standard is a FAR more encompassing standard of management than maximizing benefit of the trail or an area to the users of the trail. Subsequently creating management standards that violated these provisions would be precluded as well as all of the management concerns Congress sought to remove with the acquisition requirements remain valid management standards on the NTSA route.

While the NTSA does provide that multiple uses are not allowed on an NTSA route in Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and National Parks among other areas where such usage would be prohibited in 1968, the NTSA makes no mention of prohibitions for usage outside these areas. TPA submit that any buffer corridor expanding these prohibitions outside these areas would be a violation of this specific management standard and TPA is not able to understand how designating a corridor in the Resource management plan would not be a violation of these standards as the conflict would directly involve the multiple uses in the RMP rather than being implemented in subsequent planning. Congress has prohibited exclusionary corridors at any time around an NTSA route.

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.” ¹¹ 

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.

In several locations in the NTSA, proper recognition of multiple usage of a National Trail is specifically and clearly identified in areas outside Wilderness, Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The NTSA explicitly provides allowed usages as follows:

“j) 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: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other federal laws, or any state or local laws.”¹²

TPA would note that given the specific recognition of snowmobiling, four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles as allowed trail usages, any attempt to exclude such usage from the CDT would be on questionable legal ground. In addition to the above general provisions regarding multiple usage in areas around a National Scenic Trail, multiple usage of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail is also specifically and repeatedly addressed and protected in the NTSA. The CDT guidance starts as follows:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1246(c) of this title, the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the ContinentalDivideNational Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.”¹³

The NTSA further addresses and protects multiple usage of the CDT is further addressed as follows:

“Where a national historic trail follows existing public roads, developed rights-of-way or waterways,and similar features of man’s non-historically related development, approximating the original location of a historic route, such segments may be marked to facilitate retracement of the historic route, and where national historic trail parallels an existing public road, such road may be marked to commemorate the historic route. Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental DivideNational 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.“¹⁴

In addition to the specific provisions of the NTSA addressing the CDT, the CDT management plan further addresses multiple usage including the high levels of multiple use on the CDT in 2009. The CDT plans specifically 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.”¹⁵

While the CDT plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDT plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDT. Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage, the CDT plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDT, providing 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:

(1) Is necessary to meet emergencies;

(2) Is necessary to enable adjacent landowners or those with valid outstanding rights to have reasonable access to their lands or rights;

(3) Is for the purpose of allowing private landowners who have agreed to include their lands in the CDNST by cooperative agreement to use or cross those lands or adjacent lands from time to time in accordance with Federal regulations;

(4) Is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST;

(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.”¹⁶

The CDT plan further adopts multiple use principals by clearly adopting management standards for motorized categories of the recreational opportunity spectrum and as a result the concept of an exclusively non-motorized corridor would directly conflict with the CDT plan. While the NTSA fails to specifically address multiple use trails along the CTD, the Management Plan does specifically provide that multiple use routes adopted under relevant travel management decisions shall be allowed and consistent with applicable planning. At no point in the CDT plan is the concept of an exclusionary corridor even mentioned.

TPA submit that while specific portions of the NTSA are less than clear when read in isolation or in an attempt to apply Wilderness or National Park type restrictions outside these areas, the NTSA is very clear in conveying the position that the CTD is truly a multiple use trail and that the CTD should not serve as a barrier to multiple usage of adjacent areas. TPA submit that creation of a landscape level buffer around the CDT, where multiple usage was prohibited or restricted would be a violation of both the NTSA and the CDT management plan. This should be avoided as there are significant challenges on the Santa Fe that are on a sounder legal basis and of significantly more important level to most forest users.

2d. NTSA management specifically requires a maximizing of economic benefits with is supplemented by relevant US Supreme Court rulings and Executive Orders mandate agencies balance management priorities based on the cost benefit analysis of the standard.

The implementation of a non-motorized Wilderness corridor around the CDT also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective, which is made even more complex by the fact that the CDT runs through a wide range of lands, including public and private lands. TPA is also concerned that any heightening of the CDT management and a possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA.

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 based on economic returns associated with the management of the route. The NTSA explicitly provides 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;”¹⁷ 

While the Santa Fe has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, impacts of drought conditions and expanding visitation to the Santa Fe and continued strong demand for recreational opportunities, the CDT is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDT on an annual basis. 18 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDT at state or forest levels. TPA can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process.Additional new research regarding the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce, prepared at the request of Department ofInterior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.¹⁹ This research also clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Given the fact that significant portions of the CDT are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information. It hasbeenTPAexperience thatoften comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain.The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2of the National VisitorUse Monitoringprocessand those conclusions are as follows:

While the above agency summary data has become somewhat old, TPA simply don’t see any change in the comparative spending profiles of these user’s groups. TPA is aware of detailed research addressing certain portions of this analysis above. A copy of the most recent study of the Economic Contribution of the use of Off-Highway Vehicles in Colorado is attached to these comments. This analysis identifies a strong increase in the per person spending profiles of all user groups in the OHV/OSV community based on increased unit prices and new types of OHVs, such as side by side vehicles, being present in the marketplace.

The differences in comparative spending between the user groups allowed in a CDT corridor and those excluded from the corridor are stark and again simply do not favor designation of a landscape level corridor. When comparing the spending profiles of usages allowed in a proposed corridor such as hiking, primitive camping and cross-country skiing to the usages that are excluded from the corridor, such as OHV use and snowmobile the disparity of spending profiles is stark. The users excluded from a corridor spend anywhere from 1.5x to more than 2x the amount of the user groups that would be allowed in the corridor.

As a result of the stark differences in spending profiles of the users, visitation of those allowed in any corridor would have to essentially double throughout the year in order to offset lost economic benefits from the users that would be excluded. This position and expectation is factually unsupportable as visitation to certain portions of the CDT by permitted users is limited to as few as dozens of visitors per year, while visitation levels from users possibly excluded is significantly higher than the visitation levels that are allowed within a corridor. As a result, not only would corridor visitation have to double to offset lost users simply to break even on a per visitor days spending level but also the levels of visitation would have to massively expand as the levels of permitted corridor use is exceptionally low.

TPA do not contest that there are areas or attractions where the CDT sees very high levels of visitation but TPA is aware the areas of higher visitation are areas and issues that can be resolved at the site-specific level in an effective manner and should not be relied on for the basis of a forest wide corridor. Additionally, hikers of the trail are encouraged to visit local communities to the trail, which include Chama, Silver Springs and other communities. TPA is unsure how a Wilderness like corridor can be reconciled with developed resources such as these large communities. Any attempt to resolve these issues would be exceptionally expensive from a management perspective and would result in user conflict. TPA must question if these areas and CDT issues more generally could not be more effectively managed through site specific planning subsequent to the RMP finalization. TPA submit that there are numerous diverse challenges facing the CDT, many of which are highly site specific, which should be dealt with at the local level rather than trying to craft a landscape level fix to these issues. There are simply insufficient levels of utilization of the CDT at the landscape level to warrant inclusion of such issues in the RMP.

7e. A Cost/Benefit analysis of corridor management must also be addressed.

In addition to having to balance economic interests in management of NTSA areas, both President Trump (EO 13771 in 2017) and President Obama (EO 13563 in 2011) have issued Executive Orders requiring all federal agencies to undertake a cost benefit analysis of management decisions. The US Supreme Court recently specifically addressed the need for cost benefit analysis as an issue and stated as follows:

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”²¹

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, TPA is very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community.

TPA submits that there can be no factually based arguments made that closures of large areas of the Santa Fe NF to historical travel will not result in significant massive additional costs to land managers that really cannot be justified given the huge challenges managers are facing such as poor forest health and large increases in wildfire severity and frequency. Simply educating the public regarding the new closure would be exceptionally costly as new signage and other educational materials would have to be developed and then signage would have to be maintained. This would have to include signage that probably makes little sense on the ground as natural landmarks are not relied on for boundaries, and these signs would have to be placed in areas where they could be found and also maintained to insure signage is not buried in snow. TPA submit that proper balancing of enforcement costs with the benefit to small user group is exactly the type balance that the Supreme Court and both President Obama and President Trump has expected the agencies to undertake as part of any planning process. TPA submit that a non-motorized corridor around the CDT fails from a cost benefit perspective even if Congressional action and relevant plans allowed such as management decision.

3. Conclusion

TPA is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is TPA concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

TPA is very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

TPA is pleased to have been provided this opportunity to provide input on the Santa Fe NF planning process and looks forward to working to resolve any issues as the plan moves forward.

Please feel free to contact either Don Riggle at 719-338-4106 or by mail at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs CO 80906 or Scott Jones, Esq at 518-281-5810 or by mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504 for copies of any documentation that is relied on in this appeal or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

1 See, USDA Forest Service andNew Mexico State Forest Service; New Mexico Forest Health Conditions; 2017 at pg.1.

2 See, USDA Forest Service- Selected provisions of draft Santa Fe NF Forest plan; released January 2017 at pgs. 71-72.

3 See, Draft Santa Fe Plan at pg. 46

4 See,2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9–Senate Report No95-636, 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.”

5 See,HRep1631 at pg. 3873.

6 See,HRep1631 at pg. 3861.

7 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.

8 See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.

9 See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.

10 See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.

11 See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).

12 See, 16 USC 1246(j).

13 See,16 USC 1244(a)(5)

14 See,16 USC 1246(C) emphasis added.

15 See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; September 2009 at pg. 19.

16 See, USFS: The Continental Divide Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; 2009 at pg. 19.

17 See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

19 See, Departmentof Commerce;Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: PrototypeStatistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.

20 See, USDA Forest Service; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; September 2010 at pg. 6.

21 See, Entergy Corp v. Riverkeeper Inc et al; 556 US; 475 F3d 83; (2009) Opinion of Breyer J, at pg. 4

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Senator Michael Bennett
Att: John Whitney
835 East 2nd Ave, Suite 206
Durango, CO 81301

Congressman Jared Polis
Att: Nissa Ericson
PO Box 1453
Frisco, CO 80443

Re: Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Act

Dear Senator Bennett and Congressman Polis;
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above-referenced (Colorado Snowmobile Association, COHVCO, Trails Preservation Alliance) Organizations vigorously opposing the Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Act hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Additionally, frustrating these efforts is the fact that previous commitments made in previous Wilderness legislation in Congressman Polis office remain unfulfilled. The Organizations also still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

The Organizations have been visiting with your Office staff attempting to find some type of consensus position that we could support around these areas, but it appears those discussions have not been fruitful, as this version of the Proposal is the worst version of the Proposal the Organizations have seen in a long time. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

Before the Organizations address the specific impacts from the Proposal to recreational access in the Proposal area, the Organizations believe a review of four landscape level topics around Wilderness designations must be addressed as there is significant new research that weighs heavily against proposed designations and management restrictions. These four topics are:

1. The imbalance of demand for Wilderness recreation with the opportunity provided in the planning area;
2. The cost/benefit of providing recreational opportunities in the Proposal areas that have been heavily impacted by poor forest health;
3. The inability to understand the management concerns that are driving the perceived need to designate these areas as Wilderness; and
4. The significant negative economic impacts that result to local communities from Wilderness designations.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns around the Proposal, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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 these comments, TPA, CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. National trail opportunities and trail visitation are badly out of balance.

Prior to addressing the specific negative impact to all recreational opportunities that would result from the Proposal at a site-specific level, the Organizations believe it is important to establish a strong factual foundation for our concerns regarding recreational impacts from any Legislation that restricts multiple use access on public lands. The Organizations believe that any legislation must be based on best available science for management of the area to ensure that balance of goals and objectives and opportunities is achieved in the Legislation.

The first new piece of science and analysis that must be addressed in the Proposal is the imbalance in the opportunity to use trails in Wilderness when compared to the demand for these opportunities. The US Forest Service recently updated its National Trail mileage allocation, which is reflected in the chart below¹:

Our concerns regarding the imbalance in miles of routes and possible impacts from any further expansion of routes in Wilderness are based on a comparison of the 20% of all trails are currently in Congressionally Wilderness, which is badly out of balance with the levels of visitation to these areas on the national level. In 2016, the US Forest Service research indicates that while 20% of all trail mileage is located in a Wilderness area, these routes are visited by only 4% of all USFS visitors.²  The Organizations simply do not believe that expanding this imbalance any further makes sense from a management perspective as 96% of a USFS are being forced to recreate on a smaller and smaller portion of forests (80%). The Organizations believe this simply makes little sense as land managers should be seeking to provide the best opportunity for the largest percentage of visitors as all visitors to public lands should be treated equally. Additionally, with this inability to disperse use, impacts at developed sites will continue as more of the public will be forced to recreate on smaller and smaller portions of public lands in the Proposal area.

1b. Local opportunities and visitation for trails is even more out of balance than nationally.

When USFS research is reviewed to determine recreational visitation to the land management offices involved in the Proposal area, it is determined that 3.4% of all visitors to the White River National Forest reported visiting a Congressionally Designated Wilderness area,³ despite more than 750,000 acres of the White River NF 2.3 million acres (32%) being currently designated as Wilderness areas.4 This low level of visitation to the White River National Forest is compounded by the fact that the WRNF has several Wilderness areas that are experiencing exceptionally high levels of visitation, such as the Maroon Bells. In order to balance this relationship, the Organizations submit there has to be large numbers of Wilderness areas designated on the WRNF that see almost no visitation throughout the year. As a result, the Organizations must question any factual basis that would assert recreational benefits from the Proposal, as currently there is almost twice the National average for Wilderness recreational opportunities but the usage of these opportunities is well below the National average.

The imbalance in winter recreational opportunities on the White River National Forest are even more of a concern, as the WRNF recently concluded that only 7% of the forest was identified as suitable and available for OSV travel. As a result of the small portion of the forest that is even available, any lost opportunity areas are VERY difficult for the snowmobile community to accept as they only have a small portion of the forest even available. While only 7% of the WRNF was available for OSV travel, significant portions of the WRNF are already unsuitable for OSV usage due to existing Wilderness designations on more than 34% of the WRNF.

Given the current imbalance of recreational demand with opportunities, both nationally and locally, the Organizations must question any assertion of a recreational benefit that could result from the Proposal, as currently these types of opportunities are horribly out of balance in the planning area when the supply of routes and trails is compared to the exceptionally low visitation overall. Rather that expanding opportunities for recreation on the forest, the Proposal would result in an even greater imbalance in usage than is currently on the WRNF.

1c. Forest Health, Recreation and Trails.

The Organizations are very concerned about the general scientific basis for the designation of the areas as Wilderness, as we are generally unsure of what management concerns are believed to be the basis for the special designations. Without a clear management need, any discussion around the designations is difficult at best and the Organizations must question why such management changes would be undertaken. Our research indicates that the areas proposed for some type of Wilderness or Special Management Area type authority are some of the hardest hit areas in the nation when forest health issues are addressed. That weighs heavily in our position against the Proposal. The expanded management restrictions that would result from the Proposal would prohibit the treatment of more than 7,000 acres of suitable timber that exist on slopes of less than 40%. These treatments could quickly mitigate fire risks in these areas and speed restoration of these acres to healthy and vibrant habitat for a wide range of species. These negative impacts should not be overlooked.

The Organizations are aware that both Senator Bennet and Congressman Polis have been very supportive of federal actions to address poor forest health conditions in Colorado, such as Senator Bennet championing of wide revisions to USFS contracting authority to address forest health issues in the 2012 Farm Bill and Congressman Polis vigorous support of efforts to move firefighting budgets out of the USFS budget and into FEMA management. The Organizations vigorously support and appreciate these efforts but must ask why this issue and concerns expressed in other legislation have not been addressed with the creation of the Proposal in order to minimize possible conflict between management guidance that is provided in these pieces of legislation.

The scale of the management challenge surrounding poor forest health is an issue where significant new research has been provided by land managers seeking to address this issue, and the conclusions of this research provide a compelling basis to avoid further management challenges on this issue. In 2015, the USFS recently completed research projecting the impacts of poor forest health on the national forests over the next 25 years and unfortunately, the federal resources in the state of Colorado did very poorly in this analysis as:

• the State of Colorado was identified as 5th in the country in terms of acres at risk due to poor forest health⁵;
• both Rocky Mountain National Park and Great Sand Dunes NP were both identified two of the hardest hit national parks in the Country⁶; and
• Colorado National Forests dominated the list of those forests hardest hit by poor forest health in the country as 5 of the top 7 hardest hit forests are immediately adjacent to the areas to be designated as Wilderness.⁷

It is unfortunate that Colorado does so well in these types of comparisons and analysis and the Organizations submit Colorado must be striving to resolve these issues rather than making these challenges more difficult. This type of research provides significant credible foundation for serious concern around a scientific basis for the Proposal. There appears to be significant conflicts.

Newly released Colorado State Forest Service research provides the following graphical representation of the poor forest health in the vicinity of the proposed Wilderness and management areas as follows:

The Organizations believe that the poor forest health throughout the western United States is the single largest challenge facing public lands in our generation. While this outbreak has had horrible impacts to a wide range of activities on public lands, there is a small benefit to the current situation. At least we are aware what the single largest management challenge for our generation should be, which is how to we respond to this issue in a cost effective and timely manner. Given that the areas proposed to be managed as Wilderness or other special management designation are in the hardest hit areas in the state for tree mortality, the Organizations believe that the first question with any legislative action must be:

“How does this Legislation streamline land managers ability to respond to the poor forest health issues in the area?”

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal is a major step in the wrong direction when addressing the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health concerns in these areas, as rather than streamlining the response to poor forest health issues, most areas are functionally precluded from management. Even where management is allowed the Proposal, the Proposal would result in another layer of NEPA analysis that would need to be completed prior to any management of the issue. Requiring yet another layer of NEPA from land managers who are seeking to address this issue makes little sense and the abnormally severe wildfires that result from poor forest health often render recreational access to burn areas unavailable for decades. Many of the routes impacted by the 2002 Hayman fire have only been recently reopened and many of the routes impacted by the Waldo Canyon Fire will remain closed for many years to come.

While the graphical representation of the poor forest health in the area of the Proposal is compelling the scope of these impacts is even more compelling when reviewed in terms of the sheer scale of the issue. The new research was specifically addressed in the 2016 Colorado State Forest Service’s annual forest health report. The highlights of the 2016 report addressing the sheer scale of impacts are as follows:

• 8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;⁹
• the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;¹⁰
• Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range,hillslope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be upto 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.¹¹
• A 2011 study involved monthly monitoring of stream chemistry and sediment inSouth Platte River tributaries before and after fire and showed that basins thatburned at high severity on more than 45 percent of their area had streamscontaining four times the amount of suspended sediments as basins burned lessseverely. This effect also remained for at least five years post-fire.¹²
• High-severity wildfires responsible for negative outcomes are more common inunmanaged forests with heavy fuel loads than in forests that have experiencednaturally recurrent, low-intensity wildfires or prior forest treatments, such asthinning. It is far easier to keep water in a basin clean, from the source headwatersand through each usage by recipients downstream, than to try and restore waterquality once it is degraded.¹³
• During 2016’s Beaver Creek Fire, which burned 38,380 acres northwest ofWalden, foresters and firefighters were given a glimpse into likely futurechallenges facing wildfire suppression and forest management efforts. Theseinclude longer duration wildfires due to the amount and arrangement of heavyfuels. Observations from fire managers indicated that instead of small brancheson live trees, the larger, dead fuels in jackstraw stands were the primary driver offire spread…. “The hazards and fire behavior associated with this fuel type greatly reduce where firefighters can safely engage in suppression operations”¹⁴

The concerns raised in the Colorado State Forest Service research are by no means an anomaly. Wilderness and improperly managed Roadless areas were previously identified by the Forest Service as a significant factor contributing to and limiting the ability to manage the mountain pine beetle epidemic and poor overall forest health. The 2011 USFS research prepared at the request of then Senator Mark Udall’s office on this issue clearly concludes as follows:

“The factors that limited access to many areas for treatments to maintain forest stands—steep slopes, adjacency to inventoried roadless areas, prohibition of mechanical treatments in designated wilderness—are still applicable today.”¹⁵

The Udall Forest Health report continues on this issue as follows:

“•Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as Wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).”¹⁶

This report is not discussed at length in these comments as previous comments have addressed this report. Since the release of this Forest Service report, additional Colorado Forest Service researchers have reached the same conclusions as the USFS Research Station did in the Udall Forest Health Report. The Colorado State Forest Service’s 2011 Forest Health report specifically identifies a major contributing factor to the spruce beetle outbreak as:

“Outbreaks typically occur several years after storms cause windthrow in spruce trees, which are susceptible to blowdown because of their shallow root system. Spruce beetles initially breed in the freshly windthrown trees, and subsequent generations attack and kill live, standing trees.”¹⁷

The lack of access to Wilderness areas to manage blow down areas is specifically identified as a major limitation in forest managers ability to address spruce beetle outbreak. These blow downs are directly identified as causing the spruce beetle outbreaks. The 2011 State Forest Service report specifically states:

“Many areas where spruce beetle outbreaks occur are remote, inaccessible or in designated wilderness areas. Therefore, in most cases, foresters can take little or no action to reduce losses caused by this aggressive bark beetle. However, individual trees can be protected on some landscapes.”¹⁸

The Organizations must note the 2011 State Forest Service report extensively discussed how EVERY major spruce beetle outbreak in the state of Colorado was associated with a major wind event in a Wilderness area, which could not be managed by foresters due to Wilderness designations. Given the clear conclusions of best available science, that Wilderness and other management restrictions are contributing to and limiting the ability of land managers to respond to the single largest management challenge that will be experienced in our generation, the Organizations must question why such a decision to further limit the authority of land managers to respond to this challenge would ever be made. Such a position would not be based on best available science.

1c. Wildlife habitat is degraded when management authority is restricted.

The Organizations are aware that generalized statements that the Proposal would improve wildlife habitat in the areas have been relied on previously, but the Organizations are not aware of any scientific basis for such a position. The Organizations are concerned about wildlife impacts due to the fact that many of our members are hunters and fisherman and directly benefit from healthy wildlife populations in the area. In addition to these consumptive wildlife concerns, many of the public are non-consumptive users of the large wildlife populations in the Proposal area and are provided a superior recreational experience from the large and healthy wildlife populations in the proposal area. The Organizations would also note that the delisting of any endangered or threatened species is often heavily reliant on a stable and healthy habitat for the species, and this is not provided by lands heavily impacted by poor forest health issues.

The Organizations wish to highlight several new pieces of research that address the need for active management of public lands and the need for a healthy forest for wildlife in the planning area. In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released its State Wildlife Action Plan(“SWAP”), which provided a brief summary of the challenges facing species of conservation concern and threatened and endangered species in the State of Colorado. The SWAP provides the following summary of the impacts to wildlife at the landscape level from poor forest health:

“Timber harvesting within lodgepole pine at the appropriate sites and scale is needed to maintain pure lodgepole pine stands for lodgepole obligate wildlife species. Continuing to increase stand heterogeneity to reduce large, continuous even-aged stands will help reduce risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and large-scale pine beetle outbreaks in the future.”¹⁹

In addition to the above quote addressing the landscape level concerns around poor forest health, more than a dozen species are identified where the degradation of habitat due to beetle kill was specifically identified as a significant threat to the species.²⁰ These types of concerns and impacts are simply not resolved with additional restrictions on the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health challenges. Management must remain on target in addressing these challenges in order to respond to these unprecedented tasks in the most cost effective and timely manner possible.

In addition to the newly released SWAP, significant new research has been provided that clearly identifies the need to address poor forest health concerns for many other species. Forest fires have been identified as a major threat to habitat for the Endangered Colorado Cutthroat trout, both during the fire itself and from the condition of riparian area after a fire. The Forest Service species conservation report specifically states:

“Lack of connectivity to other populations renders them vulnerable in the short term to extirpation from natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods….”²¹

The Conservation Report also noted the significant impact that woody matter has on the cutthroat trout habitat. The Conservation Report notes the impact of fire and insect infestation are both major impacts on woody matters stating:

“large wood (also known as coarse woody debris) plays a dominant role in many montane streams where greenback cutthroat trout persist. Deposition of large wood affects sediment scour and deposition, energy dissipation, and channel form (Montgomery et al. 2003), and creates pools, stores spawning gravels, affords overhead cover, and provides refuge during high flows…… Inputs of large wood are controlled by a variety of processes. Mass mortality of riparian stands from fire, insect damage, or wind is important sources.” ²²

Fire is specifically identified as a disturbance that results in trout habitat being unsuitable for centuries, stating:

“In particular, disturbances that dramatically alter channels or riparian zones—debris torrents…and severe fires—will change the discharge-sediment transport regime, re-set forest succession and large wood dynamics, and redistribute suitable and unsuitable habitat in a basin, sometimes for decades or centuries…”²³

This research notes the significant difference in impact to the cutthroat trout between conditions existing before the fire, during the fire and after the fires that are now occurring at unprecedented levels from the poor forest health existing in Colorado Forests. Given that the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is one of dozens of fish species currently at risk due to the poor forest health on the WRNF, the Organizations submit best available science for species management weighs heavily against any expansion of Wilderness like management in the planning area.

2a. Existing recreational opportunities would be exceptionally impacted due to extensive restrictions on how basic maintenance of routes may be performed in new Wilderness areas.

Given the Proposal asserts to be driven by recreational interests, the Organizations believe this issue warrants a more complete review and analysis of impacts and benefits from the Legislation at a more localized level than the national update on recreation that was previously provided. This is another issue where the benefits of the Legislation are unclear. While the benefits are unclear, the significant negative impacts are immediately clear as any efforts to provide basic maintenance and management of existing opportunities in the areas where Wilderness management is expanded become far more difficult and available funding is significantly diminished.

It has been the Organizations experience that land managers are struggling badly with providing basic maintenance and safe access to existing recreational opportunities in the planning area even when mechanical means and tools are available to maintain these areas. This is simply due to the large number of falling trees, that block or otherwise routes in the area. As the Organizations have previously noted, Colorado is some of the hardest hit areas in the Country in terms of poor forest health and logic would conclude that recreational management challenges would also be the largest in Colorado in allowing recreational usage of beetle kill areas. The challenge is immense even with the most advanced mechanical maintenance equipment available and is realistically beyond cost effective management without mechanical maintenance equipment.

While the Organizations are aware that stating the challenges facing managers relating to recreational routes and facilities are immense has some level of value, there is also no replacement for hard numbers when assessing impacts. New research has been performed by the USFS in the State of California regarding the scope of the challenges facing land managers in maintaining recreation on three Southern California Forests heavily impacted by poor forest health. The USFS conclusions on these forests are as follows:

¹⁴

The Organizations believe any assertion that maintenance of existing recreational opportunities and resources encompassing more than 4,000 miles of roads and trails and 141 recreational facilities impacted by poor forest health without mechanical assistance would lack factual or rational basis. This type of challenge is even more difficult in Colorado as research previously identified finds that Colorado forests are significantly harder hit than the three forests in California that are the target of the above research. The Organizations are intimately aware that existing resources for maintenance of recreation facilities and routes in Colorado struggle badly to maintain opportunities with mechanical resources and management being allowed.

In this situation the Organizations must question why streamlining the land managers ability to provide safe high-quality recreational opportunities is not the priority of the Legislation. Instead of streamlining efforts, the Legislation provides a new and significant barrier to land managers responding to the issue. The Organizations are aware of the arguable authority for the Secretary to allow for mechanized treatment of forest health issues in the small portion of new Wilderness areas to be designated in §3c of the Proposal. The Organizations concerns on this issue are twofold:

1. This type of analysis will require at least a round of environmental analysis to be performed and based on discussions around this type of management flexibility the Organizations can say with a high level of certainty that the environmental review process will be exceptionally difficult; and
2. We are not aware of a single acre of Wilderness in Colorado that has been mitigated under similar provisions of the Wilderness Act.

As a result, the Organizations are opposed to the designations of areas under §3c and related provisions of the Proposal, despite the arguable authority to act, as the action would be both more expensive and has functioned as a complete barrier to action as this authority has never been used in Colorado.

Given the poor track record of mechanical treatment being allowed to protect recreational opportunities in Colorado Wilderness areas, the Organizations believe a review of the means of maintenance actually on the ground is warranted. While these comments are centering on the maintenance impacts from poor forest health, there are numerous other issues in providing basic maintenance such as rock removal, which in a Wilderness must be done by hand instead of mechanized equipment and simply transporting equipment to sites, which must be done by hikers or horseback instead of with trucks and trailers. This review is needed in order to fully understand the basis of our concerns around overall impacts to recreation and federal budgets that are required to fund maintenance with exceptionally expensive methods.

The most common manner of removing downed trees or hazard trees in a Wilderness based recreation area of Colorado is with a large crosscut saw operated by two people such as that pictured below: ²⁵

Removing a tree such as that pictured above could be achieved in under an hour with mechanical means, but a similar removal could easily take all day without mechanical assistance. While a manual cross cut saw might be able to deal with isolated trees, such as these pictured above, the removal of hazard trees such as those photographed below are far more problematic.

The ability to safely removal a tree blocking a route in the manner pictured above is difficult even with mechanized assistance but becomes far more concerning when hand tools must be used simply due to the extended amount of time sawyers must be in proximity to the hanging tree and the fact that twice as many sawyers are needed for the removal of the tree. Even when dealing with an isolated tree crossing a trail, costs and risks associated with basic maintenance are greatly increased with the prohibition of mechanical upkeep.

While there are concerns about the safety and cost of maintenance of Wilderness routes on a per tree level, concerns are expounded when maintenance is needed around larger wind events or larger scale tree fall issues such as those now commonly seen in beetle kill areas in the state. As a result of the serious limitations on how basic maintenance can be performed for major events like the blowdown that is currently blocking all public access to the Hunts Lake Trail on the Pike San Isabel photographed below are almost prohibitions on reopening routes:

Reopening of the Hunts Lake Trail would be a significant challenge with mechanized assistance but removing this number of downed trees without mechanical assistance would result in something that is a significant challenge to a project that might easily take months or years of effort if weather was uncooperative. Ignoring these types of on the ground impacts from expansion of management restrictions from the Proposal makes little sense and erodes any basis for claiming recreational benefits from the Proposal. There is simply limited funding available for recreation and that money must be applied in the most effective manner possible to protect existing recreational opportunities both inside and outside of Congressionally Designated Wilderness areas.

2b. Trail maintenance resources are greatly reduced in Wilderness areas.

As the Organizations have noted already, costs associated with basic maintenance of recreation facilities and opportunities are significantly increased with any Wilderness designations. Based on the Organizations experiences with the Colorado State Trails Programs grants, these costs are consistently identified as being something to a factor of 100x the cost of mechanized trail maintenance in grant applications to partner programs. The average mechanized maintenance crew can easily clear and maintain 100 to 200 miles of trail per year, while similar levels of funding and partner efforts utilizing non-mechanized means can only address 1-2 miles of trail per year. The cost benefit relationship is simply not comparable.

In addition to the exponentially increased costs of maintenance for recreational opportunities in Wilderness area, the amount of funding that is available for maintenance is greatly reduced. The USFS estimates the $4.3 million in funding available from the State of Colorado’s voluntary OHV registration program almost doubles the amount of funding available for summer recreational maintenance programs as follows:

²⁶

This disparity of funding is even more problematic when the more than $1.5 million in additional maintenance funding that results from the Colorado Voluntary Snowmobile Registration Program is included in this equation.

The direct impacts of this funding are:

1. EVERY Ranger District in the State of Colorado has access to a well-equipped trail maintenance crew funded by the voluntary OHV tax on a prioritized basis;
2. Most ranger districts have a dedicated motorized trail crew for summer maintenance
3. Most Ranger Districts also a winter maintenance crew from snowmobile registration funds.

While these teams have been hugely successful, their effectiveness is limited by available funding limits and when existing resources are used for maintenance in ways that are 100x less effective it impairs recreational experiences for all the public, not just those choosing Wilderness based recreation. The availability of these crews directly contrary to the national situation facing the forest service where most Ranger Districts have no maintenance crews at all. The Organizations believe that any legislation addressing recreational access and maintenance must be looking at how to making existing funding go further, rather than making existing funding less effective by a factor of almost 100, as is the result of Wilderness recreation.

Why are the economic resources available for maintenance of Wilderness recreation a concern for the Organizations, as our activities have been prohibited? While the voluntary OHV and snowmobile funds greatly expand the resources that are available to land managers for maintenance of facilities outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often leveraged with USFS budgets for maintenance of these areas. When the match to the funds provided through the voluntary OHV funds is asked to become less effective by a factor of as much as 100 for the benefit of less than 4% of all visitors to USFS land, the Organizations are immediately concerned that the match to the OHV program funds will be reduced. This reduction is concerning as no additional benefit is achieved with these funds but resources being leveraged for maintenance outside Wilderness are significantly reduced and the Organizations are intimately aware that these funds are often stretched very thin already. This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations.

3.Economics of Wilderness Recreation.

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.²⁷

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 Redcliffe, Leadville, Birdseye or Alma 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 White River National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs²⁸:

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity to local communities, when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of recreation 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.29 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.³⁰ Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. ³¹ 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.

The basis for the economic underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when the USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared. This research is summarized below:³²

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments on earlier versions of this legislation, 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.³³ In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness³⁴ but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.4% of visitor days on the White River National Forest.³⁵ 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.

4.Most areas proposed to be Wilderness in the Legislation were found unsuitable fordesignation 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 inventories of areas were provided as part of development of the Roadless Rule to ensure that best available information about the area was also 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. Every area proposed to be Wilderness was found suitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago.

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 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 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.

5. Site-Specific Concerns.

The Organizations are providing the following site-specific comments to address the significant lost recreational opportunities that would immediately occur with the passage of the Proposal. The Organizations are opposed to the loss of these opportunities for the following reasons:

1. There is simply no offsetting protection or release of recreational areas frompossible Wilderness designations in other parts of the Legislation;
2. Only a small portion of the WRNF is even suitable or available for multiple userecreation as exemplified by the fact that only 7% of the WRNF is suitable andavailable for OSV travel; and
3. These are important recreational opportunities that are heavily used due tolimited opportunities in the Proposal area.

The Organizations believe the source of the following maps and information is highly relevant as each of the summer Motor Vehicle Use Maps is highlighted to identify lost trail networks reflects current management on that Ranger District and the Winter OSV Suitability information comes from the White River National Forest recent Winter Travel Planning Process. On the winter suitability maps, green areas are designated for open winter usage, and pink areas are future expansion areas for OSV travel, where travel is currently restricted to designated routes in the area. OSV closure areas are identified in tan, but no portion of the Proposal area lies outside existing Wilderness in areas which are closed to OSV travel.

5(a). Ptarmigan Peak (§3a1) & Williams Fork (§4) & Williams Fork Wildlife Conservation Area (§7)

The Organizations are opposed to the lost opportunities in the Williams Fork WCA, Ptarmigan Peak and Williams Fork Wilderness additions due to the loss of more than 20,000 acres of motorized recreational areas. This closure would include the loss of a significant number of miles of heavily used currently authorized summer trail in these areas, as exemplified by the Cow Creek North and South networks immediately outside the Cow Creek and other campgrounds immediately adjacent to the trailheads, Route 2950.5a coming over from the ARNF and Route 2840. The entire area is also a future expansion area for OSV travel and also includes a significant important open riding area.

2014 Summer MVUM

WRNF Winter OSV suitability 

Management under the Proposal

The Organizations must specifically mention that the alleged benefit that is asserted to be provided in the Williams Fork WCA is of no value to the multiple use commuity, as this alleged benefit is a ceiling for mileage and routes in the area created in §7b1 of the Proposal. Unfortunately, there is no corresponding floor for trail mileage in the areas, and such a mileage floor would be highly valued by the Organizations. As a result, no additional routes can ever be built in these areas but all routes in the area could be lost. The Organizations must question any assertion of value to mutiple use interests from these provisions, as the Organizations are simply unable to find the asserted benefit. With designation of these areas under the Proposal, signficiant negative imapcts to existing recreational access would occur.

The Organizations are also very concerned with setting a precedent allowing for the automatic change of an area to Wilderness with the mere passage of time. The Organizations are not aware of any precedent for automatic change of lands to Wilderness designation merely with the passage of time. Adopting such a principal could set a dangerous precedent moving forward and the Proposal 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 but the Proposal allows for a mere 180 day period for inventory and analysis of this issue. This is problematic and would result in significant new analysis to be undertaken by land managers that are already struggling to provide for basic operations due to limited budgets and funding.

The Organizations would note that pursuant to §3e the Colorado Wilderness Act of 199336 that designated the Ptarmigan Peak area as Wilderness, there were to be “no buffer zones” around the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness. Despite the clear direction of this Legislation, discussions have continued about expanding the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness since the passage of the 1993 Legisaltion. This exemplifies why the Organizations place little value in the “no buffer” provisions in the current Propsoal, as this discussion highlights the fact these provisions are some of the most ingored provisions of federal law ever passed.

5(b). No Name Wilderness – §3a23

The adoption of the Proposed management in the No Name area would result in the immediate loss of more than 3,900 acres of future OSV expansion area. While no routes would be immediately lost for summer travel, the Organizations have significant long-term concerns due to proximity of the existing routes to new Wilderness areas. It has been the Organizations such proximity never resolves management issues for the areas but rather creates conflict due to the fact that those seeking the solitude of the Wilderness immediately raise user conflict concerns due to the proximity of multiple use. While the Proposal does provide for “no buffers” in management, but in other areas where no buffers have been provided such protections have been completely useless in addressing user conflict and future expansions. Our concerns with no buffer type legislation are identified previously.

2014 Summer MVUM

Winter OSV suitability currently

Management under the Proposal

The Organizations are opposed to this portion of the Proposal as the entire No Name area is a winter expansion area for OSV travel and would convert FSR703, which is currently a groomed route through an important open riding area to a cherry stem into an important OSV area for winter usage as there would now be Wilderness on both sides of the route. That would put the route and inholding of open riding area in the Wilderness immediately at risk due to the conflicts in usage of the area. That is simply unacceptable.

Summer motorized recreation would also be significantly put at risk from these new Wilderness areas, as FSR703 is the Holy Cross City route that is consistently identified as one of the top ten OHV routes in the country. While all routes are important to the multiple use community, the value of the Holy Cross City route to especially the full size 4×4 community cannot be overstated. Additionally, the eastern boundary of the No Name expansion area is a currently designated summer route and expanding the boundary to the route would result in immediate conflict between usages on that route. Given the value of these routes, any new Wilderness could never be supported in these areas due to possible challenges to these routes in the future. Again, a “no buffer” type protections do not resolve that type of concern in the least and there is no benefit in other areas to arguably even discuss a risk to important routes that could result from the passage of the Proposal.

5(c). Hoosier Ridge Wilderness(§3a24)

The Organizations are again concerned regarding the long-term opportunities in this area due to proximity of the Proposed Wilderness to heavily used areas immediately surrounding the Hoosier Ridge Wilderness area, including opportunities on both the Dillon and the South Park Ranger Districts generally surrounding the Boreas Pass Area. These adjacent areas are represented in the MVUM identified below:

2014 Summer MVUM- Dillon RD

2014 Summer MVUM – South Park RD

Current OSV Suitability

Boreas Pass area is a major multiple use summer destination area. Given the proximity of the expanded Wilderness boundary to highly used routes, conflict between these uses would be a concern. Again, “no buffer” language has proven to be highly ineffective in addressing these types of concerns previously. Our concerns about the Hoosier Ridge area are compounded by the fact that the Pennsylvania Gulch area, immediately to the north of the Hoosier Ridge area is again another important future expansion area for OSV travel that possess exceptionally high-quality riding opportunities that could not be put at risk with a Wilderness expansion into areas adjacent to Pennsylvania Gulch.

5(d). Spraddle Creek Wilderness area additions -§3(a) (26)

The Spraddle Creek Wilderness contains an extensive high-quality summer trail network for motorized and bicycle community centered around FSR 700/719 that would be lost with passage of the Proposal. These are important routes due to their proximity to local population centers.

2014 Summer MVUM

Current Snowmobile Suitability

Management under the Proposal

The potential Spraddle Creek Wilderness represents an important open riding snowmobile opportunity area that would be lost immediately in addition to the future expansion areas for OSV travel. Many OSV users believe that closure of the eastern portions this area in recent travel planning 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. Additionally, 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.

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. 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.

Expansion of the Spraddle Creek Wilderness areas would result in the immediate loss of motorized routes 786 and 719 that 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. 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 and as we have expressed previously, the Organizations have SERIOUS concerns about the effectiveness of “no buffer” type management standards.

5(e). Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation area – §4

The Organizations are simply flabbergasted that the 8,176 acres identified as the Porcupine Gulch Protection area is being proposed for loss to multiple use recreation, as this area was recently the basis of a multiple year collaborative process involving the USFS, Summit County Commissioners, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Hikers, Mountain Bikers, Wilderness Advocates, Colorado Mountain Club, the Quiet Use coalition, local land owners and motorized users. This multiple year collaborative effort resulted in a consensus position regarding the future management of the area identified as the Tenderfoot Trail Proposal, which was then moved forward with minimal public opposition or concern. In addition to these active participants the Organizations recall those proceedings moving forward with the support of both Senator Bennett and Congressman Polis offices.

All detailed information regarding the Tenderfoot Trail project can be found here
https://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34502

Subsequent to the finalization of the EA for this project in 2012, more than 30 miles of trails have been closed and rehabilitated, 11 miles of sustainable single track were created and extensive new parking has resulted from the almost $1 million in partner grant funding that has been provided to implement the Tenderfoot Plan. This trail proposal has become a shining success story in the area and a model for resolving contentious planning issues in high use areas. Despite the success of the Tenderfoot project, the Porcupine WCA proposes to prohibit motorized and mechanized travel in the area. That is simply offensive to the collaborative process that has been undertaken and would provide a significant barrier to such collaborative efforts ever being undertaken again in the future.

5(f). Camp Hale National Historic Landscape §8

While the Organizations welcome the heightened importance of identification and removal of unexploded ordinance in the proposed Camp Hale National Historic Landscape provisions and that OSV usage is at least identified as a characteristic of the area, there is no additional protection of existing OSV usage provided in the Legislation. The Organizations simply cannot support identification of basic safety concerns in the area and then not providing protections of existing recreational access to the area.

In addition to providing no protection for OSV usage in the Camp Hale area, the Proposal provides no recognition of the important multiple use summer trail opportunities is provided for in the Legislation despite the extensive trail network that is currently authorized in the Camp Hale area.

2014 MVUM

OSV Suitability and groomed routes

Clearly removal of unexploded ordinance could result in conflict between mitigation activities and recreational usage of trails in the vicinity of these activities. With the statutory elevation of ordinance removal for safety reasons, the Organizations can clearly see recreational access being put at risk at least during the term of removal. Managers could easy prohibit access after running out of funding to undertake the ordinance remediation in the area simply to attempt to comply with safety-based provisions of the Legislation. This is simply unacceptable as both short and long-term access to the area must be identified and protected and has not been.

The Organizations concerns about long term route loss from elevation of public safety concerns involving unexploded ordinance are compounded when the grant of Federal funding provided for in the Proposal is reviewed. The Organizations submit that any assertion that water impoundment facilities could be improved, historical interpretation sites created and a complete inventory of ordinance in the Camp Hale area with associated NEPA required for removal could be completed for the mere sum of $5,000,000 is simply without any basis in fact. The Organizations submit that the funding provided managers would be hard pressed to complete one of the three goals, little lone all three. With the provided imbalance in funding with goals and objectives for management of the area, clearly protection of all usage of the area would be critical in insuring opportunities are not lost in the area.

While the interest in unexploded ordinance is appreciated, the provisions of the SMA fall well short of anything that could be supported by the Organizations. To provide any value to the motorized community in the Legislation for this area, a floor for motorized travel must be provided and the importance of motorized access for both summer and winter motorized recreation at existing levels must be provided for.

5g. Ten Mile Recreation/Wilderness area §5

The Organizations submit that the designation of the Ten Mile Recreation Area would result in the loss of 16,996 acres for multiple use as multiple use recreation is not even a characteristic of the area. This is another area where important multiple use recreational opportunities are currently existing but no protection for these opportunities is provided by the Proposal. Rather than protecting these important opportunities, existing opportunities and future expansion areas would be permanently limited from expansion and additionally provided no protection from closure in the future as other priorities for the use of the Recreation area would be established by the Proposal.

2014 MVUM

Over the Snow Suitability

The Organizations opposition to the designation of these areas is based on the fact that no multiple uses are even identified as a characteristic of the area to be protected or reserved, while certain other recreational activities are advanced as characteristics of the area. Additionally, multiple use access is capped at current levels, despite a large portion of the area being available for OSV expansion. The Organizations are unable to see any benefit to the multiple use recreation community from designation of this area as multiple use access would be immediately capped and then put at risk of loss due to the elevation of other interests in the area as management priorities.

5h. The Proposal provides no benefits or protections for multiple use recreation to offset risks and losses in new Wilderness areas created and previous commitments must be honored.

The Organizations must note the significant differences between the current Proposal and the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. The current Proposal provides for extensive loss of mileage and acreage to multiple use interests but no other areas are released from possible future designation and protected for multiple use. The Proposal also puts numerous other areas at risk for long term loss due to the proximity of these areas to new Wilderness areas, no additional protections are provided in the Proposal for the areas put at risk for long term loss. As noted previously, “no buffer” type management standards provided in previous Wilderness Legislation have been largely ignored. While the Organizations believe that the ineffective nature of “no buffer” type protections is concerning, the lack of balance in previous Wilderness Legislation is problematic. Even when more defined and concrete benefits to the multiple use community have been provided in previous Wilderness legislation, these benefits have never been implemented.

An example of this issue would be the commitment to reopen the Rollins Pass Road that was made in § 7(b) the James Peak Wilderness Expansion and Protection Act of 2002. The Rollins Pass Road Language was in addition to the “no buffer” language provide in the James Peak Legislation. Not only has there been no carry through on the legal obligation to reopen James Peak Road, this legislation provides yet another example of the ineffective nature of the “no buffer” language as both of the Wilderness areas involved in the James Peak proposal have been the basis of ongoing efforts to again expand these Wilderness areas despite the No buffer language. Reopening of Rollins Pass road, as has been required by federal law would be a significant gesture to the multiple use community that implementation of commitments made in Wilderness legislation is as important as passage of the original legislation.

6. Conclusion.

After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Additionally, frustrating any discussions around balance in the Proposal is the fact that earlier commitments made in Wilderness legislation in Congressman Polis district remain unfulfilled. Reopening Rollins Pass Road would be a significant step in meaningfully addressing usages in the Proposal. If commitments are not honored, what is the value in working towards more balance in any Proposal. The Organizations still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

The Organizations have been visiting with your Office staff attempting to find some type of consensus position that we could support around these areas, but it appears those discussions have not been fruitful, as this version of the Proposal is the worst version of the Proposal the Organizations have seen in a long time. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

In an effort to continue to discuss Wilderness and related management protections in the Eagle and Summit County areas, the Organizations have included our draft discussion of areas we would be interested in seeing additional protection for in federal legislation. 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

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Cc: Senator Cory Gardner

1. See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for a Sustainable Trails System; December 30, 2016 at page 2.
2. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results – National Summary Report – data collected FY2012 through FY2016; December 2016 at pg. 10.
3. See, USDA Forest Service; Visitor Use Report; White River NF; USDA Forest Service Region 2 National Visitor Use Monitoring Data; Collected through FY 2012 Last Updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
4. See, National Forest Foundation website at https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/find-a-forest/white-river-national-forest accessed February 21, 2018.
5. See, USDA Forest Service; Tkacz et al; 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; 2015 at pg. 36.Hereinafter referred to as the “USDA Risk Assessment”.
6. See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 50.
7. See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 51.
8. A complete copy of this presentation and related documents is available athttps://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/fhm/fhh/fhh_16/CO_FHH_%202016.pdf
9. http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/
10. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 61
11. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
12. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
13. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
14. See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5.
15. See, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Review of the Forest Service Response to the Bark Beetle Outbreak in Colorado and Southern Wyoming; A report by USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of Senator Mark Udall; September 2011 at pg. 5.
16. See, Udall Forest Health Report at pg. I
17. See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 9.
18. See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 11.
19. See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan at pg. 279.
20. This list of species includes: Albert Squirrel; American Marten; Hoary Bat; Snowshoe Hare and Luck spine moth.
21. See, USFWS; Dr. Michael Young; Greenback Cutthroat Trout; A Technical Conservation Assessment; February 6, 2009 at pg. 3.
22. See, Young @ pg. 20.
23. See, Young @ pg. 21.
24. See, USDA Forest Service; Pacific Southwest Region Research Station; Forest Service Response to Elevated Tree Mortality; prepared at the request of California State Association of Counties; March 24, 2016 at pg. 14.
25. Photo included with application of Divide Ranger District application for maintenance in the Weminuche Wilderness to Colorado State Trails Program for maintenance funding.
26. See, USFS presentation of Scott Haas, Region 2 Recreation Coordinator at the 2016 Colorado OHV Workshop. Full copy of presentation available on request.
27. See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011
28. See, USDA Forest Service; “White River 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-WhiteRiver.pdf
29. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
30. 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/
31. See, Holmes & White; National & Community Market Contributions of Wilderness; Society & Natural Resources; An International Journal; Volume 30 2017
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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
35. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; White River National Forest; Round 3; last updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
36. See, HR 631 of 1993

 Guidelines for Working with Land Managers – Power Tools

The Trails Preservation Alliance, using materials and references from the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) has adopted the following 11 basic rules for dealing with land management agencies:

1: Utilize the Chain of Command

Recognize that there is a chain of command and respect it.
We will discuss politics later, but we can quickly make an enemy by needlessly bypassing one or more links in the chain of command. When dealing with an issue, always start at the lowest appropriate level. Don’t go to the District Ranger if you don’t like the way the Recreation Technician put up a trail sign before you have talked to the Recreation Technician. On the flip side, don’t be afraid to move up one link in the chain if you don’t get the response or answers you want at the lower level.

2: Be Willing to Compromise

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
In many respects, the game of land use is a game of compromise. The very nature of compromise means that you will give up something to get something. In addition, the OHV community is not always politically active, which means that we often end up with less than you started with.

Tool Tip:
All too often, recreationists are put in the position of responding to travel plans developed by the land managers, or worse, plans submitted by an anti-OHV group. Think outside the parameters presented. Look for opportunities for adding routes, or respond by formulating your own travel plan. Never be afraid to ask for adequate quantity of trail-based motorized recreational experiences that will meet the present and future needs. Land managers rarely suggest the “maximum recreation” alternative, so if we want to ensure adequate opportunity you will need to suggest it on behalf of OHV interests.

3: Get Involved

Land Use Planning is a public involvement process, so you must be involved.
We need to be honest here. No national OHV advocacy group can save your roads and trails for you. The TPA, COHVCO, BRC and other state and national groups can offer much in the way of assistance, but if the local recreation community doesn’t get involved, nobody will. It takes time, it takes effort and it can be extremely frustrating at times. However, we are continually amazed at what a few dedicated people can accomplish.

Tool Tip:
One of the easiest ways to get involved is to simply get on the land manager’s mailing list. The Forest Service and most BLM offices issue a quarterly update of all their planning projects. This is often called the “Schedule of Proposed Actions” (or SOPA). This document lists all projects either ongoing or proposed in your area.

Tool Tip:
The president of your club can’t be responsible for everything and land use can take a lot of time. Find someone in your club who is interested in land use and make that person your Land Use Director. The Director reads the SOPA and reports to the club on what issues are going on and what actions are needed.

4: Knowledge is Power

The more you know about the process, the more you can make it work for you.
Anti-access groups know the process and have energetic, paid staff to ensure the process works for them. We are relatively new to the game and don’t have paid staff, so we need to work smarter and harder to turn our past losses into future wins.

Tool Tip:
Knowledge is power; therefore, learn everything you can about NEPA and the planning process. Granted, reading about NEPA isn’t exactly our preference for bedtime reading, but you need to learn it. Nearly every BLM field office and Forest Service district office has a NEPA Specialist. These folks know NEPA and are passionate when talking about it. Find out who your local NEPA staff person is and talk to him/her. They are often the person listed on the scoping letter as “send comments to:” They will help you understand the process. More importantly, they will learn who their “interested public” is and you will have the opportunity to explain your position and help them understand your activity. That’s right, they probably don’t pursue your form of recreation and don’t understand why you do. Knowledge is power. Educate them.

Tool Tip:
Stay up on current affairs at all levels – state, federal and local. Assign someone in your group to read the local newspaper and monitor the local TV and radio stations about issues related to OHV activity in your area. Disseminate this info to your members. Again, knowledge is power.

5: Put it in Writing

If it isn’t in writing, it didn’t happen.
This is one of the most important things for OHV access advocates, and it’s also one that folks too often forget to do. We must face the reality that the good old days of a handshake and a smile are gone.

Tool Tip:
Agency staffers transfer or retire. Verbal agreements can be forgotten. Agency goals and priorities change. Your input must be reduced to writing no matter how well you know agency personnel or how many meetings you attend. Likewise, any agency agreements, MOUs or commitments must be in writing.

Tool Tip:
Whenever a project comes up that you are interested in, start a project file and keep a record of everything related to this project: scoping letter, SOPA, all correspondence, notes from telephone conversations, newspaper articles, notes from public meetings, etc. Do this at the beginning of a project, not when things start going wrong.

6: Don’t Assume

Don’t assume that someone else will look out for your best interests.
Again, the days of the “good old boy” are gone. You may have a good friend in the local agency office, but that person is still an agency employee who must act and respond to agency policies and priorities. If you don’t have a friend in the local office, read and heed this tool tip.

Tool Tip:
Does your local district ranger, field manager, or recreation specialist know who you are and what your interests are? They won’t know what’s important to you unless you tell them. It’s not that hard – they’re real people. Pick up the phone and make an appointment to talk to them. Again, knowledge is power, so educate them.

7: Ask for Help

There is often a lack of knowledge and understanding about motorized recreation within the agencies.
There are a lot of resources available to land managers who lack specific motorized trail based management expertise. Have your local BLM staff person or Forest Service recreation staff contact the TPA, COHVCO or BRC and learn about the resources available to help them manage OHV use.

Tool Tip:
Take your local agency personnel out on a field trip so they can learn about you and our sport. It is of the utmost importance that they have fun and have a positive experience. We don’t want tired people and we don’t want to injure people, so keep it short and keep it easy. A good forum to consider is a mock poker run with a BBQ in the middle for a lunch break. This is easy to set up, it’s fun, and most agency personnel have no idea what a poker run is. Knowledge is power.

8: Speak Up

Attending a meeting is not the same as speaking at a meeting.
No one will know who you are or what your interests are if you just sit with your arms folded across your chest and listen to everyone else. We often hear, “I can wrench my bike, but I can’t get up and talk in front of other people. Let someone else do it.” Number one, there is no one else. Number two, we are mom and pop representing the grass roots of America. We don’t have to be smooth, we don’t have to be polished, and we don’t have to be eloquent. But we do have to remain calm and be polite and courteous. Most of us can do that, so let’s do it. Remember, if we’re not at the table, we’ll be on the menu.

9: Don’t Count on Historical Use

Historical use does not guarantee future use.
You can never assume that just because you’ve always done an activity that you’ll always be able to do that activity. We hear it all the time, “That road has been open for 50 years!” It’s sad to say, but it doesn’t matter. The land managers do not factor that into the equation. Today, each road or trail must “add something” to the transportation system. We can no longer rely on historical use as a reason to keep roads and trails open. Rather, we must tell the land manager “why” it should be open, and what features the road or trail has that makes it an enjoyable recreation experience.

10: External 3 P’s: Politics, Politics, Politics

District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, Field Managers, and District Managers are the decision makers and they operate in the political arena. Their job is to “serve” the public and to try to make “balanced” decisions, but politics go a long way in determining who is served and what is balanced. Clark Collins, Blue Ribbon Coalition Founder, has a famous story about this when he was told that he wasn’t going to win an issue because he was “politically insignificant.” At the time, that was true, but that statement drove Clark into action and through the exercise of the 3 P’s became politically significant and won. It boils down to our choice: we can whine and snivel, remain insignificant, and lose. Or, we can keep our eyes on the prize, take charge, become significant, and win.

Tool Tip:
WE MUST ENTER THE POLITICAL ARENA. When the staff at BRC was preparing our Member Handbook, Clark Collins, BRC’s Founder came into our office and closed the door behind him. (Whenever Clark Collins closes the door behind him, you know something important is about to be said.)
Collins told us:
“The single most important thing to do during a planning process is to establish a close working relationship with the local staff of your elected representatives. Those relationships can influence the process and will help you keep roads and trails open.”

Tool Tip:
There’s an old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows and it’s true. This is a game of politics. We may have philosophical differences that will never be resolved, but NEVER alienate anybody- even the wilderness advocate. You and the equestrian or you and the mountain biker may be working shoulder to shoulder on the next issue. Elected officials at all levels like to see compromise and consensus among competing interests. It makes their job easier and produces more favorable outcomes.

11: Internal 3 P’s: Patience, Persistence, Pressure

We don’t become politically significant overnight. We don’t always win. The land use battles never stop. There can be a high level of frustration, and these planning processes can take years to complete. But again, if we don’t have these 3 P’s, we’re not committed and we’re not in the game.

Tool Tip:
We all have a comfort zone where we feel warm, fuzzy, and safe, but at some point, we have to force ourselves out of that comfort zone and take action. How much are we willing to lose? Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Who else is going to do it? We must start now!

Outdoor Recreational Spending Dominated by Motorized Usage – Conclusions of Dept. of Commerce Research

Contact: Scott Jones, Esq.
Telephone: 518-281-5810
Email: Scott.jones46@yahoo.com
Website www.cohvco.org & www.coloradotpa.org

Department of Commerce research commissioned by Secretary of Interior Sally Jewel to determine the value of outdoor recreation as part of the Gross Domestic Product was released today.  The research identified that outdoor recreation accounted for 2% of the GDP or more than $371 Billion in spending annually and that this value was steadily increasing from 2012 to 2016.

This research further concluded that motorized spending was the dominant portion of spending for recreational activity, and almost exceeded all other spending sources combined. This research provides the following breakdown of the total recreational spending:

“COHVCO/TPA representatives were always aware of the strong relationship motorized recreation played in outdoor recreation but even we were surprised at the values established in the Department of Commerce Research.  This is welcome information and will be very helpful in undertaking land management decisions on public lands moving forward and confirmed what many in the industry had believed for many years” said Don Riggle, TPA President.   “Additionally, this information will be very helpful for communities that are targeting recreational activity to replace tax revenue that has been lost when other industries have moved out of the communities”

“COHVCO/TPA believes this is valuable information for the OHV community, members, and industry and expands on the conclusions of the 2014 COHVCO OHV Economic Contribution study for Colorado.   A formal study conducted by the Department of Commerce solidifies the economic significance of motorized recreation and the importance of keeping public and private lands open for access.” Said COHVCO Executive Director Gerald Abboud.

A complete version of the Department of Commerce research is available here: https://bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/orsa/2018/pdf/orsa0218.pdf

# # #

If you would like more information about this topic, please contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 518-281-5810 or email at Scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Statewide Stewardship Initiative Letter of Concern

Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado
Att: Dean Winstanley & Jason Bertolacci
600 South Marion Parkway
Denver, CO 80209

Dear Dean and Jason;

We wanted to follow up with you after our phone call last month regarding the scope of the Statewide Stewardship initiative that VOC is currently conducting. The Organizations welcome the discussion on how to expand the effectiveness of Stewardship efforts in Colorado and believe this project is well timed in relation to the passage of the National Trails Stewardship Act and Sustainable Trails guidance by the USFS. We feel compelled to further address an issue that was only briefly addressed in the call and has been excluded from the scope of the questionnaire despite being well within the scope of the project. Mainly this issue is the importance of the voluntary self-tax that both the summer and winter motorized community of Colorado placed on itself more than 40 years ago. This program transformed the volunteer efforts of the motorized community and changed the traditional paradigm of 10% of volunteers doing 90% of the work to 100% of the users being able to support the 10% of volunteers doing the work. That is a fundamental change to how volunteer stewardship is performed.

The CPW grant program and dedicated funding that resulted from this voluntary self-tax have proven to be a cornerstone to upscaling the effectiveness of volunteers in the motorized community throughout the State and this program has become a national model for maintenance and support of public lands throughout the country. In Colorado, approximately 85% of trail mileage is located on federal public lands and this volunteer tax program has been integral to maintaining these opportunities in partnership with what has been consistently identified as one of the largest sources of volunteer labor in the state.

As a result of the voluntary motorized funding sources brought to bear decades ago, a hybrid program for volunteers has developed that matches the efforts of volunteers with trained and certified staff that are funded through the OHV program and related grants. This volunteer funding has resulted in the State of Colorado having stewardship resources that are unheard of nationally. The USFS Sustainable trails initiative highlighted the precedent-setting impacts that have resulted from the voluntary tax imposed by the motorized community as follows:

“A generation ago, nearly every ranger district had its own trail crew, but that is no longer the case. The Forest Service will overcome a significant reduction in field staff by moving from a model of “doing it all” to a model of shared stewardship in order to achieve mutual goals and receive shared benefits.”

As a result of these self-taxes that were voluntarily imposed by the motorized users more than 40 years ago, most Ranger Districts in Colorado have a well-equipped trail crew and many districts have two trail crews, one to address summer routes and one to address winter maintenance issues. These benefits are not merely government programs but the direct result of stewardship in the motorized community moving beyond merely relying on volunteer labor for projects. While these voluntary self-tax programs of the motorized community are game changers, they also fall well short of maintaining at levels necessary

When your website was investigated for more information on the Stewardship Initiative, the following goals and objectives were stated:

“Outdoor volunteerism and volunteer stewardship organizations provide an important source of support in maintaining recreational land use, rehabilitating areas damaged by floods and fire, educating the public about natural resources, and cultivating leaders who care for public lands, but barriers exist. The quality, scalability, and impact are hampered by lack of coordination, inconsistent work practices and trust gaps between organizations and land managers.

• Land managers lack the capacity to train and deploy volunteers for vital land stewardship projects. Ibid.

• Outdoor stewardship organizations lack resources and guidance to improve volunteer training and participation at the scale needed. Ibid.

Our Goals

1. Increase the quality and quantity of statewide stewardship projects;

2. Increase the collective impact of stewardship organizations by advancing collaborative projects at scale;

3. Increase the diversity of stewardship volunteers; and,

4. Engender a stewardship ethic in Colorado’s citizens.”

The Organizations would be remiss if the similarity of these goals and objectives and the reasons that the voluntary registration program was put in place more than 40 years ago were not highlighted. These programs are not merely “agency maintenance” but the result of more than 40 years of effort and resources addressing the most effective way to upscale the volunteer efforts on the ground. This grant program has also highlighted critical pinch points within CPW for stewardship projects and was the driving force behind passage of the Stewardship Organizational immunity legislation passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2014. (SB 17-100). This program has resulted in volunteers and grant funding now being inseparably intertwined for the benefit of on the ground projects.

The Organizations believe that a few examples of how the voluntary taxes have changed the nature of volunteer stewardship on the ground will be highly enlightening and understand how the voluntary winter registration program has increased the quantity and quality of stewardship projects for winter recreation. The winter grooming program that has resulted from voluntary tax funding to the CPW program provides a compelling example of how the registration program has exponentially upscaled the effects of volunteer labor and efforts. This program has resulted in 28 pieces of professional grooming equipment maintaining more than 3,300 miles of trail throughout the state annually. While this program is the sole source of winter maintenance, often the program reduces or stops operations far too early in a heavy snow season due to a lack of funding, despite programmatic funding, volunteer support and significant donations from local communities.

In addition to the assistance provided for the purchase and operation of grooming equipment, the coordination that resulted from the grant program also assisted in the pooling of insurance costs for the local clubs through the State Snowmobile Association. The trails that result from this program every year are the pinnacle of outdoor stewardship as every year there is nothing to start with, the trails are then groomed out of the snowfall and melt away again in the spring. This level of maintenance is simply beyond the scope of possibility for most Ranger Districts in the country that don’t have a basic trail crew. The following photograph directly illustrates the force multiplication of the efforts of a single volunteer as a result of the winter grooming program.

Clearly, any volunteer effort is more effective in creating and maintaining trails with the professional grooming equipment the program now makes available vs. dragging a bed spring behind a double track snowmobile, which was the level of sophistication achieved by volunteers without the voluntary registration program. Attempting to groom the amount of snow pictured above without equipment would be functionally impossible. If the grooming program lost volunteer support or grant program funding from the state, the program would have to be massively scaled back. There is simply no credible argument to be made that this level of winter maintenance could be supported by volunteer labor alone.

The significant headway in creating a stewardship ethic for the state of Colorado that has resulted from the voluntary registration program is directly evidenced by the “Stay the Trail” program. A typical trailside “Stay the Trail” display is below:

The “Stay the Trail” program continues to receive national recognition for its education and ethics programs targeting the motorized trail users with efforts ranging from online databases of maps for riding areas throughout the state, development of ethics materials and directly supporting stewardship projects on the ground. As a result of the partnership of volunteers and funding each year STT staffs an average of 65 to 95 individual education/ outreach events. These events yield direct trail user contacts and are often conducted at popular trailheads on public lands. In 2017 over 11,000 direct user contacts were made at education and outreach events. Over 490 volunteer hours were accumulated in staffing these events. In addition to these educational opportunities, STT completes 10 to 15 individual stewardship projects on public lands. These projects range from clean-ups, maintenance, signage, infrastructure, and new construction benefiting public land users as well as agency land managers. In 2017 over 1,150 volunteer hours were accumulated in the completion of stewardship projects.

This program is another example of a hybrid program where volunteer support is leveraged with OHV grant funding resulting from the volunteer tax imposed more than 40 years ago. The OHV grant program provide funding for two full-time staff persons that develop and coordinate materials, identify locations and mobilize equipment for education of users around where to ride, when to ride and the general ethics of trail usage. Volunteers are then heavily relied on to support or advance the efforts of staff at locations and as a result far more locations can be staffed throughout the year.

Many of the motorized clubs have utilized the grant program to purchase small equipment, like chainsaw, trailers and rental of equipment. The effectiveness of volunteer labor is again leveraged by the fact that many summer orientated clubs own mechanized maintenance equipment, purchased from the competitive portion of the voluntary summer program, which often works in tandem with volunteer trail maintenance days. This mechanized equipment is simply far more effective at addressing heavier maintenance issues and can resolve larger maintenance issues in hours rather than the days it would take to address these situations with resources available to most volunteers.

As previously references the voluntary tax program has provided good management crews on most ranger districts throughout the state. These full-time seasonal crews are better trained to deal with ongoing maintenance issues or maintenance needs that are more programmatic in nature. Often these maintenance crews function at reduced costs when compared to volunteers due to the streamlined training and insurance requirements. These good management crews further leverage the value of equipment that has been purchased, either directly by the district or obtained at exceptionally low costs through partnerships with local clubs. In many locations the programmatic equipment will be used predominately by a good management crew. These maintenance crew’s benefits are further expanded by the fact they expand agency law enforcement capabilities as most crews have an Forest Protection Officer as part of the crew.

The voluntary tax program has also resulted in further benefits to all volunteers, as exemplified with the passage of SB17-100 by the Colorado Legislature last year. This piece of legislation significantly limited the possible liability to volunteers and organizations performing stewardship projects on public lands, after many clubs were no longer able to obtain cost-effective insurance for their maintenance operations. This legislation is the pinnacle of leveraging stewardship actions as with its passage every volunteer steward in the state became more effective simply due to lower insurance costs associated with their actions.

The Organizations would like to urge your consideration of the very different model of volunteer stewardship that has resulted from the voluntary passage of the OHV and snowmobile registration programs numerous decades ago as part of the VOC Stewardship efforts. Much of the experiences and transformation of motorized volunteer efforts have directly impacted many of the factors that are sought to be addressed in the study. Failing to learn from the 40 or more years of on the ground experiences in leveraging volunteer stewardship under a very different model than a purely providing labor for projects would be a tragically missed opportunity to leverage volunteers and address stewardship projects in the most effective manner moving forward.

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 .

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Scott Jones, esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vise President

Matt Balazs
Stay the Trail
Chairman of Board

Cc: BLM, USFS

1 See, USDA Forest Service, National Strategy for a sustainable trail system; December 30, 2016 at pg. 3.

Mad Rabbit Comments – Timberline Trailriders

Hahns Peak-Bears Ears Ranger District
Attn: Mad Rabbit Trails Project
925 Weiss Drive
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

Sent via email to: comments-rm-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us

Dear Sir or Madam:

Timberline Trailriders, Inc. (“Timberline”) is a local not-for-profit corporation comprised over 100 individuals and families who enjoy motorcycle trail riding, especially on federal lands. We have supported and partnered with the Hahn’s Peak District (the “District”) for over 40 years. We were one of the first clubs to receive grants from the State Trails Committee motorized trail fund and were the only club to receive Good Manager status for the OHV Trail Crew grants. To date, over $1,500,000 has been provided to the District for use on motorized multiple use trails for maintenance and trail improvement projects.

Timberline elected to not formally object to the Buffalo Pass bicycle projects as District personnel indicated that was the end of specialized planning projects primarily for bicycle users. Seeing the Mad Rabbit proposal proved that representation to be false. We strongly oppose the Mad Rabbit proposal and request that it be withdrawn immediately.

On many occasions over the last 10-15 years Timberline has requested the District engage in a travel management review of the Rabbit Ears Pass area with the goal of providing diverse recreational opportunities to the public that could be easily accessed from US Highway 40. Timberline requested that the District consider utilizing the many miles of existing logging roads to provide four and two wheeled motorized trail opportunities. The hope was to reasonably use the forest along the highway corridor to take pressure off the primary motorized recreation area north of Hahn’s Peak. It also makes sense to utilize the several large parking areas initially provided for winter snowmobiling users.

While the District purview is generally west of the Continental Divide and north of U.S.Highway 40 it was requested that the travel management review include the portions of the Parks and Yampa District in the Rabbit Ears Pass area so a complete and thorough travel management plan could be reviewed and adopted. This is the course the District should pursue instead of pursuing the wish list of a single user group.

Among our concerns about this proposal are the following:

1. The District must fully disclose the extent the City has purchased its way to the top of the District’s planning agenda. Rumor has it that the 2A funds are fully funding the lead District employee responsible for this proposal, Kent Foster. Shouldn’t the public be made aware of exactly what are the financial entanglements between the City and the District so we can judge whether the current District staff can fairly and reasonably consider planning proposals. Please shine the light of disclosure on all of the financial deals between the City and District and consider whether certain biased employees should cease involvement in planning projects due to this bias.
2. The default starting point for any review of recreational trails must be true multiple use single track which is open to hikers, horses, bicycles, e-bicycles and motorcycles. When the District starts off with a proposal that restricts trail access to one user group it fails in its purpose to be a fair and equitable land manager.
3. Lands along the highway 40 corridor are not remotely lands with wilderness characteristics or can argued to be eligible for the quiet use crowd. Truck traffic noises travel thousands of yards from the highway and should make motorized trails more than appropriate.
4. For many years the old highway was open to jeeps and motorized uses. It was closed for unknown reasons. It would seem that this old right of way would make an appropriate trail for motorized users, keeping trail traffic off the highway. Again, the default starting point on any new trail discussions should be true multiple use, including motorized users.
5. To propose a highly dense bicycle trail system goes against the preferred trail layout for our forest lands. Trails should be disbursed and consistent with the remoteness of the lands. The proposed trail system is reminiscent of the density of trails on Emerald Mountain where remoteness certainly never comes to mind.
6. It seems that once again the bicycle crowd is pushing for a majority of trails to be “gravity” or coasting trails. This user group has proven to be very poor at sharing multiple use trails. They silently blast down trails surprising other users and wildlife with no warning. They generally show no courtesy to other users creating conflict where none should exist. The most logical management decision should make bicycle traffic uphill only on these trails.
7. The trail density and predominance of gravity trails seems to resemble the Buffalo Pass planning. What the District completely ignores is the dramatic increase in car traffic to serve the bicycle users. Like river runners, gravity bikes shuttle cars to one end and when done, run cars up and down the access roads. Thus for each user, there will be many car trips up and down the access roads. And this requires large parking lots, something missing here.
8. The trail density proposed necessitates complex and expensive trailhead facilities at the top and bottom of the trail system. This includes restrooms for visitors. And an income stream to pay for maintenance and restroom servicing. The City funds will soon expire and there is no fund that can reasonably be expected to cover these costs.
9. Proposing a dense trail system in roadless areas and in areas where motorized use in prohibited under the Forest Plan where the District knows that a growing percentage of bicycle users are using some sort of electric assist is a fraud on the planning process. Any electric motor moves a bicycle to a motorized vehicle making their use limited to trails open to motorized vehicles. The District must show that it is enforcing the applicable rules. This should include appropriate signage and in the case of high density bicycle areas, such as proposed or as Buffalo Pass, the plans should include a daily patrol to enforce rules. This could easily cost over $100,000 per year, funds which are not available or proposed.
10. Gravity users also tend to bring materials onto the Forest to create jumps and other amusement park like features. Clearing of these trespassers by a regular maintenance crew should be required and a funding stream provided
11. Creating another bicycle “amusement park” should also address the ability of ambulanceor search and rescue to reasonable access the trail system for prompt extrication of injured riders. This does not seem to be addressed.
12. Our sick and dying forest results in trees regularly falling all year long. To maintain a safe and reasonable trail system, the proponents should provide adequate funding for maintenance. Motorized users have a proven track record of funding maintenance on motorized trails, while the bicycle and other non- motorized users have not. The answer is to limit new trails to those open to motorized use and thereby the motorized trail crews.
13. A high density gravity oriented trail system requires large parking areas, restrooms, patrols and the prohibition of other users traditionally allowed on bicycle trails. It seems that the gravity already have such an area and it’s in place and operating – The Steamboat Ski Area. Gravity use should be limited there and not encroach on other portions of the Forest.
14. Again, a highly dense trail system for primarily bicycles will result in the clearing out of wildlife in the area. Bicycles are one of the most frightening things to wildlife based primarily on their stealthy and rapid approach. A dense system will result in regular disruptions to wildlife as against a disbursed trail system which would only intermittently disturb wildlife.
15. The proposal should also include seasonal closures to protect wildlife and provide hunters the historical access and success they traditionally have enjoyed.
16. Given the growing popularity of winter mountain bike use, the proposal should also consider winter travel and as stated above consideration of ebikes on nonmotorized trails.
17. Given that the District does not control planning in the Yampa and Parks Districts, the proposal is also fraudulent in implying trails south of US 40 or east of the continental divide will ever be approved.
18. You claim your proposal incorporates suggestions submitted by users at the Charrette and otherwise. We attach what we submitted shortly after the Charrette held in 2014 and would ask why the bulk of our suggestions for the Rabbit Ears Pass area were ignored?
19. We incorporate by reference the comments jointly submitted by the Trails Preservation Alliance, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Association and the Colorado Snowmobile Association.

Please withdraw this poorly thought out and biased proposal and after reasonable diligence proceed with a travel management study along both sides of the U.S. Highway 40 corridor on Rabbit Ears Pass. All Forest users deserve to have their chosen uses considered and incorporated in any District plan proposals. A paid for single user proposal is an affront to non-biased land use planning.

Sincerely,

Timberline Trailriders, Inc.
Robert H. Stickler, President

 Future Generations Act

Senate Finance Committee
200 East Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Future Generations Act  SB18-143

Dear Committee Members:

The above Organizations are contacting your Offices’ to voice our Organizations vigorous support for the Future Generations Act (SB18-143). Prior to addressing the specific reasons for our vigorous support, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members 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 currently has 2,500 members. 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.

Our Organizations vigorously support the Future Generations Act , as SB18-143 would:

1. CPW is a recognized national leader in providing sustainable recreational opportunities both through the State Parks and grants to partners like the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management;
2. CPW has a long partnership of working with our Organizations on a wide variety of issues and we value this collaborative spirit and believe it is a highly effective model for management moving forward;
3. CPW is a recognized leader in wildlife management and research, which has proven invaluable in addressing recreational related issues such as the recent potential listing of the Greater Sage Grouse, and management of species such as the Canadian Lynx and Wolverine; and
4. The success of these efforts has always rested on a strong financial foundation for CPW and the Future Generations Act would provide such a foundation moving forward as current funding is badly in need of expansion.

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 Gerald Abboud at 13670 Cherry Way, Thornton CO 80602 and his email is g.abboud@comcast.net

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA Representative; CSA President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Gerald Abboud
COHVCO Executive Director and President

USFS Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District
Att: Mad Rabbit Trails Project
925 Weiss Road
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

Re: Mad Rabbit Proposal

Dear Mr. Foster;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above referenced Organizations opposing the Mad Rabbit Trails Project, hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. The Organizations voicing support for Other Alternatives, mainly moving forward under the direction that was created after the trails charrette and working towards a master plan for the Steamboat Basin. The Organizations are frustrated to have to oppose both Alternative A and Alternative B for the project but our efforts to engage interested parties regarding our concerns around the projects throughout the Steamboat Springs basin since the passage of the lodging tax have simply never moved. We have provided extensive comments around City efforts, around the trails charrette and around the Buffalo Pass Trails project, which really have never significantly changed the direction of the Wishlist of trails that is currently driving discussions on the HPBE. The Organizations vigorously request that the consensus position arrived at in the charrette, mainly that the next step would be a masterplan for the Steamboat Area, be moved forward. The motorized community has stepped up with $100,000 in grant funding to facilitate this project and do date there has been no action on this Proposal.

The Organizations are aware that this trail proposal is part of a much larger proposal from the mountain bike community in Steamboat Springs, which has already been the basis of several public meetings and what has become an exploding conflict of users in the steamboat basin. The Organizations submitted extensive comments on this proposal in response to public meetings held by the USFS last August, which were heavily attended by a wide range of multiple users expressing concerns very similar to those in these comments and previous ones submitted in response to that meeting. These comments and concerns remain highly relevant to the Mad Rabbit Project, as there were many foundational flaws in the analysis of the landscape level analysis, which weigh heavily against single use trails in the Mad Rabbit project, such as the complete failure to address the ongoing need for basic maintenance of existing facilities. The Organizations are not aware of any timing limitations, other than with the motorized funding that is not moving, and as a result must assert that meaningfully planning these projects will not have anyone other than those seeking to move under an accelerated schedule. Creating new trails that simply cannot be maintained in the long run simply makes no sense to the Organizations and may put decades of effort and partnership at risk in the Steamboat basin.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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. For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

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 efforts 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 interests 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. It is unfortunate that similar collaborative efforts have not been displayed in more projects throughout the State, such as the passage of the lodging tax and related implementation that has been a driving force in this discussion. The Organizations submit that if such an open and collaborative effort had been pursued much earlier in this process, USFS staff would not been in the situation we are now facing. Even after the groups came together in the charrette efforts, certain uses still simply refuse to move forward in the collaborative efforts everyone agreed to in the charrette.

The Organizations expected the Steamboat efforts to develop into another successful collaboration, but that expectation appears to be at risk for reasons that remain unclear. Rather than pursuing true collaboration, 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 benefits to 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. 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 HPBE 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 are 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. In addition to 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.

While the State Trails Program is the largest funding source in the state, the Organizations can say with absolute certainty, that this Program simply does not go far enough in terms of maintenance even with the motorized community funding. The Organizations are also intimately familiar with the limited benefit that change be achieved with the revenue from the Steamboat lodging tax. It can be game changing if applied in an exclusionary manner providing benefits for a small community but will make a very small impact if seeking to benefit a larger community or seek to offset the ever declining budget situation of the USFS managers in the Steamboat area.

Because the State Program is the primary source of funding for trails projects, the Trails Committee is also uniquely situated to identify the failures of trail construction expectations as often the first place that is asked to address these funding shortfalls and failures in projections for long term sustainability is the State Trails Committee and Program. A cornerstone of this whole project is that when additional funding was provided from new sources that those funding sources would be guided towards assisting in maintenance efforts rather than directed towards building new trail that simply cannot be maintained in the long run. This is a major concern for the Organizations as when these maintenance shortfalls become apparent the limited resources of the agency are redirected to address these maintenance shortfalls, and in the end stretches the limited funds even further. As noted elsewhere in these comments, these types of maintenance and long term sustainability failures are becoming systemic with mountain bike trails that have been expanded in the last decade.

1c. What we do on Colorado portions of MBRNF.

The Organizations believe it is highly valuable to clearly identify the significant benefits that accrue to all trails users on the Medicine Bow Routt National Forest as a result of the collaborative efforts of the motorized community with USFS management. The partnership results in almost $1 million a year throughout the year for the benefit of all recreational users on the MBRNF. These efforts are highlighted by:

1. 3 good management crews are currently in place on the MBRNF, each of which are funded at levels comparable to the total revenue of the Steamboat lodging tax revenue:
   1. HPBE GM crew has been in place for more than a decade and directly resulted in more than $1.5 million in funding alone;
   2. Parks District GM Crew;
   3. Statewide Heavy Crew out of Grand Lake funded at twice the levels of Ranger District based crews;
2. 3 winter grooming operations – Rout, North Park and Steamboat Lake programs which support hundreds of miles of groomed routes on the District that are open to everyone free of charge;
3. Extensive direct funding for projects- such as strategic planning grant on HPBE of more than $100,000 to supplement local funding identified at the charrette, purchase of mini- excavators, rock-breakers, motorcycles and trailers to make other grant funding needs of crews and volunteers.

The Organizations have embraced the maintenance needs of the land managers, and been consistently informed that this was the most effective way to keep trails open on any planning USFS unit. The Organizations are also aware that the CPW funding is leveraged by USFS funding that is available to allow for the support of trails crews that are simply not even a topic of discussion in most other locations in the country. When other trails projects fail, the USFS portion of funding for trails crews is put at risk of loss or reallocation to address these types of project specific failures and that is not acceptable to the Organizations as it reduces the leverage available for the proven programs on the ground. The Organizations would also note that the vigor and zealous levels of interest around projects like Buff Pass and Mad Rabbit Mtn. bike trails has placed a large amount of stress on the partners in the CPW program. Since this new interest, good management crew grant funding is not being accounted for in a timely manner, planning efforts have stalled and equipment purchases have not been completed or utilized. While we are not sure of the exact basis of this changes, the organizations would note putting almost $1 million in funding at risk to obtain $100,000 is simply not rational or good management.

It should be noted that if all revenue from the Steamboat Lodging tax was applied for the benefit of all users, it might be able to cover the funding for only one additional maintenance crew on the MBRNF. While the Organizations have embraced the basic need for maintenance funding assistance with the USFS, this effort is not unlimited and has always focused on the concept of the “rising tide floating all boats”. USFS managers can play a critical role in the success of this concept by informing the public of the partnership and asking all groups to perform under the same expectations.

The Organizations must vigorously assert that any planning foundation that expects current maintenance efforts to continue without new construction of routes for motorized is opposed by the motorized community. ANY new funding must address the basic lack of maintenance funding for maintaining access before addressing an expansion of a trail network for the benefit of a single small user group and this continues to be a significant point of contention with the current discussions. The situation where the motorized community would not be able to build trails, despite maintaining roads and trails used to access the area, while other users are allowed to build trails without addressing the basic maintenance of routes and trailheads used to access those trails is simply and foundationally unacceptable to the motorized community.

2a. Basic direction of the Proposal directly conflicts with National Forest Service Strategy for Sustainable Trails.

As the Organizations have noted above, significant volunteer efforts and direct funding of USFS funding have been directed towards the basic sustainability of the motorized portions of the trail network throughout the state of Colorado. Again, the Organizations must stress that every mile of route maintained is available to ALL types of usages. The need for expansion of this model of management and sustainability was highlighted in 2016 when the USFS issued the US Forest Service National Strategy for sustainable trails system, which expanded the model that has been so successful in Colorado as national programmatic goals and objects for trails management moving forward.

This strategy highlights the basic need to form maintenance and sustainability partnerships with the following reasoning as follows:

“Achieving a sustainable trail system presents several challenges. With limited funding, compounded by the rising cost of wildfire operations and the associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in nonfire personnel, the Forest Service faces a lack of capacity for managing trails on the ground and for building partnership synergies within the trails community.”1

The Sustainable Trail initiative continues on how the challenges faced by the Agency as a result of the declines in budgets as follows:

“A generation ago, nearly every ranger district had its own trail crew, but that is no longer the case. The Forest Service will overcome a significant reduction in field staff by moving from a model of “doing it all” to a model of shared stewardship in order to achieve mutual goals and receive shared benefits.”2

Colorado can vigorously stand as a complete variation from this norm, as almost every ranger district has a motorized trails crew as a result of the OHV program. While not every Ranger District has a trails crew funded by the CPW Grant program, there are three of these crews on the MBRNF. The Organizations must ask why other groups are not seeking to level these relationships and experiences?

The critical need to lead partners on the need for sustainable trails and recreational opportunities is also highlighted in the USFS Sustainable Trails efforts as follows:

“Sustainable Change: Leader-led change is often initiated with a high level of impact that may wane over time. Grassroots-led change often grows slowly, yet must be adopted by leadership to achieve lasting results. Sustainable change is cultivated where leader intent meets grassroots initiative and both are infused with regular feedback and support.”3

It is interesting to note that the high levels of impacts may result from USFS efforts to instill this type of grassroots model for recreation trails is specifically identified in the 2016 but for reasons these impacts have often been simply avoided, sparing applied and then avoided again after perceived impacts were expressed. While the Organizations were not included in development of the original Steamboat Trails Alliance Wishlist for trails, it is clear from reviewing this Proposal that either this issue was not raised at all or was completely ignored by the creators of the Proposal. There was some discussion of these types of goals and objectives around the charrette and need for a landscape level plan for the Steamboat Basin, these goals have waned and again we are forced to deal with the Wishlist without a landscape level plan and without realistic discussion of the need for these goals and objectives.

The Sustainable trails initiative further highlights the seven core values of the partnerships

“Core Values
At the Forest Service, we are embracing seven core values and invite our partners, volunteers, and friends to join us in adopting these values to guide our collective efforts. By adopting the following core values, we lay the foundation together for making sustainable trail systems a priority and ensuring pathways to public lands remain—for all people, for many generations to come.

Safety—We value the safety of trail users, volunteers, partners, and employees and are dedicated to performing our work safely and providing safe trail opportunities for all.

Sustainability—We value the land and will steward a trail system that is relevant to a changing society, is ecologically viable, and that can be sustained by current and potential partner, volunteer, and agency resources.

Commitment—We value the strong traditions, skills, and dedication of our partner, volunteer, and employee workforce and will foster continued growth through training and leadership opportunities.

Access—We value the ability of everyone to connect to the outdoors and are committed to providing quality access through a variety of trail settings and opportunities.

Inclusion—We value everyone—trail users, partners, volunteers, employees, and friends, regardless of age, ability, or cultural background.

Communication—We value the exchange of information that is up-to-date, accurate, widely available in multiple formats, and relevant to both trail users and those involved in sustainable trail planning, design, and maintenance.

Relationships—We value collaborative relationships and are committed to working across jurisdictional and cultural boundaries to maximize diverse skillsets and generate innovative approaches.”

With the passage of the National Trail System Stewardship Act in 2016, Congress memorialized many of the goals and objectives of the USFS Sustainable Trails Strategy into law. As a result not only is some of the foundational decision making troubling the Organizations around the Proposal a violation of the USFS Strategy it is also a violation of federal law.

While the Organizations have strived to achieve these common values and goals of the National Policy well before the National Policy was formalized, many other groups have not been as proactive. The Organizations would note that these issues were raised several years ago with the Buffalo Pass portions of the Proposal, these basic foundational conflicts have become more apparent with the Mad Rabbit portions of the Proposal. The Organizations must question why the National Policy has not been raised in these planning efforts by the district. That has highly frustrated the Organizations as we are now being forced to address these National Goals and Objectives of the Agency alone.

2c. Why we are concerned about this Proposal.

As the Organizations have noted above, the motorized community due to the institutionalization of maintenance funding is uniquely situated to identify the rock star trail builders/maintainers in the state and those that are falling well behind any maintenance obligations for trail networks. From this location, a systemic failure to understand the basic needs of the trails community regarding the ongoing maintenance needs from certain user groups has resulted in the collapse of some trail networks in the state already. Mainly this has resulted from situations were users have pledged to support trail expansions, managers are then subjected to intense public pressure to build the trail network and then users are unable to provide basic maintenance, seasonal closure resources and educational materials as pledged. A few examples of these collapses are exemplified by the following projects:

1. Shavano to Gateway Project – City of Montrose is now being brought in to manage an area previously expanded and maintained by users after there was a complete failure of seasonal closures and basic maintenance;
2. Several trail expansion projects in the Grand Valley area where a failure of maintenance in the area was identified in the recently released RMP but users continue to push for expansions of routes after local communities have pledged maintenance resources;
3. Steamboat City Park System maintenance – Another situation where an expanded trail network has been developed and then users are failing to maintain that system.

In addition to the direct request for funding to the State Trails Program, other indications are often noted and concerning around the long term sustainability of any trail program.

1. City of Steamboat Fish Creek Underpass grant – the City of Steamboat sought funding for a safe connector of their greenway trail in the center of town to connect routes that have been targeted for an extended period of time
2. Maintenance grant from HPBE RD – identifies the critical shortfall that already exists on routes outside those maintained by the motorized crews

With the scale of projects competing for funding, the Organizations must question the basic foundation of the lodging tax program in terms of direction. This concern would be manifested by an erosion of public support for trails on USFS lands and seeking to apply the limited funding available to other priorities.

Whatever the Rabbit Ears Pass portion of the project looks like when completed, it will need basic maintenance for the foreseeable future and insuring that is funded by the users supporting that project is critical to insuring that limited Forest Service funds are not directed away from the current maintenance backlog to address new trails used by a small portion of the trails community. There will need to be trees cut off trails, users educated about route locations and the need to stay on the trail, seasonal gates installed and used that will remain ongoing.

The Organizations believe a brief discussion regarding the hazard tree situation on the district highlights the need for an expansion of basic maintenance efforts with partners. The following pictures represent daily situations where trees have fallen across designated routes and have fallen in a location that creates a basic safety concern for the public. Situations like this must be resolved in a timely manner to avoid safety concerns for trails users and insure that the public does not reroute the trail footprint to continue use of these routes.

It has been the Organizations experience that this is the type of basic maintenance that can only be effectively done with a dedicated crew in a timely manner, despite a large number of these issues being simply addressed by the public when encountered. Often these issues are simply removed by a maintenance crew that is using the trail to get to a larger worksite. While probably entirely unnecessary to state, these maintenance issues are entirely unrelated to the trail design and layout as trees are going to fall for decades no matter how the trails are laid out.

While informal partner groups might be able to address smaller hazard tree related issues, as a result of the poor forest health on the district trails and routes are now being subjected to major blowdown events that involve hundreds of trees over an extended length of trail. In the picture below, the designated route runs directly through the center of the blowdown.

The Organizations are intimately aware that resolving blowdown situations such as those above can take a professional crew utilizing modern equipment weeks to resolve. Any assertion that an informal maintenance program can deal with challenges of this scale simply lacks factual basis and should not be overlooked in a rush of public interest to build trails. The Organizations submit that failure to address the growing scale of maintenance needs will result in limited USFS resources being drawn away from existing maintenance crew efforts that we know are still not going far enough on existing trails.

3a. Expanded usage of landscape level planning is required under the 2012 USFS planning rule.

 The Organizations again believe there is a large amount of value in comparing the basic direction of the current planning efforts to the USFS national planning rules that were updated in 2012, as these new planning rules directly and clearly identify the benefits of landscape planning and that such landscape planning efforts should be relied on to streamline issues on a broader level. The USFS planning rule clearly establishes that these broader level opportunities must be included in and balanced in any localized planning determinations. Section 219.6 of the new planning rule specifically states as follows:

“§ 219.6 Assessments. Assessments may range from narrow in scope to comprehensive, depending on the issue or set of issues to be evaluated, and should consider relevant ecological, economic, and social conditions, trends, and sustainability within the context of the broader landscape.”

The Organizations submit that a broader landscape level review of the Proposal and high levels of opportunities provided for the mountain bike community in the region must be reviewed to insure a balance of usage both now and in the future, protection of resources and basic sustainability. The Organizations are very concerned that much of the Proposal is completely unsustainable and is exceeding much of the guidance and planning standards, such as route density, endangered plant habitats and other issues that are in the planning area. The Organizations simply are uncomfortable in moving forward with any proposal without addressing the myriad of issues that impact trail construction at the landscape level.

3b. The Organizations are puzzled and frustrated by the sudden change in direction of the project away from the master planning efforts that resulted from the charrette.

 The Organizations have been actively involved in all phases of public participation around the entire Steamboat Trails Discussion with the USFS and were actively involved in the Trails Charette in 2014, Buffalo Pass Trail expansion and now the Mad Rabbit Proposal. Our concerns have been very reasonable around these projects, such as the need for a master plan around the Steamboat basin and how are maintenance issues being address but these types of issues appear not to be a priority in discussions. This is highly frustrating as many issues and concerns appear to have been removed from discussion for reasons that are unclear rather than a reasoned approach to expanding public access on the Steamboat Basin area, and right now planning appears to be more of a wish list for a single user group with a high level of artificial urgency added to the discussion than a reasoned planning effort.

The Organizations would note there were high levels of interests from a wide range of users and interests at the meeting and participation included local wildlife staff with CPW, summer motorized users, winter motorized users, local businesses, mechanized users, hikers, skiers and many members of the steamboat community that were merely interested in the discussion. After the charrette, it was clear there was more work and analysis on the entire area to be performed than could ever be achieved in a single night meeting. As a result the Organizations submitted extensive comments in relation to the charrette and also around the Buffalo Pass Trail expansion that was undertaken subsequently. At the charrette, it was clear this portion of the Proposal was further ahead than any other portions of the Proposal and it would be moving forward before the master plan was developed.

Our take away from the charrette after extensive discussions with the USFS staff was wide- ranging planning was needed to address all concerns that were raised at the charrette and immediately our Organizations moved forward with assisting in that effort and have secured $50,000 in funding from the CPW OHV grant program in 2015 to facilitate these meetings and planning efforts. This grant was funded and enjoyed a wide range of support from many of the communities and interests that participated in the Charette, as represented by the letters of support from the City of Steamboat Springs; the Trail Preservation Alliance; the Rout County Riders; Biketown USA and the USFS staff. In addition to the original $50,00 planning grant the motorized community has again moved forward with obtaining another $50,000 to complete the process for completion of the wide ranging planning efforts that were needed.

During the time for the development of this grant and master plan, the project roadmap for the Master Plan was targeted for completion by the HPBE staff during 2018 on the SOPA under project # 51564. Additionally, the Mad Rabbit Project was added to the SOPA for the HPBE with a targeted completion date in later 2019 under project # 50917. Clearly, the vision of the charrette had been carried forward with this basic schedule as reflected on the SOPA and the Organizations are intimately aware that projects often move slowly within the USFS and with these timeframes in the SOPA, this was a fast-tracked project within the agency. As the Organizations had collaborated on numerous projects throughout the Region 2 planning area, and had been told that trails development was going to be a collaborative process to address the wide range of concerns raised at the charrette, the Organizations periodically checked in with USFS staff and often the response was the resources were not available to move forward with planning despite funding for the project.

There was no indication that other projects were moving outside the trails master plan process that had been outlined in the charrette and subsequent discussions until the Mad Rabbit Proposal was released for public comment more than 2 years before the end date for the project. We are aware that this decision by a single user group to move outside the consensus process from the charrette as resulted in a huge amount of frustration of other partners and unnecessary conflict between the parties.

3c. Why a master plan is badly needed.

 The Organizations must question why the decision has been made to move away from the consensus position that resulted from the charrette, mainly that a master plan for all usage was needed for the Steamboat basin. In this portion of the comments, the Organizations would like to highlight some of the concerns we have around the process to date, and clarify that this list is by no means exhaustive. The Organizations submit this type of an exhaustive list does not exist currently with anyone and this should be a basis for significant concern for USFS staff moving forward. If you don’t know what the concerns are in an area how can they ever be avoided or effectively addressed in any planning efforts.

The Organizations believe a master plan could address local issues that have appeared since the expansion of the buffalo pass area, such as the “toilet paper flowers” that are becoming somewhat common in the area and other areas where usage has increased. The Organizations believe turning a blind eye to these types of issues simply does not make sense. The Organizations believe that addressing this lack of restrooms and how to maintain them on Buffalo Pass is a valid question and evidences an issue that will immediately become more apparent if access off Highway is expanded. The toilet paper flowers will immediately become a large problem if basic issues like this are not meaningfully addressed.

The Organizations would also note that a master plan for the Steamboat area would be a MAJOR step forward in the legal defensibility of the decision-making process should there be a legal challenge to any site-specific proposal. Again, our concerns are not abstract on this issue as the Pike /San Isabel National Forest is in exactly this type of situation currently, where the lack of a master plan has resulted in a large number of localized plans being developed to address site specific issues. While these localized plans, many have nothing to do with motorized access, were very effective in dealing with the local issue, the cumulative impacts of these plans were never reviewed and as a result the PSI was sued by the Wilderness Society and others. In order to preserve motorized access, the Organizations were forced to intervene, which cost thousands of dollars from the Organizations and also after settlement has resulted in almost every site-specific project being stopped for a period of time that remains unclear. This is a fact pattern that the Organizations would very much like to avoid in the future.

3(c)(1). Someone needs to explain why maintenance is not a priority.

As more specifically addressed previously, there needs to be a master plan created to needs to meaningfully address why certain user groups are expected to provide maintenance with at most minimal expansions of opportunities and other groups with significantly less funding are moving forward with major expansions without addressing basic maintenance of all routes. In addition to addressing this type of basic equity type concern in the Steamboat Basin, there are numerous formal planning requirements that must be addressed as well.

3(c)(2). Winter Conflicts on Rabbit Ears before expansion

 Our first concern substantiating the critical need for a master plan involves the veritable explosion of user conflicts that have resulted from the passage of the Steamboat Springs lodging tax and the rapid expansion of these conflicts moving forward. Rather than the tax being a welcome funding source that benefitted all users of recreational opportunities, the additional funding has become exceptionally divisive tool used without regard to existing partnerships to advance the concerns of a small user group. New partnerships should not be this divisive. This is exemplified by conflicts between non-motorized users on Emerald Mountain area west of Steamboat, significant increases in winter conflicts on Rabbit Ears involving mountain bike usage on groomed cross-country ski trails, conflicts around high intensity expansion of usage in other areas of the HPBE. It is unfortunate that development of this new funding source has resulted in an explosion of user conflicts in an area that prior to this new funding source was an area where users basically all worked together. From the motorized perspective we are concerned that this conflict has resulted in the motorized community getting sucked into conflicts that really have little to do with motorized access or when concerns are raised other interests immediately jump in ideological trenches and commence warfare.

Already winter issues with expanded mountain bike usage on Rabbit Ears have raised concerns about the need for effective closures of any new routes on Rabbit Ears during the winter in order to avoid conflicts between the snowmobile community and cross country ski community reigniting. Fat tire bicycles have been attempted to be used on groomed cross country ski routes prior to expansion of the summer route network in this area, which we are aware resulted in an immediate response from the ski community due to the damage that resulted to the cross country ski routes. If our concerns regarding pressure from fat tire bicycles can be resolved the snowmobile community as no concerns with usage of existing groomed winter routes in the area is funding for this expanded activity can be obtained. It is completely unacceptable to the snowmobile community that Rabbit Ears pass might be reopened for further division of the pass to provide a separate winter recreational opportunity for a third user group. This is the exact type of management issue that those seeking to expand access on Rabbit Ears have continued to avoid addressing.

3(c)(3). Conflicts with existing site specific planning are extensive and must be resolved prior to implementation of any new construction.

The Organizations must note the direct conflict of many portions of the Proposal with recently completed planning efforts in the HPBE Ranger District, such as the Rabbit Ears Parking facilities revisions. The Organizations believe the Rabbit Ears Parking revisions evidence the scope of partnerships that are currently on the ground in the HPBE, as three counties, snowmobilers, skiers, local businesses and many others came together to collaboratively address parking issues that have plagued the pass for decades. The Environmental Assessment for the project identifies more than 4 pages of interest groups that were involved in discussions around the parking project. 4 While this parking effort was seen as a predominately winter related issue but provides significant benefits to summer recreational access as well. The basis for closure of many of the roadside informal parking lots was clearly stated by Colorado Department of Transportation as follows:

“While developing the proposed action, external scoping with the Colorado Department of Transportation identified a need to relocate other parking areas away from the highway for public safety, separating recreation traffic from highway traffic. They also made recommendations for closing/relocating several parking areas.”5

Issues such as this are deeply perplexing to the Organizations as the public comment process on the revision of parking facilities on Rabbit Ears Pass has been the subject of ongoing public comment process since 2012 and has been addressed as an issue to be resolved under the existing Resource Management Plan. After a cursory review of these documents, the Organizations are not able to identify any comments that are raising the possible usage of facilities to be closed as the base of new trails for the mountain biking community.

The Organizations are concerned about possible future negative impacts to existing partnerships that resulted from the Rabbit Ears Parking project that could result from this Project, such as CDOT support and partnership in the maintenance of the new parking lots on Rabbit Ears. This is a critical component of the basic operation of this area, as the USFS does not have the resources to maintain these lots in the winter and the motorized community would like to direct as much funding as possible to grooming and avoid purchasing more equipment to maintain these lots as our grooming never seems to go far enough now. The Organizations must question any assertion of continued partnership strength with CDOT after the 2012 Rabbit Ears Parking is reversed as the end result that CDOT concerns are now in a worse position in terms of being addressed than before planning was undertaken. The Organizations are also very concerned regarding the validity of any position that could be taken asserting that these parking lots, which had basic safety concerns with 2010 levels of usage, could ever provide basic safety after significant expansions of opportunities at these locations. These are the types of issues that can only be addressed in landscape level planning and meaningfully addressing all concerns.

The Organizations would also note that many of the loop trails in the Proposal on the Rabbit Ears Pass are based on parking areas that are to be closed and or consolidated, such as the West Summit Parking lot. The conflict between these recently completed NEPA planning documents and the current version of the Proposal are reflected the future of the West Summit Parking lot as follows:

6

The Organizations would note that several trails in the Proposal rely on this parking lot and several others to be closed under the Rabbit Ears Parking EA as the access point for expansive new trail systems. The Organizations would note that the West Summit lot would be poorly suited to sustain any significant visitation to the trail network proposed, even if it was not being closed. Under that parking proposal, the West Summit is to be replaced by parking at NSF 296 due to the inability of the facilities to safely support existing recreational usage.

The basic safety of these lots will become a more problematic concern with the development of what appears to be “gravity biking”(riding down the hill and meeting a motor vehicle to return you to the top of the hill several times a day) loops on Rabbit Ears. The facilitation of these gravity biking loops will result in huge increases in the visitation to these lots and that will result in major safety concerns due to limited visibility for many of these lots, which was already addressed in the Rabbit Ears Parking project that was only recently completed. The Organizations must question why after the success of the Rabbit Ears project in increasing safety for those using opportunities on the pass for recreation and motorists merely using Highway 40 for transportation would projects be moving forward that would degrade the safety increases on the pass that have only been so recently achieved.

This is an issue that has been raised by the motorized community since discussions started on the expansion of usage on Buff/Rabbit Ears and we have never heard a response from the bicycle community. This has been highly frustrating to all in the motorized community and in discussions with other partners in this project, similar frustrations appear to be VERY common. Everyone involved directed significant time and resources into a collaborative process we thought came to a great resolution of these concerns and are now being asked to reopen these discussions to benefit a user group that failed to participate in the original discussions. Simply not acceptable.

3(c)(4) Colorado Roadless area issues must be addressed at the landscape level.

Another area of concern involves the high levels of trail development proposed in the Mad Creek Colorado Roadless area on the north side of the Route 40 area. While these comments are directed towards the site-specific portions of the discussion, these types of concerns are also highly relevant to our concerns around the need for landscape level planning.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule and the related clarity that trails could be built in a Colorado Roadless area in a low intensity dispersed manner. Never in the Organizations wildest did the Organizations envision tail construction at the density and intensity proposed. This is concerning as the Colorado Roadless Rule was intended to provide a dispersed trail experience and not a high intensity development opportunity like that sought in the Proposal and the Organizations question if the two proposals can ever be reconciled. The Organizations are intimately aware that the Colorado Roadless Rule was designed to avoid development of proposals similar to the Mad Rabbit in order to continue to provide a dispersed backcountry type experience. The conflict between the dispersed recreational opportunities provided in a CRA and the fact that almost 70 miles of new routes is proposed for a single CRA poses an interesting management issue and allowing the proposal to move forward without meaningfully addressing this issue would leave any project that might result open for a successful legal challenge by those that believe all roadless areas are only one step from Wilderness.

The issues around Mad Creek CRA also highlight the need to plan at the landscape level. With the high levels of trails proposed in the southern portion of the CRA, the Organizations must believe that trail expansion would be exceptionally difficult on any portion of the CRA if the Proposal was even partially implemented. This density of routes makes it VERY critical to engage everyone in the discussion around the area as telling one group, who has proceeded in a more cautious manner and is addressing basic issues like maintenance, that a connector route or other trail on the north end of the CRA cannot be built due to capacity or density requirements already being exceeded in the southern portion of the CRA would be very difficult. These types of cumulative concerns would be somewhat mitigated if there was a landscape level plan that attempted to identify expansion areas, density capacities and other basic planning requirements. The Organizations believe crafting a legally defensible proposal that addresses the impacts to the Mad creek CRA is a requirement for a successful plan moving forward, as the Organizations do not want to be forced into further defense of legal actions as a result of another user’s trail network, as any challenge would probably include a cumulative impacts type discussion and directly impact motorized and mechanized opportunities on the HPBE.

The Organizations would be remiss if the conflict that is directly apparent between landscape level comments consistently made by the mountain bike community during Roadless Rule development and positions actually taken in this Proposal were not addressed. A review of the summary of public comment on the Colorado Roadless Rule reveals that such comments are throughout the summary. The Organizations would like to highlight several of these comments, which are as follows:

“Further, they suggest that mountain bikers “build and protect sustainable trails for multi-use purposes.”7

“BECAUSE THEY BUILD AND PROTECT SUSTAINABLE TRAILS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE USES – One of the best ways to protect these areas is to open trails up to mountain bikers who build and protect sustainable trails for multi-use purposes.”8

The Organizations submit that these comments are directly relevant to analysis in both the areas inventoried under the Colorado Roadless Rule and the entire proposal, as the mountain bike community should not be allowed to assert that all trails are subject to multiple usage management and ongoing maintenance at the landscape level and then be allowed to exclude all usages other than mountain bikes in the development of site specific proposals which have no provisions for maintenance of the routes once built. This type of selective involvement is offensive to the Organizations.

3(c)(5). ESA/Wildlife issues must be addressed at the landscape levels.

The Organizations are also aware that there are extensive wildlife concerns around the Mad Rabbit Proposal, which have been compounded by the recent significant expansions of trails in the Buffalo Pass for the benefit of the mountain bike community. This is another issue that the Organizations are very concerned about as once an area is at capacity in terms of wildlife habitat, it has been our experience that no new trails or other facilities are allowed. Developing an understanding of what that capacity across this area really looks like will be a significant issue moving forward for species such as elk and deer.

Again, this is another area where meaningfully addressing maintenance and education of users regarding seasonal closures and other management tools will be critical to the success of any trail expansions. The motorized community is concerned about the success of any trail expansion, as has been shown on the PSI, litigation will pull all trails users into the matter, regardless of if the specific trails are involving that group or not.

In what has become an interesting issue, the basic need for a stay the trail or tread lightly type ethic program for all users of public lands has become very apparent as research indicates that:

“Outdoor recreation has the potential to disturb wildlife, resulting in energetic costs, impacts to animals’ behavior and fitness, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Mountain biking is emerging as a popular form of outdoor recreation, yet virtually nothing is known about whether wildlife responds differently to mountain biking vs. more traditional forms of recreation, such as hiking….Few studies have examined how recreationists perceive their effects on wildlife, although this has implications for their behavior on public lands…..Approximately 50% of recreationists felt that recreation was not having a negative effect on wildlife. In general, survey respondents perceived that it was acceptable to approach wildlife more closely than our empirical data indicated wildlife would allow. Recreationists also tended to blame other user groups for stress to wildlife rather than holding themselves responsible.”9

This situation was very interesting to the motorized community as everyone has blamed motorized usage for decades for every issue on public lands. Here we have a situation where motorized impacts are irrelevant but the need for many of the same guidance and educational materials is equally as important to the success of the project as they have been for motorized usage and there are no provisions made for these types of materials.

Compounding our concerns to identify habitat areas both within the Proposal and at the landscape level are the fact that the Mad Creek CRA is also home to Boreal Toad habitat, which is a sensitive species in Colorado that has been petitioned for listing on the Endangered Species list and the Globe Mallow and Rabbit Ears Gilia both of which are plants that are sensitive species in Colorado and present on the Rabbit Ears Pass area. Again, with species of elevated concerns such as these, identifying habitat areas is an important component of minimizing impacts and the need for landscape level planning is clear to allow any activity in possible habitat areas to be fully reviewed and managed. Allowing anyone access merely because they asked first is unacceptable especially when other users may be interested in the areas or opportunities and are waiting for a collaborative landscape level plan that may never come.

4.   Seasonal closures of all routes must be made for winter travel.

The Organizations submit that as part of the Proposal all mechanized travel must be limited to designated routes. The Organizations vigorously assert that these routes on Rabbit Ears Pass must be closed for winter travel as bicycles are wheeled vehicles and inappropriate for over the snow travel. The pressure applied by these vehicles is some of the highest in the recreational community causing significant concern for possible resource impacts that result from high pressure tires coming into contact with a wide range of resources buried in the snow. The trails that are being proposed are dirt trails and are not a surface, such as pavement or hardened road base, where pressure issues can be clearly found to be irrelevant to OSV usage. Our concerns on this issue are not abstract as many forests in California, such as the Sequoia, recently had to cease grooming activities due to possible contact of higher pressure vehicles with ESA listed species in the area. The Organizations are again opposed to any loss of motorized opportunities that could result from failures to properly review and manage non-motorized access in the Mad Rabbit Proposal.

While an OSV frequently averages less than .5 psi, a bicycle applies between 30-50 psi on the ground.10 Most research indicates that impacts from bicycle usage are very similar to wheeled vehicles. 11 This is not acceptable to the snowmobile community who has invested hundreds of millions of dollars developing, defending and implementing the buffer effects of snow and low- pressure vehicles with the USFS. The snowmobile community is deeply concerned about the possible erosion of such a standard in localized planning, especially in areas where there is not a hardened base for protection of resources from high pressure usages. The Organizations are not opposed to the use of conversions on these trails that rely on a combination of tracks and skis for travel but they are vigorously opposed to the usage of any of these routes by wheeled vehicles. Until best available science has determined that compaction is not an issue with bicycles on winter trails, this position must be adopted regarding bicycles on winter trails at the landscape level.

5. Conclusion

The Organizations are opposing the Mad Rabbit Trails Project alternatives A&B and the Organizations voicing support for Other Alternatives, mainly moving forward under the direction that was created after the trails charrette and working towards a master plan for the Steamboat Basin. The Organizations are frustrated to have to oppose both Alternative A and Alternative B for the project but the Organizations must oppose the Mad Rabbit Proposal until such time as the landscape level planning effort that was identified as a goal and objective in the trails charrette has moved forward and clearly outlined impacts and concerns with a much higher level of clarity than is provided in the Wishlist driving planning at this point. $100,000 in direct funding for this planning has been obtained and is simply not being used. The Organizations are frustrated to have to oppose the project but our efforts to engage interested parties regarding our concerns around the projects throughout the Steamboat Springs basin since the passage of the lodging tax have simply never moved. We have provided extensive comments around City efforts, around the trails charrette and around the Buffalo Pass Trails project, which really have never significantly changed the direction of the Wishlist of trails that is currently driving discussions on the HPBE. The Organizations vigorously request that the consensus position arrived at in the charrette, mainly that the next step would be a masterplan for the Steamboat Area, be moved forward. The motorized community has stepped up with $100,000 in grant funding to facilitate this project and do date there has been no action on this Proposal.

The Organizations are aware that this trail proposal is part of a much larger proposal from the mountain bike community in Steamboat Springs, which has already been the basis of several public meetings and what has become an exploding conflict of users in the steamboat basin. The Organizations submitted extensive comments on this proposal in response to public meetings held by the USFS last August, which were heavily attended by a wide range of multiple users expressing concerns very similar to those in these comments and previous ones submitted in response to that meeting. These comments and concerns remain highly relevant to the Mad Rabbit Project, as there were many foundational flaws in the analysis of the landscape level analysis, which weigh heavily against single use trails in the Mad Rabbit project, such as the complete failure to address the ongoing need for basic maintenance of existing facilities. The Organizations are not aware of any timing limitations, other than with the motorized funding that is not moving, and as a result must assert that meaningfully planning these projects will not have anyone other than those seeking to move under an accelerated schedule. Creating new trails that simply cannot be maintained in the long run simply makes no sense to the Organizations and may put decades of effort and partnership at risk in the Steamboat basin.

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 USDA – USFS National Strategy for a Sustainable Trails System; December 30, 2016 at pg. 4. Hereinafter referred to as the National Trails Strategy.

2 See, National Trails Strategy at Pg. 4.

3 See, National Trails Strategy at Pg. 4.

4 See, USDA Forest Service, Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District; Environmental Assessment, Rabbit Ears Winter Parking; June 2014 at pgs. 56-61.

5 See, USDA Forest Service Rabbit Ears winter parking EA at Page 3

6 See, USDA Forest Service, Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District; Environmental Assessment, Rabbit Ears Winter Parking; June 2014 at pg. 3.

7 See, USDA Forest Service; Colorado Roadless Area Conservation National Forest System Lands Proposed Rule and Revised Draft EIS Summary of Public Comment; September 2011 at pg. 1-22. Hereinafter referred to as “Colorado Roadless Rule Comments”.

8 See, Colorado Roadless Rule Comments at pg. 3-14

9 See, Taylor et al; Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions; Ecological applications; 13(4) 2003; pgs. 951-963 at pg. 951.

10 See, Weir, Impacts of non-motorized trail usage, at pg. 4.

11 See, Pickering et al; Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America; Journal of Environmental Management 2010 at pg. 551.

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

USDA Forest Service
NEPA Services Group C/O Amy Barker
Geospacial Technology & Applications Center
222 West 2300 South
Salt Lake City, 84119

RE: Input regarding NEPA Streamlining process

Dear Ms. Barker:

The above Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and to provide more detailed information and input on our experiences with the NEPA process on a wide range of public lands in the hope that previous mistakes will not be repeated.  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 Offices’.

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 of approximately 2,500 members 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 currently has 2,500 members.  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”.

The Organizations are aware that the scope of NEPA review is heavily driven by federal legislation and as a result much of the statutorily required process is probably outside the range of discussion for the current request.  As a result, the Organizations are focusing on guidance documents and principals related to the implementation of NEPA requirements for various projects and efforts. The Organizations submit that significant opportunities for a leaner and more efficient NEPA process  are present as a result of the ambiguity in many of these guidance documents and related poor understanding of land managers in addressing many of the technical aspects of the NEPA process.  These benefits are limited and any benefit of the streamlining process could easily be lost with implementation of processes that increase the administrative overhead of site specific projects or to the NEPA process as a whole.   On the ground benefits of streamlining must be the goal of the proposal implementation.

1a. Public access must be the goal of any revisions to planning for recreational activity.

The Organizations are aware of several proposals in circulation that provide for certain NEPA streamlining benefits to accrue to only certain user groups or interests, such as outfitters or guides; or those that may be volunteering through a program similar to the Conservation Corps; or users of ski areas in off-season times of the year for the ski area. The Organizations are also aware of numerous proposals addressing veterans, holders of senior citizen pass or America the beautiful type passes.  Often this type of reform is seeking to address only “facilitated access to public lands” and the Organizations must vigorously oppose this type of a revision.

While these are commendable efforts and programs, any NEPA streamlining should apply to all groups and efforts on public lands equally.   Public lands should be available to all members of the public on an even playing field and when any group is elevated above the general public, this even playing field is lost.  The Organizations are also aware that any efforts to prioritize a single group or category of users above the general public will result in a significantly more complicated planning process for land managers, as managers will now have to confirm the membership of the applicant in the prioritized group before moving forward. Simply keeping an up to date list of members in the group to be prioritized can prove to be a daunting task, regardless of if that membership is proved through a database held within the USFS or a membership card that is presented.   The Organizations vigorously submit these are the types of streamlining efforts that must be avoided as resources will be directed towards tracking and managing the group rather than more efficient operations on the ground.

The Organizations concerns on this issue are two-fold:

1. No user of public lands should have priority over other users in planning or permitting; and
2. Tracking these groups will complicate any effort undertaken by land managers and run counter productive to the intent of the streamlining efforts.

1b.  No new reports.

The Organizations vigorously believe that any efforts to streamline NEPA must avoid the creation of new reports, such as priority trails reports or landscape level reviews of possible national recreation areas.  Too often efforts to streamline NEPA and other processes become bogged down with a desire to update or form reports on issues or challenges where the information needed for the  decision making process is already available. The Organizations submit that examples of these concerns would be helpful.  Any NEPA streamlining efforts must avoid reinstituting planning for areas that have recently completed a landscape level plan such as a Field Office or Forest Level plan.

The Organizations are aware of landscape level efforts within the BLM seeking to make planning more efficient, which has resulted in the formation of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives(“LCC”).  These efforts highlighted the Organizations concerns regarding existing information being presented in a different report with different pictures or manner of presentation. The national LCC guidance brochure further provides quality examples regional standards that will not streamline local planning, as often the national LCC brochure provides information is in the form of somewhat random comments of DOI agencies that often do not relate to the goals and objectives of the LCC process.  Examples of these comments include:

“Glorious fall foliage provides a backdrop for foraging Sandhill cranes.” [1] Or

“A majestic bull elk pauses for a drink in the southern Rockies.” [2]

These types of random statements are often highly frustrating to many partners and more properly suited as a note to a picture in a travel brochure rather than part of a mission statement for meaningfully undertaken landscape planning that will result in effective and efficient management of issues on the ground.  The Organizations assert these efforts fall well short of seeking best available science and a more dynamic and streamlined planning process with expanded collaboration of the public and partners, even if the statements are largely symbolic. If regional planning is undertaken, the goals for regional planning must seek to obtain higher quality regional documents than are currently being provided.

Further numerous comments in the national LCC brochure attribute issue specific statements to agencies that are completely unrelated to that agency’s mission or expertise.    An example of such a quote would be the following quote attributed to NOAA:

“Preserving cultural artifacts and traditions creates vibrant, healthy communities.”[3]

While NOAA is an impressive organization that does great work, NOAA’s expertise is not in cultural resources and the Organizations must question any decision that sought to rely on NOAA in such a capacity.  There are a wide range of true partner organizations that have long histories of effective management of this issue, such as state historic preservation offices and the national register of historic places, and failing to rely on these organizations for their expertise may complicate partnerships with them in the future.

The Organization would question any value in a report addressing the maintenance backlog on public lands.  This is a known quantity already and any further reports on this issue must be avoided as it would be drawing resources away from on the ground efforts to address maintenance backlogs. Any efforts on streamlining NEPA must focus on “on the ground” benefits that can be achieved, such as streamlining NEPA for existing facilities or routes rather than developing additional planning or analysis efforts.

1c. Identification of priority trails must also be avoided.

The Organizations must oppose any attempt to create a list of priority trails for maintenance as part of a streamlining proposal and believe there are many more factors to be balanced in the identification of priority trails for maintenance then could ever be addressed with a national list.  Given the large number of routes that are not being maintained to acceptable standards, the Organizations must question the value of only identifying a small number of trails nationally that are to receive elevated maintenance.  It has been the Organizations experience that land managers in small planning areas can easily identify a small number of trails on their district that need heavy levels of maintenance. The Organizations must question the value of identifying a national list of priority trails for maintenance, as the limited resources of land managers will be not fully utilized for maintaining trails at the local level but will be directed to developing the national list.

If priority trails are to be identified for expanded management, the Organizations submit that numerous additional factors must be balanced in the identification of priority trails for maintenance.  One additional factor should include leveraging of resources available from partners for the maintenance of the route now and for the foreseeable future.  The Organizations submit that the long term financial sustainability of any priority routes that are identified must be reviewed, as maintaining a trail in the short term that has no additional sources to insure the long-term usage of the route simply makes little sense.  Insuring the long term financial sustainability must be addressed in any review process to ensure that resources directed to a priority route or area in the short term are not lost in the long term for many of the same factors that might have placed the route on the list in the beginning.

When identifying priority maintenance routes, the basic sustainability of the route must be addressed, as many routes simply are not in ideal locations for maintenance.   Often routes are in locations for reasons other than the recreational usage of the area, such as routes in creek beds and routes that have been placed due to historical usage of the areas by pack animals and wildlife.  Identifying priority trails for maintenance should not omit questions such as: “Is the route in a sustainable location?” or “Does the route make sense from a cost/benefit analysis?”.

3a. Recreation permitting process must be reviewed.

Over the past three decades, the permit application process seeking approval for smaller events on public lands has become unpredictable and so costly that the average American has to either break the law or do something else.  The Organizations are interested in a simple, consistent and cost-effective application that is realistic in its approach to the permitting process. The process should provide for equal opportunity on all federal land, whether the applicant is a large for-profit corporation or a small volunteer not-for-profit.

The Organizations submit that a far more refined course filter/fine filter type of review must be developed in order to make permitting processes more understandable and effective in the NEPA process. Our concerns can generally be outlined with the following issues:

1. Application of permitting requirements has to be consistent on all public land;
2. The current “Hand Book” for permitting of events on public lands needs dramatic revision; Clearly identifying that previous environmental analysis developed for permits should remain the basis for the issuance of categorical exclusions for the event unless there is a significant change in the event;
3. Complete outline of any independent monitoring;
4. Review of “Cost Recovery” and insurance qualifications must be addressed. Guidance should clearly identify that:
5. costs associated with the event operation, such as lodging outside federal lands or food provided to participants is a deductible expense when calculating revenue from events for permitting applications;
6. Providing a 3% cap of the adjusted gross revenue of the event cap on permit costs; and
7. Explicitly provide a waiver of cost recovery provisions under specific conditions.
8. Streamline “Volunteer” and “Cost Share “agreements; and
9. Set reasonable timelines and institute an event analyses. High Country can’t get a permit to groom longer than a year because the insurance company will not issue a certificate for more than a year.

The permitting process and related NEPA can make simple projects with strong long-term partners far more complicated and the Organizations submit that some of these issues can be resolved with more clarity in guidance documents surrounding permits. We are providing three  examples of projects events  where permits and associated NEPA have become major challenges.  While the examples of the beacon checkpoints and grooming have been resolved and operations are continuing but resolution has taken significant time and effort to resolve and the local office response to these projects has been highly variable. The Organizations have to believe these types of efforts can have a significant impact on resources of any office when resolving these types of concerns are tallied.  While two of the three examples have been resolved too often the club type social events simply are not occurring.

The first example involves the placement of beacon checkpoints by local snowmobile clubs  at winter trailheads to: 1.  recommend to the public the use of avalanche beacons in areas where avalanches are a high concern; and 2.  Remind the public to turn their beacon on before going into the backcountry. The checkpoints are reflected in the following pictures:

Colorado Snowmobile Association has placed more than 2 dozen of these beacon checkpoints throughout the state, and is pleased to report that in some locations in the state land mangers immediately saw the value of these efforts and placement was smooth and seamless. These managers were aware that club liability insurance and existing grooming permits covered signage and moved forward with little additional review. Once these checkpoints were in place, community response was overwhelmingly positive and benefitted all users of these areas, which the Organizations submit are exactly the types of projects USFS managers should be partnering to achieve in the most effective and streamlined manner possible.

About half of the clubs placing these signs had a very different experience, where land managers had concerns about liability from admitting there were avalanches in the area, advertising of businesses identified as project partners on the signage; and a possible need to undertake some level of NEPA or issuance of a specific permit for the sign.  While these concerns were eventually resolved, the process was slow and often painful for the volunteers attempting to place the sign.  These issues were compounded when one club has a beacon checkpoint sign up for a year or two on one side of a pass while the club on the other side of a pass, which is managed by a different office, does not have the same sign placed due to concerns over NEPA and permits slowing the process. The amount of administrative time allocated to these requests in offices moving forward with additional review must have been significant.

Our second example of NEPA and permitting requirements greatly complicating providing services to the public involves the issuance of SRPs for winter grooming. In Colorado all winter grooming is provided through a partnership with our Colorado Parks and Wildlife Program and local snowmobile clubs.  The CPW program provides grants to purchase groomers and partial funding for operation of this equipment, which is then leveraged with volunteer operators and huge levels of community support. Each club obtains an SRP for their grooming operations through their local forest service office. For many clubs this is a reasonably streamlined process and permits are provided on a multiple year basis.

However, this experience is not universal as we are aware of a club that must apply for an SRP on an annual basis.  The reasoning for an annual SRP being required is simply astonishing and represents a prime example of where a poorly streamlined process can significantly impact on the ground benefits. The basis for the annual permit is the fact the local club cannot get proof of insurance for their operations for more than one year. The Organizations believe a comparison to other long-term obligations that require insurance is highly valuable. This is simply astonishing as this type of issue could easily be resolved with a multiple year permit that simply required insurance be in place, as is the norm for residential mortgages.  The residential borrower simply has to keep insurance on property as part of the mortgage and without insurance the mortgage is fully due. Without such provisions, the residential mortgage market would simply not exist. The Organizations are unsure why additional proof is necessary for these grooming operations.

Our third example is probably the most common by a large margin and involves streamlining of the NEPA/permit process to address challenges faced by those hosting smaller socially based not for profit type events. It has been the Organizations experience that too often small events, such as trail rides of a limited number of OHV’s (sometimes groups as small as 5 vehicles) organized through a local club on designated routes or county roads crossing federal public lands are prohibited due to the fact that land managers believe a permit is required for the event.  Often this management position is taken based on the small fee collected for the event in order to off-set direct costs of the event such as food provided on the event or facility rentals (such as town parks or similar facilities) where a social function such as a barbeque is provided after the event is concluded. Smaller types of events are great ways for new residents of a geographic area to connect with people that are familiar with the challenges and opportunities that the area provides and allow for these new residents to access these locally available and exceptional recreational opportunities in a safe and responsible manner.

An example of this situation will provide context for our concerns. Frequently local clubs meet on an evening during the week and members may identify a desire to meet at a particular trailhead or parking lot later that month and run a particular trail and end the day at a particular restaurant or pavilion in the town park for a barbeque.  It is not uncommon for a particular member to stop and grab a value pack of burgers, some chips and soda at the local market so when people stop for lunch the meal is enjoyable and more social. Normally a hat gets passed as part of this process and everyone attending throws in $10 towards lunch and maybe rental fees on a pavilion or back room at the end location for the event. The funding from this type of an event is simply comically insufficient to support any type of NEPA analysis and imposition of even an administrative fee will probably be cost prohibitive due to the small number of attendees, who may very well be on the forest individually that weekend.

The Organizations are aware that often far too much weight is placed on these small fees obtained to offset direct costs of the event.  These fees were never intended to create a profit for the club that might be organizing the event but are merely put in place to supplement club dues that may not be of sufficient amount to cover the supplies that are being provided for the event. Often for events of this small size, the permit cost and associated NEPA simply exceeds any costs that could reasonably be paid by an attendee and far exceeds any other costs incurred for such an event and as a result, the events simply don’t occur. When the permit costs and efforts to obtain the permit are broken down to a per user cost, the cost is simply horribly out of reach for those that would like to attend the event. This is often highly frustrating to members of the public, who simply don’t understand why a permit is even required for the event.

The Organizations also believe that streamlining permits for small not for profit organizations will improve relationships between these Organizations and land managers, which is of growing importance to the future of the forest service.  Many of these local clubs that are facilitating these impromptu events, are also a major source for volunteer labor now being sought to supplement diminished agency budgets and often these small local clubs are a major source of funding for projects.  In some states, federal land managers must partner with clubs in order to obtain grants and other private funding is only issued to organizations with particular tax status, such as the §501© designations frequently held by clubs. Overly strict permitting requirements for non-profit events frequently impairs the interest of the local clubs to partner with land managers for grants or other support in the future.  These benefits are critical moving forward and will also be difficult to place an exact monetary value on as well.

3b.  The scope of permit streamlining efforts should be expanded to allow for full inclusion of federal land management agencies involved in event permitting.

The Organizations are aware that often recreation permits are issued involving a wide range of smaller federal lands managers beyond just the US Forest Service. Often these smaller land management agencies provide a crucial, albeit smaller role, in an event occurring. Such a case would be when a permit for a 100-mile event route is issued and 95 miles of the route is on USFS lands but a critical 5 miles is needed to connect the loop for the event occurs on lands managed by another federal agency, such as the Bureau of Land Management or Bureau of Reclamation.  The Organizations are active participants in the annual “King of the Hammers” race event in Southern California and are aware that the event occurs primarily on BLM lands but a small portion of the event route crosses the 29 Palms Marine Base.  As a result, permits for the King of the Hammers event must be provided by the Department of Defense in conjunction with the BLM.  The Organizations would note that only partially streamlining the permit process with respect to land management agencies for these types of cross border events on federal lands would hinder the benefits of any reform.  The limited streamlining of permitting may lead to a large amount of frustrations from permit applicants as what is a small portion of the lands necessary for the event to occur being the more difficult to obtain permits for the event on.

The Organizations are not directly familiar with the specific permitting process of these other land management agencies, but would become concerned if any streamlining efforts within the USFS would need extensive revision to encompass these management agencies as streamlining of the permit process is somewhat time sensitive as well.   The Organizations believe that a complete revision of the streamlining efforts may not be necessary to embrace these smaller land management agencies as we believe providing the voluntary “opt in” to the streamlined permitting process on a case by case basis.  This voluntary “opt in” type streamlining may allow for a streamlined permitting process without opening the entire permitting process for these agencies if there was significant conflict in these other agencies permitting process.

3d.  Timely issuance of permits for events can be difficult.

The Organizations are also aware of numerous situations where permits for events simply cannot be issued in a timely manner due to a wide range of issues surrounding the permit issuance.  Frequently many small events are simply not thought of months or years in advance but are more of informal nature and may only be organized at a club meeting a month or two in advance and this type of event development is completely at odds with a permitting process that often requires at least an 18-month lead time for a complete NEPA review of permit applications at an EA or higher level of review. While these events may be less formal in nature, these events provide important recreational opportunities to those that are participating in the event.   Often these small less formal events simply cannot be planned more than 18 months in advance and do not have the resources to undertake extensive review of possible impacts for what are existing routes and facilities.  Often event coordinators simply don’t pursue the event due to the barriers that are presented by the permitting process, which is unfortunate at best and a major barrier to access to public lands at worst.    This is an area where streamlining of NEPA can assist.

Timing of permits is also complicated by factors outside the direct permit issuance and these are often related to the timing restrictions of insurance coverage for the partnership. An example of this problem would be highly valuable. In Colorado, the majority of winter grooming on Forest Service lands is provided through local snowmobile clubs with the issuance of a special management permit for the grooming by various districts.  Each of the local clubs pools insurance costs through the state association and collectively purchases insurance for these operations at a significantly reduced cost.  While many USFS offices understand the limitations of insurance coverage to one year in this situation and issue multiple year permits with a requirement that insurance coverage remain in place, we are also aware of offices that simply will not issue multiple year permits due to the limitation of insurance coverage and policies to one year.

Rather than simply requiring insurance coverage be maintained under a multiple year permit, both the land manager and volunteer club representatives must apply for a new grooming permit every year. If this policy was applied to the purchase of homes, the public would not be able to obtain a 20 or 30-year mortgage to purchase a home but would rather have to renew their mortgage annually after providing proof of homeowner’s insurance. Clearly this issue has been resolved outside of public lands,  and continued issuance of annual permits simply makes no sense and would highlight a situation where a streamlined process would assist both managers and volunteer partners on public lands.

4. Fees charged for permits are often unrelated to actual permitting costs.

The Organizations are also aware of numerous events where the permitting costs simply exceed any reasonable costs for the administration of the permit, which creates unnecessary conflict between users and land managers. In certain instances, these unduly large permit application costs preclude the event from ever happening and in other instances these large costs are simply passed through to event participants, and as a result events on public lands can cost more than if the event had occurred on adjacent private lands.  Neither of these situations is acceptable to the Organizations and in certain circumstances these large fees have created the possible public perception that certain groups are charged certain fees and other groups with similar events are charged a lesser fee and that these decisions are made in a somewhat arbitrary manner by the deciding official.  Avoiding these types of issues should be of paramount importance in the permitting process.

The Organizations submit that often the public perception of these large event permit costs is that the permit revenue is being used a profit center for that office or land management agency to offset overhead costs to the office for operations that are unrelated to the permitted event.  While the Organizations often partner to assist in offsetting operational costs, the Organizations also firmly believe that permitting of activities should not be a profit center for land managers, as this is simply a violation of the trust placed in these managers by the public. Avoiding even a perception of such a situation should be a major priority in the streamlining of the permit process.

5. Existing partnerships would be repaired with a streamlined permitting process.

The Organizations believe the streamlining of the permit process would help repair partnerships between federal land managers and local Organizations, as often the same local club that is not allowed to undertake an event due to permitting issues is a major source of both volunteer labor and partner funding for the land management agency. Forming these types of partnerships can be difficult and stressful for volunteers and the failure to obtain permits in a timely and cost-effective manner can simply provide unnecessary stress on this relationship. The Organizations are aware of federal land managers requiring a permit for a club event involving less than 10 street legal motorcycles using a route entirely on county roads due to the fact that the riders might stop at a parking area adjacent to the county road to use a bathroom facility on BLM lands.  This request created amazing stress on the partnership between the Club and the land managers as the Club holding the event was also the Organization spearheaded efforts in obtained all funding for the construction of the parking lot and restroom facilities through a state OHV grant several years prior. While this example occurred on BLM lands, situations like this are far too common on USFS lands as well.  A streamlined permitting process would be a significant step towards resolving these types of challenges and hopefully relieve burdens and possible conflicts in the future as all permits will be provided in a more timely manner.

6. Organizational liability must be addressed in addition to volunteers.

As part of recent Forest Service efforts to expand partnerships for recreational maintenance type projects, not for profit Organizations are now being asked to undertaken more and different types of maintenance projects than ever before. This is very concerning as USFS volunteer agreements and Cost Share Challenges do address individual liability but fail to include a limitation on organizational liability for volunteer groups that are working on stewardship projects on public lands.  With the expansion of partnerships as a resource tool for federal land managers, NPO will be expanding partnership projects with land managers and they should be clearly protected in these situations.

Liability can easily result for the Organization when zealous volunteers may not be familiar with the scope of the insurance coverage in place or there are issues that arise out of up to date training for volunteers. We frequently encounter this issue when an NPO has BD&O or general liability coverage in place to undertake a project but the scope of the project with the USFS encompasses projects that are believed to be maintenance by some and construction by others. An example of this situation would be a club being asked to replace a damaged, vandalized, removed or end of life span sign along a trail.  While some will look at replacing this sign as maintenance, as the sign was there and is being maintained under a volunteer agreement and probably covered under a general liability policy, other interested parties will see this as new construction, which should have been the basis of some type of cost share challenge agreement and at least an endorsement on the general liability policy. Volunteers frequently lack the technical insurance savvy to even understand the concern and possible liability in this grey area, as commonly a “well versed” volunteer can identify what the policy for the club cost and maybe the term of the policy.  It is highly unlikely that any club representative will understand the scope of coverage and related limitations of their coverage.

This type of grey area liability is a huge concern for the Organizations as we are aware of several state level partners who have been sued in these situations  for projects on state lands. Several of these Organizations were defended under insurance that was in place but the Organizations failed to survive the lawsuit, such as the experiences of the Nebraska Off Highway Vehicle Coalition. Often these defenses for NPOs are undertaken without clear language in the policy and the Organizations are concerned that at some point this type of coverage will not be provided to the not for profit partners. This is the type of ambiguity that will eventually result in liability to an NPO and every effort should be taken to minimize risk and avoid this situation.

We are aware of several clubs that have undertaken stewardship projects on trails on federal public lands and after consulting in detail with their general liability insurer, were either entirely dropped from future coverage renewals or were provided with quotes that were entirely out of reach for the club.  Many of these quotes exceeded $10,000 per year for the club as insurers were treating the project in a manner similar to construction of a major interstate highway rather than repair of a trail on federal public lands.   While clubs can cover small insurance requirements, these are volunteer organizations with limited resources to cover insurance. With insurance expenses of this size providing a clear immunity type protection to the federal budgets, as the Organizations are aware that any savings from insurance costs would probably be directed into stewardship donations for projects the club may be undertaking that year. With the large levels of volunteer organizations doing this work, this cold easily develop into significant new funding for land managers.

Another club undertook annual stewardship projects, ranging from periodic trail maintenance to the purchase of maintenance equipment in partnership with land managers after obtaining grants from the State OHV program.  This club was obtaining project specific insurance riders on their general liability insurance policy for each stewardship project.  Issues subsequently arose when sufficient documentation regarding the land managers acceptance of the completed projects could not be obtained despite the projects being completed according to the project specifications.  Staff for these acceptance reviews was simply not available. After several of these riders could not be satisfied, the insurer was forced to cancel any further insurance coverage based on the perception that liability was resulting to the club due to failure to perform projects in a manner acceptable to land managers. This simply was not the case but without documentation this conflict was difficult to resolve. With the expansion of club immunity to these types of projects would avoid these challenges to partners.

While the Organizations are aware this issue will only be truly resolved with an amendment to existing federal legislation, the Organizations appreciate this opportunity to raise this concern and seek any assistance that might be able to be provided.

7. Planning efforts should strive to remain consistent with the scope and objectives of the Process.

In the development of any planning efforts, maintaining the scope and goals of the planning effort is critical as the planning effort moves forward, as often planning efforts can drift away from the original goals and objectives of the plan.  This issue is of more significant concern in larger planning efforts, as often when landscape level planning efforts drift away from the original intent of the process new directions for the effort are embraced to address issues that are outside the scope of the original proposal.  Public support for efforts is sought to be expanded by seeking to address numerous localized issues when the primary driver of planning may drop in value or concern.  With this project drift, the public is not properly engaged and there are numerous collateral impacts such as the project now addressing artificially inflated management issues in the planning process.

The Organizations were actively involved in development of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (“DRECP”) which sought to streamline the permitting process for large renewable energy development projects in landscape sized sections of the California desert area. While we are aware this project primarily addressed BLM managed lands, it provides a good example of project drift.  A significant driver of the DRECP project was high oil prices in the marketplace when the planning efforts commenced. As the DRECP process moved forward, oil prices receded and other smaller scale priorities were elevated, often with minimal research or analysis, in an attempt to maintain political support for the project.  The Plan that resulted was only marginally related to the original goals and objectives of the project and addressed a wide range of local decisions that were outside the scope of the original project. The end result of the project was a Plan that was roundly criticized and was opposed by almost all local communities involved and businesses that were originally intended to be beneficiaries of the effort.

Planning efforts must strive to address challenges that can actually be addressed at the scale of planning being undertaken and avoid directing resources towards artificially elevated planning issues.  Any planning efforts must be meaningfully undertaken, avoid taking what are largely symbolic gestures on issues, avoid making local site-specific decisions at the landscape level and insure that the final regional plan is a high-quality document that meets the original goals and objectives of the regional planning efforts.  This may mean that planning efforts should be stopped and this position can be difficult for local or regional planning staff to undertake and explain internally, especially when there are interested parties seeking to move forward with goals outside the scope of the original project.

8. Revisions should streamline and clarify the applicability of Categorical Exclusions and other lower levels of NEPA for projects.

Any NEPA revisions must streamline and clarify the applicability of Categorical Exclusions and other lower levels of NEPA for projects, in order to provide consistency in the decision-making process while reducing costs and speeding the resolution of management challenges. These challenges generally fall into two major categories: 1. Situations where a single project or event crosses multiple planning boundaries or involve multiple agencies which can result in inconsistent analysis or decisions between districts for the same project; and 2. Similar projects are often analyzed differently based on target audience of the project, such as lower levels of NEPA being required for a heavily used bicycle trail while more NEPA analysis is often required to address a minimally used multiple use trail. While this can be defended based on guidance currently in place, this application simply makes no sense on the ground and clearly results in increased costs and reduced partnership opportunities.

With the high rate of transition among field staff, this clarity in guidance will also avoid significant changes in NEPA necessary for a particular project with a change of staff in the office. These mid- process changes often result in conflict between partners and delayed resolution of issues with higher costs and may put partner funding obtained under strict timelines into jeopardy simply due to the revised NEPA timelines.  An example of this concern is again helpful.  Many times, when recreational trails are crossing wetlands or other riparian areas, these crossing areas need periodic maintenance and this periodic maintenance provides a good example of where streamlining would be very helpful.   Some land managers will see this as a wetland or riparian restoration that can clearly be done with a Categorical Exclusion, while other managers will see this type of project as a trail construction issue and require at least an EA. If a staffing changes occur in the middle of the project, the project may basically stall until the higher level of NEPA is satisfied and all the while the resource damage continues to occur.  This would be a prime opportunity where clarity in management requirements would streamline the process significantly and insure that any partners engaged in the process are not lost and that partner funding simply does not expire waiting for NEPA to be completed.

It has been our experience that when there are multiple agencies or jurisdictions involved in the planning process, any lack of clarity in the Planning Rule or implementation documents results in higher levels of NEPA being applied to the Project. This results in significant additional time and resources being directed towards analysis of the project rather than resolving the management issue on the ground.  Any new planning rules should encourage managers to look at any issue in the manner that requires the least amount of NEPA analysis.  This is an issue where planning rules and subsequent guidance handbooks can provide a significant opportunity to streamline and provide line officers with an identifiable agency position that allows the project to move forward and not get bogged down in NEPA analysis.

9. Guidance should encourage planners to recognize that federal planning may not be effective for all challenges.

The Organizations are aware that often there is significant public pressure on land managers to enter into planning efforts in response to a wide variety of pressures or concerns, some of which can be resolved in planning and others of which are motivated by a desire to appear responsive on issues.  Any NEPA streamlining must provide the ability to local land managers to allow a decision not to move into planning in response to a challenge.

As highlighted in recent Greater Sage Grouse planning, habitat management was a major planning challenge and was directly impacted by high levels of quality habitat being on private lands adjacent to public lands. Often public lands habitat was of significantly lower quality in a large number of planning quadrants.   In many  Sage Grouse planning quadrants, Grouse habitat areas were located more than 50% of the time on private lands adjacent to public land and as a result, planning efforts required collaboration at much higher levels than planning that only addressing public lands.  Managers should be allowed to recognize this issue and rather than reenter NEPA planning, simply work collaboratively with private land owners as habitat management was often an issue outside the scope of federal authority.

10a. Implementation of the minimization criteria in subsequent rounds of planning must be clarified.

Guidance around the NEPA process could significantly streamline implementation of the minimization criteria provided for in the Travel Management Rule,[4] when new planning efforts are adopted. Under the minimization criteria, possible resource impacts from roads and trails are to be minimized, while allowing managers to achieve the management objectives for each area identified in the relevant Resource Management Plan for the Forest. This issue is becoming more common as many Forests are approaching the end of the normal life spans for Forest Resource Management Plans created in the first round of forest plan development. Absent an intervening act, such as an ESA species listing, Wilderness or SMA Congressional designation, previous minimization analysis may remain highly relevant for significant portions of federal lands and would essentially create a presumption that existing activities in conformity with the existing plan would continue to be available under the new Resource Plan being developed. In contrast any argument that minimization must be undertaken completely and without regard to the planning in place lacks factual credibility as most forest plans we work with have clearly identified minimization goals and objectives in place and often fully implemented over the life of the plan.  If the goals have not been achieved managers should be confident in their decisions to lessen minimization goals to achieve the plan objectives rather than have to defend against those seeking to tighten access to public lands.

Providing guidance to local managers that minimization does not need to be fully reviewed at the forest level with each round of RMP development when there are not significant changes in the forest plan goals and objectives for the area would streamline planning and NEPA review. Areas that will continue to be developed under higher levels of usage will continue to have high intensities of roads and trail, while backcountry areas will have less.  While a forest plan revision may adjust small portions of boundaries for these areas, a landscape level alteration of these general goals and objectives is simply not probable or realistic.  Management  clarity on the relationship of existing minimization and ay minimization review in any new planning effort would allow managers to more extensively review minimization in areas that management goals have significantly changed and avoid directing resources to area without significant changes in the goals and objectives of the area.

Too often extensive pressure is applied on land managers by those opposing a particular usage to minimize all possible impacts from an activity on the forest without regard to planning history in a portion of the forest.[5]  Often this pressure is provided in the form of compelling summaries of partial summaries of court decisions or management decisions from the National Park Service, which operates outside multiple use requirements of the US Forest Service. The Organizations must question any asserted relevance of management decisions taken by agencies outside multiple use requirements to the decision making process for agencies governed by multiple use requirements.

The Organizations submit that there is a limited factual relevance of the minimization criteria to most second round Resource Management Plan development efforts at the forest level unless there is a significant change in management or an intervening Congressional action such as a Wilderness or Special Management area designation. Most management plans do not significantly alter the goals and objectives for management of large portions of the forest and as a result resource impacts should remain consistent with the goals of the management area and not be heavily impacted by artificial needs to minimize resource impacts. Levels of usage and routes will simply be higher around a developed campground or urban corridor when compared to a Research Natural Area and any assertion to the contrary would lack factual basis.  Land managers should be provided with clear management direction addressing the need to recognize the complete management history of the area, and the basic consistency of management objectives across planning processes to avoid issues in reapplying the minimization criteria that most forest planning resolved in the first round of planning. Minimization simply was never intended to be an ongoing process without regard to the goals and objectives established in the Forest Planning process and implementation of guidance recognizing this factual reality could again significantly streamline the NEPA process.

10b. Management direction for areas adjacent to National Trails System routes must be clarified to streamline NEPA.

The management of areas adjacent to routes identified under the National Trail System Act, such as National Scenic or National Historic Trails, has recently become another issue where clear agency guidance could significantly streamline the NEPA planning process. Existing agency guidance currently  asserts that motorized vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on these routes, which simply is not accurate and directly conflicts with the clearly stated intent and provisions of the National Trails System Act.  The Organizations do not contest that motorized usage is prohibited in Wilderness areas, Research Natural Areas or national wildlife refuges but would also note that there are significant portions of the National Trails System Act that specifically recognize multiple usages on trails outside those areas and identify the need for planners to maximize benefits and minimizing conflicts in areas adjacent to any trail identified in the NTSA. As an example of how clear guidance will streamline NEPA is the fact that almost 20% of the Continental Divide Trail is currently located on motorized roads and fails to identify how many miles of motorized trails are currently co-located on the CDT. Such a factual situation is functionally impossible to exist if current NTSA guidance was accurate.

As a result of this incomplete and inaccurate current guidance, local land managers are now at least forced to provide an alternative in NEPA analysis that addresses the complete closure of these corridors to motorized usage. Again, this is another issue were incomplete summaries have been provided previously and then subsequently significant public pressure is being applied based on the incomplete summaries.   Providing accurate guidance on this issue would narrow the scope of questions to be resolved any NEPA process involving areas around a route designated under the NTSA.

10c. Roadless areas managed outside National Roadless Rule.

Both Colorado and Idaho have promulgated state level roadless rules that are outside the scope of the 2001 National Roadless Rule and both of these Roadless Rules have moved towards higher intensity management and wider scopes of usage of Roadless Areas when compared to the National Rule. Both State Roadless Rules have recognized the need to manage poor forest health of these areas at a higher level than were previously addressed in the 2001 Roadless Rule.  While these rulemaking efforts have been completed for several years, the differences between these state rules and the national rule have not been fully integrated into the planning and inventory process guidance from the USFS.   The failure to fully integrate these new rules has complicated NEPA implementation on both Forest and District level efforts undertaken subsequently.

While timber sales and road construction were identified as primary change factors in Roadless areas, these factors are often now seen as critical factors in establishing basic forest health and protecting recreational usage, water quality.  While the 2001 Roadless Rule never altered multiple use requirements for management of these areas, there was immediately inferred a strong relationship between Roadless Areas and future Wilderness designations in much of the USFS management guidance.  This relationship is at best questionably relevant nationally with the explosion of forest health issues since final release of the national Roadless Rule and even less relevant in states that have completed promulgation of their own roadless rules which clearly identify the need for timber management and multiple use of Roadless areas in those states.

The basic direction and intent of these state planning efforts is significantly different in addressing these activities now found necessary, but that were originally found to be the major activities to be avoided in Roadless areas.  While these state Roadless Rules have been formalized for extended periods, no national guidance has been provided to inform local planning efforts regarding the different direction and scope of these rules in relation to active management.  Rather all inventory process move forward under the premise that there is still a similar level of desire to move Roadless areas to Wilderness, which is directly contradictory to the direction and intent of both the Colorado and Idaho Roadless Rule.  As part of a NEPA streamlining process, proper guidance should be provided regarding the different direction and intent that Colorado and Idaho have promulgated in their Roadless Rules.  These are different guidance and inventory standards and these differences must be reflected in guidance documents.

10e.  Recommended Wilderness Areas must have management clarity.

For many of the same reasons as Roadless Area management could be streamlined in Idaho and Colorado, the inventory and management of Recommended Wilderness areas could be significantly streamlined as well. Too often land managers feel compelled to expand Recommended Wilderness areas in the management process and to subsequently manage these areas to improve their Wilderness suitability. The Organizations are aware that often those seeking expansion of these types of designations make a compelling presentation in meetings asserting a need for more Wilderness and that often Wilderness is the solution for pretty much any management challenge.  It has been the Organizations experience that often these presentations simply lack factual basis and often lead to significant management changes in these areas, such as prohibiting dispersed recreation on trails, forest health treatments and other activities that the USFS has successfully balanced for decades in the areas now sought to be designated as RWA or similar. Our concerns about lost opportunities for dispersed recreation are compounded by the fact that until such time as Congress designates an area as Wilderness it is to be managed for multiple use under federal law.

Two concerns highlight this need for management clarity on RWA and related management standards and these concerns are: 1. Public lands are a finite size and the odds on finding new Wilderness like areas is slim after the numerous inventory and planning efforts that have been undertaken to date; and 2.  The ability of land managers to actively address the poor forest health now systemic on public lands is impaired by Wilderness like designations applied in the planning process. The first concern is simply factual in nature and based on more than 50 years of inventory and review of possible Wilderness designations as part of the Forest planning efforts.  The odds on any manager finding a new Wilderness area on a Forest is slim, especially given the increased visitation to public lands that the USFS is struggling to continue to address and manage. At this point, most new Wilderness areas identified  have resulted from restrictive management practices in the past or the failure of current managers to understand the extent of previous inventory undertaken. Most NEPA analysis the Organizations have participated in fails to recognize the previous inventory process and related conclusions of these inventories.  Sometimes this problem arises from the fact that the local land manager was in Junior High School when the first rounds of the RARE process were being undertaken.  They simply have no personal knowledge and must be educated about the long and intricate history.  This is where the streamlining opportunities are presented, as many land managers are not able to locate detailed reports and other information conducted around possible RWA or Roadless areas previously.

Many of these possibly new Wilderness recommendation areas were found unsuitable for designation as Wilderness decades ago, and the reasons were identified in those inventory documents. Unfortunately many times these documents are not readily available or have not been transferred to a modern format for use by managers in current planning efforts.   The Organizations submit it is no more acceptable to close a non-conforming usage in subsequent planning than it was to close the usage at the time of the original inventory. Such an occurrence is simply too frequent and has again happened in the Great Burn RWA on the Nez-Pierce/Clearwater NF in Idaho, where motorized usage was lost due to a perceived need to manage these areas to improve Wilderness characteristics despite these areas never being suitable for designation previously and often these areas having a well documented history of multiple usage.

In addition to managers lacking a complete inventory history for areas, which makes closure decisions easier, managers frequently are subjected to significant pressure to the effect that Wilderness improves forest health and protects wildlife.  This position again lacks any factual basis as the poor forest health is the single largest challenge that will face land managers in this generation. As a result of pressure and poor facts, managers are forced into poor decisions that impair addressing poor forest health rather than streamlining planning requirements and subsequent site specific efforts.  Resource Management Plans should be asking how do we  address dead tree removal and streamline restoration of landscapes to protect water resources and recreational opportunities by restoring forest health in future.  Instead Resource Management plans and expanded Recommended Wilderness designations often make addressing  these issues more difficult.

The relationship of poor forest health and heightened restrictions on management of public lands has been repeatedly addressed by the USFS researchers  but much of this information is simply not well know to planning officers.   In a Rocky Mountain Research Station report reviewing the USFS response to the bark beetle outbreak, management restrictions were clearly and repeatedly identified as a major contributing factor to the outbreak and a major limitation on the response.  This report clearly stated:

• Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as Wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).[6]
• In general, mechanized treatments are prohibited in designated wilderness areas. The Arapaho Roosevelt, White River, and Routt National Forests in Colorado have a combined total of over one million acres of wilderness; the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming has more than 78 thou­sand acres. A large portion of these wilderness acres have been impacted by the current bark beetle outbreak.[7]
• Owing to terrain, and to budgetary, economic and regulatory limitations—such as prohibitions on entering roadless areas and designated wilderness—active management will be applied to a small fraction (probably less than 15%) of the forest area killed by mountain pine beetles. Research studies conducted on the Sulphur Ranger District of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest help us understand the implica­tions of this situation.[8]

With clear management concern regarding the impacts of restrictive management on the pine beetle response, the Organizations must question any restrictions on active management of forest health issues from expansion of these types of recommended Wilderness like management designations.

Many other researchers are now recognizing the negative impacts of Congressionally designated Wilderness on Forest Health and the ability to manage these areas in response to the challenges presented by the changing climate of the planet. In a review of pine blister impacts to forests in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area, researchers again concluded that the

[9]

Again these areas were much more heavily impacted than adjacent areas where management had been more active in nature.   Given the clearly negative relationship between heightened management restrictions in any area and more rapid and severe impacts to forest health, the Organizations must express serious concerns regarding any management in the new RMP that made addressing forest health issues more difficult. It entirely lacks a basis in science and good management policy.

10e.  Subpart C implementation guidance must be issued to streamline subsequent NEPA.

The Organizations have been significantly involved in the litigation and subsequent rule making efforts around implementation of the over the snow portions of the Travel Management Rule as a result of the Idaho lawsuits in both 2011 and 2017 and legal challenges to the California grooming efforts on USFS lands. Our support for the need for expanded guidance on the implementation of the OSV Rule  is further based on our experiences with implementation of the new USFS planning rule.  After involvement in these efforts the Organizations submit that these are issues were future NEPA efforts could be significantly streamlined with the issuance of guidance documents by the USFS leadership to local offices. While this guidance documentation would not directly address NEPA, this guidance would clearly address numerous issues surrounding the NEPA process, such as when is existing planning sufficient to move forward with issuance of an OSVUM,  and educating managers there is no deadline for the issuance of an OSVUM if planning is less than complete. It has been our experience that there is significant confusion around the OSV planning issue currently  with line officers.

Our experiences working with local managers undertaking forest plan revisions after issuance of the USFS Planning Rule 2.0 and before issuance of agency implementation guidance documents weighs heavily in our position on the need for OSV guidance materials to be developed.  Often local managers became overly cautious on issues as a result of the lack of national guidance and undertook reviews that were simply unnecessary since there was no guidance available for these planners to rely on when developing a new forest level plan.  At best these overly cautious decisions lead to additional levels of public reviews and  what can only be a FAR more extensive internal agency process  being undertaken in an attempt to dot every I and cross every T.  Often times these new processes and reviews lead to confusion of the public regarding a wide range of issues such as: 1. The scope of what was and was not open for comment in the planning process; 2. When next steps in the planning process were going to be undertaken; and 3.  Conflicts between the planning process undertaken on planning units within immediate geographic proximity as some forests dealt with issues in one step while other forest broke a process down into multiple elements. This lead to confusion and frustration of the public and some of the public simply disconnecting from planning efforts moving forward. Guidance documents from USFS leadership recently issued have seemed to help with this issue.

An example of the overly cautious planning efforts that have resulted from the lack of national guidance on how to implement USFS planning 2.0 requirements can be found on the GMUG national forest in Colorado.  Here planners provided a far more extensive comment process in the Wilderness Inventory phase of planning that ever before, in the hope of complying with the new transparency and public involvement portions of the Planning 2.0 efforts. As a result public comments were accepted regarding the suitability of the entire landmass of the GMUG for possible Wilderness recommendations.

While the Organizations are aware such a review is technically required under the Wilderness Act and related planning regulations, the scope of public comment was unprecedented on the GMUG as comments were accepted on the entire forest and on new issues such as boundary adjustments in the inventory process.  Most planning efforts previously have inventoried the entire landmass of the forest but only accepted comment on areas that at least arguably met the criteria for possible inclusion in the Wilderness after a preliminary review by land managers.  Involving the public in Wilderness inventory process so much earlier than ever before appeared to be based on a lack of clarity around implementation of Planning 2.0.  The Organizations are concerned that this lack of clarity in the planning process implementation has probably degraded the quality of public involvement in the process, lead to some confusion of the public in commenting and created work for planners, both as a result of the added process and the need to respond to public input that will probably be confusing at best.  While the Organizations appreciate the caution and transparency of the process, we are also not sure this level of transparency is necessary and submit this would be a situation where guidance could be very helpful in streamlining future NEPA processes. The Organizations submit that implementation of the OSV rules should not suffer from these types of confusion that resulted from delayed national guidance around the implementation of Planning 2.0.

Our concerns regarding a lack of national guidance documents addressing OSV travel is even more acute with implementation of OSV planning as this is an entirely new process for winter travel management and has been evolving as a result of the various lawsuits. This litigation has fueled the rumor mill regarding what is and is not required in planning. Most planners had a working knowledge of USFS planning process before Planning 2.0, but any of the planners we have spoken with lack even this type of basic working structure for OSV travel. While there have been areas and forests that have previously embarked on winter travel specific plans, such as the White River National Forest (WRNF) in Colorado or the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) around Lake Tahoe, California, most planners we have contacted are simply unfamiliar with the planning requirements, scope of lawsuit settlement and are expressing a generally confused position on OSV management and implementation.  National guidance would be very helpful in developing high quality NEPA in the future and avoiding litigation of OSVUM that might not be based on high quality planning efforts or forest plans that are out of date, such as happened with the second round of litigation in Idaho in 2017.  These types of guidance documents would be even more valuable for planning efforts as there is no mandated completion date for OSV travel management under the litigation settlement, which is a very different direction than most planning efforts and certainly implementation of the summer portions of the travel management process.

Implementation of OSV planning has moved forward under three general categories:1. The LTBMU, WRNF and others have moved forward with independent separate landscape level winter travel plans; 2. Other forests have moved forward with winter travel planning as part of forest planning; and 3. Other areas have moved forward with Winter Travel on a very site specific level, such as that occurring on Rabbit Ears and Vail Pass areas in Colorado. National guidance on the factors that  were weighed by land managers and impacted how these land managers identified the proper level to move forward under  would be helpful for planners that are embarking on OSV planning for the first time. Basic information and guidance on  questions such as:

1. Would these land managers repeat the OSV planning at the same geographic level or would they change the scope of their efforts?
2. What hurdles were encountered during implementation of their plan?
3. What planning tools have well and what issues or challenges could be addressed more accurately or completely in planning in the future?

These are the kinds of basic challenges that land managers appear to be addressing around OSV travel and the experiences of planners on the WRNF and LTBMU and others  would prove very insightful on landscape level decisions.  The fact that the LTBMU is now moving forward with their second round of OSV planning on the basin provides even further opportunity to leverage the experiences on this unit and further refine planning on other units.  The LTBMU provides opportunities to address questions like  how has the previous vigor in planning on the LTBMU influenced the direction and scope of the second round of winter travel review being currently undertaken on the LTBMU on issues such as minimization factors.

Guidance from the national office could address experiences with more detailed questions or proposal in the planning processes at the forest or local level.  Several of these existing OSV plans efforts have also relied on planning criteria that were interesting at the time the plan was developed but either failed to be valuable for a variety of reasons.  Examples of this would include:

1. Relying on altitude as a trigger for winter planning as attempted by several forests as part of the California grooming settlement;
2. The WRNF attempting to include tree density as a planning factor in OSV planning.

Guidance should be addressing why the altitude floor as a trigger failed in the California discussions and that while the WRNF tree density issue was interesting, it has proven to be less than relevant to the planning efforts.  The WRNF experience has been that many in the snowmobile community frequently are now seeking out areas foresters thought were unrideable and with the ever evolving technology and hybridization of the OSV travel many of these more densely treed areas are now the most desirable for snowbikes and hybrid skiers.  Conveying this type of experience would be highly valued in any national guidance.

In addition to the more specific OSV planning experiences identified above, the Organizations believe any guidance from the summer travel planning process would also be helpful.  From the Organizations standpoint our experiences with local travel planning were always more successful than larger landscape level planning efforts for travel.  Local planning for travel simply allowed better public involvement, issue identification for specific routes, and better public buy in to the planning during the implementation process as the public understood why decisions were made. Too often the public was completely  overwhelmed by the scope of identifying specific  routes in landscape planning for more than 1 million acres, priorities were directed to certain areas of the forest while other important areas received and  this generally resulted in lower quality public input being received.

The Organizations area aware of situations where landscape level travel and site specific planning were being undertaken at the same time, which has led to awkward issues and fostering of distrust between users and managers for inadvertent oversights.  This resulted in local planning being completed immediately before the release of landscape level analysis and then landscape level planning omitting routes to be build or opened in the site specific efforts, despite the route being a priority in the site specific planning.  While these failures were resolved eventually in the landscape level efforts, the identification and resolution of the issues were awkward at best and did not improve relationships between land managers and the public.

Additionally it has been the Organizations experience that landscape level planning for travel results in simply too many issues of scale.  Often maps lack clarity such as basic landmarks or are relying on boundary lines that are unclear or cover a large a large corridor simply due to the scale of mapping needed to cover millions of acres.   Too often questions at the route specific level, such as a route being inside or outside a certain planning designation are complicated by a map boundary covering a corridor of hundreds of feet on the ground.  This is a major concern when that boundary makes or breaks the existence of a route that is only 50 inches wide but beloved by a community.

Conclusion.

The Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and to provide more detailed information and input on our experiences with the NEPA process on a wide range of public lands in the hope that previous mistakes will not be repeated.  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 Offices’.

The Organizations are aware that the scope of NEPA review is heavily driven by federal legislation and as a result much of the statutorily required process is probably outside the range of discussion for the current request.  As a result, the Organizations are focusing on guidance documents and principals related to the implementation of NEPA requirements for various projects and efforts. The Organizations submit that significant opportunities for a leaner and more efficient NEPA process  are present as a result of the ambiguity in many of these guidance documents and related poor understanding of land managers in addressing many of the technical aspects of the NEPA process.  These benefits are limited and any benefit of the streamlining process could easily be lost with implementation of processes that increase the administrative overhead of site specific projects or to the NEPA process as a whole.   On the ground benefits of streamlining must be the goal of the proposal implementation.

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 .

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

[1] See, Department of Interior, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Brochure – undated at page 3.  available at http://lccnetwork.org/Media/Default/Misc/LCC_brochure_web.pdf

[2] See, Department of Interior, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Brochure – undated at page 1.  available at http://lccnetwork.org/Media/Default/Misc/LCC_brochure_web.pdf

[3] See, Department of Interior, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Brochure – undated at page 2.  available at http://lccnetwork.org/Media/Default/Misc/LCC_brochure_web.pdf

[4] See, Executive Order 11644 as amended.

[5] See, https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Travel-Analysis-Best-Practices-Review.pdf or https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/ORV%20Minimization%20Criteria%20White%20Paper—May%202016.pdf as examples of the pressures applied on managers to minimize without regard to management history or goals and objectives for the management area and to rely on Park Service guidance for basic management direction on multiple use lands.

[6] See, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station;” A review of the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming prepared at the request of Senator Mark Udall’: September 2011 at pg i. (Hereinafter referred to as the “Udall Forest Health Report”)

[7] Udall Forest Health report at pg 5

[8] Udall Forest Health Report at pg 18

[9] Retzlaff, Molly L.; Leirfallom, Signe B.; Keane, Robert E. 2016. A 20-year reassessment of the health and status of whitebark pine forests in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Montana. Res. Note RMRS-RN-73. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p.

SaveSave

USDA Forest Service
NEPA Services Group C/O Amy Barker
Geospatial Technology & Applications Center
222 West 2300 South
Salt Lake City, 84119

Additional and Supplemental Input regarding NEPA Streamlining Process

Dear Ms. Barker:

Please accept these ADDITIONAL comments regarding the NEPA Streamlining process on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”). 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 and multiple-use recreation.  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 multiple-use recreational opportunities.

These ADDITIONAL Comments are provided in addition to our joint comments provided in an independent document and submitted in partnership with COHVCO, CSA, ORBA, IRC and One Voice. The TPA provide the following additional points and recommendations for consideration in streamlining the NEPA process:

1) The TPA interacts with multiple agencies across many landscapes, forests and districts. Although the same rules are intended to apply to all, implementation of NEPA is wildly different by location, leadership team, and specialist’s experience. Streamlining NEPA offers an opportunity to create a consistent and fair approach to environmental policy. In support of that objective, the TPA offers the following comments:

1. Create plain language training for both agency personnel and stakeholder groups that clearly lays out responsibilities under law and latitude provided for agency personnel. This is not a change in rules or regulation, but an attempt to provide clarity of such for all parties.
   • The TPA has repeatedly been exposed to line officers and specialists who use the NEPA process as a tool for their own personal advocacy positions. This is inappropriate and a breach of public trust. Plain language rules will make it more difficult for individuals to pursue personal objectives.
   • Furthermore, It has been our experience that when there are multiple agencies or jurisdictions involved in the planning process, any lack of clarity in the Planning Rule or implementation documents results in higher levels of NEPA being applied to the project. This results in significant additional time and resources being directed towards analysis of the project rather than resolving the management issue on the ground. Plain language interpretation of NEPA should encourage managers to look at any issue in the manner that requires the least amount of NEPA analysis.  This is a concern where planning rules and subsequent guidance handbooks can provide a significant opportunity to streamline and provide line officers with an identifiable agency position that allows the project to move forward and not get bogged down in NEPA analysis.
2. Create an appeal board within the agency, which stakeholders can use for relief when a line officer or specialist fails to follow the NEPA process or meet their requirements under law. The TPA supports decentralized decision-making and reducing the echelons and influences of bureaucracy. However, during the existing NEPA process there can be little to no accountability, review or appeal of USFS staff/specialists recommendations and decisions.
   • Many USFS Districts have limited staff and the depth and experience of those staff can be lacking. For example, a District might have a single staff hydrologist who makes all recommendations and determinations regarding the potential and perceived impacts of an action to a watershed.  Western Watersheds can be large and diverse, and a single hydrologist may not have appropriate experience to judge the impacts of proposed changes in all areas. Or, that specialist may have a personal bias they wish to support in their work. For the public, under the existing NEPA system, there is very little recourse or ability to question or overturn a specialist’s recommendation.  If, when and where NEPA is being applied inconsistently, reluctantly or inappropriately, the public needs a process to appeal and hold specialist accountable (e.g., to a review board).
3. Create a pathway for outside specialists to assist in the NEPA process. The use of specialist and scientists from outside the agency can help to improve trust with the public, provide augmentation resources to agency staffs and help mitigate the encroachment of personal biases into the process by agency staff.
   • Furthermore, this will avoid the problem of line officers claiming a lack of resources to avoid investigating situations they do not personally support. Claiming lack of resources or resource constraint is often an easy way to administratively avoid dealing with a difficult or uncomfortable situation. This simply is a breach of public trust.
   • As stated above, agency staff and specialist will sometimes view their interaction with NEPA as an opportunity to put forward their own advocacy positions. This too is a breach of public trust, and having a pathway for outside specialists to assist will diminish the power of a single person to dictate the use of public land.
   • It is the TPA’s experience that NEPA processes can often be “put on hold” based on a claimed lack of availability of staff and fiscal resources. The public or interested party should have a method and the right to provide resources to move the process forward if the agency is unable to provide the necessary resources.

2) Additional categories of Categorical Exclusions (CE) are needed. For many purposes, the CE is an appropriate level of review, however, existing categories are insufficient to provide Line Officers with appropriate tools. The TPA propose at least two additional CE types:

1. Special Event CEs: Applicable wherever requested use is consistent with an existing resource plan. For example: a motorized event utilizing existing designated motorized trails. These permits should have a low bar for approval. If an event requests to use resources not in accordance with approved use, this would not be applicable.
   • The 5-acre CE is not appropriate for permitting many event types, whether they are motorized or not. This new CE type would support public use of public land in accordance with administrative decisions that have already been made.
2. “Additional Use” CEs: Use the CE process to “add” uses to existing trails and trail networks. For example, adding motorized use to existing trail. This would be appropriate to return historic use to a trail, or wherever agency staff feel the impact of a change would be appropriate. This could only be used to add uses; removal of uses would still require a process with more opportunity for public involvement.
   • Today, projects that will have identical impact on the ground require different analysis based on the type of use. Line officers should be able to determine when a change in use will be minimally impactful and therefore appropriate to this type of CE.

In summary, we are glad to see the agency recognizes a need for change, and we support any streamlining of the process that results in public land not being hostage to “process”.

Sincerely,

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

Attn: Forest Plan Revision Team
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
2250 South Main St
Delta, Colorado 81416

RE: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) – Forest Plan Revision, Wilderness Inventory Comments

Dear Forest Plan Revision Team:

Please accept these comments regarding the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests – Forest Plan Revision, Wilderness Inventory on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) and the Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”). Prior to presenting our comments, the Organizations believe a brief summary of each Organization is necessary to provide context for our remarks. 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 and multiple-use recreation.  The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail multiple-use recreational opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 170,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”), snowmobile and 4WD users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all motorized recreationists in the protection and promotion of multiple-use and 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 CSA was founded in 1970 to unite winter-motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. The 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.  The TPA, COHVCO and CSA are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations”.

1. Wilderness Areas. We certainly understand that only Congress can designate Wilderness areas per the Wilderness Act of 1964. However, we also understand that the Forest staff has the ability to recommend areas for Wilderness designation. The Organizations do not support any additional Wilderness designated areas within the GMUG. Any additional Wilderness areas would concentrate use on a reduced inventory of multiple-use lands and decrease the ability to remove fuels, fight fires or actively manage the lands to promote forest health. Furthermore additional Wilderness will concentrate use, shrink the future reservoir of lands for multiple-use, increase environmental impacts and reduce user satisfaction. The continued loss of multiple-use lands will diminish the capacity of the land for future generations to use and recreate on, violating the intent of the Planning Rule for sustainability. This concentrated use will degrade user satisfaction and harm tourism, which so many of our rural communities depend upon.
2. Colorado Roadless Rule. The Organizations have concerns that the Roadless Rule is often used as a lever for the expansion of Wilderness areas. This is a misapplication of the Roadless Rule, as Colorado has developed its own rule that specifically identifies motorized trails as a characteristic of a Colorado Roadless area; 1) While Roadless areas have limitations on road construction and heavy maintenance, multiple-use trails are entirely outside the scope of the Colorado Roadless Rule, 2) Trail networks to include motorized trails may be constructed and expanded in Colorado Roadless areas.
3. The following areas are adjacent to or in close proximity to existing Wilderness and contain existing popular motorized/multiple use routes and infrastructure and are not suitable for Wilderness designation. These comments were developed utilizing the GMUG’s web based, interactive map posted to the GMUG Planning Website (https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=f79028627ef64aa49c906088b59b6020), current GMUG Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs) and local knowledge:
   1. Map Area # 91, Name: Tomahawk, This area contains NFST # 820
   2. Map Area # 155, Name: Matchless Mountain, This area contains multiple roads and trails
   3. Map Area # 146, Name: Granite Basin, This area contains multiple roads and trails
   4. Map Area # 150, Name: American Flag Mountain, This area contains multiple roads and trails
   5. Map Area # 127, Name: Gothic, This area contains multiple roads and trails
   6. Map Area # 84, Name: Cannibal Plateau, This area contains multiple roads and trails namely NFSTs # 457, 458, & 464 and NFSR #788
   7. Map Area # 58 & #65, Name: Turret Ridge & Failes Creek/Soldier Creek, This area contains multiple roads and trails (e.g. Owl Creek Pass NFSR #858
   8. Map Area # 57, Name: Cimarron Ridge, This area contains multiple roads and trails
   9. Map Area #? (Small Roadless area north of the Lizard Head Wilderness area), Name: Wilson, This area contains multiple roads and trails (e.g., NFSR #645 and NFST #421)

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these topics and any other challenges that might be facing the GMUG National Forest at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact Don Riggle at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs, 80906, Cell (719) 338- 4106 or William Alspach, P.E. at 675 Pembrook Drive, Woodland Park, CO 80863.  Mr. Alspach’s phone number is (719) 660-1259 and his email is williamalspach@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

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

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

Delivered via email to r02admin_review@fs.fed.us

Objection Reviewing Officer
San Juan National Forest
15 Burnett Court
Durango, CO 81301

RE: Objections to Rico West Dolores Travel Management Draft
Exhibits

Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

Please accept these objections to the Draft Record of Decision (“Draft ROD”) for the Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) Project on the Dolores Ranger District, San Juan National Forest.  The Responsible Official is District Ranger Derek Padilla.  These objections are submitted on behalf of the San Juan Trail Riders (“SJTR”), Public Access Preservation Association (“PAPA”), Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”), and BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org (“BRC”), including these organizations’ individual and organizational members who have enjoyed, and plan in the future to enjoy, access to the Rico West Dolores area (collectively, the “Objectors”).

These objections are submitted in accordance with 36 C.F.R. part 218.  The Objectors, as well as their members, filed comments raising the issues, otherwise providing a basis for these objections, or the issues arose after the opportunities for comment.  These comments include all comments filed by objectors and their members which, by way of illustration and not limitation, include our firm’s scoping comments dated January 30, 2015 and DEIS comments dated July 15, 2016.   The “lead objector” is SJTR.  The point of contact for the lead objector and all objectors is the undersigned, and please direct all communication regarding these objections to Paul Turcke at 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 520; Boise, Idaho 83702; 208-331-1800; pat@msbtlaw.com.  We formally request a resolution meeting in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 218.11.  We hereby authorize, indeed encourage, the Reviewing Officer to extend the time for a written response to objections, particularly if it will facilitate a thorough effort to explore opportunities to resolve objections.  See, 36 C.F.R. § 218.26(b).

I. Interest of the Organizations

Our clients have a unique perspective and longstanding interest in use of the Rico West Dolores area and management of the project area.  Aside from member and stakeholder participation in the full array of planning processes, we have played a central role on behalf of recreation interests in litigation, particularly including as defendant-intervenors in Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Colorado Chapter v. U.S. Forest Service, Case No. 11-CV-3139 (D. Colo.) and Nos. 13-1216 and 14-1137 (10^th Cir.).  We remain committed to this presence in ongoing management of the Rico West Dolores, in whatever role may now become necessary.

SJTR is a Colorado nonprofit corporation with approximately 400 members.  SJTR is based in Durango and its members are primarily from Colorado.  SJTR 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.

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 partners.  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.

TPA is a Colorado nonprofit corporation.  TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the USFS and BLM 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 insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to 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.

COHVCO is a Colorado nonprofit corporation.  COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 230,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of multi-use and 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.  Like the other organizations, COHVCO includes members who use motorized and non-motorized means to gain access to and recreate upon lands in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest.

BRC is a nonprofit corporation that champions responsible recreation and encourages individual environmental stewardship.  BRC has members in all 50 states, including Colorado.  BRC members use various motorized and nonmotorized means to access public lands, specifically including the Rico West Dolores project area.  BlueRibbon has a long-standing interest in the protection of the values and natural resources addressed in this process, and regularly works with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, preserve resources, and promote cooperation between public land visitors.

All of the above-described organizations have participated, including through their members, in the multiple administrative processes and earlier lawsuit involving the Rico West Dolores area.  In addition to their unique perspective in these roles and as trail-based recreationists, the organizations’ members own property, hold jobs or conduct businesses, and are members of the communities within and near the Rico West Dolores area.  Many have lifetime familiarity hunting, fishing, camping, and participating in a wide range of outdoor activities in the locale and in specific sites throughout the Rico West Dolores area.  This background and perspective is particularly relevant given the creative and unusual framing of some issues and factual conclusions in the Draft ROD and related documents.

II. Background and Adverse Impacts of the Decision

The Rico West Dolores Draft ROD would impose dramatic and unwarranted changes to a long-established road/trail system.  It is important in framing the objections to understand the nature of this area, the balance of uses, nature of potential resource concerns, and history behind the project.  We will highlight these restrictions within the same subareas as outlined in the Draft ROD.

A. Subarea 1 (Draft ROD at 13-15)

This area focuses largely on ATV and UTV riding balanced against “walk in” opportunities in Fish Creek and Willow Divide.  While the Objectors include many participants in these forms of recreation, these opportunities are limited in the Rico West Dolores area and it is not a significant destination for this type of activity.  We generally support the concepts of providing specific opportunities for ATV and UTV recreation including designation of new routes or conversion of roads to trails, but the handful of provisions to this effect in Subarea 1 are of minimal benefit in comparison to the significant restrictions elsewhere under the Draft ROD.

B. Subarea 2 (Draft ROD at 15-16)

The closures on Winter Trail and the associated connections to East and West Fall Creek Trails represent significant losses of historical, high quality single track motorized opportunities.  As the Draft ROD notes, Calico North (Trail 208) is a desirable technical motorcycle route.  Draft ROD at 15-16.  The Draft ROD changes eliminate loop riding via Winter Trail, relegating motorcycle users to out and back riding and thus greater two-way traffic on Trail 208, or to loop riding on NFSR 471 and “conflict” with higher traffic volume and full-sized vehicles.   The stated rationales are questionable.  “User conflict” in this area is created by and uniquely benefits the highly successful and opportunistic commercial enterprise at the Dunton Resort.  Similarly, the alleged intent to reduce “impacts to wetlands and the fen” ignores the fact that the trails themselves will still remain, and that the agency is actually expanding and hardening the trail prism in this area.  The Draft ROD’s changes are significant “wins” for Dunton, offset by an intentional “loss” for motorcycle enthusiasts.

C. Subarea 3 (Draft ROD at 16-17)

The closure of Spring Creek is unnecessary, curiously documented, and easily avoided.  The decision documents do not adequately explain whether “greenback lineage cutthroat” populations is even a proper term, let alone provide any data or defensible analysis showing their existence in Spring Creek.  Assuming there is a legitimate management concern, the Draft ROD fails to address the fact that route-based watershed impacts are primarily a function of route location and attributes, and minimally correlated to recreational traffic on the trail.  In other words, it is the fact the trail exists, and attributes such as proximity to the waterway, soil type, sloping, gradient, and precipitation that determine impacts.  Any trail-related impacts to Spring Creek watershed quality will be minimally reduced, if at all, by eliminating motorcycle travel.  Regardless, SJTR has identified to the Forest Service a re-route of this trail segment, shown on prior Forest Service maps, which would avoid over two miles of the creek bottom and provide a far better long-term solution for any alleged watershed issues.

We recognize the new designation along Loading Pen Trail would authorize motorcycle use.  The purpose for this designation was to facilitate loop riding in conjunction with Stoner Mesa Trail, connected along Spring Creek Trail.  With the elimination of the Spring Creek connection, the Loading Pen designation is of minimal value.  In fact, the Draft ROD seems designed to create maximize adverse impact to motorcycle riding opportunity, and then arithmetically camouflage this harm through inclusion of low quality miles along Loading Pen.

D. Subarea 4 (Draft ROD at 18)

The closure of Wildcat to motorcycles has significant implications and seems integral to a thinly-veiled plan to insulate the Town of Rico from motorized trail connections.  The purported rationale – to address a “specific type of livestock grazing system” – is ludicrous.  In our collective centuries of experience in public lands management, on behalf of recreation and livestock interests, we have never seen a Forest Service employee advocate for one permittee’s herding effort by advancing a public trail closure on this rationale.

E. Subarea 5 (Draft ROD at 18-20)

The main problem here is the highly unusual and unnecessary “short term” closure of Johnny Bull Trail and portions of East and West Fall Creek Trails based on alleged inability to document a “public right of way” for motor vehicle access on a few small segments of trail that cross mining claims.  Draft ROD at 19.  There is no prerequisite that the Forest Service possess a “documented public right of way” prior to designating trails – agency units routinely address this common challenge through various approaches.  In many instances, the Forest Service only addresses route designation on Forest Service-managed lands, and declines to address a route’s status on other jurisdictions, particularly where that status might turn on application of state law or circumstances beyond the Forest Service’s jurisdiction or authority.  Regardless, the agency should prioritize its apparently ongoing effort to rectify this situation.  If the agency is insisting on having a documented right of way on these particular sites, it should culminate those efforts post haste and should make increasingly clear the conditional approval of access along the affected routes, should appropriate documentation or other authorization/approval of the routes be obtained.

F. Subarea 6 (Draft ROD at 20-21)

The elimination of motorized trail access to the Town of Rico is unacceptable and irrational.  The closure both Burnett Creek and Horse Creek trails was purportedly to “[m]eet[ ] the desires of the Town of Rico and its residents” and to reduce “conflicts” “between the populated area of the Town of Rico and motor vehicle use.”  Draft ROD at 20.  These rationales defy common sense – even the Draft ROD acknowledges safety/access concerns creating by eliminating connection to the trail system.  Suggesting that access is provided by Highway 145 is irresponsible, and strains credulity.  More fundamentally, the conclusion that the “Town of Rico” “desires” elimination of motorized trail access is not unsupported, but flatly contradicted, by the record.  See, Town of Rico comments dated July 25, 2017 (signed by Town Manager Kari Distefano) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

G. Subarea 7 (Draft ROD at 21-23)

This Subarea is not a significant focus for the Objectors’ members.

H. Subarea 8 (Draft ROD at 23)

The closure of Ryman Creek Trail and refusal to consider alternative motorized access along Salt Creek Trail continue a theme of irrational decision elements which strategically eliminate key route connections.  Similar to the concerns raised above on Spring Creek, the alleged soil/maintenance issues raised for both these routes are primarily a function of trail attributes and the continued existence/placement of the route, not whether the route is traversed by hikers, horses, bikes or motorcycles.  See, CBHA Declaration of Jonina Vanderbilt (Dkt. 34-6) at ¶ 7 (discussing “entrenchment, braiding and water damage” issues on Calico Trail and noting “[t]hese problems occur to improper trail design and the use of the trail by all types of users.”  The Draft ROD ostensibly addresses this concern, by proposed to decommission a section of Ryman Trail, which could certainly resolve any legitimate downcutting concerns.  However, the Draft ROD would offset these supposed impacts along the ridgeline by designating an alternative nonmotorized route in Ryman Creek itself, and allowing the continuing existence and nonmotorized use along Salt Creek, which was alleged to have “the same trail maintenance concerns identified for Ryman Creek Trail.”  Draft ROD at 23.  This rationale in internally contradictory.  What seems more obvious is a predilection to eliminate any motorized connection along Ryman/Salt Creeks, combined with motorcycle closures on Wildcat and Burnett Creek, thus creating a motorcycle impenetrable bubble around Rico.  This bubble eliminates historical loop connections from Hermosa District trails to the south/east, and provides an enhanced nonmotorized experience for a handful of individuals the agency has selectively chosen to benefit.

I. Subarea 9 (Draft ROD at 23-24)

Unfortunately, the Draft ROD does not accurately describe the effect of the elimination of motorized access along the Bear Creek-Little Bear Creek trails.  This closure, and the unwillingness to consider a suitable replacement route, will disconnect the Rico West Dolores and Manco/Cortez landscape.  Assuming the “nonmotorized” experience for hiking/fishing along Bear Creek is a legitimate basis for excluding historical motorized travel, the agency irrationally failed to consider “win-win” alternatives.  These would have included designation of the Little Bear Pack Trail for motorized use, and continuation of long-occurring access along the Morrison Trail 610 “stock driveway, road and bridge” which has been specifically dedicated for public use to the Forest Service.

J. Summary

The above-detailed closures work in concert to create significant adverse changes to motorized trail-based recreation and access.  The bare statistics alone reveal significant reductions in access.  In particular, motorized single track went from 114 miles to 83 miles, which is arithmetically nearly a thirty percent reduction from the status quo.  Draft ROD at 10.  These figures alone tell only part of the story, for as the above subarea descriptions reveal, the miles that were eliminated for motorized travel were of unique importance to the functionality and quality of the route network.  Additionally, seasonal restrictions were added on the remaining trails, imposing an inflexible prohibition of motorized use from November 1 to May 31 every year.  Draft ROD at 11.

We are experienced participants in the land use management process, and can appreciate that no stakeholder will “win” on every issue in a decision of this nature.  However, the Draft ROD reflects an almost surgically precise evisceration of strategic elements of the Rico West Dolores motorized trail network.  This is the exact trail network that the Forest Service successfully defended only a few years ago in the CBHA litigation, against the same alleged concerns that now form the rationale for many of the Draft ROD changes.  The Draft ROD has inexplicably tipped the balance in creating winners and losers.  The Objection Reviewing Officer should seize this opportunity to restore balance and integrity by identifying specific areas for further analysis or refinement.

III.      Objection Issues

We raise the following objections, which provide a legal basis for our requested changes to the Draft ROD.

The objection process necessarily anticipates the possibility of and likelihood of success in subsequent litigation brought by an objector.  In such a challenge the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for those aggrieved by “final agency action.”  5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704; Lujan v. National Wildlife Fedn., 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990).  APA section 706(2) provides the relevant standard of review: a reviewing court shall “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….”  This standard of review is “narrow” but the agency:

must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made….Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citations omitted).  This is considered a deferential standard of review, but as we will outline below, the agency will hopefully recognize, and avoid, the litigation risk that attends this uniquely flawed decision.

A. The Subpart A Analysis Reflects Error.

The Forest, perhaps as part of a larger effort in Region 2, has elected to navigate new procedural ground by including a “Subpart A Minimum Road System” analysis within this project.  This effort is flawed on multiple levels.  For starters, the documents reveal the Dolores District misunderstanding of how Subpart A developed.  See, e.g., Draft ROD at 4 (stating that “the TMR instructs National Forest managers to identify the Minimum Road System….”).  The TMR is properly understood to be the comprehensive modification to the system of designating roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use formally released on November 9, 2005.  70 Fed.Reg. 68264-68290 (Nov. 9, 2005).  This Final Rule focused on creation of new provisions in Subparts B and C, and contained only technical and minor provisions affecting Subpart A.  Id. at 68287-68288.  In reality, the “minimum road system” (“MRS”) aspect of Subpart A was created on the verge of the clock striking midnight on President Clinton’s final term in office.  66 Fed.Reg. 3206-3218 (Jan. 12, 2001).  This rollout of Subpart A and MRS happened concurrently with the infamous Roadless Rule.  66 Fed.Reg. 3244-3273 (Jan. 12, 2001).  It is unfortunate that the agency did not recognize and correct the confusion reflected by its perception/statement.

This misunderstanding is not a matter of semantics.  The MRS is arguably another arrow in a quiver built at the urging of preservationist special interests to complicate and reduce historical motorized access to the National Forest System.  It is concerning that the Dolores District so conspicuously grafted Subpart A onto this project, while failing to appreciate its historical context.  Subpart A’s MRS analysis has never been well understood or widely applied, and has rarely formed a basis for litigation, let alone remand of Forest Service travel decisions.  See, e.g., Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Cons. v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:09-cv-2523 (E.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 76, Order dated May 26, 2011).  It is an anachronistic effort to throw up hurdles and reduce roads, which has been rendered unnecessary by Subpart B’s designation requirements.  The agency is taking unnecessary risk in relying too conspicuously on Subpart A here, or in any travel management project.

1. The “Minimum Road System” Analysis Violates Procedural Requirements.

Subpart A does not contemplate identification of MRS in a project-level decision like this Rico West Dolores Travel Management Project.  The regulation states that the MRS must be identified “[f]or each national forest, national grassland, experimental forest, and any other units of the National Forest System.”   36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b).  This language directs an outcome on a unit-by-unit level, which here is for the San Juan National Forest.  The MRS must be tied to various factors, such as “to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in [the Forest Plan].”  Id.  Neither the regulatory language nor logic support an effort to identify MRS in piecemeal fashion within Forest subunits, or every time some project is undertaken.  Rather, MRS should occur, if at all, on a Forest-wide level, most logically in conjunction with the Forest Plan.

2. The Forest Has Not Adequately Involved the Public.

The MRS requirement, both on its face and as applied here by the Dolores District, unwisely if not illegally creates an unjustifiable risk that NEPA analysis of travel management will be segmented in violation of basic NEPA principles.  The regulations require that in conducting the MRS analysis the responsible official must “to the degree practicable, involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other state and federal agencies, and tribal governments.”  36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b).  Relatedly, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulations direct that “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.”  40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).

The MRS requirement was included midway through the analysis.  The only opportunity for any comment on its inclusion was “after the fact” upon release of the SDEIS.  It has become apparent in the Draft ROD/FEIS that the MRS involves numerous procedural shortcuts, and heavy reliance on the September, 2015 Travel Analysis Process Report.  The “public involvement” for this process was woefully deficient, and lacks disclosure to the full public during generation of the Report.  See, TAP Report at 20-21.  In fact, the first step of “public involvement” and perhaps the instigation of the agency’s questionable effort to now combine Subpart A/B planning was “visits” and “suggestions” from Wilderness Society staff.  Id. at 20.  The public has not been adequately involved in Subpart A analysis.

As long as Subpart A exists it will fuel a “chicken or egg” comparison to Subpart B.  Agency counsel skillfully deflected these questions in the above-cited litigation, but by inviting it here the Dolores District creates unnecessary risk.  The inevitable loser in this discussion will be those who rely on the ever-declining system of roads providing access to the National Forest System.  The confusion surrounding Subpart A is one of the issues that should be rectified in the objection process and addressed in any instructions/remand.

B. The Agency Has Failed to Sufficiently Document Site-Specific Conclusions.

The Draft ROD and FEIS employ a narrative style that largely fails to meet applicable requirements for presentation of technical conclusions.  Under even “arbitrary and capricious” review the agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made….”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n., 463 U.S. at 43.  NEPA imposes various technical protocols including disclosure of methods, presentation of hard data, and disclosure of any “sources relied upon for conclusions” in an EIS.  40 C.F.R. § 1502.24.  NEPA does not envision undocumented narrative exposition, but requires that “[a]gencies shall insure the professional integrity, including the scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.”  Id.; Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Tippin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99458, *29 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“NEPA does not permit an agency to rely on the conclusions [of agency experts] without providing both supporting analysis and data”).  A “bare assertion of opinion from an [agency] expert, without any supporting reasoning, would not pass muster in an EIS.”  Great Basin Resource Watch v. BLM, 844 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9^th Cir. 2016).

We will identify specific failures to meet these requirements within specific objections below.  However, the overall approach to this decision-making process violates these fundamental principles.  We specifically note and incorporate by reference again the effective earlier testimony of Forest Service specialists on many of the same issues on the same trails.  See, CBHA Declarations of Mark Stiles (Dkt. 43-2); Deborah Kill (Dkt. 34-3); Christopher Bouton (Dkt. 34-4); Penelope Wu (Dkt. 34-5); Jonina Vanderbilt (Dkt. 34-6); Ivan Messinger (Dkt. 34-7); David Gerhardt (Dkt. 34-8); Cara MacMillan (Dkt. 34-9).  The Draft ROD attempts to sidestep these declarations, claiming they “do not necessarily conflict” with the FEIS, did not address all concerns, and only addressed whether there was an immediate need to close 14 trails named in the lawsuit rather than long-term effects.  Draft ROD at 5.  Virtually everything in this statement is wrong.  Much of the testimony addressed universal facts or general management perspectives on recreation management.  In reality, there has been no meaningful change in conditions and recreation use on these trails is “low to moderate on an upward trend.”  FEIS at 67.  The Draft ROD attempts a complex solution to problems that largely do not exist.  A good place to start in exposing these misstatements is the reliance on “user conflict” to close trails.

C. The Forest Illegally Relies upon User Conflict to Justify Closure.

The Draft ROD relies heavily upon purported “user conflict” as the rationale for closing trails to continuing motorized travel.  See, e.g., FEIS at 4 (characterizing basis for motorcycle trail restrictions as “to address resource impacts, livestock distribution concerns and balance requests for nonmotorized areas”); Draft ROD at 6 (identifying “specific needs for change” to include “nonmotorized recreation experience”).  This rationale is flawed on multiple levels.

1. Subjective User Conflict Cannot Support Closure.

Subjective preferences of users, individually or collectively, cannot justify elimination of access to the less popular or less conflicted users.  At most, the Travel Management Rule requires the agency to “consider effects…with the objective of minimizing….(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses” of the Forest.”  36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b).  The regulation refers to conflicts of “use” not conflict between “users.”

This language is derived from the Executive Orders, issued by Presidents Nixon and Carter.  See, E.O. 11644, 11989; 42 Fed.Reg. 26959.  While there has been debate about whether the EO’s create an enforceable right of action, the Forest Service effectively rendered this a non-issue when it chose to paste the EO language into regulations adopted via notice and comment rule-making.  The present-day interpretation by some special interests and land managers does not rationally interpret this language.  The actual wording refers to conflicts between “uses” not “users.”  The historical context is relevant, as in the early 1970’s off-highway vehicles were relatively new and largely unregulated.  The EO’s reflect a crude first step at the anticipated need to balance a new and developing use with the conservation efforts of the era reflected in contemporaneously adopted statutes like NEPA and FLPMA.  In any event, it was not intended then, nor does it make sense now, to allow some quantum of subjective complaining by some class of “user” to exclude other users from public lands.

Nor is subjective “user conflict” an “environmental” impact under NEPA.  A recent Ninth Circuit decision correctly notes that “controversy” as a NEPA intensity factor “refers to disputes over the size or effect of the action itself, not whether or how passionately people oppose it.”  Wild Wilderness v. Allen, 871 F.3d 719, 728 (9^th Cir. 2017).  The panel further indicated it “need not address the question of whether on-snow user conflicts are outside the scope of the agency’s required NEPA analysis entirely because they are ‘citizens’ subjective experiences,’ not the ‘physical environment.’”  Id. at 729 n.2 (citations omitted).  In a largely forgotten effort, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that NEPA focuses on impacts to the physical environment.  “It would be extraordinarily difficult for agencies to differentiate between ‘genuine’ claims of psychological health damage and claims that are grounded solely in disagreement with a democratically adopted policy.  Until Congress provides a more explicit statutory instruction than NEPA now contains, we do not think agencies are obliged to undertake the inquiry.”  Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 778 (1983).

The governing law only authorizes the Forest Service to analyze and minimize conflicts between uses, not the subjective preferences of users.  The Draft ROD reflects an improper emphasis on the latter, which should be addressed through instructions/remand.

2. The Agency Lacks Meaningful Analysis of Conflict.

Even if the Forest can properly rely on “user conflict” as a basis for selectively closing trails to a specified form(s) of use, the Draft ROD is independently flawed by reaching that outcome entirely bereft of data or fact.  Again, the agency must utilize “high quality” data and cannot rely on undocumented narrative summary.  Objectors understand that the “science” behind recreation planning may be social science, but even so the Forest Service is capable of conducting real analysis of real visitors on actual sites in the project area.  See, Hells Canyon Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 227 F.3d 1170, 1182 (9^th Cir. 2000) (upholding decision based on recreation use study); Riverhawks v. Zepeda, 228 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1184 (discussing “user study” conducted on site noting motorized use was “cited as a source of concern” but finding “the majority of non-motorized users nevertheless indicated a high degree of satisfaction”).  The agency did not attempt any such analysis and does not purport to offer site-specific analysis of “conflict” here.  Rather, the discussion is framed in a purely narrative and generalized fashion.  See, e.g., FEIS at 200-203. In fact, the agency candidly admits it lacks data on conflict, or even on types of use that is specific to the project area.  FEIS at 67-68.  The agency admits reliance on “[g]eneral qualitative descriptions of the impact of motor vehicle use on recreation experience…based on Forest Service information that relates to recreation management agency-wide.”  Id. (emphasis added).

While the Draft ROD closes some routes to supposedly address conflict, it leaves others open in the face of indistinguishable conflict.  For example, the Subarea 4 discussion discussing the rationale for continuing single track motorized travel on Priest Gulch and South Calico Trails states: “No major resource issues were identified for these trails and regular maintenance will minimize impacts.  There are examples of conflict described in public comments for all the trails with single track motorized use and these two trails were no exception.”  Draft ROD at 18.  This seems to epitomize arbitrariness.  There is no quantification of “conflict” on any route, yet “examples” of conflict supposedly exist “for all the trails.”  How is a reader, reviewing court, or conscientious visitor to the public lands expected to make a meaningful distinction between the choice to leave one route open and to close another?

The Rico West Dolores attempt at analyzing conflict is uniquely deficient.  The complete absence of data or any rational, site-specific analysis taints the conflict based route closures.  These conclusions must be vacated and addressed in any further planning.

3. There is Not Even a Finding of “Conflict.”

The Draft ROD is further flawed because even the actions purportedly based on “conflict” lack a predicate finding that any conflict exists.  Rather, the agency has curiously framed these choices as addressing unspecified “preferences” or “opinions” from individual commenters.  See, FEIS at 204-207 (Table 3-43).  Throughout this discussion the phrase that “some commenters preferred nonmotorized settings” appears ubiquitous.  However, the agency says “[t]hese statements were an overall conflict with preferred recreation experiences and not instances of direct conflict.”  Id.  The agency seems to be declining to provide instances of “direct conflict” and is denying that such conflict exists.  The stated “overall conflict” with motorized access cannot form a defensible basis to restrict motorized travel on specific trails

D. The Forest Improperly Eliminated Trail Access to Rico.

The Draft ROD would eliminate trail-based motorized access to the Town of Rico.  The purported rationale for these closures (along both Horse Creek and Burnett Creek Trails) is to maintain a “mountain town” atmosphere and “meet[ ] the desires of the Town of Rico and some of its residents….”  Draft ROD at 20.  This conclusion is unsupported by the record and defies common sense.

1. Elimination of Motorized Access to Rico is Arbitrary and Capricious.

The “Town of Rico” did not “desire” to “remove single track motorized use designations from the Burnett Creek and Horse Creek Trails.”  Draft ROD at 20.  The Draft ROD’s conclusion not only lacks even rational support but is flatly contradicted by the record.  Objectors did not attempt an exhaustive review of comments on this issue.  However, the Town of Rico has plainly stated its position, which was most recently to allow continuing motorized access along the Horse Creek Trail and to close the Burnett Creek Trail to motorized use.  See, Town of Rico comments dated July 25, 2017 (signed by Town Manager Kari Distefano) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).  The Town of Rico has commented on multiple occasions during the planning process.  See, comments dated June 9, 2016 (on DEIS) (attached hereto as Exhibit B); comments dated January 26, 2015 (scoping) (attached hereto as Exhibit C).  The comments have evolved, with the initial comments embracing non-motorized designations for Burnett, “Upper Horse Creek” and Wildcat Trails, the DEIS comments continuing a preference that Burnett/Horse Creek Trails be non-motorized but indicating support for motorized travel on Wildcat Trail to provide motorized access to Rico.  The most recent comments state the intention of the current Board of Trustees to withdraw the January 26, 2015 scoping comments.  Of the formal Town of Rico comments submitted, the Draft ROD only complies with those withdrawn scoping comments.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Town of Rico meets a variety of needs for a diverse spectrum of humans.  A few have chosen to live in or near Rico, on a full or part time basis.  These “residents” in any backcountry setting will tend to favor less development, less access, and fewer human co-habitants.  The Town of Rico is just large enough, particularly in the context of this sparsely populated project area, to provide a certain level of public goods and services.  These are desired by a significant portion of the recreating public and provide a means of revenue and support for certain businesses in the community.  The Draft ROD makes no effort at a reasoned discussion of these factors, and provides no meaningful insight at its eventual choice to favor the “desires” of “some residents” over the socioeconomic interests of other residents or the recreating public.  See, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e) (directing management of the National Forest System to provide for “multiple use and sustained yield”); 16 U.S.C. § 531(a) (defining “multiple use” to include “management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people…”).

The agency cannot properly invoke the unspecified desire of “some residents” to defend its choice, but to the extent common themes developed in the “Rico” comments they parallel the Town of Rico approach and contradict the Draft ROD.  For example, “a group of outdoor enthusiasts and representatives from the Town of Rico” formed the Rico Trails Alliance, and submitted comments dated August 7, 2017 (attached hereto as Exhibit D).  This group “focuses on non-motorized use” but “recognize[s] that both motorized and non-motorized uses and users must co-exist.”  Id.  The Alliance comments track the Town of Rico comments and support closure to motorized access along Burnett Creek Trail while allowing “motorized use of Horse Creek or Wildcat instead.”  The Alliance comments were specifically noted and the quoted language presented in the Telluride Mountain Club comments.  See, comments dated August 15, 2017 (attached hereto as Exhibit E).  The Forest Service has seemingly been offered a collaborative solution by a spontaneous collection of often divergent groups.  It is questionable and frustrating that the agency is rejecting their suggested approach.

It may be that the agency perceived itself to be in a conundrum based on the emerging consensus in “Rico” that Horse Creek Trail be authorized for continuing motorized access.  This solution was not included in any of the action alternatives.  See, FEIS at 27 (Table 2-2) (showing Horse Creek Trail as “single track motorized” in Alternative A and “nonmotorized” in every other alternative).  However, the Forest Service regularly (and often successfully) defends itself against range of alternatives arguments by pointing to the “no-action” alternative.  Particularly here, where a strong and diverse consensus emerged against some unspecified group of residents, the agency would be well justified in modifying the Draft ROD to allow at least one method of motorized trail access to Rico.

2. Elimination of Motorized Routes to Rico Creates Public Safety Risks.

An independent flaw in the Rico aspect of the decision is that elimination of single track motorized trails to Rico will create significant public safety risks.  The general criteria that must be considered include public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, and access needs.  36 C.F.R. § 212.55(a).  The specific criteria for designating trails further include “[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).

The Draft ROD discusses cutting off motorcycle access to the Town of Rico, characterizing “single track riders’ concerns” as “not hav[ing] a quick way to exit the ridgeline in case of bad weather or mechanical trouble.”  Draft ROD at 20.  The Draft ROD responds by identifying East and West Fall Creek, Johnny Bull, and Eagle Peak Trails as providing alternate means of exit.  For starters, Johnny Bull Trail is not designated for motorized travel by the Draft ROD, so that option is of little comfort.  More importantly, this discussion fails to recognize the broader significance of maintaining access to Rico.  The “need to exit the ridgeline” is not a need to simply get to lower ground.  It is in most instances a need, or even a legitimate desire, to obtain shelter (e.g. from a storm), human assistance (e.g. to address injury or mechanical difficulty), or to obtain services (e.g. buy a meal or fuel).  The suggestion to ride down the Eagle Peak Trail makes no sense in meeting most of these needs, and only reveals the contorted logic permeating the Draft ROD.

The Draft ROD does acknowledge the value of Rico as “a town” including “as a gas stop.”  Here, the agency’s solution is to access the Town “via Hwy 145.”  Id.  This is not only unsatisfying but troubling.  It is one thing for a Forest Service decisionmaker to “look the other way” and resolve an access conundrum by realizing riders might traverse disconnected route segments by hopping onto to short section of paved highway.  For the agency here to encourage people to ride on this Highway on dirt bikes intended for technical single track riding is poor policy and flies in the face of the applicable designation criteria.

The failure to allow some form of continuing motorized trail access to Rico is illogical and indefensible.  We urge you to restore some form of access, consistent with the above-cited comments.

E. Physical Resource Impacts Cannot Justify Motor Vehicle Restrictions.

Aside from the effervescent “user conflict” rationale, the Forest suggests that certain “resource impacts” justify some Draft ROD closures.  See, e.g., Draft ROD at 6; FEIS at 4.  Here again the agency’s analysis is fundamentally illogical or contradicts the agency’s own record.  Again, the agency must meet technical presentation requirements that derive from NEPA and are specified in the CEQ regulations, and must meet the APA’s general requirements that a decision be supported by substantial evidence or reflect a rational connection to the facts found.

1. Elk Habitat and Hunter Experience.

Some closures are at least partly based on a generalized attempt to “enhance habitat conditions” for elk.  FEIS at 9.  Elk populations in the project area “are currently meeting objectives.”  FEIS at 51.  The Forest Service metrics for ungulate management and elk habitat are similarly being met.  All alternatives (including Alt. A “no action”) meet motorized route density standards.  FEIS at 139.  Security area size, cover, forage and connectivity “is maintained across all alternatives.”  FEIS at 141.  Yet the agency proposes to restrict motorcycle travel on certain trails to “further enhance habitat conditions.”  FEIS at 9.  This rationale is offered despite Forest Plan direction to “maintain” or “continue” activities and conditions relating to elk and ungulate populations and habitat.  See, Forest Plan Guidelines 2.3.62 and 2.3.63.

Related to the impermissible goal of “enhancing” elk habitat, the agency proclaims its intent to respond to “requests from hunters” for areas with reduced motorized access.  FEIS at 10.  Yet at the same time the agency acknowledges other hunters want to maintain or expand vehicle access.  Id.  The agency offers no explanation why any alteration of the status quo is necessary, or even permissible.  The area complies with all applicable guidance, and hunting experiences of every conceivable type exist, as primarily regulated by state wildlife managers and the associated complex system of general and controlled hunt seasons.  Hunter “experience” or satisfaction is a complex and highly subjective construct, related to numerous factors including number of target species, trophy quality, ease/difficulty of harvest/extrication, number of competing hunters, ease/difficulty/type of access, hunter experience/skill and sheer luck.  A hunter who claims his “experience” carefully stalking alongside a road was ruined when the elk was spooked by a passing vehicle is perhaps offset by a luckier or better adapted hunter who killed a nice bull in a timbered draw that was escaping the opening day onslaught of road travel.  The Dolores District is poorly equipped to address these concerns and embarks on a fool’s errand in any claimed effort to improve “hunter experience.”

To the extent there is analysis of elk habitat/hunting considerations, the agency utterly fails to explain how closing certain trails to recreational motorcycle riding will “enhance” anything.  We do not dispute that “[t]he magnitude of disturbance to elk…increases dramatically during the big-game hunting seasons.”  FEIS at 136.  This is probably because elk become disturbed by humans trying to kill them.  Virtually all hunters utilize some form of vehicular access, and for some “hunting” is unfortunately synonymous with “vehicle access.”  Perhaps we should note that a trail motorcycle is a disfavored means of access in the road hunting community, as a likely consequence of the fact that the need/desire to hunt from a vehicle, ability to ride technical single track, and do so while carrying hundred pound elk quarter(s) are rarely correlated.  It is hardly remarkable, then, that “[e]lk avoid areas adjacent to roads with vehicular traffic, especially during the hunting season.”  Id. (emphasis added).  So an effort to “enhance” elk production, survival, or reduce stress levels should focus on hunting disturbance, or prioritize limits on “higher disturbance/conflict” vehicle-based hunting strategies, e.g. driving on roads.  In Idaho, the state wildlife management agency imposes “motorized access restrictions” in specified units which prohibit use of OHV’s on trails as an “aid to hunting” but allow “pure” recreational access.  But the Draft ROD does none of this.  Rather, it only restricts recreational motorcycle use on some trails.  The Draft ROD may reflect the least rational management response to any purported effort at improving a perceived plight of elk in the Rico West Dolores area.

Wildlife issues can indeed be primary factors necessitating travel management changes.  Such is particularly the case when motor vehicle access uniquely facilitates human presence or causes unique adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species.  Elk management is a popular topic and big business in the State of Colorado, but should properly be recognized as a tertiary factor in managing recreational travel in the Rico West Dolores area.  A simultaneous desire to “enhance” elk habitat alongside the “experience” of certain humans seeking to kill elk cannot rationally justify the selective closure of motorcycle trails in the Rico West Dolores area.

2. Watersheds.

The most notable statement that can be made about watershed issues in this travel management process is that they are not a serious issue.  The watershed factor “most likely to be affected by roads and motorized trails is sediment.”  FEIS at 88.  “Currently, the waters within the Rico-West Dolores Landscape meet water quality standards for sediment.”  FEIS at 91.  “At the watershed scale, there would not be a measureable difference between action alternatives for sediment delivery to the stream network.”  Id.  In fact, all of the action alternatives would “lead to some decrease in road miles, which would benefit watershed health to some degree.”  FEIS at 88.

Watershed considerations cannot form a basis for making choices between the alternatives.

3. Fisheries.

The FEIS discussion of fisheries focuses on “greenback lineage cutthroat trout” and the purported benefit of closing motorized use along Spring Creek to the greenbacks’ benefit.  Draft ROD at 16; FEIS at 107-111.  There are several flaws in this analysis.

For starters, it is debatable what fish constitute the listed Oncorrhynchus clarki stomias and where they are located.  The same special interests that likely have the District’s ear in this process previously characterized the existence of perhaps only four “pure” populations “that collectively inhabit about a dozen kilometers of stream habitat.”  Complaint (Dkt. 1) in No. 1:12-cv-2460 (D. Colo.) (filed September 17, 2012) at ¶¶ 2-3.  Having relied on the precarious state of handful of fish to close trails in Bear Creek on the Pike and San Isabel Forests, preservationists appear to be opportunistically broadening their view of how to identify (and locate) this species.  The FEIS hints at the ongoing phylogenetic debate, and the possibility that “greenback lineage cutthroat” may not even be a listed species.  FEIS at 108 (pending a decision on the “meristic study” projects that may affect “GB lineage fish is advised”).  Assuming these “lineage” fish warrant the special treatment they are accorded here, there is unfortunately no information presented in the FEIS to detail or even document their existence in Spring Creek.  Again, the District presents technical conclusions on faith alone.

Through a similar analysis as for watersheds, the discussion of fisheries concludes that impacts to GBCT are minimal.  See, FEIS at 110 (“effects to GBCT habitat from increased sedimentation would be discountable, non-quantifiable, short-lived, and not to a level that would adversely affect habitat for GBCT, prey base, or reproductive success.”).  At most, the rationalization in favor of Alternative B (modified) is that it might have “benefits” to improving habitat conditions that are already meeting or exceeding standards.  This is not a defensible rationale for closing trails to motorized use.

4. Wetlands and Fens.

Fens are topic of unique concern in the project area.  Again, fens, like other water-influenced features, can be impacted by “the presence of certain roads and trails (regardless of use).”  FEIS at 19.  The effects of motorized trails that are within 100 feet of mapped fens was analyzed.  “These sites were field checked and it was determined that there currently are no impact from trails on fens.”  FEIS at 95.  Fen protection cannot form any part of a rationale to eliminate motorcycle travel on trails.

F. The Agency has Not Adequately Responded to Comments.

The Forest has chosen an unusual method of responding to comments here, which does not comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations.  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).

The response to comments here is contained in Appendix K to the FEIS.  The comments are summarized and sorted.  There is no way to track the issues raised or the response to an individual comment.  In other words, the approach chosen fails to identify individual comments and the response to them.  At best, the latter portion of Appendix K presents a tabular summary of comment text and includes a “Ltr #” for each comment, but there is no list or other information indicating the “Ltr #” assigned to a specific comment/commenter.  The agency’s method of responding to comments here does not comply with governing regulations or other applicable law.

G. The Draft ROD Impermissibly Juxtaposes Decision Elements.

The Draft ROD contains a complex and unpredictable mixture of route network components from across, and beyond, the range of alternatives.  Courts generally look to see if the agency took a sufficiently “hard look” and generally examine whether “the EIS process fostered informed decision-making and public participation.”  National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 680 (9^th Cir. 2000).  If the Court determines the agency took a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the project in question then “review is at an end.”  Id.  However, mere “pro forma compliance with NEPA procedures, nor post hoc rationalizations as to why and how the agency complied with NEPA” will not suffice.   Int’l Snowmobile Mfrs. Ass’n v. Norton, 340 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1263 (D.Wyo. 2004) (italics in original); see also, Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1112-1113 (10^th Cir. 2002).

Judicial scrutiny regularly considers the range of alternatives.  NEPA imposes a mandatory procedural duty on federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.  40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (“agencies shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”)  The alternatives section is considered the “heart” of the EIS and a NEPA analysis must “explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”  40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.  A NEPA analysis is invalidated by “[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative.”  Resources, Ltd. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9^th Cir. 1993).  The fact the Forest trotted out what was effectively a new alternative in the Draft ROD demonstrates the failure to identify and receive public input on a legally-sufficient range of alternatives.

The Draft ROD presents an unpredictable juxtaposition of route network components from multiple alternatives.  The Draft ROD purports to adopt a “modified Alternative B.”  Draft ROD at 9.  In reality, the Draft ROD mixes and matches from across the alternatives.  These changes can be evaluated in Table 2.2 of the FEIS, and appear to include: (1) Bear Creek (Trail 607) selection of Alt. C designating only 1.72 miles motorized; (2) Black Mesa OHV Loops adoption of Alt. C designations; (3) Johnny Bull (Trail 639) supposedly includes single track motorized designation but the Draft ROD (at 19) says it is closed for an estimated 2 years; (4) Little Bear (Trail 609) change from motorized in Alt. B to nonmotorized as presented in Alts. C-E; (5) Loading Pen (Trail 738) was nonmotorized in Alts. A and B, but under B (modified) will be motorized as presented in Alts. C-E; (6) Seasonal restrictions changed to those presented in Alt. C (FEIS at 31, Table 2-6).  There are probably other changes we have failed to note, which is understandable and further demonstrates the confusing and unpredictable direction of the Draft ROD.

This outcome, and the apparent process creating it, fundamentally violate the “twin aims” of NEPA, to allow reasoned public input and thus informed agency decision-making.  These flaws are amplified by the nature of the discussion in the Draft ROD/FEIS and unspecified reliance on “desires” and “preferences” of some commenters on numerous issues.  While NEPA is certainly not a voting process, a commenter must generally identify which action alternative best reflects the commenter’s desired outcome.  To meet both logic and the law the agency should specify decision components and outline a clear choice between alternatives that will facilitate informed public input.  The confusing mixture of decision elements in the Draft ROD Alternative B (modified) violate these important principles.

H. The Decision Fails to Properly Analyze Cumulative Impacts.

The Rico West Dolores area is only one part of a larger integrated transportation network.  The Forest must properly evaluate the interconnected travel management decisions on a broader scale, and the consequences of decisions in the Draft ROD must be properly disclosed.  A cumulative impact “is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions….”  40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.  Cumulative impacts must be discussed in an EIS in a manner that allows for “meaningful analysis.”  City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1160 (9^th Cir. 1997).  It is not enough to describe related projects “with generalities insufficient to permit adequate review of the cumulative impact.”  Id.; see also, Humane Soc’y v. Dept. of Commerce, 432 F.Supp.2d 4, 22 (D.D.C. 2006) (discussion must go beyond “conclusory remarks and statements”).

The discussion of cumulative impacts is deficient throughout the FEIS.  In particular, the Objectors are concerned about the impact of the Rico West Dolores decision in concert with decision-making that is underway or reasonably anticipated in adjacent riding areas.  The FEIS reflects a general awareness of the interconnectedness of these areas.  FEIS at 221-223.  However, these discussions are conclusory narrative, and provide only generalized or, in some instances inaccurate, conclusions about the riding experience.  The challenge is particularly acute given the overlap between the Rico West Dolores and Hermosa travel management decisions.  It is preferable, if not essential, that the Forest Service analyze these issues in a single process, so that the consequences of route designations in each area can be properly disclosed and analyzed.  It is notable that the majority of Subpart B travel planning efforts occur on a forest-wide basis, which reduces the likelihood of problems associated with segmenting the analysis as is occurring on the San Juan National Forest.

I. The Service Failed to Consider Potential Adverse Impacts of the Decision.

The Draft ROD adopts a mix of options from different alternatives that will disrupt long-existing use patterns in complex and unpredictable ways.  As previously described, roughly 30 percent of route miles have been eliminated from the single track motorized route network, with significant practical implications stretching beyond the arithmetic scope of the sheer mileage reductions.  The on-the-ground effect of these changes is uncertain, but it is certain that the existing population of motorized riders will be forced into a much smaller and disjointed route network.  The decision recognizes the possibility that these changes and concentration of existing use upon a smaller route network could have adverse environmental impacts.  Draft ROD at 35.

There are multiple problems with this scenario.  The Draft ROD admits that very few, if any, unacceptable physical resource impacts are associated with existing motorized travel.  The rationales behind this decision largely involve an effort to “enhance” existing resource conditions, or social engineering concerns focused on conflict.  The Draft ROD represents an unjustified risk of creating physical resource impacts and safety risks as tangible offsets to amorphous goals like enhancing hunter experience and placating the preferences of some for nonmotorized recreation opportunities.  Additionally, this situation creates, or may be designed to trigger, the risk of a perpetuating cycle of closure.  A sustainable level of motorized travel could be concentrated into an insufficiently small and dysfunctional combination of routes, which will result in greater impacts leading certain special interests to call for further restrictions on motorized use.  All of these risks are intensified by the Draft ROD’s overblown effort to change too many components of the existing network at once.  A far more logical, and less risky, approach would be to proceed with caution and implement changes more cautiously or in a phased approach so that environmental consequences could be monitored and addressed.

There is no reasoned consideration of the potential for environmental impacts that will be caused by the Draft ROD.  These risks outweigh the purported benefits that Alternative B (modified) would have on a system that was largely working.

J. The Forest Ignores Disclosure Requirements for Route Decommissioning.

The Draft ROD contemplates a meaningful, but unspecified, system of route decommissioning.  This approach violates NEPA.

The decision documents appear to be intended to create “an implementation program that is progressive in nature, ranging from signing to recontouring, ripping, seeding, and placing physical barriers.”  FEIS at 15, 53.  There are individual routes that are identified for decommissioning.  Draft ROD, Attachment 2; FEIS at 41-46.  However, the particular methods or timetable for decommissioning efforts are not provided.

The Forest Service has previously determined that travel planning decisions can be implemented by publishing orders/maps and installing signs/gates, but not by ground disturbing methods until suitable site-specific analysis has occurred.  See, Targhee Travel Plan Appeal Decision dated January 27, 2000 (attached hereto as Exhibit F).  In that decision from the agency’s Intermountain Region, the Appeal Deciding Officer reversed “that part of the decision that implements the decision through initiating further ground disturbing actions, such as earthen berms and barriers, ripping the roadbed, or other actions which have potential effects on soil and water resources, other beneficial uses and public safety, until further site specific analysis is completed.  Id. at 4.  In particular, the decision lacked “the necessary documentation of the site-specific effects of various closure methods and their potential effects on soil, water, and human safety….”  Id. at 4-5.

The Draft ROD does not provide for the aforementioned analysis of alternative methods of road decommissioning, or the site-specific effects associated with any of those methods.  This shortcoming must be addressed prior to conducting any ground-disturbing road decommissioning action(s) in the Rico West Dolores area.

K. The Decision is Inconsistent with the Forest Plan.

Forest Service actions must be consistent with a forest plan.  Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 418 F.3d 953, 961 (9^th Cir. 2005).  The Draft ROD is not consistent with several provisions of the San Juan Forest Plan.

The Forest 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.  There is no further discussion of this desired condition, let alone any explanation of how eliminating one group of users in response to a generalized “desire” or “preference” of some users is consistent with this “stewardship ethic.”

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 (emphasis added); 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”).  There is a fundamental difference between “maintain,” “continue” or “does not reduce” versus “enhance.”

L. The Decision Unlawfully Benefits Special Uses.

Whether inadvertently or by design, the Draft ROD provides a boon to certain special uses.  These include the “world class” luxury ecotourism commercial enterprise at the Dunton Hot Springs Resort, the livestock grazing permittee on the Tenderfoot allotment, and certain outfitter/guides hoping to uniquely benefit through creation of new, exclusive “nonmotorized” areas.

Again, the Forest Service is tasked with “management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people….”  16 U.S.C. § 531(a).  So in a theoretical “conflict” between the needs of hundreds of members of the public versus the preference of a single permittee, it is conceivable that the agency might conclude the needs of the one might need to adapt to the needs of the many.  At a minimum, there should be a reasoned discussion of these considerations, and some discernible rationale for the outcome selected.  However, this did not occur.  Rather, the analysis disclaims any need or ability to consider special uses.  FEIS at 73.

Any interaction or overlap between motorized trail designations and special use permit management should occur in an integrated process.  Some amorphous yet unanalyzed need to benefit particular special uses reflects poor policy, and may be illegal.  The Forest Service should not be restricting public rights to advance the private, economic interests of a handful of permittees.

M. Livestock Operations Cannot Form a Rational Basis to Restrict Access.

Closure of the Wildcat Trail to motorized access is irrationally based on a “specific type of livestock grazing system” and a “critical” need to “minimize conflicts with livestock herding efforts in the Wildcat Creek drainage.”  Draft ROD at 18.  As we have noted in previous comments, closure of a public access along Forest Service system trail to benefit one permittee’s herding effort is virtually unprecedented.  To support this conclusion and further illuminate the issue we include the Declaration of Brenda Richards (attached hereto as Exhibit G).

There are further problems with using livestock grazing management as the sole justification for closing Wildcat Trail.  The entire discussion about livestock/recreation management is again undocumented narrative, lacking any fact, data, or meaningful connection to any site anywhere, let alone in the project area.  FEIS at 161-162.  Livestock management is raised as a potential concern for other areas/routes within this project, yet there is no effort to explain why “shared use” will occur on other sites but there is a “critical” need to close Wildcat.  See, FEIS at 19, 163 (Table 3-30 showing list of allotments).  The FEIS indicates that the permitted dates for grazing on the entire Tenderfoot allotment are June 20 to October 15.  So there cannot (lawfully) be any need for “critical” herding near Wildcat Trail outside those dates.  FEIS at 163.  Digging deeper, the allotment is apparently managed through a four pasture rotation system.  Id.  Admittedly not knowing the specific locations/prescriptions, this is presumably (or will be when next scrutinized) some form of rest-rotation system, in which the season of use for the pasture(s) containing Wildcat Trail will be less than the season of use for the entire allotment, and will change in different years of the rotation cycle.  The Draft ROD makes no effort to acknowledge or explain these “holes” in the calendar, and thus the agency’s logic in relying on livestock management to close Wildcat to motorcycles.

The closure of Wildcat is further complicated by its role as a possible connector to the Town of Rico.  Again, when accurately depicted, the “Town of Rico” supports maintaining a motorized trail connection, and suggests Wildcat Trail as an appropriate option.  See, Exhibits A, D and E hereto.  Unfortunately, it appears that the unwavering desire to create a nonmotorized bubble around Rico may be what is really driving the Wildcat closure.  If so, this is the type of behavior that the Forest Service should not tolerate and can rectify in the objection process.

N. The Agency Has Improperly Interpreted Easement Issues to Justify Closure.

Several key closures are predicated on a contrived dilemma about how to traverse private property or the Forest’s irrational failure to exercise its statutory right to defend continuing public access.  These include the Subarea 5 closures of Johnny Bull, East/West Fall Creek Trails (Draft ROD at 19) and the failure to consider continuing access along the Morrison Trail.  FEIS at 57.  The agency’s conclusions here are arbitrary, capricious, and/or short of statutory right.

As noted above, Forest Service subunits regularly navigate similar concerns in ways that do not result in a volitional choice to prohibit existing public access.  Contrary to the implication of the Draft ROD, it is not incumbent on the Forest Service to possess a “documented public right of way” for those portions of a trail that cross some form of private property.  Draft ROD at 19.  These questions can be complex, often turn on unique facts, and many times do not involve Forest Service jurisdiction or even involve the Forest Service as a party. See, e.g., Gold Hill Dev. Co., LP v. TSG Ski & Golf, LLC, 378 P.3d 816 (Colo. App. 2015) (addressing public rights of access under R.S. 2477 and state law prescriptive easement theories, and denying claims that Forest Service was a necessary party).

The Morrison easement interpretation is even more troubling.  Here, the United States possesses an express, recorded easement(s) initially granted in 1948 including “to construct, repair and maintain a stock driveway, road and bridge” as well as “the rights and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining in and to said easements and rights-of-way.”  Based on the cryptic statement in the FEIS, the agency apparently reads this as being solely limited to a “stock driveway.”  Such an interpretation is questionable at best.  Does a “stock driveway” necessitate “maintenance” or “repair” or construction of a “road” and “bridge?”  In other words, the language can be reasonably read to contemplate permissible uses of the easement as a stock drive, road and bridge.  This language and the resulting scope of the easement is also subject to reasonable evolution and interpretation, particularly in light of the fact that the easement was being granted to the United States.  Regardless of the ultimate interpretation of this language in any hypothetical future proceedings, it is troubling that the Forest Service, after allowing public travel along this easement for decades, has now reversed course upon itself and refuses to defend continuing public rights of access.

The Reviewing Officer should provide instructions directing the agency to revisit or modify its closures of trails based on easement issues.

O. The Draft ROD Illegally Addresses Route Relocation Options.

The Draft ROD largely brushes aside potential re-routes of motorized routes yet proudly identifies multiple re-routes for nonmotorized recreation.  This is another example of arbitrariness in conducting this process.

Objectors (and others) brought numerous examples of re-routes or alternate connections.  These were offered in good faith and in an effort to address stated resource concerns and even “desires” of certain nonmotorized recreationists.  These included a re-route along previously-mapped Forest Service trails such as at Spring Creek and Little Bear Pack Trail, or along existing routes such as Salt Creek Trail.  These proposals were brushed aside and not even considered for meaningful analysis.  Draft ROD at 23; FEIS at 57-58.  Yet other trails were “designated” for nonmotorized use with similar, if not greater, concerns and an uncertain source or manner of presentation to the agency.  See, e.g., Draft ROD at 19 (adding a “hikers only” trail that would “[t]ake advantage of an old trail alignment around Sockrider Peak”); Draft ROD at 23 and Map A (designating nonmotorized access along Salt Creek and Lower Ryman Creek); Draft ROD at 24 (“officially adding” Little Bear Pack Loop and Pack Connector as nonmotorized trails).

We remain hopeful that these connections might present an opportunity to restore functionality to the trail network and resolve our objections.  Where they were not properly considered in the process, we realize that future analysis is likely necessary.  Given that they are existing routes, we believe that a resolution could focus on a sufficiently detailed and expedited process to prioritize their evaluation for motorized designation.  This approach might allow the Dolores District to sidestep the apparent differential treatment provided to motorized versus nonmotorized re-routes in this process.

P. Seasonal Closures are Arbitrary and Capricious.

The Draft ROD imposes a blanket closure on motorcycle use from November 1 to May 31.  This is supposedly to facilitate enhanced hunter experience in a handful of “late fall” seasons.  Draft ROD at 28.  However, the action chosen, a selective closure of motorcycle travel, is not reasonably connected to that goal.

We recognize that this provision in Alternative B (modified) reduces the seasonal limitation on use, as in Alternative B the prohibition would have been from September 9 to June 30.  FEIS at 31.  We appreciate that this change is less discriminatory against motorcycle riders that was originally proposed, but it does not make things right.  Rather, it will likely be perceived as creating a “lose-lose” scenario and could well form the basis for objections from “quiet use” interests.

There is no rational basis to impose seasonal restrictions that solely affect motorcycle travel on a handful of remaining trails.  The seasonal restriction issue should be eliminated or refined through instructions/remand.

Q. The Objection Process is Illegal.

The part 218 objection process has now sufficiently developed to reveal several flaws.  We wish to note our concerns here, should these flaws develop within this application of the process.  To call this a “predecisional” review process is misleading, if not oxymoronic.  The fact is that by the time an objection can be submitted, the Forest Service is heavily invested in every sense in the outcome presented in a Draft ROD.  In our experience, a Draft ROD almost never goes “back to the drawing” board, except in unusual circumstances such as catastrophic wildfire altering the fundamental landscape within the project areas.  Instead, the objection review either rubber-stamps the Draft ROD, or presents a series of instructions that seem designed to strike a balance between placating objectors yet allowing the deciding officer to salvage and rationalize the decision already made.

The part 218 procedures reflect or invite error in multiple ways.  There is no impartial review.  Indeed, a “reviewing officer” and “deciding officer” are directly adjacent to one another in the same organization chart.  They presumably have, and are heavily incentivized to maintain, a solid working relationship.  There is a reasonable chance they have some level of personal relationship that is at least cordial.  In various instances we have seen the deciding officer and staff have direct input into the objection resolution process, to the point of being provided an opportunity to edit the text of the final reviewing officer’s report.  This is hardly the nature of review that comports with the jurisdictional significance of the process or underlying notions of due process.

Another key conundrum created by part 218 is the manner in which objections can be “resolved,” whether by agreement amongst objectors or through the reviewing officer’s report.  Can the Draft ROD be altered in some meaningful way?  If so, is it permissible to make changes that were reflected within the range of alternatives?  We have seen the agency dramatically reverse course in the part 218 process, even to the point of incorporating decision components that were never previously disclosed for public comment in any alternative.

There are finally a number of procedural fine points that experience has shown to be potentially problematic.  There are numerous procedural requirements that are apparently intended to “raise the bar” for objectors or create potentially relief for the agency.  See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. §§ 218.4 through 218.8.  It is unclear to what extent these requirements can be stringently interpreted or enforced.  The timelines are detailed and constraining.  Indeed, this reflects the genesis of the approach in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and an underlying intent to make critical or time sensitive project more impervious to pesky “environmental” appeals.  There is no provision in part 218 for a stay of project implementation.  As a practical matter, we observe the primary goal to implementation is the need to address any “concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer….”  36 C.F.R. § 218.12(b).  This is an imprecise and unpredictable method, which probably does little beyond frustrating engaged publics and agency officials alike.

Our concerns about the 218 process can hopefully be rendered moot here.  But we raise them nonetheless in anticipation of a possible occasion when it makes sense to bring the process under greater scrutiny.

IV. Elements of a Successful Resolution

The Draft ROD sadly reflects meaningful restriction of historical access, and particularly motorcycle access, in virtually every component of the Rico West Dolores trail network.  Objectors are very concerned that the agency and/or key decisionmakers alongside who they have partnered so willingly and effectively would have diverged so dramatically in the Draft ROD.  Dogmatic adherence to this dramatic alteration of this long-existing status quo will allow objectors little option but vigorous opposition in every venue and manner available.  However, adoption of even a few common sense modifications to the Draft ROD could restore functionality to at least some components of the route system, could create “win-win” solutions for diverse recreationists, and avert the “no holds barred” fight the Draft ROD would force upon objectors.

It is possible that we can resolve our objections and attain at least an acceptable level of functional access through adoption of some combination of the following elements:

-Resolution/restoration of access along “easements” including Subarea 5 trails, Morrison
-Designation of some form of motorized, trail access to Rico
-Designation of some form of motorized access along Wildcat Trail
-Designation of motorized access in the vicinity of Ryman Creek, such as along Salt Creek
-Connection of motorized routes in Subarea 9, such as along Little Bear Pack Trail
-Designation of the identified re-route in the vicinity of Spring Creek

Again, we recognize that some of these were presented as possible decision elements within one or more alternatives, while others were not because they were not considered in detail.  Some of these elements could be resolved without further analysis or a new decision, e.g. restoration of access along Johnny Bull Trail upon acquisition of an easement.  We ask that conditional approval of any such routes be clarified and strengthened through instructions.  For other routes, we hope to explore in the objection process the manner in which further analysis could be performed that would present the opportunity to restore or improve upon historical opportunity and functionality in Rico West Dolores motorized trail system.

V. Conclusion

The Draft ROD outlines unjustified and dramatic elimination of long-existing motorized recreation in the Rico West Dolores area.  The analysis is virtually unprecedented in its narrative style and capricious selection of decision elements.  One would be hard pressed to create a more surgically precise method of destroying existing quality motorcycle riding opportunities than the Draft ROD.  These changes are particularly frustrating to Objectors given the collective time and energy we expended alongside the Forest Service defending against the same issues in the CBHA litigation.  We appreciate the opportunity to address these concerns in the objection process and urge you to utilize the objection process to restore a functional and sustainable balance to recreation management in the Rico West Dolores area.

Sincerely,

Paul A. Turcke

/PAT

Enclosure/Exhibit List:

A- Town of Rico comments dated July 25, 2017
B- Town of Rico comments dated June 9, 2016
C- Town of Rico comments dated January 26, 2015
D- Rico Trails Alliance comments dated August 7, 2017
E- Telluride Mountain Club comments dated August 15, 2017
F- Targhee Travel Plan Appeal Decision dated January 27, 2000
G- Declaration of Brenda Richards

  Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision

Rio Grande National Forest
Attn: Forest Plan Revision Team
1803 W. Highway 160
Monte Vista, Co 81144

LivRE: Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision 

Dear Supervisor Dallas:

Please accept these comments on the Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Project (“the Proposal”) on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”).   TPA, CSA and COHVCO vigorously support Alternative C of the Proposal due to this Alternative having the fewest categories for area management in the RMP, which we believe will greatly expand public understanding of the Proposal and provide significant long-term flexibility for the Rio Grande planning area moving forward. The flexibility of Alternative C of the Proposal is expanded by the fact that this Alternative provides the most flexibility for management moving forward as this provides the most multiple use opportunities.  This expanded opportunity will allow for more site specific planning in the future, and the Organizations are aware that in site specific planning restricting access can be easily accomplished but amended a forest plan to expand opportunities has been almost impossible.  Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative D due to its complexity and the fact that it functionally ties the hands of land managers dealing with the poor forest health that has become far too common in Colorado.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns on the Proposal, the Organizations believe a brief summary of each Organization is necessary to provide context to the comments. The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding and multi-use recreation.  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 multi-use recreational opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 230,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of multi-use and 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.  Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion as reflected by the more than 30,000 registered users in the State.  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.  TPA, CSA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

Prior to addressing the specific concerns regarding the development of the Rio Grande National Forest’s new Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Organizations would like to thank the Rio Grande National Forest staff for their efforts to date in the planning process.  The Organizations are aware that the Rio Grande National Forest is one of the first forests to move forward under the new United States Forest Service (USFS) planning rule and at this time USFS guidance regarding the application of the new planning rule to local forests or planning units remains under development.  This lack of planning rule clarity compounds the inherent conflict that exists between current forest planning timeline and the rate at which species management and research are progressing.  This lack of clarity has made any efforts on the Rio Grande difficult at best as there are many new concepts and principals developed under the planning rule that will heavily impact plan development.  The Organizations believe that the efforts to date have done a commendable job in satisfying these new requirements and standards and the Organizations remain willing to assist in resolution of any issues that might arise on this front in any way that we can.

1a. The reduced size of the Plan will build public support and result in a Plan that remains relevant and guides subsequent planning efforts.

The Organizations are supportive of the significant reduction in the overall size of the Proposal and reduction in the number of management categories in the Proposal, when compared to the current management Plan.  This is an important step towards building public support and understanding for both the Plan and management efforts in the future.  When any site specific has been undertaken under the current RMP, too often the public has simply been overwhelmed by the number of categories that are applied in the current RMP. The large number of planning categories is a barrier to public understanding of any planning efforts as most of the public do not have the time and resources to undertake even a basic review of the categories and how they are related to various aspects of any site specific plan or concern they may have. If the public is able to understand a plan they can support it.   If an RMP is too large or complex, the public will oppose the plan, regardless of how effective the Plan may be or how the Plan supports or addresses any concern of that member of the public.

Often simple projects being undertaken in site specific planning, involve a large number of management categories in the planning area and each of these planning categories must be addressed in any site specific efforts to insure that the project conforms to each of these management standards.  This is simply time consuming and expensive. A significant reduction in the number of management categories will streamline future site specific planning efforts and allow managers to address issues with what has consistently become a growingly smaller amount of resources.

1b. Overly specific plans result in significant additional costs over the life of the RMP and often result in standards that are a barrier to the forest addressing challenges on the ground.

The Organizations have also experienced the unintended consequences of an aging and overly specific forest plan when undertaking site specific planning.   Any subsequent site specific planning ends up being very long and complex in order to address the numerous standards in the plan.  This challenge is further compounded by the fact that often the basis and understanding for a particular standard are lost with the passage of time.  As a result those undertaking site specific planning with an aging RMP are forced to develop overly specific analysis in their document as they are unable to understand the basis or concerns that a standard was to address.  As a result, planners often end up analyzing every possible alternative or theory for a standard rather than being able to address relevant standards and avoid addressing standards that are unrelated to a particular project or issue.

As Rio Grande planners are now painfully aware of as a result of the La Garita Timber sale efforts, overly specific analysis in a forest plan can become a serious barrier to addressing significant challenges on the Forest such as the Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle outbreak. Too often areas were found to be unsuitable for timber harvest or managed for uses often unrelated to forest health and have included standards such as 15% treatment limitations in certain management areas. [1] After a review of the RMP, absolutely no basis is provided for how the 15% treatment ceiling was developed or what management issue the 15% standard was thought to be addressing.   The Organizations submit that these are exactly the types of standards that should be addressed in site specific planning and represent standards that should be removed, if possible, from the new RMP.  The insertion of standards that can’t be explained does not streamline planning and more efficiently use resources, but rather ties the hands of managers and provide a significant barrier to public understanding.

In addition to merely requiring more paperwork, any overly specific standards on issues that really are not suitable for inclusion in landscape level planning have placed a significant strain on the budgets of land managers, which have significantly constricted since the 1990’s.  The Organizations do not anticipate a significant change in this long term funding trend and as a result future managers will be forced to undertake similar levels of management with lower levels of funding that ever before.  While this is unfortunate, there is simply no basis to believe this will alter over the life of the next RMP.  A streamlined and efficient planning document would ease this burden and allow limited resources to be directed to on the ground issues.

1c. Landscape level planning should address landscape level issues to insure the RMP remains relevant over its life.

Again the Organizations are thrilled that the Rio Grande NF is moving forward with the development of landscape level standards that are related to landscape level challenges in their planning efforts.  This will significantly impact both the total number of categories and specificity of each category, and this will have an important long term benefit, mainly the RMP will simply remain more relevant to the management of the forest over the plans life and will result in site specific efforts undertaken in the future that are more streamlined as well.

The Organizations have been involved in numerous site specific efforts with the Rio Grande staff and it has been our experience that the RMP being replaced was more of a barrier to projects towards the end of its life than a document that really provided relevant guidance for site specific efforts. This was problematic at best and resolving these issues in site specific planning was often complicated by the fact that the reasoning for many of the specific standards in the outgoing RMP were simply unclear or had been entirely forgotten.  This simply generated more paperwork and efforts in site specific efforts, as planners felt the need to address every variable that could have contributed to the standard being in the plan in order to make the site specific plan defensible if it was challenged.  With a reduced number of categories, site specific planning should be able to become more streamlined and efficient in the future.

The negative impacts of a landscape level plan that is simply too complex and too specific has  had significant impacts on management of major challenges on the Forest, such as the forest ability to deal with Mountain Pine beetle and Spruce Beetle that have decimated the Rio Grande and most other public lands in the Western United State.  For reasons that have been long ago forgotten and are simply no longer relevant, the current RMP has numerous provisions that significantly limited manager’s ability to respond to the outbreak of these pests.  While the impacts from species certainly could not have been stopped, a streamlined and general forest plan would have allowed managers to respond in a more rapid and timely manner to these challenges and mitigate the impacts to forest health from these species outbreaks.  Clearly there will be challenges to forest management being faced later in the Proposals life that managers simply cannot envision at this time.  The impacts from these challenges could be minimized with a Proposal that is as simple and streamlined as possible.

1d. Recent Dept. of Interior national guidance on significant reductions in the size of EIS is highly timely relative to Rio Grande efforts.

The Bureau of Land Management has been vigorously addressing the unnecessary scope and burden of planning documents on the limited resources of land managers, and this new guidance from the BLM is highly relevant to USFS efforts on the Rio Grande.  While many were shocked at the exceptionally small size of the Proposal and associated documents, under new BLM guidance the Rio Grande effort has resulted documents that are unacceptably long.  On August 31, 2017, Secretarial Order 3355[2] was issued by the DOI mandating that all EIS are limited to 150 pages and that a variance from this standard would only be granted in exceptional circumstances.  While the Rio Grande planners are not bound by this Order, the factual importance and basic relevance simply cannot be overstated, and clearly the current Proposal would have to be reduced even further from its current streamlined form to become compliant with this guidance.

2a. Three Challenges should be identified in the Proposal and then any standards in the Proposal reviewed to insure they are not impeding management of these issues.

An important component of landscape level planning is the fact that the RMP should provide general guidance on goals for the forest and challenges in achieving these goals in order to streamline subsequent site specific planning on the forest in the most efficient manner possible. The Organizations submit that DOI Secretarial Order 3355 provides a good basis to review the current Proposal in order to obtain further clarity and streamlining in RMP provisions, as the document clearly identifies that the DOI seeks to have any EIS limited to 150 pages in length.

The Organizations commend the RGNF for identifying three major goals for the Forest moving forward, as this is an important first step in the planning process.  While public presentations regarding the Rio Grande Plan did identify three major goals for the forest moving forward[3], these goals are not clearly identified in the RMP.  The Organizations are concerned that if the goals and objectives of the forest plan are not clearly identified, these concerns will be lost over time which could lead to planning that may seek to address other goals in the future.  As these are landscape level goals for the Forest, the Organizations do not see this landscape level guidance as a barrier to future planning but rather as providing an important tool for the guidance of these plans.  The Organizations would encourage planners to insert these goals into the RMP with some specificity in order to provide some context and understanding of these goals for future managers on the Rio Grande.

The Organizations would encourage planners to take an additional step and identify three major challenges the forest sees in obtaining these goals and then reviewing any specific standards or guidance in the RMP to insure that the particular standard is working towards minimizing the challenges. The Organizations submit that identifying a limited number of landscape level challenges facing the Forest will serve as an important guide for the development of the RMP and any subsequent localized projects. Identifying these challenges will provide clear and easily reviewable guidance for subsequent projects on the Forest and avoid creation of site specific projects that would contradict the forest level guidance on issues. This will also insure that all actions being undertaken in site specific planning are working towards these forest level objectives and avoids the artificial elevation of issues in local planning. By insuring these challenges are addressed in all planning efforts subsequently, the limited resources that are available to land managers will be directed in the most effective manner in addressing these challenges and actually achieving the goals of the plan.

The Organizations believe that the following challenges reflect the major challenges the forest is facing, and are already reflecting in the supporting documents that have been provided to the public:

1. Poor Forest health/large number of dead trees on the Rio Grande NF overall;
2. Declining federal budgets will continue to decline and result in the need for stronger partners; and
3. Increasing demands being placed on forest resources due to a rapidly increasing State population.

2b. The primary challenge to be addressed on the Rio Grande NF over the life of the next revision of the RMP has to be the poor forest health overall and the large number of dead trees.

The Rio Grande NF has been heavily impacted by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic and is on the boundary areas of being heavily impacted by several other invasive species such as the Spruce Beetle. This challenge has to be the first priority to be addressed in the RMP development and the Organizations would note that the Rio Grande NF has already identified poor forest health as the single largest challenge to be faced in their RMP development. These are factors and issues that can be addressed in forest planning to stimulate and streamline timber sales and timber management in conjunction with managed fire to remediate impacts. The Organizations are aware that there is significant pressure on managers to reduce public access to public lands through route closures, but addressing any route specific impacts without addressing the poor forest health simply makes little sense.

Planners must avoid the artificial elevation of issues simply as a result of political pressures or concerns that are not based on issues seen on the Rio Grande.  The Organizations vigorously submit that theoretical concerns, such as a groups desire to bring balance and diverse recognition of landscapes into the National Wilderness System are political issues that have been artificially elevated by that Group and simply are not realistic goals in the current funding environment and with the major challenges facing land managers on the Rio Grande. The Organizations are deeply concerned regarding the poor forest health in the Rio Grande as a healthy forest translates into a quality recreational experience for ALL USERS.  While any short term recovery of the Rio Grande planning area to a healthy forest status is probably not realistic, major steps can be taken to remediate impacts and return a healthy forest to the public in subsequent generations.  Clearly identifying this concern in the Plan will help avoid conflicts in the future.

At the landscape level, the Rio Grande NF has the dubious distinction of being the 3rd hardest hit forest in Region 2 in terms of overall forest health, and as poor as current forest health is, USFS estimates project that Forest Health is expected to get significantly worse before getting better. USFS estimates project a total mortality rate of more than 36% for forests on the Rio Grande.[4] This is an issue that simply will take more than the RMP life to resolve and has altered the landscape of the Rio Grande for the foreseeable future.

The Colorado State Forest Service recently issued their annual Forest Health report for the state and the conclusions of these impacts are staggering, especially on water quality.[5]  The Highlights of the 2016 report are as follows:

-8% of ALL trees in the state are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;[6]

– The total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;[7]

– Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range, hill slope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be up to 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.[8]

– 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.[9]

 – 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.[10]

 –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”[11]

 The Colorado State Forest System has prepared an annual report on the declining forest health in the State for more than a decade and copies of these reports are available on their website. Clearly, even the worst site specific issues with any trail or road will never result in impacts comparable to those impacts addressed above and managers should remain most focused on addressing these challenges.  These are landscape level challenges that must be addressed with landscape level management. 

USFS research indicates there is a huge correlation between Congressionally designated Wilderness and areas hardest hit by invasive species. A copy of this research conclusions are below. Research from the Colorado State Forest Service confirms that the minimal management allowed for forest health in Congressionally designated Wilderness areas has dramatically impacted forest health in the Rio Grande planning area.

[12]

Given the fact that 1 in 12 trees in the entire state of Colorado is dead, and based on the Organizations experience the Rio Grande rates of forest mortality is significantly higher than the state average and that amount is increasing rather than even stabilizing, the Organizations must be opposed to any new management standards that would make timber management more difficult or impossible. Management standards simply must remain focused on the major challenges on the Rio Grande in order to address these issues.  The need to meaningfully address this challenge is compounded by projections from the USFS that Forest health with degrade even more significantly before ever improving.  The Organizations vigorously assert that a healthy and sustainable forest is a critical component to ALL recreational activities in and around the Rio Grande and to the high quality of life that is associated with the communities in the planning area. The Organizations would also urge land managers to resist assertions that other smaller challenges are posing a similar scale threat to the Rio Grande planning area.

The relationship of poor forest health and heightened restrictions on management of public lands has also been repeatedly addressed by the USFS researchers.   In a Rocky Mountain Research Station report reviewing the USFS response to the bark beetle outbreak, management restrictions were clearly and repeatedly identified as a major contributing factor to the outbreak and a major limitation on the response.  This report clearly stated:

• Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as Wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).[13]
• In general, mechanized treatments are prohibited in designated wilderness areas. The Arapaho Roosevelt, White River, and Routt National Forests in Colorado have a combined total of over one million acres of wilderness; the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming has more than 78 thou­sand acres. A large portion of these wilderness acres have been impacted by the current bark beetle outbreak.[14]
• Owing to terrain, and to budgetary, economic and regulatory limitations—such as prohibitions on entering Roadless areas and designated wilderness—active management will be applied to a small fraction (probably less than 15%) of the forest area killed by mountain pine beetles. Research studies conducted on the Sulphur Ranger District of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest help us understand the implica­tions of this situation.[15]

With clear management concern regarding the impacts of restrictive management on the pine beetle response, the Organizations must question any restrictions on active management of Rio Grande resources moving forward.

Many other researchers are now recognizing the negative impacts of Congressionally designated Wilderness on Forest Health and the ability to manage these areas in response to the challenges presented by the changing climate of the planet. In a review of pine blister impacts to forests in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area, researchers again concluded that the

[16]

Again these areas were much more heavily impacted than adjacent areas where management had been more active in nature.   While this portion of the comments is addressing Congressionally Designated Wilderness, the challenges are the same as much that can be addressed in the RMP, such as Recommended Wilderness Designations. Rio Grande managers have already had to deal with RMP standards that complicated the response to challenges, such as limitations on treatments of invasive species in certain management areas, the Organizations submit that imposing this type of management on future managers simply makes little sense and should be avoided.  Given the clearly negative relationship between heightened management restrictions in any area and more rapid and severe impacts to forest health, the Organizations must express serious concerns regarding any management in the new RMP that made addressing forest health issues more difficult.

The Organizations concerns regarding the elevation of abstract concepts to  sufficient level as to interfere with major challenges on the Rio Grande is exemplified by the fact that Timber management activities are prohibited within ½ mile of the CDT as follows:

“National Scenic and Historic Trails – Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and Old Spanish Trail including a ½ mile buffer on each side”[17]

No mention of the fact that the Rio Grande is one of the hardest hit forest in Region for both Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle is addressed in this portion of the RMP.

Impacts of these management decisions to all other activities are more clearly identified in the DEIS for the Rio Grande NF, where exclusionary corridors are clearly identified as a minimum of ½ mile and expanding to 1 mile in certain management areas.[18] The Organizations vigorously submit that management standards such as this make absolutely not sense and have clearly been inserted without meaningful analysis.  Not only will this complicate future management of major challenges, such as undertaken a removal of hazard trees on the CDT, this type of standard is also a direct violation of the National Trails System act, which requires a maximization of values of lands along the trail and meaningful analysis of all economic activity in and around the trail.   Clearly trees have value and their removal has a long history of being an economic driver in Colorado.

2c. Forest Service budgets will continue to decline over time.

The Organizations are intimately aware of the ongoing budgetary challenges that are facing federal land managers and the fact that the budgetary declines are not anticipated to rebound.  The changing budgetary situation facing federal land managers presents a major challenge for land managers moving forward, as the Organizations are aware that often partner support is high when new facilities or routes are being constructed but also tends to wane when basic operational expenses are addressed.  Land managers consistently inform us that basic operational activity, such as maintaining routes, cleaning toilet facilities and trash removal have consistently become more expensive and now pose major challenges for managers moving forward due to ever declining funding for operations.  The Organizations believe that the RMP revision provides a great opportunity to highlight this challenge and guide site specific projects in a manner that maximizes not only the short term partner funding relied on for construction but also the long term programmatic type funding that is becoming a more important factor in providing all recreational opportunities.

2d. USFS partnerships reports could provide high quality information on partner resources.

With the passage of the National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act in 2016, Congress mandated the creation of a volunteer strategy report to improve partnerships between land managers and user groups for the benefit of trails on federal public lands.  While this report is not to be published until 2018, this report should be highly relevant in addressing budgetary shortfalls and identifying partners where resources are more limited and partners where resources are more available as the report requires:

“(b) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—The strategy required by subsection (a) shall—

(1) augment and support the capabilities of Federal employees to carry out or contribute to trail maintenance;

(2) provide meaningful opportunities for volunteers and partners to carry out trail maintenance in each region of the Forest Service;

(3) address the barriers to increased volunteerism and partnerships in trail maintenance identified by volunteers, partners, and others;

(4) prioritize increased volunteerism and partnerships in trail maintenance in those regions with the most severe trail maintenance needs, and where trail maintenance backlogs are jeopardizing access to National Forest lands; and” [19]

The largest single partner with both the BLM and USFS in Colorado is the motorized trail user community, both in terms of direct funding to land managers through the CPW Trails Program and with direct funding and resources from clubs in the Rio Grande planning area.  The partnerships impact is further expanded by the fact that all motorized routes on the Rio Grande are available for all other recreational activities.  A major barrier to partnerships is closures of routes due to resource concerns when resources are available to address the resource concerns that are the basis of the route closure and the failure to treat all recreational user groups in a similar manner.

The identification of partner resources available to Rio Grande managers must be a major priority in the development of the RMP as well.  While there are many partner groups who volunteer time and resources in partnership with Rio Grande managers, the OHV community is the only partner that provides direct and consistent funds to Rio Grande managers through the CPW OHV grant program to assist in achieving sustainable recreational opportunities. The USFS Regional office has clearly identified that just the OHV program in Colorado more than doubles the amount of agency funding that is available for recreational activity on USFS public lands. After a review of the CPW Statewide Good Management Crew program based in the Sulphur Ranger District of the Arapahoe/Roosevelt NF managers clearly identified that CPW OHV good management crews were provided money in a more consistent and timely manner than the funding that was provided through USFS budgeting and over time the CPW program funding had significantly increased while USFS budgets had significantly declined.  There is simply no basis for a decision that this long term reduction in funding will change and this should be factored into planning for projects on the ground for all user groups.

In 2017, Rio Grande managers asked for almost $200,000 in direct funding for annual maintenance crews and for site specific projects from the CPW OHV program alone. This funding provides three trained seasonal crews who perform on the ground trail maintenance, provide basic maintenance services for more developed sites and expand the law enforcement presence on the Rio Grande.  Additionally, these crews are able to leverage a significant amount of mechanized equipment in the Rio Grande planning area, such as the several Sutter trail dozers, mini-excavators and tractors owned by local clubs to address larger maintenance challenges in a very cost effective manner.

In addition to the OHV grant funding and exceptional partnerships available through summer use clubs, CPW funding through the Snowmobile Registration Program provides an additional $500,000 in funding to local clubs for operation of the grooming programs, who maintain almost 400 miles of multiple use winter trails on the Rio Grande. The CPW snowmobile registration program further partners with the local clubs to purchase grooming equipment used on these routes, which now is consistently exceeding $200,000 to purchase used.  This CPW funding is again leveraged with exceptional amounts of volunteer and community support for these grooming programs from local clubs and often times the CPW funding is less than half the operational budget for the clubs maintaining these routes.  These winter trails are the major access network for all users of Rio Grande winter backcountry for recreation and all these opportunities are provided to the general public free of charge.

While there has been a significant decline in direct funding through the agency budget process, motorized partners on the Rio Grande have been able to marshal resources at levels that are unheard of other forests for the benefit of all recreational users.  The Organizations would ask that if budget constraints are identified as a challenge for recreational usage of the forest moving forward, that these constraints are applied to all recreational usages and that the fact that the Rio Grande has been the beneficiary of some of the strongest partnerships with the motorized community in the country for literally decades be properly balanced in addressing any budget shortfalls.

3a. Growing state populations will continue to seek recreational opportunities on public lands.

The Organizations believe that the third major challenge that will be faced by managers on the Rio Grande will be significant increases in the population of communities in the Rio Grande planning area and the expansion of utilization of Rio Grande opportunities by those living on the Front Range of Colorado.  These new visitors to the Rio Grande area will continue to expect the high quality recreational opportunities that have become synonymous with the Rio Grande.  Compounding this challenge will be the fact that USFS resources are declining slowly in terms of absolute dollars and declining far more rapidly in terms of that funding ability to address challenges on the Forest.  This relationship results in a critical need for the RMP to facilitate the management and maintenance of Rio Grande lands in the lost cost effective manner possible and avoid placing unnecessary restrictions or prohibitions on the management of areas on the Rio Grande.

The Colorado State Demographer estimates that the Colorado population is expanding at a rate of more than 100,000 citizens per year and will almost double by the year 2050. The Demographer breaks down this forecast as follows:

[20]

The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the time needed to double the state population and the anticipated life span of the Rio Grande RMP was not raised as a significant basis for our support of Alternative C.  While Projections estimate that a large portion of the population will settle along the Colorado Front Range and not be living directly within the Rio Grande planning area, the Organizations submit that these residents will still seek out the high quality recreational opportunities that have become synonymous with Colorado.  The Organizations believe that the RMP should strive to maintain current levels of access and meaningfully address areas where recreational access can be expanded in order to address this expanded usage in a thoughtful manner that protects resources and provides opportunities.  Failing to address this expanding demand will not stop the population from visiting public lands but rather will result in low quality opportunities being provided, unnecessarily  planning being required and resources being impacted as a result of the lack of planning. Again this must be avoided as much as possible in the RMP.

3b. Planning flexibility must be provided to expand recreational facilities and opportunities.

The Organizations believe that addressing the three major challenges in addressing the goals of the forest plan is an important component of the revision of the forest plan.  Given population projections, current facilities and opportunities will become insufficient in providing opportunities.  The RMP standards should be reviewed in insure that future managers will be able to address this situation in a meaningful and effect way.

Currently there are standards throughout the RMP where future managers would be limited by such a response.   This limitation in planning exemplified by standard MA-Rec-10 of the Proposal, which provides as follows:

“MA-REC-10: If use exceeds the area capacity for a given recreational opportunity spectrum class, the following management actions should be employed to address the impacts or effect on the recreation setting:

1. Inform the public and restore the site.
2. Regulate the use.
3. Restrict the number of visitors.
4. Close the area or site (Forestwide).”[21]

The Organizations vigorously assert that this exemplifies the type of standards that must be reviewed in the plan to insure that the RMP does not become a management barrier moving forward.  Under this management standard, there are no provisions that allow for new facilities and opportunities to be brought on line to address capacity issues being exceeded.  This standard could be amended to allow expansion with inclusion of subsequent site specific planning.  This type of landscape flexibility has been an important component of any discussion around recreational opportunities, and given the explosive population growth in the State the assumption that current recreational facilities will be able to accommodate expanded demand is probably on a questionable factual basis.

The current version of MA-REC-10 also represents the type of standard that has been put in place in the RMP without meaningful analysis or discussion in the Proposal. The Organizations hope that the failure to include any expansion of opportunities to other areas as a tool for addressing overuse of existing facilities was not intentionally included in the Proposal, as this would be very concerning to the Organizations.

How did planners determine this limitation was relevant?  The RMP simply does not address this.    This lack of factual basis will complicate any subsequent site specific planning that might be seeking to expand opportunities into new areas of the forest as the result of the capacity being exceeded at an existing facility. In twenty years this type of standard could be seen as a frustrating barrier to management in a manner similar to the frustrations that current managers have experienced with current management provisions addressing limited authority to treat and manage the impacts of invasive species on the forest. These types of issues simply must be avoided.

4. Why the Organizations are supporting Alternative C of the Proposal.

The Organizations are supporting Alternative C of the Proposal due to the limited number of management standards that are provided for in this Alternative, which is a significant benefit for the reasons previously addressed in these comments.  The Organizations also support the significant expansion of opportunity areas for motorized recreation that are provided in the Alternative, but this is not unexpected and our reasoning behind such a position should be apparent.    The Organizations believe the flexibility provided under the expanded multiple use opportunity areas is an important factor to be addressed in the RMP as  increasing populations in Colorado will continue to demand high quality opportunities synonymous with Rio Grande.  Site specific planners should have the most flexibility possible in their planning, and authority to allow multiple use should be provided in the RMP as this can be more meaningfully addressed in local planning.

The Organizations also support Alternative C due to the inherent simplicity of the Plan that results from the reduced number of management categories in the RMP.  The Organizations are well versed in site specific planning that occurs subsequent to the implementation of an RMP, and while planners attempt to streamline the subsequent site specific planning efforts by identifying a large number of issues and factors in the landscape level RMP, often times these efforts become outdated quickly and result in significant barriers resulting in site specific planning rather than streamlining local site specific plans.

The significant reduction in the number of categories of the RMP Alternative C will also result in increased simplicity for the public and allow for a much greater level of understanding of the Plan. This alternative is the easiest for the public to understand for comments and for the public to understand how the Plan will guide management of particular areas to achieve particular goals in the future.   The most common frustration we have experienced in dealing with the public in working on site specific projects on forest is the high levels of complexity of forest plans, the numerous overlapping categories for the management of areas that often provide contradictory and confusing guidance for areas and rely on boundaries that make little sense on the ground or rely on boundary lines in the forest plan that are of such poor definition due to mapping scales that conflict results. These benefits should not be overlooked.

Our reasoning for support of Alternative C is not just limited to recreational concerns.  Alternative B misses the boat when it comes to actively managing the Forest, protecting local jobs, and ensuring there is a forest in the future.  The proposed action (Alternative B) proposes to:

• Only cut 40,000 CCF of salvage per year for the first decade, and only 15,600 CCF of green treatment per year in the second decade.  This is not enough wood to supply the current industry.
• Recommends an additional 59,000 acres of wilderness, thus making management even more difficult.
• Recommends two different fire management zones, including “resource restoration” where wildfires may be allowed to burn to achieve “resource objectives,” which is very concerning for the suitable timber acres.  How many times has the Forest Service burned up valuable areas?
• Rather than making the plan easier to read and understand, Alternative B proposes to have almost the same exact number of management zones as currently exists, as well as the new fire management zones.

Overall, Alternative C is the best choice for managing the Rio Grande National Forest as a multiple-use forest while still achieving the desired ecological, social, and economical goals.  Here is what Alternative C proposes to accomplish for timber management:

• Salvage up to 70,000 CCF of timber per year for the first decade, followed by 22,000 CCF of green treatment during the second decade.
• Proposes zero acres of new wilderness.  Currently, only 17% of the entire 1.83 million acres is considered suitable for timber production.  Adding more wilderness acres will simply reduce the number of suitable timber acres.
• Simplifies the plan by reducing the overall number of management areas.

Given these stark differences in the ability of managers to address what the Organizations see as the single largest management challenge on the Rio Grande over the life of the next plan, these differences are critically important to why the Organizations are supporting Alternative C of the Proposal.   It simply does a better job of addressing challenges, and the Organizations would support any efforts to further streamline even Alternative C of the Proposal to address challenges or shorten the Proposal.

5. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative D.

The Organizations are VIGOROUSLY opposed to Alternative D of the Proposal due to the significant restrictions it places on multiple use access to the forest and the complications to the removal and mitigation of poor forest health on the forest that would result from expanded management restrictions in Alternative D. Alternative D would also  remove motorized trails from Colorado Roadless areas, which the Organizations submit is in direct conflict with the Colorado Roadless Rule statements that clearly identifies dispersed motorized opportunities as a characteristic of a Colorado Roadless Area. Alternative D also provides for an additional 285,000 acres of recommended Wilderness on the Rio Grande.  The Organizations are opposed to this decision as this would be 285,000 of the forest where addressing poor forest health would be made more difficult in the future because of the RMP.  This simply makes no sense.

6. The Colorado Roadless Rule must be accurately applied in the Rio Grande RMP, which directly applies to Area 3.5 and 3.6 management prescriptions.

The Organizations submit that the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule (“CRR”) is generally poorly understood by many of the groups submitting comments in favor of expansion of Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness in the Planning Process.   The Organizations submit the CRR development was an extensive site specific analysis of many of the same areas that have been the basis for possible Wilderness designations in the past and the CRR provided clear guidance for development of non-Wilderness management of these areas.  Part of the intent of the CRR was that as management of these areas moved into the future, the never ending discussion of possible designation of these areas could be avoided.  The CRR clearly states that no further protections of these areas is warranted and that the characteristics inventoried should be protected and preserved.

The Organizations were actively and extensively involved in the development of the CRR with the USFS, and can assert without hesitation that the CRR sought to provide a dispersed recreational experience for all users, which is a significant difference from the position asserted by the Wilderness Society in their comments on this issue. The Organizations submit that any interpretation of the CRR in the manner asserted in the Wilderness Society comments twists both the direct language of the CRR and the spirit and intent in developing the CRR as large portions of the Rio Grande were reviewed as possible Upper Tier areas and then specifically found unsuitable for such designation.  Application of this twisted version of the CRR must be avoided in the development of the Rio Grande  RMP as this alternative management of many areas on the Rio Grande as Upper Tier areas was specifically reviewed in the development of the CRR and was declined to be implemented.

While the Roadless Rule never altered the multiple use mandates for any areas, the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule went a step further on multiple uses and specifically identifies motorized usage as a characteristic of a Colorado Roadless Area.   The CRR specifically states this as follows:

“Roadless areas are, among other things, sources of drinking water, important fish and wildlife habitat, semi-primitive or primitive recreation areas, including motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities, and natural-appearing landscapes. There is a need to provide for the conservation and management of

Roadless area characteristics.”[22]

Documents developed around the CRR further clearly state this relationship as follows:

“The final rule does not prohibit use of existing authorized motorized trails nor does it prohibit the future development of motorized trails in CRAs (see 36 CFR 294.46(f)). The final rule allows continued motorized trail use of CRAs if determined appropriate through local travel management planning.”[23]

The utilization of CRR and Upper tier Roadless areas was further specifically addressed in the EIS issued with the 2012 Roadless Rule. The EIS provides additional clarity regarding the importance of motorized usage of both types of Roadless areas, providing as follows:[24]

The FEIS additionally clearly identified the significant differences between a Roadless areas and other management areas as follows:

“These Roadless areas provide settings for dispersed recreational activities that are prohibited in designated wilderness areas and not readily available in developed or modified settings with system roads. For example, wilderness areas prohibit, with few exceptions, mechanized and motorized uses, such as OHVs, mountain bikes, and snowmobiles. Within Roadless boundaries, these activities are permitted on designated trails, including current and new trail construction. Wheelchair or handicapped access is allowed within wilderness areas, but is expected to be very challenging. Depending on the travel management direction for an individual Roadless area, many trails within Roadless areas are open to OHV use for those who are not able to access remote areas without motorized assistance.”[25]

The Organizations believe that proper application of the CRR review and analysis process provides significant information regarding areas that should not be managed in a manner similar to Wilderness.  Under this review, a significant portion of the Rio Grande planning area was specifically reviewed for possible Upper Tier Roadless designation and found to be unsuitable.

[26]

Given that a large portion of the Non-Wilderness areas in the Rio Grande planning area where recently inventoried for possible increases in management to levels that remained below Congressionally designated Wilderness, the Organizations must question what situation or condition has changed in these areas that would allow these areas to become suitable for Wilderness recommendations in the RMP within such a short period of time.

In addition to the CRR providing clear guidance regarding the desire for these areas to be managed for expanded low intensity motorized usage, the CRR also clearly stated that trail development was to be allowed in both areas. While the RMP does provide a reasonable summary of usages of CRR in the management provisions, such as 3.5 and 3.6, trail construction is not addressed in the RMP and as a result this lack of clarity will result in questions on site specific planning for these areas in the future.   Mainly the Organizations are concerned that in the future there will be questions involving if these standards intended to omit trail construction from these areas or should the CRR be directly applied? The Organizations request that if some uses are going to be identified in the RMP, multiple use trail construction must be specifically and clearly identified as well, or all discussion of uses should be removed.  Under the current version of the RMP, ambiguity is created on this issue rather than clarity for future management.  This again must be avoided.

7a. Continental Divide Trail management and corridor usage must be governed by multiple use principals.

The Organizations are aware of extensive discussions and pressure from certain interest groups  surrounding the management of National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails on numerous other forests, as exemplified by discussions around the Pacific Crest Trail as it travels through the Lassen, Tahoe, Stanislaus and Plumas National Forests in California as these  are  moving through winter travel planning Unfortunately these discussions have now been raised in public meetings involving the Rio Grande RMP revision. While these discussions are often passionate and filled with an artificial urgency to save the world from a falling sky, this position simply lacks any basis as it conflicts with the direct language of the National Trails System Act, the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA, the specific language of the Trail related NEPA plans and numerous other Executive Orders regarding recreation and cost benefits analysis.

Numerous standards are proposed in the Rio Grande NF RMP that could result in exclusionary corridors being developed in subsequent site specific planning around the CDT. Often pressure and efforts of groups asserted that national trails system routes must be non-motorized under the National Trails Act are based on incomplete or inaccurate reviews of the National Trails System Act, which can be easily achieved due to the poor drafting of the NTSA and the following provisions are included in the hope of bringing balance to these discussions. Unfortunately these incomplete and conflicting summaries have now been included in USFS Guidance on NTSA designated routes. The Organizations must briefly address the management history of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDT and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDT.  Prior to addressing the clarity of the current NTSA, a review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the NTSA is relevant.  Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time.

The Organizations concerns regarding exclusionary corridors  are not abstract as many facilities of other users  and management activities are proposed to be excluded prohibited within ½ mile of the CDT .  An example of this type of standard in the RMP is as follows:

“National Scenic and Historic Trails – Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and Old Spanish Trail including a ½ mile buffer on each side”[27]

Such a standard simply makes no sense when the public safety risk that results from the large number of hazard trees along the CDT is reviewed.  No mention of the fact that the Rio Grande is one of the hardest hit forest in Region for both Mountain Pine Beetle and Spruce Beetle is addressed in this portion of the RMP.

Impacts of these management decisions to all other activities are more clearly identified in the DEIS for the Rio Grande NF, where exclusionary corridors are clearly identified as a minimum of ½ mile and expanding to 1 mile in certain management areas.[28] Under certain management alternatives, exclusionary corridors would prohibit significant recreational opportunities which may be visible in the viewshed such as level 1 roads, trails, 2 scenic byways, and some campgrounds and recreation areas. [29]  Again the Organizations vigorously oppose the complete lack of analysis around this type of a corridor as clearly these impacts have not been reviewed in any manner in the EIS and represent a direct violation of the NTSA, as more completely outlined below.  The Organizations also submit these type of arbitrary management standards in an RMP are exactly the type of standards that make any future site specific planning more expensive and difficult as planners are simply unable to address the management concern that resulted in these management standards.

7b. Mandatory exclusionary corridors directly conflict with the Congressional intent when NTSA was passed.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only 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. Additionally every time Congress has spoken regarding these alleged conflicts the NTAS has been amended to include stronger language in favor of multiple use and opposing corridors.

Extensive background regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968.   A complete copy of this report is submitted with these comments for your convenience.   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. Such conflicts should be problematic for managers seeking to implement recommendations of USFS Guidance on the NTSA as Congress has repeatedly had the opportunity to require exclusionary corridors around NTSA routes, but has consistently moved towards more clarity in addressing multiple usage of these areas.

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,[30] 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.”[31]

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 is 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.”[32]

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.”[33]

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.”[34]

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)).”[35]

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.

7c. Congress has consistently declined to require minimum exclusionary corridors around NTSA trails.

Management of the CDT is specifically governed by the National Trail System Act (NTSA) which specifically addresses multiple usage of areas adjacent to trails and how these multiple use mandates will relate to management of the trail.  The NTSA provides as follows:

“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.“[36]

The Organizations believe that Congress was very clear in these provisions, as they clearly stated maximum benefits from the land and harmony with multiple use planning was the objective.  The Organizations submit that maximum benefits from the land as a management standard is a FAR more encompassing standard of management than maximizing benefit of the trail or an area to the users of the trail.

While the NTSA does provide that multiple uses are not allowed on an NTSA route in Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and National Parks among other areas where such usage would be prohibited in 1968, the NTSA makes no mention of prohibitions for usage outside these areas.  The Organizations submit that any buffer corridor expanding these prohibitions outside these areas would be a violation of this specific management standard and the Organizations are not able to understand how designating a corridor in the Resource management plan would not be a violation of these standards as the conflict would directly involve the multiple uses in the RMP rather than being implemented in subsequent planning. Congress has prohibited exclusionary corridors at any time around an NTSA route.

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.” [37]

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.

In several locations in the NTSA, proper recognition of multiple usage of a National Trail is specifically and clearly identified in areas outside Wilderness, Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.   The NTSA explicitly provides allowed usages as follows:

“j) 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: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”[38]

The Organizations would note that given the specific recognition of snowmobiling, four wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles as allowed trail usages, any attempt to exclude such usages from the CDT would be on questionable legal ground. In addition to the above general provisions regarding multiple usage in areas around a National Scenic Trail, multiple usage of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail is also specifically and repeatedly addressed and protected in the NTSA.  The CDT guidance starts as follows:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1246(c) of this title, the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.”[39]

The NTSA further addresses and protects multiple usage of the CDT is further addressed as follows:

“Where a national historic trail follows existing public roads, developed rights-of-way or waterways, and similar features of man’s non historically related development, approximating the original location of a historic route, such segments may be marked to facilitate retracement of the historic route, and where a national historic trail parallels an existing public road, such road may be marked to commemorate the historic route. 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.“[40]

In addition to the specific provisions of the NTSA addressing the CDT, the CDT management plan further addresses multiple usage including the high levels of multiple use on the CDT in 2009. The CDT plans specifically 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.”[41]

While the CDT plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDT plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDT. Motorized Trail usages of the CDT and corridor are critically important to winter motorized usage on the San Juan and many other locations as significant portions of the CDT are groomed by the motorized community for the benefit of all users.  Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage the CDT plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDT, providing 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:

(1) Is necessary to meet emergencies;
(2) Is necessary to enable adjacent landowners or those with valid outstanding rights to have reasonable access to their lands or rights;
(3) Is for the purpose of allowing private landowners who have agreed to include their lands in the CDNST by cooperative agreement to use or cross those lands or adjacent lands from time to time in accordance with Federal regulations;
(4) Is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST;
(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.”[42]

The CDT plan further adopts multiple use principals by clearly adopting management standards for motorized categories of the recreational opportunity spectrum and as a result the concept of an exclusively non-motorized corridor would directly conflict with the CDT plan.  While the NTSA fails to specifically address multiple use trails along the CTD, the Management Plan does specifically provide that multiple use routes adopted under relevant travel management decisions shall be allowed and consistent with applicable planning.   At no point in the CDT plan is the concept of an exclusionary corridor even mentioned.

The Organizations submit that while specific portions of the NTSA are less than clear when read in isolation or in an attempt to apply Wilderness or National Park type restrictions outside these areas, the NTSA is very clear in conveying the position that the CTD is truly a multiple use trail and that the CTD should not serve as a barrier to multiple usage of adjacent areas. The Organizations submit that creation of a landscape level buffer around the CDT, where multiple usage was prohibited or restricted would be a violation of both the NTSA and the CDT management plan. This should be avoided as there are significant challenges on the Rio Grande that are on a more sound legal basis and of significantly more important level to most forest users.

7d. NTSA management specifically requires a maximizing of economic benefits with is supplemented by relevant US Supreme Court rulings and Executive Orders mandate agencies balance management priorities based on the cost benefit analysis of the standard.

The implementation of a non-motorized Wilderness corridor around the CDT also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective, which is made even more complex by the fact that the CDT runs through a wide range of lands, including public and private lands. The Organizations are also concerned that any heightening of the CDT management and a possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA.

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 based on economic returns associated with the management of the route.   The NTSA explicitly provides 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;”[43]

While the Rio Grande has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, the CDT is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDT on an annual basis. [44] Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDT at state or forest levels. The Organizations can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more  specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision making process.   Given the fact that significant portions of the CDT are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information.  It has been the Organizations experience that often comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain.  The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring process and those conclusions are as follows:

[45]

While the above agency summary data has become somewhat old, the Organizations simply don’t see any change in the comparative spending profiles of these users groups. The Organizations are aware of detailed research addressing certain portions of this analysis above.   A copy of the most recent study of the Economic Contribution of the use of Off-Highway Vehicles in Colorado is attached to these comments.  This analysis identifies a strong increase in the per person spending profiles of all user groups in the OHV/OSV community based on increased unit prices and new types of OHVs, such as side by side vehicles, being present in the marketplace.

The differences in comparative spending between the user groups allowed in a CDT corridor and those excluded from the corridor are stark and again simply do not favor designation of a landscape level corridor.  When comparing the spending profiles of usages allowed in a proposed corridor such as hiking, primitive camping and cross country skiing to the usages that are excluded from the corridor, such as OHV use and snowmobile the disparity of spending profiles is stark.  The users excluded from a corridor spend anywhere from 1.5x to more than 2x the amount of the user groups that would be allowed in the corridor.

As a result of the stark differences in spending profiles of the users, visitation of those allowed in any corridor would have to essentially double throughout the year in order to offset lost economic benefits from the users that would be excluded. This position and expectation is factually unsupportable as visitation to certain portions of the CDT by permitted users is limited to as few as dozens of visitors per year, while visitation levels from users possibly excluded is significantly higher than the visitation levels that are allowed within a corridor.  As a result not only would corridor visitation have to double to offset lost users simply to break even on a per visitor days spending level but also the levels of visitation would have to massively expand as the levels of permitted corridor use is exceptionally low.

The Organizations do not contest that there are areas or attractions where the CDT sees very high levels of visitation but the Organizations are aware the areas of higher visitation are areas and issues that can be resolved at the site specific level in an effective manner and should not be relied on for the basis of a forest wide corridor. Additionally hikers of the trail are encouraged to visit local communities to the trail, which include South Fork, Pagosa Springs, Keystone and Breckenridge.  The Organizations are unsure how a Wilderness like corridor can be reconciled with developed resources such as these large communities.  Any attempt to resolve these issues would be exceptionally expensive from a management perspective and would result in user conflict.  The Organizations must question if these areas and CDT issues more generally could not be more effectively managed through site specific planning subsequent to the RMP finalization. The Organizations submit that there are numerous diverse challenges facing the CDT, many of which are highly site specific, which should be dealt with at the local level rather than trying to craft a landscape level fix to these issues. There is simply insufficient levels of utilization of the CDT at the landscape level to warrant inclusion of such issues in the RMP.

7e. A Cost/Benefit analysis of corridor management must also be addressed.

In addition to having to balance economic interests in management of NTSA areas, both President Trump (EO 13771 in 2017) and President Obama (EO 13563 in 2011) have issued Executive Orders requiring all federal agencies to undertake a cost benefit analysis of management decisions.   The US Supreme Court recently specifically addressed the need for cost benefit analysis as an issue and stated as follows:

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”[46]

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, the Organizations are very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community.

The Organizations submit that there can be no factually based arguments made that closures of large areas of the Rio Grande NF to historical travel will not result in significant massive additional costs to land managers that really cannot be justified given the huge challenges managers are facing such as poor forest health and large increases in wildfire severity and frequency. Simply educating the public regarding the new closure would be exceptionally costly as new signage and other educational materials would have to be developed and then signage would have to be maintained.  This would have to include signage that probably makes little sense on the ground as natural landmarks are not relied on for boundaries, and these signs would have to be placed in areas where they could be found and also maintained to insure signage is not buried in snow.  The Organizations submit that proper balancing of enforcement costs with the benefit to small user group is exactly the type balance that the Supreme Court and both President Obama and President Trump has expected the agencies to undertake as part of any planning process. The Organizations submit that a non-motorized corridor around the CDT fails from a cost benefit perspective even if Congressional action and relevant plans allowed such as management decision.

8. ROS opportunities are not accurately reflected in the Proposal

The Organizations are very concerned that the ROS route mileage is not accurately reflected in the RMP, and this is a concern for future management of areas. The Organizations are aware that the USFS has always employed a trails management hierarchy, and as a result any trail that is managed for a certain usage will also be open for lower intensity usages in the hierarchy.  As a result, every mile of multiple usage trail and road is available for those seeking to hike, bike, horseback, snowshoe, cross country ski, and any other usage. There is simply no routes on the Rio Grande that are open only to motorized usages.

While this hierarchy has been standard operating procedure for the USFS and Rio Grande this hierarchy is not accurately reflected in the RMP.   The DEIS provides the following breakdown:

[47]

The Organizations are not aware of a single trail in the region that is only open to motorized usage, rather the Organizations are aware that all motorized trails are open to all uses lower on the hierarchy. With proper application of the hierarchy to the above chart, the analysis would conclude there are 1,990 miles of routes open to hike and pack/saddle usage.  An accurate analysis of this relationship is critical to understanding the funding that is available from partner groups for the management of these areas.  While the motorized community has a strong partnership with the Rio Grande, grants from the State OHV program may only be used on lands that are open to motorize.  While there are strong partnerships with other users groups, these partnerships are significantly smaller than the scope of funding provided by the motorized community.  As a result, the higher a route is on the management hierarchy the more money is available to support the route. This type of accurate analysis and understanding will be critical in addressing impacts of poor forest health on recreation, mainly the removal of dead trees that are obstructing these routes.

When addressing winter travel a similar imbalance is reflected as there are actually 632 miles of routes open to cross country skiing on the Rio Grande.   The importance of accurately reflecting the hierarchy is highlighted when discussing winter travel as the groomed route system on the Rio Grande NF is the preferred method of all winter travels to access the backcountry. The Organizations are aware that it is very difficult to find winter recreation occurring on the Rio Grande that is not directly relying on this groomed route system provided through the local snowmobile clubs.

The Organizations would ask that any information relying on the trails hierarchy be accurately portrayed in the RMP in order to provide an accurate analysis of the true opportunities available on the Rio Grande.

9. No new Wilderness type designations should be created in the RMP as these barriers restrict opportunities and the ability of managers to address challenges in a timely manner.

The Organizations believe that the Wilderness designation process provides a concrete example of why route mileage and opportunities for each user group must be accurately reflected in the RMP.  When Table 73 of the DEIS is reviewed the inaccurate information in this analysis creates the perception that there is a shortage of hiking routes and further basis for more Wilderness management.  This simply is incorrect and a situation where user groups are forced to correct the RMP in subsequent discussions.

Four large Wilderness areas on Rio Grande already provide exceptional recreational opportunity for those seeking to user experience (i.e., La Garita, Sangre de Cristo, Weminuche, and South San Juan).  Even with these exceptional resources, these areas only received 4% of visitor days to the Rio Grande.[48] Compounding this imbalance is the high levels of local frustration with the recent complex fires and impacts that lack of management had with these fires scope and intensity.  Requirements for Wilderness management have also greatly increased basic operation costs for land managers as even basic maintenance may only be done without mechanical assistance.

Together our Organizations do not support or endorse the expansion of Wilderness areas within the Rio Grande National Forest or management that seeks to provide expanded Wilderness like experiences. In Colorado alone, there are approximately 3.7 million acres of Congressionally designated Wilderness in our National Forests or approximately 15% of all USFS lands.  Another 210,984 acres of Wilderness are located within Colorado’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) boundaries and 306,081 acres are located in Colorado’s National Parks. In total, there are 4.2 million acres of designated Wilderness already in Colorado.  This is an area larger than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.  Many of the remaining lands within the State that might be considered for “Wilderness” designation have been specifically “released” by Congress from future consideration as Wilderness, or have been studied by the agency and deemed unsuitable for Wilderness designation.

Finally, visitor use statistics do not suggest that we need additional Wilderness areas.  Nationally, only about 5 percent of user visits to the Forest System are in Wilderness areas. The visitation figure for the Rocky Mountain region is even lower, about 4 %, despite over 15% of USFS lands in Colorado being Congressionally designated Wilderness[49].  Congress has amply addressed both the need and demand for Wilderness in Colorado.  Wilderness advocates frequently claim new Congressional designations of Wilderness areas will drive economic growth, which claims are supported by generalized assertions by the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) research findings that outdoor recreation is $646 Billion dollar a year industry.  The relationship of this research and Congressionally designated Wilderness is unclear at best, as the OIA research specifically includes valuations of activities such as motorized recreation, Bicycling, RV camping, and Snowmobiling.  In reality, most Americans, for various reasons, are unable or unwilling to enlist in the physical and rigorous effort required of the adventures in Wilderness areas.

The Rio Grande National Forest and other forests face broad-scale ecological threats that require well designed management responses that do not stop at a Wilderness boundary.  In Colorado, we only need to look outside to see the devastation tied to catastrophic wildfires and the spruce beetle outbreaks.  An ecological imbalance has developed over time because widespread treatments in the Engelmann and Blue Spruce stands that would have created age class diversity, enhanced the vigor of remaining trees, and improved stand resiliency to drought or insect attack—such as timber harvest and thinning — lacked public acceptance in the past.     The Organizations vigorously support addressing poor forest health to the maximum extent possible as this is the single largest management challenge that will be seen on public lands in this generation. While this issue cannot be totally resolved, impacts can be mitigated and sustainability of forests on public lands can be improved.

The Organizations also would note that the expansions of recommended Wilderness in a manner similar to Alternative D would have significant impacts to multiple use access to huge portions of the forest.  While the USFS inventory is reasonably accurate in terms of usage of most areas possibly identified for recommended Wilderness, these inventory fail to convey the values of these routes to the multiple use community. While there may be limited mileages of routes in some areas, each of these opportunities is HUGELY valued by the multiple use community.  This is exemplified by the discussions around possible inclusion of the Bristol head area as recommended Wilderness on pages 486 and 487 of the DEIS.  This area is hugely valued by the snowmobile community and the Miners Creek trails is a rapidly becoming a regional destination for summer time recreational usage.  These concerns also highlight why an accurate inventory of all recreational opportunities  on the Rio Grande, unlike those provided in Table 73 of the DEIS, must be developed.   Again these are issues that simply must be addressed in the preferred alternative of the RMP.  

10. The intent and limited scope of the winter buffer areas around Yurts in Chama Basin must be clearly stated in the RMP.

In general, the Organizations do not support the segregation of users and the exclusive use of one user group at the exclusion of others.  We feel it is both socially beneficial and desirable for all users to learn to coexist and to show tolerance and respect for other users and groups of users.  Just as we all learn to live together in our daily lives away from the forest, we should also extend that willingness to coexist when in the forest.  Segregated user groups only fosters arrogance, elitism, intolerance and eventually leads to unjustified stereotyping and discrimination which results in greater user conflict.   The Organizations are intimately familiar with the situation where user conflict is used as a straw man for the desire to create exclusive use areas on the Rio Grande.  The Organizations are not aware of any major user conflict areas or issues currently existing on the Rio Grande and creating user conflict in an attempt to create exclusive use areas on the forest would be unfortunate.

The Organizations are cautiously supportive of the proposed closures around several yurts in the Chama Basin, only because the Organizations are aware of the extensive collaborative efforts that have been ongoing between users, USFS and yurt interests.  This decision is reflected in the following management standard:

“Specifically the long term closure order for a 543 acre area in the vicinity of Chama Basin is specifically in place to prevent winter recreation use conflicts.”[50]

The Organizations concerns on this issue are not directly related to the management standard proposed, but has more to do with our experiences with similar management standards on other forests involving closures of public access for the benefit of certain users.  The White River National Forest applied similar exclusionary boundaries of ½ mile for OSV travel around many of the 10th mtn. division’s huts on the forest.  When these boundaries were put in place, the understanding was that these closures would resolve conflict between these uses moving forward. Unfortunately, these exclusionary boundaries did not resolve the conflicts for certain users, and these closures have been relied on in attempts to open discussions regarding the need for additional restrictions for OSV travel. These attempts have badly fragmented relationships and resulted in high levels of conflicts between users.

Unfortunately the experiences of the Organizations regarding segmented usages has not been limited to the WRNF Travel plan and Vail Pass.  Similar experiences have occurred on Rabbit Ears Pass on the Medicine Bow/Rout NF were Rabbit Ears Pass was evenly split between motorized and non-motorized usage.  While this did reduce conflicts when Rabbit Ears was viewed in isolation, these conflicts were not removed as a certain portion of conflict was originated by those that are entirely intolerant of multiple use principals.  In a more troubling twist the designations on Rabbit Ears gave a foundation to discussions asserting a compelling need for similar designations in other areas of the forest, such as Steamboat Lake, where conflict was basically non-existent between usages. It has been our Organizations experience that such intolerance should not be rewarded in any manner, but rather dealt with by providing clear and direct statements of fact regarding why the intolerant position is not moving forward.

While the Chama Basin Yurt closures were collaboratively developed in the Rio Grande RMP process, the reasoning behind the closures was not well documented. The Organizations would ask that the current clarity of understanding between the groups be memorialized in the RMP to avoid future conflicts like those seen on the WRNF and other areas to allow for clear and direct statements of fact regarding the Chama Basin Yurt issue and why this management was NOT explored in other areas of the Rio Grande.  The Organizations are concerned this type of information will be lost with the passage of time on the forest.

These types of concerns and conflicts are not uncommon under the multiple use principals on public lands and the Organizations believe that analysis of how best available science supports the management decisions and direction any proposal constitutes a critical part of the planning process, especially when addressing perceived user conflicts.  This analysis will allow the public to understand the basis of alleged user conflicts and why travel management has been chosen to remedy the concern.   Relevant social science has clearly found this analysis to be a critical tool in determining the proper methodology for managing and truly resolving user conflicts.

When socially based user conflict is properly addressed in the Proposal, the need for future travel management closures and separation of users will be significantly reduced. Researchers have specifically identified that properly determining the basis for or type of user conflict is critical to determining the proper method for managing this conflict.  Scientific analysis defines the division of conflicts as follows:

“For interpersonal conflict to occur, the physical presence or behavior of an individual or a group of recreationists must interfere with the goals of another individual or group….Social values conflict, on the other hand, can occur between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell&Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba& Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups……When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy.  When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. In the Mt. Evans study (Vaske et al., 1995), for example, physically separating hunters from nonhunters did not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the nonhunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area resulted in the perception of conflict. For these types of situations, efforts designed to educate and inform the different visiting publics about the reasons underlying management actions may be more effective in reducing conflict.” ^[51]

Other researchers have distinguished types of user conflicts based on a goals interference distinction, described as follows:

“The travel management planning process did not directly assess the prevalence of on-site conflict between non-motorized groups accessing and using the yurts and adjacent motorized users…..The common definition of recreation conflict for an individual assumes that people recreate in order to achieve certain goals, and defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). Therefore, conflict as goal interference is not an objective state, but is an individual’s appraisal of past and future social contacts that influences either direct or indirect conflict. It is important to note that the absence of recreational goal attainment alone is insufficient to denote the presence of conflict. The perceived source of this goal interference must be identified as other individuals.”^[52]

It is significant to note that Mr. Norling’s study, cited above, was specifically created to determine why winter travel management closures had not resolved user conflicts for winter users of a group of yurts on the Wasache-Cache National forest. As noted in Mr. Norling’s study, the travel management decisions addressing in the areas surrounding the yurts failed to distinguish why the conflict was occurring and this failure prevented the land managers from effectively resolving the conflict.

The Organizations believe that understanding why the travel management plan was unable to resolve socially based user conflicts on the Wasache-Cache National Forest is critical in the Rio Grande planning area.  Properly understanding the issue to be resolved will ensure that the same errors that occurred on the Wasache-Cache are not implemented again to address problems they simply cannot resolve.  The Organizations believe that the Rio Grande must learn from this failure and move forward with effective management rather than fall victim to the same mistakes again.

While the Organizations understand the basis for this management in the Chama Basin Yurt issue, the Organizations remain concerned regarding the long term impacts of the current agreements when other issues are sought to be resolved with implementation of isolation of users with exclusionary boundaries. The Organizations would ask that the current clarity of understanding between the groups be memorialized in the RMP to avoid future conflicts like those seen on the WRNF.

11. Flexibility moving forward should be provided for winter recreation management.

The Organizations are aware that there are numerous hybrid vehicles and uses being developed, such as fat tire bicycles that were simply unheard of in winter recreational management circles even several years ago. The Organizations believe that continued development of these types of vehicles will result in the merger of even more non-traditional winter usages of the backcountry, such as fat tire E-Bikes or tracked bicycles.  It has been the Organizations experience that while often these conversions are marketed as being able to easily convert from summer to winter usage, these conversions are often difficult and expensive and as a result once converted, vehicles often remain in their winter converted form.  The Organizations do not see these conversions/hybrid as replacing the more traditional snowmobiles, rather the Organizations believe these units do have a place in the spectrum of winter motorized recreation. For purposes, the Organizations will divide these new users into two general categories: 1. those who are adapting their vehicles to use a track or tracks to traverse snow; and 2. those that are seeking to traverse snow by merely relying on larger wheels and tires.  These two user groups pose different management challenges for OSV and recreational management.

While the Organizations welcomes new uses, winter recreational management decisions must remain science based.  The Organizations have ongoing concerns with impacts to trails and other resources that arise from use of wheeled vehicles on winter trails, however the Organizations’ experiences with tracked conversion summer vehicles has been significantly different and welcomes these conversion vehicles, after they have complied with State OHV registration regulations for use of motor vehicles on groomed winter trails. Our initial research indicates that these tracked conversion vehicles exert similar pressures on the snow  as traditional snowmobiles, making any risks of resource damage from usage of these conversions similar to that of snowmobiles.[53] These impacts have already been well documented as minimal to entirely non-existent.  These tracked conversion vehicles also allow entirely new classes of public users into the winter backcountry to experience the exceptional opportunities these areas provide, either by accessing their local lake for winter ice fishing opportunities or by making the more traditional winter backcountry motorized experience available.

These track conversion  vehicles include motorcycles where the front tire has been removed in favor of a snowmobile like skis and the rear wheel is exchanged in favor of a large track. The Organizations are aware of discussions around trying to manage these conversion vehicles based on the intent of the designers of the vehicles, and this position is problematic with the Organizations.  These summer based  conversions provide the winter backcountry experience at reduced cost to users as multiple vehicles are less needed or lower costs units can be converted. Under certain conditions, these conversions provide a more durable recreational experience than a traditional snowmobile on warmer days, or days when the snow has become very firm, as these conversions do not rely on loose snow contacting any portion of the vehicle for the reduction of operating temperatures. These vehicles are designed to cool without any external assistance from snow contacting the vehicle.

Photos of some of these types of  motorcycle track type conversion vehicles are below:

[54]

The Organizations are aware that there have been similar vehicles, designed specifically for over the snow travel, to these motorcycle conversions in production for a long time under the Snow hawk brand. The following picture represents the Snow hawk vehicle:

[55]

It has been the Organizations’ experience that while the Snowhawk may have struggled in the market place for reasons that are unclear, the conversion motorcycles have rapidly developed a strong customer base and are frequently seen in the backcountry.  Permitting a Snowhawk to be managed under winter travel management guidelines, while prohibiting the motorcycle conversions  as they are not designed for winter travel could easily appear arbitrary and lead to difficulties for local managers and partners.

Similar track conversion are not just limited to motorized vehicles and  are now available for bicycles.  The Organizations are not aware of the background or viability of   bicycle based conversions for winter use, such as that pictured below, but  the Organizations are aware these vehicles are growing in popularity and will probably be seen in increasing numbers in the winter backcountry areas in the near future.

[56]

Given the expected life of the RMP, the usage of these human powered types of vehicles would become an issue for travel management as these types of designs would anticipated to be perfected within the lifespan of the RMP.

The Organizations are also aware that many traditional ATVs and side by side vehicles  exchange tires for track assemblies that allow these vehicles to easily travel over snow.  The following photos represent an ATV that has undergone this track conversion:

[57]

Clarity in management of these ATV conversions is further made necessary by recent industry actions regarding the sales and support of tracked conversions.   Both Polaris Industries and BRP  are now selling track kits for delivery on ATVs and Side by Side vehicles  with full warranties and OEM parts availability  for both the tracks and vehicle being provided from Polaris or BRP.[58]  In addition, the Organizations understand that several models include provisions for the operator to choose if the vehicle is using tracks or wheels in the vehicles operation system.   This provision allows accurate information on data, such as vehicle speed to be automatically compensated for the use of tracks or wheels.  With these provisions, data on vehicle speed could be off by as much as 30%.  The Organizations believe that these industry actions provide a credible argument that these traditional OHVs are also designed to be OSVs.

Enforcement of travel restrictions based on the source of these pieces of equipment would be problematic and could lead to management being based on if the manufacture of the track system was by the vehicle manufacturer or if the tracks came from a third party.  Clearly, precluding a Kawasaki ATV with a Camoplast track kit while allowing a Polaris ATV with Polaris tracks would lead to nothing but conflict with users and arbitrary standards that had no relationship to mitigation of damages to resources.   This should be avoided and a broad OSV definition would resolve this issue.

The Organizations are concerned that the overly narrow definition of an OSV could impact permitted grooming activities at some time in the future, as this type of vehicle certainly could become more suited for use in Colorado.  Farm tractor conversions are now frequently used for trail grooming activities in certain parts of the country, as the track conversion kits allow for use of the grooming equipment throughout the year by adding or removing tracks depending on the season.

[59]

While these grooming  conversions are not heavily used in Colorado due to exceptionally steep terrain and deep snow conditions, it is our understanding that clubs or state agencies in other areas of the Country that are  utilizing these conversions can significantly reduce overall costs incurred in grooming activities.  While most questions regarding the use of a conversion farm  tractor for grooming could be resolved in the permitting process, the inability of a grooming organization to use a tracked farm tractor based  groomer on federal lands could be a major barrier to a club or organizations that grooms large tracts of non-federal lands,  where the farm tractor on tracks would be a cost efficient and acceptable alternative to dedicated grooming equipment. These types of conflicts or questions should be avoided.

The second major category of winter vehicle conversions, mainly those users attempting to traverse the winter back country by merely adding larger tires to their chosen means of travel is more problematic. This is an issue where motorized management has clearly been established for a long time and this should not be altered at the landscape level.  At this time the most prominent of users of larger wheels and tires for winter travel is the bicycle community as the usage of motorized vehicles with the mere addition of larger wheels and tires has been declined. The Organizations have already experienced fat tire bicycle usage on winter trails, such as that pictured below:

[60]

While larger tires is asserted to be a valid use of winter trails from the bicycle community, the idea of merely accepting larger wheels for traversing snow has already been declined for motorized usage.  While this usage is asserted to be valid by the manufacturer, the Organizations are concerned about the basis for this position.  The Organizations must question the basis for such a distinction as the only research on pressures from fat tire bicycles[61] yields the following results:

The Organizations concerns are far from abstract on this issue as the Stanislaus  NF is closing significant areas to OSV usage due to possible contact with Yellow legged Frog and Yosemite Toad from grooming until questions regarding pressures on the hibernating toad from grooming can be resolved.  Higher pressure of fat tire is major concern in these areas as the higher pressure bicycle tire would be more likely to strike and kill a toad than low pressure track assemblies on grooming equipment.  This list of issues is far from comprehensive but the Organizations believe it is important to recognize these issues and questions already exist and will probably not simply fade away over the life of the RMP.  These questions will simply expand with every new hybrid usage accepted into the winter backcountry.

Given this research and that all relevant travel determinations have excluded both wheeled ATV and UTV from winter trails due to the pressure that these vehicles exert on the ground, any attempt to permit fat tire bicycles due to a lack of pressure or impacts would be problematic at best. The basic lack of scientific evidence to support the position would be a major concern for the snowmobile community as this is the community that has directed hundreds of millions of dollars and peoples entire lives to establishing the scientific basis of the snow buffer.

The Organizations believe that laying the ground work for management of these wheel conversion vehicles in the RMP is sound policy and good management. The Organizations have significant experience in partnering with USFS to educate users of these conversions.  Often this educational partnership has been made more difficult as confusion in classifying these conversion vehicles makes it difficult to educate winter recreational users of these conversions as to when they can and when they cannot use particular vehicles and if they are legal at all, which leads to frustration to users. The Organizations have struggled with assisting the public in identifying if a particular vehicle is allowed in a particular Ranger District at a particular time of the year.

The Organizations are aware that in some areas of the country groomed routes and other facilities such as bridges may not be of sufficient size to accommodate some of the conversion vehicles. While these situations exist, they certainly are not the norm.  The Organizations believe  local managers are able to easily address any site specific issues either with weight or width restrictions for vehicles using trails in these areas.  Summer motor vehicle management has proven these types of local decisions addressing width or weight restrictions highly effective.  The public awareness of these types of standards will allow weight or width restrictions to translate easily to winter travel management process and decisions in areas where they might be necessary.

12a. The OHV community has a strong partnership with the Rio Grande and if funding is used to determine opportunities, this factor must be applied to all uses.

The motorized community has proudly partnered with land managers to help offset budget limitations, which has resulted in grant funding exceeding $200k per year now being provided to the Rio Grande National Forest, even in light of the most recent round of budget cuts to the USFS.   Lack of fiscal capacity by the USFS should not be a criteria for, or lead to closures and reductions in public recreational opportunities, closure of routes or elimination of public access to the Rio Grande National Forest.  We fully realize the stark realities of ever diminishing budgets, but it would be a travesty that the public citizenry should be locked out of any public lands and denied access because of a lack of funding. Maintenance and staffing may suffer, but the public must not be shut out.  Public access must be preserved and the ongoing grant funding that has been provided on a project and Good Management Crew basis for the Rio Grande National Forest the Organizations hope has played an integral part in efforts to maintain access to public lands for all user groups.  This grant program has become more important every year as federal budgets continue to decline at a somewhat alarming rate and creates a situation where leaving a trail open to motorized usage significantly expands funding available for the route to be maintained with.

The Organizations encourage the individual Ranger Districts within the Rio Grande National Forest to carry on their efforts and continue to make submissions for grants through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife OHV Grant program to support OHV trail related projects on the Forest. OHV project grants can address the full spectrum of OHV recreation support needs.  Examples of eligible OHV grant funded activities includes[62]:​

• ​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
• Equipment needed to build or maintain OHV trails
• 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​
• OHV Education and safety programs
• Wildlife habitat restoration

The Organizations submit that these projects have always benefitted the recreational opportunities for all users of the Rio Grande as the OHV grant program has embraced the motto of “the Rising Tide Floats all boats” for implementation of the grant program.  The Organizations also note that we are not aware of any “motorized only” routes or areas on the Rio Grande, further insuring that any partnership benefits all users of the Rio Grande.

12b. All recreational projects and opportunities must be reviewed for funding stability moving forward.

While the OHV community has the strongest and most direct funding streams available to the Rio Grande NF as outlined above, the Organizations are deeply troubled with the application of financing and funding to only motorized projects and routes. In the Draft Proposal, management standard MA-INFR-4 provides in relevant part:

“Designated travelways, as displayed on the Forest motor vehicle use map, and newly constructed travelways are open to motorized use, unless a documented decision shows that:

Financing is not available for maintenance as necessary to protect resources(Forestwide).” [63]

After a review of the rest of the Proposal, the Organizations are unable to identify this type of balancing requirement for any other recreational usage on the Rio Grande. The Organizations hope this is merely a drafting oversight and can be easily amended.

The Organizations believe that requiring the strongest partner of the Forest, whose partnership has benefitted all uses, to balance opportunities with funding while no other user group is required to undertake similar levels of balancing sends the wrong message to the motorized community. The Organizations submit that all recreational activity must start to be reviewed from a cost benefit basis to insure that ever lowering levels of funding are benefitting the largest portion of the community.

13a.  Best available science must be relied on in the development of the RMP for all species.

Often identifying best available science can be difficult as this is an issue that is now rapidly evolving for many species, such as the Gunnison Sage Grouse, Mexican Wolf, Wolverine and Canadian Lynx. The rapid evolution of best available science in comparison to RMPs has resulted in conflict between these two issues, and as recently exemplified by the Pike & San Isabel National Forest Plan Challenge can result in lawsuits being brought against land managers when forest plans conflict with best available science. Overreliance on outdated management principals and standards should be avoided in the development of the Rio Grande National Forest RMP as this will be an area which will be ripe for legal challenge in the future.  The Organizations submit that the new adaptive management and monitoring standards further support the requirement that best available science be relied on both in the development of forest plans and over the life of the forest plan.

The Organizations would also note that the on-going requirement to manage to best available science and avoid application of outdated management standards in the development of new forest or resource plans was specifically addressed in the new Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (“LCAS”). While the LCAS is highlighted here similar provisions are found in almost all species specific management documents that have been created. The LCAS specifically provides as follows:

“This edition of the LCAS provides a full revision, incorporating all prior amendments and clarifications, substantial new scientific information that has emerged since 2000…… Guidance provided in the revised LCAS is no longer written in the framework of objectives, standards, and guide-lines as used in land management planning, but rather as conservation measures. This change was made to more clearly distinguish between the management direction that has been established through the public planning and decision-making process, versus conservation measures that are meant to synthesize and interpret evolving scientific information.”[64]

2013 LCAS continues by addressing the relationship of best available science, the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendments  and existing forest plans as follows:

“Forest plans are prepared and implemented in accordance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976…..The updated information and understandings in the revised LCAS may be useful for project planning and implementation, as well as helping to inform future amendments or revisions of forest plans.”[65]

Many wildlife or quiet use advocates are uncomfortable in reducing the strictness of management standards when best available science moves away from one low risk threat to a species to address newly discovered or understood threats.  Given the clarity of these various positions and the legal exposure that could result from failing to implement these requirements the Organizations vigorously assert that best available science must be applied in the Rio Grande National Forest RMP moving forward.

Many of the Rio Grande Lynx management standards are in stark conflict with the 2013 LCAS, which clearly addresses many of the issues addressed in conflicting management standards in the Rio Grande RMP proposal. This conflict is reflected in the extensive and detailed discussion of lynx and winter recreation provided on pages 209 to pages 219 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The Organizations wanted to highlight some of the more significant changes in lynx management standards between the Rio Grande RMP and 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; [66]
• 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; [67]
• Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;[68]
• There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; [69]
• Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;[70]
• Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; [71]
• 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 [72]
• 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.[73]

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 relied on for the development of the Rio Grande  RMP.

In addition to the 2103 LCAS, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has clearly stated their management position as a result of the more than successful reintroduction of the Canada Lynx, which provides as follows:

“Lynx have successfully been re-established in Colorado and a self-sustaining population is believed to persist in the region. The management actions taken to re-establish the population to Colorado were done considering the landscape of the time – there is no intention of attempting to change, alter or remove historic and current land uses from the landscape. Many of these industries can and have developed practices that have the potential to allow the long term persistence of the lynx within the context of existing land use.”^[74]

Given these clear statements from both Federal and State species management experts that OSV/OHV usage is not impacting the Canadian Lynx and that there should not be any changes in land use as a result of lynx activity and position that closing any area to OSV/OHV would benefit the Canadian Lynx would be inaccurate and conflicting with best available science. This position should be included in management direction for the Rio Grande moving forward to avoid any confusion on standards for the forest moving forward.

13b. Failing to even address the 2013 LCAS in the DEIS is a sad ending to a long and strong partnership between CSA and management experts.

The development and circulation of best available science on species management is another area where the partnership between the Organizations and land managers has manifested itself. CSA was invited to participate in years of collaborative efforts around the development of the 2013 LCAS in order to insure that best available science in the 2013 LCAS was addressing issues on the ground as effectively as possible. The Organizations jumped at the opportunity to participate as the Organizations believe these types of collaboratives are the future of species management and develop more effective science in addressing on the ground challenges and also provide new resources for researchers.

These efforts included active participation of nationally recognized lynx experts, such as Dr. John Squires, Dr. Eric Copeland, CPW species experts such as Eric Odell; representatives of the USFWS and numerous representatives from a wide range of interest groups.  During the course of these meetings CSA was able to leverage relationships with the Idaho Snowmobile Association, who was directly funding research and experts on the species in Idaho. This partnership established an open channel of communication to insure that discussions on the LCAS were not conflicting with research that was yet to be published.

In addition to participating in years of collaborative efforts, CSA actively partnered with researchers when funding was an issue.  This partnership included providing fuel and oil for researchers snowmobiles, recovering stuck equipment in the back  country when researchers desires to obtain data exceeded skills on snowmobiles(often during heavy snowfall events) and exploring the donation of a snowmobile to researchers.  While the snowmobile donation was not able to be completed, as the snowmobile was sought to be returned to CSA after the project, this partnership continued throughout the project.

As the 2013 LCAS moved closer to completion, USFWS staff identified that funding was not available to publish or circulate the final product of these collaborative efforts.  After some frustration was expressed, the Organization were able to partner with the USFWS and get approximately 100 copies of the 2013 printed and circulated to every forest, ranger district and BLM Field Office in the state of Colorado and beyond.  The Organizations thought this was a situation  action where the Organizations actions would speak louder than words regarding best available science and partnerships.

The Organizations assert that the years of effort and significant funding  from partners throughout the Western United States that was directed towards developing the 2013 LCAS will simply be squandered by the decision not to even recognize this document in the Rio Grande Forest Planning efforts.  The Organizations submit this has never been the nature of the partnership between the Organizations and Rio Grande staff on many issue.  The Organizations would hope that  this situation could be easily remedied and insure that the proper message about partnerships be conveyed to partners to insure partnerships flourish and expand in the future.  Unfortunately, the proper message is not sent to potential partners by ignoring this summary of best available science.

14. Additional thoughts.

The Organizations offer the following comments, values and concerns regarding this plan update moving forward.

1. The Organizations believe that continued multi-use access and motorized recreation within the National Forest is vitally important to the preservation and conservation of our public lands and the well-being of our citizens. The Organizations acknowledge that as America becomes more urbanized and populations rise, our younger citizens are becoming less connected to and are less likely to identify with the outdoors in their daily lives. Our Organizations have worked diligently and continuously to help Coloradans and visitors to our State to be able to access and enjoy our public lands in a safe and responsible manner.  We recognize that there is a bona fide correlation between an individual’s personal health and their participation in outdoor activities. We continually strive to get youth and families excited about visiting, seeing and experiencing all that our public lands have to offer.  We have a history of partnering with the USFS to protect our forest resources while reducing and eliminating barriers that are continuing to make it difficult for Americans to get outside and travel on a multi-use trail or share a road as part of their outdoor recreational experience.  The Organizations feel that this renewal of the Forest Plan must work diligently to ensure that a balanced spectrum of opportunities are provided in the Rio Grande National Forest to properly serve the diverse cross section of our population and meet their recreational needs.  We contend that both “Conservation philosophies” and “Recreation activities” are compatible and can work in harmony for the betterment of the Forest. We request that this revision of the Forest Plan fairly and adequately provide an Environmentally, Economically and Socially sustainable end state.
2. It is well recognized that the average age of our country’s population is increasing and the number of persons aged 50 and older is steadily increasing. As the average age grows, so is the number of people still choosing to recreate outdoors but more and more will be less able to use non-motorized methods of travel or participate in high-energy, high-skill sports.  As this demographic group grows, so will their needs for access to the Forest by motorized or other assisted methods.  If we collectively fail to recognize and plan for this changing demographic, we will be deliberately excluding a significant and growing segment of the population from the opportunities to experience and enjoy the Rio Grande National Forest.  Many of us hope to retain our individual mobility into the “Golden Years,” but many will not, and they will need to rely upon some sort of motorized assistance to access the places we all enjoy and cherish.  The Rio Grande National Forest’s Assessment #9, Recreation even states that “For seniors, inaccessible infrastructure and lack of opportunities that enable senior adults to continue in outdoor recreation constrains recreation participation”.
3. Our Organizations contend that the previous Forest Plan and subsequent Travel Management Plan (TMP) substantially reduced recreational opportunities, reduced access, eliminated multi-use/motorized recreational opportunities and was too restrictive. This new plan must seek a more balanced and fair allocation of resources to recreation and especially multi-use/motorized recreational opportunities.  Similarly, the restrictions of the former plan have contributed to the current poor health of the forest and unnecessarily hampered the efforts of the agency to be able to properly and effectively mitigate fuels and manage the density of the forest biomass.
4. With few if any exceptions, the roads and trails within the Rio Grande National Forest have been in existence and providing public benefits for decades. History has shown that these routes provides a level of tangible recreational, economic and/or forest access value.   Continuing to have an adequate network of forest roads and trails will be truly beneficial and necessary in providing sufficient access for future timber management, continuing forest visits, recreation, emergency access/egress and wildland firefighting efforts.  This minimal threat is accurately reflected in the aquatic assessments on the Rio Grande National Forest which clearly conclude that these routes pose an exceptionally low level threat to water quality.
5. We feel it is important to spotlight the following general principles regarding multi-use recreation and are important considerations when evaluating any modifications to the Forest Plan[75]:
   1. Generally forest visitors participating in multi-use activities will use routes that exist and adequately satisfy their needs and desires.
   2. Non-system trails and roads should be reviewed during this review process to determine if any of these non-system routes will fulfill a valid multi-use need and can be altered to meet recreation and resource management considerations.
   3. Route networks and multi-use trail systems should meet local needs, provide the desired recreational opportunities and offer a quality experience. We are not asking that this be done at the expense of other important concerns, but a system of routes that does not meet user needs will not be used properly and will not be supported by the users.  Occurrences of off-route use, other management issues and enforcement problems will likely increase when the routes and trails do not provide an appropriate and enjoyable opportunity.
   4. Recreational enthusiasts look for variety in their various pursuits. For multi-use, to include motorized/OHV users, this means looped routes.  An in-and-out route may be satisfactory if the destination is so desirable that it overshadows the fact that forest visitors must use the same route in both directions (e.g., access to dispersed camping sites, overlooks, historic sites, the Wheeler Geologic Area, etc.).  However, even in these cases, loop systems will always provide better experiences.
6. An adequate network of forest roads and trails is necessary to provide access for proper forest management and especially in times of emergency.  The USFS is a world renowned expert on wildland firefighting and knows firsthand the importance of good access, redundant routes and routes in key places and the impact of those routes on the safety of the firefighters, the public and successful wildland firefighting.  The demands for reduced road inventory, for reduced route density and increased decommissioning of roads is not collectively and universally in the best interest of the forest nor the public.  The demand for more and more closure of multi-use and motorized access is often based upon self-serving desires and an unwillingness to share our natural resources with others, intolerance of mixed forest uses and an unwillingness to coexist in our individual pursuits of recreation.  Likewise the premise that decommissioning roads will reduce human caused fires is absolutely unfounded and unsubstantiated and should not be utilized as a criteria for any decisions regarding the elimination or closure of any multi-use or motorized route.
7. Not all dead roads are necessarily of low value and in need of closure. Many dead end spurs and “low value” routes provide access to picnic areas, dispersed camping sites, overlooks, etc.  Although the values of these roads is less than that of main roads, connectors and loops, (i.e. “higher value” routes) their individual, overall benefit and value must be individually considered.  We acknowledge that these roads will likely not generate much positive public interest and comment, however these routes can still have substantial importance to the public.  We would encourage the Rio Grande National Forest to listen to your own recreational and field staff when assessing any low value or dead end spur roads.
8. Duplicative roads and trails may on the surface appear redundant and not needed. This is often the cry from those unfamiliar with multi-use and motorized recreation or simply seeking to eliminate or reduce public use of these roads.  However, we would challenge that some duplicative routes may in fact offer unique benefits for distributing the use rather than concentrating use to a single route or may offer looping and other recreational opportunities. It is our position that every route has recreational value as each route provides a unique experience to those using the route for recreational activity.
9. The Organizations in general oppose the conversion of routes to “Administrative Roads”. This designation in and of itself suggest an elitism attitude that Agency staff or other special designated personnel are the only ones capable of properly using a route.  If a route is important for USFS and agency staff to access a location, it is very probable that that same route is equally important or desirable for the public to access the same or similar location.  If the route is properly constructed and receives the requisite level of maintenance, there should be few reasons the public should not be allowed similar access and privileges.  The designation that only “special” personnel are allowed to use a route does little to foster any sense of community and partnership users and agency staff should have for each other.  Discrimination of the public users and the fostering of elitism should not be perpetuated, encouraged or allowed to proliferate.  The designation of routes for Administrative Use should only be utilized in the rarest of instances where the exclusion of the public can be justified for very site specific, meaningful and justifiable conditions (e.g. mandated security of critical infrastructure, etc.).
10. In the past there have been unfounded concerns for American elk and mule deer as a reason to close and limit multi-use and motorized recreation on public lands. The premise that “large animals, especially deer and elk, are sensitive to traffic and activity along roads” is not supported by published scientific research.  Extensive studies completed as recently as 2005 by the National Park Service (NPS) in Yellowstone Park stated that “Effects of winter disturbances on ungulates from motorized and non-motorized uses more likely accrue at the individual animal level than at the population scale.” Even the biologist performing the research stated that the debate regarding effects on human recreation on wildlife is largely a “social issue” as opposed to a wildlife management issue. This NPS research would certainly seem relevant to wildlife in the Rio Grande National Forest and does not support a premise for closures and reductions in multi-use recreational opportunities.  Additional research published by Mark Rumble, Lahkdar Benkobi and Scott Gamo in 2005 has also found that hunting invokes a more significant response in elk than other factors in the same habitat area (e.g. roads or trails).  Likewise research by Connor, White and Freddy in 2001 has even demonstrated that elk population increases on private land in response to hunting activities.  This research again brings into question why multi-use trail recreation (specifically motorized recreation) might be cited and used as the justification for any closures or modification to public access.
11. The Organizations are aware of demands regarding a perceived inadequacy of the USFS to provide enforcement of regulations pertaining to multi-use and motorized recreation in particular. We would challenge that based upon several studies, pilot projects, etc. by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the USFS and the BLM to analyze if indeed an enforcement issue exists, and without exception, those projects have shown there are no problems due to a lack of enforcement.  The State of Colorado’s OHV funds have been used to subsidize law enforcement programs and the detailing of law enforcement officers to OHV areas only to come back with consistent results that this cry for the need for enforcement is unfounded, unsubstantiated and just plain inaccurate. In 2011, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division initiated an OHV Law Enforcement Pilot program to address the accusations, questions and concerns raised by critics of OHV recreation on public lands in Colorado.  The data and observations gathered from this Pilot program in 2011, 2012, and 2103 repeatedly demonstrated excellent compliance with OHV rules and regulations throughout Colorado by OHV users.  It was estimated that over 10,000 individual OHV users were stopped and inspected during the Pilot Program and 94% of those users were found to be fully compliant with Colorado OHV laws and regulations.[76]
12. Sound. Motorized and non-motorized uses are equally legitimate uses of public lands and especially on USFS roads and multi-use/motorized trails.  Sound from motorized use is to be expected in areas open to motorized use.  The Organizations would offer that the State of Colorado already has strict standards for any and all sound emanating from OHV’s.  This very detailed standard has proven to be effective since 2006 and governs vehicles produced as far back as 1971.  OHV users themselves have funded efforts to educate, test and “police” themselves for sound level compliance.  We feel that complaints of noise and demands for sound reduction are once again unfounded and will often be used as a selfish excuse to try and reduce or eliminate motorized access and use of public lands.The Organizations would be willing to partner with the USFS to address any site specific sound issues that may be asserted to be present on the Rio Grande National Forest.   The Organizations have undertaken sound testing with independent third parties at numerous other areas asserted to have sound issues and have almost uniformly found that site specific sound issues are unrelated to OHV activity and are more commonly related to trains, air travel and high speed arterial roads in the area.The Organizations further submit that those seeking a quiet recreational experience have a wide range of opportunities available on the Rio Grande National Forest given the high levels of Wilderness already in place.  The Organizations submit that these opportunities must be utilized before additional closures are undertaken, as the inability to access a “quiet area” is a different issue than the lack of quiet areas on the Rio Grande National Forest.
13. We acknowledge that the Rio Grande National Forest may have struggled somewhat with the proliferation of non-system trails by ALL users throughout the Forest. However, we feel much of this stems from an increasing need and demand for multi-use recreational opportunities on public lands in general.  As the State of Colorado’s population has grown, so have the sales of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV’s), bicycles, hiking equipment, camping units and other forms of outdoor recreation increasing the demand for recreation sites within the Rio Grande National Forest.  We would offer that much of the increase in illegal user-created routes, braided routes & trails and unauthorized group campsites are a result and reflection of inadequately meeting the needs and demands of the public and the recreational users who choose these areas.  An adequate and varied inventory of routes and trails that fulfills the user’s spectrum of needs for variety, difficulty, destinations, challenge, terrain and scenic opportunity will lead to improved compliance and less off route travel.  Closure and reduction of recreational opportunities and the resulting concentration of the ever increasing number of users, has shown again and again that the desired results are not obtained.
14. As future Proactive and Adaptive Management Plans are considered to try and achieve a particular desired condition or end state, these Plans should include thresholds and triggering mechanisms that allow for the expansion and adding of recreational opportunities, not just curtailment, restrictions and eliminations of opportunities. If desired conditions are not being achieved or monitoring protocols are not rendering the preferred results, consideration should be given that perhaps the needs and demands of the users are not being adequately provided for.  One example might be off trail use or use of closed routes.  Rather than assuming this is merely caused by a minority of users ignoring the rules, this may indeed be an indicator that the existing network does not adequately meet the user group’s spectrum of needs for a route to a particular destination, level or degree of challenge, route length, etc.  The Organizations believe the motorized game retrieval standards currently allowed on the Rio Grande National Forest provide a concrete example of the need for flexibility in management to achieve management objectives.
15. We feel it will be necessary for this revision of the Forest Plan to provide opportunities and future opportunities that will not restrict the changes and development of new technologies such as hybrid bikes, electric bikes/motorcycles, personal mobility devices just to name a few.
16. Cultural sites – The Organizations were pleased to note that The Need for Change document[77] states the desire to expand several cultural areas while maintaining motorized access. Maintaining multiple use access is critical to the public support for these areas in the future, as the public should understand why an area is important and without this type of hands on understanding resentment will grow for closure of these areas. The Organizations also vigorously assert that cultural sites have been specifically identified as a multiple use management concern and when multiple uses of cultural areas are balanced, closures to the areas are difficult to justify.
17. Motorized game retrieval. The Organizations submit that motorized game retrieval is an important an unique component of the hunting experience on the Rio Grande National Forest. While the Organizations are aware this is a site specific travel management decision, the continuation of these regulations should be provided for as the RMP moves forward.

Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously support Alternative C of the Proposal due to this Alternative having the fewest categories for area management in the RMP, which we believe will greatly expand public understanding of the Proposal and provide significant long-term flexibility for the Rio Grande planning area moving forward. The flexibility of Alternative C of the Proposal is expanded by the fact that this Alternative provides the most flexibility for management moving forward as this provides the most multiple use opportunities.  This expanded opportunity will allow for more site specific planning in the future, and the Organizations are aware that in site specific planning restricting access can be easily accomplished but amended a forest plan to expand opportunities has been almost impossible.  Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative D due to its complexity and the fact that it functionally ties the hands of land managers dealing with the poor forest health that has become far too common in Colorado.

The Organizations are supporting Alternative C of the Proposal due to the limited number of management standards that are provided for in this Alternative, which is a significant benefit for the reasons previously addressed in these comments.  The Organizations also support the significant expansion of opportunity areas for motorized recreation that are provided in the Alternative, but this is not unexpected and our reasoning behind such a position should be apparent.    The Organizations believe the flexibility provided under the expanded multiple use opportunity areas is an important factor to be addressed in the RMP as  increasing populations in Colorado will continue to demand high quality opportunities synonymous with Rio Grande.  Site specific planners should have the most flexibility possible in their planning, and authority to allow multiple use should be provided in the RMP as this can be more meaningfully addressed in local planning.

The Organizations also support Alternative C due to the inherent simplicity of the Plan that results from the reduced number of management categories in the RMP.  The Organizations are well versed in site specific planning that occurs subsequent to the implementation of an RMP, and while planners attempt to streamline the subsequent site specific planning efforts by identifying a large number of issues and factors in the landscape level RMP, often times these efforts become outdated quickly and result in significant barriers resulting in site specific planning rather than streamlining local site specific plans.

The significant reduction in the number of categories of the RMP Alternative C will also result in increased simplicity for the public and allow for a much greater level of understanding of the Plan. This alternative is the easiest for the public to understand  for comments and for the public to understand how the Plan will guide management of particular areas to achieve particular goals in the future.   The most common frustration we have experienced in dealing with the public in working on site specific projects on forest is the high levels of  complexity of forest plans, the numerous overlapping categories for the management of areas that often provide contradictory and confusing guidance for areas and rely on boundaries that make little sense on the ground or rely on boundary lines in the forest plan that are of such poor definition due to mapping scales that conflict results. These benefits should not be overlooked.

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities and any other challenges that might be facing the Rio Grande National Forest 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.

Sincerely,

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

D.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

[1] See, Rio Grande NF 1996 RMP, Soil Productivity Standard #1 at pg. III-10.

[2] A copy of Secretarial Order 3355 has been included with these comments for your reference.

[3] See, https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/riogrande/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fseprd560334  – DEIS public meetings slide show accessed December 19, 2017.

[4] See, USDA Forest Service; Kirst et al;  2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; January 2014 pg 51.

[5] A complete copy of this report is enclosed with these comments for your reference as Exhibit 1. (hereinafter referred to as 2016 Forest Health report.

[6] See, http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/

[7] See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg 6

[8] See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg 24

[9] See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24.

[10] See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24.

[11] See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5.

[12] See, Colorado State Forest Service;  2010 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests Continuing Challenges for Colorado’s Forests: Recurring & Emerging Threats 10th Anniversary Report at pgs 7-8.

[13] See, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station;” A review of the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming prepared at the request of Senator Mark Udall’: September 2011 at pg i. (Hereinafter referred to as the “Udall Forest Health Report”)

[14] Udall Forest Health report at pg 5

[15] Udall Forest Health Report at pg 18

[16] Retzlaff, Molly L.; Leirfallom, Signe B.; Keane, Robert E. 2016. A 20-year reassessment of the health and status of whitebark pine forests in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Montana. Res. Note RMRS-RN-73. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p.

[17] See, USDA Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Revised Management Plan at pg. 166.

[18] See, USAD Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Revised Management Plan; Draft Environmental Impact Statement; (September 2017) at pg. 266.

[19] See, 16 USC §583k-2

[20] See, Colorado State Demographer” Preliminary Population Forecasts by region and county ” September 2016.  A complete version of these projections, assumptions  and other supporting documentation is available here: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/demography/publications-and-presentations/#publications-and-reports

[21] See, Proposal at pg. 67.

[22] See, Department of Agriculture Forest Service 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Rule Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 128 July 3, 2012 at pg 39577.  (Hereinafter referred to as the “Colorado Roadless Rule Final”).

[23] See, Colorado Roadless Rule Final at pg 39580.

[24] See, Colorado Roadless Rule FEIS at pg 296

[25] See, Colorado Roadless Rule FEIS at pg 248.

[26]  A complete version of this document is available here:  https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5366289.pdf

[27] See, USDA Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Revised Management Plan at pg. 166.

[28] See, USAD Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Revised Management Plan; Draft Environmental Impact Statement; (September 2017) at pg. 266.

[29] See, Rio Grande NF DEIS at pg. 267.

[30] 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

[36] See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.

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

[38] See, 16 USC  1246(j).

[39] See, 16 USC 1244(a)(5)

[40] See, 16 USC 12446(C) emphasis added.

[41] See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan;  September 2009 at pg. 19.

[42] See, USFS: The Continental Divide Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; 2009 at pg 19.

[43] See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

[45] See, USDA Forest Service; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity;  September 2010 at pg 6.

[46] See, Entergy Corp v. Riverkeeper Inc et al; 556 US ; 475 F3d 83; (2009) Opinion of Breyer J, at pg 4

[47] See, DEIS at pg 277.

[48] See, USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring report for the Rio Grande National Forest-  Round 3

[49] See, USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, USDA Forest Service, National Summary Report, Updated 20 May 2013.

[50] See, DEIS at pg 284

[51] Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain biker; Journal of  Leisure Sciences, 23(1) at pg 58.

[52] See, Norling et al; Conflict attributed to snowmobiles in a sample of backcountry, non-motorized yurt users in the Wasatch –Cache National Forest; Utah State University; 2009 at pg 3.

[53] A Copy of this study has been enclosed with these comments for your reference and complete review as Exhibit 7.

[54] Picture credit to timbersled industries and more information is available regarding these products here http://www.timbersled.com/snowbike.htm

[55] More information on these vehicles is available here: http://www.motosportsthibeault.com/

[56] More information on this conversion is available here: http://www.ktrak.es/indexeng.htm The Organizations are not taking a position as to the management of these vehicles, as we have never seen one or are aware of any research on pressure the vehicle applies to snow. The Organizations  are providing this portion of our comments as an example of the rapidly changing nature of this class of vehicles.

[57] http://www.atvtracks.net/

[58] http://www.polaris.com/en-us/rzr-side-by-side/shop/accessories/tracks or http://store.can-am.brp.com/products/683518/APACHE_TRACK_SYSTEM

[59] http://www.soucy-track.com/en-CA/products/grooming/groomers/st-600wt/photos

[60] Further information on this usage is available here: http://thedailynews.cc/2014/01/27/fat-tire-biking-is-a-growing-trend-in-winter-months/

[61] See, American Council of Snowmobile Associations; Fat Tire Bicycle Use on Snowmobile Trails; Background Information and Management Considerations; July 2016 pg 7. This research is exhibit 8 to these comments.

[62] http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHV.aspx

[63] See, Rio Grande NF; Draft Revised Land Management Plan; September 2017 at pg 60.

[64] See, Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp. at pg. 2. (Hereinafter referred to as “2013 LCAS”).

[65] See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 4

[66] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[67] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[68] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 95.

[69] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

[70] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[71] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

[72] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[73] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 91.

[74] See, 2015 CPW State Wildlife Action Plan at pg 173.

[75] See, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council- Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation, 2006.

[76] See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife – The 2014 Off-Highway Vehicle Law Enforcement & Field Presence Program, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, March 2014

[77]See, Rio Grande National Forest “Need for Change document” pg. 6 – item D7.  A complete version of this document is available here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd493976.pdf

HR 1349 – Wilderness Act Amendments

Congressman Scott Tipton
218 Cannon HOB
Washington DC 20515

Senator Corey Gardner
354 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Re: HR 1349 – Wilderness Act Amendments

Dear Congressman Tipton and Senator Gardner:

The above Organizations are contacting your Offices’ to provide more detailed information and follow up to our discussions earlier this week regarding our opposition to HR 1349, which would make significant revisions to the Wilderness Act. Our Organizations must oppose the legislation, as we are concerned HR 1349  would: 1. Create significant user conflict; 2. Be of limited benefit on the ground as significant site specific effort would have to follow HR 1349 passage to open any routes; 3.  Implementations of any changes would be exceptionally costly; and 4.  Expansion of nonconforming uses into Wilderness areas would degrade Wilderness quality and  in the long term result in extensive new discussions regarding expansion of Wilderness into areas already found unsuitable for designation.

While our Organizations have been staunch supporters of expanding access to public lands, we must oppose HR 1349 as we are aware of a huge number of interests and concerns, such as the motorized community, ranching, timber, recreation, mineral extractions, and water that have significant concerns regarding the Wilderness Act and related management standards, such as Wilderness Study areas and recommended Wilderness.  The Organizations would absolutely welcome a collaborative discussion regarding the release of WSAs and providing clarity on other Wilderness type management issues, but that discussion would not result from HR 1349. The Organizations believe this type of discussion would be of more value to addressing recreational needs of all users and all other interests as there are fewer management restrictions in WSA or RWA areas and expanding opportunities can happen in a far more cost-effective manner. Addressing the concerns of one user group around these issues will simply result in further conflict between users and interests and that type of legislatively created conflict must be avoided.

While HR 1349 might appear to provide access for these uses in Wilderness areas, the Organizations note that its passage would not open routes any on the ground.  Rather its passage would be the first step in a very long and contentious process as the overwhelming portion of the land management offices in Colorado have moved mechanized travel to designated routes on public lands.  Since these planning efforts have been completed, there are no legal trails in Wilderness Areas for mechanized travel.  Each planning unit would have to undertake extensive revisions of current plans in order to legally allow mechanized usage in these newly opened areas. Any discussions on this issue would be contentious at best.  Given the current budget challenges, the Organizations would have concerns regarding any allocations of money in this manner given the limited number of users that would benefit from this action. If any legislation is passed to address statutory restrictions and expand access to Wilderness or related management areas, it must be as cost effective as possible.

Another facet of our concerns regarding HR 1349 effectiveness on the ground is the fact that while many new uses would be allowed, the construction and support efforts for these efforts are not addressed by the Legislation.  As a result, any new trail being constructed after plans have been amended would have to be constructed by hand, using horses, foot or bicycles to access these areas and then removal of trees with handsaws and other manual tools and the footprint of the trail created with shovels and picks.  Any maintenance would have to be provided in the same manner, and this type of maintenance has been HUGELY expensive.  Given current budget challenges on public lands, the Organizations believe it makes more sense to create and maintain routes in the most efficient manner possible and this means using tools like chainsaws and trail size bulldozers for construction and maintenance.  Those would remain prohibited in Wilderness areas, even if HR 1349 was passed and result in huge maintenance obligations being accepted by land managers for the benefit of a small percentage of the trails community.

Our final concern involves the long-term impact of HR 1349 as its passage would degrade Wilderness quality and reopen discussions on new Wilderness areas.  We understand the need and reasoning for most existing Wilderness areas and would be concerned that these characteristics would be degraded with the new usages.  This degraded quality may open the door for discussions around the need for new high quality Wilderness areas to replace the lost quality. We would like to avoid discussions like that in the future as this discussion is largely settled in the western United States.

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’s phone number is 661-323-1464 and his email is fwiley@orba.biz.

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

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

D.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Sandra Mitchell, Executive Director
Idaho Recreation Council

 Public Input on ACEC Evaluation – Vermillion Cliffs

Delivered via email to utknmail@blm.gov

DOI – BLM Kanab Field Office
669 S. Highway 89 A Kanab, UT 84741

RE: Public Input on ACEC Evaluation – Vermillion Cliffs

Dear ACEC Evaluation Team: Please accept the following input to the above-described agency analysis. This input is provided on behalf of our clients the BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org (“BRC”), Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), and Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”), who are parties to the Settlement Agreement in SUWA v. U.S. DOI, Case No. 2:12-cv-257 DAK (D. Utah). We additionally note this input is provided on behalf of Ride with Respect, who is listed as a BlueRibbon member point of contact in the Settlement Agreement. Please direct any questions regarding this input to Paul Turcke at pat@msbtlaw.com.

I. Interest of the Organizations

Our clients have a unique perspective and longstanding interest in management of BLM Utah lands. Aside from member and stakeholder participation in the full array of planning processes, we have played a central role on behalf of recreation interests in litigation, stretching from the recent Settlement to bringing successful jurisdictional challenges in SUWA v. Babbitt, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22170 (D. Utah 2000), rev’d, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002), rev’d and remanded, Norton v. SUWA, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). We remain committed to this presence in ongoing management of Utah BLM lands.

BRC is a nonprofit corporation that champions responsible recreation and encourages individual environmental stewardship. BRC has members in all 50 states, including Utah. BRC members use various motorized and nonmotorized means to access BLM and other public lands, specifically including the Vermillion Cliffs potential ACEC. BlueRibbon has a long-standing interest in the protection of the values and natural resources addressed in this evaluation, and regularly works with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, preserve resources, and promote cooperation between public land visitors.

TPA is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. TPA’s mission is to protect the sport of motorized trail riding, educating all user groups and the public on the value of sharing public lands for multiuse recreation, while protecting public lands for future generations. TPA is a grassroots, 100 percent volunteer group composed primarily of Colorado trail riders, but including members in Utah. 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 Utah BLM lands.

COHVCO is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. COHVCO’s member enthusiasts, organizations, and businesses collectively comprise over 200,000 Coloradoans and regular visitors to Colorado who contribute millions of dollars and hundreds of hours annually to off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) recreation through registration fees, retail expenditures, project participation and related support. Since 1987, the mission of COHVCO has been to represent, assist, educate, and empower 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. Like the other organizations, COHVCO includes members who use motorized and non-motorized means to gain access to and recreate upon Utah BLM lands.

II. Evaluation Criteria and Background

BLM should properly consider the procedural context in conducting this evaluation. The Settlement Agreement does not require any particular outcome, but outlines only procedural requirements. Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ at 25-28. The Settlement Agreement explicitly makes clear that “[n]othing in [the Agreement] affects or limits BLM’s discretion in conducting the evaluations, or in deciding whether to initiate a land use plan amendment that would designate an ACEC as a result of the evaluations.” Id. at ¶ 28.

FLPMA and the BLM Manual outline applicable guidance in conducting this evaluation. FLPMA briefly provides that “areas of critical environmental concern” are among the checklist of items to be addressed in a land use plan, and that BLM shall “give priority” to their “designation and protection.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3). The statutory direction is further discussed in at 43 CFR section 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. The analysis focuses on evaluating “relevance” and “importance” – both of which “shall be met” for ACEC status. 43 CFR § 1610.7-2(a). ACEC designation and management are not suitable as a prophylactic overlay but are only proper “where special management attention is needed” or “required” to protect qualifying attributes. BLM Manual 1613.02 (objectives); 1613.06 (policy).

This last point bears further emphasis and suggests a diminishing need for ACEC designation as BLM becomes ever more active and attentive as a resource manager. ACEC status is intended as a basis to prescribe specific and unique management measures, “[t]hat is, they would not be prescribed in the absence of the designation.” Id. at 1613.12. Thus, an ACEC is not appropriate when unique ACEC management “is not required” or “the same management prescriptions would have been provided for the area in the absence of the important and relevant values.” Id. at 1613.33.E.1. “Special” management is not meant here in a colloquial sense, but rather to mean unique management that cannot be formulated without an ACEC designation. To whatever extent such a need existed upon FLPMA’s passage, it has diminished greatly in an increasingly complex world attuned to “environmental” scrutiny. Resources across the spectrum of BLM lands are “special” to engaged stakeholders and carefully balanced through analytical tools and management factors not available in 1976. In today’s world, an ACEC will, in many instances, complicate and constrain an effective BLM management effort.

If Utah BLM considers how this process might trigger its next litigation, such litigation can only occur following a decision to designate a new ACEC through an RMP amendment. Western Org. of Resource Councils v. BLM, 591 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1224-1225 (D. Wyo. 2008); Settlement Agreement at ¶ 28 (limiting administrative or judicial review to “a land use plan amendment decision…that constitutes final agency action”). BLM’s effort to use the Settlement to focus and increase the efficiency of its effort would be disserved by an unjustified ACEC designation.

BLM’s 2015 evaluation of the Henry Mountains Potential ACEC should particularly inform the Vermillion Cliffs analysis. The Henry Mountains analysis was ordered through the same litigation underlying the Settlement Agreement, and represents the agency’s state of the art approach to ACEC evaluation. There are parallels between many of the resource issues in the two areas. The procedure and determinations of the Henry Mountains approach make clear that ACEC status is not appropriate for the Vermillion Cliffs area.

III. Area Specific Analysis

A primary, if not singular, basis for conducting the present evaluation is to consider 2011 Visual Resource Inventory data for the Vermillion Cliffs area. See, Settlement Agreement at ¶ 26. That data is summarized in the project materials, with three of the units rated as “Class B” scenery and the remaining unit rated as “Class C” scenery. Questions and Answers at 2. BLM has most recently concluded that “[o]nly the areas within the potential ACEC identified as Class A scenery…meet the relevance criteria.” Henry Mountains Supplemental Report at 6. Roughly 40 percent of the Henry Mountains area was rated Class A scenery, which BLM relied upon in establishing temporary management and initiating a plan amendment process. Id. at 36. No Class A scenery exists in Vermillion Cliffs. Visual resources cannot constitute a rational basis for finding relevance in the Vermillion Cliffs potential ACEC.

Nor do any of the other resource criteria compel creation of an ACEC. Wildlife and botanical resources are outlined in the 2008 Kanab Evaluation Report. Ungulate issues are similar to, but less compelling, than in the Henry Mountains. Mule deer are closely and amply addressed by state wildlife managers, and Vermillion Cliffs is within the other Premium Limited Entry management unit (in addition to Henry Mountains) compelling a similar finding that mule deer do not meet ACEC importance criteria in Vermillion Cliffs. Other remaining species of interest include raptors, bats, and plants, who are either not present in the area, or who are addressed by existing, focused management prescriptions. See, e.g., Kanab RMP at A14-12 through -15; at 4- 114 (species of concern are addressed by disturbance/disruption caps, buffers, and/or seasonal restrictions); Henry Mountains Supplemental Report at 34 (concluding that “RMP and existing laws and policies adequately protect” special status wildlife and plant species).

We wish to further emphasize our clients’ particular interest and knowledge in trail-based recreation and emphasize that the Vermillion Cliffs area is actively and effectively managed, and increasingly so since 2008. The area includes noteworthy and highly desirable routes systems reflecting substantial investment by our clients and engaged interests, particularly including the Hog Canyon trail system. The 2008 Kanab Office Travel Management Plan instituted route reductions and broadscale elimination of “cross country” vehicle travel. Additionally, the Vermillion Cliffs area is within the Paunsaugunt Travel Management Area, in which BLM will conduct an updated public analysis and issue a new travel management plan. See, Settlement Agreement at ¶ 13. BLM is further empowered to address vehicle management concerns, and further ACEC designations would only create unhelpful complication or confusion. See, id. at ¶¶ 20, 22; 43 CFR § 8341. ACEC will detract from, not aid, these efforts.

Our clients do not disparage, and in fact applaud, the recognition that this area labelled as Vermillion Cliffs is a special area for many public land resources and visitors. This should not be confused with ACEC status. Vermillion Cliffs does not meet the relevance and importance criteria for a sufficient resource(s) and its management needs are best addressed through continuation and refinement of existing management prescriptions.

IV. Conclusion

The Vermillion Cliffs area does not qualify for ACEC designation. In fact, ACEC status is less justified now than in the 2008 evaluation, and would only reduce the implementation and effectiveness of current and anticipated management efforts. We appreciate this opportunity to provide input, and look forward to continuing to participate and collaborate alongside other stakeholders in ongoing BLM management efforts.