Archive | July, 2017

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests -­ Forest Plan Revision

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests – Forest Plan Revision

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

Dear Forest Plan Revision Team:

Please accept these initial and preliminary comments regarding the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests – Forest Plan Revision on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”). These comments are likely to be augmented and supplemented in the future as our discussion and participation in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests -Forest Plan Revision continues. 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. 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. TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.” The Organizations offer the following comments regarding the Assessment Phase of this project.

  1. The following comments are provided regarding the published Assessment Updates for PlanRevision (https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd542434.pdf )
    1. Topic Area – Recreation: The existing document lists two new recreation technologies, drones and fat [tire] bikes. We feel it is vitally and equally important to list and recognize the changes in Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROV) and Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTV) (AKA “Side by sides”) sizes and technologies along with the proliferation of “e-bikes”. We also feel the meteoric rise in demand for multiple-‐use single track must also be specifically listed and recognized.
    2. Topic Area – Infrastructure: In order to address the USFS’s emphasis on identifying and implementing a“Minimum Roads System (MRS)”, the opportunity to convert existing National Forest System Roads (NFSR) to multiple-‐use National ForestSystemTrails (NFST) should be included and listed as an appropriate “update”.
    3. Topic Area – Ecosystems, including Drivers and Stressors: To address the topic of climate change, minor updates due to data changes should be listed for potential USFS design criteria to include values such as Design Storm Frequency, Rainfall Intensity, Runoff Coefficients coupled with appropriate sizing of the supporting drainage infrastructure(e.g. ditch sizing, culvert sizing, rip rap sizing, re-‐vegetation practices, trail/road alignment, etc.).Updates to these criteria should be developed to mitigate more extreme weather events and any increased flows that might be attributed to climate change.
    4. Topic Area – Social and Economic Contributions:The following report must be utilized to help identify changes, trends and the substantial economic contributions of OffHighway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado: http://www.coloradotpa.org/2017/01/25/economic-contribution-of-off-highway-vehicle-recreation-in-colorado/
  2. The TPA and COHVCO both firmly believe that multiple-‐use access and motorized recreation within the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests is, and will continue to be, vitally important to the economic vitality of Southern Colorado and an expected component of the recreational experiences provided by our public lands. We stand behind a sustainable and robust network of multiple-use/motorized routes and trails that sufficiently serve the needs and demands of all forest visitors.
  3. The Organizations believe that continued multiple-use access and motorized recreation within the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests is vitally important to the preservation and conservation of our public lands and the well being of our citizens. Our Organizations 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 multiple-use trail or share a road as part of their outdoor recreational experience.
  4. Together the TPA and COHVCO are committed to the development of a fair and reasonable revised forest plan, and are pleased to offer our collective assistance and expertise to this vitally important project. As with the ongoing Pike & San Isabel National Forests’, Motor Vehicle Use Environmental Impact Statement and the Rio Grande National Forest, Forest Plan Revision Project, our Organizations are both prepared to apply our combined resources as a contributing partner and involved constituent in this project.

 

We thank you for reviewing and considering these comments and suggestions.

Sincerely,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

Continue Reading

Input Regarding BLM Planning Process

Input regarding BLM planning process

US Department of Interior
Att: Secretary Ryan Zinke
1840 C Street NW
Washington DC 20006
Via 1st Class Mail and electronic submission

Bureau of Land Management
Att: Director Mike Nedd
1849 C Street NW #5660
Washington DC 20006

Re: Input regarding BLM planning process

Dear Secretary Zinke and Director Nedd:

The above Organizations are contacting your Offices’ to provide more detailed information and input on our experiences with the BLM 2.0 planning process and planning processes 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 to supplement our electronic submissions 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 BLM planning process to date and revision 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 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 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; improve 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 submit that any new planning rule for the BLM must: 1. Have large amounts of public participation both in the development of the rule and subsequent implementation of more localized planning efforts; 2. Planning efforts must strive for development of a high quality planning documents that remain relevant over the expected life of the Plan rather than planning documents that are quickly developed;  3.  Regional planning documents must provide regional guidelines on regional issues and avoid becoming a replacement for local planning; 4. BLM planning should streamline NEPA processes with clarification of lower levels of NEPA analysis such as the use of Categorical Exclusions and expand good neighbor authority in planning; 5.   Historical uses of any area should be addressed with a presumption that the usage be continued unless a credible scientific basis can be provided to rebut the presumption; and 6.  Credible partner resources must be utilized while a high level of scrutiny must be applied to citizen science in order to develop high quality planning documents in partnership with local communities that effectively address long term protection and utilization of public lands while avoiding science that advances a particular agenda without relying on valid scientific processes.

1. The Organizations would like to thank you for changes made to date.

The Organizations would like to thank your Offices’ for your efforts subsequent to the repeal of BLM Planning 2.0 by President Trump. The Organizations welcome this additional public process and input in developing the new planning rule, as the Organizations were very concerned regarding the exceptionally limited public input provided in the BLM 2.0 process and the direction that Field Office planning had already taken since the adoption of the BLM 2.0 process. The early implementation of the BLM 2.0 plan simply confirmed many of our concerns regarding the imbalance in the new planning process and we welcome the opportunity to create the proper balance between resource utilization and resource protection.

The Organizations would also like to thank your Offices’ for the staffing changes at various state offices that have been undertaken since the election. The Organizations believe that these new managers will bring new ideas and new solutions to these Offices as they work to resolve the monumental challenges faced by public land managers in the western US.

2a. The Organizations submit a vigorous public process in all phases of public lands planning is an important component of successful planning.

The Organizations submit a vigorous public process in all phases of public lands planning and meaningfully addressing this input in a timely manner are important components of successful planning. Too often the goal of finalizing a plan quickly is placed higher on a planning priority list than developing a quality plan with a long life expectancy and wide public support.  It has been the Organizations experience that the vigorous public process develops higher quality planning documents and increases public support for the end result of the planning effort.  With the expanded reliance on the public/private partnership for the management of public lands, public support for any plan during implementation will remain an important component of long term plan success.  The development of meaningful public input is often time consuming and costly in the early stages of plan development but these costs are offset with reduced operational costs and increased levels of partnership when any plan is implemented.

One of the primary concerns that must be addressed in the development of a new BLM Planning Rule is insuring  that meaningful public input is developed, all input properly balanced to avoid any user group being provided a priority position in the process.  Public input must be address in a timely and meaningful manner.  The development process for the BLM 2.0 Rule was entirely too short and many in the public perceived that the objective of the process was to create a new Planning Rule quickly rather than developing a high quality balanced plan. The Organizations must note that partner involvement at the Denver meeting was surprisingly limited, which compounds concerns about limited public/partner involvement in the new planning process and over reliance on contractors as a substitute for public input.  The meeting was well attended by environmental organizations, but traditional partners who provide ongoing funding and support to BLM, such as State and local government agencies and user groups were almost non-existent. This should have been a red flag that the process for developing public input was not working, but this flag was overlooked.

The new planning rule must also insure that no user or interest group should be provided a priority position in the planning process and unsolicited public input provided outside an active request must not be allowed to delay or alter the implementation of a plan after the planning process has been finalized.  Our concerns on these points is not abstract as the Organizations are aware of a Field Office where an unsolicited inventory of Wilderness Characteristics areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern was submitted by the public almost 10 years after the Field Office Plan was finalized.   No action was taken on this document until protests raising the lack of response to the inventory were filed in response to an oil and gas development plan on a small portion of the Field Office several years later.  Rather than clarify the inventory was never timely submitted, this protest was confirmed and moved forward in a recent Field office travel plan, more than 10 years after the citizen inventory was originally filed.  All actions were taken under the guise of the new BLM 2.0 process.  Compounding the inappropriate nature of this entire public process was the fact that the local County was developing a landscape plan for the management of the FO lands in partnership with the County and BLM FO.  Direction of the collaborative community efforts was directly contradictory to the direction of the ACEC and WCA inventory and there was no mention of the inventory to the County in the collaborative efforts.       The faults with this process are many but highlight the need to respond to public input in a timely manner, even when the public input is unsolicited and to work with partners in a transparent manner.

The determination that the BLM 2.0 Planning Rule could be developed under a Categorical Exclusion, given the long term vision and results from the Rule  on BLM lands for decades to come, placed the planning process at a disadvantage from the beginning.  The Organizations submit that public outreach for the development of the new BLM planning rule must be far more like USFS used for development of the USFS 2012 Planning Rule, where extensive public input was obtained with dozens of public meetings throughout the Country rather than BLM 2.0 efforts that provided only two meetings for public input. Targeting public input should include the development of any new national planning rules and implementation of the planning rule in smaller planning efforts at the regional or field office level in the future.

The Organizations believe that public input must be a priority in planning and the Planning Rule should also encourage land managers to reach out to impacted user groups to insure their input is obtained due to nature of planning efforts.  Many times users are familiar with traditional planning efforts, such as a travel management plan, but often plans are expanding in scope and identified under a wider range of planning process, such as Recreation Access Management Plans or merged with a timber sale. While the scope of the process may be different, the need to engage affected user groups and obtain public input on all issues remains critical and land managers should be encouraged to reach out to partners when planning could impact them and that partner may not be aware of the scope of planning.

While current review efforts are targeting the BLM national planning rule, the Organizations submit this review must be expanded to include not only land planning rules but also BLM handbooks, as often these documents direct policy and are directly applied in local planning efforts.  Often these important guiding documents are developed with little to no public input, which results in standards and guidelines being directly moved into lower level plans that lack public support and often in direct contradiction to more localized reviews.

2b. Quality and not speed must be the goal for any planning efforts.

The Organizations have participated in a wide range of planning efforts with the Department of Interior and very frequently these planning efforts are plagued by an artificial urgency to comply with often unrealistically short deadlines for the planning process.  As a result of the artificial urgency, the development of a quality planning document that will remain relevant and useful over its anticipated life span is placed lower than developing a decision quickly.   This type of prioritization must be avoided.

The artificial elevation of short timelines also creates a planning environment where it is simply impossible to utilize partner resources to address questions that arise in planning efforts.  Again this is an issue where an example of this conflict would be very valuable.  In the development of the Greater Sage Grouse RMP amendment and listing process, Garfield County Colorado expressed significant concerns regarding the accuracy of habitat inventory information being provided by the BLM planners early in the RMP and listing process.  Immediate concerns were raised regarding the overly broad nature of the habitat modeling and that in many areas the species was simply was not present. As a result Garfield County hired nationally recognized experts and embarked on mapping of habitat in the County at a much finer scale than that of the BLM efforts, which resulted in significantly more accurate habitat mapping.  While clearly this effort was the type of highly valuable local information sought from partners, often the development of this information was unnecessarily confrontational and driven by the artificial need to complete the RMP revision rather than the desire to develop a proposal based on the best available science to most accurately benefit the species. Too often similar time constraints are placed on planning, even outside an ESA listing related planning effort.   Again this situation simply must be avoided.

3a. Regional planning should target regional issues to streamline more localized planning and avoid issues beyond the scope of regional planning.

While the Organizations commend the DOI for their interest and lead in addressing global climate change in the planning process, the Organizations must question the value of even a large regional plan for BLM lands seeking to address climate change.   While climate change may garner a large amount of news coverage, there are many factors that are impacting DOI lands and specific species  that are not related to climate change which must still be managed and are more suited to regional or local planning efforts.  Regional planning can address regional issues in a cost effective manner and provide high levels of consistency in local planning efforts if that planning is meaningfully undertaken and addressing regional issues. – Effective regional planning can insure that healthy landscapes are addressed such as the major threat throughout the Western United States of poor forest health and invasive species, rather a particular usage or challenge which can often be focused on in local planning efforts such as pursuing travel management for western states without addressing the exceptionally poor forest health.

The Organizations vigorously support the idea that certain management issues can be effectively addressed with general standards or guidelines at the landscape level and the converse is also true as some challenges are beyond the scope of regional planning.  This balance must be maintained in any regional plan and the Organizations believe that State Wildlife Action plans and the NOHVCC motorized action plans represent regional planning documents that streamline local planning and do not serve as a replacement for local planning.  An example of an effective landscape level standard in the new Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan would involve the lynx where the Colorado State Wildlife Action plan clearly provides:

“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.”[1]

The Organizations further support the fact that if a usage is not a landscape level challenge it should be clearly stated as such, in order to avoid further analysis of non-issues at the local level.  The recently released 2013 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy provided effective standards to streamline subsequent site specific planning with standards as follows:

  • Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;[2]
  • There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; [3]
  • Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;[4]
  • Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; [5]

Rather than providing meaningful guidance on regional issues, many planning efforts started at the regional level are seen as replacement for local planning and seeks to address local usages or issues with highly specific local standards applied through regional planning. Rather than seeing the need for site specific local boundaries in regional planning as a red flag that regional planning is becoming too localized, many in regional plans see this as effective implementation of the Plan.  The Organizations vigorously disagree with this position and believe that when regional planning seeks to plan at local levels and address specific routes or areas, this is a strong indication that local planning must be moved forward with to insure that the proper communities are engaged on the  issue.

The Organizations submit that the utilization of a regional planning effort to address site specific issues became on the large weaknesses with the development of the Desert Renewable Energy Planning efforts in the Southern California desert which attempted to apply area specific local standards under the guise of regional planning.  An example of the improper application of local standards in regional planning is provided in the preferred alternative of the DRECP precludes all energy development in NLCS areas as follows:

“Conservation and Management Actions in National Conservation Lands Renewable energy projects and related ancillary facilities are not allowed”[6]

The DRECP also applies a disturbance cap to all NLCS areas as follows:

Disturbance caps – Development in National Conservation Lands would be limited to 1% of total authorized disturbance, or to the level allowed by collocated ACEC, whichever is more restrictive.” [7]

This DRECP standard has a note as follows:

“Wildlife habitat disturbance caps only apply to lands not already included under ACECs or Wildlife Allocation disturbance caps, as described in the Special Unit Management Plans in Appendix L.”[8]

No information is provided in the DRECP to explain the scientific basis for the 1% disturbance cap, which viewed in isolation, is only somewhat problematic.  When the DRECP standard is compared to Greater Sage Grouse planning disturbance caps more concern is provided as the GRG efforts stimulated significant discussion regarding disturbance caps ranging from 3% to 5% and the significant change in impacts that could result from differences in the disturbance caps.  The direct contrast to the extensive discussions regarding possible impacts resulted in the GSG efforts, the implications of a 1% disturbance cap in the DRECP was simply never addressed as there was significant pressure on the DRECP process to simply get the DRECP completed.

No analysis was provided to inform the public regarding areas that might be within DRECP planning jurisdiction that were currently in compliance with the 1% disturbance cap and areas that already exceeded this disturbance cap. Additionally, these site specific management standards were also provided without mention of the California Desert Conservation Act requirements that the California desert contains historical, scenic, archeological, environmental, biological, cultural, scientific, educational, recreational, and economic resources that are uniquely located adjacent to an area of large population. [9]  Clearly meaningful public process should clarify how standards applied in the regional plan are addressing relevant federal laws for the area.

The Organizations submit that the DRECP provides regional guidance that truly is site specific planning decisions that simply have no place in the development of a regional plan. The DRECP site specific standards are a stark contrast to the regional guidance that has been provided in both the State Wildlife Action plans and other regional planning documents.  The BLM planning efforts to develop a new BLM planning rule must focus on developing regional plans that address regional issues and avoid combining local planning efforts under the claim of regional planning.

3b. Landscape level planning will only be effective if it is meaningfully undertaken.

Recently, the development of  new landscape level plans on a variety of issues to guide the subsequent development of  field office level plans has occurred, which the Organization support as an effective tool to deal with regional issues and streamlining local planning  specific issues. The Organizations have been actively involved with the USFS and USFWS regional efforts on various species including the Canadian Lynx, Greater Sage Grouse, Wolverine and numerous aquatic species and recognize that these landscape level plans have been reasonably effective in benefitting the species and provided clear guidance on best available science on these issues. These were extensive documents with significant partner and public input that were based on best available science for a wide range of multiple usages, which took years to develop. While the benefits of such a vigorous process should be immediately apparent, this level of analysis and review does not appear to be present in many other planning efforts, as exemplified in the development of the Rapid Ecological Assessments (“REA”) and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (“LCC”).  Rather than being examples of how the objectives of effective application of landscape level principals, it is the Organizations position the REA and LCC efforts  are examples of what can happen when the principals and objectives of the Landscape level are not applied properly.

The Organizations have been involved in the BLM Sage Grouse planning process over the last several years, and believe declaring that planning process a success and the model for a new planning process is somewhat premature.  The Organizations submit the GSG planning process was at least meaningfully undertaken and highlighted the value of landscape level planning efforts, the GSG efforts also highlighted numerous areas for improvement in future planning.  While the GSG Planning efforts have effectively brought together a diverse range of interests on the issue, these efforts have not been without challenges and may not be able to be replicated again in the future either due to limited partner resources or smaller issues being addressed.  The Greater Sage Grouse efforts highlighted the need to provide the proper balance for local flexibility while addressing landscape level issues and provide a good comparison tool for other planning efforts undertaken at the same time.  Rather than delving into site specific local planning, regional plans should streamline local planning not replace it – often overly specific landscape plans make local planning more difficult rather than streamlining it

The Greater Sage Grouse planning process provided highlights an ongoing concern regarding the lack of public participation in the planning process.  This concern was highlighted by the Western Governors Association summary of state and local participation in the landscape Sage Grouse planning process as an “afterthought” in correspondence to the BLM and USFS[10].  Often stakeholders in the Sage Grouse process were not meaningfully engaged and input was not meaningfully incorporated in final versions of the RMP.  Similar sentiments have been vigorously expressed from a large number of Congressman and Senators in response to the Sage Grouse planning process.  It is the Organizations position that there is significant room for improvement in the process relied on in the GSG initiatives.

In the GSG Planning process, many local partners in the habitat areas have effectively managed local sage grouse issues for years and have significant data to support the effectiveness of this management in a manner that has directly and clearly benefitted sage grouse populations.  Simply reconciling the BLM landscape level planning with these highly effective local planning efforts has proven problematic, resulting in frustration of partners.  Many local partners have expressed serious concerns about basic information relied on in the BLM landscape level Sage Grouse planning process, such as population of Sage Grouse and threats to the species identified in the National Technical Team (“NTT”) Report.   The NTT report often relied on theoretical information that seriously conflicted with significant portions of high quality localized data available.  Localized threats to the Sage Grouse is an issue where there appears to be significant conflict between the various BLM landscape plans and best available science from local partners.  These conflicts were so severe that the BLM was forced to issue a 66 page supplement to the NTT report to address the issues that were raised by partners once the NTT report was released.  This change would require at least a review of more localized Sage Grouse plans developed in the amendment process to insure the revised NTT has been properly addressed in these more localized plans.  This type of process would indicate a serious concern about collaborating with partner organizations and that development of an effective and efficient plan will be the result of the Sage Grouse Planning.

While there was room for improvement in the public engagement in the GSG process, the development of the REA and LCC provide another landscape level planning effort that has caused concern for the Organizations.  The process for development of many of the REA and LCC provide concrete examples of processes that completely fail to engage the public in manners far worse than those criticized in the GSG process and provide examples of how NOT to undertake regional planning. The Organizations’ are aware that the principal of an REA has been effectively applied to management of a wide range of parks and other issues, but this process is not a replacement for quality public input.    The Organizations are very concerned with the process that has been relied on by BLM in the development of the REA plans, as BLM appears to have chosen to merely hire a contractor to prepare the Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecological Assessment (“CPREA”) rather than involve the public and partners[11]. The Organizations are not aware of any public/partner input being sought for the development of these documents, despite these documents now being relied on to guide the development of field office plans on a variety of issues.  The Organizations must question the basic value of a regional plan that has been developed in this manner.

Another example of concerns regarding landscape level planning to date was the development of LCC partnerships. The Organizations were not familiar with BLM efforts regarding the development of LCC until well after many plans were in place. Subsequent evaluation of this issue recognized that the LCC website identifies 22 LCC plans currently in place in the country, and that several have been in place for multiple years. As a result, one would expect detailed examples of how these LCC are working with partners to be easily available for public discussion. That simply is not the case and providing meaningful comments on these initiatives is difficult as many of the links on the LCC website[12] are dead or provide at best general information.  Only two non-DOI partners are even identified in the national brochure on the program.

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.” [13] Or

“A majestic bull elk pauses  for a drink in the southern Rockies.” [14]

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. 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.”[15]

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.

Clearly these statements are largely symbolic, development of landscape plans and related coordination with partners will require significant efforts to develop high quality decisions that can be effectively applied. The  implications of these types of statements to partners should not be overlooked as many partners operate with limited budgets and are highly interested in “on the ground” success in managing issues rather than moving generalized and abstract concepts forward. These type of statements would not indicate a similar desire from BLM. Rather partners could easily conclude high quality landscape level planning is not  being developed, as much of this information provided to date  appears to fall well short of high quality analysis necessary for more efficient and dynamic planning.

The Organizations are very concerned regarding the failure to develop meaningful public/partner input in the development of the REA development process and the long term implications of these failures.  This failure will result in limited funds for the management of challenges being directed away from resolution of the true factors towards other issues. These concerns have already manifested themselves in response to the REA as the  Wilderness Society has asserted that REA are now the proper basis for all management. [16] Given the prima facie failures of the REA development process to address a wide range of issues, the Organizations are not optimistic that any management undertaken would be effective. Rather than streamlining the process, the application of inaccurate and out of date will be an additional barrier development of effective management on the ground at the field office level.

3d.  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 seeking to address numerous localized issues, the public is not properly engaged and there are numerous collateral impacts.  Also this mission drift makes it harder to avoid 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 large sections of the California desert area. 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 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 rule and subsequent regional planning 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.

4. The new planning rule must streamline and clarify the applicability of Categorical Exclusions  and other lower levels of NEPA for projects.

The new planning rule 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.  Often single projects or events cross multiple planning boundaries or involve multiple agencies which can result in inconsistent analysis or decisions between districts for the same project.  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.

With the high rate of transition among field staff, this clarity in guidance will also avoid significant changes in NEP necessary for a particular project which often results in conflict between partners and delayed resolution of issues with higher costs.  An example of this concern is again helpful.  Many times when recreational trails are crossing wetlands or other riparian areas, these crossing 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 this type of transition occurs 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.

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.

5a.  Recognize that planning in place may effectively be 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.  Any new planning Rule 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 challenges are directly impacted by private lands adjacent to public lands.  Often in Sage Grouse planning, habitat areas were located more than 50% of the time on private lands adjacent to public land.  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 planning simply work collaboratively with private land owners as habitat management was often an issue outside the scope of federal authority.

The Organizations also vigorously assert that recognition of existing planning effectiveness will be critical in addressing the “minimization criteria” provided for in the Travel Management Rule[17] 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 the area.  Too often extensive pressure is applied on managers to minimize impacts without regard to planning in that portion of the forest.  The Organizations submit that there is a limited relevance of the minimization criteria to most planning efforts unless there is a significant change in management or an intervening Congressional action such as a Wilderness or Special Management area designation. Land managers should be provided with clear management direction on this issue to avoid a management issue that after most forest planning should be resolved.

5b. Historical usages should be provided a presumption in planning that the usage will continue unless there is a compelling reason to remove the historical usage.

The Organizations are intimately familiar with the complete failure of many planning efforts to meaningfully recognize historical usage of public lands and often these historical usages, which are often the lifeblood of many small western communities, are lost without meaningful review of the economic contributions from these actions to local communities. While historical usages are an important factor for local communities, when these actions are addressed in planning the burden of proof to allow the usage to continue simply is unrealistic.  Many times planners are seeking information that was never compiled regarding the usage of the area. The Organizations submit that historical usages of an area should enjoy a presumption in planning that the usage will continue unless there is a compelling reason to remove the historical usage.

The Organizations believe an example of this concern would be highly valuable. In a recent permit renewal for a snowmobile grooming operation that had been permitted for decades, the historical issuance of the permit and specific recognition of the activity in the Resource Management Plan was not sufficient to renew the permit as the BLM had a new Wilderness Study area manual, that allegedly forbade motorized.  Immediately the community rallied in support of the grooming activities, produced decades of local news articles, numerous documents from local guides and rental operations identifying high levels of use for generations, numerous documents regarding fundraisers based in the area such as poker runs,  a manufacturer’s television advertisement from the late 1960’s that clearly showed local landmarks and high levels of riding in the WSA.   Managers were also provided with a copy of the first round WSA inventory for the area that identified high levels of snowmobile usage of the area in the 1970’s.

This information was alleged to be insufficient to support the continuation of the historical usage.  In order to issue the permit managers asserted that an exact count of visitation to the area in the 1960’s and 1970’s was needed despite the fact that managers had never collected and the open admission that even if such information was collected it had been destroyed due to BLM document management protocols.  While this issue eventually was resolved through Congressional action protecting the historical usage of the area, this issue highlights many of the shortcomings frequently encountered in the management of historical usages of an area.  While this issue has been resolved the relationship between land managers and the local community was BADLY fractured and will need decades to repair.

6a. Credible partner information/resources can be a great resource.

One of the preliminary planning decisions that must be highlighted to develop high quality resource plans on public lands is identifying the  distinction between high quality partner based science and citizen science that may not be based on the same level of vigor in development.  Too often citizen science is developed in a process that seeks to advance a specific conclusion or idea rather than developed in a scientific process were the process  leads to a conclusion. Then that group prepares various inventories for submission to a land manager to influence the planning process. Additionally, if the partner organization has developed high quality site specific information under a valid scientific method, that Organization often will remain after the planning effort and provide either direct funding resources or other partner resources.  Too often high quality site specific information is overlooked in favor of generalized planning principals that may be based on limited scientific research with a high level of public pressure.

The distinct difference is the quality of these resources is provided when the Western Governor Sage Grouse Inventory, developed based on a valid scientific process with dedicated partners is compared with citizen acec/wca inventory submitted in the RMP process.
Often these citizen inventory are  based on habitat inventory that may have been declined to be implemented in other planning process, such as the designation of critical habitat by the Fish and Wildlife Service.  The planning rule must provide clear guidance that partner inventories should not be allowed to become an alternative method of moving forward with closures of modeled but unoccupied habitat created with a high degree of scientific uncertainty.  Often these citizen inventories are associated with a high level of pressure from the user groups to move forward with the information despite its questionable scientific basis.

The Organizations would note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has recently moved forward with heightened requirements for the listing of a new species and is requiring significantly more detailed information.  Allowing low quality interest group information to be developed into WCA/ACEC inventory that is consistently moved upon by land managers in planning will result in these groups moving away from the USFWS and to land management agencies like the BLM.  The Organizations submit the BLM is poorly suited to address the scientific validity of an expanded citizen science driven agenda and it would be unfortunate if the USFWS revisions to the listing process were allowed to be avoided as this would simply shift management burdens currently burying the USFWS onto land management agencies that are often in a worse position to address these issues.   The Rule must provide clear guidance that site specific information from credible partners must be relied on for planning over citizen inventories that are based on a high level of scientific uncertainty to insure that high quality planning documents are developed and also to allow the development of high quality partners with that land manager for the implementation of any subsequent decisions.

6b. Relationship of Federal lands planning and the Endangered Species listing process.

The Organizations submit that a proposed listing of any species should not be a driver for landscape level planning as often the rush to avoid the listing results in planning that lacks scientific basis and often fails to meaningfully address many of the factors to be balanced in federal lands planning and in the identification of critical habitat for a species. The Organizations understand this issue is more a result of the inflexibility and imbalance of the Endangered Species Act, there may be opportunity to address this issue in a revision of BLM planning requirements as well. While resource plan amendments certainly assisted in avoiding a listing of the Greater Sage Grouse, the experiences with the Greater Sage Grouse are often not the normal fact pattern and probably cannot be replicated. Rather than dealing with a single species covering an entire planning area, many land managers are forced to plan for areas that that may provide small habitat areas  for numerous species, some of which may be listed, some of which may be in the listing process and still others that have been declined to be listed. This is a significantly different management challenge than that provided in GSG planning.

Despite the  experience with Greater Sage Grouse too often a proposed listing of a species is given an artificially elevated priority in the planning process despite numerous decisions that the species does not warrant listing. Federal lands planning should not function as a replacement for the listing process under the Endangered Species governed by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Recent reviews of USFWS listing efforts find thousands of species under a proposed listing status, with thousands more involved in petitions under development or involved in litigation after a non-listing decision has been made by the USFWS.  With this volume of work related to ESA listing, allowing too strong a relationship between a proposed listing and federal lands planning, would result in a federal land planning process that was overwhelmed and even the best federal lands plans would simply never be implemented on the ground.  On the ground benefits must remain the priority.

US Fish and Wildlife Service has embarked on an extensive effort to streamline and balance the listing process for a proposed species. The Organizations expect that as a result of these efforts a higher emphasis will be placed on the Federal lands planning process to serve as a replacement vehicle to achieve  goals and objectives that previously had targeted the USFWS listing process. The BLM managers must be aware this issue and clear guidance must be provided at a national level  not allow the land management plan development  process to become a replacement for the USFWS listing process, which has already become badly out of balance and directly impacting the USFWS to provide basic services in furtherance of the agency mission.

6c. Leveraging of USFS resources and partner efforts.

As funding for federal land management agencies continues to decline, the utilization of partner decisions and information must be more heavily leveraged across agency lines.  Not only will this result in more cost effective planning, the leveraging of information and research minimizes the possibility of conflicting determinations on an issue, merely because of administrative differences in the planning process, as these  types of differences breed conflict with partners and directly undermine the credibility of both management agencies determinations.

The Organizations are aware that the BLM has been moving towards adopting the  National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) model and conclusions, where possible of the USFS.  This determination provides a good example of an area where partner information could be utilized and be obtained in a cost effective manner.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the NVUM process should be continued to be used at the landscape level as this process is simply far more developed than the  Recreation Management Information System  (RMIS) system currently utilized by the BLM. While there may be localized issues or events that are accurately and meaningfully tracked in the RMIS system, these events are not the norm.

Significant savings and streamlining of planning efforts could result from the  DOI  seeking to expand good neighbor authority to streamline project planning and efforts that are being undertaken on state or private lands adjacent to Federal public lands.

6d. Time must be provided for any planning efforts to show results.

Often a proposed listing of a species on the Endangered Species list or development of regional planning documents can be a major catalyst for  partner planning and efforts.  While a proposed listing can be a major driver of local efforts, if these efforts are meaningfully undertaken and are even holding what was thought to be a declining population at stable levels,  they must be given time to be put in place and then yield results before moving forward with federal lands planning. Too often the development of this credible high quality science from partners is subjected to the same artificial urgency concerns that have been expressed previously in these comments regarding federal lands planning.  Any new planning rule should allow the flexibility in the planning process that if a credible partner agency, such as a state fish and game management agency, moves forward with resolving a valid scientific question that sufficient time will be provided in the planning process to insure the conclusions of the research is accurately implemented.

7. Travel management specific recommendations.

In this section of the comments, the Organizations would like to highlight several issues or challenges that are technically outside the scope of development of the formal National Planning Rule  but represent issues where significant cost savings and streamlining of the planning process could be obtained. These recommendations may provide a cost effective resolution of issues or insure that meaningful public input is provided for the project.

a. BLM recognition of the USFS determination that winter travel is different than summer travel

The Organizations submit that a formal recognition by the BLM of the recent US Forest Service determination that winter over the snow travel and summer travel on federal public lands are significantly different planning issues and often provide different recreational opportunities highlights an opportunity where significant cost savings could be obtained.  The Organizations submit that such a determination would further many of the local determinations that have been made as most users are not aware of BLM management of an area for winter recreation as a result of the Service First principals.

b. Travel management planning must occur at the local level.

The Organizations have been significantly involved in a wide range of travel management plans developed at the Field Office level.  The Organizations welcomed the repeated assertions in the Denver meeting regarding the BLM planning 2.0 proposal  that the BLM was moving away from field office level travel planning in favor of more localized management decisions.  After participating in numerous field office level travel plans, the Organizations believe moving to a more localized analysis level makes a lot of sense.

It has been the Organizations experience that too often meaningful public input on site specific issues or routes are lost or clouded as a result of the desire to attempt to address travel on an entire field office at once.  The scope of the project  simply overwhelms the public and often concerns are centered on certain issues or areas and other areas are simply overlooked despite the high levels of public interest or utilization of the area. These oversights gain significance when the travel planning process hinges on the position that routes are closed if the route is not identified in the Field Office plan.

8. Conclusion.

The Organizations submit that any new planning rule for the BLM must: 1. Have large amounts of public participation both in the development of the rule and subsequent implementation of more localized planning efforts; 2. Planning efforts must strive for development of a high quality planning documents that remain relevant over the expected life of the Plan rather than planning documents that are quickly developed;  3.  Regional planning documents must provide regional guidelines on regional issues and avoid becoming a replacement for local planning; 4. BLM planning should streamline NEPA processes with clarification of lower levels of NEPA analysis such as the use of Categorical Exclusions and expand good neighbor authority in planning; 5.   Historical uses of any area should be addressed with a presumption that the usage be continued unless a credible scientific basis can be provided to rebut the presumption; and 6.  Credible partner resources must be utilized while a high level of scrutiny must be applied to citizen science in order to develop high quality planning documents in partnership with local communities that effectively address long term protection and utilization of public lands while avoiding science that advances a particular agenda without relying on valid scientific processes.

If you have questions please feel free to contact either 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.  You may also contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504.  His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

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

Sandra Mitchell, Executive Director
Idaho Recreation Council

 

 

 

[1] See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan at pg 175.

[2] 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;  at pg 95. (Hereinafter referred to as the 2013 LCAS)

[3] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

[4] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[5] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

[6]  See, Dept of Interior;  Bureau of Land Management; Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; September 2014  at pg II.3-382. (Hereinafter referred to as “DRECP”).

[7] See, DRECP at II.3-382

[8] See, DRECP at pg II.3-382.

[9] See, 43 U.S.C. 1781 (a)

[10] See, http://www.westgov.org/news/298-news-2014/800-western-governors-concerned-federal-work-with-states-on-sage-grouse-conservation-an-afterthought-seek-clear-concise-input

[11]  See, http://consbio.org/products/projects/blm-rapid-ecological-assessment-rea-colorado-plateau

[12] http://lccnetwork.org/ accessed 10/15/14

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

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

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

[16] http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/TWS%20–%20BLM%20report_0.pdf

[17] See, Executive Order 11644 as amended.

Continue Reading

Boggy Draw Trail System Expansion

Boggy Draw Trail System Expansion

Dolores Ranger District
Attn: Tom Rice, Recreation Staff Officer
29211 Highway 184
Dolores, CO 81323

Dear Tom:

Please accept these comments as part of the public record of comments for the Boggy Draw Trail System Expansion project.

As stated and depicted in the Proposed Action, the project is flawed and cannot be supported as it promotes segregation and lacks a diversity of users. This plan completely lacks any consideration for multiple-use and users of motorized means.

Years ago, in this country, we collectively decided that segregation and discrimination was a policy that was wrong and would no longer be tolerated and fostered, yet this proposal seeks to do just that.

The Dolores Ranger District of the San Juan National Forest needs to shift from an attitude and policy of segregating users and providing infrastructure for select groups at the cost of others, the landscape is just not big enough for each and every user group (i.e. hikers, mountain bikes, equestrians, motorized users, etc.) to have their own exclusive set of trails and associated infrastructure. The Dolores Ranger District needs to set the example for the coexisting of users, promoting tolerance and diversity of users on true multiple-use trails. Proceeding with this project with a primary use by one particular user group is discriminatory and will certainly foster resentment and poor relationships with other user groups. Instead of excluding users, it would benefit the entire spectrum of trail users if the Dolores Ranger District were to be working with similar vigor and diligence to be inclusive and accepting of all user groups and embracing an attitude of cooperation and tolerance.

The proposal lacks any substantive details on how and where the resources and funding will come from to construct this trail system, and more importantly how it will be maintained! The non-motorized users of the San Juan National Forest, most notably the mountain bike community, has benefited significantly from the expenditure of State of Colorado OHV grant dollars on true multiple-use trails throughout the San Juan National Forest. To move forward with this plan, that is for the primary use of mountain bikes and other non-motorized users is prejudicial and discriminatory to the motorized users in the community. Those 2 motorized users have worked diligently with both the Dolores Ranger District over the past several years to obtain and expend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the San Juan National Forest, all the time sharing those trails with all non-motorized users.

The planning for this project needs to step back in order to be inclusive and provide similar opportunities for all user groups. The most expedient path forward would be to develop this new trail network such that it is truly “multiple purpose” and provides shared opportunities for all users, non- motorized and motorized alike.

If this trail plan were to include similar opportunities, and new opportunities for all user groups (e.g., multiple use and motorized users), then this plan could receive our support.

We thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,

Don Riggle
Director Of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Continue Reading

ACTION ALERT! La Sal Mountains, Utah

Motorcycle Trail Riders,

For the next couple days, we have a chance to show that responsible riders want some real trails in the La Sal Mountains in southeast Utah.

Writing a simple comment to the U.S. Forest Service could go a long way. If you’ll be heading out for the weekend, then please comment now!

Ride with Respect (RwR) is only contacting a hundred people who make the pilgrimage to Moab for their love of motorized singletrack, so your voice is vital.

The Forest Service is finally revising its 1986 Forest Plan for the Manti-La Sal, which includes the Manti, La Sal, and Abajo ranges. The agency’s draft assessment report indicates that they’re aware of the need for some new connections to make more loop opportunities out of the current trail systems. This goal is sufficient for the Abajo’s, which already have a foundation of motorized singletrack (motorcycle), 50″ trail (ATV), and full-size vehicle (side-by-side and 4WD) trails. In the La Sals, however, the current travel plan provides no singletrack (except at Upper Twomile Canyon, which is on a small block of SITLA property that can be closed at any time), no ATV trail (except Hideout Mesa, which is far away and low in elevation), and no real 4WD trails (except around Brumley and Dorry canyons, which is a small area with big cobble rock). Although RwR has enjoyed working with the Forest Service on Abajo trails, the agency needs to hear from more people who want to ride Moab in summertime without having to drive 60 miles to reach the Abajo’s.

RwR has identified a Brumley-Twomile motorcycle loop (see second-to-last attachment) that would require adding 21 miles to the travel plan in order for motorcyclists to park north of Pack Creek, ride around the flank of South Mountain, tie into the Upper Twomile trails on SITLA property, then follow singletrack that would parallel Dark Canyon and Geyser Pass Roads to reach the Brumley and Dorry 4WD trails for a complete loop. Compared to re-opening all the non-motorized trails, it’s a modest proposal. At least a couple parts of this loop (near the La Sal Loop Road) should be open to ATV or side-by-side users so that they can make more connections to existing 4WD trails. Parts of this loop would benefit mountain biking, and none of it would intrude on the most primitive recreation settings or remote wildlife habitat. Regardless of details, I hope many of you can convey that such an opportunity is long overdue, and that there are many potential volunteers to help construct and maintain new trail. With shrinking budgets, the USFS is understandably reluctant to add new trails that it would increase its maintenance burden. However, by rerouting several miles of singletrack in the Abajo’s, RwR has proven its ability to design and construct trails that are virtually maintenance free, other than clearing logs which can be done by volunteers each summer.

Although the current process of revising the Forest Plan will not directly result in putting new off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails on the ground, it will absolutely set the stage for doing so (or for not doing anything) in the near future. A new Forest Plan should recognize the need for more OHV loop opportunities, particularly motorcycling in the La Sals. Five years ago, USFS developed a Moab Non-Motorized Trails Project, and it’s high time to start a Moab Motorized Trails Project.

Please check out RwR’s latest comments (attached), which summarize 18 benefits of a Brumley-Twomile motorcycle loop. Consider putting some of this proposal and reasoning into your own words, and feel free to include your personal experiences / factual data / photographs.

According to…
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd548400.pdf
…you can comment in one of three ways.

1. Enter your name, contact info, and text or attachments here:
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=50121

2. Email your comments to:
mlnfplanrevision@fs.fed.us

3. Mail your comments to:
Manti-La Sal National Forest
Forest Plan Revision Team
559 West Price River Dr., Ste. A
Price, UT 84501

Again, please submit comments by this Saturday, July 22nd, and send a copy of your comments to me as well.

This is an exciting first step to establish epic summertime riding prospects right outside Moab. Thanks -Clif

p.s. If you snowmobile or snow bike, also let the land managers know that zoning your use away from skiers makes sense in small areas, but that most of the La Sals should remain open for over-snow travel in a dispersed fashion.

Continue Reading

Hermosa Watershed Management Plan

Hermosa Watershed Management Plan

Columbine Ranger District
ATTN: Hermosa Comments
POB 439 / 367 South Pearl Street
Bayfield CO, 81122

RE: Hermosa Watershed Management Plan 

Dear Matt:

Please accept this correspondence as the vigorous support of the above Organizations for Alternative 3 of the Hermosa  Watershed Management Plan (“The Proposal”), which  would improve multiple use opportunities to a greatest extent in the Hermosa planning area.  While the additional single track (Dutch/Pinkerton) and side by side trails (Pasture Creek) may be short in terms of mileage, these routes would be highly valued by the OHV community and would add significant quality to the existing opportunities in the Hermosa Planning area. The loop opportunities provided by these new routes would dramatically improve recreational opportunities in the planning area.  The Organizations have major concerns regarding the preferred Alternative as a result of the new “No Net Gain” standard that would be applied to trails in the Proposal area.  The Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative 4 of the Proposal, due to the numerous conflicts with the intent of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation and numerous closures proposed.  The Organizations are also concerned that Alternative 4 provides for expanded quiet use opportunities in the SMA area, without addressing that the Legislation provided expanded quiet recreational opportunities in the new Wilderness areas designated, which was vigorously supported by the representatives of quiet users over the numerous years needed for development of the Legislation.

The Organizations are also concerned that much of the science relied on in the Proposal could be more accurately summarized as the “most restrictive” theory rather than “best available science” on the issue.  The Organizations submit that when best available science is relied on for planning, Alternative 3 provides a very balanced recreational opportunity with minimal risks to wildlife.  The Organizations will address the specific components of Alternative 3 to allow for  meaningful input on the merits of Alternative 3 above all others and why these standards or issues are important to the community. We do not intend this to be an exhaustive list of each component but is provided to allow for understanding of why we believe Alternative 3 is the best and to show this decision is not merely based on the highest number of trail miles.

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

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

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

1. Columbine RD staff assistance was deeply appreciated in developing the Hermosa Legislation.

The Hermosa Special Management Planning area was specifically designated in the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Legislation of 2014, which recognized the importance of continued motorized recreation in the planning area and removed various Wilderness review standards in the area. Over the several years of development of this Legislation, Organizational representatives welcomed the open and candid discussions with Columbine RD staff on a wide variety of issues that arose in the planning efforts and hope to continue those discussions moving forward.

2. Pasture Creek and Dutch/Pinkerton trail expansions would significantly improve recreational experiences in the area and provide unique learning experiences for managers.

The Organizations vigorously support the proposed 7 miles of new Side by Side trails adjacent to Pasture Creek Area that are badly needed from a recreational experience perspective as the 64 inch side by side market is a rapidly growing sector of the recreational motorized community.   The Organizations are aware that District staff are more than aware that a designed trail often provides the best recreational experience and is the most desired type of trail to the user group that the trail is designed for.  This position is simply restated in these comments to highlight the value of these trails to the 64 user groups.

The Organizations believe the dedicated 64 inch trails would also provide a rather unique learning opportunity for district staff and management throughout the region, as the Organizations are not aware of any 64 inch width trails currently on any Ranger District  inventory in the state of Colorado.  This small trail network could provide unique insights into the needs and challenges of these larger vehicles, which the Organizations expect are going to present different challenges than traditional full size vehicles.  This would allow managers to learn about issues similar to the fact that a 50 inch side by side cannot traverse some 50 inch trails due to the larger vertical size of the vehicle resulting in the cage of the vehicle contacting overhead obstacles in areas where the trail may be off camber or in turning situations. Additional understanding could be developed regarding vehicle length and the 64 inch class of side by sides contains a wide range of length vehicles. From a purely management perspective, the designed 64 inch trails would provide an on the ground laboratory for land managers to gather information on maintenance needs for this type of trail, as the 64 inch side by side are significantly smaller and lighter than a full size vehicle but larger and heavier than a traditional ATV.  While the consensus is that the level of maintenance needed for these routes is in between a full size and ATV (50 inch) trail, the knowledge of the exact comparison would be valuable information for managers throughout the region.

The Organizations are also aware that single track trail riding opportunities are some of the most sought after trail experiences in the state.  While the Columbine RD has a reasonable number of miles of single track motorized trails, these types of routes are almost non-existent in many other areas of the state.  Alternative 3 provides for a short but  significant new single track looped trail network around the Dutch/Pinkerton area based on existing logging roads in the area, which would be highly valuable to the motorized community and would expand the high quality recreational opportunities for those using the area.  This loop opportunity would again be highly valued by the motorized community and would also be a valuable resource for the mountain biking community.

Alternative 3 also provides several other opportunities that would be unique and highly valued by the entire recreational community.   Alternative 3 provides the most dispersed camping opportunities in the area, which area gain becoming difficult to obtain and allows the Coral Draw Trails to be added to motorized inventory and provides for the Proposed connector trail to Purgatory Ski area in the summer would allow the unique opportunity for recreational users to access the ski area for dining and other resources. Again the Organizations must stress that each of these components may seem a small change in terms of mileage but when taken as a whole, the Organizations vigorously submit that recreational opportunities will be vastly improved for all users. As outlined later in these comments, when “best available science” is applied to the Proposal, rather than the “most restrictive” theory, the risks from these significant recreational improves becomes very viable to implement.

3. Wilderness/RNA designations along Hermosa Creek should be released.

 The motorized community has been a major funding partner with the Columbine Ranger District to address basic maintenance issues and help mitigate possible impacts from all recreational activity through CPW OHV grants provided to the District in an attempt to off-set the effects of the ever reducing federal budgets.  In the formation of the Hermosa Legislation, there was serious concern about the long term financial sustainability of the Hermosa Creek Trail due to the steep and rugged terrain in the area increasing the costs of basic maintenance.  While the Legislation cannot offset the costs resulting from the geographic challenges in maintaining the Hermosa Creek trail, the Legislation was seen as a vehicle that could reduce the administrative barriers  that might result in an increased cost to maintain the trail.

As a result of these concerns,  the boundary of the Congressionally designated Wilderness was moved from the center of the creek to the current boundary generally west of the Hermosa Creek in the Legislation.  It was believed that the release of the recommended Wilderness in the Forest Plan in this manner would streamline the  maintenance of Hermosa Creek Trail and allow for any rerouting of the trail to address possible impacts to the creek or to create a safer easier to maintain trail.  This would allow federal recreation budgets supplemented by State OHV grant funds to be used for the maintenance of the Hermosa Creek trail and other routes in the most effective manner.  Additionally support for moving the boundary to the west side of Hermosa Creek would also streamline any creek management activity to improve habitat or for other reasons, which was again supported by a wide range of the interest groups involved in the Legislation’s development.  As a result the Organizations vigorously support the release of the recommended Wilderness/ Research Natural Area boundary in the corridor along Hermosa Creek as proposed in the Plan as the Organizations vigorous believe this boundary change will significantly improve recreation in the region due to the significantly reduced and streamlined maintenance costs and that the release was specifically reviewed and supported in the development of the Legislation.

4. No net gain standards for roads and trails directly conflict with Hermosa Legislation, are vigorously opposed and completely unnecessary.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the implementation of anything resembling a “no net gain” standard for roads and trails in the planning area, as such a planning standard is more restrictive than current management and would be a significant limitation on the area in the future.   Often site specific proposals are moved forward, such as Pasture Creek or Pinkerton trails expansions, even when they are not included in the preferred alternative when the need for these routes becomes more clear, and these developments would be precluded by implementation of a “no net gain” for roads and trails is applied.

The future management of the Hermosa SMA created by the Hermosa Legislation directly and specifically addresses the requirements for the development of roads and trails in the planning area, as again this was a major issue in the development of the Legislation and efforts of the working group.   The Hermosa Legislation specifically and clearly states:

“(I) New permanent or temporary road construction or the renovation of existing nonsystem roads, except as allowed under the final rule entitled “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado” (77 Fed. Reg. 39576 (July 3, 2012)).” [1]

It is without contest that dispersed motorized recreational usage is a characteristic of a Colorado Roadless area and also that trails are outside the scope of Roadless Rule applicability by law and are also specifically recognized as something that is a permitted activity in a Colorado Roadless area.

“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.”[2]

The Organizations also note that standards similar to a no net gain for trails was explored in the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule and almost no support for such a standard was found. The Organizations vigorously assert that the imposition of a “no net gain” standard for trails in the SMA directly and materially conflicts with the Hermosa Legislation which clearly provides for the construction of trails in compliance with the Colorado Roadless Rule. As a result the imposition of such a standard must be removed from any version of the final plan to avoid conflict with several Federal laws.

In addition to conflicting with the governing federal law, the imposition of a “no net gain” in roads and trails conflicts with inventory of Proposal area performed relative to Colorodo Roadless Rule development.  During this planning process most of the SMA  was specifically reviewed for possible inclusion in Upper Tier Roadless designations and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection.  The following maps provide the boundaries for the areas inventoried under Alternative 4 and Alternative 2 for possible designation as an Upper Tier.

Map  map key

[3]

The Organizations must question why there is now found to be a basis for the application of a  “no net gain” standard, when the area has recently been inventoried for lower levels of protection and found to be unsuitable for the lower levels of protection. It is significant to note that a “no net gain” standard was sought after by several parties within  the Hermosa Working group and little support for such a standard was found.

The Organizations must also question the basic need for a “no net gain” standard as this standard simply is not addressed in the draft EA.  The failure to address this standard in the NEPA documentation is a violation of NEPA itself and as a result the standard should be stricken as the public does not have the ability to comment on the standard.  This simply must be avoided as it conflicts with the specific provisions of the Hermosa Legislation which specifically allow for trail construction pursuant to the Colorado Roadless Rule in the SMA and conflicts with numerous inventory in the SMA area and the clearly stated intent of the working group.

5. Snowfall is the best trigger for determining when to start winter travel management.

The Organizations also vigorously support the determination that the best trigger for determining when OSV regulations should take effect is snowfall as it more accurately reflects usage of the area now and in the future. Add scoping comments here

6. Motorized recreation is a significant economic driver to the Southwestern Colorado region.

OHV recreation is predominately a family sport  and multiple use access is a major factor involved in many other activities, such as hunting, fishing and private lands ownership. The Organizations are aware that funding of any recreational activity can be difficult as many traditional sources of revenue to local communities and land managers has reduced and as a result communities are now forced to rely on recreational activity to provide basic services to their citizens. As a result of this situation, the Organizations believe that understanding the ramifications of any decisions impacting recreational activity is of paramount importance.   The Colorado Off- Highway Vehicle Coalition in partnership with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have recently released new research on the economic contribution of motorized recreation in Colorado.  The Southwestern Colorado region receives more than $195 million in annual sales and economic contribution which results in more than 2,800 jobs and almost $21 million in State and local tax revenue. A complete version of the study has been submitted for your reference. Given the significance of this activity to local economies, the Organizations submit that providing the most recreational opportunity is a major concern to local communities who are often struggling to provide basic services to their residents.

In addition to this landscape level spending review recently conducted by COHVCO, the USFS has conducted extensive research into comparative spending profiles of various recreational users as part of the US Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring process, and this research is highly valuable to planners in terms of comparing spending profiles of users and allowing planners to estimate changes in visitation and impacts that this has on local economies.   The works of Drs. Styne and White performed in conjunction with NVUM research provide the following conclusions in their research on comparative user group spending:

Table 3. Visitor spending

[4]

It should also be noted that the Stynes and White work provided an itemized breakdown of most spending categories identified above to allow for more meaningful analysis and application of this information on a project specific level.   This site specific review identifies the benefits from having higher spending profile users addressed and the significant benefits that follow to other user groups as a result.

7. General Wildlife Concerns are well balanced with recreational interests in Alternative 3 of the Proposal.

The Organizations are aware that often there is concern regarding the possible impacts to wildlife as a result of recreational activity in any area, and would note that a vibrant and healthy wildlife population in any area is a major component of providing a quality recreational experience. The Organizations are aware that numerous seasonal closures are put in place in the Proposal in order to protect wildlife during more sensitive times, such as calving or winter range and that great efforts have been made in the placement of any routes to be built to avoid any issues with wildlife or resource impacts.  The Organizations are aware that such efforts have been highly effective in addressing these issues on the Columbine Ranger District for decades and there is no reason to expect a change in these levels of protection from these management efforts and tools in the Proposal area.

The Organizations will note that possible motorized recreational impacts to wildlife are an issue that has been heavily researched in the Yellowstone National Park for an extended  period of time.  This research has uniformly concluded:

“Based on these population-level results, we suggest that the debate regarding effects of human winter recreation on wildlife in Yellowstone is largely a social issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue. Effects of winter disturbances on ungulates from motorized and non-motorized uses more likely accrue at the individual animal level (e.g., temporary displacements and acute increases in heart rate or energy expenditures) than at the population scale. A general tolerance of wildlife to human activities is suggested because of the association between locations of large wintering ungulate herds and winter recreation. Habituation to human activities likely reduces the chance for chronic stress or abandonment of critical wintering habitats that could have significant effects at the population level, especially when these activities are relatively predictable.”[5]

Given the clear statement of wildlife management experts on the minimal impacts of  recreation on wildlife, the Organizations submit that wildlife concerns should be minimal and significant documented planning standards can be relied on in the defense of Alternative 3 of the Proposal.  Many of these standards also show the lack of basis in many of the more protective standards proposed in the other Alternatives.

While the Organizations understand any managers desire to proceed with caution if a species may be listed on the Endangered Species List, this possible listing of a species should also not be over relied on as many species are found unwarranted for listing and there are literally thousands of species which have been reviewed for listing.   The US Fish and Wildlife Service has also been working hard to review the entire listing process under ESA to avoid the continued use of a possible listing decision to end around the NEPA process that a petitioner often did not become involved with and to avoid the listing process becoming a trump card in the collaborative process regarding management of public lands. These revisions have included allowing more time for research of challenges facing a species, heightened thresholds for the listing process, requiring more collaboration prior to accepting a petition to list a species and only allowing one species to be addressed per petition. By allowing management that is overly cautious with a possibly listed species, these efforts of the USFWS would simply become ineffective in streamlining the entire process and allowing what are very limited management dollars to be effectively used to benefit species on the ground.

8. Document reviews from anti access user groups addressing wildlife concerns with motorized recreation must be critically reviewed.

The Organizations submit that up to date science must be relied on in the analysis of the Project and possible impacts or management challenges and that survey documents created by user groups opposed to multiple use are not a substitute for best available science.  The Organizations submit that too often the Proposal analyzes the usages under the “most restrictive” or most cautious scientific theory.  Compounding concerns about “most restrictive” scientific theory being applied for planning is that often these standards have been specifically superseded by new management documents which were designed to address the reasons for previous caution in analysis.  As a result of the advancing nature of scientific analysis, many  impacts noted in the Proposal  are based on “most restrictive scientific theory on issues that best available science has subsequently determined are unrelated to challenges facing the species.

The Organizations would be remiss if the reliance on the works of Switalski[6], asserted to be “Best Management Practices for OSV management” was not specifically addressed as the Organizations are intimately familiar with this document as it is readily available on the Winter Wildlands website. [7] This is simply  a propaganda document created by those opposed to multiple use recreation, rather than a survey of best available science on the issue and the Organizations submit that this is exactly the type of document that must be strictly reviewed by planners. Representatives of the Organizations have attempted to discuss  our concerns about the basic validity of the document with WWA representatives and have not had any success.  We have included the American Council of Snowmobile Associations 2014 “Facts and Myths about Snowmobiling on Winter Trails” booklet in order to provide a complete background of all research on OSV travel in an timely and balanced manner.

The Organizations submit that Switalski/WWA  document best management practices standards were BADLY out of date at the time the document was published in 2015, and believe several examples of the out of date nature of the document.  The Organizations submit that the grim picture of multiple use recreation portrayed in  this document has inappropriately impacted both summer and winter travel decisions in the Proposal.  After a review of the booklet, the Organizations believe this document to be an attempt to move their Organizations mission of  “snow less traveled” than a true survey of best available science on many issues as many studies have been repeatedly superseded or completely inaccurately summarized in this work. The Organizations submit that while the scope of the Switalski document may be limited to OSV issues, clearly the document has a chilling effect on OHV travel related issues, and possibly explains the basis for summer travel standards such as the “no net gain” for roads and trails previously discussed.  As a result, the Organizations vigorously assert that this work must be addressed with extreme caution and not relied on as an accurate survey of best available science.

The Organizations have included the recently updated “Fact and Myths about snowmobiling and winter trails ” book from the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, which summarizes the most up to date information on a variety of OSV issues.  While some of the resources relied on in this publication are older, they remain valid findings on issues that really have been resolved for research purposes and have not been superseded by later works or decisions.  The Organizations submit the Facts and Myths book represents the most accurate and up to date review of OSV issues available today.

The Organizations believe a complete review of best available science and the position conveyed in the WWA brochure on each issue is not warranted but the Organizations believe several examples of the quality of low quality information or badly outdated nature of the information  provided in this document are sufficient to substantiate our inclusion of this issue in our comments.  The Organizations believe that the first step in developing truly effective management of any issue is establishing the landscape level standard, as many factors are heavily influenced by activities that are totally unrelated and beyond management by the USFS.

The Organizations believe the first relevant example of outdated and misleading information being provided in the WWA brochure involves OSV emissions.  The EPA has been specifically developed to address  vehicle emissions and air quality and the USFS should not be addressing these types of issues in travel planning as the USFS expertise is not in air quality and emissions standards.   The Organizations vigorously assert that landscape level standards are as follows that all units being produced and used in Colorado  are well below EPA requirements for these types of vehicles and often these agencies find that localized air quality issues are totally unrelated to  OSV travel. The WWA brochure provides the following information:

Emission ratio relative to ethene

[8]

The Organizations believe this information might have been helpful to land managers in the decision making process in 2002 but have to question the value of this information decades later as the overwhelming percentage of 2002 snowmobiles simply are no  longer in use.  Newer snowmobiles are more cost effective to ride, more reliable and operate in full compliance with EPA air quality requirements, which have reduced the number of emissions from this class of vehicle by more than 100%.  These EPA standards are reflected in the following air quality standards:

EPA Snowmobile Emission Standards

[9]

The Organizations would note that any snowmobile manufactured after 2012 may only produce ½ the emissions that a 2002 unit was allowed to produce.  The Organizations are aware that most new units are producing emissions far below even EPA standards for these types of vehicles. The Organizations have to question the relevance of any emissions information for vehicles that were produced more than a decade ago and are no longer used.  Again the Organizations must question if assertions regarding the relevance of 2002 emissions outputs decades after those emissions standards have been superseded is truly relying on best available science.

The Organizations submit that this is not the only time that severely limited or questionably relevant information is provided in the WWA brochure. The WWA brochure also provides summaries of Water/Air Quality studies that are inaccurate at best and are sometimes simply erroneous. An example of such a summary involves the Musselman study, which the WWA brochure attempts to summarize as follows:

“During the winter, snowmobiles release toxins such as ammonium, nitrate, sulfate, benzene, and toluene which accumulate in the snowpack (Ingersol 1999), and increase acidity (Musselman and Kormacher 2007).”[10]

The Organizations submit that any summary of the Musselman work which attempts to support such a position is misleading and frustrating to the snowmobile community, as the snowmobile community partnered in the development of this study in an effort meaningfully address issues and develop parking facilities at the study location.  The Musselman study clearly stated their conclusions as follows:

“Seasonal differences were evident in air chemistry, specifically for CO, NO2, and NOx, but not for NO or O3. NO2 and NOx were higher in summer than winter, while CO concentrations were higher in winter than summer. Nevertheless, air pollutant concentrations were generally low both winter and summer, and were considerably lower than exceedence levels of NAAQS.”[11]

“Nevertheless, an air pollution signal was detected that could be related to snowmobile activity; but the pollutant concentrations were low and not likely to cause significant air quality impacts even at this high snowmobile activity site.”[12]

The Organizations submit that many  summaries of issues in the WWA brochure  such as this are facially erroneous.  The Organizations have never asserted that motors used for OSV recreation do not produce certain levels of emissions, as that would simply be insulting to all parties involved.  Rather researchers  have asserted these issues are very minimal in nature when addressing any landscape level emissions  that might be in an area as these new units are both EPA and CARB compliant. Even  when OSV emissions are addressed locally, they are found to be insufficient to warrant any further monitoring.

The Organizations believe that lynx management standards again provide a shocking example of the systemic usage of out of date information in the WWA brochure.  The WWA brochure clearly asserts that “no net gain” remains the rule for OSV travel in lynx habitat, stating as follows:

“The Canada Lynx Assessment and Conservation Strategy set planning standards on Forest Service lands that include, “on federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by Lynx Analysis Unit… and map and monitor the location and intensity of snow compacting activities that coincide with lynx habitat, to facilitate future evaluation of effects on lynx as information becomes available” (USDA FS 2000, p.82).”[13]

The Organizations do not object that this was a relevant summary of research in 2000, as research on the lynx was exceptionally limited in 2000 and no net gain was temporarily relied on for management of these areas.   The Organizations believe that research in 2000 on this issue was more aptly summarized as identifying the numerous gaps in research rather than a scientifically based management plan.  As these gaps in research were resolved, new management guidelines were periodically released for management of lynx habitat and as a result the 2000 LCAS has been superseded by the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendments in 2008 and the 2013 release of the updated Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, which was signed and developed in partnership with the USFS. These management documents have clearly moved away from the “no net gain” standard and towards a truly science based management structure.  The 2013 LCAS specifically addresses new research on many recreational issues as follows:

  • The 2013 LCAS specifically and clearly superseded all previous planning documents and clearly states that the 2013 LCAS is now the definitive planning document for lynx issues in federal land planning; [14]
  • 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; [15]
  • 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; [16]
  • Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;[17]
  • There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; [18]
  • Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;[19]
  • Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; [20]
  • 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 [21]
  • 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.[22]

The Organizations believe that the conflict between the 2000 LCAS relied on in the Winter Wildlands brochure and accurate up to date management standards clearly provided in the 2013 LCAS is immediately apparent, and the Organizations would be remiss in not addressing this conflict to prevent reliance on badly out of date information and research. Given that the WWA/Switalski document was not released until 2 years after the release of the 2013 LCAS, the Organizations submit there was more than enough time to provide accurate information in the WWA/Switalski survey. The Organizations submit that the failure to reflect best available science on the lynx casts a shadow over the reliability of the entire document.

Since the release of the 2013 LCAS, Colorado Parks and Wildlife  has also explicitly addressed Canadian Lynx issues in Colorado, which have resulted from the successful reintroduction efforts of the lynx in Colorado 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.”[23]

Given these clear statements from both Federal and State species management experts that OSV 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 would benefit the Canadian Lynx would be inaccurate and conflicting with best available science.

The Organizations believe that a comparison of the Wolverine management standards from the USFWS and the WWA brochure again provides evidence of the lack of scientific basis for much of the WWA brochure.  The WWA brochure summarizes Wolverine management standards as follows:

“Key management schemes for protecting wolverine include limiting disturbance and retaining and restoring habitat connectivity. Managers can reduce the potential conflict with snowmobiles and wolverine by identifying areas of overlap and managing accordingly.”[24]

This management position simply cannot be reconciled with recent USFWS  listing decisions regarding the Wolverine that convey a very different standard for the management of recreational activities in Wolverine habitat. USFWS management specifically states:

“there should be no changes to forest management as the result of an area being designated as habitat”.[25]

While there was concern regarding the climate change being identified as the primary threat to the Wolverine in the most recent listing decision that ended in determination that the Wolverine was not warranted for listing as threatened or endangered,  no concerns were registered regarding the accuracy of these management position that was taken with regard to general forest management standards.  Given the clarity of these USFWS statements, the Organizations again are concerned that best available science has not been relied on for the development of the WWA brochure.

The Organizations are very concerned that the WWA/Switalski document was heavily relied on for the development of other portions of the Proposal as well as often the Switaski document is cited as authoritative on issues, such as possible concerns about subnivean activity from OSV travel.[26]   The Organizations would note that the WWA/Switalski document is not research but rather is a summary of research and never mentions subnivean impacts.  Any actual planning should be relying on actual research rather than an interpretation of that study, as this is a significant difference.

The Organizations would note that subnivean activity might be a concern in areas with exceptionally minimal snowfall.  The ACSA facts and myths book provides a detailed review of research that repeatedly concludes there is no relationship between OSV travel and subnivean activity or impacts to small plants, in areas This is simply not the case in the Hermosa area where dozens of feet of snow are not uncommon and often snowfall holds in many areas throughout the year or at least well into the summer.  The Organizations would note that subnivean impacts might be an issue in certain parts of the country, but the Hermosa watershed simply is not one of these areas due to the exceptional snowfall commonly found in the area.

9. White Tailed Ptarmigan populations are stable in areas with OSV usage.

The Organizations are also aware that concerns were raised regarding potential negative impacts to White Tailed Ptarmigan possibly in the Hermosa  area as the Ptarmigan status is since 2012 is “Under Review” with  the US Fish and Wildlife Service for possible listing , which is a surprising concern for the species as the Ptarmigan remains an actively hunted species in Colorado.

The USFWS specifically concluded in their 2012 determination to review the status of the White Tailed/ Southern Ptarmigan for possible listing on the Endangered Species list that :

“This finding is based on information provided under factors A and E. The information provided in the petition and available in our files under factors B, C, and D is not substantial. During the status review, we will fully address the cumulative effects of threats discussed under each factor.”[27]

Given that recreational usage is specifically identified as factor B in the USFWS analysis, the Organizations fail to understand how a lack of information could be relied on as the best scientific information available for the basis of closing the area.

In the 2015 Colorado Parks and Wildlife State Wildlife Action Plan, CPW experts on the Ptarmigan also specifically concluded as follows:

“In response to the petition to list the WTPT under the ESA, CPW conducted statewide occupancy surveys to develop a baseline distribution of the WTPT. These surveys demonstrated that WTPT are widely dispersed across the state in suitable habitats, with little change from historic distributions.”[28]

Other recognized experts have made similar conclusions regarding the human/Ptarmigan relationship as follows:

“There is little evidence of population fluctuations in Washington due to human related activities, although overgrazing by domestic sheep may be a problem in some areas. ” [29]

Given these exceptionally clear statements that recreational and other human activities are not negatively impacting Ptarmigan populations, the Organizations must question how best available science could be relied on to create a management position that closures of an area to OSV/OHV  travel were necessary to protect Ptarmigan populations in the area. Such a proposal simply could not be reconciled with best available science regarding the threats to the Ptarmigan species.

10. Conclusion.

Please accept this correspondence as the vigorous support of the above Organizations for Alternative 3 of the Hermosa  Watershed Management Plan (“The Proposal”), which  would improve multiple use opportunities to a greatest extent in the Hermosa planning area.  While the additional single track (Dutch/Pinkerton) and side by side trails (Pasture Creek) may be short in terms of mileage, these routes would be highly valued by the OHV community and would add significant quality to the existing opportunities in the Hermosa Planning area. The loop opportunities provided by these new routes would dramatically improve recreational opportunities in the planning area.  The Organizations have major concerns regarding the preferred Alternative as a result of the new “No Net Gain” standard that would be applied to trails in the Proposal area.  The Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative 4 of the Proposal, due to the numerous conflicts with the intent of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation and numerous closures proposed.  The Organizations are also concerned that Alternative 4 provides for expanded quiet use opportunities in the SMA area, without addressing that the Legislation provided expanded quiet recreational opportunities in the new Wilderness areas designated, which was vigorously supported by the representatives of quiet users over the numerous years needed for development of the Legislation.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones 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 correspondence or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

[1] See, Hermosa Legislation @ §3(B)(5)(iv)(I) identified on page A-3 of Proposal.

[2] See, US Dept. of Agriculture; 36 CFR Part 294;Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Rule; Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35976 at pg 39580VerDate

[3]  A complete copy of this map is available for download and further review at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5366311.pdf

[4] See; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; Nov 2010 at pg 6.

[5]  US Park Service; White and Davis; Wildlife response to motorized recreation in the Yellowstone Park; 2005 annual report; at pg 15.

[6]  See, Proposal at p 184.

[7] See, Winter Wildlands Alliance website at http://winterwildlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BMP-Final.pdf

[8] See, WWA booklet at pg 7.

[9] See, ACSA Fact and Myths book at pg 7&8.

[10] See, WWA brochure at pg 12.

[11] See,  Robert C. Musselman & John L. Korfmacher; USFS Air Quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow chemistry on and off trail in a rocky mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range Wyoming. 2007 at 332

[12] See, Musselman at 333.

[13] See, WWA Booklet at pg 11.

[14] 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 at pg 1. (Hereinafter referred to as the 2013 LCAS)

[15] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[16] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[17] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 95.

[18] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

[19] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[20] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

[21] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[22] See, 2013 LCAS at pg 91.

[23] See, 2015 CPW State Wildlife Action Plan at pg 173.

[24] See, WWA Booklet at pg 11.

[25]  USFWS summary fact sheet available here http://www.fws.gov/idaho/Wolverine/WolverineProposed4dRule031113.pdf

[26] See Proposal at pg 137.

[27] See, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Southern White- Tailed Ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan as Threatened With Critical Habitat Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 108 /Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at pg 33155

[28]  See, CPW   COLORADO DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE REPORT  WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES December 2012  – Full Report – at pg 3

[29] See, Schroeder; Birds of Washington: Status and Distribution (2015) at pg 68.

Continue Reading