Archive | September, 2019

Carson National Forest Plan Revision

Plan Revision Team
Carson National Forest 208 Cruz Alta Rd.
Taos, NM 87571

RE: Carson National Forest Plan Revision

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this document as the comment to the Carson National Forest Plan Revision Project on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”). The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding and multi-use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multi-use recreational opportunities. TPA have participated throughout the development of the Carson NF plan revision including supplying extensive comments in the assessment development process, active participation in public meetings and extensive comments regarding the initial draft plan that proposed the closures and corridors around the CDNST.

Areas of the CDSNT outside existing Wilderness provide significant recreational opportunities directly and connectivity of opportunities for the recreational community for areas beyond the mile-wide corridor now proposed. As a result, we would like to see detailed analysis of expected costs and burdens to be shouldered as a result of these changes and areas outside the mile-wide corridor that access would be lost to as a result of the new regulations. Unfortunately, the impacts of restricting access to hike and horse access only and closure of 1 mile corridors are not even recognized in the RMP or associated analysis in any manner. We are simply unable to identify any analysis of miles of trails closed or access lost on areas adjacent to the trail. TPA recently conducted a trail training in partnership with the Salida Ranger District and one of the breakout discussions at this event was the management of the Monarch Crest Trail on the Salida Ranger District. This discussion is highly relevant as we discussed the huge success of the new trail signage around the multiple use nature of the Monarch Crest Trail that was developed with the Central Colorado Mountain Trail Riders for the Monarch Crest Trail, which is exemplified as follows:

Example of new trail signage around the multiple use nature of the Monarch Crest Trail that was developed with the Central Colorado Mountain Trail Riders for the Monarch Crest Trail

The lack of factual basis for any assertion that the Monarch Crest/CDT must be managed only to provide hiking and horseback opportunities is immediately clear when compared to this signage which was consistently identified as hugely effective and many land managers sought to have expanded on to their districts as the signage specifically identifies the CDT trail on the bottom of the sign. It should be noted that the San Isabel NF is clearly identified at the bottom of these signs and a significant portion of the monarch pass area is managed in the planning effort for the Carson NF. Any assertion that one Ranger District could interpret the NTSA such completely opposing legal manners is simply without basis. Even the basic assertion of such authority would directly undermine the partnerships that have been developed between users and land managers and again points to the folly of any assertion that the CDT is to be managed for only hiking and horseback usage as the CDT and Monarch Crest Trail are one in the same for long distances in Colorado.

1. The National Trails System Act mandates the Continental Divide Trail segments and corridor be governed by multiple use principals.

TPA first comment addressed the numerous standards in the Carson NF RMP which result in mile wide exclusionary corridors being developed around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDNST”) and the mandatory exclusion of motorized vehicles from all segments of the CDNST on the naked assertion that the CDNST is only designated for hiking and horseback usage by Congress in the Proposal. These are entirely new standards for CDNST management on the Carson NF, as the current version of the RMP for the Carson provides no specific management direction for the CDNST or any areas adjacent to the trail. These provisions directly conflict with the mandate of the National Trail System Act (“NTSA”) for management of scenic trails and the CDNST on a segment by segment basis. The fact that Congress inserted numerous specific provisions of the NTSA to address the extensive management issues that were identified in the analysis and designation of routes for the CDNST and that these amendments took an NTSA program that addressed only 3 trails in 1983 to now expanding to include more than 30 trails across the nation once initial challenges were reduced and removed with the amendments.

Prior to addressing the specific provisions of the CDNST in the CNF, TPA submit that a review of the standard of review for statutory applications to various situations is warranted. In 1850, the US Supreme Court stated the following foundational concept of statutory interpretation as follows:

“In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”1

The US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this basic tenant of statutory construction as follows:

“Statutory construction … is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”2

TPA urge the USFS to look at the entirety of the NTSA, recognize the application of the multiple use mandates on a segment by segment basis as required by the NTSA rather than apply blanket management standard that have been previously avoided by Congress. Managers are required to develop management provisions that reflect the variety of the NTSA segment specific standards rather than seeking to apply one small portion of one provision of the NTSA in a manner that would render the rest of the NTSA irrelevant. This interpretation is a direct violation of the NTSA and basic canons of statutory interpretation that have been applied consistently for hundreds of years by US Courts. Additionally, only Congress has the authority and scope of review to balance management standards for the management of any NTSA route with desires of states and municipalities to designate similar trails in areas outside of USFS management.

A complete review of the history of the CDNST and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDNST and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDNST is necessary in order to establish the long history of Congressional action around the CDNST. Congress has provided extensive analysis and discussion of why the CDNST is managed in the manner it is and why management changes were undertaken as a result of the conflict around management of other Congressionally designated trails. In addition to the conflicts around existing NTSA routes, costs around routes existing NTSA routes were skyrocketing when the CDNST was designated and these costs were a significant barrier to the designation of additional routes beyond the CDNST. It also cannot be overlooked that these amendments have resulted in an NTSA program that started with only 3 routes designated in the first 15 years to more than 30 routes being designated in the subsequent years.

A review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”) and subsequent amendments is relevant and is discussed in great length in bill memos associated with the Legislation and Congressional reports created the initial designation of the CDNST. These concerns can be summarized by the fact that the CDNST may be a National Scenic Trail but Congress has clearly stated it is different than other scenic trails. Additionally, after designation of the CDNST in 1978, the NTSA was completely rewritten to allow for more usages allowed on NTSA routes due to significant conflicts and expanding costs. Not only did this amendment reduce costs but also allowed NTSA routes to be designated in numerous other areas of the country.

Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time on the CNF. Many of the conflicts, such as significant costs and extensive conflicts from restrictive trail management and existing multiple uses have been extensive concerns that caused Congress to significantly revise the NTSA on multiple occasions. As Congress has specifically stated a desire to avoid conflicts of usages and minimize costs with any NTSA route, these are significant concerns for CNF planners, who seek to return to previous management standards that Congress has already identified as unacceptable for NTSA routes.

Given the CDNST is a Congressionally designated route, Congressional requirements for its management and the intent of Congress in their efforts is critically important to the scope of allowed and prohibited on particular segments of trail. Since 1968, NTSA specifically identifies that all segments of the National Trails System shall be managed as follows:

“Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”3

Congress clearly had the opportunity to manage NTSA routes under a single management standard, such as “horse or hike only” and specifically chose not to require such management but rather specifically provides that management must be harmonized with existing multiple use goals and objectives for the areas. As discussed in later portions of this comment, Congress has provided great deal of documentation regarding why the NTSA has been framed in the manner it is currently in. The NTSA also specifically identifies that all national scenic trails shall be managed as follows:

(2) National scenic trails, established as provided in section 1244 of this title, which will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.”4

As the CDNST is a National Scenic Trail, Congress has specified that all national scenic trails be managed to provide for the maximum outdoor recreational potential. This Congressional intent for this amendment was clarified in 1983 with the addition of NTSA subsection j which specifically permits multiple uses of all NTSA routes as follows:

(j) Types of trail use allowed
Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”5‌

When subsection j was added to §7 of the NTSA in 1983 generally allowing a wide range of uses on all routes identified under any designation, Congress clearly stated the desire to permit multiple use of trails outside Congressionally designated Wilderness areas. This is clearly stated in the bill memo which provides as follows:

“A new subsection 7(j) is added to specify various types of potential uses which may be allowed on specific components of the National Trails System. The uses listed are not intended to be all inclusive, but to illustrate the wide range of recreation pursuits which may be served by various trails. While the new subsection would permit the appropriate secretaries to allow trail bikes and other off-the-road vehicles on portions of the National Trail System, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this provision gives authority to the secretaries to permit such uses where appropriate, but that it must also be exercised in keeping with those other provisions of the law that require the secretaries to protect the resources themselves and the users of the system.”6

The imposition of mandatory corridors not only directly conflicts with the letter of the NTSA, the intent of Congress but also conflicts with one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation as any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the CDNST be addressed on a segment by segment basis rather than forest or regional restrictions of usages.

When the evolution of the NTSA is reviewed in more detail, the reasoning for the various amendments provides a great deal of information and understanding around the current version of the NTSA, and the direct material conflict the current provisions of the Carson RMP provide to the explicit intent of Congress. The NTSA concept originated in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government with an order from President Johnson in 1966 which provides as follows:

“In April 1966 Secretary Udall requested the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to take the lead in a nationwide trails study. This assignment was made in response to President Johnson’s Natural Beauty Message of February 8, 1966, in which he called for development and protection of a balanced system of trails—in the Nation’s metropolitan areas as well as in the countryside—in cooperation with State and local governments and private interests. He called for such a trail system to help protect and enhance the total quality of the outdoor environment as well as to provide much needed opportunities for healthful outdoor recreation”7

In response to this Presidential Order, the 1966 “Trails for America” report was created and addressed the compelling need at the time to develop a motorized recreational trail network, providing as follows:

“There is a pressing need for places in which to ride bicycles safely. Recreational riding, bike hikes, youth hostel activities, bicycle clubs, and the like are becoming increasingly popular for all ages. The need is especially acute in urban areas. Similar growth is being experienced in horseback and trail scooter (trail bike) demand. The Breeders Gazette reports horse registrations are on the increase and the demand for quarter horses is growing. More than 5 million Americans were reported to be riding trail scooters or motorcycles in 1966.”8

The 1966 Trails for America Report continues to address motorized usage on National Trails as follows:

“Trail scooters designed for trail travel pose the greatest problem of incompatibility. Beginning about five years ago with the introduction of small, light, relatively inexpensive machines, the popularity of trail scooters has grown rapidly. A survey of trail scooter owners in 1962 revealed that the typical owner utilized the vehicle chiefly for Fishing and hunting or recreational riding. Trail scooters are prohibited on trails in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, as they are in wilderness and primitive areas of the National Forests. Forest Service regulations also prohibit motor vehicle use of National Forest trails where it may cause damage, harm other values, or constitute a safety hazard. Trail scooters are not permitted on the portions of the Appalachian Trail within National Forests. However, much trail mileage in National Forests is open to trail scooters. Reasonable restrictions on the weight, speed, and horsepower of trail scooters, and effective devices to reduce their noise and fire danger are advisable. Where special wild- land, wilderness, or wildlife values are involved, as in the National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas, and on the Appalachian Trail, the present exclusion of motor vehicles, including trail scooters, should remain.”9

The 1966 Trails for America Report makes the following management recommendations:

“Recommended Program. Federal land-managing agencies need to undertake farsighted recreation trail development if they are to meet adequately the growing public demand. Hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and trail scooter riding have increased substantially on many trails and are certain to accelerate in rate of growth in coming years. Abundant opportunities to build proper trails or rebuild old ones for recreation exist on most Federal lands.”10

While many may be surprised to see the concern about a lack of motorized opportunity on Federal Lands in this report, this was clearly a significant concern for both agency and legislative representatives when the Trails for America Report was prepared and explains why protecting a diversity of usages was a concern even when the NTSA was explored and adopted by Congress. At no point was the concept of a trail network for only horse and hiking usage even explored but rather what became the multiple use concept was always the goal of the process.

Congressional actions in response to President Johnson’s Order began in 1968 with the passage of the National Trails System Act, which designated the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest Trail and ordered a review of a trail running generally from Canada to Mexico along the Continental Divide of the United States.11 Extensive background information regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) and Senate Report 847 issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968. HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed. HRep 1631 provides as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”12

HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation. HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”13

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

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”14

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

“However, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”15

The Senate Report S847 prepared relative to the Senate version of the 1968 NTSA provides the clear Congressional desire to address multiple uses as follows:

“The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation points out that there is a pressing need for places in which to ride bicycles safely. Recreational riding, bike hikes, youth hostel activities, bicycle clubs, and the like are becoming increasingly popular for all ages. The need is especially acute in urban areas. Similar growth is being experienced in horseback and trail bike demand. Horse registrations are in the increase. More than 5 million Americans were reported to be riding trail scooters or motor-cycles in 1966.”16

The 1968 Congressional mandate for the CDNST route identification was completed with a report to Congress from the Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1977 and associated environmental impact statement. This analysis specifically addressed many of the challenges and possible impacts to other legal usages that were faced in simply laying out a route connecting the Mexico and Canada borders generally along the Continental Divide and recommended revisions of the NTSA. The report specifically states as follows:

“planners and this report recommend the inclusion of approximately 424 miles of existing primitive road rights-of-way in the proposed alignment of the Continental Divide Trail. Most are so primitive in nature that they would offer a recreational experience little different in quality from that where motorized vehicles are excluded. In some national forest areas, and in particular in Montana, these “roads” are no more than the two tracks created by the wheels of a rancher’s vehicle used occasionally to take salt, etc., to his stock summering in the forest. Such occasional vehicular use of the trail is provided for in the Act.

This report recommends a Continental Divide Trail routing that coincidentally uses primitive road rights-of-way such as along the east rim of the Great Divide Basin in Wyoming. The use of some 218 miles of lightly used road rights-of-way in the Basin was deemed to be justified because(1) the east rim was considered the best of two alternative routes, (2) the subject road rights-of-way are existing, (3) their use would be economical, (4) motorized use of these roads is very light and would have minimal adverse effect on hikers or horseback riders, and (5) the anticipated hiker-horseback use for this segment of trail is relatively small. This precedent is already well established on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Therefore, Congress may wish to specifically recognize such coincidental use in any legislation establishing the trail. This, of course, should be subject to the following: the trail managing agency must find that such use would not impair the values for which the trail was established; that such use would not pose damage to natural and environmental values; that such use would not constitute a safety hazard to hikers or horseback riders: that such use would be compatible with other management objectives for the areas; and finally, the Advisory Council to the trail should deem it appropriate.”17

In addition to laying out the basic route for the CDNST, the 1977 report discussed in great detail many of the challenges encountered in the management of the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails since their designation 10 years earlier. These concerns include the fact that costs associated with these trails had significantly exceeded expectations and the large amounts of conflict that had resulted from restrictive management of these routes and areas adjacent to these routes and the negative impacts to local economies from reduced usages adjacent to the routes. Possible impacts to multiple usages was discussed at a greater detail in the DEIS issued with the inventory of the CDNST in 1977 as part of the Congressionally mandated inventory and review of possible routes for the CDNST:

“In the 253-mile stretch of desert-like terrain lying between the Shoshone and Medicine Bow National Forests, a total 218 miles would be crossed on primitive roads. This is considered the most feasible and economic means to effect a continuous route in an area which promises to be a very lightly used segment of the overall trail.”18

Roads adjacent to the CDNST were also identified as a major access resource for the CDNST which the report clearly states as follows:

“In addition to major roaas9 the States, counties, and Federal land-managing agencies along the trail maintain an extensive system of lesser access and service roads crossing or closely paralleling the Divide. Together, these road systems, with the exception of wilderness and similar areas, provide frequent and easy access to the trail for the recreationist.”19

Not only were possible impacts to multiple uses on and around the trail a major topic of discussion in the creation of the 1977 Report and DEIS, this was a major concern for many of the groups that commented on the plan. Numerous comments from the public specifically addressed possible impacts to existing multiple use from the designations of the CDNST, as exemplified by comments from the Bureau of Land Management which were responded to as follows:

“Section 7(c) of the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543) directs that the use of motorized vehicles by the general public along national scenic trails will be prohibited. However, the proposed Continental Divide Trail legislation will amend this to allow motorized vehicles on roads designated as segments of the trail in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.” 20

The State of Wyoming provided comments regarding possible impacts to multiple use from designation of the CDNST, which were responded to as follows by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation:

“Response to the State of Wyoming

    1. The proposed trail is not reserved exclusively for horseback riders and hikers. However, use of motor vehicles on primitive road segments will be controlled by regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary. See responses 9 and 10 to the Bureau of Land Management.
    2. The National Trails System Act directs that the development and management of trail segments harmonize with and complement established multiple uses to insure continued maximum benefits from the land. However, there are administrative options which could forbid certain uses. See responses to numbers 1 and 3 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    3. The implementation of priorities has been established, as noted in the tables, map, and text. See pages 10 through 12.
    4. The proposed trail is an attempt to balance recreation and other resources by harmonizing with and complementing established multiple-use plans to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”21

In response to the report and extensive concerns around possible impacts to multiple usages identified in the initial Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Report and associated EIS and the desire to designate the CDNST, Congress added the CDNST to the NTSA list in 197822 with the following restrictions:

“(4) The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, a trail of approximately thirty- one hundred miles, extending from the Montana-Canada border to the New Mexico border, following the approximate route depicted on the map, identified as ‘Proposed Continental Divide National Scenic Trail’ in the Department of the Interior Continental Divide Trail Study Report dated August 1976. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trails shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7(c), the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.” 23

The second NTSA provision addressing multiple usage of segments of the CDNST provides as follows:

“Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.”24

TPA also do not contest that motorized usage of the CDNST is prohibited on other segments of the CDNST where specific Congressional action, such as Wilderness or Refuge designations, has precluded usage. NTSA provides guidance around the specific provisions for these segments as follows:

“The use of motorized vehicles by the general public along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the use of motorized vehicles within the natural and historical areas of the national park system, the national wildlife refuge system, the national wilderness preservation system where they are presently prohibited or on other Federal lands where trails are designated as being closed to such use by the appropriate Secretary:”25

In the bill memo provided with the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 that designated the CDNST, Legislators went into great detail in addressing the challenges that had been encountered with the development and protection of the Appalachian Trail since its designation in 1968:

“Unfortunately, these measures alone have not been enough to protect the trail. Over 600 miles of the trail remain in private lands and changes in ownership and increasing pressures for development pose threats to the continuity of the trail in numerous instances. Almost 200 additional miles of trail are now located along roads, providing no real hiking experience, but only a link between disconnected segments of the trail. Some of these miles of road designation are the result of the trail having been forced off an area of land due to a change in ownership.”26

Clearly these discussions were an indication that the initial NTSA vision might not have been implementable and trouble was on the horizon for the NTSA concept more generally. This bill memo also starts to outline concerns about the restrictive nature of the Appalachian Trail goals in particular and explores new management direction for the Appalachian Trail and adjacent areas, as eminent domain of the trail footprint and adjacent areas was proving expensive and controversial. This new direction for the management of NTSA routes expanded partnerships and reduced federal involvement in acquisition of private lands. The memo provides this significant change in management direction as follows:

“In the testimony supporting the enactment of HR 8803, Assistant Secretary of Interior Robert Herbst commented on the partnership that is required for the Appalachian Trail. The committee fully agrees with this approach. Federal and continuing State acquisition efforts can insure the protection of the trail corridor itself, particularly with the ongoing assistance of private donations and cooperative agreements by other interested parties. This role of the volunteer in the Appalachian Trail must eb continued and enhanced. For 50 years, the dedicated efforts of a great many individuals have made the trail viable. The committee intends the future administration of the trail will continue to emphasize this partnership”27

Given the challenges that were being faced in the creation of the Appalachian Trail, Congress undertook to significantly expand the scope of agency authority around creation of the Appalachian Trail. The additional funding provided was almost $90 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the next three years. 28 In 1978 this was a significant amount of funding and as discussed in Congressional documentation subsequently, this level of funding was becoming concerning to Congress.

The specific inclusion of multiple uses on the CDNST by Congress when the CDNST was in response to the concerns voiced in the 1977 CDNST report and EIS and management problems that were being encountered in the management of the two trails designated prior to 1977. Unfortunately, the 1978 revisions to the NTSA did not resolve conflict around and complications from designation of routes and the NTSA was again significantly revised by Congress in 1983. While the 1983 amendments did designate numerous new NTSA routes throughout the country, which represented the largest single expansion of the program by Congress, the concept of restrictive trail corridors was also removed. The reasoning for this removal was outlined in the bill memo for the 1983 revision as follows:

“The 94th Congress conducted oversight hearings on the act, and also enacted legislation designating additional routes for study under the act…. Concerns were also expressed that numerous trail routes being studied did not lend themselves to the national scenic trail designation but had significant historical values….The hearings and related discussions during these recent sessions of congress brought forth several points from the trails community and agency professionals also responsible for the implementation of National Trails System Act in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. There was a consensus that the diverse needs of various types of trail users could not be met by federal agencies alone. Volunteer efforts by interested trail users themselves, working in concert with various levels of government, have been highly effective in expanding trail recreation opportunities at low cost. Finally, with a decade of experience under the 1968 act to draw upon, there was a sense that a number of adjustments to the act could be made to enhance the ability to advance trail recreation programs in a variety of ways:”29

The need to address basic concerns over the spiraling costs of the 1968 vision for the NTSA was also addressed in great detail in Congressional proceedings around the 1983 amendments as follows:

“Following additional hearings in 1981, the House committee recommended a revised text which eliminated most of the items which could require future federal expenditures. The house-amended text was also more cautious in designating any additional components of the National Trails System, deleting several proposed national historic trails in order to permit additional review by the Department of the Interior. Additional recommendations reflected continuing efforts to encourage the expansion of trail recreation opportunities across the Nation at low cost. H.R. 861 placed a greater reliance on citizen participation than ever before to accomplish the purpose of the National Trails System Act of 1968.”30

The 1983 Amendments also provided a significant change in the scope of all National Scenic Trails, which is outlined as follows in the bill memo:

“Section 203 amends section 3 of the act to clarify the term ‘national scenic trails,’ as defined in the act, so that it will apply to trails which can be developed in a wide variety of land forms. This underscores the opportunity to consider the designation of such trails throughout the many different physiographic regions of the Nation.”31

The 1983 NTSA revision included the addition of subsection j of §1246, further clarifying the diverse nature of trails usage now permitted on segments of all NTSA routes. As previously noted, subsection j provides as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed
Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”32

When subsection j was added to §7 of the NTSA in 1983 generally allowing a wide range of uses on all routes identified under any designation, Congress clearly stated the desire to permit multiple use of trails outside Congressionally designated Wilderness areas. This is clearly stated in the bill memo which provides as follows:

“A new subsection 7(j) is added to specify various types of potential uses which may be allowed on specific components of the National Trails System. The uses listed are not intended to be all inclusive, but to illustrate the wide range of recreation pursuits which may be served by various trails. While the new subsection would permit the appropriate secretaries to allow trail bikes and other off-the-road vehicles on portions of the National Trail System, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this provision gives authority to the secretaries to permit such uses where appropriate, but that it must also be exercised in keeping with those other provisions of the law that require the secretaries to protect the resources themselves and the users of the system.”33

In addition to the significant expansion of usages permitted on and around an NTSA route, the 1983 amendments also significantly restricted the acquisition of new lands for the designation of new routes as Congress had consistently identified concerns over the usage of eminent domain and condemnation powers for the acquisition of trail routes. The conflict that was resulting from these costs and conflicts permeates all documentation in this timeframe. This is discussed as follows:

“No lands outside of these existing areas may be directly acquired by the federal government for the trail. The secretary may designate other areas as segments of the trail only upon application from an appropriate state or local agency, and only if such segments meet the criteria in the act and are to be administered without direct expense to the federal government.”34

The relationship of these significant Congressional changes to controversial provisions of the NTSA in 1983 to the explosion of the number of designated routes for the NTSA cannot be overlooked. In 1983 Congress designated three new additional routes to the NTSA which are the Potomac Heritage scenic trail, the Natchez Trace Scenic Trail and Florida Scenic trail. These designations doubled the number of routes designated since 1968. In addition to doubling the number of routes designated since 1968, Congress authorized the study of 6 more trails for possible designation in the future. This single piece of legislation quadrupled the number of routes designated in addition to significantly altering the direction of the NTSA. These are concerns that the USFS is simply not suited to make due to the large amounts of concerns and impacts that are outside the USFS scope of management, but are Congressional concerns that are entirely applicable to USFS management decisions.

The imposition of mandatory corridors and restricting usage of the CDNST on the CNF to only “hiking and horseback usage” not only directly conflicts with the letter of the NTSA, the intent of Congress but also conflicts with one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation as any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the CDNST be addressed on a segment by segment basis rather than forest or regional restrictions of usages. The mile wide corridor that is being designated is exactly the type of concern around the designation of adjacent areas which congress clearly found was restricting expansion of the NTSA program due to conflicts with future designations.

The fact that Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic. This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. TPA vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

The Carson NF makes the following assumption in planning:

Recreation opportunity spectrum classes may vary considerably depending on the alignment of the trail and its proximity to roads. However, trails are primarily non- motorized and most often classified as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized or Primitive.35

Again, TPA vigorously oppose the complete lack of analysis around this type of a corridor as clearly these impacts have not been reviewed in any manner in the EIS and represent a direct violation of the NTSA, as more completely outlined below. TPA also submit these type of arbitrary management standards in an RMP are exactly the type of standards that make any future site-specific planning more expensive and difficult as planners are simply unable to address the management concern that resulted in these management standards.

Again, the conflict of the Carson RMP provisions restricting all CDNST usage to “hiking and horseback” usage directly conflicts with these provisions of the NTSA requiring segment be segment management. At no point in the Carson RMP is there any analysis provided of areas that might or might not have been open to multiple use access at any time in the past or impacts that might occur as a result of this decision for access to other areas of the CNF. Additionally, no analysis is provided to support how the management direction of the CDNST has been moved from maximum outdoor recreational potential to being managed only for horseback and hiking usage.

2.  NEPA range of Alternatives for CDNST management on the CNF is inadequate

Providing an accurate and reasonable range of alternatives to the public as part of the NEPA process is a critical component of the NEPA process. The rational decision-making process of NEPA is compromised when agencies consider only a limited range of alternatives to their proposed projects.36 When reviewing ranges of alternatives provided in a NEPA analysis, the courts have consistently held:

“The alternative section is ‘the heart of the environmental impact statement,’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.14; hence, ‘[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.”37

When determining if an EIS has provided a satisfactory range of alternatives, courts have held the proper standard of comparison is to compare the purpose and intent of the EIS to the range of Alternatives provided. The courts have consistently held:

“[E]nsure that federal agencies have sufficiently detailed information to decide whether to proceed with an action in light of potential environmental consequences, and [to] provide the public with information on the environmental impact of a proposed action and encourage public participation in the development of that information.” 38

With regard to the CNF RMP, and the proposed management of the CDNST, Congress has specifically provided the authority to the Secretary to relocate the footprint of the CDNST to other locations to protect multiple uses. The NTSA specifically states this as follows:

“(b) Relocation of segment of national, scenic or historic, trail right-of-way; determination of necessity with official having jurisdiction; necessity for Act of Congress

After publication of notice of the availability of appropriate maps or descriptions in the Federal Register, the Secretary charged with the administration of a national scenic or national historic trail may relocate segments of a national scenic or national historic trail right-of-way, with the concurrence of the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the lands involved, upon a determination that:

(i) such a relocation is necessary to preserve the purposes for which the trail was established, or
(ii) the relocation is necessary to promote a sound land management program in accordance with established multiple-use principles:”39

At no point in the RMP development process is there any discussion or analysis provided around the possible relocation of the CNDST on the CNF to protect multiple uses despite specific Congressional designations of such authority. There can be no legal argument that a sufficient range of alternatives has been provided to the public around the CDNST management as this provision of statutory authority has not been explored in any manner.

3. Carson RMP conflicts with CDNST plan

The Carson RMP provides for a single use standard that excludes all motorized usage both on the trail and in areas adjacent to the trail. This directly conflicts with the CDNST Comprehensive plan that motorized usage must be managed in accordance with adjacent land management standards. The CDNST plan then provides 15 pages of detailed discussion on how motorized access relates to visual resource management standards, recreational opportunity spectrum goals and objectives and even rise to the levels of providing clear guidance on how many crossings of the CDNST may occur for motorized usages in the several categories of ROS management. 40

The CDNST comprehensive Management clearly identifies the relationship of the CDNST to existing motorized usage, which is as follows:

“In 1997, memorandum from the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service to Regional Foresters clarifies the Forest Service’s intent with respect to motor vehicle use on newly constructed CDNST trail segments. In addition, this memorandum identifies the importance of understanding the nature and purposes of the CDNST in establishing direction governing its development and management:

As the CDNST is further developed, it is expected that the trail will eventually be relocated off of roads for its entire length. The memorandum further states: It is the intent of the Forest Service that the CDNST will be for non-motorized recreation Allowing motorized use on these newly constructed trail segments would substantially interfere with the nature and purpose of the CDNST.”41

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

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”42

While the CDNST plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDNST plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDNST the 1977 Continental Divide report specifically reports as follows:

“The lands below timberline, again exclusive of national forest wilderness and primitive areas or national park lands, are mostly forested and include about 1,400 miles of trail route. Approximately 1,100 miles of this forested trail route is within national forests and managed under the multiple-use sustained yield concept.”43

Motorized Trail usages of the CNF and CDNST corridor are critically important to motorized usage as significant portions of the CDNST are available to the motorized community for the benefit of all users. Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage the CDNST plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDNST, providing as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and:

    1. Is necessary to meet emergencies;
    2. Is necessary to enable adjacent landowners or those with valid outstanding rights to have reasonable access to their lands or rights;
    3. Is for the purpose of allowing private landowners who have agreed to include their lands in the CDNST by cooperative agreement to use or cross those lands or adjacent lands from time to time in accordance with Federal regulations;
    4. Is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST;
    5. Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:
      1. The vehicle class and width were allowed on that segment of the CDNST prior to November 10, 1978, and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST or
      2. That segment of the CDNST was constructed as a road prior to November 10, 1978; or
    6. In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”44

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

TPA must clearly and vigorously state that any proposed exclusionary corridor/crossing point around the CDT on the GMUG for the benefit of one user group over others, in name or function, would be a direct violation of the NTSA provisions mandating management of the trail area be in harmony with adjacent multiple uses of federal lands. The conflict with the CDT plan and basic assumptions in the Proposal is further evidenced by the fact the CDT plan specially identifies how ROS management should relate to CDT management providing as follows:

 

Table showing the relationship of ROS classes and the scenic integrity/visual resource management (BLM) Objectives45

TPA is simply unable to understand why the chart above would not be cut and pasted in the Proposal for management of the CDT. In addition to the above ROS chart, the CDT plan provides great detail regarding the relationship of various uses to each other and the expertly level of interaction between uses across the ROS spectrum. Again, TPA is unable to understand why CDT management would be addressed in any other way than simply stating the CDT will be managed in accordance with the CDT plan.

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

4a. NTSA specifically requires management maximizing of economic benefits of the trail and adjacent areas.

The CNF RMP restriction of usage of the CDNST to hike and horse usage also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective. In addition to general NEPA requirements of economic analysis, a cost/benefit analysis is also specifically mandated by §1244 of the NTSA. This analysis simply has not been provided in any manner. An accurate cost benefit analysis is more critical given the extensive concerns previously raised by Congress regarding costs with restricting management of NTSA routes. Congress has also expressed significant reservations around possible negative impacts to multiple uses from restrictive NTSA management in addition to the economic analysis being a critical component of the EIS process. This made even more complex by the fact that the CDNST runs through a wide range of lands on the CNF, including public and private lands. As previously discussed, Congress specifically chose a larger and more diverse NTSA system with the 1983 amendments, and since these amendments the NTSA system has expanded from 3 routes to more than 30 routes throughout the country. A possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA. This proposition is made even more critical and difficult given the previous Congressional determinations that costs were unacceptable around implementation of these management goals.

The NTSA guidance is clear on issues involving equity and usage of NTSA routes and the need to balance multiple usage based on these factors based on economic returns associated with the management of the route. The NTSA explicitly provides as follows:

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”46

What is deeply concerning is there is only a single alternative provided for CDNST management in the CNFRMP. While the CNF has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, the CDNST is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDNST on an annual basis. 47 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDNST at state or forest levels. TPA can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

Recent data from the Dept of Commerce specifically addressed the overwhelming economic that motorized usage is in the recreation arena. The draft analysis of outdoor recreations economic impact in 2016 from the Department of Commerce provided the following details: 48

Graph showing Gross Ouput for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

The final report from the Department of Commerce regarding the comparative spending profiles of the recreational community provides the following information: 49

Graph showing Real Gross Output for the largets Core Outdoor recreation activities 2016

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process. Given the fact that significant portions of the CDNST are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information. It has been TPA experience that often-comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain. The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring process and those conclusions are as follows:

Table showing Visitor spending per activity 200750

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

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

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

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

4b. Mandatory cost benefit analysis of CDNST management have not been provided despite Congressional concerns about costs and conflicts being specifically expressed previously regarding management now proposed.

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

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”51

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, TPA is very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community. Similar concerns have been previously noted by Congress around the amendments to the NTSA over its lifespan.

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

5. The range of alternatives in NEPA analysis of management alternatives made around NTSA routes is woefully inadequate.

As previously noted in this Comment, the CDNST covers miles of terrain in the CNF and all of these miles and adjacent mile wide corridor are to be managed for hiking and horseback usage only. No variation on these standards is provided in any alternative of the proposal despite specific NEPA regulations requiring detailed statement of high-quality information of all realistic management alternatives for an issue.

A brief review of NEPA requirements provided in regulation, various implementation guides and relevant court rulings is warranted to allow for comparison of analysis provided in the RMP and the proper standard. It is well established that NEPA regulations require an EIS to provide all information under the following standards:

“… It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses “52

The regulations included the development of the Council of Environmental Quality, which expands upon the detailed statement theory for planning purposes.

“You must describe the proposed action and alternatives considered, if any (40 CFR 1508.9(b)) (see sections 6.5, Proposed Action and 6.6, Alternative Development). Illustrations and maps can be used to help describe the proposed action and alternatives.”53

These regulations clearly state the need for the quality information being provided as part of this relationship as follows:

“The CEQ regulations require NEPA documents to be “concise, clear, and to the point” (40 CFR 1500.2(b), 1502.4). Analyses must “focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives” and be useful to the decision-maker and the public (40 CFR 1500.1). Discussions of impacts are to be proportionate to their significance (40 CFR 1502.2(b)).” 54

TPA believe this full and fair discussion of many issues has not been provided in the RMP, despite the size of the RMP and associated documents. As more specifically addressed in previous sections of the comments, the range of alternatives for multiple use access to the CDNST and mile wide corridor is simply non-existent. Basic questions such as how were corridor widths determined and how does the corridor width mandated relate to topographic features on the ground to more fully understand possible negative impacts and management implications moving forward.

TPA believe the association of impacts from changes proposed to the management issue that is the basis is a critical component in developing public comments and involvement as frequently members of the public do not have sufficient time, resources or understanding to make these connections. These concerns are summarized in the NEPA regulations which clearly provide the reason for the need for high quality information to be provided in the NEPA process. NEPA regulations provide as follows:

“(b) NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.55

The NEPA regulations clearly state the general standards for analysis of issues in an EIS as follows:

“Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions.”56

TPA believe a brief summary of the standards that are applied by Courts reviewing agency NEPA analysis is relevant to this discussion as the courts have consistently directly applied the NEP regulations to EIS review. Relevant court rulings have concluded:

“an EIS serves two functions. First, it ensures that agencies take a hard look at the environmental effects of proposed projects. Second, it ensures that relevant information regarding proposed projects is available to members of the public so that they may play a role in the decision-making process. “57

As previously addressed in this Comments, public involvement simply has not been stimulated and a hard look has not been performed. The high levels of frustration expressed from the public in response to the release of the RMP speaks volumes to the quality of information provided and the ability of the public to comment on the information.

6. Conclusions

The CNF must amend basic planning assumptions to align planning decisions with the Congressional analysis that has been provided relative to the management of the CDNST.

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

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

Supporting Documents:

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT House Report #1631 1968

Legislative History of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

National Trails System House Report #95-734 1978

House Report #98-28 1983

Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado Report 2016

 

 

1 See, United States v. Boisdoré’s Heirs, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113, 122 (1850).

2 See, Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990). For a more complete review of this issue please see, Congressional Research Services: Statutory Interpretation: General Principals and Recent Trends; September 24, 2014

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

4 See, 16 USC 1242 (a)(2).

5 See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

6 See, H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 6.

7 See, US Dept of Interior; Bureau of Recreation; Trails for America; Report on the Nationwide Trail Study; 1966 at pg. 3. (hereinafter referred to as the “Trails for America report”)

8 See, Trails for America Report at pg. 21.

9 See, Trails for America Report at pg. 29.

10 See, Trails for America Report at pg. 134.

11 See, Public Law 90-543 §5(c)(1)

12 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873. A complete copy of HRep 1631 has been enclosed as Exhibit “a”

13 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3861.

14 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.

15 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.

16 See, Senate Report with S847 at pg. 2.

17 See, Department of Interior; Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; Continental Divide Trail Study Report 1977 at pg. 17.

18 See, See, Department of Interior; Continental Divide Trail Report Final Environmental Impact Statement 1977 at pg. 3. Hereinafter referred to as the “CDNST FEIS”.‌

19 See, CDNST FEIS at pg.10.

20 See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 72.

21 See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 97.

22 See, Public Law 95-625 @§553. A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit ”B”.

23 See, 16 USC 1244 (a)(5).

24 See, 16 USC 1246(c).

25 See, 16 USC 1244.

26 See, House Report 95-734 95th Congress at pg. 3. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “C” of this comment.

27 See, House Report 95-734 95 Congress at pg. 3.

28 See, House Report 95-734 95 Congress at pg. 7.

29 See, H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 1. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “D”. Hereinafter referred to as “1983 House Report”.

30 See, 1983 House Report at pg. 2.

31 See, 1983 House Report at pg 2.

32 See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

33 See, H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 6. Hereinafter referred to as the “1983 report”

34 See, 1983 House Report at pg. 3.

35 See, USDA Forest Service; Carson NF draft RMP EIS at pg. 393.

36 See, James Allen; Does not provide a range of alternatives to satisfy NEPA…..NEPA Alternatives Analysis: The Evolving Exclusion of Remote and Speculative Alternatives; 2005 25 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 287.

37 Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F. 2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985).

38 Kunzman, 817 F. 2d at 492; see also Citizens for a Better Henderson, 768 F. 2d at 1056.

39 See, 16 USC 1246(b).

40 See, CDT Plan 2009 pgs. 16-26.

41 See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; September 2009 at pg. 3. Hereinafter referred to as the 2009 CDT Plan.

42 See, 2009 CDT Plan at pg. 19.

43 See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 37.

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

45 See, The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Plan; pg. 15

46 See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

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

49 A complete version of the Department of Commerce final research is available here:

https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/outdoor-recreation-satellite-account-updated-statistics-2012-2016

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

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

52 See, 40 CFR 1500.1

53 BLM Manual H-1790-1 – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – pg 78.

54 BLM Manual H-1790-1 – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – pg 4.

55 43 CFR 1500.1(b)

56 40 CFR 1502.1

57 Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman; (4th Circ 1996) 81 f3d 437 at pg 442; 42 ERC 1594, 26 Envtl. L. Rep 21276

Continue Reading

Congressional Western Caucus Comments

Comments of Scott Jones, Esq.

The motorized recreational community supports species management and a healthy and vibrant ecosystem where species thrive as this is woven into the recreation experience the motorized user often seeks. The Endangered Species Act has simply not kept up with changing times and too often the multiple use recreational interests are guilty until proven innocent for ESA purposes. Even when recreational usages have been proven innocent, reducing management restrictions or delisting is simply not a viable option in our experience.   Far too frequently Endangered Species concerns are raised by those that simply don’t like the conclusion of a NEPA planning process and the ESA is seen as a vehicle to address those issues.  Management closures to recreational access are often not related to science but rather a desire of land managers to appear to do something in response to a species based concerns and avoid litigation. In our experiences, listing of many species is based on a lack of science and when science is developed the ESA remains a barrier to multiple use.

After listing simply implementing change in species management is difficult as exemplified by our experiences with lynx management in Colorado. In 1997 Colorado Parks and Wildlife reintroduced the Canadian lynx in Colorado with a goal of a sustainable population of around 200 cats.  A year later the lynx was listed as threatened by the USFWS and initial analysis of lynx issues found a lack of science on most management concerns including recreation and management was highly speculative. Snow compaction was cited as a major concern around recreational activity in the winter and a major contributing factor to the decline of the species. The reintroduction of the lynx was declared a success in 2010 based on numerous goals and objectives being achieved, such as population now being in excess of 250 cats. Delisting has not been successful due to the fact the 2001 listing did not identify distinct population segments, but rather than the species as a whole and delisting just Colorado lynx would be classified as a distinct population segment. These types of barriers should not override the fact the species had fully recovered in Colorado.

Since the initial lynx conservation assessment, significant research has been undertaken and found that dispersed lower intensity recreational usages were not a priority threat to the lynx and much of this was supported by the motorized community.  These conclusions were formalized with an updated Conservation assessment and strategy in 2013. Even basic implementation of this document has proven almost impossible in the second round of forest planning that is now being undertaken.  Despite recognition in the LCAS that not all lynx habitat is the same in terms of quality and snow compaction is a natural process in the southern Rockies, we continue to see snow compaction remaining a management priority and all habitat being managed under a single standard.

Unfortunately, examples were recreational access is closed due to questionable science are all too common. After the USFS was sued regarding the Captain Jacks trail system outside Colorado Springs that was adjacent to Bear Creek that had genetically pure trout, the trail network was closed.  This story has a happy ending as we were able to reopen trails outside the watershed after several years of effort but the issue for us is the fact that the primary threat to genetically pure trout is the almost 1 BILLION fish that have been reintroduced into waterways that simply outperform the native species in every way. Will closing trails address this conflict?  We doubt it but closing trails is often the first line of defense for habitat and often coalitions like the Captain Jacks efforts are difficult to replicate.

While there are success stories where recreational access is returned to an area after concerns about ESA habitat are raised often this process is long and expensive and too often access is not returned. Those examples are simply too extensive to discuss with any detail. Based on our experiences the Endangered Species Act is simply out of date. We believe the proposed changes would be a significant step towards updating the Act and providing management that creates more benefit to the species and is more cost-effective.

Continue Reading

Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Objection

USDA Forest Service
Att: Objection Reviewing Officer
1617 Cole Blvd- Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

RE: Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Objection

Dear Objection Officer:

Please accept this document as the objection to the Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Project1 on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”).   The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding and multi-use recreation.  The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multi-use recreational opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 150,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of multi-use and off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.  Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA currently has 2,500 members.  CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.  TPA, CSA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

The Organizations have participated throughout the development of the Rio Grande NF plan revision including supplying extensive comments in the assessment development process, active participation in public meetings and extensive comments regarding the initial draft plan that proposed the closures and corridors around the CDNST. The exclusion of the public from access to a 170 mile corridor was met with significant public opposition.   This is the result of the fact that our estimates are that almost 50% of the 170 miles of CDNST are outside Congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness.

The Organizations concerns around the management of the CDNST are simply not abstract as we are a significant funding partner for the RGNF through the CPW OHV/OSV grant program, and as a result will probably be required to shoulder a significant portion of any implementation costs for exclusionary corridors and management of the CDNST. In addition to shouldering a significant portion of any new costs for management, areas of the CDSNT outside existing Wilderness provide significant recreational opportunities directly and connectivity of opportunities for the recreational community for areas beyond the mile-wide corridor now proposed.  As a result, we would like to see detailed analysis of expected costs and burdens to be shouldered as a result of these changes and areas outside the mile-wide corridor that access would be lost to as a result of the new regulations.

Unfortunately, the impacts of restricting access to hike and horse access only and closure of 1 mile corridors are not even recognized in the RMP or associated analysis in any manner.  We are simply unable to identify any analysis of miles of trails closed or access lost on areas adjacent to the trail.  The Organizations recently conducted a trail training in partnership with the Salida Ranger District and one of the breakout discussions at this event was the management of the Monarch Crest Trail on the Salida Ranger District. On many portions of the CDT, the trail footprint is collocated with numerous other resources such as the Monarch Crest Trail, Colorado Trail and Marshal Pass Road. This discussion is highly relevant as the Salida Ranger District of the PSI and districts on the GMUG directly about each other for long distances over highly visited terrain by all recreational users.

As part of the presentation, we discussed the huge success of the new trail signage around the multiple use nature of the Monarch Crest Trail that was developed with the Central Colorado Mountain Trail Riders for the Monarch Crest Trail, which is exemplified as follows:

Example of new trail signage around the multiple use nature of the Monarch Crest Trail that was developed with the Central Colorado Mountain Trail Riders for the Monarch Crest Trail

The lack of factual basis for any assertion that the Monarch Crest/CDT must be managed only to provide hiking and horseback opportunities is immediately clear when compared to this signage which was consistently identified as hugely effective and many land managers sought to have expanded on to their districts as the signage specifically identifies the CDT trail on the bottom of the sign.  It should be noted that the San Isabel NF is clearly identified at the bottom of these signs and a significant portion of the monarch pass area is managed in the planning effort for the Rio Grande NF. Any assertion that one Ranger District could interpret the NTSA such completely opposing legal manners is simply without basis. Even the basic assertion of such authority would directly undermine the partnerships that have been developed between  users and land managers and again points to the folly of any assertion that the CDT is to be managed for only hiking and horseback usage as the CDT and Monarch Crest Trail are one in the same for long distances in Colorado.

In addition to summer motorized impacts from exclusionary corridors and restrictions, OSV usage would essentially be closed on significant portions of the RGNF as the following maps represent portions of the RGNF that are groomed by local snowmobile clubs.  The Creede snowmobile club grooms extensive areas adjacent and overlapping the CDNST as follows:

The Creede snowmobile club grooms extensive areas adjacent and overlapping the CDNST shown on this map

The Lake City snowmobile club has provided grooming on an extensive trail grooming program for decades based in Lake City represented in the following map:

The Lake City snowmobile club has provided grooming on an extensive trail grooming program for decades based in Lake City represented in this map.

The South Fork Power busters based out of South Fork, Colorado and a longtime partner with the RGNF provide the following groomed OSV trail network for decades that is adjacent and overlapping the CDNST as follows:

The South Fork Power busters based out of South Fork, Colorado and a longtime partner with the RGNF provide the following groomed OSV trail network for decades that is adjacent and overlapping the CDNST on this map.

These groomed trail networks provide public access for all recreational activity not only on the trail corridor but also the tens of thousands of acres adjacent to the trail that have provided world class recreational opportunities for decades. At no point in these discussions have the Organizations seen any analysis of possible impacts to these trail networks from proposed closures due to restrictions on the CDNST footprint and adjacent corridors.

Our concerns around impacts to existing multiple use access are not limited to the Monarch Pass area, but also include Stony Pass, Wolf Creek Pass and so many other areas of the RGNF that the list is simply too long to list or reflect on trail maps.  Not only is the application of a mile wide close these hugely used OHV/OSV areas these management restrictions would also severe trails crossing these areas and result in significant lost opportunities to miles of trails outside the corridor.

Objection 1a. The National Trails System Act mandates the Continental Divide Trail segments and corridor be governed by multiple use principals.

The Organizations first objection addressed the numerous standards in the Rio Grande NF RMP which result in mile wide exclusionary corridors being developed around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDNST”) and the mandatory exclusion of motorized vehicles from all segments of the CDNST on the naked assertion that the CDNST is only designated for hiking and horseback usage by Congress in the Proposal. These are entirely new standards for CDNST management on the Rio Grande NF, as the current version of the RMP for the Rio Grande provides no specific management direction for the CDNST or any areas adjacent to the trail. These provisions directly conflict with the mandate of the National Trail System Act (“NTSA”) for management of scenic trails and the CDNST on a segment by segment basis.   The fact that Congress inserted numerous specific provisions of the NTSA to address the extensive management issues that were identified in the analysis and designation of routes for the CDNST and that these amendments took an NTSA program that addressed only 3 trails in 1983 to now expanding to include more than 30 trails across the nation once initial challenges were reduced and removed with the amendments.

Prior to addressing the specific provisions of the CDNST in the RGNF, the Organizations submit that a review of the standard of review for statutory applications to various situations is warranted.  In 1850, the US Supreme Court stated the following foundational concept of statutory interpretation as follows:

“In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”2

The US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this basic tenant of statutory construction as follows:

“Statutory construction … is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”[3]

The Organizations urge the USFS to look at the entirety of the NTSA, recognize the application of the multiple use mandates on a segment by segment basis as required by the NTSA rather than apply blanket management standard that have been previously avoided by Congress.  Managers are required to develop management provisions that reflect the variety of the NTSA segment specific standards rather than seeking to apply one small portion of one provision of the NTSA in a manner that would render the rest of the NTSA irrelevant.  This interpretation is a direct violation of the NTSA and basic canons of statutory interpretation that have been applied consistently for hundreds of years by US Courts.  Additionally only Congress has the authority and scope of review to balance management standards for the management of any NTSA route with desires of states and municipalities to designate similar trails in areas outside of USFS management.

A complete review of the history of the CDNST and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDNST and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDNST is necessary in order to establish the long history of Congressional action around the CDNST. Congress has provided extensive analysis and discussion of why the CDNST is managed in the manner it is and why management changes were undertaken as a result of the conflict around management of other Congressionally designated trails.  In addition to the conflicts around existing NTSA routes, costs around routes existing NTSA routes were skyrocketing when the CDNST was designated and these costs were a significant barrier to the designation of additional routes beyond the CDNST. It also cannot be overlooked that these amendments have resulted in an NTSA program that started with only 3 routes designated in the first 15 years to more than 30 routes being designated in the subsequent years.

A review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”) and subsequent amendments is relevant and is discussed in great length in bill memos associated with the Legislation and Congressional reports created the initial designation of the CDNST. These concerns can be summarized by the fact that the CDNST may be a National Scenic Trail but Congress has clearly stated it is different than other scenic trails. Additionally, after designation of the CDNST in 1978, the NTSA was completely rewritten to allow for more usages allowed on NTSA routes due to significant conflicts and expanding costs. Not only did this amendment reduce costs but also allowed NTSA routes to be designated in numerous other areas of the country.

Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time on the RGNF.  Many of the conflicts, such as significant costs and extensive conflicts from restrictive trail management and existing multiple uses have been extensive concerns that caused Congress to significantly revise the NTSA on multiple occasions. As Congress has specifically stated a desire to avoid conflicts of usages and minimize costs with any NTSA route, these are significant concerns for RGNF planners, who seek to return to previous management standards that Congress has already identified as unacceptable for NTSA routes.

Given the CDNST is a Congressionally designated route, Congressional requirements for its management and the intent of Congress in their efforts is critically important to the scope of allowed and prohibited on particular segments of trail. Since 1968, NTSA specifically identifies that all segments of the National Trails System shall be managed as follows:

“Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”4

Congress clearly had the opportunity to manage NTSA routes under a single management standard, such as “horse or hike only” and specifically chose not to require such management but rather specifically provides that management must be harmonized with existing multiple use goals and objectives for the areas. As discussed in later portions of this objection, Congress has provided great deal of documentation regarding why the NTSA has been framed in the manner it is currently in.  The NTSA also specifically identifies that all national scenic trails shall be managed as follows:

“(2) National scenic trails, established as provided in section 1244 of this title, which will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.”5

As the CDNST is a National Scenic Trail, Congress has specified that all national scenic trails be managed to provide for the maximum outdoor recreational potential. This Congressional intent for this amendment was clarified in 1983 with the addition of NTSA subsection j which specifically permits multiple uses of all NTSA routes as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed

Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”6

When subsection j was added to §7 of the NTSA in 1983 generally allowing a wide range of uses on all routes identified under any designation, Congress clearly stated the desire to permit multiple use of trails outside Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.  This is clearly stated in the bill memo which provides as follows:

“A new subsection 7(j) is added to specify various types of potential uses which may be allowed on specific components of the National Trails System. The uses listed are not intended to be all inclusive, but to illustrate the wide range of recreation pursuits which may be served by various trails. While the new subsection would permit the appropriate secretaries to allow trail bikes and other off-the-road vehicles on portions of the National Trail System, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this provision gives authority to the secretaries to permit such uses where appropriate, but that it must also be exercised in keeping with those other provisions of the law that require the secretaries to protect the resources themselves and the users of the system.”7

The imposition of mandatory corridors not only directly conflicts with the letter of the NTSA, the intent of Congress but also conflicts with one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation as any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the CDNST be addressed on a segment by segment basis rather than forest or regional restrictions of usages.

When the evolution of the NTSA is reviewed in more detail, the reasoning for the various amendments provides a great deal of information and understanding around the current version of the NTSA, and the direct material conflict the current provisions of the RGNF RMP provide to the explicit intent of Congress. The NTSA concept originated in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government with an order from President Johnson in 1966 which provides as follows:

“In April 1966 Secretary Udall requested the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to take the lead in a nationwide trails study. This assignment was made in response to President Johnson’s Natural Beauty Message of February 8, 1966, in which he called for development and protection of a balanced system of trails—in the Nation’s metropolitan areas as well as in the countryside—in cooperation with State and local governments and private interests.

He called for such a trail system to help protect and enhance the total quality of the outdoor environment as well as to provide much needed opportunities for healthful outdoor recreation”8

In response to this Presidential Order,  the 1966 “Trails for America” report was created and addressed the compelling need at the time to develop a motorized recreational trail network, providing as follows:

“There is a pressing need for places in which to ride bicycles safely. Recreational riding, bike hikes, youth hostel activities, bicycle clubs, and the like are becoming increasingly popular for all ages. The need is especially acute in urban areas. Similar growth is being experienced in horseback and trail scooter (trail bike) demand. The Breeders Gazette reports horse registrations are on the increase and the demand for quarter horses is growing. More than 5 million Americans were reported to be riding trail scooters or motorcycles in 1966.”9

The 1966 Trails for America Report continues to address motorized usage on National Trails as follows:

“Trail scooters designed for trail travel pose the greatest problem of incompatibility. Beginning about five years ago with the introduction of small, light, relatively inexpensive machines, the popularity of trail scooters has grown rapidly. A survey of trail scooter owners in 1962 revealed that the typical owner utilized the vehicle chiefly for Fishing and hunting or recreational riding. Trail scooters are prohibited on trails in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, as they are in wilderness and primitive areas of the National Forests. Forest Service regulations also prohibit motor vehicle use of National Forest trails where it may cause damage, harm other values, or constitute a safety hazard. Trail scooters are not permitted on the portions of the Appalachian Trail within National Forests.

However, much trail mileage in National Forests is open to trail scooters. Reasonable restrictions on the weight, speed, and horsepower of trail scooters, and effective devices to reduce their noise and fire danger are advisable. Where special wild- land, wilderness, or wildlife values are involved, as in the National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas, and on the Appalachian Trail, the present exclusion of motor vehicles, including trail scooters, should remain.”10

The 1966 Trails for America Report makes the following management recommendations:

Recommended Program. Federal land-managing agencies need to undertake farsighted recreation trail development if they are to meet adequately the growing public demand. Hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and trail scooter riding have increased substantially on many trails and are certain to accelerate in rate of growth in coming years. Abundant opportunities to build proper trails or rebuild old ones for recreation exist on most Federal lands.”11

While many may be surprised to see the concern about a lack of motorized opportunity on Federal Lands in this report, this was clearly a significant concern for both agency and legislative representatives when the Trails for America Report was prepared and explains why protecting a diversity of usages was a concern even when the NTSA was explored and adopted by Congress.  At no point was the concept of a trail network for only horse and hiking usage even explored but rather what became the multiple use concept was always the goal of the process.

Congressional actions in response to President Johnson’s Order began in 1968 with the passage of the National Trails System Act, which designated the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest Trail and ordered a review of a trail running generally from Canada to Mexico along the Continental Divide of the United States. 12  Extensive background information regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) and Senate Report 847 issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968.  HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed.  HRep 1631 provides as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”13

HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation.  HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”14

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

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”15

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

“However, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”16

The Senate Report S847 prepared relative to the Senate version of the 1968 NTSA provides the clear Congressional desire to address multiple uses as follows:

“The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation points out that there is a pressing need for places in which to ride bicycles safely. Recreational riding, bike hikes, youth hostel activities, bicycle clubs, and the like are becoming increasingly popular for all ages. The need is especially acute in urban areas. Similar growth is being experienced in horseback and trail bike demand. Horse registrations are in the increase. More than 5 million Americans were reported to be riding trail scooters or motor-cycles in 1966.”17

The 1968 Congressional mandate for the CDNST route identification was completed with a report to Congress from the Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1977 and associated environmental impact statement. This analysis specifically addressed many of the challenges and possible impacts to other legal usages that were faced in simply laying out a route connecting the Mexico and Canada borders generally along the Continental Divide and recommended revisions of the NTSA. The report specifically states as follows:

“planners and this report recommend the inclusion of approximately 424 miles of existing primitive road rights-of-way in the proposed alignment of the Continental Divide Trail. Most are so primitive in nature that they would offer a recreational experience little different in quality from that where motorized vehicles are excluded. In some national forest areas, and in particular in Montana, these “roads” are no more than the two tracks created by the wheels of a rancher’s vehicle used occasionally to take salt, etc., to his stock summering in the forest.

Such occasional vehicular use of the trail is provided for in the Act.

This report recommends a Continental Divide Trail routing that coincidentally uses primitive road rights-of-way such as along the east rim of the Great Divide Basin in Wyoming. The use of some 218 miles of lightly used road rights-of-way in the Basin was deemed to be justified because(1) the east rim was considered the best of two alternative routes, (2) the subject road rights-of-way are existing, (3) their use would be economical, (4) motorized use of these roads is very light and would have minimal adverse effect on hikers or horseback riders, and (5) the anticipated hiker-horseback use for this segment of trail is relatively small. This precedent is already well established on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Therefore, Congress may wish to specifically recognize such coincidental use in any legislation establishing the trail. This, of course, should be subject to the following: the trail managing agency must find that such use would not impair the values for which the trail was established; that such use would not pose damage to natural and environmental values; that such use would not constitute a safety hazard to hikers or horseback riders: that such use would be compatible with other management objectives for the areas; and finally, the Advisory Council to the trail should deem it appropriate.”18

In addition to laying out the basic route for the CDNST, the 1977 report discussed in great detail many of the challenges encountered in the management of the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails since their designation 10 years earlier.  These concerns include the fact that costs associated with these trails had significantly exceeded expectations and the large amounts of conflict that had resulted from restrictive management of these routes and areas adjacent to these routes and the negative impacts to local economies from reduced usages adjacent to the routes. Possible impacts to multiple usages was discussed at a greater detail in the DEIS issued with the inventory of the CDNST in 1977 as part of the Congressionally mandated inventory and review of possible routes for the CDNST:

“In the 253-mile stretch of desert-like terrain lying between the Shoshone and Medicine Bow National Forests, a total 218 miles would be crossed on primitive roads. This is considered the most feasible and economic means to effect a continuous route in an area which promises to be a very lightly used segment of the overall trail.”19

Roads adjacent to the CDNST were also identified as a major access resource for the CDNST which the report clearly states as follows:

“In addition to major roaas9 the States, counties, and Federal land-managing agencies along the trail maintain an extensive system of lesser access and service roads crossing or closely paralleling the Divide. Together, these road systems, with the exception of wilderness and similar areas, provide frequent and easy access to the trail for the recreationist.”20

Not only were possible impacts to multiple uses on and around the trail a major topic of discussion in the creation of the 1977 Report and DEIS, this was a major concern for many of the groups that commented on the plan.  Numerous comments from the public specifically addressed possible impacts to existing multiple use from the designations of the CDNST, as exemplified by comments from the Bureau of Land Management which were responded to as follows:

“Section 7(c) of the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543) directs that the use of motorized vehicles by the general public along national scenic trails will be prohibited. However, the proposed Continental Divide Trail legislation will amend this to allow motorized vehicles on roads designated as segments of the trail in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.” 21

The State of Wyoming provided comments regarding possible impacts to multiple use from designation of the CDNST, which were responded to as follows by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation:

“Response to the State of Wyoming

    1. The proposed trail is not reserved exclusively for horseback riders and hikers. However, use of motor vehicles on primitive road segments will be controlled by regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary. See responses 9 and 10 to the Bureau of Land Management.
    2. The National Trails System Act directs that the development and management of trail segments harmonize with and complement established multiple uses to insure continued maximum benefits from the land. However, there are administrative options which could forbid certain uses. See responses to numbers 1 and 3 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    3. The implementation of priorities has been established, as noted in the tables, map, and text. See pages 10 through 12.
    4. The proposed trail is an attempt to balance recreation and other resources by harmonizing with and complementing established multiple-use plans to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”22

In response to the report and extensive concerns around possible impacts to multiple usages identified in the initial Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Report and associated EIS and the desire to designate the CDNST, Congress added the CDNST to the NTSA list in 1978 23 with the following restrictions:

“(4) The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, a trail of approximately thirty-one hundred miles, extending from the Montana-Canada border to the New Mexico border, following the approximate route depicted on the map, identified as ‘Proposed Continental Divide National Scenic Trail’ in the Department of the Interior Continental Divide Trail Study Report dated August 1976. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trails shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7(c), the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations   prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.” 24

The second NTSA provision addressing multiple usage of segments of the CDNST provides as follows:

“Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.”25

The Organizations also do not contest that motorized usage of the CDNST is prohibited on other segments of the CDNST where specific Congressional action, such as Wilderness or Refuge designations, has precluded usage.  NTSA provides guidance around the specific provisions for these segments as follows:

“The use of motorized vehicles by the general public along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the use of motorized vehicles within the natural and historical areas of the national park system, the national wildlife refuge system, the national wilderness preservation system where they are presently prohibited or on other Federal lands where trails are designated as being closed to such use by the appropriate Secretary:”26

In the bill memo provided with the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 that designated the CDNST, Legislators went into great detail in addressing the challenges that had been encountered with the development and protection of the Appalachian Trail since its designation in 1968:

“Unfortunately, these measures alone have not been enough to protect the trail.  Over 600 miles of the trail remain in private lands and changes in ownership and increasing pressures for development pose threats to the continuity of the trail in numerous instances.  Almost 200 additional miles of trail are now located along roads, providing no real hiking experience, but only a link between disconnected segments of the trail.  Some of these miles of road designation are the result of the trail having been forced off an area of land due to a change in ownership.” 27

Clearly these discussions were an indication that the initial NTSA vision might not have been implementable and trouble was on the horizon for the NTSA concept more generally.  This bill memo also starts to outline concerns about the restrictive nature of the Appalachian Trail goals in particular and explores new management direction for the Appalachian Trail and adjacent areas, as eminent domain of the trail footprint and adjacent areas was proving expensive and controversial. This new direction for the management of NTSA routes expanded partnerships and reduced federal involvement in acquisition of private lands.  The memo provides this significant change in management direction as follows:

“In the testimony supporting the enactment of HR 8803, Assistant Secretary of Interior Robert Herbst commented on the partnership that is required for the Appalachian Trail. The committee fully agrees with this approach.  Federal and continuing State acquisition efforts can insure the protection of the trail corridor itself, particularly with the ongoing assistance of private donations and cooperative agreements by other interested parties.  This role of the volunteer in the Appalachian Trail must eb continued and enhanced. For 50 years, the dedicated efforts of a great many individuals have made the trail viable.  The committee intends the future administration of the trail will continue to emphasize this partnership”28

Given the challenges that were being faced in the creation of the Appalachian Trail, Congress undertook to significantly expand the scope of agency authority around creation of the Appalachian Trail. The additional funding provided was almost $90 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the next three years. 29 In 1978 this was a significant amount of funding and as discussed in Congressional documentation subsequently, this level of funding was becoming concerning to Congress.

The specific inclusion of multiple uses on the CDNST by Congress when the CDNST was in response to the concerns voiced in the 1977 CDNST report and EIS and management problems that were being encountered in the management of the two trails designated prior to 1977. Unfortunately, the 1978 revisions to the NTSA did not resolve conflict around and complications from designation of routes and the NTSA was again significantly revised by Congress in 1983. While the 1983 amendments did designate numerous new NTSA routes throughout the country, which represented the largest single expansion of the program by Congress, the concept of restrictive trail corridors was also removed. The reasoning for this removal was outlined in the bill memo for the 1983 revision as follows:

“The 94th Congress conducted oversight hearings on the act, and also enacted legislation designating additional routes for study under the act…. Concerns were also expressed that numerous trail routes being studied did not lend themselves to the national scenic trail designation but had significant historical values….The hearings and related discussions during these recent sessions of congress brought forth several points from the trails community and agency professionals also responsible for the implementation of National Trails System Act in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. There was a consensus that the diverse needs of various types of trail users could not be met by federal agencies alone. Volunteer efforts by interested trail users themselves, working in concert with various levels of government, have been highly effective in expanding trail recreation opportunities at low cost. Finally, with a decade of experience under the 1968 act to draw upon, there was a sense that a number of adjustments to the act could be made to enhance the ability to advance trail recreation programs in a variety of ways:”30

The need to address basic concerns over the spiraling costs of the 1968 vision for the NTSA was also addressed in great detail in Congressional proceedings around the 1983 amendments as follows:

“Following additional hearings in 1981, the House committee recommended a revised text which eliminated most of the items which could require future federal expenditures. The house-amended text was also more cautious in designating any additional components of the National Trails System, deleting several proposed national historic trails in order to permit additional review by the Department of the Interior. Additional recommendations reflected continuing efforts to encourage the expansion of trail recreation opportunities across the Nation at low cost. H.R. 861 placed a greater reliance on citizen participation than ever before to accomplish the purpose of the National Trails System Act of 1968.”31

The 1983 Amendments also provided a significant change in the scope of all National Scenic Trails, which is outlined as follows in the bill memo:

“Section 203 amends section 3 of the act to clarify the term ‘national scenic trails,’ as defined in the act, so that it will apply to trails which can be developed in a wide variety of land forms. This underscores the opportunity to consider the designation of such trails throughout the many different physiographic regions of the Nation.”32

The 1983 NTSA revision included the addition of subsection j of §1246, further clarifying the diverse nature of trails usage now permitted on segments of all NTSA routes.   As previously noted, subsection j provides as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed

Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”33

When subsection j was added to §7 of the NTSA in 1983 generally allowing a wide range of uses on all routes identified under any designation, Congress clearly stated the desire to permit multiple use of trails outside Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.  This is clearly stated in the bill memo which provides as follows:

“A new subsection 7(j) is added to specify various types of potential uses which may be allowed on specific components of the National Trails System. The uses listed are not intended to be all inclusive, but to illustrate the wide range of recreation pursuits which may be served by various trails. While the new subsection would permit the appropriate secretaries to allow trail bikes and other off-the-road vehicles on portions of the National Trail System, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this provision gives authority to the secretaries to permit such uses where appropriate, but that it must also be exercised in keeping with those other provisions of the law that require the secretaries to protect the resources themselves and the users of the system.” 34

In addition to the significant expansion of usages permitted on and around an NTSA route, the 1983 amendments also significantly restricted the acquisition of new lands for the designation of new routes as Congress had consistently identified concerns over the usage of eminent domain and condemnation powers for the acquisition of trail routes. The conflict that was resulting from these costs and conflicts permeates all documentation in this timeframe. This is discussed as follows:

“No lands outside of these existing areas may be directly acquired by the federal government for the trail. The secretary may designate other areas as segments of the trail only upon application from an appropriate state or local agency, and only if such segments meet the criteria in the act and are to be administered without direct expense to the federal government.”35

The relationship of these significant Congressional changes to controversial provisions of the NTSA in 1983 to the explosion of the number of designated routes for the NTSA cannot be overlooked. In 1983 Congress designated three new additional routes to the NTSA which are the Potomac Heritage scenic trail, the Natchez Trace Scenic Trail and Florida Scenic trail.  These designations doubled the number of routes designated since 1968.  In addition to doubling the number of routes designated since 1968, Congress authorized the study of 6 more trails for possible designation in the future.   This single piece of legislation quadrupled the number of routes designated in addition to significantly altering the direction of the NTSA. These are concerns that the USFS is simply not suited to make due to the large amounts of concerns and impacts that are outside the USFS scope of management, but are Congressional concerns that are entirely applicable to USFS management decisions.

The imposition of mandatory corridors and restricting usage of the CDNST on the RGNF to only “hiking and horseback usage” not only directly conflicts with the letter of the NTSA, the intent of Congress but also conflicts with one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation as any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the CDNST be addressed on a segment by segment basis rather than forest or regional restrictions of usages.  The mile wide corridor that is being designated is exactly the type of concern around the designation of adjacent areas which congress clearly found was restricting expansion of the NTSA program due to conflicts with future designations.

The fact that  Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic.  This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. The Organizations vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

Rio Grande RMP directly violates NTSA provisions that specifically allow motorized usage on segments of the CDNST outside wilderness on an as needed basis by excluding motorized usage on the entire length of the CDNST on the Rio Grande NF as follows:

DC-CDNST-2: The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is a well-defined trail that provides for high-quality primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities, and other compatible nonmotorized trail activities, in a highly scenic setting along the Continental Divide.” 36

The Organizations would be remiss if the direct mandate of 1244(a)(2), requiring national scenic trails be managed for maximum outdoor recreation potential and the arbitrary restriction of the RMP to only allow horses and hiking was not highlighted here.  The RMP fails to provide any analysis of how maximum opportunities are provided for by excluding a large portion of the user groups to the forest from the use of these routes. Such an analysis would simply lack any basis in fact or law.

It is with this statutory framework that we address the RGNF RMP specific management goals and objectives as follows:

Objectives

OBJ-CDNST-1: Restore or relocate one segment of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail to improve scenic viewing opportunities and/or to provide for a nonmotorized experience over the next 15 years. (Forestwide)” 37

The RGNF RMP further provides:

G-CDNST-2: To provide for a naturally appearing setting while avoiding impacts from motorized use, no new temporary or permanent roads, or motorized trails, should be constructed across or adjacent to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, unless needed for resource protection, private land access, or protection of public health and safety. (Forestwide)38

While not specifically recognized in the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, throughout the planning and analysis repeated references are made regarding a mile-wide corridor for management around NTSA routes.  An example of this type of management is as follows:

“Additionally, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail was assigned a high or very high (in areas through existing primitive wilderness) scenic integrity objective within the one-mile trail corridor. A narrower, one-half-mile corridor was used where the trail corridor abuts Wolf Creek Ski Area.”39

The Organizations are deeply concerned that such management has been removed from the final EIs as a specific management standard.  Again, the Organizations vigorously oppose the complete lack of analysis around this type of a corridor as clearly these impacts have not been reviewed in any manner in the EIS and represent a direct violation of the NTSA, as more completely outlined below.  The Organizations also submit these type of arbitrary management standards in an RMP are exactly the type of standards that make any future site-specific planning more expensive and difficult as planners are simply unable to address the management concern that resulted in these management standards.

Again, the conflict of the Rio Grande RMP provisions restricting all CDNST usage to “hiking and horseback” usage directly conflicts with these provisions of the NTSA requiring segment be segment management. At no point in the Rio Grande RMP is there any analysis provided of areas that might or might not have been open to multiple use access at any time in the past or impacts that might occur as a result of this decision for access to other areas of the RGNF. Additionally, no analysis is provided to support how the management direction of the CDNST  has been moved from maximum outdoor recreational potential to being managed only for horseback and hiking usage.

Resolution of Objection 1

The RMP must be returned to the Rio Grande NF to provide RMP standards that comply with NTSA provisions requiring management designations on segments of the CDNST consistent with adjacent multiple usages of the route and specifically allowing usage of motorized vehicles on some segments of the CDNST and precluding usage on Congressionally designated portions excluding usage.

Objection 2- NEPA range of Alternatives for CDNST management on the RGNF is inadequate

Providing an accurate and reasonable range of alternatives to the public as part of the NEPA process is a critical component of the NEPA process.  The rational decision-making process of NEPA is compromised when agencies consider only a limited range of alternatives to their proposed projects.40  When reviewing ranges of alternatives provided in a NEPA analysis, the courts have consistently held:

“The alternative section is ‘the heart of the environmental impact statement,‘ 40 C.F.R. 1502.14; hence, ‘[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.” 41

When determining if an EIS has provided a satisfactory range of alternatives, courts have held the proper standard of comparison is to compare the purpose and intent of the EIS to the range of Alternatives provided.  The courts have consistently held:

“[E]nsure that federal agencies have sufficiently detailed information to decide whether to proceed with an action in light of potential environmental consequences, and [to] provide the public with information on the environmental impact of a proposed action and encourage public participation in the development of that information.” 42

With regard to the RGNF RMP, and the proposed management of the CDNST, Congress has specifically provided the authority to the Secretary to relocate the footprint of the CDNST to other locations to protect multiple uses.  The NTSA specifically states this as follows:

“(b) Relocation of segment of national, scenic or historic, trail right-of-way; determination of necessity with official having jurisdiction; necessity for Act of Congress

After publication of notice of the availability of appropriate maps or descriptions in the Federal Register, the Secretary charged with the administration of a national scenic or national historic trail may relocate segments of a national scenic or national historic trail right-of-way, with the concurrence of the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the lands involved, upon a determination that:

(i) such a relocation is necessary to preserve the purposes for which the trail was

established, or

(ii) the relocation is necessary to promote a sound land management program in accordance with established multiple-use principles:”43

At no point in the RMP development process is there any discussion or analysis provided around the possible relocation of the CNDST on the RGNF to protect multiple uses despite specific Congressional designations of such authority. There can be no legal argument that a sufficient range of alternatives has been provided to the public around the CDNST management as this provision of statutory authority has not been explored in any manner.

Resolution of Objection #2.

Return RMP to RGNF to allow for the creation of a complete range of alternatives for the location and management of the CDNST as provided for in §1246(b) of the NTSA.

Objection #3. Rio Grande RMP conflicts with CDNST plan

The Rio Grande RMP provides for a single use standard that excludes all motorized usage both on the trail and in areas adjacent to the trail.  This directly conflicts with the CDNST Comprehensive plan that motorized usage must be managed in accordance with adjacent land management standards.  The CDNST plan then provides 15 pages of detailed discussion on how motorized access relates to visual resource management standards, recreational opportunity spectrum goals and objectives and even rise to the levels of providing clear guidance on how many crossings of the CDNST may occur for motorized usages in the several categories of ROS management. 44

The CDNST comprehensive Management clearly identifies the relationship of the CDNST to existing motorized usage, which is as follows:

“In 1997, memorandum from the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service to Regional Foresters clarifies the Forest Service’s intent with respect to motor vehicle use on newly constructed CDNST trail segments. In addition, this memorandum identifies the importance of understanding the nature and purposes of the CDNST in establishing direction governing its development and management:

As the CDNST is further developed, it is expected that the trail will eventually be relocated off of roads for its entire length. The memorandum further states: It is the intent of the Forest Service that the CDNST will be for non-motorized recreation. . . . Allowing motorized use on these newly constructed trail segments would substantially interfere with the nature and purpose of the CDNST.”45

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

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”46

While the CDNST plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDNST plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDNST the 1977 Continental Divide report specifically reports as follows:

“The lands below timberline, again exclusive of national forest wilderness and primitive areas or national park lands, are mostly forested and include about 1,400 miles of trail route. Approximately 1,100 miles of this forested trail route is within national forests and managed under the multiple-use sustained yield concept.” 47

Motorized Trail usages of the CDNST and corridor are critically important to winter motorized usage on the San Juan and many other locations as significant portions of the CDNST are groomed by the motorized community for the benefit of all users.  Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage the CDNST plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDNST, providing as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and:

(1) Is necessary to meet emergencies;

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

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

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

(5) Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:

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

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

(6) In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.” 48

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

The Organizations must clearly and vigorously state that any proposed exclusionary corridor/crossing point around the CDT on the GMUG for the benefit of one user group over others, in name or function, would be a direct violation of the NTSA provisions mandating management of the trail area be in harmony with adjacent multiple uses of federal lands. The conflict with the CDT plan and basic assumptions in the Proposal is further evidenced by the fact the CDT plan specially identifies how ROS management should relate to CDT management providing as follows:

Table showing the relationship of ROS classes and the scenic integrity/visual resource management (BLM) Objectives49

The Organizations are simply unable to understand why the chart above would not be cut and pasted in the Proposal for management of the CDT.  In addition to the above ROS chart, the CDT plan provides great detail regarding the relationship of various uses to each other and the expertly level of interaction between uses across the ROS spectrum. Again, the Organizations are unable to understand why CDT management would be addressed in any other way than simply stating the CDT will be managed in accordance with the CDT plan.

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

Resolution of Objection 3.

The RGNF RMP must be returned to the Forest for development of management standards for the CDNST that comply with the provisions of the CDNST management plan. RMP must be returned to provide management provisions consistent with the CDNST plan for multiple uses of trail and adjacent areas.

OBJECTION 4a.
NTSA specifically requires management maximizing of economic benefits of the trail and adjacent areas.

The RGNF RMP restriction of usage of the CDNST to hike and horse usage also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective.  In addition to general NEPA requirements of economic analysis, a cost/benefit analysis is also specifically mandated by §1244 of the NTSA.  This analysis simply has not been provided in any manner.  Not only is this information required by NEPA and the NTSA, the Organizations have a long partnership with the RGNF that provides significant direct funding to the forest for recreational management and maintenance. Our concerns on costs are not academic, since it is assumed the Organizations will be assuming the lions share of costs associated with restrictions through the CPW OHV grant program, we are interested in fully understanding what the costs associated with the proposal. This partnership is discussed in great detail in previous comments and will not be reproduced here.

An accurate cost benefit analysis is more critical given the extensive concerns previously raised by Congress regarding costs with restricting management of NTSA routes.  Congress has also expressed significant reservations around possible negative impacts to multiple uses from restrictive NTSA management in addition to the economic analysis being a critical component of the EIS process.  This made even more complex by the fact that the CDNST runs through a wide range of lands on the RGNF, including public and private lands. As previously discussed, Congress specifically chose a larger and more diverse NTSA system with the 1983 amendments, and since these amendments the NTSA system has expanded from 3 routes to more than 30 routes throughout the country.   A possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA. This proposition is made even more critical and difficult given the previous Congressional determinations that costs were unacceptable around implementation of these management goals.

The NTSA guidance is clear on issues involving equity and usage of NTSA routes and the need to balance multiple usage based on these factors based on economic returns associated with the management of the route.   The NTSA explicitly provides as follows:

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;” 50

What is deeply concerning is there is only a single alternative provided for CDNST management in the RGNF RMP.  While the RGNF has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, the CDNST is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDNST on an annual basis. 51 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDNST at state or forest levels. The Organizations can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

Recent data from the Dept of Commerce specifically addressed the overwhelming economic that motorized usage is in the recreation arena.  The draft analysis of outdoor recreations economic impact in 2016 from the Department of Commerce provided the following details: 52

Graph showing Gross Ouput for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

The final report from the Department of Commerce regarding the comparative spending profiles of the recreational community provides the following information: 53

Graph showing Real Gross Output for the largets Core Outdoor recreation activities 2016

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process.   Given the fact that significant portions of the CDNST are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information.  It has been the Organizations experience that often-comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain.  The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring process and those conclusions are as follows:

Table showing Visitor spending per activity 200754

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

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

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

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

3b. Mandatory cost benefit analysis of CDNST management have not been provided despite Congressional concerns about costs and conflicts being specifically expressed previously regarding management now proposed.

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

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.” 55

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, the Organizations are very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community. Similar concerns have been previously noted by Congress around the amendments to the NTSA over its lifespan.

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

Resolution of Objection #3

The RGNF RMP must be returned to the forest for analysis of economic impacts of CDNST management and analysis of the costs and benefits to the local communities from restricting usage CDNST to hiking and horseback only management and restricting mile wide corridors around the CDNST.

4. The range of alternatives in NEPA analysis of management alternatives made around NTSA routes is woefully inadequate.

As previously noted in this Objection, the CDNST covers more than 170 miles of terrain in the RGNF and all of these miles and adjacent mile wide corridor are to be managed for hiking and horseback usage only. No variation on these standards is provided in any alternative of the proposal despite specific NEPA regulations requiring detailed statement of high-quality information of all realistic management alternatives for an issue.

A brief review of NEPA requirements provided in regulation, various implementation guides and relevant court rulings is warranted to allow for comparison of analysis provided in the RMP and the proper standard. It is well established that NEPA regulations require an EIS to provide all information under the following standards:

“… It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment….. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses…. ” 56

The regulations included the development of the Council of Environmental Quality, which expands upon the detailed statement theory for planning purposes.

“You must describe the proposed action and alternatives considered, if any (40 CFR 1508.9(b)) (see sections 6.5, Proposed Action and 6.6, Alternative Development). Illustrations and maps can be used to help describe the proposed action and alternatives.” 57

These regulations clearly state the need for the quality information being provided as part of this relationship as follows:

“The CEQ regulations require NEPA documents to be “concise, clear, and to the point” (40 CFR 1500.2(b), 1502.4). Analyses must “focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives” and be useful to the decision-maker and the public (40 CFR 1500.1). Discussions of impacts are to be proportionate to their significance (40 CFR 1502.2(b)).” 58

The Organizations believe this full and fair discussion of many issues has not been provided in the RMP, despite the size of the RMP and associated documents. As more specifically addressed in previous sections of the comments, the range of alternatives for multiple use access to the CDNST and mile wide corridor is simply non-existent. Basic questions such as how were corridor widths determined and how does the corridor width mandated relate to topographic features on the ground to more fully understand possible negative impacts and management implications moving forward.

The Organizations believe the association of impacts from changes proposed to the management issue that is the basis is a critical component in developing public comments and involvement as frequently members of the public do not have sufficient time, resources or understanding to make these connections.   These concerns are summarized in the NEPA regulations which clearly provide the reason for the need for high quality information to be provided in the NEPA process.   NEPA regulations provide as follows:

“(b) NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.59

The NEPA regulations clearly state the general standards for analysis of issues in an EIS as follows:

“Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions.” 60

The Organizations believe a brief summary of the standards that are applied by Courts reviewing agency NEPA analysis is relevant to this discussion as the courts have consistently directly applied the NEP regulations to EIS review.  Relevant court rulings have concluded:

“an EIS serves two functions. First, it ensures that agencies take a hard look at the environmental effects of proposed projects. Second, it ensures that relevant information regarding proposed projects is available to members of the public so that they may play a role in the decision-making process. ” 61

As previously addressed in this Objections, public involvement simply has not been stimulated and a hard look has not been performed.  The high levels of frustration expressed from the public in response to the release of the RMP speaks volumes to the quality of information provided and the ability of the public to comment on the information.

Resolution of Objection #4

If CDNST management decisions in the RMP are found consistent with federal law, the RMP must be returned to the Rio Grande NF to allow for preparation of an EIS analysis of the alternatives reviewed and a detailed explanation of how the current management alternative was found sufficient under NEPA for the changed management of all 170 miles of trails and mile wide corridor adjacent to these routes.

If objection officers would like to review any maps or related reports that are cited in this objection we would be more than willing to share this information. This information is available but has not been included in this protest due to the reports being thousands of pages in length and maps simply being too large to include at a reasonable scale. The Organizations would welcome a discussion around this Objection.  Please feel free to 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.

Sincerely,
Scott Jones, Esq.

TPA Authorized Representative
CSA Executive Director;
COHVCO Vice President

 

Supporting Documents:

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT House Report #1631 1968

Legislative History of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

National Trails System House Report #95-734 1978

House Report #98-28 1983

Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado Report 2016

 

 

[1] This project is more completely outlined here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46078

[2] See, United States v. Boisdoré’s Heirs, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113, 122 (1850).

[3] See, Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990).  For a more complete review of this issue please see, Congressional Research Services: Statutory Interpretation: General Principals and Recent Trends; September 24, 2014

[4] See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.

[5] See, 16 USC 1242 (a)(2).

[6] See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

[7] See,  H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 6.

[8] See, US Dept of Interior; Bureau of Recreation; Trails for America; Report on the Nationwide Trail Study; 1966 at pg. 3. (hereinafter referred to as the “Trails for America report”)

[9] See, Trails for America Report at pg. 21.

[10] See, Trails for America Report at pg. 29.

[11] See,  Trails for America Report at pg. 134.

[12] See, Public Law 90-543 §5(c)(1)

[13] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873. A complete copy of HRep 1631 has been enclosed as Exhibit “a”

[14] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3861.

[15] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.

[16] See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.

[17] See, Senate Report with S847 at pg. 2.

[18] See, Department of  Interior; Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; Continental Divide Trail Study Report 1977 at pg. 17.

[19] See, See, Department of Interior; Continental Divide Trail Report Final Environmental Impact Statement 1977 at pg. 3.  Hereinafter referred to as the “CDNST FEIS”.

[20] See, CDNST FEIS at pg.10.

[21] See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 72.

[22] See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 97.

[23] See, Public Law 95-625 @§553. A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit ”B”.

[24] See, 16 USC 1244 (a)(5).

[25] See, 16 USC 1246(c).

[26] See, 16 USC 1244.

[27] See, House Report 95-734 95th Congress at pg. 3. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “C” of this objection.

[28] See, House Report 95-734 95 Congress at pg. 3.

[29] See, House Report 95-734 95 Congress at pg. 7.

[30] See,  H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 1. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “D”. Hereinafter referred to as “1983 House Report”.

[31] See, 1983 House Report at pg. 2.

[32] See, 1983 House Report  at pg 2.

[33] See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

[34] See,  H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 6. Hereinafter referred to as the “1983 report”

[35] See, 1983 House Report at pg. 3.

[36] See, USDA Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Final RMP at pg. 51

[37] See, USDA Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Final RMP at pg. 52

[38] See, USDA Forest Service; Rio Grande NF Final RMP at pg. 52

[39] See, USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande NF Final Environmental Impact Statement August 2019 at pg. 287.
[40] See, James Allen; Does not provide a range of alternatives to satisfy NEPA…..NEPA Alternatives Analysis: The Evolving Exclusion of Remote and Speculative Alternatives; 2005 25 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 287.
[41] Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F. 2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985).

[42] Kunzman, 817 F. 2d at 492; see also Citizens for a Better Henderson, 768 F. 2d at 1056.

[43] See, 16 USC 1246(b).

[44] See, CDT Plan 2009 pgs. 16-26.

[45] See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan;  September 2009 at pg. 3. Hereinafter referred to as the 2009 CDT Plan.

[46] See, 2009 CDT Plan at pg. 19.

[47] See, CDNST FEIS at pg. 37.

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

[49] See, The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Plan; pg 15

[50] See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

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

[53]A complete version of the Department of Commerce final research is available here: https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/outdoor-recreation-satellite-account-updated-statistics-2012-2016

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

[55] SeeEntergy Corp v. Riverkeeper Inc et al; 556 US ; 475 F3d 83; (2009) Opinion of Breyer J, at pg. 4.

[56] See, 40 CFR 1500.1

[57] BLM Manual H-1790-1 – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK  – pg 78.

[58] BLM Manual H-1790-1 – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK  – pg 4.

[59] 43 CFR 1500.1(b)

[60] 40 CFR 1502.1

[61] Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman; (4th Circ 1996) 81 f3d 437 at pg 442; 42 ERC 1594, 26 Envtl. L. Rep 21276

Continue Reading

Draft Resource Management Plan Comments for Royal Gorge Field Office

Royal Gorge Field Office
Att: RMP Revision Team
3028 East Main
Canon City CO 81212

RE: Draft RMP comments

Dear Mr. Berger:
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above Organizations with regard to the draft Resource Management Plan for the Royal Gorge Field Office (“the Proposal”). The preferred Alternative (“D”) is acceptable to the Organizations with minor modifications to the Proposal, as Alternative D does not prohibit expansion of most areas of the Field Office for a wide range of uses including motorized recreation. While Alternative D does not prohibit OHV usage on large portions of the RGFO, this Alternative really only carries forward existing OHV areas and does not provide for expanded acres for multiple use recreation. The Organizations believe this will be problematic in the long term, as the current recreational opportunity areas on the RGFO are easily overwhelmed and the State population continues to grow very quickly. As a result, identification of planned expansion areas will become critically important over the expected life of the RMP in order to expand opportunity for recreational usage in a thoughtful manner. The imbalance of the current alternatives with regard to recreational usage is evidenced by the fact there are 8 units designated for hunting and fishing expansion but only four for multiple use.

Prior to addressing the specific thoughts on the Proposal, our Organizations have regarding the draft Royal Gorge FO RMP, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all of the more than 200,000 OHV recreationists in Colorado in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

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

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite the more than 30,000 winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport. Collectively, CSA, COHVCO and TPA will be referred to as “the Organizations” for the purposes of this document. These comments are also submitted in addition to the comments from our local clubs, which we vigorously support.

While we are able to support Alternative D with minor revisions, the Organizations are vigorously opposed to Alternative B due to the exceptionally large amount of Wilderness Characteristics areas that are provided for. Many of these areas simply are not suited for Management as a Wilderness Characteristics are due to high levels of human activity that are visible. This type of usage is simply inconsistent with requirements of Wilderness being untrammeled by man. Additionally, many of these areas would automatically prohibit motorized usage despite Congressional requirements existing uses must significantly impair ability to designate an area as Wilderness in the future which trails do not.

The Organizations submit that the RGFO Proposal must also be brought into consistency with the 2013 LCAS. The Organizations would also support the alteration of the preferred alternative to allow for the inclusion of Backcountry Area designations, as they are proposed in Alternative B of the Proposal. We support new designations that allow for the use and protection of resources for the public and we believe the BCA concept is such a management standard in its current form.

1. The draft RMP states its goal is to expand recreational access but fails to do so as there are no new motorized expansion areas identified.

The Organizations welcome the identification of goals including expansion of access to the planning area and expanded recreational usage of the planning area as initial goals of the Proposal. Too often concerns like these are not a priority in planning and this change is refreshing. The Organizations vigorously support the planning priorities identified on the RGFO, which the Proposal states as follows:

“Specifically, the purpose of the action includes:
– Improving public access and resource management through a consolidated land base. The FLPMA requires, in part, that the “public lands be managed in a manner that will…provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102.a.8]). The FLPMA also requires the “acquisition of non-federal land for public purposes and the exchange of such lands…be consistent with the prescribed mission of the…agency involved” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec.102.a.10]).
– Improving and restoring ecological sustainability/resiliency. The FLPMA also requires, in part, that the “public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of… ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource values…;that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals…” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102.a.8]).
– Providing recreation opportunities. The FLPMA requires that, among other uses, “the public lands be managed in a manner that will…provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102.a.8]).
– Providing economic opportunities. The FLPMA requires that, among other uses, “the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber and fiber from the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102.a.12]).”1

The Organizations welcome the identification of these three factors in the Proposal. These factors are often associated with the responsible utilization of public lands in any planning area and the recognition of these needs is a major step towards developing a high-quality planning tool that will be relevant to the FO planning area for an extended period of time.

While the Proposal makes significant important recognitions in the purpose and need statements, the Organizations are concerned that these goals and objectives are not fully carried into the development of SRMA designations in the Proposal. SRMA designations have been critical in other field office planning efforts to identify areas for future development and also to allow agency and extensive partner resources to be targeted to these areas in a manner that is most effective.

2. Economics of recreation

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

Graph - Gross Output for Oudoor Recreation Activities 2016

This research concludes that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined, and this relationship simply cannot be overlooked in the land management planning process. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited when multiple use recreational access is lost in any area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited. The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent and are a major reason for our opposition to Alternative B of the Proposal.

The risk of negative economic impacts from recreational restrictions is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.3

Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located on USFS lands is within Wilderness areas. Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding and weighs heavily against expansion of any recommended Wilderness or other exclusionary designations in the planning process.

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

Table - Visitor spending5

This research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in many restricted or limited access management areas. Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning. Nationally, congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.6 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness7 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.7% of visitor days on the GMUG National Forest.8 Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

BLM analysis for the State of Colorado also highlights the exceptional value of recreational activity on public lands, which is especially important in the RGFO due to the limited availability of cola resources on the RGFO planning area. The BLM analysis provides the following analysis of economic drivers on public lands:9

Graphic - Economic Output and Jobs for 2016

While the BLM smart choice document does not provide a large amount of comparative or localized information about the economic importance of recreation, the compelling nature of these conclusions simply cannot be overlooked.

The Organizations are also aware that the above information is of limited value for the RGFO planning efforts simply due to the conflicting scales of the reporting. As a result, we are providing a copy of the 2014 COHVCO economic contribution study that was prepared in conjunction with the BLM Colorado State office, USFS and CPW. A copy of the complete COHVCO study is included with these comments for your reference as exhibit “A”. This independent report concludes that motorized recreation provided $2.2 billion dollars to the Colorado economy and accounted for more than 15,000 jobs in 2014. More specifically to the RGFO planning area, the COHVCO study found that the South Central and Central regions of Colorado had economic contributions of more than $550,000,000 in sales and tax revenues to local and state economies and directly resulted in more than 6,000 jobs in the region. These are significant economic contributions to these areas and are sufficient to warrant identification of expansion areas for future OHV development areas.

3. RGFO lynx management appears to conflict with best available science on numerous basic issues.

The Organizations were surprised and disappointed at the lynx management standards in the Proposal. Rather than being an accurate reflection of best available science that has been clearly provided through collaborative efforts between the USFS, USFWS, BLM and NPS, the RGFO standards have to be one of the more restrictive summaries of numerous documents that have been superseded as a matter of law. This is an unusual starting point for the development of an RMP that may be governing the forest for more than the next 30 years and clearly will draw these planning provisions into immediate conflict with best available science. Adopting standards that are already superseded in this situation simply makes no sense and many of the basic management standards for the lynx are foundational in nature, such as managing for two levels of habitat per best available science while the RGFO proposes to manage all habitat as the same issue, and must be corrected.

The disappointment of the Organizations is driven not only by this situation but also the fact the Organizations were active participants with the several other groups in what became known as the Colorado lynx blueprint project, which resulted in the 2013 LCAS. In addition to years of meetings and significant resources from numerous partners, the Organizations attempted to donate a snowmobile to researchers and supported researchers over years of efforts including recovering stuck equipment in the backcountry with snowmobile grooming equipment, providing parts, oil and fuel for efforts on an as needed basis and printing and circulating a copy of the LCAS to every Ranger District and Field Office in the state. As a result of these efforts, the Organizations have some significant vested interests in the success of the management of the species. These are also the types of partnerships the USFS is seeking to develop long term and failing to implement standards developed by these partnerships and approved by the USFS simply sends the wrong message on the value of partnerships.
10
Prior to addressing our specific concerns on management standards for the species, the Organizations would like to dispel any thoughts that previous management documents might still be applicable on forest service lands. The 2013 LCAS clearly states the document is the standard to be applied for federal lands management efforts moving forward including the §7 Consultation process, stating as follows:

“The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was developed to provide a consistent and effective approach to conserve Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), hereafter referred to as lynx, and to assist with Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on federal lands in the contiguous United States….

The Steering Committee selected a Science Team, led by Dr. Leonard Ruggiero, FS-Rocky Mountain Re-search Station, to assemble the best available scientific information on lynx, and appointed a Lynx Biology Team, led by Bill Ruediger, FS-Northern Region, to prepare a lynx conservation strategy applicable to federal land management in the contiguous United States.”10

The 2013 LCAS clearly states its applicability to all planning in the future as follows:

“This edition of the LCAS provides a full revision, incorporating all prior amendments and clarifications, substantial new scientific information that has emerged since 2000 including related parts of the Lynx Recovery Plan Outline, as well as drawing on experience gained in implementing the 2000 LCAS. The document has been reorganized and condensed to improve readability and reduce redundancy.”11

The 2013 LCAS further states the reasoning for moving from standards and guidelines for management of the Lynx in conservation measures is as follows:

“Guidance provided in the revised LCAS is no longer written in the framework of objectives, standards, and guide-lines as used in land management planning, but rather as conservation measures. This change was made to more clearly distinguish between the management direction that has been established through the public planning and decision-making process, versus conservation measures that are meant to synthesize and interpret evolving scientific information.”

The 2013 LCAS clearly states it has superseded the 2008 Southern Rockies lynx amendment and the USFS, USFWS, BLM, CPW and NPS experts recognize the current format, without goals and objectives is the most effective manner to manage the lynx.

The failure of the RGFO lynx management to even arguably comply with best available science is evidenced by the failure to recognize that not all habitat is created equal, and such recognition has become critical to species management of all kinds. While a detailed discussion of all the efforts to identifying habitat based in quality is too long for these comments, the Organizations believe a brief review is warranted. USFWS regulations now require significantly more information around habitat value in the listing of a species and designation of critical habitat. Recent planning around the Greater Sage Grouse went so far as to create three categories of habitat mainly: Priority, occupied and modeled but unoccupied habitats for the Grouse. In addition to these new categories, USFWS, BLM and USFS provided hundreds of pages of guidance documents to allow managers to plan accordingly. 12

The entire RGFO objective for lynx management under a single standard conflict with the 2013 LCAS, which clearly requires two separate management standards, one for core habitat areas and one for areas of lesser usage by the lynx. The overall intent of the 2013 LCAS is clearly identified as follows:

“…conservation efforts for lynx are not to be applied equally across the range of the species, but instead more focus is given to high priority areas: the core areas. Further, we combined secondary areas and peripheral areas (which were also identified in the recovery outline) into one category, because they have similar characteristics and management recommendations. The intent is to place more emphasis on protection of the core areas, which support persistent lynx populations and have evidence of recent reproduction, and less stringent protection and greater flexibility in secondary/peripheral areas, which only support lynx intermittently.”

The concept of LAU being of different quality or value is simply never even mentioned in the Proposal despite this being one of the cornerstone changes in the 2013 LCAS. The failure of the Proposal to utilize basic management tools for planning, such as priority habitat, modeled but unoccupied habitat and other classifications of habitat is deeply troubling and symptomatic of the complete failure of the proposal to be based on science as these tools are now commonplace species management tools as exemplified by listings and reviews of the Greater Sage Grouse, Gunnison Sage Grouse, numerous species of trout. This is habitat management 101 for all species and must be reflected in the Proposal. The failure to utilize basic tools such as this is problematic.

In the Lynx blueprint efforts, this theory was repeatedly identified as one of the major failures of the entire lynx management process and is now diverting partner and management resources away from primary threats to the species. This badly outdated summary simply needs to be removed and updated with best available science on lynx management. No mention of the fact that the SRLA has been clearly superseded as a management tool is ever made.

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

  • Recreational usage of lynx habitat is a second level threat and not likely to have substantial effects on the lynx or its habitat. Previous theory and management analysis had placed a much higher level of concern on recreational usage of lynx habitat; 14
  • 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; 15
  • Road and trail density do not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;16
  • There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; 17
  • Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;18
  •  Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; 19
  • 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 20
  • 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.21

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal must be amended and updated to apply basic management tools for species that are now recognized as best available science for the management of all species, such as identifying priority and secondary habitat areas and managing these in accordance with those basic tools. In addition to the implementation of best available science generally, the Organizations submit that the Proposal is in direct conflict with numerous specific management standards specifically stated in the 2013 LCAS and this must be corrected as well.

5. Given the geographically scattered nature of the RGFO, management of RGFO lands that are more isolated in nature in a manner that is consistent with adjacent public lands should be a priority.

We are unable to locate any portion of the RMP that provides such an analysis for these areas. Given the scattered nature of the RGFO in many areas, such an analysis is an important tool for the public to understand planning efforts as most of the time the public is simply not aware of the ownership of federal lands when they are recreating.

6. Backcountry area designations

While we are opposed to Alternative B for a large number of reasons, the Organizations did welcome the idea of a backcountry area for management designation. This concept has been generally discussed in BLM Instruction Memo 2017-036 and the Organizations would support designation of this type in the preferred Alternative of the Proposal with the current management prescriptions. We believe that the BCA concept is a significant step in the right direction for the protection and utilization of resources in a less intensive manner than other areas, especially as provided for in the Proposal as the Proposal recognized motorized usage as a characteristic of these areas. Too often there is a perception that resource protection can only be achieved with closures and Wilderness like designations, which obviously we are opposed too. Additionally, many in the motorized are seeking a less intensive recreational experience in the backcountry. Many of our members are using their equipment to avoid the hustle and bustle of daily life and seek to avoid recreational areas that have high levels of visitation. We believe the BCA designation targets and provides these opportunities in its current form. We have supported similar designations that provide low intensity motorized usage areas in legislative efforts such as the designation of Special Management areas in the Hermosa Watershed Legislation that was passed into law in 2014.

7. Conclusion.

The preferred Alternative (“D”) is acceptable to the Organizations with minor modifications to the Proposal, as Alternative D does not prohibit expansion of most areas of the Field Office for a wide range of uses including motorized recreation. While Alternative D does not prohibit OHV usage on large portions of the RGFO, this Alternative really only carries forward existing OHV areas and does not provide for expanded acres for multiple use recreation. The Organizations believe this will be problematic in the long term as the current recreational opportunity areas on the RGFO are easily overwhelmed and the State population continues to grow very quickly. As a result, identification of planned expansion areas will become critically important over the expected life of the RMP in order to expand opportunity for recreational usage in a thoughtful manner. The imbalance of the current alternatives with regard to recreational usage is evidenced by the fact there are 8 units designated for hunting and fishing expansion but only four for multiple use.

The Organizations submit that the RGFO Proposal must also be brought into consistency with the 2013 LCAS. The Organizations would also support the alteration of the preferred Alternative to allow for the inclusion of Backcountry Area designations, as they are proposed in Alternative B of the Proposal. We support new designations that allow for the use and protection of resources for the public and we believe the BCA concept is such a management standard in its current form.

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

 

1 See, DOI, BLM Royal Gorge FO Draft RMP; June 2019 at pg. 1-1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 See, DOI; The BLM: A sound investment for America 2017; at pg. 4.

10 See, Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp. at pg. 1. (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 LCAS”). We have included a complete copy of this document for your reference with these comments.

11 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 1.

12 See, https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/sage-grouse-habitat-assessment-framework.pdf

13 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 2.

14 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 94.

15 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 83.

16 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 95.

17 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 84.

18 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 83.

19 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 26.

20 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 94.

21 See, 2013 LCAS at pg. 91.

Continue Reading

Comments from the TPA for the NEPA Streamlining

The Forest Service is Seeking to Significantly Reduce the Amount of Environmental Analysis Necessary for Trail Maintenance

By Scott Jones, Esq.

The Forest Service recently released a revised rule updating its planning regulations to maintain or restore ecological functions and improve the Agency’s ability to manage facilities, roads, and trails.  This Forest Service proposal would be a quantum leap forward in reducing the amount of analysis and paperwork needed for the basic maintenance and operations of trail networks on public lands. These changes will allow the Agency and partners to more efficiently implement projects that support the management and operation of agency infrastructure, including administrative sites and facilities, recreation sites and facilities, and trails, roads, and bridges.

The good, and there is plenty.  Overall this is a significant revision of the current regulations so the list below is far from complete but any additional clarity around the use of lower levels of NEPA on basic issues like these is a step forward for trails. Examples of clarity around the use of lower levels of analysis would be:

  • Land managers can now construct trailhead facilities like parking lots and toilets with a Categorical Exclusion;
  • Allow land managers to construct/realign up to 5 miles of new NFS road and reconstruct up to 10 miles of NFS roads;
  • Clarifying that managers can move user-created routes to system routes with a categorical exclusion under certain circumstances; and
  • Allow issuance of permits for events that are occurring on existing USFS roads and trails.

Our one concern is the term “Potential Wilderness” is used throughout the document but not defined.  The lack of a definition for this term is one of the largest hurdles faced in discussions around what NEPA is necessary for a project.  The lack of this definition could undermine the effectiveness of many of the other revisions, as it has been our experience that citizen Wilderness proposals often bear little relationship to conditions on the ground and reflect legislation that has not moved in decades.

We would also note that the use of Categorical Exclusions relates to inherently small projects, which we do not anticipate altering the Wilderness characteristics of any area. Our ask on this would be that potential Wilderness be limited to Recommended Wilderness in the forest plan, in order to align with the standards in the remainder of the Proposed Rule.  Wilderness recommendations from special interest groups should not be given any priority in analysis.

Continue Reading