Archive | August, 2022

BLM Big Game Habitat and Migration Corridor Amendment – Comments

TPA COHVCO CORE CSA logos
BLM Colorado State Office
Attn: Big Game RMPA/EIS
2850 Youngfield Street
Lakewood, CO 80215

RE:  BIG GAME HABITAT AND MIGRATION CORRIDOR AMENDMENT

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the Organizations with regard to possible amendments of existing RMP for Big Game Habitat and Migration Corridor Amendment (“The Proposal”).   Prior to addressing the specific concerns, the Organizations have regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 250,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a largely 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.  CORE is an entirely volunteer nonprofit motorized action group out of Buena Vista Colorado.  Our mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy.  For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA, CORE and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

The Organizations participated in the public meetings that were provided by the BLM on this issue and were surprised to hear a FAR more broad scope of the project than is currently provided for. Our experiences with the Sage Grouse management efforts have allowed us to understand that anytime route density standards are addressed, such as in the Proposal, there will be recreational impacts due to route closures. This is a situation where one size fits all management is totally inappropriate and significant amounts of work must be performed on existing data to understand the myriad of site-specific issues that species are facing in the state and what previous management challenges have been faced in these areas. While the state of Colorado may have requested this review, it does not absolve the BLM of basing management decisions on best available science.

The Organizations are very concerned that a significant amount of foundational analysis for the effort does not appear to have occurred and if it has occurred it has not been discussed. The Organizations submit this spans many facets of the Proposal, which ranges from questions like has there been a decline in wildlife populations in Colorado?  Is there a single factor causing the perceived decline in wildlife populations? If so, how was this determined.  What was the time frame for this conclusion and analysis?  How was the relationship between an asserted decline in populations been attributed to a lack of habitat? These are foundational questions that must be addressed before any range of alternatives is even formulated, as our minimal research indicates there are a huge number of factors impacting wildlife populations, ranging from the window of time used to analyze declines or increases, poor data being available for analysis and other management efforts driving down populations based on best available science.  Once these other factors are addressed the Organizations vigorously assert the relationship between populations and habitat declines must be established.  This simply has not been done to date. If the BLM is going to move forward with any analysis of options as required by NEPA, these are foundational questions that must be addressed.

1(a) The 50-year history of the BLM managing motorized recreation to protect wildlife resources.

The Organizations are concerned that the current Proposal has a very wide scope of analysis in terms of challenges and issues and the broad scope of the documentation was greatly expanded in the public meetings that we participated in. This is very concerning for us, especially when there is insufficient analysis of possible impacts to existing resources from the management process currently under analysis. Prior to addressing the unusual scope of analysis for the Proposal, the Organizations would like the opportunity to provide input on the decades of effort that have gone into minimizing possible impacts from motorized recreation on wildlife.   The motorized recreational community has been directly managed by the BLM for more than 50 years for the minimization of impacts to a wide range of other activities including wildlife.

The management of motorized recreation on federal public lands started in 1972 with the issuance of Executive Order 11644 by President Richard Nixon, which clearly states as follows:

“Those regulations shall direct that the designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The regulations shall further require that the designation of such areas and trails shall be in accordance with the following–

(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands.

(2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

(4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.”[1]

This management has taken many forms over the subsequent decades and in many places 3 or more travel management plans have been undertaken in order to balance motorized recreation with possible impacts to resources and wildlife.  Issues such as route density and other issues that might be impacting wildlife, such as the need for seasonal closures and wildlife corridors, have been the basis of numerous site-specific concerns in Travel plan development for almost 50 years.

The Organizations have also had an MOU signed with the State BLM office for decades to ensure that our efforts are aligned as closely as possible on a wide range of issues. A copy of the most recent agreement on the accomplishments of this effort are attached as Exhibit “1”.   No other recreational activity is involved with these types of issues than the motorized community and we would like to avoid possible impacts to these efforts that could result from unintended impacts of efforts.

1b.  Resources the motorized community provides to benefit wildlife and recreation.

As we noted above, the motorized community has a unique relationship with the BLM beyond the additional management requirements of EO 11644.  The motorized community as also created a voluntary registration program for the OHV community that returns almost all funding back to land managers for the maintenance of opportunities.[2]  The management of motorized usage is significantly $8 million per year provides more than 60 dedicated maintenance crews for the benefit of summer and winter recreation and resource protection. This program has been administered with CPW for more that 30 years, and has now exceeded $100 million in on the ground funding to land managers.

Through this program, each BLM Field Office have dedicated maintenance crews for each office that are able to target wildlife management actions, such as opening and closing gates, education of users and other on the ground management needs that protect wildlife values and resources and improve recreational access to the area as well. These maintenance crew grants are currently funded at $85,000 per year per planning area and several BLM planning areas are working with multiple crews in an area.  To supplement these efforts, each field office also is able to apply for additional resources on an as needed basis including targeted law enforcement resources and extensive Youth Corp resources to help with larger challenges on the FO such as wildfire and flooding issues that can be highly destructive to wildlife resources as well.[3]   These structured OHV crews in the Field Offices also have access to the Statewide Heavy maintenance crew based out of Grand Lake to further improve responses to a wide range of issues on the ground. The OHV program has also provided more than 2 dozen skid steer loaders, mini-excavators and trail dozers to further improve maintenance capability on public lands.  All these resources protect wildlife and wildlife habitat while improving recreational opportunities.

As an example of the scale of resources available as a result of the OHV grant program, CPW estimates that wildlife signage should cost between $2,000 and $3,000 per year to maintain.[4] The OHV program provided $130,000 in grant funding for signage last year that is divided across each management unit in the state.[5]

This program is a resource that no other nonconsumptive recreation interest provides and these resources simply alter the playing field when discussing resource protection and wildlife management issues.  Many groups are willing to address management standards but are unable to provide any resources to carry out these requirements and it is possible that those issues may fall in management priorities over time and as a result decline in effectiveness.  With directed consistent funding this does not happen with motorized recreational interests.

1c.  How will BLM multiple use mandate and existing designations be protected in the Proposal?

The Organizations are very concerned about possible impacts to the decisions that have already been made under the multiple use mandates of the BLM.  Often these area designations are striking a balance of uses across the FO or planning area. The Proposal would be looking at these designations in isolation, as the scope of the Proposal is only addressing wildlife corridors, which would only impact a small portion of the planning area. The Organizations would ask for clarification on how multiple uses of the entire field office is maintained if there is a change in a designation in the RMP already in place.  For example, if there was a dedicated or protected use in the RMP that must now be altered or limited where would this use be moved to on the FO? How was this decision made outside the wildlife habitats simply must be explained.  This type of decision making is critical to transparency and maintaining the multiple use mandate that was previously balanced in the RMP planning process.

2a.  Wildlife populations in the State are stable, generally at or above objectives and in many cases improving already.

The Organizations vigorously assert that credible peer reviewed published information must be relied on for the analysis of conclusions that are foundational to the development of the Proposal. It is becoming far too common that we are seeing assertions that wildlife populations are in massive decline in Colorado due to a lack of habitat.  We are simply unsure what this information is based upon as it appears to be horribly inaccurate. Given that the long-term population treads for species in Colorado as improving since the early 1980s, we must also assume that habitat is in reasonably good shape given the trend has persisted for more than 40 years.

It has become far too common at the state level to hear unsupported allegations that wildlife populations have plummeted.  It is interesting and highly frustrating to us CPW research that has been published concludes that numerous species are generally populations are at or above objectives and are well above total populations of the species in 1980. In some localized areas there have been declines in wildlife populations in limited geographic areas due to management actions by CPW for that species.  Most commonly this has resulted in the increased numbers of hunting tags being sold in these areas to mitigate overpopulations of wildlife in the areas. Sometimes these efforts have sought to manage impacts to a wide range of other resources or species to reductions in populations to address issues like chronic wasting disease impacts.

In many areas where these types of reductions have occurred, many other species have significantly increased at the same time.  This situation would lead to the conclusion that declines are not habitat based but rather are based on a social desire to have multiple species on the landscape rather than a large number of a single species. It is highly frustrating for the recreational community when planning in based on inaccurate or incomplete information about an issue or fails to represent social considerations such as these. Colorado is in the midst of yet another reallocation of wildlife on the landscape after Proposition 114 was passed that mandated the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado. The Organizations would believe it to be naive to assume this will not alter the current populations of species on the Colorado landscape.  Management actions are scientifically based and opposition to previous management decisions should not be driving future management decisions, especially when the interests driving this discussion have not participated in these efforts previously.   No matter how much habitat is provided, there is always a limit to the carrying capacity and without management it can be exceeded. Wanting a larger number of species on the landscape will reduce the number of species that can occur on the landscape, simply due to natural factors such as interspecies competition.

CPW issued the 2020 Status Report on Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors (Hereinafter referred to as the “Winter Range Report”) in response to many of the same guidance documents, such as Secretarial Order 3362 and others, that are now asserted to be driving the current proposal. A complete copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “2” to these comments.  This report made many findings that are highly relevant to these efforts by BLM as there is significant conflict between the positions taken in this Proposal and those published by CPW in 2020.  The elk population was summarized as follows:

“The statewide 2018 post-hunt population range is 233,000-282,000. The 2018 post hunt estimate was 287,000, up slightly from 282,000 in 2017 (Figure 5). CPW utilizes season structure and hunter harvest, specifically antlerless harvest, to maintain or achieve population herd objectives. CPW has intentionally reduced elk populations to achieve population objectives. Reductions in antlerless licenses are anticipated as elk populations reach objectives or as population objectives increase.

Hunters and outfitters have increasingly expressed concerns that elk populations are becoming too low in some herds, despite the fact that 22 of 42 (52%) of the elk herds are above their current population objective ranges”

While we do not contest that hunters may like to increase their odds of a successful hunt, this is also not a shortage of habitat for elk.  This is a social desire expressed by almost every user group.  The Organizations would note that almost every recreational group would like to see expanded opportunity to achieve their recreational goals and as a result we must question the value of the closing assertion in the report.

Deer have a more variable trend in populations based on a larger number of factors impacting these species such as winter kill, drought and wasting disease, but generally these populations appear to be reasonably steady, which the Winter Range Report outlines as follows:

Winter Range Report graph

The winter range report specifically attributed this population situation to a wide range of factors as follows:

“The product of this public process was the 2014 West Slope Mule Deer Strategy (WSMDS). The WSMDS identifies seven management priorities to address mule deer declines on the West Slope of Colorado.

    • Landscape-scale habitat management to improve habitat quality
    • Predator management where predation may be limiting deer survival
    • Protection of habitat and mitigation of development impacts
    • Reducing the impacts of highways on mule deer survival, movements and migration
    • Reducing the impacts of human recreation on mule deer
    • Regulation of doe harvest and providing youth hunting opportunity
    • Maintaining a strong big game population and disease monitoring program and conducting applied research to improve management of deer populations”

Given this clear and concise statement from CPW as to their landscape level threats to deer, the Organizations would believe any assertion that habitat alone is causing the decline in the population would lack factual and legal defensibility.

A strong steady increase in the state population of pronghorn is also identified.  Similar stability in the long-term population of pronghorn has also been identified by CPW as follows:

population of pronghorn

Given that the total number of pronghorns in the State is about 2,000 more animals than were present in 1980 or a 30% increase in pronghorn populations since 1980, we would argue this is a huge success of management efforts by everyone, and this should be celebrated as huge win for the species rather than a need for more restrictions and analysis of habitat.

CPW conclusions for moose populations in the state are simply amazing as there are 7 times more moose in the state when compared to 1991. This is the result of CPW efforts around the large-scale reintroduction of this species in the mid-2000s in several locations in the state.  This trend is represented in the CPW Winter Range report as follows:

moose populations

Given that the total number of moose in the State us 7 times more animals than were present in 1991, we would argue this is a huge success of management efforts by everyone, and this should be celebrated as huge win for the species rather than a need for more restrictions and analysis of habitat.

CPW has also been very active in reintroducing big horn sheep.  The population reintroductions undertaken are outlined in the CPW Big Horn Sheep plan as follows:

“One reason for the apparent increase in Colorado’s bighorn populations is a longstanding effort to trap and translocate wild sheep to establish new populations or supplement existing populations. From 1945–2007, there were 47 releases of bighorn sheep in Colorado resulting in the translocation of 2,424 animals (excluding bighorns moved to research facilities). The majority of these transplants occurred during the 1980s. In 2007, translocated herds accounted for 54% of the total herds in Colorado and 48% of the total statewide bighorn population. Most transplant herds (78%) had less than 100 sheep in 2007 and relatively few of these herds have shown the sustained growth needed for long-term viability. Extant herds that have been supplemented with translocated sheep accounted for 24% of the total herds and 30% of the total statewide bighorn population in 2007.”[6]

As a result of these reintroductions, similar trends are found in sheep populations as Sheep are 6 times the population in 1985  which is represented in the Winter Range Report as follows:

sheep populations

Given that the total number of moose in the State is 6 times more animals than were present in 1991, we would argue this is a huge success of management efforts by everyone, and this should be celebrated as huge win for the species rather than a need for more restrictions and analysis of habitat.

While not mentioned in the Winter Range Report, the Organizations are also aware that CPW has undertaken a highly successful reintroduction of Canadian Lynx in the state, which is now above the target population for that species as well.  CPW has also undertaken the reintroduction of dozens of species of fish, black footed ferrets, boral toads and simply too many other species to even list.  We don’t contest that some species may be declining in limited areas but given that CPW has published and peer reviewed information that the deer and elk populations in the state are reasonably close to goals for the species we must question the basis for the assertion that these populations are collapsing or declining.  Best available science indicates exactly the opposite is the case.

We must also assume that habitat is sufficient to support the species, and this assumption is compounded by the huge number of other species that have been successfully reintroduced into the Colorado ecosystem over the last 50 years.  A huge number of these species’ reintroductions have been the subject of NEPA analysis, if there are assertions that NEPA analysis of some projects that might impact wildlife populations must be reviewed then the Organizations assert that all NEPA analysis must be reviewed, not just a select few.   If The Organizations must also vigorously assert that Colorado has a demonstrated track record of wanting more diversity of species on the landscape rather than larger number of limited species. In the face of this type of influx of so many species on the landscape, and assertion that habitat is problematic for the future of wildlife in the state is going to be difficult.

2(a)(2).  How are low quality data and management issues in herd management addressed before management changes are found to be necessary in the Proposal?

The Organizations do not contest that deer and elk populations may have appeared to decline at the state level but the mere perceived decline in two populations is not a basis for management decision making before data and local issues are specifically addressed in the planning process. Basic data analysis is critical to ensuring that an accurate representation of population trends is obtained and not influenced by local impacts or issues that are isolated in time. This concern is compounded by the exponential growth of so many other species over the same timeframe. While the Organizations are aware that the current effort has been undertaken at the request of the State of Colorado, this does not absolve BLM from ensuring that basic scientific processes are used to address the management situation. This type of management analysis must be undertaken prior to any management changes being undertaken on any portion of BLM managed lands. It is our position that this type of decision making is highly social in nature and represents a reasoned social decision at the state level that more diversity of species is desired by the public than large numbers of a single species.  This desire of Colorado residents to have more diversity of species on the landscape could not be more perfectly reflected than by the recent passage of Proposition 114 which mandated the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado.  Colorado has also reintroduced dozens of other species onto the landscape with generally huge levels of success. These are factors that also must be included in analysis if there are restrictions for usages of habitat being explored. Even without the desired intent of the state of Colorado to have more species diversity, the management decisions must address the myriad of site-specific issues and challenges that have been addressed on these areas and understanding this management history is critical as sometimes these trends are the result of management actions.

The following examples are raised as an example of the more localized issues that must be addressed in any landscape effort and they were identified after only a few minutes of research. This list is by no means complete or exhaustive, but merely represents the type of problems frequently encountered that can heavily impact any attempt to address issues like this at the landscape level.  Other locations have been plagued by a myriad of other issues, such as poor historical count data for a species. These are issues that can only be addressed at the local level and are simply poorly suited to landscape level management given the huge number of issues that are faced.  An example of a large decline in population that was completely unrelated to BLM management or habitat would be provided by the E25 Unit.  The E25 elk unit had decades of unchecked elk population increase that CPW determined had to be managed around 2000.  The basis and analysis for this decision making is laid out in multiple herd management plans from CPW.  The 2017 CPW herd plan for unit E25 has shown this graphically as follows:

2017 CPW herd plan

This management action in this area alone accounts for more than 5,000 less elk in the state and can almost entirely account for the decline in population in state population estimates. Without context this trend would be alarming, but context adds a huge amount of understanding to the discussion. When context is provided for the decline in population, the Organizations submit this area is a huge management WIN that must be celebrated rather than further restrictions.  This is an area that had a minimal population of elk, which was managed and exploded.  As a result of the explosion of population managers miscalculated the necessary management to correct the explosion. This is a good problem to have rather than a calamity to be managed.  The 1999 E25 herd plan provides this context as follows:

“All stakeholders agree the elk population in the DAU has been relatively stable and significant reductions have not occurred over the past 10 years. New population models indicate that the population has continued to increase in recent years. Public land management personnel are concerned about the health of range resources. Most agree that some reduction is necessary, but there is some disagreement on how much reduction should occur.  This disagreement is mostly focused around the current population estimate, which some stakeholders believe is too high.” [7]

The management history in the area is further addressed in the 1999 herd plan as follows:

“Number of limited antler-less licenses has been sharply increased over the past several years, but harvest rates haven’t been sufficient to start decreasing the population.” [8]

These types of management decisions are only addressed briefly in the 2017 herd plan but are hugely related to the decline of the elk populations in the area. [9] The 1999 CPW E25 report further outlines additional history in the management area as follows:

“During spring and summer 1998, the DOW lost two court cases. The group opposing the over-the-counter either-sex elk licenses in GMUs 54, 55 and 551 won their case. The DOW asked the Wildlife Commission to approve antler-less licenses for the fall hunt. The group opposed to the limitations in GMUs 66 and 67 won their case and the two units were once again open to unlimited, over-the-counter bull licenses.” [10]

The need for a complete understanding of local context and factors surrounding issues like this is critical to avoiding conclusions that simply make no sense. As an example, while the E25 unit elk population was being hunted down as a result of a significant increase in license sales implemented in the early 2000’s, the BLM was also closing more than 46% of roads and trails in the area through the Gunnison Basin Travel Management Plan. [11] While there was an additional decline in this population around 2012 the comical lack of relationship between the two efforts could not be more stark, as clearly route density declined as did herd populations.  This type of situation presents an interesting question.  Mainly how was the relationship of route density and wildlife populations established as this unit appears to identify the exact opposite situation. In situations such as this a lack of context can lead to comically incorrect management assumptions as in Unit E25 the assertion could be made that closing trails caused a population decline in elk. While we know this is not the case, these types of horribly incorrect assertions can be made if local information and issues are not addressed. This type of basic analysis must be undertaken to ensure management is actually addressing the challenges actually faced in the area.

These types of exceptionally localized problems exist on a myriad of other units that clearly impact population trends. This is exemplified by the E13 1999 plan specifically outlines the exceptionally poor nature of their historical data as follows:

“The current objectives for this DAU were set in 1990, and it now appears that the population size was underestimated by at least 30% at that time.” [12]

This means that population estimates were off by more than 1,500 elk on this unit alone and this type of error could significantly impact any statewide population goals when statewide populations are only 2,000 animals below state level goals. This situation is not even mentioned in the more recent E13 management plan but could clearly create the appearance that populations have significantly changed in the area.  These are the type of changes that can NEVER be fixed with land management decisions but rather can only be fixed by getting accurate data. These are the types of data issues are critical to the analysis that must occur in this effort prior to any management alternatives even being undertaken.

2(a)(3).  The comical conflict of positions of several Organizations on the wildlife population sizes must be addressed.

The Organizations believe the unprecedented nature of this and several other efforts in Colorado has forced some wildlife advocacy organizations into some enormously conflicting positions on issues.  Some of these conflicts could not be more direct in nature on materially factual issues, and these conflicts are occurring within days of each position being taken. The Organizations are concerned that this situation creates the appearance of groups approaching this effort in less than good faith. This gives us pause and concern and as a result vigorously asking for extensive analysis for all recreational access given the lack of good faith that has been displayed by groups to this point.  We have no expectation that good faith efforts will suddenly return to these discussions at some point in the future, but these Organizations will simply continue to display bad faith in the process moving forward and we simply cannot envision where is process may be directed as a result.

An example of the conflicting positions on factually identical questions is exemplified by the WildEarth Guardians assertion that the State of Colorado has too many elk and deer and the reintroduction will return balance in populations to the State as a part of their citizen reintroduction proposal submitted to the CPW Commission in July of 2022.[13]  This is astonishing inconsistent with the general position of WildEarth Guardians, exemplified by the fact WildEarth Guardians is suing the Rio Grande NF asserting the RMP revision did not adequately protect declining populations from possible recreational impacts as filed in November of 2021.[14]   In almost every other effort than the wolf reintroduction we have consistently been told that ungulate populations are on the edge of the cliff of catastrophic decline. These are positions that simply cannot be reconciled and give us concerns about the possibility of unintended consequences of management.

We believe that the current litigation ongoing on the Rio Grande over species and populations is a concrete example of why we are asking for strict review of any data or trend data.  The Organizations have been forced to intervene in the litigation of the Rio Grande in defense of claims with the US Forest Service, in Order to provide support, knowledge and resources in the litigation. While we will continue to fight for access, we would also like to think that at some point this type of conflict might come to an end.  While the above example is provided in isolation, we are sure other concerns will be taking unusual positions compared to the historical positions and management to be undertaken. As a result of what could clearly be a lack of good faith by certain interests in the process on basic factual positions, the Organizations would again ask that scrutiny be provided as broadly in scope as possible to protect all recreational access in the efforts subsequent to this. We have no expectation that good faith efforts will return to the wildlife management discussion in the State at any point in the foreseeable future.

2(b)(1) Are BLM efforts the best method to address general wildlife populations?

As we have noted throughout these comments, the State of Colorado has demonstrated a long history of wanting greater species diversity in the state rather than larger populations of a single species. We are also aware that the most direct population reduction effort for species in hunting and in many areas, there have been planned scientifically based reductions in wildlife through significant increases in hunting licenses.  Given that the effort has the goal of increasing wildlife habitat and populations, we must question how this is achieved.  Improving habitat will not increase populations but rather without coordination will only increase the sales of hunting licenses and result in a population that remains at objectives.

This type of hugely conflicted situation that can result from socially based decision-making gives rise to a unique and problematic foundational concern, which the Organizations believe also must be corrected in the NEPA analysis that is being proposed. This situation is basically summarized as every user group on the landscape believing that they have minimal impacts and blaming other users instead of accepting responsibility for their actions. Researchers have summarized this situation as follows:

“Approximately 50% of recreationists felt that recreation was not having a negative effect on wildlife. In general, survey respondents perceived that it was acceptable to approach wildlife more closely than our empirical data indicated wildlife would allow. Recreationists also tended to blame other user groups for stress to wildlife rather than holding themselves responsible.”[15]

While the above process and analysis is addressing recreational activity, the Organizations simply cannot imagine how this type of issue would not be impacting efforts at the geographic scale that is being undertaken in the Proposal.  BLM must attempt to correct for these types of issues in their planning efforts as well. The Organizations have to question how the current proposal has been identified as a management tool that can address the desire for larger wildlife populations.  There are many other activities and tools that can drive wildlife populations upward far more quickly than restricting access to public lands.

2(b)(2) Hugely effective management efforts can occur without BLM involvement but result in massive increases in wildlife populations.

The Organizations are aware that wildlife management has taken new and exciting turns in Colorado in the last several years, such as the addition of wildlife overpasses on several interstates and state highways. These overpasses have resulted in huge increases in wildlife populations in areas that have had them in place long enough to document benefits. Once such benefit was documented by the Western Governors Association in conjunction with a wildlife overpass on US 89 outside Kanab Utah.  This analysis immediately documented a huge benefit to a single species as follows:

“It is estimated that a minimum of 102 accidents will be prevented each year through this collaborative effort. Utah State University will study this project over the next five years to provide feedback to the partners on the effectiveness of their efforts and to provide information on how best to design solutions to similar problem areas for wildlife and motorists.”[16]

This type of benefit was not calculated for other species but we have to believe significant benefits were achieved for other species as well. Saving hundreds of deer per year is a huge benefit that simply is not even calculated on any units that have newly built wildlife overpasses in Colorado.  The Organizations must question how these types of projects and benefits would be addressed in a project similar to the Proposal as BLM may not even be involved in these efforts. While BLM may not even be involved in the local effort, these local efforts could hugely impact species populations at the local and state level.

2(c) Secretarial Order 3362 has been addressed for recreational activity in Colorado.

The Organizations would note that Secretarial Order 3362, which does address wildlife and habitat is also asserted to be the basis of the current Proposal also recognizes and excludes from its application management goals that have already been addressed in previous planning efforts from further review. Interestingly, this would appear to preclude the inclusion of issue like possible changes in management conditions in the area and would force change in condition type concerns to be directed to the original planning effort rather than addressed in the current effort. These designations in place for recreational improvement and protections, such as SRMA and ERMA planning designations have been highly site specific in development and were placed to avoid high quality habitat areas and avoid seasonal challenges to wildlife from recreation. Since these designations have already been developed with these goals in mind, these designations are outside the scope of the Secretarial Order and must be protected from change without further detailed analysis. Expanding the scope of the current Proposal to address motorized recreational access would be problematic.

Secretarial Order 3362 specifies this type of an exclusion as follows:

“(2) Within 60 days, if this focus is not already included in respective land management plans, evaluate how land under each bureau’s management responsibility can contribute to State or other efforts to improve the quality and condition of priority big-game winter and migration corridor habitat.”[17]

Protecting wildlife populations and habitat has been a cornerstone of providing motorized recreational opportunities, has clearly been addressed in every RMP we are familiar with in the state.  CPW has provided volumes of input into the development of these plans. Given the clear exclusion of previous management efforts to address the question of route density and site-specific issues throughout the state, the Organizations vigorously assert that existing designations of routes and trails is outside the scope of Secretarial Order 3362 and must be protected and preserved if this effort moves forward.

2(d) Habitat must be defined and consistently applied across each species being addressed in the Proposal.

The Organizations are concerned that the current purpose and need is not particularly well defined, and this type of basic definition will be critical to the success or failure of the project. Throughout the Proposal terms like “important habitat” or “high priority” habitat are used to outline the scope of the effort but these terms are never defined or outlined. As a result, the Organizations must ask questions such as:  Important habitat as defined by who?  What factors were used to identify the characteristics of that area make the habitat important must be addressed?  How were areas found to have these characteristics and other areas not have these characteristics?  How was importance of habitat balanced or addressed across the multiple species? How were local issues such as those previously raised in these comments corrected for in the determinations of the area’s importance for planning?

These are basic questions that simply must be addressed and this concern is heightened when the purpose and need for the project is identified.  Purpose and need of project are identified as follows:

… the preliminary purpose of evaluating alternative management approaches for the BLM planning decisions to maintain, conserve, and protect big game corridors and other important big game habitat areas on BLM-managed public lands and minerals in Colorado. This action is needed to ensure that the BLM considers current big game population and habitat data, including maps of high priority habitat, and to evaluate management consistency with plans or policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribes, to the extent consistent with Federal laws, regulations, policies and programs applicable to public lands.

The inability of the species habitat to be accurately described and classified gives rise to a host of other problems in subsequent species management efforts, such as habitat identification or avoiding unintended management actions taken in the generalized habitat information already provided.  Without a good description how do we not have problems with the 2018 US Supreme Court’s unanimous Weyerhaeuser. While the USFWS recently withdrew the proposed definition of habitat required by Weyerhaeuser, this does not mitigate the legal requirements of the Weyerhaeuser decision.

The Organizations are very concerned that the current documentation is highly theoretical in nature and far from a settled scientific model moving forward.  The use of modeling in the ESA has been an issue that has been the basis of dozens of treatises and texts and is far from a resolved issue.[18] These reviews have consistently identified the need for the scientific community to provide legally sufficient basis for species management. This standard has been summarized as follows:

“Given the importance of maintaining biodiversity for both ethical and practical reasons- foe example to sustain environmental goods and services critical to human welfare (Hooper et al 2005)- it is imperative that the scientific community provide land managers with the knowledge and tools needed to meet their conservation mandate.”[19]

Other researchers have stated this standard in the management as listing of identifiable species, such as the Mexican gray wolf as follows:

“Policy-related uncertainty originated from contrasts in thresholds for acceptable risk and disagreement as to how to define endangered species recovery. Rather than turning to PVA to produce politically acceptable definitions of recovery that appear science-based, agencies should clarify the nexus between science and policy elements in their decision processes. The limitations we identify in endangered-species policy and how PVAs are conducted as part of recovery planning must be addressed if PVAs are to fulfill their potential to increase the odds of successful conservation outcomes.”[20]

These treatises also provide highly detailed discussions on the management of uncertainly in the assumptions and data in the species/habitat modeling process. Listing a species based on a lack of information on the species is a failure of basic scientific processes around the modeling of any habitat areas for a species.  In habitat discussions, too often processes fail in correcting basic modeling errors, as is mandated by the scientific process for modeling any activity.  Instead, these modeling errors which are not based on scientific process are sought to be normalized in a rushed effort to protect a species.

The Organizations vigorously assert that the problems with modeling the species that cannot be described or scientifically defined accurately are compounded when applications of habitat designation standards are undertaken.  The challenge of modeling habitat is immense and only expanded when the species cannot be defined. Recent USFWS efforts have highlighted the habitat designation challenges for identifiable species as follows:

“In particular, the proposed definition is written so as to include unoccupied habitat, whereas many of the definitions in the ecological literature that we reviewed did not appear to consider unoccupied areas.”

The concern of the scientific community around management of poorly defined habitat is not minor.  The mandate of applying best available science (“BAS”) is one of the cornerstones of the entire federal planning process and is specifically applicable to the designation of both basic habitat and critical habitat.

While the process for modeling of any activity has not been a hot bed of legislative activity, modeling of complex activities and relationships occurs consistently throughout the world on a huge number of issues and has been the basis of extensive scientific and scholarly analysis.  While there are an exhaustive number of models for almost any activity, the Organizations are aware that all modeling guidelines require some basic review of the model to ensure the model is accurately predicting the behavior that is sought to be modeled. While no model is perfect in predicting all behavior, there needs to be some level of correlation between the model and the behavior modeled. If the model does not accurately forecast or provide consistent results, the model is fixed and management action is not taken. A good general summary of the modeling and simulation process is provided by Wikipedia.com, which provides the following general guidance on modeling of behaviors

“Modelling as a substitute for direct measurement and experimentation. Within modelling and simulation, a model is a task-driven, purposeful simplification and abstraction of a perception of reality, shaped by physical, legal, and cognitive constraints. It is task-driven, because a model is captured with a certain question or task in mind. Simplifications leave all the known and observed entities and their relation out that are not important for the task. Abstraction aggregates information that is important, but not needed in the same detail as the object of interest. Both activities, simplification and abstraction, are done purposefully. However, they are done based on a perception of reality. This perception is already a model in itself, as it comes with a physical constraint. There are also constraints on what we are able to legally observe with our current tools and methods, and cognitive constraints which limit what we are able to explain with our current theories.

Evaluating a model: A model is evaluated first and foremost by its consistency to empirical data; any model inconsistent with reproducible observations must be modified or rejected. One way to modify the model is by restricting the domain over which it is credited with having high validity. A case in point is Newtonian physics, which is highly useful except for the very small, the very fast, and the very massive phenomena of the universe. However, a fit to empirical data alone is not sufficient for a model to be accepted as valid. Other factors important in evaluating a model include:

    • Ability to explain past observations
    • Ability to predict future observations
    • Cost of use, especially in combination with other models
    • Refutability, enabling estimation of the degree of confidence in the model
    • Simplicity, or even aesthetic appeal” [21]

As briefly outlined in the Wikipedia definition, the evaluation and revision of any modeling or simulation of behavior is a critical step in the modeling process and without success at this step the model should be modified or rejected entirely. This double check of the accuracy of the model to predict behavior is a basic review for any model of activity or behavior. While the list of modeling guidelines is overwhelming, recognition of the requirement for a double checking of the accuracy of the model under non statutory situations. For creation of a business model, Entrepreneur magazine recommends the following step in the development of a business model:

“2. Confirm that your product or service solves the problem. Once you have a prototype or alpha version, expose it to real customers to see if you get the same excitement and delight that you feel. Look for feedback on how to make it a better fit. If it doesn’t relieve the pain, or doesn’t work, no business model will save you.” [22]

A similar need to double check that any model is accurately reflecting the behavior sought to be modeled in the development of mathematical models.  This requirement in mathematical modeling efforts is outlined by experts as follows:

“3. Determine how the model could be improved. In order to make your model useful for further applications, you need to consider how it could be improved. Are there any variables that you should have considered? Are there any restrictions that could be lifted? Try to find the best way to improve upon your model before you use it again. [8][23]

Similar to the modeling of business activities and mathematical theory, best available science on the modeling of wildlife habitat also has an exceptionally well-defined process for development of species or habitat models.  This process includes a step to review that the results of the model are corresponding with the actual life activity of the species.  This process of modeling wildlife habitat has been outlined as follows:

“Modeling wildlife habitat over this range of scales requires many assumptions about the relationships between wildlife population metrics and habitat occurrence, quality, and spatial distribution. Standard modeling protocol is to explicitly state all assumptions early in the process; substantiate those assumptions with field data, published information, or expert opinion; hypothesize the relationships among wildlife and their habitat; and use the modeling framework to evaluate sensitivities and produce output. One critical assumption underlying this protocol is that habitat is accurately characterized at ecologically relevant scales to the organism(s) of interest.” [24]

Other experts have provided the following summary of the wildlife habitat modeling process:

“The Process of model evaluation and validation is a critical step in modeling. However, this evaluation should not focus on how well the model captures “truth” (verification) but how well the model performs for its intended purpose.”[25]

Without exaggeration there are libraries full of scholarly materials addressing the proper methodology for the development of habitat models for wildlife, and these range from discussions at a very general level to the specific process that was used to model habitat for a species. This level of vigor in order to establish a defensible scientific model of habitat is often simply not present planning process but needs to be in the Proposal, as this is targeting habitat.

Even when addressing wildlife habitat, best available science clearly identifies the need to ensure modeling of habitat areas is actually reflecting the species and the areas the species depends upon for basic life activities. While best available science clearly requires if a model does not accurately reflect the modeled behavior, this is a basis for review and modification of the model and not moving forward with the recommended actions of the model. If the modeling accuracy cannot be improved to a scientifically defensible level, the modeling effort is stopped at some point. This simply is not how modeling of habitat has occurred in our experiences under planning process as often the rush to protect the species overwhelms any discussion of revision of models due to poor performance of the model in predicting behavior. The Proposal would be a good example of the relationship of these types of challenges in the management of a possible species.

The Organizations believe a comparison to the facts around the listing of the Gopher frog which was struck down in the recent Weyerhaeuser Supreme Court decision and the current proposal will clarify our concerns about the poor resolution of the management of uncertainty. The gopher frog listing provided the following criteria for habitat which are summarized as small ponds that hold reasonable quality water at least 195 days of the year, a lack of predatory fish; and an open canopy herbaceous forest. [26]  The comically broad nature of these modeling factors is immediately apparent, as under these factors the gopher frog could be living in almost any pond in the country. It should be noted that these factors could be applied to a huge number of OTHER species totally unrelated to the gopher frog as well.  Almost no pond in the country could be excluded with these modeling factors despite the fact the gopher frog has never lived in most of the country.  This is an example of a failed habitat model, which could be corrected with a more detailed discussion of why the area is thought to be suitable.

3.  User conflict can easily be created with overly broad route closures.

The Organizations believe that analysis of how best available science supports the management decisions and direction any proposal constitutes a critical part of the planning process, especially when addressing perceived user conflicts.  This analysis will allow the public to understand the basis of alleged user conflicts and why travel management has been chosen to remedy the concern.   Relevant social science has clearly found this analysis to be a critical tool in determining the proper methodology for managing and truly resolving user conflicts.

When socially based user conflict is properly addressed in the Proposal, the need for travel management closures will be significantly reduced. Researchers have specifically identified that properly determining the basis for or type of user conflict is critical to determining the proper method for managing this conflict.  Scientific analysis defines the division of conflicts as follows:

“For interpersonal conflict to occur, the physical presence or behavior of an individual or a group of recreationists must interfere with the goals of another individual or group….Social values conflict, on the other hand, can occur between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell&Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba& Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups……When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy.  When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. In the Mt. Evans study (Vaske et al., 1995), for example, physically separating hunters from nonhunters did not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the nonhunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area resulted in the perception of conflict. For these types of situations, efforts designed to educate and inform the different visiting publics about the reasons underlying management actions may be more effective in reducing conflict.”

Other researchers have distinguished types of user conflicts based on a goals interference distinction, described as follows:

“The travel management planning process did not directly assess the prevalence of on-site conflict between non-motorized groups accessing and using the yurts and adjacent motorized users…..The common definition of recreation conflict for an individual assumes that people recreate in order to achieve certain goals, and defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). Therefore, conflict as goal interference is not an objective state, but is an individual’s appraisal of past and future social contacts that influences either direct or indirect conflict. It is important to note that the absence of recreational goal attainment alone is insufficient to denote the presence of conflict. The perceived source of this goal interference must be identified as other individuals.”

It is significant to note that Mr. Norling’s study, cited above, was specifically created to determine why winter travel management closures had not resolved user conflicts for winter users of a group of yurts on the Wasache-Cache National Forest. As noted in Mr. Norling’s study, the travel management decisions addressing in the areas surrounding the yurts failed to distinguish why the conflict was occurring and this failure prevented the land managers from effectively resolving the conflict.

The Organizations believe that understanding why the travel management plan was unable to resolve socially based user conflicts on the Wasache-Cache National Forest is critical in the Colorado BLM planning area.  Properly understanding the issue to be resolved will ensure that the same errors that occurred on the Wasache-Cache are not implemented again to address problems they simply cannot resolve.  The Organizations believe that the Colorado BLM must learn from this failure and move forward with effective management rather than fall victim to the same mistakes again.

4.   CPW’s Trails and wildlife guide must be standard for analysis of any impacts of Proposal on recreational areas or routes as this has been signed by the BLM.

The Organizations have partnered with CPW, USFS and BLM for the development and updating of the 2021 CPW Guide entitled “Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind.”   The Organizations along with more than a dozen state and local agencies, including the BLM and Forest Service spent more than a year of dedicated meetings to develop this Guide.  Given that BLM signed this Guide and was seminal in the development of the document, we believe this document is highly relevant to the analysis of possible impacts of route density standards.  A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “5” to these comments.  We are deeply disappointed that this document is currently not mentioned in the Proposal despite the numerous mentions of route densities as objectives of planning.

5.  Executive Orders requiring an expansion of recreational opportunities issued by President Biden must be addressed in the Proposal.

The Organizations would note that the America the Beautiful and 30×30 efforts have been referenced in the scoping brochure, several times in Presentations in public meetings and was the topic of extensive discussion in various meetings around the initiative.  We are very concerned that these were exceptionally generalized references and that these efforts are often poorly summarized in the discussions.  The Organizations submit that how the Proposal relates to these efforts remains horribly unclear as no substantive National level guidance has been provided on the EO or related efforts, making any implementation efforts difficult to understand and achieve as the goals of these efforts remain unclear.  These types of goals and clarity are highly relevant to states like Colorado who have actively moved federal public lands into various levels of either Congressional or administrative designations.  The Organizations have been active participants in numerous efforts to Congressionally protect areas and would assert that generalized goals such as 30×30 have been achieved in Colorado, making any asserted basis for the effort lacking factual basis.

The recent issuance of Executive Order # 14008 by President Biden on January 27, 2021 would be an example of a decision that is often only partially summarized in most materials we are seeing submitted in comment processes for federal land planning, as the “30 by 30” concept is memorialized in this Order. It is our position that the 30 by 30 concept was long ago satisfied on the planning area given the large expansions either Congressionally designated Wilderness, or National monuments in the area over the last several decades. In direct contrast to the summaries of EO 14008 we are seeing, this Order had provisions protecting lands generally but also had specific goals of improving access to public lands. This have been overlooked in most summaries but the Organizations submit these requirements are critical to bringing balance to public lands. Before addressing the 5 times recreational improvement is specified in EO 14008, the Organizations must also recognize that wildlife and habitat concerns are only indirectly mentioned in the EO.  While we do not contest that wildlife and habitat are the target of Secretarial Order 3362, these goals are only indirectly addressed in the EO.

§214 of EO 14008 clearly mandates improved recreational access to public lands through management as follows:

“It is the policy of my Administration to put a new generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters. The Federal Government must protect America’s natural treasures, increase reforestation, improve access to recreation, and increase resilience to wildfires and storms, while creating well-paying union jobs for more Americans, including more opportunities for women and people of color in occupations where they are underrepresented.”

The clear and concise mandate of the EO to improve recreational access to public lands is again repeated in §215 of the EO as follows:

“The initiative shall aim to conserve and restore public lands and waters, bolster community resilience, increase reforestation, increase carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protect biodiversity, improve access to recreation, and address the changing climate.”

§217 of EO 14008 also clearly requires improvement of economic contributions from recreation on public lands as follows:

“Plugging leaks in oil and gas wells and reclaiming abandoned mine land can create well-paying union jobs in coal, oil, and gas communities while restoring natural assets, revitalizing recreation economies, and curbing methane emissions.”

The Organizations are aware significant concern raised around the 30 by 30 concept that was also memorialized in EO 14008. While the EO does not define what “protected” means, the EO also provided clear and extensive guidance on other values to be balanced with. From our perspective the fact that large tracts of land in the planning area are Congressionally designated or managed pursuant to Executive Order far exceeds any goals for the EO. While there are overlap between these categories that precludes simply adding these classifications together, this also does not alter the fact the planning area has achieved these goals of 30% of acreages being protected.

The Organizations are aware that the America the Beautiful effort has provided some generalized guidance on implementing EO 14008, and unfortunately these goals are not particularly clear either. While there is a lot of confusion around the goals, the applicability of these goals to federal lands is clearly reflected, in Principle #5 of the America the Beautiful effort, which is as follows:

“Principle 6: Honor Private Property Rights and Support the Voluntary Stewardship Efforts of Private Landowners and Fishers”[27]

Our first question would be why Federal and State ownership would not be sufficient to protect these lands which encompass almost 60% of the State of Colorado. But even from this standard is found insufficient Congressionally protected lands in Colorado are significant.  After a cursory review of the federal public lands status in Colorado about 55% of the USFS managed lands are managed as either Congressionally designated Wilderness (15%) or Roadless Areas (35%), which are managed with the specifically identified goals of protecting resources.

For the Department of Interior lands, National Wildlife Refuges encompass around 175,000 acres, National Parks managed areas encompass another 739,000 acres, Congress has designated 2 National Recreation Areas covering more that 78,000 acres and 3 National Conservation Areas covering a little less than 400,000 acres, BLM manages 4 Wilderness Areas covering 248,751 acres and an additional 548,023 acres as Congressionally designated Wilderness Study areas.  These lands cover another 14% of the federal lands mass.  When these areas are consolidated Colorado has about 35% of the federal land mass under Congressional designations currently. The levels of protections only increase as lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corp of Engineers are not included in this analysis.

Percentages of protection are only further increased by the large number of Colorado State Parks and Wildlife areas that are in the State.  Numerous local governments also have extensive holdings that would further increase the percentage of lands that are protected.  Given the fact that Colorado has already exceeded the 30×30 goal, we must question how the goal can be furthered as asserted in scoping and related documents.  The Organizations are unsure how compliance with EO has been determined as the EO is hugely conflicting and ambiguous on many issues. Without further national guidance on implementation of the 30×30 effort, the Organizations submit that any assertion of further compliance is at best horribly premature.

8. Economic impacts from unintended impacts of management must be addressed.

The Organizations are very concerned around the possible negative economic impacts that could result from the Proposal, not only from recreational related impacts but also the possible impacts to other activities as well.  Too many of our small communities’ struggle to provide even basic services to their residents and tourists visiting the areas. Without a well-rounded economic engine for the community, the community will struggle and possibly fail and this will degrade the recreational opportunities and support for them from the community and this is a concern for the Organizations.  The Organizations are very concerned that there have been numerous assertions that completely overestimate the economic contribution of the reintroduction by merely asserting that all recreation is occurring in the State as a result of the reintroduction.  That entirely lacks factual basis.

CPW own conclusions on the economic contributions of all forms of outdoor recreation in the state of Colorado, clearly identified as a consideration to be mitigated in any NEPA analysis are as follows:

“Focusing on the state-level results below, the total economic output associated with outdoor recreation amounts to $62.5 billion dollars, contributing $35.0 billion dollars to the Gross Domestic Product of the state. This economic activity supports over 511,000 jobs in the state, which represents 18.7% of the entire labor force in Colorado and produces $21.4 billion dollars in salaries and wages. In addition, this output contributes $9.4 billion dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue.” [28]

The Organizations submit that more than $62.5 Billion Dollars of economic contribution that results in 18.7% of the entire labor force is an economic concern to warrant specific recognition of recreation both now and in the future.  While many of the planning areas are outside the economic contributions of the Denver Broncos and other recreational activities, the economic contributions of motorized recreation to the state are massive as well and are highly at risk in the current Proposal given the concept of route density being addressed specifically in the Proposal. In 2014, CPW, USFS and BLM partnered with COHVCO to undertake an economic contribution study from the recreational use of off highway motorized vehicles in Colorado.[29] While slightly out of date at this point, these contributions remain immense and were found to account for more than $2.3 billion in economic contributions, more than 17,000 jobs and more than $300 million in tax revenues.

Any assertion that such a massive economic contribution is insufficient to warrant inclusion in NEPA analysis simply lacks any factual basis. It would be highly frustrating to open collaborations when contributions such as this are not worthy of recognition. This type of arbitrary resolution of considerations will cause concern and frustration from the public generally, and our members more specifically, as the Proposal moves forward.

4c.  Economic contributions of wildlife tourism are almost non-existent.

Under ESA processes for habitat designations and general NEPA analysis planners are required to address economic impacts of decisions around the reintroduction of the wolves in the ecosystem.  We again believe these issues are highly relevant to understanding the climate the Proposal is being developed under.  Too often we are hearing comical assertions that wildlife will drive eco-tourism and related economic impacts will simply flow from the reintroduction to local communities.[30] That is simply without factual basis and almost all research we have seen has been hugely generalized and overly broad.

The lack of factual basis of these assertions is exhibited by the fact that wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone Park about the same time as snowmobile closures were undertaken in the park.  The value of recreation to these local communities is well demonstrated prior to the Yellowstone closures for snowmobiles.[31] While a hugely developed diverse population of wildlife has been on the landscape and easily seen in the winter, tax revenues and jobs from winter recreation in the Yellowstone Park remain only a small fraction of the previous levels.  People simply are not visiting these areas to view wildlife in sufficient numbers to offset visitation lost from more generalized recreation.  This is highly relevant to this discussion as tourists are not going to Colorado primarily to see wolves, if you are skiing at Steamboat or Vail your decision is driven by a desire to ski not see wildlife.

9. Conclusion

The Organizations participated in the public meetings that were provided by the BLM on this issue and were surprised to hear a FAR more broad scope of the project than is currently provided for. Our experiences with the Sage Grouse management efforts have allowed us to understand that anytime route density standards are addressed, such as in the Proposal, there will be recreational impacts due to route closures. This is a situation where one size fits all management is totally inappropriate and significant amounts of work must be performed on existing data to understand the myriad of site-specific issues that species are facing in the state and what previous management challenges have been faced in these areas. While the state of Colorado may have requested this review, it does not absolve the BLM of basing management decisions on best available science.

The Organizations are very concerned that a significant amount of foundational analysis for the effort does not appear to have occurred and if it has occurred it has not been discussed. The Organizations submit this spans many facets of the Proposal, which ranges from questions like has there been a decline in wildlife populations in Colorado?  Is there a single factor causing the perceived decline in wildlife populations? If so, how was this determined.  What was the time frame for this conclusion and analysis?  How was the relationship between an asserted decline in populations been attributed to a lack of habitat? These are foundational questions that must be addressed before any range of alternatives is even formulated, as our minimal research indicates there are a huge number of factors impacting wildlife populations, ranging from the window of time used to analyze declines or increases, poor data being available for analysis and other management efforts driving down populations based on best available science.  Once these other factors are addressed the Organizations vigorously assert the relationship between populations and habitat declines must be established.  This simply has not been done to date. If the BLM is going to move forward with any analysis of options as required by NEPA, these are foundational questions that must be addressed.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 518-281-5810 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or Chad Hixon at 719-221-8329 or via email at Chad@Coloradotpa.org if you should wish to discuss these matters further.

Sincerely,

Scott Jones, Esq.
Authorized Representative – COHVCO
Executive Director CSA

Chad Hixon
Executive Director – TPA

Marcus Trusty
President – CORE

 

[1] See, Executive Order  §11644 at §3.

[2] For more information on this program please see the following link: Colorado Parks & Wildlife – OHV Grant Application Forms (state.co.us)

[3] More information on this program is available here: Colorado Parks & Wildlife Partners with Colorado Youth Corps Association – Pagosa Daily Post News Events & Video for Pagosa Springs Colorado

[4] See, CPW Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Opportunities for Policy Solutions; 2021

[5] A complete copy of this grant is available here:  31-Travel_Management_Signage_2023.pdf (state.co.us)

[6] See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; Colorado Bighorn Sheep management plan 2009−2019; February 2009 at pg.1.

[7] See, CPW E25 1999 Williams Fork Elk Herd management plan at pg. 4

[8] See, CPW E25 1999 Williams Fork Elk Herd management plan at Pg 11.

[9] See, CPW 2017 E25 Williams Fork Elk Herd management plan at pg. 9.

[10] See, 1999 E25 plan Williams Fork Elk Herd management plan at pg. 25.

[11] See, BLM Gunnison Basin Travel Plan FEIS 2010 at pg. 262.  a complete copy of this documentation is available on request.

[12] See, CPW E13 Elk Herd Plan (1999) at pg. 1. As this report is not easily available, we have enclosed a copy as Exhibit “3”

[13] See, WildEarth Guardians webinar at 5 minutes of 1hr 3-minute webinar.  A complete copy of this webinar is available for viewing here: Colorado Wolf Restoration Plan webinar – YouTube

[14] See, SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL, SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Petitioners vs. DAN DALLAS; and UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO; Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2994

[15] See, Taylor and Knight; WILDLIFE RESPONSES TO RECREATION AND ASSOCIATED VISITOR PERCEPTIONS; Ecological Applications, 13(4), 2003, pp. 951–963

[16] See, Western Governor Assoc; Case Study:  State, Federal, Local and Private Entities Collaborate to Build Wildlife Crossings along a 12-Mile Stretch of Highway 89 in Southern Utah 2014 at pg. 4. A complete copy of this study has been attached as Exhibit “4”to these comments.

[17] See, DOI Secretarial Order 3362 @ §4(b)(2)

[18] See, Millspaugh et al: Models for planning wildlife conservation in Large Landscapes; Elsiver Press 2009 at pg. 51.

[19] See, Millspaugh et al; Note #10 at pg. 51.

[20] See, Carroll et al; Biological and Sociopolitical Sources of Uncertainty in Population Viability Analysis for Endangered Species Recovery Planning; Scientific Reports; July 12, 2019

[21] See, Wikipedia.com; definition of scientific modeling @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling accessed September 1, 2020

[22] See, Zwilling, Martin: 7 Steps for Establishing the Right Business Model; January 30, 2015.

[23] See, https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Mathematical-Model

[24] See, Orloff & Strong; Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes; 2009

[25] See, Millspaugh et al; Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes, Elsiver Publishing 2009 at pg. 5. Internal citations omitted

[26] See, US Fish and Wildlife Service; Proposed Rules; Endangered and Threatened Plants and Wildlife; Designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi Gopher Frog; Federal Register; Vol. 75, No. 106 pg. 31387; Thursday, June 3, 2010 at pg. 31404.

[27] See, US Government Interagency Report: Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful; 2021 at pg 15. A complete copy of this report is available here. Report: Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful 2021 (doi.gov)

[28] See, CPW 2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan:  Appendix F Pg. 111. Dated July 23, 2018.

[29] A complete copy of this study has been provided with these comments as Exhibit “6”

[30] The Economic Benefits and Struggles of Wolves in Yellowstone | Good Nature Travel Blog (nathab.com)

[31] See, Taylor et al; Economic Importance of the Winter Season to Park County, Wyoming,  May 1999.

Continue Reading

Reconsideration of 2020 San Rafael Desert Travel Management Travel Management Plan – Comments

RWR TPA CORE COHVCO logos

Bureau of Land Management
Price Field Office
125 South 600 West
Price, UT 84501

 RE: Reconsideration of 2020 San Rafael Desert Travel Management Travel Management Plan

Dear BLM Planning Team:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the reconsideration of the 2020 San Rafael Desert (SRD) Travel Management Plan (TMP).

1. Background of Our Organizations

In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following four groups:

Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group based out of Buena Vista Colorado whose mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy. CORE achieves this through trail adoptions, trail maintenance projects, education, stewardship, outreach, and collaborative efforts.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado.  COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. COHVCO is a signatory to the subject 2017 settlement agreement that directed the BLM to produce a TMP in the SRD planning area.

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands. RwR has also participated in the Price Resource Management Plan 2008 revision and subsequent amendments.

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands to diverse multiple-use recreation opportunities. The TPA is a signatory to the subject 2017 settlement agreement that directed the BLM to produce a TMP in the SRD planning area.

The Organizations and its contributors, along with local OHV clubs like Sage Riders Motorcycle Club and Castle Country OHV Association, have enjoyed riding for generations in the SRD, including on the 195 miles of routes to be reconsidered. Use rose in the 1970s, including BLM-permitted motorcycle races called the annual Mail Run that ran for a decade, which included racing down the entire length of Cottonwood Wash. Use of this and other routes remained strong through the 1990’s and 2000’s until the BLM technically closed the vast majority of SRD routes in 2008. Some of our contributors helped the BLM to inventory routes in the SRD. After passage of the Dingell Act in 2019, use in the SRD (other than the part designated as Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness), use has slowly but surely started to return. After approval of the 2020 SRD TMP, some of our contributors assisted the BLM to start implementing the decision, including on some of the reconsideration routes.

2. Introduction

In good faith, the Organizations will take the BLM’s invitation to comment on its preliminary proposal to close most of 195 miles designated open in the 2020 SRD TMP but then slated for reconsideration by the 2022 settlement agreement. First, though, we should recall how access to existing routes in this planning area has been tied up for fourteen years and counting. The 2008 RMP simply did not produce a complete, coherent, or legally defensible TMP in the SRD. In fact, it didn’t even produce an inventory of the existing routes. Instead it pledged to do a proper TMP in the SRD within five years, asking the public to comply with an incomplete TMP in the meantime. This timeline was stalled by several rounds of settlement talks with wilderness-expansion groups stemming from a partially-adverse ruling of the Richfield RMP, which managed to wrap the SRD TMP into the 2017 settlement agreement.

The Dingell Act designated approximately 660,000 acres of Wilderness in Emery County, including the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness in the SRD planning area that removed 80 miles of existing routes from further consideration, which were some of the best routes. The remainder of this planning area became increasingly important for motorized recreation displaced by the wilderness designation that closed hundreds of miles of existing routes across Emery County. Fortunately the SRD has fewer natural- or social-resource concerns than the Wilderness areas, so we expected a high density of routes to be designated.

The 2020 SRD TMP designated 767 miles of route open but, especially considering that many of these miles actually consist of state/federal highways for which the BLM has no jurisdiction, 767 miles is actually a low density of routes across a 377,609 planning area. The Organizations chose not to appeal the 2020 decision largely because we prefer to work with the BLM and fix shortcomings through subsequent planning to enhance the TMP. However wilderness-expansion groups appealed to the IBLA and, thanks to our work as defendant intervenors, their request for a stay of the 2020 SRD TMP was denied. Under a new administration, the BLM chose not to implement its TMP anyway, even rejecting volunteer help from us and local OHV clubs. The wilderness-expansion groups switched to an appeal in federal court, and the BLM reached a settlement with them to the complete exclusion of OHV groups, Emery County, or the State of Utah. This 2022 settlement agreement was approved primarily because the BLM claimed not to have pre-determined the fate of the 195 miles of routes to be reconsidered.

Likewise the BLM claimed that its emergency closure of 35 miles of routes last January (a) would be temporary, (b) was unrelated to the settlement with wilderness-expansion groups, and (c) likewise would undergo subsequent planning for which the BLM claimed not to have pre-determined the fate of the 35 miles under emergency closure. The organizations are currently appealing the emergency closure in large part because the BLM has indicated that its purpose is to protect vegetation growing within the 35 miles of route, most of which are old bladed roads or parts of motorcycle race courses permitted by the BLM. Vegetation surveys of these routes suggest that the plants are common, not threatened or endangered species, and that the population of common plants would not have considerable adverse effects from use of the routes. Further, managers should expect the presence of vegetation on routes that were technically closed by the 2008 SRD TMP, especially since much of the planning area is dominated by migrating sand dunes.

Perplexingly the ePlanning site for reconsidering 195 miles of routes designated open by the 2020 TMP barely mentions that 35 miles of them are actually closed. The BLM has provided no evidence that vegetation on these routes should be a management concern yet, particularly on routes with vegetation, the BLM’s preliminary proposal favors closure. Proposing to close most of the 195 miles of routes suggests that the 2022 settlement agreement was prejudiced and pre-decisional, in violation of NEPA.   Proposing to permanently close all 35 miles of routes suggests that the “temporary” closure last January likewise had a pre-decisional prejudice toward a “permanent” closure in violation of the letter and intent of the “temporary” closure regulation. This impression is reinforced by the fact that no data or rationale from additional field work has been provided to justify this proposal to close another hundred-plus miles of routes in the SRD. This lack of explanation seriously hampers our ability to meaningfully comment on your preliminary proposal.

The BLM has thus far refrained from outlining a normal process of travel planning that would provide full analysis and ample opportunity for the public to comment on it. We strongly urge you to propose leaving most if not all of the routes open, provide complete rationale for any additional closures, and give us plenty of time to review it before you make a final decision. Anything less would undermine the legitimacy of your flurry of SRD activity in the legal realm, which is in stark contrast to the lack of implementation activity for two years, as off-highway vehicle riders have patiently and constructively worked with your planners in the SRD for the past fourteen years.

 3. Specific Comments

One month—the hottest month of year—has not been enough time to review the BLM’s preliminary proposal, so we are focusing on the most concerning routes that you propose to close. Please know that we support all of the routes that you propose to leave open, as most of them have great purpose and need. We also support the August 1st comments from the Sage Riders Motorcycle Club that primarily highlight some of the most important routes that you propose to leave open, and have enclosed them, as we request that you consider them as part of our own comments.

Likewise please consider as part of our comments the ones we submitted in regard to:

  1. 2020-10-29 “Opposition to Petition for Stay” as defendant intervenors in the wilderness-expansion groups’ appeal of the 2020 SRD TMP,
  2. 2022-04-11 Opposition to 2022 settlement agreement between the BLM and wilderness-expansion groups, and
  3. 2022-05-31 “Appellants’ Statement of Standing and Statement of Reasons for Appeal of the Temporary Closure Order”.

In particular, note the 2022-05-31 document and associated declarations regarding the 35 miles of temporarily-closed routes, which refute BLM claims that the routes “have fully reclaimed, are not apparent on the ground, or are otherwise inaccessible by routes authorized for public OHV use” and that use of the routes “will cause considerable adverse effects to resources including, but not limited to, soil and vegetation.”

In fact, the Organizations refute any similar claims that the BLM may apply to the remainder of the 195 miles of routes to be reconsidered. The reconsideration routes almost entirely avoid riparian areas. They cross areas that the 2008 RMP determined to have wilderness characteristics, but it also determined not to manage for those characteristics (other than a small portion of what has subsequently been designated as Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness), so closing more routes in order to increase wilderness characteristics should only be done in the planning area after amending the 2008 RMP accordingly. Views of the Green River are a virtue of a few reconsideration routes and, even cumulatively, they don’t cause considerable adverse impacts upon river use. Further, the Dingell Act designated most stretches of the Green River as some type of Wild And Scenic River. It did not make such a designation for the stretch where the BLM’s preliminary proposal would close more routes, so the BLM should recognize those routes as entirely suitable for motorized recreationists to view the river.

The existence of vegetation on designated routes is not a sufficient reason to close the routes, nor does it prove that the routes are unused, nor does it prove that the routes are valueless (i.e. lack a purpose or need at present or in future). For example, many segments of routinely graded, Class B roads in this planning area are currently covered in vegetation, such as SD211 and SD212 (see photos of both routes taken on August 7th, 2022). Especially since most routes in the planning area have been technically closed since 2008 (which most of the public honored even though the closure was not legally defensible due to the TMP in this planning area being blatantly incomplete and incoherent), it is high time for the BLM to stop closing more routes for the sake of common plants growing on old bull-dozed roads and permitted motorcycle-race courses, and to start managing use on the ground for the first time in the history of the San Rafael Desert.

In all cases listed below, the photos demonstrate that the routes are apparent. Compared to the nearby graded roads, the routes provide a more primitive experience, some degree of intimacy with the surroundings, and a sense of challenge or flow. A quality OHV ride depends on piecing these primitive routes together without graded roads while including enough points of interest and variety of terrain.

SD051 and SD052 (See photo of SD051 in this document.)

These routes provide a more primitive alternative to Hans Flat Road.

San Rafael Desert SD0051-SW-end

SD078 (See both photos and satellite image in this document.)

This route provides convenient access to Temple Wash. As with many areas adjacent to a highway corridor, it is denuded, although a singletrack is surrounded by some degree of vegetation. At its north end, the downed fence has a gate indicating where the route went through the gate. Recent scouring of Temple Wash below the highway bridge may impede larger vehicles, but smaller vehicles can already get through all of SD078, and larger vehicles could do so after basic tread work with support of local OHV clubs or the state’s OHV program.

San Rafael Desert - SD078-SW-end San Rafael Desert - SD078-NE-end

SD079 (See photo and satellite image in this document.)

Temple Wash has been permitted by the BLM for motorcycle races, and provides a dynamic challenge and flow that has become scarce as most other washes have been closed. This stretch of wash generally lacks riparian resources that may otherwise cause concern. Recent scouring of Temple Wash below the highway bridge may impede larger vehicles, but smaller vehicles can already get through all of SD079, and larger vehicles could do so after basic tread work with support of local OHV clubs or the state’s OHV program.

San Rafael Desert - SD079-SW-end

SD128 and SD319 (See photo of SD128 in this document and of SD319 in 2022-05-31 Declaration of Clif Koontz.)

Bypassing the highly-developed Hans Flat Road, these routes connect two highlights of the San Rafael Desert (at least of the part that hasn’t been permanently closed by wilderness designation), specifically Sweetwater Reef overlook and Jack’s Knob. Most of the route is on SITLA property, which has no other motorized access under the BLM’s preliminary proposal.

San Rafael Desert - SD128-NW-end

SD217 (See photo in this document.)

This route may seem redundant with SD309, but if you’re coming from SD326 (from Wayne County / Richfield FO) and you want to head north (to Moonshine Well), reaching SD309 via SD312 would seem circuitous to any group that’s hurrying for whatever reason.

San Rafael Desert - SD217-N-end

SD218 to SD372 (See photo of SD218 in this document and of SD372 in 2022-05-31 Declaration of Clif Koontz.)

This pair of routes primarily consists of a single, straight seismic line that provides the only east-west travel across a north-south expanse of over ten miles (from SD543 into Wayne County / Richfield FO) covering most of Antelope Valley. Although parts of the route are much less apparent, route markers could be placed at regular intervals to organize travel. It accesses the corner of a SITLA section.

San Rafael Desert - SD218-W-end

SD236 (See both photos in this document.)

This route is an alternative to the graded road, going across the shallow-yet-interesting canyon of Dugout Wash as well as a slickrock expanse, both of which nicely contrast the predominantly flat and sandy planning area.

San Rafael Desert - SD236-SW-end San Rafael Desert - SD236-NE-end

SD240 (See photo in this document.)

This route is an alternative to the graded road, providing over two miles of primitive road.

San Rafael Desert - SD240-NW-end

SD250 (See photo in 2022-05-31 Declaration of Clif Koontz.)

This route accesses SITLA property and the small-but-scenic Red Reef, which also makes the route itself more rolling and interesting.

SD715 and SD720 (See photos of SD715 and SD720 in this document.)

This route traverses the southeast rim of Gruvers Mesa, providing views that are different from the route on the northwest rim. The end the road, which accesses SITLA property, is particularly scenic.

San Rafael Desert - SD715-W-endSan Rafael Desert - SD720-W-of-midpoint

SD740_S2 (See both photos in this document.)

This route is part of a short-but-great loop partly due to the rolling terrain. Its southeast end offers views up to The Cone, while the northwest end offers views down to the San Rafael River (while generally staying back off of its rim). The route is entirely passable by motorcycle, and could be made more accessible to larger vehicles by doing basic tread work with support of local OHV clubs or the state’s OHV program. The middle part could easily be realigned to reduce the grade for sustainability, but this shouldn’t be an immediate concern due to the low use levels associated with such a remote location. Note that SD741 is also a high-quality route but, given the SD740 already provides views of the San Rafael River in a loop, the SD741 spur is not as important.

San Rafael Desert - SD740_S2-W-of-midpoint San Rafael Desert - SD740_S2-near-SE-end

SD762 (See photo in this document.)

This route creates a loop with SD210, which is a five-mile route that would otherwise be one-way. This loop is a more interesting way to reach the San Rafael River overlook of SD763. Although parts of the route are much less apparent, route markers could be placed at regular intervals to organize travel.

San Rafael Desert - SD762-near-SW-end

SD781 (See photo in this document.)

This route creates a loop to a view of the San Rafael River from the river’s north side. It traverses rolling red-rock terrain off the flank of Horse Bench that makes for a high-quality route.

San Rafael Desert - SD781-near-N-end

SD857 and SD858 (See photo of SD857 in this document.)

This pair of routes makes a larger loop out of the same one as SD781 that reaches a view of the San Rafael River from the river’s north side. It also reaches the corner of a SITLA section.

San Rafael Desert - SD857-E-end

SD869 and SD870 (See photo of SD869 in this document.)

This pair of routes reaches SITLA property and a point overlooking the San Rafael Valley as well as the geologic transitions from the sandstone formations southward and the shale formations northward.

San Rafael Desert - SD869-near-NE-end

SD1029 (See photos and satellite image of SD1029 and SD1029 alternate.)

This route meanders through badlands of the Morrison Formation to reach SITLA property and a panoramic view of Dry Lake Wash and beyond. Since this area is nearly void of vegetation, the Organizations are wondering why the BLM would preliminarily propose to close it (even more than we’re wondering why all the other closures are proposed). Perhaps it’s because the wash where the route begins is so broad that the route is less distinct. This shouldn’t be an immediate concern given that the area is naturally barren, but eventually you could reroute it to the existing primitive road that lies a quarter-mile northward. It’s a more distinct route that stays even further away from Horse Bench Reservoir.

San Rafael Desert - SD1029-SE San Rafael Desert - SD1029-alternate-E

SD1303_S3 (See both photos in this document.)

This route gradually winds up a hill and then down the other side to the Green River. If there are noise concerns along the river (despite that the river will continue to be used by motorboats), note that vehicle sounds from SD1303_3 are drowned out by the loud diesel of major irrigation-water pumps a couple-hundred yards upstream. If there are concerns about the route dropping down to river-bank level, the BLM could close the last hundred yards of the route so that OHV riders could still view the river from atop the small rim.

SanRafaelDesert-SD1303_S3-SW San Rafael Desert - SD1303_S3-NE

In addition to the routes listed above, the 2022-05-31 Declaration of Clif Koontz includes photos of the following routes:

SD143
SD182
SD221
SD236
SD303
SD335
SD345
SD346
SD396
SD759
SD940

The photos document the apparency of these routes, which have a purpose and need by providing things like singletrack character (e.g. SD940 that was permitted by the BLM for motorcycle races) and a primitive alternative to graded roads (e.g. SD221 to SD335 as well as SD345 to SD346).

4.  Conclusion

Keeping these routes open, along with the ones that your preliminary proposal already would keep open, is key to conserving a modest quantity and quality of routes for piecing together a weekend’s worth OHV rides in the San Rafael Desert. We implore you to accommodate this type of recreation considering the context of increasing use and decreasing access.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Scott Jones, Esq.
Authorized Representative
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition

Continue Reading

August 2022 Newsletter

Rider on bike going over boulders

Update from the Trails Preservation Alliance

 

Hello Friends!

We are in the midst of our peak riding season in Colorado and with any luck, this message will  find its way to you after enjoying an EPIC ride!

Since our last newsletter in the spring we’ve been very busy here at the Trails Preservation Alliance. We hosted the 3rd Annual TPA Partner Club Meeting, wrapped up our second TPA Bike Sweepstakes, and have been making our way around the state this summer attending events, and visiting land managers and clubs.

The visits with the land managers and clubs are not only awesome for face-to-face time with locals but also help us to understand the different trail systems, and gave us the opportunity to discuss issues and opportunities for off highway motorcycle recreation within those areas .

We’ve been to numerous conferences, meetings, and events representing the off highway motorcycle community including; Partners in the Outdoors, Colorado Outdoor Industry Leadership Workshop, NOHVCC Great Trails Workshop, and the Shady Burro Enduro.

Aside from keeping up with issues that are affecting motorized recreation and access to public lands in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, much of our focus has now turned to the planning of our largest fundraiser, the Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium, which starts September 11, 2022.

Read on for more information – see you on the trail!

 


 

TPA Partner Club Meeting

The 3rd Annual TPA Partner Club Meeting was held in March in Grand Junction, CO. We hosted 22 different organizations with 42 representatives from clubs around Colorado and Utah, as well as CPW State Trails OHV sub-committee members, BLM Grand Junction Field Office, USFS Salida Ranger District, and Utah’s Ride with Respect. It was a successful meeting, and great to have so many motorcycle advocacy groups in the region gather, network, and discuss topics to preserve our sport!

The first day was spent discussing various issues and on the 2nd day, we went riding! Attendees were shown around Bangs Canyon, an area near Grand Junction where the BLM along with assistance from local clubs (Motorcycle Trail Rider Association, BookCliff Rattlers Motorcycle Club, West Slope ATV, and the Thunder Mountain Wheelers) have been constructing new motorized trail opportunities.

Trail Tools for Clubs – The TPA was pleased to present each club with a Trail Boss Trail Tool Kit and a Silky Katana Boy as part of a CPW OHV Grant the TPA was awarded.  These packable yet durable Tool Kits will help the clubs with their trail work efforts by allowing them to be easily transported to remote locations.

If you are looking for some assistance starting a local club in your area please reach out to the TPA by email to chad@coloradotpa.org.

TPA Partner Club Meeting - riders lined up

 


 

2022 Bike Sweepstakes

On May 17th 2022 we drew the lucky winners of the TPA Bike Sweepstakes – Congratulations to our winners!

  • Francisco Ramos of Greely, CO. Grand Prize Winner!
  • Daniel Woodberry of Nampa, ID. 2nd prize winner of the $1200 KLIM Shopping Spree.
  • Ty Witten of O’Fallon, MO. 3rd prize winner of a trip to the 2022 Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium.

The 2nd annual TPA Bike Sweepstakes was a terrific success, thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to make it happen.  Thanks to the volunteers, everyone who helped us spread the word, businesses who supplied prizes, shops that displayed posters and all the donors who purchased tickets we raised  $120,200!

 

Sweepstakes winners

 


 

Change in the TPA Board of Directors

TPA Board of Director member Dennis Larratt moved on from the TPA board. We would like to thank Dennis for his service not only to the TPA, but to the greater motorized recreation community!

Dennis worked with Don Riggle from the founding of the TPA, and since early 2018, has been a member of the TPA Board of Directors. Prior to that, he was one of the founding members and served on the COHVCO Board of Directors, testified before Congress on behalf of public land access issues, and was an integral part of the team that created the Colorado OHV sticker program which has funded over $73 million dollars in OHV related projects across the state. He contributed an amazing amount of time to preserve the sport of off-road motorcycling in Colorado. His efforts and dedication will have tremendous effects for decades to come.

Thank you Dennis!

 


 

New TPA Creative Director – Christina Hall

We are pleased to announce that a longtime (15+ years!) TPA marketing, graphic design and communications consultant Christina Hall has joined the TPA team!

Christina has extensive experience consulting for a variety of non-profits as well as worked for San Diego Humane Society, Montana State University, and USGS. Having Christina on board will help us to increase our outreach, build our brand and help fulfill the TPA mission. We are excited to have her join us not only for her experience and expertise but also for her easy-going attitude and her love of riding. Christina rides a Bonneville T100 (we’re working on getting her onto a trail bike!) and lives in San Diego, CA.

Christina and her Triumph

 


 

TPA Helps at the Shady Burro Enduro

The TPA had a great time running tech inspection for the Shady Burro Enduro. We would like to send out special thanks to those that helped; Angela Hixon, Larry Beaver, Boot Hill Motorcycle Club (Daniell and Zachary Hatton), Ruke Dyar, Stay the Trail (Sam Logan) and last but not least Dos Locos (Kevin and Michelle Busch).

The TPA would also like to send a BIG thank you to JTB (aka Jud and Tina Barlow) promotions for their generous donation of $5000 to the TPA. Thanks for your dedication and hard work that make this truly unique event a reality and for giving back to the off highway motorcycle community!

JTB Promotions and their amazing crew of staff and volunteers put together another great course through some epic Rocky Mountain single track! The rigerous course, coupled with above-average moisture in the South Fork area, all came together to create an event that proved challenging for even the most experienced riders.

Congratulations to Max Gerston for taking 1st Place overall on both days. Check out Day 1 and Day 2 results here.

 

TPA at Shady Burro

 


 

Gold Rush Raises $4,270 for the TPA

Thank you Gold Rush Riders and Steve and Lyndi Widener for raising $4,270 to help Save The Trails!  In 2022 this family-oriented “fun ride” spent two days exploring the Ouray, CO. area before moving to Crested Butte and spending two more days riding in central Colorado. Each year this event ends with a banquet and raffle, with the proceeds donated to the TPA. So once again, thank you for your continued support, and here is to another successful Gold Rush!

If you’re interested in participating in the 2023 Gold Rush Ride August 7th -11th check out their Facebook group.

 


 

Club Spotlight

San Juan Trail Rider logoEstablished in 1998, the San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR) are now in their 3rd decade fighting the good fight for multi-use singletrack and motorcycle recreation in Southwestern Colorado. The SJTR provides an organized network for enthusiasts to make contact, build camaraderie, and share interests. In addition, they promote active participation in OHV trail management and other civic activities by encouraging cooperation and coordination between other forest user groups and organizations.

Goals

  • Advocate for Off Highway use of public lands.
  • Enhance awareness multi user-groups and public lands.
  • Build relationships with land managers and other user groups.

Accomplishments

  • Funding and implementation of 100+ mile Turkey Springs/Devil Mountain trail system in the Pagosa Ranger District.
  • Hermosa Drainage.
  • Securing motorized designation for Starvation Creek, Rampart Hills, Upper Chicken Creek, Morrison, Deer Lick Creek, Box Canyon & Gold Run Trails, and development of Bear Creek Rim Trail in the Dolores Ranger District.

Thank you, SJTR – you are a truly collaborative partner and steward of the land!

 

San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR)

 


 

Land Use and Legal Issues

 


 

Stay On The Trail

Stay On The Trail – as responsible riders, this is the most important thing we can do. Going over, under, or through obstacles has been the message we’ve shared (including ads in UpShift Magazine below) over the past two riding seasons, and we ask that you help us spread the word!

The bulk of the trail clearing season is behind us, but don’t lower your guard – trees fall all year long, so continue to carry a hand saw. Mud puddles form on the trails every time it rains – ride through them. Obstacles like rocks and branches will be in your path – go over them. Let’s all do our part to keep singletrack single!

Stay on the Trail - UPSHIFT ad

 


 

Let’s Get Social

The TPA has been increasing our outreach on Social Media – Follow Us on FacebookYouTube, and Instagram!  And don’t forget to share our messages with your friends!

Instagram on phone

 


 

TPA Sponsors

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Black Canyon Corridor Travel Management Plan Comments

BLM Hassayampa Field Office
VIA:  Comment now Portal

RE: Black Canyon Corridor Travel Management Plan

Dear Sirs;

Please accept these comments as the vigorous opposition from a broad spectrum of multiple use motorized recreational interest groups to the Proposal and range of alternatives that have been provided.  Our most specific concern involves the ongoing desire of local land managers to designate exclusionary corridors around any route that has been designated pursuant to the National Trails System Act. This type of exclusionary non-motorized corridor conflicts with recent decisions by the US Supreme Court, the Trails System Act and the Relevant Resource Management Plan for the SRMA. While the Organizations may be able to envision some type of corridor concept being applicable to the area, where uses unrelated to the trail are restricted or prohibited, we are unable to envision where trail usages are restricted or prohibited given the usages identified in the SMRA and relevant statutes and US Supreme Court decisions. The Organizations vigorously assert that the conflict with the RMP is unresolvable as the management direction for these areas as laid out in the RMP are not even arguably addressed in any alternative of the Proposal.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns with the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Trails Preservation Alliance (“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 ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multi-use recreational opportunities. TPA is referred to as “The Organization” for purposes of these comments.

1. The Proposals exclusionary corridors conflict with the US Supreme Courts 2020 Cowpasture decision applying the National Trail System Act.

The above Organizations wanted to provide a copy of the 2020 US Supreme Court ruling clarifying the management relationship of lands that are managed under multiple use mandates by the USFS and also designated as a National Trail System Route, such as the Black Canyon National Recreation Trail.  We have been active participants in the winter travel planning on the multiple forests in California and are intimately aware of the conflict around management of these areas in the winter travel planning process and are intimately aware of the massive amounts of conflict that can result from the possible application of exclusionary corridors such as those now proposed. We are aware winter travel management is not at issue here but our experiences in these efforts remain highly relevant to the current effort.

In the 7 to 2 ruling entitled US Forest Service vs. Cowpasture River Preservation Association[1], the US Supreme Court addressed the management relationship of the National Trails System Act and the Multiple Use mandate of the US Forest Service for the corridors around NTSA routes and the designated trail itself.  We have enclosed a complete copy of the Supreme Court decision and Congressional Research Service Report summarizing the decision.   The Supreme Court clearly stated the mere designation of any route under the National Trails System Act does not alter the multiple use mandate of the agencies managing this land. Economic impacts of excluding multiple uses from these areas was a major concern in these discussions.

The Court also clearly found that the use of the right of way concept was not intended to alter the multiple use mandate but rather was a limited transfer of management authority between the Acts.  The Court clearly stated if Congress had the desire to remove the multiple use mandates from these Routes, Congress clearly could have. The Court fought Congress did not do this.    The Court compared the retained multiple use mandate of the National Trails System Act to the Congressional decisions to remove Wild and Scenic Rivers from the Multiple Use mandates for areas designated. The Court ruling provides significant protection for continued multiple use access to public lands and prohibits many of the proposed closures of the trail and adjacent areas to multiple usage recreation.

The Organizations would additionally note that many of the Organizations which have been seeking these exclusionary corridors in the travel plans on the Field Office, made these same arguments to the Supreme Court.  The Court failed to apply these concepts, which are discussed in detail in the dissenting opinion that only garnered 2 votes, leaving little room for continued application or analysis of these positions in planning. The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal must be withdrawn and a range of alternatives provided that align with the 2020 US Supreme Court Cowpasture decision that mandates multiple use mandates remain on the lands regardless of the designation of routes by Congress.

2. Exclusionary Corridors and exclusive usage requirements directly conflict with the provisions of the National Trails System Act.

Given the Black Canyon National Recreation Trail is a NTSA 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.[2]

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 these comments, Congress has provided great deal of documentation regarding why the NTSA has been framed in the manner it is currently in. Many of these concerns are highly relevant to the Proposal as the Organizations are very concerned that improper application of NTSA requirements in the Proposal would allow these types of decisions to be applied in other portions of the Black Canyon NRT.  This larger scale application of exclusionary standards would immediately create many of the same conditions that are addressed and avoided in the Congressional reports prepared around the NTSA and related amendments.

Congress has resolved these conflicts in a clear manner and this has allowed a significant expansion of the number of NTSA routes, and this type of a concern is outside the scope of NEPA analysis for the Proposal but is also highly relevant to the discussion and our concerns.   The NTSA also specifically identifies that all national 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.” [3]

As the Black Canyon National Recreation Trail is a National Recreation Trail, Congress has specified that all national 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.” [4]

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.” [5]

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.  Any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the Black Canyon National Recreation Trail 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.  The direct material conflict the current provisions of the Proposal and related guidance documents  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”[6]

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.” [7]

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.” [8]

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.”[9]

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.  This 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. [10]  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.”[11]

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.” [12]

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.”[13]

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.”[14]

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.”[15]

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. This basis and analysis sheds a large amount of light on why the NTSA is applied in the manner it is and why the Proposal directly conflicts with federal law. The challenges addressed with the CDNST and the alignment of the Proposal with these concerns cannot be overlooked. The CDNST 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.” [16]

The Organizations are unable to find any portion of the NTSA that requires all portions of a NTSA route be designated for the exclusion of motorized access, as is asserted in the Proposal and related regulations cited.  Rather we are able to locate portions of the NTSA that allow closures of portions of any NTSA route to motorized and also specifically allows motorized usages on portions of the trail as well.  From the Organizations perspective, this is a reflection of the multiple use mandate that has governed Federal Public lands from more than 50 years that has simply been tailored to relate to a trail covering long distances. This multiple use mandate has never excluded anyone entirely but rather protects all members of the publics access to some portion of all NTSA routes. This Proposal must be withdrawn and corrected to reflect an accurate interpretation of the NTSA provisions governing the allowable usages of NTSA routes.  At no point does the NTSA provide for exclusion of all usages on the entirety of a trail.

3. Every Alternative of the Proposal directly conflicts with the SRMA designations made in the Resource Management Plan.

The 2010 Resource Management Plan that  designated the SRMA  that is ow the basis of the Travel Management Plan at issue identifies many criteria that are to be managed and improved once the various SRMA are designated.  These requirements in no way align with the Proposal. While these characteristics of the SRMA are specifically allowed in the various scoping PowerPoints provided for in the original EA development, no analysis is provided for why these alternatives and priorities were not carried forward in conformity with the RMP.[17]  The Organizations would note that the specific requirements and general direction of the entire SRMA planning effort incorrectly applies the designations and requirements for the SRMA provided in the RMP for the area as follows:

“Desired Future Condition
Complete the Black Canyon Trail north and east of Highway 69 to connect with trails in Prescott National Forest. Analyze, build and designate the trail to provide a non-motorized experience along the historic sheep driveway. Identify exact locations of the trail and facilities in conjunction with the Yavapai Trails Association and other interested citizens. Maintain rural roaded-natural and semi-primitive motorized settings as suitable…. Locate and develop staging, or camping areas near communities and vehicle access points to service the north Black Canyon Trail and adjoining public lands for the following purposes:  parking,  unloading OHVs and horses, and  picnicking…. Administrative Actions Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete a comprehensive strategy and trails plan for selecting and developing new single- and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all lands in the SRMA.” [18]

Given that the expansion of OHV routes in the SRMA is specifically identified as a characteristic of the SRMA we must question how the current Proposal and the RMP can be reconciled. The Record of decision issued for the RMP also further clarifies the multiple use nature of the SRMA as follows:

“2.9.5. Travel Management

2.9.5.1. Management Actions

TM-46. Locate a motorized route, generally parallel to the Black Canyon Trail, to support a long distance motor vehicle route network.

TM-47. Build trails to link cultural public use sites to the Black Canyon Trail. Trails could lead to suitable sites including prehistoric hilltop structures, rock art, mining camps, and features of the historic Black Canyon sheep driveway.

Management decisions for the North Black Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Trails RMZ also relate to travel management, as do recreation management decisions RR-174 [106] and RR-176 [106].”[19]

The RMP ROD also clearly identifies that the Upper Agua Fria SRMA is to managed as follows:

“Upper Agua Fria River Basin SRMA

    • Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete a comprehensive strategy and trails plan for selecting and developing new single- and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all lands in the SRMA. Collaborate with the Arizona Game & Fish Department, Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Yavapai County Trails Association….”[20]

The FEIS for the RMP further refines and clarifies the management direction for the Upper Agua Fria SRMA as follows:

“Maintaining or increasing the amount of land allocated to open space is one of the most effective ways to preserve existing natural values and recreation opportunities; and to extend new or increased levels of recreation activity in the future. Emphasize semi-primitive motorized settings with roaded-natural along primary routes. Management Actions Establish new trails, parking, and staging areas, where suitable, for hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, ATVs, and four-wheel-drive enthusiasts.” [21]

Pursuant to the RMP the Black Canyon Trail crosses numerous SRMA designations many of which are expanding motorized on and around the trail.  Given these clear and unequivocal statements of the desired condition for the management of these SRMA, we must question how any of these alternatives can be sustained as we are unable to identify any new trails or other infrastructure in either SRMA  planning area. We are unable to identify any new parking areas or routes that may have been constructed under any Alternative.

The conflict between the RMP and the Proposal continues as the RMP clearly states that additional collaboration with local interests for planning for the future management of the planning area will also occur. This is clearly stated as follows:

“Work with citizen volunteer groups to complete a comprehensive strategy and a trails plan to select and to develop new single-use and multi-use hiking, equestrian, and OHV trails for all lands in the SRMA. Collaborate with the AGFD, Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, and land managers of other trails to link trails to trails on BLM’s land…”[22]

We are unable to identify any reference or other recognition of this additional engagement and collaboration occurring regarding the planning area. Again, this provision of the RMP is simply never mentioned in the Proposal.  While the specific requirements provided for in the RMP are less than clear on what this specific engagement process may look like, clearly this provision requires more than mere compliance with NEPA requirements. That simply has not occurred.

While there are numerous assertions in the EA that the RMP has been complied with, we are unable to resolve this type of conflict with any factual basis.  As a result of this conflict, we must question how any management could be excluding all motorized based on the RMP as creation of a parallel trail and improving the OHV trail network in the SRMA are characteristics identified in the RMP for the area.

Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal must be withdrawn in order to allow for the creation of a range of alternatives that complies with the recent US Supreme Court decision in the Cowpasture matter, complies with the mandate of the NTSA and relevant RMP provisions for the management of the SRMA. Several of the current alternatives are in direct conflict with case law, statute and the RMP and in our opinion never should have been analyzed.  The Organizations vigorously assert that RMP requirements such as expanding OHV access in the SRMA, reviewing parking and other trailhead facilities and building a motorized trail that parallels the existing route must be addressed in the Proposal and simply have not been.  The RMP further specifies that additional public outreach will occur regarding the future management of the area but we are unable to find any such public engagement even mentioned.  Engagement with Collaborators and other required actions under NEPA is insufficient to comply with these requirements.  Many of the RMP provisions simply have never even been mentioned in the RMP for reasons that remain unclear.

We would welcome any questions you may have and would willingly provide any additional support you may need on this issue.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com)  or  Chad Hixon (719-221-8329 / chad@coloradotpa.org).

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA Authorized Rep

Chad Hixon
TPA Executive Director

 

[1] 18-1584 United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn. (06/15/2020) (supremecourt.gov)

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

[3] See, 16 USC 1242 (a)(2).

[4] See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

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

[6] 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”)

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

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

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

[10] See, Public Law 90-543 §5(c)(1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] A copy of this presentation is available here: Introductions – B.L.M Staff (blm.gov)

[18] See, DOI; Bureau of Land Management; Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Proposed RMP and Final EIS; May 2007 at pg. 236.

[19] See, DOI Bureau of Land Management; ROD – ARMP: Bradshaw-Harquahala; April 22, 2010 at pg. 108.

[20] See, DOI Bureau of Land Management; ROD – ARMP: Bradshaw-Harquahala; April 22, 2010 at pg. 179.

[21] See, DOI; Bureau of Land Management; Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Proposed RMP and Final EIS; May 2007 at pg. 141.

[22] See, DOI; Bureau of Land Management; Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Proposed RMP and Final EIS; May 2007 at Pg 142.

Continue Reading

USFWS Wolf Scoping Comments

TPA COHVCO CORE CSA logos

Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803

RE: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in the State of Colorado; Environmental Impact Statement
Docket No. Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the of the above Organizations with regard to the Proposed species status of the Gray Wolf as an experimental non-essential population (“The Proposal”).   Prior to addressing the specific concerns the Organizations have regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 250,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a largely 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.  For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA, CORE and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

The Organizations have been actively involved in numerous ESA listing efforts, such as lynx, grey wolves, wolverine and Greater and Gunnison Sage grouse. We have also actively involved in numerous efforts on species management hosted by groups like the US Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies and the Western Governors Association efforts on species management.  These efforts have included a wide range of participation includes panelists in round table discussions at events, financially supporting Wolverine research in Idaho to funding development and distribution of the 3rd version of Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. We can vigorously assert that based on our experiences with listed species, discussions on management of the gray wolf will simply never end and this will be litigated multiple times and rewritten equally as many times. The Organizations are also very concerned that despite the success of wolf reintroductions in states adjacent to Colorado and throughout the American west, we are no closer to the delisting of the gray wolf than when we started.  This is disappointing for us but this is also beyond our control.

The Organizations are seeking the broadest and encompassing protections for all recreational access in the 10j designations that is stated in clear and unequivocal language, as after participating in ESA efforts for decades there is always an assertion that motorized recreation is negatively impacting the species.  This continues despite numerous species specific studies being developed and the decline of some species occurring even before motorized recreation was a concept and often impacts to activities like ours are summed up as unintended impacts of the listing. The Organizations submit a wide ranging protection  for recreation would be a significant step towards avoiding unintended consequences of the protection and reintroduction and reflect a decision that is highly solidified in best available science, mainly that recreational access and wolves are basically unrelated.  With wolves in Colorado, the lack of relationship between these activities could not be more stark as the gray wolf was hunted to extinction in the mid-1940s, decades before an off road motorcycle or ATV was ever even a thought.  The Service has provided similar protections around wolverines in Colorado and we would ask for language at least as strong as that previously provided in possible 10j designations for the Wolverines. Similar protections have been provided for the Mexican Gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico and these protections have not proven to be strong enough, as even with these protections every time there is a planning effort, trails have to be reviewed for the protection of Mexican wolves.

1a. The Organizations welcome the direct involvement of  USFWS in this effort.

The Organizations welcome involvement of USFWS in this effort, as the Colorado Gray Wolf  reintroduction effort has been functioning at a very rapid pace in order to comply with deadlines in Proposition 114.  While we are not seeking to reopen discussions on should the wolf be reintroduced, we are seeking to reintroduce the wolf in a manner consistent with Prop 114 and which makes as much sense for all users as possible. The USFWS clearly has significant expertise and experience in the management of wolves throughout the country and we believe this expertise will create a better management plan for the species and a higher chance of successful management of the species to recovery.  Too often we are seeing groups trying to speak to interests they know nothing about or taking positions that are entirely and irreconcilably conflicted with positions that they have taken in efforts occurring at the same time.  We believe each group should be able to provide input they desire and not be dismissed by other user groups.

While CPW has done a commendable job in public engagement with the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) and SAG (Stakeholder Advisory Groups) and public meetings more generally, we are becoming concerned that recreational concerns around the reintroduction are getting lost in larger discussions. While we understand that long term impacts to recreation may seem remote at this time, it has been our experience that recreational activities in any ESA habitat areas remain an ongoing concern long after a listing or reintroduction. We would like to avoid the more than 20 years of ongoing fighting around recreational activity that continues in discussions around the Canadian Lynx. It is our hope that with the 10j designation that these longer term impacts can be mitigated or avoided completely.

The Organizations believe that the basic model of 10j designation applied for the Mexican Wolf is a good start, we would ask for greater protection of recreational interests in the Colorado 10j effort than has been provided in the Mexican Gray 10j.  It is unfortunate we are aware of numerous issues and discussions around the Mexican Gray habitat areas and acceptable levels of recreation even with the 10j. We would ask that recreational access and management be protected in Colorado habitat as there is no shortage of good habitat for wolves in Colorado.  The same cannot be said for recreational access in many areas.

1b. Inconsistent positions being taken by some interests.

The Organizations believe the unprecedented nature of the wolf reintroduction in Colorado has forced some wildlife advocacy organizations into some enormously conflicting positions between efforts around the wolf and efforts on other issues.  Some of these conflicts could not be more direct in nature on materially factual issues, and these conflicts are occurring within days of each position being taken. The Organizations are concerned that this situation creates the appearance of groups approaching this effort in less than good faith. This gives us pause and concern regarding the scope of 10j protections and has resulted in our comments being conceptual in nature in the hope that whatever input comes in can be balanced with our general concern on the scope of the 10j protections.   The Organizations vigorously asking for extensive protections for all recreational access in the 10j given the lack of good faith that has been displayed by groups to this point.  We have no expectation that good faith efforts will suddenly return to these discussions at some point in the future, but these Organizations will simply continue to display bad faith in the process moving forward and we simply cannot envision where is process may be directed as a result.

An example of the conflicting positions on factually identical questions is exemplified by the Wildearth Guardians assertion that the State of Colorado has too many elk and deer and the reintroduction will return balance in populations to the State as a part of their citizen reintroduction proposal submitted to the CPW Commission in July of 2022.[1]  This is astonishing inconsistent with the general position of WildEarth Guardians, exemplified by the fact WildEarth Guardians is suing the Rio Grande NF asserting the RMP revision did not adequately protect declining populations from possible recreational impacts as filed in November of 2021.[2]   In almost every other effort than the wolf reintroduction we have consistently been told that ungulate populations are on the edge of the cliff of catastrophic decline. These are positions that simply cannot be reconciled and give us concerns about the possibility of unintended consequences of management.

We believe that the current litigation ongoing on the Rio Grande over species and populations is a concrete example of why we are asking for the protections of the 10j Rule for recreation.  The Organizations have been forced to intervene in the litigation of the Rio Grande in defense of claims with the US Forest Service, in Order to provide support, knowledge and resources in the litigation. While we will continue to fight for access, we would also like to think that at some point this type of conflict might come to an end.  While the above example is provided in isolation, we are sure other concerns will be taking unusual positions compared to the historical positions and management to be undertaken. As a result of what could clearly be a lack of good faith by certain interests in the process on basic factual positions, the Organizations would again ask that the 10j Rule be crafted as broadly in scope as possible to protect all recreational access in the efforts subsequent to this. We have no expectation that good faith efforts will return to the wildlife management discussion in the State at any point in the foreseeable future.

2a. Multiple use recreation has been managed for 50 years on public lands.

The Organizations believe that one important component of multiple use recreation must be addressed in these comments as this may be outside the scope of expertise of the Service.  This is the fact that multiple use recreation has been managed for the protection of resources and wildlife on federal public lands for more than 50 years at this point. Management of multiple use recreation commenced on federal public lands with the issuance of Executive Order 11644 by President Richard Nixon on February 8, 1972.[3] Over the next 50 years federal public lands have been intensively managed to minimize possible impacts from multiple use recreation to wildlife.  These decisions have also been some of the most litigated issues on public lands.  No other recreational activity on public lands have seen this level of scrutiny.

As a result of this management, there can be no argument that possible impacts to wolf populations have not been sufficiently addressed with the management of other similar species such as mountain lions, lynx, coyote, fox, badgers, elk, deer and almost every other species that might be relied on for a food source for wolves. We raise this concern as too often managers are still being told that multiple use recreation is unmanaged or is negatively impacting wildlife populations.   Again the 50 years of management of our sport and interests provides a highly credible basis for the protections for recreation in the 10j Rule, as there is an entirely separate process from the ESA listing mandated on public lands to address recreational access. A broadly crafted 10j Rule would streamline the relationship between these efforts and allow recreation to thrive and resources to be protected.

Over the 50 years that have passed since the issuance of EO11644, the Organizations have partnered with CPW, the USFS and BLM to create and manage a one of a kind partnership that is based on the OHV program self-taxing to provide funds for the management of our sport on Federal public lands.  Last year the motorized community provided almost $8 million in direct funding for the maintenance of recreational infrastructure and education of our users regarding the management of their chosen sport.[4]  No other user group has taken this type of aggressive position in the management of their sport and protection of resources.  We are providing this information to demonstrate we have the knowledge and resources to protect species, unlike any other recreation, and that 10j protections will be monitored and effectively implemented.

2b.  Direct and Indirect impacts to recreation from  the wolf reintroduction is a major concern.

The Organizations would ask for a clear and unambiguous recognition in the 10j designation of the lack of relationship between recreational activities and wolf habitat and populations as has been previously provided for the Wolverine. This lack of a relationship could not be more evident as wolves were hunted to extinction in Colorado decades before anyone thought about developing an off-road motorcycle or ATV.  The USFWS and adjacent State Wolf management efforts have already identified that social impacts from the wolf reintroduction remain a major challenge in species management despite the fact these two issues are entirely unrelated.

The lack of relationship between the wolf and recreation  could not be more perfectly exemplified by the fact that every state level wolf management plan recognizes the challenge of managing recreational users on best practices in wolf habitat and none even mention possible negative impacts to wolf habitat or populations from recreation. Do the Organizations support the need for educational materials on recreational behavior in wolf habitat?  Of course, as we believe this type of “Please don’t pet the wildlife” educational material is always valuable as we see too many failures of the public on this standard every year.  We are not discussing this issue in general as we believe it is outside the scope of the 10j discussion.  Recognition of the lack of relationship between recreation and wolves is badly needed to avoid closures of existing recreational opportunities in areas where there may be wolves and in mitigating the challenges clearly identified by the USFWS.

Exceptionally clear statements from USFWS must be made to avoid any impacts to recreational usages of roads and trails from the wolf reintroduction.  The recreational community has too frequently had to fight closures based on management decisions based on the fact a species was seen in the area and have encountered these issues in areas with Lynx.  This occurrence has become so common that we have informally identified this management process as “We saw a lynx” management. The Organizations are aware that one of the challenges that has been consistently identified around the wolverine and lynx are the exceptionally small numbers of these species and limited research materials that are available. While there are more wolves available for research, compared to many other species the wolf population is small. Our social considerations around previous species introductions have been able to be resolved in rulemaking through designations such as experimental non-essential classifications for wolverines and clear statements of the fact there should be no change in forest management from a wolverine being in the areas[5].

The clarity provided around the lack of relationship between wolverine and recreation was addressed in the 2014 listing update  for the Wolverine as follows:

“We find no evidence that winter recreation occurs on such a scale and has effects that cause the DPS to meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species. We continue to conclude that winter recreation, though it likely affects wolverines to some extent, is not a threat to the DPS”[6]

We are aware that the 2014 Wolverine update was eventually struck down in Court for reasons unrelated to recreation or the 10j Rule Protections, however the Organizations have found significant value in the 10j protections in numerous efforts and discussions on the Wolverine. With CPW possibly looking at reintroducing Wolverine as well, we are thankful to be starting from this clear position on management rather than having to restart discussions from scratch again.

We thankfully are not in a situation where there is only minimal data or research available with the Gray Wolf, as USFWS has more than 3 decades of data on wolves that have been reintroduced throughout the Western United States. Additionally, there is a huge volume of information and planning resources available from the management of wolves in western states for more than the last decade.  As a result of the decades of high-quality wolf research and data that is now available there is a well-documented consensus that there is no relationship between dispersed recreation and wolf habitat or survival must be clearly and unequivocally stated.  We were able to obtain this level of clarity with the 2014 Wolverine Proposal and can see no reason why even greater clarity would not be obtainable for gray wolves in Colorado as well, given that 10j protections in place for the Mexican Gray wolf have proven insufficient to mitigate ongoing management issues.

The Organizations would like to highlight the lack of concern between recreational usage of roads and trails and wolf populations or habitat quality.  In the USFWS 2016 review of the wolf population specific conclusions on this relationship we stated  as follows:

“To summarize, none of the status review criteria have been met and the NRM wolf population continues to far exceed recovery goals (as demonstrated by pack distribution and the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs in 2015). Documented dispersal of radio collared wolves and effective dispersal of wolves between recovery areas determined through genetic research further substantiate that the metapopulation structure of the NRM DPS has been maintained solely by natural dispersal. No threats to the NRM wolf population were identified in 2015. Potential threats include: A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; C. Disease or predation; D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence (including public attitudes, genetic considerations, climate changes, catastrophic events, and impacts to wolf social structure) that could threaten the wolf population in the NRM DPS in the foreseeable future.

Delisting the NRM DPS wolf population has enabled the States, Tribes, National Park Service and Service to implement more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective wildlife programs that will allow them to maintain a fully recovered wolf population while attempting to minimize conflicts.”[7]

The Organizations believe it is significant that the USFWS clearly identifies that reducing management conflicts are a major concern for the wolf, unlike the 3 criteria that the USFWS normally reviews for possibly listed ESA species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also clearly states the major concern in wolf habitat with roads is wolves being struck and killed on roadways as follows:

“In this final rule, we refer to road densities reported in the scientific literature because they have been found to be correlated with wolf mortality in some areas. We are not aware of any scientific basis for the concern that lower road densities would substantially reduce prey availability for wolves to the extent that it would impact population viability.”[8]

The Organizations would note there is a significant difference between a wolf being impacted on a high-speed arterial road and the risk of a wolf being impacted on a low-speed dirt road or trail. If there was any concern on the latter impacting habitat quality or wolf populations it is of such little concern it is not discussed. The Organizations are aware that highways may be looked at for management but we would be opposed to any restriction of existing recreational opportunities for dispersed or lower speed recreational opportunities.  Rather this type of recreation commonly is drawn into management inadvertently and this should be avoided.

The Wyoming State wolf plan goes into great detail regarding the lack of relationship between low speed trails and roads and wolf habitat quality stating as follows:

“Wolves are not known to demonstrate behavioral aversion to roads. In fact, they readily travel on roads, frequently leaving visible tracks and scat (Singleton 1995). In Minnesota and Wisconsin, wolves have been known to occupy den and rendezvous sites located near logging operations, road construction work, and military maneuvers with no adverse effects [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 2001]. The only concern about road densities stems from the potential for increased accidental human-caused mortalities and illegal killings (Mech et al. 1988, Mech 1989, Boyd-Heger 1997, Pletscher et al. 1997). Although some of the areas within the GYA are administered by the U.S. Forest Service for multiple use purposes and have high road densities, much of the GYA is national parks or wilderness areas that have limited road access and minimal human activity.”[9]

Wyoming State reports provide highly detailed outline of factors that are impacting wolf populations.  There are no factors that are related to recreational activity and we again note trail-based recreation occurs at such a low speed as to make wolf fatalities on a trail almost impossible.  The Wyoming wolf plan provides as follows:

“A total of 128 wolves were known to have died in Wyoming during 2016 (Table 1). Causes of mortality included agency removal (n = 113), natural causes (n = 5), other human-caused (n = 5), and unknown (n = 5).”[10]

Given there is no record of any wolf population decline from recreational activity being in the same area in the several states that have decades of high-quality data on the species, the Organizations are requesting that the lack of relationship be clearly and unequivocally stated in any planning documents. Minimizing these types of unintended social consequences from wolf management are already identified as a major management concern by the USFWS and are also exactly the type of social concern that Proposition 114 specifically requires to be addressed.  As a result, the Organizations are seeking this type of clear and unequivocal statement addressing the lack of relationship between trails and recreational and wolf populations to protect existing recreational resources and to allow for development of new recreational facilities in the future.

2c.  Mexican wolf 10j process exemplifies why we are asking for clear and unequivocal protection of recreational access in the Colorado 10j designation.

The Organizations are concerned that once there is an Endangered Species of any kind in any area where multiple use recreation could be occurring in a possible habitat area, possible impacts from recreational activity is always asserted to be a threat to the species. This occurs without scientific basis and is often in direct conflict with the species management planning documents or other resources or the recognition that multiple use recreation has been intensely managed for 50 years by land managers.  For many Organizations, this anti-multiple use recreation mindset simply never goes away and as a result the Organizations are asking for the strongest and clearest language possible stating the lack of a relationship between reintroduced wolves or existing wolves and multiple use recreation in the 10j designation.

Our concerns on this issue not abstract and are exemplified by the Mexican Gray wolf reintroduction and subsequent management, as we have previously mentioned the litigation against the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado. While the Forest has managed multiple use recreation for 50 years, we are still litigating the fact that management is incomplete or insufficient.  This type of “multiple use is bad” for every species assertion has plagued the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction efforts almost from day 1.  This is exemplified by the following quotes from the most recent revision of the Supplemental EIS for the 10j Rule for the Mexican gray wolf as follows:

“They also noted that State Highway 260 and U.S. Highway 60, which are heavily used, and other state highways, numerous improved roads,  and Forest Service roads, including a road network that provides access to popular recreational spots, such as lakes and streams stocked with sport fish, cut through Zone 1. The SEIS must adequately analyze the effects of wolf interactions with these rapidly expanding human settlements. One cooperating agency expressed a willingness to help the Service with the analysis of potential impacts to the quality of the human environment.”[11]

This multiple use recreation is a threat to species is again raised in the most recent SEIS for the Mexican gray as follows:

“Other commenters claimed that designating the population as essential could enhance wolf conservation since: (1) the consultations that would result would ensure that federal actions (such as permitting livestock grazing on public lands, allowing off-road vehicle recreation, and other federal land activities) would not negatively impact wolf survival; (2) it would allow the Service to designate critical habitat for Mexican wolves; and (3) labeling the population as essential would  no longer suggest that the population is expendable, and this label could heavily influence public perception of wolves and how humans behave towards wolves.”[12]

The Organizations have been highly involved with revisions of RMP on Gila NF, Santa Fe NF and Cibola NF and can say with absolute certainty that similar issues have been raised in these efforts as well.   These are the types of long term challenges around species that are simply not impacted by dispersed recreational activity that we continue to face.  No matter how clearly established the lack of a relationship is between recreation and the species may be, the push continues to exclude recreation from habitat.  As a result of these experiences, we are asking for a broadly targeted clearly defined 10j Rule that protects recreational activity on public lands.

2d.  Wolf impacts on other predator populations, some of which are threatened or endangered.

In our research regarding wolf plans and reintroductions in other states, the impact of reintroduced wolves on populations of threatened or endangered species and general predator populations was significant enough of a concern that Idaho has management standards and discussions of this issue in their plan. [13] We would ask for protection against this type of a management impact to recreational usage in any planning as we can easily envision situations where populations of reintroduced lynx will decline due to increased predation of wolves on the lynx and possible reductions of populations that the lynx and wolf might be feeding on in particular areas.

2e. Unintended impacts from declines in Ungulate populations from wolf reintroductions in Colorado

While the Organizations are aware this concern is more sited to be addressed in the Prop 114 plan CPW is currently developing, the Organizations are very concerned that recreational access will be negatively impacted as herd populations of prey animals decline as a result of introduction of increased wolf populations in the area. Many states and the USFWS recognize these impacts can be severe in local areas.   This indirect concern creates risk of closure of recreational facilities now and in the future if there is a severe impact on any local area.

The Organizations are very concerned that generally declining ungulate populations are frequently cited as a reason to close or restrict recreational access, even when there is a lack of clarity around why the population in a location is declining. This is exemplified by the CPW comments regarding the recent Pike/San Isabel National Forest Travel Plan, where the comments were entirely based on possible impacts or impacts from a wide range of issues, such as residential development or wildfire impacts. Too often herd populations decline for a wide range of issues and easily get blamed on recreational usage, simply because of its visibility.  These are issues that restricting recreational access will never address and the Organizations would like to avoid another layer of discussion around recreational access. The reintroduction of wolves will only compound this type of problem and we would like to avoid this if possible.

The impacts of this type of management issue continue to be significant as the Organizations have spent decades defending USFS travel management decisions on the Pike/San Isabel NF in South Central Colorado from ongoing litigation.[14]  Unfortunately, the PSI travel planning is not the first time we have identified a lack of consensus around declines in herd populations which then gets blamed on trails. The proposed GMUG RMP provides 10 pages of muddled and weak information around herd population declines as result of recreational usage being dispersed across the forest. This analysis continues despite the fact that elk populations in the GMUG NF are estimated to be more than 30% above objectives, deer are 10% below objective as a result of high levels of winter mortality and sheep herds being 25% above goal. CPW then supports the absolutely crushing restriction of only allowing 1 mile of trail per square mile in an attempt to provide protection of habitat, which is explained as follows:

“MA-STND-WLDF-02: To maintain habitat function and provide security habitat for wildlife species by minimizing impacts associated with roads and trails, there shall be no net gain in system routes, both motorized and non-motorized, where the system route density already exceeds 1 linear mile per square mile, within a wildlife management area boundary. Additions of new system routes within wildlife management areas shall not cause the route density in a proposed project’s zone of influence to exceed 1 linear mile per square mile. Within the Flattop Wildlife Management Areas in the Gunnison Ranger District, there shall be no new routes.”[15]

This situation is frustrating to many users of the forest and will be exacerbated by any actual decline in population from the wolf reintroduction.  Clearly ungulate population declines due to wolf predation are going to drive management standards that are only targeting one aspect in a system with many variables such as the one above.  The Organizations also submit that less direct impacts from the wolf reintroduction are exactly the type of issue that the USFWS recently identified as a management priority for the species in the western US. We would like to avoid another layer of confusion in these discussions and leverage the clarity around the fact populations are going to decline.  It should not fall to the recreational community to try and understand a complex multi-faceted system such as this to explain recreational usage and population declines as this will create conflict for the wolf as everyone agrees populations of herd animals will decline.  Clarity around this type of a concern could be provided with aggressive protections for recreation in the 10j Rule and we are asking for this type of clarity.

The Organizations would like to briefly identify the numerous highly credible resources that agree that herd populations will decline as a result of wolves in the area and sometimes at high levels on a localized level of analysis.  While there is extensive scientific discussion around levels of decline in ungulate populations from wolves being introduced, there is also significant consensus on two important points around the wolf impact on herd size.  This consensus is around three facets of the herd animal/wolf relationship mainly that:

  1. Herd sizes will not remain the same;
  2. Herd sizes will not increase; and
  3. Herd animal populations will go down.

While the consensus of the scientific community immediately falters when reasons for landscape levels of decline are attempted to be summarized, this does not impact the consensus that populations will not increase and will not stay the same.  This consensus is very important to the recreational community and to the clarity needed to protect recreational access and again would be a significant step in reducing a major challenge that the USFWS has identified in wolf management in other states.  The complexity of understanding why ungulate populations is declining in wolf habitat was exemplified in the recent Montana recommendations for wolf management, which provide as follows:

“We recommend that wildlife managers seeking to balance carnivore and ungulate population objectives design rigorous carnivore and ungulate population monitoring programs to assess the effects of harvest management programs. Assessing and understanding effects of carnivore harvest management programs will help to set realistic expectations regarding the effects of management programs on carnivore and ungulate populations and allow managers to better design programs to meet desired carnivore and ungulate population objectives.” [16]

While there is significant controversy around how much of a decline will occur at the landscape, the Organizations prefer to base our concerns on this issue on scientific certainty.  Credible researchers are unanimous in concluding populations of herd animals will not stay the same and also will not increase at the landscape level. While landscape research around specific levels of population decline for ungulates can been difficult, we believe it is significant to note that Idaho Fish and Game estimates there is between a 4 and 6% decline in elk populations from wolf predation. [17]   This level of landscape population decline in herd animals will cause significant concern and possible impacts to recreational access.

The Organizations do not contest that landscape level impacts can be complex to analyze, localized severe population declines are frequently identified in other states. This type of localized impact was recently discussed in depth by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as follows:

“However, we acknowledge that, in some localized areas, wolves may be a significant factor in observed big game population declines, which could result in reduced allocation of hunting licenses and reduced revenue for both local communities and State wildlife agencies.” [18]

These types of concerns being addressed with this level of detail make the Organizations believe these issues are consistently occurring and sometimes at significant levels. The detail is not provided because impacts are not occurring as that conclusion would be entirely irrational. The Idaho Fish and Game Service has also summarized this concern as follows:

“Temporary reductions in predator populations, by removing those wolves affecting the big game population, may be needed to assist in restoration of prey populations in conjunction with habitat management (Kunkel and Pletscher 2001).” [19]

Clearly in areas where wolves are possibly in need of removal to restore ungulate populations, protections of recreational access will be critically important in avoiding social impacts and lost recreational access. We are asking for this type of recognition before the wolves are even on the ground to avoid social and economic conflicts that clearly are occurring in these areas. It should not fall to the recreational community to resolve questions unrelated to our interests  simply to protect our interest.

Protections such those targeting herd population declines are very important to mitigating impacts to recreation from these declines, as almost every CPW herd management plan we have ever reviewed is projecting that populations will stay roughly the same or possibly increase.  This is really no longer possible with wolves on the landscape and the recreational users would like a clear and unequivocal statement that populations will not increase or stay the same in order to avoid would base population declines being erroneously asserted to be the result of recreational activity in the same planning area. Additionally, localized herd size impacts have been raised as a management concern for both the USFWS and Idaho Parks and Recreation.  These are major concerns that we would like protections against and we would ask for a broadly targeted, clearly worded 10j Rule that protects all forms of recreation.

3. Mexican or gray wolf populations for reintroduction under Proposition 114.

The Organizations are very concerned that there has been a consistent stated desire from many interests to re-establish a wolf population from Canada to Mexico.  We simply have no idea where this goal even came from but must express some concern over this type of goal. Clearly this is well outside the scope of Proposition 114, which causes us significant concern. We are opposed to this type of action even being arguably a goal of any reintroduction given its hugely subjective nature and objectives. We are also deeply concerned about the presence of two ESA species being reintroduced in Colorado.  This would simply create a management nightmare for everyone involved. Again, we believe that this is outside the scope of the 10j Rule, but we believe this is an important issue for full understanding of the climate we are asking for 10j protections in.

We are also deeply opposed to any reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves in Colorado under Proposition 114 and would ask that the 10j designation be limited to gray wolves only to avoid this discussion. Best available science has express significant concern over the connection of the Mexican and greater gray wolf populations as follows:

“If Northwestern wolves come to occupy Mexican wolf recovery areas, these physically larger wolves are likely to dominate smaller Mexican wolves and quickly occupy breeding positions, as will their hybrid offspring. Hybrid population(s) thus derived will not contribute towards recovery because they will significantly threaten integrity of the listed entity. Directing Mexican wolf recovery northward outside historical range threatens the genetic integrity and recovery of the subspecies, is inconsistent with the current 10(j) regulations under the ESA, is unnecessary because large tracts of suitable habitat exist within historical range, is inconsistent with the concepts of restoration ecology, and disregards unique characteristics for which the Mexican wolf remains listed.” [20]

This situation would immediately be created with the reintroduction of gray wolves and Mexican gray wolves in the same general geographic areas as some are proposing. Why do we mention this concern?  The Organizations believe the reintroduction of the two species in southern Colorado would simply create a management nightmare for everyone involved and preclude almost any functional benefit from the 10j designation and other protections in place under Proposition 114. These protections are critically important to other users of these lands.

We are also concerned about impacts of gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico as best available science concludes that the gray wolves simply outperform the Mexican Gray wolf in almost every aspect of existence.  We are also concerned about the loss of recreational access to Mexican gray wolf habitat in Arizona and New Mexico due to this type of impact as many of our members ride here as well.

4a. Economic costs of reintroduction have been horribly underestimated to date.

There can be no argument that the passage of Proposition 114  was unprecedented in many ways, ranging from the reintroduction of species based on a ballot initiative to working on the aggressive timeframe required by Prop 114.  The unprecedented nature of Proposition 114 has created a wide range of challenges which has been compounded with a lack of information on many of these challenges. One of the areas where there is a critical lack of information from other efforts is information around costs for the effort. While we are aware that costs are most directly an issue for CPW and the State of Colorado, the Organizations are concerned that the experiences with costs of the reintroduction are highly relevant to the 10j designation and process.

The scale of the consistent underestimation of costs for the reintroduction has been significant to date.  Originally the Colorado Legislative Services estimated costs to be well under $1 million totally and only $346,000 for the first year by Colorado Legislative Services. [21] This estimate has proven to be overly optimistic as costs are currently estimated to be almost $3 million this year alone. The comical underestimate of costs for the reintroduction of the gray wolf is also exemplified by the costs incurred by the most recent update of the Mexican Gray Environmental Impact Statement which is identified as follows:

“Estimated Lead Agency Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this FSEIS $363,350” [22]

It goes without stating that the cost of a single SEIS for a reintroduced species being functionally the same as estimated total costs of a reintroduction causes great concern for the accuracy of any estimates for the total costs.

As the reintroduction effort progresses,  the Organizations have to believe that litigation of many aspects of the reintroduction will be a massive and ongoing issue.  While we cannot estimate these costs accurately at this time given the huge number of variables, we can say from our experiences is the fact that litigation is expensive and could easily significantly increase the costs.

The Organizations also must recognize the current general economic conditions in the country, both from the possibility of a recession looming and also the large amount of federal stimulus money currently available to states. We simply do not expect the large amount of stimulus money to be available at current levels for long and are unwilling to say our outlook for the economy in the next several years was optimistic.

The Organizations must also address the current financial outlook for CPW generally. While the Organizations are aware that funding for the wolf reintroduction was now required to be funded by State General funds rather than CPW funds with the passage of Senate Bill 21-105, this funding is certainly not a bottomless source of funding.  CPW camping reservations processes was recently audited by the State Auditor and the conclusion of the audit was eye opening to say the least.  This audit found that CPW wildlife efforts were expected to lose $30 million annually and Colorado Parks was expected to lose another $10 million annually by 2025.[23] Given the constricting nature of this funding and introduction of many new competing interests in the discussions, we believe that interests outside the wolf reintroduction will become more important.

The Organizations are asking for as much flexibility around any assumptions or forecasts for costs in the 10j Rule as possible to allow for changes in costs to undertake any effort and possible limitations in funding becoming available.

4b.  Economic contributions of recreation to the planning area.

The Organizations are very concerned around the possible negative economic impacts that could result from the gray wolf reintroduction, not only from recreational related impacts but also the possible impacts to other activities as well.  Too many of our small communities’ struggle to provide even basic services to their residents and tourists visiting the areas. Without a well-rounded economic engine for the community, the community will struggle and possibly fail and this will degrade the recreational opportunities and support for them from the community and this is a concern for the Organizations.  The Organizations are very concerned that there have been numerous assertions that completely overestimate the economic contribution of the reintroduction by merely asserting that all recreation is occurring in the State as a result of the reintroduction.  That entirely lacks factual basis.

Proposition 114 clearly identifies those economic considerations are to be mitigated in the collaborative efforts around the wolf reintroduction. CPW own conclusions on the economic contributions of outdoor recreation in the state of Colorado, clearly identified as a consideration to be mitigated in planning under Prop 114, are as follows:

“Focusing on the state-level results below, the total economic output associated with outdoor recreation amounts to $62.5 billion dollars, contributing $35.0 billion dollars to the Gross Domestic Product of the state. This economic activity supports over 511,000 jobs in the state, which represents 18.7% of the entire labor force in Colorado and produces $21.4 billion dollars in salaries and wages. In addition, this output contributes $9.4 billion dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue.” [24]

The Organizations submit that more than $62.5 Billion Dollars of economic contribution that results in 18.7% of the entire labor force is an economic concern to warrant specific recognition of recreation in Stakeholder Advisory Groups, both now and in the future.  Any assertion that such a massive economic contribution is insufficient to warrant inclusion in wolf stakeholder discussions simply lacks any factual basis. It is highly frustrating to open collaborations when contributions such as this are not worthy of recognition in the stakeholder advisory group. This type of arbitrary resolution of considerations will cause concern and frustration from the public generally, and our members more specifically, as the wolf reintroduction moves forward. We simply must do better than this in the future and we must do better than this in the development of the Plan required under Proposition 114.

4c.  Economic contributions of wolf tourism are almost non-existent.

Under ESA processes for habitat designations and under Prop 114 planners are required to address economic impacts of decisions around the reintroduction of the wolves in the ecosystem.  While this is probably technically outside the scope of the 10j Rule, we again believe these issues are highly relevant to understanding the climate the 10j Rule is being developed under.  Too often we are hearing comical assertions that wolves will drive eco-tourism and related economic impacts will simply flow from the reintroduction to local communities.[25] That is simply without factual basis and almost all research we have seen has been hugely generalized and overly broad.

The lack of factual basis of these assertions is exhibited by the fact that wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone Park about the same time as snowmobile closures were undertaken in the park.  The value of recreation to these local communities is well demonstrated prior to the Yellowstone closures for snowmobiles.[26] While wolves have been on the landscape and easily seen in the winter, tax revenues and jobs from winter recreation in the Yellowstone Park remain only a small fraction of the previous levels.  People simply are not visiting these areas to view wolves  in sufficient numbers to offset visitation lost from more generalized recreation.  This is highly relevant to this discussion as tourists are not going to Colorado primarily to see wolves, if you are skiing at steamboat or vail your decision is driven by a desire to ski not see wolves.  This reintroduction will not generate revenues and the 10j Rule must be founded on this factual conclusion.

4d. Compensation to all interests for financial loss from wolf predation.

We vigorously support full compensation for agricultural interests for impacts from all wolves in the State. The 10j Rule should not be a barrier to reimbursement of these losses but should streamline these types of compensation in any manner possible.

5. Populations goals Mexican wolf populations only have a target of 100 for success.[27]

The Organizations submits that the inclusion of a population objective for the wolf is critically important to the plan development.  While this goal is important to the entire effort, there is a wide range of opinions on this issue, which range from only 2 or 4 wolves being reintroduced to hundreds of wolves being reintroduced.  These differing levels of goal will have significant impacts on many facets of the reintroduction.  This goal is also highly relevant to the scope of protection provided for activities under the 10j Rule and the Rule must be flexible enough to address whatever population goals are finally settled on.  It has been the Organizations experience that often the desire to always want more of a particular species is controlling in the listing process rather than true science-based management objectives.

It has been the Organizations experience that often target populations, and the scientific basis for these goals, are sometimes discussed when either listing was avoided or listing of a species on the ESA list occurred are dimmed with the passage of time.   Often there are delays between initial decisions on a species and subsequent review of the decision and as a result participant in the original listing are no longer available or memories have been dimmed. With the passage of time, assertions of always needing more of a particular species never seem to dim or lose steam, making any position that species population goals being achieved difficult if not impossible to support.  Always wanting more of a species simply creates social conflict and we submit this must be mitigated with the inclusion of a hard population goal for conclusion of the reintroduction must be done. Based on the experiences of the states around Colorado, this type of a tool will be needed far sooner than anyone anticipates at this point.

The USFWS has established very minimal population goals for the reintroductions of gray wolves, which they have summarized as follows:

“In our 1994, EIS for the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, we defined a wolf population as follows: ”A wolf population is at least 2 breeding pairs of wild wolves successfully raising at least 2 young each year (until December 31 of the year of their birth), for 2 consecutive years in an experimental area.”

By comparison CPW declared a successful Lynx reintroduction after 200 cats.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the 10j Rule must be sufficiently broad in scope to address and mitigate impacts of the wolf reintroduction regardless of population goals that are finally established.  These protections must be clearly stated in order to avoid unintended consequences from the reintroduction.

6. Wildlife Reguges and State Wildlife Areas should be priority locations of reintroductions and scope of 10j rule.

The Organizations are attempting to identify significant concerns around the wolf reintroduction and locations for reintroduction is another issue outside the direct scope of the 10j Rule but remains an important concern for our interests.  While many are generally socially based, these social considerations could have serious economic impacts as well.  Given the overlap of these categories for protection under Proposition 114 we are not going to break them down further as each are identified for protection.   The Organizations vigorously assert all programmatic protections must apply to all wolves in the state, regardless of Prop 114 requirements that only reintroduced west of Continental Divide. It has been our experience that species will travel long distances after being reintroduced and wolves are no exception. Wolves have already been identified in areas, such as North Park, that are outside the areas where wolves are to be reintroduced under Prop 114.

Wolves appear to travel even longer distances than species the average Coloradan may be familiar with.   This is exemplified by the fact that Nebraska Parks and Wildlife recently concluded that two wolves were killed in separate events in the last 18 months.  The first being killed outside Uehling, Nebraska.  This news was astonishing as most expected with wolf to be associated with the Yellowstone population, but this story was even more astonishing as the wolf was from the Great Lakes Population.[28] The second wolf followed a similar fact patter and was killed outside Bassett Nebraska [29] Given the clear history of wolves traveling long distances, the Organizations believe that any clarity in the management plan being developed must apply to all wolves, regardless of where they came from or their genetic makeup.

While the Organizations are aware that wolves will end up in almost every corner of the State of Colorado as a result of the reintroduction, we still vigorously support only reintroduction on the Western Slope of Colorado.  We are vigorously opposed to any reintroduction of the species east of the Continental Divide, as we are aware that population concentrations are lower in these areas of the State.  We believe that lower population concentrations will reduce the possibility of wolf/human/pets conflicts and these lower levels of concentrations will allow for the development of more effective educational materials and messaging.  We are aware that several interests have proposed reintroducing wolves in Rocky Mtn National Park.  In our opinion, this would be a horrible location given the huge concentrations of tourists in this area.  Upon a more complete review of the reintroduction is the fact that the reintroduction is the fact much of the habitat identified is outside the Park.

We are aware of discussions on other locations for reintroduction.  We believe these reintroduction sites should be rather small in number as we do not support reintroducing hundreds of wolves.  We also believe that any reintroduction should be occurring as far from areas of human population as possible, and this includes even temporary population centers due to recreational activities and other activities on public lands. We are also aware that numerous National Recreation Areas and National Conservation Areas.  While we are not opposed to these areas but would ask that any NRA/NCA designations where the criteria for designation does not align with the wolf reintroduction be removed from the list of possible locations for the reintroductions.  The Organizations submit that areas such as National Wildlife Refuges and State Wildlife Areas should be prioritized for this type of activity.  It is their reason for existing.

7. Conclusions.

The Organizations welcome the participation of the Service in the Prop 114 efforts and the development of the 10j Rule for the experimental nonessential gray wolf population in Colorado.

The Organizations are seeking the broadest and encompassing protections for all recreational access in the 10j designations that is stated in clear and unequivocal language, as after participating in ESA efforts for decades there is always an assertion that motorized recreation is negatively impacting the species.  This continues despite numerous species specific studies being developed and the decline of some species occurring even before motorized recreation was a concept and often impacts to activities like ours are summed up as unintended impacts of the listing.

The Organizations submit a wide ranging protection for recreation would be a significant step towards avoiding unintended consequences of the protection and reintroduction and reflect a decision that is highly solidified in best available science, mainly that recreational access and wolves are basically unrelated.  With wolves in Colorado, the lack of relationship between these activities could not be more stark as the gray wolf was hunted to extinction in the mid-1940s, decades before an off road motorcycle or ATV was ever even a thought.  The Service has provided similar protections around wolverines in Colorado and we would ask for language at least as strong as that previously provided in possible 10j designations for the Wolverines. Similar protections have been provided for the Mexican Gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico and these protections have not proven to be strong enough, as even with these protections every time there is a planning effort, trails have to be reviewed for the protection of Mexican wolves.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 518-281-5810 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or Chad Hixon at 719-221-8329 or via email at Chad@Coloradotpa.org if you should wish to discuss these matters further.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
TPA Executive Director

Marcus Trusty
President – CORE

 

[1] See, Wildearth Guardians webinar at 5 minutes of  1hr 3 minute webinar.  A complete copy of this webinar is available for viewing here: Colorado Wolf Restoration Plan webinar – YouTube

[2] See, SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL, SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Petitioners vs. DAN DALLAS; and UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO; Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2994

[3] A complete copy of this Order is available here: Executive Orders | National Archives

[4] More information on the CPW Motorized Trail Program is available here: Colorado Parks & Wildlife – Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program (state.co.us)

[5] A copy of this document is available here: 2014-18743.pdf (fws.gov)

[6] 47532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules

[7] See, USFWS 2016 update at pg. 5.

[8] See, DOI; US Fish and Wildlife Service; Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removing the gray wolf from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Federal Register Vol 85 No 213 at pg. 69870.

[9] See, Wyoming Fish and Game; Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan 2011 at pg. 30.

[10] See, Wyoming Fish and Game; Gray Wolf 2016 update pg. WY-6.

[11] See, DOI USFWS Mexican Gray Wolf; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Experimental nonessential designation of the Mexican gray Wolf; 2022 at pg. 192.

[12] See, Mexican Gray Wolf SEIS at pg. 195.

[13] See, Idaho Fish and Game; 2002 Wolf Plan at pg. 16 of 32.

[14] See, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY et al. v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE et al Civil Action No. 11-cv-246-JLK-AP DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

[15] See, USDA Forest Service, GMUG National Forest; Draft Revised Forest Management plan; August 2021 at pg. 93.

[16] See, Proffitt Et Al; Integrated Carnivore‐Ungulate Management: A Case Study in West‐Central Montana;  Wildlife Monographs June 2020.

[17] See, Idaho Fish and Game; 2017 Statewide Report – Wolf; 2017 at pg. 8.

[18] See, DOI; US Fish and Wildlife Service; Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removing the gray wolf from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Federal Register Vol 85 No 213 at pg. 69868.

[19] See, Idaho Fish and Game; 2002 Wolf Plan at pg. 21 of 32.

[20] See, Odell et al; Perils of recovering the Mexican wolf outside of its historical range; Biological Conservation 220 (2018)

[21] Legislative council memo for prop114

[22] See, DOI USFWS: PROPOSED REVISION TO THE REGULATIONS FOR THE NONESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF;  May 2022;  cover

[23] See, Colorado Office of the State Auditor, Department of Natural Resources; State Park Campsite Reservations Performance Audit; May 2022 2162P at pg. 4

[24] See, CPW 2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan:  Appendix F Pg. 111. Dated July 23, 2018.

[25] The Economic Benefits and Struggles of Wolves in Yellowstone | Good Nature Travel Blog (nathab.com)

[26] See, Taylor et al; Economic Importance of the Winter Season to Park County, Wyoming,  May 1999.

[27] See, DOI; US Fish and Wildlife Service; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Mexican Wolf and Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf; Final Rules Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015.

[28] See,  Nebraska Parks and Wildlife; April 14, 2021.  A complete version of this article is available here Gray wolf confirmed in Nebraska • Nebraskaland Magazine (outdoornebraska.gov)

[29] Wolf killed north of Fremont is the second in Nebraska since November | Nebraska News | journalstar.com

Continue Reading

2022 COHVCO Legislative UPDATE

COHVCO logo

Colorado General Assembly 2022 Session Legislative Report

This year the session was distinguished by four key issues impacting the OHV, snowmobile and 4wd communities. The issues include: Colorado Rule 20 and adoption of the California Air Resources Board’s standards for vehicle emissions; reduction in theft of catalytic converters (cats); Reduction in mobile and stationary emissions in general; attempts by the legislature to take wildlife and natural resources management out of the hands of the Department of Natural Resources and place it in the hands of legislators or a commission comprised of academics and scientist with little accountability to anyone, particularly the public.

The first major category of bills was targeting adoption of the California Air Resources Board’s LEV III and ZEV Emissions standards (these standards can be found in the attached Colorado Rule 20). LEV, Low Emission Vehicles and ZEV, Zero Emission Vehicles.

The second issue dealt with addressing the monumental increase in the theft of catalytic converters and taking various measures to dramatically reduce theft. This approach uses different strategies to curb theft due to the value of precious metals in catalytic converters.

The third issue included identifying areas of higher than normal emissions, then taking whatever measures would be necessary to reduce that level to reach federal compliance. This includes both mobile and stationary sources.

Finally, the environmental pressure being placed on legislators to remove state government from resource management and place it in the hands of others poses a nightmarish scenario as you will understand when you are introduced to the bills.

The first subcategory included implementation of the California Air Resources Board emissions standards, LEVIII and ZEV, (a result of a Hickenlooper Executive Order issued his last year in office), including use of only CA approved aftermarket catalytic converters. Note: these standards do not apply to motorcycles, OHVs and snowmobiles. They apply to autos and light trucks, 8500lbs or less. However, vehicles not covered by LEV and ZEV must still meet EPA emission standards

It should be noted up front that owners of LEVIII vehicles may no longer purchase own or install a used catalytic converter and neither can repair shops except for repairs requiring removal of the cat. Included in this approach to cleaner air, Colorado’s antitampering statute was beefed up as was the responsibility of a seller of a motor vehicle to protect the buyer by making sure the emissions system was not tampered with. This applies to dealers and private parties. Again motorcycles, OHVs and snowmobiles are exempt.

The CA law was first mentioned in an Executive Order issued by Hickenlooper with a deadline of October 21, 2021, for the promulgation of a rule containing LEVIII and ZEV standards by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. This was issued as Rule 20 and is attached to this email. Tremendous opposition was delivered by many interested parties to adopting CA standards, but no way to stop it. Currently 13 other states including CO have adopted CA standards.

The second major topic involved steps by the General Assembly addressing an alleged 5000% increase in the past ten years in the theft of catalytic converters for their precious

Metal—numbers provided by the State Patrol. These precious metals are 3 members of the Platinum metals group: rhodium, palladium and platinum to be exact.

Cats do not contain massive amounts of these metals, but there is no need, the current spot price of rhodium is $13,000 per ounce, down from $21,000 an ounce 3 months ago. Considering an EPA cat can bring about $350 from the metals and the CA cat about $700 to $800 for recycling there is no need to say more.

One approach to curtailing theft is a change in how precious metals are sold or otherwise disposed of. Generally, stricter identification of individuals selling these metals to recyclers is now required. Also, there is a prohibition on installing a used cat on a vehicle unless it is part of repair work, and the cat was already on the vehicle. Advertising or selling a used cat is also prohibited. However, one question I inquired about is why can’t someone steal them and take them to another state without such laws and sell them?

The third category was comprised of a few bills attempting to identify areas of the state with higher levels of emissions than others. In other words, the environmentalist approach to curbing many fossil fuel activities on their hit list as the bills, of course, required mitigation by most any means available. One can imagine front range trails use by vehicles, and an appeal by the state if these bills passed to curb such trail use.

The fourth major category included an effort to begin to strip the Colorado Department of natural Resources of its authority to manage everything from trails to wildlife to water and place it in the hands of either the General Assembly or, more detrimentally, a commission of handpicked academics and scientists with little or no responsibility to the public. This last draft bill almost made it to introduction. It was perhaps the most dangerous bill I have ever seen to destroy recreation considering one of the major attack points in the bill was recreation destroying the ability of the environment to rebound or accommodate climate change. Unbelievable!

This was a terrible session, primarily because legislators from the majority party did not work together nor closely with the Department of Health, so legislation duplicated itself and even contradicted itself. Few bills looked like they did when they were introduced.

Bills that were Lost (postponed indefinitely)

SB22-031 Prohibition on the Hunting of the 3 Wild Cats found in Colorado, Cougars, Bobcats and Lynx. Another effort to take the management of wildlife away from the Division and encourage legislators with little to no experience to make decisions on natural resources they may not be qualified to make. In fact, the Division of Wildlife stated the populations were stable and hunting was necessary to meet stabilized populations. This is a step in the direction of the next draft bill that was, courtesy of the environmentalists.

Bill Drafted, but not introduced. It is no secret that the environmentalists want the management of natural resources of Colorado taken from government and placed in the hands of private environmental scientists and activists. This proposed bill I refer to hands all recommendations for resource management in the state to an 11 member advisory committee with no oversight, although they will be making decisions to be followed by state government managing all resources for protection of biodiversity and climate change ecology.

There should be enough nasty buzz words in the proposed title, for protection of biodiversity and climate change ecology, to terrify recreationists and the draft bill proves it. No recreationists, no resource users, no water interests would be represented on the committee let alone commodities. The draft considers unmanaged recreation one of the gravest threats to the bill’s claim of protection.

(2) THE CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY MUST:
(a) SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING THREATS TO THE 12 STATE’S ECOSYSTEMS:
(V) UNMANAGED OR POORLY MANAGED RECREATION.

Suddenly, if the eleven member committee decides the area is poorly managed, they act. What is so diabolical is the shift from a far more objective standard—no management, to the incredibly subjective standard—poorly managed. The bill is sixteen pages of mind control. You should know the word “mitigation” appears nowhere in the bill.

SB22-082 Addressing the Geographical Areas with the Greatest Concentration of Air Pollutants that affect Human Health. This bill would have allowed the department of public health and the environment to use EPA air quality data to identify geographical areas in which hazardous air pollutants have the greatest negative effects on human health and then to propose a rule to the air quality commission to address pollutant levels in these areas.

So broad in language that the rule could include almost any mitigation actions. Surely front range counties would be hit hard. OHV use could easily be targeted. (Rampart Range)

SB22-138 This bill was intended to phase out all gas powered lawn and garden equipment or what California refers to as small off-road engines. It was never made clear if the sponsors understood that CA does not include off-highway vehicles in this category Well CA does not include OHVs in this category. Nevertheless, it left the definition of SORE to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission to define. There was considerable concern about the definition used by the sponsors which did not match the CA limit of 10hp. Colorado used a maximum of 50 hp It was amended but died on the floor of the Senate.

Implementing California LEVIII and ZEV Emissions Standards

SB22-179 Concerning Measures to Address Tampering with a Motor Vehicle’s Emission. The original bill required anyone selling renting or leasing a motorcycle that has a tampered emissions system to bear an undue burden in creating a valid transaction of sale. Unfortunately for private parties and dealers buying and selling motorcycles with MV titles, either from the factory or after conversion of a pure dirtbike to a MV, the original bill as drafted made it almost impossible for a private party or a motorcycle dealer to feel secure selling a titled motorcycle. As the motorcycle could be retuned at any time.

Cars and light trucks are also included in the bill as it broadly addresses motor vehicles. Autos and light trucks have been required to meet front range Aircare Colorado emission standards for many years. Street bikes are not required to and we have made sure that when they have been included, they were removed. In a very complicated manner this legislation would become a backdoor attempt to force testing motorcycles for emissions tampering but make it almost impossible to test them or very costly. There are very serious consequences for anyone selling a motor vehicle with a tampered emissions system if:

The person knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the emission control system was tampered with.

Unfortunately, “reasonable care’ goes undefined if and until the state promulgates a rule telling you what reasonable care means. How do you know how to protect yourself when you sell whether a private party or dealer, from having the buyer go after you? For example, does it mean getting an emissions test at a testing station along the front range Aircare Colorado counties? Does it mean you can take the motor vehicle to a dealer that has the proprietary equipment and software for your brand make of motor vehicle? Can you have a garage mechanic “look it over?”

Let’s just say that reasonable care means obtaining a certificate that you passed the Aircare emissions test or the printout from your auto dealer showing a receipt and the printout that all is well with the emissions system. However, motorcycle sales leave the seller with a real dilemma. Motorcycles are not required to be tested in the Aircare Colorado program as the cost for testing is exorbitant to the testing company and the motorcycle owner and the emissions contribution is minimal. Even CA currently does not require that motorcycles be emissions tested.

Motor vehicle dealers do get a special process given the volume of what they sell. A buyer has 5 days from the date of sale to go back to the dealer if an emissions test shows the emissions system has been tampered with. The dealer can return the purchaser’s money when they return the car, if they wish to keep the car the dealer can offer to repair it or the buyer may go to an outside garage for repairs and reimbursement. Dealers have the discretion to pick which option.

Unfortunately, even if “reasonable care” is later defined by the state, motorcycle sellers and buyers cannot avail themselves of that option to determine if what they are selling has ever been tampered with. As mentioned, there is no Aircare test for a motorcycle. In areas outside the Aircare counties, it is possible a rule will allow motorcycle dealer testing. But again, a Chevy dealer is much, much easier to find in central Colorado outside the Aircare counties than an Aprilia, Triumph or even Honda motorcycle dealer.

Until the U.S has uniform OBD ports and testing like Europe so any motorcycle dealer can check any motorcycle brand, private sellers and dealers will be running around hauling motorcycles to find an Aprilia dealer if they live in Meeker before they sell a motorcycle. The results will often be traveling many miles to a franchised dealer of that brand make for testing and it won’t be cheap. You have travel and testing costs, and sellers will add those costs to the sale.

Equally as problematic, there is nothing in the statute on the private seller’s obligations to correct the problem whether it is an auto or a motorcycle. It is reasonable to believe that a private seller could face legal action anytime the problem is discovered by the buyer or under the 3 year statute of limitations to sue for breach of contract. That is just not right. It is a colossal undue burden on any private seller or dealer of a motorcycles.

This bill would have put motorcycle dealers and therefore their customers in an incredibly difficult position and at serious odds. Since both buyers and sellers are punished with fines for violations and dealers additionally, having to go before the Dealer Licensing Board for a violation of the proposed bill, risking more fines and possible suspension or revocation of their license, how can this not be classified as an undue burden?

As mentioned for years CA has not required emissions testing for motorcycles newer than 1976. So, we also would have had the problem of litigation costs trying to prove in court that Colorado had violated Section 177 of the Clean Air Act as our only remedy if the legislature refused to address the problem.

So, after a 3 month battle with the Attorney General’s Office, Legislative legal Services and the sponsors, they finally “got it” and removed motorcycles from the bill as we had long ago requested.

Motorcycles will continue to remain under the existing EPA antitampering statute in place for decades not the new and “better” Colorado antitampering statute.

On a final note, we pointed out to the proponents that they made no accommodation in the bill for vehicle repairs. That removing any emissions device or component was illegal in the original bill even for repair purposes. Takes effect in August 2022.

SB22-009 Concerning Catalytic Converters and in Connection therewith, Enacting Measures to Address the Theft of Catalytic Converters. Addresses recyclers, junkyards and any wholesale purchaser of precious metals from a cat (except dealers) to take certain measures to identify and catalogue their sellers to be identified by photo, license plate, name etc. Description of the vehicle the cat is from is also required. Essentially a registration book on sellers to catch stolen cats in the process of selling them or their precious metals is required. Motor vehicle dealers were removed from these requirements upon request of PDAC.

The public still is required to provide their identifying information when selling a used detached cat or its metals to one of the entities described.

The original bill had serious problems. Again, after much discussion, it was explained that if a shop or private party removes a catalytic converter to repair another component of the motorcycle (or car or truck), the reinstallation was made illegal (no difference in install or reinstall). This was fixed and cats are now referred to for this legislation as “detached cats.”

Also adds additional penalties to chop shops for theft of catalytic converters. Takes effect immediately

HB22-1217 Concerning Measures to prevent Catalytic Converter Theft, and, in Connection therewith, Making an Appropriation. State Patrol is to create a form that the purchasers of converters and the platinum metals group metals must fill out with information regarding the sellers, much like the registration or journal required of recyclers and junkyards in SB22-009 to be reviewed annually by the State Patrol.

Creates a theft prevention authority within the State Patrol. Creates grants for public awareness of cat thefts, financial assistance to individuals who have had their cats stolen for replacement purposes (now you can see why we argued to make sure the more abundant and less expensive cats be made available. Takes effect immediately.

Other Legislation that Passed

HB22-1388 Changes Ownership tax laws on MVs. An owner of an inoperable vehicle that is not driven on roadways and is undergoing maintenance, repair, restoration, rebuilding renovation shall pay the annual specific ownership tax on the vehicle. Inoperable is defined as a vehicle that is not roadworthy. Upon payment of the specific ownership tax of an inoperable vehicle an owner may store the vehicle for the purposes on private property that is undergoing the above maintenance, repair restoration etc. Ten dollar late fee for any vehicle for which the owner is late in paying ownership tax. Utility and multipurpose trailers are added to the prohibition of transfer of plates upon ownership transfer.

Authorized special 150 year anniversary of Colorado statehood.

For bond titles repeals the requirement that the applicant for certificate of title for a motor vehicle or OHV obtain a lienholder certified copy. Also removes language that says that vehicle lien filings are public records.

Upon payment or discharge of the undertaking secured by a mortgage on a MV or OHV the lienholder shall include in the notice of satisfaction and release a signed affirmation that contains or is accompanied by a notarized declaration (new language) or a written declaration under penalty of perjury.

Upon filing with the director OR AUTHORIZED AGENT an application for a certificate of title, a motor or off-highway vehicle dealer who applies to receive a certificate of title (within one working day has been struck) shall pay a fee of $25

If a collectors item, street rod vehicle, or horseless carriage is 25 years old or older the applicant has had a certified vehicle identification number inspection performed on the vehicle, and the applicant presents a notarized (notarized has been struck no longer required) bill of sale within twenty-four months after the sale with the title application, then the applicant need not furnish surety under section 42-6-115 (3). To be excepted from the surety requirement, an applicant shall submit to the department a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating that the required documents submitted are true and correct. Some portions become effective this August 2022 others on January 1, 2023. Revenue will notify dealers.

SB22-168 Concerning Support for Back Country Search and Rescue. It is a wonder that Colorado was able to find volunteers for search and rescue. The funding was beyond a joke. The sheriffs could not reimburse S&R volunteers any expenses like gas or food. There was no statutory liability protection for search and rescue volunteers. They now have limited immunity. Also Search and Rescue volunteers get disability and families can get death benefits.

Also, it allows the parks and Wildlife Commission to increase the $.25 search and rescue fees that have not increased in decades. You see it on the Vessel, OHV, and snowmobile registrations. And hunters and anglers also pay. Considering it is OHV and snowmobile riders who are a huge part of search and rescue it is about time to compensate them for expenses and fund them. No one, however, receives compensation, they remain volunteers.

Also, after Jan. 1, 2023, Parks and Wildlife will administer the program not the Department of Local Affairs. Some provisions take effect now and some in August.

HB22-1104 Encouraging Recreational Trails in Public and Private transmission Corridors

Motorized vehicles are not included in this bill, nor did we make any effort to have it amended. This bill was hated by ranchers, farmers, power companies and other private landowners. It became so watered down that do not look for nonmotorized powerline trails showing up anytime soon. Effective immediately. Becomes effective immediately.

HB22-1046 Authority for Local Governments to Designate Highways under their Jurisdiction for Over Snow Use This includes all over snow use. Counties lack the ability to close over snow use on their highways for more than 90 days. This expands that to a period as long as snow packed conditions exist. Most import issue here was to make sure the current ability of snowmobilers to access highways open by local governments remined intact. CSA/Scott Jones took the lead on this. Effective immediately.

Continue Reading

Welcome Monarch Investment and Management Group

Monarch Investment and Management GroupThank you Monarch Investment and Management Group for your support of a strategic planning process that the TPA has underway.

Monarch Investment and Management group owner Bob Nicolls is an avid dirt biker and supporter of various local clubs including the Central Colorado Mountain Riders, San Juan Trail Riders, and TPA. Not only does Bob ride and provide financial support for public land access and motorcycle recreation, but when he’s not working he participates in numerous trail work days every year!  Thank you, Bob!

About Monarch Investment & Management Group
Monarch Investment & Management Group has been actively involved in commercial real estate investment since 1992. We currently manage 68,644 apartment units in 20 states, making us the 13th largest multifamily owner in the country per NMHC. In addition, Monarch operates a nationally franchised hotel and a ski and snowboard resort.

Continue Reading