Author Archive | Christina

2025 Summer Newsletter – June

Hello, Trails Preservation Alliance Supporters!

The snow has finally given way, and Colorado’s trails are beginning to open up—revealing both opportunities and the usual post-winter challenges. As we dive into peak riding season, it’s time to gear up, clear trails, fix drainage issues, and bring to life the projects we’ve been planning all winter!

Remember: ride over, under, or through obstacles—not around them, and always carry a saw. Connect with a local club and lend a hand to fun and important work – together, we’ll keep our trails open, sustainable, and enjoyable for all users!

While the prime riding season is just getting started, 2025 has already been a busy and productive year for the Trails Preservation Alliance. From ongoing initiatives to new efforts taking shape, there’s a lot happening—and a lot to look forward to.

Read on for updates, and as Riggle would say… “ride safely and more often!”

Cheers,

Chad Hixon
Trails Preservation Alliance
Executive Director

 

Recent Highlights

6th Annual TPA Partner Club Meeting

We’re still riding the momentum from our recent club meeting, held March 30, 2025! With over 60 attendees representing 28 clubs and organizations from Colorado and Southeast Utah, this year’s gathering was our biggest and most dynamic yet. From meaningful conversations on the issues that matter most to a record-breaking Rabbit Valley ride day, the event was a powerful reminder of how important this work is to all of us—and proof that we’re building real momentum to achieve great things together.

2024 Club Stats

2025 Club Meeting

Thank You to Our Club Meeting Sponsors

A huge thanks to KLIM, Enduristan, Single Track Innovations, Rocky Mountain ATV/MC, KTM, and Doubletake Mirror for making this event possible. Your support fuels our shared mission to protect access and promote responsible recreation.

We’re grateful for everyone who contributes to this growing network. Here’s to another year of strong partnerships and shared success on the trails!

Get Connected to a Club!

  • Club Area Map: We’re thrilled to have the interactive Club Area Map live on the TPA website. This tool shows which regions each partner club stewards and includes direct links and contact information to help connect riders, volunteers, and land managers with the clubs in their area. See Club Area Map…
  • TPA Clubs Page: Now easily accessible from the top navigation bar of our homepage, this page lists all partner clubs and contact info in one place. See Clubs page…
  • Club Operations: Starting and Running and OHV Club – A new online resource to help start and sustain effective clubs, based on insights collected from a variety of club leaders at the 2024 meeting.

TPA Trail Crew  

We’re excited to share that the TPA Statewide Trail Crew has been actively working across Colorado since early May! This new initiative is already making a difference—supporting motorized trail maintenance in partnership with public land managers statewide.

Modeled after the USFS Statewide Trail Crew, our team is fully staffed with experienced professionals—many of them former USFS OHV crew leaders—and outfitted with a truck, toy hauler, motorcycles, chainsaws, and full PPE. Their work includes trail clearing, erosion control, drainage improvements, fire recovery, and new trail layout, design, and construction. Services are offered at little to no cost to agencies.

In a major milestone, the TPA has also secured a USFS Region 2 Work Agreement, allowing all Forest Service districts across Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas to work directly with the TPA Trail Crew and partners. This streamlines coordination and paves the way for broader regional impact.

TPA Trail Crew at work

We’re proud to fully fund the crew’s first season and are excited to share that we’ve been awarded a 2026 CPW OHV Grant—the highest scoring application in the state—to help sustain and grow the program in the coming years.

Our goal is to expand this program with additional crews to build long-term capacity, support clubs, and keep trails in Colorado and beyond safe, sustainable, and open for all.

If you believe in this work, please consider making a donation to help us grow the Trail Crew program and meet the growing need for high-quality trail stewardship across the region.

Want to connect your agency, club, or organization with the crew? Contact us via this form to get involved.

 

Club Spotlight

Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

MTRA-logoRepresenting Western Colorado’s dirt bike community since 1989, the Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (MTRA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit led by a volunteer board and powered by annual memberships, donations, and grant support. MTRA has built a strong reputation for collaborative partnerships with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Grand Valley Trail Alliance (GVTA), Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), and other user groups.

Mission:
MTRA is dedicated to keeping public lands in Western Colorado open to responsible and respectful recreation. By working cooperatively with local, state, and federal agencies—as well as other user groups—MTRA advocates for and maintains access to high-quality singletrack through volunteer labor, rider education, and active local engagement.

MTRA

WHAT THEY DO:

  • ENJOY great rides and community events
  • >ADVOCATE for access and responsible use with land managers and partners
  • SUPPORT trail development, construction, and ongoing maintenance
  • EDUCATE riders and trail users on sustainable practices
  • MAINTAIN access to singletrack and public lands
  • RIDE the incredible singletrack Western Colorado has to offer!

For more information—or to join and support MTRA’s ongoing work—visit mtragj.org or contact them directly at mtrawestco@gmail.com or on Facebook

Fundraisers

Supporting trails and preserving access is truly a team effort! Recent fundraising events, made possible by the generosity of our donors and partners, highlight the incredible dedication of the off-highway motorcycle community. Thanks to your support, we’re making great strides in protecting and enhancing the trail systems we all love. Here’s a look at the highlights and impacts of our partners recent efforts!

Colorado 500 Partnership

Colorado 500 logoWe’re honored to announce a new partnership with the legendary Colorado 500, which has selected the TPA as the beneficiary of a three-year, $225,000 fundraising campaign to support advocacy, stewardship, and responsible motorized recreation across Colorado.

As one of the first organized off-highway motorcycle charity rides, the Colorado 500 has long supported rural communities. Now, it’s expanding its mission by investing directly in trail preservation and access efforts. Thanks to built-in matching support, every dollar raised will be tripled, amplifying the impact of this effort.

In addition to funding, the partnership also includes hands-on trail work—starting this summer with a volunteer day alongside the Gunnison-Crested Butte MC Club and the GOATS.

We’re incredibly grateful for the support of the Colorado 500 community and excited to share more about the impact of this effort in the months ahead.


2025 TPA Sweepstakes

Enter to Win the Ultimate Dual-Sport Bike!

The 5th Annual TPA Motorcycle Sweepstakes—our largest fundraiser of the year—is officially open through August!

This year’s prize? A 2025 KTM 350 EXC-F Champion Edition, expertly outfitted with top-tier accessories and a total value of $20,000. It’s the ultimate dual-sport machine—trail-ready and fully dialed in.

As the TPA’s work and impact continue to grow, so does our need for support. This sweepstakes is your chance to back the mission and enter to win one of the best off-road bikes on the planet.

  • 1st Prize KTM 350 EXC-F Champion Edition
  • 2nd Prize Two tickets to the Colorado 600
  • 3rd Prize $1000 KLIM Gift Card

Support the cause. Win the bike. https://www.coloradotpa.org/sweepstakes/ 


2025 Colorado 600  

The 2025 Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium is just around the corner, happening September 17th – 21st in South Fork Colorado! This unique ride and fundraising event brings together riders, industry leaders, and advocates to support responsible motorized recreation across the West.

Never been? The Colorado 600 combines incredible riding with impactful discussions on land use, advocacy, and stewardship. It’s an experience unlike any other. Spots fill fast, so if you’re thinking about joining us, don’t wait—register soon!

We can’t wait to see you there! www.coloradotpa.org/colorado-600


Corporate & Private Donations

The TPA is blessed with numerous corporate and private donors both large and small. It is energizing to the entire TPA team to have all of your support and we thank each and every one of you for your generous support – we couldn’t do it without you!

 

Land Use

Moab Labyrinth Rims Gemini Bridges Appeal 

On April 21, 2025, Ride with Respect (RwR), Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), and Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) filed an appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals challenging the BLM’s final Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan.

Led by Ride with Respect, the appeal challenges the removal of 317 miles of OHV routes across nearly 304,000 acres—an action the groups argue violates multiple federal laws, including NEPA, the APA, and the Dingell Act. The appeal also cites the BLM’s failure to adequately consider public input, assess socio-economic impacts, or evaluate a full range of alternatives.

These closures not only threaten access to a world-renowned OHV destination, but also risk serious impacts on local economies that rely on motorized recreation. The appeal reflects years of stewardship and investment in this area by off-highway enthusiasts, and a shared commitment to protecting responsible recreation through lawful, transparent public land planning.

For more detail please read the press release and full appeal.


Federal Court Upholds Rico-West Dolores Travel Plan

On May 16, 2025, a federal court upheld the U.S. Forest Service’s 2018 Rico-West Dolores Travel Plan, concluding a nearly seven-year legal effort led by the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), San Juan Trail Riders, and Public Access Preservation Alliance. While the plan reduced motorcycle trail mileage from 114 to 84 miles and limited seasonal use to June 1–October 31, the court ruled that the Forest Service followed proper procedures under NEPA and NFMA.

Though disappointed by the loss of access to 30 miles of trail, we’re relieved the court rejected additional restrictions sought by conservation groups. This decision brings closure to a long-running legal battle and reinforces the need for ongoing advocacy to protect responsible motorized access. Read more…


TPA Visits Washington DC

Our Executive Director Chad Hixon, along with our Legal Counsel Kent Holsinger and Erica Tergeson, Principal of Crosswinds Solutions, made a fast-paced trip to Washington, DC this May for a series of productive meetings with five legislators, two committees, and two federal agencies. The trip offered a valuable look into the scope and impact of our advocacy and stewardship work at the federal level.

Our discussions focused on addressing:

  • Advocating for a Federal work agreement, which allows the TPA and OHV clubs to partner with agencies and execute good work.
  • Advocating for NEPA reform through expanded use of Categorical Exclusions to speed up trail work.
  • Addressing the over-concentration of access caused by decades of restrictive Travel Management Plans, and consideration for a return to an “open unless stated closed” as opposed to “closed unless stated open” policy, as was in place before 2005.

The meetings were well organized and generally well received across party lines and with staff from BLM, DOI, and USFS. While the cost of this kind of trip is not insignificant, (both time and money), the return – in terms of influence, strategic insight, and momentum – is invaluable. Read more…

Early Season Riding Reminders

Keep single track single!

Over, Under, or Through – Stay on the Trail and Always Carry a Saw!
It’s a simple rule with a big impact. Whether you’re navigating downed trees or muddy sections, staying on the trail is one of the most important things we can do as responsible riders. This message is at the heart of good trail stewardship—and we’re asking you to help spread it!

Even though much of the early trail clearing is behind us, snow drifts can linger at high elevations into mid-summer, and trees fall year-round—so don’t let your guard down. Always pack a handsaw on every ride. Educate yourself on current trail conditions by reaching out to local land management agencies or motorcycle clubs, and always stay mindful of seasonal wildlife closures.

When you see a mud puddle? Ride through it. Rock or branch in the way? Go over it. Taking shortcuts or going around obstacles widens trails and causes long-term damage. Let’s all do our part to keep singletrack single.

Check out this excellent article by Chad de Alva on Early Season Riding Etiquette from Upshift Online—a must-read for every rider hitting the trail this season.

Partners & Sponsors

We couldn’t do it without these folks. Their donations to the TPA of time, money, and goods keep us all on the trails.

Partners

Partners

Sponsors

Sponsors

 

Continue Reading

Federal Court Upholds Rico-West Dolores Travel Plan

On May 16, 2025—nearly seven years after the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), San Juan Trail Riders, and Public Access Preservation Alliance filed suit—the federal court issued its decision upholding the U.S. Forest Service’s Rico-West Dolores Roads and Trails Project. This brings closure to a long and hard-fought legal effort to defend reasonable motorized access in the San Juan National Forest.

The Forest Service’s project, finalized in 2018, reduced motorcycle trail mileage from 114 miles to 84 miles and imposed seasonal limitations on motorized use—from June 1 through October 31. While the agency claimed these changes were intended to balance recreation with conservation, we challenged the closures and restrictions as unnecessarily limiting long-standing public access to important singletrack trails—contributing to an overconcentration of use in fewer areas as demand continues to grow.

In addition to our case, environmentalist groups including WildEarth Guardians, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Dunton Hot Springs Inc., and Sheep Mountain Alliance filed a separate lawsuit seeking even greater restrictions to protect elk habitat.

While the court acknowledged valid concerns on both sides, it ultimately ruled that the Forest Service followed proper legal procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The court found that the agency had taken a legally sufficient “hard look” at environmental impacts and that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

This outcome is mixed. While we are disappointed that the decision does not restore access to the 30 miles of trail lost in the final plan, we are relieved that the court also rejected the additional closures and seasonal restrictions requested by the conservation groups.

The ruling brings clarity and finality to the travel management effort in the Rico-West Dolores area and underscores the importance of continued advocacy, engagement, and legal vigilance to protect our access to public lands.

Given the outcome of the court’s ruling, our organizations do not anticipate seeking further legal recourse and will instead focus our efforts on future advocacy and partnership opportunities.

See the complete ruling here: 250516 Rico West Dolores Order

 

Continue Reading

TPA in Washington: Advancing Access and Stewardship

In May, the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) made a strategic trip to Washington, DC to strengthen our voice at the federal level. Executive Director Chad Hixon, Legal Counsel Kent Holsinger, and Erica Tergeson, Principal of Crosswinds Solutions, held a fast-paced series of meetings with five legislators, two congressional committees, and senior staff from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

These discussions focused on critical issues affecting the OHV community, including:

  • Securing a Federal Work Agreement to allow the TPA and OHV clubs to partner more directly with land management agencies on stewardship projects.
  • Advocating for NEPA reform, specifically the expanded use of Categorical Exclusions (CXs) to streamline trail maintenance and construction approvals.
  • Addressing decades of restrictive access policies through Travel Management Plans (TMPs), and considering a return to the pre-2005 framework of “open unless stated closed.”

“While the cost of this kind of trip is not insignificant, the return—in terms of influence, strategic insight, and momentum—is valuable,” said Executive Director Chad Hixon. “I left D.C. with a deeper understanding of how this work gets done and a strong sense we will see a tangible return on this investment.”

The meetings were well organized and generally well received across party lines. Beyond policy discussions, the trip helped deepen agency relationships, open doors for future collaboration, and reinforce the credibility of responsible off-highway motorcycle advocates in shaping land management at the national level.

What’s Next

The DC trip was not the end, but a launchpad. Follow-up actions now in progress include:

  • Drafting TPA’s preferred version of the Travel Management Rule, with language supporting the “open unless closed” access model.
  • Researching additional Categorical Exclusions used by other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Bureau of Reclamation) to inform more efficient trail approvals.
  • Coordinating with agency leaders, including broader work agreement discussions with the BLM and USFS. (A Challenge Cost Share Agreement is already in place with USFS Region 2.)
  • Continuing legislative engagement, including:
    • TMP reform legislation ideas with Representative Crank’s office
    • Wilderness bill progress with Representative Hurd’s office
    • TMP concerns in Utah’s Swell and Henry Mountains with the Senate Energy Committee

This kind of proactive advocacy is essential to protecting motorized access and expanding the TPA’s ability to do on-the-ground work. Thank you for supporting our mission—your backing makes this work possible.

Continue Reading

Press Release: TPA Trail Crew Restores Critical Access in Sulphur Ranger District

Press Release: TPA Trail Crew Restores Critical Access in Sulphur Ranger District

Trail work opens key motorized routes closed since October 2020 wildfires

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) Trail Crew has completed its fourth hitch of the 2025 season in Colorado’s Sulphur Ranger District, tackling extensive wildfire damage and restoring critical motorized access across the Arapaho National Forest.

From June 4–11, 2025, the TPA Trail Crew, working closely with U.S. Forest Service recreation staffer Andrew McElwee (Drew), covered an impressive 226 trail miles by motorcycle and maintained 48.5 miles of trail—including the long-awaited reopening of West Stillwater Pass Trail, closed since the October 2020 East Troublesome Fire.

Work Highlights Include:

  • 728 downed trees cut to clear and restore access on burned-over trail corridors
  • 18 new drainage features built to protect trails from post-fire erosion
  • 2,150 feet of trail debris removed including rock slides, saplings, and erosion material
  • 130 feet of trail reconstructed by hand in fire-damaged sections
  • Three trail water crossings repaired and stabilized for safe passage
  • Six large boulders placed to anchor tread and reduce future erosion
  • Six trees felled to eliminate dangerous hang-ups

Trail corridors cleared include Willow Creek, Illinois Pass, Sherman Creek, Gilsonite Trail, West Stillwater Pass, Jack Park, and Radial Mountain. Much of this work was performed in high burn severity zones where fire blowdown, erosion, and vegetation regrowth had completely blocked trail access.

This hitch also marked a critical opportunity for in-person coordination between TPA and Sulphur District staff. The crew provided detailed field updates and assessments to the USFS, helping shape next steps for continued recovery and stewardship.

Despite challenging terrain and fire-scarred conditions, the TPA Trail Crew continues to deliver hands-on support across Colorado, ensuring sustainable motorized recreation access on public lands.

For more information about the TPA Trail Crew or to support this work, visit www.coloradotpa.org.

Continue Reading

Press Release: TPA Trail Crew Delivers Early-Season Results Across Colorado

Press Release: TPA Trail Crew Delivers Early-Season Results Across Colorado

Strategic partnerships and boots-on-the-ground impact lead strong start to 2025 trail season

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) Trail Crew has hit the ground running in 2025, completing four field hitches since launching in late April. Led by veteran trail foreman Troy Sitton, the three-person crew has already supported five different BLM Field Offices and USFS Ranger Districts and logged impressive numbers in trail restoration, reconstruction, and access reopening.

With a regional agreement in place with the USFS Rocky Mountain Region—encompassing Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas—the TPA Trail Crew is focusing its 2025 efforts in Colorado. All 2025 trail crew operations are being fully funded by the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA). Thanks to a 2026 CPW OHV grant on the horizon and the guidance of trail professionals, Greg Hamilton and Troy Sitton, the program is expanding its footprint and deepening agency partnerships statewide.

2025 Season to Date: (as of June 11)

  • 606 miles of trail ridden
  • 122.5 miles of trail maintained
  • 742 trees cut out
  • 17 hazard trees felled
  • 122 drainages cleared
  • 15 new drainages built
  • 135 feet of reroutes completed
  • 270 feet of reconstructed tread
  • 4,355 feet of debris cleared
  • 5,560 feet of corridor cleared
  • 5 signs installed
  • 151 trail contacts made

Agencies & Districts Served So Far:

  • BLM Royal Gorge Field Office
  • Salida Ranger District (PSICC)
  • BLM Grand Junction
  • Grand Valley Ranger District (Uncompahgre NF)
  • Sulphur Ranger District (Arapaho NF)

Notable Accomplishments by Hitch:

  • Hitch 1: Field setup, first fieldwork in the Fourmile Travel Management Area (BLM/Salida RD). Gates unlocked, agency staff briefed, and interim support provided before USFS OHV crews were active.
  • Hitch 2: Grand Junction BLM—major reconstruction of The Edge Loop trail using boulders to rebuild an unrideable section. Adjacent Uncompahgre NF trails also cleared.
  • Hitch 3: Rampart Range—mapped 6 miles of potential reroutes with RRMMC. Extensive planning and data collection shared with partners. Early-season trail hazards mitigated.
  • Hitch 4: Sulphur RD—728 trees cut, 2 creek crossings rebuilt, 130 feet of trail reconstructed. West Stillwater Pass Trail reopened after nearly five years of closure due to East Troublesome Fire damage.

Crew Model & Leadership:

  • Foreman Troy Sitton, former leader of the Granby-based Statewide FS Crew, provides expert guidance to Trail Crew members, Carl Brown and Mike Tuinstra, along with long standing trusted agency relationships.
  • Greg Hamilton supports the crew statewide, assisting with trail work, agency planning, and public land policy. He is actively building 2026 trail project pipelines with BLM and USFS offices across Colorado.

The TPA Trail Crew operates on an 8-days-on, 6-days-off rotation and has 14 hitches scheduled for the 2025 season. With a statewide reputation for high-quality, collaborative trail work, the TPA Crew is becoming an essential on-the-ground partner for land managers.

To learn more or to support the TPA Trail Crew’s work, visit www.coloradotpa.org.

Continue Reading

CPW Strategic Plan Comments

Colorado Parks and Wildlife
1313 Sherman St #618
Denver, CO 80203
Attn: CPW Strategic Plan Staff

Dear CPW Strategic Planning Staff,

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) requests that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) consider the following when developing and preparing the next 10-year, Statewide(2026-2036) Strategic Plan.

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving Off-Highway Motorcycle (OHM) recreation. We work to ensure that public land managers—including Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—provide balanced and sustained access for OHM users.In addition, the TPA leads education and outreach efforts, helps grow regional off-highway motorcycle clubs, and encourages responsible recreation with its Trail Crew initiative focused on maintaining and building trails and providing on-the-ground stewardship..

The Strategic Plan should consider including a GOAL involving multiple-use trails. The CPW Statewide Trails Strategic Plan and the CPW OHV registration program are not mentioned in the former Strategic Plan. The OHV registration program brings in over 6 million dollars and the economic and social impact from OHV recreation is significant for Colorado’s residents.

Prioritizing filling vacant CPW trail staff positions would help distribute OHV grant funding in a more timely fashion while assisting and supporting federal agency partners in accomplishing the trail maintenance backlog. Federal Land Managers are looking to partner with CPW staff for cooperation and technical expertise now more than ever. CPW should return to a balanced mission and not only comment on wildlife issues, but actively assist federal Agencies by providing commentary on federal recreation plans. Recreation is a critical and important part of CPW’s mission and it should be focused on over the next 10 years.

Supporting diminished federal agency staff with multiple-use trail planning and specifically assisting federal land managers identify areas of not just “high quality” but also lower quality wildlife habitat so that new trails are placed in strategic areas. Historically, biologists tend to focus on where not to put trails instead of proactively analyzing and recommending where new trails will have minimal impact to wildlife. Land managers and biologists should ask, where is the best value, enhancement to existing trail systems and where do new trails make the most sense?

Some seasonal trail closures on federal lands should be reevaluated, such as trails that open mid summer and close early- if there is not present evidence of a critical wildlife need such as elk calving. Recreational pressure increases when too many trails in one area are closed simultaneously while snow is melted off and the public are seeking trail access. The effect of limited trail miles available is highly concentrated use on what trails are open causing both increased user conflicts and accelerated trail damage. Some wildlife closures are undoubtedly more effective than others, so it is important to identify closures that may not have a big wildlife benefit- we need to proactively disperse recreational trail pressure. CPW biologists need to weigh in on where closure dates make the least sense.

Provide more multiple-use, motorized single-track and OHV trail miles, especially close to the Front Range and other population centers and communities throughout the State. E Bikes and E Motorcycles are gaining popularity, CPW’s long term master plan should strive to recognize and plan proactively (and help federal Partners plan) for future trails to meet new and emerging demands.

Foster the planning, development and construction of sustainable trails & routes that connect communities and existing multiple-use, motorized trail systems and develop more looped routes. Utilizing existing trail systems with strategic connections will make sense for preserving blocks of unfragmented wildlife habitat. Proactively looking at sustainable, common sense linkages helps prevent rouge trail proliferation in inappropriate areas.

Create at least one State-significant multiple-use, OHV trail connecting trail systems and communities. This would be similar to the Paiute ATV Trail in Utah or the Sierra Buttes Connecting Communities trails system in California. From an economic standpoint, this would bring additional resources and revenue into Colorado and conserve funds for additional trail building and planning by linking up existing trails. A diverse group of trail users would benefit from the connectivity of linked trail systems just as the once motorcycle focused Backcountry Discovery Route trails (BDRs) have resulted in 4WD enthusiasts, hikers, Ebikers and bike packers adopting the routes. Different people from differing backgrounds all benefiting from one multi-use trail is good return on investment and efficient use of resources

More E Bike, E Motorcycle and motorcycle trails (e.g., multiple-use motorized single-track) close to Front Range, Eastern Colorado & other urban population areas. Currently opportunities are limited where the greatest recreation pressure exists.

Consider an OHV State Park(s) and more OHV recreational opportunities in existing State Parks. Following through with developing the North Sand Hills OHV Area will provide an excellent working example of how to grow other OHV recreation opportunities. Support the State Land Board evaluating leasing parcels next to existing state parks to expand trail opportunities.

The TPA enthusiastically supports the mandate of “multiple use” of public lands including motorized access to roads and trails. In fact, Colorado’s OHV fees are the primary funding source for trails maintenance projects that benefit a myriad of user groups-motorized and non-motorized alike. The TPA generally supports CPW’s OHV grant program and CPW trail staff. We feel the public and federal agencies need CPW to help facilitate the future of recreational trail use in the state of Colorado. Therefore we believe it is appropriate and prudent to include trail language in your guiding 10-year Strategic Plan document.

Sincerely,


Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

CPW Strategic Plan Comments TPA

Continue Reading

2025 Gold Rush Ride – Come Ride with Us!

 2025 Gold Rush

We’re thrilled to invite you to join the 29th Annual Colorado Gold Rush Ride, August 10th through 15th—a spectacular week of scenic riding, camaraderie, and support for the Trails Preservation Alliance!

Each year, this unforgettable adventure is generously organized by passionate riders who go the extra mile—literally and figuratively—to raise critical funds for the TPA. In 2024, their efforts brought in an incredible $6,100 in donations. We are truly honored by their ongoing commitment, and we’re inviting you to come be part of it.

Come ride with us and explore the rugged beauty of Colorado’s backcountry trails, meet fellow enthusiasts from around the country, and help keep Colorado’s trails open and accessible. Whether you’re a novice or an expert, this ride offers something for everyone, with groups tailored to various skill levels.

2024 Gold Rush - photos by Chad Hixon

We are incredibly grateful to Mervyn Davies and the Gold Rush Ride community for turning their passion into purpose. Their ongoing support helps us continue protecting and preserving Colorado’s treasured motorized trail access.

So grab your gear, invite a friend, and come ride with us this August—it’s free to join, and unforgettable to experience.

With sincere appreciation,


Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

2024 Gold Rush - Chad and Angela Hixon

Event Highlights

Sunday, August 10 – Arrive in Ouray & join the informal meet & greet (3–5pm at Box Canyon Lodge).

Monday–Wednesday – Daily rides based on your skill level, with rider meetings each morning at 8:30am.

Wednesday, August 13 – Travel to Mt. Crested Butte.

Thursday–Friday – Ride the Crested Butte area, with a celebratory banquet Friday evening!

Saturday, August 16 – Departure day.
 

Want a taste of the experience?

View photos from the 2024 Gold Rush Ride »

 

2024 Gold Rush supporters

 

How to Join (It’s free to participate!)

  1. Fill out the Gold Rush 2025 contact information form: 
    Click here to access the form »
     
  2. Sign the liability waiver:
    Click here to access the waiver »
     
  3. Send both by mail or email to:
    Mervyn Davies

    88 Chinkapin Lane,
    Kimberling City, MO 65686
    mervyndavies@comcast.net

2024 Gold Rush - photos by Zach Stubbs

Lodging & Travel Notes

Ouray (Aug 10–12) – Book early! Lodging is first-come, first-served.

Mt. Crested Butte (Aug 13–15)

  • Grand Lodge: Call 855-948-0691 and ask for group “Gold Rush Motorcycle Ride 2025” or “SCBGRM25” for a 20% discount.
  • Camping: Options include Cement Creek and Crested Butte RV Resort (970-349-6160)

Extras

OHV Stickers – Required for all bikes.
Get yours online at Colorado Parks & Wildlife.

Connect with other riders:
Join the Facebook group: Colorado Gold Rush Ride

T-Shirts – This year’s design is top-notch!
Order by June 13 at: https://gold-rush-2025.cheddarup.com
$28 short sleeve | $33 long sleeve | Proceeds benefit the TPA

 

2025 Gold Rush tshirt

Continue Reading

2025 Colorado 600 Registration is Now Open!

2025 Colorado 600 registration openDon’t miss out – limited spaces available!

The Colorado 600 is a four-day ride and trail symposium. Riders learn about off-highway motorcycle recreation challenges and opportunities in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico daily.

Participants have the option of single-track, dual-sport, or adventure rides. You can choose your ride for the day based on your mood!

All proceeds from the Colorado 600 go to support the Trails Preservation Alliance.

Read more and register here!

Continue Reading

Press Release: Rider Groups Appeal BLM’s Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan, Citing Legal Violations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Rider Groups Appeal BLM’s Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan, Citing Legal Violations

DENVER, CO (April 21, 2025) – Four leading off-highway vehicle (OHV) organizations – the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE), Ride with Respect (RwR), and Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) – have filed an appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan (TMP) and its associated Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

The Rider Groups assert that the BLM’s decision to significantly reduce the designated OHV route network by approximately 317 miles within the 303,994-acre Travel Management Area in the Moab Field Office violates multiple federal laws. Specifically, the Appellants argue that the BLM’s Decision Record (DR) is unlawful because it:

  • Violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) despite the significant impacts on the human and socio-economic environment resulting from the extensive route closures. The groups contend the BLM’s conclusion of no significant impact is unsubstantiated.
    • Violates NEPA by limiting or closing routes that were never considered for such actions in any of the alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, thus falling outside the scope of the agency’s analysis.
    • Violates NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to take a “hard look” at route closures, applying general minimization criteria contrary to specific route input provided by the Appellants, and issuing inaccurate or unsupported rationales for closures. The BLM allegedly did not adequately respond to significant public comments.
    • Violates NEPA by failing to provide a “reasonable range of alternatives” in the Environmental Assessment.
  • Violates the Dingell Act regarding the prioritization of recreational access.
  • Violates the APA due to arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
  • Violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in its land use planning process.

The Appellants, who have a long history of engagement in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Area, including significant volunteer work and financial investment in trail maintenance and responsible recreation, argue that the route closures will severely impact recreational opportunities, concentrate use on remaining trails, and harm local economies.

Clif Koontz, Executive Director of Ride with Respect and agent for the other Appellant groups, stated, “The Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges area is a world-renowned OHV destination, and the BLM’s decision to close such a substantial portion of the route network without proper analysis and consideration of stakeholder input is deeply concerning. We believe this plan is not only legally flawed but will also negatively affect responsible recreation access for countless enthusiasts.”

The Rider Groups are requesting that the IBLA declare the BLM’s Decision Record unlawful and set aside the Travel Management Plan pending full compliance with federal law.

About the Appellants:

  • Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO): Advocates for responsible OHV recreation through legislation and regulation.
  • Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE): A 4×4 advocacy group working to keep off-road trails open in Colorado and Utah.
  • Ride with Respect (RwR): A Utah non-profit dedicated to conserving shared-use trails and promoting responsible recreation.
  • Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA): Focuses on preserving motorized single-track trail riding and supports all forms of OHV recreation
Continue Reading

Appeal of Moab Field Office 9/28/23 Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges TMP

Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE), Ride with Respect (RwR), and Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) filed an appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan (TMP) and its associated Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). See the press release here: www.coloradotpa.org/2025/04/21/press-release-rider-groups-appeal-blms-labyrinth-gemini-bridges-travel-management-plan-citing-legal-violations

PDF’s of the appeal and all 7 exhibits:

 


Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Utah Bar No. 17731
Great Western Resources
216 W. St. George Blvd., Ste. 200 St. George, Utah 84770
(435)899-1520
info@greatwesternresources.org

Attorney for Appellants:
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise,
Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance

 

IN THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS

COLORADO OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION, COLORADO OFF ROAD ENTERPRISE, RIDE WITH RESPECT, and TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,

Appellants,
v.

IBLA Appeal No. 2024-0043

Appeal of the Moab Field Office’s September 28, 2023 Decision Record, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0097-EA

APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF REASONS

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

On September 28, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) released its final “Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment”1 (hereinafter the “TMP” or “EA”) as well as its final Decision Record (“DR” or “Decision”) and related Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). The TMP designates an off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) route network within the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges (“LRGB”) Travel Management Area (“TMA”). The TMA encompasses about 303,994 acres of BLM land in the Moab Field Office, comprised of four units, primarily in Grand County, Utah and generally west of Arches National Park, east of the Green River, south of Interstate 70, and north of Canyonlands National Park.2

Within the TMA, motorized vehicles must use designated routes except in the 1,866-acre White Wash Sand Dunes Open Area.3 BLM designates routes within the TMA as OHV-Open (open to all motorized vehicle travel); OHV-Limited (open with limitations, usually by use season or vehicle type); or OHV-Closed (closed to public motorized use).4 Route designations do not apply to “authorized uses” such as grazing permittees accessing their allotments.5

The draft EA included four action alternatives, each closing various routes. In the DR, the BLM ultimately selected a hybrid of Alts. B and C from the draft EA, referred to as the “Selected Network.” The Selected Network revises the pre-existing OHV route network that consisted of approximately 1,127.7 miles of designated routes available for motorized use, almost all of which were designated as OHV-Open.6 The TMP reduces the network to 810.5 miles of routes available for use by OHVs, with 712.1 miles designated as OHV-Open and 98.4 miles as OHV-Limited.

The BLM began planning for the LRGB TMA pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (“SUWA”) and the BLM dated January 13, 2017 (the “2017 Settlement Agreement”), which stemmed from SUWA’s challenge to numerous BLM Resource Management Plans (“RMPs”) issued in 2008, including the BLM’s Moab Field Office RMP (the “2008 Moab RMP”). See SUWA et. al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., U.S. District Court (D. Utah) Consolidated Case No. 2:12-cv-257. The 2017 Settlement Agreement required the BLM to prepare eleven new TMPs in Utah, including the LRGB TMA.

The Appellants in this matter are Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (“CORE”), Ride with Respect (“RwR”) and Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) (collectively the “Appellants” or the “Rider Groups”). On October 30, 2023, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal of the DR, EA and FONSI (collectively the “Decision Record”) of the BLM on the LRGB TMP. The Notice of Appeal was timely served upon the decision maker Nicollee Gaddis-Wyatt, BLM Canyon Country District Manager and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of the Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.401(c) and 4.413(a).

The BLM furnished the Administrative Record (via SharePoint) on January 16, 2024. In February 2024, Appellants’ counsel requested missing documents, and on April 18, 2024 the BLM furnished 20 additional records with its “Notice of Completion of Administrative Record.” The IBLA granted extensions of time to file the Appellants Statement of Reasons, ultimately pushing the deadline to April 21, 2025.7 Pursuant to the March 10, 2025 Scheduling Order, and under 43 C.F.R. § 4.412, the Appellants now file their Statement of Reasons.

II. STANDING

To maintain an appeal before the IBLA, an Appellant must (1) be a party to the case; and (2) be adversely affected by the decision being appealed. See 43 C.F.R. §4.410(a); see also W. Watersheds Project (WWP) 185 IBLA 293, 298 (2015). All four of the Appellants satisfy both of these requirements and are thus parties who are adversely affected.

1. The Appellants are a Party to the Case

Founded in 2002, Ride with Respect (“RwR”) is a registered Utah non-profit corporation whose stated mission is “to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings through field work, education, and advocacy of responsible recreation opportunities.” The leadership team at RwR is intimately familiar with the LRGB TMA as “the founders of Ride with Respect are based in Moab, Utah.”8 RwR represents the broad interests of recreationists and promotes responsible outdoor recreation, applying sustainable recreation concepts, like “Tread lightly!”, to practical use with tangible results.”9 Over 750 individuals have contributed money or time to RwR, totaling over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands including several-thousand hours in the TMA, such as rerouting two dozen trails away from sensitive resources through amendments to the 2008 Moab RMP.

The Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a registered Colorado non- profit corporation “formed in 1987 by a group of leaders from the four wheel drive, motorcycle, snowmobile, and ATV communities…to promote legislation and regulation favorable toward responsible OHV recreation.”10 COHVCO through the years has “established relationships with Federal and State legislators and Land Managers to enhance OHV opportunities” and works “closely with local clubs, state and national OHV organizations, as well as other trail and recreational coalitions to promote OHV opportunities.”11 COHVCO promotes OHV opportunities while simultaneously advocating for sound environmental policies rooted in scientifically based standards.12 COHVCO is a 2017 Settlement Agreement signatory, the genesis of the LRGB TMP, and has an interest in seeing the 2017 Settlement Agreement terms upheld.

The Colorado Off Road Enterprise (“CORE”) is a registered Colorado non-profit corporation that is “a 4×4 advocacy group working to keep offroad trails in Colorado and Utah open” because “public land roads and trails are the common thread holding all recreation groups together, giving us access to the backcountry.”13 To keep recreation assets open for all of the public to use, CORE promotes “education, ethics and stewardship for all public land users” and “works on and volunteers across the state” while working “with land managers as advocates for 4×4 trails and participate in land use projects to ensure our access stays open.”14

The Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a registered Colorado non-profit corporation “with its principal goal focused on preserving the sport of motorized single-track trail riding…[and]… supports all forms of [OHV] recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for OHV recreation and takes the necessary actions to ensure that both the U.S. Forest Service and the [BLM] allocate a fair and equitable percentage of access to trail riding on public lands, educating user groups on trail etiquette.”15 TPA’s efforts are crucial for land access because “an estimated 40% of all visitors to public lands nationwide participate in motorized recreation – over half of which includes OHV use.”16 TPA is a 2017 Settlement Agreement signatory, the genesis of the LRGB TMP, and has an interest in seeing the 2017 Settlement Agreement terms upheld.

To be a party to the case, a person or group must have actively participated in the decision making process regarding the subject matter of the appeal. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(b). Here, all four Appellants have been active participants in the decision making process. All four Appellants submitted comment letters to the BLM regarding the LRGB TMP project. As reflected in the BLM’s “Scoping Report” dated August 2021, CORE submitted an extensive Scoping Comment dated April 25, 2021 (Scoping Report Letter 24).17 Further reflected in the BLM’s “Scoping Report” dated August 2021, COHVCO, RwR and TPA submitted an extensive joint Scoping Comment dated April 26, 2021 (Scoping Report Letter 35).18

In addition to the Scoping Comments, TPA and RwR also submitted a joint in-depth comment letter on the Draft EA. These comments are dated October 21, 2022 and are incorporated herein by reference as if stated in full. Together, the Rider Groups submitted extensive route-by- route comments, suggestions and input, which although not heeded by the BLM, is at the very least acknowledged in the Final EA. See EA at 213 – 297.

The formal written comments outlined above are sufficient to show active participation in the decision making process, satisfying the “party to a case” qualification. Still, the Rider Groups’ involvement in the TMA goes beyond just comments. E.g., “the Rider Groups have been involved in discussions regarding access to areas in the TMA for decades…COHVCO and TPA are signatories to the subject 2017 Utah Statewide TMP Court Settlement Agreement. They along with RwR have been active advocates in the [LRGB] TMA. Specifically within this area, since 2008 RwR has contributed several thousand hours of high-quality trail work to assist BLM in implementing and refining its travel plan. With many volunteers who were also part of COHVCO and the TPA, RwR has blocked-off closed routes, delineated the open routes, repainted blazes on slickrock, and installed hundreds of signs, dozens of fences, and a half-dozen cattle guards. With grants from the Utah OHV Program, they implemented a dozen major reroutes to move trails away from sensitive resources [promoting] sustainability, safety, and the satisfaction of various trail users.” 19

For the examples cited above, all of the Appellants meet the “party to a case” qualification.

2. The Appellants are Adversely Affected by the Decision

To demonstrate that it will “be adversely affected by the decision being appealed,” a party must demonstrate a legally cognizable “interest” and that the decision appealed has caused or is substantially likely to cause injury to that interest. Glenn Grenke v. BLM, 122 IBLA 123, 128 (1992); 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(d). This requisite “interest” can be established by cultural, recreational, or aesthetic uses as well as enjoyment of the public lands. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 127 IBLA 325, 326 (1993).20 The IBLA does not require a showing that an injury has actually occurred. Rather, a “colorable allegation” of injury suffices. Powder River Basin Resource Council, 124 IBLA 83, 89 (1992). Moreover, “one may also establish he or she is adversely affected by setting forth interests in resources or in other land or its resources affected by a decision and showing how the decision has caused or is substantially likely to cause injury to those interests.” Coalition of Concerned National Park Retirees, et al., 165 IBLA 79, 84 (2005).

Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Declaration of Clif Koontz. It shows he is the Executive Director of Ride with Respect, and has been a board member since its founding in 2002. See Exhibit 1 at ¶1. Mr. Koontz is also an agent of COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, and has been active in these capacities since 2016 for COHVCO and TPA, and since 2018 for CORE. Id. His Declaration shows he personally regularly uses and enjoys public lands in the LRGB TMA for recreational enjoyment purposes, and that he intends to return to the area for enjoyment. Id. at ¶3. In fact, Mr. Koontz moved to Moab in 2001 to be closer to the world class routes available surrounding Moab, especially those in the TMA. Id. Closures of the 317 miles of routes within the TMA has diminished his recreational enjoyment of those public lands. Id. at ¶4. In his executive director role for RwR and his agent roles for COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, Mr. Koontz has represented all four organizations in working with the BLM’s Moab Field Office (Moab BLM) in doing groundwork, resource inventorying, photographing, studying aerial and satellite photography, attending meetings, submitting comments, reports and other pertinent materials and input to the Moab BLM for multiple years, in an effort to help the Moab BLM during a NEPA process to develop the LRGB TMP in LRGB TMA. Id. at ¶2, 4. This work in which Mr. Koontz was personally involved included engaging in and advocating for motorized recreation opportunities on the roads and trails in the LRGB TMA. Id.

Mr. Koontz’s declaration establishes that he also represented and worked on behalf of COHVCO and TPA to further their interests in the negotiations leading to the approval of the 2017 Settlement Agreement – the genesis of the LRGB TMP. Id. at ¶6.

Mr. Koontz’s declaration establishes that the BLM’s decision to approve the LRGB TMP will adversely affect his recreational interests, which are legally cognizable, in the TMA through limited access or completely no access to approximately 317 miles of motorized routes. Id. at ¶10.

Further, these harms are not speculative as the TMP closing routes within the TMA is now in effect, diminishing Mr. Koontz’s ability to recreate in the TMA. Id.His declaration establishes that a favorable ruling in this appeal would remedy his diminished enjoyment of public lands in the TMA area resulting from the closure of the 317 miles of routes under the TMP. Id. Thus, Clif Koontz’s Declaration establishes that the BLM’s decision adversely affects COHVCO, CORE, RwR, and TPA

In short, Moab, Utah’s world-class signature OHV trail system is the LRGB TMA. Users and dozens of user groups, including the Appellants and their contributors, rank it as unprecedented. A closure of this magnitude (317 miles) in such a world-class, high-demand destination as the LRGB TMA, will severely concentrate the public’s use of the remaining roads/trails. This immediate over-crowding21 and related road/trail degradation will irreparably harm Appellants’ investment of countless hours and thousands of dollars partnering with the BLM to improve, develop and preserve the integrity of LRGB TMA roads/trails for the benefit of recreation, natural resources, and cultural resources alike. Local ancillary businesses (hotels, restaurants, OHV outfitters and guides, &c.) all have an immense interest in maintaining the open status quo of the 317 miles of roads/trails slated for closure in the DR, and will be economically harmed by the loss of access. Id. at ¶15; see also Exhibit 7. This irreparable damage to the important value of diverse recreation in the LRGB TMA so essential to Appellants and their contributors will be felt immediately. In short, the Appellants and their members/contributors are losing the opportunity to use these world-class roads and trails, quite literally, forever.

III. STATEMENT OF REASONS

Having established that the Appellants are proper parties to pursue this appeal, they now turn to their specific statement of reasons.22 The Appellants request that the IBLA declare and set aside the BLM’s DR for the LRGB TMP as unlawful for the four main reasons set forth below, namely the DR violates (1) NEPA, (2) the Dingell Act, (3) the APA, and (4) FLPMA.

1. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., declares a national policy to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man…” Id. The goal of encouraging a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, and the ultimate stimulation of the health and welfare of man seems to have been overlooked in the current TMP. “NEPA does not mandate any particular substantive result … it ‘prescribes the necessary process’ that must accompany agency action,” Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2020), and that forces agencies to take a “hard look at the environmental consequences of its actions,” Wyoming, 661 F.3d at 1264. While NEPA dictates processes, not results, it appears that here the decision making process was geared towards a singular goal – limiting OHV access in the TMP.

As stated, NEPA requires all federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of their decisions before the decision is made. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 72 F.4th 1166, 1178 (10th Cir. 2023); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). “The three levels of NEPA review are Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”23

A. The BLM Failed to Conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, Despite Significant Impacts to the Human and Socio-economic Environment.

An EIS is required whenever a “major Federal action[] significantly affect[s] the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C). A major federal action is one that “requires substantial planning, time, resources, or expenditure.” Nat’l Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Grant, 341 F. Supp. 356, 366 (March 15, 1972). Typically, a project is considered a major federal action when it is funded with federal money.” Southwest Williamson County Comty. Ass’n v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270, 278 (6th Cir. 2001).

NEPA requires “all agencies of the Federal Government … [to] include [an EIS] in every recommendation or report on proposals for … major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Louisiana Crawfish Producers Ass’n-W. v. Rowan, 463 F.3d 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2006); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2). An EIS is not necessary when the federal action is not major or does not have a “significant impact on the environment.” Id.; citing Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 677. To determine whether an EIS is necessary, an agency will perform an EA. Id.; citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 802 (5th Cir.1994); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1) (defining an EA as a “concise public document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact”). An EA is “a rough cut, low-budget environmental impact statement designed to show whether a full-fledged environmental impact statement…is necessary.” Id.; citing Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 677. Thus, an EA will result in a finding that an EIS is necessary or in a FONSI, indicating that no further study of the project’s environmental impact is necessary. Id.

In short, an EA is a rough cut, low-budget environmental impact statement designed to show whether a full-fledged environmental impact statement or a Finding or No Significant Impact (FONSI) is needed. If any ‘significant’ environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency action then an EIS must be prepared before agency action is taken.” Sierra Club v. Peterson, 230 U.S.App. D.C. 352, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1983)….

An agency decision that an EIS is not required may be overturned “only if it was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.” Sierra Club v. United States Dep’t of Transportation, 243 U.S.App. D.C. 302, 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C.Cir.1985)…. “Under the long-established standard…the court reviews an agency’s finding of no significant impact to determine whether: First, the agency [has] accurately identified the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must have taken a ‘hard look’ at the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that the changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.” Town of Cave Creek, Arizona v. F.A.A., 325 F.3d 320, 327 (D.C. Cir. 2003); citing Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n v. U.S. Postal Serv., 159 U.S.App. D.C. 158, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1973).

In the current TMP, the BLM has chosen to conduct an EA and FONSI, foregoing the more extensive EIS process, finding their closure of 317.2 miles of routes, lawfully utilized for decades, had no significant impact on the human environment. As stated above, “If any ‘significant’ environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency action then an EIS must be prepared before agency action is taken.” Sierra Club v. Peterson, 230 U.S.App. D.C. 352, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1983).

Here, the decision to close 317 miles of routes within the TMA (a reduction of roughly 28%) is a significant environmental impact, and the amount of planning that went into the TMP is significant. The DR shows each route and explanation for opening/closing the route with hundreds of miles inventoried and hundreds of “route reports” issued where multiple experts considered the natural, recreational, commercial, cultural and historical value of the routes. See, e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Route Report for B1118 (March 11, 2019). As shown in that one route report, there were 16 evaluators for just one route.24 It is impossible to say that the TMP did not take substantial planning, time, resources, and expenditures.

In justifying the decision to conduct an EA, the BLM District Manager concluded that “[b]ecause all action alternatives would continue to provide recreation opportunities to a variety of user types…significant effects to recreation opportunities would not occur as a result of the action alternatives.” FONSI at 18. This conclusion is misleading, because as shown, the TMP reduces available routes by approximately 28%. Truly, there are still recreational opportunities available, but a reduction of 28% of open routes certainly constitutes a significant effect to recreation opportunities. The closure of 317 miles of established, globally known and recognized routes, constitutes an “impact” to the human, socio-economic environment that is truly “significant” for NEPA purposes, and the BLM has failed to make a convincing case otherwise.

Accordingly, the BLM wrongly issued a FONSI and should have conducted an EIS. Such an action violates NEPA and the TMP should be set aside pending a full EIS.

B. The BLM Limited/Closed Routes that were Never Considered for Limitations/Closures under any Alternative

In the final DR, the BLM limited and closed routes that were never considered for limitations or closures under any of the four alternatives analyzed in the EA. Their closure/limitations constitute a violation of NEPA as the decision falls outside of the decision space. Two examples of these routes are as follows.

i. Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1)

The DR prohibits the use of ATVs (under fifty inches in width) on this trail even though all four EA alternatives allow such use. Therefore this prohibition falls outside of the decision space. Appellants assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2013 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since, utilizing a $6,750 award by the Polaris ‘T.R.A.I.L.S.’ Grant Program, which is specifically for projects open to use by ATVs. The route is almost entirely on slickrock and old constructed roads that are entirely suitable for ATV use. Though most use of the route is by motorcycle, some ATV riders seek narrower trails, and the DR prohibits the use of ATVs, despite never analyzing that option prior to the DR. Exhibit 1 at ¶28.

ii. Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B)

This road provides views of the Green River as well as providing a “bailout” for riders of Dead Cow Loop. The DR closes this road to all motorized use even though the route is left open in all four alternatives in the EA. Therefore this closure falls outside of the decision space. Rationale for this closure include reducing “fragmentation in desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat and in pronghorn fawning habitat.” However, according to the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan maps, this road isn’t in bighorn sheep lambing habitat nor pronghorn fawning habitat. Rationale for this closure also includes “minimizing potential for soil erosion” despite no significant erosion present, nor is there significant potential given the shallow bedrock along most of the route and low grade along all the route. The DR closes this road to all motorized use, despite never analyzing that option prior to the DR. Id. at ¶29.

By closing/limiting routes that were never considered or analyzed under any of the four alternatives in the EA, the BLM has adopted decisions that were never given the requisite “hard look” under NEPA and has adopted a Decision that is outside the decision space – violating NEPA. The TMP should be set aside as being based on a flawed decision-making process.

C. The BLM Failed to Take a “Hard Look” at Route Closures by Applying General Minimization Criteria Contrary to Route Specific Input.

As stated, NEPA requires all federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of their decisions before the decision is made. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 72 F.4th 1166, 1178 (10th Cir. 2023); citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The NEPA’s “hard look” requirement is anchored in Supreme Court case law, which instructs that “[t]he sweeping policy goals announced in § 101 of NEPA[45] are … realized through a set of ‘action- forcing’ procedures that require that agencies take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.”…“While the parameters of the ‘hard look’ standard have not been defined with granular precision, the aim of the requirement is clear: an agency must identify and evaluate ‘the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action.’…More concretely, in taking a “hard look” at environmental consequences, agencies “must consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action.”…“In each of these contexts, the agency must evaluate the ‘ecological, … economic, [and] social’ impacts of a proposed action.” Friends of the Floridas v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1149 (D.N.M. 2024).

Further, the arbitrary and capricious standard in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), “includes a requirement that the agency … respond to ‘relevant’ and ‘significant’ public comments.” Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014).25 An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally “demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not ‘based on a consideration of the relevant factors.’” Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014).26

Here, the DR provides rationale for closing each route, but many of the reasons listed are completely inaccurate and unapplicable while others are generic statements such as closure “minimizes impacts to soil” without demonstrating that substantially adverse impacts have occurred or even have significant potential to occur to these routes. In the Appellants’ “Petition for a Stay of Decision Pending Appeal” filed herein on October 30, 2023, the Appellants provided an in depth showing of the inaccuracies in the DR where the BLM’s listed reasons for closure are inaccurate, unapplicable or simply an unsupported generic statement, providing examples from the Tenmile Point area of the LRGB TMA (which is part of the LRGB SRMA). Said analysis is found in Paragraphs 17 through 31 of the “Petition for a Stay of Decision Pending Appeal” which is incorporated by reference herein as if stated in full.27

Said Paragraphs 17 through 31 cite to specific routes as examples of the unsupported rationale for route closures, including an analysis of the following 12 routes:

  1. All routes north of Trin-Alcove Bend and Tenmile Point graded roads (B377/ B336).
  2. Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1)
  3.  Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B)
  4. East end of Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (DC2 northeast of D2761B)
  5. Southeast end of Dead Cow Loop (DC2 southwest of D2761B)
  6. South half of Dead Cow Cutoff (the part of DC3A that’s between DC3 and DC2)
  7. Dead Cow Loop (DC3A except for the part that’s between DC3 and DC2)
  8. Road south of F Canyon (D2845)
  9. South Tenmile Point Road (D2840)
  10. East end of Five Miles of Whoops (DC1)
  11. Shortcut between Tenmile Point and Red Wash graded roads (D2863)
  12. Tenmile Wash – Tenmile Point Cutoff Road (Object ID 42353 / Route Plan ID 36)

The analysis found in Paragraphs 17 through 31 of the Appellants’ “Petition for a Stay of
Decision Pending Appeal” provides approximately 9 pages of detailed explanations as to why the BLM’s listed reasons for closure are inaccurate, unapplicable or simply an unsupported generic statement, using these 12 routes as examples. The route closures highlighted above from just one small portion of the LRGB TMA provide a glimpse into the many unfounded claims that the DR made to justify closing the subject 317 miles of routes.

All four Rider Groups submitted extensive public comment throughout the TMP planning process, including in-depth route-by-route analysis. E.g., the Appellants TPA and RwR submitted a joint in-depth comment letter on the Draft EA. These comments are dated October 21, 2022 and contain 12 exhibits, which are incorporated herein by reference as if stated in full. As stated in the RwR/TPA Comment Letter dated October 21, 2022:

“…see Exhibit “12” entitled “Labyrinth Rims TMP route-specific letter from RwR,” which is incorporated into these comments to be analyzed by the BLM, not merely as a reference document. The Organizations support this letter, which highlights the value of some key routes, and suggests mitigation measures as alternatives to route closure.

Note that the Exhibit “12” only makes route-specific comments that weren’t already covered in the October 6th letter submitted by Colorado Offroad Trail Defenders (COTD). Please regard the COTD letter as incorporated into these comments to be analyzed by the BLM. In 527 pages, the COTD letter painstakingly documented observations that are accurate and relevant to reach conclusions that are reasonable and thus supported by the Organizations.”

The Rider Groups’ extensive route-by-route comments, suggestions and input, although not heeded by the BLM, were at the very least acknowledged in the Final EA. See EA at 213 –
297. Appendix M.2 of the EA contains 84 pages of “route-by-route public comments”, including a table showing the source of the comment, the comment summarized and the BLM’s response. Id. The BLM abbreviates the source of comments, listing Ride with Respect as RwR. The RwR comments referenced in this appendix, while submitted by RwR, were submitted on behalf of the other Rider Groups as well. In the 84 pages of Appendix M.2, RwR commented on 48 individual routes justifying their remaining open.28

Despite this heightened level of route specific input submitted by the Appellants, the DR remains full of arbitrary and capricious closures, such as the examples cited above in the Tenmile Point area of the LRGB TMA, and the BLM provided “boiler plate” responses based on general minimization criteria for each of the at least 48 routes highlighted by the Appellants. An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally “demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not ‘based on a consideration of the relevant factors.’” Lilliputian Sys., Inc.
v. Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Admin., 741 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Failure to rely on all of the relevant factors, as well as the use of general minimization criteria for each of these routes fall short of the “hard look” requirement to consider the “’ecological, … economic, [and] social’ impacts of a proposed action.” Friends of the Floridas v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1149 (D.N.M. 2024).

D. The BLM Failed to Provide a “Reasonable Range of Alternatives”

Under NEPA, the BLM is required to provide “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action…that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(C)(iii). As stated in the EA, the purpose and need for the current LRGB TMP is three-fold. First, to comply with the 2017 Settlement Agreement,29 and second, “to ensure the network designated in the 2008 RMP continues to meet the goals and objectives of the resource values and uses and evaluate whether previously designated routes still have a purpose and need.”30 Third, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and two Executive Orders.31

As to the first two identified items, in 2003 (for the 2008 Moab RMP), the BLM conducted an extensive route inventory in the TMA, and then closed approximately half of those routes. See Exhibit 2. At that time, the BLM closed 766 miles of inventoried routes (a 40.4% reduction of inventoried routes including Class B roads32, or a 45% reduction excluding Class B roads). Id. The current 2023 plan closes an additional 317 miles of inventoried routes (an additional 28% reduction of designated routes including Class B roads, or an additional 34% reduction of designated routes excluding Class B roads). Id. In short, since 2003 when the inventory was conducted, 57% of the inventoried routes have been closed – a total loss of 1,083 miles of routes. Id.

The 2017 Settlement Agreement was a direct result of challenges to the allegedly flawed NEPA planning process, and directed the BLM to revisit the 2008 Moab RMP as it relates to travel management within the TMP. Because the 2017 Settlement Agreement was a result of challenges to an allegedly flawed NEPA process, the BLM should have begun its analysis of open/limited/closed routes within the TMA afresh (i.e., a new analysis of all inventoried routes from 2003 if not an inventory of routes missed in 2003 or at least a public invitation to submit those missed routes). Instead, the starting point or “baseline” for the current TMP (Alternative A) was all routes left open under the 2008 RMP and did not include the full inventory from 2003. Because the current TMP was revisiting the 2008 RMP (and seeking compliance with the 2017 Settlement Agreement) the current EA should’ve included all routes originally inventoried as part of the 2008 planning process and not just those left open in the 2008 RMP. At the bare minimum, the inventory for the current TMP should have included all routes considered in 2008.

By failing to analyze the routes “closed” in 2008, the BLM has failed to provide a reasonable range of alternatives that meets the purpose and need, thus violating NEPA.

2. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates the Dingell Act

The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 (the “Dingell Act”), 16 U.S.C. §1132 et seq., P. Law 116-9, is a sweeping omnibus public lands act that (among other things) created numerous “Wilderness Areas” and other specially managed conservation areas in Utah and the United States. One such Wilderness Area is the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, designated in Section 1231(a)(7) of the Dingell Act. The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness makes up much of the western border of the LRGB TMA (separated by the Green River) and is managed by the BLM in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §1131 et seq. In short, “the wilderness area designation seeks to preserve these areas in a condition that emphasizes their very natural and unmodified (by humans) characteristics. Wyoming
v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 570 F. Supp 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008).

While creating wilderness areas, the Dingell Act expressly forbids restrictions in a designated wilderness area from seeping into adjacent areas. The text of Section 1232(e) of the Dingell Act (entitled “Adjacent Management”) is clear that “Congress does not intend for the designation of wilderness areas to create protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness areas.” Dingell Act §1232(e)(1). Further, “the fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness shall not preclude the conduct of those activities or uses outside the boundary of the wilderness area.” Dingell Act §1232(e)(2). The prohibition of a “buffer zone” appears 21 times in the Dingell Act, and the prohibition of a “protective perimeter” appears 12 times in the Dingell Act. The care that Congress took to include these two terms throughout the text of the Dingell Act, alongside the plain language of Section 1232(e), shows a clear Congressional intent that the designation of wilderness areas does not create an adjacent “protective perimeter” or “buffer zone.”

Despite the clear prohibition of “protective perimeters” or “buffer zones” around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, the DR attempts to do just that in the TMA. The DR creates no de jure buffer zones, but closes long segments of routes along the Green River, creating a de facto buffer zone adjacent to the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. See DR at A1-4. The only routes left open along the wilderness area border were Class B roads and the first half-mile of D1526 for boaters to connect the Green River with Spring Canyon Road. Id. The DR avoids calling these closures an outright buffer zone, but then explains these closures in a way that can only be characterized as a buffer zone. E.g., in justifying the closure of Routes D1223, D1526, D1527, D2759, and D2763 the DR states the closure is meant “to minimize known visual and noise- induced conflicts with non-motorized users on the Green River.” DR at A2-123; see also DR at A2-125, 157. Despite the Dingell Act’s forbiddance of creating a buffer zone around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Area, that is precisely what the BLM has done here, particularly since non- motorized users on the Green River will continue to be exposed to motorboat use of the Green River.

In addition to violating this express language, the DR conflicts with Congressional intent as it pertains to the Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968, wherein Congress created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. P.L. 90-542; U.S.C. 1271 et seq. To preserve wild and scenic rivers, Congress created different classifications of rivers based on road accessibility. 16 U.S.C. 1273(b). Congress defined “Scenic River Areas” as “[t]hose rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” Id. In contrast, Congress separately defined “Wild River Areas” as “[t]hose rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.” Id.

In Section 1241 of the Dingell Act, Congress added segments of Utah’s Green River to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, specifically the segment of the Green River immediately adjacent to the LRGB TMA was designated as a “Scenic River” with the classification “accessible in places by roads.” Dingell Act at §1241. Congress clearly contemplated using the more restrictive “Wild River” designation along the Green River and did in fact designate a more northerly segment of the Green River as a “Wild River”. Congress’s selection of the “Scenic River” designation in lieu of the “Wild River” designation demonstrates congressional intent to protect existing road access along the Green River in the vicinity of the LRGB TMA.

Congress never delegated authority to the BLM to change management of the Labyrinth Canyon stretch of the Green River from a “Scenic River” to a “Wild River”. The distinguishing difference between “Wild Rivers” and “Scenic Rivers” is the presence of roads, and it is clear that Congress intended for existing roads within the scenic river segment of the Green River to remain open, otherwise it would have designated it a wild river. Yet the BLM closed virtually all motorized routes within the Labyrinth Canyon along all but the last mile of its 45-mile length relying on the “minimization criteria” found at 43 C.F.R. §8342.1(c), to justify the closure of these routes. Closing such overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon that are ~1,000 ft. above the Green River, can hardly be considered necessary to minimize user conflict as non-motorized river runners barely see or hear people at those overlooks. Here, by applying “Wild River” management to a segment of the Green River that Congress explicitly categorized as a “Scenic River” accessible by roads, the BLM has violated the Dingell Act, and is therefore unlawful.

3. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP is Arbitrary, Capricious and an Abuse of Discretion under the APA

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (the “APA”), 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq., provides standards for judicial review of an agency action, stating in part that “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. §702. The scope of review section under the APA dictates that a reviewing court “shall…hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law[.]” (emphasis added). 5
U.S.C. §706(2)(A)-(D).

Under 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), “an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency (1) entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view of the product of agency expertise, (3) fail[s]
to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or (4) ma[kes] a clear error of judgment” (emphasis added). New Mexico Health Connections v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1138, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019).
Applying this standard to the current TMP, the BLM’s actions were both arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion for reasons as follows.

A. The Decision Record Fails to Rely on the Best Available Science

There are multiple examples of a failure to rely on the best available science throughout the DR. E.g., the DR’s estimation that motorized recreation comprises only 6% of the recreational use in the LRGB TMA has no basis in fact. The DR cites Manti-La Sal National Forest, but the draft Land Management Plan of that forest actually states “Motorized trail activity in general is reported as a main activity for approximately 20 percent of all visitors to the Forest in 2016 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2017) and 32 percent in 2021 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2023).” Compared to national forests, the portion of visitation to the LRGB planning area that’s motorized trail riding is almost certainly larger. The DR also cites a 2007 study of recreation in the Moab Field Office that was designed to test the accuracy of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) methodology of the USFS when applied to BLM lands. The results demonstrate that NVUM methodology is inaccurate especially when applied to activities such as motorized trail riding that are highly dispersed (which makes riders harder for surveyors to reach) and of a faster pace (that makes riders far less likely to voluntarily participate). These sampling biases could easily have led to motorized trail riders being underrepresented by a factor of six and, since 2007, motorized trail riding has grown faster than most other forms of outdoor recreation in the LRGB TMA. Exhibit 1 at ¶24 and Exhibit 5.
Returning to the standard set forth above, “an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency (1) entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view of the product of agency expertise, (3) fail[s] to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or (4) ma[kes] a clear error of judgment” (emphasis added). New Mexico Health Connections v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 946 F.3d 1138, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019). By failing to base its motorized recreational use numbers on the best available science, the BLM’s decision fails to consider the relevant factors, and makes a clear error judgment, rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious.

B. The Decision Record Provides Flawed and Inconsistent Rationale for Closing Routes Due to Wildlife Concerns

The BLM failed to use its own scientific evidence (let alone the best available science), as it relates to wildlife and bighorn sheep concerns, when closing routes. As stated in the RwR/TPA Comment Letter dated October 21, 2022, referring to the letter’s Exhibit 10, “the wildlife analysis demonstrates that the best available science justifies few if any of the closures…” Said Exhibit 10 contains a detailed wildlife analysis for the TMP prepared by Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, addressing many of the wildlife inconsistencies inherent in the TMP. E.g.:

“Desert bighorn sheep are not the fragile creatures, or as susceptible to human disturbance, as they have been portrayed in the EA. Instead, these animals live in extreme environments, are well adapted to avoid predation by mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, and golden eagles. And where human activities are predictable and non-threatening, bighorn sheep habituate to human activity…”

Dr. Ramey continues by showing that “in the field of desert bighorn sheep research, there is an absence of clearly defined, scientifically defensible, causal link between human recreational disturbance and reduced bighorn survival or habitat abandonment ultimately resulting in population decline.” Id. Despite these persuasive public comments, the BLM justified many route closures on reducing conflicts with bighorn sheep habitat. See e.g., DR at A2-157 – 59.

The conclusions submitted by Dr. Ramey are very similar to BLM’s own documents, which acknowledge that wildlife, including bighorn sheep, are more disturbed by hikers and rock climbers than OHVs. See BLM, Limited Roped and Aerial Activities in Mineral and Hell Roaring Canyons, Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0068, at 9 (August 2020). This EA, concluded in 2020, acknowledges that bighorn sheep are more sensitive to hikers because of the unpredictability of their locations and are more likely to be found off-trail, unlike road traffic. Id. at 33, 35. Bighorn sheep “coexist best with people when human activity in sheep habitat is predictable.” Id. at 34. Nevertheless, under the TMP, these routes allegedly disturbing bighorn sheep habitat remain open to hikers and closed to OHVs.

The boiler-plate rationale for closing many of these routes is to minimize habitat fragmentation, but these primitive singletracks and doubletracks appear unlikely to fragment habitat. They’re far less obtrusive than modern highways, and many wildlife tracks can be seen across these primitive routes. Exhibit 1 at ¶22. Not only does this decision/rationale run contrary to best available science, it runs contrary to the BLM’s own science and is inconsistent with previous BLM action. “Unexplained inconsistency between agency actions is ‘a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change.’” Organized Vill. Of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015).33

C. The TMP Fails to Properly Consider the Effects Which Route Closures Will Have on the Human Environment.

While the EA does contain a section addressing effects to the human environment, the BLM’s analysis is lacking. This section is only a page and a half long, despite BLM’s acknowledgement that “[t]ourism and recreation account[] for 48.9% of the Grand County economy.” EA at 88. The DR closes many routes because there was no known recreation destination, e.g., DR at A2-6, however, experiencing the routes within the LRGB TMA is a destination in and of itself. Many recreationists prefer the unique qualities of motorized trail riding. Depending on form, motorized trail riding can provide physical exercise, a mental challenge of one’s focus and skills, and a sense of flow or harmony with nature. This is the key difference between a transportation and recreation analysis. In recreation, the trail itself is often the destination (e.g., Mashed Potatoes),34 for factors such as undulations, challenge, variety of terrain, and the DR fails to acknowledge these characteristics. Other routes were closed as “redundant” due to proximity to a graded road. A non-graded route that provides a different type of experience is not redundant, even if next to a graded road.35

In many cases, routes were closed because they were considered “low use.” This justification is contradictory because if it’s low use, then there are no impacts truly being mitigated. In many instances, low use of a route is a desired condition. Even motorized users desire remoteness and solitude and spending time on a low use route is one way to find these types of recreational qualities that were never considered in the DR or EA.
Further, many members of the public require motorized travel due to physical limitations and disabilities, yet still desire to visit some of the remote areas of the LRGB TMA. These limitations were never analyzed in the DR. In short, the BLM has failed to properly consider the effects which route closures will have on the human environment.

D. The BLM Allowed Its (then) Principal Deputy Director to Participate in the Decision-Making Process Despite Her Previous Involvement as Counsel for a Plaintiff in the 2017 Settlement Agreement

The Wilderness Society was a party to the 2017 Settlement Agreement, the “genesis” of the current TMP. See Exhibit 3. The Wilderness Society was represented by an individual who was later appointed as the BLM’s Deputy Director for Policy and Programs in February 2021, and subsequently promoted to the BLM’s Principal Deputy Director. Exhibit 3 at 33. Under good faith and belief, despite being counsel to a plaintiff signatory to the 2017 Settlement Agreement, the BLM’s Principal Deputy Director did not recuse herself but instead was directly involved in the development of the DR for the LRGB TMP. Exhibit 4 at 5. Here, the BLM abused its discretion by failing to exclude this official with a clear conflict of interest from the decision making process. In sum, the BLM failed to consider the best available science, the TMP contains unexplained inconsistencies between the current bighorn sheep findings and previous agency actions, the BLM failed to properly consider effects to the human environment, and allowed an officer with a conflict of interest to participate in the planning process, rendering the BLM’s Decision arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

4. The BLM’s Decision to Approve the LRGB TMP Violates FLPMA

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (“FLPMA”), the guiding principle in the management of public lands is multiple-use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. §1732(a). As such, RMPs and TMPs must account for various resources, including “recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values” while striving for “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high- level annual or regular periodic output of various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” Id. §1702(c), (h).

The DR closed routes based upon a rationale that often fails to account for the multiple uses called for under FLPMA including recreation. Keeping existing routes open helps minimize conflicts among various uses of the public lands,” among other benefits. 43 C.F.R. §8342.1. The BLM’s DR violates FLPMA by failing to manage the public lands of the LRGB TMA in accordance with principles of multiple use and sustained yield and is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. §706.

Under Loper Bright Ent. V. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 392 (2024), courts are not required to give any deference to the agency’s interpretation of the FLPMA, as the APA “prescribes no deferential standard for courts to employ in answering those legal questions.” Accordingly, the IBLA should find that the BLM simply does not have the discretion to omit recreation from its designation criteria under principles of multiple-use and sustained yield, and no deference is owed to the BLM’s interpretation of FLPMA in this regard.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons discussed herein, the Appellants request the IBLA declare the BLM’s decision in the Decision Record/Environmental Assessment as a violation of NEPA, FLPMA, the Dingell Act and at a minimum vacate the Decision as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion in violation of the APA, and order such other relief as the Board may deem appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2025.

Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Attorney for Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of April, 2025, I caused a copy of the foregoing APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF REASONS to be served in accordance with the applicable rules and transmitted as follows:

By Email
(Pursuant to the February 25, 2025 “Standing Order on Electronic Transmission” of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals)
Interior Board of Land Appeals
801 N. Quincy St., MS-300-QC
Arlington, Virginia 22203
ibla@oha.doi.gov

By Email
(In accordance with counsel’s waiver of service by U.S. Mail)
Office of the Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region
Leah Peterson
6201 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1180
leah.peterson@sol.doi.gov

Respondent Intervenor – SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Laura Peterson
Hanna Larsen
425 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 l
aura@suwa.org
hanna@suwa.org

Hayden L. Ballard, Esq., LL.M.
Attorney for Appellants

 

  1. BLM, Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020- 0097, BLM National NEPA Reg., available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2001224/570 (2025).
  2. Id. at 2.
  3. Id. at 2 n.4; see also TMP at 3 (stating that the TMP does not alter any OHV area designations); Moab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan at 92 (Oct. 31, 2008), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/66098/80422/93491/Moab_Final_Plan.pdf (2008 RMP).
  4. EA at 13; see also TMP at 3 (summarizing route classifications).
  5. TMP at 4; see also EA at 13-14.
  6. EA at 15-16 (describing existing network under “no action/current management” alternative).
  7.  See IBLA Order dated March 10, 2025.
  8. Exhibit 1 at ¶1.
  9. RwR, Mission, Ride with Respect, available at: https://www.ridewithrespect.org/ (2025).
  10. COHVCO, COHVCO, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, available at: https://cohvco.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=0&club_id=95320 (2025).
  11. Id.
  12. COHVCO, About COHVCO, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, available at: https://cohvco.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=95320&module_id=203228 (2025).
  13. CORE, CORE, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, available at: https://www.keeptrailsopen.com/ (2025).
  14. Id.
  15. TPA, What we do & who we are, Trails Preservation Alliance, available at: https://www.coloradotpa.org/ (2025).
  16. Id.
  17. BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 14 – 19, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf (2021).
  18. BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 82 – 92, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf  (2021).
  19. BLM, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan Scoping Report at 82 – 83, Bureau of Land Management, available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001224/200479500/20046778/250052963/Scoping_Report_Labyrinth_Rims-Gemini_Bridges_Travel_Management_Plan.pdf (2021).
  20. See also Animal Protection Institute of America, 117 IBLA 208, 210 (1990).
  21. See Exhibit 6.
  22. The TPA and RwR submitted an extensive comment letter dated October 21, 2022 (along with 12 exhibits) to the BLM on the Draft EA. That comment letter and attached 12 exhibits, outlines various deficiencies with the Draft EA. As many of those same deficiencies remain intact in the DR and Final EA, this Statement of Reasons incorporates those October 21, 2022 comments and 12 exhibits herein by reference as if stated in full.
  23. FAA, What are the levels of Environmental Review the FAA considers as they follow NEPA?, Federal Aviation Administration, available at: https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-are-levels-environmental-review-faa-considers-they-follow-nepa (2025).
  24. Id. (Evaluators included a GIS specialist, aquatic ecologist, archaeologist, policy analyst, local official, wildlife biologist, geologist and others).
  25. See also Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C.Cir.1993) (quoting Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 & n. 58 (D.C.Cir.1977)); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1042 (D.C.Cir.2012).
  26. See also Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 409 (D.C.Cir.1984).
  27. See also Exhibit 1 at ¶¶ 26 – 38.
  28. EA at 213 – 297 (The individual routes listed as being commented on by the Rider Groups in Appendix M.2 that were still ultimately closed, despite the Rider Groups significant and specific input are: BT1, BT2, D2405, D2529, D2533, D2577, D2581A, D2588A, D2748, D2759A, D2763B, D2771, D2793, D2863, D2909, D2925, D2936, D2945, D3035, D3101A, D3114, D3130A, D3171, D3263, D3270, D3503, D3571, D3802, D3810, D3811, D3828, D3872, D3925, D3926, D7066, D7400, D7428, D8399, D9099, DC2, DC3, DFT1, EL2A, EL8, OWW1, SF1, SW1, and TT1).
  29. EA at 2.
  30. Id.
  31. EO 11644 and 11989.
  32. The inclusion of Class B roads in the TMP analysis is inappropriate as the BLM lacks jurisdiction to close them. See Grand County v United States, 2:12-cv-00466-CW. Accordingly, their inclusion in OHV route inventories is inappropriate and skews the number of routes left open or limited.
  33. See also Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005)).
  34. See Exhibit 1 at ¶13; see also Exhibit 6.
  35. These graded roads are Class B County Roads, and their inclusion in the TMP analysis is inappropriate as the BLM lacks jurisdiction to close them. See Grand County v United States, 2:12-cv-00466-CW. Accordingly, their inclusion in OHV route inventories is inappropriate. For full analysis on this issue, see RwR comments incorporated by reference dated October 21, 2022.

 

Continue Reading

2024 Annual Report Available!

We’re thrilled to share the 2024 Annual Report with you! This year’s report highlights the incredible progress we’ve made in preserving and enhancing off-highway motorcycle trails across Colorado and beyond.

Thanks to the dedication of our volunteers, the generosity of our donors, and the strength of our partnerships, we’ve achieved significant milestones in trail maintenance, advocacy, and education.

Inside the report, you’ll find:

  • Club Highlights – The impactful work of our partner organizations
  • Key Accomplishments – Advocacy efforts, trail stewardship, and education initiatives
  • Major Projects – Expanding access and improving trail conditions
  • Financial Overview – Our commitment to responsible stewardship
  • Looking Ahead – Goals and initiatives for the future

Read the full report here: 2024 Trails Preservation Alliance Annual Report

Your support makes all of this possible, and we can’t thank you enough for being part of our mission. Together, we’re keeping trails open, sustainable, and accessible for generations to come.

Thank you for being a vital part of the Trails Preservation Alliance!

Sincerely,
The Trails Preservation Alliance Team

Continue Reading

Public Comments: Naturita Travel Management Plan (TMP)

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Uncompahgre Field Office
2465 S Townsend Ave.
Montrose, CO 81401

Attn: Caroline Kilbane.

SUBJECT: Public Comments, Naturita Travel Management Plan (TMP)

Dear Ms. Kilbane

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments on the Naturita Travel Management Plan (TMP). We appreciate the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Uncompahgre Field Office (UFO) efforts in managing these public lands and offer the following input for consideration.

About the Trails Preservation Alliance

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is a volunteer-driven organization committed to working with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to preserve  off-highway motorcycle (OHM) recreation. While our primary focus is advocating for multiple-use, motorized singletrack trails, we strongly support maintaining and expanding access for all forms of motorized, off-highway recreation, as well as responsible non-motorized uses. We believe in a balanced approach that ensures fair and equitable access for all public land users.

However, motorized access and recreational opportunities continue to diminish despite an ever increasing demand. Many recent travel management decisions have further restricted motorized recreation, concentrating use on fewer trails and inadvertently creating greater impacts—often leading to additional closures. A recent TPA study, the Colorado Off-Highway Motorcycle Trail Opportunity Plan (COTOP), found that of approximately 28,000 miles of singletrack trails in Colorado, only 2,200 miles (8%) are designated for motorized use.

 

 

The Importance of a Multiple-Use Approach

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM is required to balance multiple uses on public lands. This includes ensuring diverse recreational opportunities, such as motorized access. The law (43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)) directs public lands to be managed for a combination of uses that best meet present and future needs, including recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, and wildlife values.

With growing demand for motorized multiple-use trails and recreational opportunities compounded by decreasing access, we urge the BLM to preserve the existing motorized multiple-use characteristics of the TMP area and expand these opportunities in future phases of the Naturita TMP process.

Key Considerations for the Naturita TMP

We recognize that this first phase of planning focuses on:

  • Identifying missing routes and correcting data inaccuracies (such as misalignments),
  • Assessing use levels and types,
  • Evaluating staging areas and access points, and
  • Understanding general land use patterns.

Since we do not have detailed data on missing or misaligned routes, our comments primarily focus on use levels, general area usage, infrastructure support (parking, camping, restrooms, etc.), and overall access to the Naturita TMP and the greater Paradox Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA).

The Naturita TMP covers approximately 14,000 acres within the broader 40,000-acre Paradox ERMA. The UFO Resource Management Plan (RMP) has identified the Paradox ERMA as suitable for all types of recreation development, providing an opportunity for future motorized multiple-use trail proposals. This is a key opportunity to establish a framework for long-term connectivity and enhancement of multiple-use recreational opportunities.

A critical component of this TMP is the inclusion of at least one motorized multiple-use singletrack trail, allowing OHM access to and from the town of Naturita. This connection lays the foundation for expanding access to existing and future trails proposed in the Flattops and Sawtooth areas (as outlined in the West End Trails Alliance (WETA) proposal) and the larger Paradox ERMA.

To maintain the motorized multiple-use character of the southernmost Paradox ERMA—particularly north of State Highway 90 and in the areas referred to as Flattops and Sawtooth in the WETA proposal—we strongly encourage the BLM to preserve all existing motorized routes and designate certain proposed trails, particularly those at the outermost reaches from Naturita and designed for longer rides, as motorized multiple-use. Doing so will enhance connectivity, expand funding opportunities, and ensure eligibility for long-term trail maintenance through Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) grant funds.

Additionally, this TMP is, in part, a response to WETA’s proposal for an extensive multiple-use mountain bike trail system. As the TMP develops, integrating motorized multiple-use designations where appropriate will work to create a more sustainable and inclusive trail network.

Through experience with similar projects across Colorado and beyond, the TPA has observed that trail development can bring unforeseen infrastructure needs, such as adequate parking, restrooms, picnic areas, camping facilities, etc. We appreciate that the UFO and WETA are proactively considering these needs as part of the long-term success of this recreational asset.

Alignment with the EXPLORE Act

As one of the first travel plans released after the passage of the EXPLORE Act, it is essential that the BLM ensures a complete and accurate trail inventory. The Act directs federal agencies to “seek to create additional opportunities, as appropriate, and in accordance with existing law, for motorized and non motorized access.” To fulfill this requirement, travel planning must not only document existing opportunities but also incorporate meaningful expansions of access.

Conclusion

We urge the BLM to take a balanced approach that aligns with multiple-use mandates and the intent of the EXPLORE Act. By preserving and expanding motorized multiple-use access, the BLM can enhance recreational opportunities, improve connectivity, and ensure a sustainable future for all trail users.

The TPA thanks the BLM, Uncompahgre Field Office for considering our comments and input. We genuinely look forward to continuing to work with and partnering with the Uncompahgre Field Office in the future to develop a sustainable, reasonable and attainable plan for the Naturita TMP.  If you have any questions regarding our comments or require additional information please feel free to contact me at chad@coloradotpa.org

 

 

Chad Hixon

Executive Director

Trails Preservation Alliance

chad@coloradotpa.org

Continue Reading

A Powerful New Partnership: Colorado 500 Supports Trails Preservation Alliance with 3-Year Fundraising Commitment

Colorado 500 logoWe’re thrilled to announce an exciting new partnership: the Colorado 500, a legendary off-highway motorcycle ride and long-standing supporter of rural Colorado communities, has selected the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) as the beneficiary of a new three-year fundraising campaign.

Established as one of the first organized off highway motorcycle charity rides, the Colorado 500 has a rich tradition of giving back to the communities along its route—supporting schools, scholarships, search and rescue teams, and local EMS services for decades. Building on this legacy, the organization is now expanding its mission to more actively support advocacy, education, and stewardship initiatives that promote responsible motorcycle recreation across Colorado’s public lands.

Through this initiative, the Colorado 500 and its incredible network of supporters—including Team 44, Safety Third, Desert Assassins, and others—are coming together to raise $225,000 over the next three years to directly support the TPA’s mission.

What This Means for TPA

Every dollar raised through this campaign will go toward protecting, maintaining, and advocating for Colorado’s motorized trails. With generous matching support built into the program, every contribution made through the Colorado 500 effort will be tripled, maximizing the impact for TPA’s work on the ground.

We’re honored to be chosen as the beneficiary of this campaign and deeply grateful for the trust and support of the Colorado 500 community. This partnership helps sustain our efforts and enables us to continue working with land managers, local clubs, and volunteers to keep trails open and accessible for all.

More Than Just Fundraising

In addition to financial support, this partnership includes hands-on volunteer work. This summer , the Colorado 500 plans to  join forces with the Gunnison – Crested Butte MC Club, the GOATS, for a dedicated trail work day—further demonstrating their commitment to stewardship and community engagement.

Thank You

To the riders, supporters, and teams behind the Colorado 500: thank you for believing in our mission. Your generosity and leadership are making a lasting difference for the future of motorized recreation in Colorado.

We’ll be sharing updates on the progress of this campaign, the impact it’s making, and ways our community can stay involved—right here on our site as well as on our social media.

Continue Reading

Letter of Concern: HB25-1101 Disbursements to nongovernmental entities

Representative Garcia
200 East Colfax – RM 307
Denver CO 80203

Representative Bacon
200 East Colfax – RM 307
Denver CO 80203

Senator Weissman
200 East Colfax
Denver CO 80203

RE: HB25-1101 Disbursements to nongovernmental entities

Dear Senators and Representatives:

The above Organizations would like to express our concerns around HB25-1101. Prior to addressing our concerns with the Proposal, the Organizations believe a brief summary of our Organizations is warranted. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization representing the OHV community 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 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 the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multiple-use trail recreational opportunities. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport. CORE is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping motorized trails open in Central Colorado and the region.

The Organizations have partnered with CPW in the creation and operation of two voluntary registration programs for snowmobiles and OHVs, each of which have provided a large number of grants to volunteer organizations, nonprofits, federal, state and local government partners for many decades. CSA partnered with CPW in 1972 to create the winter grooming program with the passage of 33-14-101 et seq. More information on this program is available here: Snowmobile Program Grants | Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The Summer motorized users formed a similar program with the passage of 33-14.5-101 et seq in 1988. More information on this program is available here: Off- Highway Vehicle Grants | Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

1. The Proposal could negatively impact existing provisions allowing grant fund advances up to 100%.

The Organizations first concern around the Proposal is advances are set at a minimum of 35% retainer, which is well below the amount traditionally provided in the Programs addressed above. Our non-profit partners have been allowed at least 50% advance on funds available through these grant programs as most of our clubs simply lack the funding to absorb costs to start efforts/projects. These grants fund a wide range of efforts and beneficial projects from volunteer days to clubs hiring contractors to perform desperately needed trail work and undertaking educational events. These user funded grant programs and the advances they provide to our nonprofit clubs and volunteers are critical to achieving these goals. If you would desire, we can provide several grant applications where the project is funding maintenance or contractor crews to undertake maintenance on federal public lands.

In certain circumstances, our nonprofit clubs can receive 100% of their grant award in advance of the projects as often the project is purchasing a piece of highly specialized trail equipment that can be used for summer or winter trail maintenance. The need for this advance is critical as clubs often lack the resources and ability to buy these units and having to take payments puts the clubs at a competitive disadvantage compared to other sellers. Sellers of these pieces of equipment simply are unwilling or unable to delay payments on these pieces of equipment as often these units are in high demand and can be easily sold to other buyers who have 100% of the cash needed for purchase available.

Large Equipment

The Organizations are also concerned about the evolving nature of the federal land managers in these grant programs, as the programs hire hundreds of seasonal employees to work with US Forest Service and BLM offices across the state. These grant programs have been critical to providing high quality recreational opportunities on public lands for many years. The challenges surrounding hiring, filling, and retaining these positions through the federal managers are well publicized. If the federal land managers are unable to resolve these challenges, it is entirely possible that non-profit partner clubs will be seeking to hire seasonal employees to provide maintenance services. This situation is concerning for our partner clubs and we would like to provide those clubs the maximum amount of flexibility in funding if the clubs should move forward in providing crews and resources that the federal agencies are increasingly unable to do.

2. More paperwork would be required under the Program which would exacerbate a known limitations of our volunteers and partnerships.

The Organizations are also concerned that the Proposal would significantly expand, increase and complicate the amount of additional paperwork that would be required for any grants that are awarded. Much of the proposed required information and documentation is unrelated to the purpose and need of the grant programs and would result in significant burden on the volunteers that are often managing crews and projects under these grants. Administrative costs for all grants are already capped at 5% of the grant award and the organizations would be opposed to any increase in this cap as the users who fund the program an efficient and effective program that accomplishes on-the- ground projects and does not expand bureaucracy. The Organizations are also aware that CPW’s efforts to manage these programs is also at their capacity for administrative costs. Managing more information will simply result in additional costs for agency partners as well. The Organizations are aware that the largest concern raised by grant applicants is the volume of information that is already required to obtain funding. Current grant applications exceed 20 pages in length and must include specific, detailed information that must be provided as part of the application, such as bids for work, comprehensive cost estimates or specific information about a piece of equipment that might be purchased with the funds.

The Organizations have been working with CPW to perform a Six Sigma Lean process on the entire grant process to make the entire effort more effective on the ground and more efficient in its management process. We hope this effort will yield a grant program that is exceptionally efficient for partners to use for projects and minimizes the overhead necessary for any grant project. These funds are going to be more critically needed than ever before in the next several years, given the funding challenges facing federal land managers.

The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality recreational resources and opportunities on both state and federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. 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.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
TPA Executive Director

Marcus Trusty
CORE President

Continue Reading

Introducing the TPA Trail Crew

In 2025, we are launching the TPA Trail Crew, a dedicated team of experienced professionals focused on improving trail maintenance across Colorado. Inspired by the USFS Statewide Trail Crew, this team will be:

  • Fully funded by the TPA for the first year
  • Equipped with a truck, camper, motorcycles, chainsaws, PPE, and more
  • Offering trail work services at little to no cost to public land management agencies

Initially focused on handwork, the crew will also be qualified to operate machinery when needed. This initiative aims to address ongoing federal funding and staffing challenges, providing vital support for Colorado’s trails.

To sustain this effort beyond 2025, we’re pursuing a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2025–2026 OHV grant and building partnerships with agencies, clubs, and trail users statewide.

View the TPA’s 2025-2026 CPW OHV grant application: https://cpw.widen.net/s/rltsqwnpcz/13-tpa_statewide_trail_crew_2026

How You Can Help

  1. Submit Comments to CPW OHV Grants by January 31, 2025:
    Show your support for the TPA Trail Crew by submitting written comments here: trails@state.co.us (See notes below on how to write effective comments)
  2. Make a Donation:
    Your contribution can directly support the TPA and the Trail Crew, ensuring we have the resources to continue this critical work. Every dollar makes a difference! Donate here.

Effective Comments Should Include:

  • Specific reasons why you support or oppose a particular grant application.
  • Details on the grant’s impact: Explain how you believe the grant will (or will not) expand, improve, or enhance motorcycle/multi-use recreation on public lands. Consider whether your recreation opportunities and experiences would be improved if the grant is funded.
  • Sustainability and natural resource protection: Highlight how the grant will enable responsible and sustainable motorized recreation and contribute to protecting natural resources.
  • Value for OHV funds: Share why you believe the grant and its requested funding represent a good (or poor) use of your OHV sticker funds.
  • Feedback on land managers: Provide insights into your experiences—positive or negative—with the land managers (e.g., USFS Ranger District, BLM Field Office, State Park) responsible for the project. It’s crucial for the Subcommittee to understand whether land managers are listening to and respecting the OHV user community, which funds this grant program.
Continue Reading

BLM Uncompahgre Field Office Travel Management Public Comments

1/28/25

UPDATE: Wednesday’s open house in Naturita has been postponed with no new date yet. Public comment period still runs through March 18, 2025.

Preliminary project information, including a map of the travel management area, can be found online at https://www.blm.gov/office/uncompahgre-field-office/travel-management.

The BLM is specifically looking for feedback on what type of recreation you want to see as well as:

  • Any missing routes
  • Inaccuracies in data (misalignments)
  • Information on use level and type on each route
  • Staging areas and access
  • General area uses, etc.

 


Want to see more motorized singletrack? This is an opportunity to tell the BLM what kind of trails you want to see from the get go.

The BLM Uncompahgre Field Office is seeking the public’s input ahead of their travel management process for trails in the Naturita area. They have an open house in Naturita on January 29th, 2025 and public comments open from January 21, 2025 to March 18, 2025.

Naturita is located on the western slope, on the southern end of the Uncompahgre Plateau.

If you want to see motorized singletrack, motorized loops, parking facilities, bathrooms, etc, you can share your input with the BLM as they begin the process. Your voice matters!

SEND COMMENTS:

Email
BLM_CO_UFO_Recreation@blm.gov

Mail
Uncompahgre Field Office
2465 S. Townsend Ave
Montrose, CO 81401
attn: Caroline Kilbane

 

Continue Reading

CDPHE Regulation #87 Dredge and Fill Control Proposal Comments

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
Via: Google Form Portal

Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Att: Fletcher Jacobs
Via email only

 

RE: Regulation #87 Dredge and Fill Control regulations

Dear Planning Team;

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the above Organizations regarding the proposed Rule 87 concerning the Dredge and Fill Control regulations. For purposes of these comments, this will be referred to as the Proposal.  We appreciated the virtual meeting and discussion between our representatives and CDHPE on January 8, 2025. In our call we discussed our concerns around possible recreational impacts from the Rule as it did not appear to have been within the scope of the Stakeholder Group efforts. While the representatives in the meeting stated that they did not believe these new regulations would impact trail maintenance efforts, we are unable to identify specific provisions in the Rule that allow this type of effort. While there are many provisions that could be applied to allow trail maintenance to continue, often these provisions require broad interpretations to make these types of determinations. We would ask that the Rule be clarified to address that trail maintenance activities would be presumed to be outside the scope of work that would require a State Water permit.

1a.  Who we are.

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 representing the OHV community 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 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 the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multiple-use trail recreational opportunities. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport.

The Organizations partnerships with State and Federal managers has prospered since the creation of the winter grooming program, funded through the sale of snowmobile registrations and permits in the early 1970s. The CPW OHV program was created in the 1988 and has provide more than 100 million in funding to managers to maintain safe creational for motorized use over the life of these programs. Currently the OHV and Snowmobile program fund the hiring of more than 150 employees who perform maintenance on trails across the State.  These programs have been supplemented by hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer effort to leverage these grant funds. In 2023, TPA and CSA joined in their estimates of these hours and concluded that total was far in excess of 20,000 hrs. in 2022 alone. The possible impacts of the proposal on our partnership with CPW and federal lands managers is a major reason for these comments as each of these efforts requires a grant proposal through the State Trails Program.

Maintenance crew applications are annually applied for by the Federal land managers, who often do not have access to any engineering staff to do detailed designs for larger efforts such as road or bridge reconstruction. Far too commonly these resources are provided through the grant program on larger projects, opening the possibility of significant delay in projects. For maintenance, the land mangers do not have access to hydrologists to certify a lack of impacts for a smaller project.  They rely on their staff and BMPs to protect water resources. Even a preliminary certification of no impact would be an immense barrier to these applications. We have attached a sample of various projects that are performed by these maintenance crews as part of our annual maintenance programs with these comments to allow you to understand the scope of these efforts as Exhibit “1” to these comments. NEPA compliance and other environmental compliance issues, such as 404 permit, are resolved in the schedule C-1 of these applications by the federal applicant. NEPA compliance is allowed for maintenance in this manner based on the USFS regulations found in 36 CFR 220.6, which specifically allows maintenance to occur outside the need for an EA or EIS. Given the clarity of existing NEPA regs on this issue, we would ask for similar regulations to provide this authority under the Proposal simply to avoid delays or questions in funding being used on the ground to protect resources.  Even with this clarity, there are periodic questions and concerns that grants lack NEPA review that are raised. Having these clear and direct regulations allows us to resolve these concerns relatively quickly.

In our meeting we pledged to share a copy of the video we partnered with Colorado Youth Corp, CPW and USFS to create that outlined the benefits of our efforts in restoring areas impacted by the East Troublesome Fire in 2021.[1]  These grants and resource are more critical than ever before in maintaining recreation and protecting waters given the challenges that the USFS has recently experienced hiring seasonals.[2] We have a compelling concern that all funding for maintenance crews is on the ground as fast and efficiently as possible to allow these state resources to backfill this gap in funding currently being experienced by federal lands managers.

While the Organizations are concerned regarding possible impacts to all forms of recreation from these ambiguities, the snowmobile community represents an area when the impacts from an overly strict interpretation of these provisions could simply stop this activity entirely.  This sport, much like the downhill ski industry, occurs entirely on frozen water that melts and runs off every year. Trail grooming through the State Program provides a critical link for the safe operation of these activities. With a strict interpretation of the ambiguities, could a permit be required for snowmobile and skiing maintenance activities?  Possibly. That would functionally stop these activities from occurring and avoiding that situation is a priority for our Organizations. We would like clarity that this would not occur.

1b. Our recent challenges from minor ambiguities.

As we have noted previously our partnerships on trail maintenance with CPW and federal land managers have spanned more than 50 years. Over the 50 year of this partnership, we have worked to resolve many issues that have arisen from minor ambiguities in drafting having major impacts on the ground. The Organizations concerns on this issue are not without basis as we were forced to obtain passage of legislation last session that both in state and out of state snowmobile users were required to register their snowmobiles for legal use on Colorado Trails. For decades a small ambiguity in the snowmobile legislation was interpreted as requiring out of state users to register their snowmobiles.  When the most recent Attorney General was sworn in, his opinion was different and we could no longer require out of state users to purchase a permit.   This decision also excluded the out of state user from being required to pay the .25 surcharge to support the Colorado Search and Rescue program as well.  This was a major concern as the S&R program is seeing rapidly increasing demands for its service while it has not received major new funding for many year. Loss of any revenue stream would have a significant impact.

This ambiguity was not of sufficient scale to stop our efforts, but it was a growing barrier given the increases in out of state visitation to Colorado for recreational opportunities. This ambiguity created problems beyond just funding as the public was questioning why residents must support free recreational opportunities for non residents and similar concerns. While CPW and the Organizations were able to resolve  this ambiguity with the passage of SB 24-56[3] last session, this was a major effort to resolve a minor ambiguity.  We would like to avoid having to run legislation in the future to clarify that trail maintenance does not need a permit for maintenance if there are water issues possibly involved.

2. The economic and social value of recreation and trails to Colorado is overwhelming.

The Organizations are aware that the Proposal is being drafted by CDPHE, who does not have a wide ranging background in recreation management. The Organizations believe it is important to recognize the immense economic value that Colorado receives from outdoor recreation. The 2023 Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic analysis estimated the value of outdoor recreation at more than $17 billion in value added to the economy and accounting for more than 132,594 jobs.[4] This accounts for more than 3.2% of the State GDP annually and many of these benefits are flowing to smaller communities that have lost other revenue streams and are now overly reliant on recreational activity to provide basic services. In 2023 COHVCO partnered with CPW and federal land managers to update their economic contribution study addressing motorized use recreation on trails found that motorized alone accounted for more than $3.2 billion in revenue and 10,370 jobs in the State.[5]

The values of trails in particular are a huge resource that is hugely valued socially for residents in  the State of Colorado. CPW State Trails Program Strategic Plan addresses the value of trails to the State of Colorado residents as follows:

“Trail related recreation, including non-motorized and motorized recreation, continues to be the most popular type of outdoor recreation in Colorado. Recent studies about participation in outdoor recreation indicates that 83% of Coloradans recreate on trails, and that total participation exceeded 227 million activity days in 2013.9 These figures are consistent with previous studies, indicating the long-term popularity of trail related recreation in Colorado.10,11,1 Current estimates are that there are over 33 thousand miles of trails in Colorado. Of that total, approximately 58 percent (19,168 miles) are on federal lands, principally those managed by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Local and Regional governments provide about 18 percent of the total (6,200 miles), while the remaining 24 percent (7,970 miles) are managed by CPW in state parks or state wildlife areas or CDOT in highway corridors.”[6]

Given the huge reliance of the Colorado economy on outdoor recreation and the immense social value that the resident of the state place on trails, and any barriers to maintaining them would have a significant and immediate impact on these benefits. We are asking to avoid these type of impacts by clarifying that trail maintenance is outside the scope of effort that would need review and permitting under the Proposal.

3. The Federal Highways Administration recently recognized the value of trails for transportation in emergency response and climate resilience.

In 2023, Federal Highways Administration released their report identified the high value that all forms of trails play in the changing climate situation and in emergency response. This report clearly identified the value of trails for many other uses beyond recreation  as follows:

“Trails are often overlooked as elements of essential infrastructure for a resilient transportation system.1 In emergencies where other transportation facilities are shut down or inaccessible, people may use trails to get where they need to go. Trails can also provide critical access in emergencies for people without access to a car or transit service. Trails for both motorized and nonmotorized use can provide access for search and rescue, fighting wildfires, or other emergency response operations. The increase in trail use during the COVID-19 pandemic has also demonstrated the importance of trails for improving health and wellbeing during public health emergencies.”[7]

The growing recognition of the benefits of these types of resources for non-traditional uses has become more common. In 2023 the Governor of Vermont hiked almost a mile on snowmobile trail after roads around him were heavily impacted by Tropical Storms.[8]  The Organizations again would note that maintenance of these resources is critical and could be impacted by overly strict application of the ambiguities in the Proposal.

4. Governor Polis Executive Order 2020-008 requires coordination of management efforts to protect recreation and natural resources.

As previously addressed the both the economic value and social value that Colorado places on recreation and natural resources is immense and striking the proper balance of these values has been an ongoing effort in Colorado.   In 2020, Governor Polis signed Executive Order B-2020-008 that reaffirmed the need to balance all values in management efforts and avoid barriers to the long term funding necessary to achieve these goals as follows:

“A. DNR, in consultation with CPW and the CO-OP, shall develop the Initiative to achieve the following goals:

1. Ensure that Colorado’s land, water, and wildlife thrive while also providing for equitable and safe access to quality outdoor recreation experiences; ….

4. Identify stable and long-term funding from multiple, sustainable sources to provide for the critical investments needed to conserve Colorado’s landscapes, rivers, wildlife, sensitive habitats, and recreational opportunities.”[9]

As we have noted the CPW trails grants and program provide a model of the sustainable long term funding necessary to protect water resources and recreational opportunities.  The Organizations would assert that avoiding ambiguities in the Proposal, such as we are asking for, falls within the clear scope of this Executive Order and is required to be addressed.

5. Governor Polis recently reaffirmed the need for balance when the 2024 SCORP priority of maintenance.

The Governor and CPW recently reaffirmed their commitment with the release of the 2024 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan which was signed by Governor Polis in September 2024.   The 2024 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan identifies Priority number 1 as follows:

“Priority number 1: Access and Opportunity.  Goal: all Coloradans and visitor’s have access to and opportunity for sustainable outdoor recreation.”[10]

The need for maintenance of existing infrastructure is clearly identified as objective II under goal 1 as follows:

“Maintain and enhance the quality of outdoor recreation experience as and destinations through collaboration planning and holistic actions.”

The 2024 SCORP also identifies the priority that managers give to maintenance of recreational facilities as follows:

“A majority of survey takers would like land managers to prioritize operation and maintenance of existing outdoor areas and facilities.”[11]

Achieving these goals can only occur when the limited resources that are available to achieve these goals is effectively and efficiently applied on the ground.  In order to achieve the goals of the SCORP and requirements of EO2020-008 the Organizations submit that providing clear and unambiguous guidance for implementation of efforts to avoid impacts on program is a critical requirement.

6. Why we are asking for clarity and possible resolutions.

The Organizations believe the importance of all trails to the State of Colorado residents may be higher than any other state in the Country. Colorado residents also expect natural resources, such  as water to be protected. As we have noted there are many requirements to this effect in place, such as various environmental review requirements like NEPA and the Proposal. Based on a 50-year partnership with CPW, writing these goals is often much easier than implementing these goals and often there are unintended consequences from any efforts. We are also aware these types of consequences may be easily avoided as exemplified by the regulations provided under 36 CFR 220.6 for NEPA.

In our discussions with your office we agreed that maintenance of trails is outside the scope for this effort. This understanding is not clearly reflected in the Proposal, and several of the provisions are open to interpretation to avoid impacts to maintenance efforts.  While the Proposal allows exceptions to the permit requirements for maintenance and reconstruction of transportation structures in paragraph f and voluntary restoration efforts in ephemeral streams in paragraph M, there is significant ambiguity in these provisions. Is a trail a transportation structure.  We would say it is.  Could this change in the future?  Possibly.  Is trail maintenance a voluntary restoration effort of an ephemeral stream?

Our concern is there is no definition of a transportation structure or ephemeral stream in the Proposal. After briefly reviewing the Clean Water Act, these definitions are lacking in those statutes as well.  This causes us great concern as this means these terms are open to interpretation. Again we would think it was and based on our conversations, CDPHE seems to agree.  We are asking that these exclusions be clarified to avoid any ambiguity and reflect the consensus of understanding that was in our meeting.  The Organizations are aware that many decades from now, this understanding may not be easily identified and well intentioned efforts may resolve these ambiguities differently without understanding the impacts from that type of decision. The Organizations would ask that these ambiguities be resolved so that the critically needed funding flows from the trails program to on the ground projects that provide high quality recreational opportunities and protect water resources on the ground.

7. Conclusion.

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Proposal and hope that our concerns can be easily and quickly resolved in the rulemaking effort to avoid future impacts to programs from what is simply ambiguity in drafting. The Organizations again would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these concerns previously and hope our comments expand on our concerns addressed in that meeting. We are asking that the Proposal provide authority similar to the existing NEPA provisions for maintenance in this manner based on the USFS regulations found in 36 CFR 220.6, which specifically allows maintenance to occur outside the need for an EA or EIS. Given the clarity of existing NEPA regs on this issue, this would be a  minimum authority under the Proposal simply to avoid delays or questions in funding being used on the ground to protect resources.

The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com), Chad Hixon (719-221-8329 / chad@coloradotpa.org).

 

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

 

 

[1] A  copy of this video is available for review here: Restoring impacts from the East Troublesome Fire in the Sulphur Ranger District

[2] ‘Unacceptable’: Colorado’s federal lawmakers respond to U.S. Forest Service seasonal hiring freeze | KUNC

[3] More information on this legislation is available here Out-of-State Snowmobile Permit & Search Rescue Fee | Colorado General Assembly

[4] Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2023 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

[5] See, Page 4.   A copy of that report is attached as Exhibit “2”to these comments.

[6] See, CPW Trails Program Strategic Plan at pg. 5 – A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit  “3” to these comments.

[7] A complete copy of the 2023 report is available here: Trails and Resilience: Review of the Role of Trails in Climate Resilience and Emergency Response

[8] Vermont ravaged by ‘historic and catastrophic’ flooding as governor warns ‘this is nowhere near over’

[9] EO B2020 008 II A

[10] Copy of 2024 SCORP is available here: 2025 to 2029 SCORP – 2025 to 2029 SCORP Plan

[11] Pg. 8 of 2024 SCORP.

 

Continue Reading

DOGE Legislative Bundle Comments

Senator Marcia Blackburn
357 Dirksen Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Re: DOGE Legislative Bundle

Dear Senator Blackburn;

The above Organizations are reaching out to provide our thoughts and inputs on the bundle of 7 Legislative Proposals that have been released to create and facilitate operations of the new Division of Government Efficiency(“DOGE”). The Organizations welcome the DOGE effort and would like to provide input around our experiences with general issues and challenges addressed in these Proposals and that they are a major step towards returning the federal government financial challenges to a more stable position after the immense spending that has occurred over the last several years.  The challenges we have experienced generally within the DOGE proposals would include:

  • The budgeting process for land management agencies needs critical reform;
  • Staffing levels for federal land managers are woefully inadequate; and
  • Allocation of existing staff does not align with resolving problems on the ground.

The Organizations would also like to identify several general factors we have experienced in our partnerships with various federal agencies that have created systemic inefficiencies that are not addressed in the DOGE Proposals.  These issues would include:

  • Permitting process and its application;
  • Federal hiring processes and restrictive management models;
  • Management models that are simply out of date;
  • Partner and Club liability is an immense barrier to expanded support; and
  • Streamlining regulations around NEPA implementation.

The Organizations hope that this dialogue and effort will create a much more efficient and effective management process as generally the agencies we work with are facing unprecedented challenges. We believe the challenges that many of the land managers we work with appear to be very similar to the challenges facing firefighters responding to the LA Wildfires currently. The LA firefighters appear to be face responding to the fires with  historically low staffing levels in absolute numbers, staffing levels that have failed to grow with the needs of the communities they defend and then a lack resources necessary to do their jobs when called upon. Why this situation exists is complex. It appears that there may have been desire that many of the federal stimulus efforts would avoid cutting into operational budgets to achieve the goals of the stimulus efforts, it is clear that operational budgets have continued to decline in some cases. These fires exemplify the concerns the Organizations would have about similar impacts to federal lands managers, who have many of the same challenges, if corrections were not being made with these issues being understood. While the LA fires are presenting complex issues for management response, this is a cautionary tale of a situation that should be avoided.

Some of the issues we are raising could be resolved legislatively and the resolution of other challenges is better suited for rulemaking and others may simply take time to resolve by rebuilding trust between partners.  The Organizations are raising  all these issues in the hope of building greater understanding of the challenges we are facing and obtaining resolutions of those challenges in an coordinated and systemic manner. While recent funding packages have resolved some issues facing public lands, these temporary funding streams have created new challenges as well.

1. Who we are.

Prior to addressing the specific input of the Organizations on the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed as our partnerships with land managers are somewhat unique. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization representing the OHV community 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 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 the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multiple-use trail recreational opportunities. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport. CORE is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping motorized trails open in Central Colorado and the region. Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is comprised of Idahoans from all parts of the state with a wide spectrum of recreational interests and a love for the future of Idaho and a desire to preserve recreation for future generations. The Idaho State Snowmobile Association (“ISSA”)is an organization dedicated to preserving, protecting, and promoting snowmobiling in the great state of Idaho. Our members may come from every corner of the state, but they all share one thing in common: their love for snowmobiling. Nevada Off Road Association (NVORA) is a non-profit Corporation created for and by offroad riders. NVORA was formed to specifically fill the void between the government managers and the rest of us who actively recreate in the Silver State. NVORA does this by maintaining a consistent, durable, and respected relationship with all stakeholders while facilitating a cooperative environment amongst our community. Advocates for Multiple Use of Public Lands (“AMPL”) is an organization made up of passionate recreationists, which was formed in 2017.  Our focus includes the organization of public support and the creation of a unified voice to maintain and protect broad access to our public lands for motorized and well as non-motorized recreational uses in a cooperative and cohabitant manner. We believe in the coexistence of recreation and conservation for all. Collectively, TPA, NVORA, CSA, CORE, IRC, ISSA, AMPL and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations” for purposes of these comments.

The Organizations predominately partner with the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to provide sustainable outdoor recreational opportunities on public lands for more than 50 years in many areas. In most states, we work with a state level motorized group and then those groups partner with hundreds of local clubs that provide resources for sustainable recreational opportunities lands owned by public to private entities. In many States, our state level partners have voluntarily created OHV registration programs.  These state partnerships provide grant funds supporting large numbers of agency staff that sustain recreation, maintenance and management on Federal public lands.[1]  Thes funding opportunities through our state programs are predominately created and funded through our voluntary registration program for OHVs and Snowmobiles.  These programs are now providing between $200-$300 million annually to support these programs which are supplemented further by hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours. Often these programs are administered in partnership with State Parks, State Recreation or State Wildlife Divisions. Many federal lands management offices will vigorously assert that without these user funded programs, no projects or maintenance would get done in their Offices even with the stimulus funds in place. It should be noted that our Organizations are more apt to be partnering with the land management agencies to defend legal challenges to a land management decision rather than litigating a decision that was made. If we are forced to litigate a decision it is often the result of an overly politicized decision resulting from a monument designation or other political action.

If the Organizations were asked to summarize the status of our partner agencies, that summary would be “facing unprecedented challenges”.  The Organizations have experienced some exceptional success with land managers over the last several years. These successes have been isolated, and many offices have struggled badly simply to sustain themselves and others have moved backwards away from success all together.  Agency staffing levels have never been shorter and levels of conflicting goals for that limited staff have never been higher, which only compounds landscape level challenges. Often when new staff have been hired, they are in positions that do not resolve problems but rather create new barriers to management responses and barriers are being raised simply because the new hire does not understand the success of efforts in place or don’t like a particular usage. An example of the landscape challenges we have encountered with the various inventories that have been undertaken without any hope of resolving the underlying problem would be the BLM Solar Plan and BLM Sustainability Rule. Similar challenges have resulted from planning and staffing around protecting cultural resources and efforts that elevate possible impacts on limited portions of communities above clearly identified problems for all the community. Frustrations grow when these challenges result from dedicated funding in federal budgets to expand cultural or historic planning efforts, such as the large general budgetary funding directed towards the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This efforts have resulted from  employees that simply lack an understanding of federal planning as exemplified by efforts on several Ranger District where existing signs could not be replaced until a complete cultural inventory could be completed.

We are also aware of the compelling financial challenges facing the Country as a whole and are hoping this input will allow better understanding of how to address those financial challenges as well. The current level of disfunction results from many forces, some of which are addressed in the DOGE Proposals and others remain outside these Proposals.  Some of these challenges have resulted from recent changes with the agencies and others are the result of longer-term pressure on the agency. While the Organizations are aware that there is significant overlap of some of these categories and often these categories lack clearly defined boundaries, we hope these classifications streamline discussions.

2(a) Challenges within scope of DOGE legislation – Budgeting process.

While there have been many stimulus-type funding supplements for the agencies we work with, over this time we are also aware that basic operating budgets for the agencies have declined significantly and the budgeting process has been cumbersome at best. This situation creates major concern for any budget adjustments or reductions being proposed, such as the DOGE bundle of proposes board recissions in funding.

In our experience, a primary long-term challenge for our federal partners has been budgeting process for the agencies.  While many components of the Proposal address portions of the funding level challenges, the Organizations are raising this issue in the hope this information will lead to the most effective reforms possible. It has been our experience has been that often-simple changes to the budgeting process can yield major benefits.  One of the most effective reforms we have experienced was the “fire borrowing fix” that Congress provided to the Agencies in 2018, which resulted in far greater consistency and predictability for managers with their existing funds.  When managers were able to understand future funding at some level, our partnerships were able to identify shortfalls that can be addressed with grants to managers that leverage budget shortfalls for important projects. Some project driven challenges we can embrace and address and others are simply outside the scope of our programs or partnerships but are major barriers.

As an example of the impact of the lack of a consistent basic budget to effectively manage and create long-term responses based upon using partner resources would be the housing and compensation issues facing employees. Even with stimulus funding many federal staff we work with are unable to afford to live in the communities they are managing the lands around and this is an ongoing barrier to success on the ground. We are aware of several forests looking at proving housing on federal lands for their employees and that there are discussions around reducing or removing income taxes on salaries of federal employees in order to provide a more competitive salary package for the employees. These are responses that are outside the scope of the DOGE Proposal and outside the scope of our partnerships these are barriers that can only be resolved with a basic budget for the agency that supports consistent staff working with partners and fixing problems.

Any response must recognize that certain agencies were provided FAR more funding under stimulus Proposals while other agencies were largely ignored for funding support. While we understand that some agencies are perceived to provide opportunities that are more valuable to the public or span the entire country, this does not alter the fact that these agencies also manage a tiny percentage of the Federal land ownership.  We would ask that basic equity be provided in the budgeting process for all land management agencies as all acres of federal lands are valuable to the public, regardless of the management agency. We would ask for the creation of a sustainable budget in the DOGE process without earmarks or other restrictions before addressing cuts. Understanding the shortfalls of existing budgeting and impacts of stimulus type spending will ensure that a more efficient and effective management process is developed from the DOGE efforts.

It has been our experience that legislative efforts that adopted a bottom-up effort to support the agencies budgets have worked better than legislative efforts that adopted a top-down model for their efforts. Trying to resolve challenges without an accurate understanding of the challenges rarely succeeds and many of the recent stimulus bills have adopted this top-down management model.  As an example, we saw significant benefits from the Great American Outdoors Act funding that started in 2020 as this effort adopted a bottom-up model of proposal development.  Other later efforts were far less effective despite providing exponentially larger amounts of funding as too often arbitrary goals were included with the subsequent funding that ignored on-the-ground challenges. While this distinction may seem small the impacts are significant.  The Organizations would support development of a basic operational budget as this would be applying the same bottom-up model of management we have seen to be successful and avoids creating conflicts.

2(b) Challenge within scope of DOGE legislation – Overall staffing levels.

One of the most consistent problems the Organizations have experienced is the complete lack of permanent federal staff in most offices we work with, and this issue appears to be worse than positions available to fix issues on the ground. This concern is most directly addressed in the Federal Freeze Act provision of the DOGE bundle.  Most offices have had skeleton crews for many years, and we commonly see 50% or more of positions open in offices or occupied by people in an acting role.  Many of our state programs provide funding to hire agency staff to perform trail maintenance and other roles.  It has become all too common that more than 50% of this funding is returned as agency staff is never hired. Even when we are hiring crews and funding agency employees, managers must participate in the process. This is an immense barrier to management and partnerships as we cannot collaborate with an empty desk.  The Organizations have heard similar concerns from almost every partner we work with on this issue. We address possible responses to this issue outside mere funding in section 3(b) of these comments but are including these concerns here simply to ensure the true scope of the challenge is recognized.

The challenges that this situation present are immense. These challenges are compounded when offices are hiring staff to engage with a particular community or interest, while they are closing their offices to the general public due to a lack of staff for the public office. This is a situation that has not been resolved and may have been made worse with many of the top-down mandates of the stimulus bills.  While there may be staff to create reports or engage with particular communities, the general public engagement has declined significantly and too often this is overlooked.  Efforts such as the “community navigators” effort and efforts to “connect communities with trees” from the USFS and the connecting communities efforts from the BLM can only work if on the ground staffing issues are addressed.  Closing offices to public access due to a lack of staff to support these other initiatives will not be successful. Rather than improving engagement, the result of this situation is all members of the public are simply equally underserved, and no problems are actually resolved.

2(c) Challenges within scope of DOGE legislation – Allocation of existing staff.

It has been the Organizations experience that generally federal land management agencies are horribly short on staff who are employed to actually fix problems, which compounds the critical shortage of staff generally. Generally, the availability of staff who primarily use a shovel to fix problems has declined, while the number of management staff that use a pen has greatly increased. Often staff generating reports and strategies entirely lacked on-the-ground experience with the agency, which only compounded the shortage of on-the-ground employees. In other situations,  agency staff  simply was not in the right place to resolve issues on the ground but were forced to address political goals of funding.

We are raising this concern as several portions of the DOGE bundle of legislative proposals seek to return employees to the Office or the SHOW UP act.  While returning employees to the office maybe critically needed for many agencies, if agency staff for land management agencies increases in the office, we would be VERY concerned.  Stimulus funding appeared to target more office-based staff and may have accelerated existing trends of more administrative staff than field or seasonal staff.  Often seasonal type positions did not benefit from stimulus funding at the same levels of resources directed to political goals. Put another way, we need less GS10 plus positions working in the offices and actually hire more GS 5-10 positions working to fix problems and working with partners.

We would like to highlight a couple of our experiences to allow understanding of the cumulative impacts poor alignment of on the ground operations with landscape efforts  as they extend far beyond closing offices to the public.  We are aware of several Offices that have undergone extensive trail bridge inventories funded by stimulus money. These trail bridge inventories were rapidly performed as stimulus money was starting to expire and staff failed to engage partner groups or local community leaders who would be impacted by the decisions of the inventory.  Many of these partners had bridges where repairs were shovel ready and then not addressed as the inventory was given priority.  Engagement did not occur despite the fact these partners had safely maintained these trail bridges for decades with almost no federal support  and often existing bridge maintenance schedules are further behind than ever before after the inventory.

This failure created immense and immediate problems as inventories applied highway bridge standards for trail bridges, despite objections of partners.  Concerns from partners that highway standards for bridges were impossible to comply with and could functionally made the project impossible to complete were simply overlooked. When the partners who would be responsible for repairing these resources continued to press managers around concerns on this issue, these concerns exploded when partners learned  these “inventories” may not have even been in writing and were performed by minimally trained staff. As a result of this inventory by poorly trained agency staff, agencies are now pushing for an emergency closure of any bridge found possibly insufficient to comply with highway standards. The impact of this situation on partners exploded when it was disclosed that while stimulus money may have funded the inventory, there is no funding to repair any of the trail bridges. Many of the small communities that are now being asked to support vast new bridge repairs to completely unrealistic standards are the same communities that would be hugely impacted by lost economic contributions to their communities.  The failure of these efforts to be aligned with existing resources is highlighted as there is no mention of the numerous Legislative and Executive Orders in place requiring recreational access and economic benefits to be specifically analyzed and addressed has been provided in discussions.

A second example of these staffing challenges have far ranging impacts is the situations is provided by a situation our local partners have far too frequently encountered.  Many have been the recipients of requirements for emergency response type training as part of  trail volunteer efforts and often made without a basic understanding of costs, training requirements and insurance requirements. This situation is been exemplified by demands that trail maintenance volunteers must be first aid certified, carry emergency radio communication and AED devices along with medical response equipment for the use of efforts well beyond trail maintenance. Some volunteers have been maintaining routes for decades under special recreation permits, and often these new requirements have arisen 3 or 4 years into a 10-year permit. While a desire to provide emergency response is commendable, this is not an effort that should be targeted at a volunteer OHV club performing maintenance. These clubs, and the land managers, are not the proper agency to provide emergency response type services and lack basic training in these areas.  These clubs also cannot get insurance for these types of efforts and the public is largely unwilling to volunteer for these types of efforts simply due to liability concerns. While a large commercial permit operator might be able to absorb these types of demands, a small volunteer club is simply unable to provide this level of support. When our clubs responded to these concerns, it was immediately clear these were issues that were not even thought of when the discussion was opened by the well intentioned manager. The conflict that resulted was immense.

Unfortunately, these situations have extended far beyond the project level into major planning efforts that can span decades.   In our third situation, we engaged with a planning unit to undertake updating a travel plan for snowmobiles in an area identified for expansion of snowmobile opportunities in their new forest plan starting in 2016. By the time overly cautious planners had completed the plan, the snowmobile community had lost most of the opportunities in the planning area due to concerns around user conflicts, ESA issues and many other nonexistent challenges.  This decision was vacated and ordered to be redone to align with the RMP after a decision was issued in 2021. After this court determination, the planning unit had moved to priorities other than the winter travel plan. This situation could only be resolved after letters from every state and federal elected official in the area received requesting the planning effort be restarted.  Despite the passage of several years since the decision being withdrawn, public discussions on access to the area are scheduled to restart in the first quarter of 2025.

In some situations, we have been able to resolve issues like these with existing relationships, often these resolutions have been a VERY long and hugely frustrating process.  In some instances, we had relationships that allowed us to contact supervisors who were willing to step in and address the issues. This has not been the norm, as far too frequently the supervisor was acting or lacked the background or political will to address the challenge.  Often political pressures forced managers to engage with new efforts to protect resources that were never at risk of loss or from initiatives that were never aligned with planning requirements or other initiatives.  The limited effectiveness of some initiatives resulted from additional funding created conflicts with ongoing efforts rather than resolving conflicts.  Resolving these types of impacts will be a challenge as these failures stopped projects and often broke trust between managers and partners.

The Organizations believe full transparency on this issue is important as some projects have experienced challenges and stalled, others projects have resolved challenges raced forward with implementation and found huge success.  The conflict created from these situations is compounded by the fact that many offices have been highly effective in using the same resources to reopen trails that had been ignored for decades or heavily impacted by fires and floods.  While some Districts have completed very little on the ground, adjacent district worked with partners and effectively used similar resources for maintenance and reopened hundreds of miles of trails that had been fire impacted and not maintained for decades. The stark contrast between the effectiveness of these Offices did not resolve conflict or build trust with partners.

2(c) Challenge within scope of DOGE legislation – too many unproductive meetings.

The failure to align local and national efforts has also created challenges for partners simply due to the large number of repetitive meetings our representatives must attend. The portions of the DOGE bundle that most directly relates to this concern is the Relocating Federal Bureaucracy Act.  The growth of office staff has resulted in new challenges for partners, which is mainly that there are too many meetings with overlapping jurisdictions and efforts.  Often local and regional outreach efforts are poorly coordinated and we end up collaborating on the same issue multiple times or are engaged in issues that are not directly related to the challenges we are concerned about simply to avoid problems arising when efforts get off track.

This type of situation has been consistently exhibited by the newly Congressionally designated Foundation for public lands for the BLM. In our meetings with representatives, these presentations have lacked substance or even a basic understanding of who they are presenting too. This simply creates conflicts on the ground.  We often hear from local partners that are looking for guidance on how to resolve the occurrence of multiple meetings on the same evenings.  This has proven difficult as many assert to be solving the same issues.   We would ask that rather than having more meetings, we have better meetings to address issues in a coordinated and thoughtful manner.

3(a) Unresolved challenges- permitting process and expanding scope of partners.

The Organizations are also aware of numerous existing programs that remain badly in need of reform and this reform has never occurred.  The permitting process for events have almost stalled completely as a result of these types of issues and challenges.  The Organizations have developed a detailed white paper on this issue which is available upon request.   Some of these concerns were addressed in the recently passed Explore Act but many were not. Unfortunately, permitting challenges extend beyond events, as far too often partner maintenance efforts were managed as for profit permittees rather than partner efforts to support the Offices. The host of problems this has created are immense.  This resulted in immense conflict with overly strict applications of general permitting requirements being applied to partner efforts. While it may be acceptable to require first aid training and medical equipment be provided by a for profit outfitter, these types of requirements are an immense burden on a volunteer or partner funded trail crew. May not be reimbursable under grants that are funding the project and often are not covered by insurance that is obtained.  Many volunteers are more than willing to maintain trails but have little interest in volunteer emergency response efforts as they are simply not trained in this area and are unwilling to accept the liability from this type of response.

3(b) Unresolved challenges – inflexible Federal hiring processes and overly restrictive management models.

One of the largest barriers we have encountered with land managers has been their inability to hire lower level staff through the federal hiring process. We raise this issue as these challenges extend beyond funding and budgeting and seem to disproportionally impact staff at levels where their job is to fix problems on the ground which compounds budgeting and funding issues.  Some of the most successful efforts in making land management efforts more efficient and effective have not involved cutting or expanding budgets but rather resolving barriers in the process of management exemplified by Fire Borrowing fix provided by Congress in 2018.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the federal hiring process is another example of an issue that could be resolved without spending significant funding.  It has been our experience that immense barriers to hiring have resulted from the centralized hiring process and USAJobs.com platform for USFS and BLM staff.  While we are aware this process was implemented to create efficiency, the Organizations would submit the impact has been exactly the opposite, especially at lower-level positions.

The Organizations would submit that reforming and refining the usajobs.com website would be  a major step forward as many positions simply do not warrant hiring solely from the federal database.  The failure of the usajobs.com process is foundational.  While a USFS Forest Supervisor or BLM Field Office Manager may be willing to relocate for that level of position, any assertion that the centralized hiring process benefits lower level positions would be misplaced.  Lower-level employees often are unwilling or unable to relocate long distances for temporary positions, making any assertion of efficiency of this model for these positions problematic at best.  The Usajobs.com hiring process is horribly slow and often jobs are only open to apply for at times of the year that are unrelated to the timing of the position.  Seasonal hires and lower-level GS employees simply will not apply months in advance for a position that may only last a few months.  The overly formalized nature of usajobs.com is further evidenced by the fact that often employees who comply with overly strict requirements for positions are not good fits for the position. Too often we have seen equipment operator positions advertised as needing a 4 year degree but no actual experience operating equipment. This is simply a process failure. Word of mouth and personal invitations to apply for positions has been highly effective in hiring lower level positions and the value of these relationships has been greatly reduced in the usajobs.com formalized process.

While USAjobs is a major barrier we have been able to partner and create improved hiring and retention processes for staff,  such as the adaptation of the hiring process for seasonal employees from purely seasonal employees to permanent seasonal employees.  This change has been the result of managers attempting to retain new hires after they have been trained as a seasonal employee moving them from a seasonal employee to a permanent seasonal employee. This allowed the exceptionally limited recruitment efforts for seasonal and lower level employees to become more effective as these employees now have a career path and this has proven to be a major retention tool for these employees.  This minimal change has made a difference on the ground and gives us hope that even minimal reforms to the usajobs.com process could yield major benefits in recruiting and retaining high quality staff to resolve problems on the ground. Our request would be to undertake a LEAN review applying the six sigma planning process on the entire hiring process for the agencies. While we are unsure of if this is a regulatory requirement, legal requirements or something that could be just undertaken we have performed similar reviews on our grant programs at the State level and the success has been significant.

The Organizations experience with overly formalized and inflexible management processes extend far beyond hiring processes.  Our partners have been far too consistently receiving request for our grant programs to begin paying fleet costs for equipment that the fleet program neither maintains or replaces.  Rather this is equipment that our programs have purchased for land managers who lack the resources to purchase this type of equipment in their budget.  In addition to obtaining this equipment, we also provide funding to hire employees to operate the equipment, train employees and maintain the equipment.  When the equipment has reached the end of its service life, we also expect to provide grant funding to replace or rebuild the equipment. While the Organizations and our partners have accepted all costs of this equipment through our programs, we continue to hear demands for our grants to cover fleet service costs that are “required” for all equipment the agency uses.  Given that we have never found fleet management type programs to have funding to replace or maintain specialized equipment, the frustration from this type of overly rigid process expands when offices have not used our funding to hire staff to operate equipment and then are demanding fleet costs for a piece of equipment that was not used that season as the staff was never hired.

3(c). Unresolved challenges- Many  land management concepts are simply out of date.

The Organizations would vigorously support an overall efficiency review for the hiring process and we would vigorously support this type of review in the lands management process. Many concepts and ideas foundational to planning are simply out of date or resolved almost completely. The Executive Orders governing travel management need to be updated and presumptions around compliance with various requirements could be provided around efforts to date to streamline planning.  As an example, EO 11644 includes provisions commonly identified as the “minimization criteria” for travel planning, which require motorized usage impacts on other uses, wildlife and resources to be minimized. The challenges around the horribly out of date nature of the travel management process is exhibited by the fact the Order has remained almost entirely unchanged since 1972. For comparison, cutting edge technology in the home was an electric toaster.

Not only are the concepts of the minimization criteria badly out of date in these Executive Orders, they are highly arbitrary and poorly defined, which has resulted in huge amounts of litigation and time spent in planning.  In the 50 plus years that have passed since these requirements were put in place, almost every planning area we have engaged with has satisfied the minimization criteria in planning.  Many areas have completed this effort multiple times. We have participated in many planning efforts where mapping of routes and roads can be completed quickly but addressing questions like minimization then takes years to resolve. With the inclusion of a presumption that when a unit is updating travel plans in that unit, that the minimization efforts have been completed already for the area would cut years out of the travel management and planning process. This would result in a far more efficient and effective planning process.

Another example of the efficiency that could be achieved with updating EO 11644 would be exemplified by the challenges that land managers have seen with the use of electric bicycles on public lands.  Ebikes are becoming very common in many areas and are motorized vehicles by definition.  If EO 11644 and other regulations was updated similar low power exceptions could be created for off road usage could be created as have been provided for decade for these vehicles on roads. This would be hugely effective and efficient in providing effective management responses to issues.

3d. Unresolved challenges – Partner/Club liability

The Organizations are in a highly unique position compared to many other recreational interests as a result of the large amount of management staff, equipment and other resources our programs currently provide for public lands.  Despite the fact these programs are highly effective in supplementing land manager budgets, many of our local partners have been pushed towards more active partnerships and roles in public lands management.  Many of our larger clubs have already become 501c3 non-profits and are working as general contractors on projects, buying equipment to lease to land managers and taking many other new roles.  One of the largest barriers we have encountered has been the inability of our clubs to obtain cost-effective insurance for these types of projects and often simply insuring projects and efforts costs more than the effort itself. These clubs are becoming important components of the funding streams and need to be protected like the individual members. Many of our members have spent weeks engaging with insurance companies but have found these types of efforts are simply too small an economic sector for the insurer and the many layers of regulatory steps on public lands makes the process far too complex. As a result, these insurers simply walk away from a highly complex niche market for their product.

The Organizations are aware that there are many protections provided to federal land managers to reduce individual risks and liability from management efforts they donate on public lands. In many states we have succeeded in obtaining limited immunity, similar to that which is provided to the government for many actions, for nonprofit groups providing public benefit projects on public lands. Providing similar levels of protection to nonprofits performing public benefit projects  federally would provide a large amount of protections to our organizations in a far more streamlined model than the current jumble of permits, cost share challenge agreements, volunteer agreements and possible leases now being explored. This would basically provide similar protections that governmental agencies have had for decades to the nonprofit partners that are now being asked to function as land managers in many areas.

3e. Unresolved challenge -Streamlining NEPA and similar regulations.

The Organizations are very concerned that many of the recent planning efforts that have been undertaken have not streamlined planning efforts but rather added significant new levels of complexity to planning. The newly released BLM Sustainability Rule will be a significant barrier to land management efforts for decades and not provide significant new funding for federal lands. The BLM Solar is structured to disproportionately impact multiple use recreational infrastructure. Generally, many of these national level plans have not been well received with state or local BLM offices. Our experiences with the newly Congressionally designated Foundation for America’s Public lands have been marginal at best as often presenters have demonstrated an exceptionally poor understanding of efforts in place. These will be major challenges to correct.

While we have experienced many challenges from new regulations, we are also pleased that US Forest Service efforts to streamline planning efforts have been successful. In 2019 the USFS finalized regulations under 36 CFR Part 220 for USFS to effectively use CE planning requirements to create benefits on the ground.  Currently BLM does not have this ability and we would vigorously assert that these regulations should be clearly provided  under BLM regulations as well.  Many forests have been periodically meeting to streamline and facilitate CE efforts on small projects, which in isolation could be a major benefit that would be easily overlooked.  Regulations are now being used to effectively and efficiently provide sustainable recreational opportunities on public lands.

4. Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously support development of sustainable resources and have been actively involved in efforts to achieve these goals for decades. We welcome this effort and would like to provide input around our experiences with general issues and challenges addressed in these Proposals to date.  We would also like to identify several factors we have experienced in our partnerships with various federal agencies that have created systemic inefficiencies that are not addressed in the Proposals.  We would welcome further discussions and collaboration on how to make all phases of the federal government more efficient and effective. We are aware this undertaking is massive and will take many years to complete. The Organizations, and all the partners we represent, would like to express a strong  desire is to look back at the completion of this groundbreaking effort and celebrate a successful effort.

The Organizations hope that this dialogue and effort will create a much more efficient and effective management process as generally the agencies we work with are broken.  Some of the issues we are raising could be resolved legislatively and the resolution of other challenges is better suited for rulemaking and others may simply take time to resolve by rebuilding trust between partners.  We are raising all these issues in the hope of building greater understanding of the challenges we are facing and obtaining resolution of those challenges in an coordinated and systemic manner. While recent funding packages have resolved some issues facing public lands, these temporary funding streams have created new challenges as well.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com).

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director -IRC
Authorized Representative – ISSA

Will Mook
Executive Director
AMPL

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director
Nevada Off-Road Association

 

[1] As an example of the programs we partner through here is a link to the California State OHV program OHMVR Division and Colorado State OHV program Off-Highway Vehicle Grants | Colorado Parks and Wildlife and New Hampshire OHV/OSV programs NH State Parks – Grant-In-Aid.

Continue Reading

BLM Finalized San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan

Due in large part to your public comments, we are sharing a better than expected outcome from the BLM’s finalized San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan (TMP) released yesterday afternoon.

While we did lose a few existing single-track trails, in other instances we gained mileage through newly designated OHV-limited routes and other previously undesignated trails that are now designated.

We still believe the baseline inventory of Alternative A (no action) was inaccurate and the BLM still should address other planning needs ahead of this TMP—like amending the Price Field Office Resource Management Plan and developing a Special Recreation Area Management Plan— but we’re grateful this outcome wasn’t worse for off highway motorcycle trail riders.

Your advocacy made a huge impact! With over 6,000 comments submitted, including overwhelming support for the infamous Five Miles of Hell and Waterfall trails, your voices ensured a more positive result for motorcycle recreation.

Thank you for your continued support in protecting our trails – you do make a difference!

To read the full decision, visit https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/1500146/510

Continue Reading

2024 Ride with Respect Year in Review

Ride with Respect logo - ridewithrespect.org
Reprinted with permission
 Ride With Respect Year in Review 2024

www.ridewithrespect.org

 


In 2024, Ride with Respect (RwR) focused on fighting a wave of excessive restrictions to recreational access that swept across Utah while continuing our stewardship work around Moab. If you love motorized trails, and haven’t already volunteered or donated this year, you can still send a check to Ride with Respect, 395 McGill Avenue, Moab Utah 84532. (Be sure to indicate if you’d like the receipt to show 2024 for tax-deduction purposes.) RwR has been blessed with many contributors at every level, including these ones who gave over a thousand dollars this year:

  1. Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation (UDOR)
  2. Anonymous
  3. Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA)
  4. Peter Lawson
  5. Moab Tour Company
  6. KMAC Corporation
  7. Anonymous
  8. Balance Resources
  9. Rob Stickler
  10. Grand County Recreation Special Service District
  11. John Borg
  12. Rocky Mountain ATV/MC
  13. Timberline Trailriders
  14. Xtreme 4×4 Tours
  15. Dave McEuen, CPA for HEB Business Solutions

Trail Work

Maintaining and improving trails is a key component to keep them open and enjoyable for all kinds of visitors as well as the animal inhabitants. In 2024 RwR staff and volunteers spent another few-hundred hours performing trail work (see photos), mostly state land like Sovereign Trail and Upper Twomile, but also on federal land in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This year much of our work was in tandem with UDOR’s new regional trail crew that’s based in Moab to work on motorized and non-motorized trails in southeast Utah. As the state is increasingly investing in this crew, it is our privilege to share RwR’s knowledge of the Moab-area trails, types of trail work, and tools for getting it done. As the state steps up in this way, RwR will continue to help maximize the productivity of UDOR’s regional trail crew.

Additionally RwR has organized several OHV trail hosts who volunteer monthly to perform light-duty maintenance, promote minimum-impact practices, and monitor conditions. Finally RwR has assisted the Motorized Trails Committee (MTC) of Grand County to do several-hundred hours of its own trail work in 2024. For the fifth year, I (Clif) was proud to chair the MTC, which has enjoyed regular attendance from BLM and Grand County staff, as well as long-time MTC members like Jeff Stevens, Kathy Tustanowski, Dave Hellman, Zane Taylor, Reid Bakken, Nick Oldham, Jason Taylor, and Dave Cozzens. This year’s most notable MTC rake & rides were to White Knuckle Hill and the Cliffhanger Waterfall where we ramped the rock ledges of less-difficult lines while leaving the more-difficult lines untouched.

Education

This past year, RwR encouraged responsible recreation practices through routine measures like hosting a booth at the Green River Dirt Bike Rally. Education is a significant outcome of my time volunteering on the BLM’s Utah Resource Advisory Council along with the board of three other nonprofits. NOHVCC and the American Motorcyclist Association continue to do important work that all trail riders should support. The Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) has emerged as the most active statewide coalition of recreational access advocates. Last month UPLA released this video introducing the most tax-efficient ways to support any 501c3 organization.

RwR assisted the MTC to refine educational messages this past year. In several ways, the MTC provided input on the development of Grand County’s Motorized Trail Ambassador program, which is primarily funded by a state Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation (OHVR) grant. Also the MTC began to identify minimum-impact practices specific to graded roads (see attached “2024-09-10 MTC letter re graded-road education”). When OHV operators become aware of the cost to maintain graded roads for all types of use, they’re more likely to minimize wheelspin and moderate speed (especially around blind corners) so that everyone can safely use and enjoy graded roads. Such cooperation would prevent the need to strictly enforce a 25-mph speed limit, which doesn’t account for things like road alignment, ground conditions, vehicle width, vehicle capability, or operator experience.

The Utah OHV Program intends to more directly address graded roads in its education. Utah OHV Program manager Chase Pili is transferring to the DNR’s new Division of Law Enforcement, but his successor can utilize education specialists within UDOR. In just three years since UDOR was established, Chase helped develop an adult OHV education course, regional trail crews, and the evolution of OHV-related grant programs. We appreciate Chase’s accomplishments and his ability to take challenges in stride while serving responsible OHV recreation. We trust that Chase will continue serving it through his new position.

E-Bike use of Moab Mountain Bike Trails

As with UTVs, e-bikes (bicycles with electric motors to boost power) offer new recreation opportunities that also call for additional management. The BLM’s Moab Field Office wisely initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the effects of potentially allowing Class 1 e-bikes (limited to 750 watts of power up to 20 mph through pedal assistance and no throttle) on all of its trails that are currently open to analog (non-electric) mountain bikes with the exception of those that enter wilderness study areas (WSAs) or USFS land.

RwR assisted the MTC in producing recommendations to the Grand County Commission (see second page of attached “2024-11-08 RwR comm re e-bikes on MTB trails”). Essentially the MTC recommended asking the BLM to:

  1. Plan for the growing continuum of electric two-wheelers (from Class 1 e-bikes to electric motorcycles) largely by improving the quality and quantity of existing motorized singletrack,
  2. Include an alternative in the Draft EA that would fully consider allowing Class 1 e-bike use of all the trails listed in scoping, and
  3. Work with other government entities and industry to further establish e-bike classification that’s enforceable so that it’s manageable.

The Grand County Commission drafted a letter that included the MTC’s first point, but excluded the second and third points, instead supporting the Trail Mix Committee’s suggestion to only open the MOAB Brands trail system to Class 1 e-bikes for now in order to see how it goes. At the commission meeting, I reiterated the MTC’s points (minutes 0:03:30 to 0:08:00 of this video). Then the commission deliberated (minutes 0:56:00 to 1:19:00) and ultimately approved its draft letter unchanged. Nevertheless the BLM could choose to develop one alternative that opens the MOAB Brands trails to e-bikes, and another alternative that opens all the listed trails. Further, the new commission will have a chance to comment on the Draft EA in 2025.

In the meantime, RwR chose to support the MTC’s recommendations, and we incorporated them into the comments that RwR submitted to the BLM. While we appreciate Trail Mix’s concerns and suggestions, we also appreciate the years of research and serious thought that went into the MTC recommendations. Ultimately we believe that the input of both committees should be analyzed by the alternatives of a Draft EA.

Labyrinth Rims TMP

As described in our 2023 Year in Review, the BLM decision to close 317 miles of designated routes in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges travel management plan (TMP) is being appealed by RwR in partnership with TPA, COHVCO, and CORE. This year we challenged the completeness of the administrative record (AR) since it’s supposed to include Labyrinth Rims correspondence that was directly or indirectly considered by the decisionmaker who, in this case, is the manager of the Moab Field Office. We know of such correspondence between the decisionmaker and all higher levels of the BLM (Canyon Country District, Utah State office, and the headquarters in D.C. including the BLM’s deputy director who actually represented the Wilderness Society in 2017 when signing the settlement agreement that directed the BLM to revisit its TMP in Labyrinth Rims). After much back-and-forth, the BLM provided several more documents, which inform our appeal through the IBLA as well as the companion case that the State of Utah and BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) are spearheading in federal court. However even more relevant correspondence exists, and we don’t know how the IBLA will handle it, but we are optimistic that the BLM will be more willing to accommodate motorized recreation opportunities after the change of administration.

In fact, we anticipate that the next administration will close far fewer routes in Utah through the TMPs and will add far fewer new restrictions to its resource management plans (RMPs). The planning participation and appeals of all these OHV groups along with the State of Utah has laid the groundwork for this course correction. Now we must follow through to ensure a reasonable outcome in Labyrinth Rims and elsewhere across the state.

This past February, this newspaper article described how most motorized trail enthusiasts believe that the Labyrinth Rims closures resulted from the BLM being largely captured by groups seeking to vastly expand the designation of wilderness, which prohibits mechanized travel including bicycling, while other motorized trail enthusiasts believe the closures resulted from excessive negative impacts of the motorized routes. Unfortunately both camps are correct. Decisions like the Labyrinth Rims closures were in fact primarily influenced by wilderness-expansion groups through the current administration, which calls for resistance through engagement in the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches. However excessive negative impacts greatly enable the wilderness-expansion groups to win the sympathy of some land managers, local residents, and even judges.

To deny the influence of negative impacts, some point to the fact that most of the Labyrinth Rims closures occurred where motorized use is relatively low, and that most of the BLM’s stated rationale was not based on misbehavior by motorized users. However this denial overlooks a couple major points. First, the official BLM rationale often differs from the real motivation for closure, as the agency may use whatever excuse seems most likely to hold up in court. Perhaps the agency realizes courts would rule that misbehavior is most appropriately corrected at the level of the individual perpetrator rather than an entire user group. Perhaps the agency believes it’d be more difficult for motorized trail enthusiasts to refute a resource specialist’s claim of potential impacts. Second, the level of use doesn’t equate to the level of impact, and assuming that use equals impact is exactly why land managers often close routes with use levels that are lower currently. They leave routes of higher use alone because they’re popular and the damage is already done, but they close routes of lower use to prevent the eventual spread of use and the negative impacts that they assume will inevitably follow.

Fortunately in reality the level of use is merely one factor in the level of impact. Other factors include individual behavior (which is influenced by education and enforcement) along with the route’s location, trail design, maintenance, and other forms of management. In Labyrinth Rims, RwR spent a couple-thousand hours rerouting a couple-dozen trails, which were problem spots where RwR proposed a solution that the BLM analyzed and approved for RwR to then implement. In 2023, all but three of the two-dozen reroutes were spared from closure. RwR and its partners are currently appealing the closure of those three reroutes because the BLM’s rationale simply doesn’t add up. Nevertheless we credit the BLM for its work on the other twenty-one reroutes, which probably would’ve been closed if not for RwR’s work, thus the investment was worthwhile for motorized recreationists along with the conservation benefits. Although legal work and other advocacy are essential ingredients, helping land managers solve problems can pay off because agency decisions are sometimes based on realities on the ground.

Even when those in the administrative, legislative, or judicial branches understand that recreation can be managed in a more sophisticated manner than simply containing a problem, excessive negative impacts nevertheless provide them with political cover to close routes because they mistakenly hope closure will be easier than active management. This cover is effective even when the closures and impacts don’t align geographically. So it’s on us to call out premature closure, yet it’s also on us to promote responsible riding practices and the stewardship of public lands. Basic measures like staying precisely on the trail and slowing down when passing other people or animals serves the interest of our own form of recreation, the public, and the planet.

Dolores River TMP

The Moab Field Office initiated another TMP as directed by the 2017 settlement, this one called Dolores River because it covers routes on both sides of the river (east to the Colorado state line and west to the beginning of Top of The World Trail) from Polar Mesa at the south end to Dry Gulch at the north end. Again in partnership with TPA, COHVCO, and CORE, RwR submitted these scoping comments emphasizing that a thorough route inventory is needed to meet the 2017 settlement’s intent of revisiting the 2008 TMP decision, then we gave a couple examples of valuable and viable existing routes that were inventoried but closed in 2008, plus a couple examples of valuable and viable existing routes that weren’t even inventoried in 2008 and ought to finally be considered for designation. Our comments also emphasized that the 2017 settlement may require developing an alternative that closes routes in WSAs and natural areas, but not in other lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) where the RMP decided not to manage for wilderness characteristics. Further, closing routes for wilderness characteristics in those LWCs would contradict the RMP. Finally we emphasized that the forthcoming draft EA should fully account for the fact that most closures would negatively impact local socio-economics, reduce the trail system’s carrying capacity, reduce practical access for non-motorized uses, reduce compliance of the TMP, reduce sustainability of the remaining routes, increase crowding and conflicts, reduce the stewardship capacity of motorized recreation groups, and reduce the agency’s readiness for emerging technologies such as electric vehicles.

The Grand County Commission drafted a letter very similar to its 2021 request for so many closures in Labyrinth Rims, so RwR commented during their meeting (minutes 0:23:00 to 0:29:30 of this video). Then the commission deliberated (minutes 2:52:00 to 3:31:30) and ultimately approved its draft letter with slight improvements to acknowledge that it may be appropriate for motorized routes to cross riparian areas and that topography can be factored in to meet the commission’s request for 30% of the planning area to be at least 0.5 miles from any motorized route and 15% of the planning area to be at least 1 mile from any motorized route. The meeting is summarized in this newspaper article. RwR welcomes these improvements, but they should go much further to achieve the balance espoused by the commission’s letter, and we look forward to working with the next commission on the forthcoming Draft EA.

San Rafael Swell TMP

Another TMP that’s just as important as Labyrinth Rims is the San Rafael Swell, which actually includes Chimney Rock to the northeast and the Mussentuchit area to the southwest. The BLM released a Draft EA with only one acceptable alternative (Alternative D). The more that RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE investigated the Swell TMP, the more fundamental problems we found, so we wound up commenting in a first, second, and third wave. Before doing a TMP, the BLM should complete its overdue congressional requirement to implement the Dingell Act by amending the Price RMP so a management direction is established for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and acres released from WSA status among other things. Then, for accurate TMP analysis, the no-action alternative should reflect the fact that no TMP has yet to be completed for much of the planning area (which is why the 2008 RMP aimed to complete its TMP within five years, only to be stalled by SUWA’s RMP suit that culminated in the 2017 settlement). The planning area also includes over a hundred miles of existing routes that were permanently closed by Dingell Act wilderness designation, which displaces use that should be accommodated by the San Rafael Swell TMP. The Draft EA mistakenly assumed that closing hundreds of miles of routes, as in alternatives B and C, would have negligible socio-economic impact on Emery and Wayne counties. In fact, closing just one trail like Five Miles of Hell or Waterfall Trail, as in Alternative B, couldn’t be replaced in comparable terrain because the Dingell Act prohibits the construction of new motorized routes in the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area or the 17 wilderness areas in Emery County. Also alternatives B and C propose to disproportionately close routes in LWC, which suggests that closures would be for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics despite no such directive coming from the Dingell Act, 2017 settlement, 2008 RMP, or (most importantly) Congress.

At the tail end of 2024, the BLM released a decision that’s essentially a hybrid of alternatives B and C, which is inadequate for all the aforementioned reasons, so we are prepared to appeal it. Hopefully, under the next administration, the BLM will see the wisdom of regrouping to build a more solid foundation. The Swell is renowned for motorized trails, and the Dingell Act designated half of it as wilderness, so the remaining half will depend on developing a TMP more thoroughly.

Henry Mountains TMP

The Henry Mountains/Fremont Gorge TMP covers nearly 1.5 million acres from Factory Butte down to Ticaboo and everything between Capital Reef National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area such as the OHV route from Big Ridge down to Poison Spring Canyon. The BLM released a draft EA but, as RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE explained in our comments, it’s based on a route inventory that’s still missing hundreds of miles of existing routes that have never been acknowledged let alone analyzed for designation to date. The Richfield RMP acknowledges the 2008 TMP’s incompleteness, pledging to collaborate with interested parties and add routes, yet the BLM still hasn’t formally invited the public to submit routes since RMP scoping in 2003. Since 2008, the BLM has added 146 miles to its inventory, yet it misses hundreds more. Many of these miles have high recreational value and low negative impacts, and we provided several examples, from the outskirts of Hanksville to the top of the Henry Mountains. All action alternatives of the draft EA disproportionately close routes in LWCs despite having no directive to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics. The draft EA fails to recognize the socio-economic impacts to Wayne County that any alternative would have, even the no-action alternative since actually implementing it would block access to hundreds of miles of existing routes that have been in continuous use since most of the area was open to cross-country travel prior to 2008. We hope the BLM will resolve these issues to develop a TMP that provides adequate access for all kinds of recreation particularly as places like Labyrinth Rims and the Swell become crowded.

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area TMP

Congress established the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in 1972 for the National Park Service (NPS) “to provide for the public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of Lake Powell and lands adjacent thereto in the states of Arizona and Utah and to preserve the scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to the public enjoyment of the area.” In 2021 the NPS began limiting motorized travel to designated routes in the vast majority of the 1.25-million-acre recreation area, which makes sense, but they designated just 388 miles of route. Perpetually in search of further restrictions, the wilderness-expansion groups sued and settled so the NPS would consider just that. Unfortunately in 2024 the NPS proposed to prohibit OHV use from another 25 miles of dirt roads. The roads would be closed to full-size vehicles and motorcycles that aren’t registered for interstate highway use as well as all ATVs and UTVs regardless of whether a state permits them for street use. As explained in the comments submitted by RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE, the 25 miles of dirt road are entirely appropriate for all types of OHV, and the NPS failed to demonstrate any need for its proposed prohibition. A few of the roads are even maintained to a higher standard by counties and the State of Utah, all of which have emphatically expressed support to accommodate OHV use of the roads, and they offer millions of dollars in grants to help manage routes that are open to OHV use. Several of the roads provide the only access to spurs and loops on BLM land in the Richfield and Monticello field offices. Others simply provide significant recreational value in their own right. We hope the NPS will come to its senses and decide to continue managing the recreation area like a recreation area.

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument RMP

As described in our 2023 Year in Review, the BLM released a Draft RMP for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in which every action alternative would be a lot more restrictive than any prior RMP of this national monument.

This past August, the BLM released a Proposed RMP for Grand Staircase that’s as draconian as the Draft RMP, so it’s being protested by RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE. Nearly all of the 1.86-million-acre monument was zoned as OHV Limited (with motor vehicles limited to designated routes), yet the proposed RMP zones two thirds of it as OHV Closed, and yet the BLM’s justification for this sweeping restriction consists of just a few sentences. The agency argues that it’ll require closing only the V-Road, and nearly half of the monument is already WSA. However its impact analysis of closing the V-Road is nearly non-existent, let alone the other routes that aren’t designated but nevertheless exist, including some R.S. 2477 roads in the WSAs. The fact that WSAs already occupy nearly half the monument is all the more reason to leave the remainder open for non-wilderness uses.

The Proposed RMP adds a couple designations under most of the acres that it zones as OHV Closed. First it designates these acres as Primitive Areas, which is not to be confused with the congressional designation of a Primitive Area, rather it’s a lower-level decision to manage the given acres “without motorized or mechanized recreational access.” By prohibiting mechanized recreational access, it’s even more restrictive than OHV Closed zoning. Second, most of the OHV Closed acres are LWC, and the Proposed RMP chooses to manage nearly all LWC for its wilderness characteristics. Not only can’t managers approve any new route in LWCs that are managed for wilderness characteristics, but they typically can’t approve any use of heavy equipment to maintain the existing routes, thus it’s yet another layer that hobbles recreation opportunities and practical management.

The proposed RMP provides no site-specific or even area-by-area analysis of these three sweeping designations that essentially preempt any TMP work from ever occurring in two thirds of the monument. Areas zoned as OHV Limited already tend to become 99% closed in practice, yet zoning them as OHV Closed prevents any future consideration of even a mile of e-bike trail or a campground loop, even if the very purpose of a new route is to reduce net impacts or protect monument objects. Many of the OHV Closed boundaries run right up to the edge of designated routes, thereby straitjacketing routes from potential rerouting, despite that many such routes are essential to the monument proclamation’s goal of “providing visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote landscape rich with opportunities for adventure and self-discovery.” We’ll continue to challenge any presidentially proclaimed monument from becoming a stepping stone to de facto wilderness or, in the case of Grand Staircase, a leaping stone to 1.25-million acres of de facto wilderness.

Bears Ears National Monument RMP

The BLM released a preliminary Draft RMP (aka MMP) for Bears Ears National Monument described in RwR’s 2022 Year in Review. This past March, the BLM released a Draft RMP that portrayed the no-action alternative somewhat more accurately, but further developed action alternatives with alarming ramifications, so RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE submitted extensive comments. Given that the 1.36-million-acre monument extends from Mexican Hat north the whole way to Chicken Corners near the Grand County line, the Grand County Commission drafted its own letter, and RwR commented during their meeting (minutes 2:12:00 to 2:17:00 of this video). The commission deliberated (minute 3:17:00 to 3:44:00) and approved its draft letter while incorporating a couple of RwR’s points, first that the RMP should avoid excessive restrictions to any form of recreation, and second that local outfitting and guiding services should continue to be accommodated. While RwR still differs with parts of the approved letter, especially given that proclamation of the monument bypassed Congress in the first place, we sincerely appreciate the commission for starting to build consensus.

Unfortunately in October the BLM released a Proposed RMP which had so many unacceptable aspects that the final points of protest from RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE merely scratched the surface. Similar to Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP zones nearly half of the monument as OHV Closed, and yet the BLM’s justification for this sweeping restriction consists of just a few sentences plus the excuse that the NPS requested consistency surrounding Canyonlands National Park. For one thing, consistency is already achieved since motor vehicles are already limited to designated routes on both sides of the park boundary. For another thing, unlike Bears Ears National Monument, Canyonlands National Park was actually established by Congress, and Congress chose the current park boundary so that management would be different on each side. The agency argues that zoning nearly half of the monument as OHV Closed will require closing only 32 miles of designated routes, but its impact analysis of closing these routes is nearly non-existent despite that we submitted photos and described the value of many of these routes. The agency also argues that nearly one third of the monument is already WSA or Dark Canyon Wilderness, but that’s all the more reason to leave the remainder open for non-wilderness uses.

Similar to Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP adds a couple designations under most of the acres that it zones as OHV Closed. First it places these acres into a Remote Zone and, while the earlier Draft RMP didn’t specify that the Remote Zone would be non-motorized, the Proposed RMP inserts that the Remote Zone is explicitly “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation.” Second, most of the OHV Closed acres are LWC, and the Proposed RMP chooses to manage nearly all LWC for its wilderness characteristics. While some of it would be managed “to minimize impacts” to wilderness characteristic instead of “to protect” wilderness characteristics, which would be a less-restrictive form of wilderness management, this distinction appears to be the latest iteration to rationalize a perpetual wilderness review that expands and never contracts wilderness management. After exhausting the Section 202 areas, one administration conceived of ostensibly just inventorying LWC but actually designating some of them as natural areas, and now another administration introduces RMP decisions to merely minimize impacts to the remaining LWC as if it’s not the next stage of a ratchet strap that has no release mechanism. Anyway the Proposed RMP provides no site-specific or even area-by-area analysis of these three sweeping designations that essentially preempt any TMP work from ever occurring in nearly half of the monument.

While closing nearly half of the monument is better than two thirds as in Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP is actually worse in several ways. First, across the 200,000 acres of LWC managed to protect wilderness characteristics, it prohibits Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for any motorized or mechanized use even if it’s non-commercial. Second, it directs a soundscape management plan for hundreds of thousands of acres that would allow louder sounds for half of the time, but would limit sound for the other half of the time to 30 dBA or even 25 dBA. Such low levels of sound are easily exceeded by slight wind or light rain, which makes them impractical to monitor, and ultimately less effective than vehicle-based sound standards. Third, in the Manti-La Sal National Forest portion of the monument, the Proposed RMP finally shows the current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum boundaries and designated routes accurately. However these things were completely inaccurate in scoping and the Draft RMP despite our repeated requests to correct them, which impedes the public’s ability to meaningfully participate in the process. Fourth, the Proposed RMP seems to fundamentally regard recreation as more of a nuisance than a key tool to promote the health of visitors and ultimately the health of the surrounding resources by fostering an awareness, appreciation, and ultimately stewardship of public lands.

Fifth, despite that the “Bears Ears cultural landscape” is identified as a monument object to protect through reliance on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship, it isn’t defined by either the Proposed RMP or the one adopted by the Bears Ears Commission (BEC) that was developed by the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (which is an entity that was created a decade ago by a wilderness-expansion group to campaign for the proclamation of a Bears Ears National Monument). The Proposed RMP and the one adopted by the BEC both refer to a single Bears Ears cultural landscape, multiple cultural landscapes within the monument, and other cultural landscapes that extend beyond the monument. Protecting this ill-defined object seems likely to affect recreation given that the plan adopted by the BEC asserts that tribal nations of the monument do not view many forms of recreation as an appropriate use of the Bears Ears cultural landscape. The Proposed RMP even directs the BLM to work with the BEC to identify whether specific areas need to be closed to cross-country hiking to protect BENM objects, which would include the Bears Ears cultural landscape, thus a cross-country hiking prohibition has the potential to be extensive. Another example in the Proposed RMP is that, according to Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, the Bears Ears cultural landscape requires seasonal “rest,” which clearly has the potential to seasonally restrict the entire monument. RwR supports the conservation of natural and cultural resources, particularly archaeological sites since they’re irreplaceable, but the Proposed RMP combines several ill-defined concepts with immense potential to unduly harm all forms of recreation across the 1.36-million-acre monument. To accomplish lasting conservation, we urge the BLM to suspend its grandiose plans in favor of collaborating with all stakeholders to identify what’s actually needed to “protect Bears Ears.”

The seeds of this mess were sown by presidential administrations that pitched Bears Ears as somehow righting the past wrongs done to indigenous people, and that exploited the concept of a cultural landscape to justify the monument’s enormity, specifically to parlay the political momentum of the proposed Cedar Mesa National Monument into a Bears Ears National Monument that accretes the southeast half of the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument (no doubt saving the northwest half for later in combination with any other “cultural landscape” that’s deemed worthy of national monument “protection”).

Antiquities Act and Federal Agency Reform

The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Proposed RMPs, along with even more recent mega-monument proclamations such as Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument that was described in our 2023 Year in Review add to the pile of glaring evidence that presidents aren’t using the Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect antiquities so much as to dictate federal-land designations (one million acres after the next) that are actually the purview of Congress. This violation of the separation of powers has been addressed in our Year in Review going back to 2012 when RwR responded to the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument, which was followed by the Utah Public Lands Initiative as a good-faith legislative alternative developed from 2012 through 2016, then the 2016 proclamation of Bears Ears National Monument that was scaled back in 2017 only to be made larger than ever in 2021. Our 2021 Year in Review described Bears Ears in the context of the three branches of federal government.

Now we’d like to address what’s next. After thirteen years of Antiquities Act abuse derailing any consensus for conservation in southeast Utah (and in other regions for even longer), Congress ought to clarify what it means by a monument object and the smallest area compatible with protecting it, or cap the size at 640 acres like the Antiquities Act bill did until an eleventh hour change in 1906. Better yet, simply require congressional approval for monument proclamation because many subsequent laws have eliminated the need for a president to take unilateral action. Unfortunately even the next Congress may not recognize these realities until the judicial branch takes a hard look at proclamations that claim to protect objects like a Bears Ears cultural landscape which remains ill-defined eight years later. Fortunately the 2024 Supreme Court ruling that ends “agency deference” should invite judicial review of agency interpretations for concepts like a monument object and the smallest area compatible with protecting it. Even more fortunately, the State of Utah and BRC are challenging the Bears Ears proclamation itself, and RwR could provide its local perspective.

Over the 23-year history of RwR, not only have presidents become more polarized, but they’ve stepped further outside their lane. Instead of presiding over the executive branch to execute the decisions of Congress, now they’re more prone to simply dictate. Part of the problem is a Congress paralyzed by its own polarization, but it’s not for the president to take the place of Congress, as Congress can work out a compromise while presidents these days just swing the pendulum further back and forth every four years. There are many recent examples of executive overreach, but few seem worse than adding to the ever-growing list of mega-monuments.

In fact reining in executive overreach would be one way of achieving the “government efficiency” sought by the next administration. The eight years of national monument planning to protect the Bears Ears cultural landscape has been quite expensive and unproductive. Efficiency is a function of cost and productivity, and there’s important work to be done in land management, so we hope they can increase productivity as much as reducing cost. While executive overreach should be reined in, agencies should be empowered with hiring, firing, and other employment practices that are based on merit and performance to retain and promote the best employees for a long and productive career. These goals ought to be bipartisan, which would enable efficiency through legislation that’s more effective and enduring, but all three branches could help. For example, federal agencies could more efficiently implement environmental laws if Congress were more specific, and new judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations would help prod Congress to act. In any case, we applaud the goal of improving efficiency, and hope for a careful and comprehensive assessment.

Conclusion

The national-monument controversy has exposed regions like southeast Utah to all aspects of federal government. RwR will continue to engage in agency planning, challenging decisions when necessary, and working with agencies when possible along with other government and other stakeholders. We’ll continue to help implement plans and maintain trails, which keeps us grounded to the whole point of RwR, which is conserving diverse opportunities for outdoor fun in this diverse region. Many thanks for supporting these efforts and recreating responsibly.

Clif Koontz
Executive Director

Ride with Respect
www.ridewithrespect.org
395 McGill Avenue
Moab, Utah 84532
435-259-8334 land

 

Downloads / Attachments

Ride With Respect Year in Review 2024
2024-09-10 MTC letter re graded-road education
2024-11-08 RwR comm re e-bikes on MTB trails

Continue Reading