Author Archive | Christina

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

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.

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.

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

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

As we celebrate this holiday season, we want to thank you for your incredible support and dedication throughout the year. Together, we’ve made progress in preserving and creating trails, strengthening our community, and protecting the future of off-highway motorcycle riding.

May your holiday season be as rewarding as a ride on your favorite trail and as inspiring as the views from the summit.

Warm wishes from all of us at the TPA!

Ryan Nehl, Forest and Grassland Supervisor
c/o Amber Wyndham
2840 Kachina Drive
Pueblo, CO 81008

RE:  Lower North-South Vegetation Plan

Dear Ms. Wyndham:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the Organizations significant concerns with the Lower North-South Vegetation Plan Proposal (“the Proposal”).  The Organizations are intimately familiar that the planning areas is an intensely developed recreational area that has taken more than 20 years to develop and been provided millions of dollars of funding towards development and management of by the CPW OHV program. Our concerns on the Proposal include impacts to opportunities in the planning area while the fuels efforts are being undertaken, impacts to areas adjacent to the planning area while the effort is being undertaken and subsequent long-term impacts that would have to be mitigated or repaired after the fuels mitigation efforts were completed. The passing analysis of possible recreational impacts from the project to this hugely used recreational resource falls well short of the highly detailed planning we have participated in the development of in areas far less used for recreation. The Organizations continue to support the active management of forest resources through efforts such as the Proposal but we are concerned that the Proposal appears to be more an exercise in using form analysis and checking boxes in a process that has simply not engaged the public in a meaningful manner.  Better information and engagement has to be achieved as this project moves forward to ensure that subsequent planners do not simply move forward to implement a proposal that fails to address recreational concerns.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns, the Organizations have regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 250,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a largely volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding.  The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. CORE is an entirely volunteer nonprofit motorized action group out of Buena Vista Colorado.  Our mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy.  For purposes of these comments TPA, CORE and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

As we have previously stated, the Organizations vigorously support the active management public lands for forest health and fuels issues, given the risk this threat poses to communities across the front range and many other values on the forests. We are also vigorous supporters of these fuels efforts occurring in conjunction with other uses of these areas to the maximum extent possible. We are also aware that this type of alignment takes significant commitment and resources to execute before any thought of cutting trees even occurs and often this commitment of resources starts early in the planning process through extensive public engagement. While the Proposal outlines various steps taken to engage the public moving forward, many of these steps have not been taken to date and there has not been a good response to the efforts undertaken to date for reasons that remain unclear.

1. The Infrastructure Act limits appeals and carries forward abbreviated NEPA process from Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

The Organizations believe a brief review of the NEPA and planning requirements around the proposal will allow us to create understanding of our concerns and how to remedy these concerns. The Organizations are aware that in several locations in the Proposal there are general outlines of the abbreviated planning and appeal process provided for forest restoration efforts that has been provided by Congress. The Organizations have supported the alteration of analysis requirements in this manner by Congress. The Organizations have also supported  previous efforts in USFS Region 2 were the response the pine beetle and poor forest health has treated as an emergency for planning purposes for extended periods of time.[1] The Organizations have also supported streamlined planning for forest health and fuels reductions, such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Historically the Healthy Forest Restoration Act allowed NEPA efforts for fuels treatments to be streamlined by only needing a proposal that analyzed current management and a preferred alternative for NEPA purposes. At no point did the HFRA reduce the quality of NEPA analysis to be undertaken, it merely narrowed the scope of alternatives.  This benefit was carried forward in the Infrastructure Act as follows as the scope of the limited appeals for timber and forest health efforts is clearly identified in 40807 as follows:

“(d) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY ACTIONS.—An authorized emergency action carried out under this section shall not be subject to objection under the predecisional administrative review processes established under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6515) and section 428 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (16 U.S.C. 6515 note; Public Law 112–74).”

While the Infrastructure Act confirmed and expanded some components of the NEPA effort §40806 specifically provides for public engagement under the Infrastructure Act as follows:

“(f) PUBLIC COLLABORATION.—To encourage meaningful public participation during the preparation of a project under this section, the Secretary concerned shall facilitate, during the preparation of each project—

(1) collaboration among State and local governments and Indian Tribes; and

(2) participation of interested persons”.[2]

The Organizations believe it is important to ensure that public collaboration is not minimized in these badly needed forest health and fuels mitigations projects simply to create and maintain partnerships in the area. Without proper engagement and meaningful planning to address concerns, immense conflict will result on these types of projects and impacts to other efforts will also result. These partnerships are of increasing value to everyone involved given the current budget and staffing challenges the agency is facing and the ever-growing demand for recreational access to public lands.

Even with the streamlined planning and analysis process, the use of an environmental assessment for a project of this scale is aggressive as the Proposal seeks to treat an entire Ranger District.   This is simply a large project that requires significant analysis and public engagement and while this project could be completed with an EA, it would have to be a large and expansive EA.  Given that the project is treating the entire Ranger District, we must ask how this was not thought to need an EIS.  The Organizations submit that the current EA is brief when compared to an average EA and falls well short of the public engagement necessary to support a project of this scale. As noted subsequently in these comments, many smaller fuels projects in less visited areas have provided far more analysis of impacts than the current proposal.

2(a). There is a deeply concerning lack of analysis regarding possible impacts to recreational impacts from the project.

The Organizations concerns around the brief nature of the Proposal start from our understanding of the immense levels of recreation that occur in the planning area. In 2023, the Rampart Range Motorized Management Committee undertook a consolidated effort to count the number of vehicles that were using the two primary access points to the Rampart Range motorized areas in partnership with USFS Recreation staff.  This effort concluded that more than 250,000 vehicles accessed the recreation area for the year. Given that most planning efforts assume between 2-3 people per vehicle trip when doing visitation calculations, this would mean that in 2023 the Rampart Range area supported more than 500,000 visitor days.

For purposes of comparison, this would mean that the Rampart Range motorized areas would rank as the 5^th most used State Park in Colorado. There can be no argument that this is a significant planning issue that must be addressed. Clearly if the State was closing a State Park even temporarily that had this level of visitation, planning would have to address impacts from shifting this number of people. This number of people will want to recreate and will go someplace if the Rampart planning area is closed or restricted. The areas that will be used by this number of visitors will need to be coordinated with and engaged appropriately, such as the Rainbow Falls Trailhead north of Woodland Park. We are unable to identify this type of coordination or management response for other areas that will have to address significant increases in visitation to those areas.

While  it might be easy to dismiss this type of an issue based on a timing of cutting response, this does not resolve our concerns.  While it may be easy to assert recreational access will be minimally impacted as cutting will occur in the winter, these are the seasons where most trails are closed for a variety of other concerns, such as seasonal wildlife closures.  Many other areas  in higher altitude areas are closed due to snowfall or other issues, making any increase in usage of those areas to absorb visitation increases impossible.  Clearly the management response cannot be to push recreational usage to areas that are closed. The need for analysis of this type of issue must also include understanding of the more limited resources available to maintain and manage these other areas.  Most Districts have seasonal crews that are funded through the CPW OHV program to assist in these efforts.  Most CPW crews are not in place in the winter, compounding our concerns on impacts and the need to coordinate resources around closures that are even just temporary.

After reviewing the Proposal, the Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal entirely fails to address impacts to dispersed recreation that could occur in the planning area as the fuels efforts are being undertaken.   The Organizations have participated in large timber sales in other areas that impacted a wide range of infrastructure. When we have engaged on this type of project the recreational community has understood when areas are to be cut, how long closures were expected to last and what would need to be done to reopen areas. These discussions have occurred in a very open manner and addressed a wide range of issues from temporary reroutes of trails to permanent reroutes of trails, relocation of existing parking facilities that are going to be used temporarily as timber staging areas, need to maintain developed designated campsites and to many other impacts to recreational infrastructure to list in detail in these comments. Again, none of this engagement has occurred with the Proposal.

2(b). Significant coordination is necessary to avoid long term impacts to recreational opportunities in the planning area.

As previously noted, the planning area has been the basis of decades of planning, NEPA analysis and hundreds of thousands of dollars in OHV grants and thousands of hours of volunteer effort.  This effort has resulted in a network of 36 inch wide dirt trails weaving through the planning area. In some areas, these trails these trails are wider than 36 inches but in many areas these trails are even narrower. To those not familiar with trails issues, this may appear to be a resource easily replaced, we would beg to differ.   We are all to familiar with the inability to reopen trails in areas where an intervening action has occurred, regardless of if it is human or natural caused.  Efforts to reopen the Hayman Burn Scar to recreation remain ongoing despite the Hayman fire occurring more than 20 years ago. This is an example of a naturally created action that intervened in that area, but remains an example of a management situation that must be avoided.

Avoiding impacts like those from the Hayman Fire only occurs with good engagement and planning. The Organizations are less than optimistic about the ability to protect an existing 36 inch wide dirt path when the timber cutting process begins if there is not clear and direct requirements in place to address the issue in the planning process. Any assumption that these types of resources could survive being used as a skid road would be misplaced and it has been our experience this situation is rarely remedied after cutting has ceased.  Once the cutting crew has left the area, it will fall to the clubs to try and mitigate impacts from the cutting effort. The timber contractor is not coming back.    Without a clear understanding of what and when the impacts will be restored, we remain concerned that these impacts would not be remedied.

At the in person public meeting held on November 13, 2024 for the Proposal, representatives of the Rampart Range Motorized Management Committee were told that Appendix C of the Proposal was the answer to our concerns. Appendix C is merely a generalized summary for recreation that could be used for almost any NEPA analysis.  Appendix C falls well short of the detailed information necessary for coordination and planning to avoid impacts we have seen in other efforts.  The Organizations concerns about the somewhat boilerplate nature of Appendix C are compounded with the staffing and budget challenges that are facing the USFS currently are brought into the discussion.  We are less than optimistic that a skeleton crew of USFS managers would be available to address impacts in the future. The Organizations concerns around the insufficiency of Appendix C of the Proposal are exemplified by the USFS outreach on the Proposal to date pg. 93 outlines a public engagement process that occurred in 2021 and interdisciplinary team meetings that occurred as well.  Given the immense levels of recreation across the planning area we must ask how recreational impacts was not raised or identified in these meetings. That failure is again a concern for the sufficiency of any future efforts on the Proposal.

Our concerns compound when the exceptionally limited scale of the response to scoping for the project are reviewed as these efforts generated almost no response. The Proposal notes that scoping efforts only resulted in USFS receiving 24 comments on the Proposal.[3] This should have been a signal that the outreach was not connecting with the community rather than a message that the Proposal had  a high level of support and there were no concerns from the community. The Organizations are simply far too familiar with what we have been calling volunteer or compassion fatigue.  This  has become a major issue for partners engaging with land managers at all levels given the large number of efforts being undertaken and the growing scope of competing interests now seeking to be addressed.   Many times partners are being buried with engagement requests on issues that are unrelated or minimally related to the concerns of that Partner.  As a result, multiple meetings may be occurring at the same time and partners may not be even attending the one that is most relevant to their concerns as they have already engaged with other efforts allegedly addressing their concerns.  As a result of this compassion fatigue issues facing these groups are simply not being addressed due to the volunteer nature of these groups. This does not mean the concern is not present, only that they are unsure how to address the concern most effectively. Could this issue have appeared with the Proposal?  That answer is clearly yes.

The Organizations vigorously assert that public outreach on the Proposal implementation at the site-specific level has to be better or the Proposal will only result in significant public frustration and conflict around the project. This needs to be avoided. If the Proposal seeks to implement timber management on a trail network that has had major partner support for decades and received millions in funding, the assumption  that group is not interested in the project would not be accurate. Partnerships are a two-way street and assuming a partner is not interested without confirming that assumption makes a two-way street a one way street.   The agency needs to make a targeted outreach effort to the group to understand why there has not been any engagement on the Proposal.  Simply assuming there are no concerns from parties in the area is not acceptable.

2(c).  Alignment of competing project timelines and expectations is critically necessary.

As the Organizations noted previously, recreational opportunities in this area have come from a long and successful partnership between managers, local clubs and the CPW OHV Grant program that has existed for decades. This partnership remains on-going as there are several projects in the planning process for development in the area.  This has occurred on an almost ongoing basis over the life of the partnership, and we would expect this type of efforts to continue.  The most recent effort has led to the development of a skills training area at the end of the Rampart Range road, which took an extended period of time to construct. A copy of this grant is attached as Exhibit “A” to these comments. It is important to note that any OHV grant funded project has an almost two year window between the grant being awarded and funding becoming available for the project.  This cannot be shortened.

This situation results in a significant delay in projects and presents the situation where a project could be approved and then the project area could be identified for thinning in this two year period if there is not sufficient coordination of the parties.  Often these projects are completed using contractors and that often means more delay and expanded coordination of schedules to avoid delays even without timbre projects in the area. The Organizations would be concerned that without coordination of projects such as this and large timber sales and cutting in the area, there will be immense conflicts in completion of these projects.  That must be avoided.

The Organizations are more concerned that Project coordination has not occurred even in the short term as local partners have funding in place for projects this summer and in 2026. This is a major concern as the OHV grants that fund these projects are applied in year one but funding is not received until two years out to provide time for contracting and other approvals of the funding.  As a result of the poor coordination to date, there could be projects where timelines and expectations do not align already.  Last thing we would want to see is a project that is already funded being delayed in completion after an area has been identified for a timber sale under the Proposal and the motorized partners have sought to hire contractors for the project that cannot access the area.

2(d).  Fuels projects in other USFS areas has far more extensive analysis and engagement than the Proposal.

As the Organizations noted previously, we have participated in large and small timber sales throughout the region and have successfully addressed forest health and community safety with little to no impact to recreational access.  Some of these smaller projects have relied on a very informal management process as the managers and partners have known each other for decades and have a great relationship.  In this situation communication can be very informal. An example of this would be a winter timber/fuels project that occurred on the Parks and Sulphur Ranger District Boundary on Illinois Pass between Gould and Grand Lake Colorado that occurred in the winter while the area was open to snowmobile suage and grooming of shared routes with the snowmobile club. This was a smaller effort  in an area with lower levels of recreation that occurred with little impact given the high levels of coordination that occurred without extensive NEPA.  These types of relationships have diminished over time for many reasons, which has resulted in a more formal planning and coordination process being developed.

We have attached a copy of the 2014 planning documents for coordination of recreation and timber efforts on the Canyon Lakes Ranger District for a timber sale held on the District, that did not have this type of informal structure and was working in a higher visitation area.  Staff on this District was also more transitory in nature and would frequently be using an acting person to move the project. The Canyon Lakes project included a route by route analysis, an inventory of other resources and a map of the areas to be cut to allow the public to understand and identify possible concerns with the project. A copy of selected documents from this planning process area attached as Exhibit “B” to the Proposal.[4]  This process is simply FAR more developed than anything outlined in the proposal and even with this far more significant level of analysis there were challenges in the process.  While the Proposal makes some generalized statements that could be used to develop resources such as this, there is no outline of when this would occur or any analysis of basic resources in the area. The failure of the Proposal to address resources such as this is even more concerning given the exceptionally long timeframe expected for the Proposal implementation.

The Canyon Lakes fuels efforts on recreational analysis is by no means an anomaly in terms of the level of analysis provided  as similar planning and engagement was provided by the Laramie Ranger District in Southern Wyoming in 2010.  Despite the process being almost 15 years old, detailed maps were provided, extensive recreational analysis was provided and documented and numerous targeted meetings were provided as well.[5]  This engagement and analysis was provided in these areas regardless of the far lower levels of dispersed recreational visitation that was occurring in the planning area.  The Laramie Ranger District efforts almost 15 years ago are a serious indication of the deficiency of the current analysis.

It is also more concerning for the Organizations as the visitation to the Red Feather/Canyon Lakes  area for recreation is only a small percentage of the levels of visitation to the Rampart Range areas. Laramie Ranger District efforts were centered around recreation on the State Highway but provided far more information on dispersed recreation. Given the heightened significance of recreational opportunities in the Rampart Range area, we would submit this type of a resource would be the minimum needed for partner engagement.  Relying on the informal process relied on for the Illinois Pass Project would be a significant  mistake as  there is no comparison between the size of the projects and levels of recreational usage in these areas.  The Proposal entirely lacks any information that would allow partners to understand how fuels treatments would be occurring, when they would be occurring and timeframes to be working under.  This is basic information for this type of coordination and it has not been provided.

3(a).  USFS staffing challenges provide the need for significant additional clarity to avoid recreational impacts in the implementation of the Proposal.

The Organizations are forced to recognize that USFS staff shifts positions that are being held all the time and we do not see an end to this type of staff movement going into the foreseeable future.   Dealing with an acting person has become the norm for partners, and even if there is a permanent staff person hired employees are highly mobile. This is a major concern as there appears to be more information and planning that is to be outlined based on the discussions at the public meetings.  None of this information has been included in the Proposal. We are very concerned that after several years of staff movement, this document would appear to provide sufficient in its analysis and could be moved forward without any further engagement with partner simply due to the changes in staffing at the USFS Office. Clearly and directly outlining efforts to be completed in the future will be a major step in addressing these type of challenges and avoiding unintended impacts from the project.  While the need for these efforts may be understood at this point, we are not optimistic this understanding will be conveyed to future staff if it is not written down.

3(b). Funding challenges facing the agency will not lead to greater public engagement in implementation.

The funding situation facing the Proposal and the USFS more generally only adds to our concerns on the Proposal.  Under the current Continuing Resolution, the USFS is expected to absorb between a $500m and $750m budget shortfall for the upcoming year, which will immediately result in employees shifting positions and programs being realigned in the short term.   Candidly, the Organizations do not expect this funding trend to significantly alter for the agency given the many other challenges currently facing the Country.  The Organizations are also forced to assume that the Proposal will not be a revenue generator for the agency making budget challenges around implementation more of a concern.  If the Proposal does not clearly identify what work is left to be completed this effort could find funding and move forward at some point in the future quickly.

This factor again creates significant concern for the Organizations on the Proposal as managers will be seeking to mitigate fuels in the area with almost no outside funding to support the project.  This is in stark contrast to the funding surge that the USFS has experienced over the last several years and while the Proposal has been developed.   Even with these funding surges, public engagement has been weak. With the upcoming budget constrictions, Planners seeking to implement the Proposal will be looking for efficiencies as they will be forced to work with highly reduced funding.  It has been our experience that in these situations, public engagement is one of the first costs that are reduced, which will simply compound existing shortfalls in analysis rather than remedy these shortfalls. Without clarity in what is going to be done to protect and restore recreational opportunities in the planning area, this climate will not create new standards and requirements for public engagement on these issues.

4. NEPA becomes stale.

The Organizations concerns around the Proposal expand when the timeframe of the EA is reviewed.  The Proposal estimates that the timber cutting process will take 20 years to complete.[6]  The Organizations must question how any EA would remain ripe for management action after 20 years as it is our understanding that if project level NEPA analysis is not completed with 10 years at most it is assumed to be stale and must be updated and reviewed at a minimum. This is a major concern as well.

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

At all points relevant to the development of the Proposal, federal land managers have been under specific guidance to address possible impacts to recreational access in projects. The recent issuance of Executive Order # 14008 by President Biden on January 27, 2021 would be an example of a decision that is specifically and repeatedly outlines this requirement.  §214 of EO 14008 clearly mandates improved recreational access to public lands through management as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Given the highly specific nature of these mandates, it is very concerning that the Proposal falls so short on addressing recreational access and possible impacts to recreation. This is compounded given the immense levels of recreational visitation to the Proposal areas and that this Proposal has been developed in a time frame when there has been unprecedented funding available for public outreach and engagement.

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

The Organizations are very concerned around the possible negative economic impacts that could result from the Proposal, not only from recreational related impacts but also the possible impacts to other activities as well.  Too many of our small communities’ struggle to provide even basic services to their residents and tourists visiting the areas. We must wonder how many small businesses in the planning area rely on recreation to support their business and if recreation access to the planning area was lost, would be forced to close.  It is very common for riders of the Rampart area to see fellow riders at the end of the day at the numerous restaurants at the intersection of US 85 and State Highway 67 in Sedalia. Without a well-rounded economic engine for the community, the community will struggle and possibly fail and this will degrade the recreational opportunities and support for them from the community and this is a concern for the Organizations.

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

“Focusing on the state-level results below, the total economic output associated with outdoor recreation amounts to $62.5 billion dollars, contributing $35.0 billion dollars to the Gross Domestic Product of the state. This economic activity supports over 511,000 jobs in the state, which represents 18.7% of the entire labor force in Colorado and produces $21.4 billion dollars in salaries and wages. In addition, this output contributes $9.4 billion dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue.” [7]

The Organizations submit that more than $62.5 Billion Dollars of economic contribution that results in 18.7% of the entire labor force is an economic concern to warrant specific recognition of recreation both now and in the future.  Any assertion that such a massive economic contribution is insufficient to warrant inclusion in NEPA analysis simply lacks any factual basis. It would be highly frustrating to open collaborations when contributions such as this are not worthy of recognition. This type of arbitrary resolution of considerations will cause concern and frustration from the public generally, and our members more specifically, as the Proposal moves forward.

7. Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously assert at that significantly better public engagement and clarity in the proposal must be provided. While it is uncontested that the planning area sees more than 500k motorized recreational visitors per year, the analysis provided in the Proposal for recreational issues falls well below analysis we have seen in other much smaller fuels projects in areas with much lower levels of recreational visitation.  We are concerned with the budget challenges facing the agency and the huge numbers of staff that are constantly moving that the Proposal could be picked up to implement by new staff in the future that are not aware of the challenges it is facing.   The last thing we would want is to have closures placed on important recreation areas that have not been coordinated with local partners.

The Organizations would request that the Proposal provide significant clarity on how recreational access issues will be addressed the implementation of the Proposal.  The Organizations would also ask that local clubs, such as Rampart Range Motorized  Management Committee from the Denver area and the Colorado Mountain Trail Riders Association out of Colorado Springs, and the CPW Regional Trails Coordinator for the area must be specifically identified as groups that must be engaged with prior to any implementation of the Proposal. The Organizations would be more than willing to assist in these efforts as we have periodic calls and meetings with clubs throughout the region. Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 518-281-5810 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or Chad Hixon at 719-221-8329 or via email at Chad@Coloradotpa.org if you should wish to discuss these matters further.

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

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

[1] Bark Beetles: Meeting the Challenge on a Landscape Scale | US Forest Service

[2] See, Public Law 117–58 117th Congress Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 at §40806.

[3] See, Proposal at pg. 93.

[4] A full copy of this analysis is available here: Region 2 – Home

[5] A full copy of the Laramie Ranger District effort is available here: Forest Service

[6] See, Proposal at pg. 6

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

Hello, Trails Preservation Alliance Supporters!

As our peak riding season wraps up and the holidays approach, it’s hard to believe 2024 is nearly behind us! We hope you had an amazing season exploring the trails we all work so hard to protect—after all, that’s why we do what we do!

Before the end-of-year hustle takes over, we wanted to share some highlights from the TPA and our Partner Clubs across the state. No wonder the year flew by—we hosted the 5th Annual TPA Partner Club Meeting, completed our 4th TPA Sweepstakes, and held our flagship event, the 13th Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium.

And when we weren’t busy with those major projects, we stayed active by joining Club gatherings, workdays, conferences, workshops, and other important meetings.

Read on for more information and as Riggle would say… we hope you all “ride safely and more often”!
Cheers,

Chad Hixon
Trails Preservation Alliance
Executive Director

Recent Highlights

Club Meeting

The TPA extends a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our 5th Annual TPA Partner Club Meeting a success—attendees, sponsors, presenters, panelists, and representatives from local land management agencies.

We were thrilled to have welcomed 50 attendees and 26 organizations from across Colorado and Southeast Utah.

The ride day in Bangs Canyon was the biggest turnout ever, with 20 riders coming to check out the ongoing progress in this awesome riding area.

This meeting brings together clubs and individuals from across Colorado and eastern Utah who are making a positive difference in riding opportunities. Your dedication, support, attendance, and active participation are what make this event truly impactful. Here’s to all the amazing clubs!

New Resource: Interactive Club Map

At the 2024 Partner Club Meeting, there was broad agreement that a map showing the regions each affiliated club manages would be a valuable resource. We’re excited to announce that this interactive Google-based map is now live!

The map highlights each club’s stewardship area and includes links to their websites and social media pages. You can find it on our website’s Affiliated Clubs page or view it directly on Google Maps. It’s a fantastic way to see the impact of our clubs and connect with them.

2024 TPA Moto Adventure Sweepstakes

The Sweepstakes is one of the TPA’s largest annual fundraisers. This year we went bigger and better than ever with the Moto Adventure Sweepstakes Grand Prize package which included the Haulin’ Summit Hybrid Camp Trailer and a decked-out 2024 KTM 300 XC-W.

Thank You to all the donors and Sweepstakes supporters for making this fundraiser a huge success and congratulations to our winners!

2024 TPA Sweepstake winners!

Grand Prize – Eric Balzhiser
Second Prize – Doug Wills
Third Prize – George Bielinski

The 2024 Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium: A Huge Success!

This year’s Colorado 600 returned to the beautiful town of South Fork, and it didn’t disappoint! Riders were treated to stunning fall weather and a fresh event format, midweek-to-Sunday, offering three unforgettable days of riding before heading home. The welcoming community of South Fork and the ongoing upgrades to the LOGE facilities made this year’s event even more memorable—many of us are already looking forward to our next stay!

While the rides are always a highlight, what truly sets the Colorado 600 apart are the daily discussions. These gatherings offer a chance to hear updates from the TPA, exchange ideas, and collect valuable feedback from our dedicated riders.

A standout moment this year? A special appearance by none other than Ty Murray, “The King of the Cowboys”! Ty, a passionate dirt bike enthusiast and TPA supporter, joined us this year for the event and an incredible Q&A session at the rider banquet—an evening that won’t soon be forgotten.

Ty Murray and Chad Hixon at the 2024 Colorado 600

Save the Date:
Missed out this year? Don’t worry—mark your calendars for the 2025 event, happening Wednesday, September 17th through Sunday, September 21st. We can’t wait to see you there!

Club Spotlight

Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (CMTRA)

Since 1972, the Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (CMTRA) has been the leading advocate for motorcycle trail riders in the Pikes Peak and Southern Colorado region. This passionate group works tirelessly to maintain and expand access to multi-use trails while promoting responsible trail stewardship.

CMTRA collaborates with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on trail projects that benefit riders and the wider recreation community. Notable efforts include ongoing work in the Captain Jacks/Jones Park and 717 trail systems, as well as the Penrose Commons and Seep Springs areas managed by the BLM. These projects have been made possible through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) OHV program, from which CMTRA has secured over $250,000 in grants. Every dollar has gone toward tools, materials, and labor to construct and maintain motorized trails in the region.

Trail workdays are a cornerstone of CMTRA’s mission. They not only improve trail systems but also foster a sense of community among riders who share a love for Colorado’s diverse landscapes. Regular monthly meetings provide members with opportunities to connect, plan rides, and discuss ongoing advocacy efforts.

CMTRA’s active involvement is vital to keeping motorcycle trails open in Colorado. Ready to get involved? Visit cmtrail.org to learn more or join their next meeting.

Thank you CMTRA for all that you do!

CMTRA
P.O. Box 38006
Colorado Springs, CO 80937

Email: president@cmtrail.org
Facebook: facebook.com/cmtrail.org
Web: cmtrail.org

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!

David Pierce – Museum Open House

David Pierce of Farmington, NM, a longtime supporter of the TPA and the San Juan Trail Riders, hosted an incredible open house at his Motorcycle Museum this past April. The event was a huge success, drawing roughly 100-150 motorcycle enthusiasts who enjoyed raffles, silent auctions, great food, and a day filled with camaraderie.

Gary Wilkinson, David Pierce and Don Riggle at the Pierce Museum open house along with the donated bike.

Thanks to David’s generosity, the event raised significant funds, including an extraordinary donation of a fully refurbished 1997 Kawasaki KX 500 from his collection. This special bike was sold, with all proceeds benefiting the TPA and SJTR. In total the event and bike sale raised $9248!

The TPA and SJTR cannot thank David Pierce enough for his unwavering dedication to our sport and his commitment to supporting our mission. Thank you, David, for making a lasting impact!

Moto Coffee Fundraiser

In June, we partnered with Moto Coffee to support the Trails Preservation Alliance.

Throughout the month, 20% of all coffee and merchandise purchases from Moto Coffee were donated directly to the TPA. Based in Wyoming, Moto Coffee shares our passion for keeping trails open and supporting causes riders care about. We love their mission and philosophy—here’s an excerpt from their website:

Protecting the Freedom to Ride. Together.

“We created Moto Coffee to fuse our passion for coffee with our love of motorcycles in a way that allows us to truly support and give back to the riding community. A portion of profits go back to two-wheeled causes like protecting our trails, helping injured riders to recover from accidents, education initiatives, and more.”

Colorado 500 Donation

Thank you to the Colorado 500 for their initiative in securing a $15,000 Yamaha Outdoor Access Initiative grant. The “Colorado 500 Trail Preparation Project” enabled the CO500 to donate $2,500 to each of the following clubs, supporting their efforts to preserve, enhance, and improve OHV access opportunities:

1. Colorado Off-Hwy Coalition (COHVCO)
2. Trails Preservations Alliance (TPA)
3. Western Colorado Riders and Enthusiasts (WESTCORE)
4. Gunnison Valley OHV Alliance of Trail Riders (GOATS)
5. San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR)
6. Colorado Backcountry Trail Riders (CBTRA)

28th Annual Colorado Gold Rush

A special thank you from all of us at the TPA to Merve Davies and all the Gold Rush riders and supporters. For the 28th year riders enjoyed a week of riding in Colorado filled with great trails, good meals, and the joy of reconnecting with old friends while welcoming new ones. This year, the event had 36 riders, including 8 first-timers from Tennessee, Colorado, and California!

Thanks to everyone’s participation, we raised $6K for the TPA! Special thanks to the Widener family for hosting a wonderful lunch at the cabin and to Dennis Larratt for the memorable mine tour.

Mark your calendars for next year’s ride, happening August 10-15, 2025. Let’s aim for 50 riders—start spreading the word now! Invitations will go out in February.

Corporate and 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

Jerry Abboud: The Father of Colorado’s OHV Program

Chapter 9 of At Home in Nature by Colorado Parks and Wildlife highlights Jerry Abboud, the “Father of Colorado’s OHV Program,” for his visionary leadership in creating and advancing the state’s Off-Highway Vehicle Program.

Abboud’s efforts led to the passage of House Bill 1329 in 1990, establishing the Colorado State Trails OHV Program, which has since directed $80 million in registration fees to improve motorized recreation across the state. This September, Jerry was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition as he retires from his role as Executive Director of COHVCO.

Thank you, Jerry, for a lifetime of dedication to our sport and community!

TPA News page – Busy, Busy, Busy!

2024 has been a whirlwind of activity for the TPA! We’ve submitted a total of 26 letters and comments on various land use issues, ensuring that the voice of off-highway motorcycle recreation is heard loud and clear.

Together with our partners, the TPA has been actively involved in a diverse range of topics—from federal employee hiring and wildlife conservation to forest health and National Monument planning. These efforts reflect our commitment to preserving and expanding access for our community.

For a full breakdown of the issues we’ve tackled this year, visit the TPA News page!

New Trail Stuff

Porter Gulch

The Central Colorado Mountain Riders (CCMR), in partnership with the Salida Ranger District, completed a NEW 1.6-mile motorized, multi-use trail in Howard, Colorado. They constructed a 1.6-mile motorized, multi-use trail providing access to the Rainbow Trail from County Road 4 in western Fremont County. This new trail greatly benefits both motorized and non-motorized users by improving access to the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness trails for non-motorized activities and creating new loop options for mountain bikers, e-bike riders, and motorcyclists. The project was entirely funded through generous private donations to the TPA and CCMR.

Penrose Commons

Collaboration is at the heart of the effort to improve Penrose Commons, a popular winter riding destination near Colorado’s Front Range. The Colorado Mountain Trail Riders Association (CMTRA) and Rampart Range Motorized Management Committee (RRMMC), in partnership with the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, have taken a significant step by officially opening 3 miles of previously user-created trails. This marks the beginning of a broader effort to enhance the riding experience in the area.

CMTRA has also secured CPW OHV grant funds to develop a comprehensive plan for Penrose Commons, aiming to create additional trails and improve amenities. These initiatives will make this important off-season riding destination even more enjoyable for Front Range riders.

Soldier Stone Trail and Signage

The Soldier Stone Vietnam War Memorial on Sargents Mesa, located near the Colorado Trail and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, now features a dedicated non-motorized hiking trail. This safe, stable, and accessible path provides a direct route from the nearby road, allowing visitors to honor this remarkable memorial.

The Trails Preservation Alliance, in partnership with the Saguache Ranger District, collaborated to establish this single trail and install interpretive signage to enhance the visitor experience. If you’re riding in the Sargents/Saguache area, be sure to take the time to visit this special and meaningful place.

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

Sponsors

Scott Jones presents Jerry Abboud lifetime achievement award

Chapter 9 of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s recent publication At Home in Nature prominently features Jerry Abboud, hailed as the “Father of Colorado’s Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program.” Abboud’s pioneering work, leadership, and vision are spotlighted for their monumental contributions to outdoor recreation in Colorado.

Jerry Abboud’s efforts were instrumental in partnering with state parks staff, federal agencies, and the motorized community to draft legislation that led to the creation of the Colorado State Trails OHV Program. His leadership brought about the passage of House Bill No. 1329, which became effective on April 1, 1990.

Under Jerry’s guidance, the OHV program has seen tremendous growth and impact. Since its inception, the program has allocated $80 million from OHV registration fees directly to “on-the-ground” improvements for motorized recreation, benefitting Colorado’s outdoor enthusiasts and ensuring sustainable recreation for future generations.

Here you can see Jerry Abboud receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award from Scott Jones, Chairman of the Board for the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, this past September. Abboud is retiring as Executive Director of COHVCO this year and we can’t express our gratitude enough for what truly has been a lifetime of service to our sport and community.

Thank you Jerry!

Attached is the letter from Lisa Northrop, Associate Deputy Chief, Business Operations at US Department of Agriculture in response to our letter: USFS Seasonal Hiring and Budget Guidance Comments

USDA response letter

United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Washington Office
1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250

File Code: 6130 (8975436)

Date: November 18, 2024

Scott Jones, Esq.
Vice Chair
United Snowmobile Alliance
scott.jones46@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Jones:

Thank you for your letter of September 30, 2024, cosigned by your colleagues to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Chief Randy Moore regarding the Agency’s fiscal year 2025 temporary and seasonal hiring practices. Chief Moore has asked me to respond.

The Forest Service is facing unprecedented budget challenges in fiscal year 2025. Due to current budget constraints, we cannot hire non-fire seasonal, temporary employees except in limited circumstances. This decision is based on the intention to focus limited resources on current workforce and infrastructure needs.

The safety and enjoyment of our visitors remain top priorities. We understand this loss for the Nation’s forests and grasslands may impact visitor experiences. However, we will do everything we can to limit those impacts. We are working with partners to fill gaps, including maintaining trails, campgrounds, recreation areas, and other important services.

Over the past two years, the Forest Service has increased our permanent workforce by over 20 percent. The Agency has hired more than 1,200 permanent seasonal employees instead of a similar number of temporary (1039) employees. Hiring permanent seasonal employees provides the Agency with greater stability. It also improves workforce retention by affording health and retirement benefits to many employees previously hired in temporary (1039) positions year after year without those benefits.

If additional funding becomes available, we hope to have better hiring options in the coming year. We appreciate your understanding and patience as we navigate these challenges.

Again, thank you for writing and your interest in the Nation’s forests and grasslands. If you have further questions, please contact Human Resources Management at 1-877-372-7248 or hrm_contact_center@usda.gov. We encourage you to share this response with your colleagues.

Sincerely,

LISA NORTHROP

Associate Deputy Chief, Business Operations

Little Snake Field Office
Attention: South Sand Wash Open OHV Area Recreation Area Management Plan
455 Emerson St.
Craig, CO 81625

RE:  South Sand Wash OHV Area RAMP

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the support of the Organizations for Alternative A of the Proposal. While we support Alternative A of the Proposal, the Organizations are concerned with some portions of the Proposal, which starts to alter the direction and intent of the SRMA as defined in the RMP. While the Organizations are concerned with a possible redefinition of the SRMA characteristics, the Organizations have also attached new research that we have undertaken that we hope will be valuable to planners moving forward with the recreational management in the area outlined in the Proposal.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns, the Organizations have regarding the Proposal, we believe a summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 250,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a largely volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding.  The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. CORE is an entirely volunteer nonprofit motorized action group out of Buena Vista Colorado.  Our mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy.  For purposes of these comments TPA, CORE and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations.”

1. The Organizations support the provided level of analysis for the Proposal.

The Organizations were somewhat surprised to see several questions in the Proposal regarding the sufficiency of an EA to support the Proposal for NEPA purposes.  Given that the Proposal is addressing an existing SRMA designation in the newly updated Field Office RMP and is analyzing changes on less than 200 acres of lands, the use of an EA would be highly cautious level of NEPA analysis.  Much of the goals and objectives outlined in the Proposal could be undertaken with the use of a Categorical Exclusion or Categorical Exclusion with a file if an aggressive posture was taken on NEPA interpretation and compliance. We support the use of an EA to avoid any future assertion that the management decisions in the planning area was not undertaken and reviewed in a strategic and thoughtful manner.

While the Proposal seeks input on issues such as wild horses and possible amendment of the exiting RMP to alter the characteristics of the SRMA, these are factors that are outside the purpose and need of the Proposal.  If the decision would be made to amend the existing RMP to address these issues, then the existing level of analysis would be insufficient.  The Organizations would oppose the revision of the RMP in this manner as the RAMP plan is basically seeking to implement the RMP that was recently completed.

2. Scope of Proposal should not alter the SRMA characteristics and values.

In several locations the Proposal approaches discussions about possible reallocation of values in the SRMA, and this is concerning for the Organizations as the SRMA is one of the few targeted areas for motorized usage in the RMP or the western portions of Colorado more generally.  These characteristics are highly valuable to the motorized community.  The characteristics of SRMA are clearly defined in the following provisions in the RMP:

“South Sand Wash (35,510 acres) will be managed as a SRMA to provide OHV experiences in the Yampa Valley. Management of the SRMA is summarized in the table below, with additional management direction following (Map 17).

Management Applicable to Both Zones

Marketing will be coordinated with local OHV groups, commercial motorized vehicle suppliers, BLM community partners, and Moffat County to provide maps, brochures, interpretation opportunities, and road/trail planning and development. The area will be available for mineral location, oil and gas leasing, and nonenergy leasables. ROWs will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Zone 1 Management

Zone 1 is the open play area. The niche will be community, where Yampa Valley residents depend on public lands primarily for OHV recreation. Objectives will include off-road motorized vehicle recreational experiences.

Experiences will include enjoying risk-taking adventure, enjoying the closeness of family, and developing riding skills and abilities. Benefits will include an enhanced sense of personal freedom, a restoration of mind from unwanted stress, a greater sense of adventure, improved maintenance of physical facilities, and positive contributions to the local economy. The physical, social, and administrative prescribed setting character will be rural. The area will be on or near improved country roads and a highway. Group sizes will range from 26 to 50 people and people would seem to be everywhere. There is conspicuous and large-scale landscape alteration from OHV use. Area maps and brochures, and occasional regulatory signing will be present. Enforcement and staff presence will be routine. Under the activity-planning framework for management, a comprehensive management plan will be developed. Management will be geared towards providing family-oriented and skill developing  activities for visitors to the area. Main access roads and trails through the area will be identified and signed. Monitoring will determine if or when open recreation use approaches or exceeds resource capacity. OHV use will be open. Developed recreation sites will be closed to all mineral actions. The area will have a Class IV VRM designation.

Zone 2 Management

Zone 2 is the designated roads and trails area. The niche will be community, where Yampa Valley residents depend on public lands primarily for OHV recreation. Objectives will include single-track and double-track OHV riding, from novice to expert levels. Experiences will include enjoying risk-taking adventure and new challenges and temporarily escaping from everyday responsibilities. Benefits will include greater retention of desired recreational experience; a reduction in the negative impacts from such things as litter, trampling of vegetation, and unplanned trails; positive contributions to the local economy; and an enhanced sense of personal freedom. The physical, social, and administrative prescribed setting character will be middle to front country. Recreation will be on or near improved country roads and contact with people will be eminent, but still intermittent. There will be from 7 to 29 encounters expected a day during peak season and users may be unnerved but may not necessarily move off routes, areas, or sites to accommodate others. Area maps and brochures, occasional regulatory signing, and a designated marked trail system will be present. Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes and some two-wheel drive vehicles will be predominant. Enforcement and staff presence will be routine. Under the activity planning framework for management, a comprehensive management plan will be developed. Management will be geared towards enhancing OHV trail riding activities for visitors to the area. Together with user groups and local government, there will be a system of designated trails identified and signed to accommodate a wide range of vehicle types and riding levels. Crucial winter range and other seasonally limited wildlife habitat areas will be closed to surface disturbing activities. Monitoring will ensure that user experiences and expectations are being met and that resources are being protected. The area will be available for mineral location, but it will not be available for coal leasing. OHV use will be limited to designated roads and trails. The area will have a Class III VRM designation.”[1]

The Organizations would note that the concerning provisions of the Proposal about realigning the values of the SRMA to align with larger goals of the entire RMP would include:

“Goal A – Provide a diversity of outdoor recreational opportunities, activities, and experiences for various user groups, unorganized visitors, and affected communities, which will impact their residences, economies, and the environment. Objectives for achieving this goal include:

• • Increase managed motorized and non-motorized use trails;
  • Focus the development of non-motorized and non-mechanized trails in backcountry areas or where public demand warrants;
  • Provide legal public access opportunities for recreational uses;

Manage for special recreation permit (SRP) services;

• • Identify strategies and decisions that may be applied to protect or preserve primitive and semi-primitive areas that provide solitude and backcountry opportunities; and
  • Manage motorized recreation to reduce impacts on big game hunt quality and harvest success on BLM-administered lands.”[2]

The Organizations are concerned that if these values of the general Field Office planning effort were applied without recognition of the values identified for protection and expansion in the SRMA, this would undermine the value of the RMP as many of these general planning values of the RMP are achieved outside the SRMA planning area.  It should be noted that the SRMA area encompasses only 35,000 acres on a Field Office that covers more than 1.3 million acres.  By focusing recreational activities in smaller areas of the FO, other values can be improved throughout the planning area.

The Organizations remain open to multiple uses of any public lands for all forms of recreation regardless of the particular SRMA designation as the SRMA designation elevates particular values in these areas but the SMRA at issue also does not exclude any recreational uses.  The Organizations would be highly concerned if the Proposal sought to realign the SRMA values in a manner that created exclusive use areas for values that are not protected in the SRMA.  This would be a significant alteration of the RMP and we submit outside the scope of the RAMP plan. We would also note that since the 2011 RMP, the mountain bike community has seen extensive expansion of opportunities on the Emerald Mountain SRMA.  There has been no expansion of motorized usage in the Emerald Mountain area.  While the Emerald Mountain area is not immediately adjacent to Craig, this is a short bus ride away and easily available for users of the planning area.   Any asserted imbalance in access to desired opportunities is equally relevant as the motorized community in and around Steamboat often is coming to the South Sand Wash area to ride.

When the value of the South Sand Wash open area is addressed at the state level, the value of motorized opportunities in this area only expands. Only 8% of all trails in the State of Colorado are open to motorized single track.[3] We are aware that often this imbalance is not recognized when more localized planning in undertaken. As the Organizations noted in their scoping comments, open motorized riding areas, such as South sand Wash are almost unheard of in Colorado, making motorized access to the area highly valuable currently and of growing value into the future.  As noted in the survey of motorized desired opportunities submitted as Exhibit B of these comments, many opportunities being sought, such as a designated trials riding area or OHV rock crawling area cannot be supported in any area outside an open area. This only increases the value of the existing SRMA designations and values being protected in the RMP.

3. Support for development of trail head facilities and recreational infrastructure.

The Proposal seeks to address trailhead type facilities and allows the development of fee sites at some point in the future at these locations.  While the Organizations are often concerned about fees being charged for areas with minimal infrastructure, increased trailhead infrastructure and types of infrastructure developments have been a growing question for the motorized community. Lower-level trailhead improvements are intended to be supported by the good management crews provided to the FO in partnership with the CPW OHV grants but our users are often willing to pay more for more services as well.  In order to understand how these requests could be addressed, COHVCO undertook a survey of the motorized community to develop a more complete understanding of the opportunity and needs and possible support for various aspects associated with the development of these resources.  As a result of these generalized types of questions from various managers about what the motorized community would be willing to pay for particular levels of services, COHVCO undertook a survey of the motorized community as part of the 2023 update of the Economic Contribution study that has been a strategic resource developed with USFS, BLM CPW and funded with an OHV grant.  A copy of this newly released 2023 Economic Contribution Study is attached as Exhibit “A” to these comments.

Since the 2016 Economic Contribution study was completed, one of the most common questions and issues we have faced is understanding the recreational services the public was willing to pay additional monies to support, such as maintained parking areas, designated camping infrastructure with limited improvements or fully developed camping opportunities with hook ups and showers and other heightened levels of support facilities.   These questions expand beyond general recreational infrastructure to include targeted recreational opportunities that are inconsistent with a designated trail network area, such as a rock crawling or trials motorcycle area or a tot/training area.

COHVCO was able to obtain responses from approximately 2700 motorized users as part of the economic contribution study update around questions and topics such as this. Many similar questions and concerns area raised in the Proposal in its planning for the future of the area.   The Organizations have also provided a complete copy of the full survey results as we believe these results will be highly valuable for the Proposal, given the overlap of many of the questions and issues being addressed. This full report of the survey is attached as Exhibit “B”.  the Organizations would welcome further refinement of these types of questions as the planning for the area moves forward.

4. Wild Horses

The Organizations had the opportunity to review the comments provided in the preliminary scoping for the effort. It did not surprise us that wild horses appear to again be a major concern raised in the comments.  This issue appears in almost any planning effort that BLM undertakes throughout the Western United States.  We cannot overlook the almost consistent identification of by many comments made by the public that the planning area should prioritize wild horse management. This is at best a horrible over simplification of the challenges BLM is facing with Wild Horse management as removing the SRMA designation would not alter the challenges that have faced wild horses and burros throughout the western US.  10% of the SRMA is also identified as a wild horse area and this is the area that is designated as existing routes only for recreational usage.

The Organizations would also vigorously assert that the planning area is one of the shrinking number of locations that wild horses can be viewed easily by the public in a nature habitat area. The access to the planning area provided by the existing trails and recreational infrastructure is a critical part of this unique recreational experience.  This ability is an important tool for the management of wild horses given the ability to interact in this way builds public awareness of the issues facing wild horses and would exemplify how recreation and conservation are aligned in achieving important goals on this issue.

5. Conclusions

Please accept this correspondence as the support of the Organizations for Alternative A of the Proposal. While we support Alternative A of the Proposal, the Organizations are concerned with some portions of the Proposal, which starts to alter the direction and intent of the SRMA as defined in the RMP. While the Organizations are concerned with a possible redefinition of the SRMA characteristics, the Organizations have also attached new research that we have undertaken that we hope will be valuable to planners moving forward with the Proposal.

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

Sincerely,

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

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

[1] See, Little Snake FO RMP at pg. 48

[2] See, Proposal at pg. 3.

[3] Colorado Off-Highway Trail Opportunity Plan  (COTOP) | Trails Preservation Alliance

Michelle Kerns, Superintendent
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
P.O. Box 1507
Page, AZ 86040

RE: Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Motor Vehicles (NPS-2024-0005-0001)

Dear Superintendent Kerns:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the National Park Service (NPS) proposal to amend special regulations for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (the “recreation area”) to update rules about the use of motor vehicles on roads and off roads on designated routes and areas (the “proposed rules”).

1.  Background of Our Organizations

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

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

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

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. On state and federal lands including the boundary with Arches National Park, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.

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

2.  Introduction

Since before the recreation area was established in 1972, it has been important for recreational travel by 4WD vehicles and off-highway vehicles (OHVs) from motorcycles to dune buggies, and its importance has grown as OHVs have become more popular and capable of covering greater distances.

3.  Purpose of the Recreation Area

Congress established the recreation area in 1972 “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” (emphasis added). Congress clearly intended to meaningfully accommodate motorboats on Lake Powell and motor vehicles on land.

The proposed rules contradict this recreational purpose, and they would manage the recreation area like a national park, apparently to satisfy the demands of groups seeking to vastly expand the designation of wilderness and its proxies. The October 26th blog of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) states:

To be precise, it sits between Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to the west, Capitol Reef National Park to north, Canyonlands National Park to the northeast, and Bears Ears National Monument to the east.

Each of these surrounding areas are renowned for their stunning scenery, diverse flora and fauna, cultural sites, and outstanding recreation opportunities. They are also managed to protect these objects and qualities. Glen Canyon possesses very similar landscapes and values, and yet the National Park Service (NPS) has not always managed the Area in a manner similar to its neighbors.

The recreation area should be managed differently than the parks because it’s not a park.

4.  History of OHV Use

The recreation area was open to cross-country OHV use until 2021. Then the NPS limited nearly all of the area to designated routes, which the Organizations support, but the resulting travel plan is extremely sparse. The 388 miles of designated routes, assuming an average route width of 20 feet, occupies 940 acres. When combined with the 450 acres of Lone Rock’s OHV open area, the drivable portion is 1190 acres of a 1,254,117-acre recreation area. In other words, the drivable portion is 0.0009% of the recreation area, which is less than 1% of 1% of 1% of the recreation area. Thus further restricting OHVs is simply unacceptable.

5.  No Justification for Further Restrictions

The NPS has demonstrated no need for the proposed rules to prohibit OHV use of any designated routes. Given the infinitesimal footprint of the 388 miles of route, we see no significant adverse impacts, let alone impacts that could be minimized only by prohibiting OHV use.

In fact, the routes benefit not only motorized recreation, but also non-motorized recreation (as motorized routes are needed to reach most of the recreation by day-hiking or even by a weekend backpacking trip) and management (as active management requires visiting areas efficiently).

Further, for all kinds of recreation and management, OHVs are the most suitable way of traveling on rugged routes. They’re designed for this kind of terrain, so they’re more likely to negotiate an obstacle rather than bypassing it off-trail, and they’re less likely to get stuck or require search and rescue.

Where mitigation is needed, minimum-impact education and route maintenance (or reshaping or relocating routes) are quite effective. Every year, the Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation offers millions of dollars of OHV grants for this purpose.

6.  No Analysis of Consequences to Recreation and Local Economies

The NPS has failed to take a hard look at the negative consequences of its proposed rules to recreation and the economy of nearby communities like Hanksville, Ticaboo, and Blanding. The rationale that prohibiting OHVs on 25 miles of routes leaves 94% of routes open is of no consolation because it would still reduce the carrying capacity of the route despite the exponential growth of OHV recreation. Further, the subject 25 miles includes many of the most important routes in the recreation area for connectivity and for their own recreational value. Whether for a short jaunt from one’s campsite, or for a multi-day overlanding type of trip, these routes provide memories that last a lifetime. They enrich the lives of visitors, and they diversify the economies of surrounding towns, as motorized recreationists tend to spend even more than non-motorized recreationists per day.

7.  Connectivity to surrounding BLM Lands.

The subject 25 miles of route provide critical access to the surrounding BLM lands. The recreation area extends 135 miles northeast to southwest, and extends 80 miles southeast to northwest, so it needs to accommodate through-traffic. For example, Big Ridge, Upper Flint Trail, and Sunset Pass (to North Hatch Point as part of the Poison Spring Loop) are spectacular routes that provide the only north-south travel for OHV opportunities that are primarily on BLM land.

The route up Cove Canyon provides the only access to the BLM route GABD0499, which is open in all four alternatives of the BLM’s draft Henry Mountains/Fremont Gorge Travel Management Plan, thus the BLM has no intention of closing it in the coming years.

The road to Johns Canyon accesses incredible terrain for all kinds of recreation on BLM land and in the recreation area all the way up to Slickhorn Canyon.

8.  Value of the Routes Themselves

The subject 25 miles of route have great recreational value in their own right. Routes that don’t reach BLM land still lead to points of interest like views from Ticaboo Mesa, Muley Point, and Dry Mesa. Then there’s the recreational value along the way, providing the only means of access for those with limited mobility, even providing physical engagement for those with full mobility. OHV riding and driving can provide a sense of flow with the trail and connection to its surroundings, plus some degree of physical and mental challenge negotiating obstacles. Of course it also enables people to see more within their limited free time.

9.  State and County Interests

The subject 25 miles of route existed prior to establishment of the recreation area, and some of them are even maintained to an improved standard by the counties and State of Utah (e.g. Big Ridge, Flint Trail, Sunset Pass, Ticaboo Mesa, and Johns Canyon). The R.S. 2477 bellwether case in Utah District Court recently favored Garfield and Kane counties, putting onus on federal land managers to refute R.S. 2477 claims rather than operating as if the claims are unaffected by closing more routes. The NPS would be wise to avoid closing such routes to what is arguably the most suitable and most popular class of vehicle, the OHV.

10.  Conclusion

Some rules may be fine, such as quiet hours from 10pm to 6am at Lone Rock Beach, but prohibiting OHVs on the subject 25 miles of route is unwarranted and would harm the public interest. The Organizations urge you to maintain OHV access and engage us to assist your management of recreation across this inspiring area.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

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

At 2,273 miles, only 8% of the trails in Colorado are open to motorcycles. We want to see that mileage increase!

Colorado’s population is greater than ever and still growing, while we have fewer riding opportunities to meet the demand.

The Colorado Off-Highway Trail Opportunity Plan (COTOP) shows existing motorized singletrack opportunities, compares motorized to non-motorized opportunities, and demonstrates where constraints and (most importantly) where new opportunities exist.

Project Goal and Objectives:

● Create more miles of multiple-use, motorized single-track trails
● Connect existing motorized trails and trail systems
● Diversify riding experiences
● Create recreation sites for training and practice riding
● Improve public information on riding areas (locations, difficulty, expanse, etc.)

Read more about COTOP here.

BLM Director
Attention: Protest Coordinator (HQ210)
Denver Federal Center, Building 40 (Door W-4)
Lakewood, CO 80215

RE: Bears Ears National Monument RMP (DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2022-0030-RMP-EIS)

Also see:
July 1, 2024 Bears Ears National Monument Resource Management Plan Comments (06/11/24 comments can be found here)

Dear BLM Director:

Please accept this protest from the above organizations regarding the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS).

1. Background of Our Organizations

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

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

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

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.

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

2. Interest of Our Organizations and Issues

The Organizations have an interest in the BENM RMP and would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS. As the Organizations stated in our DRMP comments (enclosed):

“In addition to advocating access for responsible OHV riding, the Organizations have spent countless hours partnering with agencies to effectively manage motorized recreation, which cannot be substituted by other stakeholders. Of course we also recognize the contributions of other OHV groups such as SPEAR, the input of local government such as San Juan County, and indigenous Americans particularly when it comes to managing cultural sites. Specific to BENM, RwR and its contributors have spent several-hundred hours maintaining motorized singletrack like Vega Creek, Shay Mountain, and Indian Creek, on ATV trails like Gooseberry and Shay Ridge, and on primitive roads like Chicken Corners. We are one of the many stewards of BENM that the Lead Agencies should encourage rather than marginalize.”

In multiple ways, all of these recreational interests would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.

3. Parts of the Plan being Protested and their Adverse Effects

In addition to five other parts of the plan that are listed in Section 5, the Organizations primarily protest the thin analysis and extreme outcome of the:

1. OHV Area designations as well the underlying designations, specifically the
2. Remote Zone and
3. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) that would be managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics.

The PRMP/FEIS appears to deny adverse effects of these three designations by stating that only 32 miles of motorized routes would be closed. However, relatively few motorized routes are designated open across the 1.36 million-acre planning area, and most routes greatly contribute to the overall network’s quantity, quality, and variety.

These three designations would hobble management of the motorized routes that are currently designated open. For example, the OHV Closed area boundaries run up to the sides of many routes, thereby preventing reroutes that could otherwise be done to reduce resource impacts or increase public safety. Another example is LWC management to protect wilderness characteristics that may prohibit using heavy equipment to maintain routes. Even the LWC management that merely minimizes impacts to wilderness characteristics, and even the mere proximity to the Remote Zone or similar designations, would set the stage for more route closures during subsequent travel planning if history is any guide.

These three designations would obstruct the due consideration to re-open many other existing routes, including hundreds of miles of primitive roads claimed by San Juan County and the State of Utah. For one thing, the R.S. 2477 bellwether case in Utah District Court recently favored Garfield and Kane counties, putting onus on the BLM to refute R.S. 2477 claims rather than operating as if the claims are unaffected by closing more routes and areas in southern Utah. For another thing, even when it comes to existing routes not claimed by the counties or state, such routes were not necessarily given a fair shake by the travel management plan (TMP) that was wrapped into the 2008 Monticello RMP. Persistent controversies could be partly resolved by more thorough travel planning, but such planning would be precluded by the designation OHV Closed, Primitive Zone, or LWCs to be managed for wilderness characteristics.

Finally these three designations would prematurely prevent future planning of a single mile of new route across 637,615 acres that would be OHV Closed. Granted, new routes are rarely approved in national monuments, especially BENM given that 381,920 acres is comprised of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and 46,430 acres is comprised of Dark Canyon Wilderness. However the monument and WSA status ensure that route proposals would have to meet an especially-high standard, which is all the more reason to let such proposals be addressed rather than being preemptively denied. The fact is that motorized access facilitates the enjoyment of monument resources and the appreciation of monument objects. Across most of the monument, planners should retain the option of adding a route as technology, society, and environmental conditions change. This managerial flexibility should extend to mechanized travel such as mountain biking. Designating 587,582 acres as a Remote Zone “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation” would prevent bicycling from ever being considered in nearly half of the planning area.

These adverse effects add up to an offensively grim outlook for recreation that depends upon motorized or mechanized access, not just in the WSAs, but across the other hundreds-of-thousands of acres that would be engulphed by the designations of OHV Closed, Remote Zone, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.

4. Explanation of how the PRMP/FEIS is Flawed

The most extensive part of the Organizations’ DRMP comments is Section 11, “Preserve OHV Area zoning that have worked well for decades,” which begins:

The DRMP/EIS fails to justify drastically expanding OHV Closed area zoning. Similar to ROS, OHV Limited zoning does not require a minimum density of routes, and designated routes in OHV Limited zones occupy far less than 1% of the ground. It gives lead agencies flexibility to add a route which, in the case of BENM, would have to meet the threshold of being for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects. This threshold is plausible when it comes to major reroutes, e-bike trails, or campground loops to concentrate impacts.

Although the proposed plan spared over 200,000 acres of LWC from becoming OHV Closed, it still would manage nearly all of those acres to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, which greatly constrains motorized recreation and management. Further there’s also over 200,000 acres of LWC that the proposed plan would convert from OHV Limited to OHV Closed. This sweeping action was done in spite of the many substantive points raised in Section 11 of our DRMP comments, which weren’t addressed by the BLM response to comments.

A. Regulatory Context

Consider the statutory authority for OHV area designations, which the BLM identifies through Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989. These orders, issued before FLPMA had been implemented, were intended to further the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. When invoking fifty-year-old executive orders, agency actions should firstly remain grounded by the underlying legislation, and secondly employ executive orders and agency rules conservatively.

Executive Order 11644 as amended states:

Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted…

When issuing the orders, did presidents Nixon and Carter regard “areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted” to include a 637,615-acre area prohibiting all mechanized travel by the public? When passing NEPA in 1969, is this the extent of authority that Congress intended to delegate? Even BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

OHV Closed Areas. OHV use is prohibited in a closed area. Areas should be designated closed when limitations on OHV use will not suffice to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts.

This BLM guidance calls for designating OHV Closed areas when an OHV Limited designation “will not suffice.” For each of the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even asked the question of whether an OHV Limited designation will not suffice, let alone answered it affirmatively.

NEPA and FLMA require the BLM to invite meaningful public participation, and Executive Order 11644 as amended states “The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section.” Accordingly 43 CFR § 8342.2(a) Public Participation states:

The designation and redesignation of trails is accomplished through the resource management planning process described in part 1600 of this title. Current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. Prior to making designations or redesignations, the authorized officer shall consult with interested user groups, Federal, State, county and local agencies, local landowners, and other parties in a manner that provides an opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given consideration.

For each of the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t provide analysis of the current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses, which is needed for the public to meaningfully participate.

One might argue that OHV Closed designations and other layers of “protection” are justified merely by virtue of the national monument status, but it’s another example of the executive branch going out on a limb, as BENM wasn’t established through legislation. Regardless of monument status, RMPs in this planning area should be moderate in order to provide lasting guidance, and the current Monticello and BENM RMPs wisely relied on existing “protections” such as WSA and national-monument status covering half the planning area rather than piling additional layers onto hundreds-of-thousands of additional acres. If natural and social resources have suffered, it’s only because managerial resources have been diverted to satisfy a heavy-handedness of the executive branch, not because the current RMPs lack the designations of OHV Closed, Remote Zone, or LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.

B. Purpose, Need, and Analysis of Environmental Impacts

Since the OHV Closed area would cover the WSAs, Primitive Zones, and roughly half of the LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics, its purpose is presumably to further the purposes of these designations. The purpose and boundaries of the WSAs are clear but, given that the WSAs already cover 381,920 acres, the need for a Remote Zone and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics is highly unlikely. In any case, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t make the case for LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics or a Remote Zone covering nearly half of this massive monument.

i. Remote Zone

The proposed plan would place 587,582 acres into a Remote Zone, which is one of four recreational zones the agencies created to zone BENM. These zones don’t come from agency guidance documents, but the most applicable guidance seems to be BLM Handbook 8342, Recreation and Visitor Services Planning. The Remote Zone is most equivalent to the Primitive Zone in this handbook. The handbook’s example characteristics for the Primitive Zone state that it’s at least 1/2-mile from any motorized route, while the Remote Zone in BENM would be as little as 1/8-mile from any motorized route, which greatly expands the Remote Zone while encroaching on motorized routes. The encroachments upon motorized routes wouldn’t be as problematic if the Remote Zone weren’t exclusively non-motorized, and in fact the DRMP didn’t specify that the Remote Zone would be non-motorized. However the PRMP/FEIS inserts that the Remote Zone is explicitly “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation.”

The PRMP/FEIS mentions the recreation zones deriving from a mapping exercise and Outcomes-Focused Management (OFM) surveys conducted by the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but it doesn’t meet the OFM goal found in BLM Handbook 8342 that “Visitors, partners, and stakeholders are a primary source of information to determine which recreation opportunities to offer and which outcomes to target.” The recreation zones of the proposed plan haven’t adequately incorporated the input of visitors (most of which are motorized when one considers the entire planning area), partners (including the Organizations and local OHV groups like SPEAR), and stakeholders (many of which depend upon motorized use and/or somewhat developed settings).

The PRMP/FEIS appears to assume that the Remote Zone designation would benefit natural resources even though it would be less accessible for active and adaptive management. It appears to assume that the Remote Zone designation would benefit solitude seekers and primitive opportunities even though most of those acres can only be reached by an overnight backpacking trip. While a much higher density of routes may indeed detract from solitude and primitive opportunities, such a low current density of routes makes most of the acres inaccessible for typical day hiking, yet this tension is not handled by the PRMP/FEIS.

ii. LWCs Managed for Wilderness Characteristics

Likewise managing LWCs for wilderness characteristics could wind up hampering their very purpose. For example, BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

6.5 Travel and Transportation Management within Presidential and Congressional Designations or Similar Allocations

F. BLM Manual 6320 – Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the following apply:

1. In lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the BLM will not designate primitive roads and motorized/mechanized trails and will not classify them as assets within lands managed for wilderness characteristics protection in land use plans.

Therefore converting more LWCs to manage for wilderness characteristics would prevent managers from ever adding a route even for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects.

In addition to undermining their very purposes, designating a huge Remote Zone and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics simply isn’t needed. The PRMP/FEIS hasn’t demonstrated that demand for such things isn’t met by the current RMPs, let alone identifying why the demand is unmet, as the answer could be a lack of motorized access among other things. The PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-75 asserts:

OHV use can impact the naturalness of LWC due to vegetation loss, increased erosion, wildlife disturbances, degraded water quality, introduction of noxious weeds, and damage to cultural resources. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation can be degraded by the noise and dust of motor vehicles and increased presence of other visitors.

All of these impacts can be minimized through good management, and the impacts are almost entirely confined to the vicinity of the designated routes, which occupy anywhere from 1% to 0% of a given LWC unit. Further, as San Juan County and the State of Utah have repeatedly shown, most of the planning area that hasn’t already been designated as wilderness or a WSA indeed doesn’t qualify.

Even if a purpose and need were established to designate a huge Remote Zone and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics, changing those areas to OHV Closed isn’t needed. Albeit uncommon, it’s possible to add existing routes to the TMP in those areas, and eliminating that possibility altogether isn’t needed.

iii.  OHV Closed

Leaving the Remote Zone and LWC status aside, the OHV Closed designation isn’t needed to cover 637,615 acres, and the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t adequately demonstrate otherwise. Granted, the wilderness and WSA acreage would remain OHV Closed, which presumably went through a process that addressed specific resources in specific locations. For the rest of the 637,615 acres that would be OHV Closed, no such specificity is provided, other than the apparent request of Canyonlands National Park that will be covered later in this document.

Beyond the Remote Zone, LWC, and WSA designations, the purpose and need for an enormous OHV Closed designation is claimed by statements like “the management of these areas as closed to OHV uses is consistent with the requirement at 43 CFR 8342.1, which includes minimization of impacts to cultural resources, soundscapes, wildlife, wilderness characteristic policy for the BLM, and limit recreational conflicts.” However the PRMP/FEIS lacks details. The agencies’ response to comments includes that the “effects of those area designations are addressed in several sections of the EIS including, but not limited to the Paleontological Resources and Geology, Water Resources, Terrestrial Habitat, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Wildlife and Fisheries, Recreation and Travel and Transportation Management sections in Chapter 3.” However the sections merely make generalized assertions, many of which pertain to misuse that is clearly not a matter of managerial designations, rather one of law enforcement, education, and perhaps trail work. The PRMP/FEIS must become far more specific about the problems and potential solutions in each location of the planning area. If major negative impacts are occurring, demonstrate them as well as a comprehensive analysis of alternative actions along with their positive and negative effects, as it would be far more fruitful than simply converting nearly half of the planning area from OHV Limited to OHV Closed. The Organizations are aware of the four criteria from Executive Order 11644 as amended, but the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even begun to show the BLM’s work of applying these criteria to the 637,615 acres that would become OHV Closed, especially the hundreds-of-thousands of acres beyond the WSAs.

As with the huge Remote Zone and managing LWC for wilderness characteristics, OHV Closed designations could actually lead to more negative impacts upon natural and social resources. As the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges, motorized recreation has grown and is on track to continue. For this and other forms of recreation on motorized trails, the carrying capacity is a function of the motorized trails, themselves. This recreational use is likely to be displaced when additions to a TMP are prohibited from being considered due to OHV Closed designations, and when subtractions to a TMP are made virtually inevitable by new restrictive layers of management such as a huge Remote Zone and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. Therefore these three designations of the PRMP/FEIS would increase the likelihood of motorized and mechanized travel that’s unauthorized across the entire planning area and, on the routes that remain open after the subsequent TMP revision, would increase the likelihood of crowding, conflict, and degradation of the routes.

C. National Park proximity as justification for widespread restrictions

The only geographically-specific justification that the PRMP/FEIS provides for choosing OHV Closed and LWC managed for wilderness characteristics is that parts of BENM are within several miles of Canyonlands National Park. Specifically it argues that OHV Closed and LWC management is needed to provide continuity with the national park. However one could argue that the national park should be OHV Limited instead. Regardless, the distinction between OHV Closed and OHV Limited is irrelevant to visitors because they just need to know that motorized travel is limited to designated routes, which is already the case in both BENM and the national park. Further, although the goal to effectively expand Canyonlands National Park was a major motivation for wilderness-expansion groups to parlay the proposed Cedar Mesa National Monument into a much larger Bears Ears National Monument, the actual proclamations for Bears Ears do not direct the agencies to buffer around Canyonlands. In fact, Proclamation 9558 doesn’t even mention Canyonlands, and Proclamation 10285 only mentions it when listing all boundaries of BENM. Congress certainly didn’t direct a buffer, but Congress did establish the Canyonlands boundary, thus it should be honored by the agencies.

D. Travel Management Planning

The PRMP/FEIS essentially dismisses concerns about travel management planning since it will be done subsequently, but the PRMP/FEIS would in fact make travel planning decisions that would be irreversible without amending the RMP. It would close 32 miles of routes that may be of lower use levels but are also of higher recreational value to motorized trail enthusiasts due to their more primitive characteristics. The Organizations’ DRMP comments carefully provided descriptions and photographs of two of these routes, specifically the winter access road to Beef Basin northwest of Boundary Butte (D1870) and John’s Canyon western overlook road (D0053), yet the agencies have provided no response.

The PRMP/FEIS seems to imply that thorough travel planning of these routes is unwarranted because the agency proposes to close the entire area rather than closing just the routes. However, the area of closure includes the designated routes (along with other existing routes, along with proposed ones), so the fact that the BLM proposes to close more than just the routes doesn’t justify shortchanging the meaningful public participation of these proposed actions. The PRMP/FEIS provides no analysis because it provides no route reports. Far beyond the 32 miles of route, the PRMP/FEIS makes major travel planning decisions by removing hundreds of thousands of acres from any further discussion. This enormous area goes far beyond the WSAs and wilderness area. It contains county-claimed roads, other existing routes, and locations where a new route may become entirely appropriate for some kind of mechanized use over the lifecycle of an RMP. Aside from the areas that are currently OHV Closed, only by leaving most areas OHV Limited can the BLM truly leave travel planning decisions to the subsequent TMP revision. Sticking with the current OHV Limited acreage will allow travel planning to genuinely occur, while existing parameters such as WSA status will ensure the protection of BENM objects and resources.

5. Additional Points of Protest

A. SRPs

Over 200,000 acres of LWCs that would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics would also prohibit SRPs for all motorized or mechanized use. One of the DRMP alternatives would’ve prohibited SRPs for commercial motorized or mechanized use, but now the proposed plan extends to SRPs for non-commercial use as well. This change is excessively strict given the wide variety of potential commercial and non-commercial uses, many of which are entirely consistent with the protection of monument objects. Further, the decision to prohibit even non-commercial SRPs is outside the decision space of the DRMP.

B. Soundscape Management Plan

The PRMP directive to develop a soundscape management plan appears to be based on an unjustified goal of virtually guarantying that visitors won’t hear even the faintest of motor sounds for their entire day across hundreds of thousands of acres.

C. DRMP inaccuracies of ROS zones and currently designated routes

The PRMP/FEIS finally shows the current ROS zones and current designated routes accurately and completely for the first time in the Bears Ears planning process, but the fact that these things were portrayed inaccurately (in both text and maps) during all of the comment periods should compel the agencies to initiate another round of public comments before the protest period. Accurately portraying the status quo is fundamental to NEPA compliance.

Granted, the PRMP/FEIS wouldn’t zone the national forest OHV Closed (other than in the Dark Canyon Wilderness), but the public comment period was still based on widespread inaccurate information in the DEIS about the current network of routes designated open for motorized use. Further the PRMP would effectively zone much of the forest as OHV Closed via the Remote Zone, thereby straitjacketing routes like Shay Mountain Trail that could benefit from rerouting.

D. Recognizing recreation as instrumental to conservation

The proposed plan 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 because recreationists value public lands. As Section 5 of the Organization’s DRMP comments explained, Monument objects simply cannot be protected without the RMP providing an ample quantity, quality, and variety of recreational opportunities.

In fact IMBA’s DRMP comments may have said it best:

Providing access, and public appreciation to the objects contained within the boundaries that warrant this monument is just one of them but likely the most important method of how these landscapes relate and create value for the public. Without diverse, sustainable and compatible recreation, the public might cease to support these designations. Therefore, we provide our comments as a perspective that is shared by many across the country and as a desire by our members to experience wild places via the efficient and sustainable transportation by bicycle. This perspective is that bicycle use on trails and rural remote dirt and gravel roads on public lands is an appropriate and sustainable activity that should be provided for in ample supply due to its inherent sustainability. Recreational trails, such as those authorizing bicycle use, are effective tools for conservation of natural resources. Trails direct people onto planned and managed linear features that have been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the extent possible and minimize unauthorized off trail impacts that might occur where demand exists yet trails may lack.

E. The PRMP/FEIS has not adequately defined monument objects along with other concepts such as Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship

The PRMP/FEIS repeatedly asserts that recreation is secondary to monument objects, yet it doesn’t clearly establish those objects, most notably cultural landscapes. Proclamation 9558 asserts that “Bears Ears” is “one of the densest and most significant cultural landscapes in the United States.” Proclamation 10285 reiterates this assertion about “the Bears Ears landscape.” Then it describes one part of BENM, the South Cottonwood Canyon region, as an isolated area that “contains intact cultural landscapes of early Ancestral Pueblo communities.” Thus is describes multiple cultural landscapes within the Bears Ears cultural landscape.

The proposed land management plan (LMP) of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (BEITC), which was wholly adopted by the Bears Ears Commission (BEC), doesn’t formally define the term cultural landscape, nor the Bears Ears cultural landscape in particular. It states that “The cultural landscape comprises both the natural and built environments.” In addition to the Bears Ears cultural landscape, the BEITC LMP refers to multiple cultural landscapes within BENM, specifically “the sacred and cultural landscapes of BENM.” It also refers to the Navajo cultural landscape and Zuni cultural landscape, “which covers all of the territory crossed by their ancestors during migrations to the center place.” The BEITC LMP refers to other cultural landscapes that extend beyond BENM, such as “the cultural landscape the Bear’s Ears region.” Another instance is the BEITC LMP statement “This mill is outside of BENM but does affect the broader cultural landscape of the region.”

Likewise the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t define the term cultural landscape, nor the Bears Ears cultural landscape in particular. Likewise it refers to a single BENM cultural landscape, multiple cultural landscapes within BENM, and cultural landscapes that extend beyond BENM. It does appear consistent in pertaining to indigenous cultural landscapes and not to other ethnicities, nor to other aspects of culture beyond ethnicity. The PRMP/FEIS doesn’t explain this focus on ethnicity or the specific ethnicities of indigenous cultures.

The semantics of monument objects such as cultural landscapes have serious ramifications to management due to the claimed primacy of monument objects, the reliance on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, and the commitment to tribal co-stewardship. For example, Page 3-284 of the PRMP/FEIS states “Close coordination between federal land managers and the BEC on the development and implementation of management of BENM will allow for active and appropriate management of holistically defined cultural resources including cultural landscape use and its traditional cultural and religious underpinnings.” Further Page 3-429 describes Alternative E, which is the basis for the proposed plan, stating:

The management outlined in Alternative E is centered on the perspective of the Tribal Nations of the BEC, who do not view many forms of recreation as an appropriate use of the BENM cultural landscape (BEC 2023). Traditional Indigenous Knowledge represents the Bears Ears cultural landscape as a sacred place. Culturally appropriate ways of visiting should therefore be practiced, and recreation should be managed to preserve and protect the cultural values of this landscape (BEC 2023).

The Organizations’ concerns are not alleviated by PRMP/FEIS assertions such as the agencies’ response to our comments on Page U-149:

See the Proposed Plan under the Recreation and Visitor Services section in Chapter 2. There is no prohibition on off-trail hiking in the Proposed Plan. Additionally, there is no prohibition on off-trail hiking under any alternative in the Draft Resource Management Plan. The language under Alternative E reads, “the public would be encouraged to stay on trails when hiking in the Monument.”

Actually the Proposed Plan under the Recreation and Visitor Services section in Chapter 2 states “The agencies, working collaboratively with the BEC, would identify whether specific areas need to be closed to cross-country hiking to protect BENM objects, including cultural resources and wildlife, as informed by Traditional Indigenous Knowledge.” While this idea may be reasonably applied to discrete archaeological sites, the BENM objects include one or more cultural landscapes, thus an extensive restriction on off-trail hiking is clearly within the parameters of the proposed plan.

Another example of potential consequences from co-stewardship based on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge of ill-defined monument objects pertains to seasonal closures or other time-based restrictions, which the PRMP/FEIS modestly refer to as resource rest. The PRMP/FEIS on Page 2-116 states “Agencies would collaborate with the BEC to identify seasonal motorized use area closures as needed to provide for resource rest.” Presumably seasonal closures would undergo a public review process, which is key since the Organizations believe we have as much expertise about managing motorized use as any other stakeholder. Even with public review in place, the proposed plan still alarms us given its basis for “resource rest,” such as the Page 2-80 statement “Traditional Indigenous Knowledge provides that the cultural landscape of the Monument requires rest during certain seasons of the year.” Given that the cultural landscape(s) encompass BENM and beyond, the Organizations wonder not just about the seasons in question, but about the Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship as they are slated to affect motorized recreation. Rather than clearly establishing these concepts, the PRMP/FEIS combines them, which compounds the scope of problems that would result from the proposed plan.

6. Conclusion

In all of the aforementioned ways, the Organizations urge BENM planners to more fully develop an RMP.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Senator Michael Bennett
261 Russell Building
Washington DC 20510

Senator John Hickenlooper
SR 374 Russell Building
Washington DC 20510

RE:  Preliminary thoughts on GORP 2024

Dear Senator Bennett and Senator Hickenlooper:

Please accept this correspondence as the ongoing opposition of the above Organizations to the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative/ GORP 2024 Proposal. We believe it is important for us to note that the Organizations have previously supported community efforts for legislation of public lands management, such as the Hermosa Creek Watershed Proposal that was passed into law in 2016.  The GORP proposal is simply not the Hermosa Creek proposal when they are compared. Our Organizations were vigorously involved in the development of the recently completed GMUG National Forest Resource Management Plan. The Organizations continue to support the management Alternative that was the result of this effort.  During this effort, we are also aware of the almost complete opposition of the public to Alternative D of the draft RMP. The Organizations cannot overlook that GORP almost directly reflects what the USFS proposed under Alternative D of the Plan which was based on numerous citizen management proposals for the forest. Why would the motorized community resurrect an Alternative of the RMP that was soundly defeated in the RMP development?  While the Proposal asserts to have strong community engagement, we cannot overlook the fact the USFS RMP draft proposal received more than 10k comments alone.

1. Long term impacts to multiple use.

The Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal is seeking to significantly alter the multiple use mandate.  This Proposal would essentially allow counties to opt out of the multiple uses or redefine multiple uses on federal public lands in that county in the manner the locality finds acceptable.  This is a concept that would directly undermine the value of the multiple use mandate entirely as this would remove the public from public lands. The Organizations would also be very concerned that the cumulative impacts of this decision could be immense if numerous counties took this route of management. Over the passage of time, every county that had public lands in the State could have pursued similar legislation to the Proposal and a functionally made the multiple use concept irrelevant.  This challenge from the Proposal cannot be overlooked and would be vigorously opposed by the Organizations.

2. Three year window for travel planning is of no value.

While the press releases and many letters of support assert that there will be significant recreational benefits from this legislation passing, the Organizations are simply unable to locate these benefits.  The Proposal requires a travel management plan within 3 years of passage, we are simply unable to identify how this is a benefit of the Proposal. This is directly evidenced by the efforts of the USFS to commence winter travel planning in the Proposal area within the next several months.  This means winter travel issues could be resolved before the 3 year window in the Proposal was reached even without passage of the legislation.  We fail to understand how these provisions could be a benefit for recreation.

3. No new roads and no future travel management.

We have concerns about the 3 year mandatory planning requirement in the Proposal for summer usages as well. These concerns explode as the Proposal clearly states there will be no new trails developed that are not identified in the Proposal or in the TMP adopted as a result of the Proposal.  The loss of the ability to do travel management in the future is immensely problematic. This seems short-sighted as we are intimately aware that in the future there could be a need to address issues like camping access and developed camping infrastructure. We are also aware one of the most compelling needs we face in the planning area is a lack of trailhead access points.  These critically needed resources would be prohibited in the future as TMPs are often necessary to connect campsites or to push parking and trailhead facilities off existing roadways.  Again, the Organizations are unable to support an assertion that a limitation such as this would be a benefit for recreation in any form.

We are even more troubled with the Proposal prohibits this critically needed infrastructure such as campsites and trailheads cannot be built as §11 Paragraph H of the Proposal entirely prohibits the construction of any new roads in most planning areas designated as follows:

“(h) ROADS AND TRAILS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no road shall be constructed in a covered area.”

The Organizations believe the exceptionally short-sighted nature of this standard is immediately apparent when comparing the photos below that were provided to a local newspaper and made the rounds on social media of the current parking situation at a Wilderness Trail head outside Crested Butte.

The Organizations would agree with the major sentiment from the public that this situation was not acceptable and should be corrected.  Rather than streamlining resolution of this type of problem, the Proposal would force this type of situation to be the new management model for issues of this type.  People would be forced to park on shoulders and block access while impacting resources as roads could not be created to access new planned and managed parking infrastructure.  The Organizations submit these photos are evidence of a compelling need for management and not the preferred management response to the issues being faced. Again this is not a recreational benefit.

4. EO 14008 and EO 2020-008 has not been complied with

The direction of the Proposals management areas also conflicts with President Biden’s EO 14008 and research conducted by CPW in the development of the 2024 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and recent mandates from Governor Polis in EO 2020-008. President Bidens EO 14008 specifically identified the strategic goal of improving recreational access and economic contributions from recreation to local communities for agency three different times.  §214 of EO 14008 clearly mandates improved recreational access to public lands through management as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Polis EO 2020-008 clearly identifies the need to create recreational opportunities moving forward that are sustainable as follows:

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;
2. Convene voices from different outdoor interests, races, cultures, ages, and sectors through the Regional Partnerships to identify regional priorities and strategies;
3. Collaborate with Regional Partnerships to develop a State-level vision and Plan for conservation and recreation; and
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.

Again, given the strategic and long-term nature of this requirement, we must express concern on the single opportunity to plan and provide sustainable recreation provided in the Proposal.  The Strategic nature of the need for expanded sustainable recreational infrastructure in an ongoing manner is again highlighted in the manager research survey conducted by CPW in relation to the most recent SCORP. Overwhelmingly the most sought after resource is expanded sustainable recreational access. A copy of this research is attached as Exhibit “A” to these comments. Again, this type of demand does not align with the single planning opportunity provided in the Proposal.

5. Funding challenges.

The Organizations would be remiss if we did not state our concern that any planning could be undertaken within the 3 year window given the immense cuts to USFS operational budgets that was just provided in the Continuing Resolution just passed.  Even with 128 Forests in the Country absorbing $500m to $750m in additional cuts is problematic.  Future budgets look even more grim for land managers. Our Organizations were immediately contacted by several managers to help understand what could and could not be funded by the OHV grants provided through CPW as they were struggling to provide basic services. In this type of climate asserting the UFSFS can do anything is problematic, and this assertion would open the discussions to a situation where the motorized community is supporting basic forest operations with OHV grants and then federal money is being used to close trails rather than support basic operations.  This would be entirely unacceptable but a real possibility as this version of GORP has no budget or funding designations or streams identified in a financial note.

In a troubling development much of the language proposed mirrors much of the language that is being implemented in the Bears Ears Monument and numerous other special designations throughout Utah.  We have been very involved in this effort and can tell you that many of the interests in Utah are deeply opposed to the standards once they have the ability to see these standards applied on the ground. These efforts have directed large sums of existing money away from site specific projects and towards updating various plans that were recently completed.

6. Conclusion

The Organizations must oppose the Proposal given the long term impacts to the multiple use mandates that have proven highly successful in developing large scale public support for public lands.  The loss of the benefits of multiple use mandates cannot be overlooked. The Organizations are also very troubled that many of the asserted benefits from the proposal, such as three-year windows to start travel planning, are not benefits but rather simply reflect an effort the USFS has already started.  We are also deeply concerned that the Proposal immediately prohibits road construction in any subsequent planning and then requires this round of planning to be the last on the forest. The Organizations believe this is hugely short-sighted.

The Organizations must voice our support for current management of the planning area, which is the result of years of effort and tens of thousands of comments. 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).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Bureau of Land Management
Richfield Field Office
150 East 900 North
Richfield, UT 84701

RE: Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge TMP (DOI-BLM-UT-C020-2018-0006-EA)

Also see:
June 10 2024: Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge TMP Comments

Dear BLM Planning Team:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) of the Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge (HMFG) Travel Management Plan (TMP).

1. Background of Our Organizations

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

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

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

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.

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

2. Introduction

The DEA doesn’t resolve any of the concerns that the Organizations raised in our June 10th letter, so we have enclosed it to incorporate as part of our October 26th comments, thus we ask the BLM to respond to all comments from both letters. Both letters follow the same section headings (1 through 6), so please review each section from the June 10th letter followed by reading the same section from our October 26th comments.

The June 10th letter stressed that the HMFG planning area is huge, with thousands of miles of valuable routes that should be fully assessed to develop a satisfactory TMP. The Organizations now add that motorized recreation has increased here in the past couple decades, and that the extensive route network is increasingly important as places like Moab and even the San Rafael Swell become crowded.

3. The route inventory must be completed in order to reach a sound decision.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter outlined the critical nature of a thorough route inventory, and provided six examples of existing routes missing from the inventory, explaining why less-established routes are often the most valuable ones for OHV recreation, and pointing out that the 2017 settlement doesn’t require Class III cultural surveys for routes to be merely included in the inventory or an action alternative. The Organizations now add that, when it comes to designating a route open, the 2017 settlement deadline could be further extended so there’s time to survey additional routes for designation, as extensions are permitted to ensure that travel planning is done properly. When it comes to HMFG, the 2017 settlement’s clear purpose was to survey the designated routes, not to prevent consideration of existing routes merely because of the survey requirement.

Nothing in the 2017 settlement relieves the BLM of its duty to develop a thorough route inventory. The 2008 RMP on Page A9-1 states:

“The RFO is aware that the current inventory of roads and trails being used for the route designation process is not 100 percent correct or complete.”

“BLM will collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating the designated route network for suitability for active OHV management and envisioning potential changes in the existing system or adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands.”

“The Approved RMP completes the initial route designation component of the Travel Management Plan and implementation process. These routes would be the initial basis for signing and enforcement.”

Indeed the route inventory wasn’t “100 percent correct or complete,” nor 90% or 80% complete, especially in the HMFG planning area. While the BLM has added 146 miles to the inventory, hundreds of miles of existing routes remain excluded, despite the passage of sixteen years. And it’s no wonder why, as the BLM hasn’t come close to following through on the RMP’s pledge to “collaborate with affected and interested parties in… adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands.” Thus the BLM hasn’t progressed from the RMP’s “initial route designation component of the Travel Management Plan and implementation process,” and thus the BLM wisely hasn’t implemented the current TMP by and large because the BLM doesn’t have a complete TMP because it never completed its route inventory.

The 2008 TMP is based on a grossly incomplete route inventory yet, in the subsequent sixteen years, the BLM has not invited the public to submit route data during any formal comment period, and the DEA refuses to add such routes to its inventory. A route inventory should’ve been completed during RMP scoping in 2003, and the fact that it’s still not done over twenty years later is unacceptable. The Organizations’ June 10th letter provided a half-dozen examples of missing routes, and half of them (specifically #3, #4, and #5) were within ten miles of Hanksville that’s far easier for inventory workers to reach than the rest of the planning area, which speaks to the extent of missing routes. Those three routes near Hanksville provide key connectivity, yet they’ve never been added to the BLM’s inventory, which again speaks to the extent of missing routes.

Of these hundreds of miles of missing routes, the vast majority of them have been continuously used for decades, and they should not be closed as if they never existed. Prior to 2008, the HMFG planning area was open to cross-country travel, with the exception of WSAs that were either limited to existing routes or closed. Such routes should be left open unless route-specific analysis demonstrates a need for closure.

4. At least one alternative must propose to open many of the currently-inventoried routes in order to provide an adequate range of alternatives.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter stressed that many inventoried routes are excluded from every preliminary alternative despite having great recreational value and having resource impacts that are low or can be greatly mitigated, and the letter provided three examples. The DEA continues to exclude from every draft alternative these three routes and many others, and it doesn’t update the route reports or provide any clear reason why such routes would be excluded from the scope of analysis, thus it’s completely unresponsive to the Organizations’ June 10th letter. The 2017 settlement requires the BLM to invite public input on its scoping report / preliminary route reports / preliminary alternatives for the purpose of meaningfully considering such input. The Organizations’ June 10th letter detailed comments on these three routes among others, yet the BLM’s new draft route reports and alternatives are identical to its preliminary ones, so there’s simply no indication our comments were meaningfully considered.

Regarding all of the alternatives, sound planning must clearly articulate the rationale for each proposed decision. The information set forth in the DEA, including the route reports (however voluminous they may be), is NEPA deficient when it comes to explaining the basis or rationale for the various proposed route closures in the range of alternatives. The information amounts to little more than route-by-route conclusions as to what will be closed, with little to no underlying data, and no analysis and application of data or other criteria to explain any of the proposed route closures. The NEPA deficiencies here include (a) failure to take a hard look at the routes and the conditions in support of or against closure, (b) a failure of transparency, (c) failure to inform the public, and (d) arbitrary and capricious governmental decision making.

5. When developing TMP alternatives, the 2017 settlement does NOT require an alternative to close routes in lands with wilderness characteristics, only in natural areas and WSAs.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter explained why the draft alternatives should not propose to close any routes outside of natural areas (NAs) or WSAs for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics (WC). Unfortunately now the draft Alternative B continues to close virtually every route within lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) other than those that form cherry-stems or other boundaries of LWCs, which is inconsistent with the 2008 RMP and 2017 settlement.

6. When making the TMP final decision, impacts to wilderness characteristics should not be minimized outside of areas that the RMP directs to manage for wilderness characteristics.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter stressed that, outside of WSAs and natural areas (where the BLM chose to manage for WC), the BLM should not restrict recreation for the purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, nor should it manufacture other purposes. Unfortunately now the DEA does exactly that in all of its action alternatives by disproportionately closing routes in LWCs that are not NAs. While the targeting of LWC routes for closure is wholesale in Alternative B, it exists in Alternative C, and is even clear in Alternative D. To varying degrees, all of the action alternatives would essentially manage the LWCs as NAs without going through the required process of amending the 2008 RMP, which is inconsistent with the 2008 RMP and 2017 settlement.

The DEA in Section 3.4.10 “Affected Environment” on Page 92 states:

“Similarly, the 2017 Settlement Agreement stipulates that “For purposes of minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, the BLM will consider the potential damage to any constituent element of wilderness characteristics, including naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, for each alternative route network.””

Where the 2017 Settlement Agreement refers to minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, it refers to minimizing damage to those public lands, not minimizing damage to the WC themselves. Furthermore the 2017 settlement refers to considering the potential damage to any constituent element of WC, it directs the BLM to consider such damage, but it doesn’t direct the BLM to minimize such damage. If the 2017 settlement were to direct the BLM to minimize impacts to WC, it probably wouldn’t have been approved by the court, which cautioned against creating de facto wilderness in its 2018 dismissal of Utah’s appeal.

The Organizations urge the BLM to comply with the RMP decision to not manage for WC outside of NAs and WSAs particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings. This year even more reasons have emerged for the BLM to avoid promoting WC in the HMFG planning area, specifically recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 that reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. The draft TMP in Section 3.3.2.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 34 asserts “Distinct from any planning decisions, under 43 CFR §8342.1 the BLM has the obligation to minimize impacts to resources, including wilderness character, when designating OHV routes.” The BLM should be cognizant of the extent to which such agency guidance is actually grounded in legislation. When clear authorization is lacking, administrative actions are now more likely to be ruled a bypass of requirements such as the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA. The argument that the BLM is merely conducting minimization pursuant to the 2017 Settlement Agreement could be unavailing if that exercise is wholly or partially beholden to administratively-created special designations that wind up no longer holding under the glaring Congressional authority of the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA.

7. The recreation and socioeconomic analyses fail to recognize major negative impacts of every alternative.

The DEA claims few negative impacts to motorized recreation or local economies by claiming that motorized use levels would not be significantly different, which is absurd. First of all, due to the gross incompleteness of the 2008 route inventory, TMP, and its implementation, motorized use has continuously occurred on hundreds of miles of routes that continue to be missing from the inventory and aren’t accounted for anywhere in the DEA. These missing routes tend to be primitive and prized by OHV riders. Thus actually implementing Alternative A—let alone the action alternatives—would greatly reduce the quantity and quality of opportunities for motorized trail enthusiasts.

To prove the BLM’s claim that motorized recreation and local economies would be unharmed by every alternative’s closure of these hundreds of miles of missing routes plus hundreds of miles of inventoried routes, the DEA sites Leaver 2024, which is a high-level summary of tourism in Utah. The Leaver 2024 report doesn’t even attempt to address the question of how motorized access affects visitation, thus the BLM’s claim is completely unsubstantiated.

Not only would implementing any of the DEA alternatives reduce the enjoyment of current OHV riders, it would reduce the potential for growth in this prominent form of recreation, as the quantity and quality of motorized routes determines the carrying capacity of this planning area. The network of existing routes is important now, and even more so in future as places like Moab and the San Rafael Swell become crowded. The communities of Hanksville and Ticaboo are increasingly depending on OHV visitation, and such recreational opportunities improve the quality of life for residents, which could draw new residents so long as the BLM leaves the vast majority of existing routes open.

Another way that the DEA greatly underestimates socioeconomic impacts is by estimating $34.38 per visitor day of economic output (see Table 43 on Page 123). Motorized recreationists often spend that amount on fuel alone, particularly in this remote planning area. Suffice it to say that analyzing socioeconomic impacts is needed, along with a more realistic analysis of impacts to motorized recreation.

8. Conclusion

The Organizations do not expect the BLM to permit cross-country travel outside of small open areas, nor do we necessarily expect every existing route to remain open. Nevertheless we expect travel plans to be developed upon a foundation of thorough route inventory, explanation of any negative impacts to natural or social resources, and accounting of the impacts to motorized recreation and local economies. It’s worth getting these things right given the incredible trails in this incredible landscape.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

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

Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Att: Jody Kennedy
Via email only

RE: Preliminary Thoughts on Outdoor Strategy

Dear Jody:

The Organizations would like to supplement our original comments on the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy previously submitted July 27, 2024.  When our original comments were provided on the SCORP, we had not had the opportunity to review the Outdoor Strategy in any detail. After having the opportunity to review the Outdoor Strategy more completely we can simply say we are disappointed and frustrated with the Draft Outdoor Strategy (“The Proposal”).  Our disappointment centers around several general issues including: strategic recreation planning has simply been largely disregarded in the Proposal despite it being a cornerstone of the effort; the Proposal is silent around the huge success Colorado has had in providing sustainable recreational opportunities for decades; many CPW partner groups and their successes and challenges in providing sustainable recreational opportunities simply not mentioned in the Proposal;  and often third party information is relied on instead of CPW data.  The need to accurately understand and recognize challenges facing Colorado will be critical in crafting an accurate and effective response in furtherance of mandates of EO 2020-008.  While we are aware that data we hope will be developed  from the effort will be highly valuable to the recreational community moving forward, the first usage of this new data cannot be to correct poorly directed management efforts that resulted from foundational failures in the Proposal.  Much of the public and land managers failed to understand that the motorized community has been legally required to balance recreation and conservation on federal public lands since 1972 with the issuance of Executive Order 11644 by Richard Nixon. The Organizations are very concerned that the cumulative impacts of the challenges of the Proposal reliance on imperfect information and failing to recognize the success that has already been achieved will result in poor management decisions.

In several locations the Proposal asserts large concerns for wildlife populations based on public perceptions, such as climate change or growth of state populations. The Organizations don’t contest this perception exists in Colorado, as we have been addressing this issue for years in various federal NEPA efforts and had numerous discussions with CPW leadership on this issue. We do not contest that vocal minority of the public appear to have the perception wildlife populations are plummeting and closures are necessary.  When these perceptions are compared to CPW data, these public perceptions are immediately identified as less than accurate. These types of conflicts based on incorrect or incomplete information are exactly the type of situation the Outdoor Strategy was designed to address. As a recent example of the challenge that may result from poor data being relied on is the planning effort undertaken on the GMUG NF in 2021, where many in the public asserted wildlife populations on the GMUG were plummeting.  When this assertion was compared to CPW herd specific data on the GMUG  it was determined that elk populations were 35% above goals and deer populations were only 10% below goal due to recent winter kill situations on the forest. Unfortunately, this example is not the only time we have encountered this issue. Building awareness of this success in conservation and recreation would be a major step towards the goals of EO 2020-008 as repetitious efforts could be avoided and other users could use this model moving forward. Failing to recognize success does not foster future success.

This growingly systemic lack of public awareness and understanding on the current balance in conservation and recreation values forces us to ask a basic management question: “What is the proper management response to the situation?” Is this a situation that needs an on-the-ground management response or is this an issue addressed with an educational effort regarding before any on the ground response is undertaken?  This situation highlights our concerns as any management response must include education of the public and not just tighter management restrictions and closures to achieve a goal that may have already been achieved.  Accurate information from CPW has been published for years on what these goals for wildlife populations are and challenges in achieving these goals. CPW has consistently stated that recreational activity is often a nonexistent threat to these resources.  If there is a desire to change these conclusions on the proper level of any resource,  then the public should be educated what the process is and how to engage in the process. The Proposal simply moves past this critical step, as education is not recognized, and success is not highlighted.

We continue to struggle with understanding how the Proposal is to be coordinated into other planning efforts and are very concerned that the effort will result in minimal benefit to anyone but immense conflicts between users being fostered.   Regardless of where the distinction and focus of the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy ultimately falls, recreation must be addressed in the Outdoor Strategy as required in Governor Polis EO 2020-008 and various mission requirements for CPW identified in the Colorado Revised Statutes. We are disappointed that the Proposal fails to even recognize that everyone and everything wins when there is a healthy ecosystem for the public to enjoy.   A healthy and vibrant ecosystem is a critical step providing all recreational opportunities, even for those that will only experience these opportunities through a picture on the internet.  Building  well planned and maintained trails and other infrastructure when they are needed contributes to a healthy ecosystem. This is simply never addressed.

These comments are troubling for us to even write as the Organizations have partnered with CPW for more than 50 years. Over this time there have been good times and less than good times throughout this partnership over this time. Recreation has always been an important component of CPW efforts as many in the State did not pursue consumptive wildlife activities.  Recreational opportunities like State Parks have been a critical tool for CPW to engage the public on different issues and this critical tool is simply not addressed at all in the Proposal. CPW has recently led efforts that have been nationally recognized for their groundbreaking collaboration to proactively balance trails and wildlife but are not mentioned in the Proposal.  The silence in the Proposal is deafening.  The Proposal could be an important step in creating balance for the public and furthering the decades of success in achieving these goals.  Educating the public on this success could unify interests in the outdoors and move both conservation and recreation forward. Rather than uniting the communities, the Proposal divides further. For many in the public, CPW has become the agency reintroducing wolves in Colorado despite this effort only being  a small portion of what CPW is mandated to do, and has been successfully doing for a long time. The wolf reintroduction has already created numerous unforeseen challenges such as having to relocate packs already and loss of sources for more wolves. We remain concerned that when wolves impact ungulate populations, motorized  recreation and trail usage will be blamed.  The Proposal will only expand existing conflicts around recreation and wildlife as the Proposal does not address that well planned and managed recreation will further recreation and conservation.  The Proposal should unite interests and move forward with success rather than further divisions and conflict.  This type of result simply will not happen as recreation benefits are not mentioned at all.

1(a) The Proposal fails to reflect the balanced agency mission and objectives identified by the Legislature.

This document should be a celebration of success on issues where there is an immense amount of successful planning and effort already in place. The Organizations are very concerned that if this Proposal was provided to someone unfamiliar with CPW, this document would not assist them in understanding the long history of success in Colorado on the issues being addressed or help them to understand challenges that are being faced.  It falls well short of that goal despite the overlap of many of the planning documents on both their goals and objectives, which gives the Organizations concerns about how the document would be used in the future.

The erroneous and troubling direction and scope of the Outdoor Strategy is immediately apparent when the statutory mission of CPW is reviewed. Article 9 Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes clearly lays this mission  as follows:

“SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:

(a) The people of Colorado value and seek to preserve the state’s unique park, wildlife, and outdoor recreation heritage;

(b) Maintenance of a healthy outdoor recreation program is vital to local, regional, and state economies;

(c) It is important to leverage existing fiscal, personnel, and capital resources to achieve the greatest accountability, efficiency, and customer-focused service delivery possible;

(d) Combining similar or overlapping programs and functions has the potential to reduce costs, streamline processes, and provide a net benefit to state budgets;

(e) Coloradans and visitors to the state will benefit from the preservation of important programs, such as the aquatic nuisance species program, the recreational trails program, and the natural areas program, that would otherwise need to be scaled back or eliminated under current budget proposals;

(f) Policies, procedures, and accounting methods to ensure transparency, to prevent the unauthorized commingling or impermissible use of moneys in distinct funds, and to ensure that moneys are expended consistent with the purposes for which they are received, collected, or appropriated are fundamental to any successful effort to realize efficiencies;

(g) Preserving the missions of the division of wildlife and division of parks and outdoor recreation is a priority, as is transparency of the process for combining functions, streamlining processes, and reducing costs; and

(h) The board of parks and outdoor recreation and the wildlife commission have created strategic plans that identify goals and objectives for the division of parks and outdoor recreation and the division of wildlife for the next five to ten years, and combining divisions so that resources are shared and allocated toward the achievement of shared and mutually beneficial goals will further these objectives, including:

(I) Protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitats;

(II) Providing and protecting opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife-viewing opportunities;

(III) Enforcing regulations that protect fish and wildlife;

(IV) Increasing public knowledge of agency missions;

(V) Increasing public awareness of, and participation in, a variety of outdoor activities;

(VI) Attracting and retaining a diverse workforce and promoting excellence within that workforce;

(VII) Creating and strengthening outreach and partnerships; and

(VIII) Maximizing funding.”[1]

It is important to note the CPW has had a statutorily balanced mission since the merger of Division of Wildlife and Parks in 2012.  Contrary to much of what we continue to hear in public meetings, this balancing of interests and protection of all values is not a new concept in Colorado but one that CPW has been required to do for more than a decade.  While this merger was a huge effort for the Organizations, it is astonishing how quickly this nuance has been lost.  Again, this decade of effort working towards balance should be highlighted and celebrated in the Proposal rather than simply overlooked.

A similar balance of interests between recreation and conservation is again highlighted in Governor Polis’ EO 2020-008. This EO refined and updated these basic goals in the Statute as follows:

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

1. 1. Ensure that Colorado’s land, water, and wildlife thrive while also providing for equitable and safe access to quality outdoor recreation experiences;
   2. Convene voices from different outdoor interests, races, cultures, ages, and sectors through the Regional Partnerships to identify regional priorities and strategies;
   3. Collaborate with Regional Partnerships to develop a State-level vision and Plan for conservation and recreation; and
   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.”

The Organizations would be remiss if our concerns around the relationship of the Proposal and the goals and objectives mandated by Colorado Revised Statutes and refined with EO 2020-008 was not addressed.  Our concerns expand as the Proposal delves into many topics that are outside the Statutory CPW mission and values.  Are these issues important?  Absolutely. Should the Proposal seek to align with these other planning resources that specifically address these topics?  Absolutely.  Should these other planning resources be used instead of CPW resources to address these challenges?  Probably.  The Organizations would request that the Proposal balance the two overarching goals within their statutory mission and in the EO before adopting a higher level of focus on more refined topics that CPW may not be well suited to address. At best, this is mission creep for CPW and that is never a good thing.

1(b) CPW needs a balanced message moving forward and the Proposal could be a major step in this direction.

The Organizations had hoped and advocated for this document to be balanced and reflect the strategic multi-faceted roles that CPW is fulfilling.  This type of messaging is critical to the long-term success of CPW given the challenges that CPW is facing especially regarding the limited public understanding of CPW operations as a whole. This balanced message is more important due to the public perception that CPW is overly focus on wolves. While Proposition 114 mandated wolf reintroduction, it did not alter the mission of CPW.  Prop 114 merely identified CPW as the lead agency for this effort. This change has created significant challenges for the agency that have not gone unnoticed. The challenges that the wolf reintroduction has created for CPW were recently highlighted in a Summit Daily news article addressing the perceived imbalance of CPW efforts and the stress it is placing on the agency as a whole.[2] While CPW representatives attempted to put a good face on the wolf issue, outlining the balance of CPW efforts in the Proposal would be a significant indication of where CPW is going and the success that CPW has had on these issues  beyond wolf reintroduction already.  The value of the Proposal only expands when the upcoming reintroduction of the wolverine are undertaken by CPW in the next several years.

While the Proposal could be a major resource for CPW to use in responding to public concerns such as those presented by the wolf and wolverine reintroductions, this opportunity is simply not pursued.  The Proposal could provide a balanced message to the public and as a roadmap to address management challenges that are identified. With efforts of these scale and stature, tools and resources such as the Proposal should be identified and fully utilized. This document could easily provide a balanced vision of CPW does wolves, wildlife, recreation and it benefits everyone in the state.   The Proposal could also provide guidance on how CPW will work to balance and educate the public on the wide range of efforts that CPW has successfully undertaken since the merger.  Failing to use this document in this manner is at best a missed opportunity.

1(c) The Proposal highlights existing imbalances in strategic planning resources but does not address how to correct this imbalance.

The impacts of the  failure of the Proposal to strategically address recreation in balance with other values is not just limited to CPW ability to respond to wolf and upcoming wolverine management issues. The Organizations welcome that the Proposal highlights the existing imbalance in strategic planning available on the values of recreation and conservation which highlights the critical need for data and strategic planning on recreational issues.  Simply recognizing this situation is important so strategic planning for recreation can be undertaken to address the imbalance.  The Proposal fails to highlight the need for this resource to be developed and expanded in any of the milestones proposed.  The failure of the Proposal to address this type of systemic imbalance in strategic planning values is perplexing given the target of this effort has been to identify imbalances and resolve them.

The Proposal is the first effort we are aware of that identifies the list of statewide conservation or recreation plans, which is provide on page 9 of the Proposal.  After a cursory review, it is immediately apparent that the number of recreation plans is simply dwarfed by the number of conservation plans.  The Proposal clearly identifies 13 conservation plans and only 8 recreation plans currently in place in the State. The Proposal provides an additional itemized list of statewide conservation and recreation plans on pg. 25 of the Proposal.  This chart again highlights the imbalance in existing statewide plans as this chart clearly identifies 27 conservation plans and only 15 recreation plans.  While merely counting the number of plans is not dispositive of the issue as plans address many topics and not all plans are created equally, these initial imbalances cannot be overlooked.  The imbalance becomes much worse when the nature of the plans is addressed as almost all conservation plans are highly strategic in nature and overwhelmingly the recreation plans are single issue driven plans. The Organizations submit this is a challenge that must be recognized and addressed. Rather than addressing this imbalance, the Proposal carries this highlighted imbalance of existing resources forward into strategic milestones for the effort.  After a brief review of these milestones, it appears only 3 milestones relate to recreation and 10 are related to conservation and another 18 are not directly related to either issue. Again, the Organizations vigorously assert this falls well short of the balance required in the agency mission and also the requirements of EO 2020-008. This must be corrected.

The Proposal does highlight the historical imbalance in planning resources that have been directed towards conservation issues and recreation issues. Even under the most broad interpretation of recreation plans, conservation plans outnumber recreation plans almost 3 to 1 in terms of the number of plans. While recognizing this situation has value, the Organizations submit this situation has been present for an extended period of time even if no one has identified the problem. The Organizations submit at least part of the problem being presented is that Planners simply assumed recreation infrastructure was sufficient in size and types of opportunity provided.  This assumption in strategic planning was never confirmed and as a result, in many areas recreational issues lag far behind other issues in strategic planning. The Organizations are aware that the data goals in the SCORP and Proposal will be of significant value in the long term, these long-term goals cannot be the only benefit as these tools will take years to bring on-line.

While the recreational community lacks the data to define objectives and factors impacting access and quality of experience that is available for many other issues, this does not mean recreation planning can be ignored until new data is available. We are aware there are rapidly growing challenges for recreational access in many areas and avoiding these known problems will not resolve them.  Creating a plan that undervalues recreation simply because this activity is not as easily defined as other efforts would be a mistake. The recreational community hopes that data developed at some time in the future will not need to be used to return recreational opportunities that were lost as the data was developed.  There are challenges facing recreation such as population growth and increases population concentration along the Front Range and ignoring these issues will not make them go away. These are strategic challenges that should be balanced in CPW efforts and messaging moving forward. The Proposal fails to do this entirely.

This itemized list is helpful in identifying how few state recreation plans are currently in place as there are almost twice as many wildlife/climate plans in place when compared to recreation plans.  This only compounds our request for balance in the Proposal. Rather than addressing this imbalance, the Proposal appears to contribute to it further as milestones from the Proposal exhibit the same imbalance in values as has been highlighted previously. While the Organizations vigorously support the need for expanded data on recreation, we are also concerned that significant portions of the data being developed is only in the early stages of development. The Proposal estimates some of data collection efforts  will not be completed until 2030.  We should not wait this long to start to address challenges. Implementation of plans to address this new data development could take years to complete and even more time for planners to understand and implement locally to provide a benefit.  Recreation will need to adapt and expand over these years but the Proposal fails to address this issue.

1(d) Strategic recreation plans are different than issue specific recreation management plans.

The strategic nature of the Proposal and the poor alignment of the existing issue driven plans identified as recreation compounds our concerns around the Proposal as we have a mismatch in the desired results of the Outdoor Strategy and scope of many of the plans identified as recreational in the Proposal.   The challenges presented from the imbalance of existing planning resources identified compounds when the overly optimistic scope of the limited number of recreation plans is reviewed. Simply comparing the number of conservation plans with recreation plans makes a fatal assumption, mainly that each plan is reasonably comparable in terms of scale and development.  This assumption would be incorrect.  Most recreation plans simply are not strategic recreation plans but rather are plans attempting to manage specific recreation issues or an issue only incidentally related to recreation.  Unlike most of the wildlife or conservation plans that are identified which develop strategic goals and objectives, most recreation plans identified are simply not strategic in nature and some plans are identified as recreational in nature but fail to address recreational issues.

The overwhelming portion of the recreation plans identified target recreation management issues and entirely fail to ask basic strategic questions around recreation supply and demand generally.  Many recreational plans simply seek to manage recreational issues and fail to answer foundational questions around recreation in all forms or any specific information on particular uses or opportunities that could be developed to address these challenges.  We are not aware of planning efforts that approached addressing strategic recreational questions like: “Do we have areas of the state that are currently facing shortages of recreational access?”.  For too long recreational management has been driven by pictures such as these of a Wilderness Trailhead outside Crested Butte.

After pictures like this appear, everyone agrees there is a need for more parking at the location.  No one ever asks “How did we not see this issue coming?” and a parking lot hopefully gets built.  After the parking lot hopefully gets built no one ever asks a question like “What can we do to avoid this situation in the future?” Asking strategic questions like this could address failures such as this in the future and protect wildlife resources and improve recreation.

We are not aware of strategic questions like “Could we put a public golf course at a state park?”  being asked either. These types of questions could lead to State Parks being a more valuable resource for the public and CPW expanding its recreational role in the state while making the State Park System more financially sustainable. Rather than understand possible  future demand for State Parks the Proposal simply does not talk about them at all despite many State Parks seeing similar situations on busy weekends as is reflected in the trailhead pictures above.  These questions are not answered without significant effort and data, most of which is not available.  This basic information for what the recreational community needs to be sufficient is the equivalent to identifying the necessary herd size and habitat zones for wildlife management and sustainability. It is the first step in planning. Conservation has addressed these foundational questions decades ago, the larger recreation community is only starting to understand there could be a need to address usages at this level. While cellular based data will be critical in resolving these questions, we simply cannot wait for this data to be obtained and understood. Recreational interests will simply be further behind by that point and questions will remain unresolved.

Our concerns around the narrow scope of recreation analysis is exemplified by the focus of existing plans being issue driven management in nature and scope. The first plan highlighted in the Proposal that suffers from this issue of a limited scope of analysis is the Colorado Tourism Office’s Destination Stewardship Plan.   We have worked with Colorado Tourism Office for several years in the development of the CTO plan and support the conclusions of this stewardship effort. This planning effort has targeted important issues like managing expectations of the public, the need to educate the public in the backcountry and building awareness of the recreational public to avoid impacts on a very high level. These are critical goals for recreation but are also needed for public safety, as exemplified by the fact most of the recommended needs for backcountry recreation are also highly relevant to simply traveling in Colorado in the winter. We would assert that the CTO plan is a recreation management plan rather than a recreation plan. CTO would be poorly suited to even address expanding recreational opportunities or understanding recreational demands in a planning effort.  Questions like:  “Could we build a golf course at a state park?” are simply outside the scope of these efforts as the CTO plan would address management of a golf course once built. While these are important factors to understand, these shortcomings undermine the value of this plan for strategic use.

Another planning effort generally identified as recreation which falls outside the scope of a strategic recreation plan and targets recreation management is the OREC planning effort forthcoming.  The OREC plan primarily targets economic development for the outdoor industry but is identified  as an Outdoor Recreation Plan.  We have enjoyed a good relationship with the OREC office for many years, and many of our members have been engaged in their COILS efforts and various roundtables.  We support their efforts and mission as economic sustainability is important to all activities in Colorado. While we support this effort, it does not alter the fact that this is an economic development plan that targets recreational businesses  in Colorado.  Again, this is not a strategic recreation plan but rather a planning effort that incidentally relates to recreation. With this narrow scope of the effort, many basic recreational questions will simply be outside the scope of authority for the Office and clearly outside any research that OREC might be conducting for a planning effort. While this effort is valuable, this type of issue driven effort will not address recreational balance at any scale.

While some plans have a limited strategic value for recreation, some of the issue specific plans identified entirely lack any meaningful discussion of outdoor recreation. An example of issue specific plan identified as recreation plan which really does not address recreation would be the Colorado Historic Preservation Plan. When reviewed the only mention of recreation in the Historic Preservation Plan is provided in the summary of the statutory scope of various agencies involved in public lands management, making any assertion of outdoor recreation problematic with the scope of the plan. Are historic resources a possible recreational opportunity sought by the public?  Of course, but this activity is more aptly summarized as tourism rather than recreation.  If the Proposal hugely broad definition of outdoor recreation is applied to the Denver Broncos, the Bronco’s  strategic planning efforts could be included in the Proposal as a recreation plan  as the Broncos are a major tourism driver and people are outside. The Organizations do not believe this is the focus of this effort and would result in the fact the Colorado Historic Preservation Plan does not meaningfully address outdoor recreation being overlooked.

When the strategic nature of the Proposal and the strategic nature of recreation plans is compared, there are only a few plans that start to address recreation, such as the CPW Strategic Plan, State Trails Plan and GOCO plan that address recreation in a strategic manner.  The Proposal must address strategic development of recreational plans to begin to address recreation challenges in a strategic manner. We would encourage the Proposal to clearly focus on outdoor recreation planning to avoid inclusion of plans only incidentally address outdoor recreation being identified as a plan highlighting recreational needs.  The Organizations are aware there are immense questions and challenges that the state faces that are simply outside the scope of the CTO, OREC and State Historic Preservation Office effort to even address and as a result they were not addressed as they were outside the mission of these offices.

2(a)  CPW has created similar strategic plans and they reasonably balanced recreation and conservation.

The Organizations have partnered with CPW for an extended period of time and it is unfortunate to note that this is not the first time that there has been significant pressure on CPW for a variety of reasons. The Organizations are concerned that unlike previously heavily pressured planning efforts, the strategic long-term benefits of recreation planning are not addressed in the Proposal.  This messaging could have significant impacts on other efforts of CPW to develop partnerships with new user groups. This type of unintended impacts of the Proposal would be exemplified by CPW discussions around the development of a mountain bike registration program similar to the OHV and snowmobile programs. Our Organizations and CPW has found exceptionally successful in achieving the goals of the EO.  The Organizations have participated in these strategic programs and discussions for almost a decade and previously a report such as the Proposal has been used to guide these efforts.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal will not further these types of strategic efforts, as there is simply nothing in the Proposal that CPW can identify to support the need for the mountain bike community to collaborate in the same manner as our Organizations have for decades.. CPW has always found a way to balance the values and move forward with its mission.  The Proposal simply fails to achieve these strategic goals and must be balanced to further the history of success that CPW has had in balancing many critical values for the state.

Historically, an example of this type of strategic planning effort would be from the merger of the old Division of Wildlife and Division of Parks, which was a massive undertaking and resulted in conflicts and divisions of interests during the merger process. Balance was achieved in this effort despite immense public pressure.   As the merger moved forward, CPW created what was known as the Path Forward document to identify major challenges and clarify planning objectives.  A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit “A” to these comments.  The Organizations must specifically address the fact that the major challenges identified in the Path Forward planning document largely mirrors the goals and objectives of EO 2020-008.  As the merger moved forward the Path Forward plan was developed.  A copy of this Plan is attached as Exhibit “B” to these comments.

CPW and partners have made major headway in resolving these strategic challenges in the decades since the Path Forward. This is clearly evidenced in the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan almost immediately after the Path Forward was completed. The Organizations were again vigorously involved in this planning effort and can say with absolute confidence that many of the same concerns and issues were present when the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan was developed as are present here.  These issues were balanced and success was achieved because of the balance in the plan.  Since the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan was finalized, species have been reintroduced, new parks have been opened, new funding streams created, visitation to all forms of recreational opportunities expanded with hundreds of millions in grants flowing to a wide range of local communities and recreational operations and wildlife operations were integrated.  This is the long term strategic success we believe must be the goal of the Proposal and simply has not been achieved. The Organizations are aware that if these historical planning documents were out of balance, strategic success such as this would not be achieved.

As a long term partner of CPW, we welcomed the issuance of EO 2020-008 as we thought this recognition was an important step in maintaining the strategic focus and  updating existing efforts around these strategic goals as these needs are always evolving and changing. We must ask why success around these existing foundations would not be highlighted in the Proposal.  If we do not periodically review these goals and celebrate success, efforts can get off track. Unfortunately after reviewing the Proposal, we must express concern that the strategic check in effort to ensure the long term goals of CPW has gotten off track.  Rather than confirming the basic course and providing basic corrections or alterations to address changes in strategic goals since the 2016 Strategic Plan, the Proposal paints a very different and more troubling picture for the relationship of the factors previously identified as priority challenges. The Organizations really hope this is incorrect as we have not seen the last decade of partnership with CPW as anything less than a major success. The model for a successful balancing of these strategic values already exists and should be used.

2(b) Newly designated State Parks and the success of the existing State Parks are not even mentioned in the Proposal.

The imbalance of analysis of values in the Proposal has led to hugely successful efforts simply being overlooked. This imbalance in analysis was immediately visible in the Proposal as the State Park system is simply not addressed in the Proposal.  While the Organizations are most commonly engaged with CPW on motorized trails issues in the State, our interests and those of our members extend beyond just motorized trails. Many of our members are passionate about our system of State Parks, and often hunt, fish, hike and experience Colorado outside the use of motorized trails. The fact that the State Park system is often the first place many youth and underserved communities able to obtain an outdoor experience in any manner cannot be overlooked. This portion of CPW operations has always been a huge  success  in achieving the goals of the Outdoor Strategy as State Parks are often reasonably accessible for the public and provide a more intensive and managed recreational opportunity for the public when compared to the self-guided type of opportunities that those more advanced obtain on Federal lands across the State.  The State Park System has also opened two new State Parks and looking at a third in the next couple of years.  While there have been challenges around the two parks opened to date, such as exceptionally low visitation to Fisher’s Peak SP,  these are major efforts and should not be overlooked. If success is not highlighted, how is success ensured in the future?

The omission of any mention of State Parks in the Proposals is simply confounding given their huge success for an extended period of time.  Even more confounding is the recent release of the CPW book celebrating the Colorado State Parks System and more specifically the strategic efforts of the Organizations in providing sustainable recreational opportunities as follows:

“Responsible motorized users, represented by the Colorado Snowmobile Association and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition realized that without regulation,  their access to public lands would soon be severely curtailed or possibly prohibited.  In the spirit of public/private partnership these recreationists approached State Parks and requested help in establishing the Colorado Snowmobile and Off-Highway Vehicle Programs. The premise of the programs was simple yet unique.  First, set up a registration program to track the ownership of the vehicles and create a funding base to support maintenance of existing trails and construction of new trails. Second set up safety and use regulations to help promote a family orientated sport that respected Colorado natural resources.  These two programs have been hailed as examples of how the government and the public can work together to provide new forms of recreation while protecting Colorado natural resources.”[3]

The Organizations vigorously welcome recognition of this partnership in the new State Parks book and must question why sentiments such as this have been entirely omitted from the Proposal. This book release has coincided with this Proposal is being introduced and while the book is appreciated, it is not a replacement for strategic planning. A copy of the announcement from CPW is as follows:

Given the overlap of these two efforts, the Organizations would have to believe that the newly released book could be adopted in the Proposal in some manner.  Again, why wouldn’t success such as this be highlighted?

Our concerns around the failure to mention the immense amount of strategic success that Colorado has been able to achieve with the State Park System relates to the fact there are simply no strategic questions asked to ensure the future success of the State Park System in the Proposal or most underlying planning efforts.  These strategic questions would include: “How many Parks are at or beyond existing capacity?” or “Are there opportunities for the public that could be provided on a State Park but have not been?” or “Would the public be willing to pay more to obtain these additional experience?” Strategic planning may be needed for some efforts but other responses could be developed quickly and easily to remove pressure from uses on adjacent federal lands.  Many of these strategic challenges are being more visible in certain geographic areas of the State.  Ignoring them will not make them go away.   If we are unwilling to address challenges such as this in a strategic recreation and conservation plan, the Organizations would ask what type of plan is needed and why are we not seeking to create this type of plan currently.

It is unfortunate to see a difficult financial situation looming for CPW  similar to that which faced CPW at the time of the merger.  The Organizations are expecting budgets to become exceptionally tight and the Organizations can remember merger meetings where ¼ and ½ costs of full time employees were being identified in an effort to control costs in the merger discussions.  The Organizations cannot overlook the fact that the preliminary efforts of the 2025 Joint Budget Committee have preliminarily identified a $1,000,000,000 shortfall for the State budget this year. While we are sure that the JBC will be able to minimize these impacts and CPW budgets do not look as grim as the State more generally, this situation is concerning and would cause us to express the need to be strategically addressing recreation needs in a more challenging budget situation than is currently being faced. These are simply long-term challenges that should be addressed.

2(c) Groundbreaking CPW efforts to recognize trails and conservation have been nationally recognized by partners but entirely omitted from the Proposal.

The existing imbalance in the Proposal on recreation and its possible benefits to conservation has resulted in what can only be summarized as unusual shortfalls for the Proposal. While we are frustrated that State Parks are not mentioned, the silence on trails issue is even more problematic to our Organizations.  CPW Trails embarked on a groundbreaking effort to update the Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind Guide in 2022. This effort took two years and more than a dozen partners including conservation groups, recreation groups, local and state governmental interests and federal land managers to develop. This updated guide was heralded by all interests in Colorado as a huge success. The USFS recently issued their final DEIS on Old Growth Timber management, which specifically recognized the groundbreaking nature of the Trails and Wildlife Guide as follows:

“State wildlife agencies are responsible for managing wildlife populations. The Forest Service is responsible for managing habitat. However, the Forest Service has a unique mission with a multiple use mandate. Some state wildlife agencies are developing more interest in recreation and how to meet wildlife conservation outcomes at the same time. One example of this is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife “Guide for planning trails with wildlife in mind” (2021). The guide was developed with the participation of the Forest Service and several other agencies and organizations. Integrating conservation into recreation and trails planning is one of the guides purposes and it provides a framework for how to do it.”[4]

One of the foundations of our partnership with CPW, and other land managers, is the collective understanding that planned and maintained trails benefit recreation and conservation. The situation where partners are willing to nationally recognize Colorado success in balancing recreation and wildlife in trail development and management and CPW is not willing to address this success in any manner is awkward at best.  This is a significant indication of the failure of the Proposal to balance these values.

2(d) CPW has many other successes balancing recreation and conservation that are not highlighted.

The immensely successful CPW efforts to balance conservation and recreation extend far beyond the State Park System.  The motorized components of the State Trails Program have provided more than $100,000,000 in total funding for the balancing of recreation and conservation since the inception of the various programs. The Organizations would submit that the mere value of the program in terms of direct and unique partner funding would have made the program sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the Proposal. The value of these programs extends far beyond the value of the program as the strategic value in recognizing these types of partnerships in a document such as the Proposal cannot be overlooked. As previously noted in these comments, the Organizations have been involved in discussions with the mountain bike community about formation of a program similar to the OHV program for mountain bikes.  Failing to recognize these benefits of existing partnerships will not encourage the development of future partnerships being formed with CPW.

While the Organizations  are certainly biased on the desire to recognize that program at any point, CPW’s OHV program has also provided millions of dollars to the Colorado Youth Corp over the last several years. The mission of the Youth Corp partnerships almost completely overlaps with the vision of the Proposal. The mission statement of the Youth Corp effort is clearly identified as follows:

“The Colorado Youth Corps Association aspires to be the leader in conservation and service and empowers corps to change lives statewide. CYCA will focus on five strategic goals through 2022:

• • Secure project work on behalf of members
  • Channel Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness resources to corps
  • Optimize member services and programs
  • Ensure revenues are resilient and sufficient
  • Tell the collective corps story to a broader audience

The overarching outcome of this strategic plan will be that more youth, young adults, and veterans in Colorado will experience the transformational impact of service through corps.” [5]

Again, we must question why an effort such as this would not be recognized in the Proposal.  Clearly strategic development of programs such as this should sought to be developed given the immense overlap between the goals of the Proposal and the success of this effort.   The efforts of the Youth Corp and CPW OHV program were highlighted in a video about the benefits of these efforts in restoring access to burn scar areas so additional management and resource and wildlife protection can occur.[6]

CPW partnerships through the OHV program extend far beyond Youth Corp efforts.  CPW OHV grants restored exceptional recreation opportunities in partnership with National Forest Foundation repairing the Palisade Wall outside Gunnison, Colorado. The impact of this effort was celebrated in their video highlighting this efforts and the unique benefits it has provided to individuals that may not have experienced the outdoors in this manner previously. [7] The same project has been recognized as immensely successful by the OHV community as well.[8] Each of these efforts is worthy of recognition in isolation.  When these efforts are compared to the goals and objectives sought to be achieved in the Proposal, that need for recognition only expands exponentially.  Not recognizing successes such as these sends a message as well and that message should be avoided.

Another hugely successful strategic effort which has resulted in CPW success with partners in balancing recreation and conservation is evidenced by the development of the COTREX application.  This free to the public app has been an immense step forward in balancing the desire of the public to recreate while protecting wildlife.  Now the public has  tools to understand when trails are open and when they are closed for wildlife and other reasons  Colorado is unique in providing this resource to the public and now the public can understand if a trail is open or closed and why the closure is in place. This is an immense step forward and should be recognized.

The failure of the Proposal to address the State Parks system  or other partner efforts was perplexing for the Organizations.  Even more perplexing is the failure of the Proposal to address hunting and fishing opportunities and the challenges that those activities might be facing.  These are activities that simply never mentioned in the Proposal despite the North American Model of Wildlife management being the foundation of CPW and its ability to balance recreation and conservation on hunting and fishing related issues as well.  The Proposal also fails to recognize many other partners who have worked towards success with CPW such as the farming and ranching community.  Not only has this community been integral to the success of CPW historically, this partnership is also critical to recreation as many of the winter grooming efforts are based on ranches.

3(a)  Planning documents must rely on accurate up to date information.

The Organizations frustrations with the Proposal continue beyond the mere omission of quality long term partnerships with CPW that have balanced recreation and conservation efforts for decades.   Much of the data provided as the baseline for analysis is overly divisive in both the nature of the data and how it is presented.  This situation is compounded as often much of the information is simply badly out of date.   This is exemplified by the Proposal provisions on  of climate resilience provide as follows:

“The vast majority of Coloradans (83%) support a national goal of conserving 30% of America’s lands and waters by the year 2030, and 60% believe that loss of habitat for fish and wildlife is an extremely or very serious problem.11 According to CNHP, approximately 20% of Colorado’s mammals, birds, and reptiles are at risk and 40% of fish and amphibian species are at risk.12”[9]

The impact of this at best out of date and negatively presented provision cannot be overstated as this is one of the few locations hard data is provided on issues the Proposal is addressing. The Organizations initial concerns on the above provisions would start with accuracy of the data being relied on for this position and basis for action being more than a decade old. This starting position of analysis is problematic simply because of the age of the information.  We hope that the decade of effort that has been provided by CPW and partners would have impacted these conclusions at some level.  We simply must do better from this perspective.

Taking these provisions in the order they are presented in the Proposal, we will start with the information around what has come to be known as the 30×30 concept which has been memorialized by President Bidens EO 14008.   It is frustrating to the Organizations that the Proposal opens the discussion on the 30×30 concept and then provides absolutely no information on what has been done to date to address these concerns. Data shows the immense success of efforts to date. Every acre of public lands in the State is protected from disposal or misuse as these lands have specific statutory public engagement requirements and findings of fact that must be complied with to be disposed of.  Many acres have received protections well beyond these basic levels of protection. USFS estimates that almost 60% of the lands they manage is protected at higher levels than traditional public lands. DOI has expressed similar levels of success on achieving these goals.  Why wouldn’t this information be included in the document.

The failure of the Proposal to accurately address the current status of the 30×30  issue extends beyond the presentation of inaccurate and out of date information. There are impacts from this presentation that are simply not addressed. As a result of the information and data being out of date, implementation questions around next steps for management decisions are not addressed.   If this information is updated and public understanding of these issues remains at these,  this would identify the need for a public educational effort on these issues. The scale of success is immense as  the USFS estimates that almost 60% of lands they manage in Colorado have already received some form of heightened protections (Wilderness or Roadless or other designations).   DOI is still calculating their levels of additionally protected lands and are approaching the 30% goal.  CPW lands are 100% protected.  The average of these estimated levels of  compliance with the goals identifies a huge success! Again, if the public is not aware of this success we should be starting with education and not requesting additional protection. Misguided efforts such as this will only create conflict and erode support for future management efforts.

If only 20% of species are perceived to be at risk this means that 80% of species are perceived as NOT at risk. No matter how we look at the proverbial glass in terms of ½ full or ½ empty, this is a HUGE success and should be highlighted in the Proposal. Again rather than seizing this success and educating the public the Proposal some how finds a mandate for management response.  The scale of the success in species management cannot be overstated as most species are doing historically well in terms of populations.

We are also concerned that the Proposal uses information from outside sources over information from CPW, despite the fact that CPW is the agency  with the statutory obligation to manage wildlife in the State.  The Proposal’s failure to address populations with the most accurate information possible will have profound effects on the accuracy of data being provided in the Proposal. CPW’s  own species population estimates provided in the 2023 Wolf Management Plan have widely different populations trends for the most visible species in Colorado identified from those in the Proposal. The 2023 Wolf Plan clearly estimates that elk populations are more than 30% above objective in the State as follows:

“The sum of Colorado’s post-hunt HMP population objective ranges for elk statewide is 252,000-306,000 for all 42 elk herds combined. These data indicate that Colorado’s elk population is over objective”[10]

The 2023 Wolf Plan outlines that mule deer populations  were roughly 10% below objectives. This 2023 Wolf report outlines how the challenges from the mule deer population situation presents a more complex management situation as follows:

“The statewide deer population has been more stable recently, averaging 420,000 over the last 11 years. The sum of all herd population estimates is still far below the sum of individual HMP population objective ranges of 438,000-520,000 for all 54 deer herds combined. Declines in deer populations are primarily in the largest, western most mule deer herds in the state. In 2021, 26 of 54 (48 percent) deer data analysis units were within their population objective ranges and 18 of 54 herds (33 percent) were below their population objective ranges. There is on-going interest from various constituents to increase mule deer populations; however, for many deer herds, population management is largely dictated by herd productivity and performance, winter severity, and Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) prevalence.[11]

The 2023 Wolf Plan also clearly identifies that the moose population are exploding as follows:

“CPW transplanted moose into Colorado to create hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The first transplant occurred in 1978–1979 into North Park. Other major transplants included the Laramie River drainage (1987), Upper Rio Grande River (1990), Grand Mesa (2000), and White River drainage (2010). As a result of these efforts, moose have become an important big game hunting and popular watchable wildlife species in Colorado. Moose popula­tions are increasing, and they continue to pioneer into new habitats on their own. The statewide 2021 winter moose population estimate is 3,500.”[12]

The 2023 Wolf report accurately outline the success of wildlife efforts in Colorado, which is unparalleled and extends well beyond the wolf reintroduction and the species addressed in this report.  Since 2012 the Canadian Lynx reintroduction has been declared a success, black footed ferrets have been successfully reintroduced, many species of fish have also been successfully reintroduced to name a few successes. The Organizations are aware that there are many other species in similar situations.  These successes simply are not mentioned at all the Outdoor Strategy despite these efforts being huge successes for conservation. This  must be corrected in order to allow management efforts to move forward and build on the success in place.

The combined impacts of relying on third party data that is simply old and poorly focused has allowed the Proposal to recommend management tools that will only further divide interests and never address the challenges facing the state.  This allows badly needed management responses, like the need to educate the public about the huge successes in Colorado wildlife successes, to be overlooked.  Given the discrepancy in actual data and what the perceived situation is for the public on wildlife that the Proposal outlines, the Organizations would assert Colorado does not have a situation where radical changes in wildlife management are needed.  Rather Colorado is in a situation where the public needs  a wildlife education program that is educating the public that most species are doing well in the state.  This is a type of a strategic educational program would be vigorously supported by the Organizations and unfortunately the Proposal does not even address this but rather continues to move forward with inaccurate analysis.

3(b) The Proposal creates distinctions on terms that don’t exist and then attempts to craft responses based on these arbitrary distinctions.

The Organizations are very concerned that the limited amount of recreational information provided in the Strategy is not accurately outlined.  Compounding this concern are attempts in the Proposal to creates distinctions between concepts we have supported for decades for reasons that remain unclear.  The Proposal seeks to draw distinctions on efforts that simply cannot be distinguished or justified, such as attempting to distinguish between stewardship and maintenance.  These types of efforts are only going to create confusion of the public and direct resources that are often limited to areas and issues that are of limited value. In several locations the Proposal seeks to apply SCORP research but fails to address SCORP research accurately.  This results some priorities being diminished in favor of other challenges.  The Proposal fails to recognize that the priority concern clearly identified in the SCORP manager survey is improved access for recreation. This conclusion is simply never mentioned, while other concerns around lower priority management challenges around various recreational activities are addressed. Strategic planning efforts should not pick and choose results of supporting documents. If there is confusion in underlying documents either the confusion should be recognized and addressed or other management documents should be used.

As an example of the unique positions taken in the Proposal, is the interpretation of the SCORP data  and attempts to distinguish between the concept of stewardship and maintenance.  Both of these are concepts the Organizations vigorously support and we would submit are concepts that are poorly distinguished in the SCORP research. The Organizations would generally accept that stewardship is more of an ethic while maintenance may be focused on boots on the ground and issues being resolved.  While we might be able to distinguish between these concepts with highly detailed definitions, most of the public will not see a difference in these concepts. Rather than clarifying the accuracy of this type of distinction, the Proposal attempts to highlight these two concepts as entirely separate issues and then provides separate management responses to each.

These distinctions of efforts become academic as the Proposal then combines definitions as it identifies efforts for stewardship including picking up trash and other maintenance type activities. While this type of confusion would normally be overlooked,  the Proposal tries to assert that management responses and priorities should be different based on the distinctions between stewardship and maintenance.  The problematic nature of the Proposal compounds due to the fact that often stewardship scores significantly lower than maintenance responses in some portions of the research but this is not recognized in the Proposal.  In several locations, the Proposal creates management needs and responses that appear to be based on arbitrary distinctions of this data.  These types of distinctions are unique in nature and are presented in at best a confusing manner, which is exemplified by the discussion on pg.  57 of the Proposal that appears to assert that stewardship and maintenance are different goals as follows:

“For example, in the 2023 land manager survey conducted for the SCORP, about 70% percent of respondents identified addressing stewardship issues from increased use as a ‘high’ trail-related priority, while federal and state managers identified it as the top priority.”39

The Organizations would first have to question this summary of the SCORP survey as we are unable to identify any portion of the survey that provides the conclusion that stewardship was the largest priority for land managers. Rather the survey clearly outlines its priority for management response as follows:

“High priority new outdoor recreation sites

-Overall, survey respondents identified developing new trails or expanding existing trails as the highest priority with respect to new outdoor recreation sites (72%), followed by connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems (66%), and developing neighborhood, community, or special use parks or facilities (e.g., playgrounds) (60%).

– Local and federal respondents prioritized similar outdoor recreation sites.

– For example, developing new trails or expanding existing trails was the highest priority for both groups (Local = 73%; Federal = 82%) (Table 1).

– Connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems was the third highest priority for local (67%) and federal (72%) respondents (Table 1).

– Expanding the amount of land open to the public and obtaining access easements were also in the top five highest priorities (by percentage).

– The highest percentage priority among state respondents was expanding opportunities for hunting and fishing (92%).

– However, similar to their local and federal counterparts, state respondents also identified expanding the amount of land open to the public and obtaining access easements as high priorities.

– Similar to federal respondents, about 72% of state employees identified developing campgrounds as an important priority (compared to 77% of federal respondents) (Table 1).

– Respondents to the 2019 SCORP LMS also identified developing new trails or expanding existing trails as their highest priority (56%).

– Connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems was the second highest priority in 2019 at 49%, and developing neighborhood, community, or special use parks or facilities was the third highest priority (44%).”[13]

Our concerns around the impacts of this inaccurate presentation of information are immediate as the highest priority issue from the land manager survey simply is not addressed at all in the Strategy. This priority for most managers is developing new trails and infrastructure, which is an immense strategic planning  problem.  The Proposal then fails to even address the situation that the Survey seems to assert that stewardship and maintenance are so how mutually exclusive.  This is outlined in Table 2 of the Survey as follows:

Rather than providing a clear basis for management response, the immediate question the Organizations have on this issue centers around our concern that respondents understanding of the asserted difference between stewardship and maintenance when the survey responses were collected.  The Organizations would submit this lack of clarity on this distinction is a weakness of the Survey and not the basis for different management responses.

The problematic nature of the summary in the Proposal is immediate as stewardship and maintenance are identified by some managers at similar levels of concern in the Survey, while other managers provide significantly different levels of preferences, making any distinctions problematic in nature. This conflict would be exemplified by the conclusions of local mangers that maintenance is a priority 81% of the time while stewardship is a concern only 62% of the time.  By comparison  federal managers identify stewardship as prioritized goal 96% of the time and maintenance is also identified as the top priority 96% of the time. Rather than using this data to create management responses, the Organizations submit these conclusions are inconclusive or needing further review.   These concerns are compounded as this research concludes stewardship is the #2 management concern and many managers have a strong preference towards improving access. This lack of clarity in goals and objectives will create challenges in implementation and move away from the large support that management and stewardship have received from the public and the Organizations for decades. This is a distinction that simply does not exist.

4(a). LEAN process on meetings.

As previously outlined, when any planning effort relies on inaccurate or outdated information to support its decisions this is problematic as strategic management options addressing the true challenges facing the balancing of recreation and conservation may not be addressed. Many existing challenges we are facing in achieving these goals could be made worse rather than better as a result of poorly directed or misguided management responses. An example of this type of an impact would be the meeting/volunteer fatigue we have experienced over the last several years. The Organizations are concerned that the Proposal is going to lead to more overlapping meetings with similar missions occurring across the State. It has been our experience that currently there are simply too many meetings for the public to engage with and often these meetings have overlapping goals and objectives and seek to reopen issue that were just completed.  The Organizations would note that even when there are isolated efforts to address recreational issues, they are often problematic.

Our concerns around meeting/volunteer fatigue impacts to the organized recreational community as more meetings are already identified in the Proposal.    This is exemplified by the requirement in the Proposal on Page 14 discussion on more groups and meetings being developed in 2025 as follows:

“Convene an outdoor recreation leadership roundtable among federal, state, local and private recreation executive-level leadership to drive greater coordination and alignment of goals and actions.” [14]

While we welcome more coordination of resources for recreation, we must question why more meetings and groups are thought to be needed for this effort? This is VERY concerning as there are too many meetings already and many of these efforts could easily be incorporated into existing efforts such as the COOP.  This would avoid repetition of efforts and strengthen existing partnerships and efforts and avoid situations where groups addressing similar challenges come to different conclusions. It has become an all to frequent response in meetings when there is a mention of a new series of public meetings that the entire room utters a collective groan.

As an example of the management responses that could address the meeting fatigue would be a goal in the strategic plan of reducing the number of meetings and making existing meetings more effective.  The motorized community underwent a LEAN type planning process in 2015 when there were too many steps in the grant process.  This effort resulted in a grant process that was far more effective and streamlined. This was a huge success, which probably does not warrant inclusion in the Proposal but the experiences from this effort are highly valuable and could lead to a goal of rather than more meetings we should focus on our existing meetings becoming more effective. Again, these types of impacts should be avoided as they benefit no values identified in the Proposal or EO.

4(b) Hiring of employees is a massive barrier to moving forward with all values but this is not mentioned in the Proposal.

The Organizations are concerned that one of the largest barriers currently to recreation, stewardship, maintenance and conservation efforts throughout the Country is the inability to hire employees at almost all levels of government. This challenge is simply not addressed in the Proposal at all despite this being an immense problem in Colorado. The Organizations are intimately aware that over the last several years almost 50% of the funding from the OHV program provide to federal lands managers for the hiring of seasonals is returned. As we write these comments, federal hiring and retention of seasonal employees under the Continuing Resolution has again become a problem.  These are impacting all forms of recreation on federal lands, and while CPW has performed better than federal agencies for hiring these resources fall well short of filling the need.

The Organizations would vigorously support inclusion of how to address this challenge as a goal of the outdoor strategy as this would promote all values of the effort. Is this something that could be addressed with expanded hiring of maintenance staff for federal lands through CPW? What barriers are present to allow partners to fill this void? How can other barriers in federal hiring be addressed?  This is a large multifaceted challenge that warrants discussion and may take years to resolve.  While there are many values that are elevated in the Proposal, this challenge that could be resolved and unite all interested parties simply is not addressed.

5. Guidance should be provided regarding the timing of Proposal in relation to regional plans.

In the discussions that the Organizations have participated in regarding the Proposal one of the most common questions we have heard is why is the State Plan is out before any regional plans?  The Organizations would ask the similar question. While we are aware that implementation of EO 2020-008 has proven to challenging due to the aggressive timeframes it sought to develop and the evolving nature of the regional efforts, this is a valid question and basic information and guidance should be provided. Without guidance on this issue, regional efforts may be inclined to try and align their plans developed subsequent to this with the Proposal rather than the opposite as was required by the EO.  is there an intent to align with regional plans or update at some point?

6.The public remains confused about the effort.

The Organizations remain concerned that the public understanding of the goals and objectives of the Proposal is limited and this creates concern regarding how the Proposal will be used. We recently concluded our annual OHV workshop and training in partnership with CPW, USFS and BLM, where we celebrated the numerous highly visible and successful projects of the trails community that have been achieved in partnership  with CPW.  This was attended by more than 80 people and included a targeted session on the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy.  The most common question about the Outdoor Strategy was: “Why is the State undertaking this effort and how does it relate to existing planning?”  Several more questions expressing similar concerns were provided in the feedback forms participants were asked to complete at the end of the event. Copies of these forms are available upon request. This concern cannot be overlooked and concerns such as these are made more difficult to address when the Outdoor Strategy is badly out of balance in terms of conservation and recreation. When layers of uncertainty are added to each other, the possibility of mission creep expands for CPW and the possibility of unintended impacts from the effort become more significant.  The Organizations submit that clarity and balance in the Proposal is of heightened importance in these situations to avoid these types of impacts and that has not been provided.

7. Conclusion.

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Proposal and hope the Proposal can be developed in a manner to allow  recreation and conservation issues to be addressed more effectively and recreation and conservation can also be balanced.  This alignment will also allow shortfalls in the recreational planning process to be addressed in the long term to allow for challenges to be most effectively addressed. The Organizations can simply say we are disappointed and frustrated with the Proposal.  Our disappointment centers around several general issues including: strategic recreation planning has simply been largely disregarded in the Proposal despite it being a cornerstone of the effort; the Proposal is silent around the huge success Colorado has had in providing sustainable recreational opportunities for decades; many CPW partner groups  and their challenges in providing sustainable recreational opportunities simply not mentioned in the Proposal;  and often third party information is relied on instead of CPW data.  The need to accurately understand and recognize challenges facing Colorado will be critical in crafting an accurate and effective response in furtherance of mandates of EO 2020-008.  While we are aware that data from the effort will be highly valuable to the recreational community moving forward, the first usage of this new data cannot be to correct poorly directed management efforts that resulted from foundational failures in the Proposal. The Organizations are very concerned that the cumulative impacts of the challenges of the Proposal reliance on imperfect information and failing to recognize the success that has already been achieved will result in poor management decisions.

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).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

[1] See, §1 SB 11-208

[2] https://www.summitdaily.com/news/colorado-wolf-reintroduction-parks-wildlife-employees/

[3] See, CPW; “At Home in Nature A History of Colorado State Parks”;  2024 at pg. 52.

[4] See, Dept of Agriculture; US Forest Service;  DRAFT Social, Economic and Cultural Impacts Analysis Report for the Draft EIS for Amendments to LMPs to Address Old-Growth Forests Across the NFS; June 2024 at pg. 59.

[5] Strategic Plan – Colorado Youth Corps Association (cyca.org)

[6] Restoring impacts from the East Troublesome Fire in the Sulphur Ranger District (youtube.com)

[7] A copy of this video is available here: National Forest Foundation | Looking for an epic drive on the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)? Come along with @baratunde for the highest… | Instagram

[8]  A copy of this video is available here: Alpine Tunnel Palisade Wall Rebuild I Project Overview I Funding I Tomichi I Williams I Hancock (youtube.com)

[9] See, Proposal at pg. 43.

[10] See, Wolf report pg. 16.

[11] See, Wolf report pg. 17.

[12] See, Wolf report pg. 17.

[13] See, 2024 SCORP land manager survey at pg. 23. A copy of this survey is attached as Exhibit “3” to the Proposal for your reference.

[14] See, Proposal at pg. 14.