Author Archive | Christina

Council on Environmental Quality Comments

Council on Environmental Quality
Att: Edward Boling, Assistant Director of NEPA
Via portal only@ www.regulations.gov

Re: CEQ-2018-0001

Dear Mr. Boling:
The above Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and CEQ process to develop a more efficient and effective management process. After reviewing each of the 20 specific questions that were provided in the Federal Register notice on a variety of issues around the Endangered Species Act planning process and related topics, the Organizations above would answer each question in the affirmative.

The Organizations additionally would like to comment on two significant barriers to the efficient implementation of NEPA on public lands:

  1. Executive orders addressing travel management are simply out of date and require extensive re-analysis of issues resolved under planning requirements subsequently passed by Congress;
  2. Wilderness inventory processes in planning is cumbersome and redundant as planner often re-inventory areas Congress has specifically determined stated are not available for Wilderness designation and often directly contravenes the determinations in areas where multiple agencies have reviewed areas and determined them to be unsuitable.

The Organizations would also like to thank the CEQ for undertaking this review, as often planning documents and concepts are put in place and never reviewed again for basic relevance and meaning after the passage of time. Often this failure to review NEPA requirements results in repetition and confusion in the NEPA process that often generates only minimal on the ground benefits. It is not the Organizations intent to provide a complete list of these challenges but rather to highlight two of the more repetitive and confusing issues that are involved in the NEPA process..

1. Who we are.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns, our Organizations have regarding the NEPA process to date and streamlining of the process moving forward, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

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

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite 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 Off-Road Business Association (“ORBA”) is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue.

The Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is a recognized, statewide collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts and others that will identify and work together on recreation issues in cooperation with land managers, legislators and the public to ensure a positive future for responsible outdoor recreation access for everyone, now and into the future.

One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration. One Voice provides a unified voice for motorized recreation through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community. For purposes of this correspondence TPA, COHVCO, CSA, ORBA, IRC and One Voice will be referred to as “The Organizations”.

Collectively the Organizations have been actively involved in easily thousands of NEPA actions throughout the Western United States over their more than 30 years of existence with US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of Defense, and Bureau of Reclamation ranging from the recent landscape level forest plan amendments involving Sage Grouse and previous efforts on the Canadian Lynx to planning efforts involving management plans on a particular Forest or Field Office to small level planning efforts involving only a small portion of a field Office or Ranger District.

2. Landscape Concerns.

The CEQ has asked a series of general questions in the Federal Register notice on this issue and the Organizations would answer each of these questions in the affirmative. While we have not included a detailed response to each of the particular questions identified in the Federal Register notice, the Organizations have provided a full copy of the comments previously submitted with regard to the USFS planning revision process, commonly identified as the EADM process, and our comments submitted relative to the Western Governors Association efforts targeting Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Reform. The Organizations have been active participants in these processes and are aware there is a significant amount of overlap between these efforts and the current proposal from the CEQ. The Organizations hope that by providing more detailed information and input on our experiences with the NEPA process on a wide range of public lands issues in the hope that previous mistakes will not be repeated and that this information will allow the CEQ to develop a Proposal that addresses challenges in the most effective and cost-efficient way possible.

The Organizations are providing these more extensive comments as we are aware that often the “why” behind a position that is taken is as important as the position itself. In these comments, the Organizations are targeting changes that can be undertaken in the planning process under the current legislative systems. While the Organizations support changes to the Legislative structure that governs planning, such as revising and updating the Endangered Species Act, the Organizations are also aware that such changes are outside the scope of the request from your Office.

3a. Maintenance backlogs, partner resources and NEPA.

The Organizations are intimately aware of the challenges faced on Federal public lands in terms of limited maintenance budgets and barriers to the effective use of partnerships to address maintenance issues as a result of the administrative barriers that in place as part of the current NEPA review process. While many in the recreational community are asserting volunteers are sufficient to address the maintenance backlog, this position fails to recognize that many maintenance issues simply cannot be solved with some hoes and shovels, regardless of how well intentioned any volunteer group maybe. Any effort at the levels necessary to address these levels of backlogs require funding and equipment, which the motorized community has provided for decades through their OHV registration programs. Often these funds are not fully utilized or matched due to land management budgets being directed to administrative inefficiency and the need to reconfirm decisions that have already been made. Resolving these inefficiencies would allow more funding to be available for basic maintenance and for the more effective engagement of partners on the ground.

These inefficiencies can result from the lack of clarity around Executive Orders and existing planning requirements in efforts to implement forest level planning obligations in subsequent site specific NEPA efforts. This lack of clarity in the decision making process often results from planners being forced to reopen decisions in site specific planning that were already resolved in landscape level NEPA to insure that conflicts and confusion in planning requirements are resolved. As President Trump accurately summarized in EO 13807:

“The poor condition of America’s infrastructure has been estimated to cost a typical American household thousands of dollars each year. Inefficiencies in current infrastructure project decisions, including management of environmental reviews and permit decisions or authorizations, have delayed infrastructure investments, increased project costs, and blocked the American people from enjoying improved infrastructure that would benefit our economy, society, and environment.”1

The confusion and conflict from overlapping or conflicting planning obligations is a major barrier to the effective use of partner resources to address infrastructure issues on public lands. The Organizations are aware that federal funding for maintenance of infrastructures on public lands is limited but partner resources are significant as the voluntary registration programs in many states more than double the amount of funding available to land managers for maintenance and operations. The voluntary registration programs adopted by the OHV community have created exceptional state partners for the management of federal lands The California OHV registration program has now contributed more than $500 million in partner funding to land managers2, and the Colorado motorized registration program is approaching $100 million in funding for land managers3. while these programs are highlighted in these comments, they are no means an anomaly as most western states have developed highly effective voluntary registration programs which institutionalize partnering with the federal lands managers. The motorized community is highly vested in resolution of these issues and is intimately aware of the barriers to effective management and full utilization of existing resources that are presented by the often repetitive or conflicting NEPA requirements for resolution of recreational infrastructure projects on the ground.

3b. Economic benefits of recreation limited by NEPA.

As President Trump also accurately identified, recreational activities on federal lands is also a major economic driver for local communities. The Department of Commerce recently concluded that recreational spending contributed more than 2% of the Gross Domestic product and was growing faster than the Gross Domestic Product as follows4:

Growth in Outdoor Recreation Value Added vs. Growth in US GDP

The Department of Commerce further concluded that the overwhelming portion of this economic benefit flows from motorized access and usage. The Department of Commerce conclusions on this were stark as follows:

Chart showing Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities - 2016

Motorized Vehicles was the largest activity within conventional outdoor recreation in 2016, accounting for $59.4 billion of gross output. Recreational vehicles accounted for more than half of this value at $30billion.

Many state level research efforts have targeted this question with more detail, such as the 2012 Economic Contribution study from the State of Colorado, which concluded this activity contributed more than $2.3 billion in spending to the state economy and most of this was centered in small communities that are now overly reliant on recreational activity for basic sustainability of the community. A copy of this study is enclosed with these comments.

Documentation is major barrier despite USFS desire to expand usage of partners and volunteers and passage of the National Forest System Trails Stewardship act by Congress in 2016. In these comments, the Organizations are not attempting to provide an exhaustive list of the challenges that are faced by the voluntary registration programs in their partnerships with land managers but rather identify major systemic challenges that consistently reduce the effectiveness of current monies on the ground.

4. Executive Orders regarding travel management are simply out of date and are a major barrier to effective infrastructure investment.

As noted previously, the Organizations have participated in thousands of NEPA actions throughout the Western United States over the last 40 years and one of the most consistent barriers to effectively managing issues on the landscape is the Executive Orders governing what has become known as the Travel Management Orders and Rule. The original Travel Management Order was issues by President Richard Nixon in 1972 (EO 11644) and was only substantively updated by President Carter in 1977(EO 11989). Planning agencies have updated internal requirements around travel management but even most recent of those was 2005. The fact that the Travel Management Orders were issued almost 50 years ago and have not been meaningfully reviewed speaks volumes to the need for this type of review to insure basic relevance of these orders to issues on the ground.

While the age of these Orders alone would pose a minimal issue, the age becomes more problematic when subsequent Congressional actions regarding management of public lands is integrated into the planning process. Congress enacted FLPMA in 1976 which has guided the management of public lands since its enactment and required identification of goals and objectives for particular areas on public lands, including the density or intensity of development allowed inn particular planning designations. As a result of the FPLMA planning process, the travel orders are almost entirely redundant with FLPMA requirements. As federal land managers are now moving forward with updating the first round of landscape level management plans created under FLPMA, the conflict and confusion between FLPMA processes and the TO is becoming more of an issue. Planners are unsure if these are separate planning goals, can be combined and often over-plan and analyze as a result in the hope of avoiding litigation on decisions being brought. Significant public pressure from those opposed to the general principal of multiple use is applied and seeks to determine that existing forest planning and minimization criteria are entirely separate planning requirements and that minimization must be done at every step of the planning process.5

The age and overlap of these Orders results in a large amount of conflict and confusion in the planning process over time and artificial elevation of travel management to levels of priority that simply are not warranted on the ground. This artificial elevation of travel management would be exemplified by planning to address trails on a forest or ranger district where tree mortality has exceeded 90%. There can be no rational argument that planning for roads and trails should be a higher priority in this situation but often pressure is applied to move forward with minimization of impacts from roads and trails. In addition to the hot bed of litigation against the agencies, the lack of clarity in the planning process results in efforts that are taken to address issues impacting resources due to flooding or fires are often delayed for years in the NEPA process. Rather than moving forward with funding that might be available almost immediately, federal land managers are forced to enter into lengthy NEPA planning efforts in order to explain the decision being made.

Additionally there are concepts in these Executive Orders that are older than every forest plans created in the first rounds of planning under FLPMA. Everyone agrees those forest plans are comically out of date and badly in need of updating, and similar concerns could be raised about the age of the Executive Orders addressing travel management. The age and overlap of these orders is often a hot bed for litigation challenging the end result of any NEPA process as often the redundancy of these orders and FLPMA making full documentation a long and drawn out process that has minimal impacts or benefits on the ground. Often these Executive Orders introduce concerns into the NEPA process that are entirely redundant with planning requirements that are now required by Federal Management requirements under FLPMA and other planning requirements. Minimization criteria in these Executive Orders would be one example of the redundancy that has resulted from these orders not being updated to reflect actions by Congress subsequent to the issuance of these orders, such as FLPMA.

Additional redundancy of planning and the minimization criteria required under the Executive Orders results from the diversity of paths taken by land managers in complying with these requirements. Some forests addressed minimization at the landscape level and developed forest level travel maps that were often unrelated to conditions on the ground, while other forests addressed with site specific planning efforts on an as needed basis. Each of these issues present separate and unique challenges in planning but both are impacted by the high levels of employee turnover within federal agencies and often poor retention of planning records. While challenges are often brought against both processes, site specific planning also allows litigation against the overall process by groups that participated in the original site specific planning and failed to raise any concerns about compliance with landscape level planning requirements at the local level. These issues are compounded by the fact that managers are now having to manage documents that were created almost 40 years ago. Documentation of decisions was complied with an entirely different levels 50 years ago simply due to the evolution of technology.

Further delay in management and maintenance of public lands results from the Executive Orders results from the fact that minimization of impacts is often a major concern in subsequent smaller scale planning to advance usage in areas that might be identified as high usage areas in existing forest level planning. This confusion is despite the fact that minimization has already occurred at the Forest level and the area has been identified for high levels of usage.

The conflict and confusion between the Executive Orders, which are now badly in need of updating and FLPMA is compounded by the fact that many forests are now moving to update forest level planning document under FLPMA. With these efforts, there is now significant pressure being applied for managers to start from scratch on minimization questions, even when there is a solid paper trail in place to explain the process to date on the forest. When managers are not able to document minimization, that pressure is increased as would be exemplified on the recent litigation surrounding the Pike/San Isabel (“PSI”) National Forest in Colorado. The PSI was sued in 2010 and that litigation was settled in 2016 due to the fact managers could not document the organization of their site specific travel planning process. As a result, a forest level travel plan was to be developed and the minimization criteria have become a major hurdle in that process, which alone raises concern on the conflict due to the fact that the PSI forest plan was completed almost a decade after the issuance of the Executive Orders and passage of FLPMA. There can be no rational argument made that the forest plan did not comply with these requirements, but since managers are not able to justify the decisions made more than 3 decades ago, planning is again brought to the forefront.

The PSI litigation and subsequent settlement provides for another opportunity for redundant and burdensome planning requirements as the PSI is planning to update their Forest plan immediately after the issuance of the Forest level travel decision. As part of the development of the second Forest Plan, the minimization criteria must again be addressed due to forest management goals objectives changing. Essentially the PSI will have to comply with the minimization criteria in the Executive Orders, create a forest plan and re-minimize under the new forest plan criteria. This is the pinnacle of redundant and ineffective governmental process as decades of planning efforts, millions in resources which will improve not single acre of land on the forest or the growing maintenance backlog of facilities on the forest.

A second example of how the Executive Orders age and redundancy are resulting in a horribly inefficient utilization of resources and delaying improvement of conditions on the ground is provided in the recent elevation of the entire winter travel management process for over the snow vehicles (“OSV”) travel. This would be another example of where the travel management orders could be refined and updated in order to obtain significant new efficiency in the NEPA process. Despite recent court actions, winter travel management has already occurred on overwhelming portion of forests with snow and again the planning process was highly divergent on forests throughout the country as some forests never got snow, others only received snow on a small portion of the forest while others received significant snow across the forest. While there was not a national policy or other national action, the diversity of planning made a lot of sense on the ground due the highly variable nature of weather and snowfall. Many forests effectively engaged a diverse range of interests and concerns in the development of snowmobile plans for areas and these areas have been effectively managed for many decades. The successful and effective management of OSV issues is again an issues as much of this planning occurred several decades ago and most decision makers have retired and documentation has been lost. The conflict and confusion of existing planning under FLPMA and the Executive Orders is again coming to the forefront.

The conflict between the Executive Orders, FLPMA and the age of forest plans has resulted in widespread litigation of existing snowmobile planning, as demonstrated by recent litigation against several forests in California around their winter grooming programs, the challenge to the entire winter planning process brought in Idaho courts and subsequent challenges to forests that have moved forward under the terms of the settlement agreements. Now planners are being forced to return to an issue most offices thought were settled and defend decisions that have been effectively managing issues for decades as a result of litigation being brought. The conflict and confusion between the Executive Orders and forest planning requirements has resulted in land managers poorly defending winter travel decisions. Winter travel is an issue that was resolved under FLPMA planning without objection from those now challenging these decisions many decades later, but must be re-reviewed to insure impacts have been minimized as required under Executive Orders. Conflict between FLPMA planning and the Executive Orders is again raised as a major planning concern by those seeking to restrict usage and public access to infrastructure.6

The Organizations encounter the conflict and confusion that results from the conflict between the outdated Executive Orders and existing FLPMA planning which has complied with NEPA on an almost daily basis. This conflict and confusion slows the effective engagement of partners to improve recreational infrastructure on public lands and reduces economic benefits to local communities, both of which were clearly identified in President Trump’s EO 13807.

Possible resolutions of Travel Management Rule issues:

  • Update out of date Executive Orders targeting travel management;
  • Provide presumption that minimization in second round of forest planning is complied with unless can be proven otherwise;

5. Wilderness inventory process and WSA management provide areas where significant efficiency is now available.

A second area where significant efficiency gains could be achieved is through the re-review and updating of conflicting management guidance the inventory and planning for future Wilderness designations in the FLPMA/NEPA planning process. Many of the concepts that are identified in the Wilderness Act for the inventory of public lands are simply out of date and again result in numerous extra steps in the planning and analysis process. While much of this inventory process is mandated under the Wilderness Act, there is extensive efficiency gains that could be achieved in the second round of NEPA planning under FLPMA by limiting the scope of review to areas that are available for designation and currently managed for such an objective. Managers should also be made aware of the fact that the mere inventory of areas for Wilderness suitability often makes any subsequent management of the area for multiple use more complex.

When the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, there was simply very limited data even available regarding the characteristics of undeveloped tracts of federal land. Over the next 50 years, undeveloped lands under federal management have been the basis for extensive federal analysis and discussion and hundreds of thousands of public lands have been protected by Congressional action. While extensive tracts of land were designated as Wilderness, extensive other areas were consistently identified as unsuitable for designation in the inventory process and a smaller portion were released by Congress from the need for further review. While extensive areas have never been suitable for designation, managers are forced to re-inventory these areas in each planning process.

Given this extensive inventory and subsequent Congressional action that has occurred since passage of the Wilderness Act, there can be no factually based assertion there are large areas to be inventoried for possible Wilderness for the first time, as there is a finite number of acres of public lands and these have been repeatedly inventoried and addressed by Congress. The possibility of finding new lands that might be suitable for Wilderness designation is minimal at best. While the probability of finding new Wilderness is very limited, land managers are often forced to re-inventory areas found unsuitable previously or areas that have been specifically released by Congress or are hesitant to rely on previous determinations excluding an area from designation due to a particular usage even when that usage is still present in the areas being inventoried.

While there is minimal chance of finding new Wilderness areas for designation in second rounds of planning, there is no process to recognize the repeated inventory of lands and Congressional action in new rounds of planning or NEPA analysis. Without this type of a presumption, land managers are often forced to fully review areas that have never been suitable. Managers must also inventory lands released back to multiple use as part of previous Congressional actions, simply because of the requirement that citizen Wilderness petitions are specifically identified as a planning element in the inventory process. Often these citizen petitions fail to recognize previous Congressional action releasing areas or protecting multiple usage and garner little support from the public in the Legislative process. Despite these facial failures to establish a valid planning issue, land managers are forced to address these citizen petitions. Clarifying that areas not managed for Wilderness are probably not suitable for future designation would significantly streamline planning and NEPA analysis and allow for the more efficient management of federal lands.

An examples of the administrative burdens and inefficiency that result from the repetitive nature of the Wilderness inventory process is exemplified by management history of significant acres on the GMUG and San Juan national forest. Significant portions of the forest were found unsuitable in RARE 1&2 processes, unsuitable in Primitive Area analysis by Bureau of Mines and were released by Congress after highly site specific analysis and discussion with diverse interests in Wilderness legislation due to high levels of recreational activity in these areas. Land managers are still forced to address these areas for possible Wilderness designation in the future due to citizen inventories and legislative proposals that have been introduced since previous Congressional determinations on the areas. Land managers feel compelled to re-inventory these areas despite the fact that legislative proposals expanding these designations have never moved forward in the legislative process despite being introduced for decades and the clear Congressional action releasing the area from future Wilderness inventory.

The inefficiencies and barriers to utilization of these areas is presented by the ongoing Wilderness inventory process involving the North Sand Hills area outside Walden Colorado. This area provides a unique recreational opportunity that local, state and federal managers would like to expand and improve. This expansion and improvement is functionally prohibited by the fact that the area was inventoried as a WSA due to existing primitive area designation when the Wilderness Act was passed. Development is functionally prohibited despite the area being found unsuitable in original rounds of inventory. Motorized access to sand dune type riding exceptionally limited in Rocky Mountains and the opportunities provided in the North Sand Hills is probably unique in the Nation in the fact that users can ride sand dunes in the morning and then connect to extensive trail network in Rocky Mountains in the afternoon. Currently rustic camping and minimal services are provided on North Sand Hills. Everyone would like to expand these opportunities to improved camping facilities and integrated trail network to provide a solid economic driver for local communities. This expansion which has been supported by wide range of interests including Wilderness Society and other conservation groups. While this area has been the basis of specific WSA release legislation that legislation has not moved due to the exceptionally small size of the area. 7 The barrier to management and utilization of this area due the lingering WSA designation functionally prohibits expansion and utilization of the area due the possible designation of the area as Wilderness.

These lingering inventory and designation issues are not isolated to a small number of sites, but rather impact a large number of acres of public lands and result in other challenges that limit the effective and efficient utilization of these lands for the benefit of local communities. The ongoing inventory requirements lead to conclusions that are simply beyond rational description being made in the land management process as exemplified by the management of the West Needles WSA outside Durango, CO. This area was identified as a WSA in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act8 and subsequently inventoried in 1982, where a large portion was suitable for designation and a small portion was found unsuitable due to high levels of usage in that area. This recommendation was moved forward in 1993 Colorado Wilderness designations and the WSA designation was repealed.Despite this repeal of the WSA designation, the WSA designation remained in place due to the inventory of the area once and these existing usages were again put at risk in 2012 when land managers sought to close these usages due to the previous inventory. This issue was finally resolved when Congress again sought to release the area with the designation of the area as an SMA for motorized usage, which was passed into law in 2014.10 While the issue was legislatively resolved, the inefficiency and limitation on utilization of the area is immediately apparent.

These issues are not limited to Colorado as similar challenges have been encountered in Idaho, where certain Roadless areas were specifically identified as areas where access is to be expanded in previous Congressional action but continue to be inventoried or managed for Wilderness. In the 1980 Idaho Wilderness Act, use of numerous backcountry airstrips was specifically excluded and protected11, but despite these protections, land managers have continued to have to manage these airstrips as if they were impairing Wilderness. This process has again complicated maintenance of these areas and limited the economic benefit from these areas.

Possible resolutions of Wilderness inventory issue:

  • Provide presumption that areas previously found unsuitable or released have not become suitable merely due to the passage of time

6. Conclusion

The above Organizations welcome the opportunity provided in this comment period on how to refine and streamline the NEPA planning process and CEQ process to develop a more efficient and effective management process. After reviewing each of the 20 specific questions that were provided in the Federal Register notice on a variety of issues around the Endangered Species Act planning process and related topics, the Organizations above would answer each question in the affirmative.

The Organizations additionally would like to comment on two significant barriers to the efficient implementation of NEPA on public lands:

  1. Executive orders addressing travel management are simply out of date and require extensive re-analysis of issues resolved under planning requirements subsequently passed by Congress;
  2. Wilderness inventory processes in planning is cumbersome and redundant as planner often re-inventory areas Congress has specifically determined stated are not available for Wilderness designation and often directly contravenes the determinations in areas where multiple agencies have reviewed areas and determined them to be unsuitable.

The Organizations would also like to thank the CEQ for undertaking this review, as often planning documents and concepts are put in place and never reviewed again for basic relevance and meaning after the passage of time. Often this failure to review NEPA requirements results in repetition and confusion in the NEPA process that often generates only minimal on the ground benefits. It is not the Organizations intent to provide a complete list of these challenges but rather to highlight two of the more repetitive and confusing issues that are involved in the NEPA process.

If you have questions please feel free to contact either Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504. His phone is 518-281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com or Fred Wiley, ORBA’s Executive Director at 1701 Westwind Drive #108, Bakersfield, CA. Mr. Wiley phone is 661-323-1464 and his email is fwiley@orba.biz .

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO & IRC Authorized Representative;
CSA President

Fred Wiley, ORBA President and CEO;
Authorized Representative of One Voice

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

CC: Vickie Christiansen, Chief USFS

 

1 Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 163 Thursday, August 24, 2017
2 For more information on the California program please see: http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/
3 For more information on the Colorado OHV/OSV programs please see: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/TrailsGrantsOHV.aspx
4 A complete copy of this research is available here: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/orsa/orsanewsrelease.htm
5 This documentation is exemplified by the following document: https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/ORV%20Minimization%20Criteria%20White%20Paper—May%202016.pdf
6 This conflict is again exemplified by the following guidance documents from those opposing multiple usage: https://winterwildlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BMP-Final.pdf
7 See, HR 5570 of 114 Congress.
8 See, PL 96-150 §105(a)(9)
9 See, PL 103-77 §4a
10 See, PL 113-291 §3062
11 See, PL 94-951 §7a.

Continue Reading

In Defense of Off-Roading

Dirt bikes and 4x4s aren’t nearly as bad for the environment as you might think. (Hear me out.)

Outside Online image of car in dirtEvery time we publish an article about a truck, dirt bike, or off-road vehicle, some of our readers protest. Off-roading just doesn’t square with a lot of people’s vision of responsible outdoor recreation. I think those people have it wrong. Allow me to explain.

Off-Roaders Don’t Actually Go Off-Road

Probably the biggest misconception about “off-roading” is that people just go out and drive wherever they please. This simply isn’t true. Virtually all off-road driving takes place on designated dirt roads, trails, or in special off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas. In fact, “off-highway” (as in off-pavement) is a much more accurate name for the collection of sports that make up off-roading—it just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

I spoke with Sam Logan and Molly Chiappetta of Stay the Trail Colorado, a nonprofit that promotes responsible, ethical off-highway vehicle use in that state. They spend their time visiting OHV trailheads and events and informing trail users of environmentally responsible ways to enjoy their vehicles. They say that staying on-trail is the most important thing off-roaders can do to minimize their impact—and that the vast majority of participants are good about doing that. Exact statistics on how many off-roaders leave designated trails are impossible to calculate, but Chiappetta describes them as “the one percent who give us all a bad name.”

“Many roads or trails have been in place for decades,” Chiapetta says. Some even started as wagon tracks in the 1800s. The soil is compacted and stable, making it able to stand up to the weight of vehicles passing over it. On such routes, off-roaders can safely travel into or through fragile ecosystems without further damaging them, she says…

Read the full article: https://www.outsideonline.com/2325941/defense-roading 

 

 

Excerpt from:
Outside Online www.outsideonline.com
by Wes Siler
Read the full article: https://www.outsideonline.com/2325941/defense-roading 

 

Continue Reading

Endangered Species Act Amendments of 2018

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Att: Chairman John Barrasso
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Re: Endangered Species Act Amendments of 2018

Dear Senator Barrasso:

Governors Association collaborative meetings addressing species conservation and ESA reform and are thrilled to see that process continue to move forward. The Organizations have also participated in a wide range of cooperative efforts around specific species, and it has been our experience that in these cooperative meetings that almost all species specific information, including population counts; specific habitat management actions public and private lands and other critical information that is being provided is coming from state species managers rather than federal species managers. Poor implementation of species management standards after a species is listed on the ESA is a major challenge that is faced by those seeking access to public lands in a sustainable manner. Many of these challenges are addressed by the Proposal.

Prior to addressing our basis for support of the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

ORBA is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner. One Voice is a grassroots Organization that focuses on insuring that local experiences and challenges are conveyed to decision makers in Washington overseeing these areas and issues for resolution. Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is a recognized, statewide, collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts and others that will identify and work together on recreation issues in cooperation with land managers, legislators and the public to ensure a positive future for responsible outdoor recreation access for everyone, now and into the future. The Idaho Recreation Council is a collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts on the following activities: 4 x 4, Equestrian, Backcountry Aviators, Mountain Biking, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Rafts/Jet boats and ATV/UTV’s. Collectively TPA, ORBA, One Voice, IRC CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations”.

While the primary mission of the Organizations most directly relates to motorized recreation, the overall scope of the Organizations efforts has a larger impact as motorized recreation and access can take many forms and involve many activities, including camping, hunting and fishing and other recreational activities where motorized access to public lands is critical but not the primary recreational activity sought. Under federal land management standards, when an area is open to motorized access it is rarely closed to any other activity.
The Organizations welcome the Proposal review and updating of the Endangered Species Act (“the Act”) as this review and updating is badly needed based our experiences with ESA issues and efforts with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department. Currently, the Endangered Species Act is simply not reflecting the management situation on the ground for many species, and this has become a major hurdle to species management. The Organizations believe that the ESA must become both more efficient and more consistent in its impacts between species over time and effectively achieve species populations that allow for the delisting of species. The Organizations have been heavily involved in a wide range of Endangered Species management efforts including listing, delisting and more generally focused habitat conservation efforts throughout the Western United States, addressing species including the Canadian Lynx, Wolverine, Sage Grouse and numerous plant and mollusk species based in the California desert area. Additionally, our involvement with habitat challenges facing all species have included more generalized efforts targeting landscape level efforts around poor forest health and the impacts of various invasive species that have severally negatively impacting both terrestrial and aquatic habitats for all species. Often simply streamlining landscape level planning on forest health has to start with a major effort simply targeting ESA management issues that are being applied in the area, despite the fact that these standards often are out of date.

These experiences have allowed the Organizations to identify process related restrictions in efforts to avoid listings of species and delist species once they are listed. It has been our experience that much of the concerns that are driving possible listings of species are based on a lack of scientific research around the species and challenges that may be resulting in the decline of the population, as exemplified around the management of the Canadian Lynx after listing on the ESA. The lack of science for management results in efforts that in no way relates to the challenges facing the species and in some situations has resulted in further negative impacts to the population. The Proposal facilitates the development of high quality scientific information around issues prior to listing rather than listing the species with the hope of development of science at some point later, which can often take decades to develop while faulty science is applied on the ground.

The lack of certainty around the basis for listing of a species also greatly complicates any efforts to delist the species as there is simply insufficient information for subsequent efforts to provide a defensible basis for delisting a species. The implementation of population goals that automatically trigger delisting efforts for any species has become a major hurdle as often the desire to simply have more of a species trumps the desire to have a sustainable population of that species. As a result of the difficulty in delisting a species, too often the ESA listing process has also become an alternative method of challenging projects for those that have chosen not to participate in the more general NEPA process around the project.

While the Organizations believe the proposed amendments are a major step towards making the Endangered Species both a more effective species management tool and more cost effective, the Organizations would like to address possible negative impacts from provisions that are providing expanded information privacy for personal information, such as those found generally found in §301 of the Proposal. While the Organizations are highly supportive of protecting personal information in the listing and recovery process, based on the experiences outlined in WGA meetings, the Organizations are also intimately familiar with the misuse of confidentiality provisions in the development and management of possible historic sites in the development of land management plans.

The Organizations would also like to raise the opportunity for additional clarity in management during the times when state recovery teams are working. In the Proposal, a recovery team process is anticipated to take several years. The Organizations welcome this timeframe as developing high quality management for the species must be the standard rather than simply seeking fast management solutions for the species. The Organizations would like to see additional clarity around the use of a possible listing during the recovery team process, as it has been our experience that these time periods often run much longer than expected and managers often rely on this ambiguity as the basis for closure or restrictions in the planning process.

The Organizations look forward to participating in further discussions as this Legislation and issue moves forward. Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or via telephone at 518-281-5810.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

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

Sandra Mitchell, Executive Director
Idaho Recreation Council

 

Continue Reading

CCMR Monarch Crest Signage Project

Email from Chad Hixon centralcoloradomountainriders@gmail.com

Hello CCMR!

We are very pleased to announce that the first in a series of signs to be installed on multi use trails throughout the Salida Ranger District and part of the Gunnison Ranger District is complete. On Wednesday, June 13th a group of CCMR volunteers and members of the Forest Service installed a 3 panel kiosk at the top of Monarch Pass and the beginning of the Monarch Crest Trail.

This project has been over a year in the making and has had the involvement of a multitude of recreational user groups and the Forest Service. The project, as most of you already know, was spearheaded by CCMR and made possible by private donations and a cost share agreement with the FS.

Again this is the first one to be completed at arguably one of the busiest multi use trails in the state. Look for more similar signs to be installed throughout this summer on other multi use trails.

Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen.

Check out the photos below!

 

CCMR Monarch Crest Signage Project

Continue Reading

Navigating the Forest Service “Predecisional” Review Process

By Paul Turcke
Lead Counsel
Sharetrails.Org/BRC

We’re working on some important projects, during which several participants have remarked at the “strange” or “convoluted” US Forest Service administrative process. It might be a good time to review the structure of this process and some note-worthy elements and effective strategies.

There are no simple answers or magic slippers. Solid participation is important, but this is not a voting process. Technology makes it ever easier to generate tens of thousands of form comments. These are noted and largely discounted by the agency and are even counter-productive. Nor is there a way to rig the outcome through personal back channels or some scientific trump card. A winning strategy might vary for each project and reflect a blend of law, history, science, site characteristics, local/national politics, and personalities of key participants.

It’s always important to understand the basic rules of the game. Most National Forests now conduct vigorous “scoping” at the outset of a travel planning process and seek comments on the purpose of and potential alternatives. From this input, and internal specialist feedback, the National Forest might announce a draft range of alternatives, or proceed to a draft environmental review document. For our discussion, we will assume this will be a draft environmental impact statement, or ‘DEIS,’ as opposed to the supposedly less rigorous environmental assessment.

The DEIS is a key stage in the process. Where comments count, it is here. For jurisdictional purposes, one cannot advance issues in an administrative challenge or future litigation that were not raised or contemplated by one’s DEIS comments. This is often the best, and perhaps last, chance to modify the National Forest’s vision for the project. The agency’s investment in an outcome will develop and grow from here. If you hope to engage brilliant professional consultants, including lawyers, this is the time to do it.

The next step, which can take a year or more, is to release a Draft Record of Decision (‘ROD’) and final environmental impact statement (‘EIS’). Where we are dealing with a “project or activity” decision, formal publication of the Draft ROD triggers a 45 day period to file “objections.” The current review process was adopted in 2013 and is called a “predecisional administrative review” and supposedly reflects a more efficient approach modeled after the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Readers here know that the words “efficiency” and “US Forest Service” cannot realistically appear in the same sentence. This “project or activity” review process is outlined at 36 CFR part 218, while a slightly different process for Forest Plan amendments is found in the adjacent part 219.

The process is conducted by a ‘Reviewing Officer’ who typically occupies an office on step above that of the ‘Responsible Official’ who made the objected-to decision. The process includes the opportunity for a “resolution,” which the Reviewing Officer has broad latitude in deciding whether or how to explore. A resolution is difficult to achieve, but might offer a big upside for all involved, through certainty and avoidance of litigation costs. It is not entirely clear to what extent a resolution can change the Draft ROD. Objectors who agree to a resolution will likely waive future rights to litigate, but what about objectors who don’t sign off on the resolution, or participants who never objected because they favored the Draft ROD, but oppose changes in the resolution? The answer may involve the extent to which the resolution lies within the DEIS range of alternatives, but the safest approach will be to conduct further process or at least re-open a new 45 objection period within which to object to the resolution.

These mind-numbing possibilities may be one reason why resolutions rarely occur. Instead, the Reviewing Officer typically issues a “response.” This must be in writing, and occur in a relatively short timeframe, within 45 days of the objection deadline, which can be extended once an additional 30 days. A response will likely say “nice try but the Draft ROD is valid” or “the Draft ROD is valid but I instruct the Responsible Official to clarify (read “fortify”) these specified issues.” A response which upholds an objection(s) and directs the National Forest to start over is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

Regardless, some period of time typically follows before the Responsible Official issues a Final ROD. Based on the Reviewing Officer’s instructions, if any, there might be slight tweaks to the decision. However, as noted before, the agency forms a vision relatively early in the process, and deviating from that vision is not only expensive, but might create procedural risk. Perhaps Congress felt good calling this a “predecisional” review process, but a review process conducted within the same agency by people who know one another on a first name basis will unsurprisingly tend to rationalize decisions previously made.

This might seem a dark view of the process, but our purpose is quite the contrary. Savvy participants should understand the procedural roadmap, seize opportunities to make a difference and conserve resources otherwise spent pounding at a figurative brick wall. Before you embark on your first or next journey in the process, consider calling us here at Sharetrails.org/BRC.

Continue Reading

GMUG Resource Management Plan Revision

GMUG National Forest
Att: Planning team revision
2250 South Main Street
Delta, CO 81416

Re: GMUG Resource Management Plan Revision

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the Organizations identified above with regard to the Proposed Revision of the GMUG RMP. We welcome this opportunity to provide input following the first round of public meetings addressing the proposed forest plan revision.   We would like to provide input on a few components in the final RMP which we believe could streamline planning significantly moving forward, provide new information and address several issues that consistently arise early in the Forest Service planning process on other forests in the hope of partnering with the GMUG to develop an effective long-term plan for the forest.  These comments are submitted as a supplement to the site-specific input provided from the local clubs on a wide range of issues, such as culvert size and future utilization of decommissioned roads as trails.  The Organizations vigorously support the input from these local clubs.

Prior to providing initial thoughts and concepts on the development of the GMUG RMP, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

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

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

As we discussed in far more detail in earlier submissions, there is a critical need to develop an RMP that is reasonably brief and easy for the public to use and understand.  While we will not be discussing that issue in great detail in these comments, these goals and objectives remain critically important.  The Organizations continue to support the recognition of the need to expand access on the GMUG in a thoughtful and planned manner for all recreational activity, as already recognized in the assessments.

In this round of comments, we are providing a detailed legal history of the lack of Congressional support for designation of exclusionary corridors around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) and other routes designated under the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”).  While we are not aware of this issue being raised in scoping to date, we are aware of the immense pressure on other forests to create such corridors.  It is our position that such corridors are illegal under federal law and also fail to balance multiple uses along the trails inn violation of NEPA planning requirements.

In addition to outlining the extensive Congressional action that has been taken around the need to benefit all uses with an NTSA route, the Organizations have also provided a detail analysis of the extensive multiple agency reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which have been occurring since before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. These multiple agency reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in releasing significant portions of the GMUG back to multiple use requirements and explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations are in the places that they are.  This history is critically important given the fact that many of these areas found specifically unsuitable for Wilderness designations previously were again recommended for Wilderness designation in the draft 2007 RMP.  The Organizations are aware such action is theoretically legally possible, the Organizations submit that such a recommendation is factually confounding and should be avoided.

These Congressional actions have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in the states history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas.

The final general issue we would like to provide input on is snow sciences around OSV management.  The Organizations are all too familiar with the large amounts of unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted with regard to many USFS planning efforts, on what appears to be a position that there is no science on many of these challenges.  The Organizations submit there is extensive science on most of these issues and that the peer reviewed high-quality science that is available does not support management of issues in the manner recommended in this citizen science. Rather the best available science supports existing management and highlights the low-quality nature of the citizen science being submitted, such as the fact that citizen researchers seek to recommend management based on snow depth but fail to prepare their research in a manner that even arguably complies with BMPS for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service.  Land managers must exhibit a high level of caution in relying on citizen science that fails to clear even such basic hurdles in the scientific process.

1a. Corridors around NTSA routes are illegal.

The Organizations have participated in a large number of planning efforts throughout the western United States where an unusual issue has come up in the planning process, mainly public pressure around the need to designate exclusionary corridors around routes designated under the National Trails System Act, which would be most commonly the Continental Divide Trail on the GMUG. The Organizations are surprised at this effort as the management of these routes has been a long-settled issue under federal law and not been a basis for significant concern on most forests in the Western United States. As a result, the entire concept of an exclusionary corridor is both creating a problem where on simply does not exist currently but also would be implementing management that Congress has specifically forbidden with numerous revisions of the NTSA.  Any decisions with regard to the need for an exclusionary corridor or landscape exclusion of motorized usage from the CDT would be completely without basis in law or fact as more than 14% of CDT is currently on a motorized road and an unspecified percentage more is located on motorized trails and significant portion of the CDT are groomed for winter motorized recreational usage.  All these management decisions have been in place for decades and operate without major conflict. The long history of successful management of these areas for the benefit of all is simply never addressed by those seeking a landscape level exclusion nor is the conflict between proposed exclusions and existing federal law resolved or even addressed by those seeking an exclusion.  As a result, the Organizations are vigorously opposed to any closures of the CDT to multiple use. Congress has consistently moved to protect multiple use access to the CDT with ever amendment to the NTSA.

1b. Mandatory exclusionary corridors directly conflict with the Congressional language and intent when NTSA was passed.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only 1968 legislation is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA in 1968.  Significant clarity in addressing the Congressional desire for multiple use management has been added with every amendment to the NTSA since 1968.  Multiple uses of corridors and trails was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968.  While there are numerous Congressional reports referenced in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance, many of which have not been provided to the Congressional offices for release to the public, HRep 1631 is simply never mentioned despite it being a foundational document in the discussion.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed.  It is deeply troubling to the Organizations that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents, many of which are unavailable to the public,[1] but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”[2]

The Organizations note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail.  Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

While HRep 1631 is not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance, the direct conflict of the agency guidance and this report simply cannot be overlooked.  Much of the information and analysis provided in HRep 1631 is highly relevant to the authority of USFS guidance assertions that 1-mile corridors are mandatory or even recommended. HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation.  HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”[3]

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

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”[4]

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

“however, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”[5]

Rather than conveying the clear intent of Congress to avoid corridors as a part of management of an NTSA route, on page one of the 2016 CDT guidance clearly states that such a corridor is the preferred management tool, stating as follows:

“The CDT corridor/MA should be wide enough to encompass the resources, qualities, values, associated settings and primary uses of the Trail. The 0.5-mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDT must be a primary consideration in delineating the CDT corridor/MA boundary (FSM 2353.44b (7)).”[6]

The Organizations are simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA and the 2016 CDT guidance can be reconciled as Congress specifically stated that corridors should not be applied and managers retain authority to address site specific issues and challenges. This is deeply concerning given the fact that if Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic.  This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. The Organizations vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

1c.  The recommended 1-mile corridor around NTSA in 2016 USFS guidance directly conflicts with 1983 NTSA amendments.

The balancing of multiple uses on NTSA routes and adjacent corridors has been an issue that Congress has struggled with for an extended period of time and repeatedly addressed with growing clarity. As clearly stated in HRep 1631, when the NTSA was passed Congress sought to balance all uses in the vicinity of any route designated under the NTSA.  Given the subsequent amendments to the NTSA the need to balance all uses is a concern that Congress has consistently and repeatedly addressed with higher levels of clarity in the NTSA.   Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the first time when agency planning sought to implement restrictions on other usages around a NTSA route in contradiction to federal law.

Subsequent to the passage of the NTSA in 1968, Congress further refined and clarified the management practices for public lands with the passage of Federal Land and Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”) of 1976.  While FLPMA did not specifically address the relationship of its provisions with the NTSA, FLPMA altered the entire landscape of federal lands management and the implementation of multiple use mandates for the agencies. Subsequent to the adoption of FLPMA, the NTSA was amended in 1983 to clarify that FLPMA and multiple use principals controlled the management of not only the footprint of NTSA routes but also the corridors around those routes with the passage of Public Law 98-11. The relationship between the passage of PL 98-11 in 1983 further clarifying Congressional desires that the NTSA was to benefit a wide range of interests and specifically stated the concept of corridors and crossing points were not acceptable concepts for management of NTSA previously. The response of Congress was the 1983 NTSA amendments which are the single largest and most relevant legislative actions to the concept of management corridors around NTSA routes. These concepts and clear statements of law in the NTSA remain law today and superseded many of the 1968 provisions that those seeking corridors and exclusions seek to have applied as if the laws were still in place.   In a troubling turn of events, the 1983 amendments and FLPMA passage are not addressed in the Law[7] or Legislative history[8] sections of the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at all, while minor revisions to the NTSA are discussed in some detail.

The 1983 NTSA amendments removed any basis for the principal of management of adjacent lands for the benefit of the route and replaced the adjacent lands concept with the following provisions:

“in selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”

In addition to clearly stating multiple use principals controlled NTSA routes and areas, Congress clarified the usages of NTSA designated routes by directly stating motorized usages in all forms were permitted by adding 16 USC 1246 (j).  This provision states:

“Types of trail use allowed Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include but are not limited to…the following: snowmobiling, Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles.”

Rather than addressing these clearly stated uses of an NTSA area and applied FLPMA management standards to NTSA areas, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance consistently relies on the artificially created versions of the NTSA to support exclusionary corridors being recommended. The Organizations are unable to determine the basis for such a decision as the 2016 USFS Guidance and the clear language of the 1983 amendments directly conflict.  In this situation, federal law clearly and directly controls and minimizing impacts and maximizing values for all interests cannot be achieved with implementation of a mile-wide corridor excluding most usages.

1d. The scope of USFS NTSA guidance is artificially limited to support management that conflicts with NTSA provisions.

The 2016 USFS CDT Guidance systemically provides partial summaries of the NTSA provisions that simply do not reflect the entire provision being cited for the basis for the management decision and further relies on numerous legislative reports that are simply not available. While some NTSA provisions are sometimes directly contradictory in identifying usages, USFS Guidance should be reflecting this conflicting guidance for managers to understand in the implementation process.  Rather than reflecting this conflict, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance chooses one usage and crafts guidance language in furtherance of that interest without mention of the conflict and seeking to rely on supporting documentation that may not even exist. While non-existent documents are relied on, the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance simply ignores other easily accessible guidance from Congress. The end result of this guidance document is that forest staff will be lead to a single conclusion for management of both National Trails System routes and corridors and this single conclusion directly conflicts with the direct language of the NTSA.

This conflict is exemplified Page 6 of 2016 USFS CDT Guidance which states as follows:

“Sec. 7(c): The use of motor vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited…but limited motorized use may be allowed to: meet emergencies, provide landowner access, provide for motor vehicle crossings.”

Clearly a blanket prohibition as recommended would immediately conflict with federal laws requiring that an NTSA designation benefit all users of the area. The Organizations do not contest these words are present in §7c of the NTSA but §7c continues with extensive guidance regarding multiple uses on the CDT as follows:

Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail[9]

The Organizations vigorously assert that any USFS guidance should not be placing one of the conflicting usages above another in a manner that directly conflicts with clearly stated guidance from Congress but rather should be identifying the conflict clearly and then assisting managers in resolving this conflict in a manner that addresses the clearly stated intent of Congress, which is the NTSA was intended to benefit all activity. Again, this situation must be reviewed and corrected.

1f. Accurate summaries of NTSA plan provisions often simply omitted from Guidance.

In addition to failing to accurately summarize conflicting provisions of the NTSA, the 2016 USFS CDT guidance fails to accurately summarize USFS planning documents that clearly were available when the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance was prepared.  Again, the specific interests of some users are elevated and an inaccurate summary of Trail specific documents is provided in the Guidance.  This is exemplified on Page 2 of the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance which states:

“Motorized vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDT, unless such use is consistent with the applicable policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.”

This simply is not accurate as the NTSA clearly states that forest planning goals and objective control lands in the Corridor and that travel management decisions control lands in the corridor.[10] In addition to these provisions, the 2009 CDT Plan provides pages of management decisions regarding placement of the trail foot prints and proper management of the CDT in areas where other uses predate the development of the CDT.  This simply is never mentioned in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance.

The 2009 CDT plan also provides high quality information regarding levels of usage that the 2016 USFS CDT guidance appears to assert are prohibited.  A meaningful and complete review of the CDT plan reveals it clearly states:

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”[11]

In addition to the 14% of the CDT that is a motorized road, there are extensive but unspecified portions of the CDT located on motorized trails and significant portions of the CDT are groomed by the motorized community to access backcountry recreational areas for decades.  This simply cannot be reconciled with exclusionary corridors.

It is significant to note that Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) plan has adopted a blanket recognition of relevant travel management of areas around the CDT in its management plan. The 2009 CDT Plan provisions are as follows:

“Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and……. (5) Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:

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

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

(6) In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”[12]

Given the fact that the CDT plan specifically states the need to recognize travel management as the controlling factor for use of the trail tread and adjacent corridors in a manner consistent with multiple use requirements, the Organizations vigorously assert that these portions of the CDT plan would be rendered irrelevant with the designation of exclusionary corridors.  This is a direct indication there is a problem with the corridor concept being recommended.

The failure to accurately review all relevant decision documents is even more problematic when site specific Congressional action on a particular trail is brought into the discussion.  While our Organizations do not have guidance documents regarding the PCT, these concerns regarding this type of conflict are highlighted on the PCT.  Congress has specifically identified crossing points that are to be reopened on the PCT as exemplified by the designation of two crossing locations on the Bridgeport Ranger District of the Humbolt-Toiyabe NF.[13]  Again the Organizations must express serious concerns about any landscape level guidance documents for a NTSA route excluding motorized usage that brought management into clear conflict with these Congressional actions and related planning efforts.

1g.  Significant alterations of any NTSA location require Congressional approval.

Throughout the 2016 USFS CDT Guidance, the concept of managers simply moving uses on and off the CDT by changing route location is embraced. The NTSA also provides guidance on the large-scale relocation of any Congressionally designated scenic trail from its original location as the NTSA continues as follows:

“relocation of a segment of national, scenic or historic trail….A substantial relocation of the rights of way for such a trail shall be by Act of Congress.” [14]

While Congress was clear on the desire to retain authority over the alteration of any National Trail, the failure to define “significant” places any changes in a national scenic trail from its original location, in the case of the CDT the 1977 report to Congress outlining its location, on questionable legal basis.

The Organizations are again concerned regarding the basis for this management guidance as no provisions are made for addressing these long-term impacts of numerous site-specific changes of Congressionally approved routes is provided.  This is again a concern as Congress specifically and clearly retained the authority to approve but no methodology is provided for in guidance to provide for such a review.

1h.  Economics and equity must be addressed in NTSA area management by Congressional declaration and Executive Order.

While the NTSA guidance fails to provide accurate guidance on numerous issues identified above, the NTSA guidance is clear on issues involving equity and usage of NTSA routes and the need to balance multiple usage based on these factors.   On these issues, there is a huge amount of consensus between the Executive Orders of both Presidents Obama (EO 13553 of 2011) and President Trump (EO 13771 of 2017) and the provisions of the NTSA, which provide as follows:

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”[15]

Clearly this balancing of competing economic and social benefits cannot be furthered with the recommended management standards as these guidance documents have already decided the balance is in favor of certain users and not others. While there is a huge level of consensus across political parties and government branches on the need for a cost benefit analysis of management decisions and equity in these management decisions around NTSA designations, these issues simply are not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance. This concern is highly relevant as the CDT is traversed by dozens of visitors per year[16] and only hundreds traverse the entirety of the PCT per year[17]. The lack of equity in requiring landscape level exclusionary corridors for the management of dozens of users per year is immediately apparent. Cleary this is an issue where guidance should be provided and has not been raised due to the immediate conflict that will result, as this type of analysis would contradict the recommended exclusionary corridors.

Given the systemic protection of multiple uses on NTSA routes and repeated opportunity Congress has had to require exclusionary corridors and exclusion of multiple from NTSA routes, it must not be overlooked that the Congressional actions have consistently protected multiple uses with stronger and stronger standards and requirements in the law.  This action in federal law prohibits the implementation of any landscape closures of an NTSA route or area and as a result the Organizations are opposed to any alternative being developed that would bring such a concept forward as such a concept is no more acceptable than a forest recommending motorized trail usage in a Wilderness area.

2a. Financially sustainable recreational opportunities must be required in the RMP.

After reviewing the recreational assessment for the Proposal, the Organizations were thrilled that GMUG managers were seeking to proactively address expansion of recreational opportunities in areas where it was appropriate. The Organizations vigorously support the expansion of recreational opportunities on public lands, but such a position is not without limit.  The Organizations submit that financial sustainability of any new routes must also be clearly addressed in the expansion of any recreational opportunities, as there is a very limited amount of funding for trail development and maintenance.  The Organizations have provided detailed input previously regarding the benefits of the State OHV trails program to land managers, but other groups simply have failed to step up to this level. While the OHV and OSV program is vigorous in Colorado, it is also not enough and land managers partner with the funding from the state to make much of this effective and the Organizations would be very concerned with the large-scale expansion of projects that did not address the ongoing need for maintenance and upkeep of facilities as these partnerships currently in place would be put at risk.

When other trail uses are expanded without specific funding sources and a hard look at resources available to support the long-term success of the project, existing partnerships are strained and resources are stretched beyond capacity for maintenance. This is simply unfair and undermines the partnerships that the motorized community has worked hard to establish.  Simply accepting a group assertion that trails can be maintained is not enough and land managers must take a hard look at the capacity to maintain new routes with existing resources.  Often managers are asked to move forward with expansions of trails by hundreds of miles for a small user group when that user group is asserting maintenance of these networks can be achieved with a trailer, some hand tools and volunteers.  Everyone knows that simply is not possible. Concerns on this type of maintenance are expanded when the fact that many of these groups are asserting this type of maintenance is available on trails across management boundaries or at the landscape level.  Often trail advocates are asserting to be able to maintain routes on several forests, field offices and local municipal areas at the same time and often the track record for this type of maintenance is marginal at best.

Such a position also fails to recognize that much of the maintenance necessary may be occurring at trailheads and parking lots with the ongoing need to maintain toilets and trash bins and grading the parking areas and access roads.  These are projects that simply cannot be undertaken with hand tools.  The lack of factual sustainability of such a position is further evidenced by the fact that the single largest challenge often facing recreation managers working on trails on the GMUG is the large amounts of dead trees that can rapidly obstruct a route under normal conditions.  These obstructions can become much worse with even a minor weather event and pose a costly issue for maintenance. We have enclosed a copy of our comments on the Plunge Project[18] outside Palisade Colorado as an example of the type of project that would evidence why we are raising this issue in the comments as this proposal is steep, remote, and on highly erosive soils and is crossing jurisdictional boundaries. This is a good example of the projects that must be approached with high levels of caution and could easily put the strong partnerships at risk of failure in the long term on the GMUG.

2b.  Colorado recreational trends should be recognized and Forest level experiences with recreational visitation must be relied on.

In the recreational assessment, significant amounts of data from national trends and analysis in recreation are solely relied on for establishing trends in recreational usage.  While we understand that exact recreational visitation may be difficult to obtain, relying solely on national data and trends is problematic as it overlooks the fact that visitation to recreational facilities in Colorado is growing across all interests and concerns due to the fact that the Colorado population is explosively growing.  As a result, the Organizations would be concerned about any planning assumptions on the GMUG that expected visitation for any recreational activity to go down.

The Organizations would note that while some actions may have seen declines in participation at the national level, the Organization would be hard pressed to identify any activity that is declining in visitation in Colorado.  As more specifically identified below, both OHV and OSV registrations with the State of Colorado have seen consistent increases over the last decade as reflected in the following charts from Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding the steadily growing demand for registration of these vehicles.

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Registrations and Permits in Colorado Total Annual Estimated Snowmobile Registrations

The Organizations would note that such a recognition of the consistent growth of state registrations is important given the fact that OSV travel is thought to be declining in visitation and other usages are thought to be explosively growing based on the Cordell national study. [19] The Organizations experiences with outdoor recreation in general, the demand for all recreational opportunities and visitation to Colorado public lands has been explosively growing across all user groups, which directly contradicts the information provided by the Cordell study regarding national demand for particular opportunities. The Organizations would note that such a decline in OSV recreation would not be supported by Colorado Snowmobile registration numbers, which CPW recognizes have held pretty steady in the last decade.  Our experiences are that most winter trailheads visitation is at levels we have never experienced before, as the Grand Mesa area is rapidly becoming a national destination for OSV recreation and more and more people are visiting Colorado from further and further away. Similar experiences can be seen regarding the explosive growth in demand for recreational opportunities on the GMUG over the last decade.

We would also note that many areas of the country experienced marginal snow years around 2010 and as a result many snowmobiles in extensive regions of the country never even got registered due to the lack of snow.   Again, this was not the experience in Colorado as some of these years were well above average in terms of snowfall and visitation.   While light registrations of OSV in NY or Vermont due to limited snowfall may be an interesting topic for discussion nationally, this issue is simply not relevant as a planning tool for the GMUG. As an industry or national trend, the mountain snowmobiling experience is now the most sought-after snowmobile experience in the nation and the GMUG has rapidly become a national destination for those seeking the mountain riding experience.

The Organizations are also concerned that throughout the recreational assessment the use of percentages of changes in visitation are often relied on for analysis. This is problematic as many of the interests that are reflected in the assessment are exceptionally small user groups, such as exemplified by mountain climbers. While mountain climbing is clearly a planning interest for the GMUG, this is a relatively small user group overall and a 100% increase in demand for these opportunities may only draw a small number of actual people to the GMUG. By Comparison, many large groups of visitors, such as camping or OHV, may see small percentages of growth nationally, but these are large groups to start with and as a result a small percentage of change in these groups may result in huge planning concerns for the GMUG as thousands of people may be represented in that small percentage of change in visitation.

The Organizations are very concerned that in the discussions around the winter recreational opportunities that is provided in the recreation assessment there is no mention of the importance that winter grooming plays in providing basic access to winter recreational opportunities on the GMUG. As a result, a critical factor in this opportunity comparison is missed, mainly that any recreational access is provided as a result of the OSV registration and grooming program in place on the forest and this grooming program has been a critical factor in the winter trail network developing in the manner that it has.

3. Reopening of the Alpine Tunnel historic district to all forms of motorized recreation

The Organizations would suggest goal and objective to restore access to the Alpine Historic District for all forms of travel as a goal in RMP.  General public access to the area has been blocked by the natural deterioration of the road in spots, which could be easily repaired but access was more immediately challenged by more extensive damage to the roadway as a result of a winter avalanche.  While this could be repaired, it is a more significant undertaking. This area is hugely unique and valuable recreational opportunity and experience to the public, especially with detailed historical information that is available to further expand the public understanding around the unique nature and history for the areas.[20]  The Organizations would like to see restoring access to these unique recreational opportunities identified as a management priority in the RMP.

3a. Lynx Management standards in the Proposal directly conflict with best available science and USFS guidelines on the issue.

The Organizations are deeply troubled that the Proposal is carrying forward many of the outdated and superseded management standards that have plagued Lynx management for decades and have been specifically debunked.  The continued reliance on this information is highly frustrating to the Colorado motorized community as we have been directly supporting lynx research throughout the region for almost a decade in an effort to develop best available science.  This has included the direct funding of lynx and wolverine research conducted by John Squires and his team in partnership with the Idaho Snowmobile Association and the logistical support for lynx research efforts of the Rocky Mountain Research Station with Liz Roberts on both the White River and San Juan national forests seeking to better understand the response of lynx to higher levels of recreational activity. CSA attempted to donate a snowmobile to researchers but was not successful as the unit needed to be returned to the association after completion of research.  Despite this setback the Association was able to provide significant amounts of fuel, oil on the ground knowledge and numerous recovery efforts for snowmobiles used by researchers that became stuck in the backcountry with CSA grooming equipment over several years.

While the 2013 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy is mentioned in the index of the terrestrial species assessment the application of standards in the assessment is completely inaccurate and reflects more of review is of information that has been superseded than up to date information.  The conflict between standards applied in the Species Assessment and the 2013 LCAS is stark when comparisons are made.   The assessment specifically provides as follows:

“Road, trail and recreational activities that results in snow compaction may facilitate increased access into lynx habitat and competition for food resources by competitors (primarily coyotes). Over-the-snow vehicle use and additional modes of winter recreation are anticipated to increase on the GMUG National Forests.” [21]

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

  • Recreational usage of lynx habitat is a second level threat and not likely to have substantial effects on the lynx or its habitat. Previous theory and management analysis had placed a much higher level of concern on recreational usage of lynx habitat; [22]
  • Lynx have been known to incorporate smaller ski resorts within their home ranges but may not utilize the large resorts.  Dispersed motorized recreational usage certainly does not create impacts that can be equated to even a small ski area; [23]
  • Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;[24]
  • There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; [25]
  • Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;[26]
  • Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; [27]
  • Winter recreational usage of lynx habitat should only be “considered” in planning and should not be precluded given the minimal threat this usage poses to the lynx; and [28]
  • Failing to manage habitat areas to mitigate impacts of poor forest health issues, such as the spruce and mtn pine beetle, is a major concern in lynx habitat for a long duration.[29]

The Organizations are aware that the 2013 LCAS represents a significant change in management standards for a wide range of issues from the 2000 LCAS and Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.  It is our intent in providing a copy of the 2013 LCAS at this time that complete incorporation of this best available science, which reflects the minimal impacts of recreational usage of lynx habitat will streamline any site-specific planning issues in the future.

The fact that snow compaction is a natural force across the globe is addressed in significantly more detail in other parts of these comments.

4. Recreation Economics

The Organizations would like to provide new additional information regarding the importance of multiple use recreational access and related benefits to communities relying on recreational activity to provide critically needed tax revenue. The Organizations are aware that many counties in the vicinity have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago, as exemplified by Summit County Colorado identification as number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list of 21st Century Ghost Towns.[30]  Unfortunately, many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents.  Many of these communities might include Paonia, Almont or Marble as examples.   Given the importance of recreation to these communities and many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the GMUG National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities both in terms of revenue to local communities but also direct employment.  The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs[31]:

Economic contribution by Program - Avg Annual Jobs Economic Contribution by Progrom - Labor Income

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity and other activities that would be prohibited in the Proposal to local communities when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of these activities outpace all other.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce.  This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product as recreational spending accounts for more than 2% of the GDP.[32] This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Chart showing Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities - 2016

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited when multiple use recreational access is lost in any area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited.  The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.[33] Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. [34]  The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located on USFS lands is within Wilderness areas.  Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding and weighs heavily against expansion of any recommended Wilderness or other exclusionary designations in the planning process.  As we have previously notes, those types of designations are some of the most underutilized areas in Colorado for recreational activity.

The basis for the disparate economic benefits from recreational resources is easily identifiable when USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared in the research below: [35]

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity.

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in many restricted or limited access management areas.  Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning.  Nationally, congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.[36]  In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness[37] but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.7% of visitor days on the GMUG National Forest.[38] As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

As we have previously noted in greater detail in previous comments, motorized recreation provided $2.2 billion dollars to the Colorado economy and accounted for more than 15,000 jobs in 2014.  A copy of the complete COHVCO study that is the basis for this information has been provided with previous input from the Organizations.

5a.  Many of the areas found to be suitable for recommended Wilderness designation have been previously found unsuitable for designation by Congress.

Prior to addressing the specific and extensive history of areas on the GMUG of areas being reviewed by Congress and found unsuitable for designation as Wilderness, the Organizations must address two significant landscape level concerns that have arisen around many of the recommended Wilderness areas from the 2007 draft RMP. Our first landscape level concern involves the relationship of the site-specific inventory of much of the GMUG by Congress and specific release of many areas from further review for possible designation as Wilderness in the future by Congress.  This release of areas by Congress from future designation greatly outweighs the fact that there may be legislation now before Congress on this issue in the form of a citizen-based Wilderness proposal.  The Organizations are aware there is great pressure to recognize these legislative drafts that have been before Congress sometimes for decades but the Organizations must note that the decision NOT to list these areas as Wilderness that actually passed Congress and became law must be properly weighted again the existence of a legislative proposal that has not passed either house of Congress and often completely lacks even a sponsor in the House of Representatives.  Any argument that a stalled legislative proposal should carry more weight than a site-specific analysis and decision that has actually passed Congress regarding the ineligibility of the area for future designation is probably lacking legal and factual basis.  The Organizations comments on both legislative proposals is attached to these comments as Exhibit 3. The Organizations submit that many of the citizen Wilderness proposals that are currently addressing GMUG lands are not moving because they are simply badly out of balance and would designate Wilderness in areas that were released in previous Wilderness legislation.

Here a comparison of weighting proposed legislation at a higher level than current federal law is valuable and will provide more clarity to why we are asserting the mere proposal of Wilderness on the GMUG is not a management or analysis issue for planners.  This comparison involves mountain bike usage in Wilderness areas.  Similar to the San Juan and Continental Divide legislation now before the US Senate, there was also draft legislation in the 115th Congress to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness (HR 1349) that actually moved out of the House committee hearing on the issue. After passing committee, HR 1349 moved no further in the House and failed to obtain any Senate sponsors. Clearly this type of legislation could not be applied by land managers in the planning process to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness areas, as it directly contradicts federal law despite the draft Legislation being proposed. Congress has spoken on this issue and there is no basis to overturn that position without further action actually passing Congress.  The Organizations believe the basis for the two decisions by land managers must be consistently applied, and there should be no mountain bikes in Wilderness due to the conflict with federal law and no recommendation of Wilderness designations in planning efforts for GMUG areas already repeatedly addressed by Congress and found unsuitable and released back to multiple use. Each is a direct violation of federal law, despite what has been asserted by those advocating for more Wilderness. Existing federal law must outweigh proposed legislation in the planning process.

The history of both the Continental Divide Proposal, and earlier versions of this legislation that trace back to the original Hidden Gems Proposal and San Juan Wilderness Proposals by Senator Bennett clearly shows the lack of support for the expanded designations across larger communities.  Rather than being a basis for management of these areas as recommended Wilderness these proposals provide a concrete basis for management of these areas in compliance with existing federal law mandating multiple use. A brief history of the San Juan Wilderness Legislation reveals a long history of nonsupport for the proposal in Congress, as there has never been a house sponsor even named for the Proposal[39]. Even in the Senate, the proposal has moved to hearings on several occasions and while it has gotten out of committee, the larger Senate has never even voted on this Proposal. This is a strong indication of the LACK of support for the Proposal. Even more troubling is the fact that the San Juan Legislation has not even been introduced in the Senate since 2013.  The Organizations submit that the 5-year hiatus for the legislation speaks volumes to the true amount of support for the Legislation.

The Legislative history of the Continental Divide Legislation provides no basis for management decision as this Proposal has been submitted in various forms for almost a decade and has also not moved beyond committee hearing, and many years has been unable to even get a hearing. This Legislation was originally proposed in Congress in 2010 with claims of broad support and extensive vetting of the Proposal through the Hidden Gems based discussions.  Vetting of the proposal provided to be less than complete and many problems were immediately identified and as a result the Central Mountains version of Hidden Gems was reworked several times as exemplified by the Rocky Mountain Recreation and Wilderness Preservation Act of 2012[40].  This did little to build community support for the Proposal.  Recently the legislative name was changed and minor changes to the proposal were undertaken, and this version again failed to move.

The Organizations would be remiss if the troubling legislative history of other proposals that have incorporated San Juan and Continental Divide boundaries was not addressed, such as Congresswoman Dianna DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act that was originally introduced in 1999 was not mentioned[41].  These Proposals have also failed to move beyond a committee hearing despite being introduced for almost two decades as well.  As result, managers now have a clearly identified basis to not incorporate these legislative proposals into planning as there is clearly defined track record of minimal public support for the Proposals.  The failure of these proposals in Congress simply does not create a valid basis for planning actions by Congress.

This lack of support for the San Juan and Continental Divide version of Hidden Gems, is further evidenced by the fact that while these proposals have languished in Congress for more than two decades in one form or another, other land use legislation including Wilderness designations has been developed and rapidly moved through Congress regarding Colorado public lands.  This legislation would be the Hermosa Watershed Legislation of 2013, which was developed, passed into law and subsequent planning completed in a decade less time than San Juan and Continental Divide have been languishing in Congress without larger support.  While the mandates of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation are not legally binding on the GMUG, the factual differences are highly relevant to the value of land management legislation that does not move.  In 2013, the Hermosa Watershed Legislation[42] was not even a Legislative Proposal but this legislation was developed from the ground up, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President while other pieces of legislation remained stalled. [43] While the Hermosa Watershed Legislation does not impact GMUG planning the rapid movement of this legislation through Congress speaks volumes to the lack of support around the other pieces of Legislation that have been in existence for much longer and simply never moved. Their value in planning is marginal at best.

While USFS policy asserts that citizen Wilderness proposals be addressed in the planning process, the Organizations vigorously assert that the mere existence of a Proposal is not enough review for the planning process.  The Organizations submit that the entirety of the history of these citizen Proposals must be reviewed in the planning process as many of the areas have been the basis of citizen Wilderness Proposals since 1980 as directly evidenced by the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act[44] when the boundaries of many of these areas were established and drawn to protect many of the same usages that remain in these areas to this day.

The second concern around citizen proposals for Wilderness is a policy concern and involves a consistent position taken by land managers that the public should work together attempt to bring solutions to issues to them. When land managers are recommending areas for possible designation that have been previously released by Congress, the managers are now working against the public collaborations that were the basis for the release of the area back to multiple use.   If there is a consensus position regarding the management of areas that has been achieved and passed into law by Congress it should be enforced with regard to all interests, regardless of the position. Consensus positions should be supported and defended by land managers in Colorado as there has been a lot of balancing and collaboration that has gone into the Congressional action for management of public lands for decades. When land managers recommend Wilderness for areas that have been specifically inventoried by Congress and found ineligible, land managers are undermining a consensus position that was achieved. Despite insisting that collaborative efforts targeting consensus management are needed here, managers would be undermining the very consensus they seek to obtain by trying to recommend Wilderness in many areas on the GMUG. Additionally, recommending Wilderness based on these proposals would undermine the public process as the legislation is simply badly out of balance in terms of land use and as a result has little support from the general public.

5(a)(2). The extensive history of Congressional action addressing public lands on the GMUG must be addressed.

As we have noted, the legislative inaction around many of the citizen-based Wilderness proposals for lands under GMUG management must be addressed in decision making as well as each of these citizen proposals have a long and weak history of support in larger legislative efforts.  The fact that some of these proposals have been in existence for almost 2 decades and are no close to passage now than when they started must be a factual concern in forest planning.  While there is minimal support for many of these citizen proposals, there is a long and vigorous history of Congress specifically addressing management of public lands on the GMUG and being able to move land management legislation through Congress. It is troubling that many of the areas that have been specifically identified for multiple use management in order to develop a balanced land management bill that would move through Congress were recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP for the GMUG. The Organizations submit this recommendation fails to account for previous Congressional actions regarding these areas and directly undermines the ability of balanced land management legislation to move at the landscape leve

The Organizations are very concerned regarding the overly narrow view of Wilderness inventory that is provided in the January 2018 Wilderness Inventory guidance on the Forest, as this document completely fails to address the extensive Congressional actions that have been taking regarding management of lands on the GMUG for Wilderness and other uses. The overly narrow scope of analysis in the inventory is reflected as follows:

“After applying the size and improvements criteria, the handbook directs the Responsible Official to review information provided through public participation during the assessment phase of the plan revision process, including areas that have been proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through a previous planning process (i.e., the 2007 GMUG Proposed Plan), collaborative effort, or in pending legislation. With respect to areas proposed for consideration as recommended wilderness through collaborative efforts, two citizen proposals for wilderness and other special designations were submitted to the GMUG during the assessment phase. These proposals will be considered in combination with other public comments received throughout the GMUG wilderness process.” [45]

The Organizations would note that the compliance with federal law currently governing these areas may be implied in the above standards, it is not stated or otherwise addressed in the inventory documents currently available for public inspection.  Given the repeated decisions of Congress specifically identifying areas on the GMUG for multiple use and unsuitable for designation as Wilderness the Organizations assert strict application of the above standard could easily result in an RMP recommendation that conflicts with federal laws specifically governing these areas. This must be avoided.

While addressing issues involving legislative history may seem unnecessary, it is important as many of the areas recommended for addition to the Wilderness system in the 2007 Draft RMP Proposal have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since well before the Wilderness Act was originally passed in 1964. As a result, the lack of success around recent efforts to add these areas is important but also the history of not only each Wilderness areas that were designated and also areas that were not designated is important as   A large portion of the areas recommended for Wilderness in the Draft 2007 RMP have been specifically reviewed and released from further management by Congressional action to be managed under non-Wilderness standards.   In addition to the determinations of why these areas were found unsuitable for Congressional designation, these areas have been the basis of extensive inventory by the USGS and Bureau of Mines pursuant to §3b of the Wilderness Act as these were existing Primitive Areas when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.  Given the specific review and release of many of these areas from further designation by Congress, the Organizations must question how the same areas could be recommended for Wilderness in the USFS planning process, despite what has been more than 50 years of review of possible basis for designation. Additionally, many of the areas were also found unsuitable still for even Roadless area upper tier areas under the Colorado Roadless Rule.

The 2007 Draft RMP provides the following map of recommended Wilderness:

2007 Draft RMP map of recommended Wilderness

These recommended Wilderness designations were applied despite the high levels of clarity around previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in GMUG planning areas.  This clarity of Congressional action is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness act specifically spoke of the need to protect multiple use in areas it was not designating as Wilderness as follows:

“SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado possess outstanding natural characteristics which give them high values as wilderness and will, if properly preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for the benefit of the American people;

(2) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System’s share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management

planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to……. Insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.” [46]

Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”[47]

The scope of the areas that were inventoried is addressed with more detail in subsequent portions of these comments. Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the management of so much of the GMUG planning area, the Organizations must question what has changed in these areas and why would the previous consensus positions now need to be changed in terms of management of these areas. Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and should be honored.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area. Also, recommendations of Wilderness in these areas must at least recognize the previous legislative determinations and explain why these determinations are not controlling for these areas any longer and why these areas may again be recommended for designation as Wilderness by Congress.

5a (3). Many of recommended Wilderness areas in the 2007 plan directly violate Federal law prohibiting buffer areas around many Wilderness areas on the GMUG.

As identified above there have been significant Congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the GMUG planning area for more than 50 years. The 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas.  The Organizations are aware that many of the additions of areas adjacent to existing Wilderness areas in citizen recommendations and proposals are based on the idea that such a boundary change would make preservation of Wilderness characteristics of the areas easier to manage.  Asserting such a basis for management designation would be exactly the type of buffer that is specifically prohibited under the Colorado Wilderness Act and its amendments.

When implemented by Congress these “no buffer” protections were put in place to facilitate the consensus of multiple users and interests in these lands.  The Organizations can see no reason why these consensus positions should be changed now as such a designation would be a direct violation of federal law specifically prohibiting the creation of buffer areas to protect wilderness areas that were designated. Congress has specifically reviewed these areas and determined where the boundaries should be located.  Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, and both of these pieces of legislation specifically required no buffer requirements as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” [48]

While existing federal law, reflecting the consensus position that was reached in the 1980 and 1993 Wilderness Expansion Legislation, is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside these Wilderness areas. These pieces of federal law also clearly state that there shall NOT be any buffers around these new Wilderness areas, many citizen proposal and the 2007 draft RMP openly asserts that the basis for the designation of these areas is to provide a buffer for the Wilderness area. Such basis for designation would be a direct violation of federal law prohibiting management creation of buffers.

5b.  A large portion of the GMUG has been inventoried as primitive area and released back to multiple use.

In addition to the extensive Congressional action specifically drawing many of the boundaries of Wilderness areas on the GMUG, Congress additionally reviewed the inventory of three primitive areas that were existing in the southern portions of the GMUG when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. These three primitive areas were identified as the Uncompahgre Primitive area, Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive area and the Wilson Mtn Primitive areas.   Again, when the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act was passed these inventories were reviewed for possible designations by Congress and areas that were found suitable for designation were designated as Wilderness and the primitive areas were abolished and returned to multiple use.

The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act clearly abolished these areas from further possible management as Wilderness as follows:

“The previous classifications of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas and Wilson Mountain Primitive area are hereby abolished”  [49

We have enclosed the complete inventory of each of these primitive areas as Exhibit 4 to allow planners to fully understand the detail and scope of these inventories and understand the scope of what was released by Congress and then recommended for Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP. After a detailed review of these reports, it should be noted that many of the pre-existing usages that prohibited Congressional designation of these areas was recognized in these reports and inventory that began in the early 1970s.  These usages and management challenges often remain in the areas that were recognized by the Department of Interior and Bureau of Mines, adding more credibility to the USFS inventories of these areas subsequently undertaken.  Again, we simply cannot understand a fact pattern where Congress could specifically decline an area for designation as Wilderness and then land managers would again recommend the same areas for designation in the planning process. Such a position simply lacks rational basis in facts or law.

5c. Specific boundaries of the Uncompahgre (Big Blue) and Mt. Sneffels Wilderness were drawn with great detail by Congress.

In addition to the release of the large primitive areas that predated the 1964 Wilderness Act and comprised a large amount of the southern portions of the GMUG, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act addressed the specific locations for the boundaries of both the Uncompahgre and Mount Sneffels Wilderness with unusually high levels of detail.  The value of this level of detail should not be overlooked and again would draw any assertion of suitability for these areas as recommended Wilderness in the RMP into question.

Section 9 of the House Report issued for the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act provides a large amount of highly site-specific detail into the scope of analysis undertaken by Congress in developing this legislation and why boundaries are in the locations they are in. This bill memo provides:

“9. Lizard Head, Mount Sneffels, and Big Blue Wildernesses: These three separate wilderness proposals of 40,000, 16,200, and 100,000 acres, respectively, comprise what many feel is the most scenic and spectacular area in the entire State of Colorado, and is sometimes called the “Switzerland of America”. The area’s outstanding beauty and wild nature has been officially recognized since 1932 when the Wilson Mountains and Uncompahgre Primitive Areas were established by administrative regulation. In accordance with section 3 (b) of the Wilderness Act, the wilderness character of the two primitive areas was reviewed, and a wilderness recommendation on five separate tracts was forwarded to Congress in 197 4. The RARE II process resulted in further wilderness recommendations on lands contiguous to three of the five tracts. The Committee reviewed the Administration’s recommendations and determined that the 16,200-acre Mount Sneffels proposal was adequate to protect the highly scenic country north of Telluride. To the south-west, the Committee proposes a 40,000-acre Lizard Head Wilderness to link up the Administration’s Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak recommendations and include the headwaters of the Dolores River plus the landmark Lizard Head and Wilson Meadows. These additional lands largely lie within the existing Wilson Mountains Primitive Area and have important wildlife values as well as superlative wilderness qualities. The Committee, therefore, determined that wilderness should replace the current primitive area designation.

Similarly, the Committee recommends a 100,000-acre Big Blue Wilderness to join the Administration’s Big Blue and Courthouse Mountain proposals. The Committee additions include the heart of the eastern route of the Uncompahgre Primitive Area and such outstanding natural features as Matterhorn Peak, Wetterhorn Peak, Precipice Peak, Dunsinane Peak, Cow Creek and portions of the West, Middle and East Forks of the Cimarron River. The Committee feels the addition of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas, and therefore amended the bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part of the way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude about 1,500 acres which are used by grazing permittees for frequent motorized access and intensive management activities associated with livestock grazing. The bill abolishes the Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountain Primitive Area designations for those residual Primitive Area lands lying outside the boundaries of the three proposed wildernesses. Most of these remaining lands are so interspersed with patented mining claims that their management as wilderness would prove infeasible.”

A complete copy of this House Report memo outlining the high levels of sight specific analysis that was undertaken by Congress is attached to these comments for your reference as Exhibit 5 to these comments.  Given that many of the uses that Congress wanted to avoid impacting are still existing in these areas, the Organizations must ask why manager would ever want to violate the clear statements of Congress as to the location of these Wilderness boundaries.

When both the Mt Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness Areas were designated as Wilderness in 1980, the following provisions were included in the preamble of that legislation:

“(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws.”[50]

The Organizations must question why areas that have been specifically released by Congress for multiple use management and consistently found unsuitable for designation as Roadless areas would ever be found now available for Wilderness designation. The Congressional release of roadless areas, such as Sunshine, Wilson Mesa, Whitehouse and Liberty Bell is highly relevant due to the proximity of many of the new proposed Wilderness Area additions to both the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness and that these areas were specifically excluded by Congress from Wilderness management previously.

5c (2). Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area must be managed to protect management objectives set for the area by Congress.

The failure to address previous Congressional actions in many of the citizen Wilderness proposals is highlighted by the fact that the Fossil Ridge Management area prescriptions are simply never addressed in the by many of the citizen Wilderness Proposals that are currently under development. Most of these proposals simply fail to even recognize the Congressional designation of this area. Again, the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area was specifically included in the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, which designated the Fossil Ridge Wilderness. The Organizations are unable to understand how the Congressional requirements for the management of this area could be reconciled with a recommended Wilderness type management as Congress has again found this area unsuitable for Wilderness.

The 1993 Colorado Wilderness act also specifically created the Fossil Ridge Recreation management zone, which specifically addressed multiple use recreational access in the SMA as follows:

“(g) OFF-ROAD RECREATION. —Motorized travel shall be permitted within the recreation management area only on those established trails and routes existing as of July 1, 1991, on which such travel was permitted as of such date, except that other trails and routes may be used where necessary for administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency. No later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall identify such routes and trails and shall prepare and make available to the public a map showing such routes and trails. Nothing in this  subsection shall be construed as precluding the Secretary from closing any trail or route from use for purposes of resource protection or public safety.”

The current boundary of Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area is provided below:

Current boundary of Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area

In addition to the above protections the Fossil Ridge area is also the subject of extensive site-specific management areas standards.[51] In a very troubling course of conduct, again these provisions simply are not addressed in the Proposal, despite being specifically provided for in two pieces of legislation more than 10 years apart and the result of extensive public input and collaboration in their development.

5d. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations wish to highlight the repeated exclusion of many areas now sought to be designated as Wilderness from lower levels of management in previous administrative reviews mandated by Congress. Many of the same conclusions regarding the unsuitability of many areas recommended as Wilderness in the 2007 draft RMP were again reached in the development of the 2012 Roadless Rule, more than 5 years after the draft RMP was released.  The systemic conclusions that many of these areas were never suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness system started with the RARE and RARE 2 inventories due to the high levels of existing usages of these areas included high levels of recreational value. These areas would include the Wilson Mesa area, Sunshine, Whitehouse, Liberty Bell and many other areas.[52] While the site-specific information from the RARE and RARE 2 process is available for review if your office should desire such a discussion, these conclusions are not discussed at length in these comments as they are repetitive to the conclusions of the Colorado Roadless Rule development in 2012.  The Organizations must ask why these areas, which have never been suitable for designation as Wilderness, despite almost 50 years of inventory, would now be thought suitable for designation as Wilderness?  The question about the need for Wilderness designations becomes more concerning when Congressional action has previously returned these areas to multiple use management.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process.  As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development.  Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas.  In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility.

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below.  The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

 

Maps - alternative 2 and 4

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation.   In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided.  The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the recommendation of any of these areas as Recommended Wilderness in the draft RMP.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness recommendations in a Forest Plan, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation.  Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use.

Congress has spoken regarding the management of these areas and the Organizations are unable to identify any reason to disturb these conclusions other than the desire of parties to that Legislation failing to accept the compromise position that was reached.  The Organizations submit that these provisions were designed to end discussions around possible designations and the Organizations submit that instead of providing recommendations for designating these areas as Wilderness, any RMP should be clearly identifying and protecting existing usages of these areas through an SMA type designation.

5e. Gunnison Public lands Initiative.

The Organizations have previously identified the opposition of the motorized community to the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative efforts. We have subsequently prepared detailed comments on this issue which area also attached as Exhibit 6 and submitted to this planning process as there appears to be growing confusion in these efforts between the participation of Organizations and support for the recommendations of the efforts.  The motorized community has participated but does not support the proposal. Generally, the public process around the entire discussion is badly flawed and far from complete and at best objectives of the planning process that have not been achieved are often presented as goals of the process that have been achieved.

6a. Winter travel must be based on best available science and funding resources.

The Organizations are aware that the GMUG is not undertaking winter travel management as part of the RMP development but are compelled to address winter travel related issues as a result of the large amount of questionable citizen science that has been submitted to the GMUG as part of the planning process on many issues involved in winter travel management.[53] We appear to be the only group that recognized winter travel was not occurring in conjunction with the RMP.  While certain portions of the research may appear to be credible on first review, much of this information and citizen science fails to even attempt to address best management practices for much of the analysis and makes critical flaws in the scientific process for development of the research that directly undermines the value of the research for management.

The Organizations have taken the opportunity to review several of the comments that were provided in response to the scoping of the Proposal and also summarize input that has been received in response to planning efforts on other national forests in California that are addressing winter travel, as we are sure much of this work will be appearing in the public comment on the GMUG as well. The Organizations immediately became concerned with the large amount of scientifically questionable materials that had been provided under the guise of best available citizen science on snow related issues in these processes, such as those summarized in the Winter Wildlands BMPs for OSV travel brochure. Many comments included unpublished articles or articles published in journals of small circulation regarding the negative impacts to a wide range of management concerns from OSV travel, and these articles were asserted to be “new science” on the issue despite the fact the article had not been published and/or peer reviewed and as a result failed to comply with many basic standards in snow analysis research methods.  It is unfortunate to have to recognize the relationship that locally recognized academic institutions are playing in developing this unpublished science.  Other articles simply fail to account for any type of financial limitation in the ability to provide winter recreational opportunities, which is concerning for the Organizations, which are intimately aware of how crushingly expensive providing winter opportunities truly is.

Our first concerns would be around the twisting of the determinations of the Olsen[54] work, which is reasonably important to us as our members were heavily involved in the development of the data supporting this work.  We believe this is highly interesting work, and the data that was developed regarding the desired recreational opportunity is interesting but we are also concerned that one foundational factor was badly missed in the assessment of recreational activity.  That is the fact that the motorized community provides the overwhelming means of access to the winter backcountry through the CPW winter grooming program that has operated on the GMUG for decades. All money for the operation of this program comes from the motorized community, both through grants from CPW and from the funding and volunteer efforts that are marshalled through local clubs. Without this program, access to any backcountry recreational opportunities would be almost non-existent but there are limitations on this program as funding does not go far enough and all funding must be used to provide access to motorized users as they are the funding source for the entire program. While these conclusions might be relevant in a financially perfect world, both the Organizations and GMUG planners are aware of the exceptionally limited resources that are available to provide even basic shared winter access to public lands.

The funding question and limitations simply was never addressed in the Olsen work, and as a result the Organizations must question the value of this research as a management tool as we are intimately aware of the funding restrictions on the program. Money simply never goes far enough and while carving the accessible forest into sections around the motorized trail network may appear as a management solution it fails to address the entire scope of opportunities on the forest. Could non-motorized users obtain solitude in Wilderness areas if there were non-motorized grooming programs?  That answer is clearly yes, but for reasons that remain unclear those types of programs have been actively fought and those seeking solitude in the winter backcountry have consistently sought to reduce existing access to create solitude rather than funding a program to improve access to areas that already have solitude available. Rather than carving up existing resources and trying to create solitude managers should be looking at expanding access into new areas that have solitude or other characteristics that a user group is seeking to obtain.

The Organizations would also note that the attempts to administratively create solitude within the existing opportunity spectrum has always created huge amounts of controversy and the GMUG planners have effectively performed winter travel management decisions to mitigate possible impacts.  The success of these efforts is clear and must be addressed in planning and the fact that the motorized community stepped up and is grooming snow for the benefit of all winter recreational users of the GMUG free of charge should not result in lost opportunities for the motorized community. This simply sends the wrong message to one of the strongest partners with the GMUG, mainly the harder you work in providing opportunities free of charge the more acreage you will be losing for the benefits of others that simply do not want to step up at the same level.   That is simply wrong.

The Organizations would also note that the GMUG planners were some of the first in the Nation to undertake winter travel management and that those planning efforts have been highly effective in minimizing resource impacts and providing a high quality recreational experience.   One of the foundational pieces of this management is the operation of the CPW grooming program in partnership with local clubs, which has minimum snow amounts for triggering travel and grooming and recognition that OSVs simply will not function without sufficient snow to cool themselves, making minimum snow amounts almost academic as the equipment simply fails when there is not sufficient snow on the ground to cool the motors.

6b. Snow depth amounts for usages.

The following portions of these comments and the snow measurement BMP discussion are provided in response to the submission of research outlining minimum snowfall requirements and the need to restrict OSV travel outlined in the unpublished Hatchett[55] Article. While this article is submitted as best available science on many issues, it is the Organizations position that the article fails basic structural requirements for the scientific process, as the measurement process provided to measure snow depth violates almost every BMP for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service and also completely fails to address the fact that snow compaction at any location is predominately a natural process. Rather than recognizing the impacts of natural forces of compaction and heating on snow, the Hachett article simply starts from a position that snow compaction is only caused by snowmobiles, which all planners have known to be incorrect for decades.

Clearly these types of factors must be taken into account when scientific research is seeking to analyze factors outside the natural process or they can lead to results that simply conflict with globally recognized conclusions. An example of the conflicting conclusions would be:

“How can snow that naturally compacts to between 550-800kg per square meter (as dozens of experts conclude in the Haeberli text) be further compacted by the actions of an average snowmobile that applies only .5 psi on the snow?”

The answer to the question above is easily identified as “it can’t”. The Organizations and GMUG planners have known the answer to the above question ad have effectively planned for it. As a result, the Organizations submit planners much approach this work with extreme caution as it is a good example of research to avoid creating management plans in reliance on.

The Organizations are enclosing a copy of significant new scientific snow management standards and analysis from globally recognized experts to support the snowfall amounts in the revised alternative and addressing compaction of snowfall and how protection of resources increases with the natural process of snow compaction.  This summary of best available science regarding snow in general is summarized in the first four chapters of the 2016 textbook entitled “Snow and Ice related hazards, risks and disasters” edited by Wilfried Haeberli.[56]  The Organizations are aware that submitting a complete textbook is unusual for a public comment process, but also believe the scientific credibility of the work is as valuable as the conclusions itself.   This document has been reviewed by numerous editors of the text but is also a summary of work from literally hundreds of globally recognized experts on snow as is exemplified by the numerous pages of authorities outlined at the end of each chapter.

This best available science also clearly concludes that the results of snow compaction via natural processes results in snow that is far heavier and denser than could ever result from snow only compacted by OSV usage.    Given this recognition in best available science, much of the citizen science that is being submitted must be drawn into question as it asserts impacts from snow compaction by OSV usages well beyond that of natural processes.  Best available science is clearly concluding that snow compaction from natural forces is far more significant than that of OSV travel and that as snow compacts resource protection actually increases in many cases. The analysis of snow compaction should be helpful to planners and allow planners to rebut what will certainly be a wave of citizen snow measurement reports asserting OSVs have been the major degrader of the snow buffer and major factor in snow compaction.  This new science clearly concluded natural forces have created a buffer that is far more resistant to any compromises than anyone thought previously and such new science clearly allows the GMUG planners to defend the highly successful OSV management decisions on the forest that have taken place previously.

6c. BMP for snow measurement must be relied on when reviewing citizen science.

Snow depth and triggers for winter travel was an issue that a significant portion of our original comments were devoted too but it appears that there are questions about many of the preliminary steps in the snow measurement process that we failed to clarify our concerns regarding. This is a concern as much of the “new science” being submitted is approaching the idea of snow measurement and snow compaction as an area that has simply never been researched.  Such a position could not be further from the truth as there is a rapidly evolving body of research resulting from landmark research occurring across the globe on these issues.  The rub for many conducting the unreviewed research being submitted to the USFS is the fact that the global scientific conclusions clearly move towards the fact that OSV travel in no way impacts resources in the manner the groups supporting this new research would like.

While minimum snowfall, measurement of snow and the behavior of snow after it falls is a new concept for the US Forest Service, National Weather Service has been calculating and measuring snowfall and depth for more than a century and the BMPs for snow measurement from the National Weather Service are best available science on this issue.  The conflict with much of the “new science” that was submitted and we believe will be the basis of subsequent litigation against the USFS and actual best available science on these issues is stark.  We are submitting this information to further clarify our previous thoughts and input on specific uses in relation to snowfall and to allow managers to understand the basic structural and research process failures in much of the analysis provided in this citizen science now being submitted. Best available science at the global level simply must be relied on.

When much of the new citizen science and analysis that has been submitted regarding OSV travel is compared to National Weather Service Best Management Practices for snowfall measurement, the immediate failures of the process relied on to develop the new science and management standards asserted as necessary to govern OSV travel is immediate.  This conflict begins with something as simple as the process relied upon to measure snow depth as most studies rely on repeated measurement of snow depth by humans at very limited locations and fails to even provide a basic summary of how the measurement locations were chosen.  This type of analysis process directly conflicts with the BMPs for snow measurement that have been in place with the National Weather Service for decades.    Colorado State University in partnership with National Weather Service provides the following BMPs for measuring snowfall:

  1. “Ideal location for snow measurement is open, level, grassy area naturally shielded from the wind in all directions.
  2. Where obstructions cannot be avoided, snow measurements should be taken a minimum of twice the distance from the obstacle as that obstacle is high.
  3. Avoid drainage areas or areas prone to flooding during heavy rain or snowmelt.
  4. Avoid slopes greater than 5°.
  5. Avoid south-facing slopes because of faster melt-out.
  6. Avoid, to the greatest extent possible, areas prone to drifting and wind scour.
  7. All sensors come with 61 m cables which will restrict distance from power source. Dataloggers will be housed indoors in a heated and protected environment.”[57]

While these BMPs have been in place for more than a decade, the unreviewed citizen science entirely fails to address these BMPS and simply starts from a position that snowfall measurement is consistent at every location and outside the need to be corrected for natural processes such as wind-based compaction, drifting or melting from other water sources.  Clearly that assumption is incorrect when compared to the National Weather Service BMPs.  The BMPs for such basic activities as snow depth measurement are simply never addressed in much of the new citizen science and research and as a result of this failure the conclusions of the research regarding impacts to various resources or activities must be drawn into question, as there is no way to confirm how much snow is actually on the ground when subsequent analysis of impacts is performed.

In addition to the BMPs identified above the National Weather Service also notes that researchers only get one attempt at the measurement of snow depth in a location most of the time[58]  as the measuring process alters the measurement and requires researchers to move to other locations to measure snow depth. Much of the citizen science being provided simply measures snow in a single location completely relying on manual observations and tools such as measuring sticks to gauge snow depth.  Again, these manual observations are simply not acceptable with the National Weather Service measuring protocols, which clearly state as follows:

“A major assumption of this work is that manual observations are the ‘ground truth’ measurement; however, snow measurements can be quite subjective and that is amplified even further with the storm magnitude and the windblown snow. Manual observations can vary from site to site and observer to observer creating biases in the data.[59]

Again, the citizen science being submitted fails to account for such process related issues, such as the fact that the measurement process can alter the results when repeatedly applied in the same location. If the process to acquire basic data is contaminated, how can conclusions based on the process be relied upon?

The National Weather Service also recommends a constant monitoring of measuring equipment during a snowfall event or at least once every six hours.[60] Clearly this is not viable for the USFS management at the landscape level but periodic measurements would be a critical factor in the analysis of snowfall measurement in order to address possible impacts from a particular activity and could be undertaken when conducting research on a limited number of sites.  Again, these measurement BMPs simply also never addressed in much of the citizen science that is being submitted to the USFS.  While constant monitoring of multiple locations scattered across a forest is nearly impossible, monitoring of locations for scientific research in this manner is clearly a viable option. When there are failures of such basic measurement and analysis process as this, how can managers be expected to implement the conclusions of the research?

The NWS also clearly states that automated processes for the measurement of snow are difficult to compare.[61] Each unit or model of snow depth measurement equipment has its own quirks and measures snowfall differently. For the small portion of citizen science that has access to automated measuring equipment, this type of basic measurement protocol is not addressed in the citizen science that is now being submitted in relation to the Proposal and many other USFS planning efforts on OSV travel.  Many of these citizen-based researchers simply continue to manually measure snow depth in the same location over and over again and rely on this information as the foundation for any research that is being conducted.  This is concerning to say the least and falls well short of best management practices for snow measurement and given the foundational nature of the measurement of snow depth to much of the subsequent management decisions that are made, the Organizations must question any of the research and conclusions when basic BMPs are simply not addressed.  Given the myriad of issues that need to be addressed with automated snow measurement process, manufactures of this equipment are now providing instruction manuals of more than 40 pages in length to attempt allow researchers to compare results from identical pieces of measuring equipment. The Organizations have never seen citizen science that confirms measurement equipment is set up per manufacturers specifications.

With the recognition of the difficulty of comparing mechanical measurement processes, the manner that collection related issues are addressed is also critically important and never recognized in most citizen science.  The NWS BMPS recommend recording the greatest accumulation of snow on the measuring device[62] to address possible snow melt in the capturing process and to offset the impacts of winds on the capturing and measuring process as the NWS also notes:

“As winds increase, gauges collect less and less precipitation than actually falls.  Generally speaking, the stronger the wind and drier the snow, the less is captured in the gauge”[63]

In these situations, the impacts of wind and compaction are so severe that the National Weather Service allows averaging of reports from monitoring locations as follows:

“When strong winds have blown the snow, take several measurements where the snow is least effected by drifting and average them.  If most exposed areas are either blown free of snow while others have drifts, again try and combine visual averaging of measurements to make your estimate.”[64]

Again, issues such as drifting and possible wind compaction are never addressed in citizen science that is being developed. The Organizations are concerned that much of the unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted to the USFS has serious basic flaws in the process for analysis and development of the study, which directly draws the conclusions of this research into serious question.  Rather than adopting the globally recognized protocols for much of the process, these unreviewed works appear to start from a position that there is no BMPs for the research process.  Not only is this starting point completely inaccurate, it draws any asserted conclusions of that work into serious question and provide absolutely no basis for the revision of current management in any manner.

6d. Snow compaction is a natural occurrence throughout the world.

The Organizations concerns about the failures of citizen science around OSV questions is simply not limited to how snow is measured but also extends to the troubling nature of many of the basic premises for research regarding OSV travel and possible impacts to resources under the snow that are now being submitted to the USFS as new or best available science. The systemic failure plaguing development of much of the citizen science developed in response to the lawsuits and conflict around OSV management now facing the USFS is the fact that many researchers appear to fail to address that snow compaction is a natural process and start with the assumption that snow only compacts as a result of OSV travel. While such as oversight seems comical, often these oversights are not addressed in research and can directly impact the credibility of the findings of these unpublished works despite the facial appearance of credibility in these works.

The basic failure of this newly developed research and documentation targeting OSV activity overlooks the fact that there is an exceptionally well-developed body of research regarding snow compaction from natural processes and is commonly identified as snow sintering or snow metamorphosis in scientific communities. This large body of research is most directly targeting avalanche safety but also is directly involved with issues such as large construction projects on snow such as roads or mines, the monitoring of polar ice cap activity with satellites[65], flooding in high alpine communities and the advancements in the construction of ice breaking vessels. Additionally, the Department of Defense has a well-developed guidance protocol for the operation of military basis in arctic climates. The Organizations would note that many of the assumptions made in peer reviewed or unpublished research documents now commonly submitted to the USFS are directly in conflict with this rapidly growing body of research addressing other activities on snow. The Organizations assert that snow compaction is the same regardless of how it is compacted and the conclusions of research should be the same regardless of what continent the research is performed on. While the rates of compaction may change at specific locations due to variations in specific forces at the location, the overall process is similar in terms of physical and thermal forces being applied and end results of these forces

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations are not seeking to provide a complete outline of this rapidly developing snow science body of research. In order to provide a complete review of this evolving body of global knowledge around snow behavior, snow metamorphosis or sintering the Organizations have enclosed a complete copy of the 2016 textbook entitled “Snow and Ice Related Hazards, Risks and Disasters” edited by Wilfried Haeberli as exhibit 2 of these comments.  The Organizations would direct GMUG managers attention generally to Chapters 2 through 4 of the text as an introduction to the compelling body of work that now supports snow sintering and metamorphosis and significant data that clearly can be relied on in defense of the varying snowfall totals based on surfaces under the snow that are provided in the revised DEIS.  While this text has only become publicly available recently, this text appears to be the most complete peer reviewed body of work on this issue and represents a consolidation of an enormous number of articles from globally recognized leaders in snow science. This text provides significant scientific data and research to improve the scientific defensibility of something we in the snowmobile community have known for years, mainly how to identify rideable snow and avoid non-rideable snow that can result in immediate damage to equipment.

Prior to addressing the specific data around the natural process of snow sintering, the Organizations would like to identify something that is not addressed in the Haeberi textbook, which is possible impacts of man moving on snow on that snow.  Clearly if the activities of man were an issue, they would have been addressed at some point in a snow sciences book such as this.  Given the lack of discussion of such issues, clearly these are minimal impacts on snow on even a regional or forest level.

This global summary of snow science research starts with the recognition that:

“Modeling of fresh snow density remains highly uncertain, due to the large number of factors and range of environmental conditions through which snow falls before reaching the ground.  Once deposited on the Earth’s surface, snow and fin density increases through metamorphism, eventually approaching the density of ice.  Metamorphism is a combination of both physical and thermal properties of snow.” [66]

Given this conclusion, any assertion that there should be a single snow depth across the nation or even at a regional level to trigger OSV travel is simply not based on science and must be avoided. While we have all known that snow in California is different than snow in Colorado, which is still different than snow in Maine, this recognition by best available science on this issue should not be overlooked and clearly rebuts any basis for a national or regional snowfall trigger for OSV travel.  The proper level to address snowfall is at the forest level with adoption of standards similar to those proposed in the GMUG and that different activities can be addressed differently.

For purposes of this document a comparison of this conclusions of this body of work regarding pressures on snow and the impacts of compaction and much of the unpeer reviewed research that has been submitted to the USFS is sufficient as the faults of much of the unpeer reviewed work is immediate.   Generally, snow scientists recognize that:

“Although it is much less variable than microstructure, natural snow density varies more than the density of most earth materials, ranging from an order of magnitude in seasonal snow (10-550 kg/m) and increasing by almost another factor of two in perennial snowfields.”[67]

Additional information about the impacts of compaction of snow into snowpack provides as follows:

“New snow generally has the lowest densities with about 100 kg/m -3 and densities increase with aging snowpack due to metamorphism to about 350-400 kg/m -3 for dry old snow and up to 500 kg/m -3 for wet old snow.” [68]

Given that a snowmobile only applies .5 lbs. per inch on the snow, and natural processes result in pressures many hundreds of times that of an OSV clearly the natural rates of snow compaction are significant factors that must be addressed in any research addressing additional impacts to compacted snow from OSV travel. None of the unpeer reviewed research we have seen prepared around the OSV questions now facing the Forest Service even attempts to correct or exclude the impacts of natural process on snow after it falls in the research process.  Rather each of these works starts with the fact that snowmobiles compact snow in a manner more significant than natural processes and questions regarding basic scientific process are replaced with an artificial urgency to act and protect resources from damage, despite the lack of scientific basis for such a position.

While not as developed to the research and analysis levels referenced above, the Organizations believe the position of the downhill ski industry regarding the impacts of snow sintering or metamorphosis is also very important to this discussion as the downhill ski industry has developed extensive technologies to improve mechanical grooming of downhill ski runs to address the continued impacts of sintering after the initial grooming of ski runs.[69] These technologies are relevant to this discussion as downhill ski grooming and snowmobile trail grooming occur with the same pieces of equipment and there is no question that the sintering process continues after the grooming has completed.  Why is the ongoing sintering or metamorphosis process an issue for the downhill ski community?  The industry is trying to resolve the problem of skiers “catching an edge” on a ski run which often results in the skier falling down, which at best provides for a lower quality skiing experience for users and can also result in serious injury or death to skiers if an edge is caught at the wrong time or locations or occurs under competition conditions. Asserting that sintering does not continue after grooming simply is not an option in the downhill skiing community, and the Organizations believe this compaction is equally relevant in the OSV world as a result of natural processes snow compacts into stronger and stronger layers and into layers that are far more compacted that could ever result from OSV traveling over the snow. While not as developed as the scientific research identified previously, the recognition of that sintering continues after grooming is entirely consistent with the conclusions of the scientific research identified above.  That consistency is highly valuable even if it is obtained in less formal means.

The Organizations also are aware that often significant amounts of snow are held by trees for a short period of time after a snowfall, which results in the snow falling in large quantities to the ground in rather abrupt manners.  Experts estimate that the average tree can hold more than 3,000 kg of snow[70] and clearly that amount of snow moving even a short distance could result in high levels of snow compaction.  While the impacts are minimal when a single tree is reviewed for compaction issues, when these types of impacts are addressed at the landscape level, and the millions of trees that drop snow with every storm, the landscape levels of snow compaction from this natural process are significant and clearly far exceed the .5 psi of pressure that is applied to the snow by an OSV.

With this information, the Organizations are attempting to add scientific credibility and defensibility to the basic understanding and experiences of all involved in the winter sports community.  The largest factors impacting snow persistence in areas are highly local and often highly site-specific factors such as drifts, streams, north/south facing slopes and the mechanical movement of snow to particular locations, such as the moving of snow onto groom routes to protect the road from grooming activities. These issues are probably too small to manage at the landscape, and evidence the remains of landscape level activity that the USFS should be basing management on. Can the planning address some issues, such as the mechanical movement of snow onto routes to improve access and protect resources? Of course, the answer is yes but this level of detail simply is not necessary for most issues, such as possible negative impacts to mole or vole populations.

Too much of citizen science that is being submitted either seeks to apply standards at too large a level such as regional level analysis of snow based on satellite imagery of the entire southern California region or applies management at too fine a level, such as research targeting creatures that may live under the snow, such as moles or voles or creatures that are hibernating in soil buried under snow. Often the failure to properly determine the appropriate scale of these issues results in issue being artificially elevated as a management challenge, which can lead to incorrect conclusions such as management that sought to address OSV access to avoid snow compaction but failing to address the fact that snow compaction is a natural process and that everyone knows that when the snow melts, it melts at the landscape level and does not persist for significantly longer periods of time because of OSV usage.

6e.  The cumulative impacts of failures to comply with BMPs in the scientific process can lead to conclusions that are comically incorrect.

The Organizations are aware of a recent study of snow compaction occurring in partnership with a credible college institution that sought to identify impacts to resources from OSV snow compaction by comparing snow at a nationally recognized snowmobile location and snowfall on an experimental forest on the other side of the valley and more than 70 miles away from the OSV area. While the researchers provided large amounts of data and analysis in their analysis and immediately concluded OSVs must be compacting the snow, they simply failed to address such basic questions as did the two locations even get the same amount of snow from the storms (as they were more than 70 miles apart); any BMPs for snowfall measurement; and that snow compaction was a natural process and that the study needed to correct for such forces in the study methodology.

When this research was presented to local forest service managers and members of the local snowmobile community, a good chuckle was had by each as both laypersons immediately saw the flaw in the research and its conclusions.  The highly used snowmobile area that was the basis of this research was immediately adjacent to a large non-motorized recreation area that never saw OSV travel at any point in the winter and both areas were also immediately south of a large Wilderness area, and either location would have provided a better comparison for snowfall than driving 70 miles across the valley.  Both parties immediately knew that the snow on both sides of the motorized/non-motorized administrative boundary always melted off at the same days of the year without fail.   Clearly, if the conclusions of the study were accurate, snow would be remaining on the motorized side of the pass longer than the non-motorized side of the pass but that never happened as snow sintering occurred at a rate higher than that of OSV compaction. Rather than proving compaction was driven by OSVs, the study did identify the two locations got different amounts of snow and that snow melt off occurred at different paces at different locations.

Why is this example even raised?  This is an example of the type of unreviewed citizen science that must not be relied on for management decisions by the USFS. When the scientific process breaks down, even the most educated can be led to conclusions that make no sense, and basing management decisions on science that reaches conclusions that simply are inaccurate will not result in effective management. A copy of this research is available on request but has not been provided with these comments.

7. Ophir Boundary Adjustment

The Organizations are aware that numerous clubs and other local partners on the GMUG have submitted extensive comments on site specific or trail specific issues they are encountering.  The Organizations vigorously support all this input even though much of it is not reflected here, simply to avoid repetition of that input.

The Organizations are also aware of a critical safe access issue that is being encountered with the many in the Ophir Colorado snowmobile community and are including in our comments as many of these riders are CSA members and also belong to other clubs in the area but we are concerned this issue may be overlooked. This issue involves amending planning for the OSV boundary line modification implemented by Curtis Keetch (the interim USFS Norwood Ranger in 2016) on February 26, 2016 and then later retracted it on March 8, 2016.  This is the ideal OSV boundary line within the Ophir valley, which allows for a safer OSV snowpack evaluation and access to the Red Mtn. Pass open OSV riding zones.

This boundary adjustment is reflected in the map below:

Map - Winter Travel Ophir Area

The Organizations would request that the boundary line in the area for OSV travel be amended as outlined above in order to provide safe access to existing opportunities to the north.  The current boundary needs to be amended as it simply fails to provide a safe access route for snowmobilers in the area as they are forced to sidehill across steep avalanche prone terrain to ride rather than using the bottom of the valley to cross the avalanche chutes and then climbing out of the valley bottom outside the risk areas.

Conclusion.

We welcome this opportunity to provide input following the first round of public meetings addressing the proposed forest plan revision.   We would like to provide input on a few components in the final RMP which we believe could streamline planning significantly moving forward, provide new information and address several issues that consistently arise early in the Forest Service planning process on other forests in the hope of partnering with the GMUG to develop an effective long-term plan for the forest.  These comments are submitted as a supplement to the site-specific input provided from the local clubs on a wide range of issues, such as culvert size and future utilization of decommissioned roads as trails.  The Organizations vigorously support the input from these local clubs.

As we discussed in far more detail in earlier submissions, there is a critical need to develop an RMP that is reasonably brief and easy for the public to use and understand.  While we will not be discussing that issue in great detail in these comments, these goals and objectives remain critically important.  The Organizations continue to support the recognition of the need to expand access on the GMUG in a thoughtful and planned manner for all recreational activity, as already recognized in the assessments.

In this round of comments, we are providing a detailed legal history of the lack of Congressional support for designation of exclusionary corridors around the Continental Divide Trail (“CDT”) and other routes designated under the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”).  While we are not aware of this issue being raised in scoping to date, we are aware of the immense pressure on other forests to create such corridors.  It is our position that such corridors are illegal under federal law and also fail to balance multiple uses along the trails in violation of NEPA planning requirements.

In addition to outlining the extensive Congressional action that has been taken around the need to benefit all uses with an NTSA route, the Organizations have also provided a detail analysis of the extensive multiple agency reviews of possible Wilderness areas on the GMUG, many of which have been occurring since before the Wilderness Act was even passed by Congress. These multiple agency reviews have been heavily relied on in previous Congressional action designating Wilderness areas on the GMUG and also in releasing significant portions of the GMUG back to multiple use requirements and explaining why boundaries of designated Wilderness areas are in the locations are in the places that they are.  This history is critically important given the fact that many of these areas found specifically unsuitable for Wilderness designations previously were again recommended for Wilderness designation in the draft 2007 RMP.  The Organizations are aware such action is theoretically legally possible, the Organizations submit that such a recommendation is factually confounding and should be avoided.

These Congressional actions have often been the result of years of consensus building around the legislation that was passed in 1980 and 1993 and represents some of the largest collaborative efforts around land management in the State’s history.  This level of collaboration is highly relevant as one of the consistent themes we have heard from land managers is the position that diverse groups should come together on tough issues and build a recommendation for resolution of the issue.  With Wilderness on the GMUG, this consensus process has occurred and the Organizations are asking that land managers not disrupt this consensus management position by recommending Wilderness in areas where the consensus position, memorialized in federal law, is that the area is not suitable.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in the consensus position does not mean the consensus should be disrupted, despite posturing in draft legislation that there is some level of support for change in the consensus.  The history of the legislative efforts since 1993 evidences a lack of political support for such a change rather than a basis for changes in management of these areas.

The final general issue we would like to provide input on is snow sciences around OSV management.  The Organizations are all too familiar with the large amounts of unpeer reviewed citizen science that is now being submitted with regard to many USFS planning efforts, on what appears to be a position that there is no science on many of these challenges.  The Organizations submit there is extensive science on most of these issues and that the peer reviewed high-quality science that is available does not support management of issues in the manner recommended in this citizen science. Rather the best available science supports existing management and highlights the low-quality nature of the citizen science being submitted, such as the fact that citizen researchers seek to recommend management based on snow depth but fail to prepare their research in a manner that even arguably complies with BMPS for snow depth measurement from the National Weather Service.  Land managers must exhibit a high level of caution in relying on citizen science that fails to clear even such basic hurdles in the scientific process.

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, esq.
CSA Vice President
TPA & COHVCO Authorized Representative

D. E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

[1] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9 – Senate Report No 95-636, 1978 is not available to the public- when searched on the Congressional history the following report is provided: “As of 12/15/2017 the text of this report has not been received.”

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

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

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

[5] See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.

[6] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.

[7] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Page 6.

[8] See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Page 9.

[9] See, 16 USC §1246(c)

[10] See, 16 USC §1244 (a)(5).

[11] See, 2009 CDT Plan at pg. 19.

[12] See, USFS, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan 2009 at pg 19.

[13] See, generally Omnibus Public Lands Management Bill of 2009 and various supporting analysis available here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/73978_FSPLT2_059530.pdf

[14] See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).

[15] See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

[17] See, https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/thru-hiking-long-distance-hiking/2600-miler-list/

[18] See Exhibit 1.

[19] See, GMUG recreation assessment pg. 24.

[20] http://narrowgauge.org/alpine-tunnel/html/auto_tour.html

 

[21] See, GMUG Terrestrial Species Assessment at pg. 49.

[22] 2013 LCAS at pg. 94.

[23] 2013 LCAS at pg. 83.

[24] 2013 LCAS at pg. 95.

[25] 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

[26] 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

[27] 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

[28] 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

[29] 2013 LCAS at pg 91.

[30] See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011

[31] See, USDA Forest Service; “GMUG  NF- Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 A complete copy of this research is available here https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-GMUG.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[39] More information on this Proposal is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1635?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s1635%22%5D%7D&r=1

[40] More information on this legislation is available here:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1701?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221701%22%5D%7D&r=79

[41] More information on this legislation is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/829?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22degette+colorado+wilderness+act%22%5D%7D&r=12

[42] A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

[43] Various press coverage of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed legislation as part of the National defense Authorization act of 2014 is available here: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3209

[44] See PL 96-560

[45] See, GMUG Wilderness inventory process document- January 2018 at pg 2.

[46] See, PL 96-560

[47] See, PL 96-560

[48] See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3).

[49] See, Public Law 96-560 at §102(b).

[50] See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

[51] https://www.western.edu/sites/default/files/media/raw/Fossil%20Ridge%20Wilderness.pdf

[52] See, USDA Forest Service; FEIS Roadless Area Review and Evaluation; Appendix E; January 1979 at pg. 216  & 220.

[53] This would be exemplified by the comments of the Colorado Mountain Club et al available here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=51806&List-page=3

[54] See, Lucretia E. Olson, John R. Squires, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Aubrey D. Miller, Jacob S. Ivan, and Mark Hebblewhite, 2017. Modeling large-scale winter recreation terrain selection with implications for recreation management and wildlife. In Applied Geography, Volume 86, Pages 66-91.

[55] Hatchett, Ben. May 15, 2017. Evaluation of Observed and Simulated Snow Depths for Commencing Over Snow Vehicle Operation in the Sierra Nevada, Prepared for the Winter Wildlands Alliance.

[56] A complete copy of this text has been enclosed as Exhibit 5 to these comments.

[57] See, Ryan et al; Preliminary results from ultrasonic snow depth sensor testing for the National Weather Service (NWS) snow measurements in the United States; Hydrologic Processes (2008) complete study available at

https://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/RyanDoeskenFassnacht_HydrolProcess(2008).pdf18.

[58] See, Kinar and Pomeroy; Measurement of physical properties of the snowpack; American Geophysical Union 10/2015 at pg. 51.

[59] See, Ryan et al  supra note 3 at pg. 7.

[60] See, https://www.weather.gov/gsp/snow ; see also Ryan et al

[61] See, Kinar supra note 4 at pg. 50.

[62] See, https://www.weather.gov/gsp/snow

[63] See, https://weather.gov/gsp/snow

[64] See, https://weather.gov/gsp/snow

[65] See, Arthern et al; In situ measurements of Antarctic snow compaction compared with predictions of models; JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, F03011, doi:10.1029/2009JF001306, 2010

[66] See, Haeberli at pg. 38.

[67] See, Haeberli et al; Snow and ice related hazards, risks and disasters; Elsevier publishing 2016 at pg. 38.

[68] See, Haeberli et al at pg. 101.

[69] For a representation of this technology please see https://www.prinoth.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/prinoth_snowdepthmeasurement_EN_NA_01.pdf

[70] See, Haeberli at pg. 146.

Continue Reading

Pike & San Isabel NF Travel Management Hotel Gulch

Travel Management
Pike & San Isabel National Forests
2840 Kachina Dr.
Pueblo, CO 81008

Submitted via email to: comments@psitravelmanagement.org

Re: Pike & San Isabel National Forest, Travel Management EIS Comments regarding NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch)

Dear Supervisor Connelly:

Please accept these comments regarding the Pike & San Isabel National Forest Travel Management EIS Project on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”).

A recent update to the Pike & San Isabel National Forest Travel Management EIS Project’s website posted a “Tabular Summary” of the Draft DEIS Action Alternatives (Alternatives B-E) of roads and trails for motorized vehicle use on the Pike & San Isabel National Forest (PSI). In review of that tabular summary, the TPA and COHVCO observed that NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch) on the Pikes Peak Ranger District has proposed actions to “convert to admin use only road (ML2)”, from mileposts 1.00 to 2.57 for all Alternatives B through E.

During the Project Scoping Phase, a preponderance of public comments (over 80 individual statements) were made testifying to the public’s desire that NFSR 346 (aka Hotel Gulch) remain open to public access, yet the DEIS appears to be completely ignoring those public comments and public sentiment and currently proposes to close NSFR 346 to the public. The DEIS does not include in Alternatives B-E even a single course of action that responds to the stated public requests to keep access to NFSR 346 unrestricted and open to public motorized use. The TPA & COHVCO contend that during the Scoping Phase, there is likely to be no other single road that received as many public comments expressing support to keep NFSR 346 open to public access, yet the USFS has chosen to ignore those public comments and fails to offer a reasonable alternative that adequately addresses the desires of the public to keep access to NFSR 346 open. This disregard for the public’s input and comments undermines the integrity of the USFS’s EIS process and credibility with the public. It is simply disingenuous and insincere to ask for the public’s input and then so purposely and callously ignore the public’s desire. The TPA and COHVCO request that the entire length (i.e., MP 0.00 to MP 4.90) of NFSR 346 have a proposed action of “keep as is” in at least Alternatives C & D, that the ongoing analysis includes keeping NFSR 346 open to public access (i.e., “keep as is”) and that the DEIS be modified accordingly.

As stated previously in our comments, we do not agree or support any action that limits access or closes public access to NFSR 346. NFSR 346 is the only east-west connection between State Highway (SH) 67 and NFSR 300 (AKA Rampart Range Road) between Woodland Park and Rainbow Falls. NFSR 346 provides a critical recreational access for multiple-use travel between the Front Range and recreational opportunities to the west. It provides a critical route and corridor for Dual Sport motorcycles and others utilizing NFSR 320 (AKA Mount Herman Road) and NFSR 300 to connect with the North Divide, Rainbow Falls, North Rampart, South Rampart, South Park, and other recreational areas. NFSR 346 also provides beneficial connectivity for hunters and mountain bikes. Although Recreational Use is “moderate” (as designated by the 2014 TAP) this road provides the only east-west link within the 10-mile corridors of SH 67 and NFSR 300. The roadside vegetation along NFSR 346 is well established and stable for the entire length from SH 67 to NFSR 300 and the number of stream crossings is nil. The soil types within the watershed are typical of the entire Rampart Range. The slope aspects along with the soils have resulted in well-established vegetation with natural erosion control measures, the road tread is offset from any ephemeral channels, the road surface shows minimal signs of erosion and rutting (except for a very short segment just north of the intersection with NFSR

346.B which could easily be mitigated with minor grading), and hillslope vegetation is well established and very mature. In order to maintain public access, we would support conversion of NFSR 346 to a Full-Size Trail or “trail open to all vehicles”.

We thank you for reviewing and considering these comments and suggestions. The TPA and COHVCO would welcome a discussion of this issue at your convenience. Our point of contact for this project will be William Alspach, PE at 675 Pembrook Dr., Woodland Park, CO, cell 719-660-1259.

 

Scott Jones, esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President
508 Ashford Dr.
Longmont, CO 80504
(518) 281-5810
scott.jones46@yahoo.com

D. E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance
725 Palomar Ln.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
(719) 338-4104
info@coloradotpa.org

Continue Reading

Gunnison Public Lands Initiative

Gunnison Public Lands Initiative

Via email only @ info@gunnisonpubliclands.org

 RE: Gunnison Public Lands Initiative

Dear Sirs;

Please accept this correspondence as the preliminary input of the above Organizations vigorously opposing the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative (“The Proposal”). The Organizations general concerns are generally summarized as follows:

  1. While the Proposal asserts there is no lost opportunity for the motorized community, this position simply lacks any factual basis as the Proposal closes extensive portions of the planning area currently open to motorized usage;
  2. The Planning area is not the basis for significant conflict in the recreational community, but the Proposal would create immense conflict for the future of these areas;
  3. The extensive conflict between the Proposal and existing federal laws for management of many of these areas that resulted from extensive consensus processes previously;
  4. The complete lack of scientific basis for much of the recommended management;
  5. The complete failure to relate management standards to on the ground conditions as exemplified by conflicts in forest health management treatments; and
  6. Claims of balance in the Proposal are not supported by management standards for most areas.

The Proposal appears to start with the position that the entire Gunnison Valley is suitable and available to be designated as Wilderness and asks the public to provide reasons that areas should not be designated as Wilderness. In a troubling turn of events, there is simply no effort provided in the Proposal to outline current management of areas and any priority management issues in the areas and as a consequence the Proposal would have significant negative impacts on the issues that it is alleged to be addressing. The Organizations must question the value of any public input received as the public is forced to perform hours of research simply to understand the change in management for the area under the Proposal. While the Proposal asserts balance in the Proposal, the Organizations are simply unable to identify a single benefit to the multiple use community as a huge number of the management areas would result in the immediate loss of existing opportunities for multiple use and more troubling, almost every area currently discussed places a cap on existing abilities to expand or improve multiple use opportunities for access, such as Crystal Peak, Lotus Creek, Union Park, East Gunnison, Matchless and many others.

The Organizations have participated in a large number of consensus efforts over the years and throughout these efforts current efforts on issues have always displayed a high level of respect for the conclusions of previous consensus-driven efforts, which has not been displayed here. In addition to failing to provide any benefits to the multiple use community, the Proposal fails to address many of the protections and other management standards that have resulted from previous consensus-driven efforts, such as those that resulted in the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Legislation. Public input has also been consistently provided regarding the management of much of the Gunnison Valley in NEPA processes that have guided planning for public lands in the area for decade. NEPA processes with the USFS have always been successful in obtaining public input and the failure of the Proposal to address this public input is deeply troubling. The Proposal also fail to address existing federal laws that are in place in these areas and as a result many of the Proposals standards and basis for area designations are now directly in conflict with these laws. The Organizations must question the validity of any consensus process that does not comply with federal laws as we have found the desire to comply with federal law an issue where a high degree of consensus is always achieved in the collaborative process. A project that seeks to develop public consensus management for the area that does not start with the consensus management recommendations already in place is off to a troubling start in our position.

The Proposal simply lacks any factual examination of proposed standards and the on the ground conditions in the area. This is exemplified by the fact that the Proposal identifies climate change impacts on habitat as a major concern for the Proposal but fails to relate what is a small land management proposal in Colorado to any identified impact to a global challenge. The failure to meaningfully address the basis for designations has resulted in concrete challenges that are directly degrading habitat in the Proposal area, such as the impacts of pine and spruce beetle on a huge number of trees in the areas actually more difficult to address. Again, this draws the management decisions made in the Proposal into question and directly conflicts with the recommended management standards for many of the species in the area, such as cutthroat trout and other goals of the plan, such as protecting water quality.

1. The Organizations collaborate with diverse interests throughout the state on trails projects.

Prior to addressing the specifics of our concerns around the Proposal, the Organizations believe it is important to explain our history and background on working on tough issues with a diverse range of interests with public land managers throughout the state. Even in situations where other user groups have not become involved in discussions for reasons that remain unclear, the Organizations have strived to achieve benefits for all interests and users. A list of a few of the examples of our recent collaborative efforts include:

  1. SB 17-100- The Organizations spearheaded passage of this Legislation in 2017 that significantly reduced the liability for clubs performing stewardship actions on public lands in Colorado, while the legislation protected all users the only group that showed up and supported these efforts was the Nature Conservancy;
  2. CPW LEAN Event – This was almost a years’ worth of collaborative efforts from the Organizations with CPW, State Treasurers Office and numerous others regarding how to achieve more timely implementation of grants from the trails program and as a result of these efforts all grants are now available to the applicants almost 1 year earlier than before the LEAN event, while these efforts again benefitted all grant applicants there was no support from any other user groups;
  3. Tenderfoot Mountain Project on Dillon Ranger District– trail was constructed to benefit a wide range of interests including motorized and mechanized users with improved wildlife habitat in the area after years of collaborative meetings, this project remains ongoing but has extended more than 5 years;
  4. Bear Creek Trails Project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District – where an entire trail network was moved and rebuilt from scratch to address generically pure cutthroat trout habitat being impacted by the existing trail next work- this took more than 4 years;
  5. Hermosa Watershed Legislation outside Durangohere first of its kind federal legislation resulted from years of collaboration of interests ranging from water, ranching, local government, snowmobile, summer motorized and mechanized and the Wilderness Society and this effort took almost a decade;
  6. Badger Flats Campground project on South Park Ranger District – the Organizations collaborated with the Wilderness Society, campers, local property owners and other interests to renovate a poor managed area into a regional trails hub and camping facility with an extensive multiple use trails network effort here remain ongoing but have already covered more than 5 years;
  7. Bangs Canyon SMA outside Grand Junction – a collaborative effort spanning more than a decade on GJFO where again a diverse range of interests collaborated to develop a multiple use area that also improved wildlife habitat and protected cultural resources and this project has taken more than a decade;
  8. 667 Trails Projection Pikes Peak Ranger District– restoration of a heavily used trail network lost in Hayman Fire and then heavily impacted by flooding which took almost 20 years to complete;
  9. Hartman Rocks area on the Gunnison BLM Field Office – a multiple use were ongoing efforts longer than a decade have leveraged resources to develop a unique trails-based recreation area that has been highly successful;
  10. Canadian Lynx research with USFWS- in this project CSA partnered with the USFWS to facilitate targeted lynx research by providing resources and expertise to researchers working to understand the relationship between lynx habitat and recreation. This support ranged from removing snowmobiles broken or stuck in the backcountry during blizzards with CSA grooming equipment to oil and gas for basic operation to educating researchers how to ride and operate equipment in the backcountry.

The Organizations are proud of the history of collaborative projects that has been developed across often wide interest’s groups with benefits for all parties involved. In these efforts, often laying the groundwork has been very slow and often verging on shaky but throughout these efforts the strong foundation has been important in uniting the groups and interests as the projects moved forward and resulted in quality projects being developed and being successful in the long run.

The Organizations would also note that even in situations where other groups could be excluded from benefits of collaborative efforts because of their failure to become in any manner in the discussions or efforts (such as SB17-100, CPW Lean, Lynx research) these groups have not been excluded. Rather than pursuing true collaboration in the Proposal, such as would be provided in a complete review of existing planning and Legislative efforts, the interests of a single group have been placed above all others and pushed forward at breakneck speeds. Rather than a strong foundation resulting from the shaky slow start, this collaborative effort appears to be put at risk for reasons that simply make no sense to the Organizations.

1b. The Colorado Trails Program protects resources and benefits all users.

In addition to the above collaborative projects, the Organizations have supported the development and implementation of the voluntary registration programs for both summer and winter recreation that is coupled with the funding from the Federal Recreational Trails Program. This program provides almost $8 million (or $1.25 for every resident of the State) per year for trails of all kinds which is almost entirely funded by the motorized community for more than 20 years. The motorized portion of the program provides for almost 60 maintenance crews based throughout the State which are well equipped for both summer and winter maintenance needs. This program actually protects resources in a proactive manner, and this benefit would be lost when trails are closed to multiple use. This program maintains routes for the benefit of all users, as all motorized roads and trails are open to all other forms of recreation and this funding is now critical in providing basic access due to among other things, the Gunnison Valley being some of the hardest hit areas in the country in terms of mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle infestations.

The lion’s share of the projects is now directed towards basic maintenance of existing facilities for a variety of reasons including decades of communication with USFS and BLM staff which have consistently identified that proving basic maintenance is the most effective manner to keep routes open. The importance of the $4.3 million to USFS recreational budget is reflected in the tile below from the 2015 OHV workshop presentation from the USFS:

    Rocky Mountain Region Trails Budget

In addition to the $4.3 million in OHV funding the funding is leveraged with an additional $1.1 million dollars for winter recreational route maintenance and almost $2.4 million in funding for maintenance for non-motorized recreation. The Program is providing a massive portion of the funding for basic recreational activity on USFS and BLM lands in the State of Colorado, the motorized community has also been repeatedly identified in Volunteer Stewardship reports prepared by the State of Colorado as the single largest source of volunteer support for trails in the State. Failing to address these direct benefits of multiple use access in the Proposal is unacceptable as there are 3 maintenance crews for summer usage and 2 winter recreation working the Proposal area to protect resources in addition to providing millions for maintenance on an as-needed basis for further leveraging of these maintenance crews.

2a. Public input process is in need of improvement.

As the Organizations have noted above, the Organizations are heavily involved in a wide range of collaborative efforts on often wide-ranging and difficult topics. It has been the Organizations experience that often the process relied on to develop a consensus position for these challenging issues tells the story as to the value of a minority position or the desire to truly seek consensus. When consensus or balance in the development process is not meaningfully addressed, the end result often directly contradicts the basic purpose and need for the project and does not represent viable balanced position. Rather than consensus of all users, the failure to address minority position concerns results in a weak foundation for the proposal and the views of a small cross-section of the interests in the proposal. The impacts of failing establish a proper foundation on large-scale planning can be seen with the complete failure of the Desert Renewable Energy Project in southern California to approach consensus and resolution of the goals and objectives of that effort. This should be avoided.

This is the first concern with the GPLI as while we have not participated directly in the meetings, our Organizations have received many questions regarding the process from those that have attended the meeting, both as members of local clubs and as members of the public. Often the response from these attendees has not been positive regarding the meeting process and engagement of the general public that is attending. That is concerning as many of the public may be deeply interested in an issue but also have traditional employment situations and are not able to attend extended meetings during the day on any issue. Generally, the public needs to take time off from work to attend meetings and as a result they may only be able to provide limited input. Any collaborative process should be geared to address this situation and given the response from our members this type of input is not well received.

Our process concerns around development of the Proposal are emphasized by the fact that there are no meeting minutes are available for the public to review regarding the basis for the Proposal. Providing this type of basic information about the proceedings would be critically important in developing true public input as many of the public simply will not be able to attend meetings in person for a variety of reasons. This type of general information on the Proposal would be highly valued by the public in identifying factors or information that might have been overlooked it the development of the Proposal. Again, this is basic information that should be available to the public for inspection if collaboration and public input is actually being sought.

2b. Participation does not always mean support.

As the Organizations have stated previously, a complete representation of all interests in collaborative efforts is critical to developing a balanced proposal. The Organizations are very concerned that much of the public participation in the process is being misunderstood as support for the Proposal, especially from the motorized community, as reflected by the numerous pictures of motorized usages that are spread throughout the Proposal. Many of the members we have spoken to about the Proposal are simply opposed to the recommendations completely. There is a significant difference between participation and support and often the Organizations participate in processes that will never be supported by the membership. There is also a significant difference between seeking a group support and actually obtaining that groups support. The need to comment on such basic issues again makes the Organizations concerned that there is very little interest in developing a consensus position but rather the interest in the Proposal is seeking to create the appearance of public support for a decision that has already been made. These are two very different processes and basis for seeking public consensus.

3a. Many of the foundational assumptions are simply incorrect regarding OSV travel in the area.

Throughout the Proposal, numerous assertions about possible impacts to various recreational activities are made without any basis for such positions, such as the assertion that the Proposal does not affect popular over the snow riding areas.1 CSA submits this position is completely inaccurate and much of the designations in the Proposal would close highly valued recreational areas for the OSV community. This is highly frustrating to the OSV community as we have worked hard to collaborate with many of the same interest groups and people participating in the GPLI process to develop collaborative management on the GMUG for OSV usage that satisfied a broad range of interests and users. For those efforts to now be simply cast aside is highly frustrating and causes us to question why we would ever get involved in collaborative efforts to resolve issues, when the partners in those efforts simply cast the conclusions and effective management conclusions that have been reached so easily.

The map below is the current OSV travel restricts from the USFS and the systemic conflict between this decision document and any assertion of consistency of the Proposal is immediate. 2

Winter Recreation map

While the above map addresses collaborative efforts in the Crested Butte area with the USFS, this is by no means the only location the OSV community has collaborated on in Gunnison County.

A complete review of the GMUGOSV planning that has been done to date is available on the USFS website.AAt no point in the discussions is there any analysis regarding the current management of any of the proposal areas but rather the discussion starts from a position that there is no conflict with the Proposal and current management. This failure to address the current management of these areas is highly frustrating as the GMUG has along a successful history of collaboratively addressing OSV travel in the Proposal area. The Organizations submit that the complete lack of factual accuracy around the position that the Proposal does not close OSV areas is troubling at a minimum.

3b. Many of the foundational positions are simply incorrect regarding OHV travel in the Proposal area

The complete lack of factual basis for many of the assertions made in the Proposal is also exemplified by the analysis of multiple use summer recreation is exemplified as the Proposal starts from a position that no roads or trails will be closed by the GPLI proposal4. Again, no basis is provided for this position and the Organizations vigorously assert that this position entirely lacks merit, as the Proposal would have a massive impact on future development of OHV roads and trails. Many of the areas addressed in the GPLI are currently managed for the long-term expansion of multiple use recreation. Even in SMA areas whereOHV usage is addressed, each of these areas provides for a cap on any expansion in terms of mileage but fails to provide any protection for the levels of activity that are currently allowed and have been occurring for an extended period of time without issue.

These failures in the factual analysis are deeply troubling as the message from the consistent assertion of inaccurate information on recreational activity would be that motorized access to the Gunnison Valley was the single largest threat to resources in the valley. Clearly, that issue is not supported by factual analysis given that the northern portions of the Gunnison Valley are some of the hardest hit in terms of poor forest health as in many areas, tree mortality has easily exceeded 50% kill rates and is significantly higher in many locations.

3c (1). Much of the Proposal directly contradicts with federal law for the management of Proposal areas.

The lack of factual consistency of the Proposal with the broad and vigorous history of collaboration in the Gunnison Valley is not limited to motorized recreational issues, as the clarity of previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in Gunnison County is also not addressed. Rather the Proposal appears to simply start from a position that Congress has not spoken on the management of these areas and that these areas are not currently the basis for the previous Congressional decision that sought to bring balance to previous consensus positions for these areas. There is a long and highly specific history of Congressional action on these areas and the extensive discussions that have taken place trying to provide some type of balance in the usage of areas not designated as Wilderness. The Organizations must question the value of any consensus process that does not recognize the value in the determinations of consensus and community groups that is previously been undertaken.

The high levels of clarity around previous Congressional actions addressing public lands in Gunnison County is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness act specifically spoke of the need to protect multiple use in areas it was not designated as Wilderness as follows:

SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado possess outstanding natural characteristics which give them high values as wilderness and will, if properly preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for the benefit of the American people;

(2) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System’s share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to…….. Ensure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.”

Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”

Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the management of so much of the Proposal area, the Organizations must question what has changed in these areas and why would the previous consensus positions now need to be changed in terms of management of these areas. Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and should be honored. The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area.

3c (2). Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area

The failure to address previous Congressional actions in the Proposal area is highlighted by the fact that the Fossil Ridge Management area prescriptions are simply never addressed in the Proposal. These concepts were again specifically included in the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, which designated the Fossil Ridge Wilderness. The 1993 Colorado Wilderness act also specifically created the fossil ridge recreation management zone, which specifically addressed multiple use recreational access in the SMA as follows:

“(g) OFF-ROAD RECREATION. —Motorized travel shall be permitted within the recreation management area only on those established trails and routes existing as of July 1, 1991, on which such travel was permitted as of such date, except that other trails and routes may be used where necessary for administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency. No later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall identify such routes and trails and shall prepare and make available to the public a map showing such routes and trails. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as precluding the Secretary from closing any trail or route from use for purposes of resource protection or public safety.”

The current boundary of Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area is provided below:

Fossil Ridge

In addition to the above protections the Fossil Ridge area is also the subject of extensive site-specific management areas standards.5 In a very troubling course of conduct, again these provisions simply are not addressed in the Proposal, despite being specifically provided for in two pieces of legislation more than 10 years apart and the result of extensive public input and collaboration in their development. The existence of the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management area should at least be addressed in the Proposal management zones in these areas but simply is never mentioned.

3c (3). Many of the Proposal areas directly violate Federal law specifically stating there shall be no buffer areas around many Wilderness areas.

As identified above there have been significant congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the upper Gunnison Valley for more than 50 years that are not addressed in the Proposal. The 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas. Clearly, these “no buffer” protections were put in place to facilitate the consensus of multiple users and interests in these lands. The Organizations can see no reason why these consensus positions should be changed now. There are several areas in the Proposal such as Crystal Creek, Lottis Creek, Matchless and Signal Peak areas that propose to manage areas in direct violation of federal law addressing the areas. Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act both of which specifically subject to no buffer requirements provided in the pieces of legislation as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”

While existing federal law, reflecting the consensus position that was reached in the 1993 Wilderness Expansion Legislation, is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside these Wilderness areas and that there shall not be any buffers around these new Wilderness areas, the Proposal openly asserts that the basis for the designation of these areas is to provide a buffer for the Wilderness area.

An example of the cavalier disregard the Proposal has for previous consensus efforts now reflected in federal law is evidenced by the following statements around the Lottis Creek addition:

“Primary Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
• Improved Wilderness boundary management for the USFS
• Wilderness characterRationalefor RecommendationThe Working Group is unaware of any existing uses that are not compatible with Wilderness in this area. A Wilderness addition would improve the integrity of the Fossil Ridge Wilderness, maintain the wilderness character of the area, and improve the ForestService’s ability to manage the existing Fossil RidgeWilderness.
Next steps
• This area is ready for a final review to ensure that the boundary is identifiable on the ground and that the designation will not have unintended consequences.”7

The Organizations vigorously assert that most of the Proposal designations are direct violation of federal laws developed and specifically addressing the Lottis Creek area and many others. Similar basis for designations and management are reflected in virtually every designation around the Fossil Creek Wilderness and other Wilderness areas within the Proposal boundaries but are not reflected here simply to avoid repetition. This is deeply troubling to the Organizations as most consensus efforts we have participated in start from a position that any recommendation be in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. It is even more troubling the large public efforts that surrounded these legislative efforts that are now simply being overlooked based on an assertion of seeking consensus.

3c (4). Congress has looked at many of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness and specifically spoke to why they were not designated previously, such as the northern boundary of the Big Blue/Uncompahgre Wilderness.

Congressional action regarding the management of public lands in Gunnison County has not been limited to the identification of usages in buffer areas and the release of proposed areas back to multiple use. The Organizations must highlight the exceptional detail that Congress looked at balancing usages and drawing boundaries for Wilderness areas in the southern portions of Gunnison County when the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation was developed. House Report 96-617 provides a detailed analysis of why the northern boundaries of the Big Blue/ Uncompahgre and Powderhorn look the way they do. This report provides as follows:

“The committee feels the additions of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognized that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas and therefore amended the Bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River Drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude 15000 acres which are used by grazing permittee for frequent motorized access and intensive management……”8

The desire of Congress to address boundary areas with such detail is unusual and provides a compelling basis for the Wilderness designation boundaries being drawn in the manner they were. Clearly Congress anticipated discussions such as this occurring in the future and this explains why this information is recorded with such high levels of detail. In a troubling turn of events, many of the specific areas that Congress released in 1980 due to high-value multiple use interests are again being proposed as Wilderness as part of the Uncompaghre and Powderhorn additions. Not only does this violate the no buffer principals it violates the direct statements of Congress in 1980 that the public access to these areas was critically important.

3c (5). Wilson Mtn., Uncompahgre and Uncompahgre Contiguous Primitive areas were released in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.

The Organizations would be remiss if the broad nature of the consensus process around both the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts was not discussed. The additional clarity of Congressional action regarding the desire to provide for future multiple use of the planning areas was provided for with the additional step of removing both the Wilson Mtn. and Uncompahgre Primitive area designations that had encompassed a large portion of Southern Gunnison County. The USGS inventory of these areas extended outside formal primitive area boundary as was directly evidenced by the inventory of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas adjacent process as well. Copies of these detailed reports are available upon request. As a result of the existence of these primitive areas before the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, these areas were also reviewed by the US Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines. These detailed site-specific analyses were incorporated in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act as Congress clearly stated they balanced interest in the areas by drawing boundaries in the way they did as Congress felt the areas not designated as Wilderness were unmanageable due to the large number of private inholdings.

Again, Congress has clearly spoken about the desire to manage public lands in this area with the abolition of both the Wilson Mtn., Uncompahgre and Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive areas with the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, and the Organizations can see no reason for this to change. These are issues that directly contradict the Proposal management recommendations and draw any assertion of consensus position into question.

4a. First round RARE inventory

Most of these areas were inventoried for possible roadless designations in USFS RARE inventory process and were subject to specific release by Congress in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act as previously addressed in these comments. It is significant to note that many of the uses that were found to be the basis for unsuitability in the original RARE inventories in the 1970’s and early 1980’s remains in these areas. Given these usages, the Organizations must again highlight how many determinations have been made against the recommended management for many of these areas in the Proposal.

4b. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process. As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development. Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas. In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility.

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below. The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

 

Map Key     map

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation. In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided. The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the Proposal and many management standards.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness designations when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation. Any assertion of a factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use.

5. Economics of Wilderness Recreation.

The Organizations are also very concerned that much of the Proposal management directly conflicts with best available science on issues. Our concerns on the basic conflict will be highlighted in comparing habitat issues and economics. The Organizations are aware that many counties in the vicinity have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago, as exemplified by Summit County Colorado identification as number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list of 21st Century Ghost Towns.9 Unfortunately many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents. Many of these communities might include Paonia, Almont or Marble as examples. Given the importance of recreation to these communities and many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted. Significant new information identifies the strong negative relationship between Wilderness designations and local economic activity involving recreation.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the GMUG National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. TheUSFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs10:

 

Economic contribution by Program - Avg Annual Jobs

 

Economic Contribution by Progrom - Labor Income

 

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity and other activities that would be prohibited in the Proposal to local communities, when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of these activities outpace all other usages combined by a factor of more than 12.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce. This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.11 This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

 

Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

 

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited in a Wilderness area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited. The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.12 Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally.13 The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located onUSFS lands is within Wilderness areas. Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding. The basis for the underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared in the research below:

Table 3. Visistor spending for high, average and low spending areas by activity 2007

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded from Wilderness areas, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in these areas. Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning. Nationally, congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.15 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness16 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.7% of visitor days on the GMUG National Forest.17 As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

6a. Habitat change in being impacted by poor forest health in a far more direct manner than climate change.

The Organizations are highly frustrated with the fact that the Proposal claims to be seeking benefits to habitat in the management area but really never addresses many of the challenges that are directly impacting habitat quality in the area. The Proposal repeatedly identifies the need for management changes to address climate change but completely fails to address the fact that much of the Proposal area has been heavily impacted by poor forest health conditions that have resulted from the fact land managers have simply been unable to cut trees in Colorado for decades. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to continuing to manage Colorado public lands in this manner as the exceptionally poor quality of Colorado Forests provides a compelling reason for active management of the issue. The following photo provides a compelling reason for active management of public lands:

trees and sky

Pictures such as the one above is entirely too frequent in Colorado and are offensive to the Organizations. While the Proposal identifies that trees and forests serve as a sink for possible negative impacts of climate change, this position is based on the fact that the forest is healthy. This position simply is not relevant in Colorado as the overwhelming portion of Colorado forests area dead and unlike live trees, dead trees don’t serve as a sink for anything. In addition to the negative impacts that poor forest health has had on a huge amount of natural resources in Colorado, the dead and falling trees are probably the single largest management challenge that is encountered by the recreational community. When these foundational issues are not addressed, the Organizations are concerned about the scientific foundation for much of the Proposal as best available science is a critical tool in developing planning and management of public lands.

6b. Much of the recommended management direction in the Proposal completely conflicts with SBEADMR determinations

The Organizations would be remiss if the immediate and direct conflict with much of the recommended management in the Proposal has with the Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response (SBDEARMR) process that was recently concluded on the GMUG18 was not addressed. Almost every recommendation in the Proposal would change or complicate management of forest health issues in the Proposal area, but no basis for these changes is addressed. This management is critical in preserving recreational opportunities as poor forest health is the single largest challenge facing the recreational community in Colorado. The Organizations vigorously supported the proactive and vigorous response of GMUG planners to the poor forest health issue that now plagues so much of Colorado. The Organizations believe this management is critically needed to bring balance back into the forest and protect all resources in the future. If there is a management recommendation that is provided in the Proposal that conflicts with the SBDEARMR it should be specifically addressed.

The following map reflects the priority treatment areas identified in the SBEARMR project in the Proposal area:

map

While almost every area in the Proposal is a priority management treatment area in the SBEADMR project, these conflicts are only recognized in three of the management designations. Again, this causes serious concern for the Organizations regarding the scientific basis for the Proposal and any claimed benefits.

6c. Best available science on water quality does not support the management direction in the Proposal.

Throughout the Proposal the protection of water quality is identified as a management objective in the Proposal, but at no point is the strong negative relationship between poor forest health and water quality compared to the management recommendations in the Proposal. Best available science on this relationship has consistently identified the compelling need for active management of poor forest health to protect water quality. Strong correlation between water quality and production in areas impacted by the pine/spruce beetle epidemic is reflected in the following summary of the situation:

“Changes in annual water yield following beetle kill were variable (Figure 4). We expected an increase in annual water yield with increased beetle killed area. Instead, we detected water yield decreases, that is less water yield than before the beetle kill. With further examination, we found that not all forest stands infected by beetles are equal.”19

Colorado State Forest Service has provided decades of high-quality site-specific information on the negative impacts on water quality from the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and actually devoted their entire 2016 annual report to the issue. The highlights of the 2016 report are as follows:

-8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;20

– the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;21

Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range, hillslope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be up to 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.22

– A 2011 study involved monthly monitoring of stream chemistry and sediment in South Platte River tributaries before and after fire and showed that basins that burned at high severity on more than 45 percent of their area had streams containing four times the amount of suspended sediments as basins burned less severely. This effect also remained for at least five years post-fire.23

High-severity wildfires responsible for negative outcomes are more common in unmanaged forests with heavy fuel loads than in forests that have experienced naturally recurrent, low-intensity wildfires or prior forest treatments, such as thinning. It is far easier to keep water in a basin clean, from the source headwaters and through each usage by recipients downstream, than to try and restore water quality once it is degraded.24

During 2016’s Beaver Creek Fire, which burned 38,380 acres northwest of Walden, foresters and firefighters were given a glimpse into likely future challenges facing wildfire suppression and forest management efforts. These include longer duration wildfires due to the amount and arrangement of heavy fuels. Observations from fire managers indicated that instead of small branches on live trees, the larger, dead fuels in jackstraw stands were the primary driver of fire spread…. “The hazards and fire behavior associated with this fuel type greatly reduce where firefighters can safely engage in suppression operations”25

A copy of this report and many other detailed planning tools addressing the impacts of not managing for poor forest health is available on the state forest service website. 26 Additionally, the critical need for active management of watersheds as a result of the mountain pine beetle impacts is also highlighted in the Front Range Fuels treatment partnership. 27 This group highlighted impacts as follows:

land stream

The front range partnership outlined management needed as follows:

 cutting logs

Given the strong corollary between best available science regarding the need for active management of water resources in poor forest health areas, the basic direction of management prescriptions in the Proposal is very concerning. Any recommendation in the Proposal should be reflecting best available science regarding the need for the management in the area and what the actual on the ground conditions and challenges are for that area.

7. Conclusion

The Organizations have serious concerns about many of the positions that are being taken in the Proposal such as not impacting multiple use access to the area and as a result must vigorously oppose the Proposal. This simply is untrue as many of the areas that are would be closed to multiple use in the Proposal are currently open to multiple use and represent important expansion areas for these uses in the future. Additionally, large amounts of the Proposal management directly conflict with the numerous inventory of characteristics of areas by the agency, such as the roadless inventories of the upper Gunnison Valley, which is concerning given the huge amounts of public input that were received during these agency inventories.

Further many of the recommendations now made in the Proposal, are directly in conflict with the conclusions Congress has made about the suitability of these areas for this type of management, such as the areas north of the Uncompahgre Wilderness that were specifically released back to multiple use management in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation. Other Congressional mandates, such as the lack of buffer areas around many of the Wilderness areas simply are never addressed.

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

 

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

  1. See, Proposal at pg. 9.
  2. For a detailed version of this map, please see https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5397031.pdf
  3. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fseprd488168
  4. See,Proposal at pg.10.
  5. https://www.western.edu/sites/default/files/media/raw/Fossil%20Ridge%20Wilderness.pdf
  6.  See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3)
  7. See, Proposal at pg. 44.
  8. See House Report 96-617 paragraph 9. A copy of this report has been attached for your convenience.
  9. See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011
  10. See, USDA Forest Service; “GMUGNF-Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 Acomplete copy of this research is available herehttps://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-GMUG.pdf
  11. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
  12. See, USDA Forest Service; National Forest Support a Recreation Economy- a complete study copy is available here: http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/national-forests-support-recreation-economy/
  13. See, Holmes & White;National & Community Market Contributions of Wilderness; Society & Natural Resources; An International Journal; Volume30 2017
  14. See, UDSA Forest Service; White & Stynes;Updated Spending Profiles for National ForestRecreation Visitors byActivity; Joint venture between USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University; November 2011 at pg. 6.
  15. See, USDA Forest Service, National Visitor Use Monitoring; “National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results; National Summary Report; Data collected FY 2012 through FY 2016”; 2016 at pg. 1.
  16. See, USDA Forest Service; 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Environmental Impact Statement; May 2012 pg. 19
  17. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; GMUG National Forest; Round 3; last updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
  18. https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42387
  19. See, Stedneck et al; Effects of Pine Beetle Infestations on Water Yield and Water Quality at the watershed scale in Northern Colorado;
  20. http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/
  21. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 6
  22. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  23. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  24. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  25. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5
  26. https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2017/02/CSU_304464_ForestReport-2016-www.pdf
  27. See, Le Master et al; PROTECTING FRONT RANGE FOREST WATERSHEDS FROM HIGH-SEVERITY WILDFIRES AN ASSESSMENT BY THE PINCHOT INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION FUNDED BY THE FRONT RANGE FUELS TREATMENT PARTNERSHIP; a copy of this document is available here. http://www.frftp.org/research_education
Continue Reading

Access is Key to All Forms of Recreation

Access to public lands, it’s more than just OHV recreation…

  • Many forms of recreation on public lands depend upon “access” by motorized vehicle to reach the desired recreational opportunities, activity and experience.
  • Travel Management on USFS lands and similar processes on BLM lands do not exclusively affect Off-highway vehicle (OHV) users, the process affects anyone and everyone who travels upon roads and motorized trails on public lands. Driving to a trailhead, a fishing spot or just driving to sightsee puts the act of driving to the destination into the category of “motorized use” and subject to all of the benefits and restrictions that result from the Travel Management process.
  • USFS and BLM roads and motorized trails (aka routes) serve many purposes, just to name a few:
    1. These routes provide access for public land visitors to travel to the point where they can begin their desired recreational activity,
    2. These routes by themselves provide recreational opportunities for visitors to recreate upon the route and
    3. These routes provide access to forest/land management activities, access to property, access to utility infrastructure, firefighting tasks, etc.
  • Motorized use on public lands is not an activity limited to Off-Highway vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs, UTVs, 4WDs, etc.) but is an activity that nearly all public lands visitors participate in. Driving to a trailhead to begin a hike, driving to a stream to fish, to begin a bicycle ride, to access a picnic area, to explore the surrounding environment along with the many other activities that require visitors to use motorized means and travel using the variety of roads and or motorized trails to gain access to the chosen recreational activity.
  • Very few will be able to enjoy the forest and all of the resources the forest has to offer if adequate motorized routes and access is not provided. Multiple-use and motorized recreation is indeed a bona fide form of recreation on public lands and not an activity to be minimized or eliminated on public lands.  Just as it is important to maintain the quality of visitor experiences for non-motorized use, it is equally important to maintain the quality of visitor experiences for motorized use.
  • USFS Travel Analysis is the Forest Service’s science-based process developed in response to the 2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.  The Rule has three subparts:  Subpart A — Administration of the Forest Transportation System; Subpart B – Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; and Subpart C — Use by Over-Snow Vehicles. The Rule has existed for many years with varying subparts prior to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, and it has been updated several times, most recently in 2005. Along with Part 212, Parts 251 (Land Uses), 261 (Prohibitions), and 295 (Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads) were updated to provide national consistency and clarity on motor vehicle use with the National Forest System.
  • All OHVs owned and operated in Colorado must display current Colorado OHV registration or permit stickers when in an OHV staging area or operated on any designated OHV trails or routes in Colorado.
    • Roads open to OHVs means federal roads specifically open (through MVUM or RTMP) to OHV use or state, county, or municipal open to OHV use through ordinance and signage.
    • The designation of “Jeep trails” means trails as noted by MVUM or RTMP as being “open to any full-sized vehicles” and labeled as trails and specifically not as roads.
    • Any vehicle traveling on a designated OHV trail or route is considered an OHV and is therefore required to display a current Colorado OHV permit or registration sticker. This can include vehicles traveling to trailheads or other destinations on designated OHV routes and are not necessarily exclusive to OHV recreation.
    • Per the Stay the Trail website, in addition to the many miles of Off-Highway Vehicle trails and “roads open to all vehicles”, there are a number of Full-Size Trails open for recreational travel in Colorado. Although these trails allow for full-width vehicles, they differ from most BLM and U.S. Forest Service roads as they are designed for recreational, motorized use rather than simply for transportation. A Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Permit is required on any licensed/plated vehicle that is used for recreation on these trails.  A list of these trails can be found at the following web link: http://staythetrail.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=266593&module_id=247561
    • Stay the Trail provides additional information regarding OHV Permits and Registrations at http://staythetrail.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=266593&module_id=228438
Continue Reading

Objections to the Draft Decision Badger Flats

USDA Forest Service
Region 2 Rocky Mountain Region
Attn.: Objection Reviewing Officer
1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

RE: Objections to the DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BADGER FLATS MANAGEMENT PROJECT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PIKE NATIONAL FOREST, SOUTH PARK RANGER DISTRICT, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO March 2018

Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

The following objections are submitted in regards to Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Badger Flats Management Project, U.S. Forest Service, Pike National Forest, South Park Ranger District on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”). The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the 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 for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 150,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.” The Organizations previously submitted Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project, Environmental Assessment, South Park Ranger District, Pike & San Isabel National Forest, October 2016, in a letter dated November, 2016 citing similar objections to those listed below. The Organizations’ objections to the Proposed Decision and Action prepared for the Badger Flats Management Project are listed below:

  1. The Proposed Decision and Action intends to close NFSR 44 (along with NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and NFSR 280) on the west side of La Salle Pass. The Organizations contend that only NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and 280 need consideration of curtailment of access. That NFSR 44 should remain open to public access, or if absolutely necessary the alignment of NFSR 44 could be adjusted, re-routed or offset. The Organizations contend that the existing centerline of NFSR is ½ mile or more from the terrain suitable for cliff-nesting raptors. NFSR 44 is one of the primary and often the preferred route for motorized travel over La-Salle Pass. That NFSR 44 and NFSR 44.2A together provide a loop opportunity, and an opportunity to disperse recreational uses on the west side of La Salle Pass. Closure of NFSR 44 (a primary route to La Salle Pass) to public access will concentrate all use onto 44.2A completely eliminating the unique experiences to travel through the center and northern portions of the open meadow landscape. Additionally, NFSR 44.2A is the more difficult route and includes rock obstacles that some users may not desire to traverse.
  2. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration for an open riding area specifically for motorized trials bike riding. Historically the Rocky Mountain Trials Association (RMTA) has worked with the South Park Ranger District to obtain land use permits for observed trials riding in the Thorpe Gulch area. A request was specifically made in our previous comments to consider a designated open riding area for the purpose of motorized trials riding. The Proposed Decision and Action fails to include any consideration of an open trails riding area in the vicinity of Thorpe Gulch or anywhere else with the Badger Flats Management Project Area. The Organizations remedy for this objection would be that the South Park Ranger District confers with the RMTA and that the Proposed Decision and Action be revised to include a suitable designated area specifically for open motorized trials riding (i.e., without a special use or other permit and open for use year round). The TPA supports RMTA’s objection comments submitted under a separate document and the club’s proposals for providing open trials riding areas.
  3. The Proposed Decision and Action proposes to decommission NFSR 214.B, a connecting segment that our previously submitted comments specifically requested be kept open to public use. The Environmental Assessment for this project provides no reasonable justification for the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B. NFSR 214.B provides a direct connection between two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and failure to keep access open on NFSR 214.B results in a dead- end, no direct connection between the two proposed designated dispersed camping areas and completely eliminates a popular looped recreational opportunity. Remedy of this objection can be accomplished by eliminating the decommissioning of NFSR 214.B and keep NFSR 214.B open to public use.
  4. The Proposed Decision and Action does not go far enough in converting “roads/NFSR” to “trails open to all vehicles/NFST” (aka “Full-size Trails). The primary use of roads in the Badger Flats area is indeed for “recreation”. Trails are well suited to recreational uses and are often preferred for recreational purposes. The level of maintenance can be reduced for trails vs. roads, conversion of roads to trails can make the route eligible for State OHV grant funding, travel speeds on trails can be reduced and therefore improve the safety of the route, and finally volunteers can be employed to help maintain routes designated as trails. The Proposed Decision and Action needs to designate and convert the majority of roads in the Badger Flats area as “trails open to all vehicles” and remove the routes from the formal “roads inventory”.
  5. The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these objections at your convenience. Our point of contact for this project will be William Alspach, P.E. at 675 Pembrook Dr., Woodland Park, CO, cell 719-660-1259, e-mail: williamalspach@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

 

D.E. Riggle,
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO

cc Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park District Ranger

Continue Reading

NOHVCC Newsletter: Interior Secretary Reaffirms Commitment to Recreation!

Published with permission from the NOHVCC Newsletter http://www.nohvcc.org

Please see the below press release from the Office of the Secretary of The Interior announcing Secretary Zinke’s efforts to prioritize recreation on DOI lands.

Zinke Signs Secretarial Orders to Increase Recreational Opportunities on Public Lands and Waters

Establishes Position of Senior National Advisor for Recreation

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today signed two secretarial orders continuing his efforts to prioritize the Department of Interior’s recreation mission and increase access to public lands.

Secretarial Order 3366 directs certain Interior bureaus to create and deliver plans to the Department within 90 days that focus on developing or expanding recreational opportunities on public lands and waterways. This order also directs bureau heads to designate one full-time employee charged to oversee recreational opportunities.

“From my first day on the job, I have made it abundantly clear that we are going to refocus on Interior’s long-standing but recently forgotten recreation mission,” said Secretary Zinke. “We are incredibly fortunate, as Americans, to have amazing public lands and waters to carry out our tradition of outdoor recreation but the Department must continue to create opportunities to increase access for these pursuits.”

“We are delighted by the Secretary’s actions to put in place what he has pledged: a system that will elevate the priority of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters managed by the Department of Interior,” said Thom Dammrich, the President of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Secretary’s action recognizes the importance of outdoor recreation for our economy, particularly rural economies, and for the physical and mental health of all Americans. His actions today will help grow outdoor recreation and ensure that fun in the outdoors remains central to the American lifestyle. The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable pledges our support to the Secretary in his efforts to elevate the Department’s commitment to outdoor recreation.”

“Outdoor recreation is an economic engine that produces 2% of the U.S. GDP and is growing at a faster rate than the U.S. economy as a whole,” said Frank Hugelmeyer, the President of the RV Industry Association. “With the right public policies, outdoor recreation will continue to be an American economic engine for years to come. Which is why the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable and its member associations applaud today’s announcements by Secretary Zinke as a common sense plan to elevate the importance of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters throughout the Department of the Interior. This is an important step towards improving the visitor experience on public lands and waters across the country.”

“The recreation industry looks forward to cooperating with the department to offer visitors to parks, refuges and other special places great experiences,” said Derrick Crandall, President of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. “The result of better and modernized visitor infrastructure which will contribute to a renaissance of rural communities and a renewed commitment by all Americans to the strong conservation ethic our nation has shared with the world. We thank Secretary Zinke for putting a new emphasis on welcoming enjoyment of our public lands and waters and embracing new skills and new ideas to make visits compatible with protecting our natural and historic resources.”

The bureaus are also asked to provide recommendations for improving and streamlining relevant permitting requirements for guides and outfitters and facilitated outdoor recreation providers and to improve contracting processes for recreation-specific concessioners.
“Whether your favorite activity is kayaking on a river, riding an ATV on sand dunes, jogging on a trail or hunting on a refuge—recreating on public lands and waters is good for the mind, body and soul,” said Secretary Zinke. “And it is also incredibly vital to local economies who rely on recreation spending to help create jobs.”

Secretarial Order 3365 establishes the position of Senior National Advisor to the Secretary for Recreation to ensure deliberate and active coordination of recreational policy in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The position will be filled by Rick May, who currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the Secretary.

May, who joined Interior in November 2017, is a retired U.S. Navy SEAL Captain and decorated veteran who served in the Iraq War. Since his departure from active duty in 2010, he has worked with wounded Veterans in various types of recreational activities, helping them to reintegrate back into mainstream America. May is a graduate of Sonoma State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Biology and he also holds a Master of Arts in Human Resource Management.

“Rick is the absolute best person for this job,” said Secretary Zinke. “The work he has done in helping disabled veterans connect with the outdoors through recreation opportunities speaks for itself. As a former SEAL, he has the leadership needed to help the Department chart its course in making recreation a priority again.”

“First, I’m truly honored and grateful for the confidence that Secretary Zinke has placed in me to hold this position,” said Rick May. “The power of recreation can not be overstated, and its ties to overall health and well-being are undeniable. It is my mission to get more Americans out to enjoy our great public lands, and I look forward to increasing access and opportunity for each and every one of them.”

The Secretarial Orders come on the heels of Secretary Zinke selecting members of the newly created “Made In America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee. A primary charge to the committee is to advise the Secretary on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving the infrastructure on public lands and waters.

Continue Reading

TPA leads Breakout Session at Upcoming Partners in the Outdoors Conference

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is once again hosting the Partners in the Outdoors Conference in Breckenridge 9-11 May, 2018 at the Beaver Run Resort (http://cpw.state.co.us/partners2018).  The Partners in the Outdoors Conference brings together organizations, agencies, schools, businesses and communities engaged in the future of Colorado’s conservation and outdoor recreational opportunities.   The TPA attended the conference last year and was one of the only representatives advocating for multiple-use and motorized recreation at the conference.  This year the TPA decided to increase its participation and support of motorized recreation by leading one of the conference’s “break out” sessions.  The session is titled “Management of Multiple-use Recreation on Public Lands” (http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/2018-Partners-Conference-Session-Schedule.aspx ).  The Director of Colorado’s Office of Outdoor Recreation Industry, Luis Benitez has agreed to moderate the TPA sponsored session that will include panelists from the USFS, BLM, COHVCO, TPA and non-motorized use.  The public is invited to register and attend the conference, so join us at this year’s conference and help be an advocate for motorized and multiple use recreation.

Continue Reading

Gila NF Planning

Gila National Forest
Att: Plan Revision
3005 E. Camino del Bosque
Silver City, NM 88061

Re: Gila NF Planning

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) with regard to the Gila National Forests Resource Management Plan revision (“the Proposal”). Prior to addressing the specific concerns on the Proposal, THE ORGANIZATIONS believe a brief summary of the Organization is necessary. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. 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. TPA is commenting on the Proposal as many of our members have a long history of enjoying the multiple use recreational opportunities on the Gila NF in addition to their property ownership in areas adjacent to the Gila NF. The Off-Road Business Association(“ORBA”) is a national not-for- profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue. One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration. One Voice is a partner of ORBA and provides a unified voice for grassroots motorized recreation organizations through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community. Collectively in these comments TPA, ORBA and One Voice will be referred to as the Organizations.

The Organizations comments will be focused on two issues: 1. Generally restrictive standards that are being placed on the transportation network in the new RMP that could conflict with projects in the future; and 2. The direct conflict of proposed management standards around the CDT and other National Trails System designated routes with relevant federal law. While the three national recreation trails that are currently designated on the Gila do not allow for motorized usage, the Organizations submit that national recreation trails could be designated on the Gila in the future for the benefit of other users, as this is specifically allowed under the NTSA, the forest plan should not standard in contradiction of such a designation and in conflict with the clear intent of Congress on this issue. The Organizations submit these are issues that must be resolved prior to release of the final version of the RMP in order to create a high-quality planning document that will remain relevant over the life of the Proposal and in compliance with relevant federal laws.

The Organizations are very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

1.  Flexibility must be provided for National Recreation Trail designations in the future.

As previously mentioned, The Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal provides for management that conflicts with federal laws, mainly that the Proposal prohibits actions that are specifically allowed in federal law. The Proposal provides as follows:

“1) National Recreation Trails provide a variety of opportunities for non-motorized recreation as well as a diversity of experiences with different levels of solitude, remoteness, and development.”1

The Organizations can find no basis for the restriction of a national recreation trail to only non- motorized purposes and would note that while national scenic trails are alleged to be non- motorized, there are many exceptions to such a standard and 20% of the CDT is currently located on public roads. The scope of use on all national trails is clearly provided in the National Trails System act as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed
Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.” 2

This simply must be resolved. This management flexibility regarding the road and trail network will also be necessary to address management challenges that are facing the forest, such as declining forest health. Both the US Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service recently jointly identified:

“These issues emphasize the continued need for managers to develop and conduct silvicultural treatments to reduce tree density on much of the state’s forests and woodlands. Insect infestations and forest disease complexes (many interacting factors) are nearly impossible to suppress or control once in place; therefore, prevention is the proper forest health strategy. Prevention is achieved by restoring the capacity of a forest ecosystem to resist disturbance, recover quickly, and retain vital structure and function. This is called forest resiliency. Without resilient forests, damage will continue until the responsible agent(s) run out of hosts.” 3

The Organizations is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is The Organizations concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

2a. CDT corridors conflict with federal law.

The Organizations must express serious concern regarding the direct conflict between federal law and management standards and guidelines proposed for both the direct foot print and areas surrounding the Continental Divide Scenic Trail. While there are numerous new management standards provided for in the Proposal, there is absolutely no analysis of possible impacts to existing usages from these management changes or the fact that many of the existing usages are protected under federal law. The Proposal starts with the implementation of a .5-mile corridor around the entire CDT as follows:

“Viewsheds from the CDT have high scenic values. The foreground of the trail (up to 0.5 mile on either side) is naturally-appearing. The potential to view wildlife is high, and evidence of ecological processes such as fire, insects, and diseases exist.”4

Under the Proposal, the following desired conditions would guide the CDT:

“The CDT is a well-defined trail that provides for high-quality, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities, and other compatible non-motorized trail activities, in a highly scenic setting along the Continental Divide.”5

As discussed in subsequent portions of these comments, the CDT plan currently recognized that 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads. While the CDT Plan only addresses levels of road occupancy, The Organizations is aware of extensive portions of the CDT that are currently located on motorized trails currently provided for in the travel management process and are again specifically protected under federal law. In addition to the desired conditions, the Proposal provides for the following management standard as follows:

“Motorized events and motorized special use permits shall not be permitted or authorized on the CDNST.”6

The Proposal continues with Guidelines that provide as follows:

“4) In order to promote a non-motorized setting, the CDT should not be permanently re-located onto routes open to motor vehicle use.

8) In order to promote a naturally appearing, non-motorized setting, constructing temporary or permanent roads or motorized trails across or adjacent to the trail should be avoided unless needed for resource protection, private lands access, or to protect public health and safety.” 7

Again, no basis for the need for these types of standards is provided and the Proposal provides no analysis of possible impacts that might result from the new management standards The Organizations are concerned that according to the CDT management plan 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads, and a higher level of the CDT is located on motorized trails and even more trails cross the CDT but are never collocated on the trail footprint but would be directly impacted by exclusionary corridor type management. Given the direct conflict with both federal law and general planning goals and objectives for the Gila NF and the complete failure to analyze possible impacts from these management decisions as required by NEPA, The Organizations must question why this type of management standard would be explored.

2b. Continental Divide Trail management and corridor usage must be governed by multiple use principals.

The Organizations are aware of extensive discussions and pressure from certain interest groups surrounding the management of National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails on numerous other forests, as exemplified by discussions around the Pacific Crest Trail as it travels through the Lassen, Tahoe, Stanislaus and Plumas National Forests in California and similar standards are now proposed on the Rio Grande and GMUG in Colorado. While these discussions are often passionate and filled with an artificial urgency to save the trail from some unknown threat, this position simply lacks any basis as it conflicts with the direct language of the National Trails System Act, the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA, the specific language of the Trail related NEPA plans and numerous other Executive Orders regarding recreation and cost benefits analysis. The Organizations is concerned that as the concept of a corridor moved forward on the Gila NF, multiple use concepts and existing routes were immediately excluded under the new Forest Plans.

There are numerous standards that are proposed in the Gila NF RMP that could result in exclusionary corridors and restricted access being developed in subsequent site-specific planning around the CDT or simply expanded into the preferred alternative of the RMP. Often pressure and efforts of groups asserted that national trails system routes must be non-motorized under the National Trails Act are based on incomplete or inaccurate reviews of the National Trails System Act. These inaccurate summaries can be easily achieved due to the poor drafting of the NTSA and the following provisions are included in the hope of bringing balance to these discussions. Unfortunately, these incomplete and conflicting summaries have now been included in USFS Guidance on NTSA designated routes. The Organizations must briefly address the management history of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDT and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDT. Prior to addressing the clarity of the current NTSA, a review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the NTSA is relevant. Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values, fails from a cost/benefit perspective and economic contribution analysis and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only summaries of legislative language is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA. Additionally, every time Congress has spoken regarding these alleged conflicts the NTSA has been amended to include stronger language in favor of multiple use and opposing corridors. Extensive background regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968. A complete copy of this report is submitted with these comments for your convenience. While there are numerous Congressional reports referenced in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance, many of which have not been provided to the Congressional offices for release to the public, HRep 1631 is simply never mentioned despite it being a foundational document in the discussion. Such conflicts should be problematic for managers seeking to implement recommendations of USFS Guidance on the NTSA as Congress has repeatedly had the opportunity to require exclusionary corridors around NTSA routes but has consistently moved towards more clarity in addressing multiple usage of these areas.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed. It is deeply troubling to THE ORGANIZATIONS that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents that were related to amendments no longer even in the NTSA and many of which are unavailable to the public,8 but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. Further drawing the USFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the NTSA was passed in 1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. The Organizations simply have no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSA in 1968, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”9

The Organizations note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail even before FLPMA was adopted into federal law. Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

While HRep 1631 is not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance, the direct conflict of the agency guidance and this report and FLPMA simply cannot be overlooked. Much of the information and analysis provided in HRep 1631 is highly relevant to the authority of USFS guidance assertions that ½ mile corridors is mandatory or even recommended. HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the Legislation. HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”10

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

“By prohibiting the Secretary from denying them the right to use motorized vehicles across lands which they agree to allow to be used for trail purposes, it is hoped that many privately owned, primitive roadways can be converted to trail use for the benefit of the general public.”11

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

“However, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”12

Rather than conveying the clear intent of Congress to avoid corridors as a part of management of an NTSA route, on page one of the 2016 CDT guidance clearly states that such a corridor is the preferred management tool, stating as follows:

“The CDT corridor/MA should be wide enough to encompass the resources, qualities, values, associated settings and primary uses of the Trail. The 0.5-mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDT must be a primary consideration in delineating the CDT corridor/MA boundary (FSM 2353.44b (7)).”13

The Organizations submit that the intent of Congress was clear when the NTSA was passed in 1968, and the clarity of managing the trail footprint and any areas around a trail was clearly impacted by FLPMA, which is the foundation of the concept of Resource Management Plans and area specific goals and objectives. The primacy of FLPMA requirements over NTSA provisions was confirmed again by Congress in 1983, when the NTSA was completely reconstructed by Congress with the passage of PL 98-11. This revision removed any concept of the corridor from the NTSA and clearly identified that multiple use principals and FLPMA were to govern NTSA routes and areas. Again, this is simply never addressed in USFS guidance and is directly contrary to any concept of a corridor being implemented in forest level planning.

The Organizations are simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA in 1968, the subsequent adoption of FLPMA and the 2016 CDT guidance can be reconciled, as Congress specifically stated that corridors should not be applied and managers retain authority to address site specific issues and challenges. This is deeply concerning given the fact that if Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic. This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. The Organizations vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

2c. Congress has consistently declined to require minimum exclusionary corridors around NTSA trails.

 Management of the CDT is specifically governed by the National Trail System Act (NTSA) which specifically addresses multiple usage of areas adjacent to trails and how these multiple use mandates will relate to management of the trail. The NTSA provides as follows:

“In selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”14

The Organizations believe that Congress was very clear in these provisions, as they clearly stated maximum benefits from the land and harmony with multiple use planning was the objective. The Organizations submit that maximum benefits from the land as a management standard is a FAR more encompassing standard of management than maximizing benefit of the trail or an area to the users of the trail. Subsequently creating management standards that violated these provisions would be precluded as well as all of the management concerns Congress sought to remove with the acquisition requirements remain valid management standards on the NTSA route.

While the NTSA does provide that multiple uses are not allowed on an NTSA route in Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and National Parks among other areas where such usage would be prohibited in 1968, the NTSA makes no mention of prohibitions for usage outside these areas. The Organizations submit that any buffer corridor expanding these prohibitions outside these areas would be a violation of this specific management standard and The Organizations is not able to understand how designating a corridor in the Resource management plan would not be a violation of these standards as the conflict would directly involve the multiple uses in the RMP rather than being implemented in subsequent planning. Congress has prohibited exclusionary corridors at any time around an NTSA route.

The NTSA also provides guidance on the large-scale relocation of any Congressionally designated scenic trail from its original location as the NTSA continues as follows:

“Relocation of a segment of national, scenic or historic trail…. A substantial relocation of the rights of way for such a trail shall be by Act of Congress.” 15

While Congress was clear on the desire to retain authority over the alteration of any National Trail, the failure to define “significant” places any changes in a national scenic trail from its original location, in the case of the CDT the 1977 report to Congress outlining its location, on questionable legal basis.

In several locations in the NTSA, proper recognition of multiple usage of a National Trail is specifically and clearly identified in areas outside Wilderness, Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The NTSA explicitly provides allowed usages as follows:

“j) TYPES OF TRAIL USE ALLOWED. Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”16

The Organizations would note that given the specific recognition of snowmobiling, four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles as allowed trail usages, any attempt to exclude such usages from the CDT would be on questionable legal ground. In addition to the above general provisions regarding multiple usage in areas around a National Scenic Trail, multiple usage of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail is also specifically and repeatedly addressed and protected in the NTSA. The CDT guidance starts as follows:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1246(c) of this title, the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.”17

The NTSA further addresses and protects multiple usage of the CDT is further addressed as follows:

“Where a national historic trail follows existing public roads, developed rights-of- way or waterways, and similar features of man’s non-historically related development, approximating the original location of a historic route, such segments may be marked to facilitate retracement of the historic route, and where a national historic trail parallels an existing public road, such road may be marked to commemorate the historic route. Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.18

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

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”19

While the CDT plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDT plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDT. Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage, the CDT plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDT, providing as follows:

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

  1. Is necessary to meet emergencies;
  2. Is necessary to enable adjacent landowners or those with valid outstanding rights to have reasonable access to their lands or rights;
  3. Is for the purpose of allowing private landowners who have agreed to include their lands in the CDNST by cooperative agreement to use or cross those lands or adjacent lands from time to time in accordance with Federal regulations;
  4. Is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST;
  5. Is designated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and:
    1. The vehicle class and width were allowed on that segment of the CDNST prior to November 10, 1978, and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST or
    2. That segment of the CDNST was constructed as a road prior to November 10, 1978; or
  6. In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”20

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

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

2d. NTSA management specifically requires a maximizing of economic benefits with is supplemented by relevant US Supreme Court rulings and Executive Orders mandate agencies balance management priorities based on the cost benefit analysis of the standard.

The implementation of a non-motorized Wilderness corridor around the CDT also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective, which is made even more complex by the fact that the CDT runs through a wide range of lands, including public and private lands. The Organizations are also concerned that any heightening of the CDT management and a possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA.

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

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”21

While the Gila has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, impacts of drought conditions and expanding visitation to the Gila and continued strong demand for recreational opportunities, the CDT is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDT on an annual basis. 22 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDT at state or forest levels. The Organizations can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process. Additional new research regarding the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce, prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.23 This research also clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Chart showing Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities - 2016

Given the fact that significant portions of the CDT are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information. It has been The Organizations’ experience that often comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain. The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2 of the National Visitor Use Monitoring process and those conclusions are as follows:

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity.

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

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

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

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

3.  A Cost/Benefit analysis of corridor management must also be addressed.

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

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”25

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, The Organizations are very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community.

The Organizations submit that there can be no factually based arguments made that closures of large areas of the Galan to historical travel will not result in significant massive additional costs to land managers that really cannot be justified given the huge challenges managers are facing such as poor forest health and large increases in wildfire severity and frequency. Simply educating the public regarding the new closure would be exceptionally costly as new signage and other educational materials would have to be developed and then signage would have to be maintained. This would have to include signage that probably makes little sense on the ground as natural landmarks are not relied on for boundaries, and these signs would have to be placed in areas where they could be found and also maintained to insure signage is not buried in snow.

The Organizations submit that proper balancing of enforcement costs with the benefit to small user group is exactly the type balance that the Supreme Court and both President Obama and President Trump has expected the agencies to undertake as part of any planning process. The Organizations submit that a non-motorized corridor around the CDT fails from a cost benefit perspective even if Congressional action and relevant plans allowed such as management decision.

4.  Conclusion.

The Organizations are aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why are The Organizations concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

The Organizations are very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM and numerous forests in the Rocky Mountains. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

The Organizations are pleased to have been provided this opportunity to provide input on the Gila NF planning process and looks forward to working to resolve any issues as the plan moves forward. Please feel free to contact either Don Riggle at 719-338-4106 or by mail at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs CO 80906 or Scott Jones, Esq at 518-281-5810 or by mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504 for copies of any documentation that is relied on in this appeal or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA/ORBA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

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

 

 

  1. See, USDA Forest Service; Preliminary Draft Land Management Plan for the Gila NF; March 2018 at pg. 179. Hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”.
  2. See, 16 USC 2146 (j).
  3. See, USDA Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service; New Mexico Forest Health Conditions; 2017 at pg. 1.
  4. See, Proposal at pg. 176.
  5. See, Proposal at pg. 176.
  6. See, Proposal at pg. 177.
  7. See, Proposal at pgs. 177-178.
  8. See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9 – Senate Report No 95-636, 1978 is not available to the public- when searched on the Congressional history the following report is provided: “As of 12/15/2017 the text of this report has not been received.”
  9. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3873.
  10. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3861.
  11. See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.
  12. See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.
  13. See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.
  14. See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.
  15. See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).
  16. See, 16 USC 1246(j).
  17. See, 16 USC 1244(a)(5)
  18. See, 16 USC 1246(C) emphasis added.
  19. See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; September 2009 at pg. 19.
  20. See, USFS: The Continental Divide Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; 2009 at pg. 19.
  21. See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)
  22. See, http://continentaldividetrail.org/cdtc-official-list-of-cdt-thru-hikers/
  23. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
  24. See, USDA Forest Service; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; September 2010 at pg. 6.
  25. See, Entergy Corp v. Riverkeeper Inc et al; 556 US; 475 F3d 83; (2009) Opinion of Breyer J, at pg. 4
Continue Reading

ALERT: Update – PSI Public Motor Vehicle Use EIS

Working drafts of the first two chapters of the United States Forest Service (USFS), Pike and San Isabel (PSI) National Forests Public Motor Vehicle Use, DRAFT Environmental Impact Study (EIS) have been posted to the USFS’s project website (http://www.psitravelmanagement.org/scoping-results/).  Working drafts of Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need for Action) and Chapter 2 (Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action) are now available for public review.  Tabular Summaries or spreadsheets listing each alternative and the recommended action (e.g., close, keep as is, decommission, etc.) for each and every motorized route within the PSI is also provided on the project website (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57754b452994ca3f91e9085e/t/5ad62b8e0e2e724d1f5a1752/1523985302218/180417PSI_PublicMotorVehicleUSeDEIS_DraftActionAlts_RoadsTrails.pdf).

Enthusiasts and persons interested in preserving public multiple-use and motorized access to roads and trails in the PSI should review these documents and carefully review the different alternatives (A through E) and the associated recommended action(s) for each of their favorite roads, routes and trails.  The TPA expects the next public comment period to commence early in 2019 after the entire DRAFT EIS is released for public review and comment.  Enthusiasts and person interested in preserving public motorized access are encouraged to begin preparing their written comments now based upon this preliminary information being provided by the USFS.

The TPA will issue additional alerts as more information becomes available.  For reference and information, the TPA’s previously submitted Scoping Phase comments are available here: (https://www.coloradotpa.org/2016/09/07/pike-san-isabel-national-forest-travel-management-eis/)

Continue Reading

The Plunge Proposal

BLM Grand Junction Field Office
ATTN: Palisade Plunge Trail
2815 H Road
Grand Junction, CO 81506

GMUG National Forest
Att: Scott Armentrout
2250 Highway 50
Delta, CO 81416

Re: The Plunge Proposal

Dear Katie and Scott;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above referenced Organizations opposing The Plunge Trails Project, hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. The Organizations must oppose this Proposal as it directly conflicts with national trail guidance from the US Forest Service, BLM, IMBA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, all of which clearly identify that there is a critical need for maintenance considerations to be addressed in the development of ANY trail project. The Organizations submit that these types of landscape considerations only work if everyone is held to the same standards, and the Organizations are aware that initial adoption of these types of landscape concerns can be difficult especially when efforts are overly focused on a single trail. The Organizations are becoming very frustrated that we are being forced to raise national maintenance guidance on so many projects throughout the state, as recently exemplified by this Proposal, Mad Rabbit, Burn Canyon, West Magnolia, and Signal Peak Mtn. Bike proposals. The motorized community has been the single largest partner of land managers for decades but application of varying levels of implementation of national guidance by user group or project is not acceptable to the motorized community as we are now the target of unnecessary conflict for asking questions of how this project conforms to the national guidance on the issue.

Many of these concepts regarding trail maintenance were institutionalized with the motorized community through the development of the voluntary adopted OHV registration program decades ago. The Organizations vigorously assert that while we were the FIRST ones to institutionalize maintenance efforts for the greater good, we never signed up to be the ONLY ones working for the greater good of the trails community. This program and partners now provide 10 maintenance crews in the northern end of the Grand Valley, and we are aware that agency money is leveraged in these efforts. When unsustainable projects are developed, the agency match to these efforts it put at risk, which is unacceptable to us especially when the unsustainable project benefits only a small portion of the trails community.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. For purposes of these comments, TPA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. The Organizations collaborate on a wide range of issues throughout the State.

Prior to addressing the Organizations specific concerns around the Proposal, the Organizations believe it is important to explain our history and background working on tough recreational issues with a diverse range of interests and public land managers throughout the State. A list of a few of these examples includes:

  • SB17-100 passage The Organizations spearheaded passage of this state Legislation that significantly reduced the liability for all clubs performing stewardship projects on public lands in Colorado. While this legislation protected all not for profit organizations, the only group that showed up to testify in support of these efforts was The Nature Conservancy;

  • CPW LEAN Event This project was the result of almost one year of collaborative efforts from the Organizations and CPW, the State Treasurers Office and numerous other groups regarding how to achieve more timely integration of grants from the trails program and as a result of these efforts all grants are now available to applicants almost 1 year earlier than before the LEAN event, and while these efforts again benefitted all grant applicants there was not support or input from any other user group;

  • Tenderfoot Mountain Project on Dillon Ranger District the multimillion dollar Tenderfoot Trail project was constructed to benefit a wide range of interests including motorized and mechanized users with improved wildlife habitat being the goal of the collaborative effort after years of abuse of the area by a wide range of interests;

  • Bear Creek Trails Project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District the Bear Creek Trail was moved and rebuilt from scratch to address possible impacts to genetically pure cutthroat trout habitat in the area; this project was more than 4 years of effort and the major source of funding was the OHV grant program;

  • Hermosa Watershed Legislation outside Durango – This was a first of its kind federal legislation addressing landscape management standards resulting from years of collaborative interests ranging from water, ranching, local government, snowmobile, summer motorized and mechanized and the Wilderness Society that took almost a decade;

  • Badger Flats Campground project on South Park Ranger District the Organizations collaborated with the Wilderness Society, campers, land managers, local property owners and other interests to renovate a poorly managed area into a regional trails hub and camping facility with an extensive multiple use trails network;

  • Bangs Canyon SMA outside Grand Junction – another collaborative spanning more than a decade on the GJFO where again a diverse range of interests collaborated to develop a multiple use area that also improved wildlife habitat and protected cultural resources for more than a decade;

  • 667 Trails Project on Pikes Peak Ranger District – restoration of a heavily used trail network lost in the Hayman Fire and then heavily impacted by flooding that resulted from almost 20 years of effort;

  • Hartman Rocks area of Gunnison Field Office – a multiple use area where ongoing efforts longer than a decade and have leveraged OHV resources to develop a unique trails-based recreation area that has been highly successful;

  • Canadian Lynx management research with USFWS – a project CSA partnered with the USFWS to facilitate targeted lynx research by providing resources and expertise to researchers working to understand the relationship between lynx habitat and recreation. This support ranged from removing snowmobiles that are broken or stuck in the backcountry during blizzards with CSA grooming equipment to oil and gas for basic operation to educating researchers on how to ride and operate equipment in the backcountry.

The Organizations are proud of the history of collaborative projects that have developed across often wide interest groups with benefits for all parties involved. In these efforts, often laying the groundwork has been very slow and often verging on shaky but throughout these efforts a strong foundation was important in uniting groups and interests as the projects moved forward and resulted in quality projects being developed and being successful in the long run.

The Organizations would also note that even where other groups could have been excluded from benefits of collaborative efforts because of their failures to become involved in any manner in the discussions or efforts (Such as SB 17-100; CPW LEAN; Lynx Research etc.) these groups have not been excluded from the scope of benefits. It is unfortunate that collaborative effort has not been displayed in more projects in the State, such as the passage of the lodging tax in Steamboat and related implementations that has been the driving force in this discussion. The Organizations submit that if such an open and collaborative effort had been pursued much earlier in the process for the Plunge development, BLM staff would not have been in the situation we are now facing.

1b. OHV/OSV funding to the CPW Trails Program benefits all users.

In addition to the above collaborative projects, the Organizations have supported the development and implementation of the voluntary registration programs for both summer and winter motorized recreation that is coupled with a small amount of funding from the Federal Recreational Trails Program. Similar discussions of voluntary registration programs have simply been dead on arrival when discussed with other trail user groups. It is important to note that the small amount of funding available to non-motorized programs through RTP has overwhelmingly provided to the mtn. bike community over the years. The voluntary OHV funding provides almost $8 million annually(or $1.25 for every resident of the State) per years for trails of all kinds, and this funding has been provided by the motorized community for more than 20 years. This funding maintains routes for the benefit of all users, as all motorized trails are open to all other forms of recreation and is essential to providing basic access and maintenance.

The lion’s share of this program funding is directed towards basic maintenance of existing facilities for a variety of reasons. The importance of just the $4.3 million in OHV funding to the entire recreation community is displayed in the following slide from the USFS presentation of Scott Haas at the 2015 OHV workshop:

Rocky Mountain Region Trails Budget

The Organizations have attached the CPW summary of the 2018 OHV funding grants for your reference, and avoid any discussion around possible inaccuracy of our summary of the program. While we are aware that this graphic is based on USFS budgets and spending, the Organizations have to believe the relationship is similar in terms of funding for the BLM. Furthermore the $4.3 million in OHV funding is leveraged with an additional $1.1 million dollars for winter recreation route maintenance and almost $2.4 million in funding for maintenance for non-motorized recreation. In addition to providing a massive portion of the funding for basic recreational funding in the State, motorized community has also been repeatedly identified as the largest single source of volunteer support for trails in the State of Colorado in annual VOC reports.

While the State Trails Program is the largest funding source in the State, the Organizations can say with absolute certainty, that this Program simply does not go far enough in terms of maintenance even with the support of the motorized community. The limited scope of benefit for this funding results in the desire to leverage the OHV program funding with all outside funding to provide basic maintenance of facilities, which we have generally come to summarize as “The rising tide floats all boats”.

The Organizations are also intimately familiar with the limited benefit that can be achieved with any outside funding to the program, which gives significant concern for the Proposal, especially when the Proposal is based in an area where basic maintenance will be expensive due to the steep angles of the route, highly erodible soils and remote nature of the project. The Organizations must ask that if there is truly funding available to support projects like this from outside sources, why would this funding not be used to support all recreational interests?

1c. What the motorized community does for maintenance in the Northern portions of the Grand Valley.

As previously noted, the CPW trails program is a strong partner with land managers in providing basic maintenance of recreational opportunities for all at the landscape level. The value of this program to both USFS and BLM land managers in the Grand Valley is almost $2 million per year, and directly benefits all recreational users of public lands. These support projects include:

  1. 6 good management crews in the Northern Grand Valley region;
    1. GFJO GM Crew;
    2. DENCA GM Crew;
    3. Grand Valley GM crew;
    4. Statewide Heavy crew on an as needed basis;
    5. UFO GM Crew; and
    6. West slope ATV Maintenance Crew.
  2. 4 winter grooming maintenance crews in northern Grand Valley;
    – Delta; Grand Junction, Rifle and Hotchkiss winter grooming programs that support hundreds of miles of groomed winter routes in the valley that are open to all free of charge; and
  3. Extensive direct funding for projects on an as needed basis;
    – this has provided motorcycles, rental of mini-excavators, rock breakers and trailers to leverage the efforts of maintenance crews and other volunteers.

The Organizations have embraced the maintenance needs of land managers and have been consistently informed that partnering in this manner is the single most effective manner to keep trails and opportunities open on public lands. The Organizations are aware that this partnership has resulted in multiple maintenance teams being available for most offices and are highly effective at leveraging agency resources. No other partner group comes close to this level of support. The difference that this funding has made to on the ground efforts is reflected in the fact that while most land managers have lost their trail maintenance crews in other parts of the country over the last 20 years, Colorado managers have expanded access to crews and equipment when compared to 20 years ago. Almost all of this funding and equipment has come from the voluntary registration program that embraced maintenance efforts more than a decade ago.

While the Organizations have provided a strong partnership with land managers for the benefit of all recreational users of public lands in Colorado, there is clearly a need for additional partner funding. The allocation of this partner funding is often concerning when projects are moved forward where there is not a mentality of the rising tide floating all boats or where large sums of money are used for the benefit of a small user group. This type of single minded proposal places undue stress on existing efforts to benefit all users, as for a rising tide type model to be successful, all users must be working towards the same goals. Additional stress is placed on these types of partner models when projects are moved forward and there is no model of maintenance for the project once it is completed. This is a double loss in the eyes of the Organizations as:

  1. Funding was allocated to the project originally and has been lost for maintenance; and
  2. Existing maintenance demand is expanded to keep unsustainable and expensive projects open and maintained, which draws maintenance money away from other efforts.

The Organizations must vigorously assert that when the rising tide model is not adopted for all projects, this puts the Organizations in the situation where new trails for multiple use are not being built while other groups are creating trails for the benefit of themselves. The situation where the motorized community would not be able to build trails, despite maintaining roads and trails used to access the area, while other users are allowed to build trails without addressing the basic maintenance of routes and trailheads used to access those trails is simply and foundationally unacceptable to the motorized community. This is where the partnership with land managers is needed, to encourage other users to help float the greater boat.

2a. The Plunge fails basic questions provided in national BLM/IMBA Guidance on trail construction.

The sustainability of any remote steep route, that is on highly erodible soils that sees high levels of visitation is a major hurdle for development of the route both in terms of basic planning and the need for ongoing maintenance. Even with the best designs, trails with these parameters simply need maintenance. The failure to recognize this in the EA for the Proposal is troubling. Rather than meaningfully addressing this issue, the EA simply asserts as follows:

“Long-term Maintenance
Long-term maintenance would be the responsibility of the respective land management agencies (BLM and Forest Service) and their partners (e.g., COPMOBA) and would include repair of erosion control features, culverts, and corridor clearing (brush and tree removal or trimming) as needed. The land managers and their partners would maintain the trail to meet the trail management objectives, specifications, and user experiences described above, and in the EA for the Palisade Rim Trail (DOI-BLM-CO- 130-2010-0047-EA). Short reroutes, within 20 ft of the original designated route, would be authorized if a natural event (e.g., flash flood, rock slide) substantially alters the usability of the route, and standard maintenance is not practical. The BLM and Forest Service would monitor the trail at least once annually and more frequently following intense high rainfall precipitation events to determine which areas require maintenance. The BLM and Forest Service would also use other landowner, user, and partner reported maintenance needs to help determine priority areas and timing for maintenance.”1

It has been the motorized community experience that many of these basic maintenance challenges are far more easily resolved with funding but there is no similar funding stream for other trail communities in Colorado even though many of these same challenges were highlighted in new guidance from the BLM on developing successful mountain bike projects. The identification of funding to address maintenance issues identified above are major challenges for any trail project and were a driving force for the motorized community to establish the OHV program in Colorado. We simply cannot understand how these costs are not more meaningfully addressed in the Proposal.

These types of basic maintenance challenges are consistently identified as major planning issues by all land managers, and the Organizations believe these national statements speak for themselves. The BLM national guidance created in partnership with advocates for the interests now seeking to develop the Proposal (IMBA) outlines these concerns as follows:

“Three components of trail sustainability

  1. Environmental sustainability – Will the Trail provide for resource protection?This is the definition that is commonly used when referring to what does or does not provide for a sustainable trail.
  2. Social sustainability- this is frequently overlooked in the trail development process. Evidence of the failure to meet desired user outcomes (experiences and associated benefits) are everywhere: Overcrowded trails; trails with little use; trail users who feel pushed out by other users and unauthorized routes
  3. Economic sustainability – Can the land managers and local community bear the long terms costs of maintaining a trail? If it provides a valuable experience, is it likely worth the investment, but this must be weighed against shrinking maintenance budgets” 2

The economic sustainability challenges are more extensively detailed in subsequent portions of these comments but the social and resource sustainability questions must not be overlooked as well. Social sustainability concerns are based on the fact that the project fails to address the rising tide floating all boats and resource sustainability will be a major issue given the steep terrain, highly erodible soil, remote nature of the project and high-speed nature of the trail. The direct and vigorous user conflict between ourselves and the mountain bike community that has resulted from the motorized community asking questions such as those posed in these comments is direct evidence of the negative social sustainability around the Proposal.

The environmental sustainability concerns simply will have to be addressed as the project moves forward , even if there is no funding for these issues and they have not been addressed in the EA. The critical need to identify the environmental concerns for the projects, and how they will be mitigated, is a major concern for the Proposal given that a significant portion of the trail is located in BLM management areas where the goals are for Wildlife Habitat. The site-specific challenges resulting from a project of this size in a remote area, on highly erodible soils with a large number user on an exceptionally steep slope are addressed in subsequent portions of these comments.

2b. The Plunge has major conflicts with USFS trail sustainability goals.

As the Organizations have noted above, significant volunteer efforts and direct funding of land manager efforts for decades has been directed towards the basic sustainability of the motorized portions of the trail network throughout the state of Colorado. Again, the Organizations must stress that every mile of route maintained is available to ALL types of usages. The need for expansion of this model of management and sustainability was highlighted in 2016 when the USFS issued the US Forest Service National Strategy for sustainable trails system, which expanded the model that has been so successful in Colorado as national programmatic goals and objects for trails management moving forward.

This strategy highlights the basic need to form maintenance and sustainability partnerships with the following reasoning as follows:

“Achieving a sustainable trail system presents several challenges. With limited funding, compounded by the rising cost of wildfire operations and the associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in nonfire personnel, the Forest Service faces a lack of capacity for managing trails on the ground and for building partnership synergies within the trails community.”3

The Sustainable Trail initiative continues on how the challenges faced by the Agency as a result of the declines in budgets as follows:

“A generation ago, nearly every ranger district had its own trail crew, but that is no longer the case. The Forest Service will overcome a significant reduction in field staff by moving from a model of “doing it all” to a model of shared stewardship in order to achieve mutual goals and receive shared benefits.”4

Colorado can vigorously stand as a complete variation from this norm, as every ranger district and field office has access to a crew and almost every ranger district and filed office has a dedicated motorized trails crew on the district as a result of the OHV program. There are six of dedicated summer crews on the Northern end of the Grand Valley planning area and another 4 winter crews. The Organizations must ask why other groups are not seeking to leverage these relationships and experiences?

The critical need for land managers to lead partners on the need for sustainable trails and recreational opportunities is also highlighted in the USFS Sustainable Trails efforts as follows:

Sustainable Change: Leader-led change is often initiated with a high level of impact that may wane over time. Grassroots-led change often grows slowly, yet must be adopted by leadership to achieve lasting results. Sustainable change is cultivated where leader intent meets grassroots initiative and both are infused with regular feedback and support.”5

It is interesting to note that the high levels of impacts may result from USFS efforts to instill this type of grassroots model for recreation trails is specifically identified in the 2016 but for reasons these impacts have often been simply avoided, sparing applied and then avoided again after perceived impacts were expressed.

The USFS Sustainable trails initiative further highlights the seven core values of the partnerships as follows:

Core Values
At the Forest Service, we are embracing seven core values and invite our partners, volunteers, and friends to join us in adopting these values to guide our collective efforts. By adopting the following core values, we lay the foundation together for making sustainable trail systems a priority and ensuring pathways to public lands remain—for all people, for many generations to come.

Safety—We value the safety of trail users, volunteers, partners, and employees and are dedicated to performing our work safely and providing safe trail opportunities for all.

Sustainability—We value the land and will steward a trail system that is relevant to a changing society, is ecologically viable, and that can be sustained by current and potential partner, volunteer, and agency resources.

Commitment—We value the strong traditions, skills, and dedication of our partner, volunteer, and employee workforce and will foster continued growth through training and leadership opportunities.

Access—We value the ability of everyone to connect to the outdoors and are committed to providing quality access through a variety of trail settings and opportunities.

Inclusion—We value everyone—trail users, partners, volunteers, employees, and friends, regardless of age, ability, or cultural background.

Communication—We value the exchange of information that is up-to-date, accurate, widely available in multiple formats, and relevant to both trail users and those involved in sustainable trail planning, design, and maintenance.

Relationships—We value collaborative relationships and are committed to working across jurisdictional and cultural boundaries to maximize diverse skillsets and generate innovative approaches.”6

With the passage of the National Trail System Stewardship Act in 2016, Congress memorialized many of the goals and objectives of the USFS Sustainable Trails Strategy into law.7 As a result, not only is some of the foundationaldecision-makingtroubling the Organizationsaround the Proposal, it is a violation of the USFS Strategy and now could be a violation of federal law.

While the Organizations have strived to achieve these common values and goals of the National Policy well before the National Policy was formalized, many other groups have not been as proactive. The Organizations must question why the National Policy has not been raised in these planning efforts by the district. That has highly frustrated the Organizations as we are now being forced to address these National Goals and Objectives of the Agency alone.

2c. The Plunge conflicts with the 2017 CPW Trails Master Plan.

The Organizations must that CPW has developed a Statewide Master Plan for Trails, and the Proposal also conflicts with the requirements of this plan as well. The CPW statewide plan provides as follows:

“4. Emphasize responsible stewardship for all phases of trail development and use.

4.1 Accentuate the importance of natural resources conservation, including wildlife and habitat, in conjunction with trail recreation, in the design, construction, maintenance, and enjoyment of trails.

4.2 Prioritize trails development and maintenance that is sustainable and sensitive to the environment, while complementing other land uses (e.g., people can use trails to commute to work or school as well as recreation).”8

The high level of consistency across these three planning agencies and documents should not be overlooked or minimized regarding the need for maintenance and sustainability for any opportunities. Despite this the Proposal simply transfers monitoring and most managing expenses to the land managers, but this type of allocation is exactly the type of decision making that national guidance from all relevant land managers have clearly and directly identified as a major planning goal.

2d. Basic sustainability of any trail project is a major challenge.

As noted above the motorized community has institutionalized funding of basic maintenance in partnership with land managers throughout the state and as a result is now able to identify the rock star trail maintenance crews and those projects and areas where basic maintenance needs are not being met. From this location, a systemic failure to understand the basic needs of the trails community regarding the ongoing maintenance needs from certain user groups has resulted in the collapse of some trail networks in the state already. Mainly this has resulted from situations where users have pledged to support trail expansions, managers are then subjected to intense public pressure to build the trail network and then users are unable to provide basic maintenance, seasonal closure resources and educational materials as pledged.

A few examples of these collapses are exemplified by the following projects:

  1. Shavano to Gateway Project – City of Montrose is now being brought in to manage an area previously expanded and maintained by users after there was a complete failure of seasonal closures and basic maintenance;
  2. Several trail expansion projects in the Grand Valley area where a failure of maintenance in the area was identified in the recently released RMP but users continue to push for expansions of routes after local communities have pledged maintenance resources;
  3. Steamboat City Park System maintenance- Another situation where an expanded trail network has been developed and then users are failing to maintain that system;
  4. Vail Valley Expansion- This project outside Avon Colorado was the result of systemic failures to enforce seasonal closures and for mtn. bikers to stay on designated routes.

The challenges faced by partner driven projects for land managers has also been highlighted in numerous articles in local papers. BLM managers addressed the Oil Well Flats area outside Colorado Springs as follows:

“the success of the Oil Well Flats is a proud sight for Leonard, who personally designed the network and lead the coalition of volunteers, cycling enthusiasts and trail groups that built it…..though some of the areas admirers might find it hard to swallow, adding miles to Oil Well Flats would pose an undue strain on the area, which has no toilets and can only support so much dispersed camping….. It is a situation that has become familiar at the climbing areas along Shelf Road to the North. There the BLM has struggled to keep up with demand for campsites, toilets and access trails….. BLM is working on addressing the growing pains at the Oil Well Flats, including the top concern: Managing human waste.”9

These challenges are not limited to the Oil Well Flats area as the Durango Herald recently published a detailed article about the challenges that are facing land managers in the Durango area from illegal trail building, failures of users to obey use restrictions and impacts from the lack of partner maintenance. A copy of this article is included with these comments. While these types of articles have become common place in Colorado and these are issues where the Organizations have partnered effectively to address these challenges for multiple use areas, the Organizations submit this model of successful trail projects must be applied to all projects regardless of the types of usage. Ignoring these problems will not make them go away but it will reduce the amount of funding that can be leveraged for the benefit of all users of public lands.

In addition to the direct request for funding to the State Trails Program, other indications are often noted and concerning around the long-term sustainability of any trail program. These would include numerous requests for maintenance grants from various land managers to third parties, and the CPW trails program has been the recipient of an alarmingly large number of these after the fact types of grants the last several years. what has become a systemic issue mainly that grant applications identifies the critical shortfall that already exists on routes outside those maintained by the motorized crews. Often some of the largest management and maintenance challenges that are presented are unrelated to a project, such as recreational shooting, trash removal and basic upkeep of facilities such as toilets. These are issues that also must be addressed in the Plunge as it is significant to note that CPW was not able to fund any of these after the fact grants in the last several cycles as non-motorized money is super competitive, often has high match amounts and is not matched with any voluntary user type registration monies.

These types of systemic problems are a major concern for the Plunge as several of the partners in developing the Proposal have already pledged to maintain thousands of miles of trails in the Grand Valley. The results of these pledges on the ground have been mixed as partners are basing the ability to maintain on positions that simply lack factual basis. Thousands of miles of trails cannot be maintained with a few volunteers and hand tools and is concretely exemplified by the fact the average good management crew can only maintain 100-200 miles of routes a year. The Organizations are aware that many of these partners have made extensive commitments across numerous land management agencies and offices in the Grand Valley and often land managers are unable to determine a total commitment from the that partner because of these land management boundaries and agencies. The Organizations would ask that before any project moves forward that any partner in the maintenance of the project be thoroughly vetted to fully address commitments made already, resources that have been identified, the previous successes or failures of that partner and clearly identifying new resources that will be provided for the new route. The Organizations would note that these types of concerns from land managers are exactly why the OHV grant program developed in the manner it did.

Given the Organizations decades of involvement in the State Trails program, the Organizations are aware of the level of resources and dedicated staff that is necessary to maintain this mileage of routes. Full time employees, such as the good management crews, that are well equipped is a bare minimum and access to heavier mechanized equipment is a critical component of a successful maintenance program. Plunge development partners simply don’t have access to these types of resources and any assertion that the levels of maintenance can be done with hand tools and volunteers on the weekend simply lacks any factual basis. When projects are developed but not maintained, land manager resources are removed from partnerships where the rising tide is floating all boats and are reallocated to try and avoid failure of poorly developed projects and this negatively impacts all recreational access in the planning area and further more results in negative environmental impacts to the area. These type of impacts are a major black eye for all trails users.

2e. Funding to even construct the Plunge is weak.

The Organizations are aware that the Proposal is one of the Governor’s 16 in 16 or Colorado the Beautiful Proposals. When the 16 was developed there was a pledge of $10 million raised from partners to develop these projects. This partner funding has resulted in less than $2 million for construction. This is not a major hurdle to be overlooked for mere construction of the route but this results in larger issues for the long-term maintenance of the route. Where does this leave maintenance? On the shoulders of the land managers is the answer.

Unfortunately, this is not the only time when pledged partner funding for projects simply failed to materialize. When the Tenderfoot project on Dillon Ranger District was in initial stages, significant portions of funding was alleged to be available from unspecified sources from the non-motorized interests. This funding simply never developed at levels close to the assertions and the motorized program and land managers bore the lions share of costs to remediate a multiple use area. Similar experiences have also occurred on the Bear Creek project on the Pikes Peak Ranger District. Large amounts of user passion are simply not a replacement for an identifiable funding source for development and maintenance of projects. Projects simply cannot move forward with unsubstantiated assertions of abilities of partners. Projects must be based on a demonstrated ability of a partner to continue to maintain what they have and the new network that is being asked for. Often partners cannot maintain what they have.

3a. The Plunge is a huge project and will need constant maintenance.

Whatever the Plunge project looks like when completed, it will need significantbasic maintenance for the foreseeable future due to the steep terrain, erodible soils, levels of usage and remote location of the route. Insuring that is funded by the users supporting that project is critical to insuring that limited land manager funds are not directed away from the current maintenance backlog to address new trails used by a small portion of the trails community. There will need to be trees cut off trails, facilities maintained, trash removed, users educated about route locations and the need to stay on the trail, seasonal gates installed and used that will remain ongoing. Compounding these challenges is the fact that other easier routes currently exist in the planning area that will continue to need maintenance and upkeep even after the Plunge is opened.

Generally, the social sustainability of the Plunge is a serious question given the small target audience that will be using the Plunge. This is simply not a route that can be used by the average bicycle rider as most will not seek out a one way only trail of more than 30 miles in length. Even for those that seek out the opportunity, most simply will not be able to traverse the highly technical 30-mile route and will seek to end their ride well before the end of the trail. This is an issue as there are no bailouts for riders who want to exit early in the Proposal, and as a result unauthorized trails will explode as people simply seek to end their recreational experience on the Plunge. Any assertion of value to any other user groups simply lacks factual basis given the high-speed nature of gravity biking that will be occurring on the Plunge. People simply will not hike on this trail.

The economic sustainability of the Plunge is also a major concern as under most planning guidelines for trails, the Plunge simply would not be constructed. The Proposal is simply too steep, soils are too erodible and the distance covered is simply too long. Even providing basic maintenance for the route will be a major challenge as equipment will have to travel over long distances on steep and rocky loose terrain to perform basic maintenance. You simply cannot get mechanized equipment over the step terrain and even transporting a chainsaw to cut trees will be difficult. Given the steep nature of the Plunge, maintenance of even a properly designed trail will have to occur on a weekly basis. In this section of our comments, we desire to provide concrete examples of the lack of social and economic sustainability around the project. This is by no means exhaustive but it rather intended to clearly establish the basis for our concerns on the Proposal.

With regard to economic sustainability, throughout out the Proposal, administrative and operational costs are simply overlooked or transferred to land managers without discussion. The EA simply provides as follows:

“Long-term Maintenance
Long-term maintenance would be the responsibility of the respective land management agencies (BLM and Forest Service) and their partners (e.g., COPMOBA) and would include repair of erosion control features, culverts, and corridor clearing (brush and tree removal or trimming) as needed. The land managers and their partners would maintain the trail to meet the trail management objectives, specifications, and user experiences described above, and in the EA for the Palisade Rim Trail (DOI-BLM-CO-130-2010-0047- EA)…. The BLM and Forest Service would monitor the trail at least once annually and more frequently following intense high rainfall precipitation events to determine which areas require maintenance.”10

The draft EA for the Proposal clearly identifies the route will cross no less than 18 waterbodies 11, which are identified as follows:

Waterbodies Crossed by Proposed Trail

As previously noted, the Proposal asserts that the primary maintainer and monitor of these 18 water crossings would be the land managers. These are the kind of basic maintenance and monitoring that the motorized community has worked hard to assist in addressing. It is unacceptable that other users would now be allowed to transfer this type of basic maintenance cost to land managers without clearly identifying how it will be paid for. This is not a rising tide floating all boats.

Unfortunately, water crossings are not the only time that specific management costs are never addressed or badly underestimated, such as the 14 different locations that signage will be necessary. The Proposal asserts that signage will simply be provided on an as needed basis for the Proposal as follows:

“The BLM and Forest Service may place trail markers at 1-mile intervals if monitoring indicates that this is necessary. Possible locations for long-term signage, gates, and kiosks, and limiters are:”12

The expectations of this signage are aggressive to say the least as the EA states:

“Long-term signage would be installed to help users have a better trail experience, to provide for safety on the trail, and to provide educational information. The signs would include trail name signs and maps within the trail system and trailhead signs at trailheads and/or major intersection points. The frequency of trail markers would be based upon monitoring of trail users.”13

Clearly the EA is expecting something significantly more than carsonites with stickers for designations, which has been the norm on public lands for decades. These may not be the prettiest signs but they are cost effective and easily replaced. Developing and maintaining signage such as that expected in the Proposal is hugely expensive compared to carsonites. Signage is an issue the OHV community is intimately familiar with as we are aware that even carsonites are expensive and often have a short lifespan and need to be replaced, especially in the early stages of a project, or when closing social routes. Signage is again basic operational costs that the motorized community has born for decades outside the good management programs through the OHV program at levels approaching $100,000 per year. It is simply unfair to move these types of costs over to land managers. Some type of identified funding source for these signs must be identified and clearly incorporated in the EA. Simply expecting it to happen is unrealistic and exactly the type of maintenance costs that national guidance seeks to have clearly identified.

Social trails are another issue where costs of management are simply never addressed. This will be a major concern as many users who start the Plunge trail will probably be overwhelmed quickly by the high-altitude nature of the trail and high levels of expertise needed. Rather than seeking to finish the 30-mile one-way trail, these riders will look for a way out of the trail, regardless of the designation of the route. These escape routes will be problematic given the fact that significant portions of the Plunge are in Hookless Cactus and designated wildlife habitat areas. Rather than addressing the ongoing nature of this challenge, the EA asserts this mitigation will only be occurring on the front end of the project. Hookless cactus issues are of serious concern to the motorized community as a result of the fact that anytime there is litigation on any ESA plant issues, all trails are immediately challenged and land managers are often forced to close all routes until the litigation is resolved. This was recently again highlighted in the PSI litigation against the USFS by defenders of Wildlife and others. In addition to reducing partner funding, motorized trails would be put at risk direct risk of loss if this management fails.

The Organizations believe a brief discussion regarding the hazard tree situation on the district highlights the need for an expansion of basic maintenance efforts with partners. The following pictures represent daily situations where trees have fallen across designated routes and have fallen in a location that creates a basic safety concern for the public. Situations like this must be resolved in a timely manner to avoid safety concerns for trails users and insure that the public does not reroute the trail footprint to continue use of these routes.

Fallen tree Path with fallen tree to side

It has been the Organizations experience that this is the type of basic maintenance that can only be effectively done with a dedicated crew in a timely manner, despite a large number of these issues being simply addressed by the public when encountered. Often these issues are simply removed by a maintenance crew that is using the trail to get to a larger worksite. While probably entirely unnecessary to state, these maintenance issues are entirely unrelated to the trail design and layout as trees are going to fall for decades no matter how the trails are laid out.

While informal partner groups might be able to address smaller hazard tree related issues, as a result of the poor forest health on the district trails and routes are now being subjected to major blowdown events that involve hundreds of trees over an extended length of trail. In the picture below, the designated route runs directly through the center of the blowdown.

major blowdown trees

The Organizations are intimately aware that resolving blowdown situations such as those above can take a professional crew utilizing modern equipment weeks to resolve. Any assertion that an informal maintenance program can deal with challenges of this scale simply lacks factual basis and should not be overlooked in a rush of public interest to build trails. The Organizations submit that failure to address the growing scale of maintenance needs will result in limited land manager resources being drawn away from existing maintenance crew efforts that we know are still not going far enough on existing trails.

3b. Education of users at the landscape level will be an important component of the Proposal.

The Organizations are also aware that there are extensive wildlife concerns around the plunge Proposal, which have been compounded by the recent significant expansions of trails in the in the Grand Valley for the benefit of the mountain bike community. This is another issue that the Organizations are very concerned about as once an area is at capacity in terms of wildlife habitat, it has been our experience that no new trails or other facilities are allowed. Developing an understanding of what that capacity across this area really looks like will be a significant issue moving forward for species such as elk and deer. These are issues that simply are not addressed in the Proposal. This is another area where meaningfully addressing maintenance and education of users regarding seasonal closures and other management tools will be critical to the success of any trail expansions. The motorized community is concerned about the success of any trail expansion, as has been shown on the PSI, litigation will pull all trails users into the matter, regardless of if the specific trails are involving that group or not.

In what has become an interesting issue, the basic need for a stay the trail or tread lightly type ethic program for all users of public lands in addition to the maintenance and monitoring previously addressed has become very apparent as research indicates that:

“Outdoor recreation has the potential to disturb wildlife, resulting in energetic costs, impacts to animals’ behavior and fitness, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Mountain biking is emerging as a popular form of outdoor recreation, yet virtually nothing is known about whether wildlife responds differently to mountain biking vs. more traditional forms of recreation, such as hiking….Few studies have examined how recreationists perceive their effects on wildlife, although this has implications for their behavior on public lands…..Approximately 50% of recreationists felt that recreation was not having a negative effect on wildlife. In general, survey respondents perceived that it was acceptable to approach wildlife more closely than our empirical data indicated wildlife would allow. Recreationists also tended to blame other user groups for stress to wildlife rather than holding themselves responsible.”9

This situation was very interesting to the motorized community as everyone has blamed motorized usage for decades for every issue on public lands. Here we have a situation where motorized impacts are irrelevant but the need for many of the same guidance and educational materials is equally as important to the success of the project as they have been for motorized usage and there are no provisions made for these types of materials.

3c. Seasonal closures are completely unrealistic.

Another example of the complete lack of basis for the Proposal involves the winter closures, which will need to actually be enforced as the Plunge is immediately adjacent to a wildlife concentration area and is habitat for numerous amphibians. It has been the Organizations experience that any areas where amphibians are present is to be seasonally closed during the breeding season to avoid contact between recreational usage and the toads. It has also been our experience that when populations decline motorized is blamed despite the fact that they may not be the issue. Despite these concrete concerns for seasonal closures the EA merely states:

“Winter Closure
Winter closure (December 1 through May 1) for mountain biking would be in effect from MP 11.6 on NFS lands to the eastern boundary of and through the BLM Rapid Creek Wildlife Emphasis Area ending at the intersection with the southern Palisade Rim Connector trail near MP 30.4. The BLM would use adaptive management to provide flexibility for the location of the western extent of the big game winter closure (e.g., specific dates may be adjusted annually based on weather conditions and coordination with CPW). Mountain bike riders would be allowed to use the trail from the intersection near MP 30.4 to eastern boundary of the Rapid Creek Wildlife Emphasis Area near MP 27.48 as long as BLM monitoring indicates that trail cyclists are not continuing to the south past MP 27.48 during the winter closure period.

If BLM monitoring indicates that any cyclists are riding to the south past MP 27.48, then the BLM would enforce the closure point at the trail intersection near MP 30.4. The BLM would consider moving the closure location as far west as MP 30.4 if there are any violations of the winter closure point at MP 27.48. Big game winter range closures may also include pedestrian travel (e.g., hikers and runners) if the BLM determines that this additional use restriction is necessary to reduce disruption to big game during the winter season. The BLM may adjust seasonal limitation periods annually based on coordination with CPW (e.g., mild winters, late hunting seasons, etc.). Proper gates and signage would be installed to ensure adherence to the winter closure. Trail segments on other portions of NFS lands would “self close” in the winter due to winter conditions.”14

The number of assertions that are made in that winter closure standard is astonishing and directly evidences the complete lack of understanding of how to implement a winter closure. Variable dates of closure are impossible to educate any user group regarding and clear dates are the only way to address trail access for summer recreation. Without the prohibition of the hard dates, people will assume the route is open. When people have traveled to the top of the trail, they are going to use it. Seasonal closures are most effective when they are consistent so users can travel to other locations to recreate and can be provided to users before they reach the trailhead.

The Organizations would also note that the assumption that BLM will monitor the area is immediately made along with the assumption of installation of gates and BLM will be available to open and close these gates on an as needed basis. Again these are costs and management issues that are not addressed and should be in order to develop a successful project and avoid impacts to existing funding and not putting other users routes at risk when management of the issue fails. These are the basic management challenges that resulted in the good management program being created by the motorized community and have been the downfall of many of the non-motorized trail projects in the state previously addressed.

4. Economics contributions from the Proposal are simply unrealistic.

The Organizations are also concerned that one of the major benefits to local communities and economies is tragically overestimated and simply never even addressed in the EA. This overestimate is concerning as there are clearly expansive costs for the development and maintenance of the project that are not meaningfully addressed. According to supporters of the Proposal the Proposal would result in an estimated $5 million a year in spending for the planning area.15 No basis for the estimation is provided, so unfortunately this is an issue the Organizations are forced to address with general information on the issue.

In 2014, Mountain bike researchers concluded that those using backcountry mountain bike trails in the Squamish areas outside Whistler BC ski areas spent $37 for visitor per day.16 These conclusions are reasonably consistent with both USFS and BLM conclusions regarding the spending of the mtn. bike community utilizing backcountry opportunities. In order to generate $5 million annually the Plunge would need to generate more than 136,000 plus visitor days or more per year. That would be more than 11,000 visitors per day on average for the 7-month period the Plunge is expected to be open. Such a high level of visitation is again basis for questions about basic maintenance of the Trail.

There is simply no basis in fact or reality for such levels of visitation to the Plunge and rather much easier trails in the area are simply not seeing anywhere near this level of visitation. The Organizations have been actively involved in discussions around possible impacts to the Vail Pass National Recreation Trail from lane expansions on I70 between mile markers 180 and 190 in Summit and Eagle Counties. The Vail Pass National recreation trail sees high levels of visitation to the area, both from the general public and permittees due to the proximity to I70, as the trail weaves in, under and around I70 in this area. This is an easily accessible paved trail that is nationally recognized. Despite this ease of access and broad appeal, USFS estimates visitation at levels of only 1/3 of the visitation that is projected for the Plunge.

While the economic contribution of the Vail Pass National Recreation, trail was not estimated in the I70 project, the USFS was able to provide detailed information on visitation, which is as follows:

I-70 West Vail Pass Statistics

Given the disparity or Proposal estimates when compared to detailed high-quality information from other sources, the Organizations must seriously question the accuracy of the information used to calculate these benefits. These types of failures are even more concerning given the systemic failure to address basic operational costs of the Project.

Conclusion.

The Organizations must oppose this project as it directly conflicts with national trail guidance from the US Forest Service, BLM, IMBA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, all of which clearly identify that there is a critical need for maintenance considerations to be addressed in the development of ANY trail project. The Organizations submit that these types of landscape considerations only work if everyone is held to the same standards, and the Organizations are aware that initial adoption of these types of landscape concerns can be difficult especially when efforts are overly focused on a single trail. The Organizations are becoming very frustrated that we are being forced to raise national maintenance guidance on so many projects throughout the state, as recently exemplified by this Proposal, Mad Rabbit, Burn Canyon, West Magnolia, and Signal Peak Mtn. Bike proposals. The motorized community has been the single largest partner of land managers for decades but application of varying levels of implementation of national guidance by user group or project is not acceptable to the motorized community as we are now the target of unnecessary conflict for asking questions of how this project conforms to the national guidance on the issue.

Many of these concepts regarding trail maintenance were institutionalized with the motorized community through the development of the voluntary adopted OHV registration program decades ago. The Organizations vigorously assert that while we were the FIRST ones to institutionalize maintenance efforts for the greater good, we never signed up to be the ONLY ones working for the greater good of the trails community. This program and partners now provide 10 maintenance crews in the northern end of the Grand Valley, and we are aware that agency money is leveraged in these efforts. When unsustainable projects are developed, the agency match to these efforts it put at risk, which is unacceptable to us especially when the unsustainable project benefits only a small portion of the trails community.

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

 

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO/TPA Authorized Representative
Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Enclosures

 

 

 

1 See, DOI BLM Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Palisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 at pg. 24.

2See, DOI Bureau of Land Management and IMBA; Guidelines for a Quality Trail Experience; Mountain Bike Trail Guidelines; January 2017 at pg. 4.

3See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for A Sustainable Trail System; December 30, 2016 at pg. 3. Hereinafter referred to as “USFS strategy”.

4 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 3.

5 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 4.

6 See, USFS Strategy at pg. 5.

7 See, PUBLIC LAW 114–245—NOV. 28, 2016.

8 See, CPW; 2016-2026 Statewide Strategic Trails Plan; 2017 @ page 3.

9 A complete copy of this article is enclosed with these comments for your reference.

10 See, DOI – BLM; Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Pallisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 @ pg. 25.

11 See, DOI – BLM; Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Pallisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 @ pg. 15.

12 See DOI BLM EA at pg. 25.

13 See, DOI BLM EA at pg. 24.

14 See, DOI BLM Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Palisade Plunge Trail; March 2018 at pg. 25.

15 See, https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/nepa/80546/137873/169617/Palisade_Plunge_Preliminary_EA_News_Release.pdf

16 A complete version of this research is available here – https://www.mbta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Squamish-EI-Report-April-3-2017.pdf

Continue Reading

TPA elects new Board of Directors

Marking ten years of hard work and success in protecting multiple-use access to trails in the Rocky Mountain Region, the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) has elected a new board of directors to bring fresh energy to pursuing its mission of preserving and expanding motorcycle trail riding in the Rockies.

Don Riggle, the founder of TPA, remains in place as an uncompensated Director of Operations and board member.  Jason Elliott continues on the board and is now Chairman for a two-year term. Scott Bright, Dennis Larratt, and Ned Suesse join and complete the board, each bringing their passion and experience to push the TPA into a new chapter. In addition, the TPA would like to thank Doug Drussel and Steve Matthiesen for ten years of service and leadership on the board.

The TPA approaches its mission with three essential elements: support of local motorcycle clubs, direct statewide advocacy, and legal action. The TPA vision is to continue this approach, and follow the model of other advocacy organizations by adding a salaried executive director.  “Don Riggle has worked tirelessly for many years without pay to protect the riding we love,” said Suesse. “However, there is only one Don Riggle and at some point, he will take a step back. All of us who love riding need to step forward and share the load,” Ned said.

The primary priority for the TPA, a 501(c) 3 organization, is to continue the work in which it is already involved. Engaging in lawsuits that impact riders statewide, researching and preparing comments and involvement in Forest Plan revisions and Travel Management plans, raising the profile of motorized recreation at both the state and federal levels, and supporting clubs that are working to open new trails and defend old ones across the state. The TPA will also continue to promote the Colorado 600/Trails Awareness Symposium as its marquee event that serves to showcase off-road motorcycling and raise funds for its mission.

Additionally, the board will begin searching for the right person to take over the Executive Director role, and to raise an endowment that will allow TPA to hire that person when found. “When we look at how effective some of the anti-access groups are, we believe we need to learn something from them,” says Bright. “The motorized recreation industry is far bigger than many special interest groups, yet to date, we have relied on volunteers for the bulk of our work. We believe the time has come to change that and support an effective and sustainable organization.”

To learn more about the Colorado TPA, to make a tax-deductible donation, or to see a complete record of its successes and ongoing actions, visit https://www.coloradotpa.org.

Contact: Jason Elliott
info@coloradotpa.org
719-332-8456
P.O. Box 38093
Colorado Springs, CO 80937

Continue Reading

San Juan Wilderness Proposal

Senator Michael Bennet
Att: John Whitney
835 East 2nd Ave
Suite 206
Durango, CO 81301

Senator Cory Gardner
Att: Betsy Bair
400 Rood Ave,
Federal Bldg.- Suite 220
Grand Junction CO 81501

Congressman Scott Tipton
Att: Brian Meinhart
225 North 5th Street
Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Re: San Juan Wilderness Proposal

 

Dear Senator Bennet;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above referenced Organizations vigorously opposing the San Juan Wilderness Proposal hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Generally, the maps surrounding the Proposal are of low quality and make any meaningful review of possible impacts difficult if not impossible for the public to undertake. The Organizations also still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

Compounding our concern about the Proposal is the fact that many of the areas now proposed to be designated as Wilderness were specifically released back to multiple management as part of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case as the Proposal would immediately undermine protections of multiple use interests that were passed in 2014 and only recently implemented by the USFS.

Before the Organizations address the specific impacts of the Proposal to recreational access to areas previously released from possible Wilderness designation by Congress, the Organizations believe a review of four landscape level topics around Wilderness designations must be addressed as there is significant new research that weighs heavily against proposed designations and management restrictions. These four topics are:

  1. The imbalance of demand for Wilderness recreation with the opportunity provided in the planning area;
  2. The cost/benefit of providing recreational opportunities in the Proposal areas that have been heavily impacted by poor forest health;
  3. The inability to understand the management concerns that are driving the perceived need to designate these areas as Wilderness; and
  4. The significant negative economic impacts that result to local communities from Wilderness designations.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns around the Proposal, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators. For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. National trail opportunities and trail visitation are badly out of balance.

Prior to addressing the specific negative impact to all recreational opportunities that would result from the Proposal at a site-specific level, the Organizations believe it is important to establish a strong factual foundation for our concerns regarding recreational impacts from any Legislation that restricts multiple use access on public lands. The Organizations believe that any legislation must be based on best available science for management of the area to ensure that balance of goals and objectives and opportunities is achieved in the Legislation.

The first new piece of science and analysis that must be addressed in the Proposal is the imbalance in supply of trails in Wilderness when compared to the demand for these opportunities. The US Forest Service recently updated its National Trail mileage allocation, which is reflected in the chart below1:

Our concerns regarding the imbalance in miles of routes and possible impacts from any further expansion of routes in Wilderness are based on a comparison of the 20% of all trails are currently in Congressionally Wilderness, which is badly out of balance with the levels of visitation to these areas on the national level. In 2016, the US Forest Service research indicates that while 20% of all trail mileage is located in a Wilderness area, these routes are visited by only 4% of all USFSvisitors.The Organizations simply do not believe that expanding this imbalance any further makes sense from a management perspective as 96% of USFSvisitation is being forced to recreate on a smaller and smaller portion of forests (80%). The Organizations believe this simply makes little sense as land managers should be seeking to provide the best opportunity for the largest percentage of visitors as all visitors to public lands should be treated equally. Additionally, with this inability to disperse use, impacts at developed sites will continue as more of the public will be forced to recreate on smaller and smaller portions of public lands in the Proposal area.Generally, the Organizations support allocations of resources based on demand for that resource and right now that relationship is simply badly out of balance with Wilderness based recreation.

1b. Local opportunities and visitation for trails is even more out of balance than nationally.

When USFS research is reviewed to determine recreational visitation to the land management offices involved in the Proposal area, it is determined that 6.7% of all visitors to the San Juan National Forest reported visiting a Congressionally Designated Wilderness area,despite more than 700,000 acres of the San Juan NF 1.8 million acres (38%) being currently designated as Wilderness areas.This low level of visitation to the San Juan National Forest is compounded by the fact that the SJNF has several Wilderness areas that are experiencing comparatively high levels of visitation, such as the Weminuche. In order to balance this relationship, the Organizations submit there has to be large numbers of Wilderness areas designated on the SJNF that see almost no visitation throughout the year. As a result, the Organizations must question any factual basis that would assert recreational benefits from the Proposal, as currently there is almost twice the national average for Wilderness recreational opportunities but the usage of these opportunities is well below the national average.

Given the current imbalance of recreational demand with opportunities, both nationally and locally, the Organizations must question any assertion of a recreational benefit that could result from the Proposal, as currently these types of opportunities are horribly out of balance in the planning area when the supply of routes and trails is compared to the exceptionally low visitation overall. Rather that expanding opportunities for recreation on the forest, the Proposal would result in an even greater imbalance in usage than is currently on the SJNF.

1c. Forest Health, Recreation and Trails.

The Organizations are very concerned about the general scientific basis for the designation of any areas as Wilderness, as we are generally unsure of what management concerns are believed to be the basis for the special designations in the Propsoal. Without a clear management need, any discussion around the designations is difficult at best and the Organizations must question why such management changes would be undertaken. Our research indicates that the areas proposed for some type of Wilderness or Special Management Area type authority are some of the hardest hit areas in the nation when forest health issues are addressed. That weighs heavily in our position against the Proposal as it has been our experience that these are areas badly in need of active management for forest health issues. These treatments could quickly mitigate fire risks in impacted areas and speed restoration of these acres to healthy and vibrant habitat for a wide range of species. These negative impacts to treatment abilities should not be overlooked.

The Organizations are aware that both Senator Bennet has been very supportive of federal actions to address poor forest health conditions in Colorado, such as the Senator championing of wide revisions to USFS contracting authority to address forest health issues in the 2012 Farm Bill and his offices efforts to move firefighting budgets out of the USFS budget and into FEMA management. The Organizations vigorously support and appreciate these efforts but must ask why this issue and concerns expressed in other legislation have not been addressed with the creation of the Proposal in order to minimize possible conflict between management guidance that is provided in these pieces of legislation.

The scale of the management challenge surrounding poor forest health is an issue where significant new research has been provided by land managers seeking to address this issue, and the conclusions of this research provide a compelling basis to avoid further management complexity on this issue. In 2015, the USFS completed national level research projecting the impacts of poor forest health on the national forests over the next 25 years and unfortunately the federal resources in the state of Colorado did very poorly in this analysis as:

– the State of Colorado was identified as 5th in the country in terms of acres at risk due to poor forest health5;

– both Rocky Mountain National Park and Great Sand Dunes NP were both identified as two of the hardest hit national parks in the Country6; and

– Colorado National Forests dominated the list of those forests hardest hit by poor forest health in the country as 5 of the top 7 hardest hit forests are immediately adjacent to the areas to be designated as Wilderness.

It is unfortunate that Colorado does so well in these types of comparisons and analysis and the Organizations submit Colorado must be striving to resolve these issues rather than making these challenges more difficult. This type of research provides significant credible foundation for serious concern around a scientific basis for the Proposal and significant conflicts in national management standards implemented to address landscape issues and the site specific standards in the Proposal.

Newly released joint research from the USFS and Colorado State Forest Service research provides the following graphical representation of the poor forest health in the vicinity of the proposed Wilderness and management areas as follows: 8

Annual acres affected by spruce beetle in Colorado.
Figure 3. Annual acres affected by spruce beetle in Colorado.

Spruce Beetle activity in Colorado 1996-2015
Figure 4. Spruce Beetle activity in Colorado 1996-2015.

The Organizations believe that the poor forest health throughout the western United States is the single largest challenge facing public lands in our generation. Given that the areas proposed to be managed as Wilderness or other special management designation are in the hardest hit areas in the state for tree mortality, the Organizations believe that the first question with any legislative action must be:

“How does this Legislation streamline land managers ability to respond to the poor forest health issues in the area?”

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal is a major step in the wrong direction when addressing the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health concerns in these areas, as rather than streamlining the response to poor forest health issues, most areas are functionally precluded from management. Even where management is allowed the Proposal, the Proposal would result in another layer of NEPA analysis that would need to be completed prior to any management of the issue. Requiring yet another layer of NEPA from land managers who are seeking to address this issue makes little sense and the abnormally severe wildfires that result from poor forest health often render recreational access to burn areas unavailable for decades.

Many of the routes impacted by the 2002 Hayman Fire have only been recently reopened and many of the routes impacted by the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire will remain closed for many years to come.

While the graphical representation of the poor forest health in the area of the Proposal is compelling, the scope of these impacts is even more compelling when reviewed in terms of the sheer scale of the issue. The scale of the challenge was clearly identified in new research from the 2016 Colorado State Forest Service’s annual forest health report. The highlights of the 2016 report addressing the sheer scale of impacts are as follows:

  • 8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;9
  • the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;10
  • Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range, hillslope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be up to 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.11 
  • A 2011 study involved monthly monitoring of stream chemistry and sediment in South Platte River tributaries before and after fire and showed that basins that burned at high severity on more than 45 percent of their area had streams containing four times the amount of suspended sediments as basins burned less severely. This effect also remained for at least five years post-fire.12
  • High-severity wildfires responsible for negative outcomes are more common in unmanaged forests with heavy fuel loads than in forests that have experienced naturally recurrent, low-intensity wildfires or prior forest treatments, such as thinning. It is far easier to keep water in a basin clean, from the source headwaters and through each usage by recipients downstream, than to try and restore water quality once it is degraded.13
  • During 2016’s Beaver Creek Fire, which burned 38,380 acres northwest of Walden, foresters and firefighters were given a glimpse into likely future challenges facing wildfire suppression and forest management efforts. These include longer duration wildfires due to the amount and arrangement of heavy fuels. Observations from fire managers indicated that instead of small branches on live trees, the larger, dead fuels in jackstraw stands were the primary driver of fire spread…. “The hazards and fire behavior associated with this fuel type greatly reduce where firefighters can safely engage in suppression operations”14

The concerns raised in the Colorado State ForestService research are by no means an anomaly.Wildernessandimproperly managed Roadless areas were previously identified by the ForestService as a significant factor contributing to and limiting the ability to manage the mountain pine beetle epidemic and poor overall forest health. The2011 USFSresearchprepared at the request of then-Senator Mark Udall’s office on this issue clearly concludes as follows:

“The factors that limited access to many areas for treatments to maintain foreststands—steep slopes, adjacency to inventoried roadless areas, prohibition of mechanical treatments in designated wilderness—are still applicable today.”15

The Udall Forest Health report continues on this issue as follows:

“• Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).”16

This report is not discussed at length in these comments as previous comments have addressed this report. Since the release of this Forest Service report, additional Colorado Forest Service researchers have reached the same conclusions as the USPS Research Station did in theUdallForestHealth Report. The ColoradoState Forest Service’s 2011Forest Health report specifically identifies a major contributing factor to the spruce beetle outbreak as:

“Outbreaks typically occur several years after storms cause windthrow in spruce trees, which are susceptible to blowdown because of their shallow root system.Spruce beetles initially breed in the freshly windthrown trees, and subsequent generations attack and kill live, standing trees.”17

The lack of access to Wilderness areas to manage blow down areas is specifically identified as a major limitation in forest managers ability to address spruce beetle outbreak. These blow downs are directly identified as causing the spruce beetle outbreaks. The 2011 State Forest Service report specifically states:

“Many areas where spruce beetle outbreaks occur are remote, inaccessible or in designated wilderness areas. Therefore, in most cases, foresters can take little or no action to reduce losses caused by this aggressive bark beetle. However, individual trees can be protected on some landscapes.”18 

The Organizations must note the 2011 State Forest Service report extensively discussed how EVERY major spruce beetle outbreak in the state of Colorado was associated with a major wind event in a Wilderness area, which could not be managed by foresters due to Wilderness designations. Given the clear conclusions of best available science, that Wilderness and other management restrictions are contributing to and limiting the ability of land managers to respond to the single largest management challenge that will be experienced in our generation, the Organizations must question why such a decision to further limit the authority of land managers to respond to this challenge would ever be made. Such a position would not be based on best available science and could negatively impact a wide range of recreation opportunities both inside and outside the newly designated Wilderness areas.

1c. Wildlife habitat is degraded when management authority is restricted.

The Organizations are aware that generalized statements that the Proposal would improve wildlife habitat in the areas have been relied on previously, but the Organizations are not aware of any scientific basis for such a position. The Organizations are concerned about wildlife impacts due to the fact that many of our members are hunters and fisherman and directly benefit from healthy wildlife populations in the area. In addition to these consumptive wildlife concerns, many of the public are non-consumptive users of the large wildlife populations in the Proposal area and are provided a superior recreational experience from the large and healthy wildlife populations in the proposal area. The Organizations would also note that the delisting of any endangered or threatened species is often heavily reliant on a stable and healthy habitat for the species, and this is not provided by lands heavily impacted by poor forest health issues. Delisting of threatened or endangered species must also be considered in any management decisions as well, as degraded habitat will make species recovery more difficult both inside and outside any special management area designations.

The Organizations wish to highlight several new pieces of research that address the need for active management of public lands and the need for a healthy forest for wildlife in the planning area. In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released its State Wildlife Action Plan(“SWAP”), which provided a brief summary of the challenges facing species of conservation concern and threatened and endangered species in the State of Colorado. The SWAP provides the following summary of the impacts to wildlife at the landscape level from poor forest health:

“Timber harvesting within lodgepole pine at the appropriate sites and scale is needed to maintain pure lodgepole pine stands for lodgepole obligate wildlife species. Continuing to increase stand heterogeneity to reduce large, continuous even-aged stands will help reduce risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and large-scale pine beetle outbreaks in the future.”19

 

In addition to the above quote addressing the landscape level concerns around poor forest health, more than a dozen species are identified where the degradation of habitat due to beetle kill was specifically identified as a significant threat to the species.20 These types of concerns and impacts are simply not resolved with additional restrictions on the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health challenges. Management must remain on target in addressing these challenges in order to respond to these unprecedented tasks in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible.

In addition to the newly released SWAP, significant new research has been provided that clearly identifies the need to address poor forest health concerns for many other species. Forest fires have been identified as a major threat to habitat for the Endangered Colorado Cutthroat trout, both during the fire itself and from the condition of riparian area after a fire. The Forest Service species conservation report specifically states:

“Lack of connectivity to other populations renders them vulnerable in the short term to extirpation from natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods….”21

The Conservation Report also noted the significant impact that woody matter has on the cutthroat trout habitat. The Conservation Report notes the impact of fire and insect infestation are both major impacts on woody matters stating:

“large wood (also known as coarse woody debris) plays a dominant role in many montane streams where greenback cutthroat trout persist. Deposition of large wood affects sediment scour and deposition, energy dissipation, and channel form (Montgomery et al. 2003), and creates pools, stores spawning gravels, affords overhead cover, and provides refuge during high flows…… Inputs of large wood are controlled by a variety of processes. Mass mortality of riparian stands from fire, insect damage, or wind is important sources.” 22

Fire is specifically identified as a disturbance that results in trout habitat being unsuitable for centuries, stating:

“In particular, disturbances that dramatically alter channels or riparian zones—debris torrents…and severe fires—will change the discharge-sediment transport regime, re-set forest succession and large wood dynamics, and redistribute suitable and unsuitable habitat in a basin, sometimes for decades or centuries…” 23

This research notes the significant difference in impact to the cutthroat trout between conditions existing before the fire, during the fire and after the fires that are now occurring at unprecedented levels from the poor forest health existing in Colorado Forests. Given that the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is one of dozens of fish species currently at risk due to the poor forest health on the SJNF, the Organizations submit best available science for species management weighs heavily against any expansion of Wilderness like management in the planning area.

2a. All recreational opportunities would be exceptionally impacted due to extensive restrictions on how basic maintenance of routes may be performed in new Wilderness areas.

Given the Proposal has asserted to be driven by recreational interests, the Organizations believe this issue warrants a more complete review and analysis of impacts and benefits from the Legislation at a more localized level than the national update on recreation that was previously provided. This is another issue where the benefits of the Legislation are unclear. While the benefits are unclear, the significant negative impacts are immediately clear as any efforts to provide basic maintenance and management of existing opportunities in the areas where Wilderness management is expanded become far more difficult and available funding is significantly diminished.

It has been the Organizations experience that land managers are struggling badly with providing basic maintenance and safe access to existing recreational opportunities in the planning area even when mechanical means and tools are available to maintain these areas. This is simply due to the large number of falling trees that block or otherwise impact recreational routes in the area. As the Organizations have previously noted, Colorado is some of the hardest hit areas in the Country in terms of poor forest health and logic would conclude that recreational management challenges would also be the largest in Colorado in allowing recreational usage of beetle kill areas. The challenge is immense even with the most advanced mechanical maintenance equipment available and is realistically beyond cost effective management without mechanical maintenance equipment. While the OHV/OSV community provides a large amount of maintenance resources for trails outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often matched with agency funding and the benefits are expanded on the ground. When agency resources are limited for maintenance, it impacts the entire management area regardless of Congressional designations.

While the Organizations are aware that stating the maintenance challenges facing managers relating to recreational routes and facilities are immense has some level of value, there is also no replacement for hard numbers when assessing impacts. New research has been performed by the USFS in the State of California regarding the scope of the challenges facing land managers in maintaining recreation on three Southern California Forests heavily impacted by poor forest health. The USFS conclusions on these forests are as follows:

 

graphic: Forest Service Response to Elevated Tree Mortality

The Organizations believe any assertion that maintenance of existing recreational opportunities and resources encompassing more than 4,000 miles of roads and trails and 141 recreational facilities impacted by poor forest health without mechanical assistance would lack factual or rational basis. This type of challenge is even more difficult in Colorado as research previously identified finds that Colorado forests are significantly harder hit than the three forests in California that are the target of the above research. The Organizations are intimately aware that existing resources for maintenance of recreation facilities and routes in Colorado struggle badly to maintain opportunities with mechanical resources and management being allowed.

In this situation the Organizations must question why streamlining the land managers ability to provide safe high quality recreational opportunities is not the priority of the Legislation. Instead of streamlining efforts, the Legislation provides a new and significant barrier to land managers responding to the issue. While these comments are centering on the maintenance impacts from poor forest health, there are numerous other challenges in providing basic maintenance such as rock removal, which in a Wilderness must be done by hand instead of mechanized equipment and simply transporting equipment to sites, which must be done by hikers or horseback instead of with trucks and trailers. This review is needed in order to fully understand the basis of our concerns around overall impacts to recreation and federal budgets that are required to fund maintenance with exceptionally expensive methods.

The most common manner of removing downed trees or hazard trees in a Wilderness based recreation area of Colorado is with a large cross cut saw operated by two people such as that pictured below: 25

two people sawing

Removing a tree such as that pictured above could be achieved in under an hour with mechanical means, but a similar removal could easily take all day without mechanical assistance. While a manual cross cut saw might be able to deal with isolated trees, such as these pictured above, the removal of hazard trees such as those photographed below are far more problematic.

Man by tree over creek

The ability to safely removal a tree blocking a route in the manner pictured above is difficult even with mechanized assistance but becomes far more concerning when hand tools must be used simply due to the extended amount of time sawyers must be in proximity to the hanging tree and the fact that twice as many sawyers are needed for the removal of the tree. Even when dealing with an isolated tree crossing a trail, costs and risks associated with basic maintenance are greatly increased with the prohibition of mechanical upkeep and this results in significant limitations on all maintenance activity in the planning area.

While there are concerns about the safety and cost of maintenance of Wilderness routes on a per tree level, concerns are expounded when maintenance is needed around larger wind events or larger scale tree fall issues such as those now commonly seen in beetle kill areas in the state. As a result of the serious limitations on how basic maintenance can be performed for major events like the blowdown that is currently blocking all public access to the Hunts Lake Trail on the Pike San Isabel photographed below are almost prohibitions on reopening routes:

Hunts Lake Trail Logout

Reopening of the Hunts Lake Trail would be a significant challenge with mechanized assistance but removing this number of downed trees without mechanical assistance would result in something that is a significant challenge to a project that might easily take months or years of effort if weather was uncooperative. These types of secondary impacts from Congressional action should not be overlooked as these impacts reduce funding available for any recreational management in the planning area.

Ignoring these types of on the ground impacts from expansion of management restrictions from the Proposal makes little sense and erodes any basis for claiming recreational benefits from the Proposal. There is simply limited funding available for recreation and that money must be applied in the most effective manner possible to protect existing recreational opportunities both inside and outside of Congressionally Designated Wilderness areas.

2b. Trail maintenance resources are greatly reduced in Wilderness areas.

As the Organizations have noted already, costs associated with basic maintenance of recreation facilities and opportunities are significantly increased with any Wilderness designations. Based on the Organizations experiences with the Colorado State Trails Programs grants, Wilderness Trial Maintenance costs are consistently identified as being something to a factor of 100x the cost of mechanized trail maintenance in grant applications to partner programs. The average mechanized maintenance crew can easily clear and maintain 100 to 200 miles of trail per year, while similar levels of funding and partner efforts utilizing non-mechanized means can only address 1-2 miles of trail per year. The cost benefit relationship is simply not comparable.

In addition to the exponentially increased costs of maintenance for recreational opportunities in Wilderness area, the amount of funding that is available for maintenance is greatly reduced. The USFS estimates the $4.3 million in funding available from the State of Colorado’s voluntary OHV registration program almost doubles the amount of funding available for summer recreational maintenance programs as follows:

Rocky Mountain Region Trails Budget

This disparity of funding is even more problematic when the more than $1.5 million in additional maintenance funding that results from the Colorado Voluntary Snowmobile Registration Program is included in this equation. Often winter grooming activities are maintaining routes throughout the winter that are used throughout the year and result in trees being removed throughout the year rather than only during the summer season.

The direct impacts of the voluntary OHV/OSV program funding are:

  1. EVERY Ranger District in the State of Colorado has access to a well-equipped trail maintenance crew funded by the voluntary OHV tax on a prioritized basis;
  2. Most ranger districts have a dedicated motorized trail crew for summer maintenance; and
  3. Most Ranger Districts also a winter maintenance crew from snowmobile registration funds.

The availability of these crews directly contrary to the national situation facing the forest service where most Ranger Districts have no maintenance crews at all. While these teams have been hugely successful, their effectiveness is restricted by available funding limits and when existing resources are used for maintenance in ways that are 100x less effective it impairs recreational experiences for all the public, not just those choosing Wilderness based recreation. The Organizations believe that any legislation addressing recreational access and maintenance must be looking at how to making existing funding go further, rather than making existing funding less effective by a factor of almost 100, as is the result of Wilderness recreation.

Why are the economic resources available for maintenance of Wilderness recreation a concern for the Organizations, as our activities have been prohibited? While the voluntary OHV and snowmobile funds greatly expand the resources that are available to land managers for maintenance of facilities outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often leveraged with USFS budgets for maintenance of these areas. When the match to the funds provided through the voluntary OHV funds is asked to become less effective by a factor of as much as 100 for the benefit of less than 4% of all visitors to USFS land, the Organizations are immediately concerned that the match to the OHV program funds will be reduced. This reduction is concerning as no additional benefit is achieved with these funds but resources being leveraged for maintenance outside Wilderness are significantly reduced and the Organizations are intimately aware that these funds are often stretched very thin already. This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations.

3. Economics Contributions of Wilderness Recreation.

The Organizations are aware that many counties in the planning area have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago. Unfortunately many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents. Many of these communities might include Mancos, Placerville and Rico as examples. Given the importance of recreation to these communities and that many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted. Significant new information identifies the strong negative relationship between Wilderness designations and local economic activity involving recreation.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the San Juan National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs27:

Graph: Economic Contribution by Program - Labor Income

Graph: Economic Contribution by Program - Avg Annual Jobs

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity to local communities, as economic benefits of recreation and FS management of recreational facilities outpace all other activities combined on the SJNF.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce. This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.28 This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited in a Wilderness area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited. The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.29 Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. 30 The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located on USFS lands is within Wilderness areas. Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding.

The economic underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when economic activity of recreational users is compared. This research is summarized below:31

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity, $ per party per trip 2007

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments on earlier versions of this legislation, other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded from Wilderness areas, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in these areas. Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning. Nationally, Congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.32 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness33 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 6.7% of visitor days on the San Juan National Forest.34 As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

4a. Many of the areas now proposed for Wilderness designation have a long history of being found unsuitable for designation.

Many of the areas to be added to the Wilderness system in the Proposal have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since the RARE inventories were conducted in the 1970’s. While many of these areas were found suitable for inclusion and added to the Wilderness System in 1980, the areas within the current Proposal have been consistently identified as unsuitable for designation for a variety of reasons and were specifically released from possible future designation by the same legislation. As a result, the Congressional standards addressing the need for multiple use management of these areas must not be overlooked as this was the balance that was struck for these areas previously. The rather systemic lack of regard for consensus positions could not be reflected more perfectly than by the fact that the Proposal seeks to overlook the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act and already seeks to alter the consensus position that was achieved with the Hermosa Watershed Legislation in 2014. This is exceptionally troubling as the USFS has only completed planning required for the Hermosa area less than a year ago.

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations wish to highlight the repeated exclusion of many areas now sought to be designated as Wilderness from lower levels of management inn previous administrative reviews mandated by Congress. The systemic conclusions that many of these areas were never suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness system started with the RARE and RARE 2 inventories due to the high levels of existing usages of these areas included high levels of recreational value. These areas would include the Wilson Mesa area, Sunshine, Whitehouse, Liberty Bell and many other areas.35 While the site-specific information is available for review if your office should desire such a discussion, these conclusions are not discussed at length in these comments as they are repetitive to the conclusions of the Colorado Roadless Rule development in 2012. The Organizations must ask why these areas, which have never been suitable for designation as Wilderness, despite almost 50 years of inventory, would now be thought suitable for designation as Wilderness? The question about the need for Wilderness designations becomes more concerning when Congressional action has previously returned these areas to multiple use management.

4b. Most areas proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process. As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development. Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas. In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility.

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below. The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

Ncompahgre NF and Lizard Heart maps

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation. In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided. The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the legislation.

The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness designations, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation. Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use.

5a. Previous Congressional protections of multiple use must be honored.

Prior to addressing the site-specific impacts to trails and access currently within the expanded Wilderness and SMA boundaries the Organizations believe a review of the existing protections of usages in the planning areas is an important component of why the Organizations are opposing the Proposal. The specific release of many of these areas back to multiple use management by previous Congressional action is an important component of any balance, however limited, to the 1980 legislation that moved many areas into Wilderness management in the planning area. The Organizations are unable to identify any reason to review these previous consensus positions and actions of Congress.

When both the Mt Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness Areas were designated as Wilderness in 1980, the following provisions were included in the preamble of that legislation:

“(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws.”36 

The Organizations must question why areas that have been specifically released by Congress for multiple use management and consistently found unsuitable for designation as Roadless areas would ever be found now available for Wilderness designation. The Congressional release of roadless areas, such as Sunshine, Wilson Mesa, Whitehouse and Liberty Bell is highly relevant due to the proximity of many of the new proposed Wilderness Area additions to both the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness and that these areas were specifically excluded by Congress from Wilderness management previously.

In addition to the recognition of multiple use management standards for many of the proposed Wilderness areas, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act also specifically identified that there should be no buffer around any of the newly designated Wilderness areas as follows:

“SEC. 110. Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado lead to the creation of protective perimeters of buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”37

In addition to the specific provisions of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation clearly returning many of the areas to multiple use management, the Proposal also seeks to amend the management prescriptions recently passed as part of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. This is highly frustrating as the Hermosa Legislation was the result of many years of collaborative efforts across a wide range of community interests including Senator Bennet’s Office. The immediate desire to change the Hermosa Watershed management is astonishing and simply provides another troubling example were consensus positions simply are not honored by those that actively participated in the process. If consensus positions are changed immediately after consensus management is implemented, the Organizations would question the value of the consensus process and note that the community support would be difficult to reconvene in the future on other issues. This should be avoided.

Congress has spoken regarding the management of these areas and the Organizations are unable to identify any reason to disturb these conclusions with this legislation. The Organizations submit that these provisions were designed to end discussions around possible designations and the Organizations submit that instead of providing Legislation designating these areas as Wilderness, any Legislation should be clearly identifying and protecting existing usages of these areas through an SMA type designation.

5b. Sheep Mountain SMA closes opportunities and would overturn consensus management positions reached in the Hermosa Watershed legislation of 2014.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to what is a legislative attempt to designate 21,620 acres where permittees and guides would be provided superior rights of access over the public. This position is simply offensive. This exclusionary management is exceptionally painful for the usage of the area, where outfitter/guides would be provided by Congressional action the right to always allow their clients to get first tracks in any powder in the SMA as public access to exceptional winter motorized opportunities in the area would be lost but permitted heli-skiing operations would be permitted to continue. The Sheep Mtn. area has also been the basis of ongoing conflict between snowmobile users, who have legally used this area for decades and permittees. This area has historically provided high quality recreational opportunities for intermediate and advanced riders, which have been the target of consistent harassment about possible private land incursions made by land owners who have historically misstated property boundaries and asserted the area was closed by the USFS. USFS has worked with those landowners to try and provide accurate information but these efforts have had marginal success. The Organizations believe that these landowners are affiliated with business interests that are now seeking to apply the arbitrary exclusion standards in the SMA to close the area to public access. This simply compounds the vigor of the Organizations opposition to the SMA, as bad behavior and intolerance should not be rewarded with passage of federal law.

The lack of any rational basis for the Sheep Mtn. decision is highlighted by the fact that previous versions of the San Juan Legislation asserted a benefit to big horn sheep that might be in the area with the added SMA management. Such a position was removed when the public noted that big horn sheep response to a helicopter landing in the backcountry to drop off skiers would clearly be higher than any dispersed snowmobile type impacts simply due to the volume of sound produced by the helicopter.

In addition to providing a Congressional preference for permittees in the SMA area, the SMA would significantly alter many of the designations and decisions that were made in the Hermosa Watershed Legislation that was passed less than 3 years ago with broad community support and sponsored by Sen Bennet, Sen Udall and Congressman Tipton38. The desire to overturn a broadly supported piece of legislation such as the Hermosa Watershed Legislation highlights the need for a complete review of existing Legislative protections of lands in the Proposal area. The Organizations are deeply troubled that the San Juan Legislation would seek to overturn the clear mandates made in the Hermosa Legislation so quickly.

 

In addition to providing an offensive preference against public access to the Sheep Mountain SMA, there is an extensive multiple use trail network in the area that would be lost with passage of the SMA. Protection of these routes and areas was a major concern in the Hermosa Legislation. These networks are identified in the maps below.

Map - 2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM
2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM 

 

Map: 2014 Summer MVUM – Columbine Ranger District
2014 Summer MVUM – Columbine Ranger District 

5c. Wilson Wilderness and Sunshine

The Organizations are opposed to the Wilson and Sunshine Area Wilderness additions due to the large number of trails and trailheads in this area that provide high quality multiple use recreational opportunities that would be lost. The previous Congressional action to protect these uses in these areas compounds the vigor of our Organizations opposition. These trail networks are represented in the Motor Vehicle Use Maps outlined below:

Map: 2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM
2014 Dolores Ranger District MVUM 

5d. Whitehouse additions would close important trail networks in the area.

The Organizations are again opposed to the Wilson and Sunshine Area Wilderness additions due to the large number of trails and trailheads in this area that provide high quality multiple use recreational opportunities. The previous Congressional action to protect these uses in these areas compounds the vigor of our Organizations opposition. These trail networks are represented in the Motor Vehicle Use Maps outlined below:

Map: trail networks Motor Vehicle Use Map

5. Conclusion.

After a detailed review of the Proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. Rather than streamlining the management of these areas, the Proposal would create a major management barrier and greatly increase the costs of any management activities that might be undertaken in these areas. This will negatively impact recreational access both in the Proposal area and in areas that are outside the new management standards in the Proposal. While there are significant lost opportunities, there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation.

The opposition to the Proposal is based on the consistent conclusions of decades of administrative review of these areas of these areas for possible designation by Congressional mandate. These areas have been consistently found ineligible for designation and specifically released back to multiple use. The imbalance of the current Proposal is compounded by the fact that the Proposal would alter the management prescriptions previously provided by Congress for protection of multiple uses in these areas both in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Legislation and only recently passed as part of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

The Organizations still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas and after a review of best available science the Organizations can find no basis for the Legislation as the Proposal would provide a major barrier to the maintenance of recreational facilities in the planning areas.

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

 

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

1 See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for a Sustainable Trails System; December 30, 2016 at page 2.

2 See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results –National Summary Report–data collected FY2012 through FY2016;December2016 at pg. 10.

3 See,USDA Forest Service; VisitorUse Report;San Juan NF; USDA Forest Service Region 2 National Visitor UseMonitoring Data; Collected through FY 2012 Last Updated June20, 2012 at pg. 9.

See,https://www.fs.usda.gov/recmain/sanjuan/recreation

5 See, USDA Forest Service; Tkacz et al; 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; 2015 at pg. 36. Hereinafter referred to as the “USDA Risk Assessment”.

6 See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 50.

7 See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 51.

8 A complete review of this data is available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd490230.pdf

9 http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/

10 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 6

11 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

12 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

13 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24

14 See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5.

15 See, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Review of the Forest Service Response to the BarkBeetle Outbreak in Colorado and Southern Wyoming; A report by USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of Senator Mark Udall; September 2011 at pg. 5.

16 See, Udall Forest Health Report at pg. I

17 See, Colorado State Forest Service;2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 9.

18 See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 11.

19 See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan at pg. 279.

20 This list of species includes: Albert Squirrel; American Marten; Hoary Bat; Snowshoe Hare and Luck spine moth.

21 See, USFWS; Dr. Michael Young; Greenback Cutthroat Trout; A Technical Conservation Assessment; February 6, 2009 at pg. 3.

22 See, Young @ pg. 20.

23 See, Young @ pg. 21.

24 See, USDA Forest Service; Pacific Southwest Region Research Station; Forest Service Response to Elevated Tree Mortality; prepared at the request of California State Association of Counties; March 24, 2016 at pg. 14.

25 Photo included with application of Divide Ranger District application for maintenance in the Weminuche Wilderness to Colorado State Trails Program for maintenance funding.

26 See, USFS presentation of Scott Haas, Region 2 Recreation Coordinator at the 2016 Colorado OHV Workshop. Full copy of presentation available on request.

27 See, USDA Forest Service; “San Juan NF- Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 A complete copy of this research is available here https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-SanJuan.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; San Juan National Forest; Round 2; For data collected through 2011; last updated June 2012 at pg. 9.

35 See, USDA Forest Service; FEIS Roadless Area Review and Evaluation; Appendix E; January 1979 at pg. 216 & 220.

36 See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

37 See, PL 96-560 @ §110.

38 See, PL 113-291 @ §3062.

SaveSave

SaveSave

Continue Reading

Santa Fe National Forest Planning

Santa Fe National Forest
Att: Maria Garcia, Forest Supervisor
11 Forest Lane
Santa Fe, NM 87508

Re: Santa Fe NF Planning 

Dear Ms. Garcia:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) with regard to the Santa Fe National Forests Resource Management Plan revision (“the Proposal”). Prior to addressing the specific concerns on the Proposal, TPA believes a brief summary of the Organization is necessary. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

TPA comments will be focused on two issues: 1. Generally restrictive standards that are being placed on the transportation network in the new RMP; and 2. The direct conflict of proposed management standards around the CDT with relevant federal law. TPA submits these are issues that must be resolved prior to release of the final version of the RMP in order to create a high-quality planning document that will remain relevant over the life of the Proposal and in compliance with relevant federal laws.

TPA is very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts. While only the CDT is directly mentioned in the Proposal, there are numerous other NTSA routes on the Santa Fe, such as the Canones, Frijoles Canyon, Winsor and Jicarita Peak Trails. While these routes are not included for corridors in this version of the Proposal, if the course of planning seen in other forests holds true, there will be significant pressure to apply corridors around all NTSA routes as well. This is simply unacceptable.

1. Flexibility must be provided.

Throughout the Proposal, there are many new standards that are placed on the existing road and trail network on the Forest, as exemplified by section 12 of the Proposal and many of these general management standards simply have very limited flexibility. It has been TPA’s experience that often overly strict standards become a significant burden on planners towards the end of the expected life of RMPs and often the reason for the strict standard has simply been forgotten. TPA submits that two issues directly highlight the need for additional flexibility in the management of the road and trail network on the Forest. These two issues are:

  1. Population of adjacent cities is expanding and visitation to the Forest is also increasing; and
  2. There are many management challenges that simply cannot be accurately addressed at the current time and flexibility may be necessary to address these issues.

TPA submits that many of the standards must be clarified and rather than speaking to absolute standards provide flexibility to achieve the goals and objectives of relevant management areas under the RMP. The strict application of these standards is entirely possible as there are often no standards to create balance in the management of these areas. Inclusion of a standard such as maintaining high-quality recreational opportunities on the Forest would be beneficial to bringing balance to restrictive management standards. The Proposal also completely fail to identify areas where existing facilities could be expanded, which will be a major concern for the Forest, as visitation to the Forest will continue to grow as populations in adjacent municipalities continues to expand.

This management flexibility regarding the road and trail network will also be necessary to address management challenges that are facing the forest, such as declining forest health. Both the US Forest Service and New Mexico State Forest Service recently jointly identified:

“These issues emphasize the continued need for managers to develop and conduct silvicultural treatments to reduce tree density on much of the state’s forests and woodlands. Insect infestations and forest disease complexes (many interacting factors) are nearly impossible to suppress or control once in place; therefore, prevention is the proper forest health strategy. Prevention is achieved by restoring the capacity of a forest ecosystem to resist disturbance, recover quickly, and retain vital structure and function. This is called forest resiliency. Without resilient forests, damage will continue until the responsible agent(s) run out of hosts.”1

TPA is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is TPA concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner.Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

2a. CDTcorridors conflict with federal law.

TPA must express serious concern regarding the direct conflict between federal law and management standards and guidelines proposed for both the direct footprint and are as surrounding the Continental Divide Scenic Trail.Under the Proposal, the following goals and objectives would guide the CDT:

“Standards

4. Motorized events and motorized special use permits shall not be permitted or authorized on the CDT.

Guidelines

1. To retain or promote the character for which the CDT was designated, new or relocated trail segments should be located primarily within settings consistent with orcomplementingPrimitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes. Road and motorized trail crossings and other signs of modern development should be avoided.
2. To protector enhance the scenic qualities of the CDT, management activities should be consistent with, or make progress toward achieving, Scenic IntegrityObjectives of High or Very High within the foreground of the trail (up to 0.5 mile either side).
3. The CDT corridor is consistent with a Primitive or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized setting and may intermittently pass through more developed settings. The CDT provides for a continuous route through predominately undeveloped settings.” 2

In addition to conflicting with federal law, the concept of a corridor around the CDT also conflicts conflict with landscape level desired conditions for recreation identified in the plan, which are as follows:

“Recreation use levels are compatible with multiple uses (e.g. timber harvest, water quality, wildlife, historic properties, etc.).”3

TPA is concerned that according to the CDT management plan 20% of the CDT is currently located on motorized roads, and a higher level of the CDT is located on motorized trails and even more trails cross the CCT but are never collocated on the trail footprint but would be directly impacted by exclusionary corridor type management. Given the direct conflict with both federal law and general planning goals and objectives for the Santa Fe, TPA must question why this type of management standard would be explored.

2b. Continental Divide Trail management and corridor usage must be governed by multiple use principals.

TPA is aware of extensive discussions and pressure from certain interest groups surrounding the management of National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails on numerous other forests, as exemplified by discussions around the Pacific Crest Trail as it travels through the Lassen, Tahoe, Stanislaus and Plumas National Forests in California and similar standards are now proposed on the Rio Grande and GMUG in Colorado. While these discussions are often passionate and filled with an artificial urgency to save the trail from some unknown threat, this position simply lacks any basis as it conflicts with the direct language of the National Trails System Act, the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA, the specific language of the Trail related NEPA plans and numerous other Executive Orders regarding recreation and cost benefits analysis. TPA is concerned that as the concept of a corridor moved forward on the California forests, multiple use concepts and existing routes were immediately excluded under the new Forest Plans.

There are numerous standards that are proposed in the Santa Fe NF RMP that could result in exclusionary corridors being developed in subsequent site-specific planning around the CDT or simply expanded into the preferred alternative of the RMP. Often pressure and efforts of groups asserted that national trails system routes must be non-motorized under the National Trails Act are based on incomplete or inaccurate reviews of the National Trails System Act. These inaccurate summaries can be easily achieved due to the poor drafting of the NTSA and the following provisions are included in the hope of bringing balance to these discussions. Unfortunately, these incomplete and conflicting summaries have now been included in USFS Guidance on NTSA designated routes. TPA must briefly address the management history of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail and the specific statutory provisions addressing both the CDT and the usage of public lands in areas adjacent to the CDT. Prior to addressing the clarity of the current NTSA, a review of the intent of Congress and competing interests at the time of passage of the NTSA is relevant. Corridors excluding usages violates the NTSA directly, minimizes values, fails from a cost/benefit perspective and economic contribution analysis and will lead to unprecedented conflicts between users that simply does not exist at this time.

The management of NTSA corridors and routes has a long and sometime conflicting management history when only summaries of legislative language is reviewed but significant clarity in Congressional intent for management of routes and corridors is provided with the review of Congressional reports provided around passage of the NTSA. Additionally, every time Congress has spoken regarding these alleged conflicts the NTSA has been amended to include stronger language in favor of multiple use and opposing corridors. Extensive background regarding multiple uses of corridors and trails designated under the NTSA was originally addressed in House Report 1631 (“HRep 1631”) issued in conjunction with the passage of the NTSA in 1968. A complete copy of this report is submitted with these comments for your convenience. While there are numerous Congressional reports referenced in the 2016 USFS CDT guidance, many of which have not been provided to the Congressional offices for release to the public, HRep 1631 is simply never mentioned despite it being a foundational document in the discussion. Such conflicts should be problematic for managers seeking to implement recommendations of USFS Guidance on the NTSA as Congress has repeatedly had the opportunity to require exclusionary corridors around NTSA routes but has consistently moved towards more clarity in addressing multiple usage of these areas.

HRep 1631 provides detailed guidance regarding the intent of the Legislation, and options that Congress declined to implement in the Legislation when it was passed. It is deeply troubling to TPA that USFS guidance relies on numerous legislative documents that were related to but this highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance. Further drawing the USFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the NTSA was passed in 1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. TPA simply has no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

amendments no longer even in the NTSAandmany of which are unavailable to the public,4butthis highly relevant legislative document is never addressed in the USFS Guidance.Further drawing theUSFS Guidance on this issue into question is the fact that while guidance asserts that unfiled Congressional reports that have been superseded remain controlling, some of the most important land management legislation passed last century is overlooked as well. While the TSA was passed in1968, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 is simply never addressed in USFS guidance. TPA simply has no idea how FLPMA could not directly relate to the management of any corridor around the CDT.

HRep 1631 provides a clear statement of the intent of Congress regarding multiple usages with passage of NTSAin 1968, which is as follows:

“The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation.”5

TPA note that satisfaction of a variety of recreation interests on public lands simply is not achieved with the implementation of any width corridor around a usage or trail even beforeFLPMA was adopted into federal law. Rather than providing satisfaction for all uses, implementation of mandatory corridors will result in unprecedented conflict between users. This simply must be avoided.

While HRep 1631 is not addressed in 2016 USFS CDT guidance, the direct conflict of the agency guidance and this report and FLPMA simply cannot be overlooked. Much of the information and analysis provided in HRep 1631 is highly relevant to the authority of USFS guidance assertions that ½ mile corridors is mandatory or even recommended. HRep 1631 clearly and unequivocally states Congress declined to apply mandatory management corridors of any width in the legislation. HRep 1631 states:

“Finally, where a narrow corridor can provide the necessary continuity without seriously jeopardizing the overall character of the trail, the Secretary should give the economics of the situation due consideration, along with the aesthetic values, in order to reduce the acquisition costs involved.”6

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

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

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

“However, they both attempted to deal with the problems arising from other needs along the trails. Rather than limiting such use of the scenic trails to “reasonable crossings”, as provided by the Senate language, the conference committee adopted the House amendment which authorizes the appropriate Secretaries to promulgate reasonable regulations to govern the use of motorized vehicles on or across the national scenic trails under specified conditions.”8

Rather than conveying the clear intent of Congress to avoid corridors as a part of management of an NTSA route, on page one of the 2016 CDT guidance clearly states that such a corridor is the preferred management tool, stating as follows:

“The CDT corridor/MA should be wide enough to encompass the resources, qualities, values, associated settings and primary uses of the Trail. The 0.5-mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDT must be a primary consideration in delineating the CDT corridor/MA boundary (FSM 2353.44b (7)).”9

TPA submits that the intent of Congress was clear when the NTSA was passed in 1968, and the clarity of managing the trail footprint and any areas around a trail was clearly impacted by FLPMA, which is the foundation of the concept of Resource Management Plans and area specific goals and objectives. The primacy of FLPMA requirements over NTSA provisions was confirmed again by Congress in 1983, when the NTSA was completely reconstructed by Congress with the passage of PL 98-11. This revision removed any concept of the corridor from the NTSA and clearly identified that multiple use principals and FLPMA were to govern NTSA routes and areas. Again, this is simply never addressed in USFS guidance and is directly contrary to any concept of a corridor being implemented in forest level planning.

TPA is simply unable to theorize any situation where the intent of Congress in passing the NTSA in 1968, the subsequent adoption of FLPMA and the 2016 CDT guidance can be reconciled, as Congress specifically stated that corridors should not be applied and managers retain authority to address site specific issues and challenges. This is deeply concerning given the fact that if Congress has specifically looked at a management tool and specifically declined its application, any implementation of such a tool in management is problematic. This type of direct material conflict is not mitigated with the passage of time especially when the clearly stated intent of Congress was to satisfy a variety of recreational interests with the passage of the NTSA. TPA vigorously assert that only those interests protected by the corridor would be satisfied with a corridor, and this must be avoided.

2c. Congress has consistently declined to require minimum exclusionary corridors around NTSA trails.

Management of the CDT is specifically governed by the National Trail System Act (NTSA) which specifically addresses multiple usage of areas adjacent to trails and how these multiple use mandates will relate to management of the trail. The NTSA provides as follows:

“In selecting the rights-of-way full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.”10

TPA believe that Congress was very clear in these provisions, as they clearly stated maximum benefits from the land and harmony with multiple use planning was the objective. TPA submit that maximum benefits from the land as a management standard is a FAR more encompassing standard of management than maximizing benefit of the trail or an area to the users of the trail. Subsequently creating management standards that violated these provisions would be precluded as well as all of the management concerns Congress sought to remove with the acquisition requirements remain valid management standards on the NTSA route.

While the NTSA does provide that multiple uses are not allowed on an NTSA route in Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and National Parks among other areas where such usage would be prohibited in 1968, the NTSA makes no mention of prohibitions for usage outside these areas. TPA submit that any buffer corridor expanding these prohibitions outside these areas would be a violation of this specific management standard and TPA is not able to understand how designating a corridor in the Resource management plan would not be a violation of these standards as the conflict would directly involve the multiple uses in the RMP rather than being implemented in subsequent planning. Congress has prohibited exclusionary corridors at any time around an NTSA route.

The NTSA also provides guidance on the large-scale relocation of any Congressionally designated scenic trail from its original location as the NTSA continues as follows:

“Relocation of a segment of national, scenic or historic trail…. A substantial relocation of the rights of way for such a trail shall be by Act of Congress.” 11 

While Congress was clear on the desire to retain authority over the alteration of any National Trail, the failure to define “significant” places any changes in a national scenic trail from its original location, in the case of the CDT the 1977 report to Congress outlining its location, on questionable legal basis.

In several locations in the NTSA, proper recognition of multiple usage of a National Trail is specifically and clearly identified in areas outside Wilderness, Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The NTSA explicitly provides allowed usages as follows:

“j) TYPES OF TRAIL USE ALLOWED. Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other federal laws, or any state or local laws.”12

TPA would note that given the specific recognition of snowmobiling, four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles as allowed trail usages, any attempt to exclude such usage from the CDT would be on questionable legal ground. In addition to the above general provisions regarding multiple usage in areas around a National Scenic Trail, multiple usage of the Continental Divide Scenic Trail is also specifically and repeatedly addressed and protected in the NTSA. The CDT guidance starts as follows:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1246(c) of this title, the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the ContinentalDivideNational Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary.”13

The NTSA further addresses and protects multiple usage of the CDT is further addressed as follows:

“Where a national historic trail follows existing public roads, developed rights-of-way or waterways,and similar features of man’s non-historically related development, approximating the original location of a historic route, such segments may be marked to facilitate retracement of the historic route, and where national historic trail parallels an existing public road, such road may be marked to commemorate the historic route. Other uses along the historic trails and the Continental DivideNational Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations,including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trail.14

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

“(2) At the time the Study Report was completed (1976), it was estimated that approximately 424 miles (14 percent) of existing primitive roads would be included in the proposed CDNST alignment.”15

While the CDT plan does recognize levels of roads utilization, the CDT plan does not specifically address the miles of multiple use trail that are aligned along the CDT. Rather than providing specific analysis of this usage, the CDT plan provides that trails adopted through the travel management process are an allowed usage of the CDT, providing as follows:

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

(1) Is necessary to meet emergencies;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6) In the case of over-snow vehicles, is allowed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C, on National Forest System lands or is allowed on public lands and the use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.”16

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

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

2d. NTSA management specifically requires a maximizing of economic benefits with is supplemented by relevant US Supreme Court rulings and Executive Orders mandate agencies balance management priorities based on the cost benefit analysis of the standard.

The implementation of a non-motorized Wilderness corridor around the CDT also gives rise to a wide range of issues when looked at from a cost-benefit perspective, which is made even more complex by the fact that the CDT runs through a wide range of lands, including public and private lands. TPA is also concerned that any heightening of the CDT management and a possible corridor around the trail as a management objective in the forest plan would be a difficult proposition when reviewed from a cost benefit analysis and against the maximization of multiple use benefits requirements of the NTSA.

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

“(9) the relative uses of the lands involved, including: the number of anticipated visitor-days for the entire length of, as well as for segments of, such trail; the number of months which such trail, or segments thereof, will be open for recreation purposes; the economic and social benefits which might accrue from alternate land uses; and the estimated man-years of civilian employment and expenditures expected for the purposes of maintenance, supervision, and regulation of such trail;”17 

While the Santa Fe has significant challenges facing all usage of the forest by the public, such as poor forest health, impacts of drought conditions and expanding visitation to the Santa Fe and continued strong demand for recreational opportunities, the CDT is a resource that is simply not used at a large enough scale by those seeking to exclude multiple uses to warrant directing extensive resources to revision of management efforts. A review of the Continental Divide Trail Coalition website reveals that approximately 2 dozen people traverse the entire CDT on an annual basis. 18 Unfortunately, this information is not broken down to more specific levels, such as usage of the CDT at state or forest levels. TPA can vigorously assert excluding multiple uses across a corridor for the benefit of as few as two dozen people is not maximizing economic and social benefits of these lands. Such as position simply lacks any factual basis.

As land managers are specifically required to compare the economic benefits of alternative uses of the trail and any possible corridor under both multiple use principals of planning and as more specifically directed by the NTSA, accurate economic analysis information is critically important to the decision-making process.Additional new research regarding the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce, prepared at the request of Department ofInterior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.19 This research also clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

Given the fact that significant portions of the CDT are primarily used for recreational purposes, the comparative spending profiles of recreational usage is highly important information. It hasbeenTPAexperience thatoften comparative data across user groups is very difficult to obtain.The USFS provided such data as part of Round 2of the National VisitorUse Monitoringprocessand those conclusions are as follows:

 

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity, $ per party per trip 2007

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

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

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

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

7e. A Cost/Benefit analysis of corridor management must also be addressed.

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

“And it is particularly so in an age of limited resources available to deal with grave environmental problems, where too much wasteful expenditure devoted to one problem may well mean considerably fewer resources available to deal effectively with other (perhaps more serious) problems.”21

Given this clear statement of concern over the wasteful expenditure of resources for certain activities or management decisions, TPA is very concerned regarding what could easily be the wasteful expenditure of resources for the benefit of what is a very small portion of the recreational community.

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

3. Conclusion

TPA is aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why is TPA concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

TPA is very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM. While corridors are immediately to be applied in the preferred alternative, at no point is there any analysis of possible impacts to existing usages is even mentioned despite numerous requirements in federal law requiring a specific review of these types of impacts.

TPA is pleased to have been provided this opportunity to provide input on the Santa Fe NF planning process and looks forward to working to resolve any issues as the plan moves forward.

Please feel free to contact either Don Riggle at 719-338-4106 or by mail at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs CO 80906 or Scott Jones, Esq at 518-281-5810 or by mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504 for copies of any documentation that is relied on in this appeal or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

 

See, USDA Forest Service andNew Mexico State Forest Service; New Mexico Forest Health Conditions; 2017 at pg.1.

2 See, USDA Forest Service- Selected provisions of draft Santa Fe NF Forest plan; released January 2017 at pgs. 71-72.

3 See, Draft Santa Fe Plan at pg. 46

4 See,2016 USFS CDT Guidance at Pg. 9–Senate Report No95-636, 1978 is not available to the public-when searched on the Congressional history the following report is provided: “As of 12/15/2017 the text of this report has not been received.”

See,HRep1631 at pg. 3873.

6 See,HRep1631 at pg. 3861.

7 See, HRep 1631 at pg. 3859.

8 See, HR 1631 at pg. 3873.

9 See, 2016 USFS CDT Guidance at pg. 1.

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

11 See, 16 USC 1246(b)(ii).

12 See, 16 USC 1246(j).

13 See,16 USC 1244(a)(5)

14 See,16 USC 1246(C) emphasis added.

15 See, USDA Forest Service; The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan; September 2009 at pg. 19.

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

17 See, 16 USC §1244(b)(9)

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

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

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

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

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Continue Reading

Continental Divide Recreation Wilderness and Camp Hale Act

Senator Michael Bennett
Att: John Whitney
835 East 2nd Ave, Suite 206
Durango, CO 81301

Congressman Jared Polis
Att: Nissa Ericson
PO Box 1453
Frisco, CO 80443

Re: Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Act

Dear Senator Bennett and Congressman Polis;
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above-referenced (Colorado Snowmobile Association, COHVCO, Trails Preservation Alliance) Organizations vigorously opposing the Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Act hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”. After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Additionally, frustrating these efforts is the fact that previous commitments made in previous Wilderness legislation in Congressman Polis office remain unfulfilled. The Organizations also still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

The Organizations have been visiting with your Office staff attempting to find some type of consensus position that we could support around these areas, but it appears those discussions have not been fruitful, as this version of the Proposal is the worst version of the Proposal the Organizations have seen in a long time. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

Before the Organizations address the specific impacts from the Proposal to recreational access in the Proposal area, the Organizations believe a review of four landscape level topics around Wilderness designations must be addressed as there is significant new research that weighs heavily against proposed designations and management restrictions. These four topics are:

  1. The imbalance of demand for Wilderness recreation with the opportunity provided in the planning area;
  2. The cost/benefit of providing recreational opportunities in the Proposal areas that have been heavily impacted by poor forest health;
  3. The inability to understand the management concerns that are driving the perceived need to designate these areas as Wilderness; and
  4. The significant negative economic impacts that result to local communities from Wilderness designations.

Prior to addressing our specific concerns around the Proposal, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization advocating for the approximately 200,000 registered OSV and OHV vehicle 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 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators. For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations”.

1a. National trail opportunities and trail visitation are badly out of balance.

Prior to addressing the specific negative impact to all recreational opportunities that would result from the Proposal at a site-specific level, the Organizations believe it is important to establish a strong factual foundation for our concerns regarding recreational impacts from any Legislation that restricts multiple use access on public lands. The Organizations believe that any legislation must be based on best available science for management of the area to ensure that balance of goals and objectives and opportunities is achieved in the Legislation.

The first new piece of science and analysis that must be addressed in the Proposal is the imbalance in the opportunity to use trails in Wilderness when compared to the demand for these opportunities. The US Forest Service recently updated its National Trail mileage allocation, which is reflected in the chart below1:

 

Our concerns regarding the imbalance in miles of routes and possible impacts from any further expansion of routes in Wilderness are based on a comparison of the 20% of all trails are currently in Congressionally Wilderness, which is badly out of balance with the levels of visitation to these areas on the national level. In 2016, the US Forest Service research indicates that while 20% of all trail mileage is located in a Wilderness area, these routes are visited by only 4% of all USFS visitors.2  The Organizations simply do not believe that expanding this imbalance any further makes sense from a management perspective as 96% of a USFS are being forced to recreate on a smaller and smaller portion of forests (80%). The Organizations believe this simply makes little sense as land managers should be seeking to provide the best opportunity for the largest percentage of visitors as all visitors to public lands should be treated equally. Additionally, with this inability to disperse use, impacts at developed sites will continue as more of the public will be forced to recreate on smaller and smaller portions of public lands in the Proposal area.

1b. Local opportunities and visitation for trails is even more out of balance than nationally.

When USFS research is reviewed to determine recreational visitation to the land management offices involved in the Proposal area, it is determined that 3.4% of all visitors to the White River National Forest reported visiting a Congressionally Designated Wilderness area,3 despite more than 750,000 acres of the White River NF 2.3 million acres (32%) being currently designated as Wilderness areas.4 This low level of visitation to the White River National Forest is compounded by the fact that the WRNF has several Wilderness areas that are experiencing exceptionally high levels of visitation, such as the Maroon Bells. In order to balance this relationship, the Organizations submit there has to be large numbers of Wilderness areas designated on the WRNF that see almost no visitation throughout the year. As a result, the Organizations must question any factual basis that would assert recreational benefits from the Proposal, as currently there is almost twice the National average for Wilderness recreational opportunities but the usage of these opportunities is well below the National average.

The imbalance in winter recreational opportunities on the White River National Forest are even more of a concern, as the WRNF recently concluded that only 7% of the forest was identified as suitable and available for OSV travel. As a result of the small portion of the forest that is even available, any lost opportunity areas are VERY difficult for the snowmobile community to accept as they only have a small portion of the forest even available. While only 7% of the WRNF was available for OSV travel, significant portions of the WRNF are already unsuitable for OSV usage due to existing Wilderness designations on more than 34% of the WRNF.

Given the current imbalance of recreational demand with opportunities, both nationally and locally, the Organizations must question any assertion of a recreational benefit that could result from the Proposal, as currently these types of opportunities are horribly out of balance in the planning area when the supply of routes and trails is compared to the exceptionally low visitation overall. Rather that expanding opportunities for recreation on the forest, the Proposal would result in an even greater imbalance in usage than is currently on the WRNF.

1c. Forest Health, Recreation and Trails.

The Organizations are very concerned about the general scientific basis for the designation of the areas as Wilderness, as we are generally unsure of what management concerns are believed to be the basis for the special designations. Without a clear management need, any discussion around the designations is difficult at best and the Organizations must question why such management changes would be undertaken. Our research indicates that the areas proposed for some type of Wilderness or Special Management Area type authority are some of the hardest hit areas in the nation when forest health issues are addressed. That weighs heavily in our position against the Proposal. The expanded management restrictions that would result from the Proposal would prohibit the treatment of more than 7,000 acres of suitable timber that exist on slopes of less than 40%. These treatments could quickly mitigate fire risks in these areas and speed restoration of these acres to healthy and vibrant habitat for a wide range of species. These negative impacts should not be overlooked.

The Organizations are aware that both Senator Bennet and Congressman Polis have been very supportive of federal actions to address poor forest health conditions in Colorado, such as Senator Bennet championing of wide revisions to USFS contracting authority to address forest health issues in the 2012 Farm Bill and Congressman Polis vigorous support of efforts to move firefighting budgets out of the USFS budget and into FEMA management. The Organizations vigorously support and appreciate these efforts but must ask why this issue and concerns expressed in other legislation have not been addressed with the creation of the Proposal in order to minimize possible conflict between management guidance that is provided in these pieces of legislation.

The scale of the management challenge surrounding poor forest health is an issue where significant new research has been provided by land managers seeking to address this issue, and the conclusions of this research provide a compelling basis to avoid further management challenges on this issue. In 2015, the USFS recently completed research projecting the impacts of poor forest health on the national forests over the next 25 years and unfortunately, the federal resources in the state of Colorado did very poorly in this analysis as:

  • the State of Colorado was identified as 5th in the country in terms of acres at risk due to poor forest health5;
  • both Rocky Mountain National Park and Great Sand Dunes NP were both identified two of the hardest hit national parks in the Country6; and
  • Colorado National Forests dominated the list of those forests hardest hit by poor forest health in the country as 5 of the top 7 hardest hit forests are immediately adjacent to the areas to be designated as Wilderness.7

It is unfortunate that Colorado does so well in these types of comparisons and analysis and the Organizations submit Colorado must be striving to resolve these issues rather than making these challenges more difficult. This type of research provides significant credible foundation for serious concern around a scientific basis for the Proposal. There appears to be significant conflicts.

Newly released Colorado State Forest Service research provides the following graphical representation of the poor forest health in the vicinity of the proposed Wilderness and management areas as follows:

Mountain Pine Beetle map

 

The Organizations believe that the poor forest health throughout the western United States is the single largest challenge facing public lands in our generation. While this outbreak has had horrible impacts to a wide range of activities on public lands, there is a small benefit to the current situation. At least we are aware what the single largest management challenge for our generation should be, which is how to we respond to this issue in a cost effective and timely manner. Given that the areas proposed to be managed as Wilderness or other special management designation are in the hardest hit areas in the state for tree mortality, the Organizations believe that the first question with any legislative action must be:

“How does this Legislation streamline land managers ability to respond to the poor forest health issues in the area?”

The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal is a major step in the wrong direction when addressing the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health concerns in these areas, as rather than streamlining the response to poor forest health issues, most areas are functionally precluded from management. Even where management is allowed the Proposal, the Proposal would result in another layer of NEPA analysis that would need to be completed prior to any management of the issue. Requiring yet another layer of NEPA from land managers who are seeking to address this issue makes little sense and the abnormally severe wildfires that result from poor forest health often render recreational access to burn areas unavailable for decades. Many of the routes impacted by the 2002 Hayman fire have only been recently reopened and many of the routes impacted by the Waldo Canyon Fire will remain closed for many years to come.

While the graphical representation of the poor forest health in the area of the Proposal is compelling the scope of these impacts is even more compelling when reviewed in terms of the sheer scale of the issue. The new research was specifically addressed in the 2016 Colorado State Forest Service’s annual forest health report. The highlights of the 2016 report addressing the sheer scale of impacts are as follows:

  • 8% of ALL trees in Colorado are dead and the rate of mortality is increasing;9
  • the total number of dead trees has increased 30% in the last 8 years;10
  • Research has shown that in mid-elevation forests on Colorado’s Front Range,hillslope sediment production rates after recent, high-severity wildfire can be upto 200 times greater than for areas burned at moderate to low severity.11
  • A 2011 study involved monthly monitoring of stream chemistry and sediment inSouth Platte River tributaries before and after fire and showed that basins thatburned at high severity on more than 45 percent of their area had streamscontaining four times the amount of suspended sediments as basins burned lessseverely. This effect also remained for at least five years post-fire.12
  • High-severity wildfires responsible for negative outcomes are more common inunmanaged forests with heavy fuel loads than in forests that have experiencednaturally recurrent, low-intensity wildfires or prior forest treatments, such asthinning. It is far easier to keep water in a basin clean, from the source headwatersand through each usage by recipients downstream, than to try and restore waterquality once it is degraded.13
  • During 2016’s Beaver Creek Fire, which burned 38,380 acres northwest ofWalden, foresters and firefighters were given a glimpse into likely futurechallenges facing wildfire suppression and forest management efforts. Theseinclude longer duration wildfires due to the amount and arrangement of heavyfuels. Observations from fire managers indicated that instead of small brancheson live trees, the larger, dead fuels in jackstraw stands were the primary driver offire spread…. “The hazards and fire behavior associated with this fuel type greatly reduce where firefighters can safely engage in suppression operations”14

The concerns raised in the Colorado State Forest Service research are by no means an anomaly. Wilderness and improperly managed Roadless areas were previously identified by the Forest Service as a significant factor contributing to and limiting the ability to manage the mountain pine beetle epidemic and poor overall forest health. The 2011 USFS research prepared at the request of then Senator Mark Udall’s office on this issue clearly concludes as follows:

“The factors that limited access to many areas for treatments to maintain forest stands—steep slopes, adjacency to inventoried roadless areas, prohibition of mechanical treatments in designated wilderness—are still applicable today.”15

The Udall Forest Health report continues on this issue as follows:

“•Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as Wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).”16

This report is not discussed at length in these comments as previous comments have addressed this report. Since the release of this Forest Service report, additional Colorado Forest Service researchers have reached the same conclusions as the USFS Research Station did in the Udall Forest Health Report. The Colorado State Forest Service’s 2011 Forest Health report specifically identifies a major contributing factor to the spruce beetle outbreak as:

“Outbreaks typically occur several years after storms cause windthrow in spruce trees, which are susceptible to blowdown because of their shallow root system. Spruce beetles initially breed in the freshly windthrown trees, and subsequent generations attack and kill live, standing trees.”17

The lack of access to Wilderness areas to manage blow down areas is specifically identified as a major limitation in forest managers ability to address spruce beetle outbreak. These blow downs are directly identified as causing the spruce beetle outbreaks. The 2011 State Forest Service report specifically states:

“Many areas where spruce beetle outbreaks occur are remote, inaccessible or in designated wilderness areas. Therefore, in most cases, foresters can take little or no action to reduce losses caused by this aggressive bark beetle. However, individual trees can be protected on some landscapes.”18

The Organizations must note the 2011 State Forest Service report extensively discussed how EVERY major spruce beetle outbreak in the state of Colorado was associated with a major wind event in a Wilderness area, which could not be managed by foresters due to Wilderness designations. Given the clear conclusions of best available science, that Wilderness and other management restrictions are contributing to and limiting the ability of land managers to respond to the single largest management challenge that will be experienced in our generation, the Organizations must question why such a decision to further limit the authority of land managers to respond to this challenge would ever be made. Such a position would not be based on best available science.

1c. Wildlife habitat is degraded when management authority is restricted.

The Organizations are aware that generalized statements that the Proposal would improve wildlife habitat in the areas have been relied on previously, but the Organizations are not aware of any scientific basis for such a position. The Organizations are concerned about wildlife impacts due to the fact that many of our members are hunters and fisherman and directly benefit from healthy wildlife populations in the area. In addition to these consumptive wildlife concerns, many of the public are non-consumptive users of the large wildlife populations in the Proposal area and are provided a superior recreational experience from the large and healthy wildlife populations in the proposal area. The Organizations would also note that the delisting of any endangered or threatened species is often heavily reliant on a stable and healthy habitat for the species, and this is not provided by lands heavily impacted by poor forest health issues.

The Organizations wish to highlight several new pieces of research that address the need for active management of public lands and the need for a healthy forest for wildlife in the planning area. In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released its State Wildlife Action Plan(“SWAP”), which provided a brief summary of the challenges facing species of conservation concern and threatened and endangered species in the State of Colorado. The SWAP provides the following summary of the impacts to wildlife at the landscape level from poor forest health:

“Timber harvesting within lodgepole pine at the appropriate sites and scale is needed to maintain pure lodgepole pine stands for lodgepole obligate wildlife species. Continuing to increase stand heterogeneity to reduce large, continuous even-aged stands will help reduce risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and large-scale pine beetle outbreaks in the future.”19

In addition to the above quote addressing the landscape level concerns around poor forest health, more than a dozen species are identified where the degradation of habitat due to beetle kill was specifically identified as a significant threat to the species.20 These types of concerns and impacts are simply not resolved with additional restrictions on the ability of land managers to respond to the forest health challenges. Management must remain on target in addressing these challenges in order to respond to these unprecedented tasks in the most cost effective and timely manner possible.

In addition to the newly released SWAP, significant new research has been provided that clearly identifies the need to address poor forest health concerns for many other species. Forest fires have been identified as a major threat to habitat for the Endangered Colorado Cutthroat trout, both during the fire itself and from the condition of riparian area after a fire. The Forest Service species conservation report specifically states:

“Lack of connectivity to other populations renders them vulnerable in the short term to extirpation from natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods….”21

The Conservation Report also noted the significant impact that woody matter has on the cutthroat trout habitat. The Conservation Report notes the impact of fire and insect infestation are both major impacts on woody matters stating:

“large wood (also known as coarse woody debris) plays a dominant role in many montane streams where greenback cutthroat trout persist. Deposition of large wood affects sediment scour and deposition, energy dissipation, and channel form (Montgomery et al. 2003), and creates pools, stores spawning gravels, affords overhead cover, and provides refuge during high flows…… Inputs of large wood are controlled by a variety of processes. Mass mortality of riparian stands from fire, insect damage, or wind is important sources.” 22

Fire is specifically identified as a disturbance that results in trout habitat being unsuitable for centuries, stating:

“In particular, disturbances that dramatically alter channels or riparian zones—debris torrents…and severe fires—will change the discharge-sediment transport regime, re-set forest succession and large wood dynamics, and redistribute suitable and unsuitable habitat in a basin, sometimes for decades or centuries…”23

This research notes the significant difference in impact to the cutthroat trout between conditions existing before the fire, during the fire and after the fires that are now occurring at unprecedented levels from the poor forest health existing in Colorado Forests. Given that the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is one of dozens of fish species currently at risk due to the poor forest health on the WRNF, the Organizations submit best available science for species management weighs heavily against any expansion of Wilderness like management in the planning area.

2a. Existing recreational opportunities would be exceptionally impacted due to extensive restrictions on how basic maintenance of routes may be performed in new Wilderness areas.

Given the Proposal asserts to be driven by recreational interests, the Organizations believe this issue warrants a more complete review and analysis of impacts and benefits from the Legislation at a more localized level than the national update on recreation that was previously provided. This is another issue where the benefits of the Legislation are unclear. While the benefits are unclear, the significant negative impacts are immediately clear as any efforts to provide basic maintenance and management of existing opportunities in the areas where Wilderness management is expanded become far more difficult and available funding is significantly diminished.

It has been the Organizations experience that land managers are struggling badly with providing basic maintenance and safe access to existing recreational opportunities in the planning area even when mechanical means and tools are available to maintain these areas. This is simply due to the large number of falling trees, that block or otherwise routes in the area. As the Organizations have previously noted, Colorado is some of the hardest hit areas in the Country in terms of poor forest health and logic would conclude that recreational management challenges would also be the largest in Colorado in allowing recreational usage of beetle kill areas. The challenge is immense even with the most advanced mechanical maintenance equipment available and is realistically beyond cost effective management without mechanical maintenance equipment.

While the Organizations are aware that stating the challenges facing managers relating to recreational routes and facilities are immense has some level of value, there is also no replacement for hard numbers when assessing impacts. New research has been performed by the USFS in the State of California regarding the scope of the challenges facing land managers in maintaining recreation on three Southern California Forests heavily impacted by poor forest health. The USFS conclusions on these forests are as follows:

 

Preliminary Estimates14

The Organizations believe any assertion that maintenance of existing recreational opportunities and resources encompassing more than 4,000 miles of roads and trails and 141 recreational facilities impacted by poor forest health without mechanical assistance would lack factual or rational basis. This type of challenge is even more difficult in Colorado as research previously identified finds that Colorado forests are significantly harder hit than the three forests in California that are the target of the above research. The Organizations are intimately aware that existing resources for maintenance of recreation facilities and routes in Colorado struggle badly to maintain opportunities with mechanical resources and management being allowed.

In this situation the Organizations must question why streamlining the land managers ability to provide safe high-quality recreational opportunities is not the priority of the Legislation. Instead of streamlining efforts, the Legislation provides a new and significant barrier to land managers responding to the issue. The Organizations are aware of the arguable authority for the Secretary to allow for mechanized treatment of forest health issues in the small portion of new Wilderness areas to be designated in §3c of the Proposal. The Organizations concerns on this issue are twofold:

  1. This type of analysis will require at least a round of environmental analysis to be performed and based on discussions around this type of management flexibility the Organizations can say with a high level of certainty that the environmental review process will be exceptionally difficult; and
  2. We are not aware of a single acre of Wilderness in Colorado that has been mitigated under similar provisions of the Wilderness Act.

As a result, the Organizations are opposed to the designations of areas under §3c and related provisions of the Proposal, despite the arguable authority to act, as the action would be both more expensive and has functioned as a complete barrier to action as this authority has never been used in Colorado.

Given the poor track record of mechanical treatment being allowed to protect recreational opportunities in Colorado Wilderness areas, the Organizations believe a review of the means of maintenance actually on the ground is warranted. While these comments are centering on the maintenance impacts from poor forest health, there are numerous other issues in providing basic maintenance such as rock removal, which in a Wilderness must be done by hand instead of mechanized equipment and simply transporting equipment to sites, which must be done by hikers or horseback instead of with trucks and trailers. This review is needed in order to fully understand the basis of our concerns around overall impacts to recreation and federal budgets that are required to fund maintenance with exceptionally expensive methods.

The most common manner of removing downed trees or hazard trees in a Wilderness based recreation area of Colorado is with a large crosscut saw operated by two people such as that pictured below: 25

two people sawing

 

Removing a tree such as that pictured above could be achieved in under an hour with mechanical means, but a similar removal could easily take all day without mechanical assistance. While a manual cross cut saw might be able to deal with isolated trees, such as these pictured above, the removal of hazard trees such as those photographed below are far more problematic.

Man by tree over creek

The ability to safely removal a tree blocking a route in the manner pictured above is difficult even with mechanized assistance but becomes far more concerning when hand tools must be used simply due to the extended amount of time sawyers must be in proximity to the hanging tree and the fact that twice as many sawyers are needed for the removal of the tree. Even when dealing with an isolated tree crossing a trail, costs and risks associated with basic maintenance are greatly increased with the prohibition of mechanical upkeep.

While there are concerns about the safety and cost of maintenance of Wilderness routes on a per tree level, concerns are expounded when maintenance is needed around larger wind events or larger scale tree fall issues such as those now commonly seen in beetle kill areas in the state. As a result of the serious limitations on how basic maintenance can be performed for major events like the blowdown that is currently blocking all public access to the Hunts Lake Trail on the Pike San Isabel photographed below are almost prohibitions on reopening routes:

Hunts Lake Trail Logout

Reopening of the Hunts Lake Trail would be a significant challenge with mechanized assistance but removing this number of downed trees without mechanical assistance would result in something that is a significant challenge to a project that might easily take months or years of effort if weather was uncooperative. Ignoring these types of on the ground impacts from expansion of management restrictions from the Proposal makes little sense and erodes any basis for claiming recreational benefits from the Proposal. There is simply limited funding available for recreation and that money must be applied in the most effective manner possible to protect existing recreational opportunities both inside and outside of Congressionally Designated Wilderness areas.

2b. Trail maintenance resources are greatly reduced in Wilderness areas.

As the Organizations have noted already, costs associated with basic maintenance of recreation facilities and opportunities are significantly increased with any Wilderness designations. Based on the Organizations experiences with the Colorado State Trails Programs grants, these costs are consistently identified as being something to a factor of 100x the cost of mechanized trail maintenance in grant applications to partner programs. The average mechanized maintenance crew can easily clear and maintain 100 to 200 miles of trail per year, while similar levels of funding and partner efforts utilizing non-mechanized means can only address 1-2 miles of trail per year. The cost benefit relationship is simply not comparable.

In addition to the exponentially increased costs of maintenance for recreational opportunities in Wilderness area, the amount of funding that is available for maintenance is greatly reduced. The USFS estimates the $4.3 million in funding available from the State of Colorado’s voluntary OHV registration program almost doubles the amount of funding available for summer recreational maintenance programs as follows:

Rocky Mountain Region Trails Budget26

This disparity of funding is even more problematic when the more than $1.5 million in additional maintenance funding that results from the Colorado Voluntary Snowmobile Registration Program is included in this equation.

The direct impacts of this funding are:

  1. EVERY Ranger District in the State of Colorado has access to a well-equipped trail maintenance crew funded by the voluntary OHV tax on a prioritized basis;
  2. Most ranger districts have a dedicated motorized trail crew for summer maintenance
  3. Most Ranger Districts also a winter maintenance crew from snowmobile registration funds.

While these teams have been hugely successful, their effectiveness is limited by available funding limits and when existing resources are used for maintenance in ways that are 100x less effective it impairs recreational experiences for all the public, not just those choosing Wilderness based recreation. The availability of these crews directly contrary to the national situation facing the forest service where most Ranger Districts have no maintenance crews at all. The Organizations believe that any legislation addressing recreational access and maintenance must be looking at how to making existing funding go further, rather than making existing funding less effective by a factor of almost 100, as is the result of Wilderness recreation.

Why are the economic resources available for maintenance of Wilderness recreation a concern for the Organizations, as our activities have been prohibited? While the voluntary OHV and snowmobile funds greatly expand the resources that are available to land managers for maintenance of facilities outside Wilderness areas, these resources are often leveraged with USFS budgets for maintenance of these areas. When the match to the funds provided through the voluntary OHV funds is asked to become less effective by a factor of as much as 100 for the benefit of less than 4% of all visitors to USFS land, the Organizations are immediately concerned that the match to the OHV program funds will be reduced. This reduction is concerning as no additional benefit is achieved with these funds but resources being leveraged for maintenance outside Wilderness are significantly reduced and the Organizations are intimately aware that these funds are often stretched very thin already. This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations.

3.Economics of Wilderness Recreation.

The Organizations are aware that many counties in the vicinity have moved away from the dark economic times that plagued them several years ago, as exemplified by Summit County Colorado identification as number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list of 21st Century Ghost Towns.27

Unfortunately many communities outside the direct influence of ski area-based revenue continue to struggle and overly rely on recreational opportunities to provide basic services to residents. Many of these communities might include Redcliffe, Leadville, Birdseye or Alma as examples. Given the importance of recreation to these communities and many of our members that live in these communities, the Organizations believe a brief update of the economic impacts to these communities that resulted from the Proposal is warranted. Significant new information identifies the strong negative relationship between Wilderness designations and local economic activity involving recreation.

The first piece of new scientific research is the local economic information from USFS, as part of their “at a glance” summaries for the White River National Forest, which identifies the overwhelming importance that recreation plays in the success of local communities. The USFS summarizes their conclusions in the following graphs28:

Economic Contribution by Program - avg annual jobs Economic Contribution by Program - labor income

It is difficult to understate the importance of the economic contribution of recreational activity to local communities, when the USFS estimates that the economic benefits of recreation outpace all other usages combined by a factor of more than 12.

New research highlighting the economic importance of multiple use recreation to the recreational spending benefits flowing to local communities comes from research from the Department of Commerce. This analysis was prepared at the request of Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewel in 2012, addressing the importance of recreational spending in the Gross Domestic Product.29 This research clearly identified the important role that motorized access plays in recreational spending, which is summarized in the following chart:

Gross Output for Selected Conventional Outdoor Recreation Activities 2016

This research concludes that motorized recreation outpaces the economic contribution of boating and fishing at almost twice the rate and that motorized recreation almost outspends all other categories of recreation combined. Given that motorized usage plays major roles in both the hunting and fishing economic analysis, the three largest components of economic benefit from recreational activity would be prohibited in a Wilderness area. As a result of the overwhelming nature of these conclusions, the Organizations have to express serious concerns when the lion’s share of economic drivers are excluded from using any portion of public lands as clearly economic benefits are limited. The negative economic impact concerns regarding degrading multiple use access are immediately apparent.

The risk of negative economic impacts is also highlighted in newly released research from the US Forest Service, which estimates that recreation on National Forest Service Lands accounts for more than $13.6 billion in spending annually.30 Experts estimate that recreational spending related to Wilderness areas accounts for only 5% of that total spending or approximately $700,000 million nationally. 31 The limited economic driver of Wilderness based recreation is compounded by the fact that more than 20% of the trail network that is currently located on USFS lands is within Wilderness areas. Again, this type of underutilization of any recreational resource is concerning to the Organizations simply because of the allocation of the resources and funding.

The basis for the economic underutilization of Wilderness based recreational resources is easily identifiable when the USFS comparisons for economic activity of recreational users is compared. This research is summarized below:32

Table 3. Visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity, $ per party per trip 2007

We will not be addressing this research at length as we have included this analysis in our previous comments on earlier versions of this legislation, other than to note the conclusions of this research are consistent with conclusions that high spending user groups, such as snowmobile and OHV users are consistently excluded from Wilderness areas, while low spending groups such as cross-country skiers and hiker are permitted in these areas. Given the fact that low spending profile users are often spending only 20% of higher spending profile groups, these conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of both the Department of Commerce and new USFS research.

While the imbalance in spending profiles is problematic, the fact that once Wilderness is designated the general public fails to use the limited recreational opportunities in these areas is even more concerning. Nationally, Congressionally designated Wilderness accounts for approximately 19% of USFS lands but results in only 3.4% of all visitor days.33 In the State of Colorado, there is approximately 22% of USFS lands managed as Wilderness34 but despite the expanded opportunity results in only 3.4% of visitor days on the White River National Forest.35 As we have noted in previous comments there are significant declines over time in the visitation to and demand for Wilderness based recreational experiences. Given the significant underutilization of Wilderness resources in the area of the Proposal, the Organizations must vigorously assert that any economic risk is significantly negative and must be addressed or at least recognized by the communities in the vicinity of the Proposal areas.

4.Most areas proposed to be Wilderness in the Legislation were found unsuitable fordesignation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored. Extensive inventories of areas were provided as part of development of the Roadless Rule to ensure that best available information about the area was also relied on in the inventory process. As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now proposed to be Wilderness or the subject of other exclusionary management standard were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development. Every area proposed to be Wilderness was found suitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago.

In the Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas. In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility. Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below. The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventory are reflected in the map below:

Map Key   Eagles Nest map

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now proposed to be Wilderness was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for this lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation. In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided. The Organizations must question any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness designations, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier designation. Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development.

5. Site-Specific Concerns.

The Organizations are providing the following site-specific comments to address the significant lost recreational opportunities that would immediately occur with the passage of the Proposal. The Organizations are opposed to the loss of these opportunities for the following reasons:

  1. There is simply no offsetting protection or release of recreational areas frompossible Wilderness designations in other parts of the Legislation;
  2. Only a small portion of the WRNF is even suitable or available for multiple userecreation as exemplified by the fact that only 7% of the WRNF is suitable andavailable for OSV travel; and
  3. These are important recreational opportunities that are heavily used due tolimited opportunities in the Proposal area.

The Organizations believe the source of the following maps and information is highly relevant as each of the summer Motor Vehicle Use Maps is highlighted to identify lost trail networks reflects current management on that Ranger District and the Winter OSV Suitability information comes from the White River National Forest recent Winter Travel Planning Process. On the winter suitability maps, green areas are designated for open winter usage, and pink areas are future expansion areas for OSV travel, where travel is currently restricted to designated routes in the area. OSV closure areas are identified in tan, but no portion of the Proposal area lies outside existing Wilderness in areas which are closed to OSV travel.

5(a). Ptarmigan Peak (§3a1) & Williams Fork (§4) & Williams Fork Wildlife Conservation Area (§7)

The Organizations are opposed to the lost opportunities in the Williams Fork WCA, Ptarmigan Peak and Williams Fork Wilderness additions due to the loss of more than 20,000 acres of motorized recreational areas. This closure would include the loss of a significant number of miles of heavily used currently authorized summer trail in these areas, as exemplified by the Cow Creek North and South networks immediately outside the Cow Creek and other campgrounds immediately adjacent to the trailheads, Route 2950.5a coming over from the ARNF and Route 2840. The entire area is also a future expansion area for OSV travel and also includes a significant important open riding area.

 

2014 Summer MVUM
2014 Summer MVUM

Ptarmigan Peak (§3a1) & Williams Fork (§4) & Williams Fork Wildlife Conservation Area (§7)
WRNF Winter OSV suitability 

 

Management under the Poposal
Management under the Proposal

The Organizations must specifically mention that the alleged benefit that is asserted to be provided in the Williams Fork WCA is of no value to the multiple use commuity, as this alleged benefit is a ceiling for mileage and routes in the area created in §7b1 of the Proposal. Unfortunately, there is no corresponding floor for trail mileage in the areas, and such a mileage floor would be highly valued by the Organizations. As a result, no additional routes can ever be built in these areas but all routes in the area could be lost. The Organizations must question any assertion of value to mutiple use interests from these provisions, as the Organizations are simply unable to find the asserted benefit. With designation of these areas under the Proposal, signficiant negative imapcts to existing recreational access would occur.

The Organizations are also very concerned with setting a precedent allowing for the automatic change of an area to Wilderness with the mere passage of time. The Organizations are not aware of any precedent for automatic change of lands to Wilderness designation merely with the passage of time. Adopting such a principal could set a dangerous precedent moving forward and the Proposal provides no requirement that mitigation measures be completed prior to moving to the Wilderness designation. Mitigation measures can frequently take more than the 10 years to complete but the Proposal allows for a mere 180 day period for inventory and analysis of this issue. This is problematic and would result in significant new analysis to be undertaken by land managers that are already struggling to provide for basic operations due to limited budgets and funding.

The Organizations would note that pursuant to §3e the Colorado Wilderness Act of 199336 that designated the Ptarmigan Peak area as Wilderness, there were to be “no buffer zones” around the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness. Despite the clear direction of this Legislation, discussions have continued about expanding the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness since the passage of the 1993 Legisaltion. This exemplifies why the Organizations place little value in the “no buffer” provisions in the current Propsoal, as this discussion highlights the fact these provisions are some of the most ingored provisions of federal law ever passed.

5(b). No Name Wilderness – §3a23

The adoption of the Proposed management in the No Name area would result in the immediate loss of more than 3,900 acres of future OSV expansion area. While no routes would be immediately lost for summer travel, the Organizations have significant long-term concerns due to proximity of the existing routes to new Wilderness areas. It has been the Organizations such proximity never resolves management issues for the areas but rather creates conflict due to the fact that those seeking the solitude of the Wilderness immediately raise user conflict concerns due to the proximity of multiple use. While the Proposal does provide for “no buffers” in management, but in other areas where no buffers have been provided such protections have been completely useless in addressing user conflict and future expansions. Our concerns with no buffer type legislation are identified previously.

Came Hale Inset

2014 Summer MVUM

Eagle Co/Lake Co map

Winter OSV suitability currently

 No Name Addition map

Management under the Proposal

The Organizations are opposed to this portion of the Proposal as the entire No Name area is a winter expansion area for OSV travel and would convert FSR703, which is currently a groomed route through an important open riding area to a cherry stem into an important OSV area for winter usage as there would now be Wilderness on both sides of the route. That would put the route and inholding of open riding area in the Wilderness immediately at risk due to the conflicts in usage of the area. That is simply unacceptable.

Summer motorized recreation would also be significantly put at risk from these new Wilderness areas, as FSR703 is the Holy Cross City route that is consistently identified as one of the top ten OHV routes in the country. While all routes are important to the multiple use community, the value of the Holy Cross City route to especially the full size 4×4 community cannot be overstated. Additionally, the eastern boundary of the No Name expansion area is a currently designated summer route and expanding the boundary to the route would result in immediate conflict between usages on that route. Given the value of these routes, any new Wilderness could never be supported in these areas due to possible challenges to these routes in the future. Again, a “no buffer” type protections do not resolve that type of concern in the least and there is no benefit in other areas to arguably even discuss a risk to important routes that could result from the passage of the Proposal.

5(c). Hoosier Ridge Wilderness(§3a24)

The Organizations are again concerned regarding the long-term opportunities in this area due to proximity of the Proposed Wilderness to heavily used areas immediately surrounding the Hoosier Ridge Wilderness area, including opportunities on both the Dillon and the South Park Ranger Districts generally surrounding the Boreas Pass Area. These adjacent areas are represented in the MVUM identified below:

Dillon rd map
2014 Summer MVUM- Dillon RD

South park rd
2014 Summer MVUM – South Park RD

current osv suitability

Current OSV Suitability

Boreas Pass area is a major multiple use summer destination area. Given the proximity of the expanded Wilderness boundary to highly used routes, conflict between these uses would be a concern. Again, “no buffer” language has proven to be highly ineffective in addressing these types of concerns previously. Our concerns about the Hoosier Ridge area are compounded by the fact that the Pennsylvania Gulch area, immediately to the north of the Hoosier Ridge area is again another important future expansion area for OSV travel that possess exceptionally high-quality riding opportunities that could not be put at risk with a Wilderness expansion into areas adjacent to Pennsylvania Gulch.

5(d). Spraddle Creek Wilderness area additions -§3(a) (26)

The Spraddle Creek Wilderness contains an extensive high-quality summer trail network for motorized and bicycle community centered around FSR 700/719 that would be lost with passage of the Proposal. These are important routes due to their proximity to local population centers.

Red Sandstone Inset map
2014 Summer MVUM

Current Snowmobile Suitability
Current Snowmobile Suitability

Management under the Proposal
Management under the Proposal

The potential Spraddle Creek Wilderness represents an important open riding snowmobile opportunity area that would be lost immediately in addition to the future expansion areas for OSV travel. Many OSV users believe that closure of the eastern portions this area in recent travel planning was due to 10th mtn. hut in area. Almost all 10th mtn. division huts now have a buffer area, as a result of recent planning which has resulted in the long-term loss of motorized opportunities around huts. Users are very sensitive to additional lost opportunity around any of the huts. Additionally, the snowmobile community worked hard with the USFS in recent planning to establish a boundary that was easily enforceable in the area for snowmobile usage (currently on top of a cliff). Expanding the Wilderness would again move the boundary into an area where enforcement would be difficult at best and probably result in a large amount of conflict and enforcement expense.

Expansion of Wilderness in this area could prohibit OSV usage connecting Spraddle Creek area to Spring Creek groomed network north of Eagles Nest Wilderness. This type of a connection was left as a long-term option in the recent travel plan for the area. We understand there is some conflict over exact location of Wilderness boundary and any groomed route developed in the area in the future. This is a major concern as any possible routes that could connect the areas are limited due to rugged topography of the area. A connection of Spraddle Creek and Spring Creek areas would be highly valued by OSV community as currently Spring Creek trailhead is a lengthy drive (more than 1 hour) on US 9 north of Frisco. With this connection, access to the Spring Creek area would be a short drive outside Frisco.

Expansion of the Spraddle Creek Wilderness areas would result in the immediate loss of motorized routes 786 and 719 that currently exist in the area and dead-end at two scenic overlooks. With the addition of the Spraddle Creek Wilderness access to these overlooks would be lost and 786 and 719 outside the Wilderness would be at risk for closure moving forward as these trails would now just dead-end at the Wilderness boundary. We are concerned that the proximity of a possible groomed route/existing designated summer route and this Wilderness boundary. Our concern is the expanded boundary would result in significant conflict between users and also present a major management issue for the USFS due to increased signage etc. The close proximity of these management areas has resulted in significant conflict in other areas and as we have expressed previously, the Organizations have SERIOUS concerns about the effectiveness of “no buffer” type management standards.

5(e). Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation area – §4

The Organizations are simply flabbergasted that the 8,176 acres identified as the Porcupine Gulch Protection area is being proposed for loss to multiple use recreation, as this area was recently the basis of a multiple year collaborative process involving the USFS, Summit County Commissioners, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Hikers, Mountain Bikers, Wilderness Advocates, Colorado Mountain Club, the Quiet Use coalition, local land owners and motorized users. This multiple year collaborative effort resulted in a consensus position regarding the future management of the area identified as the Tenderfoot Trail Proposal, which was then moved forward with minimal public opposition or concern. In addition to these active participants the Organizations recall those proceedings moving forward with the support of both Senator Bennett and Congressman Polis offices.

Porcupine Gulch WCA map

All detailed information regarding the Tenderfoot Trail project can be found here
https://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34502

Subsequent to the finalization of the EA for this project in 2012, more than 30 miles of trails have been closed and rehabilitated, 11 miles of sustainable single track were created and extensive new parking has resulted from the almost $1 million in partner grant funding that has been provided to implement the Tenderfoot Plan. This trail proposal has become a shining success story in the area and a model for resolving contentious planning issues in high use areas. Despite the success of the Tenderfoot project, the Porcupine WCA proposes to prohibit motorized and mechanized travel in the area. That is simply offensive to the collaborative process that has been undertaken and would provide a significant barrier to such collaborative efforts ever being undertaken again in the future.

5(f). Camp Hale National Historic Landscape §8

While the Organizations welcome the heightened importance of identification and removal of unexploded ordinance in the proposed Camp Hale National Historic Landscape provisions and that OSV usage is at least identified as a characteristic of the area, there is no additional protection of existing OSV usage provided in the Legislation. The Organizations simply cannot support identification of basic safety concerns in the area and then not providing protections of existing recreational access to the area.

In addition to providing no protection for OSV usage in the Camp Hale area, the Proposal provides no recognition of the important multiple use summer trail opportunities is provided for in the Legislation despite the extensive trail network that is currently authorized in the Camp Hale area.

2014 MVUM
2014 MVUM

OSV Suitability and groomed routes
OSV Suitability and groomed routes

Clearly removal of unexploded ordinance could result in conflict between mitigation activities and recreational usage of trails in the vicinity of these activities. With the statutory elevation of ordinance removal for safety reasons, the Organizations can clearly see recreational access being put at risk at least during the term of removal. Managers could easy prohibit access after running out of funding to undertake the ordinance remediation in the area simply to attempt to comply with safety-based provisions of the Legislation. This is simply unacceptable as both short and long-term access to the area must be identified and protected and has not been.

The Organizations concerns about long term route loss from elevation of public safety concerns involving unexploded ordinance are compounded when the grant of Federal funding provided for in the Proposal is reviewed. The Organizations submit that any assertion that water impoundment facilities could be improved, historical interpretation sites created and a complete inventory of ordinance in the Camp Hale area with associated NEPA required for removal could be completed for the mere sum of $5,000,000 is simply without any basis in fact. The Organizations submit that the funding provided managers would be hard pressed to complete one of the three goals, little lone all three. With the provided imbalance in funding with goals and objectives for management of the area, clearly protection of all usage of the area would be critical in insuring opportunities are not lost in the area.

While the interest in unexploded ordinance is appreciated, the provisions of the SMA fall well short of anything that could be supported by the Organizations. To provide any value to the motorized community in the Legislation for this area, a floor for motorized travel must be provided and the importance of motorized access for both summer and winter motorized recreation at existing levels must be provided for.

5g. Ten Mile Recreation/Wilderness area §5

The Organizations submit that the designation of the Ten Mile Recreation Area would result in the loss of 16,996 acres for multiple use as multiple use recreation is not even a characteristic of the area. This is another area where important multiple use recreational opportunities are currently existing but no protection for these opportunities is provided by the Proposal. Rather than protecting these important opportunities, existing opportunities and future expansion areas would be permanently limited from expansion and additionally provided no protection from closure in the future as other priorities for the use of the Recreation area would be established by the Proposal.

Ten Mile map
2014 MVUM

Ten Mile map Over the Snow Suitability
Over the Snow Suitability

The Organizations opposition to the designation of these areas is based on the fact that no multiple uses are even identified as a characteristic of the area to be protected or reserved, while certain other recreational activities are advanced as characteristics of the area. Additionally, multiple use access is capped at current levels, despite a large portion of the area being available for OSV expansion. The Organizations are unable to see any benefit to the multiple use recreation community from designation of this area as multiple use access would be immediately capped and then put at risk of loss due to the elevation of other interests in the area as management priorities.

5h. The Proposal provides no benefits or protections for multiple use recreation to offset risks and losses in new Wilderness areas created and previous commitments must be honored.

The Organizations must note the significant differences between the current Proposal and the Hermosa Watershed Legislation. The current Proposal provides for extensive loss of mileage and acreage to multiple use interests but no other areas are released from possible future designation and protected for multiple use. The Proposal also puts numerous other areas at risk for long term loss due to the proximity of these areas to new Wilderness areas, no additional protections are provided in the Proposal for the areas put at risk for long term loss. As noted previously, “no buffer” type management standards provided in previous Wilderness Legislation have been largely ignored. While the Organizations believe that the ineffective nature of “no buffer” type protections is concerning, the lack of balance in previous Wilderness Legislation is problematic. Even when more defined and concrete benefits to the multiple use community have been provided in previous Wilderness legislation, these benefits have never been implemented.

An example of this issue would be the commitment to reopen the Rollins Pass Road that was made in § 7(b) the James Peak Wilderness Expansion and Protection Act of 2002. The Rollins Pass Road Language was in addition to the “no buffer” language provide in the James Peak Legislation. Not only has there been no carry through on the legal obligation to reopen James Peak Road, this legislation provides yet another example of the ineffective nature of the “no buffer” language as both of the Wilderness areas involved in the James Peak proposal have been the basis of ongoing efforts to again expand these Wilderness areas despite the No buffer language. Reopening of Rollins Pass road, as has been required by federal law would be a significant gesture to the multiple use community that implementation of commitments made in Wilderness legislation is as important as passage of the original legislation.

6. Conclusion.

After a detailed review of the proposal, the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or created in the Proposal would result in significant lost recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the future. While there are significant lost opportunities there is also no additional protections for multiple use routes that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new areas are designated for OHV recreation. Additionally, frustrating any discussions around balance in the Proposal is the fact that earlier commitments made in Wilderness legislation in Congressman Polis district remain unfulfilled. Reopening Rollins Pass Road would be a significant step in meaningfully addressing usages in the Proposal. If commitments are not honored, what is the value in working towards more balance in any Proposal. The Organizations still fail to understand the management concerns or perceived threats that are driving the discussion around the need for additional protection of these areas.

The Organizations have been visiting with your Office staff attempting to find some type of consensus position that we could support around these areas, but it appears those discussions have not been fruitful, as this version of the Proposal is the worst version of the Proposal the Organizations have seen in a long time. This is highly frustrating as the Organizations were actively involved in the development of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation where large and diverse community support was developed around the Hermosa Legislation and a wide range of protections for a diverse group of users was achieved. The Organizations had hoped the Hermosa legislation was a new model for developing land use legislation but that does not appear to be the case.

In an effort to continue to discuss Wilderness and related management protections in the Eagle and Summit County areas, the Organizations have included our draft discussion of areas we would be interested in seeing additional protection for in federal legislation. Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. if you should wish to discuss any of the issues that have been raised in these comments further. His contact information is Scott Jones, Esq., 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont Colorado 80504; phone 518-281-5810; email Scott.jones46@yahoo.com

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO/TPA Authorized Representative
CSA President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Cc: Senator Cory Gardner

 

  1. See, USDA Forest Service; National Strategy for a Sustainable Trails System; December 30, 2016 at page 2.
  2. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results – National Summary Report – data collected FY2012 through FY2016; December 2016 at pg. 10.
  3. See, USDA Forest Service; Visitor Use Report; White River NF; USDA Forest Service Region 2 National Visitor Use Monitoring Data; Collected through FY 2012 Last Updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
  4. See, National Forest Foundation website at https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/find-a-forest/white-river-national-forest accessed February 21, 2018.
  5. See, USDA Forest Service; Tkacz et al; 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment; 2015 at pg. 36.Hereinafter referred to as the “USDA Risk Assessment”.
  6. See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 50.
  7. See, USDA Risk Assessment at pg. 51.
  8. A complete copy of this presentation and related documents is available athttps://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/fhm/fhh/fhh_16/CO_FHH_%202016.pdf
  9. http://csfs.colostate.edu/2017/02/15/800-million-standing-dead-trees-colorado/
  10. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 61
  11. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  12. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  13. 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 24
  14. See, 2016 Forest Health Report at pg. 5.
  15. See, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; Review of the Forest Service Response to the Bark Beetle Outbreak in Colorado and Southern Wyoming; A report by USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of Senator Mark Udall; September 2011 at pg. 5.
  16. See, Udall Forest Health Report at pg. I
  17. See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 9.
  18. See, Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg. 11.
  19. See, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; 2015 Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan at pg. 279.
  20. This list of species includes: Albert Squirrel; American Marten; Hoary Bat; Snowshoe Hare and Luck spine moth.
  21. See, USFWS; Dr. Michael Young; Greenback Cutthroat Trout; A Technical Conservation Assessment; February 6, 2009 at pg. 3.
  22. See, Young @ pg. 20.
  23. See, Young @ pg. 21.
  24. See, USDA Forest Service; Pacific Southwest Region Research Station; Forest Service Response to Elevated Tree Mortality; prepared at the request of California State Association of Counties; March 24, 2016 at pg. 14.
  25. Photo included with application of Divide Ranger District application for maintenance in the Weminuche Wilderness to Colorado State Trails Program for maintenance funding.
  26. See, USFS presentation of Scott Haas, Region 2 Recreation Coordinator at the 2016 Colorado OHV Workshop. Full copy of presentation available on request.
  27. See, Douglas Macintyre; “American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century”; The Wall Street Journal; April 11, 2011
  28. See, USDA Forest Service; “White River NF- Job and Income Contributions for 2014 at a glance”; September 2016 A complete copy of this research is available here https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/economics/contributions/documents/at-a-glance/published/rockymountain/AtaGlance-WhiteRiver.pdf
  29. See, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Statistics for 2012-2016”; February 14, 2018 at pg. 2.
  30. See, USDA Forest Service; National Forest Support a Recreation Economy- a complete study copy is available here: http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/national-forests-support-recreation-economy/
  31. See, Holmes & White; National & Community Market Contributions of Wilderness; Society & Natural Resources; An International Journal; Volume 30 2017
  32. See, UDSA Forest Service; White & Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; Joint venture between USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University; November 2011 at pg. 6.
  33. See, USDA Forest Service, National Visitor Use Monitoring; “National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results; National Summary Report; Data collected FY 2012 through FY 2016”; 2016 at pg. 1.
  34. See, USDA Forest Service; 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado; Final Environmental Impact Statement; May 2012 pg. 19
  35. See, USDA Forest Service; National Visitor Use Monitoring Results; White River National Forest; Round 3; last updated January 26, 2018 at pg. 9.
  36. See, HR 631 of 1993
Continue Reading