Author Archive | Christina

Attention All KTM Motorcycle Dealers:

I’m writing to update you on the Office of the US Trade Representative’s (“USTR”) proposed import duties on motorcycles from Europe.

The USTR public hearing was held on February 15, 2017.  The hearing was chaired by William Busis, the Associate General Counsel at USTR, and included representatives from the Departments of Labor, State, Treasury, Agriculture, and Commerce, as well as from Customs and Border Protection and the Small Business Administration (the “Committee”).   We coordinated a panel of motorcycle industry representatives to appear at the hearing that included the following members:

• Rick Alcon, R&S Powersports
• Tim Buche, Motorcycle Industry Council
• Tim Cotter, MX Sports
• Mario Di Maria, Piaggio Group Americas
• Rob Dingman, American Motorcyclist Association
• Carroll Gittere, Powersports Data Solutions
• John Hinz, KTM North America and Husqvarna Motorcycles North America
• Iain McPhie, Squire Patton Boggs

The motorcycle panel representatives submitted comments to the Committee regarding the potential impacts that the tariffs would have on the motorcycle industry, dealerships, and associated businesses. The panel then answered questions from the Committee that were designed to clarify or elicit further information about our written comments and hearing statements. The hearing was very positive, and the Committee was very receptive to the comments provided by the motorcycle panel and fully understood the impact that the tariffs could potentially cause our industry.

We have been fully engaged in political outreach both in the United States and in Europe with the motorcycle industry to update Congressional members and government officials on the tariff and the impact on our industry. We have asked Members of the U.S. Congress to contact Mr. Busis at USTR to notify him that motorcycles should be removed from the list of products subject to potential tariffs. Our next step is to prepare written rebuttal comments to USTR regarding questions and comments asked at the hearing by the March 8, 2017 deadline.

Please continue to contact your representatives in Congress to oppose the proposed actions against motorcycles.  You can find your representatives and their contact information at the links below.  Please complete the attached letter and ask your representatives in Congress for their support on this issue.

• http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
• http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 KTM Dealer Letter to Congress

Best regards,
JOHN HINZ

KTM North America, Inc.
38429 Innovation Court
Murrieta, CA 92563
www.ktm.com
T: 951-600-8007 x.4110
F: 951-600-8866
E: jhinz@ktmnorthamerica.com

Denver – A recently completed study commissioned by the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle  Coalition and Trails Preservation Alliance documents a yearly contribution of $2.3 billion to Colorado’s economy due to tourism and sales activity linked to off-highway vehicle recreation.

The report was prepared by Pinyon Environmental after the 2014 – 2015 season. It shows nearly 200,000 Colorado and non-resident households participated in OHV activity, including motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and 4WDs.

According to the data, motorized recreation enthusiasts spent an estimated $1.6 billion while taking trips using motorized vehicles for recreational purposes. Motorized recreationists also spent money on maintenance, repairs, accessories, vehicle storage and miscellaneous items associated with their vehicles.

Direct sales of OHVs was estimated to generate $914 million, while an additional $882 million was attributed to indirect and induced sales. Over 16,000 jobs are related to the OHV recreation industry in Colorado. $107 million in state and local taxes were paid during the study period.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife reports that over 170,000 OHV registrations and use permits were issued in 2015. Each annual registration for an OHV costs $25.25.

The total of all documented sales and use activity by OHV owners and enthusiasts in Colorado is $2.3 billion, according to the Pinyon Environmental study.

“This report clearly shows the positive economic impact of off-highway vehicle recreation in our great state of Colorado,” said COHVCO President Jerry Abboud. “It also points out the importance of providing effective land management and riding opportunities for residents and tourists alike,” added Abboud.

 Download the news release.

These are the consolidated Colorado OHV Grants by organizations.

Download the reports:

 2017 Off-Highway Vehicle Grant Award Program – Colorado Parks & Wildlife

 2016-2017 OHV Grant Projects

 Good Management Crew History 1998-2017

BLUERIBBON COALITION/SHARETRAILS.ORG MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Paul Turcke
Phone: 208-331-1800; 208-861-1334

RECREATION GROUPS SIGN HISTORIC BLM AGREEMENT 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (January 13, 2017) – Recreation advocacy organizations the BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and Trails Preservation Alliance today announced they have joined in an agreement which would settle nearly decade-long lawsuits over management of Utah public lands. The proposed settlement agreement was filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, and governs Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversight of lands in six Utah field offices. The other parties entering the settlement include BLM and numerous preservationist plaintiffs led by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. The parties have issued a joint statement. Other parties in the case, including two groups of energy companies and the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), did not sign the settlement but do not object to it. Two intervenor groups, San Juan/Kane Counties, and the State of Utah along with six other counties, have indicated they will object.

“Settlement presents unique challenges in a suit of this nature,” observed Paul Turcke, attorney for the intervening recreation groups. “Our system is designed to encourage and support settlement. When the primary parties want to settle a lawsuit, an intervenor faces a tough choice – actively negotiate to improve the settlement terms, or stand on the outside and object. The law heavily favors settlement, and objecting is a good way to say what constituents want to hear, but usually a bad way to meaningfully advance their interests,” Turcke cautioned.

The negotiation process was conducted in strict confidentiality overseen by the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office.  Closely involved in the negotiations were experienced and trusted Utah contacts, including past and present BlueRibbon Board members and representatives of Utah groups like the Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association and Ride With Respect.

“We worked very hard, spent many hours and a few sleepless nights in this process,” explained Glen Zumwalt of Leeds, Utah, who participated on the organizations’ negotiating team.  “Our active participation worked to the benefit of many public lands users.  In the end, we made enough changes to make this agreement much more acceptable than complying with the Court’s ruling.  Signing on to the agreement was the only way to make the changes we brought to the table stick,” Zumwalt concluded.

“It is particularly important to understand the terms and unique advantages of this proposed settlement,” added Clif Koontz from Moab, Utah.  He outlined some of these elements:

• The settlement does not require “temporary” closure of any route or area;
• It specifies where and when BLM will perform travel planning, in what BLM considers a manageable schedule, far preferable to court-ordered deadlines across entire field offices;
• The identified procedures improve opportunities for public engagement and are justifiably designed to produce more defensible decisions;
• All parties and the public retain full rights to participate in, and challenge the final outcome of, the new travel plans;
• It does not dictate results – BLM retains its full discretion to make final decisions affecting access under the agreement
• The settlement only takes effect if the Court agrees to vacate the decisions made against the Richfield plans. This means those decisions will no longer exist;
• The Plaintiffs have agreed the Court retains jurisdiction only to enforce certain deadlines in the agreement.  As to other components of the agreement, Plaintiffs commit to a “meet and confer” process with the State Director, in which all parties to the settlement are entitled to participate;
• The settlement does not affect the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertion;
• The settlement does not impose any travel planning obligations in the Monticello Field Office including San Juan County, and SUWA dismisses its complaint against the 2008 Monticello plans.

“The settlement is by no means perfect,” Koontz reflected.  “But it outlines a lawful and reasonable planning solution and alternative to years of further litigation.  All parties made concessions that they must feel are offset by sufficient benefits,” Koontz concluded.

“Some will wonder- why would we do this, especially after the election?”  Turcke queried.  “We are cautiously optimistic that recreation management will be a priority with the incoming Administration.  The Court has already rejected the template used to build the challenged 2008 plans.  We choose to focus on working with BLM rather than going for broke defending the Vernal, Price, Moab, Kanab and Monticello travel plans before the Court,” Turcke counseled.

“We are certainly concerned that respected parties and colleagues object to this settlement,” Turcke added.  “We have taken decisive yet solitary action in similar litigation that was ultimately vindicated in a law-making unanimous Supreme Court decision.  We know how to fight and have fought successfully.  Effective leaders must often weather discomfort and employ creativity.  We are confident that we are choosing the best path here for the OHV community,” Turcke concluded.

A copy of the settlement agreement can be viewed here.

###

The BlueRibbon Coalition Sharetrails.Org is a national non-profit organization that champions responsible recreation and encourages individual environmental stewardship. With members in all 50 states, BRC is focused on building enthusiast involvement with organizational efforts through membership, outreach, education, and collaboration among recreationists. https://sharetrails.org

COHVCO is a nonprofit organization whose member enthusiasts, organizations and businesses collectively comprise over 200,000 Coloradoans and regular visitors to Colorado and other western states who contribute millions of dollars and thousands of hours annually to off-highway vehicle recreation through registration fees, retail expenditure, project participation and related support. www.cohvco.org

The Trails Preservation Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the sport of motorized trail riding, educating all user groups and the public on the value of sharing public lands for multiuse recreation, while protecting public lands for future generations. www.coloradotpa.org

Excerpt from the Missoulan – click link to read entire article

Seven multiple-use recreation groups have filed suit seeking to force the Bitterroot National Forest to redo its travel plan signed last May.

In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Missoula, the groups say Bitterroot Forest officials ignored key input by the public and violated existing statutes and policies in developing the plan that establishes where motorized travel is allowed.

Bitterroot Forest officials spent more than nine years developing the plan after considering 13,400 comments. It shut off thousands of acres of areas classified as Wilderness Study Areas to snowmobilers, ATV riders and mountain bikers.

The groups that filed suit include the Bitterroot Ridge Runners Snowmobile Club, Ravalli County Off-Road User Association, Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Montana Snowmobile Association, Citizens for Balanced Use and Backcountry Sled Patriots.

read more…

WY Trail #038 TPA Comments

Tongue Ranger District
Bighorn National Forest
2013 Eastside 2nd Street
Sheridan, WY 82801

RE: Public Comments
Trail #038 Conversion
Bighorn National Forest, Tongue Ranger District (BRD)

Dear Responsible Official:

The following public comments are submitted in regards to the Notice of Proposed Action – Forest Service Trail #038, on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”).  The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the 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 ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities.

The TPA does not support the designation of Trail #038 as a non-motorized route and wholly supports those comments submitted by the Blue Ribbon Coalition on or about December 23, 2016.  Trail #038 has been a motorized trail asset for many years, and albeit challenging, it has existed in a sustainable state.  The TPA, in alignment with our fundamental principles, would support designation of this trail as a “motorcycles only” trail to enhance single-track, multi-use recreational opportunities within the Tongue Ranger District of the Bighorn National Forest.  The TPA also contends that the Proposed Action has omitted very important and pertinent information, and that the current version of the Proposed Action is misleading.  The TPA is obliged to point out that the outcome of the Inyan Kara Riders vs., U. S. Forest Service, Case Number CV-14-159-ABJ (D. Wyo), has not been properly characterized within the background of the Proposed Action and incorrectly represents that Trail #038 is currently closed to motorized use.

The TPA is very much aware that within the Bighorn National Forest, opportunities for single-track, multi-use, motorized single-track recreation are scant and under-served on the Forest.  Trail #038 is indeed unique in that it provides riders with a challenging loop.  That Trail #038 with proper management, signage and maintenance can continue to provide a recreational opportunity for moderately proficient, single-track users.  The TPA would support designation of this trail as a Class 1, “motorcycle only” trail, in lieu of closure and designation as a Class 1, “non-motorized primitive and undeveloped trail”.  To imply within the Proposed Action that the trail is “unsafe for motorized use”, should not be used as criteria for trail closure to motorized use.  Per USFS guidance, the agency is not required to guarantee the safety of all trail users.  In fact the USFS is remiss if it does not provide a variety of opportunities for motorized recreation, including single-track trails with varying degrees of challenge.

In conclusion the TPA contends that the Tongue Ranger District must consider a broad range of alternatives, one of which needs to include options for continuing motorized use and access along Trail #038.  Designating this trail for “motorcycle use” is absolutely appropriate and highly desired by the spectrum of trail users.  The TPA agrees with the Blue Ribbon Coalition and their submitted comments on this project, that designating this trail for motorcycles could be accomplished with relatively little analysis, and if the District does indeed decide to perform an Environmental Assessment, then the District must broaden the scope of the EA to include consideration for enhanced recreational, multi-use opportunities and an expansion of the existing multi-use, motorized route network(s).

Sincerely,

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

Background:

For the 2017-2018 Colorado Parks & Wildlife, OHV Grant application cycle, 21 individual Good Management grant applications were submitted and 44 Competitive grant applications were submitted.  For comparison purposes, during the 2016-2017 OHV Grant cycle, there were 19 Good Management applications and 36 Competitive grant applications.  A review of each of the 2017-2018 grant application was completed to see if the different grant applications cited growth in OHV recreation as a driver and or need for grant funding, and for the competitive grants an additional analysis was performed to see if it was stated within the grant application there was recognition or acknowledgment that OHV recreation was contributing to the local economy or local tourism.  The analyses included the review of all of the actual grant application narratives and the required Letters of Project Support for each grant.

Results of Analysis:

1. Of the 21 Good Management grant applications, 13 grant applications, or 62%, specifically cited or referenced that growth or an increase in OHV recreation was a reason that the Good Management crew was needed and why the grant application should be supported.
2. Of the 44 Competitive grant applications
   1. 27 of the 44 grant applications, or 4%, specifically cited or referenced that growth and an increase in OHV recreation was a reason that the grant funds were needed and why the grant should be supported.
   2. 31 of the 44 of the grant application, or 5%, stated in various ways that OHV recreation was indeed a contributor to the local economy, supported local tourism or was important to the economic well-being of the surrounding communities.

Conclusion:

Review of the 2017-2018 CPW OHV grant applications shows that a preponderance of both the Good Management and Competitive grants recognize and impart that the needs and demands of OHV recreation are steadily growing and increasing in Colorado and that OHV recreation is an acknowledged and viable component of many of our local economies.  Given these results, it is interesting to note that historically and anecdotally on public lands statewide, within both of the jurisdictions of the USFS and BLM, the miles of routes open to and available for OHV use, and general opportunities for OHV recreation has been in steady decline.

West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation Project Comments

State Recreational Trails Committee Trails Program
Colorado Parks & Wildlife
Submitted via e-­mail to: dnr_trails@state.co.us

RE: Public Comments – West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation – Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest, Boulder Ranger District (BRD) Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA)

Dear State Recreational Trails Committee:

The following public comments are submitted in regards to the West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation Project, 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 ensure 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 170,000 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. The TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

The Organizations submit these comments as part of the public record for the referenced non- motorized trail project grant request and have very serious concerns about this project.

The Organizations have previously submitted formal, written objection and protest comments to the USFS, Objections Reviewing Officer in protest of the Magnolia Trail Proposal (“The Proposal”) in the Boulder Ranger District (“BRD”). The objection and protest document was submitted to the USFS on September 21, 2016. The Organizations specifically objected to the proposal since it seeks to convert a historic multiple-use area to an area for the exclusive use of a small and limited user group under the guise of a lack of area maintenance, and the Organizations are absolutely opposed to the proposed closure of the winter multiple
usage of the area to allow for the exclusive use of cross‐country skiing. The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the Magnolia proposal/project, which accepts over 40 miles of user created routes into the BRD route inventory, to ongoing closures of other existing multiple-­use routes (such as Lefthand Canyon area and the Bunce School area routes) in the BRD based on a lack of maintenance funding. The Magnolia proposal/project adds more mileage for bicycle recreation than currently exists for all other forms of multiple-­use recreation on the BRD. If there is not sufficient funding to maintain existing routes and areas within the BRD, how can over 40 miles of new and additional routes and the associated parking areas be supported and adequately maintained? The Organizations submit that it cannot, and that this is simply inconsistent with the consideration and treatment of other user groups and other forms of recreation within the BRD.

The Organizations have vigorously asserted that closure of the Magnolia area to multiple-­use is simply unacceptable. To address the historic lack of management of this area by the USFS and a lack of ongoing funding for maintenance, which has been repeatedly identified as the basis for additional closures to multiple-use recreation on the BRD, while allowing the Magnolia project to move forward is inconsistent, unfair and biased. The Organizations submit that the multiple-­use access to the Magnolia area in all seasons is a critically important resource to those residing in the vicinity of the Magnolia area, along with those residents that live elsewhere within or near the BRD. Multiple-­use opportunities are already exceptionally limited within the BRD, and have declined even further during the duration of the Magnolia proposal/project, and closure of the Magnolia area will further exacerbate the imbalance of recreational opportunities in the BRD. Even the BRD has asserted that there are no other areas where multiple-use recreation can be expanded within the BRD.

The Organizations list the following concerns and issues that must be addressed prior to the approval of and obligation of funds to this project:

• We are aware that there are substantial wildlife concerns for this area (e.g., affects upon wildlife migration corridors, impacts to elk calving areas, etc.). We are very familiar with the process that multiple-use projects must endure, and the mitigation measures that must be developed to address wildlife concerns when multiple-use project apply for State funded grants. We question why this project is not being held to the same or similar standards and why stated wildlife concerns are being ignored and put aside for this project. Again, the Organizations cite this as inconsistent and biased treatment between one particular user group (non-motorized users) and other multiple-use user groups.
• As stated in the grant application, the Final Environmental Assessment Decision has not been made. The Organizations contend that approving funds for this project prior to rendering of the Final Decision is premature and puts valuable grant funds at risk. As we have observed in the past with several multiple-use grant applications, circumstances can and often do arise that delay decisions on Environmental Assessments, projects are unable to move forward in a timely manner and precious grant funds languish as the decision process skulks forward. All the while, the allocated grant funds could have been used and committed to another project where the Final Decision had been made, documented and in place.
• This project specifically “rewards” and encourages future bad behavior from trail users. By the application’s own admission, this area has seen rampant expansion and creation of user created social trails. This activity to proliferate “illegal trails” is simply a blatant disrespect for the area and the law, and now this grant and the BRD seek to legitimize this outlaw behavior
  and add these illegal trails to the BRD’s inventory. The Organizations certainly agree that non-systems trails can and do exist and that adoption by the USFS of non-system trails to system trails has merits in very specific cases. However, this project condones and rewards bad behavior with the expansion of an existing system of 16.3 miles with 45.7 miles of non- system, illegal social trails. This decision by the BRD to add trail mileage of this magnitude is unprecedented and inconsistent with requests by other user groups to adopt other non- system trails. This vast expansion of route and trail mileage is also inconsistent with recently promulgated guidance by the Chief of the Forest Service to reduce infrastructure.
• Closure of the Magnolia Area to the existing broad spectrum of users for the exclusive use by one particular user group is discriminatory and will certainly foster resentment and poor relationships with other user groups. Instead of excluding users, the BRD and BMA should be working with similar vigor and diligence to be inclusive and accepting of all user groups and embrace an attitude of cooperation and tolerance. A historic moto of the USFS once was “The Land of Many Uses”, an attitude that now seems to have gone by the wayside in lieu of an elitist and intolerant attitude toward a public that seeks diverse and balanced use of its public lands.
• The grant application specifically states that the USFS, BRD will be responsible for maintenance. The Organizations question the validity of this statement given the BRD’s previous statements that the District continues to have decreasing budgets and lacks funds for maintenance. The Organizations acknowledge that agency funding to the USFS has been in steady decline forcing most Ranger Districts to seek alternative means of funding and manpower to construct and more importantly maintain existing infrastructure. For example, we have routinely observed comments from other USFS Districts when applying for CPW grants that make statements such as “..the motorized [trail] crew is only funded by CPW’s OHV grant. No Forest Service money will be allocated for on-the-ground trail work. For the last few years, the Forest Service funding to maintain trails has been minimal.” For this very reason, we question why the BRD would want to eliminate multiple-use from this area and disqualify the entire area from State OHV grant eligibility. Closure of this area for the exclusive use by mountain bikes and non-motorized users completely eliminates the area from a proven, reliable and sustainable source of funding for resource protection, enhancement, restoration, equipment purchases, travel plan implementation, signage, education and enforcement.
• The Organizations contend that statements made within this grant application that the area is subject to degradation from wind and rain erosion due to fuels reduction are unfounded and merely conjecture in order to secure project funding. The density of trees and condition of the forest prior to fuels reduction was an acknowledged undesirable, un-natural and unsustainable state. Through an effective agency sponsored fuels reduction project, the area has now been restored to a more stable and natural condition, one that the vegetation and soil will expectedly thrive.
• Under Section 9. Public Comment, this grant application failed to acknowledge the substantial and significant public input that was submitted during public meetings regarding continued motorized use in this area and areas adjacent. Likewise in Section 11. Who is Opposed to the Project, the applicant dismissively states objections were received from the motorized community, an attempt we feel is purposely meant to minimalize and avoid specifically addressing the 12 pages of objection comments submitted by the Organizations.
• Regarding Exhibit B, Budget Form, the Organizations believe the State Recreational Trails Committee should evaluate the stated project match and in-kind values carefully. Based upon our extensive involvement and past support of other CPW grant applications, we question the accuracy and estimation of the stated match and in-kind dollar amounts. It is our judgment that these amounts appear to be over estimated and without basis or documentation.

In conclusion the Organizations have serious concerns about this grant application, one that converts a historic multiple-use area to an area for the exclusive use of a limited, non-diverse user group under the guise of maintenance and are completely opposed to the proposed closure of the year-round multiple-use of the area. The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the Magnolia project, which accepts a myriad of user created routes into the BRD route inventory, to other ongoing closures of existing multiple-use routes, such as Lefthand Canyon area and the Bunce School area routes in the BRD based on a lack of maintenance funding was not raised. The Magnolia Trails project adds more mileage for bicycle recreation than currently exists for all other forms of multiple-use recreation on the BRD. If there is not sufficient funding to maintain existing areas, how can over 40 miles of additional routes and associated parking areas be supported?

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

Silverton Guides Heliskiing permit expansion

BLM Gunnison FO
Att: Silverton Guides EA Comments
210 W. Spencer Ave, Suite A
Gunnison CO 81230

Re: Silverton Guides Heliskiing permit expansion

Dear Sirs:
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above Organizations in vigorous opposition to the proposed permit expansion application of the Silverton Guides Organization (“the Proposal”) . The Organizations vigorously oppose the Proposal as it is simply badly out of balance as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public will now be open to heliskiing. The mixing of these uses has proven to be a serious long term barrier to public access to other areas where heliskiing has occurred as immediately after heliskiing is expanded. While this is often based on avalanche mitigation activity for skiing, public access to the area is lost regardless. In the Silverton area, public access to any winter recreation area is highly valued areas as only a small portion of the planning area is suitable for OSV usage. This results in a significant net loss to public recreational opportunities as most members of the public are not interested in heliskiing and most of those that are interested in the sport are not able to afford the $1,000 per day required to book a trip. Even in the best of conditions heliskiing access will never occur at levels similar to the public utilization of these areas for other winter recreational activity.

The expanded permit will be of minimal value to Silverton Mtn. operations as most heliskiing already occurs within the boundary of the ski area, but the expanded permit will put public access to recreational opportunities at risk, as the permittee has a committed history of seeking something other than multiple use embracing public access to areas jointly used by the public. Many of the areas now sought to be used for heliskiing permit activities have been declined in the past, making the Organizations ask what has changed to allow these areas to become heli-ski permit areas, when they were repeatedly declined in the past. If the permit is determined to be suitable for expansion, the Organizations vigorously assert that clear and enforceable standards must be put in place that protect public access to any expanded operational area. These must be independently monitored at the expense of the permittee, as it is not the public responsibility to monitor the permittee but it is the permittee responsibility to protect public access. If these protections cannot be obtained, the permit should not be expanded.

We start first with a brief description of each Organization, in order to allow a complete understanding of our concerns. The Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. There are 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA seeks to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling in Colorado by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of 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 Colorado based 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 is an advocate of the sport and takes necessary actions to help insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. For purposes of this document CSA, COHVCO and TPA are identified as “the Organizations”.

1. The preferred alternative is simply badly out of balance as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public will now be open to heliskiing as well.

The Organizations vigorously oppose the Proposal as it is simply badly out of balance in addressing usages of recreational opportunity areas as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public would become open to heliskiing, which has proven to be a serious long term barrier to public access. Once heliskiing has occurred avalanche mitigation of the area with explosives also occurs and this has always resulted in a loss of public access on the basis of safety concerns. The snowmobile community intimately understands the possible risks from avalanches throughout the Silverton planning area and the OSV community has effectively recreated in this area with this risk without the need to drop explosive charges from helicopters. Minimization of impacts of heliskiing in existing permit areas has translated to closures of the areas to the public due to safety concerns from avalanche mitigation actions being conducted to protect heli-skiers.

In the Silverton area, public access to any winter recreation area is highly valued areas as only a small portion of the planning area is suitable for OSV usage and other types of recreational activity. The restriction of areas to heliskiing only results in a significant net loss to public recreational opportunities as most members of the public are not interested in heliskiing and most of those that are interested in the sport are not able to afford the $1,000 per day required to book a trip. Even in the best of conditions heliskiing access will never occur at levels similar to the public utilization of these areas for other winter recreational activity.

The expanded permit will be of minimal value to Silverton Mtn. operations as most heliskiing occurs on the ski area, but it will put public access to recreational opportunities at risk as the permittee has a committed history of seeking something other than multiple use embracing public access. In addition to opposing multiple use, the permittee has encouraged 4 incursions onto private lands adjacent to permit areas as part of their heliskiing operations. This causes even further concerns about the long term viability of expanded heliskiing opportunities for Silverton Guides as proposed. Given the immediate conflicts that have resulted previously, the Organizations must question how this conflict can be avoided in the future?

2. Management History.

The Organizations would be remiss if the conflict between the current proposal and previous management decisions was not noted. Many of the areas now sought to be used for heliskiing permit activities have been declined in the past. The Organizations must ask what has changed to allow these areas to become heli-ski permit areas, when they were repeatedly declined in the past. The Permittee has a demonstrated disregard for incursions of permitee’s activities onto well documented private lands adjacent to permitted areas, which causes serious concerns about the enforceability of soft standards for the benefit of public access as the permittee has not enforced basic property boundaries in the past. It is silly to hope that public usage would be balanced by the permittee without enforceable standards in the permit. Without such definable enforceable standards to protect public access, the expanded permit should be denied.

3. The Proposal lacks factual accuracy and results in .

The Organizations must question the frequent summary of many of the locations within the existing permit areas as “low quality windswept areas poorly suited for skiing”. This directly conflicts with the findings of fact from the most recently approved permit which concludes it is providing a better chance of finding quality snow conditions with the expanded permit in 2008.1 This is simply inconsistent with an operation that has been guiding for more than 20 years and boasts “some of the most spectacular ski terrain found anywhere in the world”.2

These types of factual conflicts are deeply concerning and result in a per se violation of NEPA planning requirements, as NEPA regulations provide as follows:
“(b) NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. “³

The Organizations vigorously assert that this per se conflict of factual determinations directly impacts the quality of NEPA analysis provided and results in a decision that has not been sufficiently reviewed. As a result the Proposal must be declined.

The Organizations are again intimately aware that even on a good year snowfall is often highly variable and at certain times of the year an area may be of poor quality for recreation but the Organizations are also aware that conditions are also highly variable and an area that has poor snow one week may be graced with world class recreational conditions the following week. Again the Organizations submit this lack of factual accuracy and conflict with previous planning weighs against expansion of the permit as the EA fails to provide the public with the necessary high quality information on the proposal to allow for meaningful comment.

4. If there is a decision to expand the permit, existing permittee obligations must be complied with.

The EA recognizes moderate snowmobile usage in many areas where the permit is to be expanded but simply never addresses how impacts to this usage will be minimized which is very concerning when the permittee business model is “more terrain more often” and displayed a serious disregard for private property interests in the area. The Organizations submit that if the decision to expand the scope of the existing permit is made, that existing management decisions in place require the moderate levels of snowmobile use in expanded permit areas to be protected. The Recreation Area Management Plan for the permit area clearly requires this as follows:

“Outfitters and Special Events
Objective: Manage commercial outfitters and special events to encourage safe and professional services are offered to the public, and to minimize impacts to resources and other visitors.
Management Action 1: Continue to authorize and monitor a variety of commercial recreation activities to provide essential service for the public. … The number of outfitters permitted, the areas they would be allowed to use, and the number of service days they would be granted may be regulated to maintain desirable experiences, avoid resource impacts, avoid overcrowding and reduce conflicts with other visitors.”⁴

The Organizations simply are unable to provide any recommendations or experiences surrounding effective manners to provide this type of protection for public usage. The Organizations vigorously assert that this burden must be borne by the permittee and confirmed with third party monitoring of the permit areas and these costs must be part of the permit fee. These financial and resource burdens should not be shifted to the public but should be borne by the permittee to affirmatively show a lack of conflict or reduced public access. Forcing the public to continuously defend quality recreational areas from a permittee who has a demonstrated disregard for private property interests and is committed to something other than multiple usage ethics is simply unacceptable. Without these protections, the permit areas should not be expanded.

5. Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously assert there should be no expansion of the permit beyond existing boundaries as such an expansion would immediately result in conflict between heliskiing activity and the public utilization of the expanded permit areas. The Organizations area aware that public access to public lands has been lost in other areas where heliskiing has expanded in the past. While an expanded permit area may be of minimal value to the permittee as most operations are occurring on the Silverton Ski Area, areas outside the ski area are highly valued by the public given the small areas of suitable lands in the Silverton vicinity.

The Organizations look forward to participating in further meetings on this issue and welcome the discussion as it 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.

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

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

1 See, BLM Telluride Helitrax Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Environmental Assessment (April 2008) at pg 7.
2 See, https://silvertonmountain.com/experience/heli/ accessed December 6, 2016. 5
3 43 CFR 1500.1(b)
4 See, DOI, BLM – Alpine Triangle Final Recreation Area Management Plan (September 2010) at pg 60.

Save

Save

Save

 Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service
Region 2 Rocky Mountain Region
Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer
40 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401-4720

RE: Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project Environmental Assessment South Park Ranger District, Pike & San Isabel National Forest October 2016

Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

The following objections are submitted in regards to the Badger Flats Management Project, Environmental Assessment (EA) 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 170,000 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.  The TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”  The Organizations generally support the Proposed Action Alternative included in the Environmental Assessment (EA), however we present the following objections to the EA prepared for the Badger Flats Management Project.

1. Page 23 of 109, Socioeconomic Impacts: The Organizations applaud consideration of the “Socioeconomic Impacts” of the three alternatives, however, the Organizations disagree that “All of the alternatives considered would have little positive or negative affect on the local economies because it would not result in substantial increases or decrease in revenue spent in the local area, or increases or decreases in population, wages, or employment.”  The standard of review for economic analysis is a de novo standard as the Courts have consistently substituted their judgment regarding the accuracy of economic analysis.  The Organizations feel this same standard would similarly apply to this EA.  Courts have consistently held agencies to a much tighter level of review of economic analysis when compared to other issues within the agency expertise in the NEPA process as the court makes their own conclusions regarding the accuracy of review without deference to agency findings. Relevant court rulings addressing economic analysis in NEPA have concluded:  “an EIS serves two functions. First, it ensures that agencies take a hard look at the environmental effects of proposed projects. Second, it ensures that relevant information regarding proposed projects is available to members of the public so that they may play a role in the decision making process. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. at 1845. For an EIS to serve these functions, it is essential that the EIS not be based on misleading economic assumptions.” [1]  The Court then discussed the significance of economic analysis in planning as follows:  “Misleading economic assumptions can defeat the first function of an EIS by impairing the agency’s consideration of the adverse environmental effects of a proposed project. See, South La. Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1011-12 (5th Cir.1980). NEPA requires agencies to balance a project’s economic benefits against its adverse environmental effects. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1113 (D.C.Cir.1971). The use of inflated economic benefits in this balancing process may result in approval of a project that otherwise would not have been approved because of its adverse environmental effects. Similarly, misleading economic assumptions can also defeat the second function of an EIS by skewing the public’s evaluation of a project.” [2]  The level of accuracy of the hard look at economic analysis applied by the Court in the Hughes River decision is significant as the Hughes River Court invalidated an EIS based on an error in economic contribution calculations of approximately 32%.[3]  The TPA and COHVCO submit that without the creation of a comparison between current usage and usage after implementation of the EA would be a violation of the Hughes River decision. No baseline of visitation to the area is provided to attempt to apply economic analysis of recreational usage.  In the Proposed Action, it simply states “All of the alternatives considered would have little positive or negative affect on the local economies…”.  The TPA and COHVCO submit that the economic analysis of the EA is facially insufficient and the determination that there will be no impacts to recreational spending as a result of the proposal simply lacks any factual basis. The TPA and COHVCO submits that this failure to provide even basic information is a per se violation of NEPA as there is a large range of user spending profiles and a wide range of recreational activities relying on the network of routes in the planning area to achieve their recreational objectives.  The importance of economic impacts of recreation within the Badger Flats area was raised in the project’s scoping comments previously submitted by the TPA and COHVCO.  The EA does not address the issue, but rather dismisses any economic impacts. This position is a per se violation of NEPA and the Hughes River decision.

In the past, the Forest Service has clearly identified the economic benefits that can accrue to a local community as the result of a multiple use trail network as follows:

“RECREATION AND TOURISM ARE VITAL TO MOST RURAL COMMUNITIES: This is true for virtually all rural communities but especially important to counties with high percentages of public land. Actions by public agencies to reduce or limit access to recreation on public lands have a direct impact on the local economy. Limiting access by closing roads, campgrounds, RV parking, and trails impact the surrounding communities. Visitors to public lands utilize nearby communities for food, lodging and support facilities. Interests include hiking, photography, horseback riding, biking, climbing, backpacking, birding, hunting, sport fishing, and many more. Public land agencies’ communication with community businesses is essential to job creation and stable rural communities.” [4]

The Organizations would also contend that the total estimated economic contribution from motorized recreation in the Central Colorado region (which includes Park and Teller Counties) during the 2014-2105 season, was well over $318,000,000.00[5].  That Badger Flats is indeed recognized as one of the primary motorized recreational areas within the Central Colorado region.  That any change in available motorized recreational opportunities in the Badger Flats area will indeed result in measurable economic impacts to the region, especially to the counties and communities in close proximity to the Badger Flats area.

2. Page 11 of 109, Proposed Action Alternative: The Organizations question the statement that “There would be a net loss of 1% of existing motorized NFSRs and NFSTs”.  When reviewing Table 2-1, Comparison of Alternatives, (page 13 of 109) and the values of the Total Motorized NFSR & NFST Open to the Public, The Proposed Action Alternative (108.7 mi), proposes a reduction of 9.9 miles over the No Action Alternative (118.6 mi).  The loss of 9.9 miles of routes open to the public represents a loss of over 8% from the No Action Alternative.  We contend that the citing of a 1% loss is either incorrect or a misrepresentation of the values shown in Table 2-1.

3. Pages 86 & 87 of 109, Birds of Conservation Concern: The EA proposes a need to close NFSR 44 (along with NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and NFSR 280) on the west side of La Salle Pass due to encroachment to known cliff-nesting raptor nesting locations.  The Organizations would contend that only NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and 280 may need consideration for restriction of access.  That NFSR 44 should remain open to public access, or if absolutely necessary that the alignment of NFSR 44 be adjusted slightly or offset in select locations to gain additional separation from possible nesting sites.  The Organizations contend that a substantial portion of the existing centerline of NFSR is already ½ mile or more from the terrain suitable for cliff-nesting raptors.  NFSR 44 is the primary, and often the preferred route, for 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 (the primary route to La Salle Pass) to public access will concentrate all use onto 44.2A (the secondary route to La Salle Pass) completely eliminating the unique experiences to travel through the center and northern portions of the open meadow landscape and will create a situation that will be difficult to enforce.  Additionally, NFSR 44.2A is the more difficult route and includes rock obstacles that some users may not desire to traverse.  The Organizations ask that NFSR 44 remain open to public, motorized, multiple use access.

4. The EA failed to include any consideration for an “Open Area” specifically for motorized trials bike riding (AKA Moto Trials). Historically the Rocky Mountain Trials Association (RMTA) has worked with the South Park Ranger District to obtain land use permits for observed moto trials riding in the Thorp Gulch and other areas.  During the scoping process, multiple public comments were submitted requesting a designated open area for the purpose of moto trials riding so enthusiasts could use/practice/ride in a designated area at any time.  The EA failed to include any consideration of an open moto trails riding area in the vicinity of Thorpe Gulch or anywhere else with the Badger Flats Management Project Area.  It should be noted that per the American Motorcyclist Association, moto trials riding produces almost no noticeable environmental impact. This is due to the extremely slow speeds, lack of intentional wheel spin, low-air-pressure tires, soft compound tires, extremely quiet exhausts and the increasing use of electric powered trials bikes.  The Organizations appeal that the South Park Ranger District confer with the RMTA and that the EA be revised to include a suitable designated area specifically for open moto trials riding (i.e., without a special use or other permit and open for use year round).

5. Proposed Action Alternative Map: The EA proposes to decommission NFSR 214.B, a connecting segment that the Organization’s previously submitted scoping comments specifically requested remain open to public use.  The EA provides no 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.   The Organizations ask that NFSR 214.B remain open to public, motorized, multiple use access.

6. Proposed Action Alternative Map: The EA proposes to decommission NFSR 255.  The Organizations ask that the decommissioning of NFSR 255 be reconsidered and that NFSR 255 remains open to public, motorized, multiple use access.  This route provides an east to west connection between Park County Road 31 and NFSR 225.  This route also provides additional variety for the Badger Flats Area north of Round Mountain Campground and provides a moderate level of challenge for those users that desire that experience.  The Organizations would support conversion of NFSR 255 to a Full Size Trail.  We would also ask that consideration be given to a route parallel to Park County Road 31, on the eastern side of Park County Road 31 to connect NFSR 255 and NFSR 216 to provide connectivity of these two routes for unlicensed vehicles.  By keeping NFSR 255 open and adding the proposed parallel connection, together these routes will provide an enhanced loop opportunity and additional recreational options.

7. Proposed Action Alternative Map: The Organizations generally support the construction of the proposed two Staging/Day-Use areas and the one Day-Use Parking area.  We would hope and assume that each of these areas will include informational kiosks that would display area maps along with appropriate rules and regulations for all users.

8. In summary, the Organizations generally support the Proposed Action Alternative, with consideration and inclusion of the comments/objections provided above. The Organizations support the Forest Service in proposing a network/system of sustainable multi-use roads and trails that strive to improve the motorized recreational experience, facilitate loop opportunities and avoid areas of sensitive resource concerns.  We support the conversion of select segments of “non-system roads and trails” to Forest “System”, motorized roads and trails.  We support the conversion of NFSRs to NFSTs and certainly support the construction of new NFSRs and NFSTs as necessary (e.g., the proposed new NFST in the China Wall area).  Finally, we also support and recognize the need to realign select segments of roads and trails to address erosion and reduce the movement of sediment into sensitive streams and wetlands.

9. 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,
Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

cc Scott Jones, COHVCO
Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park District Ranger

[1] Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman; (4th Circ 1996) 81 F3d 437 at pg. 442; 42 ERC 1594, 26 Envtl. L. Rep 21276.

[2] Hughes River Supra note 1 at pg. 447

[3] Hughes River Supra note 1 at pg. 447

[4] USDA Forest Service – Office of Rural Development; Dr. Glenda Humiston; Jobs, Economic Development and Sustainable Communities Strategizing Policy Needs and Program Delivery for Rural California; Feb 2010 at pg. 48

[5] DRAFT Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado, July 2016

 National Park Service Director’s Order #100 Project #65454

National Park Service
Submitted electronically @
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/DO100

Re: National Park Service Director’s Order #100 Project #65454

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the concerns relating to the proposed National Park Service (NPS) Director’s Order #100 (“DO#100”) submitted on behalf of ORBA, CSA, TPA and COHVCO.  We start first with a brief description of each Organization.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of 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 Colorado based 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 is an advocate of the sport and takes necessary actions to help insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

The Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. There are 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado.  CSA seeks to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling in Colorado by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

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 based in California. For purposes of this document ORBA, CSA, COHVCO and TPA are identified as “the Organizations”.

Request for Extended Public Comment Period

The Organizations respectfully request that the comment period for the DO#100 proposal be extended as many interested parties are not aware of the proposal since general public outreach has been very limited.  Additionally, the Organizations request that public meetings be conducted at strategic locations throughout the country to allow for more meaningful interaction with the public on the DO#100 proposal and to stimulate public understanding and partnerships to resolve site specific issues that a particular park or area might be facing. The Organizations have found that the addition of public meetings is highly effective in engaging the public and developing meaningful substantive comments, which result in a superior final rule at the end of the rule making process.

Director’s Order #100 will impair established factors to be balanced in National Park Service managed areas

The Organizations must express serious concern about the elevation of a single portion, resource protection, of the various interests that are to be balanced in the NPS’ mission above other historical usages, which the Organizations submit DO#100 clearly does. While resource protection is clearly an important factor to be balanced in the management of NPS lands, it must be balanced with other factors in order to achieve the mission of the NPS. The Organizations are aware that resource protection has often been weighted too heavily in traditional park areas where a more diverse range of uses is to be protected, such as the Canyonlands NP, where dispersed trail usage is a characteristic to be protected and preserved in the foundational documents. The Organizations submit that recent efforts on permitting of only certain trail usages for the Canyonlands NP have eroded one of the foundational principals to be protected and preserved under a traditional NP model of management.  These concerns are more extensive if DO#100 were enacted.

While our concerns are serious even under the more traditional NPS management model, such as Yellowstone NP, Rocky Mountain NP, the Organizations concerns are expanded when DO#100 is applied to areas that are managed under a less traditional park service model, such as the many National Conservation Areas, National Monuments and National Recreation areas. Many of these Congressionally-designated areas have foundational documents that are significantly wider in scope and balance a different set of interests than those that are present under general NPS authority. While the goals and objectives of some monuments, such as the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, might align reasonably well with an elevated protection of resources, other units’ mission will almost immediately experience conflicts.  For example, this would be exemplified in the Lake Mead NRA, where providing diverse water based recreational opportunities along with a management objective to be the Premier Inland Water Recreation Area in the West are specifically identified as goals.[1]   The Organizations are unable to reconcile the clearly stated goal of the Lake Mead NRA with an elevated level of protection of resources.  The Organizations vigorously assert that elevating resource protection above other priorities will result in same erosion of opportunities we are seeing with the management of the Canyonlands NP.  This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations.

The Organizations look forward to participating in further meetings on this issue and welcome the discussion as it 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.
COHVCO & CSA President
TPA Authorized Representative

Fred Wiley
ORBA CEO & Executive Director

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

[1] See, Lake Mead NRA Business Plan- Executive Summary – December 1999 at pg  4.

 Dispersed Camping closures on Tincup pass and in Irwin area

Gunnison Ranger District,
Attn: Dispersed Camping Comments
216 N. Colorado St.,
Gunnison, CO 81230

RE: Dispersed Camping closures on Tincup pass and in Irwin area

Dear Sirs:

Please accept these comments as the comments of the above Organizations expressing vigorous opposition to the proposed closure of large portions of the Tincup Pass and Irwin areas of the Gunnison Ranger District to dispersed camping opportunities (Hereinafter referred to as “the Proposal”). The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the blanket closures of these areas to dispersed camping and submit that all options must be explored prior to moving forward with blanket closures, as the Organizations are aware that management by closure may look good for an issue in the short term, it rarely is effective in resolving issues in the long run. Rather it has been the Organizations submit that management by closures often results in negative long term impacts to partnerships between land managers and the recreational user communities.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns with the Proposal, 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 the more than 150,000 registered 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. For purposes of this document, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition and the Trail Preservation Alliance will be referred to as “the Organizations” in this document.

First, the Organizations submit that dispersed camping opportunities are an important  component of the high quality recreational opportunities that are synonymous with Tin Cup Pass and the Taylor Park area for a wide range of user groups. Many users strongly prefer the dispersed camping opportunities that are provided on USFS lands over the more intensive camping opportunities provided by private camping sites. They simply want to get away from the hustle and bustle of daily life and are willing to use a generator and carry water for their dispersed camping opportunities to avoid more intensive camping experiences where basic services might be provided. Preserving these high quality recreational opportunities must be the first priority in development of a management plan for the area.

Closures of large areas to all camping simply does not provide protection of these highly valued opportunities or resources in the long term.   The closures simply will never stop people seeking to avoid the hustle and bustle of the Front Range every weekend by seeking recreational opportunities on the Urban Interface Forests. Experience has already taught that when an area is closed the recreational users simply move to other areas and they don’t stay home. The Organizations are very concerned that we might be having a similar discussion about closing of areas where dispersed camping has moved to after implementation of the closure in the Proposal.

The Organizations are also very concerned that the immediate loss of these opportunities sends the wrong message to the recreational community who have partnered with land managers for extended periods of time to proactively address a wide range of management issues on the GMUG. The Organizations are aware that this partnership has provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding directly to land managers on the GMUG in order to provide basic services to all recreational users under the basis that such a partnership was the most effective manner to avoid management by closure type situations. These types of partnerships are only effective when both sides commit to resolving issues in a collaborative manner and work hard to avoid management by closure. Given that management by closure appears to be the first step in addressing dispersed camping in the Proposal area, the Organizations must express serious concerns about the basic direction of the partnership that has proven so effective in addressing a wide range of issues on the GMUG.

The Badger Flats Project provides a great example of management that still provides high quality sustainable camping opportunities.

The Organizations are aware that the visitation to the Tin Cup and Irwin areas has significantly increased over recent years due to the proximity of the areas to large population centers such as Colorado Springs.  These increased population pressures have impacted the ability to provide unmanaged dispersed camping opportunities in many other locations, such as in the Badger Flats area of the South Park Ranger District.[1]  The Organizations believe that the management direction, mainly site specific analysis and moving to designated dispersed camping sites applied in the Badger Flats area must be explored in the Proposal as it represents a viable alternative to complete closure of these areas. When the issues facing the two areas are compared, the list of management challenges are almost a mirror image of each other.

There can be no argument that the current situation and lack of camping management is creating site specific resource impacts on the Proposal areas. It is also without contest that  extensive opportunities are available in areas where resources are not negatively impacting resources and these areas represent viable resources  designation of camping sites along routes in the Tin Cup Pass area. The Organizations are also aware that many sites could be subject to minimal maintenance and educational efforts for users and public access to the site could be continued. The Organizations submit these opportunities must be fully utilized in the designation of camping sites. The Organizations would note that the Badger Flats proposal has been partially funded with CPW OHV grants in order to inventory the areas and develop a plan that designates sites where resources are not impacted and to provide maintenance of these designated sites moving forward.

Any opportunities that might be lost due to closures of dispersed camping should be replaced with designated sights in the area as there currently is a shortage of camping opportunities in the area.

The Organizations vigorously assert that any camping opportunities that are lost on the Tincup/Irwin areas must be replaced with dispersed camping opportunities within the planning area.  The Organizations are aware that levels of recreation have increased in the Proposal area as a result of its proximity to major population centers. These impacts have been compounded by the complete closures of other locations that had previously provided dispersed camping opportunities to the public in the vicinity of the planning area.  The Organizations submit that such increases on the opportunities provided by sites in the Proposal, as a result of the closures in other locations is proof that the management by closure policy being applied in the Proposal area simply does not work.  The Organizations submit that land managers should develop a plan for sustainable opportunities in the Proposal area rather than push usage to other areas, that are not equipped to provide opportunities, which will result in further resource impacts and the long term closure of the areas where usage is pushed too. This is simply unacceptable to the Organizations because opportunities are lost and resources are impacted.

Educational materials should be developed to mitigate impacts and preserve access.

The Organizations welcome the references in the scoping notice regarding the development of educational materials as part of the Proposal. The Organizations submit that educational materials are simply not being correctly directed under the Proposal. Rather than educate the public regarding lost opportunities, the Organizations submit that educational resources should be directed towards use of designated sites in the area and other areas where designated camping sites can be found. Moving the public to other areas where unmanaged camping opportunities are provided will not provide a long term management solution to the dispersed camping usage. The Organizations vigorously submit that the public wants to do the right thing on public lands and when they are informed of what the right thing is the public will overwhelmingly comply with those educational materials.

Conclusion

The above Organizations are expressing vigorous opposition to the proposed closure of large portions of the Tincup Pass and Irwin areas of the Gunnison Ranger District to dispersed camping opportunities in these comments. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the blanket closures of these areas to dispersed camping and submit that all options must be explored prior to moving forward with blanket closures, as the Organizations are aware that management by closure may look good for an issue in the short term, it rarely is effective in resolving issues in the long run. Rather it has been the Organizations submit that management by closures often results in negative long term impacts to partnerships between land managers and the recreational user communities. Rather than manage by closure, the Organizations vigorously assert that the management planning exemplified in the Badger Flats area must be explored as an alternative to the current proposal, as the Badger Flats model provides better recreational opportunities and far better resource protections in the long run.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones at 518-281-5810 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or traditional mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504 if you should wish to discuss these matters further or if you should wish to have further information regarding these concerns.

Sincerely,
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO/TPA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

[1] The documentation regarding the Badger Flats proposal are far too extensive to include in these comments but can be accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48069

 Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service
Region 2 Rocky Mountain Region
Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer
40 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401-4720

RE: Objections to the Badger Flats Management Project Environmental Assessment South Park Ranger District, Pike & San Isabel National Forest October 2016
Dear Objection Reviewing Officer:

The following objections are submitted in regards to the Badger Flats Management Project, Environmental Assessment (EA) 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.  The TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”  The Organizations offer the following objections to the Environmental Assessment prepared for the Badger Flats Management Project.

1. Page 23 of 109, Socioeconomic Impacts: The Organizations disagree that “All of the alternatives considered would have little positive or negative affect on the local economies because it would not result in substantial increases or decrease in revenue spent in the local area, or increases or decreases in population, wages, or employment.”  The standard of review for economic analysis is a de novo standard as the Courts have consistently substituted their judgment regarding the accuracy of economic analysis.  Courts have consistently held agencies to a much tighter level of review of economic analysis when compared to other issues within the agency expertise in the NEPA process as the court makes their own conclusions regarding the accuracy of review without deference to agency findings. Relevant court rulings addressing economic analysis in NEPA have concluded:  “an EIS serves two functions. First, it ensures that agencies take a hard look at the environmental effects of proposed projects. Second, it ensures that relevant information regarding proposed projects is available to members of the public so that they may play a role in the decision making process. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. at 1845. For an EIS to serve these functions, it is essential that the EIS not be based on misleading economic assumptions.” [1]  The Court then discussed the significance of economic analysis in planning as follows:  “Misleading economic assumptions can defeat the first function of an EIS by impairing the agency’s consideration of the adverse environmental effects of a proposed project. See, South La. Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1011-12 (5th Cir.1980). NEPA requires agencies to balance a project’s economic benefits against its adverse environmental effects. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1113 (D.C.Cir.1971). The use of inflated economic benefits in this balancing process may result in approval of a project that otherwise would not have been approved because of its adverse environmental effects. Similarly, misleading economic assumptions can also defeat the second function of an EIS by skewing the public’s evaluation of a project.” [2]  The level of accuracy of the hard look at economic analysis applied by the Court in the Hughes River decision is significant as the Hughes River Court invalidated an EIS based on an error in economic contribution calculations of approximately 32%.[3]  The TPA and COHVCO submit that without the creation of a comparison between current usage and usage after implementation of the EA would be a violation of the Hughes River decision. No baseline of visitation to the area is provided to attempt to apply economic analysis of recreational usage.  In the Proposed Action, it simply states “All of the alternatives considered would have little positive or negative affect on the local economies…”.  The TPA and COHVCO submit that the economic analysis of the EA is facially insufficient and the determination that there will be no impacts to recreational spending as a result of the proposal simply lacks any factual basis. The TPA and COHVCO submits that this failure to provide even basic information is a per se violation of NEPA as there is a large range of user spending profiles and a wide range of recreational activities relying on the network of routes in the planning area to achieve their recreational objectives.  The importance of economic impacts of recreation within the Badger Flats area was raised in the project’s scoping comments previously submitted by the TPA and COHVCO.  The EA does not address the issue, but rather dismisses any economic impacts. This position is a per se violation of NEPA and the Hughes River decision.

   In the past, the Forest Service has clearly identified the economic benefits that can accrue to a local community as the result of a multiple use trail network as follows:

   “RECREATION AND TOURISM ARE VITAL TO MOST RURAL COMMUNITIES: This is true for virtually all rural communities but especially important to counties with high percentages of public land. Actions by public agencies to reduce or limit access to recreation on public lands have a direct impact on the local economy. Limiting access by closing roads, campgrounds, RV parking, and trails impact the surrounding communities. Visitors to public lands utilize nearby communities for food, lodging and support facilities. Interests include hiking, photography, horseback riding, biking, climbing, backpacking, birding, hunting, sport fishing, and many more. Public land agencies’ communication with community businesses is essential to job creation and stable rural communities.” [4]

2. Pages 86 & 87 of 109, Birds of Conservation Concern: The EA proposes a need to close NFSR 44 (along with NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and NFSR 280) on the west side of La Salle Pass due to encroachment to known cliff-nesting raptor nesting locations.  The Organizations would contend that only NFSRs 44.2C, 44.2B and 280 may need consideration for restriction of access.  That NFSR 44 should remain open to public access, or if absolutely necessary that the alignment of NFSR 44 be adjusted slightly or offset in select locations to gain additional separation from possible nesting sites.  The Organizations contend that a substantial portion of the existing centerline of NFSR is already ½ mile or more from the terrain suitable for cliff-nesting raptors.  NFSR 44 is the primary, and often the preferred route, for 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 LaSalle Pass.  Closure of NFSR 44 (the primary route to La Salle Pass) to public access will concentrate all use onto 44.2A (the secondary route to La Salle Pass) completely eliminating the unique experiences to travel through the center and northern portions of the open meadow landscape and will create a situation that will be difficult to enforce.  Additionally, NFSR 44.2A is the more difficult route and includes rock obstacles that not all users may desire to traverse.  The Organizations ask that NFSR 44 remain open to public motorized, multiple use access.

3. The EA failed to include any consideration for an open area specifically for motorized trials bike riding (AKA Moto Trials). Historically the Rocky Mountain Trials Association (RMTA) has worked with the South Park Ranger District to obtain land use permits for observed moto trials riding in the Thorp Gulch area.  During the scoping process, multiple public comments were submitted requesting a designated open area for the purpose of moto trials riding so enthusiasts could use/practice/ride in a designated area at any time.  The EA failed to include any consideration of an open moto trails riding area in the vicinity of Thorpe Gulch or anywhere else with the Badger Flats Management Project Area.  It should be noted that per the American Motorcyclist Association, moto trials riding produces almost no noticeable environmental impact. This is due to the extremely slow speeds, lack of intentional wheel spin, low-air-pressure tires, soft compound tires, extremely quiet exhausts and the increasing use of electric powered trials bikes.  The Organizations appeal that the South Park Ranger District confer with the RMTA and that the EA be revised to include a suitable designated area specifically for open (i.e., without a special use or other permit and open for use year round) moto trials riding.

4. Proposed Action Alternative Map: The EA proposes to decommission NFSR 214.B, a connecting segment that the Organization’s previously submitted scoping comments specifically requested be kept open to public use.  The EA provides no 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.   The Organizations ask that NFSR 214.B remain open to motorized, multiple use access.

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,
Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

cc
Scott Jones, COHVCO
Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park District Ranger

[1] Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman; (4th Circ 1996) 81 F3d 437 at pg. 442; 42 ERC 1594, 26 Envtl. L. Rep 21276.

[2] Hughes River Supra note 2 at pg.

[3] Hughes River Supra note 2 at pg.

[4] USDA Forest Service – Office of Rural Development; Dr. Glenda Humiston; Jobs, Economic Development and Sustainable Communities Strategizing Policy Needs and Program Delivery for Rural California; Feb 2010 at pg. 48