Author Archive | Administrator

 April 2014

Re: Roaring Fork Stream Restoration Project

Dear Mr. Wiley;
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above Organizations (COHVCO, TPA, CSA) regarding the Roaring Fork Stream Restoration Project. These comments will address two major questions that are critical to the project: 1)Should there be motorized access granted to land managers to the Wilderness area for resource resource management issues; and 2) What methodology and analysis is necessary for the reintroduction of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (“RGCT”) into the watershed as part of a species management plan. The Organizations support efforts to remove any species from the Endangered Species Act list, as this is the most effective manner to maximize multiple use recreational opportunities on public lands, and also support full utilization of all protections available under the ESA for recreational usage of habitat areas over the course of recovery for any species.

To continue reading, please download the attached PDF.

March 18, 2014

RE: Bear Creek Watershed Assessment – Scoping Comments

Dear Ranger Hahn and ID Team:

Please accept these comments on the Bear Creek Watershed Assessment on behalf of The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) and The Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”).  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 is a 100 percent 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 and TPA are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

It is essential that the Forest Service seize this opportunity to restore a diverse array of recreational uses to the Bear Creek Watershed and institute a sustainable network of actively-managed trail opportunities.  The Organizations support Alternative B with certain exceptions/comments as more specifically addressed later in this correspondence.  The Organizations also believe that proposed trail building and rerouting should occur as soon as possible to maintain recreational resources that are highly valued by our users and to remove pressure from the Bear Creek area, and allow for more effective management of any threats to the Greenback cutthroat trout (“GBCT”). 

I. Background

The context of this project appears to have unfortunately tainted the agency’s desire to protect the GBCT  which has restricted its normally broad range of discretion and tools for the management of issues.  It was bad enough that the agency chose to settle the lawsuit brought by the Center For Biological Diversity (“CBD”).  To the extent that choice could be justified, it would be because the settlement was based on the most minimal intrusion into the agency’s discretion, and allowed the agency to avoid an adverse finding on any of the CBD claims.  The Settlement Agreement makes all of these points quite clear.  The Settlement does not constitute an admission of any factual assertion by CBD.  It does not reflect a finding by the Court on any legal or factual proposition advanced by the suit.  It does not in any way constrain the Forest Service’s discretion, following satisfaction of the very limited procedural obligations outlined, to adopt a rationally defensible resumption of past use, or authorization of new or different uses, including motorcycle access within or near the Bear Creek Watershed.  The Settlement involves very limited, purely procedural commitments by the Forest Service.

Somehow, the Settlement Agreement has acquired a substantive effect in the minds of many Forest Service personnel that does not accurately reflect the true scope of the Settlement Agreement and overlooks the ongoing requirements of both the Endangered Species Act and FLPMA that best available science be relied on for all Forest Service planning.  Had the Organizations been somehow able to predict this outcome, they would have exercised our rights to formally object to the Court’s approval of the Settlement.  There is time for those with the proper, and only reasonable, view of the Settlement to take appropriate leadership of the Watershed Assessment process and restore some balance to management of the area. The Organizations believe this NEPA process is the correct mechanism for such input.   If the current “temporary” closures are made permanent, this improper understanding and erroneous scope of analysis would be made permanent.

Aside from legal and political posturing, there are some relatively simple truths that should guide any evaluation of management options in the Watershed: (1) water quality issues relate almost entirely to road/trail location and physical characteristics such as soil type, sloping, proximity to active water flow, not to the type, or even volume, of recreational traffic on the route; (2) recreation has been deemed a secondary or low level threat to GBCT; (3) the primary threats to GBCT include predation by and/or hybridization with other trout species, and stochastic events connected to or caused by fire, excessive runoff, or mass wasting; (4) management efforts to address and mitigate the limited role of recreation in the Watershed have focused entirely on the motorized portion of the trail, when the nonmotorized trail receives heavy daily use and indeed represents some of the worst sites where steeply sloped and highly erodible soils enter the Creek at unimproved crossings.  However imperfect the past situation may have been, the simple fact is that Bear Creek is a stronghold, maybe the last stronghold, of GBCT.  This fact is even more ironic given the significant flooding and stochastic impacts in the area Fall, 2013, which are at the extreme end of the historical range of variability.  All of this information was summarized in the April, 2013 Notice of Intent to Sue (“NOI”) submitted by the Organizations and other parties, and we hereby restate the NOI and incorporate it by reference herein. 

This project is an important opportunity to move beyond the minimal procedural road bump of the Settlement Agreement toward enhanced, more desirable and even more trail network in and near the Bear Creek Watershed, while protecting and improving GBCT habitat and species sustainability.

II. The Forest Service Must Restore Sustainable Recreation Opportunities.

There is no reasonable justification to leave current “interim” motorized closures in place, particularly while the trails remain in place and receive substantial or illegal non-motorized use.  The stated basis of these closures has changed significantly over the term of the closure of the area.  The agency needs to address this key opportunity to “get it right” and avoid what should be unnecessary further litigation. Clearly defining a single starting point or problem to be addressed in the planning process and management is an important step and would provide a strong basis for the development of a management plan that addressed the species related issues and obtained significant public support.    Public support for the management of this issue will be critical in any planning moving forward.  Conversely, continuation of the “interim” status quo which maintains, or expands, asymmetrical but unjustifiable closures to solely motorized access will provide the Organizations with little choice but to become regulated squeaky wheel by commencing litigation.

There is nothing in the Settlement that requires the outcome of the process adopt or continue closure of any area or route to motorized access.  Once the limited and enumerated procedures have been completed, the agency must make a decision that complies with all applicable law, including provisions within the National Forest Management Act and regulations that provide for a diverse array of recreation, including motorized recreation.

III. A Defensible Trail Network Needs Several Key Components.

The Organizations wish to outline key aspects that should be fully analyzed and eventually included in a final decision.  The Organizations have been actively involved in working groups surrounding the management of this area and the related litigation and believe that many of the concerns addressed in these comments are also held by the large percentage of members of the working group.  The Organizations generally support selection of Alternative B as may be reflected or slightly modified as outlined herein. These factors and/or decision components include specification of some time line for implementation.  There is no discussion on resources that will be needed to implement the plan.  The FS has ignored the fact that there are several recreation organizations/clubs in the area that are ready to assist and work on trail reroute/trail reconstruction.  There also exist ample State Parks OHV funds and other sources of funding available for the FS to use to support management of the area for multiple use recreation. These factors have been either ignored or the FS has decided not to use these resources in the implementation of Alternative B.  When the snow melts from this winter season, there will be significant demand for the FS to allow recreation use of the trails that have been closed under the Settlement or related Forest Orders. The FS should make every effort possible to have a basic trail system for all user groups to use by June 1, 2014.

Various additional components could improve any chosen action.  The FS needs to implement a sufficient education and outreach program, featuring trail signage.  The current signage at the gate of the lower Goldcamp road, should state that it is a multi use road/trail.  Additionally, some form of seasonal closures of routes might be addressed.  The TPA and COHVCO are prepared to work with the FS on all of the above suggestions. 

IV.  High Drive Road must remain open.

The High Drive Road must remain open as this route is an important resource for the recreational usage of the area.  The  closing of High Drive Road to public access is not supported by the TPA/COHVCO and is not a recommended action in the Watershed Assessment that reflects the basis for the project.  This position regarding the future of the High Drive Road  in the Watershed Assessment is clearly stated as follows:

The speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic, as well as compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing were considered when developing the recommendations for High Drive. Existing information indicates no significant problems related to these factors with past use of the road; therefore, none is expected in the future, since the only changes recommended for High Drive would improve existing conditions in terms of drainage, road geometry, and other factors.

This road provides significant access to a major recreation area for the public of Colorado Springs and also provides significant access to mining claims and is the sole means of accessing the area for fire prevention activities.  As noted in the Watershed Assessment, access to the Bear Creek Watershed for fire prevention activities is very limited even with the High Drive Road remaining open.  The Watershed Assessment also notes that the High Drive road is a possible cultural resource worthy of inclusion on the national register.  The Organizations believe this issue must be resolved prior to determining the need for closure of the road.

The Organizations will also note that under the preferred Alternative, High Drive Road is to remain open for administrative usage.  This makes no sense as any adverse environmental impacts are heavily correlated with the existence of the road, not continuing travel on the road.  This situation mandates that some level of mitigation must occur even if the road were to remain open for only administrative usage.   Closing the road to the public while allowing these impacts to continue under the guise of “administrative use” will deepen the agency’s public relations problem with local visitors.  If this route is repaired for administrative usage it should be reopened to public usage. Alternatively,  if the road is closed to standard vehicle use, it should remain open as a trail for multi-use recreation.  If even limited OHV usage  is found to be unacceptable to the land managers or under §7 consultation, High Drive should be closed to all usage for the protection of the species.

V. The Agency Must Utilize Best Available Science.

The Settlement Agreement in the litigation has virtually no connection to sound science (or policy) and the agency must decisively repudiate any suggestion that the “science” behind the Settlement Agreement is driving this process or limiting the scope of tools available to manage threats to the species.  The Organizations are aware of the major discussions that have occurred with the federal agencies regarding the implications of the McGrath article and management of GBCT as a species.  The Organizations believe that this article may affect population estimates or distribution of native/pure GBCT but do not believe that the article will change the priority and scale of the threats to the Greenback.  The McGrath article has prompted numerous meetings within federal agencies, such as the meeting last year in Denver with USFWS, reflecting spirited discussions of this debate.  There is no clear management strategy which has yet evolved, and certainly not one that would justify removing motorcycles from a managed trail while leaving the remaining trail prism of nonmotorized routes is left untouched allowing for ongoing erosion at unimproved creek crossings traversed by dozens of hikers every day. 

In addition to these vigorous discussions there are well-established truths conveniently overlooked by CBD.  Foremost among them is that GBCT have effectively been pushed out of all “normal” water bodies lacking the unusual barriers of Bear Creek through the systematic efforts of the managers and biologists now clamoring to save them:

“Between 1885 and 1953 there were 41,014 documented fish stocking events in Colorado by state or federal agencies. The vast majority of these involved brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (O. clarkii) (Fig. 3, supporting information). Remarkably, over 750 million fish of these three species were stocked from hatcheries into streams and lakes in Colorado over this period of time. Introductions of brook trout and rainbow trout probably had devastating effects on native cutthroat trout populations because brook trout are superior competitors and rainbow trout hybridize with cutthroat trout (Young & Harig 2001).”

The threats identified above are not a new issue for the management of the GBCT.  The June 2006 Conservation Strategy and Assessment  between FWS and the Forest Service provides 7 objectives and 11 strategies for the Colorado Cutthroat trout, all of which seek to now address the impacts of this stocking on the cutthroat trout that are more specifically addressed above.

Additionally , the 2009 FWS listing decision for GBCT provided a limited discussion regarding the three factors for effective trout habitat scope and types of habitat issues that are faced by cutthroat trout.  This report clearly states:

“Since completion of the 1998 Recovery Plan, extensive study has been devoted to determining how habitat quality and translocation success are related. Harig and Fausch (2002) developed a model, based on a comparative field study, which predicted that cold summer water temperature, narrow stream width, and lack of deep pools limited translocation success of the greenback. Young and Guenther-Gloss (2004) evaluated the model developed by Harig and Fausch (2002), and found a positive correlation between the three model components and greenback abundance.”

Decomposed granite is highly mobile and unstable, with or without recreational usage, and these stability issues are compounded by the steep slopes that are prevalent in the Bear Creek Watershed.  Ineffective or completely lacking management, primarily on the nonmotorized Trail 666, has accelerated erosion issues with the decomposed granite in the watershed.  Whether recreational use occurs or not is perhaps the most unimportant of possible impacts facing GBCT. Managing recreational usage as the primary threat will not generate significant benefit for the BGCT and will directly undermine any potential support for the management of this area.

There may be facets of GBCT management that are uncertain or need refinement, but the most significant threats can be intuitively grasped and are borne out in the best available science.  Hybridization, predation, and landscape-level erosion and water quality issues represent the essential challenges if we are to expand Bear Creek’s remnant GBCT population, which has thrived along a decades-old motorcycle trail, back into waters throughout Colorado.  While recreational usage is an issue, it is not the primary threat to the species as directly evidenced by the fact that the GBCT in Bear Creek have survived despite heavy recreational usage of the watershed.

VI. Recreational Travel Presents Limited Threats to GBCT.

Along with proper identification of the real threats to GBCT flows the obvious recognition that recreational travel is a trivial factor, which recognition is supported by a wide range of research on this issue.  The US Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station recently released extensive analysis of the effectiveness of travel management restrictions on addressing sensitive species issues in a general manner.  These conclusions specifically found that travel management was not effective in addressing many species related issues.  The Research Station conclusions specifically stated as follows:

Actions such as limiting grazing or closing OHV trails have historically been some of the primary tools used by land managers in southern Nevada to reduce the effects of anthropogenic stressors on species of conservation concern….. It is evident from this body of research that very little is known about the relative threats posed to, or the mitigation actions needed to protect, virtually any species, except perhaps the desert tortoise. Too often research jumps immediately to mitigation strategies without first determining what specific factors pose the greatest threats and are the most important to mitigate. In addition, the evaluation of potential threats typically focuses upon the usual anthropogenic suspects (e.g. OHVs, livestock grazing, invasive species, and climate change) without first carefully considering which factors are most likely to pose the greatest threats.
 
The Organizations would be remiss in not noting the relationship that this conclusion has with the management and litigation history with this proposal.  As is noted in other portions of these comments, roads and trail usage of cutthroat trout habitat has been specifically identified as a management tool that should be applied based on agency priorities and funding levels.  Management of sensitive trout species has occurred in habitat areas where there are extensive but properly managed routes and trails available and researchers have specifically found that:

 ”[s]tudy streams were accessible by road or trail and generally supported good to excellent habitat conditions.”

Given the explicit nature of this statement, clearly recreational usage and trout habitat designations are not mutually exclusive designations as are proposed.

These general management positions regarding the effectiveness of travel management in addressing sensitive and endangered species issues are supported by specific analysis of GBCT threats.  The 2009 FWS listing decision does identify trails usage as a “threat” but only a low level threat, as follows:

Low level threats include the ongoing negative effects of past mining operations on water quality; the impacts of grazing, logging, and road and trail construction and use on riparian habitat and streambanks, causing increased erosion, sediment deposition, and in turn elevated water temperatures and higher turbidity; and the co-occurrence of nonnative salmonids with greenback populations.

The 5 year listing decision specifically states that land managers have a significant amount of latitude in addressing these low level threats to the trout.  The listing decision recommended management of this issue as follows:

Regulatory and land management agencies have the ability to improve habitat conditions and eliminate or minimize these threats by…. by implementing conservation measures to avoid streamside habitat degradation while approving new grazing, logging, and road and trail construction proposals; by moving existing roads and trails away from streamside habitats and rehabilitating disturbed riparian habitats;….. All of these positive activities are ongoing throughout the subspecies’ range and are implemented based on agency priorities and funding levels on an annual basis.”

Clearly such management standards cannot be summarized as a high priority management tool or requiring closure of any habitat areas to recreational usage.

The Organizations will note that the article that was the basis for the lawsuit and subsequent proceedings provides an extensive analysis  of issues impacting GBCT.  At no point are roads and trails identified or discussed as a possible threat to GBCT in the Bear Creek watershed despite extensive on-site analysis of the Bear Creek area by researchers.  This article immediately moves to analysis and discussion of the restocking efforts that have been undertaken and the devastating effects that restocking over 750 million other species of trout that out compete the native fish have had throughout Colorado.  This threat analysis is consistent with the management documents that have been previously created by the USFWS and CPW for the management of the species. 

The Organizations do not question that placement and physical characteristics of some routes, coupled with the historical lack of management in the Bear Creek area, has contributed to habitat concerns that are now present in the planning area.  These concerns should certainly be addressed.   The Organizations are concerned that in the rush to address what has historically and repeatedly identified as a lower level threat to GBCT, many primary threats to the species have been overlooked.  The Organizations are very concerned that this oversight will be compounded by continuing wrangling and litigation, while true management actions fail to reach the ground and help GBCT.  This is not acceptable to the Organizations.

The Organizations are very concerned that routes may be lost due to an overabundance of caution in planning and attempts to use travel management as a scapegoat for the real threats to GBCT.  It has been the Organizations’ experience that once routes are closed, they are almost without exception never reopened regardless of later scientific developments that show the closures were not necessary and did not improve the conditions.  The agency needs to tackle the right problem, and quit being played by preservationists hoping to eliminate motorized use while laughing their way to the bank.  

VII. Recreational Closures Cannot be Defended in the Face of Greater Unmanaged Threats.

Many issues that have historically identified as major threats to GBCT, such as fire, predation and forest health, are not addressed in this plan.  The Organizations believe that addressing these well documented threats and issues is critical to establishing a viable population of GBCT in Colorado. These concerns are compounded by the admissions in the planning documents that fire protection for the Watershed is minimal at best, even with current levels of access.  The Organizations believe that reducing motorized access will simply be compounding a known threat to the GBCT, that has not been effectively managed to date.

If these issues are not addressed and the GBCT population continues to decline or maintain current levels even after this Project is implemented, further litigation from one or more sources will result, and further squander limited resources that are needed to save GBCT.  This should be avoided with the development of the most comprehensive plan possible. The Organizations are again raising this issue in the hope of developing a management plan that will not be impacted by §7 consultation and which will be complete enough to avoid further litigation on the management of the Bear Creek Watershed. The Organizations strongly believe that delays in the planning process should be avoided in order to insure that any new trail development and re-routes are implemented as soon as possible to restore recreational usage of the area. 

Throughout the Watershed Assessment numerous references are made to the overly dense nature of the forest canopy in the Bear Creek Watershed and the significant increases in woody material that have become present in Bear Creek over the last several years.  The Organizations would be remiss in not pointing out that numerous questions posed on this exact issue in the Question and Answer portions of the Watershed Assessment.  These are additional issues that a large body of research has concluded will significantly impact GBCT habitat and should not be overlooked in the management planning for the watershed.   The 2009 Conservation Report specifically identifies the impact of fire and insect infestation are both major contributors to woody matters concerns, 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.”
Forest fires have been identified as a major threat to habitat for the Colorado cutthroat trout, both during the fire itself and from the condition of riparian area afterwards.  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.”
Fire is specifically identified as a disturbance that results in trout habitat being unsuitable for extended time periods: 

“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…”

This research notes the significant difference in impact to the cutthroat trout between conditions existing before the fire, during the fire and after the fire. The Organizations note that the analysis to date is completely void of any analysis of how the management of this chronological discussion will be addressed.

The Organizations vigorously assert that proper fire and forest health management of the planning area is an integral part of the planning process.   The Organizations are aware that a viable motorized transportation system is  an important component of fire suppression and forest health management.  The Organizations believe that the proposed management plan fails to adequately address these threats and how the planning will improve these high risk conditions to the GBCT.

VIII. Phased Project Components And A Timeline May Offer Advantages.

The Organizations are concerned that the limited scope of analysis in the plan or unforeseen circumstances in the future of plan development might become problematic during consultation.  The Organizations believe that developing a viable alternative that will not be significantly altered in §7 consultation is a critical component of maintaining multiple use access. The Organizations believe that a possible division of management action(s) into phases might allow for better prioritization and implementation, particularly if issues develop with one or more separable components.  The Organizations believe there are lower threat routes that could be developed with minimal impact to GBCT habitat that would also provide significant recreational opportunities.  The Organizations believe the plan should allow for the separation of certain lower threat routes from other issues more directly impacting the watershed and allow for these phases to move forward while more analysis of the more at risk routes is performed.

The Organizations also believe that a timeline for implementation of changes and opening of new routes is a critical component of the management planning that has not been addressed.   This  timeline would assist in distinguishing lower threat trails and areas that could be reopened at less expense and sooner than areas or trails that might need more planning and analysis due to possible impacts.

IX. Ample Funding and Partner Support Exists for Actively Managed Trails.

Throughout the Watershed Assessment and scoping letter numerous references are made to the limited funding that is available for the maintenance of roads and trails in the planning area.  The Organizations are sympathetic to this concern but would note that the Pike Peak Ranger district has received on-going funding from the CPW OHV grant program for a management crew, which provides on the ground resources for maintenance of roads and trails in the Ranger District along with an FPO, who assists with law enforcement and education of users who the good management crew comes into contact with during their trail maintenance activities. Funding for this management crew is given on a priority basis and is derived from fees received from Colorado OHV registrations and federal gas tax money for fuels burned by OHVs.  The motorized community is the only user group that pays such fees/taxes to provide management resources enjoyed by all trail users.

In addition to the management crew that is specifically provided by the OHV community for the maintenance of trails, the OHV community also provided funding for the analysis of management options in the planning area. The Organizations are committed to turning Bear Creek into a management success story.  Every allowable means of partnering and support will be provided.  Whatever concerns the Forest Service may have about managing Bear Creek, funding and management resources should not be a reason to influence management choices.

X. Continuing Closure is Not A Solution.

The FS has made a significant error in its unequal description and enforcement of the closure orders of Bear Creek.  On any day of the week, the Bear Creek trails (666/667) are being heavily used by selected recreation groups.  Only the motorcycle recreationists have abided by the FS closure.  The FS (for various reasons) has ignored the continued violation of their closure order.  The Organizations will not longer tolerate this abdication of agency authority.  All recreation user groups must be treated similarly.

The Organizations support a robust and well-designed series of trails, including meaningful re-routed trails, to allow more sustainable yet more enjoyable use of the project area.  Under this approach, various illegal or inconsistent situations must be addressed.  Closing Trail 667 but allowing Trail 666 to remain open (even for a short section) is a prime example cannot be defended and is a transparent effort to eliminate motorized access without any defensible benefit to resources.  If Alternative B is going to be implanted, the entire Trail 666 should be closed to all user groups.
 
Additionally, the Organizations are concerned with the possible ramifications of the agency legitimizing the “bandit”-created and unauthorized “Buck Horn” trail.  There are instances where user-created routes may make an appropriate addition to a route system, but this is not one of them.  If this route is seriously being considered for acceptance into the FS trail system, it should be designated for all uses, including motorized travel.  To allow a user group to illegally create a trail and then have it managed for their exclusive use would set a horrible precedent and further enflame the inequity of the current situation. 

XII. Conclusion.

The Organizations support Alternative B of the Proposal but believe there are significant modifications to the alternative that must be included to improve this alternative.  The Organizations are very concerned that many primary threats to the GBCT have not been addressed in the proposal for reasons that are not clear.   The Organizations believe proper analysis of these issues in planning will avoid further litigation and allow for the continued recreational access to the area in a timely manner.   If these primary threats to the GBCT are not addressed and management continues to focus on secondary threats to the species, the Organizations believe the Proposal will simply be back in Court in the near future. This should be avoided at all costs as litigation does  not benefit the GBCT and delays recreational usage of the area. 

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact  Don Riggle at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs, 80906, Cell 719 338 4106

 
Sincerely,
 
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
TPA Authorized Representative
 
John Bonngiovanni
COHVCO Chairman

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

March 13, 2014

Dear Sirs;
The Organizations above are contacting you regarding the restoration and reopening of the Rollins Pass Road in the Boulder Ranger District of the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest and its status following the Boulder County Commissioners public meeting on this issue that occurred on February 13, 2014. This meeting was personally attended by County Commissioners from Gilpin and Grand Counties and approximately  300 or more members of the public. Testimony that was received from the public was overwhelmingly in favor of reopening the Rollins Pass Road and was received from a wide range of interest groups including Historical societies, local governments, local businesses, the motorized community, sportsman and railroad interests. Often the public displayed high levels of frustration regarding factual inaccuracies in presentations and positions taken by Boulder County and USFS representatives. Many comments were made that the issue appeared to have moved further away from resolution than ever before. 

Prior to addressing the specific concerns regarding the importance of the Rollins Pass Road area, a  brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 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. 

The Organizations believe a brief summary of the history of this issue is relevant to our concerns regarding the currently conflicted status of reopening the road. The Rollins Pass Road has a long history of motorized and rail usage originating early in the 1900’s  connecting Boulder and Winter Park, and provided access for many front range residents to dispersed recreational opportunities. This route continues to provide extensive recreational opportunity to a wide range of recreational users, even though users are not able to connect the two portion of the routes that remain. The usage of the Rollins Pass Road was the basis for significant discussion during the development of the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act (PL 107-216).  The Rollins Pass Road, which is predominately in Boulder County and a major concern for Gilpin and Grand Counties, was to be reopened as a tradeoff for the designation of significant Wilderness areas in Gilpin and Grand Counties which was a major concern for Boulder County. While the Legislation addressed the Rollins Pass Road, it did not specify the location of the route or level of maintenance that is to be provided on the route other than specifying a two wheel drive car would be able to use the route. It is the Organizations position that the lack of clarity in drafting has taken a small issue and allowed it to become far larger than it ever should have been.

Under the Legislation, the Forest Service was required to provide technical assistance with the reopening of the route. While the Wilderness areas have been immediately designated and closed to multiple usage since the passage of the James Peak Legislation, very little actual headway has occurred to move forward with reopening the Rollins Pass Road. Rather many think the issue has moved further from resolution than ever before. The James Peak Legislation specifically provided reopening of the road upon request of one of the impacted counties. The Organizations are aware that currently 3 of 4 counties impacted by this legislation have requested the Rollins Pass Road be reopened, and that several of the counties have requested as such almost every year since passage of the Legislation. While the process that is to be employed to achieve the reopening of the route is not clearly specified, the intent of all parties under this Legislation was clearly understood and should be honored.
 
Our concerns following the meeting are:

1. Reopening the Rollins Pass Road is only a small change in the total route as currently the majority of the route remains open on both sides.  Only a small portion of the Rollins Pass Road at the Pass has been closed around the tunnel.
 
2. Safety concerns for users are often significantly overstated as most of the route remains open to multiple use. The route is no more unsafe than many other routes in the several counties involved.

3. Potential Wilderness impacts are not accurately assessed. The Rollins Pass area is heavily used for a variety of recreational activity even with the Tunnel portion of the road area being closed. Much of the Wilderness area is separated from multiple usage activity by significant natural barriers, and this was an issue that was addressed in the legislation with the inclusion no buffer language and boundaries.

4. Boulder County proposals include a complete reconstruction of the entire route. This is not what has been envisioned when the Legislation was adopted and has not been requested by any other party to the discussions.

5. Much of the reconstruction that is alleged to be needed is based on an inaccurate assessment and review of the conditions of the route. Many expenses and safety concerns could be minimized with an accurate analysis of issues and a genuine intent to move forward with reopening the Rollins Pass Road by all parties.
 
6. Significant conflict has arisen regarding an asserted desire to keep the route open year round.  The Organizations are not aware of any intent by any party to keep the route open all four seasons. 

Many of these issues could be resolved with technical assistance of the Forest Service, such as bringing the various parties involved together to facilitate a common starting point and hard deadlines for analysis of this issue and movement toward reopening the area. Many of the issues identified above have resulted in a significant rift developing between the county efforts to reopen the road, both in concerns and cost estimates for reopening the route. The Organizations believe that establishing a common starting point for analysis and a vehicle for meaningful discussions of issues with deadlines for performance would be a significant step forward and would be the type of technical expertise that was envisioned when the James Peak Legislation was passed into law.
 
The Organizations welcome your assistance in resolving this issue, in whatever form is found to be proper by the USFS. The Mile High Jeep Club has displayed significant interest in the reopening of the Rollins Pass Road and has volunteered to function as the point of contact on this issue.  The best person to contact with Mile High Jeep is Jim Chambers and his phone is 303-345-1004 and his email is jameslchambers@hotmail.com. The Organizations remain ready willing and interested in assisting with facilitation of resolution of this issue in any way we can.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
TPA Authorized Representative
 
John Bonngiovanni
COHVCO Chairman

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

 February 13, 2014

This decision authorizes the construction or reconstruction of 21 miles of single-track trail and rehabilitation and closure of 22 miles of user-created, non-system trails in the area.  The proposed trail system will be managed for all non-motorized uses as well as for single-track motorized uses. 

February 1, 2014

Arapahoe Roosevelt National Forest
Att: Glenn Casamasa, Forest Supervisor
Center Drive, Suite
Fort Collins CO

RE: Lefthand Canyon OHV area

Dear Mr. Casamasa;
The Organizations above are contacting you regarding the status and importance of the restoration of the Lefthand Canyon OHV area on the Boulder Ranger District following the floods that decimated a large amount of the Arapahoe Roosevelt National Forest last year. Prior to addressing the specific concerns regarding the importance of the Lefthand OHV area, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 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.

As your office is intimately aware of, restoration of the damage from the unprecedented flooding that impacted the much of the northern front range and many of the recreational opportunities that are provided by the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest is a daunting task without taking into account the several large burn areas that have also impacted the Arapahoe/Roosevelt over the last several years. Establishing a prioritized response and plan for this issue is a daunting task that will include make many difficult decisions, prior to ever putting a shovel on the ground. The OHV community stands ready to assist in the restoration efforts, both with grants from the Colorado State Parks OHV grant program and volunteer support which could range from directly assisting in repairing trails, mobilizing resources, coordinating efforts of volunteers and in any other way that may arise as restoration efforts move forward.

The Organizations are aware that a preliminary priority list has been developed for the Forest based on aerial surveys and limited site analysis and that the Forest is currently developing a more complete prioritization and restoration plan once more information on impacted sites has been obtained. The Organizations anticipate that many of the more dispersed recreational opportunity areas on the Arapahoe/Roosevelt will fall lower on the restoration priority list than more intensively developed sites that have been impacted by the flooding and fires. The Organizations believe this is good management but that these decisions should not be made entirely based on levels of development of recreational resources that might be present, as there are highly valued opportunities that could be overlooked.

One such area would be the Lefthand Canyon OHV area outside Boulder Colorado on the Boulder Ranger district. The Organizations are contacting you to let you know the high value that our members place on access to this area. The Lefthand Canyon OHV area is identified as an OHV area but truly provides multiple use recreational opportunities to a wide range of recreational users including hikes, bikers, hunter, and recreational shooters. The opportunities provided by the Lefthand Canyon OHV area are unique given their proximity to population centers, as many recreationalists are able to use this area after work or on their lunch break and directly improve these users quality of life. These recreational activities are made even more unique as local municipal parks and green spaces are not able to provide any opportunity for these user groups on their facilities. The loss of the Lefthand Canyon area for a prolonged period of time would directly impact these users a great deal.

It is our understanding that the prioritization of restoration of the Lefthand Canyon OHV area would be warranted on a cost/benefit analysis comparison as well. While many of the more developed recreational areas on the Arapahoe/Roosevelt have been almost destroyed by the flooding, the Lefthand Canyon OHV area has sustained minimal impacts as only a short portion of the access road has been damaged. The Lefthand Canyon area also was not significantly impacted by wildfires, as many other sites have been on the Arapahoe/Roosevelt simplifying any restoration efforts that may need to be undertaken. While the true impacts to the area are not fully known due to the complete closure of the area, there are several access points that could be used for the public in order to avoid any unsafe or heavily impacted areas. While many of the other routes and trails in the area have been slightly impacted by the flooding, repair of these impacts would generally not be necessary as these conditions provide for a more challenging recreational opportunity for trails users. That would be welcomed by our members.

Lefthand Canyon also has had extensive planning and upgrading recently, which has directly contributed to the minimal impacts that the area has experienced. This planning has also streamlined any changes that might need to be made to address site specific issues and this planning has been implemented on a large scale in the Lefthand Canyon area. This implementation has included the significant expenditures of grant moneys on the trails, which should be taken into account when prioritizing the restoration of the area.

The final factor we would like to bring to your attention is the strong support that management of this area has received from several local clubs, including the Boulder County Trail Riders and Trail Ridge Runners OHV club. These clubs are aware of the unique opportunity provided by the Lefthand Canyon area and have prolonged commitments to assisting in this area and the rest of the motorized routes on the Boulder Ranger district. These are partner organizations stand ready willing and able to assist in the restoration of the Lefthand Canyon area with a minimal amount of notice. These clubs have demonstrated a strong commitment to partnering for this area and with the impacts of the flooding this commitment is stronger now than ever. Many facilities with far higher levels of facility development to not have the ongoing public support that these clubs have provided to the Boulder Ranger district for an extended period of time. Loss of these partner organizations would directly impact both the Lefthand Canyon area but also volunteer efforts on many other routes in the Boulder Ranger district. Such a risk could be avoided with a heightened priority placed on restoration of the Lefthand Canyon OHV area.

The Lefthand Canyon OHV area is also one of the few areas on the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest where more intensive multiple use recreation is permitted under the Forest Plan. With the consistently expanding demand for multiple use recreational activity, management areas such as these are important to resource for land managers and should not be overlooked. The Organizations believe this factor alone warrants a priority restoration of the Lefthand Canyon area.

The Organizations appreciate the scope of the efforts from your office in addressing the impacts of the recent flooding. We hope that this correspondence assists you in making the best decisions possible.

Sincerely,

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

John F. Lane
COHVCO Co-Chairman & President

January 29, 2014

Brush Creek/Hayden RD
Att: Brian Waugh
PO Box 249
Saratoga WY 82331

RE: Western Snowy Range Travel Management

Dear Mr. Waugh;

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above Organizations in regarding the proposed travel management process for the western portions of the Snowy Range. The Organizations would like to the thank the Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District for this opportunity to provide input at this early time of the planning process. While the planning area is technically outside the Colorado political boundaries, the planning area provides an important riding opportunity for many of our members, and as such is an important resource for the Organizations. As such the Organizations are requesting to be included in any further planning that occurs in response to the scoping letter.

The Organizations believe a brief description of each Organization will assist in understanding of these comments. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing the approximately 200,000 registered OHVs 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 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 for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public land access to trail riding.

It is the Organizations understanding that many of our local members are contacting the Ranger District in response to the scoping request to identify important trails and opportunities. The Organizations are not attempting to provide a summary of these trails and their importance but rather the Organizations would like to provide updates on several wildlife issues and research on user conflicts for use in the planning process moving forward.

1. Management standards for wildlife.

The Organizations would like to start with a summary of recent research into the effectiveness of travel management in addressing wildlife concerns, as the Rocky Mountain Research Station is now releasing their preliminary analysis of data obtained after implementing travel plans throughout the region. The Research Station’s findings are as follows:

“Actions such as limiting grazing or closing OHV trails have historically been some of the primary tools used by land managers in southern Nevada to reduce the effects of anthropogenic stressors on species of conservation concern…. Too often research jumps immediately to mitigation strategies without first determining what specific factors pose the greatest threats and are the most important to mitigate. In addition, the evaluation of potential threats typically focuses upon the usual anthropogenic suspects (e.g. OHVs, livestock grazing, invasive species, and climate change) without first carefully considering which factors are most likely to pose the greatest threats. Finally, fundamental science associated with the life history characteristics and habitat requirements of species typically receives the least attention, even though these topics are where research programs should actually start.”¹

Dispersed motorized recreation’s possible impact on elk, deer and numerous other herd animals has been extensively studied by the National Park Service in addressing winter usage of Yellowstone Park. The Organizations believe these analyses are completely relevant to any analysis of dispersed motorized recreation in the planning area and provide further support for the work of the Rocky Mountain Research Station. If there were an impact to elk and deer, the ongoing research in Yellowstone Park would have noted this impact. These analyses have repeatedly found:

“Based on these population-level results, we suggest that the debate regarding effects of human winter recreation on wildlife in Yellowstone is largely a social issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue. Effects of winter disturbances on ungulates from motorized and non-motorized uses more likely accrue at the individual animal level (e.g., temporary displacements and acute increases in heart rate or energy expenditures) than at the population scale. A general tolerance of wildlife to human activities is suggested because of the association between locations of large wintering ungulate herds and winter recreation. Habituation to human activities likely reduces the chance for chronic stress or abandonment of critical wintering habitats that could have significant effects at the population level, especially when these activities are relatively predictable.”²

It is the Organizations long standing position that wildlife management is a valid and proper use of public lands and best available science should be supported, but too often these wildlife management issues are lost in the discussions or used as a surrogate for other issues. While designated trails and seasonal closures are effective at mitigating site specific issues for wildlife, these tools are not effective for management of many other issues such as the impact of the mountain pine beetle on habitat quality. The Organizations believe any travel management planning action is merely one tool the planners tool box, and that use of any tool should not occur without addressing how the tool relates to the primary threats to any species. Often travel management tools are poorly suited to address the primary threats to species.

2. Recent changes in Lynx management must be incorporated in the west snowies plan.

A review of the current Medicine Bow NF RMP reveals that extensive analysis of lynx related issues has occurred on the planning area.3 The large scale overlap of lynx habitat areas to the planning area forces the Organizations to believe lynx management may be an issue moving forward. Lynx management is an issue that there have been signifcant recent developments in research and agency planning mandates. As a result of these new management changes a copy of these planning documents have been included with these comments for your reference.

The Organizations would like to summarize many of the changes to recreationally related management standards that are provided in this document:

• 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;⁴
• 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; ⁵
• Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;⁶
• There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx; ⁷
• Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;⁸
• Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; ⁹
• 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 ¹⁰
• 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.¹¹

Given the signifcantly lower levels of concern for possible impacts to lynx habitat from recreational usage of lynx habitat, the Organizations beleive this should be an issue of minimal concern moving forward in planning in the West Snowy Range area.

3. Water quality is very good in the planning area.

The Organizations are very concerned with possible water quality issues that may be involved with any trail. Our members are multiple use recreational users and often are active hunters and fisherman and truly apprecaite a quality and healthy forest. As such, the following comments are made to support the effectiveness of mitigation measures on the various routes, such as hardening, culverts and other activities. It appears that the encampment river watershed area is very healthy and is not being significantly impacted by recreational activities in the area.

In addition to the Proposal area not being a Wateshed of concern under the existing LRMP, the USGS has prepared a water quality analysis for the encampment river, which is immedaitely adjacent to the planning area. Much of the USGS data was acquired before designated trail system, if there was a water quality issue as a result of OHV recreation in the area the Organizations must believe it would have been apparent in this report.

4a. User conflicts often cannot be resolved with travel management.

User conflict is another issue that often is significantly involved in travel planning and proper analysis of this issue is critical to insure that an accurate basis for the conflict has been determined and that the proper management tools are being applied to remedy the basis of the conflict. User conflict is often a very localized event and expansion of this local management issue to a landscape level issue fails to address the true nature of the conflict. Research indicates that landscape level socially based user conflicts can only be resolved with education of users and this option must be addressed if user conflicts become a significant issue.

User conflicts often exist outside motorized recreation, such as between skiers and snowboarders, heli-skiers and back country skiers, hunters and non-hunters, hunters and other hunters, hikers and bikers, runners and dog walkers on urban trails, and hikers and farmers. Despite the ongoing nature of these conflicts, motorized recreation on public lands is the only area for which closure has been asserted to be properly be the first method for remedying perceived conflicts. This position is completely arbitrary as user conflict, especially personal user conflicts often exist between users in the same general category and often occur regardless of the method of transport used to get to the area.

The Organizations believe that after a brief summary of research into user conflict, the difference in the using travel management as the primary tool to address user conflict and best available science on the issue will be clear. Researchers have specifically identified that properly determining the basis for or type of user conflict is critical to determining the proper method for managing this conflict. Scientific analysis defines the division of conflicts as follows:

“For interpersonal conflict to occur, the physical presence or behavior of an individual or a group of recreationists must interfere with the goals of another individual or group….Social values conflict, on the other hand, can occur between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell&Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba& Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups……When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy. When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. In the Mt. Evans study (Vaske et al., 1995), for example, physically separating hunters from nonhunters did not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the nonhunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area resulted in the perception of conflict. For these types of situations, efforts designed to educate and inform the different visiting publics about the reasons underlying management actions may be more effective in reducing conflict.” ¹²

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

“The travel management planning process did not directly assess the prevalence of on-site conflict between non-motorized groups accessing and using the yurts and adjacent motorized users…..The common definition of recreation conflict for an individual assumes that people recreate in order to achieve certain goals, and defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). Therefore, conflict as goal interference is not an objective state, but is an individual’s appraisal of past and future social contacts that influences either direct or indirect conflict. It is important to note that the absence of recreational goal attainment alone is insufficient to denote the presence of conflict. The perceived source of this goal interference must be identified as other individuals.”¹³

It is significant to note that Mr. Norling’s study, cited above, was specifically created to determine why travel management closures had not resolved user conflicts for winter users of a group of yurts on the Wasache-Cache National forest. As noted in Mr. Norling’s study, the travel management decisions addressing in the areas surrounding the yurts failed to distinguish why the conflict was occurring and this failure prevented the land managers from effectively resolving the conflict. The Organizations believe that travel management planners must learn from this failure and move forward with effective management rather than fall victim to the same mistakes again. As such this issue has been brought forward in scoping to avoid confusion later in planning.

4b. NVUM analysis indicates user conflicts are a minimal concern in the Routt National Forest.

The Organizations also must address the high quality nature of recreational experiences that are currently provided to visitors to the Routt National Forest as found in NVUM analysis. A complete copy of the Round 2 NVUM analysis has been provided with these comments for your reference. The high quality recreational opportunities on the Routt NF have been extensively analyzed in the USFS NVUM process, which yields the following conclusions:

¹⁴

The Organizations will note that providing a 94% rating of somewhat or very satisfied response from any user groups is impressive. The Organizations believe preserving these high levels of satisfaction is an important factor to be preserved in the proposal and directly rebuts any claims of user dissatisfaction with recreational opportunities. These issues are clearly a very minimal planning concern and should be managed as such.

NVUM analysis further finds that those using developed and GFS sites are often less satisfied with the levels of access to these sites. NVUM analysis states the conclusions on this issue as follows:

¹⁵

The Organizations believe addressing the perception of access as an issue when using these facilities must be a priority in any planning for the western portion of the Snowy Range area.

The Organizations would like to note that often poor conditions of roads and signage is a major concern for forest users. The Organizations believe addressing these concerns in the proposal area is a significant issue to be addressed in the proposal area moving forward. The NVUM analysis provides the following summary of these concerns:

¹⁶

The Organizations believe that any planning that is undertaken in the Western Snowy Range area must address a preliminary question of what are the concerns of users in the area and how does the planning assist in resolving these concerns. As noted above maintaining the current levels of access and opportunity is a significant concern for users moving forward and closures will not help resolve concerns for limited access of users.

5. Expanded funding for roads and trails is now available

In several locations in the scoping notice, there are concerns raised about the limited funding available for maintenance of roads and trails in the proposal area. The Organizations completely understand this concern and impacts to recreational opportunities and management that can result from limited budgets. These Ranger District level budgetary concerns in Wyoming can now be partially addressed through the newly created OHV grant program that has been developed by the Wyoming State Trails Committee, which is designed to assist in offsetting exactly these types of funding issues with money from both the Recreational Trails program and OHV registrations in the State.

The Wyoming OHV grant program just completed its second grant cycle and awarded almost $1 million dollars in grants for projects such as the one proposed. The Organizations would hope these resources would allow more trails in the proposal area to remain open and would encourage any proposals for the area to be developed to address this additional funding. More information on this program is available on the Wyoming State Trails grants website, which is wyotrails.state.wy.us

6. Conclusion

The Organizations welcome this opportunity to provide input on the Western Snowy Range travel plan. As previously noted many of our members and clubs are preparing route specific comments, and our comments are submitted to be a resource in moving forward with the management of this area. The Organizations believe there are minimal wildlife, water and user conflicts in the area along with new funding programs which provide a realistic opportunity for maintaining current levels of usage and satisfaction to recreational users of the area.

If you would like a copy of any of the reports relied on in these comments or have questions please feel free to contact Scott Jones at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810.

Sincerely,

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

John F. Lane
COHVCO Co-Chairman & President

¹ Chambers, Jeanne C.; Brooks, Matthew L.; Pendleton, Burton K.; Raish, Carol B., eds. 2013. The Southern Nevada Agency Partnership Science and Research Synthesis: Science to support land management in Southern Nevada Executive Summary. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR- 304. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p. at pg 38.

² US Park Service; White and Davis; Wildlife response to motorized recreation in the Yellowstone Park; 2005 annual report; at pg 15.

³See, Map I-2 of the RMP

⁴ 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

⁵ 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

⁶ 2013 LCAS at pg 95.

⁷ 2013 LCAS at pg 84.

⁸ 2013 LCAS at pg 83.

⁹ 2013 LCAS at pg 26.

¹⁰ 2013 LCAS at pg 94.

¹¹ 2013 LCAS at pg 91.

¹² Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain biker; Journal of Leisure Sciences, 23(1) at pg 58.

¹³ Norling et al; Conflict attributed to snowmobiles in a sample of backcountry, non-motorized yurt users in the Wasatch –Cache National Forest; Utah State University; 2009 at pg 3.

¹⁴ See, Routt National Forest NVUM research Round 2 at pg 31 (hereinafter referred to as NVUM research).

¹⁵ NVUM research at pg 32.

¹⁶ NVUM research at pg 35.

January 20, 2014

The Trail of Knowledge
The Colorado 600

Dirtrider Magazine
(Reprinted with permission)

Story By Adam Booth
Photos By Adam Booth And Rob Watt

Having never ridden in the single-track famous state of Colorado, I was told—not asked—to attend this year’s Colorado 600. Like a kid heading off to college, I loaded the 2014 Beta 450 RS in the Dirt Rider Dodge and began a 16-hour drive to further my off-road education and, of course, to pop some sweet wheelies.

The TPA (Trails Preservation Alliance), with help from the Texas Sidewinders MC, puts on the Trails Awareness Symposium (TAS) Colorado 600 trail ride. This isn’t just an awesome multiday frolic through the amazing Rocky Mountains; there is a much deeper purpose behind this gathering of hard-core dirt bike riders. It’s like the coolest college class ever! The Colorado 600 is an avenue to educate off-road riders on serious issues impacting motorized recreation and was created to enable riders to better assist OHV recreation groups in protecting access to public lands. As you may well know, our right to ride public lands is constantly under attack, and while it might seem at times a hopeless fight, the TPA, along with other groups like COHVCO (Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition) are putting forth heroic efforts, winning battles in an effort to win the war.

The Trails Preservation Alliance is an organization dedicated to protecting and promoting trail riding. It is a grassroots 501c3 organization that works tirelessly to protect trail access for OHV enthusiasts. The TPA organization isn’t paid for any of their work; it is all done via volunteers. They keep a close eye on current events and are constantly engaged in legal battles against those who want to shut down riding areas. They work hard to raise awareness and educate riders in the preservation of off-road riding. The TPA also wants to engage riders who aren’t doing anything (or don’t know how) toward preserving the sport they love.

The TPA spends between $75,000 and $100,000 a year trying to save our sport. This consists of legal actions and paying subject matter experts to help respond to the Forest Service/BLM travel plans and regulations. They donate to many motorcycle clubs in Colorado, trail crews to help maintain routes, and to state and federal organizations that are trying to work with the TPA. They have also helped form and start 10 clubs in the state in the past four years. Every year there is less public area available to ride, and kids learning to ride need organizations like the TPA and COHVCO to fight for their right to use public land for recreation. It is scary how fanatical many environmental groups are when it comes to denying and taking away access to OHV recreation of any kind on public lands designated for OHV use. While the TPA is dedicated to the preservation of single-track trails, COHVCO is a much broader group focused on sustaining the right for all motorized vehicles to use and enjoy off-road areas of Colorado.

Class Starts at 8am
Each morning of the Colorado 600 begins with a group breakfast and a guest speaker, educating participants on what they can do to help. Every morning I hopped on the Beta 450 RS with more ammo to help keep riding areas open. Because not all dirt bike riders crave the same terrain, the Colorado 600 offers up many rides per day depending on skill level. Knowledgeable guides lead mellow scenic rides or brutal 115-mile AA all-day singletrack adventures. I had the pleasure of riding a couple of days with Colorado hero Scott Bright (just a week before he left to race the 2013 ISDE) and a few days with Dakar racer and Colorado local Ned Suesse, who works closely with Don Riggle and the TPA on land-access issues. The long miles, rainy weather, and extreme altitudes had me exhausted at the end of each day—but completely satisfied and happy I was “forced” to attend the event. At this point I’m not sure who from Dirt Rider will be at next year’s Colorado 600, but it might all come down to an arm-wrestling match among DR staffers. If you don’t think OHV is important to those who don’t participate, think about this: OHV recreation is a billiondollar- a-year industry in Colorado, providing thousands of jobs and stimulating the state and local economies. Southern Colorado towns, hit hard by wildfires in 2013, understand the value of off-road recreation, since many are depending on it to carry them through the non-ski seasons of the year. As a result, most are incredibly supportive of land access. The Colorado 600 donates $6,000 to the local area around the event, and it also donates money to surrounding communities. All that before the 75 event participants roll in to buy food, hotel rooms, gas, and supplies from the local town. On the TPA webpage is an economic update for 2012 available for download showing the dollars that those who participate in OHV shell out to enjoy what they love. I recommend checking it out, as it can be used as a great example to cities and areas that might not realize the value in OHV recreation.

A Note From The Boss
“The TPA gets a lot of requests for various types of support, from money to responses to Forest Service/BLM planning documents, etc. What the TPA tries to do is make the work that the TPA has done in Colorado available to other states. If you go to the TPA webpage and news section, you can see just about all items that we are working on. One example of work in other states is the work in Arizona. The TPA was requested to respond to a FS travel management plan in the Phoenix area. We did this at the request of several Arizona riders who come to the C600.

“In New Mexico, we do more work, since we share several Forest Service districts and BLM areas that are in both states. We are also a major supporter financially to NMOHVA. New Mexico has a good organization but not the membership or the financial resources the TPA has, so the TPA makes a large donation to NMOHVA every year to help with their work. If New Mexico is successful in recreation issues, we all benefit.

“The most out-of-state support we do is with the Ride With Respect organization in Moab, Utah. This organization does more work with a handful of members than any organization I know. The hard work and dedication of the RWR crew has saved many miles of motorized routes in Utah and is also responsible for the creation of several new trail systems in the Moab area. On top of this, Colorado riders go to Moab in countless numbers during the winter months. The TPA has accepted the responsibility and challenge to make sustainable donations to RWR, and I think the TPA is their major financial supporter. It really concerns the TPA that riders from all over the US go to Moab to ride and then just leave, making no donations to the organization that is providing their recreation. This type of attitude on the part of riders will not sustain the sport. If anyone thinks the Forest Service and BLM are going to give us adequate areas for recreation, they are wrong. We need to save Utah recreation areas, and we need to work together to maintain all of the great trails that we have around the country.”  -Don Riggle, President, TPA

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Want to help? Join or start a club and get to know your local federal land manger. Work with them as much as possible and try to be a positive partner to the operation. If that can’t work, then take the approach that public lands are for the public, which means getting active politically.

Support your local club, the statewide organization, and also the AMA. Having local clubs work with their associated Forest Service/BLM land officials goes a long way. You, the rider, are the only one who can save your sport. Young riders need good examples, and that example has to come from parents. Every type of rider, off-road, motocross, or dual-sport, needs to join the AMA. The AMA is our voice in Washington, DC, and the frustrating part of our fight as off-road riders is the lack of membership. It’s hard to believe, but the AMA has only has 230,000 members, a strong contrast to the millions of people in America who ride motorcycles. If the AMA had a few million members, the voice would be much louder. The AMA has five lobbyists fighting for motorcyclists’ rights in Washington, DC, which seems fine and dandy until you find out the anti-OHV groups that would like to see access to public lands denied have 60 lobbyists working in Washington, DC, to make sure you don’t enjoy riding your dirt bike. In order to protect our rights, we need numbers, and in the grand scheme of things, 230,000 members isn’t much. Whether you like the AMA or not (some don’t), it is the only one in Washington fighting for your rights on two wheels both on and off-road. If you live in or near Colorado, you need to join COHVCO and the TPA. If you live states away, find a club near you and maybe look into starting your own local club.

If all this information makes your blood boil, congrats, you are with the rest of the off-road community! You should be mad, you should be frustrated, and you should worry about the future of off-road riding on public land. The first step is to join groups in your area of the country that work toward saving the areas you love to ride. Also, join the AMA and convince your friends to join. Additionally, when you go riding in an area away from home, buy your gas, food, and supplies in the area you ride, and support the local groups who keep the area open year-round.

The Colorado 600 is an amazing event, and every rider in attendance leaves with a stronger grasp on the troubles that face OHV recreation access, both at local levels and nation wide. If the other attendees from the event are like me, they bench race with friends and are more passionate than ever about educating riding buddies and getting them fired up to protect what they love. It’s hard to start off each day hearing the future of land access is under attack, but the truth and information needs to be heard. It’s not all doom and gloom, but it isn’t all rainbows and unicorns, either. If you have an interest in participating in the Colorado 600, go to colorado600.org. But don’t wait too long; the event is limited to just 75 riders. There are several other events in Colorado for 2014 that support the TPA’s mission. The TPA’s website and Facebook page provide info on these events, and it would serve us all well to take a second to appreciate the immense amount of work being put forth to protect what you love. As I said before, the current situation will probably make you mad, and when it does I suggest that you load up your bike, pack your gear, and go ride—it will clear your head, make you smile, and remind you of what we are fighting for.

To learn more about The Trails Preservation Alliance, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and the American Motorcyclist Association, visit coloradotpa.org, cohvco.org, and americanmotorcyclist.com.

To participate in the Colorado 600, your bike must be street legal in Colorado, have a 100-mile gas range, and meet the 96-dBA sound test.

Event Sponsors:
KTM
Dunlop Tire
Tucker Rocky/MSR
Klim
Motion Pro
Spider Grips
Texas Sidewinders Motorcycle Club
Slavens Racing
BRP Products

January 15, 2014

Issues at a glance

This section is designed to highlight various issues where CSA, COHVCO and TPA and their partners and local clubs are defending public access to public lands.  This glance at the issues is not an exhaustive list of the issues we are involved with, but rather is highlighting issues of statewide importance or interest. (Download the PDF to see this: We have identified the user groups most directly impacted by each issue with a logo next to each issue.)

RECENT WINS
 
1. New Lynx management documents have been published that clearly state trail usage and snow compaction are not an issue in lynx habitat- NEW
 
CSA,COHVCO and many other groups have been very concerned about the failure of many federal land managers to address recreational activity in lynx habitat with  best available science.  Best available science has specifically concluded  almost all recreational activity has no impact on lynx that might be in the area.  Many land managers continued to manage based on out of date management documents, where there was theoretical concerns about recreational usage.   The issuance of new management document supersede previous document avoids these types of issues in the future by clearly stating roads and trails in habitat are not a major factor for the lynx and that most snow compaction in the Southern Rockies is the result of natural processes rather than recreational usage. These documents clearly state that only major ski areas may impact lynx behavior and provide extensive analysis that weighs heavily against any claim of Wilderness areas being a benefit for the lynx. 
 
CSA,COHVCO and TPA have partnered to provide a copy of these documents to every office that currently has a draft plan being developed or are areas where lynx management has been an issue previously. 
 
2. The US Fish and Wildlife Service recently determined there should be no changes in forest management as the result of a wolverine in the planning area. 

This planning initiative addresses the management of millions of acres throughout the western United States and all areas above 10k feet in Colorado. The Organizations have been heavily involved in stakeholder discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding best available science for the management of the Wolverine.  As a result of these stakeholder meetings, best available science was clearly reflected in the recent US FWS listing decision as the decision clearly stated there should be no management changes on public lands as a result of the Wolverine.  This is a major win as modeled habitat for the Wolverine in Colorado was any areas over 10,000 ft.  and at one point closures to motorized access were seen as necessary in all these areas. This determination  was a major step forward in protecting motorized access from misguided wolverine management standards. 
 
3. The proposed expansion of parking facilities on Rabbit Ears Pass is moving forward
The Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District has moved forward with scoping on several site specific proposals for the expansion of parking areas on the Rabbit Ears Pass area outside Steamboat Springs Colorado. Parking is very limited in the area for winter usage causing a wide range of management and safety issues for users.   This limited parking also limits access for motorized usage of the area that is consistently identified as one of the best snowmobile locations in the western United States. This project has been vigorously supported by the local clubs who have brought a wide range of information and resources to the table to allow for resolution of this issue. 
 
4. Dillon Ranger District allows construction of over 20 miles of new single track motorcycle trail outside Silverthorne.

The Dillon Ranger District on the White River National Forest issued a FONSI permitting the construction of 21 miles of new single track motorcycle trail outside Silverthorne Colorado.   This decision is the result of years of work and partnership between the local club and agency personnel.  This trail network will provide a motorized single track opportunity in an area where these opportunities area  very limited currently. 
 
5.  COHVCO and partners succeeded in obtaining passage of legislation allowing the titling of off-highway and over the snow  vehicles in the state of Colorado.

This will provide proof of ownership for vehicles that can exceed $15,000 to purchase new and allow for better financing rates from dealers.   The issuance of a title will also allow better tracking of stolen OHVs in the state and better rates for those that choose to finance their new purchases.  This legislation will become effective in 2014. Our next step is to obtain use of some county roads with the creation of a voluntary license plate on OHVs.
 
6.  COHVCO and partners were able to insure that fines were not increased for a variety of OHV related issues with the reauthorization of house bill 1069.   

There was heavy pressure from those opposed to OHV use to increase minimum fines sometimes by hundreds of dollars for a variety of non-resource related issues.   As a result of COHVCO efforts these fines maintained consistency with other violations. 

7.  COHVCO and its partners obtained dismissal of the Rico/West Delores lawsuit seeking closure of grandfathered routes on any MVUM. 

Unfortunately, this decision has been appealed but we are optimistic that the trial court’s decision will be upheld.
 
8. Representative Tipton held federal hearings concerning the negative impacts of Wilderness designations on Forest Health.  

Senate hearings were also held with similar input received from the public. COHVCO hopes that these hearings highlight the negative impacts to the forests from Wilderness designations and allow for management that protects forest health and public motorized access to the proposal areas. 

 
LAWSUITS
 
1.  San Juan National Forest plan appealed- updated.

The SJ/TR Planning area is 1.8 million acres  and preferred alternative increases  designated areas unsuitable for motorized usage by 83%.  Trails in the unsuitable area are subject to a presumption of closure in the future.
 
This is the Forest Service component for the BLM Tres Rios Plan and as a result the TR appeal points are also applicable to this matter.  In addition to the economic analysis issues, the USFS fails to accurately apply the Colorado Roadless Rule managing under a single standard very similar to the upper tier standard, when most of the SJ/TR areas were specifically found to be unsuitable for upper tier designation in the Colorado Roadless Rule proceedings.  At no point is
there any discussion of why closure of roadless areas is warranted  or that motorized access is a protected characteristic of a roadless area or why the two standards of roadless areas were not reflected in the RMP.
 
The RMP further applies a designation of suitable or unsuitable for motorized use to the entire forest.  It is has been our experience that such black and white type designations do not work in recreation management as this is not a black and white issue.  Rather most recreation occurs in the gray area between absolute standards, making application of such a standard arbitrary at best.  
 
Suitability boundaries are also based on the position that all wildlife habitat is unsuitable for motorized usage.  This black and white suitability standard conflicts with numerous US Fish and Wildlife decisions that find endangered species habitat areas are suitable for motorized usage with the implementation of minimal restrictions.  This decision also fails to address the recent Wolverine listing decision that found there should be no change in forest management in wolverine habitat and that Sage Grouse listing decisions have repeatedly determined that recreational usage of habitat areas is not an issue.
 
In yet another troubling lack of analysis, the RMP repeatedly asserts that no trails would be closed due the RMP and all review will be done later as part of site specific review.  At other points the plan states it will close 25 miles of trail.  This is a problem by itself, which is compounded by the fact that no information or analysis is provided regarding where these trails are or why they are being closed.
 
2.Tres Rios BLM field office plan has been appealed.
 
The Organizations recently submitted an administrative appeal of the Tres Rios(“TR”) Field Plan Resource Plan and are optimistic about reversing this decision.  The appeal centered around the tragic undervaluation of recreation in the RMP.   Often TR conclusions on user group spending were 10-15% of the conclusions identified in the research that was asserted to be the sole basis of the conclusions. Developed campers are asserted to spend $46.11 while the research indicates developed campers spend ranges from $217 to $300 per day.
 
Winter motorized users were particularly hard hit in this erroneous analysis as cross country skiers and downhill skiers spend $208 per day while snowmobilers only $127 per day. These conclusions are asserted to be based on USFS work  that concludes downhill skiers and snowmobilers spend similar amounts and cross country skiers spend 40% less than those amounts. It is simply impossible to reconcile these types of conflicting conclusions.
 
In addition to undervaluing recreation, current management of numerous areas, including the Molas Pass Area were not accurately reflected in the RMP.  While the Molas Pass area has never been closed to motorized usage, the RMP asserts it is currently closed and all alternatives assert the area is to remain closed.  Hard to argue there is a hard look at a closure when the closure is not reflected. 
 
3.Winter Wildlands Litigation 

This issue involves litigation in Idaho brought by the Winter Wildlands Alliance attempts to mandate winter travel management for all national forests, limit open riding areas and to invalidate the winter provisions of the travel management rule.   Previous decisions from the Forest Service had ruled in favor of motorized users on this issue.   WWA appealed the Forest Service decision to Federal Court in Idaho. The trial court ruled in favor of WWA and required winter travel management for all forests and invalidated the winter portions of the travel management rule.  This decision is being appealed by the Idaho Snowmobile Association and its partners as the trial court decision is lacking factual and legal basis.  
 
CSA has been actively involved in administrative appeals prior to the Federal Court proceedings. As this litigation was brought in Idaho, CSA has partnered with the ISA to facilitate the defense of this matter.  This partnership has resulted in several large donations being made by CSA to the Idaho legal defense fund and any resources necessary being available to our Idaho partners.  
 
CSA is also aware of similar litigation in California regarding winter travel management and notes the parallels between the WWA litigation and the litigation in Colorado regarding MVUM route designations.   These are not isolated issues. 
 
4.Bear Creek Trail - 

This lawsuit was served on the Forest Service and Colorado Springs utilities by the Center for Biological Diversity and others regarding exclusion of trails in the vicinity of cutthroat trout habitat.  This suit sought a blanket exclusion of trails from areas adjacent to streams with cutthroat trout. COHVCO and TPA have intervened and making sure the best resolution for motorized recreation is obtained. Terms of settlement have been reached that would permit new trails to be created in the area and close the habitat area to all threats.  TPA and COHVCO are working to insure the closures are applied per the terms of the agreement with the submission of a notice of intent to sue if the terms of the settlement agreement are not complied with. 
 
5.Pike /San Isabel MVUM challenge-

The first suit was filed on January 31, 2011 by anti-access plaintiffs including The Wilderness Society, Quiet Use Coalition, Wildlands CPR, and Center for Native Ecosystems and Great Old Broads for Wilderness regarding the Pike and San Isabel Forests.   COHVCO and TPA intervened with the Forest Service to defend this lawsuit, which could impact every MVUM that has grandfathered existing routes.  These defense expenses are being born solely by Colorado OHV advocacy groups.  This case seeks to remove any trails that predated NEPA and were grandfathered in the creation of PSI MVUMs. The exact impact of this suit is yet to be clarified but this suit could impact trails such as the Blanca Peak 4wd trail.  This case is currently moving forward in the discovery phase of litigation. 
 
6. Rico/West DeLores-  

A second suit involving grandfathered routes on an MVUM was filed regarding the Rico West Dolores/alpine triangle area of the San Juan Forest brought by Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers seeking closure of 14 trails which have a long history of  motorized travel.  COHVCO, TPA, Blue Ribbon Coalition, the San Juan Trail Riders and the Public Access Preservation Association have intervened to defend this matter with the Forest Service.  The complaint was dismissed by the trial court and access was maintained.  The trial court’s decision has been appealed. 
 

RECREATIONAL USAGE AND CONCERNS
 
1.Sage Grouse Habitat/Planning- Updated 

COHVCO is involved in numerous Grouse planning initiatives with Federal, State and local agencies.  The Greater Sage grouse plan proposal is currently out for comment.  There are several areas of concern that we have since the plan is based on an endangered species that no longer exists, models larger tracts of lands as habitat areas that have not been occupied for a long time, caps road construction and tries to manage under absolute limitation  for soil disturbance that will not work in areas where there are large tracts of private lands. Extensive comments were submitted on the proposed Resource Management Plan changes that were proposed by the BLM. 
 
Since the close of the comment period, an extension of time has been granted for CPW to submit a Colorado alternative.   COHVCO and its partners have been voicing our concerns and working with CPW to develop management that insures the Grouse is not listed and recreational opportunities are maintained.
 
2. Grand Junction BLM Resource Plan- 

The Grand Junction BLM office released a draft resource plan that proposed to close over 2,000 miles (60-70%) of routes in the office. The Organizations submitted extensive comments, participated in numerous meetings with BLM managers and federal, state and  local government officials to highlight the numerous critical flaws that are present in the plan. These flaws included a complete failure to accurately address economic impacts of trail usage, which BLM placed at 10-15% of the total value, employment and daily spending amounts determined in research from Federal, State and user group analysis.  
 
The plan also proposed a massive expansion of closures for cultural sites in violation of federal law and sought to automatically close any sites located in the future. Currently there are 50 sites on the National register of historic places in the planning area, the plan proposed to add almost 1,900 sites to the list.  The Organizations  do not believe these sites are suitable for inclusion on the national register, which is a defining criteria for closures of cultural areas. 
 
The RMP also sought to close all Wilderness study areas to motorized access despite  a long history of usage of the areas and a complete lack of NEPA analysis of the proposed changes. The RMP also failed to explain how management standards of ACEC areas would relate to the management concerns in the area.  This resulted in closures of these areas to motorized access despite the management issue simply having no relationship to motorized usage.  
 
3. Domingez-Escalante National Conservation Area (“DENCA”) Plan- 

Proposal closes 272 miles  (50%) of routes in the preferred alternative. The Organizations submitted extensive comments objecting to many phases of the plan.  Again there is a complete failure of economic analysis as the plan asserts that the average recreational user spends $16 per day. the RMP fails to address that Sage Grouse planning addressing recreational usage of the same area estimates the average recreational spend to be in the high $40 range per day and USFS data indicates $63.  Hard to balance uses when the review is that incorrect.  
 
The Organizations also opposed the fact that over 85% of the planning area would be seasonally closed for wildlife issues despite analysis that concludes the population is at or above targets for the area and current management is effective at mitigating impacts while maintaining access. Habitat areas many other species are proposed to be managed to prohibit motorized access despite best available science specifically concluding motorized usage is not a threat to the species. 
 
4. BLM management of agency inventoried Wilderness Study Areas-
 
BLM has issued new manual regarding the management of agency inventoried Wilderness Study areas, which was created without public comment or NEPA review and is being interpreted in a manner that requires exclusion of motorized usage from these areas, even when there is a long history of motorized usage. COHVCO is vigorously opposed to this interpretation and has obtained draft legislation for the release of the Molas Pass area in the Tres Rios Field Office and is working on the release of the North Sand Hills area on the Kremmling Field Office. This manual also impacted many management decisions in the Grand Junction Plan.
 
5. CPW Path Forward step of the merger of Colorado Parks and Div of Wildlife- NEW

COHVCO was concerned that recreational usage and activity, and more specifically the trails program, was not sufficiently addressed in the next step of the merger of Colorado Parks and the Division of Wildlife required under Colorado Law. COHVCO is optimistic that these issues can be resolved as  we have had positive responses to our initial concerns. 
 
6. Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal.

The Hidden Gems Campaign has now morphed to a new phase as Senator Udall is exploring Wilderness designations.  The most recent version of Hidden Gems is seeking to designate 235,000 acres for prime recreational lands as Wilderness.  Senator Udall is looking for public input regarding the proposal- especially the Pitkin county portions.  His office is looking at a range of options and is seeking input from all users.  Please contact his office to voice your concerns
 
Our basic concerns are the negative economic impacts from the proposed closures and the harmful impacts to forest health.  The harmful forest health impacts of Wilderness were specifically noted in a Forest Service report to the Senators office recently.  Representative Tipton has actively addressed basic forest health concerns in a series of House hearings throughout the country that specifically seek information on the negative impacts of Wilderness on forest health. Many of these same concerns were also voiced in Senate hearings in Colorado Springs with Senator Udall.  COHVCO hopes this new information provides a strong basis for opposing these Wilderness proposals.
 
7. San Juan Wilderness. 

While the recreational impacts of the San Juan Wilderness proposal are somewhat limited, COHVCO is very concerned about the forest health impacts of the proposal.  People do not want to recreate in a forest that is dead, which will significantly impact the economic benefits from recreational usage of adjacent areas.  We believe every possible step should be taken to avoid this situation and designation of these areas as Wilderness does not assist in resolving forest health concerns.
 
8. OHV permits on plated vehicles

Refer to State Parks website for details at 
http://www.parks.state.co.us

9. OHV registration number size increase. 

Various environmental groups  have pushed a proposal to increase the size of all registration numbers on all OHVs to the size of a car license plate based on alleged law enforcement concerns. This proposal is being vigorously opposed by COHVCO as it will not work on the ground and is not supported by any research.  This proposal is also opposed by the state and federal agencies due to concerns about costs and effectiveness. 
 
10. EPA proposal to increase ethanol in gasoline.

The EPA is attempting to increase minimum ethanol levels in all motor fuels from the current 10% amount to a 15% maximum.  While this seems like a minimal change, EPA testing indicates that small engines not designed for E15 fail almost immediately when it is used as a motor fuel.  In addition to the failure of the motor, damage that results from E15 being used is not covered by manufacturers warranties.  The motorized community is vigorously opposed to this change and we encourage you to contact your elected officials to voice your opposition as well. 

January 7, 2014

The Organizations (COHVCO, Colorado TPA, Colorado Snowmobile Association) welcomed the release of the new interagency lynx biology team report yesterday, as this report added significant clarity to recent advances in research and supersedes the previous version of this document which was highly theoretical that has been heavily relied  on for recent federal lands planning in Colorado. 
 
Many of the management issues clarified directly impact motorized access to public lands and resolve theoretical questions that have existed since the release of the original lynx management documents.   Management clarity on issues includes:
 

• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• Road and trail density does not impact the quality of an area as lynx habitat;
• There is no information to suggest that trails have a negative impact on lynx;
• Snow compaction from winter recreational activity is not likely to change the competitive advantage of the lynx and other predators;
• Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage; and
• 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. 

 
The Organizations anticipate providing hard copies of the complete report to Colorado land managers in the near future.   A complete copy of the 2013 report is available here
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/LCAS_revisedAugust2013.pdf

December 20, 2013

Public Comment Processing
Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2013–0101
Division of Policy and Directives
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
MS 2042–PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203

RE: Canada Lynx critical habitat designation and DPS Boundary FWS-R6-ES-2013-0101;4500030114

Dear Sirs:
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above organizations supporting the exclusion of the Southern Rocky Mountain areas as critical habitat for the lynx and identifying the economic contributions of recreational usage of these areas to local communities. The Organizations vigorously support the decision to exclude the Southern Rockies area from designation as a critical habitat area for the lynx species survival. There is a significant body of evidence that concludes this area is an island of habitat that has no contact with the rest of the North American lynx population, and as a result this area will not be able to interact with the rest of the North American lynx population or aid in the long term survival of the species.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns of the habitat designations, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing the more than 150,000 registered OHV users 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.

CSA was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA is the voice of the 25,000 registered snowmobile enthusiasts throughout the state of Colorado. 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.

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. Throughout these comments CSA, COHVCO and TPA will be collectively referred to as “The Organizations”.

1a. The Southern Rocky Mountain areas have been properly determined to be non-essential to the survival of the lynx.

For purposes of this section, the Organizations are referring to the Southern Rocky Mountains as the areas occupied by reintroduced lynx within the boundary areas of Colorado, Southern Wyoming and northern New Mexico. The Organizations vigorously support the exclusion of these areas from designation as critical habitat, given the lack of connectivity of these areas to other habitat areas that are critical to the survival of the species, and the generally poor overall quality of the habitat. Poor habitat quality of the Southern Rockies area is reflected by the large comparative home range of lynx in this area when compared to the size of home ranges in other core habitats. The Organizations would note that significant portions of the habitat areas in Colorado are probably going to further degrade as the timber sales necessary to create multi-story forests in Colorado simply have not occurred, often based on the erroneous position that the 2000 LCAS properly determined that timber sales would impair the quality of the habitat. As extensively outlined in this listing decision, timber sales and harvesting significantly contribute to the overall health of habitat.

While lynx are highly mobile under certain circumstances, such as limited food periods, there is no evidence of lynx successfully traveling from critical habitat areas in the Northern United States to the Southern Rocky Mountain areas. Reintroduction of a comparatively large number of radio collared lynx in Colorado did not result in any lynx rejoining their Northern populations despite several lynx travelling exceptionally long distances in search of habitat. This is a situation where even an abnormally high population pressure on the habitat was insufficient to induce a successful contact between the Southern Rockies areas and more northern habitat areas. If this connection cannot be made under these types of pressures, natural pressures clearly will not result in a connection.

The limited contact that the Southern Rocky Mountain population has to the northern core population areas along the Canadian border further mitigates the ability of the area to be valuable to the conservation of the species. As specifically stated in the listing decision, the Southern Rocky Mountain area is geographically isolated and has very weak connections to other habitat areas, none of which are designated as critical. The Organizations would note that none of the lynx that were reintroduced into Colorado were able to migrate back to the northern habitat areas, despite several of the lynx heading directly for these areas.

1b. Wolverine reintroduction determinations should align with lynx decisions given the similarity of many traits between the species.

The Organizations have been heavily involved in the stakeholder meetings regarding the possible reintroduction of the Wolverine in Colorado and as a result are intimately aware of the close relationship that the lynx and wolverine have had in the western united states. This similarity in management history is based on the large home ranges of each species, each species affinity for snow and similarity of habitat needs. It is also well established that wolverine will travel significantly further in search of new habitat areas than a lynx will travel. Even with the wolverines significantly superior ability to travel over long distances in comparison to the lynx, only one Wolverine (M56) has been able to connect to the Southern Rockies area from the Yellowstone and more northern rocky mountain habitat areas. This speaks volumes to the probability of a lynx making a similar journey, they are basically non-existent.

The Organizations are aware that the USFWS has recently proposed to management the Wolverine in Colorado under a experimental non-essential population designation pursuant to ESA §10j. Given that the Wolverine in Southern Rocky Mountain has already been found to be non-essential for the survival of the population due to the isolation of the area, any finding that lynx in this area are essential to the survival of the species would not be supported by best available science, given the significantly larger distances that wolverine are able to travel to connect with other habitat area.

1c. CPW determined reintroduction was a success and lands in the Colorado area are at or above lynx carrying capacity.

The Organizations would also note that the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife recently declared the lynx reintroduction a success.¹ Clearly the effective reintroduction of the lynx in Colorado is insufficient to delist the lynx, the effectiveness of the state management of the species in this area mitigates any benefits for the lynx that could be derived from a possible critical habitat designation in the Southern Rockies area. The Organizations would note that while this reintroduction has been a painful process for many user groups, the reintroduction has also been a large source of credible information regarding the management of the species. Failing to manage according to this information, most of which directly contradicts the 2000 LCAS would simply compound the frustration of users and limit public support for the management of other species in Colorado, such as the Wolverine.

2. The updated version of the 2013 Lynx conservation assessment strategy must be publicly disseminated.

The Organizations are thrilled that a new Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy has been prepared, as the 2000 version of this document was highly theoretical and repeatedly states many of the management standards should be updated based on new research. While much of the research that has occurred has not supported many of the restrictions that were proposed in the 2000 LCAS, the 2000 LCAS remains the management standard for lynx habitat from many planning actions in Colorado. The Organizations have participated in numerous site specific planning initiatives, where lynx habitat issues were erroneously relied on to preclude trail development and maintenance. The Organizations are optimistic that a new LCAS would reflect the minimal impacts of recreational activity on the lynx with a new level of clarity, and directly rebut much of the 2000 LCAS.

The Organizations believe it is critical to release this document to avoid any more theoretical planning that negatively impacts the lynx to move forward and allow land managers to accurately incorporate this new information into current land management proposals and avoid having to clarify these plans every time a management issue is addressed in lynx areas. This situation has become even more frustrating recently as CSA has been an active supporter of research in Colorado with the Research Station into the possible impacts of recreational usage of habitat areas. CSA is aware that this research has almost conclusively determined that recreational activity has little to no impact on lynx in the vicinity of the recreational activity.

The Organizations are exceptionally concerned that the new LCAS management standards be immediately released so they may be accurately and properly reflected in the 7 land management plans that are currently in draft or appeal stages of development in Colorado. The Organizations expect much of the 2013 LCAS management and research to specifically contradict previous management positions that were taken based on a critical gap in analysis at the time the 2000 LCAS was developed. The inclusion of the most up to date management in these RMP will avoid creating an ongoing concern with lynx issues in timber sales, summer trail usage proposals and winter recreational activities in general. If these management standards are not included in these RMP these standards will need to be specifically addressed in each subsequent site specific plan to address why the management direction in the RMP has not been followed. The Organizations vigorously assert dealing with these new management standards in a site by site manner will be exceptionally expensive and will probably be less than effective based on the failure of numerous plans to adopt SRLA management standards when those were released.

The critical need to incorporate up to date management standards is also specifically found in smaller planning activities than the numerous RMP revisions that are currently under way in Colorado as was recently exemplified in a timber sale in the Piney Area of the White River National Forest.² This timber sale has been more than cut in half since the beginning of the NEPA process in order to mitigate possible lynx issues with timber sales that were incorrectly addressed in the 2000 LCAS. This sale was further complicated by the belief that closures of the area to recreational usage were necessary after the fuels mitigation was completed to insure snow compaction standards were complied with. Snow compaction concerns were vigorously opposed by CSA as the area was already being ridden in the winter and the removal of dead trees increased the safety of recreational users.

While the Organizations welcome the 2013 LCAS, the Organizations are frustrated that this document is not locatable on the internet and has not been provided to the Organizations despite several requests to both the contact person in the listing decision and personal contacts with the USFWS in Montana. This document must be made generally available in order for it to be accurately incorporated into the final versions of the numerous land management plans in Colorado and the significant role the document plays in the current listing decision. The level of clarity of the management standards for any area to be designated critical habitat will play a large role in the ability of any organization to support and analyze the designation of the habitat areas and any economic impacts that might result.

3a. Trail based recreation is an economic mainstay for many local Colorado economies.

Many small communities in the vicinity of designated critical habitat are heavily dependent on recreational activities and tourism for survival of the community, after more traditional income sources like the mining and timber industries have left these areas. US Forest Service research indicates that a multiple usage trail network is an effective tool for the development and maintenance of local economies. This research specifically concluded:

“Recreation and tourism economies are the mainstay for rural counties with high percentages of public land. Actions by public agencies to reduce or limit access to for recreation have a direct impact on local pocket books. Limiting access by closing roads, campgrounds, RV parking, and trails for all or one special interests group will impact surrounding communities. Visitors to public lands utilize nearby communities for food, lodging and support facilities.”³

While the development of a recreational trail network can be a significant benefit to local communities, the converse of this is also true as the loss of an existing recreational trail network can create significant negative economic impacts. The scope of losses from large route closures has been the basis for several studies. The findings of this research are consistent with the concerns regarding closures of routes voiced in these comments. In 1999 a joint study of University of Wyoming and US Department of Agriculture found that 72% of economic benefits from winter recreation would be lost with a seasonal closure of the Yellowstone Park to motorized recreation.⁴ The high levels of economic impact to communities from closures is the result of the wide range of user groups that use a trail network to obtain their primary recreational experience. The Organizations vigorously believe large scale closures in habitat areas would have a similar impact on the local communities as those experienced by the communities adjacent to Yellowstone Park. These must be avoided.

3b. Dispersed trails and roads are multiple use recreational resources.

The Organizations believe that a brief discussion of what an OHV recreational user is will clarify why multiple use trails are of such concern when addressing economic impacts. Forest Service research indicates that families are the largest group of OHV users. This research found that almost 50% of users were over 30 years of age and highly educated. 11.4% of OHV users are 51 years of age or older.⁵ Women were a large portion of those participating in OHV recreational activities.⁶ This research indicates that OHV recreationalists are frequently a broad spectrum outdoor enthusiasts, meaning they may be using their OHV for recreation one weekend but the next weekend they will be walking for pleasure (88.9%), using a developing camping facility (44.7%), using a Wilderness or primitive area (58.1%) fishing (44.6%) or hunting (28.4).⁷

USFWS research indicates motorized access to public lands is a key component of any recreational activity and management of this method of access will impact many other usages than those specifically identified as motorized. The Organizations would note that USFWS research in Colorado indicates that over 75% of the revenue that is derived from wildlife watching in the State is the result of the purchase and use of motorized equipment such as trucks, campers and atvs.8 This is completely consistent with the Organizations experiences for all recreational activities as most users to not have access to non-motorized means of game retrieval or do not have sufficient time to hike long distances to gain access to their favorite fishing hole or dispersed camping site. The wide range of recreation utilizing the dispersed trail network again weighs heavily in favor of in maintaining recreational access to areas that are to be designated habitat.

Given the significant economic contributions to all forms of recreational usage of habitat areas, the Organizations believe this analysis must weigh heavily against the designation of modeled but unoccupied areas for the lynx. As the lynx are not using the areas, and often have not used the area for extended periods of time, the negative economic impacts from the loss of motorized access to these areas has to outweigh any possible benefit to the lynx.

4a. Recently released research from the Western Governors Association finds recreational activity on public lands is largest economic contributor to western states.

In 2012, the Western Governors Association released the conclusions of multiple year research regarding the economic impacts of recreation to western states economies. Given the scale of these findings, the Organizations believe recreational usage would now be added to the priority concerns identified previous by the Western Governors Association. Recreation is the largest economic contributor to western state economies from public lands, which position is summarized in the report as follows:

“The Get Out West Advisory Group identified successfully managing the West’s recreation assets as a key factor in facilitating positive outdoor recreation experiences for the region’s citizens and tourists and for local economic development and job creation in communities around these places.”⁹

This research also compared recreational contributions to many other economic activities that were present in western states. These conclusions were summarized as follows:

Image: An Overlooked Economic Giant¹¹

The Western Governors economic impact analysis also highlighted 35 recreational opportunities throughout the western states. The overwhelming majority of these highlighted recreational locations involved the use of a dispersed trail network as part of the recreational experience. While many of these opportunities are outside areas to be designated habitat,analysis of these highlighted locations clearly evidences the critical role that the dispersed trail network plays in all recreational activities.

This research did identify other activities as larger economic contributors to western states, but these activities were not connected to public lands or small municipalities such as those impacted by the critical habitat designation. Western Colorado communities are simply not know as banking, health care or insurance centers of the western states. They are however known for their exceptional recreational opportunities. The Organizations believe these findings warrant clear management standards that properly balance economic impacts from closures with benefits to the species from the management standards. Failure to properly measure and balance all recreational interests will have profound effects on recreational access to public lands and will result in significant negative economic impacts to all communities that will do little to benefit the lynx.

The Western Governors’ Association released its Get Out West report in conjunction with its economic impact study of recreation on public lands in the Western United States. The Get Out West report specifically identified that proper valuation is a significant management concern as follows:

“Several managers stated that one of the biggest challenges they face is “the undervaluation of outdoor recreation” relative to other land uses.”¹¹

The Get Out West report from the Western Governors’ Association also highlighted how critical proper valuation of recreation is to the development of good management plans based on multiple use principals. The Get Out West report specifically found:

“Good planning not only results in better recreation opportunities, it also helps address and avoid major management challenges – such as limited funding, changing recreation types, user conflicts, and degradation of the assets. Managers with the most successfully managed recreation assets emphasized that they planned early and often. They assessed their opportunities and constraints, prioritized their assets, and defined visions.”¹²

The Organizations these type of economic concerns regarding accurate inclusion of economic analysis in land management plans are mirrored in the Endangered Species listing and are compounded by the fact that Colorado has 7 RMP currently in draft or final version currently. Providing the 2013 LCAS in a timely and effective manner will minimize possible impacts to Colorado economy that could result from an erroneous reliance on out of date standards that are currently provided in these RMP.

4b. Dispersed motorized recreation contributes over $1 billion a year to the Colorado economy.

Recreational usage of public lands is a significant portion of the Colorado economy, especially in the smaller mountain communities which have already lost more traditional sources of revenue, such as timber, farming and mining. In 2008, COHVCO commissioned an economic impact study to determine the economic impacts of OHV recreation on the Colorado economy. A copy of this economic impact study is attached for your reference. This study found that over 1,000,000,000 dollars of positive economic impact and 10,000 jobs resulted from OHV recreation to the State economy. ¹³ Over $100,000,000 of this economic impact were the result from motorized recreation in the winter seasons, which are often the major concern for lynx management.

In addition to this direct positive economic impact to Colorado communities, OHV recreation accounted for over $100,000 million in tax revenue to state and local municipalities.14*** These are tax revenues that motorized recreational users of the forest pay with little objection to obtain the benefits of their sport, and are used to address a wide range of needs for the local municipal government. Given current economic conditions, our Organizations believe these positive economic impact numbers must be meaningfully addressed in all government activities.

The economic contributions of motorized recreational usage of lynx habitat in Wyoming are significant as well. Wyoming State Parks recently identified that snowmobile recreation in Wyoming, most of which occurs in areas that are lynx habitat contributes $146.8 million a year to the Wyoming economy. While the economic contributions of motorized recreational usage of other habitat areas is not specifically identified in these comments, the Organizations believe these contributions will be as equally significant to those states as has been specifically found in Colorado and Wyoming.

4c. USFS NVUM analysis further supports the significant economic contributions of motorized usage of public lands.

The Organizations believe the comparative spending profiles of recreational users must be addressed in habitat designations. As previously stated in these comments, motorized access is a key component of many recreational activities that are not specifically identified as motorized recreation. Economic impacts of habitat designations must also address that the motorized users spend on average 2-3 times the average of the non-motorized community in pursuing their chosen forms of recreation. ¹⁵ It is the Organizations position that given the integral part that motorized access plays for all recreational activities and the comparatively high spending profile of the motorized community, any exclusion of motorized access in habitat areas, will have a disproportionate impact on economics. Allowing non-motorized access only will not significantly off-set the impact of such an exclusion.

5. Conclusion

The Organizations vigorously support the exclusion of the Southern Rockies geographic areas from designation as critical habitat, as these areas have an established history of being geographically isolated from northern core habitat areas of the lynx. As was conclusively proven during the reintroduction of the lynx in Colorado, even under abnormally high population pressures, lynx are not able to reconnect with northern core areas. Exclusion of this area as non-essential habitat for the lynx also brings the lynx management standards into conformity with wolverine habitat decisions, which also found this area to be non-essential for the survival of the Wolverine due to its geographic isolation. In addition to being geographically isolated, CPW has effectively managed these areas for the benefit of the lynx. While this management has been at times problematic for the motorized community, the designation of the area as critical habitat would exacerbate this issue rather than resolve it. Resolution of these types of conflicts is critical to the continued management of the lynx and other species in Colorado.

In addition to the exclusion of the southern rockies geographic area as critical habitat, the Organizations vigorously assert the significant economic impacts of excluding motorized recreation must be accounted for in the designation of critical habitat to be in compliance with federal law. These economic contributions are significant and would impact many other recreational activities beyond those traditionally identified as motorized.

Please feel free to contact Scott Jones 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 Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President

Don Riggle

Trails Preservation Alliance

Randall Miller
President
Colorado Snowmobile Association

John F. Lane
COHVCO Co-Chairman & President

¹ wildlife.state.co.us

² www.fs.usda.gov

³ Humston et al; USFS Office of Rural Development; Jobs, Economic Development and Sustainable Communities Strategizing Policy Needs and Program Delivery for Rural California; February 2010 at pgs 51-52

⁴ David Taylor; Economic Importance of the Winter Season to Park County Wyoming; University of Wyoming Press; 1999 @ pg 2.

⁵ Cordell et al; USFS Research Station; Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) February, 2008; pg 56.

⁶ Id at pg 56.

 ⁷ Id at pg 41-43.

⁸ US Fish & Wildlife Service; 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation – Colorado; at pg 40.

⁹ Western Governors Association; Managing the Regions Recreational Assets; Report of the Get Out West Advisory Group to the Western Governors’ Association; June 2012 – pg 1.

¹⁰ Western Governors Association; A Snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation; prepared by Outdoor Industry Foundation; June 2012 at pg 1.

¹¹ Western Governors Association; Get out West Report; Managing the Regions Recreational Assets; June 2012 at pg 3. A Copy of this report has been included with these comments as Exhibit 1.

¹² Get Out West Report at pg 5.

¹³ COHVCO Economic Impact Study- 2008; Lewis Burger Group; pg ES-5. A copy of this report is submitted with these comments.

¹⁴ Id at pg ES-5.

¹⁵ See; White and Stynes; Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity; Nov 2010 at pg 6.

December 2, 2013

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, a close friend of the AMA, recently announced structural changes, a new board member and a new partnership alliance with the Trails Preservation Alliance.
 
The COHVCO Board of Directors convened on Tuesday, November the 26th for a Board Meeting.  The main topic of discussion on the agenda involved the leadership structure of the organization and if that structure was the bestarrangement for our work going into 2014.  It was agreed that COHVCO would be much more functional and agile if a full time leader could take the helm.  Therefore the position of Chairman of the Board and President would be split into two separate positions.

Effective immediately, John Lane will continue in the Chairman role, while Jerry Abboud will take over the position of President/ Chief Executive, Operations and Legislative Officer of COHVCO.  John will work closely with the Board to drive fund raising and connections/collaboration with the various populations of OHV recreation across the state.  Jerry will be responsible for the day to day affairs and operations of the organization, where he will report to the COHVCO Chairman and Board of Directors.

A little background on Jerry….  Jerry Abboud has spent the past 27 years as an advocate for motorized recreation in Colorado.  He has lobbied for motorized access and motorized recreational interests in Colorado and at times in Washington D.C.   He is a cofounder of COHVCO in 1987, and hasworked closely over the years with organizations such as the Rampart Range Committee, Rocky Mtn. Enduro Circuit, Colorado Association for 4WD Clubs and the Colorado Snowmobile Association, among others.

Jerry has represented COHVCO in working with the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Industry Council, the ATV Safety Institute, Blue Ribbon Coalition, National Off-highway Vehicle Conservation Council and worked in the power sports industry in Colorado for 18 years.  He successfully wrote and lobbied Colorado’s OHV program, served on the State Trails Committee, State Forest Advisory Committee and numerous federal agency work groups.  Finally, Jerry is a graduate of the University of Nebraska College of law in 1981.

Regarding other business, a stronger partnership and alliance was forged between the Trails Preservation Alliance, led by Don Riggle, and COHVCO.  The TPA will step up to shoulder most of the work regarding Land Use Issues.  This is critical work that must be closely monitored and executed on, allowing John, the Board and Jerry to continue to focus on the work surrounding state and federal, legal and legislative issues.  Thank you to Don Riggle and the TPA for partnering on this critical work.

Finally and with great excitement, the Board would like to welcome Douglas Morris as our newest Board Member, representing the Rampart Range Committee.  Over the years, Doug has been in the thick of the OHV industry, working for the American Motorcycle Association (2001-2009) as the Director of the All-Terrain Vehicle Association, Operations Manager for Fay Myers (1998-2001), and Regional Manager for the Motorcycle Safety Institute (1992-1998).  We welcome Doug and are eager for the contributions he will offer COHVCO.

December 3, 2013

USDA Forest Service
Attn: Judicial and Administrative Reviews
EMC, RPC-6
1601 N. Kent St.
Arlington, VA 2220
RE: Appeal to San Juan NF RMP

Dear Sirs;
Please accept this correspondence and attachments as the notice of appeal and appeal of the above Organizations with regard to the USFS portions of the San Juan/Tres Rios (SJ/TR) Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). It is the Organizations position that the analysis of many issues is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and fails to provide the hard look at issues mandated by NEPA. Often the analysis of impacts and reviews of management standards are made in violation of numerous other statutes and regulations.

The SJ/TR FEIS and RMP assert that economic contributions are based on and consistent with USFS VNVUM analysis and specifically cites to recently released NVUM research on economic contributions of recreation. Any allegation of consistency of findings is facially arbitrary and capricious and must be reversed, as the SJ/TR conclusions on recreational economics are anything but consistent with the NVUM economic conclusions as evidenced by the fact the SJ/TR asserts to be providing analysis consistent with high spending forests. This is directly contradicted by the conclusions regarding the spending profiles of user groups that are reached in the SJ/TR FEIS as these conclusions are often numerous factors less than the spending profiles that are identified for user groups for a low average spending forest. For several user groups, the average spend for that group is completely outside the conclusions for the range of spending for the same group. The FEIS analysis also fails to provide any analysis of how the changing management standards will impact funding to state agencies, whose funding streams have been directly tied to management issues addressed in the FEIS and RMP. An example of such a secondary impact would be that a lack of access for hunting has been specifically identified as the single largest issue that can be addressed in land management to maintain hunting funding for wildlife management.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the manner in which NVUM analysis is alleged to be relied on for some issues and completely overlooked for other management issues. The NVUM analysis overwhelmingly concludes that current management is effectively providing a high quality recreational experience to users of the planning area. These conclusions are simply never addressed nor does the FEIS or RMP provide any analysis on how the high levels of proposed management changes will impact the already high level of customer satisfaction. The Organizations believe that an 83% increase in areas where motorized usage is unsuitable will directly impact the quality of most users experiences to possibly improve the alleged negative experience that is currently provided to less than 2% of visitors.

In addition to arbitrary and capricious analysis of economic issues, the current management of numerous locations in the SJ/TR planning area are not accurately reflected in the FEIS/RMP. These are areas with long histories of motorized usage that remain open to such legal usage at this time. The FEIS/RMP also proposed to make landscape level determinations regarding the suitability/unsuitability of areas for motorized usage. While these determinations appear to be limited to USFS lands the future of this standard for possible application on BLM lands is unclear. As such the errors in the development of this standard are addressed here and the Organizations are not comfortable in assuming that BLM areas currently limited to existing or designated routes currently will not be designated as unsuitable at some point in the future.

Several factors appear to have been relied on in the determinations of area suitability that arbitrarily and capriciously conflict with both agency analysis and USFS regulations such as the Colorado Roadless Rule. How most of these factors are integrated into the final suitability determinations simply are not addressed Habitat areas are excluded from future suitability despite USFWS analysis made as part of the Endangered Species Act review process that motorized usage of these areas for numerous species is not an issue. Roadless areas are managed under a single standard of review that conflicts with the newly released Colorado Roadless Rule and fails to analyze how areas motorized usage would be a protected characteristic of a roadless area and then found to be unsuitable for motorized usage in two review process that occurred at functionally the same time in the same area.

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

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 currently has 2,500 members. 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 appeal, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, the Trail Preservation Alliance and Colorado Snowmobile Association will be referred to as “the Organizations” in this appeal.

It is the Organizations position that the FEIS and RMP must be remanded to the Field Office for further analysis of the issues more specifically addressed in this appeal. The analysis of these issues and associated balance of uses that will result from meaningful analysis and a hard look at accurate information must then be provided to the public for an additional comment period. It is the Organizations position that an RMP for this area that is based on accurate economic information and accurate application of management standards will look significantly different that the current management standards sought to be applied.

To continue reading the entire 91 page appeal, download the PDF.

December 2, 2013

South Park Ranger District

ATT: Kristen Meyer
P.O. Box 219
Fairplay, CO 80440

RE: Badger Flats Habitat Improvement Project

Dear Ms. Meyer:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Organizations with regard to the above Project. Prior to addressing the specific merits 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 of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

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 these comments, COHVCO and TPA will be referred to as the Organizations.

The Organizations have serious concerns regarding several aspects of the Proposal, including possible impacts from active litigation against the Pike San Isabel forest that may directly impact much of the analysis and review of routes that would have to be undertaken. This is

litigation that the Organizations have been granted intervener status in and are now actively assisting the Forest Service in defending. The Organizations vigorously assert that this matter must be resolved prior to the proposal moving forward.

The Organizations are also concerned that much of the Proposal does not appear to be relying on best available science regarding the movement of wildlife in the Proposal area. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has provided extensive site specific analysis of wildlife issues in the planning area. While there are passing references to trail usage in the area in this analysis, development of adjacent private lands and military bases is specifically identified as the major concern. This site specific analysis also specifically states that the elk and deer herds in the planning area are currently at 2-3x the target population for the area. The Organizations believe providing a quality wildlife habitat is a critical use of public lands, but providing such a habitat entails addressing the actual threats and challenges to that habitat. Arbitrarily managing an issue that is not a threat to the habitat will never improve the quality of the habitat for the species to be protected. While there may be management issues in the proposal area, the Organizations do not believe they are of such as scale as to warrant the preparation of documentation for mitigation as much of the issues can be addressed through annual management and maintenance.

The Organizations are also concerned that the Proposal area has been heavily impacted by the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic. The large amount of dead trees in the planning area from this impact may also be directly impacting wildlife movements, as areas of cover that have been historically provided, are no longer available. The large number of dead trees additionally significantly increase the fire risk in the area, and as noted in CPW site specific research, burn areas make poor quality wildlife habitat. The Organizations will note that areas that have been remediated for beetle impacts often return to a basically healthy state at a much more rapid pace and return to a significantly improved quality of habitat than unremediated area. This issue simply is never addressed in the scoping or how the proposal would improve the ability to remediate this area in the future. The Organizations believe this proposal will not improve the ability to mitigate forest health issues.

1. Current litigation involving the South Park Ranger District must be addressed.

On January 28, 2011, the USFS Pike/San Isabel National Forest and Supervisor Jerry Marr were sued by the Wilderness Society, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Wildlands CPR, Quiet Use Coalition and the Center for Native Ecosystems in Federal District Court for Colorado.¹ This suit specifically challenged the placement of over 500 miles of routes on the MVUM of all six ranger districts in the PSI, including the South Park Ranger District. A copy of this complaint has been included with these comments for your reference. At this stage of the litigation, the Organizations to not believe the full extent of the routes and impacts has been full identified by the Plaintiffs. Allegations in the suit involved a wide range of issues related to MVUM development, including but not limited to, the inclusion of historical routes on an MVUM, violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act and NEPA. The Organizations believe that the PSI has stopped all travel management in the Forest until such time as this litigation can be resolved.

The Organizations sought to intervene in this matter to assist the Forest Service in the defense of this matter. Since being granted status as an intervener, the Organizations have been active partners in defending this matter, and clearly have a vested interest in resolving this matter. The Organizations have to disagree with the position asserted in the scoping letter that the Proposal does not affirm or deny the existence of system roads at this time. The Organizations believe the Proposal does nothing but affirm or deny the existence of routes in the area, and the proposal cannot move forward without such a determination.

The Organizations are very concerned that the existence of many routes in the South Park Ranger district have been directly challenged and the Court has not provided guidance regarding the sufficiency and validity of the current MVUMs for the District. As such this project will not have a proper standard for the determination of what is and what is not a designated route in the planning area. This information is critical to the project and identification of illegal or unauthorized routes and is currently unavailable during the pendency of this litigation.

The Organizations also note that if authorized and unauthorized routes cannot be identified in the planning area, the identification of administrative routes and routes that may not currently be open to the public and are held in reserve also cannot be identified. It is the Organizations vigorous assertion this Proposal is exceptionally premature given this litigation and will be relying on a determination process for the roads and trails in the proposal area that has been directly challenged in the litigation and will be addressing numerous routes that may be specifically challenged in the litigation.

2a. Best available science in the planning area has not been relied on in the Proposal.

The Organizations believe the asserted purpose and need for the project conflicts with best available science for the management of deer and elk herds in the planning area. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife consistently prepares site specific analysis of deer and elk herds throughout the state, addressing herd size, sex ratios and threats or challenges to the management of that herd. The Organizations assert this research is clearly best available

science on these issues, given the site specific nature of its analysis and peer review process that is undertaken by CPW prior to the adoption of these plans by the CPW Commission.

The Organizations believe that identification of the proper GMU for the proposal area is critical to applying this research. The Organizations have serious concerns that the proper plan has not been relied on the development of the proposal, as CPW has recently released a new Herd Management plan for the GMU south of the planning area (E23), while the Herd Management plan for the Proposal area (E18) is several years older. These concerns are based on the proximity of timing in the release of the new E23 Herd Management Plan and this proposal and the fact that several sections of the scoping letter appear to have been directly cut and pasted from the E23 plan into the scoping letter. While the Organizations are aware the GMU issues may be similar, this is simply not a proper or credible basis for planning.

The Organizations believe a brief comparison of the proposal area and the GMU boundaries will clarify this concern as the proposal boundaries almost entirely overlap the E18 planning and analysis boundaries.

*See the PDF for image: Badger Flats Habitat Improvement Project* ²

By comparison, the E18 planning area is managed under the following boundaries:

*See PDF for Figure 5. E-18Map * ³

Given the overlap of the planning area and proposal area, the Organizations believe there can be no argument that E18 analysis and research is the proper planning tool to be relied on for the development of mitigation in the proposal area.

2b. The current elk population in the E18 planning area is 2-3x the CPW target for the area.

Once the proper planning area is identified, a review of this plan reveals that CPW specifically concludes the current elk herd population is 2-3x the target population for the planning area. This herd has remained at 2-3x the population goal for more than 15 years. The E18 Herd Management Plan provides the following graphic representation of the herd size:

*See PDF for Figure 1. E-18 Elk posthunt population estimate, 1990 through 2006* ⁴

The Organizations must note that the E23 Herd Management plan notes the elk herd in that planning area is also holding at 2-3x the target population for the planning area. Given the exceptional size, health and historically stable nature of the herd size, the Organizations have to question the validity of any assertion that habitat quality is a problem for this herd. An assertion that route closures are necessary to protect herd populations must also take into account the herd size is 2-3x what it should be for the planning area. The Organizations do not believe this has occurred in the Proposal.

2c. The threats and issues identified in the E-18 Herd Management Plan do not bear any relationship to the management actions in the Proposal.

The E18 Herd Management Plan also provides a detailed analysis of the threats and challenges to the elk herd in the area. These threats and challenges are summarized as follows:

“Changes in land use and conversion of ranchland to residential subdivision have negatively impacted the carrying capacity of the area as well as impacting hunter access and harvest success. While there is adequate forage in most years for a larger population (4,500) than currently exists in the DAU (2,400) based on a habitat assessment model developed for Colorado’s HPP program, localized conflicts with agricultural producers still occur. There is relatively little hay production in this DAU and no game damage claims have been paid, but complaints of forage competition and fence damage have increased in the last two years.”⁵

The Organizations would also note that camping and motorized recreation in the E18 planning area is specifically addressed in the E18 herd plan, which clearly states:

“Multiple uses of the public lands in the DAU include heavy recreational use of both National Forest and BLM lands throughout the year. Recreational activities include hiking, camping, horseback riding, mountain biking, ATV and snowmobile riding, four wheeling, wildlife watching, hunting and fishing. Additionally, most of the public lands have seasonal grazing allotments.”⁶

The Organizations believe it is significant to note that while this usage was specifically addressed in the E18 Herd Management Plan, at no point is this usage even identified as a management concern in the E18 plan. This lack of concern regarding high levels of recreational usage must be taken into account in the Proposal, which proposes to manage these uses to address a non-existent threat to the animals in the area.

It is significant to note that the E-23 Herd Management plan, which appears to be a significant factor erroneous relied on for the development of the Proposal given the large amount of materials that have directly transferred from the plan to the scoping letter, notes a wide range of factors, including the Hayman burn area, large amounts of private lands development and military bases in habitat areas as significant factors impacting the elk population.⁷ The E23 plan does provide more analysis of recreational usage of habitat areas, however it is significant to note that at no point is motorized recreation identified as a disproportionate impact. Rather the E23 speaks to all recreational usage of habitat. If all recreational usage of habitat is a concern, all recreational usage should be managed under multiple use standards while protecting elk habitat. However that management becomes problematic as precluding all recreational usage will never off set development of adjacent lands and limiting hunting access would reduce the effectiveness of one of the major tools the CPW is using to attempt to reduce the elk population in that area, which is hunting. Precluding recreational usage for the benefit of elk habitat is simply arbitrary and conflicts with federal law.

2d. Elk response to hunting pressure is identified as a significant factor moving animals off public lands in the E18 plan.

The Organizations are also very concerned that seasonal management issues, such as hunting pressure, are now asserted to be properly relied on for management decisions that impact the year round public access to the planning area. This is simply not acceptable, as the seasonal hunting usage in the planning area has consistently found to obtain a much higher level of wildlife response than the use of the area for non-hunting activity the rest of the year. This is an issue that must also be addressed if there is a desire to maintain wildlife on public lands. The E18 Herd Management plan addresses Elk response to hunting pressure as a major issue in the planning area. This concern is summarized as follows:

“There has been a significant loss of elk habitat due to changes in land use. Much of the conversion from agricultural to residential use has occurred in winter and transitional ranges which are critical in determining the carrying capacity of the area. Impacts from development include direct loss of habitat capability as well as the loss of the ability to hunt those lands for elk population control. Elk quickly learn to take advantage of areas closed to hunting. Future conversions of agricultural and open lands to residential uses will further reduce the ability of this DAU to support elk.”⁸

Elk response to hunting pressure is an issue that has been extensively researched and consistently found to more directly impact elk movement when compared to other factors such as recreational usage of roads and trails in the habitat areas. Researchers have specifically concluded that elk move away from hunters without regard to the number of roads in the area, which has been summarized as:

“After eliminating the effects of primary and secondary roads, elk were farther from primitive roads than random points within the study area for all 10-day intervals except 1-10 October (Table 2). Elk were farther from secondary roads through the period of 1-10 October after which elk dispersion patterns were indistinct relative to secondary roads. Elk locations relative to primary roads were similar to those for primitive roads in that elk were increasingly closer to primary roads during the 10-day intervals from 22 August to 10 October. After 11 October, the average distance of elk to primary roads increased through 30 November.” ⁹

Even in comparatively unroaded areas on the planning area, elk still move to private lands in response to hunting pressure commencing the open of hunting seasons. The Organizations have to believe that if these studies were reviewed as part of the Proposal development process, these findings would have immediately brought into question any assertion that road closures in travel management would address elk movement in response to hunting in any meaningful manner. Studies addressing elk herds inhabiting the public lands in Colorado have specifically concluded that:

“We used the difference in the model averaged predicted proportion of elk on private land immediately before and after opening day to estimate the direct effect of opening day of hunting. Elk on private land increased 8-17% at the opening of early season hunting.” ¹⁰

The Organizations believe that this analysis must be the first tool utilized to address the response of elk to hunting pressure issues in the proposal area and travel management should not be the first tool used to try to address off trail non-OHV related management issues. As extensively discussed in the E18 Herd Management Plan, CPW has tried a variety of different hunting management practices in the planning area to try and reduce the elk overpopulation, with varying levels of success. While the Organizations are sympathetic to these management challenges, the Organizations do not believe the failures in managing these issues justifies moving to management of issues that pose a significantly lower level of threat than the response to hunting pressure.

3. HPP input regarding the usage of public lands remains governed by multiple use mandates for that public land.

The Organizations will note that the E18 Herd Plan makes several references to recommendations from the Habitat Partnership Program with CPW. These references are summarized as follows:

“The South Park Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) committee, in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and United States Forest Service (USFS), is actively promoting habitat improvements in areas that can support more elk or where elk use is not problematic. The goal of this effort is to move as much of the elk use as possible to habitats on public lands where there are no or very limited conflicts.”¹¹

The Organizations will note that these HPP recommendations are not a replacement for the multiple use mandates for the management of public lands. The Organizations would also note that while wildlife managers may see the use of public lands as an area where there are little to

not conflicts, the Organizations believe this proposal is the direct result of conflicting multiple uses on this public land. Arbitrarily accepting these type of recommended usages is neither acceptable or legal.

4. Impacts of the mountain pine beetle must addressed in habitat effectiveness analysis.

The Organizations are also aware that much of the Proposal area has been heavily impacted by the mountain pine beetle epidemic. It has been the Organizations experience that areas impacted by the pine beetle epidemic experience a significant decline in the quality of wildlife habitat in the areas. This position has been supported by a significant body of scientific research.¹²

It has been the Organizations experience that private land owners have been far more effective at mitigating the impacts of the mountain pine beetle on private lands than the federal lands managers. Given that wildlife will move to the mitigated areas as it is superior quality habitat, the Organizations believe this factor must also be addressed in the Proposal. This issue simply has not been addressed. The Organizations vigorously assert that the complete closure of the planning area, which we are aware is outside the scope of the proposal, will never be sufficient to counter the huge impact that the mountain pine beetle epidemic has had on the planning area. The Organizations vigorously believe that planning must rely on all best available science for the planning area, and the current Proposal simply has not done this as the proposed management starts with the position that closures and recreation can be managed to improve habitat to levels where wildlife remains on public lands. The Organizations believe this position is simply erroneous.

Conclusion

The Organizations believe there are significant issues with the current litigation that is addressing trails usage and planning on the South Park Ranger district that must be resolved prior to the Proposal moving forward. Resolution of these issues is critical as the current proposal may impact the litigation and would be making determinations and reviews of legal or user created routes that could be impacted by any verdict from the litigation. This must be avoided.

In addition to the concerns regarding litigation, the Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal fails to address best available science and the fact that elk herds in the Proposal area are 2-3x the target populations for the these herds. The populations have historically remained at these levels, making any assertion of poor habitat quality problematic at best. In addition to failing to address overpopulations of elk in the planning area, the Proposal seeks to manage recreational access and usage in the area, despite best available science specifically concluding that this usage is not a priority issue in the Proposal area. This type of arbitrary management is neither acceptable or legal for the management of public lands.

If you have questions please feel free to contact Scott Jones at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810.

Sincerely,
Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO Co-Chairman
CSA Vice President

Don Riggle

Trails Preservation Alliance

John F. Lane
COHVCO Co-Chairman & President 

November 26, 2013

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), have announced the formation of a strategic alliance between the 2 organizations to address all OHV recreation issues in Colorado.

This alliance will make maximum use of the resources in both organizations to help protect and enhance OHV recreation on public lands in Colorado.

November 8, 2013

The following is re-published with permission.

When congress enacted the original Wilderness legislation in 1964, it seemed, like all other impending environmental bills, a pretty good idea. The act envisioned about 15 million acres of already highly restricted land, containing no roads or other impacts of man, would ultimately be designated.  

But over the years the political environmentalists and their friends in the judiciary mutilated this well intentioned law until it became the Frankenstein monster, intent on devouring every scenic acre in its path. Instead of being  the last resort classification for the most rare and exemplary natural landscapes, Wilderness is now the default designation for all public lands, having thus far consumed over 150 million acres with no end in sight.

Luckily we in Utah have been substantially spared the onslaught of this BLM land grabbing juggernaut except for Washington County which was sacrificed to the Earth Goddess Gaia by the closet democrat Bob Bennett, who revealed his true colors by taking a job with the Wilderness Society shortly after being booted out by an unusually perceptive Republican convention.

Sadly, we are again in great danger of massive Wilderness mediated, not by the political environmentalists as we might expect, but rather by lobbyists paid for by the taxpayers of Emery County! They have produced a bill that they claim must be passed in all possible haste, calling for a whopping 150,000 acres in excess of the long established and exorbitantly large Wilderness Study Areas. 

This is wrong on so many levels.   Here are just a few examples of why this bill must never see the light of day. First, most of the land in question does not fit the requirements of the 1964 law. It is not pristine and untrammeled by man and contains many hundreds of miles of roads. There were thousands of mines with bull dozers crawling all over the place in the 50’s and 60’s.  Because roads are incompatible with Wilderness, The BLM’s publications have gone to incredible linguistic contortions to avoid the word “road”, but their “doublespeak” doesn’t change the reality on the ground or make the roads vanish.

Second, ALL future economic development will be forever outlawed.  The inhabitants of Emery County and all other areas subject to Wilderness Designation will become the servants and porters for politically correct eco-tourists, which will become the only remaining economic activity. Grazing will be banned (check the GSENM if you have any doubt of this), and meanwhile our revered President Obama has made no secret of killing coal as an energy resource.  No new mining, oil exploration, or non eco- tourism development will be allowed.  The people of “the Wilderness Lands will become trespassers on their own land; outcasts from the King’s Forest Wilderness will create.

Third, Wilderness Designation is unconstitutional and illegally discriminatory. It violates the First Amendment by implementing religious gospels through the force of law. If you have any doubt as to the religious nature of the Environmental movement and their beloved Wilderness, just check their writings and their reverence to Earth Goddess Gaia. In addition, Wilderness bans all motorized and mechanized traffic, even on existing roads, thereby shutting out every American with a mobility disability, which includes most of our elderly people and other protected populations. It’s quite odd that at a time of supreme political correctness, where the rights of every minority are given almost holy status, the rights of so many other good people are dismissed without apology or even notice. Fortunately, there are a number of powerful laws and constitutional protections that, if finally invoked, will shatter the Wilderness paradigm.

Forth, the fallacious argument propelling the current Wilderness Crusade proclaims that our beloved President Obama will act if we don’t designate immediately.  Well, this is analogous to committing suicide in order to avoid the possibility of being murdered. Very effective but not very smart! President Obama hates Utah and will do whatever pleases the political environmentalists independent of our action or inaction. The tragedy here is that the Republicans didn’t fix the Antiquities Act when they had the chance.  Much of the blame goes to them (and especially to Orrin Hatch) if President Obama creates a National Monument, which, it should be noted, is not nearly as bad as Wilderness.  National Monuments can be managed for multiple use and are reversible, neither of which applies to Wilderness.

The people of Utah must to stand up and say NO to this insane sellout to the political environmentalists.  Remember, they will take what you give them now and soon come back for the rest.   There is no compromise possible with them, ever. There is zero benefit to us in Wilderness designation, which shifts total control of our public land to Washington D.C., where powerful interests inimical to Utah will always be in control.  The only defensible position is NO MORE WILDERNESS!

So, what can we do now?   First of all, we must stop squandering Emery County Taxpayer’s money doing SUWA’s work. Frankly, SUWA has plenty of cash to lobby for massive wilderness and doesn’t require any subsidy.  Just have a look at the luxurious TV commercials saturating the airwaves and you’ll see why.  Second, the proposed phony Wilderness bill resulting from these efforts needs to be scrapped. Same goes for the other County Wilderness Bills now in the works. And Third, and most important, everyone must contact our Governor and all members of our congressional delegation demanding there be no more wilderness.  Senator Mike Lee is especially critical because typically the opposition of just one Senator can torpedo a Wilderness bill applicable to his home state.   Sadly, Senator Hatch has become prone to accommodating anything that increases the power of the Federal Government.

You can get full contact information for our congressional delegation at congress.com.

Political environmentalists love to say that once “Wilderness is gone, it’s gone forever”. If they could scrap the propaganda and actually tell the truth, this would become “Once Wilderness is here, it’s here forever”. And when it’s here, gone will be any hope of future economic prosperity for our children and grandchildren.

Like Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, what happens in the near future will be irreversible and set the stage for the future of our beloved State.  Do we want distant tyrants who don’t like us to rule our land or do we want to be in control of our own dominion?   The time is now and the choice is ours to make.

November 5, 2013

The following is a media release from the BRC – re-published with permission.

BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC.
MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Paul Turcke
PHONE: (208) 331-1800
EMAIL: brpaul_t@sharetrails.org
DATE: November 5, 2013

RICHFIELD BLM TRAVEL PLAN SUFFERS SETBACK

SALT LAKE CITY, UT (November 5, 2013) — The U.S. Court for the District of Utah yesterday issued a decision that declared certain aspects of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Richfield Field Office vehicle Travel Plan unlawful. BLM spent over six years preparing the Plan, which was released in October, 2008. The Plan covered 2.1 million acres in south-central Utah, and substantially reduced vehicle access, nearly eliminating “open” designations and restricting vehicle travel to a reduced network of designated routes.

Despite these restrictions, a coalition of preservationist groups led by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance challenged the Travel Plan. Many of their arguments were rejected, but the Court ruled that BLM failed to adequately tie its route designations to the “minimization criteria” first announced in a pair of forty year-old Executive Orders, and failed to conduct on-the-ground inventories for archeological resources in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act.

“We are, of course, disappointed in this result,” stated Brian Hawthorne, Utah Policy Advisor with the BlueRibbon Coalition, an access advocacy group. Hawthorne noted the on the ground effects of the ruling remain to be seen because the Court has yet to decide how the BLM should remedy the 2008 Travel Plan. “Our work here is far from finished and begins with encouraging the Court to shape a properly limited remedy that allows the BLM to efficiently finish its business,” Hawthorne concluded.

Numerous parties intervened in the case to respond to the preservationist claims, including the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) and the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC).

This decision comes in a long line of battles over BLM access management in Utah. A 2000 lawsuit by SUWA was dismissed on a motion filed by BRC, and that ruling was affirmed by a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2004. A copy of yesterday’s decision can be viewed at http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/329-Memorandum_Decision_and_Order-11.4.13.pdf.

The Court will accept further briefing on the question of remedy. The litigation schedule contemplates now moving to the preservationists’ challenges to five other Utah Plans, which include the Moab, Vernal, Price, Monticello and Kanab field offices.

November 3, 2013

Attached is the appeal of the BLM Tres Rios plan that was submitted November 3, 2013. There are some major issues with the plan. The economic analysis is simply tragic and we would hope provide the basis for a successful appeal of recreational allocations on that basis alone.  The Plan proposes some significant closures for summer usage and closes some well known riding areas for winter like Molas Pass.  

Nov 3, 2013

Director (210)
Attn: Brenda Hudgens-Williams
A20M Street SE, Room 2134LM
Washington, D.C. 20003

RE: Objections/Appeal to Tres Rios BLM Plan

Dear Ms Hudgens-Williams;

Please accept this correspondence and attachments as the appeal and objections of the above Organizations with regard to the BLM portions of the San Juan/Tres Rios (SJ/TR) Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). It is the Organizations position that the analysis of many issues is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and fails to provide the hard look at issues mandated by NEPA. Often these analysis and management standards are made in violation of numerous other statutes and regulations.

The SJ/TR FEIS and RMP assert that economic contributions are based on and consistent with USFS VNVUM analysis and specifically cites to recently released NVUM research. This position is facially arbitrary and capricious and must be reversed as the SJ/TR conclusions are anything but consistent with the NVUM conclusions as evidenced by the fact the SJ/TR asserts to be providing analysis consistent with high spending forests. This is directly contradicted by the conclusions regarding the spending profiles of user groups that are reached in the SJ/TR FEIS as these conclusions are often numerous factors less than the spending profiles that are identified for user groups for a low average spending forest. For several user groups, the average spend for that group is completely outside the conclusions for the range of spending for the same group.

In addition to arbitrary and capricious analysis of economic issues, the current management of numerous locations in the SJ/TR planning area are not accurately reflected in the FEIS/RMP. These are areas with long histories of motorized usage that remain open to such legal usage at this time. The effectiveness of current management in mitigating management issues is simply never addressed before additional management restrictions are applied as part of the FEIS/RMP. As the baseline of management is not accurately reflected in the FEIS/RMP and assertion that the change in management was meaningfully analyzed is arbitrary and capricious as the FEIS analysis asserts there is no change in the management of these areas and such analysis fails to satisfy the hard look requirements of NEPA.

The FEIS/RMP also proposed to make landscape level determinations regarding the suitability/unsuitability of areas for motorized usage. While these determinations appear to be limited to USFS lands the future of this standard for possible application on BLM lands is unclear. As such the errors in the development of this standard are addressed here and the Organizations are not comfortable in assuming that BLM areas currently limited to existing or designated routes currently will not be designated as unsuitable at some point in the future.

Several factors appear to have been relied on in the determinations of area suitability that arbitrarily and capriciously conflict with both agency analysis and USFS regulations such as the Colorado Roadless Rule. How most of these factors are integrated into the final suitability determinations simply are not addressed Habitat areas are excluded from future suitability despite USFWS analysis made as part of the Endangered Species Act review process that motorized usage of these areas for numerous species is not an issue. Roadless areas are managed under a single standard of review that conflicts with the newly released Colorado Roadless Rule and fails to analyze how areas motorized usage would be a protected characteristic of a roadless area and then found to be unsuitable for motorized usage in two review process that occurred at functionally the same time in the same area.

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

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 currently has 2,500 members. 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, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, the Trail Preservation Alliance and Colorado Snowmobile Association will be referred to as “the Organizations” in this appeal.

It is the Organizations position that the FEIS and RMP must be remanded to the Field Office for further analysis of the issues more specifically addressed in this appeal. The analysis of these issues and associated balance of uses that will result from meaningful analysis and a hard look at accurate information must then be provided to the public for an additional comment period. It is the Organizations position that an RMP for this area that is based on accurate economic information and accurate application of management standards will look significantly different that the current management standards sought to be applied.

Download the attached PDF (above) to read the entire document

October 10, 2013

Attached is the report of the first work done on the Cost Challenge Share Project on The Salida Ranger District in Colorado.

Report Date: October 10, 2013

Salida Ranger District
Route Inventory Field Work Cycle Report

Prepared by: Great Outdoors Consultants

Inventory Area Description
Motorized route inventory for the Salida Ranger District was conducted by Great Outdoors Consultants (GOC) and volunteers during a 9 day work cycle from October 2-10, which included 6 days of actual field inventory work. The inventory area is 169,000 acres in size and is roughly bounded by Buffalo Peaks Wilderness and Pike National Forest to the north; Town of Salida to the south; the Arkansas River to the west; and San Isabel National Forest Boundary to the east. Many roads and trails in the study area are very rocky and there are many site-specific features to document which affected the potential inventory rate. An inventory base camp was established in the Four Mile Area in Mushroom Gulch (Road 308) south of Highway 285/24. Camping on site greatly improved the team’s inventory access efficiency and provides shelter for staff.

Download the attached PDF (above) to read the entire document

This is our 27th year and I think it is appropriate for those who have supported the Coalition to look back at where we came from.

In 1987 it became apparent to many of us that money was becoming a huge issue regarding our desire to keep trails open and maintained. A group of us from Jack Welch to Don Bruns, BLM; Stuart Macdonald, State Parks; Dennis Larratt, Glenn Graham and others looked to fund trails with something beyond the token amount that was available to us through the State Trails Program.  Registering OHVs was discussed as a source of income.  However, a number of state government folks conveyed their experience of the unfortunate failure of a registration program some ten years before.

It seems the program didn’t get past about 8,000 registrations and ultimately was repealed.  I asked one question: “Where the dealers responsible for registration at the time of sale?”  It turns out they were not.  Since field enforcement is so difficult, capturing the registrant at the point of purchase and sending an annual renewal by mail seemed like a fix.

We drafted legislation as a group, citizens and government and ran the bill in 1988.  It died—a real bummer but we were too green to be disillusioned.   At the 1989 Session the bill was again introduced by State Representative Marlene Fish of Lakewood and Senator Dave Wattenberg of Walden.  Thanks to strong organized support from the motorized community the bill passed and became effective April 1, 1990, with a 3 year education period and no tickets.  Representative Fish asked me after the bill was signed by the governor if I truly believed we could get 10,000 to12,000 vehicles registered in 5 years.  I responded, “Absolutely”, through the perspiration.

This is a good time to note that the OHV Program relied on a $35,000 loan from the Snowmobile Program with CSA’s permission.  Without the loan there could be no OHV Program.  Another “thank you” to the Colorado Snowmobile Association is thus in order.  Also to be noted is the loan was paid back early with interest thanks to an OHV Program that exceeded all expectations.

A long lost fact is that State Parks wanted all citizens angered by the registration charge ($12.00) to be referred to COHVCO as they simply couldn’t handle the perceived number of complaints.  For two long years, John Martin, COHVCO Board member on the West Slope and I on the Front Range handled all the calls.  That was not a picnic by any means, but slowly the complaints fizzled out. And the benefits individuals saw in the program turned almost all of the OHV community into strong supporters.

Looking back, we were well ahead in our belief that we would need to tax ourselves to maintain the recreation.  After 23 years we have over 130,000 registrations and $3 million annually to increasingly assume the financial pressure on our sport.

The next step was to examine and determine why the federal agencies were closing trails and roads left and right.  That meant COHVCO would insert itself into the federal land management process and begin to comment, negotiate, appeal and if necessary file a law suit to stop the ridiculous loss of trails.  This has been one of our greatest challenges as the anti-access groups seek to remove motorized recreation from public lands.

We have engaged every national forest and BLM field office in Colorado in the planning process and to a degree we have kept much more open than was originally designed to be closed.

We have fought against Wilderness in all its forms and when it became evident in the early ‘90s that both Colorado U.S. senators would run a Wilderness bill, COHVCO and board member Dennis Larratt spent hundreds of hours analyzing and negotiating each piece of the proposed bill.  That was the last major Wilderness Bill in Colorado and many have since gone down in defeat.

COHVCO held annual workshops to educate our members, clubs and even the agencies about motorized recreation, it many values and the need to provide for it.

We have pushed for State OHV Parks and hope to have one in the not to distant future.

Another tremendous challenge was keeping the anti-access crowd from raiding our OHV Fund.  They have mad three separate attempts and have been stopped cold each time by the out cry from our members.  Without this fund we could not fend off the assault mounted by anti-access groups regarding the condition of trails and reconstruction to standard.  Not to mention the many projects the Fund provides the money for such as barriers, new trail, bridges, etc.

In 2011 we sued state Parks for violating our rights that are provided through the Colorado Open Meetings Law.  The Parks Board (now the parks and Wildlife Commission) was forced to plead to the violations and are under a Denver District Court permanent injunction to not violate that law again or be held n contempt of court.

Over the years we have gained the respect of national organizations from the AMA to the Blue Ribbon Coalition and we regularly discuss national strategies.

We maintain a strong lobbying presence at the Capitol to closely watch the proposed legislation introduced by the Colorado General Assembly by employing a professional lobbyist full time during the legislative session.

Post Script: Twenty-six years later the OHV fund that COHVCO created has raised $53 Million through the OHV registration program.  Wilderness and closures still must be dealt with every day and the anti- access crowd w ants to steal the OHV funds.  And, of course, there is Congress.