Author Archive | Administrator

Exective Summary Full Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Submitted to:
Trails Presevation Alliance
PO Box 38093
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80937

Submitted by:
The Louis Berger Group
535 16th Street, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202

August 2013

Introduction
Colorado offers unique opportunities for motorized recreation¹ because of its vast terrain appropriate for off-highway motorized use. As such, the sport and industry of motorized recreation has increased in popularity in Colorado for both residents and non-residents. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Louis Berger) evaluated the economic contribution of motorized recreation in Colorado for the 2012-13 season² and summarizes the results in this report.
Much of the analysis presented here is based on a 2001 study completed by Hazen and Sawyer titled Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Colorado (the 2001 study).³ The 2001 study includes a household survey that collected valuable information on where and when motorized-recreation enthusiasts utilized their vehicles for recreation, average expenditures associated with recreational trips, and annual expenditures associated with operating and maintaining vehicles. Louis Berger adjusted information on collected in that study for inflation and used it in combination with current data on the number of households that participate in motorized recreation in the state to estimate the total economic contribution of the sport in Colorado.

Households⁴ that Participate in Motorized Recreation
OHV registrations increased by 131 percent between 2000 and 2012. The bulk of growth occurred between 2000 and 2007 and was fairly constant between 2007 and 2012 (Figure ES-1). Snowmobile registrations were fairly constant between 2000 and 2009 and decreased slightly between 2008 and 2012 (Figure ES-2).

Figure ES-1. Annual Resident OHV Registrations in Colorado

Figure ES-2. Annual Resident Snowmobile Registrations in Colorado

The number of registrations and permits was used in part to estimate the number of resident and non-resident households that likely participated in motorized recreation in Colorado during the 2012-13 season. Permit information is used to estimate the number of non-resident households coming to Colorado for motorized recreation. Between 2008 and 2012, non-resident OHV permits grew by more than 34 percent.

The analysis shows that almost 150,000 resident households likely participated in some sort of motorized recreation in the 2012-13 season in Colorado, and approximately 36,000 non-resident households traveled to Colorado to participate in motorized recreation. The resident and non-resident household estimates are summarized in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1. Estimated Population of Households Who Used OHVs and Snowmobiles for Motorized Recreation in Colorado in 2012-13 Season

Expenditures Associated with Motorized Recreation

During the 2012-13 season, Louis Berger estimated that motorized recreational enthusiasts spent more than $602 million while taking trips using their motorized vehicle for recreational purposes. On a household basis, residents spent on average $109 to $137 per day trip and $441 to $679 per overnight trip.  Non-residential households spent on average $131 to $197 per day trip and $926 to $1,660 per overnight trip.5 More than 90 percent of these expenditures occurred during the summer OHV recreational season.

In addition to spending money on day and overnight trips, households participating in motorized recreation also spend money on new vehicles, maintenance, repairs, accessories, storage, and miscellaneous items associated with their vehicles. Louis Berger estimated that motorized recreational enthusiasts spent more than $387.6 million annually on various items to support and enhance their experiences in Colorado, including $133 million in new vehicle purchases. On average, resident households spent between $574 and $4,116 on annual expenditures in Colorado.  Non-resident households spent on average between $124 and $665 in annual expenditures in Colorado.6 In total, motorized recreational enthusiasts were responsible for $990 million in direct expenditures related to motorized recreation in Colorado during the 2012-13 season.

Direct Labor, Income, and Tax Contributions

The expenditures made by motorized-recreation enthusiasts have an economic contribution that supports businesses throughout the state. Total direct gross sales of $481 million associated with motorized recreation supported almost 5,500 direct jobs, $212 million in labor income (employee compensation and proprietor income), $284 million in gross regional product, and $35 million in federal, state, and local business taxes during the 2012-13 season (Table ES-2).

It should be noted that there is a considerable difference between the direct expenditures ($990 million) discussed above and the direct sales effect ($481 million) on Colorado.  Although motorized enthusiasts spend $990 on various expenditures within the state, their direct contribution to sales is $481 million.  This is due to fact that retail purchases are margined in the IMPLAN model. Margins represents the difference between producer and purchaser prices in a retail or wholesale environment, and IMPLAN provides an allocation of retail spending to the appropriate manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade sectors, and transportation industries.  For example, for the new vehicle purchases, IMPLAN only applies the margined amount or the mark-up that the retail establishment receives when selling the vehicle and reduces portion of sales allocated to the manufacturing component.

Table ES-2.     Direct Economic Impact of Motorized Recreation in Colorado during the 2012-13 Season

Additional Economic Activity

Direct expenditures made by motorized recreational enthusiasts have an additional effect by generating indirect and induced (downstream) economic activity often known as multiplier effects. The downstream economic effects of motorized recreation resulted in $465 million in downstream gross sales, 3,372 additional jobs, $160 million in additional labor income, $278 million in gross state product, and $24 million in federal, state, and local business taxes (Table ES-3).

Table ES-3.     Additional Economic Activity Resulting from Motorized Recreation in Colorado During the 2012-2013 Season

Total Economic Contribution within Colorado

The total economic contribution of motorized recreation for the 2012-13 season is summarized in Table ES-4. Motorized recreational enthusiasts are estimated to have supported more than $481 million in total direct gross sales for motorized recreation throughout the year. This direct spending supported an additional $465 million in downstream gross sales due to additional economic activity, or $945 million in total gross sales. Motorized recreation in Colorado is directly or indirectly responsible for almost 9,000 jobs and $373 million in labor income. According to gross sales, OHVs contribute 91 percent of economic contribution while snowmobiles contribute 9 percent.

Table ES-4. Total Economic Contribution of Motorized Recreation in Colorado during the 2012-13 Season (Direct, Indirect, and Induced)

Regional Economic Contribution Analysis

The economic contribution of motorized recreation in different regions of the state was also evaluated (see Table ES-5). This included OHV and snowmobile trip spending by region. Table ES-6 summarizes the economic contribution by region.  The region receiving the largest economic contribution from motorized recreation during the 2012-13 season was central Colorado. This region was followed in importance by south-central and southwest regions.

Table ES-5. Regions in Colorado Used to Estimate Motorized Recreational Use

Table ES-6. Estimated Economic Contribution of Motorized Recreation by Region in Colorado for the 2012-2013 Season

–See the downloadable PDF above for this table–

¹ Motorized recreation is defined for this study as the use of motorized vehicles on roads and trails which are not considered as part of the normal transportation network.  The system of trails and roads used for this type of recreation are thus considered “off-highway”.
² Annual registrations are valid from April 1st through March 31st.
³ Hazen and Sawyer, Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Colorado, July 2001, Hollywood, Florida.
⁴ The 2001 OHV Study focused on determining motorized recreational use and expenditures in Colorado on a household basis.  Households were defined as those that participate in motorized recreation and range in size from 2.6 to 3.0 persons per household. The average number of vehicles used for motorized recreation ranged from 1.8 to 2.8 per household depending on the vehicle type (Hazen and Sawyer, 2001).
⁵ Average itemized expenditures are discussed in detail in Appendix A of the full report.
⁶ Average annual itemized expenditures are discussed in detail in Appendix B of the full report.

July 20, 2013

June 23, 2013

May 2, 2013

April 28, 2013

April 24, 2013

Please read the Colorado Springs Gazette news paper article  “Protection of fish leads dirt bikers to sue Forest Service” by R. Scott Rappold – http://www.gazette.com/articles/trails-153929-dirt-service.html

You can also read the formal notice of intent to sue on our website here: http://coloradotpa.org/news/news/formal-notice-of-intent-to-sue-bear-creek-watershed.html
 
 

TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800
FAX:  (208) 331-1202
www.msbtlaw.com 

 
STEPHANIE J. BONNEY≈
SUSAN E. BUXTON*
PAUL J. FITZER
JILL S. HOLINKA
BRUCE M. SMITH
PAUL A. TURCKE•
CHERESE D. MCLAIN
JOHN  J. MCFADDEN Of Counsel
MICHAEL C. MOORE‡ Of Counsel
 
* Also admitted in Oregon
• Also admitted in South Dakota
≈ Also admitted in Utah
 ‡ Also admitted in Washington
 

 
April 19, 2013
 
Jerri Marr, Forest Supervisor
Pike and San Isabel National Forests
2840 Kachina Drive
Pueblo, CO 81008
 
Allan Hahn, District Ranger 
Pikes Peak Ranger District
601 South Weber Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Delivered via U.S. Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 
and to Mr. Hahn without exhibits via fax at: 719-477-4233
 
cc:   Thomas Vilsack, Secretary 
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250
 
Sally Jewell, Secretary
U.S. Department of Interior 
1849 C. Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
 
Susan Linner, Colorado Field Supervisor
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver, CO  80225-0486
 
 
 
RE: Formal Notice of Intent to Sue
 
Dear Sirs and Madams:
 
This serves as formal notice by our clients Trails Preservation Alliance, Colorado Motorized Trail Machine Association, Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, Don Riggle and David Leinweber (collectively, the “Petitioners”) of their intent to sue the United States Forest Service; Jerri Marr, Supervisor, Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Allan Hahn, District Ranger, Pikes Peak Ranger District (collectively, the “Forest Service”) for violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (“ESA”) resulting from the Forest Service’s actions and ongoing oversight regarding recreational use of the Bear Creek watershed.  Petitioners include nonprofit groups committed to effective, sustainable and equitable management of trail-based recreation opportunity, as well as fishermen and conservationists committed to active and effective management of Colorado’s waters and supported fisheries and aquatic populations.  Petitioners, including through their members, reside in the vicinity of Bear Creek, have recreated within the watershed including on all of its Forest Service trails, and have concrete plans to continue such activities to the extent authorized by the Forest Service.
 
Bear Creek, at least according to the Forest Service, contains “the sole known remaining population of genetically pure greenback cutthroat trout” (Oncorhynchus clarkia stomias).  Draft Bear Creek Watershed Assessment, USFS (March, 2013) (“BCWA”) at 1 (viewed April 19, 2013 at https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5412309.pdf).  The greenback cutthroat trout (“GBCT”) is Colorado’s state fish and is listed as threatened under the ESA.  Id.  The Forest Service has taken agency action, most notably through Forest Order 12-21 (December 6, 2012) (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) which has resulted in adverse impacts to GBCT or increased the risk of adverse impacts to GBCT.   The Forest Service has exercised its ongoing discretion in a manner that has resulted in adverse impacts to GBCT or increased the risk of adverse impacts to GBCT.  This Notice describes on behalf of the Petitioners the alleged violations of the ESA represented by the above-described conduct of the Forest Service.
 
If there is a threat to GBCT in Bear Creek, that threat results from the mere existence of trails that, by their physical location and characteristics, can produce harmful levels of sediment to the stream.  There was not a rational basis for the Forest Service to immediately close specified trails to motorcycles while allowing other uses to not only continue, but increase, while leaving the trails in place to continue producing sediment.  If immediate measures were needed to protect GBCT, the Forest Order 12-21 motorcycle-only closure did not go far enough.  Since the Forest Service has already instituted that closure to motorcycles, Petitioners hereby request that it take the additional connected steps of closing the trails to all uses and taking immediate corrective action as may be necessary to comply with the ESA and protect GBCT.
 
BACKGROUND
 
Petitioners will attempt to summarize the relevant history involving the Forest Service’s management of the Bear Creek watershed.  The BCWA outlines much of that information.  The watershed contains about 3,602 acres located roughly four to eight miles west-southwest of downtown Colorado Springs on the east flank of Pikes Peak.  The watershed includes nonfederal lands such as those owned by Colorado Springs Utilities and the City of Colorado Springs, in addition to the 2,331 acres owned by the United States and managed by the Pikes Peak Ranger District of the Pike and San Isabel Forests.  See, BCWA at 13.  The physical environment includes rocky, coarse textured soils with thin ground cover that are “particularly vulnerable to rill and gully erosion if protective ground cover is removed” and that are, once disturbed, “difficult to rehabilitate.”  Id.
 
The watershed supports “an important recreation area along the Front Range of Colorado, providing motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities on a well-established trail network.”  Id. at 1.  The transportation network in and near the Bear Creek watershed consists largely of trails and “was not so much constructed as developed in place based on historic and possibly prehistoric travel routes” which in many instances “do not meet modern standards in terms of gradient, drainage, or proximity to streams.”  Id. at 14.  This route network, and particularly its single track trails, are a prized recreational resource that has received regular and continuing use, including motorcycle use, for decades.  Id. at 30.
 
Perhaps counter-intuitively, at least through the lens of an aggressive preservationist worldview, it is in the disturbed Bear Creek watershed that the “sole known remaining population of genetically pure” GBCT persist.  Id. at 14.  The BCWA notably avoids discussion of whether GBCT are native to Bear Creek.  While some sources report this as a native population, there is other evidence to suggest the population was introduced.  In fact, logic suggests that the disconnected and limited nature of the Bear Creek microsystem may factor prominently in any unique continuation of GBCT there, allowing the species to survive while withstanding threats such as hybridization and predation that have apparently eliminated it from previously-occupied habitats shared with other fish species.
 
Sedimentation appears to be a factor of particular concern, if not primary concern, in managing GBCT in compliance with the ESA.  See BCWA at 25.  The construction, and subsequent existence, of a road/trail network can be a significant source of sediment to the watershed.  Numerous factors affect the degree and nature of sediment production from any route prism, which can include location, proximity to water sources, soil types/route surfaces, route sloping, buffering, precipitation/drainage and other factors.  It is the physical existence of the route, in complex interplay with environmental factors such as those listed above, far more than either the volume or modality of human travel, that is causally related to sediment production:
 
The effect on just opening and closing roads, really, from the modeling I’ve looked at and what I’ve seen, you know, from my experience, that it’s the existence of the road.  It’s the road crossing and condition of the culverts.  It’s, you know, roads that are occupied within a flood plain of a stream.  These are the main factors that effect water quality.  So whether that road is open or closed it has no effect.  So really just the opening – or the closing of roads doesn’t have a large effect on water quality from what occurred with either plan.  
 
Testimony of Robert C. Davies (December 8, 2004) at 47-48 in The Lands Council v. Stringer; Case No. CV-03-344-N-MHW (D.Idaho) (Exhibit “B” hereto); see also, id. at 16-17 (location of route is critical factor, downplaying role of traffic); at 20 (location of road and stream crossings “the most significant factor influencing sedimentation”); at 26-27 (“[t]here’s not an improvement to water quality just by closing roads”); at 36 (“the obvious and best solution is just to not have the road there”).  The setting of this testimony is noteworthy, as it was presented in what became a five-day evidentiary hearing on remedy in a case challenging a travel planning decision made by the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District of the Panhandle National Forest in northern Idaho.  Mr. Davies was, at the time, the District hydrologist with a background in fisheries biology.  The Forest Service seems to recognize and agree with many of Mr. Davies’ observations, for a primary component of the recommended management strategy seems to be obliteration of routes that criss-cross Bear Creek, regardless of whether they receive motorized or non-motorized travel.  BCWA at 40 (recommending minimization of stream crossings and routes in “water influence zone”); BCWA Figure 4, Recommended Transportation System (depicting closure to all use and decommissioning of Trails 666 and 667 in closest proximity to Bear Creek).
 
The proper focus on physical route characteristics rather than mode of travel should be particularly important for the sedimentation analysis in the Bear Creek watershed.  The stream crossing of greatest concern is arguably involves Trail 666 in the northwest corner of section 32, just beyond the proposed redirection of that trail to High Drive.  That crossing involves active talus slopes on both sides, with a heavily affected and shallowed crossing.  See Exhibits “C” and “D” hereto, photos of westernmost creek crossing of Trail 666 taken.  Petitioners are particularly concerned that this crossing, in what threatens to be a very low water year, will create a total barrier to fish movement this summer.  While it is true that stream crossings exist on the previous motorcycle Trail 667, those have long been and until issuance of the Forest Order had continued to be high priorities for bridge installation, retaining walls, sediment fencing and related maintenance projects.  See, BCWA at A-6 (Table A6 showing 13 perennial stream crossings for Trail 667, but noting that 12 of 13 “have been upgraded with bridges to reduce sediment input”).  In short, the non-motorized Trail 666 presents sedimentation and management concerns at least as great as, and arguably greater than, Trail 667 when it was receiving motorcycle use and associated active maintenance.        
 
The management situation was functional and improving, particularly given the building momentum in the watershed working group, in which some Petitioners were actively participating.  Apparently dissatisfied with the status quo or the existing management trajectory, The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submitted on May 10, 2012 a Notice of Intent to Sue (“NOI”) advising the Forest Service of alleged violations of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA “resulting from Forest actions related to off-road vehicle (“ORV”) use in the Bear Creek watershed.”  Eventually the Center filed suit on September 17, 2012 in Center for Biological Diversity v. Marr, Case No. 1:12-cv-02460-JLK (D.Colo.).  Some of the Petitioner organizations obtained intervenor status in that case.  Without filing an answer and in the face of Center’s threats to seek a preliminary injunction, the Forest Service entered a settlement agreement with Center, which was filed November 21, 2012.  The Court denied the initial agreement sua sponte, but a slightly modified second agreement was filed on November 28th, and approved by the Court on November 30, 2012.  While the agreement admits neither liability nor any of Center’s allegations, it commits the Forest Service to unspecified Section 7 compliance and closures of certain trails to continuing motorized access.  Immediately following and in direct reference to the settlement the Forest Service issued Forest Order 12-21.  
 
SUMMARY 
 
To the extent any violations were legitimately identified in the Center’s Notice, they have not been cured.  In fact, the agency response to the Center’s Notice and lawsuit, specifically including Forest Order 12-21, constitutes an independent violation(s) and/or has exacerbated any possible harm, habitat loss, or take of the GBCT.
 
The Petitioners support effective management of multiple use trails in the Bear Creek watershed, and beyond.  To the extent the Forest Service, cooperators and interested publics are now engaged in an effort toward that goal through the pending Bear Creek Watershed Assessment, the Petitioners support and will remain fully engaged in that effort, as well as ongoing and future management.  Bear Creek is a unique site in proximity to a major city which particularly requires state-of-the-art management.  That management has in the past and should continue in the future to include reasonable opportunities for motorcycles and mountain bikes, including the historically-prized single track routes rarely found in a remote forested setting so close to a city like Colorado Springs.
 
The Petitioners do not believe that immediate closure of the Restricted Trails through Forest Order 12-21 or otherwise was warranted.  Nor do the Petitioners support the Forest Service’s decision to settle the Center’s lawsuit.  The Petitioners do not believe that the Center could have prevailed on its asserted claims.  Nothing in this Notice should be read or may be construed as support for any of the agency decisions, implicit findings, or underlying positions of the Center.  Regardless of the legitimacy of those claims or the Forest Service’s decision to settle, the rationale adopted by the agency in taking those discretionary actions cannot be reconciled with Forest Order 12-21 and its ongoing management of the Bear Creek Watershed and associated trail system.  Specifically, it is the presence of the trail system that is primarily responsible for sediment delivery to the watershed.  No one has ever established, nor do we think they could establish, that travel by motorcycles is a singular, or even unique, causative factor in the sedimentation or habitat analysis for the GBCT population in Bear Creek.  The agency’s actions in response to the Center’s lawsuit through Forest Order 12-21 and otherwise have thus not improved the situation in any meaningful way for the GBCT.  In fact, the actions taken have failed to address fundamental habitat issues but have changed secondary factors for the worse.  If the GBCT faced threats, these post-settlement developments, particularly when combined with developing environmental conditions, make the plight of the GBCT far more dire than it was prior to the Center ever filing notice.
 
Petitioners hereby formally put the Forest Service on notice that the agency actions detailed above violate ESA Section 7 consultation requirements and result in unlawful take under ESA Section 9. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536 and 1538.  This Notice is provided pursuant to the ESA’s 60-day citizen suit notice requirement, to the extent such notice is deemed necessary.  16 U.S.C. § 1540(g).  Petitioners additionally advise of the ability, and retain their full rights, to commence an action sooner than 60-days as allowed by the Act to prevent “an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being” of GBCT.  16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(C).
 
The Forest Service is Violating Section 7.
 
Whatever violation of Section 7 could be plausibly asserted by Center was repeated, if not more egregiously, by Forest Order 12-21.  Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference the legal background and discussion of ESA Section 7 from Center’s NOI.  In short, the Forest Service has a duty to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), to ensure that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The definition of agency “action” is broad and includes “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part” including “the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, [or] permits” and any “actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.  The connection of Forest Order 12-21 to the court-approved settlement does not exempt the agency from compliance with the ESA.
 
Forest Order 12-21 does not alleviate any alleged threats to GBCT.  It is in fact “new” agency action that triggered a Section 7 consultation duty.  Petitioners recognize the existence of greater regulatory detail for motorized versus non-motorized use, but the regulatory basis for Forest Order 12-21, 36 CFR part 261, is not limited to motorized travel and may encompass any use of a road or trail, including non-motorized use.
 
It is insightful to run through the allegations of Center’s NOI.  First, Center asserts that Trail 667 “is a highly disturbed corridor and severely eroded along most of its length” and “includes areas of obvious sediment delivery to the creek.”  NOI at 6.  Whatever veracity attaches to these accusations is (a) equally applicable to Trail 666; and (b) not alleviated or mitigated by closing Trail 667 to motorcycle while allowing the route to persist, and be used by other modes of access.  Indeed, Petitioners have visited the area since issuance of Forest Order 12-21, and advise the Forest Service that non-motorized use is greater and is having greater impacts than preceded the Forest Order.  Second, Center alleges Trail 667 is “the main conduit for users of illegal trails.”  Again, this is not uniquely a motorized travel issue and the Forest Service, contrary to Center, states that user-created routes “are used primarily for foot traffic.”  BCWA at 25.  Finally, Center expresses concern over “informal campsites” in the watershed.  Again, there is no connection solely to motorcyclists.  The nature of the trail in proximity to Colorado Springs suggests it would be a particularly unlikely place for a “backcountry” motorcycle camping trip.  The Forest Service recognizes a “small number of people illegally use the area for camping” without suggesting it is a “motorized” issue.  Indeed, the Forest Service observed that “[r]educing or removing human uses from the Bear Creek watershed may improve conditions for the fish and its habitat” without suggesting that action designating a sediment-producing trail for non-motorized access triggers any less duty under the ESA than allowing continuation of motorized access on the same trail.  Id. (emphasis added).
 
Petitioners wish to reiterate that current observations suggest that sedimentation concerns are now greater than they were prior to Forest Order 12-21.  In part this is due to what appears a potential “perfect storm” (or the lack of one thereof) for the GBCT.  Bear Creek is a very small creek in high water years, and the relative lack of streamflow in the coming months is a concern to Petitioners and many local residents.  The coming season falls in a series of relatively low-water years and Bear Creek has not run at historical full volume since about 1999.  Additionally, the volume of non-motorized traffic along Trail 666 and 667 is now greater, perhaps due in part to the perception of exclusive use.  See, BCWA at A-29 (generally describing balance between motorized and non-motorized use and reality that non-motorized users “of the trail network generally have a high expectation of encountering a wheeled vehicle”).
 
Forest Order 12-21 was an agency action that triggered some duty under Section 7.  Through the litigation-driven rush to issue Forest Order 12-21 the Forest Service completely ignored an effort to even consider, let alone comply with, Section 7.
 
The Forest Service is Violating Section 9.
 
Petitioners also incorporate by reference and reassert the Section 9 allegations of Center’s NOI.  Section 9 of the ESA specifically prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened species, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), a term broadly defined to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).  The term “harm” includes “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. The term “harass” means “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Id.  The ESA’s legislative history supports “the broadest possible” reading of “take.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 704-05 (1995).  “Take” includes direct as well as indirect harm and need not be purposeful. Id. at 704.
 
The subject of Center’s operative allegations is “motorcycle trails.”  See Center NOI at 8.  As described above, it is “trails” that create sedimentation concerns far more than “motorcycle” versus “hiking” versus “mountain biking” versus “equestrian” trails.  Whatever merit existed in Center’s allegations remains unabated, and any “take” attends the continued existence of those portions of Trail 667 and 666 posing the greatest sedimentation risks.  Again, the situation now is worse than it was in Spring, 2012, when the Center presented the NOI.
 
 
The Forest Service has taken and continues to take GBCT in the absence of an incidental take permit or other authorization, in violation of ESA Section 9.
 
CONCLUSION
 
The Forest Service is violating ESA Sections 7 and 9 as described in this Notice.  Petitioners respectfully request the Forest Service take the following immediate actions to address the concerns raised in this Notice: (a) immediate closure to all but administrative use of all trail(s) within the immediate Bear Creek water influence zone; and (b) expeditious completion of the Bear Creek Watershed Assessment process, including recommended trail construction and re-route and associated trail removal/obliteration.   
 
Sincerely,
 
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED 
 
 
/S/
Paul A. Turcke 
 
/nt
Enclosure(s)

Documents:

	Notice of Intent to Sue
	Pike National Forest – Forest Order 12-21
	Portion of Evidentiary Hearing – Robert C Davies

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

 

April 16, 2013

Environmental Trends – Issue 1 June 2011

THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF WILDERNESS

Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk, and Randy Simmons
Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University

Summary
Wilderness is one of the most contentious issues in American public lands management. Local officials often bemoan Wilderness designations as creating economic hardships by limiting extractive industries, outdoor recreation, and the siting of transportation corridors, water and power lines, and telecommunication facilities. In direct contrast, many environmentalists allege that Wilderness creates economic benefits for local communities through increasing property values and from benefitting the tourism industry. This study explores the economic claims by examining empirical evidence of identifiable differences in the economic conditions of Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Counties.

Some Wilderness can have positive economic impacts but our findings indicate that this is not the general rule. We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions. Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income. By working together with local communities to address their concerns, environmentalists can help develop balanced policy that genuinely acknowledges the local economic costs associated with Wilderness.

 
Download the PDF (above) to read the entire report.
 
 

Impact of Public Lands Management to Western Colorado

Presentation by Scott Jones
Download this presentation as PDF here»

Dirt Rider ran into Riggle at the 2013 Indianapolis Dealer Expo, and asked Don to provide a quick message on behalf of the TPA to all trail riders.

February 26, 2013

Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor
Tonto National Forest
2324 E. McDowell Road
Phoenix, AZ  85006

Attn: Travel Management

Dear Supervisor Bosworth,
I am writing on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance in response to your request for comments on the upcoming Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Tonto National Forest.  We are very interested in following the progress of this planning effort and want to be added to the mailing list for this project.
 
The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is a grassroots, 100 percent volunteer group, comprised of motorcycle trail riders. The Alliance has formed a 501c3 organization to preserve single track trails on our public lands and to inform the public about issues facing our recreational activity.  Our 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.  We are a strong advocate of the sport and will take the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

Before getting into TPA’s concerns, I want to express my solid support for the Arizona Off Highway Vehicle Coalition and the great work that they do as partners of the Forest Service.  Unlike many other user groups, the Arizona Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, and motorized users in general, make the effort to get out on the ground to help construct and maintain sustainable motorized trails.  This is contrary to how we are portrayed by the environmental community.  The fact is our dedication and efforts demonstrate our commitment to help build and maintain a sustainable recreation program.  Please keep this in mind as you work to designate the Tonto’s system of motorized roads and trails.

As your efforts to complete a travel management EIS move forward we want you to consider the following comments: 

First, we are very concerned about the loss of single-track motorcycle trails to either closure or to widening due to use by other vehicles such as ATV’s, UTV’s and full size vehicles.  While this may be acceptable to some, we want to be very clear that we prefer to ride on narrow, single track trails just like mountain bikers, hikers and other users.  The single track experience is very different than riding on a trail that has been widened by other users.

Second, I want to point out that off-road motorcycle riding on single track trails is not a stagnant sport.  Instead, as demonstrated by the increasing sale of off road motorcycles, it is a growing sport that engages the physical and mental skills and abilities of its participants as they enjoy the beauty of the Tonto NF.  We are no different in our love of the land but, instead, have selected a different method of accessing the forest. 
Third, as the number of users increase and former riding areas such as the Granite Mountain area of the McDowell Sonoran Preserve are closed to motorized recreation, more and more users will turn to the Tonto for riding opportunities.  The Desert Vista area and the area around Wildcat Hill on the Cave Creek Ranger District have already been discovered by displaced riders.  We fully expect that the Tonto will consider this growth trend and work hard to preserve existing single track and to identify opportunities to expand our sport.

In your proposed action you indicate that you have inventoried over 550 unauthorized routes and you acknowledge that there are additional routes that have not been inventoried.  While it is certainly debatable as to how many of these routes should be added to the system, it clearly indicates that the existing trail system is not satisfying the needs of the recreational users in the area.  TPA strongly advocates for more trails to be designated as components of the motorized trail system, not less as is typically the case when national forests tackle travel management.  If new trails are built and maintained according to well-established design and construction standards, these trails will provide sustainable recreation opportunities for off-road motorcyclists. 

Lastly, as mentioned earlier, many of our single track trails are being widened by other motorized users.  As an example of how our trails are being impacted, single track trail U2269 was only 24 inches wide earlier this month.  Approximately two weeks later, due to use by wider motorized vehicles, it is now almost 12 feet wide!  Similar results are occurring on many other trails in the Desert Vista and Wildcat Hill areas of the Cave Creek Ranger District.  Beginning immediately, the Forest Service should make a distinction between motorcycles and other OHV’s in both its design and management of trails in the Tonto.  Instead of standing back and watching our motorized single track disappear, we believe the

Forest Service should be taking action right now to identify and sign single track trails and place barriers on these trails to prevent ATV, UTS and full-sized vehicles from accessing them.  It is completely within the authority of the Service to take action to protect existing single track and associated resources while it performs its travel management analysis.  It is irresponsible for the Forest Service to sit back and allow the trail footprint to expand at such an alarming rate. 

We look forward to continuing our involvement in the travel management planning process and we expect that the Tonto NF will take our concerns seriously as it works to designate its system of motorized roads and trails.  I can be contacted at the address on this letter, by e-mail at info@coloradotpa.org, or by telephone at 719-338-4106. 

Sincerely,

Don Riggle
Director of Operations                        
Trails Preservation Alliance   
 

February 22, 2013

The combined TPA/COHVCO/CSA response to the Gunnison Sage Grouse planning document.  OHV recreation groups need to insure that local public  recreation areas are not lost to false Sage Grouse planning.

RE: Gunnison Sage Grouse Critical Habitat

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Organizations identified below regarding possible impacts from designation of critical habitat for the Gunnison Sage Grouse.  The Organizations believe that the protection of any endangered or threatened species is a critical part of federal land management. The Organizations comments are directed at management standards in the critical habitat, rather than specific boundaries of the critical  habitat. The Organizations are aware that critical habitat can be managed to benefit the species and maintain recreational usage and associated benefits for local communities for that habitat based on their active participation in user group discussions with CPW and FWS regarding  management of Endangered and Threatened species in Colorado, such as the Lynx and Wolverine.   These user group activities have allowed us to conclude that threatened or endangered species  can be managed in conjunction with recreational activities on public lands in Colorado.

As specifically noted in the Gunnison Sage Grouse listing decision, recreational usage of habitat areas is a low level threat to the Grouse.   While recreational usage is a low level threat, the economic benefits that are derived from  recreational opportunities on federal lands are a critical component of the Colorado economy and many local communities that are within the areas to be designated as critical habitat. These economic impacts must be addressed in conjunction with the designation of any critical habitat.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns of the habitat designations, 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, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition and the Trail Preservation Alliance will be referred to as “the Organizations” in these comments.

There are significant economic contributions derived from the recreational use of public lands, and these contributions are directly related to the dispersed route network that is currently in place for summer usage on areas to be designated as habitat.  The Organizations believe there are several types of seasonal route designations that would limit the minimal impacts on the Grouse from these recreational resources.  These designations must be meaningfully addressed prior to closure of any route.  The Organizations believe the first step that must be taken to protect recreation in habitat areas is addressing benefits of limiting travel to existing routes. Currently significant portions of the proposed critical habitat areas are managed as open areas  for summer usage, meaning recreational usage is allowed throughout the area, rather than just existing routes.  Restricting summer travel to existing routes in these areas would provide a significant benefit to the Grouse and the sage brush habitat  the Grouse depends on.  

If a designated route system is found to be insufficient, the Organizations believe that limited seasonal closures of routes and adjacent lek areas to all uses would be highly effective in minimizing impacts to Grouse actively using lek areas.  As repeatedly noted in the listing decision, there are a wide range of factors negatively impacting the Grouse.  Closures of lek areas only to motorized trail recreation will not benefit the grouse significantly, given the numerous threats to the Grouse and the minimal threat that recreation poses to the Grouse.

Recreational users of routes in areas currently managed under these standards will be familiar limited seasonal closures of routes for a wide range of reasons ranging from elk calving areas to heavy spring runoff.  The currently high levels of awareness of these management standards will insure high levels of compliance with seasonal closures. The Organizations are aware that many of the routes in the vicinity of lek sites may already be subject to seasonal closures for other reasons.

The Organizations believe the application of seasonal wheeled closures to lek areas must also provide flexibility to allow certain routes of significant importance for accessing areas outside the habitat area to remain open with requirements of remaining on the route.  Closing a route that provides the sole means of access to a parking area or other access points to lands that are beyond the critical habitat boundaries will also limit recreational usage of the non-habitat area. This will compound any economic impact concerns and generate little benefit to the Grouse or its sage brush habitat.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to any large scale summer route closures of habitat areas beyond those necessary for the seasonal protection of lek areas and maintenance of habitat areas.  The Organizations  are very aware that closures of all routes on public lands will not off-set the impacts of development on private lands adjacent to the public lands.  Support of private land owners will be a key component of any meaningful recovery of the Sage Grouse and large scale closures would not aid in building these relationships.  The importance of these partnerships and public support is critical as critical habitat designation decision specifically states private lands in habitat areas range from 32-86.4% of the habitat area.¹ Conservation easements and other protective designations developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife management of Greater Sage Grouse and many other species inhabiting the areas subject to the conservation easement has only developed as a result of partnerships with private land owners.

The Organizations believe moving to a designated route system for summer travel, with limited seasonal closures for protection of leks  in the proposed critical habitat areas would provide significant protection for the Grouse and the sage brush habitat the Grouse is dependent on, while appropriately balancing economic benefits that are provided to the Colorado economy from the dispersed trail network.  

1.  Additional comment periods should be provided to allow public comment on proposed critical habitat management standards and designations.

The Organizations appreciate the Agency’s request for submission of economic impact data as part of the habitat designation process and rulemaking, as this designation is a major federal action subject to Administrative rulemaking requirements and Endangered Species Act requirements. While this opportunity is welcomed, the Organizations are very concerned that a comment period would not be provided to allow for comment on how the  economic impact information which is being provided in this round of comments is integrated into the management standards for habitat designation. Final development of these standards is often a critical component of habitat designation.

The Proposal seeks to obtain basic input regarding economic interests in the following manner:

“The economic analysis will estimate the economic impact of a  potential designation of critical habitat on these activities. During the development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing  regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.” ²

While this request for information is appreciated, an additional comment period would allow for meaningful public comment of final management standards in the habitat areas. These standards will directly impact usage of the habitat areas and a proper balance of protection of the Grouse and economic impacts will significantly further partnerships for future protection of the Grouse.  The Organizations believe the current request is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of critical habitat designation, which require a final rule or position be provided to the public as part of the comment process. These regulations are clarified in the code  of federal regulations as follows:

“§ 424.19 Final rules—impact analysis of critical habitat. The Secretary shall identify any significant activities that would either affect an area considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing designation of such an area, consider the probable economic and other impacts of the designation upon proposed or ongoing activities. The Secretary may exclude any portion of such an area from the critical habitat if the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as part of the critical habitat. The Secretary shall not exclude any such area if, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, he determines that the failure to designate that area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.”

It has been the Organizations experience that there are a wide range of options for integrating any information into the planning process and choosing the proper course and management balance for the information is a critical part of the rulemaking process. While the Organizations believe there are many ways to minimize economic impacts, such as seasonal closures of routes adjacent to lek areas and the protection of habitat that result from a designated trail system, the Organizations are not able to meaningfully comment on the sufficiency of any regulations on minimizing economic impacts. Providing an additional comment period would allow the public to address any concerns that might arise in the application of this economic impact information.  Avoiding such a conflict will generate significant public support for the proposal and benefit the Grouse in the long run.

As the Organizations are unable to address any issues that might surround how the economic impact information obtained in response to the current open request is integrated into the final critical habitat designation, the Organizations vigorously assert that an additional comment period be provided to address any local issues or areas that impacted by the final designations.  

2.  Recreational usage of habitat areas is not a significant threat to Gunnison Sage Grouse.

The Organizations are very aware there are a large number of issues involved with the decline of all Grouse species, including urbanization of habitat, grazing, oil and gas exploration and increased predation. While there are a large number of threats to the grouse, recreational usage of habitat areas has been a concern that has been consistently identified as a lower level threat.  The low level threat of recreation to the Grouse is clearly identified in the listing decision issued in conjunction with the proposed critical habitat designations, which specifically states:

“Recreational activities as discussed above do not singularly pose a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. However, there may be certain situations where recreational activities are impacting  local concentrations of Gunnison sage grouse, especially in areas where habitat is already fragmented such as in the six small populations and in certain areas within the Gunnison Basin.” ³

In the recently released listing decision for the Greater Sage Grouse, recreational activity was also identified as a low priority threat.⁴  Management of the impact of roads on Grouse in habitat areas is a key component in the habitat designation process as the listing decision notes that all grouse habitat is at least indirectly impacted by roads.⁵  The Organizations are keenly aware that wildlife response to a high volume, high speed arterial road is consistently higher than the response to a low speed, low volume forest service type road. Research indicates that Grouse display a hierarchical response to levels of road use.⁶  Road access to recreational areas is a key component of most users recreational experience on public lands and this access is frequently only provided by low speed, low volume forest service roads. Frequently many of these routes see very minimal levels of usage during the week, which should be taken into account in management of these routes.

While roads are also identified as a possible threat to the Gunnison sage grouse, the Organizations believe many of the factors addressed in the road section are not truly related to the usage and existence of the road in the habitat area. The Organizations believe many of the factors currently discussed as road impacts are more accurately summarized as urbanization of private lands, given the extensive discussions of residential  development and population growth as part of the roads analysis.  While these private land factors certainly impacting Grouse, these factors will not be addressed by management of public lands on areas adjacent to the areas being impacted by private land urbanization.  Management of these private land factors is heavily dependent on  public support for the Grouse planning process and programs such as CPW’s conservation easement programs.

Wide ranging route closures on public lands will not create support and partnerships necessary for protection of habitat areas that are on private lands.  The Organizations must again vigorously stress closing routes on public lands is simply insufficient to offset impacts of high levels of development on adjacent private lands which can comprise too high a percentage of habitat areas for closures on public lands to be effective. Such closures would create minimal benefit to the grouse but would create very significant economic impacts to local and state level economies.  As outlined in other portions of these comments the Organizations believe requiring a designated route system in habitat and if necessary adopting reasonably sized seasonal closures of routes around lek sites  would be very effective tools for the protection of mating areas and minimize economic risks.  Habitat management standards must allow flexibility for management of routes in habitat areas to properly  and accurately address the higher levels of response to high volume high speed roads when compared to a 36 inch wide path that may only be used a few days a month.

3. Route closures will impact a wide range of uses resulting in greater negative economic impacts.

The Organizations are very concerned about any loss of routes and trails in areas that are to be designated critical habitat for the Grouse.  The availability of  these routes and trails  for all recreational usage provides significant economic contributions to the many small municipalities in the vicinity of the habitat area. The high levels of recreational usage of these routes  compounds risks of negative economic impacts from the loss of other economic activities on these lands. Economic impacts to non-recreational activities has already been identified as a significant concern,  which was clearly articulated by the Western Governors Association in 2011 as follows:

“The economic impacts of placing sage-grouse on the endangered species list would be severe, since much of the West’s grazing of rangeland, natural gas, oil, coal and wind resources coincide with sage-grouse habitat.” ⁷

Significant restrictions on access would clearly impact activities for which concern has already been voiced by the Western Governors Association. In addition to the priority economic concerns identified by the Western Governors Association, the Organizations would add economic impacts from losses of recreational usage of public lands as an additional element to be addressed as a significant concern. The dispersed trail network in the habitat areas provides significant access for all users of the areas, not just those seeking a motorized experience.

4a.  Trail based recreation is an economic  mainstay for many local economies.

Many small communities in the vicinity of designated critical Grouse 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.” ⁸

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.⁹  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 Grouse 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.

4b. Dispersed trails are multiple use 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.¹⁰   Women were a large portion of those participating in OHV recreational activities.¹¹   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). ¹²  

As noted by the Forest Service research, motorized access to public lands is a key component of any recreational activity.  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 caution of maintaining recreational access to areas that are to be designated Grouse habitat.

5a. 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. A complete copy of this report has been included with these comments for your reference. 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.” ¹³

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

¹⁴

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 Grouse 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 Sage Grouse.

5b.  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.¹⁵  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.   Over $400,000,000 of this economic impact and almost 5,777 jobs were result from  motorized  recreation in the county areas proposed to be designated as critical habitat are located. ¹⁶  

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.¹⁷ 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.

5c.  Colorado Parks and Wildlife identifies the significant positive impacts to the Colorado economy from hunting and fishing in Grouse habitat areas.

In 2008, Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioned a study to determine the economic impacts to the Colorado economy from hunting and fishing.  A discussion of these impacts is provided as  a part of these comments in order to allow for full understanding and analysis of the significant impacts that are associated with the dispersed trail network in the areas to be designated as critical habitat.  Closures of dispersed trail networks are frequently of significant concern to those who use the dispersed trail networks for hunting and fishing activities. These impacts are not provided to open discussions regarding hunting of the Grouse, as the listing decision notes hunting of Grouse is Colorado has been properly prohibited for a significant period of time.  

The CPW report identified that hunting and fishing provided over $1.8 billion to the Colorado economy in 2008. ¹⁸   For many hunters and fisherman, motorized access on the dispersed trail network  is a key component of their hunting and fishing experience as the average hunter does not have access to  teams of horses to remove elk from inaccessible areas or days to hike into their local fishing area. These access related expenditures are encompassed in the CPW economic impact calculation  as analysis includes expenditures for trucks, campers, recreational vehicles, boats and other motorized equipment.¹⁹  Access related  expenditures that can only be fully utilized for hunting and fishing with the existence of a dispersed trail network.

The CPW analysis also identified spending on hunting and fishing in the Colorado counties that are impacted by designations of critical habitat as follows:

²⁰

The Organizations believe that economic impacts from possible reductions in hunting and fishing activity in areas to be designated as critical habitat must also be accounted for in the development of management standards for the critical habitat.   As clearly identified by CPW, these economic contributions are significant and access is a key component of the hunting and fishing experience for most users.

6. The status proposal finds  OHV users are a highly law abiding user group on public lands, which conclusions are supported by recent CPW research.

The significant economic contributions provided to the Colorado economy from the dispersed trail network in proposed habitat areas warrants a serious review of all possible management strategies to address impacts to habitat areas before closures are adopted. As noted elsewhere in these comments, these steps would include moving to a limitation of use of existing routes in the habitat areas and reasonable sized seasonal closures.  The use of seasonal closures has been specifically identified as an effective tool for management of the dispersed trail network which results in  significant  protection of active leks.  

The Organizations are aware the effectiveness of  these changes would be heavily dependent on compliance with the restrictions by users.   Research indicates that users are highly compliant with seasonal closures and restrictions to existing routes.  The high level of compliance was  directly addressed in the status decision as follows:

“The BLM and Gunnison County have 38 closure points to minimize impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse within the Basin from March 15 to May 15 each year (BLM 2009, p. 40). While road  closures may be violated in a small number of situations, road closures are having a beneficial effect on Gunnison sage-grouse through avoidance or minimization of impacts during the breeding season.” ²¹

The Organizations are aware that limitations to existing routes and seasonal closures have been highly effective tools for addressing wildlife issues in other areas due to the high levels of user compliance with these type of restrictions.  These high levels of compliance are only briefly addressed in the status proposal but  more extensively  discussed in the findings of  the law enforcement pilot program developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to address alleged law enforcement concerns with OHV recreation.  This Pilot was developed in partnership with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and is providing some of the first concrete information regarding compliance with use restrictions by those involved in OHV recreation.

The OHV law enforcement pilot program was created to address on-going assertions of a compelling need to stop resource damage caused by OHV misuse at locations identified as violation “hotspots” by those seeking to limit public access to public lands.  As part of the pilot program there were several targeted enforcement days in areas now proposed to be designated as grouse habitat, making  the pilot program findings highly relevant for user  compliance concerns in Grouse habitat areas.  The law enforcement pilot program deployed additional trained professional law enforcement officers, funded by funds from the OHV registration funds, to these “hotspots” during heavy usage times to supplement existing law enforcement resources in these areas.  As part of the pilot, the additional officers we required to keep logs of their contacts for reporting purposes.

The findings of this pilot clearly identify that these “hotspots” for OHV violations were anything but “hotspots”.  Over last two summers, officers involved in the pilot program contacted over 23,000 people of the 160,000 registered OHVs in Colorado, creating an astoundingly large sampling.  This pilot program found that less than 5% of riders committed any violations.   The overwhelming percentage of these violations were people not registering their OHV.  Only 1.8% of contacts involved activities, other than failing to register OHVs, where the officer found the activity serious enough to issue a written warning or issue of a citation for a resource impacting violation.

The Organizations believe the conclusions of this groundbreaking research are highly relevant to this discussion.  These findings will provide a high degree of reassurance to those with concerns about possible limited compliance with restrictions limiting improvements to Grouse populations and sage brush habitat.  These findings weigh heavily in favor of mitigating economic risks by only permitting use of existing trails and seasonal closures to protect active lek areas.

7a.  Decisions regarding the lack of impact of motorized recreation on the Greater Sage Grouse must be accounted for in habitat management.

As noted in the status proposal for the Gunnison Sage Grouse, the Greater Sage Grouse research remains relevant to the management of the Gunnison Sage Grouse.  The status decision clearly states:

“Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse (a similar, closely related species) have similar life histories and habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In this proposed rule, we use information specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse where available but still apply scientific management principles for greater sage-grouse (C.urophasianus) that are relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse management needs and strategies….” ²²

As previously noted in these comments, listing decisions relative to both the Greater and Gunnison Sage Grouse have explicitly found that recreational usage of Sage Grouse habitat is a low priority threat to the habitat.   While the FWS findings cited above do not specifically identify dispersed motorized recreation, they provide an extensive discussion of possible motorized recreational impacts prior to concluding that recreation has a minimal impact on the sage grouse.  The 2010 USFWS listing decision again stated that adoption of a designated trail system for recreational purposes is of significant benefit to the sage grouse.  The 2010 USFWS listing decision discussed changes to designated trails on USFS lands as follows:

“As part of the USFS Travel Management planning effort, both the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Inyo National Forest are revising road designations in their jurisdictions. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement in July, 2009. The Inyo National Forest completed and released its Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision in August 2009 for Motorized Travel Management. The ROD calls for the permanent prohibition on cross country travel off designated authorized roads.” ²³

Clearly, if the designated route system that was being adopted by these Forests was insufficient for the protection of Sage Grouse habitat, such a position would have been clearly stated in this discussion given the large body of research that exists for the management of the Sage Grouse.

7b.  Two recently released texts support FWS positions regarding the minimal risk recreational usage of habitat areas poses.

Two recently released texts from nationally acknowledged grouse experts have specifically addressed the management of Greater Sage Grouse habitat and included extensive discussions of all possible threats to  Grouse.²⁴  The Organizations believe it is significant to note that the Sandercock text simply never addresses possible motorized recreational concerns in habitat areas. The Knick and Connolly text discusses  OHV recreation in a very  general manner  in two paragraphs of a text that totals 646 pages.²⁵  This discussion only addresses trends in usage of OHVs.  These limited analysis is significant as these are resources one would expect to include significant discussions of OHV recreational impacts on the Grouse if these were significant concerns regarding OHV recreation creating possible impacts on the Grouse.

While these texts do not significantly address motorized recreation, the texts do specifically confirm access to public lands is a major issue for grouse management.  The Connolly text specifically states:

“Many people live in these locations primarily because of access to public lands for recreation.” ²⁶

The Organizations must note the texts identification that living in an area primarily for access to public lands supports the Organizations concerns regarding  the type of impacts that must be balanced in the creation of management standards for critical habitat areas.

The Organizations are aware there is a significant body of peer reviewed research for the management of the Grouse.   The Organizations believe any concerns regarding dispersed recreation on the Grouse would have been identified in the current body of research summarized in these texts.  The Organizations believe the minimal discussion of this issue clearly supports the position that was taken in the 2010 Greater Sage Grouse listing decision, mainly that dispersed recreation is a minimal threat to the Grouse. As the benefits of a designated or existing trail system are approved in the listing decision and the minimal threat of impacts from motorized recreation is simply not discussed in two recent texts from National experts on the Grouse, the Organizations believe restricting travel to existing routes in Grouse habitat is a logical, scientifically based and credible starting point for addressing motorized access to critical habitat areas.

8a.  Restricting travel to existing routes would provide significant benefit for the Grouse with minimal economic risk in critical habitat areas.

The Organizations are intimately familiar with designations of routes under the Forest Service’s Travel Management rule. The Organizations would support limitations of travel to existing routes in critical habitat areas of the Grouse as part of a critical habitat designation.  As previously noted in the Greater Sage Grouse listing decision, a designated route system appears to be a significant benefit to maintaining sage grouse habitat and sage brush health. The Organizations believe these designations would be highly complied with if properly implemented, as most users are very familiar with requirements to stay on designated routes for travel as this is the common standard for dispersed route travel on public lands.

While the designation of travel routes is basically completed for Forest Service lands in the areas proposed to be designated Critical habitat for the Grouse, the designation process remains on going for many areas that are under BLM management.  This has resulted in large portions of the critical habitat not being currently subject to a requirement that travel is limited to existing routes.  The Organizations believe that restricting all travel to existing routes in habitat areas would provide significant benefit to the Grouse and the sage brush the grouse depends on for habitat, when compared to the current open area designations. The Organizations believe such a change could provide significant benefit to the Grouse with very little risk of negative economic impacts to local communities as recreational access and opportunities could be maintained. The Organizations believe the significant benefits that can be achieved for the Grouse at minimal costs weighs heavily in favor of meaningful analysis of limiting travel to existing routes as a method to preserve public access to the habitat areas.   

8b.  Use of seasonal route closures to avoid lek areas would minimize economic impacts.
As part of the travel management process, seasonal limitations on use of designated routes are frequently made to avoid wildlife habitat areas or to avoid sensitive areas at a particular times of the year for a particular species, such as spring closures of routes in elk calving areas.   These seasonal closures have been found to be highly effective in limiting impacts on wildlife during these sensitive periods and maintaining public access to these areas for the rest of the year when the species has moved from the area. In the case of elk calving areas, elk simply do not use calving areas in the summer as the elk traditionally move to higher areas for grazing purposes. As the elk have moved from these areas, use of routes in the area creates little to no risk of negative impacts to the animals.

Similar to elk, research indicates that sage grouse habitat and needs varies greatly over the course of a year.²⁷  The habitat designation decision notes this highly seasonal mobility as follows:

“Gunnison sage-grouse make relatively large movements on an annual basis. Maximum Gunnison sage-grouse annual movements in relation to lek capture have been reported as 18.5 km (11.5 mi) (GSRSC 2005, p. J–3), and 17.3 km (10.7 mi) (Saher 2011,  pers. comm.), and individual Gunnison sage-grouse location points can be up to 27.9 km (17.3 mi) apart within a given year (Root 2002, pp. 14–15). Individual Gunnison sage-grouse have been documented to move more than 56.3 km (35 mi) to wintering areas in the Gunnison Basin in Colorado (Phillips 2011, pers. comm.). While it is likely that some areas encompassed within these movement boundaries are used only briefly as movement areas, the extent of these movements demonstrate the large scale annual habitat requirements of the species.” ²⁸

Given the high levels of mobility displayed by the Grouse throughout the year, closing routes in all habitat areas would be problematic from an economic perspective. The overwhelming body of grouse research surrounds impacts and activities of the grouse in their lek areas, where population concentrations are highest and where the highest response to disturbance is identified. Research also indicates that lek areas are annually used for long periods of time  by the same group of Grouse.²⁹ Discovery of new lek locations is a rather rare occurance and discovery of single new lek sites was of enough significance to warrant noting in the status decision.³⁰  As researchers appear to have identified almost all lek areas in the critical habitat areas, this will make identification of routes around active leks in the critical habitat areas a management tool that could be quickly used to gain significant benefits to the Grouse.

Research indicates that seasonal closures for the protection of leks is a highly effective tool, which the status decision specifically notes as follows:  

“The BLM and Gunnison County have 38 closure points to minimize impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse within the Basin from March 15 to May 15 each year (BLM 2009, p. 40). While road  closures may be violated in a small number of situations, road closures are having a beneficial effect on Gunnison sage-grouse through avoidance or minimization of impacts during the breeding season.” ³¹

The Organizations believe that seasonal closures of routes will also only be effective if the nesting areas are seasonally closed to other uses as well.   Clearly closing a route to address concerns regarding its proximity to leks and nesting areas will not be effective if grazing, lek viewing  and other activities identified as similar or higher risk activities for the habitat areas  are continued.

9.   Recreational closures alone are insufficient to address habitat concerns.

As extensively noted in both the status and habitat proposals, there are a wide range of activities that are negatively impacting the Gunnison Sage Grouse, many of which are higher priority threats than recreational usage of the habitat areas. The following provisions are included in these comments to highlight some areas and activities that must also be addressed if large scale route prohibits are found to be required. It has been the Organizations experience with other endangered or threatened species that often isolation of a single usage to address impacts from a wide range of usages creates significant public opposition as users being restricted believe they are being singled out arbitrarily. Management decisions isolating single uses frequently fail and generate significant public opposition for future management of the issue.

The need to address a wide range of issues is supported in the status decision as closures of recreational access alone is insufficient to address habitat degradation, as the status decision specifically notes as follows:

“Based on modeling results demonstrating the effects of roads on Gunnison sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2011, entire—discussed in detail in Factor A), implementation of even the most restrictive travel management alternatives proposed by the BLM and USFS will still result in further degradation and fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin.”  ³²

The Organizations vigorously believe that if access to any area is to be closed for recreational purposes, other higher priority threats must also be prohibited in that area, as research indicates recreational closures simply will never be sufficient to address  the wide range of activities that degrade habitat areas. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to any decisions to rely on a single activity to address the wide range of habitat issues, in light of the research that indicates prohibitions of that activity will simply never address the habitat issues contributing to the Grouse’s decline.

Several of the wide range of factors identified as habitat concerns are noted here as these issues would also have to be addressed  with closures to address the decline of the Sage Grouse, many of which are not related to recreational activities.  Dogs are a factor that significantly impairs habitat quality as noted in the status decision:

“Domestic dogs accompanying  recreationists or associated with residences can disturb, harass, displace, or kill Gunnison sage-grouse. Authors of many wildlife disturbance studies concluded that dogs with people, dogs on leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals (Sime 1999  and references within). The primary consequences of dogs being off leash is harassment, which can lead to physiological stress as well as the separation of adult and young birds, or flushing incubating birds from their nest.” ³³

The Organizations would be very opposed to any management standards for habitat areas that precluded motorized travel but continued to allow access for pedestrians with dogs as the listing decision specifically identifies similar levels of concern for these uses.

Grazing is also another usage of habitat areas that poses a similar level of threat to the habitat as roads.  This concern is summarized in the listing decision as follows:

“Livestock management and domestic grazing have the potential to degrade Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Grazing can adversely impact nesting and broodrearing habitat by decreasing vegetation available for concealment from predators. Grazing also has been shown to compact soils, decrease herbaceous abundance, increase erosion, and increase the probability of invasion of exotic plant species (GSRSC 2005, p. 173).” ³⁴

The Organizations must also note that lek viewing is currently not a significant issue for the Sage Grouse, however the Organizations believe that access to the lek area for viewing would create similar if not higher levels of disturbance to the Grouse when compared to a person simply passing through the area. The Organizations believe that if all recreational trail access is fully closed in an area then these activities should be prohibited as well.

The Organizations must again note that the above activities are not singled out due to heightened concerns for the activities but rather to briefly identify many of the usages that would need to be prohibited in a habitat area if the decision was made to permanently close the area to trail usage.   While these additional restrictions would create economic concerns, the Organizations believe these economic impacts would be balanced by the fundamental fairness of treating similar threats to the Grouse in a similar manner.   It has been the Organizations experience that arbitrarily permitting some uses while prohibiting others often fosters significant frustration from the public and develops little public support for conservation efforts.  Given the high levels of habitat areas that are in private lands, the Organizations believe public support will play a critical role in any long term recovery efforts for the Grouse.

10.  Conclusion

The Organizations believe that the protection of any endangered or threatened species is a critical part of federal land management.  Proper identification of the threats and issues causing any species to be endangered is critical to developing plans  that do not significantly adversely impact local communities  for the protection of that species.  There is simply no argument to be made that the dispersed trail network in the habitat areas is anything other than a significant economic contributor to local and state economies. The research on this issue is irrefutable.

The Organizations believe the significant economic impacts warrant serious analysis of every step possible to protect the trail network and meaningfully improve habitat  areas for the long term benefit of the Grouse.  The Organizations believe research concludes that moving to a designated trail system in habitat areas  would provide significant protection for the Gunnison Sage Grouse. The Organizations believe that limited size seasonal closures of routes adjacent to active lek areas would also provide significant benefits for the Grouse and protect the economic contributions to local communities from the dispersed trail networks.  Both of these management standards have been shown to be effective at protecting and improving Grouse habitat.

The Organizations would be vigorously opposed to any attempts to close routes prior to utilization of designated routes and seasonal closures in a habitat area. If closures of routes was found to be necessary, research concludes there are numerous other uses in habitat areas that pose similar or higher threats to the grouse than the dispersed trail network.  The Organizations believe all uses that pose threats to the Grouse must be prohibited if the dispersed trail network is closed.  Arbitrarily selected permitted and prohibited uses often does little to foster public support for the habitat management actions and given the high levels of private lands in habitat areas, the Organizations believe public support will be a critical component of habitat management moving forward.

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 these comments or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised in these comments further.

Sincerely,
                    
John Bonngiovanni
Chairman and President
Colorado OHV Coalition

Don.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO CO-Chairman

¹Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Gunnison Sage-Grouse;  78 Fed. Reg  2540 ( Jan. 11, 2013) at pgs 2552-2556. (hereinafter referred to as the “Habitat proposal”).

²Habitat Proposal at pg 2558.

³Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse; 78 Fed. Reg.  2486 (Jan. 11, 2013) at pg 2533. (hereinafter referred to as the “status proposal”)

⁴ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage- Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered, Fed. Reg. (March 5, 2010) at Pg 75.

⁵Status proposal at pg 2499.

⁶Aldridge et al; Crucial Nesting Habitat for Gunnison Sage Grouse; A Spatially Explicit Hierarchical Approach; Journal of Wildlife Management; Vol. 76(2); February 2012; 391-406 at pg 404.

⁷Western Governors Association; Policy Resolution 11-9; Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Conservation; July 11, 2011 at pg 2.

⁸Humston 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

⁹David Taylor; Economic Importance of the Winter Season to Park County Wyoming; University of Wyoming Press; 1999 @ pg 2.

¹⁰Cordell 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.

¹¹Id at pg 56.

¹² Id at pg 41-43.

¹³Western Governors Association; Managing the Regions Recreational Assets; Report of the Get Out West Advisory Group to the Western Governors’ Association; June 2012 – pg 1.

¹⁴Western Governors Association; A Snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation; prepared by Outdoor Industry Foundation; June 2012 at pg 1.

¹⁵COHVCO Economic Impact Study- 2008; Lewis Burger Group;  pg ES-5.

¹⁶Id at ES-6.

17Id at pg ES-5.

¹⁸Colorado Division of Wildlife; Final Report; The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado; Sept 26, 2008; at pg Exec Summary at pg 1.

¹⁹Id at Section 3 pg 10.

²⁰Colorado Division of Wildlife; Final Report; The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado; Sept 26, 2008; at pg Exec Summary at section 4 pg 16 & 17.

 ²¹Status Proposal at pg 2532.

 ²²Status proposal at pg 2488
 
²³12-month findings for petition to list the Greater Sage Grouse(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered.  Fed Reg. (March 5, 2010) at pg 92.
 
²⁴Sandercock et al; Ecology, Conservation and Management of the Grouse; University of California Press 2011; see also ST Knick and JW Connolly (editors) Greater Sage Grouse; Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol 38), Univ of California Press, Berkeley CA.
 
²⁵See, Knick and Connolly at pg 216.

²⁶See, Knick and Connolly at pg 216.
 
²⁷Connolly JW, ET Rinkes and CE Braun. 2011. Characteristics of Greater Sage Grouse habitats; a landscape species at micro- and macroscales. pg 69-83 in ST Knick and JW Connolly (editors) Greater Sage Grouse; Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol 38), Univ of California Press, Berkeley CA.

²⁸Status proposal at pg 2543.
 
²⁹Status proposal at pg 2488-2495.
 
³⁰Status proposal at pg 2494.
 
³¹Status proposal at pg 2532 .

³²Status proposal at pg 2526.

³³Status proposal at pg 2532.
 
³⁴Status proposal at pg 2505.
 
Full letter

Area Map
 

A Snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation June 2012

A report documenting the income, tax revenue and the number of jobs created by outdoor recreation.
A collaboration of Outdoor Industry Association, The Outdoor Foundation, The Motorcycle Industry Council, The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, and The Western Governors’ Association

Economic impact summary of GJFO proposal – GJFO horribly undervalues economic contributions of recreation
Document prepared by COHVCO & TPA

Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition – Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado Executive Summary

Report created by the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition on the Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado
 

The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado
Prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife
Sept 26, 2008

The donation will be use to promote Exit Tours M/C and the club’s aim to share riding experience with motorcyclists by sponsoring various events like Trail Rides, Dual Sport adventures and Adventure Tours in the Rocky Mountains.

In addition Exit Tours M/C will work with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and BLM on mutually beneficial projects and adopt and maintain trails in the National Forest.

Exit Tours M/C goal is to promote our sport, to provide motorcycle enthusiasts with knowledge and skills and to support the Colorado Off HighwayVehicle Coalition (COHVCO) and the TPA.

Exit Tours M/C web site:
coloradodualsport.com

Exit M/C on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/exittoursmc