 |
October 20, 2012 |
|
|
Senator Mark Udall Office Dear Ms. Ozarski; I wanted to follow up on our brief discussion at the Governor’s Forest Health Summit on October 12, 2012. I thought the presentation was great and the compelling discussion outlining the undeniable situation that surrounds poor forest health levels was very welcome. While the mountain pine beetle has heavily impacted Northern Colorado, most of Southern Colorado forests have been spared the wide scale devastation that has impacted northern Colorado. As was noted at the Summit, the explosion of the spruce beetle out of the Weminuche Wilderness and across Wolf Creek Pass has greatly expanded areas that are going to be experiencing significant declines in forest health from these infestations. The Governor’s Forest Health summit highlighted many different facets of forest health concerns, the Organizations are aware much of this information has been echoed in other proceedings, both involving Senator Udall’s hearing earlier this summer in Colorado Springs and Representative Tipton’s House Committee hearing in Montrose. The Organizations welcome and continue to support the active role that Senator Udall has taken on the forest health issue. While wildfire activity is a highly publicized result of poor forest health, much of the beetle killed forests will not be impacted by wildfire. Rather the bulk of these areas will be impacted by gravity, causing the trees to fall in tangled snarls blocking trails and safe access for all users. These snarls will limit the ability of all users to safely hunt and fish in areas accessed by trails where falling trees have limited cross country foot travel. The Organizations are aware that once again there is renewed pressure from the Hidden Gems Campaign to move forward with the Central Mountains Wilderness proposal that your office has been reviewing. As a result of this renewed push for Wilderness, the Organizations have to again state our vigorous opposition to the proposal and note that almost all management activity that has been found necessary to protect forest health in the Summit and other hearings are completely prohibited in a Wilderness area. While there are general assertions that Wilderness designations improve forest health, these assertions are not supported by any science and are directly contradicted by the expert testimony that has been provided in numerous public hearings and peer reviewed published research documents created by both State and Federal Land managers. These findings must not be overlooked when any land management decision is made. Our Organizations are very concerned that the declining forest health will impact all facets of recreation in Colorado, and we are frankly puzzled as to the lack of interest in forest health issues that has been displayed by many other user groups. The Organizations are aware that the motorized community is comparatively well situated to address trees falling on trails, as motorized routes are often maintained with Forest Service good management crews, which are exclusively funded by monies generated by OHV registrations. A copy of the Colorado State Trails program fact sheet in enclosed with these comments for further information on the program. There are currently 14 good management crews, made up of approximately 5 full time seasonal employees, assigned to Ranger Districts throughout Colorado and an additional team that travels the state on an as needed basis. Every year more teams are formed to maintain trails on Ranger Districts. This year these teams spent most of their time removing dead trees from trails and adjacent areas. The Organizations are aware other user groups simply do not have the resources to address large scale tree falls on trails. While volunteers are able to maintain small portions of non-motorized routes, these resources are not able to address threats at the level of the spruce and pine beetle epidemics. While these resources are limited, land managers are able to allow mechanized activity, such as the use of motor vehicle and chainsaws, in maintenance of non-motorized routes outside Wilderness areas. This flexible management authority allows these limited resources to be effectively applied to non-motorized routes. Unfortunately, land managers are severely hampered by Congressional Wilderness restrictions, as they lack the flexibility to allow mechanized assistance in maintaining routes in Wilderness. The Organizations must note that any assertion that thousands of dead trees could be effectively dealt with by using hand saws and horses probably lacks any realistic basis. 1. Deteriorating forest health threatens significant portions of the Colorado Economy. Healthy forests are exceptionally relevant to our members, as frequently our members are a broad spectrum outdoor enthusiast, 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).1 The Organizations believe that the unhealthy forests pose a significant economic risk to the state of Colorado and a significant safety threat to any user of the forest. As we have previously discussed, a snowmobiler was killed in the Snowy Range portion of the Medicine Bow/Routt National forest after a falling dead tree struck him on a maintained trail. While we hope this type of an incident is an isolated incident, the Organizations have to believe similar incidents could occur again given the number of backcountry recreational users and the number of dead trees adjacent to trails. These type of incidents will not foster expanded use of Colorado’s trail network, but rather encourage other types of activity. Recreation is a significant contributor to the Colorado economy as CPW research indicates 90% of Colorado residents are trails users. CPW has determined hunting and fishing contributes $2.5 billion annually to the Colorado economy. The Outdoor Industry Foundation determined outdoor non-motorized recreation contributes $2.5 billion to Colorado’s Economy and COHVCO’s economic impact study determined that OHV recreation contributes $1 billion per year. The Organizations are aware that these studies are not designed to be mutually exclusive and have significant overlap in their calculation methodology. These economic impacts are cited here to clarify that the economic impact of recreation is clearly significant. All of these activities will undoubtedly be negatively impacted by the high number of falling trees, as a tangled web of trees poses significant obstacles to anyone wanting to cross that area regardless of why they are there. While the motorized community has developed a funding source to remove and deal with dead trees that may block multiple use motorized routes on public lands, the trail users seeking to maintain non-motorized routes lack a similar funding mechanism. The blocking of trails in designated Wilderness areas will negatively impact local economies as recreational users will no longer have access to these opportunities, as maintenance of these opportunities will simply be cost prohibitive. Blockages of non-motorized routes could also significantly increase socially based user conflicts on public lands, as non-motorized users may seek closure of multiple use trails, previously maintained by good management crews, in order to address the loss of unmaintained non-motorized trails. This type of a proposal would be VIGOROUSLY opposed by the motorized community. The Organizations believe there is a bigger question that must be addressed in the discussion of forest health and economics before ever looking at expanding current Wilderness boundaries. Mainly, how do agencies maintain trails that clearly will be blocked by falling trees in the existing Wilderness areas? The Organizations believe this question must be answered before any discussion of user need for more Wilderness is started. Expanding management decisions, that are clearly not sustainable, simply makes no sense as these newly expanded areas will simply be lost to all recreation once significant trail maintenance is needed. 2. New research specifically identifes the negative impact that designated Wilderness has on forest health. Attempting to manage the current forest health issues as an isolated incident in time that will not be repeated would be a mistake. Research indicates both mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle infestations have happened numerous times in the last century and predictions indicate this infestations will become more frequent and more severe. Management must address the fact that these pest infestations will probably happen again in our lifetimes and management decisions must be tailored to provide for long term management of a long term problem. The need for long term thinning and active management is specifically identified as an effective tool for management of these infestations in the Forest Service report prepared at your offices request. Clearly thinning and mitigation actions will not occur forest wide in a short period of time, these actions may take many years and be part of a more proactive management regime for Colorado public lands. This long term vision and management opportunity will not be aided with the imposition of new Wilderness restrictions. The Organizations are aware that some of the areas proposed for additional Wilderness area are very difficult to thin. While this may be the case for some areas, other areas are available for thinning and active management. Obviously given the scale of thinning and remediation that is necessary, it could be some time before these areas could be thinned. Wilderness and improperly managed Roadless areas were previously identified by the Forest Service as a significant factor contributing to and limiting the ability to manage the mountain pine beetle epidemic. This report is not discussed at length in these comments as previous comments have addressed this report. Since the release of this Forest Service report, additional Colorado Forest Service researchers have reached the same conclusions. The Colorado State Forest Service’s 2011 Forest Health report specifically identifies a major contributing factor to the spruce beetle outbreak as: “Outbreaks typically occur several years after storms cause windthrow in spruce trees, which are susceptible to blowdown because of their shallow root system. Spruce beetles initially breed in the freshly windthrown trees, and subsequent generations attack and kill live, standing trees.” 2 The lack of access to Wilderness areas to manage blow down areas is specifically identified as a major limitation in forest managers ability to address spruce beetle outbreak. These blow downs are directly identified as causing the spruce beetle outbreaks. The 2011 State Forest Service report specifically states: “Many areas where spruce beetle outbreaks occur are remote, inaccessible or in designated wilderness areas. Therefore, in most cases, foresters can take little or no action to reduce losses caused by this aggressive bark beetle. However, individual trees can be protected on some landscapes.”3 The Organizations must note the 2011 State Forest Service report extensively discussed how EVERY major spruce beetle outbreak in the state of Colorado was associated with a major wind event in a Wilderness area, which could not be managed by foresters. A copy of this report has been included with these comments to allow for a review of this discussion. The Organizations urge your office to allow land managers to make science based decisions for the management of public lands and allow active forest management for as much public land as possible. While supporters of Wilderness may provide discussions that tug at heart strings regarding the Wilderness ideal, scientific research has concluded this ideal directly and significantly contributes to the overall poor health conditions of Colorado forests. 3. Decisions to remove specific areas from previous Wilderness legislation must be supported. The Organizations have to note that the most recent call to action from the Hidden Gems Proposal is seeking to obtain inclusion of the Lower Piney, Elliot Ridge, Crazy Horse and other areas in the proposed Wilderness legislation. These areas were removed from Rep. Polis legislation as a result of ongoing good faith discussions between user groups facilitated by Rep. Polis office based on the high degree of mechanized and motorized that occurs in these areas throughout the year. These decisions to exclude these areas must be honored moving forward. Attempts to include these areas in on-going discussions will make it very hard to move forward with any discussions regarding new areas. These attempts also significantly increase frustrations between the groups involved in the user group discussions. The motorized community had no input in the creation of any portion of the wilderness proposal, prior to involvement with governmental representatives. Once an area is removed from the Proposal, the area must remain off the table for all future discussions. The Organizations can find little solace in a consensus position regarding management of these areas, that will simply ignored by a party to that process when it is convenient. The Organizations have been very hesitant to undertake user group type discussions on Wilderness as areas excluded in one round of legislation are frequently returned immediately back on the table after legislation is passed. New proposals simply attempt to move forward, regardless of the previous consensus regarding management. The ongoing attempts to reintroduce excluded areas into the good faith discussions prior to any legislation do nothing more than provide concrete reasons to clarify why we are hesitant to enter into such discussions at anytime. The Organizations must also note that the High Country Snowmobile Club has received a grant from the State Parks Snowmobile program for the purchase of a snowcat to begin grooming previously ungroomed trails in the areas north of the existing Eagles Nest Wilderness. A high percentage of these groomed winter trails are routes that remain open for summer motorized recreation in the summer. The Organizations are aware you are planning on discussing the Central Mountains Proposal with the High Country Club independently, but we would like to confirm this grooming program is vigorously supported by the Organizations. As the High Country Club will confirm there is broad support for this grooming program from all user groups, and vigorous support for the proposal from the Forest Service. 4. Conclusion. The Organizations are aware there is an ongoing push to renew waning interest in Wilderness proposals in the State. This initiative is completely at odds with the overwhelming body of research that has emerged from recent hearing and seminars regarding forest health. While these seminars and meetings have addressed forest health in a forestry context, the Organizations believe declining forest health poses a significant threat to all forms of outdoor recreation in the state of Colorado. The Organizations are puzzled as to why other user groups are not seeing these threats to access as a more significant threat to recreation in Colorado. If you would like a copy of any of the reports relied on in these comments or have questions please feel free to contact Scott Jones at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810. Sincerely, John Bonngiovanni Don.E. Riggle Scott Jones, Esq. 1Cordell 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 February, 2008; at pg 41-43. 2Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg 9. 3Colorado State Forest Service; 2011 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests; at pg 11.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Archive | News
Tenderfoot Trail Project
| |
October 3, 2012 |
|
|
Rep. Jared Polis RE: Tenderfoot Trail Project Dear Ms. Erickson; The above referenced Organizations are contacting you to address concerns recently raised with regard to the proposed development of a multiple use single track trail system on Forest Service lands in the vicinity of Tenderfoot Mountain outside Dillon, Colorado. For purposes of these comments, this project will be referred to as “the Proposal”. The Organizations do not believe the specific facts surrounding the Proposal have been fully explained to the public, as only the scoping portion of the Federal planning process has been completed. The Organizations believe once the Proposal and levels of associated planning already performed are completely understood, many of these concerns will be minimized. Prior to addressing the merits of the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. The Organizations are aware that often conflict from public usage of public lands can be a concern for those private landowners in the area. Experiences in other areas with this issue have taught the Organizations that developing a minimal impact trail system is key to fostering good relations with all users and avoiding conflict. Our Organizations believe that after a complete review of the Proposal, and related planning documents, you will clearly conclude that current concerns are not based on an accurate understanding of the Proposal and have been avoided in the development of the Proposal. The Proposal is truly a small project and does not significantly impact the large number and mileage of routes that were to be closed as part of the recent White River Travel Management plan. The Proposal encompasses over 4,000 acres and only adds 15 miles of new single track trails and restricts access on an additional 15 miles of existing routes to uses no wider than 36 inches in width. The Organizations do not believe trail density will be an issue with the Proposal. The Organizations believe that width restrictors will be a significant implementation tool in the Proposal, as width restrictors are an effective tool in minimizing width expansion issues that could arise from over width vehicles attempting to use the trail network. These 36 inch wide routes would be closed for 8 months out of the year to further minimize any possible impacts in the Proposal area. The entire intent of the Proposal is to address multiple use needs in a manner that does not impact local residents or other users of the Tenderfoot Mountain area. 1. Economics While the Proposal is a comparatively small project, the significance of the project cannot be overstated to the users of the trail network. Currently these users are not able to obtain a full day single track trail experience in the Summit County area, and are forced to leave the area to obtain this experience. The Proposal will allow monies that are currently spent in other states or counties as a result of the severely limited opportunities to be retained in the Summit County economy. Given previous experiences with our Organizations and Federal Land managers, the Proposal will clearly be an economic benefit to the Summit County economy. The economic impact to the Colorado Economy of OHV recreation is over $1 billion dollars a year and over $200 million of that occurs in the central Colorado counties. In the central Colorado counties, OHV recreation provides for almost 3,000 year round jobs. The Organizations are not asserting this Proposal will significantly alter these totals but this Proposal will aid in retaining spending resulting from single track trail use in the Summit County area. As outlined later in these comments, any opportunity for this type of recreation is seriously limited in Summit county and as a result these users will frequently leave the area or even the state seeking out this recreational opportunity. The Organizations believe that retaining this spending in the Summit County area should be a significant priority, as Summit County Colorado was recently found in the #3 position on the Wall Street Journal’s list of 21st Century American Ghost Towns.1 The bulk of spending associated with the Proposal would occur over the summer months, when seasonal ski related jobs are not employing people. This spending would help stabilize the cyclical spending that results from a ski based economy. The economic development that results from OHV recreation is significant, and as outlined in these comments, single track recreation is an area where the opportunities in Summit County are somewhat lacking currently. Forest Service research indicates that a multiple usage trail network is an effective tool for the development 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.”2 The Forest service targeting of trail networks as an effective tool for local economic development is based on the long track record of success that surrounds these types of projects. The Hatfield McCoy trail network in West Virginia added over 10 million dollars of spending a year to one of the poorest counties in the US.3 The Paiute Trail System in southern Utah, which has become a destination for Summit County riders seeking single track trail experiences contributes, contributes similar amounts to the communities the trail network travels through. The Organizations believe the Proposal will be a benefit to the local economy. While the scale of this benefit is unclear, the Organizations believe that the clear benefit of the Proposal weighs in favor of moving forward with the Proposal. 2a. Forest Service research indicates OHV recreation is a family based recreational activity. The Organizations believe that a brief discussion of what an OHV recreational user is will create additional support for the Proposal and minimize concerns about possible negative impacts to the area. 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.4 Women were a large portion of those participating in OHV recreational activities.5 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).6 The Organizations believe the highly diverse recreational interests of OHV users aid in compliance with usage restrictions. OHV users are highly familiar with possible impacts to other usages of public lands as these OHV users frequently use the same area for many different recreational activities and could be a member of another user groups the following weekend. The Organizations believe this user group is a highly responsible and highly sensitive user group that is more than willing to comply with usage regulations and possible concerns of other user groups. 2b. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Research indicates OHV users are a highly law abiding user group on public lands. In addition to a high percentage of OHV users being families, the law enforcement pilot program developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to address alleged law enforcement concerns with OHV recreation is further evidence the Organizations rely on to gain comfort with the Proposal. 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 law enforcement concerns involving OHV recreation. The OHV law enforcement pilot program was created to address assertions of a compelling need to stop resource damage from OHV misuse at locations identified as violation “hotspots” by those seeking to limit public access to public lands. While the Tenderfoot Mountain area was not identified as a hotspot for targeted enforcement, the Organizations believe these findings remain highly relevant to this discussion. The law enforcement pilot program deployed additional trained professional law enforcement officers, funded by funds from the OHV registration funds, at 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 summer, officers involved in the pilot program contacted over 10,000 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 1.5% of contacts involved activities, other than failing to register OHVs, where the officer found the activity serious enough to warrant the issuance of a citation. The Organizations believe the conclusions of this groundbreaking research are highly relevant here and will provide a high degree of comfort to those with concerns about law enforcement and the Proposal. The Organizations gain a high degree of comfort from the fact that the Summit County Off-Road Riders (“SCORR”) have partnered with the Forest Service to assist with development and implementation of the Proposal. SCORR is a Summit County based organization that has effectively developed and managed trail programs in other portions of Summit County. While not all users of the area are members of the club, the Organizations believe SCORR provides a strong tie to the community and an additional avenue for resolution of any issues that might arise. Previous SCORR projects have been highly successful and non-controversial after completion. The Organizations must note that many of the same concerns and objections were raised regarding previous SCORR proposals have again been raised about the Tenderfoot project. None of these concerns have been found to be significant after the opening of adjacent project areas, giving the Organizations additional strength in their belief the SCORR club will obtain similar results with the Tenderfoot project. The Organizations have found that a strong local club provides a great connection with projects allows active management and rapid resolution of any issues that might occur, as the local club is a member of the community. These clubs may want to develop trail opportunities in other areas of the county in the future and the success or failure of any project would directly impact their ability to move forward with other projects. The on-going relationship and ties that SCORR has with the Summit County area should not be overlooked. 3a. Multiple usage forest management requirements. Many opposing the Proposal assert that previously submitted comments on the Travel Management Plan are relevant to the Proposal. The Organizations must note this assertion lacks factual basis as the Tenderfoot Proposal was not addressed in the White River travel management decision. The Tenderfoot proposal was a multiple year project that was occurring even as the TMP was released. Given the different schedules of the projects, inclusion of the Tenderfoot Proposal in the Forest Travel Management plan would have resulted in a significant delay for the rest of the Travel Plan. While recent closures of routes has been very visible, travel management is a fluid and ongoing process that is governed by multiple use mandates, and governs the development and implementation of trail projects as well as closures. The Organizations believe this Proposal is a good balance of Summit County concerns and Federal land management requirements for the Tenderfoot Mountain area, when the management of this area is reviewed for a longer period of time. This Proposal does not significantly impact the overall trend in this area. The project map provided during the scoping process identifies the large number of trails closed in the Tenderfoot area. As a result of the closure of almost all multiple use single track trails on Tenderfoot Mountain, only a small distance of single track multiple use trail remains on the White River National Forest. This recreational opportunity is found in the Golden Horseshoe area of the Dillon Ranger District. The limited numbers of single track trails in the Golden Horseshoe area is reflected by the dotted lines on the MVUM insert for the Golden Horseshoe Area. Given the serious limitation on single track multiple use trails in the Dillon area, this would appear to be a possible violation of multiple use mandates the Forest Service must comply with in managing public lands. The Proposal adds 15 miles of new single track trails and restricts access on trails on the ground to 36 inches max on an additional 15 miles of existing routes over 4,000 acres of planning area. These trails would provide a multiple use single track opportunity that does not alter the significant reduction in the number of routes in the Tenderfoot Mountain area and the White River National Forest as a whole. 3b. Levels of Protection Much of the correspondence from those opposing the Proposal assert the Proposal allegedly violates Summit County Planning documents. The Organizations must note that while the Summit county regulations certainly must be taken into account in developing the Proposal, these local regulations are an insufficient basis to alter the Federal Statutory requirements for management of public lands, which the Forest Service must comply with. A review of these documents finds many of the standards proposed for management of the Tenderfoot area are wholly inconsistent with Forest Service guidelines and requirements for Travel Management. As a result the Forest Service had to develop a more consistent plan for the management of the Tenderfoot area, that could be effectively implemented. For several issues, the Proposal provides higher levels of protection than required in the Summit County legislation. The Summit County legislation requires several routes remain open year round for full sized motorized and ATV usage. Based on Wildlife concerns in the Proposal area, Forest Service planners have determined that these routes being open year round would pose a significant threat to elk wintering in the area. As a result of these concerns, seasonal closures of ALL routes is required under the Proposal to mitigate possible impacts to Wildlife. The Organizations have to believe these seasonal closures will be highly effective as routes in the area frequently receive significant snowfall and quickly become impassable to OHVs. The Organizations must also note the Summit County regulations are often complex and conflicting with general federal road management standards. These conflicts and complexity would result in travel management decisions that are difficult to explain, completely different than forest regulations in other areas, difficult to enforce and would create a significant amount of frustrations and confusion among those that are attempting to use this area. Avoiding this type of user conflicts and frustration will greatly improve public support for management of the area and create a management plan that is sustainable in the long run for this area. The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal provides a far more enforceable plan for the management of the Tenderfoot Mountain area, when compared to other management recommendations for the area. As previously noted, a seasonal closure of all routes in the Tenderfoot Mountain area from October to June is already part of the Proposal to add an additional level of protection for wildlife possible in the area. The Organizations believe that these seasonal closures will be highly effective given the high levels of snowfall in the area that rapidly make routes impassible to all OHV traffic. Public concerns voiced by those opposing the Proposal raise concerns about wildlife calving areas being impacted by the Proposal. The Organizations are unsure the basis for these concerns, as CPW mapping does not identify the Proposal area or any portion of the Tenderfoot Mountain area as an Elk Reproductive area. The Elk Reproductive areas identified by CPW are outlined in red on the map below. Elk Reproductive Areas It appears that those opposed to the Proposal have confused Elk Reproductive Habitat with Elk Winter Range. Elk Winter Range identified by CPW is identified in the areas outlined in purple in the map below. Elk Winter Range Given the Proposal already provides all routes in the area be closed from October to June, the Organizations are unsure what basis could be relied on to assert that wintering wildlife in the area would be impacted by the Proposal. 5a. The Proposal does not imcrease sound levels at adjacent propserties. Sound created by recreational usage of public lands has been a planning consideration in the development of the White River Forests Travel Management Plan. Trails in the Tenderfoot Mountain area, such as the Oro Grande Trail that were closed to motorized travel as they did impact adjacent properties. Under the Proposal, NONE of these trails would be reopened. Given the awareness of possible sound impacts from the Proposal on adjacent homeowners, professional sound testing engineers have already been brought in to analyze possible impacts on adjacent property from sound. This report does note that the ONLY noise issue that was identified was HWY 6 and the Oro Grande Trail, neither one of which has been addressed in this proposal. A copy of this report is enclosed with these comments. The report specifically concludes that motorized recreational usage of the trails to be opened in the Proposal does not increase sound levels at these residence beyond ambient levels. This report does note the primary source of sound for these residence was Highway 6. Utilization of highway 6 is beyond the scope of this Proposal. 5b. The Proposal will not threaten wildlife with sound levels. The possible impact of sound from the Proposal on wildlife has also been a concern voiced in opposition to the Proposal. This type of an impact is an issue that has been extensively researched by the Forest Service. While this research has centered on winter motorized recreation, these findings are completely relevant here as any impacts to wildlife would be more easily recognized during winter periods when stress is greater on the animals. This research has uniformly concluded that sound level related to usage of OHV’s has little to no impact on wildlife. As a result the Forest Service studies have specifically found: ”Based on these population-level results, we suggest that the debate regarding effects of human winter recreation on wildlife in Yellowstone is largely a social issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue. Effects of winter disturbances on ungulates from motorized and non-motorized uses more likely accrue at the individual animal level (e.g., temporary displacements and acute increases in heart rate or energy expenditures) than at the population scale. A general tolerance of wildlife to human activities is suggested because of the association between locations of large wintering ungulate herds and winter recreation. Habituation to human activities likely reduces the chance for chronic stress or abandonment of critical wintering habitats that could have significant effects at the population level, especially when these activities are relatively predictable.”11 This research has also uniformly concluded that animal response to people on foot or with a dog is consistently higher than the animals response to motorized vehicles, even with the higher sound levels that maybe associated with the motorized vehicle. “Deer consistently bedded near snowmobile trails and fed along them even when those trails were used for snowmobiling several times daily. In addition, fresh deer tracks were repeatedly observed on snowmobile trails shortly after machines had passed by, indicating that deer were not driven from the vicinity of these trails… The reaction of deer to a man walking differed markedly from their reaction to a man on a snowmobile… This decided tendency of deer to run with the approach of a human on foot, in contrast to their tendency to stay in sight when approached by a snowmobiler, suggests that the deer responded to the machine and not to the person riding it.”12 The Organizations believe there is significant research already conducted for the Proposal concluding that sound levels from the Proposal will not impact wildlife. The findings are supported by the extensive body of Forest Service research that has concluded that sound levels from motorized recreation do not have a negative impact on wildlife. Given this body of research, the Organizations do not have any basis to support a concern about sound impacting wildlife in the Proposal area. Conclusion The Organizations are aware there is public concern regarding the Proposal. Given that public scoping of the Proposal has only occurred, we believe these concerns are the result of a lack of information regarding the Proposal. The Organizations believe that additional information regarding the Proposal will aid in understanding the specifics of the Proposal and address many of these concerns that may exist as a result of limited information. The Organizations are vigorous supporters of the Proposal as this multiple use trail network will be a significant benefit to recreational users of these trails. If you would like a copy of any of the reports relied on in these comments or have questions please feel free to contact Scott Jones at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810. Sincerely, John Bonngiovanni Don.E. Riggle Scott Jones, Esq.
1 Douglas A. McIntyre; American Ghost Towns of the 21st Century; 24/7 Wall Street; April 11, 2011; http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/112463/american-ghost-towns-21st-century-247wallst 2Humston et al; USFS Office of Rural Development; Jobs, Economic Development and Sustainable Communities 3Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research; Final Report; The Economic Impact of the Hatfield~McCoy Trail System in West Virginia; October 31, 2006 at pg 3. 4Cordell 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. 5Id at pg 56. 6Id at pg 41-43. 7USFS- Dillon Ranger District- Map of Tenderfoot Trail area provided to public with scoping documents on Ocotber 11, 2011. 8USFS – Dillon Ranger District 2012 Motor Vehicle Use Map- Inset of Golden Horseshoe area 9Colorado Parks and Wildlife – 2012 Elk Reproductive areas map in Google Earth formatting provided by Hunting GPS maps 10Colorado Parks and Wildlife – 2012 Elk Winter Range areas map in Google Earth formatting provided by Hunting GPS maps 11PJ White & Troy Davis. Wildlife responses to motorized winter recreation in Yellowstone. USFS 2005 Annual Report at Pg 1. 12Richens, V. B., & Lavigne, G. R. (1978). Response of white-tailed deer to snowmobiles and snowmobile trails in Maine; Canadian Field-Naturalist, 92(4), 334-344.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
7
8
9
10TPA and COHVCO letter of support to the SCORR Tenderfoot project
| |
September 29, 2012 |
|
|
TPA and COHVCO letter of support to the SCORR Tenderfoot project
Dear Representative Polis: We are writing today to express our strong support for the U.S. Forest Service’s recent draft proposal to build a small system of sustainable, multi-purpose trails in the Tenderfoot area of Summit County on the White River National Forest. Once constructed, these trails would continue to provide recreation opportunities for single track motorcycle use along with all other trail uses except ATV’s and full size four-wheel drive vehicles. Before getting into the specifics, we want to thank you for the work you do on behalf of Colorado tourism and small business. In many of our rural communities, small businesses play a key role in the local economy by providing motorized outdoor recreation opportunities such as 4-wheeling, ATV rides, snowmobile rides, and in our case, trails for motorcycle riding. These recreation activities generate essential income and jobs in many of our smaller rural towns such as Ouray, Telluride, Durango, Silverton, Grand Lake, and in areas such as Vail Pass. Unfortunately, over the past decade, a number of environmental groups have made a concerted effort to exclude motorized users from enjoying our National Forests. Through political pressure and lawsuits, the actions of environmental groups have significantly reduced motorized recreation opportunities. In our opinion, groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Quiet Use Coalition, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Colorado Environmental Coalition, and others have exhibited an attitude of increasing intolerance towards motorized recreation on our public lands. In spite of our best efforts, it is becoming increasingly difficult to work with these groups in an atmosphere of collaboration. When it comes to the management of public lands, we want to emphasize that decisions are not made according to “majority rules.” If this were so, the record shows that our well-funded and large-membership environmental organizations would force our national forests to discontinue grazing and commercial timber harvest that support local ranchers and logging companies. As a result of continuing and long-standing litigation in opposition to timber sales, there is only one large saw mill remaining in Colorado and with the huge amount of beetle- killed timber there is simply no market, such as companies that manufacture biofuel products, for this wood. If the environmental majority ruled, oil and gas exploration and development and many other uses would stop. These activities would be pushed, and in fact already have been, to countries where environmental protections are relatively nonexistent. As a result, our global rain forests are being decimated to meet the demands coming from the United States for energy and forest-based products. Shame on them! When it comes to outdoor recreation, the number of motorized users in Colorado continues to grow. We do not realistically expect our national forests to meet the entire demand for the growing number of enthusiasts. However, we also do not think that closing more and more trails to motorized recreationists is a viable solution. If closures and opposition to responsible motorized recreation continues, users will be forced to find places where their activity is unlawful in hopes that law enforcement will not “catch” them. From our viewpoint, it seems that almost every other recreation user group, including ski areas and mountain bikers are receiving preferential treatment in terms of meeting increasing user demands. This is simply not equitable. The Tenderfoot Trail System The proposed Tenderfoot Trail system in Summit County is a modest trail proposal that the motorcycle community and the Summit Count Off-Road Riders (SCORR) in particular, have worked hard to bring to fruition. Two years ago, a Colorado state OHV grant was used to conduct the associated NEPA analysis and trail layout. As you are probably aware, the OHV fund in Colorado is funded by the state OHV registration program, a fee placed on OHV owners that is supported by the OHV community specifically for OHV trail construction and maintenance. Working in collaboration with the Forest Service, SCORR and the Forest Service have completed all of the technical analyses including sound tests, meetings with local municipalities and the county commissioners, and public hearings. Additional highlights and of this trail system are as follows:
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
TPA, COHVCO and CSA comments on the Hermosa Watershed Proposal
| |
September 26, 2012 |
|
|
Senator Michael Bennet RE: Hermosa Watershed Proposal Dear Mr. Whitney; 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. CSA was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA currently has 2,500 members. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport. TPA is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. Our Organizations major concern is the final position of the Workgroup must be accurately and clearly reflected in the Legislation to avoid the need for future planning efforts in the area shortly after the Legislation is passed and/or confusion in the interpretation of the Legislation. The Organizations have participated in several other planning groups for specific areas in the state and clarity of the final proposal is an area where improvement can be made. Often minimal clarity issues in the Legislation are compounded by the fact that members of the work group often move on with their lives making them hard to locate or otherwise unavailable to clarify what was the true intent or issue to be addressed with specific provisions of the legislation. This lack of clarity can result in ongoing opposition to motorized access in areas specifically addressed by the Workgroup, despite the efforts to avoid this type of conflict. Avoiding this type of conflict will improve public support for the process and support for the final work product. 1. Lessons learned from previous Workgroup/Legislation projects. The Organizations believe a brief summary of our experiences with two prior workgroups will clarify the basis for our concerns regarding the Proposal and related processes. Senator Udall’s James Peak Wilderness Bill was the result of a multi-year working group process that brought together a wide range of users of the area, including the COHVCO and the Rollins Pass Association. As we discussed briefly, clarity of the final Legislation was an issue with the James Peak Wilderness expansion and an issue where the Rollins Pass Association still vigorously asserts the Legislation did not accurately reflect what their understanding of the proposal was. The Rollins Pass Association believed a tunnel in the proposal area was supposed to be rehabilitated and reopened with the assistance of the Forest Service. While the legislation was passed in 2002, the tunnel remains closed to this day as the Forest Service interpretation of the Legislation was significantly different than that of the Rollins Pass Association. Obviously this type of an on-going conflict is something we would like to avoid in the Hermosa area. The James Peak Legislation does provide good guidance for development of accurate and complete special management area boundaries. The James Peak Legislation boundaries accurately reflected the planning area and allowed recent attempts to again expand designated Wilderness in the planning area to be recognized as areas that had been found unsuitable for Wilderness designation by the Workgroup. This clarity of designation and intent was critical in avoiding the high degree of frustration for those that had participated in development of the Workgroup recommendation. The desire of these participants was to develop a final plan for the James Peak/Rollins Pass area for the foreseeable future. Those that opposed the final boundaries in the Workgroup proposal hoped to reopen discussions regarding Wilderness in the areas previously identified as unsuitable for Wilderness by the Workgroup consensus, which clearly would have violated the clear intent of the Workgroup. The Organizations believe the Legislation must provide sufficient clarity to limit possible impacts from subsequent proposals/planning by those that were not satisfied with the Workgroup consensus. A brief explanation of the experiences from the second Workgroup project will further clarify the basis for our concerns regarding subsequent planning activities required under the proposed Legislation. CSA was deeply involved in a Workgroup planning effort for a heavily used multiple use winter area in the Snowy Range area of the Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest. The Workgroup efforts spanned almost two years and concluded areas south of the major roadway accessing this multiple use area would be designated non-motorized and the area north of the roadway would remain open to motorized. The Workgroup found that parking areas would be developed for both areas to address significant safety issues with parking in the area. All parties to this Workgroup agreed that changes needed to implement the consensus position would be not opposed in subsequent planning by the parties participating in the Workgroup. The restrictions to motorized access south of the roadway were rapidly implemented and non-motorized parking was rapidly addressed without opposition from the motorized community. Unfortunately, the planning process for implementation of the Workgroup changes benefitting motorized access has been vigorously opposed by those opposed to any motorized access. This vocal opposition has stalled the planned changes despite the consensus that was reached which found the motorized changes were acceptable to all in the Workgroup. This continued opposition has fostered a significant amount of frustration for those that participated in the Workgroup and significant expense for motorized users and the Forest Service, which the consensus position was intended to avoid. The conclusions reached by the Workgroup addressing parking for motorized users remains incomplete despite almost 10 years passing since the closures south of the roadway. The Organizations would like to avoid developing another situation similar to this and while the Workgroup conclusions cannot include a penalty provision for subsequent violation, the Legislative language can be drawn as tightly as possible to avoid any ambiguity and to directly rebut any issues later raised against the Workgroup recommendation. As more completely addressed in the subsequent portions of these comments, the Organizations have specific concerns about boundaries of the SMA impacts on winter usage and the level of protection of identified motorized routes in subsequent planning addressing summer usage. Our Organizations believe with resolution of these issues this proposal would strike a reasonable balance of uses in this particular area and would not be opposed by our Organizations. 2. Winter usage concerns/southwestern boundary of SMA. The Organizations believe the southwestern boundary of the SMA must be adjusted to reflect the larger boundary of the Recommended Wilderness under the San Juan Forest Plan that was the starting point for the discussions in the Workgroup. The current boundary of the SMA does not include the area in the southwest portion of the Recommended Wilderness area in the San Juan plan that was determined to be unsuitable for Wilderness designation by the Workgroup. Drawing the southwestern boundary of the SMA to include this area within the SMA is a significant issue for winter users, as the area is heavily used for winter motorized recreation and has been the basis of an on-going discussion regarding management for a long time. Per the September 2008 meeting minutes of the Workgroup, the starting point for discussions of the SMA boundary was the recommended Wilderness area boundary currently provided for in the San Juan Forest Plan. These meeting minutes specifically identify that numerous other groups voiced serious concerns about the Wilderness area boundary under the Forest Plan. These concerns center around the southwestern boundary of the recommended Wilderness under the Forest Plan. The meeting minutes specifically summarize these concerns as follows: “• Wilderness designation: The SJPLC’s draft plan revision proposes wilderness designation for much of the Hermosa Area on the west side. A working group formed by the Wilderness Society and the San Juan Citizens Alliance and supported by Trails 2000, a trails advocacy group, has been meeting for several months to figure out how to work with the management plan as proposed. The effort was prompted by conflicts between the proposed wilderness designation and current trail use, particularly by mountain-bikers. The current wilderness proposal includes a 4.5-mile section of the Colorado Trail that’s used by mountain-bikers as a key north-south connector. This environmental working group has suggested different boundaries for the proposed Wilderness Area. The group also recommends that the remainder of the Hermosa Area be protected by some special designation that would be less stringent than wilderness. They are calling this the Hermosa Watershed Protection Area. It would be bounded by the Hermosa headwaters on the north, Bear Creek on the west, Highway 550 on the east and Junction Creek on the south. It could be designated a National Recreation Area, National Scenic Area or National Conservation Area (NCA), a designation typically given to BLM lands. These protections are defined by the legislation that creates them; there is not a single over-riding act that spells out how such an area should be managed. Such designations often include the limiting of motorized use to certain routes, a mineral withdrawal, and a prohibition on timber-harvesting. The continuation of grazing is often allowed. Most grazing currently takes place on the east side of the Hermosa Area, so there could be language to allow stock ponds and range improvements.”1 CSA must note that areas to the west of the Colorado Trail currently relied on as the boundary of the SMA are heavily used for motorized winter recreation. These riding areas are accessed by portions of the Colorado Trail designated as snowmobile trail and by several routes that access this areas from the west. This usage, in conjunction with the noted mechanized summer travel weighed heavily against the suitability of the area for designation as Wilderness. The Organizations believe this usage must be protected with the SMA designations in order to avoid future discussions about the same area, such as those recently occurring in the area addressed by Senator Udall’s James Peak Wilderness legislation. A review of the San Juan Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) finds that summer motorized and mechanized routes were addressed in the Recommended Wilderness proposal area, but the RMP does not address winter motorized usage of the area. Per the San Juan RMP, the Recommended The San Juan Public RMP provides the following snowmobile suitability map, which accurately Forest Service mapping created in conjunction with the Workgroup proposal identify that almost all areas suitable for snowmobiling are outside the boundary of both the Wilderness area proposed in the Workgroup recommendation and the SMA boundary in this area. Current information regarding the usage of areas outside both the proposed Wilderness area and the SMA boundary proposed by the Workgroup reflect the high levels of winter motorized recreation in the area outside the SMA boundary. Trail maps from the San Juan Snowmobile Club map reflects the large number of designated but ungroomed motorized trails that provide access to the area from the south and west. Workgroup proposes a southwestern boundary for the SMA as follows: The Organizations truly appreciate that the southwestern Wilderness/SMA Boundary was drawn to avoid mechanized and motorized use in the area to the west of the Wilderness area. The Organizations are very concerned future proposals again asserting a need for Wilderness The Organizations vigorously assert amending the southwestern boundary of the SMA to The Organizations believe this amended SMA boundary will sufficiently address the intent of the Workgroup regarding this area and avoid possible future frustrations regarding usage of this area. The Organizations notes that protection of existing recreational usage was a priority of the Workgroup and expanding the SMA boundary is clearly in furtherance of this goal and minimizes future proposals regarding usage of the area. The Organizations have to note that minimizing these types of conflicts was a major reason the Workgroup was convened. 3a. Protection of summer multiple use routes must be increased in the Legislation. The Workgroup clearly and repeatedly identified protection of the existing multiple use designated trail system for future generations as a priority value in the Workgroup process.7 Our Organizations are vigorous supporters of the use of designated routes on all public lands and are vigorous supporters of this portion of the Proposal. Representative’s of the summer motorized community left the Workgroup process with the understanding that routes in the planning area had been permanently protected from closure under Federal law. A review of the Legislation reveals there is a significant gray area regarding actual treatment of the trails in subsequent planning for implementation of the Workgroup recommendation. The Organizations are aware that this gray area has resulted in a high level of frustration with those representatives as a result of this inconsistency. As outlined previously in these comments, planning actions implementing Workgroup changes for motorized access in the planning area after approval of the final Legislation have often frustrated Workgroup recommendations. It has been our experience that those opposing motorized access continue with vigorous opposition in the planning process after final Legislation. Our Organizations would like to avoid the possibility of this type of ongoing conflict with the Hermosa proposal. Strengthening proposed legislative language regarding motorized routes would be a significant step towards mitigating these concerns. It has been our experience that documents regarding the Working Group are not easily located and participants move on, making legislative clarity a highly valuable tool in future planning. Public support will be key for on the ground implementation and allowing future working group proposals for public lands to be more warmly received and hopefully more effective. Legislative clarity is again a key component in developing and sustaining this public support. 3(b)(1). The proposed Bill title does not identify multiple usage. Our Organizations believe the legislative language must be exceptionally clear regarding the treatment of motorized routes and the lack of conflict between the user groups regarding preservation of this trail network that the working group operated under. Our Organizations are concerned that the bill title is: “To designate certain Federal land in the San Juan National Forest in the State of Colorado as wilderness, and for other purposes.” 8 Our Organizations believe the multiple uses of the area that are sought to be protected with the consensus position of the Working Group are not accurately summarized as a Wilderness designation. When the Workgroup process began, there was significant outreach clearly stating this Workgroup was part of various Wilderness initiatives and the work group was targeting protection of stream values in the area.9 We believe the bill title must be amended to accurately reflect the multiple uses of the SMA that is created, of which Wilderness is only a small portion. We believe this change will increase accuracy of the Legislation and avoid possible misinterpretation of the Workgroup efforts and the basic intent of the Workgroup. Clearly the open nature of the Workgroup environment aided in bringing user groups to the table. 3(b)(2) Motorized recreation is not specifically identified as an authorized activity in the SMA. While the Workgroup report specifically outlines the desire to protect all trails in the planning area, this clarity is not reflected in the authorized uses of the SMA in the legislation. The authorized uses of the SMA only broadly include recreation. 10We do not believe this narrow definition accurately reflects the working groups broad intent to protect the motorized and mechanized access for a large portion of the SMA. The Organizations believe these uses must be specifically identified as a permitted use of the SMA in the legislation to avoid further future conflict regarding use of this area. This must be corrected and clarified. 3(b)(3) The existing trail network is created pursuant to forest planning regulations and would not be a usage by permit. The lack of clarity in the proposed Legislation further carries into the broad management requirements for the SMA. Only motorized and mechanized activities that occur under permit are specifically identified and protected in the Legislation.11Our Organizations must note that the current trail network sought to be protected by the Workgroup does not occur by permit, but rather occurs pursuant to forest/travel planning decisions conducted under NEPA and other forest management legislation. As such the trail network and motorized/mechanized use does not occur by permit and would not be protected by this clause. This must be corrected and clarified. The lack of designation of motorized and mechanized trails as a protected use is also present in the designation of the Hermosa Roadless area. Our Organizations vigorously assert the Roadless area must be designated as a Motorized and Mechanized Roadless Area in the Legislation, as both motorized and non-motorized roadless areas are permitted in forest planning. The intent to allow motorized usage in the Roadless was clearly reflected in the Workgroup report but not the Legislation. Our Organizations believe this designation would be critical in protecting the multiple use trails and minimizing conflicts and frustrations between users moving forward. Again this must be clarified and corrected. 3c. Balance of protection for uses. It is critical to balance of protection of trails with the levels of protection provided with Wilderness area, in order to build public support for the Work Group proposal. Any area designated as Wilderness is absolutely prohibited from motorized and mechanized travel. Violations of this prohibition carry very steep penalties for violation of the motorized prohibition. While the absolute prohibition of motorized travel is present in the proposal, the level of protection of motorized routes in the SMA and Roadless area is somewhat fuzzy. Our Organizations believe the above specified changes are a step in the right direction towards balancing of protections but fall short of balancing protections of uses. 3(d). Minimum road/trail designation would balance protection of uses. The identification of a minimum road network is a principal the Forest Service is familiar with pursuant to 36 CFR 212.5. While the CFR requirements are only applicable the road network on Forest service lands, our Organizations believe these principals are applicable for protection of trails in the Hermosa area. Our Organizations believe a legislative designation of these routes as a minimum trail network in the area would provide sufficient protection for these trails and allow the forest service sufficient management flexibility for these trails. Clearly the protection of motorized routes provided by the Legislation must not interfere with the Forest Service’s ability to manage any issues that might arise with these routes, such as seasonal closures and maintenance needs. 4. Roadless Area definition created with the Hermosa Area legislation should correspond with the Colorado Roadless Rule. Under the proposed legislation, an entirely separate classification and definition of Roadless Area appears to be created. Our Organizations have to question the necessity for a new definition as the Colorado Roadless rule was recently released and even under traditional versions of the Roadless Rule, the Hermosa area has been entirely designated as Roadless. The Workgroup report specifically states the level of protection sought in the SMA as: “It is the intention of the Hermosa Creek Workgroup that Zone 2 would not have new roads constructed in it — if this legislation passes. This means that the current Inventoried Roadless Areas within the SMA, but outside of the wilderness area, would be managed to remain un-roaded, although some motorized use would be allowed. A specific and detailed definition of the word “un-roaded” will be included in the special legislation. It is the intention of the Hermosa Creek Working Group that the concept of “un-roaded” means no new roads that would allow travel by passenger-sized vehicles. New trails would be allowed as per USFS travel management rules and policies.”12 Our Organizations were vigorous participants in and supporters of the recently released Colorado Roadless Rule, as we believed the Rule would bring consistency and clarity to the Roadless issue. Our Organizations would like to see language in the legislation clarified to reflect management of the area be in conformity with the Colorado Roadless Rule. It appears the protection sought by the Workgroup and that provided by the Colorado Roadless Rule are identical standards of protection for the area. With the creation of a possible second definition of Roadless area in the Hermosa plan, the possibility of confusion regarding proper management of the area would be reintroduced and begin to minimize the clarity provided by the recently released Colorado Roadless Rule. The Colorado Roadless Rule and all previous versions of the Roadless Rule allow for designation of Roadless areas as either motorized or non-motorized roadless areas and permit such a designation as sought in §3(b)(4) of these comments. This must be corrected and clarified. 5. Forest Health concerns. Our Organizations have been vocal opponents of Wilderness designations based on both our recreational activities and the growing body of scientific research addressing the negative impacts of the abnormally dense forests that have resulted from a lack of harvesting trees. This research has outlined the critical need for thinning of our forests and that mechanized thinning is the only possibility for such remediation and the negative impacts on wildlife that results from falling trees impacting wildlife habitat. Obviously this type of activity is prohibited in an area that has been designated Wilderness under the 1964 Act. We have submitted extensive comments to your office addressing these concerns. Our concerns on these issues are mitigated to some level of comfort in the Hermosa area, as our members personal knowledge of the area to be designated Wilderness find it to be exceptionally rough and cannot be cost effectively harvested. Based our discussions with the Forest Service, the only realistic manner for harvesting or thinning the Wilderness area would be with helicopter logging. Given the extensive areas of forest that can be thinned far more cost effectively, our Organizations could not support allocation of the FS limited resources to mitigation of fuels in such a high cost low return area before other areas. 6. Conclusion The Organizations believe there needs to be several revisions to the legislation to accurately reflect the SMA boundary reviewed by the Workgroup. The Organizations believe the consensus of the Workgroup regarding protection of multiple usage of the SMA is accurately reflected in the Proposal at this time. The Organizations have had extensive experience with Workgroups in other areas and have found a basic lack of clarity to routinely result in a high degree of frustration for members of the Working Group and the general public as the consensus position is implemented. Our Organizations would like to avoid this type of long term frustration with the adoption of the various changes outlined in these comments. Our Organizations would like to move ahead with possible planning in other areas of public lands, rather than have to readdress the Hermosa area when clarity issues in the Legislation have allowed new proposals to be created. Our Organizations believe that with the adoption of these changes, the Workgroup recommendation would accurately represent the interests of all user groups that participated in the process and would be a proposal that would not be opposed by our Organizations. If you should have any questions, wish to be provided a copy of any of the documentation Sincerely, D.E. Riggle Scott Jones, Esq. 1See, Hermosa Creek Workgroup, Meeting #6 Summary, Sept. 2, 2008 at pg 3. 22007 San Juan Public Lands Office Draft Resource Management Plan – map of Recommended Wilderness area – Volume 2 at pg 167. 3 2007 San Juan Public Lands Office Draft Resource Management Plan – Proposed over the snow travel suitability map – Volume 2 at pg 142. 4Map prepared by USFS representatives in the Columbine Ranger district overlaying snowmobile suitability areas with proposed special management area boundaries. 5Map of Purgatory/Bolam Pass/Barlow Creek trail network per San Juan Snowmobile club website on 9/25/2012 http://www.snowmobilecolo.com/content.aspx?page_id=1980&club_id=45117#search_results 6 Map of Hermosa Creek Proposed Special Management Area per Senator Bennet’s website on 9/25/12. 7Hermosa Creek Workgroup Final Report- February 2010 at pg 12 &13; See also Frequently Asked Questions about the Draft Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act & one page summary of Hermosa Creek Watershed act. 8See, Bill Title; Proposed Hermosa Creek Legislation; per Senator Bennet website 9-25-12. 9See, River Protection Workgroup Press Release dated March 10, 2008. 10 See §4b; Proposed Hermosa Creek Legislation; per Senator Bennet website 9-25-12. 11See §4c(1); Proposed Hermosa Creek Legislation; per Senator Bennet website 9-25-12. 12Hermosa Creek Workgroup Final Report- February 2010 at pg 23.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
2
3
4
5
6
TPA trail crew installing trail barriers to protect single and two track trails
|
September 19, 2012 |
||
| Thanks to the TPA Barrier trail crew for their work in preserving single track and dual sport/atv trails!
This project has been funded by the Colorado OHV trail grant fund.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Photos from Trail Awareness Symposium posted by the AMA
|
September 15, 2012 |
||
|
The AMA has posted a gallery of over 300 photos from the 2012 Trails Awareness Symposium!
Click here to see the AMA photos!
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
TPA and COHVO Comment on Norwood Burn Canyon Rec Trails Project
| |
September 13, 2012 |
|
|
Uncompahgre Field Office – Burn Canyon Trail Project
Att: Julie Jackson 2465 South Townsend Ave Montrose, CO 81401 RE: Norwood Burn Canyon Rec Trails Project 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 the purposes of these comments, COHVCO and TPA will be referred to as the Organizations. Per scoping the scoping letter, the project seeks to develop a new single track trail network described as follows: “The area currently serves as an undeveloped multiple-use trail system with connectivity to roads leading to Norwood. This trail system will fill the need for additional recreational activities, such as mountain biking, hiking, motorcycle riding and equestrian use….. BLM is preparing an environmental assessment to analyze construction of approximately 34 miles of multiple-use single track trail(maximum width While the Organizations vigorously support the proposal, the Organizations are not able to provide substantive route specific concerns as the specific location of these routes is unclear on the map provided with the proposal. The Organizations are more than willing to provide additional comments and/or assist with resolution of any site specific issues that may arise in development of these trails. The Organizations believe there is a critical shortage of single track multiple use trails in the state of Colorado and while all single track recreational opportunities are limited, motorized opportunities are the hardest hit usage. The San Juan National Forest provides a stark example of this issue as the San Juan National Forest contains approximately 1,250 miles of system trails. Roughly 1,000 miles are designated as closed to motorized recreation (including 400 miles in wilderness or special management areas); while 250 miles (20% of system trails) are designated as open to motorized recreation. 2 These opportunities are even further limited as single track trails represent only a small portion of the 20% of system trails that are available. Conclusion If you have questions please feel free to contact: Scott Jones Sincerely, D.E. Riggle Scott Jones, Esq. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Thank you Trail Awareness Symposium 2012 Riders!
|
September 6, 2012 |
||
|
Colorado 600
Trail Awareness Symposium 2012 August 26th – August 30th To all of this years riders, It is up to this generation to save our sport for the future and you have played a vital part in doing that. Your support and donations to the TPA are greatly appreciated. Please contact us for any suggestions on how to improve next year’s ride. Hope to see you all next year. Thank you, &
Stan Simpson The Sidewinders Motorcycle Club PS. It was brought to our attention, there is a hole in the backpacks for a hydration pack hose. So the packs can come in handy for the trail as well.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Legal counsel retained to deal with Bear Creek Trail lawsuit
|
August 20, 2012 |
||
|
The Trails Preservation Alliance (http://www.coloradotpa.org) and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (www.cohvo.org) have retained legal counsel to develop contingency plans for dealing with the lawsuit threatened by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) concerning the Bear Creek trail (#667, Pike Peak National Forest) located near Colorado Springs. This trail has a historic 50 year lineage as a multiple use trail and is the primary access to the Captain Jack’s trail system. The CBD has threatened to file a law suit against the City of Colorado Springs and the USFS to close the trail to motorized recreation, not mountain biking or hiking. This threatened lawsuit alleges that motorcycle caused trail erosion is damaging the habit of a native trout species.
The City of Colorado Springs and the USFS are considering options for this threatened lawsuit. The Center for Biological Diversity has a history of threatening and or engaging in such legal actions across the USA. If they win this they will just ride their wave of success to their next motorcycle trail of choice. We must stop them in their tracks and that costs money. Donations can be made directly to either web site. —————– COHVCO is a nonprofit organization whose member enthusiasts, organizations and businesses collectively comprise over 200,000 Coloradoans and regular visitors to Colorado and other western states who contribute millions of dollars and thousands of hours annually to off-highway vehicle recreation through registration fees, retail expenditure, project participation and related support. Learn more on the web: www.cohvco.org
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Federal court refused to grant a motion to close trails near the Rico-West Dolores
|
May 25, 2012 |
||
|
Recreation advocates today welcomed news that a federal court in Colorado refused to grant a motion to immediately close 14 popular trails near the Rico-West Dolores area in southwest Colorado.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Colorado Chapter, have filed a lawsuit challenging motorized access in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest. Earlier this spring they moved for a preliminary injunction seeking a court order closing 14 trails to motorized use. According to their papers, the injunction was needed in early June to prevent irreparable harm that would be caused by resumption of historical use of the trails after snowmelt. Plaintiffs therefore requested a hearing on their motion before early June. The preliminary injunction and voluminous associated filings were vigorously opposed by the Forest Service and intervenors Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) – Trail Preservation Alliance (TPA) – San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR) – Public Access Preservation Association (PAPA) -BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC). On May 24, 2012 the Court held a hearing to consider “the request for a preliminary injunction hearing.” After considering statements from counsel for all parties, the Court minutes state “(n)o hearing will be set at this time.” The Court set a schedule for presentation of the merits of the case, under which the final brief will be filed on August 17, 2012. The minutes further state “if the Court deems oral argument necessary, it will set that hearing.” As a result, it is apparent that no injunction preventing continued motorized travel on the 14 trails will be entered at this time. Access on those trails and other portions of the Rico West Dolores area will continue to be managed by the Forest Service under existing regulations. Selected documents from the court file are located here http://www.sharetrails.org/legal/rico-dolores —————– PAPA is a regional recreation group that supports and champions access and responsible use of public lands, and encourages individual environmental stewardship. PAPA’s Mission is to promote balanced, unbiased, responsible use of public lands in collaboration with recreational users of all interests, advocating respect, education and conservation of the environment. Learn more on the web: www.papatelluride.org The mission of the SJTR is to improve opportunities for off-highway vehicles and assure the best care of the land. SJTR promotes active participation in OHV trail management and other civic activities and maintains a focused and ongoing dialogue with the San Juan National Forest and other public land planners. SJTR educates OHV users about “Tread Lightly” conservation practices and other trail use issues. Learn more on the web: http://sanjuantrailriders.org The Trails Preservation Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the sport of motorized trail riding, educating all user groups and the public on the value of sharing public lands for multiuse recreation, while protecting public lands for future generations. Learn more on the web: www.coloradotpa.org COHVCO is a nonprofit organization whose member enthusiasts, organizations and businesses collectively comprise over 200,000 Coloradoans and regular visitors to Colorado and other western states who contribute millions of dollars and thousands of hours annually to off-highway vehicle recreation through registration fees, retail expenditure, project participation and related support. Learn more on the web: www.cohvco.org The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national recreation group that champions responsible recreation, and encourages individual environmental stewardship. With members in all 50 states, BRC is focused on building enthusiast involvement with organizational efforts through membership, outreach, education, and collaboration among recreationists. Learn more on the web: www.sharetrails.org |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Federal report states Wilderness areas help contribute to beetle epidemic
|
April 27, 2012 |
||
|
Action Alert:Support the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in its efforts to protect your freedom to ride!
A U.S. Forest Service (USFS) report identifies Wilderness areas and roadless areas as significant obstacles to controlling the bark beetle epidemic. The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) would like you to be aware of a USFS report entitled Review of the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming issued by the Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.). To view the report, click here. The report cited several factors that helped set the stage for a large-scale bark beetle outbreak. One factor cited was the use of Wilderness designations. Specifically: “Limited accessibility of terrain (only 25% of the outbreak area was accessible due to steep slopes, lack of existing roads, and land use designations such as Wilderness that precluded treatments needed to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease).” And the report further stated: “In general, mechanized treatments are prohibited in designated wilderness areas. The Arapaho, Roosevelt, White River, and Routt National Forests in Colorado have a combined total of over one million acres of wilderness; the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming has more than 78 thousand acres. A large portion of these wilderness acres have been impacted by the current bark beetle outbreak.” Most troubling, the report states that the bark beetle outbreaks will lead to more intense fires for an “indeterminate amount of time following attack.” The AMA encourages all riders to utilize this report because it indicates that a Wilderness designation has a negative effect on the overall forest health. Vast areas of America’s public lands are already designated federal Wilderness, and the AMA urges careful scrutiny and consideration of all current and future Wilderness proposals. A special thanks goes to the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition for bringing this report to the attention of the AMA. If you are not an AMA member and care about what is affecting riders today, please join the AMA to help protect the rights of motorcyclists. More members means more clout against interests looking to end motorcycling, and your support will help the AMA fight for your rights – on the road, trail, racetrack, and in the halls of government. To join, go to www.AmericanMotorcyclist.com/membership/join. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Notice of Appeal, Turkey Springs Trail Management
|
April 24, 2012 |
||
 |
Appeal Deciding Officer |
|
|
RE: Part 215 Notice of Appeal, Turkey Springs Trail Management Record of Decision Pagosa District, US Forest Service, San Juan National Forest. The comments below are submitted in addition to the comments submitted by the San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR). It appears to the TPA and COHVCO that the past 24 months of work by the SJTR were not considered by the Pagosa District Ranger in his final record of decision. In fact it appears to us that the SJTR membership, the 24 months of work, coordinated by the district ranger were not considered in the final ROD. In addition it appears the final ROD represents a plan that does not meet the expectations conveyed by the Forests Service to the SJTR during their 24 month of work. The Organizations believe that the seasonal closure of the single track motorcycle trails for the benefit of other user groups is arbitrary and not supported by science. These seasonal closures must be reviewed and amended to provide a plan that conforms with current science and the purpose and intent of the planning. Decision Notice and FONSI Additionally, there exist numerous viable alternatives that were not properly considered by the decisionmaker as required by NEPA. These alternatives would have included designation of substantially more single track motorized trail mileage and other decision elements as offered in our comments. Seasonal Wildlife Closures “Much of the District is inaccessible to mountain bikes either by virtue of terrain limitations or through the mechanized travel prohibitions associated with formal Wilderness and special area designations: over 30 percent of the District has such a designation.” In addition, there are thousands of acres of wilderness and secure fawning and calving areas and hundreds of mile of non-motorized trails available to wildlife and non-motorized users on a year-round basis. A lack of any site-specific analysis to support closing these trails to motorized recreation in favor of non-motorized recreation leads one to conclude that this decision is both arbitrary and capricious. In addition, there is simply no scientific analysis or justification provided for the selected closing date of September 1. User Conflicts Throughout the decision and EA, ongoing user conflicts are identified as the basis for routing of trails and seasonal closures. While user conflicts are a VERY valid concern in planning, it appears that the proposition may not be relevant in the Plan. The EA notes: “While these instances of recreation conflicts have been noted by users of the analysis area, outreach efforts have also revealed that such instances are fairly isolated and have not detracted considerably from the experiences of the majority of users of this area. In recent years, partnerships have been formed between several advocacy clubs (most notably the local ATV, horseback, and mountain biking clubs) to promote shared use and care of the trails in this area. Additionally, comments were provided during the scoping period for this project praising the degree of cooperation among the different groups and a general lack of contentiousness that has been perceived to be occurring between user groups on other Forests and Districts.” While management of user conflicts appears to target OHV usage in the decision, the Organizations note that user conflicts often exist outside motorized recreation, such as between skiers and snowboarders, heli-skiers and back country skiers, hunters and non-hunters, hunters and other hunters, hikers and bikers, runners and dog walkers on urban trails, and hikers and farmers. Despite the ongoing nature of these conflicts, motorized recreation on public lands is the only area for which closure has been asserted to be properly be the first method for remedying perceived conflicts. The Forest Service is required to utilize best available science in the development of travel plans. Researchers have specifically identified that properly determining the basis for user conflict is critical to determining the proper method for managing this conflict. Scientific analysis defines the division of conflicts as follows: “For interpersonal conflict to occur, the physical presence or behavior of an individual or a group of recreationists must interfere with the goals of another individual or group….Social values conflict, on the other hand, can occur between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell&Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba& Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups……When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy. When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. In the Mt. Evans study (Vaske et al., 1995), for example, physically separating hunters from nonhunters did not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the nonhunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area resulted in the perception of conflict. For these types of situations, efforts designed to educate and inform the different visiting publics about the reasons underlying management actions may be more effective in reducing conflict.” Other researchers have distinguished types of user conflicts based on a goals interference distinction, described as follows: “The travel management planning process did not directly assess the prevalence of on-site conflict between non-motorized groups accessing and using the yurts and adjacent motorized users…..The common definition of recreation conflict for an individual assumes that people recreate in order to achieve certain goals, and defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). Therefore, conflict as goal interference is not an objective state, but is an individual’s appraisal of past and future social contacts that influences either direct or indirect conflict. It is important to note that the absence of recreational goal attainment alone is insufficient to denote the presence of conflict. The perceived source of this goal interference must be identified as other individuals.” It is significant to note that Mr. Norling’s study, cited above, was specifically created to determine why travel management had not resolved user conflicts for winter users of a group of yurts on the Wasache-Cache National forest. As noted in Mr. Norling’s study, the travel management in the areas surrounding the yurts failed to distinguish why the conflict was occurring and this failure prevented the land managers from effectively resolving the conflict. The Organizations believe that understanding why the travel management plan was unable to resolve socially based user conflicts on the Wasache-Cache National Forest is critical in the CRVO planning process. Properly understanding the issue to be resolved will ensure that the same errors that occurred on the Wasache-Cache are not implemented again to address problems they simply cannot resolve. The EA relies on documents that accurately address these user conflict issues but the decision fails to head the warnings of these works and relevant social sciences. The EA specifically provides: “The greatest potential impact involves disruptions to hunters and hunting experiences, especially in areas that currently receive little to no motorized use but are known to be used by big game hunters (primarily the Devil Mountain, Horse Mountain, Horse Creek, and Elk Creek areas). As is well documented, the presence of motorized vehicles and users in forest environments can detract from the experiences of non-motorized users during encounters, including hunters (Yankoviak 2005 and Moore 1994). It can be reasonably anticipated that, because hunters would be exposed to greater levels of motorized use as a result of this alternative (both by virtue of the new trails being designated and the overall increase in motorized use predicted), some measure of impact to hunting experiences and opportunities is probable relating to the sounds of motorized vehicles, the potential effects on game presence in certain areas, and direct encounters with motorized users.” The Organizations agree that the Yankoviak paper does discuss various user conflicts and wildlife disturbances. The Organizations have to note that the clearly stated conclusions of the Yankoviak paper agree with the social science determinations noted above as the paper concludes: “In terms of meeting the needs of a wide variety of recreationists, it is important for managers to evaluate ORV opportunities at a larger geographic scale. If nothing else, the relative availabilities of motorized and non-motorized opportunities in one forest may extend to other areas…… Consequently, ORV planning should be done across jurisdictional boundaries within a defined geographic area. At the very least, such arrangements would discourage situations where decisions made for the benefit of one party have equally harmful consequences for another (as, for example, when the closure of one area to ORVs aggravates the loading on another area). If nothing else, local Forest Service officials should be cognizant of how user-friendly the travel management plans are, as the average visitor is not going to be as familiar with regional, forest, or district boundaries as are Forest Service personnel. As things now stand, management plans too often seem to rely too heavily on boundaries that visitors are unlikely to be able to recognize.” The Organizations have to believe that the current decisions proposal for the resolution of possible user conflicts by closing only single track motorcycle trails for the benefit of hunters and wildlife directly contradicts the conclusions of the research that is relied on to justify these closures by relying on boundaries that may not be visible to forest users and relying on these boundaries to make land use decisions to the exclusion of certain users. Summary A 2005 National Survey on Recreation and Environment for the Forest Service’s National OHV Policy and Implementation team found that 26% of adults in Colorado participate in OHV recreation activities (NSRE 2005). The reason that some national use monitoring surveys in the national forests find declining levels of OHV use is because national forests continue to reduce and eliminate trails available for motorized use. Sales of OHV vehicles continue to rise while public lands available for motorized use continue to decline. The Trails Preservation Alliance respectfully requests withdrawal of the Turkey Springs Trail Management decision to analyze the demand for and possible addition of single-track trail miles. As has been proven in the past, our members and other members of the single-track motorized community will work in close cooperation with the Pagosa Ranger District to ensure responsible riding and trail sustainability. The point of contact for this appeal is Don Riggle, Director of Operations, TPA, driggle10@msn.com, and cell 719 338 4106
note: download PDF for detailed references |
||
|
|
||
Letter to Colorado Legislators in reply to Backcountry Hunters letter
|
April 23, 2012 |
||
|
To:
Senator Mark Udall Senator Michael Bennet Congressman Scott Tipton Congressman Cory Gardner Congresswoman Diana DeGette Congressman Jared Polis Congressman Ed Perlmutter Congressman Mike Coffman Congressman Doug Lamborn Dear Members of the Colorado Legislative Delegation; We are contacting your offices to reply to the correspondence from the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and other organizations dated February 25, 2012. This correspondence asserted a need for Congressional action to create a consistent set off highway vehicle (“OHV”) identification numbers. We have enclosed a copy of this correspondence (“the letter”) for your reference. We are compelled to address several issues critical to the discussion that are overlooked in the letter. The first critical component overlooked in the letter is the law enforcement concerns identified are already effectively managed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”) OHV registration program. Our Organizations have been vigorous supporters of this registration program since its inception, as responsible use of public lands is key for continued access to the world renown recreational activities that Colorado has provided. We believe that violation of the travel management rules is not responsible usage of public lands and should be investigated by law enforcement. The CPW OHV registration program was started in 1991 and each OHV used on either state or federal public lands must be annually registered with the CPW at a cost of $25.25 per vehicle. The CPW OHV registration program has provided almost $30,000,000 in grants to federal land management agencies and their partners for the maintenance and management of multiple use trails on public lands. The Colorado OHV registration has been identified as a model of its kind in OHV registration programs. The letter also overlooks the issue that stickers issued by CPW already comply with federal laws for issuance of state OHV registrations. Each OHV is issued a 3×3 sticker of highly visible coloring from CPW with a vehicle specific identification number to be prominently displayed on designated locations on each OHV. These stickers provide the ID number in black block lettering on a white background with a high visibility color as the boundary. The color of the boundary changes annually and from State to State to allow for easy identification of registered vehicles. Simply identifying the common location for placement of these stickers significantly contributes to identification of violators. The size of the OHV sticker issued by CPW is based on federal laws for such stickers and the need for efficiency in issuance of these stickers by state agencies. This uniformity of stickers also allows consistent placement of sticker across state boundaries. The registration decals issued by CPW for OHVs and snowmobiles are the same decals used for vessel registrations also issued by CPW. The US Coast Guard, by federal regulation, mandates the size of the state’s vessel registration validation decal. CPW registration stickers use the same registration certificates and validation decals for vessels, OHVs and snowmobiles and to cost effectively meet the US Coast Guard mandate. This allows law enforcement to consistently identify a single sticker, regardless of the type of vehicle, and streamlines enforcement. The letter overlooks a second critical component of sticker size. OHV users frequently use their vehicle in multiple states, and each state requires purchase of a separate OHV sticker for use on public lands, both state and federal. OHV riders are more than willing to pay for a home state registration and out of state permits as the bulk of any state registration/permit money goes to on the ground management of resources for OHV use on public lands. If the registration stickers become significantly larger physically, it simply may not be possible to display each states sticker on the OHV, as many only have small body panels. The choice of paint and graphics on a vehicle is of significant importance to some riders, as they are willing to pay premiums for certain colors or graphics packages. Those with plated motor vehicles may also be unwilling to add additional large stickers to painted surfaces, as these are often difficult to remove and impair resale values at trade in. As previously noted, each state issues OHV registration stickers with high visibility colors surrounding the identification number. The color of the boundary surrounding each sticker is a critical component of the sticker, as this allows law enforcement personnel to rapidly and easily distinguish between stickers issued by various states. This high visibility boundary also separates black and white identification numbers from other graphics on the OHV. Making these stickers significantly larger will force riders to chose what states stickers they are displaying to avoid overlap of stickers. This situation could force riders to buy a home state registration, only to then have to cover that sticker with another states they may chose to vacation in and then need to purchase a new registration in order to display a valid registration when returning home from vacation. This conflict will not encourage riders to buy OHV registrations. The letter also fails to address the recently released conclusions from the Law Enforcement Pilot program conducted by CPW which found violations in only 1.5% of OHV riders that were contacted. The OHV law enforcement pilot program was created to address assertions of a compelling need to stop resource damage from OHV misuse at locations identified as violation “hotspots” by those seeking to limit public access to public lands. This program deployed additional trained professional law enforcement officers, funded by funds from the OHV registration funds, at 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 summer, officers involved in the pilot program contacted over 10,000 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. Larger OHV numbers will not address people forgetting to register their OHV, they still will not remember. Only 1.5% of contacts involved activities where the officer found the activity serious enough to warrant the issuance of a citation. It should also be noted that this report never mentions the inability of any officer to identify the OHV riders due to a lack of ID number. The CPW Law Enforcement pilot also contained a program almost identical to the theory discussed in the letter. The pilot program trained members of the general public to photograph various maintenance issues and violations that they encountered on the trails. Part of this training involved training each member of the public where the state issued ID numbers were displayed on each OHV. Reports from these layperson enforcement were then compiled and if there was a violation forwarded to various law enforcement agencies for further investigation. Over the course of the citizen patrols, a wide range of issues that were encountered, none of which involved the ability to identify violators. Given the lack of trouble identifying violators with existing identification numbers, training on where to look on the OHV for these numbers appears to play a role in public enforcement. This type of training does not require any federal action as these mechanisms are again in place through the CPW registration program. While the letter creates what appears to be a valid discussion of the need for OHV registration numbers, the letter simply overlooks numerous issues critical to the discussion. When these critical components are addressed, we believe the need for the OHV registration numbers is seriously mitigated. These critical components clearly prove state registration programs are a cost effective method for the identification of violators in the backcountry. Given the number of serious threats that are facing the country, our organizations have to question the need for development of this legislation or national standard as the state registration program is an effective and efficient tool for addressing the concerns voiced in the letter. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Jones, Acting Chairman Don Riggle, Chairman Randall R. Miller, President Mish Clancey , President note: original letter from BHA is attached at end of PDF |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
Trail Creek Watershed
|
April 16, 2012 |
||
|
South Platte Ranger District
Trail Creek Road and Trail Work 19316 Goddard Ranch Court Morrison, CO 80465 RE: Trail Creek Watershed road and trail project Dear Planning Staff; Please accept this correspondence as the initial joint response to the above public notice of the open scoping period. This is a joint response from the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off highway Vehicle Coalition (CORVCO). For purposes of these comments, CORVCO and TPA will be collectively referred to as “The Organizations”. The Organizations represent the majority of the off road vehicle users in the state and have a long history of working with the USFS and BLM on off road recreation issues. The history and work of the TPA can be accessed at www.coloradotpa.org, COHVCO can be found at www.cohvco.org. Our remarks are consolidated to allow the USFS to understand the severity of our concerns about the above public notice. ORV recreation is a growing sport in Colorado, and actions to reduce existing areas to ORV recreation, will only result in over use of the remaining areas. As a result, the Organizations believe it is critical that ORV resources in this area do not drop below levels provided prior to the Hayman Fire. The TPA and CORVCO are willing to work with the FS on all issues in the “717” area. Length of initial comment/scoping period The Organizations had initial concern regarding the exceptionally short notice 14 day period provided in the initial scoping notice published in The Gazette. While 14 days is theoretically enough time to comment, actual notice of the comment period was not brought to our attention until hours before the technical comment end. While the Gazette is read by our members, the review is often less than complete when notices are reviewed. Please don’t interpret our members lack of interest in the notice as a lack of interest in the riding opportunities that were lost as a result of the fire. Our concerns on this issue were mitigated by the fact that the District is willing to accept comments submitted after this comment period. Our concerns are further mitigated by our understanding that an additional 30 comment period is going to be provided for scoping in the near future. Our involvement in numerous Forest Service plans throughout the state, has highlighted one critical issue in the scoping process. If there is even the possibility that the public has not been aware of the project form the beginning, any closure, no matter how minimal will be viewed by certain groups as closing public lands to the public. This perception, no matter how incorrect it is or good the plan is overall, can be very hard to remove from any plan. Without true public comment and involvement in the planning process, a quality result simply cannot be developed. Background As noted above, knowledge of the scoping period was somewhat limited. The Organizations learned of the comment period when a member of our Organizations forwarded his proposed comments to us for reference. We totally support the attached letter from Mr. William Alspach, his engineering expertise and detailed knowledge of the “717” area are such that the USFS should take notice of his recommendations for both the technical engineering aspects of the FS plan, and also for his comments on the proposed OHV closures and re routes. Instead of rewording the detailed remarks of Mr. Alspach, our comments are going to cover the real world ramifications of the proposed FS plan. The entire “717” area is a prime OHV recreation area for all types of OHV’s (ATV, Me, 4wd). It is heavily used by all, year round, and is a great positive economic factor to the local mountain communities. The “717” was dealt a drastic destruction during the Hayman fire. (USFS personnel started). A significant portion of the area was destroyed and closed to OHV recreation. And the majority of it remains closed today. These closures only increased the recreation use on the remaining areas that were left open. Many meetings and discussions have taken place since the fire, about when will areas be re opened, trails rebuilt, etc. Most discussions on these topics ends up in a discussion about lack of resource of the FS to reopen to the original OHV recreation routes. You combined this with the fact that the “717”, is a primary beneficiary of significant State Parks OHV funding, for both the maintenance of the area and also for the inventory of the area. And now you are proposing major closures of areas that have benefited from the OHV funding. Please keep in mind that we are the only recreation group that pays for our form of recreation. The Organizations both request that the FS provide detailed explanations of why this work is needed. We also request that NEP A be conducted for all closures, decommissioning actions and any re routes. You current plan and limited explanation of the proposed work is not acceptable. Route specific concerns The Organizations believe that most route specific concerns are addressed in Mr. Alspach’s correspondence. The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the fact that under the current preferred alternative of the plan, FSR366 will simply dead end north of Trail 717, rather than connect to Route 3. Both FSR 725 and 366 are closed without exploration of possible reroutes in the area to maintain this connectivity and loop opportunities. This is simply unacceptable and will create a trail that will be ripe for closure in future planning efforts since it is a dead end. Conclusion & Recommendations The Organizations look forward to partnering with the FS to maintain access to the recreational opportunities that were provided before the Hayman Fire. This access will be critical to quality recreational opportunities for all forest users. With this in mind, the Organizations propose the following: 1. No decomissioning, closures, reroutes in the “717” area be conducted until all original “717′ OHV recreation routes destroyed by the Hayman fire are returned to a standard that will allow complete OHV recreation access; 2. For any closures or existing OHV reroutes, that a mile for mile exchange be made, you close one mile of OHV routes, then the FS open up an equivalent mile of OHV routes; 3. FSR 366 must not be decommissioned in such a manner as to leave a dead end trail; 4. The FS should hold public meetings on this issue, and form an ad hoc committee of local OHV recreation personnel ( ATV, Me, 4wd) to work with the FS. This will allow public “buy in” and understanding of what issues the FS has and what actions can be taken other than closures of routes; and 5. Since State Park OHV funds have been spent in this area, no trails or roads that have benefited 6. We request a complete listing of all “non system” routes that are going to be closed with this planned action, and that they remain open until the entire pre fire OHV routes are reestablished. Please accept our comments. Any questions should be directed to the below, and will be disseminated as needed. Thank you, note: see attached PDF for referenced letter from Mr. William Alspach |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
Update on Colorado Access Lawsuits
|
April 6, 2012 |
||
|
There have been some developments in the Forest Service travel management suits winding their way through the U.S. District of Colorado and the Colorado State Parks Lawsuit.
Pike /San Isabel The first suit was filed on January 31, 2011 by anti-access plaintiffs including The Wilderness Society, Quiet Use Coalition, Wildlands CPR, Center for Native Ecosystems and Great Old Broads for Wilderness regarding the Pike and San Isabel Forests. COHVCO and TPA intervened with the Forest Service to defend this lawsuit which could impact every MVUM that has grandfathered existing usages. These defense expenses are being born solely by Colorado OHV advocacy groups. This case seeks to remove any trails that predated NEPA and were grandfathered in the creation of PSI MVUMs. The exact impact of this suit is yet to be clarified but this suit could impact trails such as the Blanca Peak 4wd trail. The case was before Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane on March 20, 2011 over a dispute about the administrative record. Plaintiffs moved to strike ten (10) documents from the administrative record, contending they were after-the-fact oral recounts from Forest Service personnel. On March 30, 2012 Judge Kane issued an order agreeing with the plaintiffs and striking the documents, but stating that the Forest Service could file a motion before April 13, 2012 to have the materials considered via completion or supplementation of the record. The first brief on the merits of the legal challenges to the Pike and San Isabel travel maps will be due 60 days after the administrative record issues are resolved. So if the Forest Service does not file the motion to add the extra record materials the merits will be briefed starting in June, 2012. If the Forest Service files the motion briefing will likely not occur until this fall. Rico/West DeLores While the second suit on the Rico West Dolores Area of the San Juan Forest was filed later it is moving at a much faster pace. This case is being brought by Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and seeks closure of 14 trails which have long been open to motorized travel in the area known as the Alpine Triangle. COHVCO, The Trails Preservation Alliance, Blue Ribbon Coalition, the San Juan Trail Riders and the Public Access Preservation Association and intervened to defend this matter with the Forest Service. Notwithstanding this long history of motorized usage, the plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction closing these trails before June 1, 2012. The Forest Service will respond to the preliminary injunction motion on April 25th and OHV Intervenors COHVCO et al will respond on April 30th. The plaintiffs will get a reply on May 14th and have asked for oral argument on their motion sometime in late May. The motion for preliminary injunction has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and one which we intend to vigorously oppose. To get an injunction CBHA must not only show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, but also that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction, and that the balance of hardships and public interest tip in favor of granting an injunction. It is essential that the OHV and multiple use community provide strong support for the advocacy effort so that we can assist the Forest Service in successfully repelling this anti-access attack. State Parks Board COHVCO was forced to sue the Colorado State Parks Board after there were numerous proposals to provide money paid for OHV registrations for grants that were outside the scope of authority of the State OHV statute. The Trails Preservation Alliance has partnered with COHVCO to split the significant costs of this suit. These illegal uses included funding municipal law enforcement that could be used for a variety of non-motorized activities and maintenance of non-motorized trails. During this process, several violations of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law occurred. These violations were admitted by the State. The Judge unfortunately did not grasp details and seemed predisposed to let the agency off the hook Despite the admission of the Open Meetings Law violations the District Court ruled against COHVCO on all issues. This decision is being appealed and we hope for a better outcome at the appeals court level. The Appeal brief in the appeal is not due till October. The draft appeal documents have been reviewed and submitted to the Court- our outlook is very optimistic for a ruling in our favor on this issue |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
Letter to USDA in opposition of the report entitled “A Comprehensive Framework…”
|
March 9, 2012 |
||
|
Letter to USDA in opposition of the report entitled:
“A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Management”
|
|
| 101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 800W Washington, DC 20001 (P) 202-742-4301 (F) 202-742-4304 March 9, 2012 The Honorable Tom Vilsack Dear Secretary Vilsack: We, the undersigned, believe that this new Report may result in a deleterious relationship between the responsible motorized community and the USDA. According to the introduction in the Report, the purpose of the document is to “… help OHV trail managers develop sustainable trails and protect the environment surrounding the trails.” We agree that this is a worthy goal and appreciate the intentions of the USDA. However, the Report only serves to strengthen the current underlying apprehension of our community toward the USDA and other federal stakeholders with regard to trail management. While the author references many OHV groups and associations, we understand that the USDA or any other federal agency associated with this document never consulted with the motorized community in the Report’s initial planning and review process. We find this to be disconcerting, since the Report focuses on OHV trail management. The author acknowledges two non-governmental groups (International Mountain Bicycling Association [IMBA] and Alaska Trails) as experts in OHV trail management. Although IMBA is not an OHV expert per se, its trail management materials and techniques are respected because of the similarities in design considerations. Without being mentioned in the acknowledgement section, the author does mention within the Report two examples of excellent OHV management materials made available by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC). They are the following: the AMA Off-Highway Motorcycle & ATV Trails Guidelines for Design, Construction, Maintenance and User Satisfaction; and the NOHVCC Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation. A group that is not mentioned in the acknowledgement section, but is cited numerous times throughout the Report, is Wildlands CPR. This group has extreme and radical opinions concerning the use of OHVs. For example, Wildlands CPR calls for OHV reform because “Off-road vehicles can go nearly anywhere, killing and harassing wildlife and destroying vegetation.” The group also states on its website that, “As a result of our on-going efforts, so far (with 47 decisions still to come), the Forest Service has removed 7,890 miles of roads and motorized trails from the designated travel system, and refused to designate 28,679 miles of user-created routes.” Why does the U.S. Forest Service cite such a radical and extreme group for an official federal report that should be fact based and neutral? The author goes further and adopts the Wildlands CPR’s entire Environmental Analysis, which correlates OHVs and the use of trails with climate change. In fact, the Report states that OHV use causes “increase[s] in frequency and intensity of weather events.” A statement such as this transcends the realm of rationality. In the Appendix D: Best Management Practices of the Report, the author admits to citing a Wildlands CPR document (“Best Management Practices for Off-Road Vehicle Use On Forestlands”) that is anti-OHV for the basis of best management practices. For example, the Appendix references a Wildlands CPR proposal that no routes/trails should be allowed in “citizen or agency proposed wilderness … and other lands with wilderness character.” This best management practice usurps congressional authority in the process to designate Wilderness. Only Congress can designate Wilderness. Moreover, “wilderness characteristics” was the defining language used to describe the Department of the Interior’s “Wild Lands” policy. Furthermore, the Report concludes with a paragraph that indicates a bias of the author against the OHV community. The author states, “This framework was developed to help trail managers corral the OHV management dragon. The author hopes it has provided some insight into the nature of OHV trails and some tools to help keep the beast at bay. Happy herding and happy trails!” We find this statement derogatory and unfitting to be in an official government report. We understand this Report was issued and made available to the many agencies within the federal government, but has since been pulled from the USFS website. Based on our aforementioned concerns, we applaud the USDA for this action. However, we have questions about what is coming next concerning republishing this Report. Will our areas of concern be addressed or will there be a disclaimer? Our groups believe a disclaimer is insufficient because the material sourced from Wildlands CPR is not supported with scientifically based data and should not be included in the Report. We encourage the USDA to continue to engage the public in its deliberations on trail management. Our members stand ready to serve as a resource for you as you further consider the future composition of the Report. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to receiving your timely response to the questions and comments above. All-Terrain Vehicle Association Cc: The Honorable Jon Jarvis Victor M. Mendez
|
||
|
|
||
Economic impact of expanding Wilderness designations
|
March 2, 2012 |
||
|
Economic impact of expanding Wilderness designations This is the TPA and COHVCO initial reponse to the Udall’s plan to make more wildernesses in Colorado. |
|
| Federal lands designated as Wilderness are the most restricted, least available public lands in the country, as these areas are supposed to reflect the lands in an “untrammeled by man” way. Over 20% of the Colorado mountains are currently managed as Wilderness. Wilderness areas impose significant limitations on use that often directly conflicts with the public’s increasing desire for access to public lands. The simple fact is most people will never set foot in a federally designated Wilderness area, as there is no access for most users of public lands. The negative economic impacts of Wilderness restrictions to adjacent communities caused the Utah State Legislature to adopt a resolution requesting the federal government not to designate additional Wilderness in the state due to the negative economic impacts. Wilderness limitations result in thousands of dollars in lost salary to families and tens of thousands in lost payroll and revenue for local communities to maintain roads and operate schools. Our Organizations are compelled to voice our concerns on these issues in response to the Wilderness proposal from Senator Udall.
Our Organizations share many of the same concerns that prompted the Utah Legislature to act and believe these concerns have been completely overlooked in the creation of the most recent Wilderness proposal from Senator Udall’s Office. Senator Udall’s proposal would create an additional 235,000 acres of designated Wilderness, mainly in Summit, Eagle and Pitkin counties, closing areas that currently have extensive trail networks and a wide range of recreational resources. These closures would result in significant negative economic impacts that simply are not addressed in Senator Udall’s proposal. The proposal also fails to explain why more restrictions are needed beyond noting a certain user group likes the area, and does not want the public to disturb them. This is not the basis for good management of public lands. While most people think of a wilderness as a large forest area where recreational opportunities are plentiful and easily accessed with campgrounds providing the ability to drive to a fishing hole, dispersed recreation, biking and family trips. Unfortunately these opportunities are almost completely excluded after federal designation of the area as Wilderness. A federally designated Wilderness area is an area that may only be accessed by horse or foot without basic facilities for recreation and maybe not be flown over by aircraft. People have been arrested for crash landing hand gliders on areas designated as Wilderness. Motor vehicles and mechanized travel is strictly forbidden in designated Wilderness areas, and until recently could not even be used for emergency response for injured people in the area. Even for emergency response actions, federal approval is needed before the emergency responders can access the Wilderness. The restrictions from designated Wilderness have significant negative economic impacts on communities adjacent to the Wilderness areas, as federal planners estimate that 85% of people who do not find the type of recreation they are looking for will simply move on seeking the recreation rather than change. The closure of these areas for 85% of users can have drastic economic impacts to communities, as most Colorado communities are solely reliant on tourism as more traditional industries are no longer present. These negative economic impacts add up rather rapidly. A recent Utah State study found that counties with significant Wilderness designations average $1,446 less in per household income, $37,500 less in average payroll and generated $92,900 less in tax revenue than similarly located counties. These are some very scary numbers when you realize that almost every county west of Denver has significant designated Wilderness in their jurisdictions. This data is simply not addressed in any of the Senators assertions of economic benefit from the closures provided in the proposal. The expansion of federally designated Wilderness areas is even more troubling when other restrictions on public lands usage are taken into account, as many other management designations preclude the use of motor vehicles. These areas include areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic rivers, special interest areas, erroneously managed roadless areas and areas that simply preclude motorized access for social reasons. Recent proposals and decisions for several federal planning offices have closed between 40% and 55% of existing trails that remain on the small portion of those planning areas where motorized access is still allowed. These areas are becoming ever more critical to public access as areas that have historically been open to all members of the public are closed in favor of a small portion of the public. The expansion of federally designated Wilderness boundaries in Senator Udall’s proposal also directly undermines the years of public involvement and dozens of public meetings that occurred in the development of the Colorado Roadless Rule. While the Wilderness proposal nakedly asserts broad public support, the outreach is almost non-existent when compared to the years of true public input obtained for development of the Colorado Roadless Rule. The Organizations believe that the extensive on the ground analysis that occurred with the Roadless proposal must be taken into account with the Wilderness proposal. When the Wilderness proposal areas are compared to the publicly developed roadless area, only a small fraction of the Wilderness proposal area was found even suitable for the lesser level of protection provided with a roadless designation. The increasing age of the American population also weighs heavily against reducing motorized access to public lands. Retirees have significant time and resources available to access public lands for recreation. While there are some persons who can continue hiking long distances after retirement we don’t think this is the normal user or that this user group is of sufficient size to expand motorized closures beyond the existing levels of closures. Most users simply don’t want to hike all day to cast their line into a stream only a few times because they need to start walking back or have to pass on obtaining a trophy elk or deer simply because they are unable to remove it in any other manner than on foot. These needs for motorized access simply are not addressed in the proposal. The Presidents America’s Great Outdoors initiative seeks to expand and develop the American populations connection with public lands to develop health and fitness. This initiative also weighs against motorized closures, as motorized access is by far and away the most common means for the first time user of public lands to become aware of the resources and opportunities that are provided. Research indicates that a couple of hours of slow to moderate motorized recreation is comparable to an extended workout in a gym. The Organizations believe that this alternative is a significantly more desirable experience for most users than a more traditional gym workout. The motor vehicle is an integral part of all portions of our life including recreation. Designating more lands where people will not have motor vehicle access will not alter this characteristic of our society. The Forest Service’s Rural Development office recently found that a developed trail system open to all users was a significant economic contributor to small communities and these trails should not be limited for any one user group. This position is supported by Colorado State Parks data that indicates users demands for a motor vehicle as part of their recreational experience has increased over 150% since 1990. While there are forest uses that do not require a motor vehicle, research indicates that the number of people pursuing these activities have significantly declined since the early 1990’s. This decline has created a supply of these resources that already far exceeds public demand. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also has addressed the economic impact of designating Wilderness. While the Fish and Wildlife service found that wildlife watching was a significant contributor to the Colorado economy, they also found that over 60% of this benefit directly resulted from people purchasing trucks, campers, OHV’s and boats as part of this pursuit.
|
||
|
|
||
Executive summary of the Colorado OHV Law Enforcement Program
| |
February 24, 2012 |
|
|
Colorado’s Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Trail Program
Colorado’s Off-Highway Vehicle Program is statutorily created in sections 33-14.5-101 to 33-14.5-113, Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and trail use permits. It is estimated that over 160,000 vehicles will be registered or permitted in the 2012-2013 season generating revenues in excess of $4 million. The price of an annual OHV registration or OHV trail use permits issued for out-of-state or licensed vehicles is $25.25. Funds are used to support the statewide OHV Program, the OHV Registration Program and OHV Trail Grant Program, including OHV law enforcement. Registration and use permit revenues are deposited into the OHV Recreation Fund authorized by section 33-14.5-106, CRS. The 2011 OHV Law Enforcement Pilot Program The OHV Law Enforcement Pilot Program was initiated by the State Parks Division and the State Parks Board as part of a strategic initiative designed to address questions and concerns raised by critics of OHV recreation on public lands in Colorado. The matter of OHV riding on public lands in Colorado and OHV enthusiasts’ compliance with OHV riding regulations had been a frequent topic of concern brought before the State Parks Board in 2009 and 2010. The State Parks Board approved the OHV strategic process in May, 2010. The OHV draft Law Enforcement Pilot Program plan was subsequently developed in accordance with the approved strategic process and its startup endorsed by the Parks Board in March, 2011. The 2011 Off-highway Vehicle Law Enforcement Pilot Program featured four major elements: a seasonal law enforcement detail under the direction of the Colorado State Parks motorized trail unit; two law enforcement details under the direction of the Forest Service and the BLM, respectively; and a citizen based, peer-compliance initiative implemented by the Responsible Recreation Foundation. A steering group representing the Forest Service, BLM, the State Park Trails Program, the Responsible Recreation Foundation and the Colorado Recreational Trails Committee coordinated field operations and deployments of law enforcement teams for the duration of the pilot program. Deployments focused on high use OHV riding areas throughout Colorado and areas of concern identified by environmental interest groups. The principle focus of this effort was a comprehensive assessment of Colorado’s OHV compliance and law enforcement needs. The program gathered compliance information and data related to approved travel management plans, signage, OHV registration requirements and designated OHV trails. Specifically, the law enforcement teams were not required to address or fix infrastructure needs such as signage replacement or repairs, trail maintenance or repairs or performing trail closures. Pilot Program participants, particularly the State Park OHV Ranger Teams carefully documented matters like signage adequacy, route closure and trail maintenance needs and reported those findings to the appropriate land management agency. Funding for this effort was estimated to be $630,000 with the bulk of the work slated to be performed during the 2011 summer and fall recreation seasons. Funding for the project was drawn from the OHV Recreation Fund and was set aside in Fiscal Year 2011. The actual cost of the program was approximately $310,000. All of the data and information generated by the project’s participants has been incorporated into this summary report. The data and observations documented by the project demonstrate excellent compliance with OHV rules and regulations throughout Colorado by the OHV riders contacted in the field by the program’s participants. Over 10,000 individual OHV riders were stopped and inspected by the pilot program’s participants. A total of 290 warnings and 125 citations were issued to OHV riders who failed to comply with OHV registration requirements including failure to have or display a valid OHV registration or permit, expired OHV registrations, or failure to have proof of a valid OHV registration on hand. A total of 109 warnings and 35 citations were issued for non-registration related violations including minors (youth ten or older) riding OHVs not under the direct supervision by a person who possessed a valid driver’s license issued by the State of Colorado or another state, unsafe operation such as speeding, equipment or sound violations, operating an OHV on a public street or road not authorized for OHV access or other miscellaneous OHV operator violations. Five (5) warnings and seven (7) citations were issued to OHV operators who were found to be operating off of a designated OHV trail or roadway. No custodial arrests were made and little off-trail damage was noted by the State Park Rangers or the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) employed by the Forest Service or BLM under the OHV Law Enforcement Pilot Program. The percentage of the warnings and citations issued versus the total number of OHV riders stopped and checked by the pilot program officers are as follows: % of OHV riders contacted who received a warning or citation (571); 5.3 % % of OHV riders contacted receiving a warning or citation not related to registrations (156); 1.5 % % of OHV riders receiving a warning or a citation for operating off of designated routes (12); .12 % The Responsible Recreation Foundation (RRF) implemented the Colorado Trail Patrol Program as a peer-to-peer compliance monitoring effort under the pilot program. Over the course of the 2011 summer and fall recreation season, RRF trained 265 volunteer monitors and logged 940 hours monitoring roads and trails on public lands in Colorado. Most of the RRF trained monitors were full-sized vehicle operators and therefore spent most of their time on roads traveled by 4×4 vehicles. Many of the trained monitors did not log their observations. When RRF surveyed those individuals to determine the reasons for not utilizing the on-line reporting system, most responded to say they either forgot or were too busy upon returning home to record their observations. In total, over 100 reports were recorded with 75 incidents reported. As with the State Park Rangers, and BLM and Forest Service LEOs, most incident reports identified trail maintenance and signage needs as the principal trail/road problems. Monitors also reported observing four (4) vehicles that were off-trail. The collective recommendations and observations of the pilot program field crews and citizen monitors can be summarized into five general categories: Trail Maintenance Issues – The greatest demand and need as observed by all pilot program field teams was for OHV trail maintenance throughout Colorado. Downed trees, pools of water created by poor drainage or inadequate drainage structures, and snow banks are regarded by most riders as obstacles to be avoided. Typical behavior is for OHV riders to avoid those obstacles in taking the path of least resistance or around the obstacle and outside the trail’s path. This leads to trail braiding or trail widening where the obstacles persist. Elimination of these obstacles, the repair and replacement of failed drainage features, and the hardening of erosive or chronically wet soils would greatly curtail the creation of new routes or bypasses along established trails created to avoid problem areas. Signage Issues – The pilot program documented the need for better and more uniform signage along OHV trails and at trail head/parking areas statewide. Signage that informs riders on OHV trail routes, route navigation, degree of trail difficulty, responsible use practices, trail use and access allowances, and route closures is universally needed across the state. In many established riding areas, signage was old and not legible, vandalized or inconsistent to the point it was difficult to navigate trail systems. Urban Interface Areas – OHV riding areas located near urban centers receive higher concentrations of OHV use than Colorado’s more remote riding locations due to convenience, and ease of access. New or inexperienced riders may frequent these areas in higher numbers due to their lack of knowledge of other riding opportunities. This phenomenon exists for non-motorized trail use as well. These areas naturally require a higher level of maintenance and attention. Problems with trail maintenance, signage, vandalism, regulatory compliance, and user satisfaction with riding opportunities are greater in these areas. Rangers observed a greater frequency of user conflicts between user groups (e.g., full-sized vehicles versus ATVs and motorcycles seeking trail riding experiences, persons seeking non-motorized trail access versus motorized and unique special interest access interests such as target shooting and trash disposal versus trail use advocates). There is a distinct need to foster the development of well-managed OHV riding parks close to Colorado’s urban centers. Dedicated OHV parks can be operated to provide riding opportunities that will educate and promote responsible riding practices while eliminating conflicts with other recreational uses. Education – The riding public’s reaction to the presence of the OHV law enforcement agents was very positive in almost every instance. Riders’ reception of the State Park Rangers was very positive because they were seen out riding trails and viewed as true trail “ambassadors.” The overwhelming majority of persons stopped in the field expressed their support for seeing OHV law enforcement agents in the field and on the trails. Thousands of Motor Vehicle Use Maps were distributed and thousands of questions related to OHV regulations as well as questions related to other backcountry use regulations were addressed. The opportunity to educate was a direct benefit of the OHV Law Enforcement Pilot Program. The mere presence of rangers and LEOs promoted dialogue and exchanges with the riding public enabling communication on riding rules and responsible use principles such as “Stay the Trail” and “Leave No Trace.” Active and Holistic OHV Trail and Support Facility Management – Given the results of the pilot program in 2011, a conclusion that can be drawn from this effort is that neither trail maintenance alone, or signage alone, or law enforcement alone, do not represent the single greatest OHV management need Colorado. Rather, broad-scale or holistic management approaches have been shown to be the most effective way to address the management needs for OHV riding areas. The deployment of dedicated crews that are familiar with the areas they attend to and that are trained and equipped to address maintenance, signage and law enforcement needs is the most cost effective and efficient method to managing Colorado’s OHV riding areas. Good Management Trail Crews routinely employ multiple management approaches while protecting environmentally sensitive areas such as stream crossings and steeply sloped areas with erodible soils. Since 99% of the OHV riding areas in Colorado are on federal lands, it is important to recognize that local federal land managers prefer this approach because it provides flexibility to react to multiple, and often times, changing priorities. The data collected through the OHV Law Enforcement Pilot Program documented excellent compliance with OHV riding rules and regulations in every OHV riding area patrolled by pilot program participants. The program documented little environmental damage caused by OHV riding on public lands throughout Colorado. The State Park Rangers who rode trails in almost every OHV riding area in Colorado documented numerous projects completed with OHV grant assistance that served to protect sensitive environmental resources on Colorado’s public lands. The actual pilot project cost was approximately 50% less than originally estimated. Trail maintenance, education, and signage were viewed as the highest priorities needed to improve rider compliance and OHV riding experiences in Colorado’s designated OHV riding areas. Utilization of dedicated trail crews with law enforcement capabilities was thought to be the most effective delivery system for the priorities identified. Download the PDF to read the entire report and see the charts & graphics.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Trails Preservation Alliance 2011 End of Year Report
|
February 15, 2012 |
||
|
Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) |
|
| This end of year report provides a quick look at TPA challenges, progress and focus throughout 2011. For further details, the TPA web site news section has the issues listed in detail. Overall, it is best to say that 2011 was a year of mixed results. On the positive side, our working relationship with the White River National Forest (WRNF) improved – we hope this leads to more Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) recreation opportunities. The WRNF is the largest National Forest (NF) in Colorado, but has the least amount of motorized recreation opportunities – we would like to see this changed.
The TPA helped start two new motorcycle clubs in Colorado in 2011 – both groups having direct involvement with their local Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management (FS/BLM) to help in our goal of increasing OHV recreation. We have worked very closely with the western slope of Colorado, in the Rico/ Dolores area and with the BLM in the Gateway and De Beque areas. On other issues, we were not satisfied with the Travel Management Planning / Motor Vehicle Use Map (TMP/MVUM) from the Gunnison National Forest (GNF) planning process. We are currently working with the local motorcycle club and GNF staff (BLM/FS) to determine if some historic motorized trails closed under TMP might be considered for reopening. The TPA also worked on many other issues with the FS and BLM as detailed on your TPA web pages. In these cases, TPA worked directly with local clubs as they, in turn, work with their respective FS and BLM local staff. 2011 was a year full of challenges and successes. Because of the election, 2012 will prove to be even more challenging. Land issues and public access to public property will probably be greatly abused during the election process. We need active support from the entire OHV community if we are to keep moving forward in our quest for public recreation on public property. TPA and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) partnered to address many OHV issues in Colorado in 2011. So many issues/problems exist that no single organization can possibly address the issues on their own. The TPA and COHVCO share the same mission when it comes to motorcycle trail riding; therefore, expect to see continued mutual support arrangements in all of our work. Both organizations are committed to monitoring and preserving access to public property. The TPA continues to be an all-volunteer organization. The only personnel paid are on our legal review team. We also fund necessary lawsuits (we use a law firm for all formal correspondence with the FS and BLM) and pay specific subject matter experts/consultants to provide expert knowledge on key issues. Other required operating costs include professional web page support and our Certified Public Accountant (CPA). The TPA Board of Directors (BOD) and other volunteers receive no salaries or reimbursement for any expenses. Ours is truly a PRO BONO organization. We greatly appreciate the support you provide to the TPA mission. If we do not endeavor save our sport, future generations will never experience the enjoyment of trail riding. 2011 PROJECTS
Forest Service (FS)
In working with the FS and the BLM, the TPA generated a significant number of position papers and recommendations to protect our sport. Events
Other TPA and COHVCO are intervening on behalf of the United States Forest Service (USFS) TPA and COHVCO are in the preliminary process of filing another intervening lawsuit on the side of the USFS/R2, in the case filed by sportsmen in the Rico/Dolores area. DONATIONS
TPA donated to several organizations that help support joint operations for preservation of motorcycle trail riding. Many local organizations lack funding and legal expertise to fight and help protect our sport. The TPA acts as a support organization providing funding, legal expertise, and other types of support to help the cause. In all cases, donations undergo review for relevancy to the TPA mission. MTRA of Grand Junction The TPA is working directly with this club in the BLM work in the Gateway, De Beque Castle Rock areas. Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) TPA works with BRC (a national recreation group that champions responsible use of public and private lands) on issues specific to Colorado and to the sport in general. Gunnison/CB Goats a new club in the Gunnison/CB area Ouray FS Trail Crew in their work to keep open the Alpine trails system Greater South for Colorado Recreation Club – support to the TAS/C600 Silver Thread Outdoor Recreation Club – support to the TAS/C600 Boot Hill Motorcycle Club – support to the TAS/C600 COHVCO for ongoing work with the Colorado State Legislature AMA for their work in protecting our sport Rocky Mountain Sport Riders (RMSR) – a new club in the Gypsum/Vail area working with WRNF in planning new trails.
|
||
|
|
||
Sage Grouse Planning Strategy – Letter to the Bureau of Land Management
|
February 6, 2012 |
||
|
Letter to the Bureau of Land Management Attn: Brian Amme |
|
| The TPA, COHVCO and the CSA have provided these comments concerning the BLM plan for increasing the Sage Grouse habitat, at the expense of public access to public lands for recreation. Actions as planned by the BLM can further close out areas for all types of OHV recreation. Please contact your elected representatives and let them know you are concerned about planned BLM actions.
# # # The Trails Preservation Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the sport of motorized trail riding, educating all user groups and the public on the value of sharing public lands for multiuse recreation, while protecting public lands for future generations. Learn more on the web: www.coloradotpa.org COHVCO is a nonprofit organization whose member enthusiasts, organizations and businesses collectively comprise over 200,000 Coloradoans and regular visitors to Colorado and other western states who contribute millions of dollars and thousands of hours annually to off-highway vehicle recreation through registration fees, retail expenditure, project participation and related support. Learn more on the web: www.cohvco.org
|
||
|
|
||