Archive | News

The TPA & Ride With Respect take the AMA on a Tour of Trails in Moab

 

March 14, 2010

 

TPA Press Release

Moab, UT – March 14, 2010 – With all the issues facing Moab and the surrounding areas with a potential land grab by the government The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) in conjunction with Utah’s Ride With Respect invited key people from the AMA to ride areas that will be affected by such a change in land use.  Those in attendance from the AMA were Chairman of the Board Stan Simpson, CEO/President Rob Dingman and VP/Government Affairs Ed Moreland.  Joining them from the TPA were Don Riggle and Rob Watt. 

The four-day ride was lead by Dale Parriott of Elite Motorcycle Tours and Ride with Respect (http://www.ridewithrespect.org) of the Moab area.  Dale led the group through some of the most scenic areas, including Gemini Bridges, Longs Canyon, and Dubinky Well Rd.  Throughout the ride Dale explained the impact of the proposed land use and how it would affect everyone who presently enjoys the Moab area.
 

2010_0314_AMA1.jpg

Stan Simpson, Rob Dingman, Ed Moreland

Ed Moreland was given the opportunity to see first hand how people from all over the world have been able to use this area for OHV use in conjunction with other forms of recreation.  “Experiencing this land from a motorcycle really underscores the importance of keeping the responsible riding opportunities in Moab open to riders.  We are grateful to the individuals and organizations, including Ride With Respect, Trails Preservation Alliance, Trailmaster Adventures, and COHVCO who helped impress upon us the depth and breadth of southeast Utah’s riding opportunities as well as what is at stake if we don’t act together to save this area from a Wilderness designation” said Moreland.

  2010_0314_AMA2.jpg
Dale Parriott explains the history of the carvings on the rocks
near the Green River bottom

AMA President/CEO, Rob Dingman was glad to get back on a dirt bike.  Dingman states, “The first-person experience of the ride made the impact of the various proposals more real to us.  Seeing things on a map is much different than actually being there and seeing it for ourselves.  We both have a better understanding and appreciation for what we are all fighting for.  The experience was invaluable.  I feel confident that we saw parts of Utah that even the sponsors of the erroneous Wilderness designations have never seen. And that’s really a pity, because this land is best enjoyed on a motorcycle.”

All in all, it was a great outing for the entire group.  Everyone came away with a greater appreciation of the natural beauty and what has to be done to keep the Moab area open to EVERYONE.  Please support the AMA, Trail Preservation Alliance and Utah’s Ride with Respect, so YOUR trails and recreation opportunities won’t be closed forever.

About The Trails Preservation Alliance:
The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is a grassroots, 100 percent volunteer group, composed of Colorado motorcycle trail riders. The Alliance has formed a 501c3 organization to preserve single-track trails in Colorado and to inform the public about issues facing our sport. The TPA is associated with the Colorado 500, Rocky Mountain events, and Colorado Off- Highway Vehicle Organization (COHVCO). More information can be found at the TPA website http://www.coloradotpa.org

 

Continue Reading

TPA/COHVCO joint response to the DeGette wilderness bill

 

March 10, 2010

  This is the first TPA/COHVCO joint response to the DeGette wilderness bill, submitted for the U.S congressional record.

The Honorable Raul Grijalva Chairman House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
United States House of Representatives
1440 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0307

The Honorable Rob Bishop
Ranking Minority Member
House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
United States House of Representatives
123 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4401

Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop:

We are writing in opposition to H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 sponsored by Representative Diana DeGette and scheduled for hearing on March 11, 2010, in the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. Please incorporate into the record the following comments and attachments of the Colorado Off-highway Vehicle Coalition, (COHVCO) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA). Additionally, the American Motorcyclist Association and its sister organization the All-Terrain Vehicle Association opposes H.R. 4289.

COHVCO is a volunteer based non-profit conservation organization that has focused on preserving and enhancing opportunities for all off-highway vehicle (OHV), and snowmobile users in Colorado since 1987. COHVCO represents nearly 200,000 Coloradoans, and thousands of visitors from outside Colorado, who enjoy recreating on our public lands with off-highway vehicles. We represent motorcycle, 4WD, ATV and snowmobile enthusiasts. COHVCO, its participating clubs, and enthusiasts not only provide thousands of volunteer hours, but also contribute over $2.5 million dollars each year to public lands, through Colorado’s OHV Registration Grant Program. These funds provide maintenance, signage, restoration and opportunity on trails and roads on federal public lands in Colorado and are indispensable given continuing cutbacks in federal funding in these areas. These funds also contribute to enforcement activities and education programs for motorized recreation enthusiasts.

The Trails Preservation Alliance is a Colorado based IRS 501(c) (3) organization. It represents over 2500 members (of which a majority are military veterans), who are dedicated to preserving public access to public lands. The TPA has generated over $500K in OHV funding to the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to build and preserve single track trails for all recreational user groups. The TPA is dedicated to public recreation on public lands. The TPA has a long history of working with Region 2 of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service and other state and federal agencies in Colorado.

A recently completed study on the economic contribution to the State of Colorado by both winter and summer motorized recreation showed that these activities are responsible for about 12,000 jobs and a cash flow of over $ 1 billion. Many of the jobs and a significant part of the total cash flow benefit smaller communities located within or near large tracts of federal public lands. In addition, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) estimates that approximately 70% of hunters use OHVs (almost exclusively ATVs) to facilitate their hunt and use 4 wheel drive vehicles to reach the general area of the hunt. Additional loss of access for this majority of hunters could have a negative effect on game management and hunter success.

Not one acre of any of the land recommended for Wilderness designation in Representative DeGette’s bill is located within her district and the people and communities most affected by her proposal are not her constituents. Therefore they have no opportunity to show their opposition or support by voting for or against her in any election. In order to avoid problems and conflicts within the state and amongst organizations and local governments, the process of developing a Wilderness bill must include all affected parties. This collaborative process was not present in the development of the DeGette bill.

While Representative DeGette’s website describes this proposal as a “Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal”, and claims that all stake holders have been involved, neither COHVCO, TPA nor any of their individual members or member clubs were contacted or asked for input to avoid conflict with existing multiple use (including, but not limited to motorized) activities. The maps posted on her website that show the individual areas proposed for Wilderness designation are so poor in quality and lacking in any geo-reference information that it has proven to be extremely difficult and time consuming to perform any analysis for any potential conflicts. With one exception, all of the maps appear to have been created by the Colorado Environmental Coalition, an avowed anti-motorized access group.

Individuals who actually live near, and recreate in the areas identified as suitable for Wilderness designation by Representative DeGette have, on their own initiative, provided comments identifying access conflicts. By their very nature, these existing uses violate the criteria for consideration as Wilderness. Those site specific comments are shown in the attachment titled On the Ground Comments. In addition, the attachment also contains a sampling of detailed map examples that show the existing conflicts and shortcomings of the maps presented on Representative DeGette’s website.

In summary, our objections to H.R 4289 can be identified as a failure to subject this legislation to previous review by all affected parties, a failure to consider the negative economic consequences to a faltering economy in the most difficult of times, a failure to consider far more practical and less restrictive means of protecting lands short of a Wilderness designation, and the lack of identification of conflicts in areas as identified by the sponsor’s maps.

Parts I through III, following, contain more detailed comments on substantive and procedural flaws in the content of and process of development of H.R. 4289.

Part I
The Public and the Resource are better served by Designations other than Wilderness; such options were not considered

By some estimates, the population of Colorado will triple in the next 35 years. The current, greatest demand for public lands is for recreation of all forms allowed under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act. Couple this with a Colorado population that is, at this very moment, growing dramatically older, and Wilderness designation becomes a poor choice. Americans are looking for viable alternatives to Wilderness that are friendlier to the majority of the recreating public.

Further, Wilderness designations are not in the best interests of Americans. A century or more ago, mining, mineral and timber production, and protection of watersheds were of critical importance to the nation. Extraction was the primary activity on public land then. It now appears obvious that the predominant use of public land in the 21st century may well be recreation. A recent National Visitor Use Monitoring study for the USFS shows very interesting results.

Table 1. National visitation estimate for the National Forest System, for fiscal year 2007.
Table 1

(see downloadable PDF at the bottom of this page for better view of table above)

This USFS data demonstrates that only 3% of visits to National Forests are to designated Wilderness areas. The study goes on to demonstrate that there is a decrease in the length of visits, and that preferred visits are those to developed facilities, from campgrounds, to trailheads, and resorts. The means of access to enjoy these resources is most often motorized, whether it is via auto, or off-highway vehicle.

Millions of acres of wild lands in Colorado are already protected as Wilderness; specifically, 3.5 million acres. But this is only a small part of the complete picture. Over 4.8 million acres of Forest Service Lands are designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). Colorado has 2 National Parks and 6 National Monuments including a list of non-multiple use prescriptions such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that, once added to the unusable and impassable areas of the mountains and canyon lands, leaves precious little left for a state and a nation seeking recreational opportunity and release.

All forms of motorized and mechanized recreation are prohibited in Wilderness and that includes the simple but beloved family outing by car to view the land.

The following table is a summary of the Inventoried Roadless Areas
Inventoried Roadless Areas
(see downloadable PDF at the bottom of this page for better view of table above)

While some areas shown above are worthy of the Wilderness prescription, and no one is arguing the set aside of lands for National Parks and Monuments, the fact must be faced that the management prescriptions for these lands severely limit access to a significant majority of the recreating public. Wilderness areas, above all other designations, are available only to an elite few with the time and physical capability to enjoy them. The vast majority of citizens find Wilderness an obstacle to their enjoyment of public lands. Further, the amount of congressionally designated Wilderness to date has far surpassed the amount of Wilderness contemplated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964.

How far have we moved from the promises of the Wilderness Act? The USFS has recommended 11,000 acres of Wilderness from 4.8 million acres in Colorado IRAs. Yet what began as an inventory has been translated into a limited use prescription despite the absence of suitability as Wilderness. De facto Wilderness is not provided for in law and it can be argued violates the Multiple Use Act and the National Environmental Policy ACT.

Some lands in Colorado do need protection and this protection is available in practical and useful designations that can be tailored to fit resource values and public need equally well without locking out much of the population and threatening the very security of the nation by forever holding precious commodities out of reach in times of crisis and need.

In short, the vast majority of lands held up as suitable for Wilderness not only do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act, but most are clearly at odds with what the land management professionals believe should be managed as Wilderness. Congress has two well known tools that provide answers to administrative paralysis; National Conservation Areas and National Recreation Areas (NCA and NRA respectively). COHVCO and TPA also support a third designation developed by the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a nationally respected recreational advocacy group. That alternative is the Back Country Recreation Area, which will protect the land but will also allow it to be used and enjoyed by the public.

History has shown that administrative action has been unable to resolve the conflict associated with public land recreation and Inventoried Roadless Areas. It is imperative that Congress take some specific action to put this issue to rest. Congress needs to establish a land designation that provides the protection the public demands for these lands while at the same time providing the managing agencies with the necessary flexibility to respond to recreational demands and to address critical concerns of forest health, fire prevention and wildlife habitat enhancement.

Much of our public land reflects an undeveloped, back country character. Evidence of man’s activities may be present and obvious to a knowledgeable observer. However, this evidence is not dominant and the landscape is generally perceived as possessing natural, primitive, or back country characteristics. It is important that these characteristics be maintained under any land designation category established by Congress.

These lands provide a very valuable resource for recreational activities that allow people to experience and enjoy these natural appearing landscapes. They provide opportunities for people to escape from the pressures of large crowds and the more developed world. This can include a wide range of recreational activities including use of ATVs and off-highway motorcycles, hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding and 4-wheel driving. At the same time, many of these lands are threatened by insect and disease epidemics, and by catastrophic wildfires that could destroy the very values that the public wants to see preserved. Therefore, it is essential that this land designation also allow the managing agencies the ability to apply the minimum level of management to deal with these threats.

Any management activities that are planned for these areas must also be subject to all the existing laws, regulations and policies that address the protection of the environment and cultural and historic resources. Any public land management process must also apply to these lands. In this way the public’s ability to participate in and influence the process is preserved.

The establishment of a Congressional Back Country land designation can achieve all of these objectives. The land will be protected and the public will still be able to experience and understand the values of these unique areas and the countless court cases and legal challenges can be reduced. Congress needs to begin the process to make this new land designation a reality.

Representative DeGette’s bill does not provide the best balance between protection of the resource and the public’s desire for recreation.

PART II
H.R. 4289 was not Developed with Input from all Recreational users nor was it Developed in full Cooperation with Local Government

The Colorado Off-highway Vehicle Coalition is the umbrella organization representing individuals and families that recreate with all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, full size 4 wheel drives, and snowmobiles. The approximately 200,000 individuals engaged in motorized recreation are represented locally by clubs all over Colorado. The Trails Preservation Alliance likewise has statewide participation. Representative DeGette’s bill shows a failure to engage the motorized recreation community in Colorado at any level. It further seems that not all local governments directly affected by this Wilderness proposal have been a part of the process. This raises further questions regarding the level of contact with sportsmen, mountain bikers, equestrians and other major recreational groups.

Without question, neither COHVCO nor TPA has ever been approached by Representative DeGette or her staff on this proposal. Representative DeGette is a Representative of the City of Denver proper and while it may be her prerogative to run legislation directly affecting constituents in other Districts, it should also certainly involve engaging important affected parties. None of the 50 plus COHVCO clubs has been approached and, indeed, some of those clubs, such as the Mile High Jeep Club, whose members live in the Denver Metropolitan area, and who are her constituents, were never contacted for their opinion. A critical element of their comments would relate to the numerous conflicts existing in the proposed Wilderness areas that infringe on the access and multiple use of such lands. These conflicts raise issues of suitability, and suitability is an essential element of a Wilderness proposal where land is withdrawn for what has been treated as final prescription.

Winter recreation has not been spared the negative impacts of the bill nor have the snowmobile clubs of Colorado been consulted. The Colorado Snowmobile Association, the statewide organization of snowmobile clubs has this to say about the legislation:

The process, or lack thereof, exhibited by the Congresswoman’s office has been unprofessional and completely lacking in representation of the citizens of Western Colorado. Our opposition to H.R. 4289 also encompasses the fact that this proposal is so very piecemeal in nature. There is little apparent consistency in the reasons for proposal other than appealing to a small constituency that wants exclusive access to public land and promotes a desire to close off large chunks of land to the majority of other users.

Colorado (using 2007 statistics) has 3,431,176 Wilderness acres made up of 41 Wilderness areas and covers over 5% of Colorado public land. Couple that with the 4.1 million acres proposed in Colorado’s Roadless Rule (another 6+% of Colorado public land) and much of the most beautiful part of Colorado is accessible by a minority population. A plethora of recreationists, motorized and non-motorized, are now denied the opportunity to recreate in these areas. Adding more closures through Wilderness is not in the best interest of Colorado residents or visitors.

Most, if not all, of the parcels in the Congresswoman’s proposal will have a negative impact on winter motorized recreation. The forests in Colorado do not restrict snowmobiles to designated trails (with a few rare exceptions in winter wildlife habitat areas) so most areas that get adequate snow are open to snowmobiling.

More specifically, we think it is fair to say that any of the parcels in Gunnison, San Juan, Hinsdale, Eagle and Garfield County would greatly affect winter activity.

These would be the West Elk Addition, Powderhorn Addition, Handies Peak, Redcloud Peak, Flat Tops Addition, Bull Gulch, Deep Creek, etc. Handies and Red Cloud are winter spots.

There are a few areas where the statement “BLM has prohibited motorized use” that may apply to summer use only. A couple of them are high altitude areas and the probability that these areas remain open to winter motorized use are high, but are not identified as such in the proposal.

The American people seek transparency in all matters of government including how their public lands are to be used. Providing website maps of a proposal that fails to identify all open roads and trails is not transparency. To the contrary it seems to indicate a guarded approach to a very public process.

Even more disconcerting is that not all County Commissioners have been consulted for their position on the impact of this bill and the various consequences to their constituents. Of course, when the bill seems to be attempting to stop future extraction of what may be critical resources, a job killing Wilderness bill of this magnitude is not a topic of polite conversation.

Part III
Failure of the DeGette Wilderness Maps to Include Sufficient Information on Transportation Systems within Proposed Wilderness Areas

The public information provided on Representative DeGette’s website does not meet the standard of quality that this issue requires. It is critical that these deficiencies be considered, as they relate directly to the suitability for Wilderness designation and analyses of the effects of the proposed action on surrounding communities.

See attached On The Ground Comments PDF & pdf (expandable) Conflict Analysis Maps.

The following is small sampling of map images that display the following features: The Pink areas are the boundaries of the proposed Colorado Wilderness Act (CWA). The Blue areas are the boundaries of the BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). The pink and blue areas overlay to form a Purple layer that defines where study has been done and budgets have been used to determine the suitability of the land for wilderness designation.

The maps make it immediately apparent that the proposed wilderness segments far exceed the areas of study recommended by the agencies. Those segments that coincide with the National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) were never intended to be wilderness, as that has a negative effect on many important National Forest programs in these areas.

The several types of bold Red lines show the actual road and trail networks that are de-emphasized or completely missing from Representative DeGette’s website. The absence of this critical information makes it impossible to determine what part of the terrain is actually suitable for wilderness designation.

It is clear that IRA and WSA studies were not properly considered in determining the appropriate boundaries for wilderness, and it is obvious that the pre-existing roads and trails in virtually every segment of the proposed Colorado Wilderness act make them unsuitable for wilderness designation.

There is a clear lack of accurate information necessary for local government and the public to make informed decisions.

Note: Please see the downloadable PDF’s for the above mentioned maps and the rest of this document & supporting documents below.

   
TPA/COHVCO Joint Response to the DeGette Wilderness Bill
Degette Wilderness Proposal on the Ground Comments
Degrette Wilderness Proposal Expandable Conflict Analysis Maps
COHVCO – Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vechicle Recreation in Colorado
Continue Reading

Testimony of Dennis Larratt before the Committee on Natural Resources

January 21, 2010

  My name is Dennis Larratt, I reside at [address redacted], Littleton, CO 80125.  I am a third generation native of Colorado, my grandfather was the Colorado State Farm Manager for nearly 40 years, so my roots are tied to the ground of Colorado.  I have spent virtually all of my life enjoying the Colorado backcountry on horseback, off road motorcycles, foot, skis, and mountain bikes.  My recreational interests are equally based in recreation and my love for the beauty and wonders of nature. 

Today I am representing the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO).  The AMA was founded in 1924 in an effort to preserve and protect responsible riding opportunities in America. AMA and her sister organization, the All-Terrain Vehicle Association (ATVA), represents the interests of millions of American motorcyclists and ATV riders.  I am a lifetime member of the AMA, with my membership dating back to age 13.  In 1987 I helped found the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and have served various roles in the organization, including Chairman two different times.  COHVCO represents 4WD, motorcycle, ATV and snowmobile interests in Colorado, with a focus on maintaining access to public lands for responsible use of and stewardship of public lands.  We are fortunate to have 22 million acres of public land in Colorado, and it is critically important to maintain public access to it.

I am here to testify against HR 3914, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009.  I will try to briefly lay out my concerns about this bill in particular, the current raft of Colorado Wilderness proposals, and Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

(please download the PDF to read the entire document)

   
   
Continue Reading

Open letter to all OHV users

January 1, 2010

  The time is NOW to get involved in your local community and participate in the governmental decision-making processes.  No longer can we be wary of participating in the political and local community processes.  The OHV Community must have a credible and recognized voice in local affairs which can only be achieved by personal involvement with our elected officials.

In order to increase the visibility and voice of the OHV Community, we must all increase our personal participation in our local and regional governmental decision making processes.  Each of us needs to participate and contribute in local affairs to ensure that our collective voices are heard.  The first step is to join and get active with your local OHV organizations or clubs then consider getting involved in:

  • Your local community collaborative planning processes such as development or review of Community Master Plans or Comprehensive Plans.  This is the first step in getting OHV areas planned and funded
  • An appointment to Citizen Advisory Boards or Committees
  • Volunteering for Parks and Recreation Boards
  • Getting to know your local Economic Development staff and explaining the positive economic impacts that OHV users and activities have on your local economy
  • Public meetings for travel management planning on USFS, BLM or other public lands
  • Expressing the need for local OHV areas and activities to your local Parks and Recreation staff
  • Attending and participating in regular City or Town Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, County Commissioner meetings, etc.  Learn how these meetings are conducted  and make your voice heard when the decision makers ask for public comment
  • Promoting OHV participation in local events such as parades and other community events
  • Expressing the NEED for viable and safe OHV recreation areas at all levels of government, but focus on your local government.  Skate parks, soccer fields and the like are all being funded with your tax dollars because local constituents demand them from their local governments.
  • Organizing a local OHV “TEA PARTY”

Do not wait; do not expect someone else to do it.  Every little bit helps and the old saying that “the squeaky wheel gets the oil” is spot on.  You yourself must get involved and make your voice heard.  Those that dislike or misunderstand OHV use are at the “local table” demanding government officials listen to them.  We, the OHV Community must do the same – get to the table TODAY and be a voice in our local public processes.

Bill Alspach
Woodland Park, Colorado
Member, Trails Preservation Alliance & Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

   
   
Continue Reading

TPA/COHVCO input to the Grand Junction BLM FO, Gateway/Bangs Canyon Project

December 10, 2009

  Michelle Bailey
Grand Junction Field Office
BLM Colorado
2815 H Rd
Grand Junction CO

Dear Ms Bailey

In response to your request for additional recommendations for single-track motorcycle
trails to be considered for the Grand Junction Field Office we submit the following data.
Hard copies of the proposed maps are available.

Gateway Recreation Area:

The Mesas east of Gateway provide a national caliber off road experience. The only unmet recreational opportunity is single track.

The Gateway Recreation area has excellent terrain and spectacular scenery. The proposed single-track routes as shown on the attached map take advantage of extensive slick rock outcroppings. The proposed routes would add the missing element to the present recreational trail system.

Bangs Canyon SRMA:

Due to the difficulty in implementing the area 6 single track trails as called for in the
original plan: we recommend that the trails shown on the attached map be considered.

DeBeque Area: (not included with this letter)

The attached map shows much of the existing single-track trail network in the DeBeque
area. The present trails are an excellent trials opportunity. We hope you will consider
expanding this system and provide for organized events in the area.

Thank you for your support of motorcycle trail riding on public lands. The TPA and COHVCO look forward to working with you on your approved projects/routes.

Don Riggle

   
   ***download PDF (above) to see maps
Continue Reading

TPA supports Ride with Respect


December 14, 2009

  Western Colorado and eastern Utah (Moab) have an abundance of motorcycle trails and roads for OHV recreation.

There is a non profit organziation in Moab, that does a lot to help protect our sport in Utah.  Ride with Respect (RWR) is a motorcycle organization, run by Dale Parriot and Cliff Kontz.

RWR has developed many single track trials in the Moab area, and works very closely with the local BLM office.  The TPA supports the RWR, and the vast amount of work they do.

Many riders go to Moab to ride, but ride and leave, and RWR is left to do the work to keep trails open.  The TPA suggests that if you go to the Moab area to ride, considering helping the RWR effort.  For a small group they do a lot to help our sport.  

Thanks,
Don Riggle

  For more info on Ride With Respect, check out thier website at http://www.ridewithrespect.org or download their brochure below & donate today!
 
  Ride With Respect brochure front
Ride With Respect brochure front
 
Continue Reading

Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) 2009 End of Year Report

December, 2009

  Before we go into specific details about the work the TPA did this year, we need to present some background information on events and issues that are being faced by the entire Colorado motorized recreation community. This included all of 2009 and throughout the next four years. The radical, liberal, National administration and liberal legislature in Colorado have created an environment that is trying to totally eliminate motorized recreation on public lands.

In the past 30 years of trying to preserve motorized recreation we have never faced a situation like we have today. To make it simple, we are in the worst situation possible.

Examples of these issues are the Travel Management Plans (TMP) of the Gunnison National Forest and the White River National Forest.

Both of these issues have been worked extensively in 2009 and are expected to be published as final plans in 2010. The Colorado Roadless issue was reopened by our Governor (to be reevaluated by a more radical environmental group) even though the State has spent significant time and money developing a Roadless plan that was approved by a bipartisan group. Now that plan is being scrapped in favor of a more radical rule, eliminating more public lands from use for public recreation. Perhaps even more dangerous, the rule changes make fire in roadless areas much harder to prevent and stop. At the same time all of this is being brought forward, we have four new Colorado Wilderness proposals that could remove as much as 2.6 million acres of public land from motorized recreation availability. The existing premise of public access to public lands has been totally eliminated.

The latest major issue that has developed against Colorado motorized recreation is the Responsible Trails America (RTA) attempt to take over the Colorado State Parks, OHV registration grant program. The RTA, using false accusations and local “environmental” surrogates, is attempting to mandate that OHV registration funds be used to “mitigate undocumented damage” by legal motorized recreation and spend 40% of the fund on law enforcement!

We have included a list of the major actions that the TPA took on behalf of all its members and supporters. To gauge work and success on each of the below issues is difficult. Many issues are a long way from being resolved. Other issues will end up in the administrative process of protest and appeal, while others may end up in some form of legal actions.

The TPA intends to continue work in support of our sport.

  Major tasks accomplished in 2009 include:

1. Gunnison NF and White River TMPs. These actions consumed most of the TPA’s time in 2009. Both initial TMP’s were extremely unfavorable to motorized recreation. The TPA took the lead working with assistance from the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition and the Rocky Mountain Enduro Circuit. We have met extensively with both NF staffs to present our input on the “preferred alternative plan”. It is too early to predict what success we will have on each TMP. However, significant work has been accomplished in our efforts to present the motorized concept of what the TMP should be to all users of public lands.

2. Worked with the San Juan Trail Riders in their effort to preserve trail riding in the Pagosa and San Juan areas.

3. Working with motorized clubs in the Moab area, (Ride with Respect, and USA-ALL) and Grand Junction (MTRA), in an effort to help preserve access to public lands in their respective areas.

4. Donated significant funds to organized motorized groups in Utah and Colorado in support of their effort to educate public officials about motorized recreation on public lands.

5. Coordinated a plan with the AMA to add an additional subject matter expert to our combined efforts in responding to all of these various projects.

6. Joined the AMA, COHVCO, and other groups in an organized effort to eliminate and or reduce
the impact of the new wilderness proposals that have been presented for Federal action.

7. Worked with COHVCO and other Colorado organizations in an attempt to mitigate and curtail all actions associated by the RTA as it attempted to take over the management of the OHV funds

8. Managed a Colorado OHV grant that will build trail barriers and signs on multi use trails.

9. Continuing to work with the Grand Junction BLM and local clubs in the area to help develop a motorized recreation area on BLM managed lands in the Gateway area.

10. Provided “start up funding” for several motorized organizations in Colorado, as an attempt to build a bigger, more active, more educated motorized community around the state

11. Participated in several organized events as fund raisers for the TPA, COHVCO and Blue Ribbon Coalition.

12. Provided operational planning and support to the 34th Colorado 500 Charity Trail ride as a fund raiser for TPA.

13. Worked with Parts Unlimited in preparation of the 16th Rocky Mountain 400, a major fund raiser for COHVCO.

14. The TPA Trail Crew conducted significant tail maintenance during 2009, in the Gunnison NF, White River NF, Pike Peak/San Isabelle NF, and the Rio Grande NF.

The TPA Board of Directors thanks all donors for their support during 2009. The next four years are going to be more critical as we continue to focus on our goal to protect public access to public lands and to maintain our single track trail systems throughout the area. Your help is making it possible!

   
Continue Reading

Desired Future Condition of the Grand Junction Field Office Motorized Recreation Program

August 3, 2009

Subject: Letter to the BLM GJFO

  Ms M Bailey

BLM GJFO

2815 H Road

Grand Junction CO 81506

Subject: Desired Future Condition of the Grand Junction Field Office Motorized Recreation Program

A RESPONSE TO FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Ms Bailey,
This is a consolidated response from the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO).

As a general statement TPA and COHVCO would hope to see the sport of off road motorcycling, specifically single track, recognized and managed similarly to other trail related activities in the field office.  For example: The field office (including the NCA) has designated and maintains over 300 miles of single track trails for the primary use of mountain bicyclists.  All of the three primary mountain bike trail systems have developed trailheads, sanitation with well maintained trails and signing.

We would like to point out and request that certain mountain bikes trails be made open for motorized use (multi use concept), until the BLM is able to give motorized recreation the same emphasis as non motorized recreation.

We hope to see similar efforts, priorities and dedication of staff and resources directed toward motorized recreation in the future.  Single track motorcycling is a recognized and site specific high value sports activity.  Single track is a major attraction for local and regional motorcycle sport enthusiasts.

In the last 10 years the FO has designated and constructed less than 10 miles of single track motorized opportunity.  Motorized trails that have been designed into compressive plans. The motorized portions of these plans have not been constructed.  We want to see the trails that are already planned, constructed and additional motorized single track constructed to meet the growing demand over the life of the plan.

The BLM planning regime insists on segregating motorized recreation from the non motorized.  If this policy continues it seems only fair that the motorized opportunities have similar infrastructure and amenities as the non motorized locations. In a truly desirable future condition the zoning scheme would be abandoned.  Zone planning encourages clashes between user group representatives competing for the most desirable location for the constituents they represent over 300,000 people a year visit the Grand Valley Open Area.  No sanitation facilities, trailheads, or maps are available.  Uniformed presence, except in response to emergencies, is rare.  We would like to see the Grand Valley Open Area considered for SRMA designation with appropriate resources dedicated to this popular area.

As the travel management portion of the plan is developed by alternative we hope the staff will keep in mind the need for looped trails with scenic qualities for all visitors.

The desired future condition would see the SRMAs managed as designated trail systems (except the Grand Valley Open Area) with all of the necessary infrastructure and staff dedicated to a well managed recreation/transportation opportunity.  Those areas outside SRMAs would see cross country travel restricted in most areas and have a custodial level of management presence.

To date, the North Fruita Desert project (NFD) is the example of the designated trail system in the FO.  None of the motorized trails called for in the 5 year old plan have been constructed.  All of the trail closures have been implemented.  The proliferation of non motorized trails continues unabated.  Signing and visitor maps in the motorized portion of the project are in such bad repair that a thoughtful visitor could not determine if he was on a designated trail or not.  The bicycle emphasis area is well signed. The trailhead has shade and sanitation facilities.  A campground (with 6 toilets) catering to mountain bicyclist has been constructed and a second phase has been funded for future construction.  No facilities have been provided for any other visitors.

The North Fruita Desert project is 70,000 acres  If GJFO does not have the resources to manage a designated trail system in the NFD, it is unreasonable for the RMP to recommend designated trail systems in the entire 1.2 million acre FO.

Professional help in the field of motorized recreation planning is available from several non profit and commercial sources.  We hope the planning team will consult with knowledgeable experts in the field while developing the alternatives.

In summation, the off road visitors to the GJFO want to be treated in the same fashion as the non motorized visitors.  We hope to have well designed and maintained trail opportunities and infrastructure for our sport.

The TPA and COHVCO are ready and willing to work with you and your staff on the issues of motorized recreation in the GJ BLM area.

Thank you for your consideration of our requests.

Sincerely,

Don Riggle

   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

COHVCO – Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vechicle Recreation in CO

July, 2009

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

  Table of Contents:
1.0 Introduction 
2.0 Approach 
3.0 Households that Participate in Motorized Recreation
4.0 Expenditures Associated with Motorized Recreation
4.1 Trip Expenditures
4.2 Annual Expenditures 
5.0 Economic Contribution to the State of Colorado of Total Expenditures Made byOHV Enthusiasts 
5.1 Expenditures Made by OHV Enthusiasts
5.2 Direct Labor, Income, and Tax Contributions
5.3 Additional Economic Activity
5.4 Total Economic Contribution
6.0 Regional Analysis

Introduction:

Colorado offers unique opportunities for motorized recreation throughout much of the State. This is mainly due to the vast amount of appropriate terrain for off-road motorized recreation. As such, the sport and industry of motorized recreation has enjoyed an increase in popularity in Colorado for both residents and non-residents. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) evaluated the economic contribution of motorized recreation throughout Colorado for the 2007-08 season1. The results are summarized in this report.

Much of the analysis presented here was based on a previous study completed by Hazen and Sawyer in 2001 titled Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Colorado.2 The Hazen and Sawyer study included a household survey that collected valuable information on where and when motorized, enthusiasts utilize their vehicles for recreation, average expenditures associated with recreational trips, and annual expenditures associated with operating and maintaining vehicles. The data and information on expenditures collected in that study was adjusted for inflation and used in combination with current data on the number of households that participate in motorized recreation in the State to estimate the total economic contribution of the sport in Colorado.

This report is organized as follows. Section 2.0 describes the approach used by Berger to estimate the economic contribution of motorized recreation during the 2007-08 season. Section 3.0 summarizes the estimated number of resident and non-resident households that participate in motorized recreation. Section 4.0 provides the estimated expenditures made by OHV enthusiasts while using and maintaining their recreational vehicles. Section 5.0 summarizes the overall economic contribution of motorized recreation, and Section 6.0 provides a regional analysis.

   
   Download the PDF to read the entire report.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

TPA & COHVCO support San Juan Trail Riders

June 21, 2009

Subject: This is the consolidated TPA and COHVCO comments in support of the San Juan Trail Riders trying to preserve their riding areas in the Rico-Dolores area of Colorado.  The TPA and COHVCO have worked closely with the SJTR organization in their effort to maintain single track motorcycle trails in the Rico area.

  The comments and recommendations in this letter represent the combined input of the Colorado Off-highway vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA).  These 2 organizations represent the majority of off-highway vehicle users in the State of Colorado.  The off highway vehicle users in the state number more than 200,000.  TPA, COHVCO, as well as many local clubs and organizations have been actively involved with the Rico-West Dolores planning process since its inception the analysis provided in this document includes the consolidated remarks from many of the local OHV organizations in the state.  All of these organizations have spent considerable time and effort in the review of the of the Rico-West Dolores EA. TPA and COHVCO intend to remain as active partners with the Forest service throughout the remainder of the process

1. Irreversible Commitments of Resources and Irretrievable Losses

Please refer to EA page 92.

1A. The Forest has correctly selected an EA to support this plan.  An EA will produce a Finding of No Significant Impact.  It will do this because the EA has uncovered no unresolved conflicts.  Thus, the text on page 92 under 3.15, paragraph 3, is incorrect.  There won’t be any irretrievable losses or any irreversible commitments of any natural resource.

This is the incorrect text: “Irretrievable commitments of resources from roads and trails exist because the travel way changes the natural landscape to a non-natural, out-of-vegetative production landscape.”  

These are the reasons we say it is incorrect:

1) The Forest Service can and does “un-commit” and restore to vegetative production the roads and trails anytime it wishes.  This is illustrated right on EA page 5, where the Forest Service declares its intent “to restore lands back to their natural state. 2) No irretrievable losses of any natural resource will occur regardless of any alternative selected, including doing nothing, because the routes under consideration already exist. They are already part of the habitat, and no measured effects of the present situation are reported in the effects analyses in this EA.  3) The statement, “the travel way…changes the natural landscape to a non-natural …landscape”  is a values choice.  Trails (travel ways) have been part of the landscape since humans occupied the area, as noted at EA page 39, “Occupation in southwestern Colorado dates back to approximately 10,000 B.C. with the first migrations into the area by Paleo-Indians. Since that time the area has been occupied by various Native peoples and Euro-American groups.” 

Those people moved from place to place and community to community via trails that were created by the repeated use of a linear route.  They did this because the topography in the study area is very rugged.  Thus, to choose that trails are not “natural”, we must also concede that the traces of those early occupants are also not natural.  By the same token, if those traces are a valued resource (and the law says they are) then it stands to reason that the travel ways are indeed part of the natural, highly valued resource.

Our point is not whether the trails are “natural” or not.  Our point is, this type of value decision is outside the scope of the analysis.  We are directed by the TMR to designate a system of roads and trails –developed from the already existing inventory of roads and trails—that is open to people who use motor vehicles to travel in the forest.

1B.  The proposed action will result in an irretrievable loss to the recreation resource, however.  This happens when a trail is removed from the open-to motor-travelers inventory, but kept for non-motor travelers.  To date, not a single trail, formerly open to people who rely on motorcycles to tour the forest. has been restored for use for those people.  This outcome will be repeated in the proposed plan, but it is concealed by the absence of an analysis of the no-action alternative.

1C.  Because no unresolved conflicts were identified, it is not appropriate for any trail presently open to people who rely on motorcycles, to be closed to those people by this Decision. In addition, the Forest Service has the opportunity to produce a travel plan that need not be revisited in the near-term future, by restoring each trail previously closed without a formal review that factually, lawfully, or scientifically justified that closure (outside of Wilderness), to be reopened to people who rely on motorcycles to tour the forest.

2. Undisclosed Private Deliberations

 2A. The terms “internal concern,” “internal scoping,” and “internal parties” is used on page 5, page 13, page 14, page 15, page 21, page 22.  The reviewers of this document cannot tell what this is.  Does this refer to differing values between Forest Service staff and various publics, or philosophical differences between Forest Service staff?  What are you folks talking about, and why is it repeated in this document?  It adds no new information to the analysis.  The Forest Service staff discloses in the analysis what their concerns are and how to resolve them in each of the “effects analyses.”   These other, ‘internal’ concerns suggest that some of the information or issues used to formulate the proposed action have not been disclosed in this analysis. 
  
For example: on page 5, we find: “Need: To Identify What is Not On the Official Designated Travel System for the Planning Area & be Able to Restore Lands Back to Their Natural State.”

The Congressional mandate to restore non-Wilderness land “back to its natural state” is quite limited.  NFMA addresses timber productivity methods, timber haul road construction and disposition, reforestation, contract procedures, requires a transportation system within the forest, and adds that sales must “take into consideration” the other resources.  Only timber haul roads are specifically called out for restoration to a natural landscape contour, and those, not even all the time.  And in the FLPMA, restoring the land back to its natural state is also not the primary goal.  Multiple-use, productivity, and natural functionality are mandated by FLPMA. 

2B. Restoring the land to its natural state is much more closely associated with creating Wilderness values.  The National Forests were never intended by Congress to be Wilderness, including IRA’s.  If it was not the intent of Congress for the National Forest to be Wilderness, the Forest Service cannot assign itself the task of making the Forest more like Wilderness in every plan it writes.   How does the Forest Service do this?  With “internal” mandates such as  Need: To Identify What is Not On the Official Designated Travel System for the Planning Area & be Able to Restore Lands Back to Their Natural State.

2C.  This is why the expression of some “internal” agreement, agenda, or presumption, as noted above, must be disclosed and opened to public scrutiny.  Then, the results of those internal deliberations may be incorporated or removed from the proposed action, as appropriate to the congressionally delegated Forest Service mission and the LRMP directives.

Please tell us what the internal concerns are, and how, exactly, they influenced this analysis.  We are particularly concerned about this perceived need to close existing roads and trails, and restore the land back to its natural state. This clearly implies that no other use or activity will be allowed on the restored lands, as the agency investment in the restoration will be used as the reason to prohibit further human activities.


Above:  The natural state of NFS lands, circa 1938.

3. What activity does the Forest Service Intend to Manage?

3A. The EA has no description of the activity that it proposes to manage.  Because one of the objectives of the NEPA is to find the balance between the benefits of the human activity and the effects on the natural environment, it is very important to the analysis that this description fully describes the value that participants derive from the activity.   The Deciding Officer needs this information to inform the question of whether the effects on the natural environment are in balance with the benefits to human society.

We are not attempting to deny that there are physical effects upon the natural environment from trail motorcycle recreation.  We are attempting to help the FS produce a more accurate, defensible analysis.  We know there will be some effects, and not all will be positive.  The purpose of the NEPA is not to find that place where there are no effects, but to find the balance between the benefits to the human environment and the effects upon the natural environment.  NEPA, Section 2 “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man”, and Section 101 under Title I, “ recognizing the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man.” 

3B. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Forest Service to provide a professional examination of the social benefits of wheeled motor recreation.  Given the diversity of cultural values present in modern American society, and the fact that it is not the role of the government to dictate the ways in which individuals and families choose the recreation activities that they find most stimulating and beneficial, the Forest Service is expected to develop a science-based management protocol for motor vehicle recreation activities.  All linear recreation activities have their own negative effects upon the natural environment (Gaines 2003).  By developing an accurate description of motorcycle trail riding, and placing it prominently in the draft EA, the contribution of motor recreation to the “welfare, development, and stimulation” to individuals and families that participate in motorcycle trailriding will become evident, and thus create a science- based and professional weighing of the benefits with such environmental effects as may occur. 

3C. We have found a substantial library of academic literature describing the emotional and social benefits of this sort of “serious leisure,” and this draft EA is totally silent about it.  This is an incredible omission.  If you review some of the literature, you will find that:

Recreation research reveals that leisure activities can be rated according to quality, which is defined as an overarching quality-of-life benefit to the participant.  Very high quality leisure activities, called “serious leisure” by researchers in the field, require a considerable number of complex factors which, in combination, provide satisfaction, personal growth, and fulfillment to the participant.   (Stebbins, R.A. 1983, “Serious Leisure, A Conceptual Statement,” Pacific Sociological Review, 25, 251-272). 

Since Stebbins’ early conceptual statement, the ideas around “serious leisure” and the associated improvements in quality of life and health, has been extensively explored by the leisure academy, resulting  in a large body of literature on the sociology of complex hobbies. 

Another apt description of serious leisure activities is “…a social and emotional interactive process which deconstructs the social and historical biographical inequalities of lived experience to create with-equal other social human bond” (emphasis added). (Podichak W., 1991).

In reviewing the literature, it can be noted, then, that there are a number of essential qualities which identify serious leisure: 

  • High levels of emotional commitment,
  • complex planning and advance preparation,
  • learning new skills,
  • self-discipline to practice skills, with the goal of steadily improving performance
  • operating within relationships with others (the social reference point),
  • success in familiar and in unfamiliar social settings,
  • problem-solving, ranging from very simple to highly complex and potentially life-saving,
  • goal-oriented challenge, and a moderate degree of personal risk,
  • pro-active interest in physical condition, particularly to overcome a disability, 
  • a sense of accomplishment when the adventure is completed. 

Motorcycle trail riding falls directly into the most complex forms of “serious leisure.”  Examples of some other forms of serious leisure that are pursued on NF lands include all types of skiing, mountain bicycling, kayaking, rock climbing, and backpacking.  Therefore, there is a compelling case to be made for closely examining the perceived negative impacts, and correcting inaccuracies.  There is also a compelling case to be made that the “err on the side of caution” policy, in matters of speculative negative impacts, is counterproductive to the USFS purpose and mission of offering quality recreation opportunities on the National Forest, particularly opportunities that are not available in any other setting.

And finally, there is most definitely a case to be made in favor of reasonable trade-offs between the significant social benefits of motorized trail recreation and any measured negative resource impacts that may be noted after monitoring begins.

4. Visitor use numbers

4A. On EA page 47, we learn that “Visitor use continues to grow in both the number of potential activities and the number of people participating in each activity.” 

Yet on p. 49, we learn that a majority of the trails have the same designations today as they did in 1971, 1974, 1978, 1981, 1985, 1994, 2001, and 2005.  This is not a correct statement.  Examples of trails such as Section House, School House, Tenderfoot and Loading Pens have changed designations.  There are others listed as identified on the 1979 map that also fall into this category.

As the proposed action now stands, the Forest Service solution to the growing numbers (increased demand in each activity) is to reduce supply.  We fail to see the rational connection between that solution and the statement “visitor use continues to grow.”

4B. However, we have no baseline data, and no way to determine how much change over time has occurred, to determine the fidelity and accuracy of the statement cited in

4A.  On EA page 19, we paraphrase:  “[… these issues]…..were categorized into three key issues: volume and type of access….[then] …were used directly to form the action alternatives under consideration…”  Yet we find scant factual information about “volume” in the analysis.  Perhaps this information came from the undisclosed private deliberations?

By the same token, the Forest Service seems to want this both ways: increasing demand justifies closer management, yet the solution to increasing demand is not management but rather, reduced supply. No rational service provider reduces supply when there is a manifested increase in demand.

4C. In the draft EA, we find no mention of traffic counters, no mention of the number of visitor contacts, and no estimates of how many people visit each year.  There appears to be no numbers whatsoever to enlighten the Deciding Officer.

This is a critical omission.  The reason is as follows: If we limit our discussion to the singletrack trails, we need to know:
a. How many miles of trail are open to people who ride motorcycles?
b. How many people ride their motorcycles on that inventory?
c. Is that number growing each year?  Declining?  Is that number a tiny percentage of total trail usage, or is it the majority, or is it about the same as other trail uses? 
d. How frequently do nonmotorized users encounter a person riding a trailbike on the singletrack trail?
e. What is the proportionate difference in group size when nonmotorized users meet people riding trail bikes?
f. How long do these encounters last, on average?

4D. Why is this important?  We know of a variety of reasons, and those reasons do not “support” or “oppose” motorcycle riding on singletrack in the Forest.  The reasons do however, inform the Decision:

a. Frequency of encounters and group size are key elements in recreational travel planning.  Because this type of data is not available in the analysis, segregation by activity has no analytical basis, and appears to be arbitrary.

b. Perhaps motorcycle trail riding is a tiny minority of total trail use.  That would cause all claims of “user conflict” and all claims of resource damage caused by trail-based motorcycle recreation to be unsustainable.  There would be no justification for any closures.  Why? 

c. Because the vehicles weigh only 250 pounds and use tire pressures of 15 P.S.I. or lower.  The tire surface area that actually touches the ground (contact patch) is less than ten inches total.  The motorcycle rider travels on the trails at an average speed of 10 M.P.H. 

d. Thus, if we see 300 riders per season, spread over 150 miles of trail; no one would even know that those people even use the trail.     If those 150 miles of trail must sustain 3,000 riders annually, we begin to notice.  If we expect those 150 miles to sustain 30,000 riders annually, we would have to assume that very few visitors hike the trails for recreational purposes.  We would assume that almost everyone rides. 

e. If we use the national average of 3.9 percent as the proportion of Forest visitors who visit the Forest for trail-based motorized activities,  and we have 150 miles of trail with 200 miles of road connecting various trails, the chances of non-motorized user ever encountering a person riding a trailbike on the singletrack trails are extremely low.  The chances would be too low to expend any substantial amount of government resources on managing trailbike use —other than ask people to stay on the trails.  We would contend that 98 percent of the time, that a non-motorized user is on a shared-use trail, then that non-motorized user will never see a person riding a trailbike.

f. Or, perhaps motorcycle trail riding comprises a large majority of total trail uses, and expending government resources for hiking would be unnecessary. This changes the range of viable alternatives.  We would need at least one alternative that proposes to keep every mile open to motorcycle riders, for sustainability and to reduce the frequency of encounters.  Would we also need an alternative that proposes to close most of the trails to non-motorized users?  Probably. Why would that be an unlawful alternative? 

Because National Forest recreation planning is not a “majority rules” proposition.

4E. Our National Forests are and always have been “open to everyone.”    We have always shared the National Forests with others, whether they are like ourselves or different from ourselves.  It is bizarre to find the 21st-century Forest Service assuming that reduced opportunity and segregation are rational and lawful proposals, as set forth in this EA. 


Above:  Facts about volume and frequency of encounters do matter in this Decision.

5. ELK

The presence or absence of the landscape-scale systems that the elk need, is not reliant upon the presence or absence of recreational trails used by motorcycles.

From the SJNF draft LRMP: Page 3.151: 

“Elk numbers within the planning area have increased substantially since the early 1980s. As of 2004, the estimated post-hunt population exceeded the total long-term objective of 26,600 elk by more than 40%.”

“Within the planning area, mule deer numbers have fluctuated during the past 20 years. As of 2004, all of the deer DAUs varied from 1 to 30% below the long-term objective. However, deer numbers have risen lately and currently fluctuate at, or near, the population objective of 83,500.”
 
The existing recreational roads and trails in the study area clearly do not constrain the elk population, and according to the above-quoted discussion, no connection is made between the presence or absence of recreational road and trail access and mule deer populations. 

6.  Route Density

We appreciate the professional treatment of route density in the EA.   However, as this EA may be subject to revision by the pending Forest LRMP, we must go on record with the following data:

6A.  The calculation of route density is almost entirely arbitrary. Why?  Because the ratio of route miles per square mile in any given area is entirely dependent upon the boundaries of the area. The actual surface area stripped by the routes is entirely dependent upon the type (width) of the route.  Thus, the boundaries can be set so that any result is possible, and the difference in effects can be concealed by not disclosing the types of routes in the calculation.

6B. On the SJNF, the road density within the selected boundaries is entirely a product of the Management Area prescription.  Further, the calculation does not take into account the zones within the boundaries that do not have routes, their conductivity, or geomorphic features that define undisturbed zones within the boundaries.  There is no standard for route density and the effect on land health, and the Forest Service has not successfully linked the route density with any land health issues (please refer to our comments on that exact subject for the proposed LRMP.  The comments are detailed and intensely researched, so we will not repeat them here). 

7. Roadless Areas

At EA page 42: “It should be noted, that this travel management plan only considers designation of use on system trails (motorized and non-motorized) within inventoried roadless areas. It does not designate any new system roads through roadless areas.”

7A.  This statement is unnecessary and unlawful.  Designating existing motorcycle trails in the IRA’s is completely legal.  Re-designating an existing trail in an IRA, to open it to motorcycle riders is completely legal.  Constructing a new trail in an IRA for motorcycle riders to use is completely legal. 

 7B.  The TMR is silent on motor access in IRA’s because, law already settles the issue of motor access in IRA’s.  Motor access is left undisturbed, unless the local Forest planning process changes that. 

2B.  The purpose of the local planning process is to identify a change over time, and/or a lawful need for excluding the motor access.  By “rational explanation” we mean, the conclusion must have a rational connection to the facts before the agency considers any changes. 

7C.  By lawful, we mean that, just because the acreage is an IRA, does not assign the Forest Service the task of making it into a Wilderness.  If Congress did not designate it as Wilderness within ten years of the passage of the act and none of it was recommended during any subsequent inventories, then Congress did not intend for the acreage to be Wilderness.  Furthermore, after the most recent inventory the Forest Service declared these areas still unsuitable.

7D.  The EA provides no analysis of a no-action (existing situation) alternative.  The purpose of the no-action alternative is to reveal that there may be a need for a management change, and provide reviewers with a rationale for the decision.  

7E.  The EA Section 3.5.2, page 42, provides no rationale for the decision to close any unclassified trails and routes in IRA’s.  
 
7F.  The total miles of single-track or 2-track trails in IRA’s that are presently, or were at one time open to people who ride trail bikes, is not disclosed in this EA.

7G.   However, the most fundamental fault with the declaration from page 42 is the fact that this is not proposed.  This has already been decided.  The public never had the opportunity to participate in formulating or even commenting on such a proposal because it has already been decided.

Was this decided in the “undisclosed internal deliberations, noted at #2 comment previously in this comment? 
 
 7H.   A clue is identified that some, perhaps a substantial amount of motor access will be lost if any of the alternatives are implemented:

At EA page 43: “In general, the six roadless areas that fall within the analysis area were not recommended for inclusion into the Wilderness Preservation System. In addition, motorized use (including road construction or reconstruction) is allowed at this time in all of the roadless areas within the analysis area. Several system trails also lie within each of the roadless areas, offering a variety of recreational opportunities ranging from motorized, non-motorized, and quiet uses.”

7 I.  In other words, this plan, regardless of alternative, will close all existing unclassified trails in IRA’s to all people who ride trail bikes.   The EA provides no rationale for this decision, and the EA evades disclosing the effects on the recreation resource and the recreational trail system of this loss by not analyzing the no-action alternative.

 7J.   Now three examples from page 43:

“2. San Miguel: …..Recreational activities include everything from hiking and backpacking in isolated areas of great mental solitude to motor biking along trails.”

“5. Hermosa: ……..However, there exists a strong public sentiment to keep the area roadless but not stop historic, high demand recreational activities such as motorcycling and mountain bike use that exists on the trails in the area.”

“6. Ryman: The RARE II study and analysis recommended that the entire area remain non-wilderness. The area had a very low wilderness attributes rating because of numerous unimproved four-wheeled routes and range improvements. The area cannot be connected to other roadless or designated wilderness areas.”

As the EA states on page 43, “the six roadless areas that fall within the analysis area were not recommended for inclusion into the Wilderness Preservation System. In addition, motorized use (including road construction or reconstruction) is allowed at this time in all of the roadless areas within the analysis area.”  

Yet even though Congress never designated these areas, and even though the Wilderness Act instructs agencies and the public that the Act is not to be deemed to interfere with the Multiple-Use-Sustained Yield Act nor the Federal Land Planning Management Act, the EA does not disclose that the San Juan National Forest placed an average of 60 to 90 percent of all the areas listed on page 42 and 43 in primitive, nonmotorized recreation prescriptions in the 1983 LRMP and its subsequent amendments.  This was not required by any law.  The Forest Service was not required and not obliged to treat the lands as though they were Wilderness quality lands.

By doing this, the Forest Service closed almost all of the existing trails and ways in those areas to motor access, and disregarded the wishes of all people who want to do activities that the Forest Service identified as popular, but does not its self (Forest Service) want. 

With those prescriptions, the Forest Service also set in motion the natural outcome of highly restrictive management: the area would eventually become less roaded. 

We have the factual reports revealing that there were many miles of trails and ways and then were closed to motor access at that time, and other ways were closed or abandoned via various subsequent local arbitrary Ranger District Decisions, some supported by a CEQ-compliant process, and many others, not so well-supported. 

Yet those trails would never have existed if no one wanted to ride them.  That is “generally considered” to be a clear manifestation of demand, which the Forest Service persistently chooses to disregard.

 7K.  At EA page 44: “Generally, foot, horse, and mountain bike travel in inventoried roadless areas is considered compatible with roadless characteristics; therefore, those uses are not further analyzed in this section.”  Here, the Forest Service obviously intends us to believe that motorcycle trail riding in IRA’s is not “generally compatible” with roadless characteristics.   This is incorrect.   Just because the acreage is an IRA, does not assign the Forest Service the task of developing it into a Wilderness.  

Declaring that these lands are incompatible with recreational motor trails is neither a rational or logical outcome of the documented failures of these lands to qualify as “Wilderness quality.”

In fact, because these lands have failed to qualify for addition to the Wilderness system in every inventory since the Act was passed in 1964, we find it astonishing to hear the Forest Service tell us that a person who rides a motorized trail bike on a designated trail, is “not compatible” with the “values” of that area.  This is the essence of arbitrary and capricious. 

At EA page 44: “Alternative C would provide the least amount of motorized routes, thereby providing the best overall opportunity for non-motorized recreation.” and,  “Since all alternatives would decommission some level of unclassified routes and/or system roads, the overall undeveloped nature of inventoried roadless areas would improve.”  

This entire narrative reflects a stunning disrespect for the law and for the desires of a rapidly growing recreational cohort.  These areas are not reserved by any law or regulation for non-motorized recreation.   How many roads or trails are decommissioned is not a legal measure of what has been “improved,” because, we will now say it again, these lands have failed to qualify for addition to the Wilderness system in every inventory since the Act was passed in 1964.

 This entire narrative is in direct contradiction with the previous paragraph, “While some people may feel that motorized travel detracts from roadless area characteristics, it should be noted that motorized travel, limited to ATVs and motorcycles, is allowable.”

“Allowable” is not the correct description.  “Completely lawful” is the correct description of the status of motor recreationists in these IRA’s.

We will say it again, to be sure that our position is clear:  Congress did not designate it as Wilderness within ten years of the passage of the act, and none of it was recommended during any subsequent inventory. 

This explains why the EA provides absolutely no rationale for closing all unclassified trails and ways in these areas.  There is no rational or lawful explanation, so the Forest Service chooses to make the decision prior to the analysis, and evade public scrutiny.

8. Habitat Security Areas

Mountain goat sniffing fender of trail motorcycle
Above:  Mountain goat inspecting the front fender of a trail motorcycle on an alpine trail.  Although not in the photo, the rider is sitting on the trail motorcycle.

8A.  Again, we appreciate the professional treatment of this subject in the EA.  However, as this EA may be subject to revision by the pending Forest LRMP, we must go on record  by providing the following data:

8B.  While we recognize that this analysis is examining the designation of roads and trails for motor vehicle use, we take issue with the assumption that people riding motorcycles on singletrack trails have a greater, or in any way more profound, effect than pedestrians, horse riders, pet dogs, or bicyclists on the same single-track trails. Primitive nonmotorized areas per se, do not provide an undisturbed-by-human habitat.  Here is a partial list of studies showing that humans on foot, who are allowed to travel both on and off trails, cause a much more profound disturbance to wildlife than humans in a vehicle:

-Schultz & Bailey 1975 “Responses of National Park Elk to Human Activity”;
-Ward & Copal 1976 “Telemeter Heart rate of Three Elk Affected by Human Disturbance;
-Freddy et al 1986 “Responses of Mule deer to Persons Afoot and Motor Vehicles”;
-Ferguson & Lloyd “Influence of Nordic Skiing on Distribution Moose & Elk” in: “The      Canadian Field Naturalist”;
-Cassirer et al 1988 “Elk Responses to Cross country Skiers”;
-Henson & Grant 1991 “Response of Swans to Human Disturbance”;
-Gutzwiller et al 1994 “Effects of Human Intrusion on Song Occurrence and Singing Consistency in Subalpine Birds”; 
-Knight & Gutzwiller, 1995  Wildlife and Recreationists Coexistence through management and research,  Island Press;
-Klein “Waterbird Responses to Human Disturbances,” Wildlife Society Bulletin. Volume 21
 -Papouchis et al 2001 “Response of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation,”   –Swarthout et al 2001 “Flush Responses of Mexican Spotted Owls to Recreationists,”
-Gaines, et al, 2003, USFS  General Technical ReportPNW-GTR-586 “Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.” 

All of these studies clearly indicate that trail-based pedestrian activities have almost exactly the same effects on wildlife as humans in vehicles on established routes.  It is also becoming apparent that certain human recreation activities have a far more profound negative effect than people riding small motorcycles on singletrack trails.  One of the most profound negative disturbances to wildlife is caused by the dogs that people often bring when they hike, even when the dogs are leashed.  Another activity that is far more disturbing to wildlife than a person riding a motorcycle on a singletrack trail is a human hiking cross-country. This essentially eliminates all security areas, because surprise becomes a primary element of the disturbance.  Most of the wildlife studies we have reviewed observe that negative disturbances are reduced by statistically significant amounts when the human activity is predictable. This difference is so significant that a number of researchers recommend restricting everyone to designated trails, whether afoot or in a vehicle, and some recommend that humans be required to stay inside or aboard their vehicles, to reduce the negative disturbance to wildlife.

8C. The only repeated, observable exception to these research results are deer and elk herds that are hunted.

9.  If you are standing at a bus stop, you should expect to see a bus 

Please refer to EA page 56, Section 3.7.2.

9A.  Motorized activities do not cause “goal-interference” conflict with nonmotorized activities, in the areas of general forest access such as Management areas 2A, 3A, 4B, and 7E, and/or ROS classes such as semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and so forth.  Why?  Because motorized activities are expected in these areas.  Every recreation activity relies on motor vehicles to a greater or lesser extent.  Genuine “goal interference conflict” cannot be sustained in areas where motor vehicle use is expected and lawful.  Therefore, individuals whose goals cannot be met, if there is any sign that motor vehicles have been or may be present, will inevitably go elsewhere for their recreation.  The conflict escalates only when the government offers encouragement to the least tolerant individuals. 

9B.  Supporting the concept that motorized activities inherently conflict with non-motorized activities will result in a gradual redefinition of general forest access standards by inserting Wilderness standards into the regulations for general Forest access.  This not what Congress intended for NFS land use.

9C.  Furthermore, we fail to see how motorcycles driving on these roads and trails can possibly be considered “unmanaged” motor vehicle use.   We fail to see how designating every existing trail open to people riding trail bikes, and requiring these people to stay on these trails, does not constitute the elimination of unmanaged motor recreation.

9D. “User Conflicts” (as represented by the mere presence of motor access) in those areas of the Forest designated for motor access, disregards the LRMP that is already in place and which this EA claims to adhere to.  We construe the use of this issue as an  attempt to redefine the standards for all of the non-Wilderness areas of the entire forest to Wilderness-like standards.  This is not what Congress intended for the Forest Service, and it is not what the LRMP intended. 

9E.  Here is a quote from a recent social research project, which will illustrate the foolishness of government-mandated segregation of forest visitors according to individual desires, values, and tolerance:

Goal Interference and Social Value Differences: Understanding Wilderness Conflicts and Implications for Managing Social Density

Alan E. Watson, USDA RMRS Proceedings, 2001, article begins on page 20:

“…horse users felt invaded by llamas, a nontraditional method of access to wilderness in the U.S.”

And, please refer to Forest Service Research Paper INT-468, “Hikers and Recreational Stock Users: Predicting and Managing Recreation Conflicts in Three Wildernesses.” 

To summarize: “…the majority of the behavior creating conflict for hikers were horses defecating …noisy horse groups, rude horse groups, and trail damage caused by horses. ….separating uses is generally supported by hikers but not by horse users.”

In both these surveys, “conflict” is identified by the Forest Service in Wilderness exactly as it is everywhere else. 

As we noted above, and as illustrated by all of the known research, the Forest Service has embarked upon a fool’s errand.  In the matter of recreational goal-interference on NFS lands, there is apparently no end in sight.

9F.  Given the universal agreement that lifestyle intolerance is the most common indicator of “goal interference-based conflict,” we fail to see how any “user conflict” issue can ever be settled by segregation. Each step toward segregation, will lead to yet another step toward ever more segregation, until the administration of the area, road, and trail allocations becomes impossible (and, it should go without saying, unlawful). 

For the most accurate and reliable LEO capability, and to minimize individual Officer error, and ensure equal treatment under the law, all trails would have to be shared use. 
Furthermore, it appears to be outside the scope of this analysis.  We fail to see how motorcycles driving on the roads and trails can possibly be considered “unmanaged” motor vehicle use. 

10.  Our National Forest:  “They” Are Allowed In, but “We” Are Kept Out

At EA Page 54: “Incorporating December 2005 National Motorized Travel Regulations:

“In December of 2005, the Forest Service published a new national travel management regulation, Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (the Travel Rule) relating to designated routes and areas for motor vehicle use. This Rule is part of a nationwide effort to address unmanaged recreational motorized use and to better focus on providing high quality recreational opportunities for motorized users. The direction in the Travel Rule focused primarily on summer motorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.”

10A.  The Travel Management Rule does not mandate segregating the people who use the trails according to activity (or any other standard).  The local managing unit will be in full compliance when using a system of shared-use trails with all motor vehicles limited to designated roads and trails, should the local managing unit so choose.  “Designation” is not the same as “segregation.” 

10B. We take issue with any claim that this plan will “focus on providing high quality recreational opportunities for motorized users.”  We fail to see how reducing the opportunities for people who ride trail bikes, and segregation under the color of NEPA, provides a higher quality recreation opportunity that we presently enjoy.

10C.  “This Rule is part of a nationwide effort to address unmanaged recreational motorized use…”  In this very analysis, we are told that the existing motorized trail system works incredibly well.   “Unmanaged” motorized recreation is specifically presented as a problem in matters of dispersed camping, but never in matters of trail use.   Thus, we fail to see how closing any existing trails to people who prefer or rely on motorcycles, solely for the purpose of enhancing the nonmotorized users’ experience, is relevant to reducing unmanaged recreation. 

Please refer to EA page 4:

1.3.1 Purpose
“The purpose of the RWDTMP EA is to identify the transportation system with the goal of balancing the physical, biological, and social values served by such a system on approximately 244,550 acres of federal public lands. It responds to several needs noted below.”

1.3.2 Needs
Need: To Identify an Official Designated Travel System and Eliminate Unrestricted Motorized Cross-Country Travel Management Areas
Need: To Reduce Adverse Resource Impacts Caused by the Designated
Travel System.
At EA page 6:

Need: To Designate a Travel System That Attempts to Balance Social and Resource Demands.”

These are identifiable, measurable subject areas which are consistent with the mission set forth by Congress in the MUSA, FLPMA, NFMA, the primary authorizing legislation for the Forest Service mission in the last century.

Now refer to EA Page 56:   3.7.2 “Affected Environment – User Conflict & Variety of Experiences.

“As more people and differing types of use continue to increase, it is inevitable that user conflicts will also continue to escalate. Conflict happens when a person’s expectations for his or her recreational experience are not met. This can occur as a result of contact with another user or, of disturbance from the sound and physical evidence left by another user on public lands. Examples might include noise from firearms being fired, horse manure on a trail, or evidence of wheel tracks.

Here we learn that balancing social and resource demands is not what it appeared to be in the Purpose and Need.

Why do we say this?  Please:

11.  Escalating user-conflicts is an inevitable result of increasing demand? 

We fail to see how such an assumption is possible. Four problems:

11A.  EA page at 57: “The potential for conflict exists among all user groups, and even among the different members within a user group, when personal expectations of the desired experience are not being met.”  Here we learn that the Forest Service is setting sail on a fool’s errand, since the Forest Service is telling us that “user conflict” exists among all user groups. 

Because the Forest Service does not disclose how it chose to eliminate “motorcycles” from many trails, solely to resolve these differences, we have no way of knowing what, or how many other conflicts the Forest Service intends to resolve on this mission.

11B.  Based upon what the EA says at page 57, “user conflict” is described as a social issue. This is correct.  However, as this social issue is further detailed in the EA,  it becomes some sort of  “conflict,” originating in philosophical differences between individuals pursuing lawful activities on public lands,  which the Forest Service now perceives it must resolve. 

How this conflict is manifested is not disclosed.  The reason it is not disclosed is because it is impossible: “User conflict,” as a social issue, is ephemeral, its occurrence is hearsay, and there is no evidence.  But most important of all, there are no standards by which public land visitors can reliably adjust their behavior such that the Forest Service does not construe more, or less, “user conflict.”

11C. This is not a task identified in NEPA, FLPMA or any other authorizing legislation pertinent to this EA.   

11D.  We fail to see how the personal distress that some individuals act out when encountering another person lawfully riding a motorcycle on the trail, falls within the scope of the regulatory mandate driving this analysis, which is: reducing unmanaged motorized recreation by designating all routes intended for motor vehicle use.

Neither does it appear to be consistent with the Purpose and Need, at least, not if we read and comprehend the words as they are written, and assume that the words are written within the context of the Forest Service authority as delegated by Congress. 

12.  The class of vehicle does not cause the crime

12A.  If there are problems with property damage, personal injury, or damages resulting from any otherwise regulated transaction between visitors, these problems are the responsibility of the state. 

In case this is still not clear, we will spell it out again: An identifiable resource conflict, for example riparian destruction caused by grazing, is one which FLTMA and NFMA assign the Forest Service to resolve. “Values” conflicts, such as a person who believes passionately that motorcycles should be prohibited on Forest Service lands, and is angry and upset by the sight of tire tracks on the trail, is not a matter the Forest Service is authorized to regulate, influence, support or dispute under any authority.  The Forest Service is not responsible for the emotional disposition of the people who visit National Forests.
 
12B.  The Forest Service’s responsibility is clearly spelled out by FLPMA and NFMA, and it is not by accident or coincidence that meddling in personal values, philosophies, or cultural differences between different people engaged in lawful activities on Forest Service land is not within that clearly spelled out authority. 

We absolutely cannot allow the government to expand its regulatory authority into this realm.

The expansion of government regulation in an administrative process designed expressly for the government to give itself more authority over the individual citizen, is inappropriate when the proposed regulation is in support of or criminalizes any lawful activity based on individual differences of cultural, philosophical, and personal values.

Therefore, the answer to the statement on page 58, “No single measure can provide conclusive direction on how to best allocate limited resources for all these diverse user groups.” is to simply go back to basics: everyone shares.  As Americans, we are taught tolerance and acceptance from cradle to grave.  

12C.  Furthermore, we fail to see how the emotional expectations of hikers and horse-riders and bicyclists falls within the scope of an analysis whose Purpose is to restrict motor vehicle operators (people) to a designated trail system, in order to reduce unmanaged motor vehicle use.  We fail to see what has changed so substantially that these other users are no longer expected to share.

13.  A Short Language Lesson

13A.  The San Juan National Forest is directed by the Travel Management Rule ( § 212.55)   to consider “conflicts among uses“.  Many people, forest staff and public alike, believe this is the same as “conflicts between users“, but that is a misconception. The DPLO staff itself has confounded the two in the Purpose and Need of the EA.  Please refer to page 2, “Summary,” the second bullet item:

    “Resolution of recreation conflict;..”
     
We thank the EA writers for doing a good job of describing what is meant by recreation user conflicts (EA page 56).  The description is clearly and concisely set forth and it is consistent with the literature in the field.   This reveals that the Forest Service should “know better.”  By that we mean, and have already noted earlier in our comments, that this task is outside the statutory authority of the Forest Service.  Placing this task in the Purpose and Need encourages misunderstandings in the forest staff, and between the San Juan and the public. The expectation of encountering few or no people engaging in “unacceptable” activities will give some recreationists the false hope that the Forest will make decisions to benefit their activity, at the expense of others.

13B.  Thus, one of your first tasks is to correct the wording in the Purpose and Need.

Please delete the erroneous statement “reduce recreation user conflicts’ from the Purpose and Need on page 2, and replace it with the following wording, which accurately states the directive in the Travel Management Rule:

“Consider conflicts among uses”

To provide accuracy and consistency in the EA, and for the benefit and edification of the forest staff and the public, please insert the following Statement after the “Purpose and Need” which appears on page 2:

“The San Juan National Forest has no statutory authority to address or reduce philosophical differences between different people engaged in lawful activities on the national forest.  Additionally, the resolving, reducing or mitigating of what is commonly named “user conflict” is not an objective of the Travel Management process, and shall not be used as a factor or a criteria for making decisions for designating roads, trails and areas for motorized use. The resolution of philosophical differences is not a Desired Outcome requiring management action on the part of the San Juan National Forest. Many activities and uses are legal, including but not limited to walking, bicycling, horseback riding, camping, and the use of motorized vehicles. The philosophical issues have been settled by law for 45 years, since the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act.”

13C.  The EA fails to provide a rational explanation for how it is possible that offering segregation does not plant the seeds of intolerance.  The EA fails to provide a rational explanation for how it is possible that when the government implements segregation in this plan, it does not nourish intolerance.  The EA fails to provide a rational explanation for how it is possible that the enforcement of segregation does not create contentious emotional conflicts where there were none before. 

We expect an explanation because historically, segregation always produces that outcome. It is a course of action which opens the door for arbitrary decisions by agency individuals under the color of their authority as Executive Branch employees, regardless of the activities under consideration.

13D.  The EA cites the Jacob and Schreyer research, ” Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective” published in the Journal of Leisure and Research in 1980. The fundamental theory, that lifestyle intolerance is the primary indicator for a person’s inclination toward “user conflict” (as correctly defined in the EA), has been proven accurate by every social researcher since that time.  Thus, it is highly imprudent for the Forest Service to base new restrictions (on otherwise lawful activities) according to cultural, philosophical, or values differences that different groups or individuals hold dear.

13E.  From E.O. 11644, amended by E.O 11989:
Section 1.
Purpose. It is the purpose of this order to establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Sec. 4. Operating Conditions. Each respective agency head shall develop and publish, within one year of the date of this order, regulations prescribing operating conditions for off-road vehicles on the public lands. These regulations shall be directed at protecting resource values, preserving public health, safety, and welfare, and minimizing use conflicts.

Now please refer to  Section 202(c) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712):

1.Use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield;

2.use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to integrate physical, biological, economic, and other sciences;

3. give priority to designating and protecting areas of critical environmental concern;

4. rely, to the extent available, on an inventory of public lands, their resources, and other values;

5. consider present and potential uses of public lands;

6. consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means and sites for realizing those values;

7. weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits;

8. provide for compliance with applicable Tribal, Federal, and state pollution control laws, standards, and implementation plans; and

9. to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of public lands with land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments/agencies and state/local governments, as well as the policies of approved Tribal and state land resource management programs. The Agency must, to the extent practical, assure that consideration is given to those Tribal, state, and local plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands. Land use plans must be consistent with state and local plans to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law.”

Note that the words used in the E.O. and in the TMR is “uses” and “use.”  The words “conflict between “users,”  and “user conflict,” do not appear in the E.O.’s, the FLPMA or the NFMA.  This is not by accident or chance.   It is not the government’s job to interfere with, take sides, support, or discourage any lawful, harmless activity based on differing cultural values, social strata, or philosophical beliefs.

13F.  Should we also cite the NFMA, the  MUSYA, the Organic Act, and so forth?  We hope not.  Nowhere in any of those laws do we find a Congressional or Executive mandate to resolve, reduce, or even address “user conflict” as it is defined in the Rico-West Dolores EA.

14.  Cultural and Heritage Resources
Rock with letters scratched into it

15 Quiet Use

Managing for quiet uses is mentioned fourteen times in this analysis: on page 7, 9, 27, 31, 48, 61, 63, 64, and 72.  However, no definition of quiet use is provided.   

15A.  No lawful definition has been developed.  This is not by chance.  “Harm” cannot be itemized or acted upon, because “quiet recreation,” and what disturbs it, are entirely dependent upon personal and cultural values.  One of the judicial standards an appeal of an agency decision is to show harm.  We expect the same standard to apply here.

15B.  Absent any lawful definition, the public has no way of adjusting its behavior such that the Forest Service does not perceive that we have sufficient or insufficient “quiet use” opportunities.  Would a troop of bagpipe players hiking in time to their very brash and noisy instruments violate this condition?  Loud laughter?  A high school marching band practicing in the mountains where they perceive they are not bothering anyone?  The only clear and lawful definition of this quiet use condition is already found in the Wilderness Act.  Attempts to apply an undefined standard outside of Wilderness will cause visitor expectations to be left unmet, because the landscape study area is not Wilderness.  The Forest Service has included literature on user conflicts in this EA.  Thus, the Forest Service knows that unmet expectations are the single most-cited cause of “unsatisfied” responses to visitor surveys and the single most-cited cause of user conflict. 

Thus, as we have never delegated to the Forest Service the authority to manage for quiet use, please remove quiet use as an element that is used to formulate the FONSI. 

15C.  If Forest Service insists on keeping quiet use as a condition to be met somewhere in the study area, please add the following statement to this analysis:  “Although the Forest Service intends to try to create this condition in some places in the study area, Forest Service has no lawful definition for “quiet use” outside of Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.”  

15D.   Non-motorized activities that require the total absence of any motor vehicles (outside of Wilderness, and outside of SPNM  ROS classified acreage), will not be displaced by any of the alternatives, because the motorized activity is already present, and it is a legal activity.

15E. “Quiet recreation” outside Wilderness has no legal status such that other lawful activities must be excluded.  It is based on differing personal value systems.  The Forest Service has failed to show that “quiet” is not the predominant condition forest-wide.  Furthermore, the Forest Service fails to provide a rational explanation of how, exactly, lawfully operated motor vehicles on existing routes cause this “less quiet” condition to be so acute that route reallocation and closure is now proposed.    The reviewer is left to speculate.

15F.  The Forest Service already has the authority to issue violation notices to people engaged in activities that are excessively noisy.  We have a well-established legal standard for identifying such nuisances.  Lawfully operated motor vehicles are not one of those identified activities.  Forest-wide reallocations are not necessary.

15G.  Adding 15D, 15E, and 15F together, it appears that what the Forest Service means by “quiet” recreation is a total absence of any motor sounds, even when the sounds are less audible than the natural forest sounds.  This is a Wilderness standard, and it is not applicable to general forest access issues.
15H.  Furthermore, it appears to be outside the scope of this analysis.  We fail to see how any consideration of “quiet use,” in management areas classified such that driving on roads and trails is completely lawful, can possibly be related to reducing unmanaged motor vehicle use. 

Motor vehicle circa 1920
Quiet use, circa 1920

16. Burnett Roads #422, 422A and 422B.

16A.  First, we compliment the EA writers on their realistic appraisal of the effects of several proposals.  We will further encourage the Forest Service to leave the use on these roads as it presently is, by adding the following:

16B.  We find no information, report, referenced records, or summary of evidence of criminal activities.  We have uncovered no evidence that the presence of motorcycles presents an immediate threat to life or property.   There are approximately 30 million motorcycles in the United States.  The EA fails to provide a rational explanation of how the “physical presence” of motorcycles (but not other motor vehicles) operating on an existing NFTS route, can lawfully be excluded from this road.  The road is already there.  Motor vehicles use the road.  Motorcycles are motor vehicles.  Their “physical presence” is expected

16C.  To complicate the issue, highway-licensed motorcycles cannot be lawfully excluded when all other classes of highway licensed vehicles are allowed. “Highway licensed” and “motorcycles” are not mutually exclusive.  This is one of our points when we say the Forest Service is embarking on a fool’s errand by trying to satisfy the philosophical, cultural and personal values of certain individuals or groups by the imposition of more and more restrictions on general forest access.  Philosophical differences regarding the sights and sounds of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, have already been resolved by law.  That is, only in Wilderness can the value-set of no motor vehicles, no sights, no sounds, and no tracks, be placed above all others (except human health and safety).

16D.  We will repeat: The Forest Service has the authority to issue violation notices to people engaged in activities that are excessively noisy or which create a nuisance.  Plus, the County Sheriff’s deputies and the Rico Town Marshal have the authority to issue violation notices to individuals engaged in activities that are excessively noisy or which create a nuisance.  We have a well-established legal standard for identifying such nuisances. Lawfully operated motor vehicles are not one of those identified activities.

16E.  “Physical presence” is not a standard or criteria from the TMR.  It is a suggested factor to be considered during the planning process. However, motor vehicle use is common in the town of Rico.  Road density is extremely high.  People expect to see motor vehicles on the roads. 

16F.  If we refer to the Forest Service San Dimas  Technology and Development Center’s Sound Levels of 5 Motorcycles Travelling Over Forest Trails, and Rock Creek Enduro Sound Tests Eldorado National Forest May 1993, publications # 0E11A40 (1993 and 1994) at page 2:
 
text clipping

References 5 and 6 address “Signal Detection and recognition,” that is, the human ability to discriminate between audible sounds that are the same or lower than the ambient sounds and attach a value judgment to that sound.  That reaction is a function of that listener’s attitude toward the sound source.  Certain sounds represent objects that bother a few people–in this case, those who dislike motorcycles.  Other people are indifferent, and the sound means nothing.  Others enjoy motorcycles, and either don’t care, don’t mind, or are glad to hear the sounds. 

When people expect to hear the sounds, their reactions are dramatically altered.  In the Rural, Roaded, Roaded Natural, and the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classes, the presence or absence of motor vehicles, and the sound of a passing vehicle, are not lawful metrics for whether the condition is improved or degraded by the elimination of motor vehicles.  As we noted above, the visitors (and the adjacent landowners) expect to hear the sounds. 

16G.  Furthermore, it appears to be outside the scope of this analysis.  We fail to see how motorcycles driving on public NFTS roads can possibly be considered “unmanaged” motor vehicle use. 

fire crew member on a motorcycle
Forest Fire Crew Member

17. Case or controversy?

17A.  The Forest Service indicates that “some” people want absolutely no motorcycles on the Burnett Road and Forest Roads 422, A, and B.   These people dislike the sight and sound of motorcycles. We do not find any indication that it is illegal to ride a motorcycle on these roads.  The Forest Service does not say why it is incumbent upon the Forest Service to satisfy the personal preferences of some people, at the expense of a key Forest access point for everyone else.   The Forest Service does not describe any of the circumstances which cause a “conflict,” other than some people strongly dislike it.  The Forest Service has not identified the authority delegated by Congress or by Executive Order for the purpose of resolving some individuals “disagreement” with lawful and harmless activities.  This is a controversy, not a case to be prosecuted in this analysis.

17B.  Furthermore, it appears to be outside the scope of this analysis.  We fail to see how motorcycles driving on existing system roads can possibly be considered “unmanaged” motor vehicle use. 

18. No alternative describes the existing condition. 

18A.  The Forest Service displays no baseline condition to compare with the proposals.  Because of this omission, we know nothing about the magnitude of the change to the affected environment, as reported in Chapter 3. The information in Chapter 3 is not used in Chapter 2.

18B.  CEQ does not require that the no-action alternative be one that is possible for the Forest Service to implement. CEQ regulations emphasize the need for a baseline, to which the proposed action can be compared.  Without any alternative that presents this baseline information, we have no way to assess the proposed action’s magnitude of effects. 

18C. To further clarify this, CEQ has specifically addressed the matter in its “40 Questions, #3:”
“… it is difficult to think of a situation where it would not be appropriate to address a “no action” alternative.  Accordingly, the regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives.  It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency which must be analyzed. Section 1502.14(c). See Question 2 above. Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. Section 1500.1(a).”

18D.  The human environment and the natural environment are inextricably intertwined by the very nature of this analysis. That is, we are analyzing the forest as an environment in which human activities occur that are not available in any other environment.  That “environment” is, humans using roads and trails in the Forest.  Thus, we need a no-action alternative which fully and accurately describes the present situation: what trails are the people riding motorcycles on today, under the present regulatory scheme, regardless whether the trails are classified, unclassified, or System; and, regardless of which management area the trails are in; and, regardless of whether the trails are in an IRA. 

18E.  The Forest Service claims that an alternative that designates all existing routes would conflict with the TMR EA (page 19), and that is why it was not analyzed.  The Forest Service is in error.

From CEQ 40 Questions: “2a. Alternatives Outside the Capability of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or can it be limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant?

“A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is “reasonable” rather than on whether the proponent (in this case, the TMR rule-makers) or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant (in this case, the TMR rule-makers).

“23c. What options are available for the decisionmaker when conflicts with [land use plan or policy] are identified?…. the decisionmaker retains the authority to go forward with the proposal, despite the potential conflict.

18F.  Based on the West Dolores-Rico EA, designating all existing routes as open to motorized use (size-appropriate) is reasonable and in fact should be the preferred alternative.  We say that because all of the routes already exist, and, the resource effects analyses all disclose that the environmental effects, at the present use-levels and the present maintenance levels, are not measurable.

18G.  The judicial standards for upholding an agency Decision require that the Decision have a rational connection to the evidence before the agency, and stay within the statutory authority of that agency.  The evidence before this agency has been set forth in this EA.  We have no unresolved conflicts.  Differences of philosophy, cultural attributes, and personal values which manifest themselves as “goal-interference” conflicts are outside the scope of this analysis and outside the statutory authority of the agency.    

 19.  Last, we look at the EA’s attitude toward what “Dad” said to do 

19A.  Please refer to the EA Purpose and Need, Chapter 1, where the Forest Service sets forth the authorities it will adhere to in this EA:

“This analysis complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (amended 1992), and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.”
Also refer to EA 1.3.2, Needs:

“The travel management plan and environmental assessment will be developed in accordance with the Forest Plan and the laws and regulations that govern forest management. This action responds to the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan, and it helps move the DPLO toward desired conditions described in that plan.”

Also refer to Section 1.5, Forest Plan Direction:

“The San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1983, amended 1992, (Forest Plan) is implemented under the requirements of the Forest and Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (RPA, P.L. 93-378) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA, P.L. 94-588). The Forest Plan defines a set of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that provide the forest-wide direction for managing the San Juan National Forest and its resources. The Plan provides the framework for the actions proposed.

“Current Forest Plan direction for the management of recreation resources in the analysis area is highly generalized, with some restrictions placed on dispersed recreation opportunities or the use of motorized vehicles. General Direction in the Forest Plan pertaining to recreation and transportation is found at pages III-3, III-5, and III-75 through III-79. The RWDTMP EA will adhere to the Forest Plan.

“The Forest Plan went through an intensive NEPA process (analyzed through an Environmental Impact Statement) that resulted in a final plan and record of decision. The travel management plan is the mechanism to develop a transportation system that helps meet Forest Plan desired conditions.”

19B.  And what does Dad actually say?

Please now refer to the April 1992, Amended San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,.  We did not find any direction in the Forest Plan, either explicit nor implicit, that calls for minimizing or decreasing motorized opportunities on either roads or trails. 

At page III – 3, Forest Direction for Recreation, Cultural and Visual, please note the first bullet item:

 “Provide nearly equal areas for motorized and non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities.”

On LRMP page III – 107, the detailed prescription for management areas includes this prescription for Dispersed Recreation:

Management Activities  General Direction  
CONTINUATION OF:

Visual Resource Management
(A04)

Dispersed
Recreation.
Management
(A14 and 15)
 

01 Emphasize semi-primitive motorized recreation Increase opportunities for primitive road and motorized trail use…”.

“02  Manage to allow low to moderate contact
With other groups and individuals.”
 

Trail system management on page III- 115 includes this prescription:

Trail
System
Management
(L23)

 

 

“01   Maintain existing motorized routes or construct
new routes needed as part of the transportation system.
Develop loop routes and coordinate them to compliment semi-primitive motorized opportunities in adjacent semi-primitive motorized ROS classes.”
 

And this prescription is reiterated on page III – 129:

CONTINUATION OF:

Road
Maintenance
(L19)

Trail
System
Management
(L23)
 

“01   Maintain existing motorized routes or construct
new routes needed as part of the transportation system.
Develop loop routes and coordinate them to compliment semi-primitive motorized opportunities in adjacent semi-primitive motorized ROS classes.”
 

Please note: we have edited the LRMP statements already covered by our comments (i.e. the difference between uses and user, etc).
 

19C.  What Dad Did With This Instruction
And how close was the situation on-the-ground to these prescriptions?  We refer the reviewer to the “Management Area Summary” which describes that Forest-wide, a “near-equal” allocation was not the case.  The ratio was (we estimate) 800,456 acres to 156,191 acres (considering only recreation emphasis areas).  Hence the explicit instruction in the LRMP  to maintain and/or construct new motorized trail bike opportunity.  Why?  Because it was (and still is) needed, to achieve the goals and future conditions envisioned by the LRMP.  Yet that never happened.

Also please note that while the EA study area may not fall strictly within the management areas specified in the LRMP for maintaining and increasing semi-primitive motorized trail bike opportunity, CEQ states that the authorized official retains the authority to proceed with a proposal that is not consistent with the LRMP.  Thus, any existing motorized trail bike opportunity in IRA’s and which are corridors through PNM ROS classes can be retained, and if the authorized official perceives the need, more semi-primitive motor bike trail may be retained, restored and constructed, even if it is within a primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class and an IRA. 

Yes, we agree this can go both ways.  However, the Forest Service must disclose its purpose when such a departure is proposed.  When the LRMP direction is to “retain and increase,” then any attempt to explain an intentional decrease will necessarily be difficult.  Why?  Because the result will speak for itself: further curtailment of semi-primitive motor trail and road opportunity makes the Forest more road-less, more trail-less, and more like Wilderness.  As we stated earlier and the Forest Service well knows, Congress did not intend all NFS lands to be Wilderness and inaccessible.

In this case, to comply with the LRMP visions and goals, more semi-primitive motorized trail bike opportunity is needed.  Why?  Because Forest-wide, motorized trail bike opportunity has been persistently curtailed since 1992.  We point the Forest Service to the constantly evolving travel maps, and ongoing route decommissioning as just two examples.  We will not take the time to explicitly document this fact in our comment. 

We will stand by our statement of persistent declines in motor trail bike opportunity regardless of the correspondence attached to the EA regarding Alternative B, because the target and goal of that correspondence is tainted.  Not by dishonesty or by conflict of interest, but rather, it certainly appears that the correspondence is intended to reassure certain individuals that nothing has changed. 

19D.  Opportunities, Change, and Courage
This Travel Plan is an opportunity to correct the discrepancy reported in the 1992 LRMP amendment.  This Travel Plan is an opportunity to keep the San Juan National Forest “open to everyone.”

Yet it is only more curtailment of semi-primitive motorized trail bike opportunity that’s proposed.  We say “appears” because the Forest Service has made it impossible to determine whether the proposed travel plan is in compliance with the LRMP or not.  How has it done this?  Three ways:

1. On EA page 9 we learn what Management Areas predominate in the study area.  We can find the Forestwide acreage allocations in the LRMP, but not the acreage allocations for the study area.

2. The Forest Service has selected boundaries for the study area that do not correspond with any of the boundaries set up in the 1983 LRMP or the 1992 Amendment, nor do the study area boundaries correspond with the Ranger District boundaries. Thus, reviewers cannot determine the Forest-wide acreage allocations and the study area acreage allocations. We are quite sure other reviewers have attempted to calculate this, and we will not duplicate their efforts. 

3. The EA provides no analysis of the existing situation, in which we would learn the motorized and non-motorized recreation allocations in the study area as they exist today.  The CEQ fact of the matter is, we must be able to compare the differences between the present allocations and the proposed allocations, and in this EA we cannot.

What we are able to compare in this EA is the raw acreage available to each type of activity.

Here we find what appears to be an insurmountable conflict with the LRMP.  Non-motorized users are welcome to travel anywhere they wish in the study area, 244,550 acres.  The existing situation, as reported on EA page 4, welcomes people who ride motorcycles on ~50% of that acreage (the “F” Zones).  However, the topography in the study area is mostly steep and far too rugged for motorized trail bikes to travel cross-country and actually “use” that opportunity 
People who ride motorcycles use paths made over the course of many generations, and these paths became established trails, and named, and placed on Forest Service maps. We would know all this if we had an analysis of the existing situation.

Why is this important?  Because the non-motorized users have 244,550 acres, now, and will still have access to 244,550 acres post-FONSI/Decision Notice.  The motorized trail bike riders will not, and never have, had that kind of access.

Old b&w image of old truck wih corpsman driving
A Civilian Conservation Corpsman hauling logs.

19E.  The missing Table

If we use the scale of effects calculation from the Soils And Geology Analysis (EA page 72), we find that the most generous alternative allots a total of 902 acres to people who rely on any type of motor vehicle.  This is 0.37 of one percent of the entire study area (where 100% equals 244,550 acres). 

Here is how the table would look if the Forest Service had chosen to present the data in comparable form.

Alternative (across):
vs
Acres open to (down):
Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Existing Situ.
Hikers & Horsemen 244,550 244,550 244,550 244,550
Trail Motorcyclists 81 80 81 125,267 plus trail acreage outside of “F” Zones
Motorcyclists & Cars, Trucks, SUV’s & 4×4’s 869 912 902 125,267 plus trail acreage outside of “F” Zones
ATV riders (includes road acreage) 788 832 821 125,267 plus trail acreage outside of “F” Zones

Are the numbers in the above table so lopsided that it looks irrational?  Of course! 

Wouldn’t it be correct to say that anybody who leaves their vehicle also has access to the entire study area? Of course!

The absence of the no-action, existing situation analysis makes our table look silly. Why?  Because reviewers need to know that cross-country travel by motor vehicle is nearly impossible in the study area.  Reviewers need to know that the trails were made by repeated use of a linear path, and were always open to everyone because there is no other way unless a person is hiking cross-country.

Nevertheless, the Forest Plan direction is for providing “nearly equal areas for motorized and non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities.”

19F.  A Fast-Growing Recreational Cohort Asks For A Tiny Piece Of The Pie

Furthermore, it can be stated that SJTR does not disagree with the basic concept of designated motorized trail bike trails.  We do object to the small and continually shrinking amount of trail being designated for motorized trail bike use.  In fact, as the acreage charts above show, we are not asking for very much. Even when we ask to have every single-track trail restored to “open-to-motorcycle riding” status circa 1971, we will still “have” less than one percent of the study area. 

The non-motorized users —not restricted to any trails at all—would still have 99 percent of the 244,550 acres all to themselves. Their complete unwillingness to share a fraction of one percent of the study with people who are slightly different than themselves is stunning.

However, comparing acreage is only one way to make sure our point is clear. Let’s take a look at LRMP compliance in the study area as proposed by this EA, using other recreation planning tools.    

19G.  Miles, Hours, and Choice

1)  At EA page 56, we learn that the preferred alternative proposes 110 miles of single-track trail for motorcycle riders, and 199 miles of trail for all other non-motorized users. 
Does this represent more miles for motorcycle riders, or less miles, than the present?  We don’t know because we have no way to determine the magnitude of change that the Forest Service proposes. Maybe the motorcycle riders have access to 300 miles of trails at this time, and will lose almost 75 percent of their access.  Perhaps this is the reason we don’t see a no-action alternative in this analysis.  The Forest Service must conceal a totally lopsided re-allocation of trail miles.

Even without the no- action alternative to show the magnitude of change that’s proposed, if we consider trail mileage the “areas” that the LRMP directs us to keep “nearly equal” for motor and non-motor access, anyone can see that 199 miles is not nearly equal to 110 miles.  Semi-primitive motorized trail bike opportunity has access to just 55% of the area. It should be self-evident, but it apparently is not so we will spell it out: 55% equals half as much opportunity.  That’s not “nearly equal” by anyone’s definition of “nearly equal.”

2)  If we measure recreation experience in hours, and not miles, the proposed allocations are even more lopsided.

Please refer to EA page 56 for the basis of our calculations:

•    for a one-day trip, hikers and horsemen can access 32 times the mileage needed.  They have 32 different choices each time they plan a hike or a ride.
•    for a one-day trip, mountain bicyclists can access 14 times the mileage needed. They have 14 different choices each time they plan a a ride.
•    for a one-day trip, motorcycle trail riders can access 2 times the mileage needed. They have 2 choices each time they plan a ride.
•    These calculations do not include any overlap.  Remember, everyone except the motorcyclists can travel cross country.  The hikers and horsemen can use the bicycle trail.

In other words, everyone except people who ride motorcycles on single-track trails has a tremendous multitude and diversity of trip choices.

3)  We further note that “future opportunity” is proposed for non-motorized users, yet zero “future opportunity” is proposed for motorcycle trail riders.  The Forest Service is telling the people who ride motorcycles on single-track trail that this already lopsided situation will indeed, become even more lopsided. 

4)  Thus, no matter how we analyze the analysis, the proposed action is not in compliance with the LRMP.  In fact, no alternative offered in this EA is in compliance.

5)  To summarize, the Forest Service established the LRMP as one of the prime directives brought forward to guide this plan.  That commitment is made in the foundational chapters of this Travel Plan analysis. The Forest Service cannot lawfully change the “rules of the game ” at this point in the process.

In fact, the TMR provides the opportunity for the Forest to comply with the direction of its current Forest Plan by adding single-track trails, and thus bring motorized and non-motorized opportunities into better balance.

20.  The Resolutions for our Concerns

In consideration of the above comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Rico-West Delores Travel Management Plan, we request that the following changes be made to the proposed travel plan:

20A. Correct, delete, or add language in the EA text as we have noted, and as otherwise necessary, based on our discussion in each subject area. Specifically, the forest service can begin the corrections with the following:

1A, 1C, 2C, 3B, 4D(a), 6A, 6B, 7K, 9, 10A, 10B, 12A, 13B, 15 in its entirety, 16 in its entirety, 17A, 18F, and all subsequent changes as they become evident as a result of the above cited section changes.  Change text under “Designated Motorized and Shared-Use Trails – Features Common to All Alternatives” referencing Calico Trail.  To read:  Calico Trail from the intersection with the Priest Gulch Trail Head on the South to the Northern Trail Head of Calico.  This will match the map, which indicates the entire length of Calico from North to South as open to motorized single-track use. (page 24 in the EA)

20B.  Permanently designate all trails presently open to motorcycles, and those being considered for re-designation, as motorized trails including additional critical connectors to current and other established system loops.

•    Burnett Creek Trail – (Historical Motorized Use) Designating this trail as half-open to motorized use and half-closed to motorized use is absolutely senseless in any reasonable term.  The FS has shown no rationale for closure in this fashion or any other.  This trail has no history of environmental degradation, is a principle connector from the Calico Trail into the town of Rico, which provides a significant element of rapid safety access for motorized users in the event of an incident or injury.  FS designation for motorized use of this trail dates back to 1979 and prior mapping. It should not be considered for closure to motorized use in any Alternative.

•    West Fall Creek Trail – (Historical Motorized Use)Designate this trail as motorized for its entire length from Calico Trail to its intersection at Winter Trail.  The FS has shown no rationale for closure of the lower section of WF Creek Trail.  The elimination of the lower section of this trail creates difficulty in directly connecting with the Winter Trail at the most reasonable point. This trail has been designated on FS mapping for motorized use back to 1979 and prior. This trail should not be considered for closure to motorized use in any Alternative whereas no use conflict has been identified in the EA to warrant it.

•    Sockrider Peak Trail – (Historical Motorized Use) Designate this trail as motorized for its entire length.  This is the least dangerous route along the Calico Trail for users and also provides a tremendous scenic opportunity as one of the highest points on the Calico Trail.  This trail is designated as motorized on each end of the trail and has been listed on FS mapping since 1979 and prior for motorized use.  The FS has presented no use conflict or additional rationale in the EA to warrant closure to motorized use.  This trail should not be considered for closure to motorized use in any Alternative.

20C.  Re-designate to single-track motorized / multiple-use the following trails:

•    Loading Pens Trail – (As late as 1983 FS mapping this trail was open to motorized use).  This trail has continually been maintained by motorized users for multiple- use since that date.  The consideration of this trail for re-designation is now critical for single-track users in that it now becomes the direct connection to the newly created ATV route on Taylor Mesa and further to the Spring Creek Trailhead to the North.  Without this connection, motorized users will have to travel miles by FS road to the top of Taylor Mesa for a connection to any of the motorized single-track routes.  The Loading Pens Trail has not and is not being used by any other recreational user other than single-track.  It simply does not present itself as an attractive hiking or other non-motorized use opportunity and has no history of it.  Since no use conflict exists, as identified in the EA, a multiple-use designation is appropriate.

•    Morrison Trail Connector – (Historical Motorized Use through FS Access route).  This route gives direct connection to all routes in Cortez/Mancos area and cannot be lost to the public just to satisfy local residents who have chosen to reside directly next to a designated trail section.  The agency is clearly working to pacify the resident at the detriment to the general public.  There are no environmental / resource use issue and philosophical differences of how this access trail should be used will never be resolved.  However, without clear resource use issues the route must remain open to the Public.  It is a critical North / South trail system connector, used in long time history by only by one recreation group (motorized).  It cannot be lost in this EA.

•    Upper Bear Creek connecting to Bear Creek Basin – (Historical Motorized Use as early as 1983 mapping).  The FS has shown no conflict uses of this section of trail and should be made available for motorized use as it once was. Closure to motorized users has limited access to the Upper Bear Creek Basin and all associated scenery and fishing opportunities unnecessarily.

•    Section House Trail – (Historical Motorized Use on 1983 FS  Mapping and before)

•    Schoolhouse Draw Trail – (Historical Motorized Use on 1983 FS  Mapping and before)

20D.  Additional trail closures to motorized use that do not have record of being legally processed through NEPA in the past must be reinstated and re-evaluated at a later date for suitability, if use concerns are identified.  Those trails are identified from FS mapping as:
–    Ryman Creek (all sections)
–    Silver Creek
–    East Fork Trail
–    Groundhog Stock Driveway
–    Fish Creek (upper)
–    Pipe Creek
–    Sharkstooth
–    Kennebec Pass

On behalf of our approximately 400 members, the San Juan Trail Riders Association respectfully submits these comments and recommendations with the assurance that they will receive positive consideration and review as a part of the process of completing the final Dolores / Rico EA.

Glenn Graham – Chairman

Don Riggle – Director 

 

   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

BRC/TPA/COHVCO motion for the Utah BLM case

April 7, 2009

Subject: (Proposed) Answer of Trails Preservation Alliance to Second Amended Complaint

Case #1:08-cv-02187 (RMU)

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Stephen Allred, et al.
Defendants
and
Trails Preservation Alliance
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Inc.
The Blueribbon Coalition
Applicant Defendant Entervenors.

(Proposed) Answer of Recreational Groups to Second Amended Complaint

Applicant Defendant-Intervenors Trails Preservation Alliance, Colorado 500, Inc., Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Inc., and the BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc. (the “Recreational Groups”) hereby answer the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 86) using the same numbering scheme as in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Unless specific responses to individual sentences or allegations are indicated, the response herein applies to the entire corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

The Recreational Groups admit, deny, and allege as follows:

1. Introductory statements characterizing the nature of the action and Plaintiffs’ claims requiring no response. To the extent a response is required the cited authorities speak for themselves, are the best evidence of their contents, and otherwise deny.

2. Introductory statements characterizing the nature of the action and Plaintiffs’ claims requiring no response, and further allege that the cited authorities speak for themselves, that from the Recreational Groups’ perspective any intent from the Bush-Cheney administration to grant one last, or any, favor to off-road vehicle enthusiasts was never communicated to the Recreational Groups and is certainly not offered by the RMPs and Travel Plans, which dramatically reduce vehicle access from that previously authorized and enjoyed for decades by the public, as further described in the Recreational Groups’ protests to the Moab RMP and Travel Plan.

3-5. Present legal conclusions requiring no response; deny to the extent a response is required.

6. Admit.

7-8. [Jurisdiction & Venue]. Present legal conclusions requiring no response; deny to the extent a response is required.

9-21. [Parties]. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

22-23. Admit.

24-27. [Legal Framework – I. NEPA]. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

28-34. [Legal Framework – II. NHPA]. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

35-46. [Legal Framework – III. FLPMA]. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

47-50. [Legal Framework – IV. WSRA]. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

51. [Facts – Bush Administration Legacy]. First Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny. Second Sentence: Admit.

52. Admit.

53. [Facts- Moab RMP- 1. BLM develops]. Admit, except to note that “wilderness” is a defined term specifically referencing and limited to formal designation as wilderness, which can be accomplished solely by Congress pursuant to the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq., and that there is no such formally-designated “magnificent red rock wilderness” in Utah as Plaintiffs allege.

54-60. Admit.

61. Presents legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

62-64. [Facts- Moab RMP- 2. Alleged Flaws]. The cited documents speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents and otherwise deny.

65. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

66-69. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

70. First Sentence: Presents legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny. Third Sentence: The cited settlement agreement speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and otherwise deny.

71. Admit that conservation groups challenged the referenced settlement agreement; otherwise presents legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

72-76. Characterize the cited documents which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Additionally present legal conclusions which require no response and otherwise deny.

77. [Facts- Price RMP- 1. BLM develops]. First Sentence: Admit. Second and Third
Sentences: Admit the referenced features are within the area managed by the Price Field Office but deny the specific characterizations presented.

78-79. Admit.

80. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

81. First Sentence: Admit. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

82. First Sentence: Admit. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

83. Admit.

84. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

85. Admit.

86-87. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

88-90. [Facts- Price RMP- 2. Alleged flaws]. Characterize the cited documents which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Additionally present legal conclusions which require no response and otherwise deny.

91. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

92-101. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

102. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

103. [Facts- Vernal RMP- 1. BLM develops]. First Sentence: Admit. Second-Fourth Sentences: Admit that the referenced areas are found within the Vernal Field Office, that river runners and paleontologists are among the numerous and diverse user groups who visit the Dinosaur National Monument, and otherwise deny.

104. First Sentence: Admit. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

105. Admit.

106. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

107. First Sentence: Admit. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

108. First Sentence: Admit. Second Sentence: Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

109. Admit.

110. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

111. Admit.

112-113. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

114-116. [Facts- Vernal RMP- 2. Alleged flaws]. Characterize the cited documents which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Additionally present legal conclusions which require no response and otherwise deny.

117. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

118-126. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

127. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

128. Presents legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

129. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

130. [First Cause of Action – FLPMA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

131. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

132-133. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

134. [Second Cause of Action – NEPA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

135-137. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.
138-139. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

140. [Third Cause of Action – NHPA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

141-145. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

146-149. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

150. [Fourth Cause of Action – FLPMA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

151. Characterizes legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

152-153. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

154. [Fifth Cause of Action – FLPMA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

155. Characterizes legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

156-157. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

158. [Sixth Cause of Action – NEPA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

159-160. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

161. First Sentence: Characterizes the cited settlement agreement which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and otherwise deny. Second Sentence: Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

162-163. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

164. [Seventh Cause of Action – WSRA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

165-166. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

167-171. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

172. [Eighth Cause of Action – FLPMA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

173-174. Characterize legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

175-177. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

178. [Ninth Cause of Action – NEPA]. The answers to the referenced paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

179. Characterizes legal authorities requiring no response; to the extent any response is required, admit the cited authorities contain the cited language or provisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; deny any legal conclusions, advanced or implied.

180. Lack information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore deny.

181-183. Present legal conclusions requiring no response and deny to the extent a response is required.

GENERAL DENIAL
The Recreational Groups deny each and every allegation in the Second Amended Complaint not expressly admitted above.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. Plaintiffs fail to validly invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The matters addressed in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint are not ripe for judicial review.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, having fully answered the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, the Recreational Groups pray for judgment and ask the Court to rule, adjudge and grant relief as follows:

1. Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and deny each and all claims for relief;

2. Enter judgment on behalf of Defendants and the Recreational Groups, and against laintiffs;

3. Such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

 


 

Additional related documents:
Exhibit A – Declaration of Don Riggle on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance, Inc.
Exhibit C – Declaration of Brian Hawthorne on behalf of The Blueribbion Coalition, Inc.
   
   
   
Continue Reading

TPA/COHVCO combined comments to the Grand Junction BLM RMP

March 17, 2009
Subject: GJFO Travel Management Notes

General Notes: BLM policy is to perform a analysis of all routes and produce a travel plan for all modes of transportation. The inventory of the general access and the recreation routes is almost complete (on the maps made available in February of 2009), however, routes constructed in recent years that access the gas industry infrastructure is not included. Because the gas industry routes are expected to be in operation for a long time, it is difficult to do a comprehensive travel management plan without this information on the maps.

We suggest that the Field Office consider designating motorized routes for intensive management only in SRMAs. These include the present SRMAs and those areas classified as SRMAs in the new RMP. Designating and implementing the motorized and non motorized routes throughout the field office is a daunting task. This high level of management can not be sustained over the entire field office. In remote areas with low visitor numbers, a less intensive prescription can be adopted. The "open to existing only" prescription is far more feasible. Maps, entry kiosks and strategically located signs, to make sure the visitors know these areas are no longer open to cross-country travel have proven sufficient in the past, but only when BLM is pro-active about getting the signs in place, and making sure maps are easily obtainable. It is also very important that the signs be maintained. This approach is consistent with the custodial nature of recreation management on BLM lands not classified as SRMAs.

It is unclear at this time what method GJFO will use to determine which routes will be designated into a travel management system. We do expect the GJFO staff to make the selection of the guidelines public during the alternative development phase of this analysis, and we do expect to be full participants throughout the entire process. We also expect rational explanations for any routes that the Field Office wants to remove from the inventory.

Map F:
This map does not show the network of gas industry roads that exist along with the county roads and the recreational trails. The representation is incomplete, and fails to represent all the needs of a comprehensive travel analysis. The gas roads have become an integral part of the recreation trail system. At this point in the planning process, the density, impacts and opportunities that these roads create are not available for public review or analysis.

In sections 11 and 12 , just south west of the Pyramid Rock ACEC is a system of single track routes that are used primarily by motorcycle trials riders. (specifically F551-F572-F502-F538-F536-F602-F575-F573-F580-F633-F579-F503-F715-F615 ) This is a very valuable recreation opportunity. We would like to see this opportunity developed for trials motorcyclists. It provides an opportunity for both casual use and organized competition of a very high caliber. The natural features of rock and slick rock are highly sought after for a quality trials location.

Map G:
Most of the routes north of South Shale Ridge are inaccessible to the public. For a variety of reasons the private land owners have found ways to block public access to this large area. We hope GJFO will prioritize the restoration of public access to this area in the RMP. (specifically G67-G142-G50-G92-G45-G26-G202-G14-G52)

Map I:
This map includes the Coal Gulch Rd. (Mesa Co V.8) to Ross Ridge. In the North Fruita Desert Plan several trails were analyzed for construction in this area. At this time, GJFO has made no progress toward the implementation of these routes that were a major public issue of contention during the planning process. In fact, the already analyzed and approved trails do not even show on the map. Please refer to the North Fruita Plan final map. We expect to see these trails on the map, and we expect the unfinished trails to be a high priority for implementation in the RMP.

Some of these unfinished trails include the MTB/ motorcycle trail parallel to V.8 Road and connecting to Ross Ridge, the reroute of the Lippan Wash single track trail around the waterfall, and the motorized single track alternative the Lippan Wash (Waterfall) Trail.

The Ross Ridge area is an ideal location to begin a long-distance dual sport /backcountry route with a destination in Debeque. A number of existing BLM and county routes can be connected to made this opportunity possible. A trail connection would have to be made from Ross Ridge to McCay Fork to the east. This connects to county Rd. X.9. This connects to County Rd. O.9 to South Shale Ridge Rd. then east to X.9, east to County Rd.200 and south on Roan Creek Rd. to Debeque. Less than one mile of trail needs to be constructed to create this excellent opportunity. The rest is on existing county or BLM routes.

Map K:
The single track trails west of 4.0 Rd. near Prairie Canyon Rd. are excellent recreation trails. Designation of this trail system s important to local residents. Please try to work with the Moab FO to assure that the other half of the trail system , in Utah remains available for public use. The routes are: K213-K212-K210-K209-K211-K41-KK115-K110-K48-K204-K111-K30-K102-K205-K203-K202-K195-K196-K194-K198-K197-K199-K51-K151-K152-K149-K147-K252-K62-K251-K253-K255-K254-K252-K231-K235-K238-K239-K78-K93—K244-K245

Map L:
This map include the Grand Valley Open Area and the lands between 27 ¼ Rd and 21 Rd. The combined north desert zone is seen and treated by the public as one large open area because of the total lack of visible management by BLM. Between 300,000 and 400,000 visits a year are recorded in the area. This is more than any other area in the field office, (and maybe the most for any recreation area in western Colorado). The north desert is a regional attraction. It is an ideal place to teach kids to how to ride, and the mild Grand Valley winters make it popular spot for people seeking a riding vacation away from the snow country.

However, the North Desert’s close proximity to the city of Grand Junction, and a lack of official presence, has allowed the growth of a number of activities that are a hazard to the recreationists who like to visit and ride in this area. We have witnessed drug dealing, drug-taking, trash dumping, prostitution, assaults, and other bad stuff. We often find used needles and other illegal drug materials, human waste, and alcoholic drinking trash.

The failure of BLM to make even the slightest effort to reduce these criminal activities is irresponsible. Public health and safety is one of the few well-defined responsibilities of the BLM, and the public has a right to expect the BLM to take considerably more interest in reducing the criminal activity in a heavily used recreation setting.

As BLM staff so very rarely visits the area, we will tell BLM that the criminal activities conflict with the legitimate recreationists during the nightime and early morning hours. The reason is, many recreationists have come from out of state and "camp out" in expensive motor homes, with their families, in the North Desert. They bring a substantial amount of valuable personal property. These innocent out-of-town visitors too often find themselves confronted by Individuals who need to fund a drug habit GJFO should be ashamed that these visitors must share the recreation area with a serious criminal element.

Furthermore, the persistence of the drug trade and other criminal activity in the city is facilitated by the BLM’s disregard for the fact that these people use the North Desert to escape from the city police jurisdiction. GJFO is conspicuously aiding and abetting the drug and crime problem in the Grand Valley via its neglect of the North Desert.

Therefore, we insist that in the RMP, GJFO make it a high priority to increase its presence in the North Desert, and we insist that GJFO coordinate with the County Sheriff’s Office to drive the criminal element out of the recreation area. For the managing agency (BLM) to continue to ignore this area is stunningly irresponsible.

At some time in the past, hundreds of small catch basins and sediment dams were installed throughout the north desert. This is a significant step to control sediment travel and selenium transfer to the Colorado River.

The proliferation of routes between 27 ¼ Rd. and 21 Rd. can only be attributed to the BLM ignoring a obvious management issue for decades.

Issues that complicate the designating specific routes : Lots of commercial uses-oil and gas transmission lines-power line corridors-grazing leases-numerous entry points along the urban interface-4 county roads in planning area- inability for the public to differentiate between routes due to density- possible displacement of historic uses- mild terrain- sparse vegetation- arid environment- Mancos clay is the dominant soil type with high levels of selenium- slow vegetative recovery rate

Lets look at the pluses (+) and minuses (-) of some different management options:

1. Define a designated route system between 27 ¼ Rd. and 21 Rd.
+ provides structure to an unstructured situation
+ may have a positive influence on off site impacts
– almost impossible to manage
– would require a large commitment of BLM resources
+ would be politically correct
– might be very unpopular

2. Expand the Grand Valley open Area all the way to 21 Rd. Fence the west side of 21 Rd to delineate the open area from the designated trails area of the adjoining North Fruita Desert. Leave pass-throughs at the designated trail intersections on the west side of 21 Rd.
+ a manageable approach that limits the proliferation of trails
+ probably acceptable to the OHV public
– probably not acceptable to the green community

The city of Grand Junction has proposed major development for 29 Rd. to the east of the airport. An overpass and cloverleaf are proposed. The city would like to develop a light industrial park and truck service facility on private and state land in this area. The present use as a trailhead for OHV recreation onto BLM lands would be displaced.

There is obviously a huge demand for large, open motorized recreation areas. The exceptionally high annual visitor numbers for the North Desert makes this abundantly clear. Accommodations for the displaced BLM visitors must be built into the planning and development strategies for the proposed industrial development. The above management options would help to offset this loss.

Although we would prefer to keep the area west of 27-1/4 Road "Limited to Existing" prescription, we realize there is a considerable amount of diversity within the motorized recreation community. To effectively keep the area west of 27-1/4 Road from becoming another Open Area, GJFO should fence the west side of 27-1/4 Road to clearly delineate the different areas, and install clear and unmistakable instructions to the visitors of the change in regulation from "open" area to "Limited" area at the "pass-throughs.".

Map O:
Grand Mesa Slopes-The existing system of bicycle trails in the Palisade area are not shown on the map.

The urban interface zone accessed by the 34 & C Rd. entry is currently classified as an SRMA. The area has received only custodial management over the past decade. The plan that was written and adopted for the area in the early 1990s has not been implemented. As a result the area continues to be unmanaged. We recommend that the Grand Mesa Slopes be reclassified to an ERMA. The prescription for ERMAs is custodial management.

We recommend that all the existing routes be designated except in the vicinity of the 34 & C Rd. entrance (Area 01). In Area 01 barriers and fences need to be erected to define the designated routes that lead to the roads and trails beyond. The fragmented ownership pattern would make enforcement of a designated route system in the rest of the Grand Mesa Slopes very difficult.

Map P: Bangs Canyon
Bangs Canyon has already had the travel management process applied to it in the Bangs Canyon Implementation Plan of 2006. Further transportation planning should not be required. Routes closed and those designated for administrative use only are not delineated on map P. This is a mistake. Trails proposed for areas 1,4,5,6 are not shown on the map. This is also a mistake. Some closed routes have been removed, while others remain on the map. Please clarify which routes are to remain open to public access and which are scheduled for closure by the previous decision, and, please include the new routes, approved in the Bangs Plan, on the inventory maps. Leaving them off is a mistake.

This map does not accurately show the present condition. Some of the corrections that need to be made include:
• P152 is closed east of P 1030
• P270 is closed
• P219 is closed
• P106 is closed
• P450 has a locked gate at P451
• P288 has a locked gate at the section line between section 34 and 35
• Hiking and bicycle trails accessed from the First Flats Trailhead are not shown.
• A maze of trails between P735 and P665 is not shown
• The Old Kiln Trail is not shown
• The newly constructed single track trail in area 4 –connecting P1027 to P2 is not shown.
• The proposed trails (5C as shown on Bangs Map 5, March 2006) on Horse Mesa and Hells Hole are not shown.

GJFO seems to have hit a snag in the implementation of motorized trails as described in the Bangs Canyon EA FONSI. Progress on the Snyder Flats single track trails for motorcycles and bicycles appears to be stalled.

We suggest, as a solution, that the single track trails shown in the original plan be moved. The mileage can be compensated for by the construction of the 5C trails as shown in the final EA for Bangs Canyon. In addition, single track trails should be added in area 4 and area 5 to provide the same level of opportunity as was planned for in the 2006 EA. The demand for quality, purpose built single track experience has not diminished, but the supply has been stalled. As noted above, there is considerable diversity within the off-highway community, and the Bangs Canyon trail system is a handsome addition to the Grand Valley motorized opportunity spectrum.

Our recommendation for additional single track trails in areas 4 and 5 are presented on the attached map.

This issue can be resolved by a supplemental EA to the Bangs Canyon Implementation EA or through the RMP process. We suggest a supplemental EA, completed in a timely way, due to the high public interest that GJFO generated in the plan and in the trails during 2007 and 2008.

Map Q: Glade Park
The BLM lands north of DS Rd. beginning at the Utah border and extending east to Q27 and north to the NCA border have a series of routes that are not shown on the map.

The area east of Miracle Rock, near route Q528 has many more routes than are shown on the map. This is a popular hunting area. Access is important to hunters.

These omissions are a mistake, and need to be corrected.

Map S: Cactus Park/ Dominguez
The existing trail network in Cactus Park is entirely user created. It includes county roads, farm roads and ATV trails. Many of the trails on the west and north east portions of the area (along the ridge and those connecting to county Rd.31.4) are dead ends. From a recreation and resource point of view, these routes should be connected to make loop trails. In addition, the existing trails that run near the top of the ridge (in a north south direction) should be joined to the routes to the south. This would make a connection that will be beneficial to the recreation trail system as well.

Due to the evidence of unmanaged camping and day use, a trailhead or primitive campground near highway 141 (S648-S651-S646) would help reduce impacts from visitors.

Access to Dad’s Flat is important . routes S189-S379-S106-S9

We recommend that S117 and S161 remain open to motorized use as ATV trails. These routes provide spectacular views of the WSA for those not physically able to hike in. These routes end on the tops of cliffs, so intrusion of vehicles into the WSA is not likely.

The area to the west of Divide Rd. in the vicinity of routes-S197-S354-S356 and west to S7 –has seen a lot of cross country travel ( currently legal) by fire wood and stone gatherers. This un managed activity is stripping vegetation and disturbing stable soils. We recommend that if these activities continue to be allowed the routes of travel must be delineated and cross country travel prohibited.

The two through routes between Cactus Park and county Rd.24.2 are important recreational routes. They form part of the Tabaguhe trail. The routes take many different numbers in the BLM map. They do string together to make a variety of recreation experiences for the long distance off road “adventure” trail opportunity.

Map U: Granite Creek
It is vitally important that Sheep Creek Rd. (U676) and the connecting routes at the top of the mesa remain open to motorized access. These routes along with U199-U664-U675-U662-U665-U671- provide high quality OHV adventure and long distance opportunity. The remote nature of Ryan Park and Granite Creek are highly prized by the OHV community. These are the only unpaved connectors linking Gateway to Glade Park and Grand Junction. In addition these routes connect to even more scenic adventure opportunities to the west on Grand County roads in Utah.

Delores Point offers a spectacular OHV opportunity. The mix of easy roads and technical trails provides a quality experience of great riding and views of the south west canyons and cliffs. The specific routes include: U520-U544-U605-U599-U135-U110-U107-U382-U380-U379-U71-U37-U35-U36-U38-U47-U77-U80-U84-U731-U425-U69-U422-U56-U730.

Map V: Gateway Mesas
This map illustrates a vast undeveloped potential resource for motorized and non motorized recreation. The routes that remain from the historic mining activities create the basis for a destination recreation opportunity. We see this as a textbook opportunity to develop a true multiple use complex. The existing routes, plus purpose built single track trails, will provide for extensive and high quality Jeep, ATV and motorcycle trails. The views are spectacular. The history is fascinating. The trails are entertaining.

The rugged and remote nature of the mesas have great allure to locals and destination vacationers alike. The rocky nature of many locations is well suited to OHV. The routes created by miners up to 100 years ago are still often usable with no maintenance at all. Comprehensive signing and visitor maps will increase the fun and benefit the safety of all visitors.

We encourage that all the existing through routes be designated as multiple use trails. We also encourage that day use and overnight facilities are written into the plan so the public can better access the undiscovered place without the impacts from camping.

The number of routes and the complex nature of ground disturbance in the Gateway Mesa area makes route designation a very big task. We suggest that this work can be accomplished using a combination of BLM and NGO help in a collaborative process.

In recent conversations with the Grand Valley Ranger District of the GMUG, the possibility of designating or constructing interconnecting trails between the Gateway Mesas and the Uncompaghre Plateau motorized trails was favorably received by the District Ranger. We urge GJFO and the Grand Valley RD to communicate and co- operate on these potential routes. TPA would be willing to work with both agencies to help accomplish this goal.

   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

TPA 2008 End of year and financial

January 1, 2009
Subject: Trails Preservation Alliance 2008 End of Year ReportThe Board of Directors (BOD) wants all TPA supporters and donors to be aware of the actions we have taken during 2008 to protect the sport of motorcycle trail riding in Colorado.

Since 2008 was our start-up year, we incurred numerous preliminary costs to establish a web site and an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. These one-time costs and our ongoing costs for IRS accounting and reporting are time consuming and expensive. Be assured that your TPA BOD is making a concerted effort to reduce our overhead operating costs and to maximize donations that go towards supporting TPA goals.

Listed below are the major efforts undertaken by the TPA in 2008. It is hard to judge success in many of these areas, since measurable success may not come for some time. However, the TPA has been successful in establishing itself as a working partner with the FS and BLM on motorcycle trail riding issues. Please see our web site news section for updates on the most current issues.

• Alpine Trail Systems
Worked with Ouray FS trail crew on Alpine Trail systems
Pledged $1K in 2009 to support trail crew efforts

• BLM Grand Junction Field Office Support
One-year sponsorship of a volunteer to assist in planning for Gateway and Bangs Canyon RMP’s

• Colorado Motorcycle Clubs
Assisted with TMP issues to include state OHV grant request process
Donated several new chain saws and support awards for use in trail maintenance

• Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition ( COHVCO)
Established a formal working relationship to maximize resources for joint responses to OHV recreation plans by FS and BLM

• Correspondence with FS Chief
Submitted several letters, with legal opinions, to Chief of the FS, on the FS TMR and MVUM regarding regional implementation plans

• Fundraiser Activity Support
Supported Rocky Mountain 400 and Colorado 500 off-road events
Both activities are major TPA and COHVCO fund raising events.
TPA to conduct several fund raising “rides” in 2009.

• GNF TMP Issue
Still ongoing, expected to be a major effort in 2009

• GNF/Taylor Park Trail
TPA trail crew performed extensive trail maintenance

• Moab RMP
Submitted in-depth position paper to BLM
Currently in discussion with BRC and local Utah organizations to determine best course of action for Moab RMP

• NF FS and BLM Office Participation
Attended many meetings and submitted several position papers to five separate NF FS and BLM offices in Colorado, for TMP and RMP planning considerations

• Position Papers
Submitted extensive position papers to BLM for: Ñ Moab, Monticello, Green River, Price and Dry Creek

• RMP Protest
Submitted a protest to BLM on RMP findings

• San Juan Trail Riders Support
Assisted in TMP issues with Pagosa FS district and San Juan NF recreation planning

• SMEs – Forest Service TMP/DEIS and BLM RMP Issues
Hired three Subject Matter Expert consultants who valuably assist TPA and COHVCO responding to all trail issues

• WR TMP/SDEIS Response
Completed an in-depth 20-page document shared with all WR NF users. The TPA (and former C500 LDF) has been continuously involved in this action for over three years

• Utah Motorcycle Organization Support
Active monetary and written material support for Utah efforts in preserving OHV recreation.

The TPA BOD appreciates the support and donations from motorcycle riders throughout the United States provided to the TPA in 2008. 2009 will be a critical year in our ongoing efforts to protect our sport.

If you have any comments or suggestions on TPA plans and actions, please let us know. Thank you for your support.

*Statement of Financial Position is attached in PDF.

Continue Reading

Comments for the Grand Junction Field Office RMP

January 05 2009
Letter to:

Bureau of Land Management
Grand Junction Field Office Resource Managment Plan
2815 H Rd.
Grand Junction CO 81506

Dear ID team:

The following are the scoping comments for the Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plan as presented by the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO). These two organizations represent over 200,000 off road vehicle user in Colorado. We look forward to working with the GJFO on the RMP.

General Comments

We would like the GJFO to make finishing the implementation of the plans already completed the highest priority in the RMP.

For example, the North Fruita Desert Plan is finished, yet several trails that were analyzed and approved in the Plan have not been built. The upgrade of existing trails to the standards that were approved in the Plan has not been done.

The Bangs Canyon SRMA Plan is finished and the trails approved, but again, the implementation is incomplete. The community has a vested interest in the completion of this trail system. We encourage GJFO to work co-operatively with TPA and other interested partners to secure funding and any other support necessary to construct these important recreation assets.

We would very much like to see the GJFO finish the Gateway Plan, and not do it as part of the RMP. The Gateway resort and surrounding BLM lands have been discovered by the public. It is unrealistic to ignore the Gateway area for the several years it will take to complete the RMP. Perhaps the Gateway Plan could be completed concurrently with the RMP, so that implementation can begin as soon as possible.

Travel Management

It is unreasonable to expect the GJFO to maintain a signed and patrolled designated route system covering over one million acres for the indefinite future. The public is better served to have GJFO prioritize its resources in high use areas (SRMA’s) and leave the remaining land to custodial management as instructed in the planning handbook.

We think the direction being taken by the Wyoming state office is a far more achievable approach. Wyoming is doing detailed route inventory and evaluation in SRMA’s. The travel management implementation, using signs, maps, and other visitor amenities will be fully accomplished in those areas, and in all other parts of the Field Offices travel will be limited to existing routes as defined by the inventory. We think this is a realistic way to address the expected scarcity of agency resources.

We think that the RMP process should reconsider the substantial costs of completing some of the earlier and somewhat unrealistic plans, such as the Grand Mesa Slopes and north DeBeque (Garfield County). These already have designated routes as their travel management prescription, yet the BLM has been unable to implement them. None of these areas have recognizable designated routes. Maps and signs have not been provided to guide the public. These areas receive light visitor use and are some distance from the population center. No interested partner has stepped forward to help the BLM implement either of these plans. In other words, the public has little interest in these particular management areas.

The GJFO might consider that because these areas receive light visitor use and there are no agency partners to help, the need and cost of analyzing and designating the routes, then maintaining, patrolling, signing and mapping the system, may not be the best use of the agency’s limited resources. Those agency resources could be better used in the SRMA’s that are closer to the population centers, such as Bangs Canyon and the North Fruita Desert. Changing that allocation of agency resources can be done in the RMP.

In other words, we would encourage the GJFO to reduce the scope of the tasks it sets for itself, instead of increasing its workload to the point where none of the RMP goals can be achieved.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

We are strongly opposed to the consideration of the Delores River and any of its tributaries for consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. It was not eligible in the last review, and nothing has changed to make it eligible now. The Delores is not free flowing. The flow is determined by the irrigation needs of downstream agriculture. This is not to imply that it is without value as a recreation and scenic resource. What we object to is the imposition of land use restrictions similar to those of designated Wilderness without Congressional approval. This may be the case if the subjective measure of “Outstanding Remarkable Values” is being used to determine the suitability of the Delores

Our sentiments are the same for every new W&S river nomination: None were eligible in the last review, and nothing has changed to make them eligible now.

Heritage Areas

The designation of Heritage Areas is a new and unprecedented expansion of agency authority. There is no statutory or executive authority for such a designation. This new designation implies a new category of use limitations and restrictions, and the material supplied by the GJFO does not answer that implication. We hope this new restriction on public access is dropped from consideration in all alternatives. Cultural resources are already protected by the Archeological Resources Protection Act. We see no need for a local designation that would add yet another layer of land use restrictions.

The descriptions of the Heritage Area locations seem to coincide with the presence of T&E plants. We can see no rational connection. Like cultural resources, rare plants already have protection.

In what we are sure is an oversight: The Tabaguache Trail has not been shown on the cultural map as an historic route.

Back Country Byways

We would like to recommend the designation of two new back country byways. The designations will direct attention to the outstanding recreation experiences as well as facilitate funding opportunities from federal, state and outside sources.

The two byways are the Tabaguache Trail and the Gateway Byway. The Tabaguache Trail is the present alignment (modified to include the new connector segment). The Gateway Byway would include the Niche Road (Mesa County 6.3) and the John Brown Road to the Utah border.

Dominguez Canyon WSA

We strongly object to the expansion of wilderness designation beyond the present WSA boundaries. Any change in the presently prescribed allocation of motorized and non motorized uses would not be in the best interests of the community. Motorized intrusions into the WSA in its present form are rare. Changing the boundaries would create new and un-necessary expansion of restrictive regulations. Wilderness values are presently well protected.

North Desert/ Bookcliffs

This area reaches from the Utah border to Mt. Garfield and from Interstate 70 to the northern border of the FO.

Beginning at the east: A network of single-track trails exists along the Utah border west of Prairie Canyon Rd. The trails extend across the border into the Moab Field office. Moab has chosen to ignore the existence of these routes in their recently signed RMP. We want the GJFO to include these trails in the designated route system and to work with the Moab FO in an effort to designate the portion of the network that is in their jurisdiction.

Colorado State Parks maintains a high quality camping facility at Highline Lake. These facilities are busy in the summer when water sports are popular, but they are not busy in fall and spring when the North Fruita Desert SRMA has its highest use time. Legal motorized / mountain bike access from the Highline Lake campgrounds is not presently possible. Only a short section of a route that already exists needs to be designated as a trail to accomplish this goal. We would like to have GJFO work co-operatively with Colorado State Parks to remedy this situation.

North Fruita Desert is a good example of shared use motorized/ non- motorized recreation as described in the plan. The only problem is that not all of the development and trail upgrades have been accomplished. We would like to see the remainder of the motorized trails constructed and the upgrades to current standards be applied to all trails as described in the plan. Specifically, we would like to see the motorized trail in Lippan Wash and the new trail that will parallel V.8 Rd. constructed. Finishing the implementation of existing plans is an RMP- level decision.

The extension of 21 Road, Hunter Canyon, is a popular area for rock crawling. The fact that it changes each year with the rock obstacles moving about as a result of the seasonal flows is an added attraction. Suitable access agreement should be made between GJFO and the legitimate rights of the private in-holder.

Moving east, the area between 21 Road and 27 ¼ Road should remain an ERMA and custodial management applied to the existing trail and road network.

The Grand Valley Open Area extends east from 27 ¼ Rd. to Mt. Garfield. This area is highly valued by hundreds of thousands of local visitors, and thousands more out-of-region and out of-state visitors during the winter months. It functions well for its intended purpose.

We want to see that area continue as it is presently designated, which we understand, to be open to cross-country travel east of 27-1/4 Road, and limited to existing routes west of 27-1/4 Road. More signs to inform the visitors that this is the rule would be appreciated. The reason we ask for that is because the installation of the two kiosks in the last three years has helped to reduce the cross-country travel on the west side of 27-1/4 Road. This shows that people will follow the rules when they know what the rules are. We would also like to point out that the signs are not vandalized.

An even more effective improvement would be a fence on the west side of 27-1/4 Road, with clearly defined entry points. At the entry points, we would like signs that tell people what the rules are.

Considering the huge visitor numbers this area receives, the absence of any amenities whatsoever seems irresponsible.

We realize that many people access these areas who are not “recreationists,” and this makes providing sanitation and interpretive and regulatory signing difficult to maintain. However, if the amenities are placed further north on 27-1/4 Road, we feel that BLM visitor compliance would improve and enforcement would be easier.

The two shooting ranges are important recreational assets in the Grand Valley. We appreciate the work that BLM and its volunteers have accomplished to improve these sites. We would like to see the ranges continue to be maintained to safe and sanitary standards.

DeBeque

The area south and west of DeBeque presently sees little recreation pressure. The natural gas industry has a large presence with many wells, pipelines and roads. The terrain remains visually very exciting with cliffs and washes that offer extraordinary desert scenery. A system of single-track trails connects many of the gas industry roads with quality trail opportunities and access to the washes and slick rock. We would like to have these trails designated as single-track motorcycle and mountain bike trails. Little infrastructure is necessary due to the present level of use. It is foreseeable that additional recreation pressure and the growth of the town of DeBeque, over the life of the RMP may have impacts on the area. An improved partnership with the town and the energy companies would be a feasible source of support for tail and infrastructure development in the future.

Bangs Canyon SRMA

The Bangs Canyon SRMA is a project in progress. We at TPA hope to be able to further our partnership in order to assist GJFO in the successful completion of the trails and infrastructure in Bangs. To that end, we offer to help secure financial and in kind support for this project. It is important that the internal GJFO resources and priorities be focused on accomplishing the goals set out in previous decision before new projects are undertaken. Prioritization for implementation of existing plans is an RMP level decision

Cactus Park/ Dominguez Canyon WSA

Cactus Park is adjacent to the Bangs Canyon SRMA, the Dominguez WSA and the Uncompaghre NF. The existing system of travel routes serves the ATV and 4X4 communities well. The Tabaguache Trail also goes through the area. Dispersed camping and wood gathering has left a poor imprint on the vegetation and routes. Designation of the existing through routes and the establishment of a developed campground will go a long way to reduce the impacts and retain the recreation opportunities. In addition, a developed campground will help accommodate the foreseeable increase in visitors as the Bangs Canyon and Tabaguache Trail improvements come on line.

We would like to see greater restrictions on residential wood gathering and Christmas tree harvesting on the sparse, desert pinion forests. The removal of these very, very old pinion pines should be more closely monitored, and both of these activities encourage cross country travel by large vehicles during times when the soils are wet. We hope that these activities will be better managed in the future.

Gateway

We recommend that the mesa tops and access to the mesa tops be allocated to shared use primitive motorized recreation. The existing network of routes needs to be designated as shared use for all visitors. In addition we would like to have a system of single-track trails to enhance the quality of the trail experience, which will in turn coincide with the destination quality of the Gateway region. The designation of a Back Country Byway in the Gateway region (see Back Country Byways) will increase the ability to compete for federal, state and private funds to implement and maintain a quality system of recreation routes on Delores, Calamity, Outlaw, Blue and Tenderfoot Mesas.

We also want the travel plan to include trail and road connections to the neighboring Uncompaghre National Forest.

Granite Creek

The routes along the Utah/Colorado Border near Granite Creek cross back and forth between states and BLM jurisdictions. It is important for commercial and recreation access that routes on both sides of the border are open to vehicle access. Please co-ordinate with the Moab Field Office to be sure that these important routes remain open to public access.

Both the TPA and COHVCO are ready to work with the GJFO in all aspects of the RMP. The resources of both organizations can be utilized to assist in a recreation plan that helps all user groups. Volunteer personnel as well as OHV grant development to support the GJFO are areas that both the TPA and COHVCO can assist on.

We look forward to reviewing the next stage of the RMP development.

Sincerely

Don Riggle
Director of Operations

   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

Comments to the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan SDEIS

January 5, 2009
Letter to:

WRNF Travel Management Plan and SDEIS
C/O BW-CAG
172 East 500 South
Bountiful, Utah 84010

Submitted via U.S. Mail and email to wrtmp@contentanalysisgroup.com

Subject: Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition Organization (COHVCO) comments to the WRNF TMP and SDEIS

Dear Content Analysis Group:

The TPA and COHVCO are pleased to offer our comments to the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (TMP/SDEIS).

TPA and COHVCO represent the majority of off highway vehicle users in the State of Colorado, which number over 200,000 OHV users. The TPA and COHVCO, as well as many local clubs and organizations have been actively involved with the WR TMP/SDEIS process since the work was started 3 years ago. The TPA and COHVCO have contacted these organizations, The Rocky Mountain Enduro Circuit (RMEC), the Colorado 500 Legal Defense Fund (C500LDF), the Colorado Back Country Trail Riders (CBTRA), the Summit County off Road Riders (SCORR) and the White River Alliance (WRA), and have included their analysis in this report. All of these organizations have spent a significant amount of time and resources attending FS meetings and reviewing all documents published by the WR FS staff. The TPA, COHVCO and these other organizations intend to remain an active partner with the FS throughout the remainder of the TMP process.

Our comments in this document are oriented towards the entire TMP/SDEIS and the overall lack of motorized single-track recreation opportunities. The miles of trails and 4WD road miles that are taken away in this plan do not reflect the actual use or projected demand for motorized recreation. There is instead a distinct anti-motorized recreation bias throughout many areas of the SDEIS. For whatever reason motorized recreational uses (both current and future) were not adequately addressed in the current plan. The TPA and COHVCO look forward to working with the WR FS Staff to help develop a TMP that can fairly address all forms of recreation in the WRNF.

BACKGROUND

The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the White River National Forest Plan, September 2008, is a document that brings forward a preferred alternative to support a set of decisions on travel and transportation for the Forest. The SDEIS goal was to be a comprehensive plan that accommodated the needs of the public by balancing opportunities for adequate access with the on-going need to protect our natural resources.

This Plan and SDEIS is a task that has seen a need for completion following the conclusion of the White River National Forest Resource and Management Plan in 2002. Because of the controversy and complexity of the Forest Plan implementation, the Travel Management process and Plan were separated in order to include the public in a more site and project specific manner. During the development of the Travel Plan, the November 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) 70 Fed.Reg. 68264-68291 (Nov. 9, 2005) provided unprecedented direction on travel planning and compelled the Forest to complete an additional process, if not already completed in a previous travel planning process, to also designate routes and areas for motorized and non-motorized activities and produce a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) for the public by 2009.

The initial Forest Plan transportation planning efforts and TMR requirements were combined in an SDEIS and released to the public for review in July 2006. After receiving public reactions and analyzing comments, completing additional road and trail inventory work and mixed-use assessments, the Forest released this SDEIS for a 60-day review period to assure complete opportunities for involvement and additional input.

Comments and Reactions

These comments are generally organized to address issues in the order presented in the SDEIS. Utlimately, an Appeal Reviewing Officer or court will apply what is known as the “arbitrary and capricious” review standard to the final decision. Under this standard a reviewing court is empowered to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or found to be “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) & (D). The arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential and does not allow a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency:

The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made….Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Board of Adams County Comm’rs v. Isaac, 18 F.3d 1492 (10th Cir. 1994).. Many special interests will improperly seek to brandish the threat of appeal or litigation as an attempt to stifle agency discretion, but this standard, properly understood, is deferential and provides the agency great latitude in designing a travel management system that will make sense and maximize both recreational opportunity and conservation objectives. Rather than constraining its options and analysis, the agency will achieve a “better” result, both legally and on-the-ground, by encompassing the positive input of diverse user groups and creatively seeking solutions to management opportunities. Against this background, we offer the following comments.

1. The Forest has chosen, in part, to substitute language for describing issues and concerns, goals and objectives, different and perhaps contrary to the TMR. The Summary page of the SDEIS states that “The White River National Forest travel management plan (TMP) will develop a travel system across the entire White River National Forest to accommodate and balance the transportation needs of the public and to provide adequate access for forest and resource management, while still allowing for protection of natural resources.”

Concerns are listed in the SDEIS (abbreviated) as:
1. Identifying the designated travel system.
2. Identifying what is not on the system.
3. Attempt to balance social and resource demands.

Objectives are listed (abbreviated) as:
1. Be in compliance with laws.
2. Designate the road and trail system and rehabilitate the non-system roads and trails.
3. Provide a travel plan that defines modes and routes.
4. Identify resource solutions impact due to the transportation system, including routes identified for decommissioning.

Key issues that drive the development of alternatives are listed as:
1. Volume and type of recreation access.
2. Resolution of recreation conflict.
3. Protection of natural resources. In their preparation of the document, the White River National Forest has excluded, or reshaped, the intent and purpose from those stated by the Secretary of Agriculture in the final Rule.

Examples of inconsistencies with the language of the rule are:
a. Designation of roads and trails will “enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands”. 70 Fed.Reg. 68264 (Nov. 9, 2005).
b.“Promote the safety of all users of those lands…and minimize conflict” (emphasis added). Id.
c. “Provide consistency and clarity on motor vehicle use within the NFS”. Id. at 68265.

These examples are intended to highlight our concerns about how the alternatives and maps were developed, what the standards and criteria were for the inventories of trails and roads (including the user-created routes) and how the decision criteria will be structured and developed for the FEIS and Transportation Plan. More specifically, the DSEIS has a Forest Service organizational and natural resource centric set of themes and issues, and tends to not list or focus on enhancing positive user public experiences and benefits. Phraseology such as “attempting to balance” or “resolving conflict” instead of “minimizing conflict”, and “identifying resource solutions to impacts of the transportation system” in lieu of “identifying recreation use alternatives to impacts of the transportation system” would give the document and pending decision more balance by allowing a more public centric approach.

The SDEIS, as currently written, discloses an apparent forest staff or Forest Plan strategy to designate motorized routes and produce an MVUM, rather than take a comprehensive look at enhancing a balanced set of recreation opportunities for all users. In the end, the TMR directs the Forest to apply varied criteria in fashioning designated travel management systems, and to “consider effects on …natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands…” and other factors. Id. at 68289 (newly designated 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(a)). In other words, the Forest should be looking at a way to create a system that works for all users, as opposed to creating minimal opportunities through a fear of challenge.

This SDEIS document, at times, reads like it responds to a motto of “Caring for the Land and Serving the Forest Service”. We understand the problems of low budgets, poor staffing, stretched enforcement personnel, and how to support the needs for good stewardship of our national natural resources. However, the enhancement of sustainable, high quality public recreation use needs to be more apparent in the “up front” set of goals, objectives, purposes and need statements, and final decision criteria to include the “Serving People” aspects of the USFS mission and the original intent of the Travel Rule.

2. Chapter 1, page 5, second paragraph add “2006” to June as it helps clarify the sequence of planning processes that have tiered to the completion of the Forest Plan.

3. The History discussion, page 7, is informative in helping to understand the development of the Forest’s current road and trail system. However, there is some negative editorial overtone about historic roads and trails being “built without much forethought into planning for the future access and maintenance needs or environmental protection” (paragraph 1). This sort of negative historical critique does not respect the many good decisions that forest officers and resource staff made based on their time in the agency, their respective budgets, experience and public support to develop a public road system. The SDEIS takes the position of minimizing any new road and trail systems. However, today’s times are different and the forest has the opportunity to take advantage of an existing system, based on many good historic reasons to rearrange routes to meet today’s needs.

4. Purpose and Need for Action, page 9. The Purpose statement reads: “…to identify the transportation system with the goal of balancing the physical, biological and social values of the forest”. (Emphasis added)

This is a clear and maybe unintended statement which demonstrates another Forest Service centric bias in this document. Social values do not belong to a forest or the management team on a forest. Social values belong to the community of users, citizens of associated towns and rural areas, their guests and visitors. This statement needs to be edited to attach social values to people and their needs rather than to “the forest”. Forest needs are captured by the physical and biological aspects of the statement.

Similar to paragraph 3 above, the Purpose and Need statement incorrectly states, that “user•created” routes “were created without due process and therefore are considered illegal.” This statement ignores necessary site-specific inquiry, improperly stigmatizes such routes, and implies that their presumptive or “default” status should be “undesignated” in the travel planning process. Such an approach plainly contradicts the TMR, which calls for a reasoned and site-specific analysis of viable options to travel management planning, to specifically include designation of appropriate “user-created” or “unauthorized” routes. See, 70 Fed.Reg. 68268 (“[s]ome user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and nonmotorized users alike…[o]ther user-created routes are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts.”; at 68269 (“some user-created routes would make excellent additions to the system of designated routes and areas. The Forest Service is committed to working with user groups and others to identify such routes and consider them on a site-specific basis.”

5. The second Need statement (bottom page 9) implies, as written, that older timber, range, mining, oil and gas exploration roads that were not closed are illegal because they were created without due process. This is an inaccurate, generalized and misleading statement as many of these roads were approved, permitted and maintained by the Forest Service, cooperators or contractors with due process. Again, this style of writing establishes a suspected, potential bias in the mind of the reviewer that is based on the agency criticizing and unnecessarily faulting past management and community use patterns. There is a clear need to adjust the current system, but justification needs to include analysis of current needs, and not the unnecessary and unsubstantiated fault finding of previous managers and publics.

6. Page 10, paragraph 4, conflicts with paragraph 5 page 19. The page 10 reference establishes that this travel planning process will clarify the travel system on the forest. Page 19 discussion establishes that CFR 212.54 requires the need for revision of designations to meet changing conditions. It is a dynamic process, as stated on page 19, not just a clarification process to designate a travel system. The two discussions need to be brought into the same context.

7. Page 10, paragraph 6 expands the discussion on the need for alignment of “system and mission”. Paragraph 6 says, in part, that “mountain bikes and motorized uses are competing with non-motorized uses (hiking, horseback riding and backcountry skiing for the same (emphasis added) land base”. This is a misrepresentation of the facts on the forest as it ignores and disregards the acres in designated Wilderness (755,000 acres) and road-less areas (640,000 acres) that provide a land base for essentially non-motorized use with much less conflict opportunity. This statement causes SDEIS reviewers to believe that the forest is only interested in resolving conflict and not analyzing, displaying, enhancing and balancing recreation opportunities for all users across the forest. There are many areas on the forest where there is no conflict, or conflict is handled by appropriate user behavior and user substitution of choices.

This SDEIS bias is further established in the 1st paragraph of page 11 where balance is defined as resolving user conflict and adequately protecting resources. There is no discussion here about balancing recreation opportunities to meet a diversity of user and community needs. The Forest Service is not capable of resolving personal conflicts as they exist between individuals and their personal expectations. The Forest Service can provide a spectrum of settings that allow recreation users to choose among alternative or substitute settings and activities, and thereby invest in a system that attempts to minimize conflicts. Resolving conflict is an impossible goal.

8. Page 11, under the Proposed Action Objectives, there is no objective for providing or developing a sustainable system of roads and trails to meet public recreation and administrative needs. Rather, the list includes only objectives that the system is in compliance with laws are designated, define modes, mitigate impacts, and restore undesignated routes.

There is no objective here that proactively states the goal of providing a choice of high quality recreation settings and opportunities and enhancing experiences. How is it possible to monitor the effectiveness of a plan if there are no measurable or stated objectives for assessing social experiences and benefits?
The objective buried in the bottom of paragraph 6, page 63, Recreation Management, should be brought forward in this SDEIS and expressed as a high priority management goal. That is:

“Quality recreation, producing desired satisfaction and benefits for participants, is the objective and concern of both managers and recreationists”.

9. The commitment to the consideration of user-created routes has been positively noted and is appreciated. This is a positive response to the Department of Agriculture’s direction that evaluation of user-created roads and trails is best handled at the local level. Unlike other Rocky Mountain Region Forests and units, this should yield opportunities that help generate alternatives for some issues and contribute to finding solutions and routes to achieve balance of use goals.

10. It appears that the SDEIS presents a unique analytical method for user-created routes, in which decision options are whittled down through some internal process, and candidates for designation are incorporated into an alternative. All other non-system routes will be considered “not designated” and will be “rehabilitated.” SDEIS at 10. The SDEIS seemingly outlines a one-time analysis which will conclusively determine, for all non-system routes, whether they will be designated or decommissioned. Id. at 9 (“user-created roads and trails will be examined for designation or elimination. This is a one-time consideration of these travelways….”); id. at 11 (user-created routes “either have to be added to the system or decommissioned.”). This “either-or” approach is not mandated by, and is contradictory to, the TMR, which only directs the Forest to designate roads, trails and areas for motorized use. This approach is not comparable to that undertaken by most forests under the TMR. Perhaps more importantly, and regardless of how one interprets the direction of the White River Forest Plan, the act of decommissioning is a site-specific action which itself requires commensurate site-specific analysis. In other words, a user-created route that is not presented for official designation in this process cannot immediately be slated for decommissioning, at least not using methods involving ground disturbance, until a suitable project-level NEPA analysis has specifically analyzed that project and its associated effects on the human environment in the context of that route. To amplify and support this point, we attach as Exhibit A hereto an administrative appeal decision dated January 27, 2000, issued by the Intermountain Regional Office.

The “either-or” approach of designating or decommissioning non-system routes does not comply with the law and unnecessarily constrains further public input and future Forest planning. This aspect of the DSEIS should be revised.

11. Page 12, paragraph 1. This is the first formal citation of the Travel Management Rule, CFR 212.52, and should be more visible earlier in the final EIS document as a process decision document. It should be referenced to improve readability along with references to the Forest Plan and Travel Management plan discussion in the Summary, page 1, and Legal and Administrative Framework, page 8.

12.Page 12, top of page, paragraphs 1 – 5 regarding user-created routes, appear defensive and somewhat challenging. These paragraphs suggest that all user created routes were examined by ranger district personnel (against some standards that are not disclosed) that made them eligible for consideration as a part of a set of alternatives for possible designation. Then, the contexts of the inclusive paragraphs suggest that those user-created routes that were not found are now illegal and will be rehabilitated if found. This implies that the District did not deal with complete information and has taken the position that this TMP process will yield the final designated route system. This is somewhat contrary to the reference on page 19 that this is a dynamic process that continually examines the best opportunities, when discovered, for use within the designated system and in helping to reduce impacts. CRF 212.52 requires the public to be involved in the designation process. It is not clear in the SDEIS that the public was used in order to help identify user-created routes or that they are aware of what standards were used by various district staffs to evaluate routes to be included in the construction of the alternatives.

13. Page 16. There is a confusion of statements at this point in the document regarding status of mixed-use studies. Under paragraph 3, “Safety”, it implies that the White River National Forest conducted a mixed-use study on national forest roads. There is no reference here to a coordinated study as required and established on page 15 of the SDEIS with regard to MOU’s with State and FHWA agencies. Under “Recreation”, page 16, there is an implication that the Forest will work with the various other agencies to help develop a decision in the final travel management plan. This suggests a coordination action that is yet to be completed, and data and alternative routes may not yet be complete or considered in this SDEIS. This further suggests that alternatives and maps are incomplete and not ready for display or decision.

This potentially incomplete, or yet to be completed, mixed-use study status statement is further supported by similar statements in paragraph 2, page 67 and paragraphs 4 – 5 on page 121, SDEIS.

However, on page 123 “Motorized Mixed-Use”, paragraph 2, states that during 2006 and 2007 mixed-use analyses were conducted by “the forest’s engineering department”. No reference is made to any coordination with other road management agencies or jurisdictions. As 246 miles of road were considered and referenced by the engineering staff it implies that this task is completed and the route alternatives and considerations are all in the SDEIS.

The reviewer is left confused as to how to understand the actual status of coordination, completion of analysis, and if complete inclusion of all eligible routes in various alternatives is even in the SDEIS. While the agency has broad latitude in adopting ultimate interpretations of the data and input obtained, it cannot pick and choose whether or which information to disclose to the public. Instead, it “shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24; see also Siskiyou Regional Education Project v. Rose, 87 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1098 (D.Or. 1999) (laying out “general reasonableness” standard for incorporating materials in NEPA document by cross-reference).

Our concerns are that all eligible routes be displayed and disclosed in this SDEIS and not just in a final document after consultation with other agencies. This is a very important fact since the majority of trail motorcycles are licensed street legal vehicles and are already authorized for use on public roads. This opens up, or retains, many more miles of opportunity and loop trips that may not have been considered by this current inventory and/or process.
The difference between the 246 miles considered and the 132 miles available for consideration of mixed-use is a substantial reduction of opportunity. Most of these trails are being used now.

14.Page 20, paragraph 3 states that no new construction of roads or trails is proposed in the SDEIS, but future construction may be initiated through some future project specific analysis. As stated on the cover page, “Abstract”, this transportation plan and SDEIS is intended to be a comprehensive process for the White River National Forest. The elimination of no new construction projects seems to limit the array of alternatives that should otherwise be considered in a stated comprehensive planning process. The elimination of the “no new construction” option also keeps the forest from favorably positioning itself for competitive capital construction budgets. This would allow entry into a proactive implementation schedule with public support for accomplishments under the Forest Plan.

15.Page 22, “Key Issues” discussion from the DEIS comment period has statements that are further cause for concern. The discussion shifts away from the concept of balance identified in the TMR, where “the agency must strike an appropriate balance in managing all type of recreational activities…that will enhance public enjoyment of the National Forests while maintaining other important values and uses on NFS lands”. 70 Fed.Reg. at 68265. The shift in the discussion moves towards a stated “blending” strategy where travel management alternatives are not evenly distributed and are placed into “zones” or areas. This may be in accordance with the Forest Plan as further justified by a follow-up “niche” plan, which we feel was outside of the NFMA, NEPA and public review processes.

This substitution of terms was justified in the SDEIS by the statement of “how each geographic area would best serve the forest as a whole”. This “geographic service” approach to “serve the forest” is a bureaucratic tangle of terminology that further creates the impression of a forest centric approach to transportation planning. Geographic resources serve human goals and objectives, not “the forest”. It eliminates the consideration of social and historic use patterns by businesses, residents and visitors to help determine a balance of use across the forest. The use of this strategy between the DEIS and SDEIS by twisting jargon and definitions creates the impression that the forest planning team has had a struggle and urgency in completing a comprehensive travel management process required by the Forest Plan and getting a designated motorized use map completed by 2009.

16.Page 23. There are no references to or discussion about the relationship and coordination of this plan with other adjoining national forests, public lands or public transportation planning documents. The concern here is the need to have some assurance about the continuity and compatibility of public roads and trail systems with adjoining units. Also, there is a need to document a coordinated regional approach that avoids the unintended consequences of eliminating historic use areas and sending the current and future users to new places not expecting the associated impact of increased usage. The duty to evaluate cumulative impacts in an EIS is “mandatory.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160 (9th Cir. 1997). “Cumulative impact” is defined by the relevant CEQ regulation as: the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. This is a carryover concern from the DEIS where the GMUNCG National Forest was surprised by the White River National Forest’s assumption that they were capable of receiving additional motorized use.

17. “Travel Opportunities”. The apparent decision to establish exact dates and times of snow-free seasons, i.e. “Thursday 0000 Midnight before Memorial Day”, seem unnecessarily burdensome and bureaucratic. We suppose it might be necessary for law enforcement needs. However, this policy assumes consistent weather, climate and road conditions year to year. This might unnecessarily constrain visitor transportation choices when extended good weather allows access without impacting the system. With the thousands of access points on the Forest, a policy that requires postings and closure order exceptions beyond posted dates seems administratively impossible and costly.

18. Page 30, “All Seasons”. Paragraph 1 makes a policy statement that: “At no time may any transportation use take place that will cause resource damage”. This language is inartful at best. The relevant inquiry is whether the impacts are acceptable within management criteria. The TMR generally addresses this subject by focusing on whether use is causing “considerable adverse effects.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.52(b)(2)(2007). See also, 70 Fed.Reg. at 68280. We support the stewardship of our national forests and management systems that reduce unacceptable chances for resource damage. While “damage” remains undefined and thresholds not clearly identified, we hope that informed managers, enforcement personnel and recreationists are responsibly versed in differentiating between acceptable user impact and unacceptable resource damage. The balance to this discussion is that management actions, lack of maintenance programs, and deviant visitor behavior can cause damage to user’s experiences.

19.The range of alternatives issue is of primary importance in any NEPA analysis and is particularly so here. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (“agencies shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”) The alternatives section is considered the “heart” of the EIS and a NEPA analysis must “explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. A NEPA analysis is invalidated by “[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative.” Resources, Ltd. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1119-1120 (10th Cir. 2002).

In terms of general format, we question the validity of the SDEIS approach, which essentially reduces the range of alternatives from the DEIS and truncates public input upon, and formal consideration to, only two “action” alternatives. Particularly in travel planning, where there are numerous permutations of management strategies and route networks, the agency and public are best served by a robust range of alternatives which will foster open analysis and dialogue in the planning process. Instead, many viable alternatives were either never formally stated or were thrown on the scrap heap of alternatives “considered but eliminated from detailed study.” SDEIS at 33-34. This is an unjustified risk given the likelihood that other viable alternatives could have been crafted and presented to the public. For example, the route-specific suggestions of TPA/COHVCO and other recreational groups were presented to the Forest, but were not made available for public input or ultimate selection by the Deciding Official.

20. Page 39 and 40. Comparison of Alternatives, Table 2.1 and 2.2 are generally helpful in trying to understand the summary differences between the Alternatives. However, the Forest continues to ignore or avoids the display of recreation use activities by mile via ROS setting class. This would help in the full disclosure of balance of opportunities among user groups. The document gives a fair description of the ROS Recreation setting on page 72, Recreation Affected Environment, but there is no disclosure or tables on use/mode types by ROS setting class. This greatly affects the ability for an objective review of balancing uses. Page 73 shows acres of ROS class on a forest wide basis which is not much help when dealing with a forest travel plan that tracks miles of opportunity by geographic area.
This is a primary issue for all single-track users. The Forest continues to spend discussion time describing ROS and then not visibly applying it to the issues or alternative displays. The discussion in recreation resources tends to focus on the discussion about lack of budgets, niche management, and conflict resolution. There is no evidence in this SDEIS document of applying ROS to help the decision maker in understanding balance issues.

Page 78, last paragraph, states that “nearly 800,000 acres of Forest are currently available for designated motorized routes in the summer and approximately 700,000 acres for open motorized travel in the winter”. This is an apparent attempt to soften the effects of less motorized recreation inside a documented transportation planning process to designate routes and areas with comparisons for balance measured in miles of opportunity. Motorized use is historically and customarily planned and monitored on miles of opportunity by class of vehicle. In this case of designated route use by people wanting a motorized route experiences, it is padding the data and deflecting the issues to reference acres of access. The experience changes to foot travel (hiking) only if a vehicle is parked and the user changes to a walking mode of transportation into a dispersed off- road area.

21. It appears that single-track motorized use has been allocated only 67 miles of opportunity in undisclosed settings, at least in the plan narrative (pg 39). However, on page 86, Motorcycle Opportunity by Alternative, it shows that there are over 200 miles of single-track trails. A map interpretation has to be completed to get to any understanding of what opportunities in what ROS settings still remain. Table 2.2 suggest 1,060 miles of two wheel motorized opportunity which includes a hierarchy summation of some combination of ML 1-3 roads in, again, undisclosed ROS settings. It appears from reviewing the alternative maps that most of this mileage is on the west side of the forest at lower elevation road settings and is out of balance with historic semi-primitive motorized settings forest-wide.
Using the assumptions on page 89 SDEIS, and the data above that shows 67 miles of assumed single-track (pg 39), a single-track motorized enthusiast (60 miles/day) would have about a 1 day experience on the White River National Forest. This needs to be compared to a hiker (5 miles/day with 1,440 miles of opportunity (Alt. G) for a total of 288 days of potential experiences on the Forest. The discussions on supply percentages (page 89) and it’s attending Figure 3.11 based on “visits”, compared to alternatives displays “miles of supply” in Figure 3.12, page 90 is a confused and incomplete description of processes and assumptions. The inference is that if 62% of visits are made up of hikers (foot), Alternative G can provide 58% percent of the potential supply of trail miles. The SDEIS states that this is the closest supply alternative to meeting demand. Other use activities are similarly discussed.

The problem is that there is still no discussion of where the visits are taking place under the alternative, no thorough presentation of demand by ROS setting, and no complete treatment or disclosure of trend information by user group. i.e., wilderness use down and recreation vehicle sales and registrations up. Colorado, for instance, in 2008 has registered 33,583 snow machines, and 130,784 RV’s (not including over 10,000 out-of-state OHV permits). This is important data in fully disclosing use demand information, especially if the final decision criteria include an item to help find a balanced set of diverse recreation opportunities.

22. Apparently, much of the historic single-track opportunity of 596 miles, page 39, Table 2.1, has shifted to the mechanized bike rider category, but without a setting calculation and disclosure it’s difficult to assess fairness, balance and compliance with Forest Plan objectives.

23. The Roadless area direction is inaccurate and the Forest cannot proceed with Roadless area closures on the rationale identified. The U.S. District of Wyoming court has declared unlawful and set aside the 2001 Roadless Rule, and the U.S. Northern District of California court has modified its earlier injunction to eliminate any suggestion that any of its prior orders would have required the Forest Service to follow the 2001 Rule, at least in Colorado. We understand the SDEIS contends that its management approaches comply with both rules (SDEIS at 94), but in reality there is no identified basis for closure of existing routes in inventoried roadless areas. The analysis of these routes covers only a few pages, presents no meaningful citation to data or any authority, no route-specific identification (let alone analysis), and presents conclusory statements about any of the routes in question.

The constantly-changing legal fabric is admittedly difficult to follow. The safest approach for the Forest is to ignore reference to any national Roadless rule, and acknowledge the Colorado rulemaking process that is

24. The SDEIS on pages 104, 105 and 121 discloses the importance of the ski industry on the forest. This discussion includes a brief reference to the employment and the direct economic impact this industry has on the local communities. We understand that the White River National Forest has had to respond to an increasing demand for downhill skiing since the 1950’s. The Forest provided for allocation of 1,000’s of acres for this private development and use through Forest Planning and NEPA processes. We do not think the Forest has delivered the same level of attention to travel systems and motorized recreational opportunities on the Forest.

The Forest has taken pride in providing for 11 special use permit ski resorts (page 121) in its desire to provide high quality year-round recreation opportunities. There is no disclosure of a similar, comparative discussion for motorized recreation needs25. In a further example of an inequitable organizational mindset and analysis, the same above discussion on page 121 shows that there are 211 miles of roads and trails serving ski area operations. It is noted here, that those 211 miles are more miles than allowed under Alternative G for ATV use forest-wide. Page 126 shows only 143 miles available for ATV use. In quick summary, there is 32% more road and trail opportunity on ski areas than for a recreation activity that is taking place forest-wide and is increasing in demand, all without a similar response or recognition from the Forest.

25.Motorized related recreation use is also increasing as evidenced by the November 6, 2008 NVUM Report for the White River National Forest. The continued and increasing demand by the public visiting the White River National Forest for driving for pleasure, use of scenic byways, OHV uses, and viewing wildlife is clearly evident in this most recent document. Because the timing of the release of this document overlaps the release of the SDEIS, there was obviously no opportunity to include that data in this SDEIS document or include reference to it in the Literature Cited, Appendix F.

This 2008 NVUM document for the White River National Forest needs to be used to update the data and subsequent analysis in the FEIS. The public, as they consider the impacts of Alternative G, must have the most recent information. The Forest Supervisor will need to have this updated report to fully assess current use conditions and trends.

The Report is revealing in that it shows the reduction in wilderness use and the upward trend in motorized recreation uses. This document also displays a high degree of overall visitor satisfaction (95%) with recreation expectations and experiences on the forest.
When considering the position of this SDEIS and its alternatives, the orientation of the forest to: more road-less area, more wilderness area, less motorized opportunity, and a focus on “eliminating” conflict is simply contrary to the findings of the 2008 NVUM Report for this Forest.

26. This recreation analysis is not a comprehensive approach, nor does it apply standard recreation science to the process. The document has thorough discussions and citations on Recreation Conflict Research, ROS, recreation use statistics, trends, budgets shortfalls, but no full disclosure of the application of ROS and its outcomes by alternative. At least enough disclosure has to take place for the reviewing public to compare the “blended” Alternative G to the Forest Plan objectives for recreation.

27. There is an unacceptable, bio-centric bias in the Travel Management Plan. Discussion of “effects” in Chapter 3 ignores disclosing the impacts on recreation users, their experiences and benefits when changes occur between alternatives. The tendency of each discussion seems to mainly describe the impacts of people on natural resources. Examples are as follows:

A. Road-less Area Management, Cumulative Effects (page 96). The second paragraph states: “the increase in recreation uses within the forest (emphasis added) and inventoried road-less areas will likely have cumulative effects on the characteristics of solitude and remoteness”.
There are a couple of problems with this statement and position.

One, it implies that as written, “solitude and remoteness” objectives apply to recreation use “within the forest”. As written, this means that solitude and remoteness objectives apply forest-wide, and not in just wilderness and road-less areas. This is an exposure of the forest’s possible intent to move decisions outside of the promised balanced or blended distribution of uses. Solitude and remoteness terminology is borrowed from the Wilderness Act and does not have application to the other board set of recreation settings and experiences available on the Forest.

Two, there is no follow-up discussion or display on the impacts of designations or closures on the historic patterns of public use.

B. Scenery Management. Direct and Indirect Effects (page 101). The discussion here states that: “Alternative G best meets the Scenery Management System’s (SMS) underlying ecological aesthetic. Under SMS, activities which improve forest health also improve forest aesthetics, and therefore move toward the forest plan long-term desired condition. The Alternative G would best protect scenic resources, although a lower number of people would have access to the scenery.”

While trying to avoid being overly critical, it is humans who attach definition to the quality of scenery. And, it is a personal “in the mind of the beholder” concept of individual choices and preferences. Humans define the relative aesthetics of what they see and feel. “Ecology” does not determine its own aesthetic. Blaming human use for lower quality scenery is to conveniently put “scenery” above human definitions and subscribe to it its own human like personality. This is another area where objectives for the enhancement of recreation opportunities needs to be discussed and displayed at the same level and the scenery’s concern for its dust, scars, and erosion.

C. Social-Economics, page 102. This “Effected Environment” discussion rightly concentrates on jobs, income and dependence on natural resources by some area individuals and industries. However, the document at this point, in this chapter just presents another discussion about conflict management and its supporting science. There is an appeal for all users to be more tolerant, and that not every acre is available for all uses. There is still no tabulation or discussion or strategies presented that talk about sustaining historic recreation, monitoring social benefits and enhancing opportunities over time in peoples’ special places. This is the place where that discussion needs to be presented, so reviewers can fairly evaluate sustainable social systems (recreation and travel opportunity) impacts by alternatives.

The underlying request by the Forest, while it tends to concentrate on the impacts of people on bio-physical resources and the sustainability of those resources without change, is to ask the public to change where and how they recreate. The attitude used in the SDEIS seems to say, “you’ll get use to it (the new changes) over time, and will have a higher quality experience as a result” (page 108, paragraph 4). This is highly presumptuous and superimposes a set of decision criteria that is yet undisclosed or incomplete.

28. Page 42 Monitoring. The presentation on monitoring strategies includes outlining the NVUM process, interviews and timing standards. The NVUM is a well documented process, with protocols clearly established that are providing recreation use data that is accepted as reliable.

The following paragraph on “other tools” directed at monitoring the effectiveness of the travel management plan does not have the same level of monitoring requirements, time schedules or established standards as the NVUM paragraph. The “reconnaissance strategy” by forest staff with citizen reports is much less specific, has no time or technique standards identified. Without some established objectives for monitoring protocols, and schedules for transportation system inspections at the same level as NVUM, we fear monitoring will not be completed. Additionally, there will be no comparable data for correlation with NVUM or any understanding by diverse recreation users groups as to components or standards for monitoring. The public users need to have a common understanding of the complete and balanced monitoring plan.

29. Page 42 Implementation. This Implementation section does not include any reference to discussion about volunteer programs, grant programs, or permittee programs to help implement and maintain the designated system of roads and trails. The narrative at this section says only: “The Forest will dedicate funding toward accomplishing the goals set in this plan”. We know this approach will continue to strain the White River National Forest budget for high priority road and trail work.

The SDEIS, in other sections, recognizes and identifies the need for continued user support and volunteerism to help maintain the road and trail system across all alternatives, and we support that continued recognition and further agree that everyone working together and combining resources will allow for a lot more of the on-going critical maintenance to take place.

However, this is the section that should disclose the opportunities for volunteers and grants from all user and interest groups. In example State OHV grants, now at $3.0 million dollars per year state-wide, are available to help with maintenance and signing needs. The White River National Forest needs to more actively apply for funding that is generated by OHV registrations to help off-set lack of appropriated funding. There are about 18 crew’s state-wide that are assisting National Forest Districts with their maintenance needs. The current funding level is now double what it was in recent years.

30. Page 42 Law Enforcement. This section is out of date and needs to reflect the new opportunities for an integrated and coordinated law enforcement program. The State of Colorado Legislature passed House Bill 1069 during the 2008 session that authorizes all law enforcement officers in the State to enforce the travel management regulations on federal land. This Bill was signed by the Governor and was effective July 1, 2008. This legislation allows sheriffs, deputies, highway patrol, Division of Wildlife officers, Division of Parks officers, and other local jurisdictions to enforce federal land travel regulations and orders. This bill is also broad enough to allow these same jurisdictions to help educate users. The Forest needs to prepare a cooperative law enforcement plan that will utilize these additional trained officials to supplement the current, overextended, three full time Forest Service officers.

31. As part of our analysis of the WR TMP/SDEIS, the TPA, COHVCO and local motorized organizations, have developed an initial list of trails and 4wd roads that have be deleted from the TMP. These trails and 4wd roads are critical in providing a ROS for motorized recreation. In addition to the trails/roads listed below, there is another 400 miles of motorized routes that we would like to see included in the final TMP. The description of these routes, trail numbers, etc. will be provided to the FS at a time when detailed route analysis can be accomplished in a joint planning secession with the FS planning staff.

Basalt Mtn/ Red Table Area
-Trail FS # 3-1913.2 (North Fork Cattle Creek Trail) this is the original North Fork Cattle Creek Trail reopened and maintained by local motorcycle club in the 80s. This trail was the original route from Cattle Creek to Red Table Mtn. This trail makes for a loop those ties in with the Bowers Gulch Trail. This trail could be considered for one way travel due to the steep portions of the trail.
-Trail FS# 3-1913.1 (Old Cattle Creek Road) This trail is a good connector between Bowers Gulch Trail and North Fork Cattle Creek Trail. It keeps motorcycle traffic off of FS road.
-Trail FS# 3-1913W.1A (Bowers Gulch Trail) This is the lower part of Bowers Gulch trail and needs to connect to the upper Bowers Gulch trail (which is on Alt G) to make a complete loop with North Fork Cattle Cr Trail.
-Trail FS# 4-N6046.1 (Green Gate Trail) this trail runs on north side of Red Table Rd. This trail allows a loop to the north which consists of the next 2 trails below.
-Trail FS# 4-464W.3 -Trail FS# 4-N204.1

The sum of the above trails both North and South of Red Table Road constitutes a system loop of about 50 miles which would be an adequate day of motorcycle riding for many people.

Sloane Peak/Lenado Area
-Trail FS# 1-103W2X, 1-103W2Y and 1-103W2Z These three sections allow for single track trails on the old route between the town of Lenado and Larkspur Mtn.
-Trail FS# 1-2184-1 (Johnson Cr Trail) This trail has been used for years by ATV and motorcycle riders to bypass FS road 103 with a trail that goes to the top of Larkspur Mtn.
-Trail FS# N145.1 This trail was established with help from Aspen Ranger Office in the 1980s. As this trail is currently depicted on FS map it is not shown in its entirety. The second half is missing (West section). It starts at the top of FS road 508 just West of Larkspur Mtn. This trail weaves through Kobey Park for about 9 miles then crosses FS road 508 and continues on Trail FS# 1-N121.1
-At the West end of 1-N121.1 the trail system continues westward to Sloane Peak and then down to Lower River Rd by way of Red Rim Rd.
-From trail 1-N121.1 West–the trail system is currently included in Alt G.
-Trail FS# 3-1931.1 (Rocky Fork) This trail and Miller Creek Trail allow northern access from Frying Pan drainage to Sloane Peak/ Lenado Area. -Trail FS# 3-1930.1 (Miller Creek Trail)

Alt G has the trails west of the above trails already in place. The above trails would create a complete system and put trail users down Woody Creek and back to the starting point. The distance included in this complete loop system is approximately 60 miles.

Thompson Creek Area
-Trail FS# 3-1950.1 (Middle Thompson Creek Trail) This trail has been one of the few single track trails open to motorized travel in the valley until now. To make a loop you need to connect the 2 trails:
-Trail FS# 3-1951.1 (South Branch Thompson Creek Trail)
-Trail FS# 3-2093.1 (Lake Ridge Trail)

Alt G doesn’t contain any of these trails. This loop would be about 30+ miles long.

Four Mile Area
-Trail FS# 3-2091.2 and FS# 3-2091.1 (Road Gulch trail) these trails start a 50+ mile loop that starts in Four Mile Park SW of Sunlight Ski Area. The below trails make up the loop
-Trail FS# 8-804.2 (Trail Gulch Trail) -Trail FS# 3-N6003.1 (Hoffy Trail) -Trail FS# 3-300.1P (Baylor Park) -Trail FS# 3-2090.7W (Beaver Creek)
-Trail FS# 9-300.1P Pipeline Trail
This trail system uses the same trails that are currently used for winter motorized use (Sunlight/Powderhorn trail system)

Golden Horseshoe Area
-The section between 5-GH-71 and 5-GH-44 -designate for motorcycle use
-Connect the west end of 5-GH-44 to 5-GH-22 via a section of 5-GH 27 -Designate trails 5-GH 45, 5-GH-27, 5-GH-33, and 5-GH 17 as motorized singletrack.
-Designate 5-GH-67 “Moto Descent” as a motorized trail, if not already designated.
-Designate as motorized singletrack the flume trail system 5-GH-92 to 5-566.1 to 5.386.2A to 5-385.1.
-Designate 5-GH-73 as motorized singletrack. -Designate 5-GH-31 as motorized singletrack.

These routes generally offer excellent and sustainable opportunity, provide important connections to other trail systems, and would enhance public safety and visitor perceptions by reducing the need for OHVs to travel roads.

Tenderfoot Mountain
-There is a road and a singletrack that connects the intersection of 5-N287.1 & 5-N298.1 with 5-66W.1A. This would offer more loop opportunities as well as offer an alternate way up or down .

-There is a beautiful network of several miles of very fun and exciting singletrack northeast of the top of Tenderfoot Mountain and trail 5-55.2b that connects the top of Tenderfoot with 5-66W.2H.

Summit County (General- outside Golden Horseshoe and Tenderfoot Mtn. areas)
-Designate 5-N6013.1 connecting Boreass Pass Road with Indiana Gulch Road as motorized singletrack.
-Designate the singletrack trail (not on the map) that exists to connect the southern ends of 5-597.1 and 5-611.1 as motorized singletrack.
-Designate all the trails connecting and including 5-N962.1 (currently slated to be for mountain bikes but is too steep on its north end) to connect to 5-N364.1 and 5-611.3A for loop opportunities.
-Designate the route thru the Breckenridge Ski Area Peak 9 to the weather station near the peak of Peak 10 as OHV accessible.
-Designate a motorized connector for 9-2950.5A and 5-2950.1 between Haystack Mountain and Williams Peak and a way out on the southeast end.

Again, these routes offer unique and sustainable recreational opportunities and a better network of connected access facilitating both motorized and nonmotorized activities.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The above information represents a significant amount of time and resources that has been invested by the OHV community of Colorado. Starting with the White River Alliance economic report in 2006 thru the input that you now have in this document, it seems very apparent to the motorized community that the WR SDEIS/TMP has not provided motorized recreation any resemblance of a balanced use of the WR NF for future recreation purposes.

The loss of roads and trails thru wholesale closures by Alternative G does nothing but create an environment that does not meet the best use of the public lands in the NF. Significantly lacking in the TMP analysis is the misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge, that the majority of off road trail motorcycle are registered and licensed street legal vehicles that can utilize all level of FS roads, and at the same time utilize trails as part of their recreation routes.

This important, but previously missing, information should assist the FS staff in reexamining the majority of trail and road closures in Alt G.
The TPA and COHVCO recommend that, prior to the final decision on the WR TMP, a complete review of all road and trail closures in Alt G be reviewed based upon the information provided in this document. Our estimate is that an additional 300 miles of trails and roads should be designated for OHV recreation. This review should include the trails and roads that are listed in paragraph 31 above.

The TPA and COHVCO, and other user organizations in the WR NF, are prepared to work with the FS planning staff to accomplish this task. The WR NF needs to provide a balanced approach to serve all forms of public recreation and we can help in this process.

/s/ Don Riggle

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
TPA

cc: Jerry Abboud, COHVCO
Bill Dart, ORBA
W.J. Haskins, WRNFS
Brian Hawthorne, BRC
Ed Moreland, AMA Government Relations Director
Russ Ehnes, NOHVCC
S. Sherwood, USFS R2
Stan Simpson, AMA, Chairman
Mike Thuillier, CBTRA

   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

Alpine Trail Letter

October 16 2008
Letter to:

Charlie Richmond
GMUG FS Supervisor
2250 Highway 50
Delta Colorado 81416

Tammy Randel Parker
Ouray FS District Ranger
2505 S Townsend
Montrose, Co 81401

Dear Mr. Richmond, Ms Parker,

The Colorado 500 (C500) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) would like to thank you and your trail crews for the work they have done on the Alpine, Lou Creek and Nate Creek trails. These trails are used extensively by the annual C500 and many other motorized trail users. The work your trail crew does each year, combined with the volunteer trail work of many Colorado motorcycle riders, helps keep this trail is usable condition for all user groups.

I would like to give you some historical background on these trails from the view point of the C500. In the early 1980’s the C500 under took the task to re claim the Alpine trail. It was over grown, significant amount of down fall, and not in a usable condition for recreation. It took the C500 trail crew 3 summers to cut all the down fall, repair switch backs, etc to get it open. In the early 1990, the FS trail crews along with Colorado OHV grants (submitted by the C500), started providing professional trail maintenance, with hired help and the FS trail repair crews. The C500 trail crew and other local user groups do annual maintenance on the entire trail system. This is where we are today.

The C500 and the TPA then undertook the task to reclaim the Lou Creek and Nate Creek Trails. This was done in conjunction with an Ouray District FS employee, marking the old trail, and the C500 trail crew building and cutting the down fall. The trail system was completed by a Colorado OHV grant, submitted by the C500. And what you have today is a very good, but limited trail system that all user groups can enjoy.

I am giving you this information to lead into a request from the C500 and TPA. There is a significant amount of unused (or very light usage) trails in the area described above. You combine this with the lack of designated motorized trails in the NW RGNF, SW GNF, and the Ouray district, this makes the areas that are open for motorized use, get over used. The C500 and TPA would like to ask that your recreation planners consider more motorized trails in the area. These could be the Deer Creek area (which was motorized), but now over grown, and not used by any one other that the private land owners that are adjacent to the FS area. Or the Fails creek area and other old user trail on top of both Alpine Plateaus. Another major trail that is not used, and should be considered for motorized designation is the Dallas Trail. This was motorized, but the designation was changed in the early 2000, but the trail is now used by almost no one. It is over grown, down fall, etc.

The goal of the C500/TPA is to develop a motorized trail system (multi-use) that connects the Alpine Guard Station in the GNF to the Dallas Divide road, to the last Silver Dollar road in the Ouray District.

The increase in motorized recreation in your area is extensive (and will continue to grow). From our view point we see a decline in foot traffic use on all of these trails. We request that your recreation planners take this into consideration, when reviewing trail recreation use, and take whatever steps necessary to open more trails for multi use designation.

The C500 and the TPA are prepared to work with you and your staff towards this goal. There is OHV recreation funds that are available to help with multi use trail projects. Please let me know if this is a project that the motorized users can work on with the FS.

Sincerely
Don Riggle

   
   
   
   
Continue Reading

Protest Monticello PRMP/FEIS

September 21 2008
Letter to:

Director (210)
Attention: Brenda Williams
1620 L Street N.W., Suite 1075
Washington D.C. 20036 Date: September 21, 2008

Re: Monticello PRMP/FEIS

This protest is being filed by:

Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA)
Director, Don Riggle
PO Box 38093
Colorado Springs Co 80937
(719) 338-4106
And
Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition
Executive Director , Jerry Abboud
PO Box 620523
Littleton Colorado 80162

Our interest in filing this protest:

  1. The TPA is vitally interested in promoting and preserving sustainable motorized trails, primarily singletrack, to satisfy the recreational pursuit called “trailriding” which falls into the classification of “serious leisure,” as described by the endnote (*) following this protest.
  2. The loss of low-impact, dispersed trail opportunities as represented in the PRMP will impair access and curtail the development of sustainable, dispersed motor recreation. Concentrated vehicle use is detrimental to our sport and gives the false impression that our effects on the natural environment are always and only negative, when in fact there is no evidence in the research cited by BLM that there are any measurable negative effects of trail-based motor recreation. It is critical to us that the record be set straight.
  3. The C500 is vitally interested in accurate, science-based environmental analyses, to preserve and promote a healthy environment and to support rational planning decisions.
  4. TPA is vitally concerned that executive branch agencies follow the rule of law.
  5. The TPA is vitally interested in full disclosure and complete transparency, in the context of federal land planning, as set forth in the CFR, judicial precedents, and the laws enacted by Congress.

Issues Being Protested:

  1. We are protesting the unlawful BLM response to our comments. BLM responded to only two out of a total of six comments that we submitted during the comment period.
  2. In the two comments that did appear in the PRMP, BLM egregiously misrepresented what we said in our comments. In fact, our comments addressed factual information, issues raised in the PRMP, and proposals directly related to the Decision. There is no chapter or section in the CEQ regulations that authorizes or allows any agency to simply disregard comments that disagree with the BLM proposals and which do reveal omissions and errors that would substantially affect the BLM Decision.
  3. We contend that resolving recreational “user conflicts” is not a land-use allocation decision, and is outside BLM authority as set forth in FLPMA. It is critical to us that the record be set straight.
  4. Relying upon resolving recreational user conflict in land-use allocation decisions, even in part, is outside Congressional intentions for BLM as set forth not only in FLPMA but also in every other law from which BLM authority flows.
  5. Resolving “user conflict” represents a self-assigned expansion of BLM authority without public review.
  6. We are protesting the Travel Plan.
  7. We are protesting All road and route closures, because they are based on faulty research and no factual site-specific information.
  8. We are protesting establishment of Grand Gulch SRMA.
  9. We are protesting BLM’s failure to follow 40 CFR 1502.24.
  10. We are protesting the BLM claim of policy conflicts with NHPA.
  11. We are protesting the BLM claim of legal issues unique to OHV recreation.

Parts of Plan Being Protested:

  1. BLM Response to Comment.
  2. Purpose and Need, “Resolving User Conflicts,” and all language, allocations, and proposed regulations throughout the PRMP that flow from that concept.
  3. page 1-4, 1.3.1:
  4. Page 1-6 section 1.3.1.4: items 1, 2, and 5.
  5. Page 1-6, section 1.3.1.3.
  6. page 1-7 bullet item 3
  7. Bullet item # 1 on page 1.5
  8. The establishment of the Grand Gulch SRMA.
  9. Page N 24, Wildlife Conflicts.
  10. Page 3.87, part 3.11.4.5.2 “OHV Legal Issues.”
  11. Appendix N, Travel Plan, in its entirety, its methodology, and the proposed travel plan.

THE RESOLUTION WE SEEK:

We seek a higher review all of our comments. We seek the appropriate and necessary corrections to the PRMP where we have asked to have true information directly related to the analysis added, and where we have asked to have inaccurate information corrected or deleted.

After making the corrections we ask for, we seek a reconsideration of the proposed decision, where our comments clearly mandate a change in the outcome of the analysis.

Concise Statement of Why the Director’s Decision Is Wrong:

The comments we submitted during the comment period for this plan are attached, and will speak for themselves. Please review our comments, and withdraw this PRMP in order to make the appropriate revisions.

We contend that BLM’s failure to address any of our concerns during the comment period is clear evidence that BLM had already selected the outcomes BLM wanted. Our comments took issue with several of BLM’s proposals, and BLM could not properly and legally address our comments without substantially changing the (previously selected) Decision, and so BLM declined to publish our comments or to respond to them.

We have provided substantial evidence supporting our contention that BLM is using the RMP as an instrument to manufacture Wilderness.

We contend that resolving user conflict is not an RMP decision and is a serious, substantive issue arising in this and other BLM proposed plans. Publishing and lawfully addressing our concern will require a change in the BLM outcome and in the BLM policies set by this RMP, and thus BLM had no choice but to disregard our concerns. This is a serious breach of trust and a serious disregard for the lawful NEPA process as set forth by the CEQ.

We contend that basing any land use allocation decision upon resolving user conflict is arbitrary and capricious. Why? Because “conflict,” as manifested by individual differences of philosophy, values, or cultural attributes, is an ephemeral event. The evidence of a “user conflict” is hearsay, causing every incident of “conflict” to be supported only by hearsay. “User conflict” is neither defined nor quantifiable; and there is never any physical evidence. We strongly contend that, because of the diversity of publics who recreate on public lands and the diversity of the American population, resolving philosophical/cultural/values differences between public lands visitors engaged in different lawful activities could never have been a duty assigned to BLM by Congress.

We contend that the “policy conflict” between BLM and NHPA (in the matter of OHV) was manufactured by the BLM to enable itself to arbitrarily expand its authority over public lands visitors who use “OHV’s” for access and recreation.

After review of our comments, the reason BLM Monticello disregarded them will be obvious.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

* Endnote referenced on page one of this protest, under Our Interest in Filing This Protest

We are not attempting to deny that the are physical effects upon the natural environment from OHV recreation. We are attempting to help the BLM produce an accurate analysis. We all know there will be some effects. But the purpose of the NEPA is not to find that place where there are no effects. The purpose is to find the balance between the benefits of the human activity and the effects upon the natural environment. NEPA, Section 2 “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man”, and Section 101 under Title I, “recognizing the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man.”

There is a large body of literature, developed over the last 30 years by sociologists in the leisure/recreation field that describes the emotional and social benefits of what is called “serious leisure.” If you review some of the literature, you will find that:
Recreation research reveals that leisure activities can be rated according to quality, which is defined as an overarching quality-of-life benefit to the participant. Very high quality leisure activities, called “serious leisure” by researchers in the field, require a considerable number of complex factors which, in combination, provide satisfaction, personal growth, and fulfillment to the participant. (Stebbins, R.A. 1982, “Serious Leisure, A Conceptual Statement,” Pacific Sociological Review, 25, 251-272).
Since Stebbins’ early conceptual statement, the ideas around “serious leisure,” and the associated improvements in quality of life and health, has been extensively explored by the leisure academy, resulting in a large body of literature on the sociology of complex hobbies.
Another apt description of serious leisure activities is “…a social and emotional interactive process which deconstructs the social and historical biographical inequalities of lived experience to create with-equal other social human bond” (emphasis added). (Podichak W., 1991).
In reviewing the literature, it becomes quite clear that a number of essential qualities identify serious leisure:
• High levels of emotional commitment,
• complex planning and advance preparation,
• learning new skills,
• self-discipline to practice skills, with the goal of steadily improving performance
• operating within relationships with others (the social reference point),
• success in familiar and in unfamiliar social settings,
• Bonding experiences, with family members and companions (the with-equal other social human bond).
• problem-solving, ranging from very simple to highly complex and potentially life-saving,
• goal-oriented challenge, and a moderate degree of personal risk,
• pro-active interest in physical condition, particularly to overcome a disability,
• A sense of accomplishment when the adventure is completed.
Motorcycle trail riding falls directly into the most complex forms of “serious leisure.” Examples of some other forms of serious leisure that are pursued on BLM lands include all types of skiing, mountain bicycling, kayaking, and BASE jumping.
Therefore, there is a compelling case to be made for closely examining the perceived negative impacts, and correcting inaccuracies. There is an also compelling case to be made that the “err on the side of caution” policy, in matters of speculative negative impacts, is counterproductive to the BLM purpose and mission of offering quality recreation opportunities on BLM lands (particularly opportunities that are not available in any other setting—such as the Moab FO).
And finally, there is most definitely a case to be made in favor of reasonable trade-offs between the significant social benefits of motorized trail recreation and any measured negative resource impacts that may be noted after monitoring begins.

BLM may wish to deny that these qualities define motor recreation. That is clear evidence that BLM needs recreation specialists who know motor recreation, the same as BLM has recreation specialists for most other recreation activities pursued on BLM lands.

   
  See attached PDF for letters to the
Monticello Field Office RMP Comments
Bureau of Land Management
Monticello Field Office
sent in January 2008
   
   
Continue Reading