Archive | May, 2014

 May 19, 2014

COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE
6060 Broadway • Denver, Colorado 80216
Phone (303) 297-1192
cpw.state.co.us

May 19,2014

Drew Stoll
Great Outdoors Consultant
2736 Spoke Ct
Fort Collins, CO. 80521

Drew,
On behalf of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be involved with the planning process for the Rio Blanco County Trails Master Plan. This planning process is a bit different from most as it relates to participation and formal comment procedures, so I will try to sum up our concerns in this letter. The scope of this project is extremely large. Creating a Master Travel Plan for the entire county has the potential to impact a wide variety of wildlife species and it will be impossible to capture all of our concerns at this time.

Anytime there are plans to increase human activities in a specific area, there are likely to be negative impacts to various wildlife species. Recreation impacts to wildlife can occur at the individual, population or community level. Quantifying and qualifying these specific impacts within the project area will be difficult without knowing the exact time and extent of the increased activity. However, it is realistic to expect there will be impacts. CPW respectfully asks Rio Blanco County to balance the extent and intensity of trail development/promotion with the long-term, sustainable wildlife re ources that already exist in the County.

CPW’s concerns, given the information that we are aware of at this time, include economic impacts to hunting and fishing activities, wildlife and wildlife habitats, and ability to provide on-going assistance and input on planning and development plans and development activities.

Economic Impacts
Wildlife provides a significant economic benefit to the state of Colorado. According to The Economic Benefits to Hunting, Fishing and Wildlzfe Watching (BBC Research and Consulting 2008), hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing activities provided more than 33,000 jobs in Colorado and nearly $1.8 billion in direct spending by participants in those activities which generated a total economic impact of more than $3 billion toward Colorado’s economy in 2007.

Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing in 2007

Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.

1. Trip and equipment expenditures and CPW expenditures in support of these activities.

2. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).

3. Includes job creation from direct and secondary expenditures. Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on data from CPW and USFWS 2006 national survey.

Hunting and fishing recreational activities are a sustainable annual source of economic benefit for Rio Blanco County only if wildlife populations are maintained at or near CPW objective levels and quality hunting and fishing opportunities continue to exist. Extensive trail development and intensive use may reduce population levels of big game, diminish hunt quality, reduce hunting and fishing recreational opportunities in the affected area of the county, and decrease sustainable revenues from these activities.

Rio Blanco County (RBC) has some of the highest big game hunter participation in Western Colorado. Large mule deer and elk populations exist within RBC. Any impacts associated with increased Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) activities on public lands could reduce the hunter participation rate and thus reduce revenues within the County. Direct and indirect expenditures for Rio Blanco County are summarized in the following table.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Impacts
CPW has focused its impact identification to wildlife species and habitats that lie within the county boundary. However, extensive trail development impacts extend directly and indirectly beyond a single point of disturbance or area of development activity. It is expected that development activity and its indirect impacts will reach beyond the County’s boundary.

CPW maintains an up-to-date set of data and spatial reference -Species Activity Maps (SAM). SAMs are updated every four years, for 32 game and non game species. The most recent update for Rio Blanco County was completed in 201012011. CPW used SAMs to identify species specific seasonal habitats that lie within the County. Using SAM CPW identified the following species and habitats in the County: mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, lynx, raptors, black bear, moose, cutthroat trout, native non-salmonid fish species, black footed ferret, boreal toads, and riparian habitats. Bat species and northern leopard frog were also identified in this review.

Impacts to Wildlife
Wildlife impacts from road development and increased recreational use may occur in two distinct forms: direct impacts and indirect impacts. Direct impacts include the effects of actual habitat conversion or loss from ground disturbance and are generally concentrated in close proximity to a road. Indirect impacts occur as densities of roads increase, habitats adjacent or nearby become progressively less effective until most animals no longer use these areas. Animals that remain within the affected zones are subjected to increased physiological stress. This avoidance and stress response impairs habitat function by reducing the capability of wildlife to use the habitat effectively. In addition, physical or psychological barriers lead to fragmentation of habitats, further limiting access to effective habitat. An area of intensive activity becomes a barrier when animals can’t or won’t move through it to use otherwise suitable habitat. These impacts are especially problematic when they occur within or adjacent to limiting habitats such as crucial winter ranges and reproductive habitats.

Big game species can become sensitive to human disturbance. Studies have demonstrated decreased reproductive success in female elk, increases in stress hormones, and decreased opportunities for animals to feed and rest (Naylor et aI. 2009, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Taylor and Knight 2003). With the increased energy development, continued human development and loss of habitat within RBC, the available quality wildlife habitat is dwindling.

Habitat fragmentation
Species whose habitat requirements include large blocks of homogenous habitat (such as forest interiors or sagebrush steppe) are particularly vulnerable to new road development and habitat fragmentation (Foreman et al. 2003). The range at which animals avoided traffic was approximately the range at which they could detect traffic noise, suggesting that traffic noise was meaningful through association with human activity. Knight and Grtzwiller (1995).

Lyon (1983) developed a general model of habitat effectiveness for elk that modeled percent habitat effectiveness as a function of road density. Declines in habitat effectiveness were non-linear, indicating that much of the loss of habitat effectiveness occurred in the first 2.6 mile/miles2 of increasing road densities.

Edge and Marcum (1985) reported that elk leave a 500-1000 m buffer zone around logging roads when traffic is high (at at rate of a few transits per day), but not at other times. Similar observations have been made for deer (Dorance et al 1975; Singer and Beattie 1986), and coyotes (Gese et al. 1989).

Wisdom et al. 2004 reported that elk flight response to hikers had little effect when hikers were beyond 550 yards (500 m). By contrast, higher probabilities of elk flight continue beyond 820 yards (750 m) for horseback riders and 1650 yards (1,500 m) from mountain bide and A TV riders. In contrast, mule deer respond with fine-scale changes in habitat use, rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight responses.

For example, it is possible that mule deer may respond to an off-road activity by seeking dense cover, rather than running from the activity. If mule deer are spending more time in dense cover, in reaction to any of the off-road activities, this could result in reduced foraging opportunities, and a subsequent reduction in opportunities to put on fat reserves during summer that are needed for winter survival (Wisdom et al. 2004).

Greater Sage-Grouse
Presently there is a great deal of interest and activIty to define sufficient protective measures for greater sage-grouse (GRSG) at the state and national levels and methods for incorporating those measures in Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans (RMP’ s). To date the plans have not been finalized. For instance, CPW has developed revised priority habitat maps in association with the BLM Colorado State Office, these preliminary priority habitat (PPH) maps differ from maps previously outlined in the Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (2008). CPW expects that Rio Blanco County will manage trail development and operations in GRSG habitats wherever they occur in a manner that avoids the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act.

With the potential listing of these birds as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) anything that could potentially impact these birds needs to be close scrutinized. The Piceance Basin has a long existing GrSG population. They are spread across several areas within the Piceance Basin and utilize various areas for leking, nesting, brood rearing, wintering and other life cycle activities. Proposing any additional public use in some of the critical areas at seasonal times could cause negative impact and listing implications. Careful consideration needs to be made to protect this species. CPW can provide maps and information for GrSG for consideration in this planning process.

The need to maintain extensive sagebrush habitat over large areas around leks for sage grouse breeding populations to persist has been clearly stated by all major reviews of sage-grouse habitat requirements (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000, 2004; Crawford et al. 2004; Rowland 2004). Because nest success and chick survival both contribute substantially to population growth in sage-grouse (CDOW 2008, Walker 2008), protecting breeding, nesting and brood-rearing females and breeding males is crucial for maintaining breeding populations.

Aquatic impacts
The overall health of an aquatic habitat derives from the condition of the entire watershed including the uplands, riparian corridor and the stream channel. Impacts to the upland plant community and environment can have a very immediate impact on an aquatic system, because the condition of vegetation throughout a watershed is the major factor determining the quantity and quality of the associated flow regime. In essence the runoff is naturally regulated by healthy, diverse vegetation. Vegetation in good condition provides greater ground cover, which reduces runoff and increases infiltration rates. Furthermore, diverse plant communities contain various micro sites that enable snow to melt at differing rates, thereby extending the runoff period. Collectively, these factors produce more stable base flows essential for healthy fish and riparian habitats. Reduced sedimentation is another major benefit to aquatic organisms. Healthy vegetation naturally produces a healthy water cycle. When developments alter physical conditions (Le., stabilize flow regimes, reduce sediment loads), the opportunity exists for native species to be replaced by detrimental, non-native species.

Providing riparian buffers of sufficient width protects and improves water quality by intercepting non-point source pollutants in surface and shallow subsurface water flow (e.g., Lowrance et aI., 1984; Castelle et aI., 1994). Healthy riparian buffer strips are widely recognized for their ability to perform a variety of functions other than water quality including stabilization of stream channels, providing erosion control by regulating sediment storage, transport, and distribution; providing organic matter (e.g., leaves and large woody debris) that is critical for aquatic organisms; serving as nutrient sinks for the surrounding watershed; providing water temperature control through shading; reducing flood peaks; and serving as key recharge points for renewing groundwater supplies (DeBano and Schmidt 1989; O’Laughlin and Belt 1995). Buffer strips also provide habitat for a large variety of plant and animal species and have become a popular tool in efforts to mitigate fragmentation by increasing connectivity of isolated habitat patches and conserving biodiversity (Rosenberg et aI., 1997).

Wildlife habitat and movement corridors in riparian zones are also an important consideration. Appropriate designs for species conservation depend on several factors, including type of stream and taxon of concern (Spackman and Hughes 1995). Recommended widths for ecological concerns in buffer strips typically are much wider than those recommended for water quality concerns (Fischer 1999; Fischer et aI., 1999), often exceeding 100 meters in width. These recommendations usually apply to either side of the channel in larger river systems and to total width along smaller streams where the canopy is continuous across the channel. Management for long, continuous buffer strips rather than fragments of greater width should also be an important consideration. Continuous buffers are more effective at moderating stream temperatures, reducing gaps in protection from non-point source pollution, and providing better habitat and movement corridors for wildlife.

There are many other important species (which CPW has not specifically brought up for discussion) that require avoidance and minimization actions as Rio Blanco County plans, designs, and implements this county-wide trail network.

CPW realizes that many of the proposed roads are currently open for public travel. CPW also recognizes that big game hunters also use Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) during the hunting seasons. Staff has observed big game species change distribution over the years due to this increase in motorized vehicle use. This change in distribution is of concern to staff and will require CPW staff to include the change in future management actions.

CPW staff is also concerned about the unintended issues that are likely to arise out of such an extensive project. CPW has concern about enforcement of additional motorized travel to help prevent pioneering or creating new roads and trails into more pristine and protected habitat. CPW, as an agency, does not have the personnel, finances, or commitment to be able to help regulate this increase in motorized activity.

CPW participation in on-going assistance and input on planning and development plans and development activities.

CPW staff; DWMs, Biologists, and Area Managers -have a well-developed knowledge of the County and specific areaslhabitats depicted on the preliminary plan map and are prepared to assist as needed or requested. CPW is very much concerned about the extensive nature of this project. CPW asks that Rio Blanco County incorporate as much avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures as possible in this trail planning, design, and implementation project. The wide-ranging nature of the project will take extensive efforts to balance the known, wildlife resources that the County currently depends on and the new (and unknown) recreation proposition. CPW recommends that the following concepts be include in the project.

• Riparian buffers (setbacks from live water and wetlands)
• Riparian trail crossing design features
• Disinfect heavy equipment, hand tools, boots and any other equipment that was previously used in a river, stream, lake, pond, or wetland prior to moving the equipment to another water body.
• Seasonal trail closures for sensitive species and key life stages (lekking, production, spawning, etc.)
• Daily/nightly trail closures for sensitive species
• Site design to minimize sound impacts
• Constructing new roads/trails outside of sensitive time periods, life stages (lekking, production, spawning, etc.) in consultation with CPW.
• Map the occurrence of existing weed infestations prior to development to effectively monitor and target areas that will likely become issues after development.
• Monitor and manage off road user rates –the number of passes per unit time on a given linear route
• Monitor and manage off road off-road recreational equivalents –off road equivalents are the ratio of ATV riders, mountain bikers, horseback riders, and hikers that results in approximately the same effect on a given resource.
• Rio Blanco County should include a substantial increase in its budgets to partner with federal public land managers and state wildlife agencies for research, management, and monitoring of the increased trail networks and activities that will have negative impacts on natural resources.

Summary
Information provided in this comment letter indicates that terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and their habitats would be impacted from extensive trail development and increased use as the trail network and increased use takes place. How fast and to what degree the landscape would change is unknown; impacts to the landscape depend on a number of factors including intensity of use, location of routes, time of use, and type of recreational use. Additionally, other public land uses contribute to the overall impacts and create cumulative impacts that are extremely difficult to quantify. Regardless of the habitat rate of change across Rio Blanco County, sensitive species such as mule deer, raptors, cutthroat trout and native, non-game fish would likely be the first to be impacted.

CPW respectfully asks Rio Blanco County to balance the extent and intensity of trail development with the long-term, sustainable wildlife resources that currently exist in the County. CPW staff is available to support Rio Blanco County in their analysis of any of the individual routes with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitats.

CPW appreciates the opportunity to share our thoughts on this important project and we are available to answer any questions or assist with clarification of concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-878-6061.

Sincerely,
Bill deVelargie, Area Wildlife Manager

cc. Ron Velarde, NW Regional Manager
Dean Riggs, NW Deputy Regional Manager
Brad Petch, Senior Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist
Sherm Hebein, Senior Aquatic Biologist
Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist
 

Literature
Download PDF for references.

 May 5, 2014

This section is designed to highlight various issues where COHVCO,TPA, CSA and their  partners and local clubs are defending public access to public lands.  This glance at the issues is not an exhaustive list of the issues we are involved with, but rather is highlighting issues of statewide importance or interest.

RECENT WINS
1. EPA proposal to increase ethanol in gasoline on hold for at least a year. NEW!

The EPA recently decided to continue current ethanol production standards for usage in motor fuels meaning that current E10 limits will remain for another year.    EPA testing indicates that small engines not designed for E15 fail almost immediately when it is used as a motor fuel.  In addition to the failure of the motor, damage that results from E15 being used is not covered by manufacturers warranties. 

The Organizations and their national partners are now heavily involved in efforts to obtain legislation that would effectively limit ethanol production to only amounts necessary to support current E10 levels and make the recent EPA findings final as a matter of law.

2. 143 miles of routes reopened to  OHV usage on the Eagle/Holy Cross RD- NEW

The Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger district recently signed a FONSI determination that allowed OHV usage of 143 miles of roads and trails that had been previously closed in the Travel Management Plan.  This provided a lot of access for all recreational users and avoided restrictions that were tough to enforce and made little sense on the ground.

3. New Lynx management documents have been published that clearly state trail usage and snow compaction are not an issue in lynx habitat- NEW

COHVCO, CSA and many other groups have been very concerned about the failure of many federal land managers to address recreational activity in lynx habitat with  best available science,   which has specifically concluded  almost all recreational activity has no impact on lynx that might be in the area.  Many land managers continued to manage based on out of date management documents, where there was theoretical concerns about recreational usage.  Stakeholder concerns have resulted in the issuance of new management documents that avoids these types of issues in the future by clearly stating roads and trails in habitat are not a major factor for the lynx and that most snow compaction in the Southern Rockies is the result of natural processes rather than recreational usage. These documents clearly state that only major ski areas may impact lynx behavior and provide extensive analysis that weighs heavily against any claim of Wilderness areas being a benefit for the lynx.

CSA,COHVCO and TPA have partnered to provide a copy of these documents to every office that currently has a draft plan being developed or are areas where lynx management has been an issue previously.

4. The US Fish and Wildlife Service recently determined there should be no changes in forest management as the result of a wolverine in the planning area.

This planning initiative addresses the management of millions of acres throughout the western United States and all areas above 10k feet in Colorado. The Organizations have been heavily involved in stakeholder discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding best available science for the management of the Wolverine.  As a result of these stakeholder meetings, best available science was clearly reflected in the recent USFWS listing decision as the decision clearly stated there should be no management changes on public lands as a result of the Wolverine.  This is a major win as modeled habitat for the Wolverine in Colorado was any areas over 10,000 ft.  and at one point closures to motorized access were seen as necessary in all these areas. This determination  was a major step forward in protecting motorized access from misguided wolverine management standards.

5.  The proposed expansion of parking facilities on Rabbit Ears Pass is moving forward

The Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District has moved forward with scoping on several site specific proposals for the expansion of parking areas on the Rabbit Ears Pass area outside Steamboat Springs Colorado. Parking is very limited in the area for winter usage causing a wide range of management and safety issues for users.   This limited parking also limits access for motorized usage of the area that is consistently identified as one of the best snowmobile locations in the western United States. This project has been vigorously supported by the local clubs who have brought a wide range of information and resources to the table to allow for resolution of this issue.

6. Dillon Ranger District allows  construction of over 20 miles of new single track motorcycle trail outside Silverthorne

The Dillon Ranger District on the White River National Forest issued a FONSI permitting the construction of 21 miles of new single track motorcycle trail outside Silverthorne Colorado.   This decision is the result of years of work and partnership between the local club and agency personnel.  This trail network will provide a motorized single track opportunity in an area where these opportunities area  very limited currently.

7. COHVCO and partners succeeded in obtaining passage of legislation allowing the titling of off-highway and over the snow  vehicles in the state of Colorado.

This will provide proof of ownership for vehicles that can exceed $15,000 to purchase new and allow for better financing rates from dealers.   The issuance of a title will also allow better tracking of stolen OHVs in the state and better rates for those that choose to finance their new purchases.  This legislation will become effective in 2014. Our next step is to obtain use of some county roads with the creation of a voluntary license plate on OHVs.

8. COHVCO and partners were able to insure that fines were not increased for a variety of OHV related issues with the reauthorization of house bill 1069.  

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

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

LAWSUITS

1. BLM Kremmling Field Office RMP appealed. NEW

The Organizations appealed the KFO RMP which sought to close approximately 40% of routes in the planning area.   This plan tragically undervalued recreational usage, estimating that the average user only spends $16 per day, which directly conflicts with BLM conclusions made in Sage Grouse planning that the average recreational user spent $121.96 per day.  This is highly relevant as all the KFO has been identified as Sage Grouse habitat.  USFS conclusions for average spending, that were asserted to be relied on in the RMP development conclude average spending is between $50 and $61 per day. Hard to say that recreational usage was accurately balanced when recreational usage is so badly undervalued.

In addition to the economic analysis issues, economics were not integrated into the planning process as total spending and total visitation to the KFO doubled between the draft and final versions of the RMP but the jobs that result from this activity were cut in half, which simply defies logic.  KFO jobs estimates were completely irreconcilable with any other outside research.

On numerous other issues best available science was simply overlooked in favor of the most restrictive standards available, most of which have been completely discredited.

2. BLM Colorado River Valley RMP appealed- NEW.

The CRVO and KFO plans were originally developed as a single plan but the Colorado River Valley proposes to close approximately 50% of routes in the planning area. As a result the valuation of recreational usage issues noted in the KFO summary are also appealed in the CRVO appeal.

In addition to the economic issues, mandatory closures around all cultural sites identified now and in the future were required in violation of federal laws requiring protection of only significant sites.  Thousands of acres and 143 routes were lost as a direct result of these management standards. 

3. San Juan National Forest plan appealed- updated.

The SJ/TR Planning area is 1.8 million acres  and preferred alternative increases  designated areas unsuitable for motorized usage by 83%.  Trails in the unsuitable area are subject to a presumption of closure in the future.

This is the Forest Service component for the BLM Tres Rios Plan and as a result the TR appeal points are also applicable to this matter.  In addition to the economic analysis issues, the USFS fails to accurately apply the Colorado Roadless Rule managing under a single standard very similar to the upper tier standard, when most of the SJ/TR areas were specifically found to be unsuitable for upper tier designation in the Colorado Roadless Rule proceedings.  At no point is there any discussion of why closure of roadless areas is warranted  or that motorized access is a protected characteristic of a roadless area or why the two standards of roadless areas were not reflected in the RMP.

The RMP further applies a designation of suitable or unsuitable for motorized use to the entire forest.  It is has been our experience that such black and white type designations do not work in recreation management as this is not a black and white issue.  Rather most recreation occurs in the gray area between absolute standards, making application of such a standard arbitrary at best. 

Suitability boundaries are also based on the position that all wildlife habitat is unsuitable for motorized usage.  This black and white suitability standard conflicts with numerous US Fish and Wildlife decisions that find endangered species habitat areas are suitable for motorized usage with the implementation of minimal restrictions.  This decision also fails to address the recent Wolverine listing decision that found there should be no change in forest management in wolverine habitat and that Sage Grouse listing decisions have repeatedly determined that recreational usage of habitat areas is not an issue.

In yet another troubling lack of analysis, the RMP repeatedly asserts that no trails would be closed due the RMP and all review will be done later as part of site specific review.  At other points the plan states it will close 25 miles of trail.  This is a problem by itself, which is compounded by the fact that no information or analysis is provided regarding where these trails are or why they are being closed.

4.  Tres Rios BLM field office plan has been appealed.

The Organizations recently submitted an administrative appeal of the Tres Rios (“TR”) Field Plan Resource Plan and are optimistic about reversing this decision.  The appeal centered around the tragic undervaluation of recreation in the RMP.   Often TR conclusions on user group spending were 10-15% of the conclusions identified in the research that was asserted to be the sole basis of the conclusions. Developed campers are asserted to spend $46.11 while the research indicates developed campers spend ranges from $217 to $300 per day.

Winter motorized users were particularly hard hit in this erroneous analysis as cross country skiers and downhill skiers spend $208 per day while snowmobilers only $127 per day. These conclusions are asserted to be based on USFS work  that concludes downhill skiers and snowmobilers spend similar amounts and cross country skiers spend 40% less than those amounts. It is simply impossible to reconcile these types of conflicting conclusions.

In addition to undervaluing recreation, current management of numerous areas, including the Molas Pass Area were not accurately reflected in the RMP.  While the Molas Pass area has never been closed to motorized usage, the RMP asserts it is currently closed and all alternatives assert the area is to remain closed.  Hard to argue there is a hard look at a closure when the closure is not reflected.

5. Winter Wildlands Litigation

This issue involves litigation in Idaho brought by the Winter Wildlands Alliance attempts to mandate winter travel management for all national forests, limit open riding areas and to invalidate the winter provisions of the travel management rule.   Previous decisions from the Forest Service had ruled in favor of motorized users on this issue.   WWA appealed the Forest Service decision to Federal Court in Idaho. The trial court ruled in favor of WWA and required winter travel management for all forests and invalidated the winter portions of the travel management rule.  This decision is being appealed by the Idaho Snowmobile Association and its partners as the trial court decision is lacking factual and legal basis. 

CSA has been actively involved in administrative appeals prior to the Federal Court proceedings. As this litigation was brought in Idaho, CSA has partnered with the ISA to facilitate the defense of this matter.  This partnership has resulted in several large donations being made by CSA to the Idaho legal defense fund and any resources necessary being available to our Idaho partners. 
CSA is also aware of similar litigation in California regarding winter travel management and notes the parallels between the WWA litigation and the litigation in Colorado regarding MVUM route designations.   These are not isolated issues.
   
6. Bear Creek Trail – Updated

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

7. Pike /San Isabel MVUM challenge –

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

8. Rico/West DeLores-

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

Recreational usage issues and concerns.

1. Hermosa Watershed Legislation – NEW

The Organizations have been heavily involved in the Hermosa Watershed Legislation with Rep. Tipton and Senator Bennett’s Office and are optimistic it will be passed this session. This Legislation would release a wilderness study area and mandate motorized usage of the area consistent with the historical usage of the area. BLM is currently seeking to close this area that has a long history of motorized recreation.  In addition the legislation designates a special management area of more than 70,000 acres where motorized usage and routes are to be protected and preserved.

2. Bear Creek trail watershed – NEW

As noted this area has been the basis for litigation.  The Organizations have submitted extensive scoping comments subject to the settlement of the litigation to insure that actual threats to the cutthroat trout are addressed in planning and that closures to do target motorized usage.  Research indicates that most routes are not a threat to the cutthroat, and as a result should not be closed.

3. Burn Canyon Trail development – NEW

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the significant change in the direction of this project.   Originally the project would have built 34 miles of multiple use single track in the area.  For reasons that are unclear, the proposed alternative in the EA now seeks to only develop these trails for mechanized usage only.  There is no funding for the development of non-motorized trails and maintenance is problematic without significant monies being available for maintenance.

4. Basalt to Gypsum Trail development – NEW

The Organizations submitted extensive comments in favor of development of new single track trails that connect the Basalt areas to the Gypsum riding areas and parking areas for the use of these trails.  These trails have been funded with OHV grants that have been extensively discussed and reviewed and this analysis must be the starting point for any NEPA analysis of the project. The Organizations are hopeful these routes will be developed.

5. Expanded definitions of Navigable Waters – NEW

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have recently made proposals that significantly expand the scope of what must be regulated as navigable water under the Clean Water Act.  This decision could heavily impact the management of OHVs in areas around newly navigable waters.  This proposal is currently under review.

6. Sage Grouse Habitat/Planning- Updated

COHVCO is involved in numerous Grouse planning initiatives with Federal, State and local agencies.  The Greater Sage grouse plan proposal is currently out for comment.  There are several areas of concern that we have since the plan is based on an endangered species that no longer exists, models larger tracts of lands as habitat areas that have not been occupied for a long time, caps road construction and tries to manage under absolute limitation  for soil disturbance that will not work in areas where there are large tracts of private lands. Extensive comments were submitted on the proposed Resource Management Plan changes that were proposed by the BLM.

Since the close of the comment period, an extension of time has been granted for CPW to submit a Colorado alternative.   COHVCO and its partners have been voicing our concerns and working with CPW to develop management that insures the Grouse is not listed and recreational opportunities are maintained.

7. Grand Junction BLM Resource Plan –

The Grand Junction BLM office released a draft resource plan that proposed to close over 2,000 miles (60-70%) of routes in the office. The Organizations submitted extensive comments, participated in numerous meetings with BLM managers and federal, state and  local government officials to highlight the numerous critical flaws that are present in the plan. These flaws included a complete failure to accurately address economic impacts of trail usage, which BLM placed at 10-15% of the total value, employment and daily spending amounts determined in research from Federal, State and user group analysis. 

The plan also proposed a massive expansion of closures for cultural sites in violation of federal law and sought to automatically close any sites located in the future. Currently there are 50 sites on the National register of historic places in the planning area, the plan proposed to add almost 1,900 sites to the list.  The Organizations  do not believe these sites are suitable for inclusion on the national register, which is a defining criteria for closures of cultural areas.

The RMP also sought to close all Wilderness study areas to motorized access despite  a long history of usage of the areas and a complete lack of NEPA analysis of the proposed changes. The RMP also failed to explain how management standards of ACEC areas would relate to the management concerns in the area.  This resulted in closures of these areas to motorized access despite the management issue simply having no relationship to motorized usage. 

8. Domingez-Escalante National Conservation Area (“DENCA”) Plan –

Proposal closes 272 miles  (50%) of routes in the preferred alternative. The Organizations submitted extensive comments objecting to many phases of the plan.  Again there is a complete failure of economic analysis as the plan asserts that the average recreational user spends $16 per day. the RMP fails to address that Sage Grouse planning addressing recreational usage of the same area estimates the average recreational spend to be in the high $40 range per day and USFS data indicates $63.  Hard to balance uses when the review is that incorrect. 

The Organizations also opposed the fact that over 85% of the planning area would be seasonally closed for wildlife issues despite analysis that concludes the population is at or above targets for the area and current management is effective at mitigating impacts while maintaining access. Habitat areas many other species are proposed to be managed to prohibit motorized access despite best available science specifically concluding motorized usage is not a threat to the species.

9. Wilderness Proposals –

The Organizations remain heavily involved in the numerous Wilderness proposals that threaten continued recreational access to large portions of the state.  This would include Hidden Gems, and its variations, the San Juan Wilderness proposals and others.  Meaningful analysis of these issues and proposals finds that Wilderness creates more trouble than it resolves and negatively impacts most users.

10. OHV permits on plated vehicles.

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

11. OHV registration number size increase.

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

 May 5, 2014

Complete report is available here: www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf

Issued by the Government Accountability Office in June 2013 and found that only 25% of all forest service routes are financially sustainable.  The conclusions of this report have been the basis for several new discussions with USFS representatives on motorized route development. This report is not the basis for closures of motorized/multiple use routes.  Conclusions of the report supporting this position are:

1.  The GAO analysis is very large in scope and addresses  all types of trail usage including non-motorized routes in Wilderness areas.  Non-motorized routes in Wilderness areas  on Forest Service lands account for 20% of the total mileage of all Forest Service routes. 

2.  Maintenance of non-motorized Wilderness  routes is exceptionally expensive when compared to multiple use routes, due to management limitations on types of management, limited access to areas and many of these routes have been heavily impacted by intense wildfire and Forest health issues.

3.  OHV grant programs are specifically recognized as a significant contributor to maintenance of multiple use routes, even if these funding sources were not tracked by the Forest Service. The motorized program is the only significant funding source addressed in the report. Without this funding the overall funding picture would be far more grim as these programs very effectively leverage RTP monies.  No similar program exists for the maintenance of non-motorized routes.

4.  Winter motorized trails are not included in analysis and this usage is almost completely paid for by users on Forest Service lands.

5.  Volunteers are specifically identified as a major resource for maintaining routes.   The motorized community is the source of extensive volunteer efforts to maintain trails in addition to the direct funding that is provided.   The report identifies that having the right forest service  employee in place to work with volunteers is critical.  We would agree

6.  This report really provides no basis for the closure of multiple use routes.  The loss of multiple use routes erodes user support for registration programs that provide significant effective funding for maintenance of multiple use routes and negatively impacts users desire to volunteer for maintenance activities.

 May 3, 2014

¹⁶  EA at pg 14.