Archive | March, 2016

Sheep Mountain Management Project

Sheep Mountain Management Project
Attn: Josh Voorhis, District Ranger
South Park District Ranger
PO Box 219
Fairplay, CO 80440

RE: Sheep Mountain Management Project

Dear Ranger Voorhis and Mr. Carlson:

Please accept these comments regarding the Sheep Mountain Management Project on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) and the Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (CMTRA).   The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding and multi-use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse multi-use recreational opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 150,000 registered off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of multi-use and off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. CMTRA has been active in trail maintenance of Colorado motorcycle trails in the Pikes Peak and Southern Colorado region for over 45 years. This club of motorcycle enthusiasts actively works with the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to help maintain multi-use and single track trails open and accessible for public use. CMTRA represents a membership of over 100 local riders. TPA, COHVCO and CMTRA are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.” The Organizations offer the following comments, values and concerns regarding this plan update.

1. The economic impacts of multi-use and motorized recreation within the South Park Ranger District cannot be overlooked and is certainly important to Park County and the surrounding communities. Significant economic benefits are realized by the nearby communities especially Fairplay when considering recreation in the Sheep Mountain area. As popular as recreational areas are within the District like the Sheep Mountain area, the economic benefits of these areas to the local economies of the surrounding communities should not be undervalued.
2. With few if any exceptions, the roads and trails within the South Park Ranger District and the Pike & San Isabel National Forest have been in existence and providing public benefits for decades. History has shown that these routes provide a level of tangible recreational, economic and/or forest access value.   Continuing to have an adequate network of forest roads and trails will be truly beneficial and necessary in providing sufficient access for future timber management, continuing forest visits, recreation, emergency access/egress, etc.
3. Below are specific comments relating to Roads and Trails within the Sheep Mountain project area (Refer to the USFS Sheep Mountain Management Project Proposal Map):
   1. The Sheep Mountain area and its associated system of trails is the closest multi-use trail system to Fairplay and offers a wide variety of multi-use and OHV recreational experiences within a relatively compact area. Multi-use access to the campground is a terrific amenity and increases the attractiveness of the Sheep Mountain trail system.
   2. NFST 691 is a true Colorado treasure and one of the truly outstanding single track trails in the South Park Ranger District. It is an extremely stunning trail with rock obstacles, exposure, high elevations, and a scree field crossing which offers a very rare challenge. The level of difficulty of this route is important to offer to the OHV community so enthusiasts don’t feel like they need to create their own challenges, such as non-system hill climbs. The Northeast trailhead for NFST 691 connects to the back of Horseshoe campground. This requires users to travel through the campground to access the trail. If a reroute could be put in place to keep trail users out of the campground it would make for a more pleasant experience for the campers. Some older maps show a two track trail running just west of the campground that connects NFST 691 to NFST 689. If this trail still exists it may be an easy opportunity to divert trail traffic around the campground. The southern trailhead for NFST 691 is very difficult to find due to an existing non-system road and a hard-to-find trailhead with no trail markers delineating the route. The only way to accurately find this trailhead is to first ride NFST 691 in the opposite direction, then when users emerge at the other end, they now know where the trailhead is. It would help to decommission the short, dead-end, non-system road and add trail signage to the NFST 691 trailhead. NFST 691 is listed as single track on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MUVM), but like many of the trails in this area, it is frequently used by ATVs. Most of this trail west of the NFST 740 intersection is above tree line on a highly exposed section of the mountain. This section is off-camber two-track for approximately ½ mile until the route encounters an old mine site. The exposure and off-camper nature of this trail makes it dangerous for ATVs which are not able to turn around until they get all the way to the mine. We believe it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a single track restrictor gate at this intersection to keep ATVs off the western section of this trail. There are some very steep rocky sections on NFST 691 east of the NFST 740 intersection. These are very challenging sections which are entrenched sections of trail. The topsoil is sparse exposing large rocks in the trail. Erosion over the years has created banks on the side of the trail which are tall enough to encourage users to remain on the trail. We would recommend that these sections stay as they are since they are already somewhat entrenched and the high banks act as a barrier to keep users on the trail. These sections lets users know the difficulty of the trail before they get too high on the mountain.
   3. NFST 739 is a pleasant, sustainable trail which accesses ruins of old cabins, offers pleasant views of the valley, and creates a nice loop opportunity for trail users. We would recommend keeping this trail as is.
   4. NFST 689 and NFST 660 are very pleasant, moderately easy, sustainable trails which wind through dense woods and small open meadows. These trails offer an excellent recreational experience for younger riders and users who are not looking for the challenge that NFST 691 offers. Many of our members have camped at Horseshoe Campground and it makes a terrific opportunity to take children and beginners on short rides on these trails. Both of these trails are listed as single track on the MVUMs, but the signage at the trailheads show they are open to ATVs and ATVs use these trails frequently. All of these trails are functionally 50” wide. We would recommend consideration of converting the designation for this trail as open to vehicles 50” or less in width (i.e. ATV trail).
   5. NFSR 178 and NFSR 179 are very similar in nature to NFST689 and NFST660. They are very pleasant trails for family rides and, combined with NFST689 and NFST660, they create nice opportunities for loop rides of varying distances.
   6. NFST 740 is a wonderful trail which creates a great loop of a moderately challenging level. As with other trails in the area, it is listed as a single track on the MVUM, but is signed otherwise on the trail signage. We would recommend consideration of converting the designation for this trail as open to vehicles 50” or less in width (i.e. ATV trail).
4. We feel it is important to spotlight the following general principles regarding multi-use recreation and are important considerations when evaluating any modifications to the Sheep Mountain Area[1]:
   1. Generally forest visitors participating in multi-use activities will use routes that exist and adequately satisfy their needs and desires.
   2. Non-system trails and roads should be reviewed during this review process to determine if any of these non-system routes will fulfill a valid multi-use need and can be altered to meet recreation and resource management considerations.
   3. Route networks and multi-use trail systems should meet local needs, provide the desired recreational opportunities and offer a quality experience. We are not asking that this be done at the expense of other important concerns, but a system of routes that does not meet user needs will not be used properly and will not be supported by the users. Occurrences of off-route use, other management issues and enforcement problems will likely increase when the routes and trails do not provide an appropriate and enjoyable opportunity.
   4. Recreational enthusiasts look for variety in their various pursuits. For multi-use, to include motorized/OHV users, this means looped routes. An in-and-out route may be satisfactory if the destination is so desirable that it overshadows the fact that forest visitors must use the same route in both directions. However, even in these cases, loop systems will always provide better experiences.
5. We acknowledge that the South Park Ranger District may have struggled somewhat with the use of non-system trails by ALL users throughout the Forest. However, we feel much of this stems from an increasing need and demand for multi-use recreational opportunities on public lands in general. As the State of Colorado’s population has grown, so have the sales of OHV’s, bicycles, hiking equipment, camping units and other forms of outdoor recreation increasing the demand for recreation sites within the Pike & San Isabel National Forest. We would offer that much of the increase in illegal user-created routes, braided routes & trails and unauthorized group campsites are a result and reflection of inadequately meeting the needs and demands of the public and the recreational users who choose these areas. An adequate and varied inventory of routes and trails that fulfills the user’s spectrum of needs for variety, difficulty, destinations, challenge, terrain and scenic opportunity will lead to improved compliance and less off route travel. Closure and reduction of recreational opportunities and the resulting concentration of the ever increasing number of users, has shown again and again that the desired results are not obtained.
6. The Organizations are aware of demands regarding a perceived inadequacy of the USFS to provide enforcement of regulations pertaining to multi-use and motorized recreation in particular. We would challenge that based upon several studies, pilot projects, etc. by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the USFS and the BLM to analyze if indeed an enforcement issue exists, and without exception, those projects have shown there are no problems due to a lack of enforcement. The State of Colorado’s OHV funds have been used to subsidize law enforcement programs and the detailing of law enforcement officers to OHV areas only to come back with consistent results that this cry for the need for enforcement is unfounded, unsubstantiated and just plain inaccurate. In 2011, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division initiated an OHV Law Enforcement Pilot program to address the accusations, questions and concerns raised by critics of OHV recreation on public lands in Colorado. The data and observations gathered from this Pilot program in 2011, 2012, and 2103 repeatedly demonstrated excellent compliance with OHV rules and regulations throughout Colorado by OHV users. It was estimated that over 10,000 individual OHV users were stopped and inspected during the Pilot Program and 94% of those users were found to be fully compliant with Colorado OHV laws and regulations.[2]
7. Motorized and non-motorized uses are equally legitimate uses of public lands and especially on USFS roads and multi-use/motorized trails. Sound from motorized use is to be expected in areas open to motorized use. The Organizations would offer that the State of Colorado already has strict standards for any and all sound emanating from OHV’s. This very detailed standard has proven to be effective since 2006 and governs vehicles produced as far back as 1971. OHV users themselves have funded efforts to educate, test and “police” themselves for sound level compliance. We feel that complaints of noise and demands for sound reduction are once again unfounded and will often be used as a selfish excuse to try and reduce or eliminate motorized access and use of public lands.
8. As future Proactive and Adaptive Management Plans are considered to try and achieve a particular desired condition or end state, these Plans should include thresholds and triggering mechanisms that allow for the expansion and adding of recreational opportunities, not just curtailment, restrictions and eliminations of opportunities.   If desired conditions are not being achieved or monitoring protocols are not rendering the preferred results, consideration should be given that perhaps the needs and demands of the users are not being adequately provided for. One example might be off trail use or use of closed routes. Rather than assuming this is merely caused by a minority of users ignoring the rules, this may indeed be an indicator that the existing network does not adequately meet the user group’s spectrum of needs for a route to a particular destination, level or degree of challenge, route length, etc.
9. In general, the Organizations do not support the segregation of users and the exclusive use of one user group at the exclusion of others. We feel it is both socially beneficial and desirable for all users to learn to coexist and to show tolerance and respect for other users and groups of users. Just as we all learn to live together in our daily lives away from the forest, we should also extend that willingness to coexist when in the forest. Segregated user groups only fosters arrogance, elitism, intolerance and eventually leads to unjustified stereotyping and discrimination and there is limited documentation at best regarding user conflicts.
10. We feel it may be necessary for this project to consider providing opportunities that will not restrict the changes and development of new technologies such as hybrid bikes, electric bikes/motorcycles, personal mobility devices just to name a few.

We thank you for reviewing and considering these comments and suggestions. The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities at your convenience. Please feel free to contact Don Riggle at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs, 80906, Cell 719-338-4106

Sincerely,

Scott Jones, esq
COHVCO Co-chairman
CSA Vise President

D.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

James Bensberg
President
Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

[1] Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, 2006

[2] The 2014 Off-Highway Vehicle Law Enforcement & Field Presence Program, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, March 2014

Public Lands Initiative

Representative Jason Chaffetz
Att: Fred Ferguson
2236 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Rob Bishop
123 Canon Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Public Lands Initiative
Dear Representatives Bishop and Chaffetz:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Off-Road Business Association (“ORBA”) and Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) and Colorado Snowmobile Assocaition (” CSA”) with regard to the Public Lands Initiative (“PLI”) your offices have been developing in partnership with a wide range of communities. For purposes of these comments, CSA, ORBA, COHVCO and TPA will be collectively referred to as “the Organizations.” The Organizations would like to vigorously thank your offices for their efforts to date on this issue and are intimately aware the process has been long, complex and probably stressful for everyone involved. While many of the Organizations providing these comments are most specifically addressing recreation in Colorado, these Organizations see the precedent setting nature of the PLI efforts and are aware that many of our members utilize Eastern Utah public lands at times when recreational opportunities are limited in Colorado due to heavy snowfall.

Prior to addressing the specific comments regarding the Proposal, a brief summary of each Organization is needed. ORBA is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization the 150,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA advocates for the 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA has become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

We are making these comments as a supplement to the route specific comments from local OHV groups. The Organizations vigorously support those comments. The Organizations would like to share some of the landscape level issues we have encountered in planning processes with the Federal agencies. The Organizations submit that avoiding these issues will be a significant step to avoiding controversy in future and facilitating successful implementation of the landscape level objectives sought in the PLI. The Organizations submit that many of the amendments and changes proposed herein are not substantive in nature and further clarify the intended management of these areas in a manner consistent with the intended management of the area and can be done without further public process.

1. Timing and significant changes to boundaries. While we do have some concerns regarding specific areas or boundary lines proposed in the PLI and their impacts to multiple use, we strongly urge that any additional closures or restrictions to public access be avoided. The Organizations have participated in collaborative efforts to foster legislative requirements on public lands on a smaller scale in other states, such as the Hermosa Watershed Legislation recently passed in Colorado.

As a result we are aware that there are often last second attempts to change the legislation by those groups opposed to public access to public lands, despite involvement of these Organizations in the collaborative process. We strongly urge your Offices to resist these efforts, as it has been our experience that claims of a lack of participation or understanding of the public are made against the collaborative efforts in an attempt to further that Organizations interests. If there should be any changes to the Proposal boundaries as a result of issues that might arise after the collaborative efforts have basically concluded, that the collaborative efforts should be reconvened by parties that may be impacted in order to insure that consensus is carried forward. The Organizations submit that the PLI provides for a balanced usage of the areas to be managed. The Organizations are aware that once an area is closed to public access it is only rarely reopened.

2. National Park Service management of OHV routes is a serious concern. The Organizations are VERY concerned that the Proposal will result in several OHV routes being managed by the National Park Service (“NPS”), such as the expansion of Arches National Park into areas where there are currently existing OHV routes. Overall the model of management for a NPS directly conflicts with dispersed recreational usage of areas synonymous with Eastern Utah and trying to be preserved by the PLI. It has been the Organizations experience that the NPS management provides narrow winding corridors of exceptionally high usage for the public in Park that is managed in a manner similar to a Wilderness area. Often NPS areas are managed to far more stringent air and water quality standards than other public lands, which posses a long term challenge to dispersed OHV recreation on NPS lands. While routes may remain open under NPS management, the recreational experience provided is exceptionally different and is simply not the public access that the PLI seeks to protect as often the NPS applies strict group size, permit requirements and other restrictions on any OHV route they manage.

The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the PLI management change in proposed management of these routes and the recent stringent permit standards and limitations on group sizes on trails applied by the NPS on the White Rim and Elephant Hill trails on Canyonlands National Park was not addressed. These changes were made despite dispersed motorized trail based opportunities being clearly and specifically identified for protection in the Canyonlands NP foundational documents. The Organizations would also point to the experiences of the snowmobile community involving Yellowstone NP, where both the volume and quality of OSV travel has been severely restricted to the public by the Park Service in an attempt to manage in conformity with NPS requirements. While the Yellowstone OSV opportunity is unique, it simply is no longer coveted in a manner similar to the experiences outside Yellowstone by the snowmobile community as there are strict permit requirements, group size limitations, low speed limitations and strict emissions requirements for any snowmobile used in the Park to comply with NPS management objectives.

While OSV/OHV usage is permitted in Canyonlands NP and Yellowstone, OHV/OSV usage under NPS management has taken a significantly different direction in terms of experience provided than OSV/OHV travel on USFS or BLM lands. The Organizations submit that expansion of management of Arches National Park into areas that involve dispersed OHV recreation should be reviewed and possibly switched to the BLM management. It has been our experience that the National Park Service is simply unfamiliar with the management of dispersed OHV routes or recreation and have not provided the high quality dispersed recreational experiences that have become synonymous with Eastern Utah. This is a cause for concern as the Organizations believe this lack of familiarity could result in the long term closure of these routes.

The Organizations are also aware that a National Park Service is managed to far more restrictive air quality and soundscape standards than areas of public lands that are under USFS or BLM management. These heightened standards can have significant impacts to OHV recreation as exemplified by the usage of OSVs in Yellowstone NP which has clearly proven these standards can have drastic impacts on the levels and quality of motorized recreational opportunities that are provided in the Park. The Organizations are also aware that any time there is a possible impairment of these NPS standards in the long term, restrictions on OHV routes will be immediately looked at, such as changes recently made to the White Rim and Elephant Trails in the Canyonlands National Parks. While OHV usage of these areas was specifically provided for in the management of Canyonlands NP, restrictions were immediately implemented when these usages were found to conflict with general park service management requirements.

The Organizations are very concerned that the ongoing usage of routes in the areas to be within the expanded boundaries of Arches NP will result in a significant planning burden to users and the NPS moving forward. An example of this type of burden would involve the ongoing usage of snowmobiles in Yellowstone NP. While snowmobiles are still permitted, this usage results in a significant planning and administrative burden on the NPS that is often transferred to user groups. While Yellowstone NP permits snowmobile usage the ongoing administrative burden that results from this usage is immense as there is ongoing analysis of numerous factors involved in snowmobile usage. The Organizations would be remiss if the burden that this will place on local clubs and associations was not noted. This must be avoided as the Organizations are very concerned that this administrative burden will eventually become too much for users and cause the eventual loss of these routes.

3. Wilderness inventory- The Organizations are intimately familiar with the fact that there are several provisions of FLPMA and the Wilderness Act that require an on-going inventory process for public lands availability for Wilderness designation. The Organizations welcome the hard release of several WSA areas in the PLI. The Organizations submit that there is a strong need to clarify that areas outside of designated Wilderness should no longer be inventoried for Wilderness designation in the future. The Organizations are aware that land managers often seek to replace Wilderness inventory requirements with management of areas under “Wilderness Characteristics” type standards, which should be addressed in the PLI as well. It has been our experience that Wilderness characteristics do not improve in any areas that remain open to all public usage and given the clarity of management provided by the PLI, the Organizations do not believe Wilderness like characteristics in any area will expand. Population pressure continues to grow and the public wants to recreation and there is an on-going shadow that is cast over any area inventoried for Wilderness, even if the area is found unsuitable for designation. The Organization submit that the shadow of Wilderness review must be clearly excluded from areas outside Wilderness areas given the growing populations and desire for all forms of recreation.

The Organizations vigorously support the management clarity provided by the specific release of the 6 land areas that were previously inventoried for Wilderness characteristics. These areas are important to the multiple use community and the release of these areas back to multiple usage management is important for our users. The cloud of possible Wilderness designation at some point in the future has cast a shadow over the management and utilization of these areas for too long. The Organizations believe that avoiding creation of similar shadow of Wilderness type areas in the future should be clearly and firmly addressed in the PLI.

4. Trail Construction, maintenance and relocation – The Organizations are aware that several SRMA specify that trail construction can occur in these areas, which the Organizations welcome and support. The Organizations are also aware that heavy trail maintenance can be critically necessary as natural disasters can strongly impact areas. The authority to undertake each of these activities should be clearly stated in relevant provisions of the PLI in order to avoid impacts from the need for extensive administrative review in the future.

The Organizations would also urge that the principal of a trail corridor be adopted in order to allow slight movements of identified routes to address issues with errors in mapping of the route or impacts from natural disasters or other issues that changes to the landscape. The Organizations are not aware of the level of confidence that is had in the mapping of routes for the PLI, but the Organizations are aware that mapping technology has advanced significantly in recent years and the technology advances have identified that many trails are simply not accurately identified on any map despite the route being present for the better part of a century. Impacts to multiple use recreation should be avoided that result from advancing technology and the PLI provides a vehicle to address this issue. These corridors could also be relied on to adjust routes to be preserved to address possible private land issues that might be discovered later. Often an entire trail is lost due to a very short incursion of the route across a mining claim or right of way.

5. The management of cultural resources are elevated beyond a balanced multiple use of trail areas. The Organizations submit that the management of possible cultural sites in the PLI should be continued under current multiple use planning requirements¹. The PLI clearly elevates possible cultural resource sites to a management priority that is above multiple use balance as a “minimization of impacts” is now clearly required for any cultural sites. This new heightened standard for management of cultural sites will create a significant threat and ongoing basis for the impairment of routes that may only tangentially impact cultural resource sites. Currently cultural sites are protected under multiple use planning requirements and a non-impairment requirement would draw any route in a possible cultural site into question in the same manner that ongoing Wilderness Inventory requirements have presented to routes in inventory areas. Management of these routes to a standard that requires minimization of impacts standard is a significant change which we believe puts these routes at greater risk of closure that under the balance of uses of these areas under current multiple use standards.

The Organizations submit that §704(a)(2)(ii) of the PLI must be amended to remove the requirement of “minimization of trail impacts to cultural resources” as the management standard to be applied for all routes in the PLI planning area. The Organizations are further concerned that the minimization criteria for cultural sites is reflected in numerous standards throughout the PLI, such as §903(B)(i)(I), where a standard of “damage” is only required to temporarily close a route. It has been the Organizations experience that the standard of “damage” is highly subjective and often a controversial issue in planning. Many interests opposed to multiple use take a hard stance on damage and require large closures to public access to protect marginally important sites. As a result, the Organizations submit that a standard or process for the assessment of “damage” on a site specific level must be explicitly and clearly provided for in the PLI.

The Organizations are also very concerned that the elevated “non-impairment” standard for the protection of cultural resources could have severe negative impacts on efforts to resolve issues in cultural sites in the future. The Organizations are aware that when discussions about a particular cultural site occur under current “balancing of multiple use” management standards any discussions regarding the balancing of trails and cultural sites is difficult at best. The mere possibility of a cultural site being in the area triggers confidentiality provisions of §106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and precludes any meaningful discussion of balancing usages of the area. By elevating cultural resources outside the multiple usage category, these discussions become even more difficult to undertake for users who are often trying to preserve cultural sites so they can be used and appreciated by those seeking a multiple use recreational experience.

The Organizations concerns regarding the elevated status of cultural resource sites above other multiple uses are neither abstract or remote as BLM management plans for the Grand Junction and Colorado River Valley Offices in Colorado have closed significant numbers of routes for alleged cultural resource impacts by applying large scale prohibition boundaries around any possible sites, even those that are found to be ineligible for listing on the National Register. Many of these sites are clearly identified by the BLM Offices as ineligible for listing as they are trash scatters, campsites or of unknown value which will never be inventoried but mandatory closures around all these sites are clearly applied. Protecting such sites under a non-impairment standard would be very concerning for us.

Mandatory closures were also applied to possible cultural areas in the Grand Junction and Colorado River Valley field Office plans without analysis of many site specific factors, such as management decisions previously made and the natural deterioration of the sites due to the passage of time. These mandatory closures are applied by BLM Offices which are currently managing cultural sites under multiple use mandates. When cultural sites are elevated above other multiple uses with a non-impairment standard, impacts to multiple use from overly protective applications of management standards become of even more concern as factors of analysis such as the passage of time and previous management of the area are no longer relevant to the analysis process. The Organizations do not believe these long term impacts to multiple use are consistent with the goals and objectives of the PLI efforts.

6. Wild Horse and Burro management. The Organizations are not opposed to the management or presence of wild horses and burros in the planning area. Our experience has been exactly the opposite as wild horses and burros provide exceptionally unique recreational opportunities for the general public when they are viewed. It has been the Organizations experience that Horse and Burro management is again a usage that is elevated above other multiple uses and in certain areas has been the basis for significant loss of access to public lands. It has been the Organizations experience that when Wild Horse and Burro areas are designated or expanded, routes in these expanded areas are immediately lost. Management of these areas and issues should be clearly addressed in the PLI, as issues such as this could directly and significantly impact the ability of the PLI to achieve its goals.

The Organizations submit that more specific comments on these issues cannot be submitted at this time as BLM mapping of PLI lands is simply not detailed enough to address impacts to particular routes or areas. The Organizations submit this is an issue where significant barriers to achieving PLI objectives could be present and not addressed in the PLI and again would be an area to be utilized by those opposing public access to public lands in the future.

7. Economic importance of recreation to the PLI planning area. The Organizations submit that no matter how complete our review of possible threats to recreation and public access is provided for in the development of the PLI, there will be issues that are overlooked and must be managed for in the future. The Organizations submit that the clearly addressing the economic importance of recreation to local governments in the PLI will insure that even when future planning is undertaken that the economic importance of recreational usage of these areas is not overlooked or minimized. Currently the only economically related issue that is addressed in the PLI is native American economic development (Title X) and forestry §703(2)(c). The Organizations are aware that one of the cornerstones of the PLI efforts is to protect the economic contributions to local PLI communities and this is not achieved when only the economic benefits of forestry and Native American communities are identified for protection.

8. Snowmobile travel and areas should be addressed and protected in the PLI. The Organizations are aware that there are numerous valuable snowmobile areas within the PLI planning areas some of which could be lost due to expansions of Wilderness areas in the High Unita area proposed to be designated as Wilderness under the PLI. The Organizations are aware that there are several other areas of concern for the Utah Snowmobile Community and provide this area as an example of their concerns rather than an exhaustive list.

The Organizations are also concerned that the concept of an “open riding area” is far more important to snowmobile usage(“OSV”) than in OHV travel and this concept is not addressed or protected in the PLI. For snowmobile recreation, the route is only a tool utilized as a means to get to the large open area that is used for the desired recreational opportunity. The value of these large open riding areas was recently recognized by the USFS as part of their new Winter Travel Management Rule. The Organizations would be very concerned that protection of large open areas was not addressed in the PLI or was significantly inadvertently diminished in attempts to protect routes for summer travel in the PLI.
The snowmobile community is a user group that is currently facing many challenges as a result of the settlement of the Winter Wildlands litigation by the USFS in Idaho district court. This decision requires the USFS to provide maps for winter motorized recreational areas and as a result most open riding area designations and levels of access to public lands that are highly valued by the snowmobile community are at risk from many of the same challenges that are being addressed in the PLI. The Organizations believe the PLI efforts could help in resolution of some of these concerns for the snowmobile community in Utah.

In the PLI legislation there are specific requirements for the development of SRMA management plans for OSV travel within 2 years. This hard deadline is a significant negative impact to the OSV community as while the USFS is required to print maps for OSV usage under the settlement, there are no hard deadlines for compliance with this requirement in the settlement agreement. The Organizations vigorously submit that one of the uniform goals of the PLI efforts, mainly that public access to PLI managed lands be protected from impairment, is not furthered by placing hard deadlines on a planning process that is open ended currently.

While summer multiple uses are specifically protected in the PLI, winter motorized recreation is specifically excluded from any protection other than usage on areas with more than 6 inches of snow. The Organizations would encourage your offices to connect with the Utah Snowmobile Association in order to more completely address this issue as there are significant benefits from PLI efforts that could be conveyed to the snowmobile community. Possible resolutions may include clear language that OSV travel is not being addressed in SRMA management or the development of management clarity in the PLI for OSV usage in a manner similar to the clarity provided for summer multiple use. The Organizations are more than willing to assist in making those discussions happen.

9. Maps. The Organizations are aware that distribution of even general landscape level maps is not provided for specifically in the PLI. The Organizations submit there needs to be a process where there is agreement between the OHV community and land managers regarding the levels of access that are available in particular areas and clearly a map is the most effective manner to obtain this. The Organizations vigorously assert that multiple copies of this document should be filed with various federal, state and local governmental agencies and user groups. It has been our experience that too often maps that are created with Legislation are not locatable within a very short period of time due to turnover in agency offices and numerous other reasons. The Organizations have experienced these map related issues when trying to resolve issues with Senator Udall’s James Peak Wilderness Legislation in 2002. The map often proved to be an important tool in discussions but the map remained unlocatable for decades following legislation passing. Provisions must be included that avoid such an issue.

10. Conclusion. The Organizations would like to vigorously thank your offices for their efforts to date on this issue and are intimately aware the process has been long, complex and probably stressful for everyone involved. We are making these comments as a supplement to the route specific comments from local OHV groups and that the Organizations vigorously support those comments. The Organizations would like to share some of the landscape level issues we have encountered in planning processes with the Federal agencies as a supplement to the input previously received. The Organizations submit that avoiding these issues will be a significant step to avoiding controversy in future and facilitating successful implementation of the landscape level objectives sought in the PLI.

The Organizations are also concerned regarding the limited protection for snowmobile usage that is provided in the PLI, and believe that obtaining input from all users will be critical in the development of a PLI that is effective in the long term. The Organizations are more than willing to assist in any way necessary the discussion between your offices and the Utah Snowmobile Association.

If you have questions please feel free to contact either Fred Wiley, ORBA’s Executive Director at 1701 Westwind Drive #108, Bakersfield, CA. Mr. Wiley phone is 661-323-1464 and his email is fwiley@orba.biz. You may also contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is Scott.jones46@yahoo.com.
Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
ORBA/TPA Authorized Representative
CSA President; COHVCO President

Fred Wiley, CNSA Past President
ORBA President and CEO

D.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

1 See, 43 USC §1701 et seq.

 Trails Legislation Objectives Letter

Colorado Legislative Delegation
Re: Trails/recreation based legislation Proposals

Dear Sirs:

The above Organizations are contacting your office with regard to the various legislative proposals before both Houses of Congress that are addressing recreational usage of public lands. In this letter we identify several specific pieces of legislation relative to particular issues and we are providing this correspondence to address general concepts that could be supported by these Organizations. This list is in no way intended to be a complete list of all legislative proposals but rather simply assist your offices in researching and understanding these landscape level concerns. There are many facets of these legislative proposals that seek to improve recreational usage of public lands, limited funding for land managers and various process related issues. The Organizations believe these are meritorious goals but must also express some concern over the manner these issues are addressed.

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

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a 100 percent volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding. The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands.

CSA was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. CSA currently has 2,500 members. CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport.

ORBA is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this issue.

1. All users and permittees must be treated the same under any legislation.

The Organizations are aware that several proposals address burdens of the Permit process on outfitter/guides. The Organizations submit that issues encountered by outfitter /guides are seen by many user groups and all users should be addressed equally rather than providing a preference to any one user group over others. The Organizations are involved with a wide range of activities that are addressed in the permit process, such as winter grooming of routes, numerous educational rides and events throughout the year and summer trail maintenance efforts undertaken in partnership with Federal land managers.

The Organizations agree with the various Proposals addressing outfitter/guide permits, that the permit process is highly inconsistent, slow, expensive and burdensome. Generally the Organizations submit that there needs to be far more effective course/fine filter approach in permitting process and more specifically the new guidelines from BLM on permits are too open ended in terms of application and allow far too much discretion to line officers in the issuance of permits. This results in a process that is horribly inconsistent and difficult for the public to understand and utilize and results in a significant barrier to the recreational utilizations of public lands. Several specific concerns on permitting include:

1. Long timelines required to obtain permits are major prohibitions- many groups and users that barely meet a few of the strict permit requirements are simply not able to determine the need 180 days in advance to obtain a permit for their event; resolution of this issue might be obtained with a more efficient coarse/fine filter approach to the permitting process;
2. Cost recovery authority related to permits for specific events is no longer cost recovery for that event but has become a revenue source for land managers; Often there is no basis for costs asserted to be necessary and costs associated with permits that have been active for extended periods of time have significantly increased;
3. Many non-commercial activities are lumped into commercial activities- a group of friends or family or small club outing should not be required to obtain a permit and conduct a full scale review of the outing at significant cost and delay to them; Permit issues such as this are when the impropriety of the current permit process become immediately apparent;
4. Small events that occur relying primarily on existing resources on public lands should not need a permit or move forward with minimal analysis: Recently we encountered a dual sport motorcycle ride occurring on county roads crossing a small portion of BLM lands that was unexpectedly required to obtain an expensive permit they would have had to apply for months previously or face prosecution; this is becoming far too common an issue where groups of only a few vehicles are now expected to have permits
5. There has to be a single permit issued for a project or event by all land managers; often there is no lead agency relative to permits and applicant may have permit from one land manager and another land managers steps in at the last second requires a permit from them as well; these issues are made more complex by service first principals and the patchwork of land management that is in place in some areas.

2. Volunteer group liability must be addressed.

The Organizations are very concerned with issues surrounding the liability of volunteer groups performing projects in partnership with land managers and submit groups must be protected as well as individuals from liability arising from partnerships on public lands. These liability concerns greatly expand when the local volunteer group is funding a project with third party grant funds. places a lot of burden on volunteers who are partnering with agencies on grants etc – required to obtain insurance and possible rider for projects.

Insurance issues for volunteer groups are made more complex by the fact that certificates of completion for a particular project are impossible to obtain from land managers. This results in volunteer organizations being unable to obtain liability insurance the year following successful completion of a project can become difficult or impossible without a certificate of completion as many insurance companies will only release a project specific rider with a certificate of completion. Without this document, the insurer has no proof that the project has been completed satisfactorily and accepted by the land manager. The Organizations submit that Rep Chabot legislation (HR 2290) on this issue would be a major step forward.

3. Economics in the Federal Planning Process

The Organizations vigorously assert that the economic impacts of planning decisions must be accurately and meaningfully addressed in the planning process. The Organizations have been involved in several major planning efforts where recreational activity has been valued at between $10 and $12 per day for users who must travel more than 50 miles to get to the planning area. Single employers within the planning area employed more people in recreationally related activities than land mangers asserted resulted from all activity in the planning area . This often is not enough to cover gas necessary to travel to the planning area. Despite the facial problems with this analysis land managers vigorously fought the concerns when they were raised by both the Organizations and numerous local government representatives. The Organizations submit that difficult to balance multiple uses when primary leverage is exceptionally limited. This must be avoided.

The Organizations submit that the Secretary of Commerce should be included in the development of any economic analysis in the planning process. This is the Secretary of Commerce’s expertise and would provide a check on the agency analysis of economic impacts. Sens. Shaheen/Gardner (S 2219) provides a good summary of the role the Secretary of Commerce should play in the economic analysis of usage of public lands.

4. Congressional powers should not be altered.
The Organizations vigorously submit that administrative creation of National Recreation Areas(“NCA”)/ National Conservation Area (“NCA”) or similar type designations simply is not acceptable. These types of designations are a Congressional designation and should remain under Congressional authority and control. The Organizations are very concerned that NRA/NCA type designations could become another basis for closure of areas to the public.

The mere creation of NRA/NCA areas could trigger heightened permit requirements for all uses in these areas. These are major concerns that should be avoided for the reasons previously identified in this correspondence.

The Organizations are also very concerned that the relationship of existing NRA created by Congress to new administratively created NRA areas is not clearly and specifically addressed. The Organizations are also concerned that the relationship between any new designations and existing SRMA and ERMA designations in local Resource Management Plans simply is never discussed. The Organizations see this as a major concern as SRMA/ERMA designations are one of the few ways that recreation can be addressed in local planning.

5a. Any new Legislation must place a minimal burden on agencies.
The Organizations vigorously assert that any recreational legislation that is proposed must pass a cost benefit analysis from the agency perspective. As an example, the Organizations are aware that several proposals have allowed outfitter/guides to offset permit or fee costs with volunteer hours. The Organizations submit that while this proposal may appear beneficial, the burden on the agencies in terms of cost would be significant as volunteers need to be managed and projects need to be inspected. These are issues where the Organizations have already encountered conflicts as previously outlined in this correspondence. The Organizations are also concerned that the decline in revenues from the permitting process would further erode funding for projects on the ground.

The Organizations are also very aware that more planning documents do not resolve issues on the ground and often place additional stress on partners to land managers. Coordination of additional planning is often difficult to reconcile with more local planning efforts and attempts to reconcile these efforts often direct limited resources of partners and land managers away from on the ground projects.

5b. Review of priority trail maintenance areas is a concern
The Organizations welcome the review of the trail maintenance situation and vigorously assert that the dispersed road and trail network is a critical component of all recreational activity. All trails and roads are valuable to the people that use them. The Organizations believe basic maintenance of all routes is a major hurdle for land managers and those using these routes. The Organizations submit that identifying priorities for construction and maintenance often reflects the priorities of a small user group as public input is often difficult and does not reflect funding available to address both construction and long term maintenance of these routes. The Organizations are also concerned that when priority trails are identified that the value or concern over other trails is diminished. This is not acceptable and planning should address the fact that for many users there is an exceptionally finite amount of resources.

The Organizations submit that identification of priority areas could be a major administrative burden to land managers and maintenance issues can severely fluctuate by region, visitation and partner funding. Colorado has one of the largest trail programs in the Country and provides $6-7 million a year to federal land managers to maintain trails. Other states simply do not have this level of partnerships. Any identification of priority trails should leverage outside funds for the project and not place additional burden on them. While we appreciate efforts to this effect in several states, the Organizations are not aware of additional funding being found to implement these trail priorities. This is a problem.

The Organizations submit that any review of trail priorities must include level of public usage of trail. Low level usage trails should not be priority maintenance projects. Another factor that should be looked at in any priority management process is if the project ripe in terms of NEPA.

If you have questions please feel free to contact either Fred Wiley, ORBA’s Executive Director at 1701 Westwind Drive #108, Bakersfield, CA. Mr. Wiley phone is 661-323-1464 and his email is fwiley@orba.biz. You may also contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504. His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
ORBA/TPA Authorized Representative
CSA President; COHVCO President

Fred Wiley, CNSA Past President
ORBA President and CEO

D.E. Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance