Archive | December, 2016

Excerpt from the Missoulan – click link to read entire article

Seven multiple-use recreation groups have filed suit seeking to force the Bitterroot National Forest to redo its travel plan signed last May.

In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Missoula, the groups say Bitterroot Forest officials ignored key input by the public and violated existing statutes and policies in developing the plan that establishes where motorized travel is allowed.

Bitterroot Forest officials spent more than nine years developing the plan after considering 13,400 comments. It shut off thousands of acres of areas classified as Wilderness Study Areas to snowmobilers, ATV riders and mountain bikers.

The groups that filed suit include the Bitterroot Ridge Runners Snowmobile Club, Ravalli County Off-Road User Association, Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Montana Snowmobile Association, Citizens for Balanced Use and Backcountry Sled Patriots.

read more…

WY Trail #038 TPA Comments

Tongue Ranger District
Bighorn National Forest
2013 Eastside 2nd Street
Sheridan, WY 82801

RE: Public Comments
Trail #038 Conversion
Bighorn National Forest, Tongue Ranger District (BRD)

Dear Responsible Official:

The following public comments are submitted in regards to the Notice of Proposed Action – Forest Service Trail #038, on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”).  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.  The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities.

The TPA does not support the designation of Trail #038 as a non-motorized route and wholly supports those comments submitted by the Blue Ribbon Coalition on or about December 23, 2016.  Trail #038 has been a motorized trail asset for many years, and albeit challenging, it has existed in a sustainable state.  The TPA, in alignment with our fundamental principles, would support designation of this trail as a “motorcycles only” trail to enhance single-track, multi-use recreational opportunities within the Tongue Ranger District of the Bighorn National Forest.  The TPA also contends that the Proposed Action has omitted very important and pertinent information, and that the current version of the Proposed Action is misleading.  The TPA is obliged to point out that the outcome of the Inyan Kara Riders vs., U. S. Forest Service, Case Number CV-14-159-ABJ (D. Wyo), has not been properly characterized within the background of the Proposed Action and incorrectly represents that Trail #038 is currently closed to motorized use.

The TPA is very much aware that within the Bighorn National Forest, opportunities for single-track, multi-use, motorized single-track recreation are scant and under-served on the Forest.  Trail #038 is indeed unique in that it provides riders with a challenging loop.  That Trail #038 with proper management, signage and maintenance can continue to provide a recreational opportunity for moderately proficient, single-track users.  The TPA would support designation of this trail as a Class 1, “motorcycle only” trail, in lieu of closure and designation as a Class 1, “non-motorized primitive and undeveloped trail”.  To imply within the Proposed Action that the trail is “unsafe for motorized use”, should not be used as criteria for trail closure to motorized use.  Per USFS guidance, the agency is not required to guarantee the safety of all trail users.  In fact the USFS is remiss if it does not provide a variety of opportunities for motorized recreation, including single-track trails with varying degrees of challenge.

In conclusion the TPA contends that the Tongue Ranger District must consider a broad range of alternatives, one of which needs to include options for continuing motorized use and access along Trail #038.  Designating this trail for “motorcycle use” is absolutely appropriate and highly desired by the spectrum of trail users.  The TPA agrees with the Blue Ribbon Coalition and their submitted comments on this project, that designating this trail for motorcycles could be accomplished with relatively little analysis, and if the District does indeed decide to perform an Environmental Assessment, then the District must broaden the scope of the EA to include consideration for enhanced recreational, multi-use opportunities and an expansion of the existing multi-use, motorized route network(s).

Sincerely,

D.E. Riggle, Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

Background:

For the 2017-2018 Colorado Parks & Wildlife, OHV Grant application cycle, 21 individual Good Management grant applications were submitted and 44 Competitive grant applications were submitted.  For comparison purposes, during the 2016-2017 OHV Grant cycle, there were 19 Good Management applications and 36 Competitive grant applications.  A review of each of the 2017-2018 grant application was completed to see if the different grant applications cited growth in OHV recreation as a driver and or need for grant funding, and for the competitive grants an additional analysis was performed to see if it was stated within the grant application there was recognition or acknowledgment that OHV recreation was contributing to the local economy or local tourism.  The analyses included the review of all of the actual grant application narratives and the required Letters of Project Support for each grant.

Results of Analysis:

1. Of the 21 Good Management grant applications, 13 grant applications, or 62%, specifically cited or referenced that growth or an increase in OHV recreation was a reason that the Good Management crew was needed and why the grant application should be supported.
2. Of the 44 Competitive grant applications
   1. 27 of the 44 grant applications, or 4%, specifically cited or referenced that growth and an increase in OHV recreation was a reason that the grant funds were needed and why the grant should be supported.
   2. 31 of the 44 of the grant application, or 5%, stated in various ways that OHV recreation was indeed a contributor to the local economy, supported local tourism or was important to the economic well-being of the surrounding communities.

Conclusion:

Review of the 2017-2018 CPW OHV grant applications shows that a preponderance of both the Good Management and Competitive grants recognize and impart that the needs and demands of OHV recreation are steadily growing and increasing in Colorado and that OHV recreation is an acknowledged and viable component of many of our local economies.  Given these results, it is interesting to note that historically and anecdotally on public lands statewide, within both of the jurisdictions of the USFS and BLM, the miles of routes open to and available for OHV use, and general opportunities for OHV recreation has been in steady decline.

West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation Project Comments

State Recreational Trails Committee Trails Program
Colorado Parks & Wildlife
Submitted via e-­mail to: dnr_trails@state.co.us

RE: Public Comments – West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation – Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest, Boulder Ranger District (BRD) Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA)

Dear State Recreational Trails Committee:

The following public comments are submitted in regards to the West Magnolia Trails: Phase 1 Implementation Project, on behalf of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”). 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. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse trail riding opportunities. COHVCO is a grassroots advocacy organization representing approximately 170,000 registered off-­highway vehicle (“OHV”) users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of 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 TPA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

The Organizations submit these comments as part of the public record for the referenced non- motorized trail project grant request and have very serious concerns about this project.

The Organizations have previously submitted formal, written objection and protest comments to the USFS, Objections Reviewing Officer in protest of the Magnolia Trail Proposal (“The Proposal”) in the Boulder Ranger District (“BRD”). The objection and protest document was submitted to the USFS on September 21, 2016. The Organizations specifically objected to the proposal since it seeks to convert a historic multiple-use area to an area for the exclusive use of a small and limited user group under the guise of a lack of area maintenance, and the Organizations are absolutely opposed to the proposed closure of the winter multiple
usage of the area to allow for the exclusive use of cross‐country skiing. The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the Magnolia proposal/project, which accepts over 40 miles of user created routes into the BRD route inventory, to ongoing closures of other existing multiple-­use routes (such as Lefthand Canyon area and the Bunce School area routes) in the BRD based on a lack of maintenance funding. The Magnolia proposal/project adds more mileage for bicycle recreation than currently exists for all other forms of multiple-­use recreation on the BRD. If there is not sufficient funding to maintain existing routes and areas within the BRD, how can over 40 miles of new and additional routes and the associated parking areas be supported and adequately maintained? The Organizations submit that it cannot, and that this is simply inconsistent with the consideration and treatment of other user groups and other forms of recreation within the BRD.

The Organizations have vigorously asserted that closure of the Magnolia area to multiple-­use is simply unacceptable. To address the historic lack of management of this area by the USFS and a lack of ongoing funding for maintenance, which has been repeatedly identified as the basis for additional closures to multiple-use recreation on the BRD, while allowing the Magnolia project to move forward is inconsistent, unfair and biased. The Organizations submit that the multiple-­use access to the Magnolia area in all seasons is a critically important resource to those residing in the vicinity of the Magnolia area, along with those residents that live elsewhere within or near the BRD. Multiple-­use opportunities are already exceptionally limited within the BRD, and have declined even further during the duration of the Magnolia proposal/project, and closure of the Magnolia area will further exacerbate the imbalance of recreational opportunities in the BRD. Even the BRD has asserted that there are no other areas where multiple-use recreation can be expanded within the BRD.

The Organizations list the following concerns and issues that must be addressed prior to the approval of and obligation of funds to this project:

• We are aware that there are substantial wildlife concerns for this area (e.g., affects upon wildlife migration corridors, impacts to elk calving areas, etc.). We are very familiar with the process that multiple-use projects must endure, and the mitigation measures that must be developed to address wildlife concerns when multiple-use project apply for State funded grants. We question why this project is not being held to the same or similar standards and why stated wildlife concerns are being ignored and put aside for this project. Again, the Organizations cite this as inconsistent and biased treatment between one particular user group (non-motorized users) and other multiple-use user groups.
• As stated in the grant application, the Final Environmental Assessment Decision has not been made. The Organizations contend that approving funds for this project prior to rendering of the Final Decision is premature and puts valuable grant funds at risk. As we have observed in the past with several multiple-use grant applications, circumstances can and often do arise that delay decisions on Environmental Assessments, projects are unable to move forward in a timely manner and precious grant funds languish as the decision process skulks forward. All the while, the allocated grant funds could have been used and committed to another project where the Final Decision had been made, documented and in place.
• This project specifically “rewards” and encourages future bad behavior from trail users. By the application’s own admission, this area has seen rampant expansion and creation of user created social trails. This activity to proliferate “illegal trails” is simply a blatant disrespect for the area and the law, and now this grant and the BRD seek to legitimize this outlaw behavior
  and add these illegal trails to the BRD’s inventory. The Organizations certainly agree that non-systems trails can and do exist and that adoption by the USFS of non-system trails to system trails has merits in very specific cases. However, this project condones and rewards bad behavior with the expansion of an existing system of 16.3 miles with 45.7 miles of non- system, illegal social trails. This decision by the BRD to add trail mileage of this magnitude is unprecedented and inconsistent with requests by other user groups to adopt other non- system trails. This vast expansion of route and trail mileage is also inconsistent with recently promulgated guidance by the Chief of the Forest Service to reduce infrastructure.
• Closure of the Magnolia Area to the existing broad spectrum of users for the exclusive use by one particular user group is discriminatory and will certainly foster resentment and poor relationships with other user groups. Instead of excluding users, the BRD and BMA should be working with similar vigor and diligence to be inclusive and accepting of all user groups and embrace an attitude of cooperation and tolerance. A historic moto of the USFS once was “The Land of Many Uses”, an attitude that now seems to have gone by the wayside in lieu of an elitist and intolerant attitude toward a public that seeks diverse and balanced use of its public lands.
• The grant application specifically states that the USFS, BRD will be responsible for maintenance. The Organizations question the validity of this statement given the BRD’s previous statements that the District continues to have decreasing budgets and lacks funds for maintenance. The Organizations acknowledge that agency funding to the USFS has been in steady decline forcing most Ranger Districts to seek alternative means of funding and manpower to construct and more importantly maintain existing infrastructure. For example, we have routinely observed comments from other USFS Districts when applying for CPW grants that make statements such as “..the motorized [trail] crew is only funded by CPW’s OHV grant. No Forest Service money will be allocated for on-the-ground trail work. For the last few years, the Forest Service funding to maintain trails has been minimal.” For this very reason, we question why the BRD would want to eliminate multiple-use from this area and disqualify the entire area from State OHV grant eligibility. Closure of this area for the exclusive use by mountain bikes and non-motorized users completely eliminates the area from a proven, reliable and sustainable source of funding for resource protection, enhancement, restoration, equipment purchases, travel plan implementation, signage, education and enforcement.
• The Organizations contend that statements made within this grant application that the area is subject to degradation from wind and rain erosion due to fuels reduction are unfounded and merely conjecture in order to secure project funding. The density of trees and condition of the forest prior to fuels reduction was an acknowledged undesirable, un-natural and unsustainable state. Through an effective agency sponsored fuels reduction project, the area has now been restored to a more stable and natural condition, one that the vegetation and soil will expectedly thrive.
• Under Section 9. Public Comment, this grant application failed to acknowledge the substantial and significant public input that was submitted during public meetings regarding continued motorized use in this area and areas adjacent. Likewise in Section 11. Who is Opposed to the Project, the applicant dismissively states objections were received from the motorized community, an attempt we feel is purposely meant to minimalize and avoid specifically addressing the 12 pages of objection comments submitted by the Organizations.
• Regarding Exhibit B, Budget Form, the Organizations believe the State Recreational Trails Committee should evaluate the stated project match and in-kind values carefully. Based upon our extensive involvement and past support of other CPW grant applications, we question the accuracy and estimation of the stated match and in-kind dollar amounts. It is our judgment that these amounts appear to be over estimated and without basis or documentation.

In conclusion the Organizations have serious concerns about this grant application, one that converts a historic multiple-use area to an area for the exclusive use of a limited, non-diverse user group under the guise of maintenance and are completely opposed to the proposed closure of the year-round multiple-use of the area. The Organizations would be remiss if the relationship of the Magnolia project, which accepts a myriad of user created routes into the BRD route inventory, to other ongoing closures of existing multiple-use routes, such as Lefthand Canyon area and the Bunce School area routes in the BRD based on a lack of maintenance funding was not raised. The Magnolia Trails project adds more mileage for bicycle recreation than currently exists for all other forms of multiple-use recreation on the BRD. If there is not sufficient funding to maintain existing areas, how can over 40 miles of additional routes and associated parking areas be supported?

Sincerely,
D.E. Riggle,
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

Silverton Guides Heliskiing permit expansion

BLM Gunnison FO
Att: Silverton Guides EA Comments
210 W. Spencer Ave, Suite A
Gunnison CO 81230

Re: Silverton Guides Heliskiing permit expansion

Dear Sirs:
Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above Organizations in vigorous opposition to the proposed permit expansion application of the Silverton Guides Organization (“the Proposal”) . The Organizations vigorously oppose the Proposal as it is simply badly out of balance as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public will now be open to heliskiing. The mixing of these uses has proven to be a serious long term barrier to public access to other areas where heliskiing has occurred as immediately after heliskiing is expanded. While this is often based on avalanche mitigation activity for skiing, public access to the area is lost regardless. In the Silverton area, public access to any winter recreation area is highly valued areas as only a small portion of the planning area is suitable for OSV usage. This results in a significant net loss to public recreational opportunities as most members of the public are not interested in heliskiing and most of those that are interested in the sport are not able to afford the $1,000 per day required to book a trip. Even in the best of conditions heliskiing access will never occur at levels similar to the public utilization of these areas for other winter recreational activity.

The expanded permit will be of minimal value to Silverton Mtn. operations as most heliskiing already occurs within the boundary of the ski area, but the expanded permit will put public access to recreational opportunities at risk, as the permittee has a committed history of seeking something other than multiple use embracing public access to areas jointly used by the public. Many of the areas now sought to be used for heliskiing permit activities have been declined in the past, making the Organizations ask what has changed to allow these areas to become heli-ski permit areas, when they were repeatedly declined in the past. If the permit is determined to be suitable for expansion, the Organizations vigorously assert that clear and enforceable standards must be put in place that protect public access to any expanded operational area. These must be independently monitored at the expense of the permittee, as it is not the public responsibility to monitor the permittee but it is the permittee responsibility to protect public access. If these protections cannot be obtained, the permit should not be expanded.

We start first with a brief description of each Organization, in order to allow a complete understanding of our concerns. The Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion. There are 30,000 registered snowmobiles in the State of Colorado. CSA seeks to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling in Colorado by working with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of 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 Colorado based 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 is an advocate of the sport and takes necessary actions to help insure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. For purposes of this document CSA, COHVCO and TPA are identified as “the Organizations”.

1. The preferred alternative is simply badly out of balance as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public will now be open to heliskiing as well.

The Organizations vigorously oppose the Proposal as it is simply badly out of balance in addressing usages of recreational opportunity areas as almost all snowmobile areas now open to the public would become open to heliskiing, which has proven to be a serious long term barrier to public access. Once heliskiing has occurred avalanche mitigation of the area with explosives also occurs and this has always resulted in a loss of public access on the basis of safety concerns. The snowmobile community intimately understands the possible risks from avalanches throughout the Silverton planning area and the OSV community has effectively recreated in this area with this risk without the need to drop explosive charges from helicopters. Minimization of impacts of heliskiing in existing permit areas has translated to closures of the areas to the public due to safety concerns from avalanche mitigation actions being conducted to protect heli-skiers.

In the Silverton area, public access to any winter recreation area is highly valued areas as only a small portion of the planning area is suitable for OSV usage and other types of recreational activity. The restriction of areas to heliskiing only results in a significant net loss to public recreational opportunities as most members of the public are not interested in heliskiing and most of those that are interested in the sport are not able to afford the $1,000 per day required to book a trip. Even in the best of conditions heliskiing access will never occur at levels similar to the public utilization of these areas for other winter recreational activity.

The expanded permit will be of minimal value to Silverton Mtn. operations as most heliskiing occurs on the ski area, but it will put public access to recreational opportunities at risk as the permittee has a committed history of seeking something other than multiple use embracing public access. In addition to opposing multiple use, the permittee has encouraged 4 incursions onto private lands adjacent to permit areas as part of their heliskiing operations. This causes even further concerns about the long term viability of expanded heliskiing opportunities for Silverton Guides as proposed. Given the immediate conflicts that have resulted previously, the Organizations must question how this conflict can be avoided in the future?

2. Management History.

The Organizations would be remiss if the conflict between the current proposal and previous management decisions was not noted. Many of the areas now sought to be used for heliskiing permit activities have been declined in the past. The Organizations must ask what has changed to allow these areas to become heli-ski permit areas, when they were repeatedly declined in the past. The Permittee has a demonstrated disregard for incursions of permitee’s activities onto well documented private lands adjacent to permitted areas, which causes serious concerns about the enforceability of soft standards for the benefit of public access as the permittee has not enforced basic property boundaries in the past. It is silly to hope that public usage would be balanced by the permittee without enforceable standards in the permit. Without such definable enforceable standards to protect public access, the expanded permit should be denied.

3. The Proposal lacks factual accuracy and results in .

The Organizations must question the frequent summary of many of the locations within the existing permit areas as “low quality windswept areas poorly suited for skiing”. This directly conflicts with the findings of fact from the most recently approved permit which concludes it is providing a better chance of finding quality snow conditions with the expanded permit in 2008.1 This is simply inconsistent with an operation that has been guiding for more than 20 years and boasts “some of the most spectacular ski terrain found anywhere in the world”.2

These types of factual conflicts are deeply concerning and result in a per se violation of NEPA planning requirements, as NEPA regulations provide as follows:
“(b) NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. “³

The Organizations vigorously assert that this per se conflict of factual determinations directly impacts the quality of NEPA analysis provided and results in a decision that has not been sufficiently reviewed. As a result the Proposal must be declined.

The Organizations are again intimately aware that even on a good year snowfall is often highly variable and at certain times of the year an area may be of poor quality for recreation but the Organizations are also aware that conditions are also highly variable and an area that has poor snow one week may be graced with world class recreational conditions the following week. Again the Organizations submit this lack of factual accuracy and conflict with previous planning weighs against expansion of the permit as the EA fails to provide the public with the necessary high quality information on the proposal to allow for meaningful comment.

4. If there is a decision to expand the permit, existing permittee obligations must be complied with.

The EA recognizes moderate snowmobile usage in many areas where the permit is to be expanded but simply never addresses how impacts to this usage will be minimized which is very concerning when the permittee business model is “more terrain more often” and displayed a serious disregard for private property interests in the area. The Organizations submit that if the decision to expand the scope of the existing permit is made, that existing management decisions in place require the moderate levels of snowmobile use in expanded permit areas to be protected. The Recreation Area Management Plan for the permit area clearly requires this as follows:

“Outfitters and Special Events
Objective: Manage commercial outfitters and special events to encourage safe and professional services are offered to the public, and to minimize impacts to resources and other visitors.
Management Action 1: Continue to authorize and monitor a variety of commercial recreation activities to provide essential service for the public. … The number of outfitters permitted, the areas they would be allowed to use, and the number of service days they would be granted may be regulated to maintain desirable experiences, avoid resource impacts, avoid overcrowding and reduce conflicts with other visitors.”⁴

The Organizations simply are unable to provide any recommendations or experiences surrounding effective manners to provide this type of protection for public usage. The Organizations vigorously assert that this burden must be borne by the permittee and confirmed with third party monitoring of the permit areas and these costs must be part of the permit fee. These financial and resource burdens should not be shifted to the public but should be borne by the permittee to affirmatively show a lack of conflict or reduced public access. Forcing the public to continuously defend quality recreational areas from a permittee who has a demonstrated disregard for private property interests and is committed to something other than multiple usage ethics is simply unacceptable. Without these protections, the permit areas should not be expanded.

5. Conclusion.

The Organizations vigorously assert there should be no expansion of the permit beyond existing boundaries as such an expansion would immediately result in conflict between heliskiing activity and the public utilization of the expanded permit areas. The Organizations area aware that public access to public lands has been lost in other areas where heliskiing has expanded in the past. While an expanded permit area may be of minimal value to the permittee as most operations are occurring on the Silverton Ski Area, areas outside the ski area are highly valued by the public given the small areas of suitable lands in the Silverton vicinity.

The Organizations look forward to participating in further meetings on this issue and welcome the discussion as it moves forward. Please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont CO 80504 or via email at scott.jones46@yahoo.com or via telephone at 518- 281-5810.

Scott Jones, Esq.
COHVCO & CSA President
TPA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trail Preservation Alliance

1 See, BLM Telluride Helitrax Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Environmental Assessment (April 2008) at pg 7.
2 See, https://silvertonmountain.com/experience/heli/ accessed December 6, 2016. 5
3 43 CFR 1500.1(b)
4 See, DOI, BLM – Alpine Triangle Final Recreation Area Management Plan (September 2010) at pg 60.

Save

Save

Save