Archive | April, 2020

Arizona Trails Economic Study – 2020

April 20, 2020 in News
Arizona Trails Economic Study 2020 cover mountains and sky

Click image to download PDF

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF TRAILS IN ARIZONA
A Travel Cost Method Study – TECHNICAL REPORT
Dari Duval, George Frisvold, Ashley Bickel
March 2020

The University of Arizona, Cooperative Extension
Collect of Agriculture & Life Sciences Agricultural & Resource Economics
© 2020 The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Arizona.

Executive Summary

What’s the issue?

Outdoor recreation supports the quality of life and health of individuals, communities, and local economies. Trail access for non-motorized and motorized recreation enriches the lives of community residents and visitors, providing an outlet for exercise, outdoor recreation, and transportation. The inherent value and enjoyment derived from outdoor recreation is not directly monetized, for example, through consumer spending or property values, yet it is the driver behind the outdoor recreation economy. The economic value that individuals place on amenities like trails can be measured in terms of consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is a monetary measure of how well-off individuals are as a result of consuming or using a particular good, service, or resource. In other words, it estimates the value of a good based on the benefits that individuals derive from using the good, service, or resource. For goods that are not bought and sold in markets, such as natural amenities, the value of a particular resource can be estimated indirectly using what is known as the travel cost method. In this method, benefits of an amenity are estimated based on how much individuals spend in time and money to travel to enjoy a particular amenity.

Estimating the economic value associated with use of natural resources and amenities is important in understanding how society is impacted by changes in the quality of or access to those resources. It can help to guide public policy and investments by informing our understanding of the benefits and costs of different actions affecting natural resources and amenities valued by the public.

As a complement to the Arizona State Parks 2020 Trails Plan, this study estimates the economic value of non-motorized and motorized trail use to Arizona residents using the travel cost method. Trail use includes use of trails managed by Arizona State Parks, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other land management agencies for both non-motorized and motorized uses. Non-motorized uses include walking, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding/equestrian use, among others. Motorized trail uses include dirt biking, ATV, UTV, side-by-side, and four wheeling, among others. In addition to the economic value of trail use in Arizona to in-state residents, we also estimate total annual trail use for both non-motorized and motorized recreation, presenting the results in an origin-destination matrix that captures the estimated flow of in-state travel between counties for non-motorized and motorized trail recreation. Finally, we examine the importance of trail amenities to Arizona residents in their decisions of where to live and where to travel for leisure, both with important implications for community development.

What did the study find?

Total trail use

  • In the past year, Arizonans used trails in the state for non-motorized recreation an estimated 83,110,000 times, and for motorized recreation an estimated 20,117,000 times.
  • An estimated 59.2% of Arizona’s adult population (or 3,073,100 Arizonans) engaged in non-motorized trail use in the past year, and an estimated 24.4% of the adult population (1,263,600 Arizonans) engaged in motorized trail use in the past year. Some trail users participate in both non-motorized and motorized trail recreation.
  • Non-motorized trail users averaged 27.0 trail visits in the past year, and motorized trail users averaged 15.9 trail visits.

Economic value of trails in Arizona

  • The economic value (consumer surplus) derived from non-motorized trail use in Arizona by in-state residents, based on a midpoint estimate, is $8.3 billion per year, with model estimates ranging between $6.2 billion and $10.6 billion. The economic value (consumer surplus) derived from motorized trail use in Arizona by in-state residents is an estimated $5.2 billion per year.
  • Per visit consumer surplus for non-motorized trail use ranged between $90.32 and $128.03, depending on travel cost model assumptions, with a midpoint estimate of $100.06.
  • Per visit consumer surplus for motorized trail use was an estimated $259.17.

Importance of trails in Arizonans’ decision of where to live and visit

  • When asked the importance of having trails nearby in deciding where to live:
    • More than 77% of respondents that participated in non-motorized trail recreation in Arizona report trail proximity as somewhat or very important. This remains true whether the respondent has participated in the past year or has ever participated in non-motorized trail recreation at some point in the past.
    • Roughly 80% of respondents that have ever used motorized trails or have used motorized trails in the past year report that trail proximity is somewhat or very important.
  • When asked the importance of having trails nearby in their decision of where to visit:
    • Roughly 83% of respondents who have ever used non-motorized trails or who have used them in the past year consider trails somewhat or very important in their decision of where to visit. For individuals that have never used trails for non-motorized recreation or that haven’t used them in the past year, these percentages are slightly lower, ranging between 67% and 71%.
    • Close to 85% of respondents that have ever used motorized trails or have used motorized trails in the past year report that trail proximity is somewhat or very important. For those respondents that have never participated in motorized trail use or that haven’t in the past year, these figures ranged between 75% and 80%.

Top non-motorized and motorized trail destinations

  • Based on survey responses, top non-motorized trail use destinations include Phoenix, Tucson, Sedona, Apache Junction, Scottsdale, and Flagstaff. These top destinations are heavily reflective of popular trail use areas near major metro areas with large populations.
  • Top motorized trail use destinations, though still influenced by major metro areas, are more reflective of areas of the state that attract motorized trail users. Top motorized trail use areas include Apache Junction, Yuma, Buckeye, Black Canyon City, and Carefree.

How was the study conducted?

This study relies on data from a stratified random sample survey of Arizona residents eighteen years of age and older collected as part of Arizona’s 2020 Trails Plan. The survey collected information on respondents’ non-motorized and motorized trail use in the past year, the location of their favorite, most frequently-used, and furthest traveled to trails, as well as individuals’ demographics, including their home zip code. The analysis uses the travel cost method to estimate per-visit consumer surplus associated with non-motorized and motorized trail use. Trail use demand is modeled using a zero-inflated Poisson distribution, controlling for respondent socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. The estimates of consumer surplus from non-motorized trail use vary based on assumptions about trail use of high-frequency trail users. This is why a midpoint, low, and high range of estimates are reported. For motorized trail use, data from secondary sources were used to develop a single, central estimate of consumer surplus. In addition, the analysis developed a trail user origin-destination matrix, capturing where trail users from around the state travel to for non-motorized and motorized trail recreation. The origin-destination results were used to develop profiles for each county in Arizona, examining the most popular non-motorized and motorized trail use destinations, and where users travel from to each county for trail-based recreation (see Appendix B).

Introduction

AZ study - list of trail use by typeOutdoor recreation supports the quality of life and health of individuals, communities, and local economies. As part of the Arizona State Parks 2020 Trails Plan, this study estimates the economic value of non-motorized and motorized trail use to Arizona residents, as well as statewide demand for in-state trail use. Trail use includes use of trails managed by Arizona State Parks, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other land management agencies for non-motorized and motorized uses. Non-motorized uses include walking, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding/equestrian use, among others, and motorized uses include dirt biking, ATV, UTV, side-by-side, and four wheeling, among others. Economic value, also known as consumer surplus, measures how well-off individuals are made by consuming (or in this case, using) a particular good, service, or resource. For goods that are not bought and sold in markets, such as natural amenities, the value of a particular resource can be estimated indirectly. This can be done based upon how much an individual would be willing to spend in order to travel to a particular location, using what is known as the travel cost method (Parsons, 2003). This type of analysis is different from measures of consumer spending, and is well-suited to valuation of amenities like trails where individuals do not necessarily have to spend significant amounts of their income to engage in recreation.

This study relies on a statewide survey of Arizona residents eighteen years of age and older to estimate non-motorized and motorized trail use demand, willingness to pay for travel to trail destinations, and aggregate consumer surplus. The analysis covers trail user attitudes regarding the importance of trail infrastructure in their decisions of where to live and travel – questions with important implications for community development and policy. Additionally, the analysis includes development of a trail user origin-destination matrix, capturing where trail users from around the state travel to for non-motorized and motorized trail recreation.

The study begins with a summary of different strategies for valuation of natural resource-based amenities, followed by a specific description of the study’s data and methods, including the travel cost analysis and origin-destination matrix. Consumer surplus and origin-destination matrix results are presented separately for non-motorized and motorized trail users. We conclude with a discussion of the results and potential extensions of the research to inform state and community-level planning and policy.

Continued…

Download the PDF to read the entire study.

Continue Reading

Gila National Forest revised draft RMP/Planning

April 10, 2020 in News

Gila National Forest
Att: Plan Revision
3005 E. Camino del Bosque
Silver City, NM 88061

Re: Gila NF revised draft RMP/Planning

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) and the Off-Road Business Association(“ORBA”) with regard to the Gila National Forests Resource Management Plan revision (“the Proposal”). The TPA and ORBA will be collectively referred to as the Organizations for purposes of these comments. The Organizations would like to address two specific issues in the revised draft, which are: 1. Shorter RMP are better; and 2. CDNST management must be aligned with multiple use recreational requirements specifically provided in the National Trails System Act. The Organizations have not included a detailed discussion of our interests and backgrounds as those were discussed in detail in our first round of comments.

1. Shorter is Better

The Organizations welcome the generalized and shorter nature of the RMP when compared to the former Gila RMP plan, and we would support additional streamlining of the proposal. While the Organizations understand the desire to insert numerous small plans into a larger planning process, it has been the Organizations experience that merely combining numerous small plans into a single large plan results in poor analysis of issues facing these projects, poor coordination of planning efforts and an exceptionally complex plan that results in large barriers when landscape-level plans issues are addressed. Often some of the complexity is the result of a desire to combine numerous small issues into the RMP in the belief that the RMP will expedite these projects. This should be avoided as we are aware of a very limited number of site-specific projects that have been completed as the result of their inclusion in landscape-level plans. Almost every one of the projects has required extensive site-specific analysis to complete and rarely has the landscape plan streamlined subsequent site-specific plans to levels that would justify the landscape level efforts.

The consolidation of multiple site-specific plans also yields a landscape plan that is VERY long and detailed. This length has proven to be a significant barrier to public participation in the planning process as most of the public lack the time or resources to review such a large planning document. This causes the public to oppose the plan even when there are very good things for the public in the plan. These overly complex and detailed plans also shorten the life and value of the plan as the plan simply lacks flexibility to adapt to changes in science or unforeseen challenges at the time of development. When these changes are encountered, the plan is simply irrelevant factually or recommending management that simply makes no sense in addressing on the ground issues. The current forest health situation on the Gila provides a perfect example of why RMPs must be flexible and avoid overly detailed analysis, mainly that the Gila is dealing with areas of the forest where tree mortality is easily at or above 90%. The Organizations submit that the current RMP has been a significant barrier to addressing this challenge, as planners in the 1980s were simply unable to understand the scope of the challenges that the forest could be facing almost 40 years after the plan was adopted. Again, these types of over-detailed analyses represent a situation that should be avoided in the development of the new Gila RMP. Shorter is better.

2. CDNST Management

Our second item of new information is the objection decision regarding the Rio Grande NF proposed management of their portions of the CDNST for horse and hike usage and not allowing non-conforming usages to approach or cross the CDNST. The objection decision required management of CDNST designated routes to be managed pursuant to the National Trails System Act on a segment by segment basis. We have not included the entire opinion as it is 88 pages in length but only the portions addressing multiple use restrictions proposed on the trail and areas adjacent to the CDNST. We are sharing this decision with your office as the Rio Grande NF had proposed to restrict access to Horse and Hike only on the entire forest in their RMP and not allow uses approaching or crossing the CDNST that were inconsistent with the Horse and Hike restrictions in a manner very similar to the Gila Proposal.

The Objection Officer’s decision overturning the Rio Grande proposed management for Horse and Hike usage with a direct application of the provisions of the NTSA allowing multiple uses on the trail is attached as Exhibit 1. The Organizations believe the decision generally speaks for itself. The Organizations have also attached a copy of the Rio Grande Objection to these comments, which addresses the multiple-use protections, and the reasoning that restrictions on usages such as those proposed were not adopted as Exhibit 2. In addition to the similarity of challenges that remain on the Gila when compared to the times that CDNST management documents were developed is highly relevant to the discussion of management changes.
Given the challenges that are being faced on the CDNST and similarity of management proposals between the Forests, we thought the direct application of the NTSA provisions for the uses on the trail would be highly relevant to your discussions moving forward. If you would like additional information on this decision or its supporting documentation please let us know and we would be happy to share it with you.

3. Conclusion

The Organizations are aware that often the lack of basic access to public lands due to management restrictions is a major management challenge when addressing large scale issues, such as poor forest health or drought. Providing a brief and balanced management goal and objective for the Forest would allow for future managers to address challenges from population growth and meaningfully address challenges to the Forest that simply might not even be thought of at this time. Why are The Organizations concerned? Too often recreational access to public lands is lost when maintenance cannot be performed in a cost-effective manner. Adding additional management standards that will at a minimum need an additional round of NEPA planning to address future management challenges simply makes no sense.

The Organizations are very concerned that as exclusionary corridors around the CDT and other National Trail System Act routes have moved forward in resource planning, often these corridors immediately become non-motorized corridors without addressing existing usages of these corridor areas as exemplified by the multiple forests in California moving forward with winter travel planning and the adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in Southern California by the BLM and numerous forests in the Rocky Mountains. The Organizations are pleased to have been provided this opportunity to provide input on the Gila NF planning process and looks forward to working to resolve any issues as the plan moves forward. Please feel free to contact either Don Riggle at 719-338-4106 or by mail at 725 Palomar Lane, Colorado Springs CO 80906 or Scott Jones, Esq at 518-281-5810 or by mail at 508 Ashford Drive, Longmont, CO 80504 for copies of any documentation that is relied on in this appeal or if you should wish to discuss any of the concerns raised further.

Scott Jones, Esq.
TPA/ORBA Authorized Representative

Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance

Fred Wiley
CNSA Past President ORBA President and CEO
One Voice Authorized Representative

Continue Reading

TPA Mid-Season Report – Spring 2020

April 9, 2020 in News
Rider on trail

Photo: Don Nickels

Message from the TPA Board of Directors

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) Board of Directors sincerely hopes that this newsletter finds you safe and doing well. The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging our society in a multitude of ways and we want to sincerely thank the men and women who are serving on the front lines of this epidemic and making personal sacrifices to provide care to those in need.

The TPA’s work to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and keeping our access to public lands open has continued unfettered during these challenging times for our nation. Your TPA staff and consultants have continued to monitor the many ongoing projects and representing our interests in new or emerging projects.

TPA Ongoing Projects

Due to the current national situation to curtail the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the TPA expects that most ongoing projects and actions with the USFS, BLM, CPW, etc. will experience some sort of delay in the weeks and months ahead with decision making or execution of actions. Below is a summary of current projects based upon what we knew prior to the COVID-19 response and restrictions.

Executive Director Search
The formal search for an Executive Director to lead the TPA into the future is continuing. There has been some interest, and a few folks have submitted their qualifications for consideration. The TPA recognizes that the right person is more important than having all of the experience and skills coming into this position. The TPA Board of Directors are willing to participate in the development of the right candidate to start work as an advocate and then develop various areas of expertise, culminating in the ability to be an effective Executive Director. Read more…

Pike & San Isabel National Forests (PSI), Public Motor Vehicle Use Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Recent conversations with the PSI staff and District Rangers has indicated that the Final EIS is expected to be released sometime in July 2020. Note that Final EIS does not typically have a public comment period, but will have an opportunity for formal “Objections” for those that have “standing”. Currently, there is a court specified project completion date set by the litigation agreement that requires the Decision to be made by the end of 2020. If the EIS and associated Decision are not completed on time, the USFS will be required to go back to the court and ask for an extension.

Rio Grande National Forest, Forest Plan Revision
The draft Forest Plan Revision has been completed and presented to the Chief of the USFS and staff. The release of the Final Plan could come at any time.

Multiple-use access to Continental Divide Trail has been protected, WE WON!
A broad coalition of motorized trail users, including TPA, COHVCO, and Colorado Snowmobile Association are celebrating a successful objection of the Rio Grande Forest Plan management of the Continental Divide Trail (“CDNST”).

The Forest had proposed to restrict usage to horseback and hiking only despite a long history of multiple-use of the CDNST. In the Objection decision, the Forest was instructed to correct their decision to reflect the multiple-use nature of the trail as specified in the National Trails System Act.

This is a HUGE deal on the Rio Grande National Forest as the CDNST is the entire western boundary of the Rio Grande National Forest. With the restriction of horse and hike only that was proposed in the Resource Management Plan (RMP), motorized usage could not approach or cross the CDNST within 1 mile of the CDNST. This would have closed Stony Pass, Wolf Creek Pass and numerous other passes to all motorized usage, despite the hugely important nature of the routes in those areas to all users and the irreplaceable nature of these areas to connect longer distance trails that cross these areas. There would have been a myriad of trails within the 1-mile corridor and three important snowmobile grooming programs at risk of loss as well.

The precedent set with this decision will impact many other areas as we see similar attempts to restrict access to the CDNST on the GMUG and numerous other forests in New Mexico.

GMUG National Forest, Forest Plan Revision
To the TPA’s knowledge, this plan revision has yet to be presented and reviewed by the Chief of the USFS and staff. The TPA expects that the GMUG Draft Forest Plan Revision will be briefed to the Chief of the USFS sometime this summer and subsequently should be available for additional public review and comment during the fall of 2020.

Rico West Dolores litigation
The Federal Court’s decision on this action could be made and posted at any time. The TPA has been told that most pending court cases will likely be delayed due to the COVID-19 response. The TPA has asked for the opportunity to provide an oral argument in the case. However, we do not believe we will receive a favorable decision on this request and suspect that an oral argument will not be allowed. Read more…

New Legal Firm selected to represent the TPA
The TPA has selected a Denver based law firm, Holsinger Law (www.holsingerlaw.com), to represent the TPA on the Rico West Dolores litigation and be the TPA’s legal counsel on future actions and projects.

Silverton Area, Reestablish the Minnie Trail Project
This a new project in development with the BLM Field Office in Gunnison. The TPA initiated this project in partnership with the San Juan Trail Riders club, the Public Access Preservation Association (PAPA) and the Colorado 500 Organization. A Decision on the project is expected this spring. Read more…

 

2020 Colorado 600
Trails Awareness Symposium

motorcycle in woods + Colorado 600 logo

The TPA’s signature annual event is still on! Join us 13-18 September 2020 in Crested Butte Colorado. Crested Butte was selected for this year’s event because of the terrific and wonderful diversity of riding in the area (both single-track and dual-sport), a First Class hotel and venue and close proximity to the town of Crested Butte and it’s adjacent historic mining area.

A reminder that the Colorado 600 is the TPA’s primary fundraiser and provides funding for all of our ongoing actions and projects. Like most everyone else, the COVID-19 situation has adversely affected the TPA’s strategic investments (i.e. Stock Market) for operating funds. Continued donations will be even more critical to help ensure continued TPA operations and actions.

Special features planned for this year’s Colorado 600 include attendance by racing legend Destry Abbott, a long time friend and supporter of the 600. A special speaker for this year will be the District Ranger for the Gunnison National Forest and an added feature will include “An Evening with Andrew Short”. Shorty will discuss and take questions about his participation in the recent 2020 Dakar Rally in Saudi Arabia. This will be a special opportunity for the Colorado 600 riders to get a first-hand account of what it is like to compete as a Factory Rider in the Dakar Rally.

Visit the Colorado 600 website for additional info.
NOTE: Registration will close soon – we are almost at the rider limit!

Register for the Colorado 600 Now!

 

 

The Changing Landscape of Local Involvement for Clubs Associated with Motorized Recreation

By Scott Jones
Scott is a legal and land-use consultant that supports the TPA, COHVCO and the Colorado Snowmobile Association.

3 motorcycles on trail, forest in background

Photo: Sean Klinger

 

Our local clubs are the backbone of the motorized community here in Colorado. They are at the forefront in dealing with many local issues and relationships with local officials.
Read more…

 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) OHV Grant Program

By Jason Elliott and Scott Bright
Both Jason and Scott work with the TPA and serve on CPW’s State Trails and OHV Subcommittee.

trail, mountains, blue sky

Photo: Don Riggle

 

Being able to ride on public land is a constant fight – we need to continue to work together to preserve our sport!

Each and every year, CPW’s OHV Grant program is assembled to review grant applications and how your OHV sticker funds will be best used in the State of Colorado.

The grants come in different forms, as they can be for a new trail, equipment, supplies, or all of the above. Currently, the Forest Service and BLM have direction to put more emphasis on recreation opportunities within their designated area, both motorized and non-motorized.

Read more…

 

Summary

Trail sign - closed to motorcycles

Photo: Tim Nixon

Being able to ride on public land is a constant fight – we need to continue to work together to preserve our sport!

The TPA, each of the Board of Directors, and our dedicated consultants are all available to assist our local clubs and supporters by helping each of you preserve and expand the sport of motorcycle trail riding and motorized recreation on public lands. If you or your club want additional information on any of the topics presented in this newsletter, please feel free to contact Don Riggle (info@coloradotpa.org). We will put you in direct contact with the appropriate subject matter expert or staff member best able to assist.

The coming months will undoubtedly be challenging for all of us in many different and new ways. We are all in this together, and each of us has a role to play, even if it is simply staying home and staying healthy to protect others. The TPA sincerely hopes that we will are all back out riding our motorcycles and returning to normal life soon.

 

Thanks to Our Industry Supporters

 

Sponsor logos - KLIM, Dunlop, KTM , Rocky Mountain ATV, Elite Motorsports, Motion Pro

Continue Reading

The Changing Landscape of Local Involvement for Clubs Associated with Motorized Recreation

April 8, 2020 in Article, News

By Scott Jones
Scott is a legal and land-use consultant that supports the TPA, COHVCO and the Colorado Snowmobile Association.

3 motorcycles on trail, forest in background

Photo: Sean Klinger

 

Our local clubs are the backbone of the motorized community here in Colorado. They are at the forefront in dealing with many local issues and relationships with local officials.

These are the folks who are volunteering to fix trails, getting grants, paying their registration fees, providing local knowledge and insights to resolve issues, organizing the end of the year barbeques, and generally serving as the glue for all trail users. We have done this really well for a very long time, and sometimes we do it so well that it embarrasses other users of the routes we maintain. Every year your $6 million in motorized funding becomes more and more critical to the operation of the entire trail community, often if other people are not aware of the contribution. While our local clubs have been working hard to keep trails open, the challenges we are facing have changed and evolved.

One of the major evolutions that our clubs are going to have to embrace is the development of local collaboratives throughout the state to address trails, and often these collaboratives are not directly addressing motorized trails. Rather they may be seeking to address recreation more generally. These collaboratives are often not convened by your local land manager, but by local government entities or not-for-profits. Even if the collaborative does not want to address motorized trails, their decisions impact your access to motorized opportunities. The convening body presents an interesting hurdle to the local motorized club, which is that often these bodies are not the traditional groups that you have worked with when doing trail maintenance. Our clubs have always worked with the land managers as our trails are overwhelmingly on federal lands.

These local collaborative efforts are here to stay. They are only picking up steam in many communities, and it would be foolish not to recognize this.

There are two good reasons we need to evolve. We cannot let the practice of only working with federal land managers guide us as we move forward, as many local collaboratives are seeking to manage lands that the entity may not have direct control over. We still have to be at the table to participate in the decision, and if we are not there, the decision will be made for us, and sometimes by folks that don’t like us. We already have examples of these collaboratives failing to reflect motorized interests and make generalized assertions of benefits that are often offensively short of what the local motorized community wants.

The second reason is these collaboratives are a great place to tell our stories about what we do for all trail users and have done for more than 30 years. In most Ranger Districts, we provide hundreds of thousands of dollars for maintenance and operation of recreational opportunities for the benefit of all; this includes direct funding of staff for the office, equipment for trail maintenance, and funding for a wide range of other projects. In addition to this funding, at a scale that no one else provides, we are often the largest source of volunteer labor for these projects.

While we have worked hard for decades to maintain our access, this discussion has changed. Our efforts simply must change along with this new direction, or we will lose trails. Your club participation in these local efforts is going to be one of the necessary changes. We all value the opportunities we have and recognize what we don’t want Colorado and the west to become.

Continue Reading

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) OHV Grant Program

April 8, 2020 in News

By Jason Elliott and Scott Bright
Jason and Scott work with the TPA and serve on CPW’s State Trails and OHV Subcommittee.

trail, mountains, blue sky

Photo: Don Riggle

 

Each and every year, CPW’s OHV Grant program is assembled to review grant applications and how your OHV sticker funds will be best used in the State of Colorado.

The grants come in different forms, as they can be for a new trail, equipment, supplies, or all of the above. Currently, the Forest Service and BLM have direction to put more emphasis on recreation opportunities within their designated area, both motorized and non-motorized.

OHV Stickers generate about 4.2 million dollars per year in Colorado, and that’s just for the motorized community. Approximately 1.7 million dollars of this money goes into the Good Management trail maintenance. These are trail crews affiliated with Forest Service Districts and BLM Field Offices that help maintain trails within their respective areas. This money is only for motorized or multiple-use trails. The rest is there for organizations – like clubs – to apply for and put back into your area.

Nervous? Don’t be.

You don’t have to try to get a 50-mile loop into your riding area on your first go-around. Your grant could be a section of the current trail that needs repair or re-alignment due to damage. It could also be a connector to another trail to make a loop, or extend a loop that currently exists. Clubs can also apply for equipment purchases or materials to do trail maintenance. The best way is to start with a couple of people in your club and identify what you want to get done.

Check out examples of past grants to see what is getting done around the state at cpw.state.co.us. Search for grants. All past grants are on this website. Work with your local land or recreational manager to identify needs as you will need these land managers involved with whatever projects you’ll want to do.

Applications are completed a year in advance. Applications for 2021-2022 are due in late November early December of 2020. The grants are reviewed for completeness and eligibility and posted for comment in early December. After the public comment period, the OHV sub-committee reviews grants and will ask for questions to be addressed during the grant application presentations.

Grant presentations are heard in March and scored by the sub-committee. The scores are then presented to the State Trails Committee and subsequently approved. Money is made available during the following next calendar year.

The TPA wants to see clubs to get more involved in how their areas are managed. It will connect you with your local land manager and help you be a better partner to the district or field office. The money you apply for and use in your area through the grant process is less money the local land managers will need from their limited agency budgets.

The TPA is here to help with questions and guidance. Get in touch if you are thinking of applying for a grant.

We are here to help.

Continue Reading