Archive | October, 2023

Documents:

• Notice of Appeal
• PETITION FOR A STAY OF DECISION PENDING APPEAL
• DECLARATION OF CLIF KOONTZ 

J. Mark Ward (Utah Bar No. 4436)
3004 W. Sweet Blossom Drive
South Jordan, UT 84095
Telephone: 801-783-7643
mark@balanceresources.org

 Attorney for Appellants Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.411, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride With Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance (collectively “Appellants”) hereby provide notice that they appeal the September 28, 2023 Decision Record, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0097-EA, issued and approved on September 28, 2023 by Nicollee Gaddis-Wyatt, BLM Canyon Country District Manager, who has supervisory authority over the Moab Field Office.

Appellants are adversely affected by the BLM’s decision and have the right to appeal pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a).

This Notice of Appeal is timely filed in the office of the officer who made the decision, within 30 days after the BLM issued its Decision Record, pursuant to 43 C.F.R.

§§ 4.411(a)(1) and 4.411(a)(2). The thirtieth day following the September 28, 2023 issuance of the subject Decision Record falls on a Saturday, October 28, 2023. The next business day is Monday, October 30, 2023, the date that this Notice of Appeal is timely filed. 43 C.F.R. § 4.22(e).

This Notice of Appeal is timely served upon the BLM officer who made the decision, Nicollee Gaddis-Wyatt, BLM Canyon Country District Manager, and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of the Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.401(c) and 4.413(a).

Appellants submit herewith a Petition for a Stay of Decision Pending Appeal and supporting Declaration of Clif Koontz, and the Appellants will file a Statement of Reasons with the Interior Board of Land Appeals within 30 days of filing this Notice of Appeal, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §4.412(a).

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of October 2023.

/s/ J. Mark Ward

Attorney for Appellants Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance 

J. Mark Ward (Utah Bar No. 4436)
3004 W. Sweet Blossom Drive
South Jordan, UT 84095
Telephone: 801-783-7643
mark@balanceresources.org

 Attorney for Petitioners Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS

PETITION FOR A STAY OF DECISION PENDING APPEAL

Pursuant to 43 C.F.R §§ 4.21(b) and 4.407(a), Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE), Ride With Respect (RWR), and Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) (at times collectively “the Petitioners”) respectfully submit this Petition for a Stay of the Bureau of Land Management Moab Field Office (BLM) September 28, 2023 Decision Record, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact (collectively “Decision Record”) for the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan (“LRGB TMP”). BLM reference DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020-0097-EA.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF REASONS SUPPORTING THE PETITION

 Petitioners rely on and incorporate herein the reasons stated in the Petition for Stay submitted on or about October 28, 2023 by the State of Utah, et al., (“Companion Appellants”) in the companion appeal, IBLA 2024-0040 (“Companion Appeal”). In addition, Petitioners state the following:

1. Far greater harm will result to the Petitioners and their contributors from this unprecedented closure, pending appeal, of 317 miles of popular, long-used and well-established roads and trails, than will result to the BLM from leaving them open pending Petitioners and many of their members and/or contributors are losing the opportunity to use these roads and trails, forever. BLM on the other hand, stands to only wait a little longer to close them, forever. There is no remedy that will correct that wrong, besides staying the decision. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(i).
2. The NEPA documents used by the BLM to justify the Decision Record’s unprecedented closure of 317 miles of world-class, longstanding roads and trails in a single travel management area, are so bereft of sound reason and logic, so unsubstantiated by data and experience, and so driven by factors unrelated to good recreation management and resource protection principles, that a substantial likelihood exists this appeal will succeed on the merits. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(ii).
3. A closure of this magnitude (317 miles) in such a world-class, high-demand destination as the LRGB Travel Management Area (TMA), will severely concentrate the public’s use of the remaining roads and trails if the stay of decision is not granted, resulting in immediate crowding as well as road and trail degradation that will irreparably harm Petitioners’ investment of countless hours partnering with the BLM to improve, develop and preserve the integrity of all LRGB TMA roads and trails. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(iii).
4. The public interest favors granting the stay of decision pending appeal. Moab, Utah’s world-class signature trail system is the LRGB TMA. Users and dozens of user groups, including the Petitioners and their contributors, rank it as unprecedented. Local area ancillary businesses (hotels, restaurants, OHV outfitters and guides, to name a few) all have an immense interest in maintaining the open status quo of the 317 miles of roads and trail slated for closure in the Decision Surely it is not too much to gear down and take time for a careful appellate review of the BLM’s actions, especially when the matter regards roads and trails that are so well established as to garner long-standing world class regard and destination. And to repeat what was stated above, Petitioners and many of their members and/or contributors are losing the opportunity to use these roads and trails forever. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(iii).

STATEMENT OF PETITIONERS’ STANDING

Petitioners rely on and incorporate herein the Standing portion of the Companion Appeal.

In addition, Petitioners state the following:

Petitioners have standing pursuant to 43 CFR § 4.410 as they will be adversely affected by the Decision Record. Petitioners have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter and the agency’s decision will cause or is substantially likely to cause injury to that interest. See Shell Gulf of Mexico, 187 IBLA 290, 291 (2016).¹

BLM’s decision directly affects and is likely to directly affect the ongoing activities of the Petitioners. Board of Pitkin County Comm’rs, 186 IBLA 288, 308 (2015) (“Pitkin”)² citing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982). Due to the many route closures, there is a concrete and demonstrable injury to Petitioners activities and mission as well as a consequent drain on the organizations’ resources. Id. citing Valle de Sol, Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2013).

Recreational interests are legally cognizable as they include recreational or aesthetic use and enjoyment of the affected public lands. See, e.g. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, 188 IBLA 143, 149-50 (2016)).³

Petitioners are well established, long-standing OHV rider organizations with a long and extensive history of OHV use, by those for whom Petitioners advocate, of all of the subject routes in the LRGB TMA. Petitioners COHVCO, CORE, and TPA are Colorado Non-Profit Corporations. Petitioner RWR is a Utah Non-Profit Corporation. All are in good standing.Petitioners collectively have worked with the BLM Moab Field Office and advocated on behalf of OHV stakeholders on LRGB TMA issues for many years, including doing route development, route restoration, route signing and inventorying, and educating the public regarding OHV use best practices in the LRGB TMA. Petitioners have been involved in all of the public NEPA and other processes concerning the LRGB TMA and TMP for the past several years. Petitioners COHVCO, TPA, and RWR were signatories to and/or involved in the 2017 Court Settlement Agreement that is the foundation of the BLM’s ongoing reconsideration of the prior LRGB Travel Management Plan. Petitioners have worked countless hours on improving, developing and preserving the integrity of roads and trails in the LRGB TMA, including the 317 miles of roads and trails slated for closure in the Decision Record. See generally the Declaration of Clif Koontz, including paragraphs 1-5, 37-38, submitted herewith. (hereafter, “Koontz at   ”)

Petitioners timely submitted extensive written comments during the designated public comment time period leading up to issuance of the subject Decision Record, but the BLM failed to make changes in response to those written comments.

For these and other obvious reasons, Petitioners and the contributors and motorized riders and groups for whom Petitioners advocate, will be directly, immediately and irreparably injured by the September 28, 2023 Decision Record closing routes in the LRGB TMA. Granting this stay petition and ultimately ruling favorably on this appeal, are necessary to remedy this injury.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioners rely on and incorporate herein the Statement of Facts portion of the Companion Appeal. In addition, Petitioners state the following:

1. Within the LRGB TMA, the BLM closed 766 miles of inventoried routes in 2008, plus another couple-hundred miles of existing routes that were not submitted during the narrow window (11/1/2003 to 12/30/2003) that the BLM was willing to accept route data across the entire Moab Field Office. The 9/28/23 Decision Record now purports to close an additional 317 miles of route to motorized use, many of which are of very high value for motorized trail riding and other forms of recreation. Koontz at 6.
2. Many of the subject 317 miles of closed routes are used thousands of times each year, and the ones that are lesser-traveled provide valuable opportunities to avoid For example, the Dead Cow Loop including Dead Cow Canyon and The Tubes is the all-time favorite trail of many motorcycle riders because it follows the flowing slickrock of quite narrow canyon bottoms with views of the Green River, an opportunity that’s incomparable to virtually any other trail. Primitive roads like Tenmile Wash, Hey Joe Canyon, Hell Roaring Canyon, and upper Mineral Canyon weave through wider canyon bottoms of Labyrinth and its tributaries. This opportunity cannot be substituted by the routes in this setting that were left open by the Decision Record, which are only the graded roads of Spring Canyon and lower Mineral Canyon. Koontz at 7.
3. Similarly the Decision Record left open the Labyrinth Canyon overlooks that are graded roads as well as a few Easter Jeep Safari (EJS) routes, but it closes most of the overlooks, leaving most stretches of Labyrinth Canyon unviewable from above, let alone viewable from below. Koontz at 8.
4. Across the whole LRGB TMA, the Decision Record closes routes that are themselves attractive (such as Mashed Potatoes), that provide connectivity (such as the rim of South Fork Sevenmile Canyon), that reach other points of attraction (such as the roads above Dellenbaugh Butte), and that reach many existing campsites (such as the roads above Dry Fork Bull Canyon). The value of such campsites wasn’t even analyzed prior to closing the routes. Koontz at 9.
5. Many recreationists (including contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA) prefer the unique qualities of motorized trail riding over non-motorized recreation, while others require motorized travel due to physical limitations. Depending on its form, motorized trail riding can provide physical exercise, a mental challenge of one’s focus and skills, and a sense of flow or harmony with nature. It also provides access to remote settings that some people depend upon for their sense of well being and wholeness. The Decision Record irreparably harms these important virtues for many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA, because of the many routes that the Decision Record closes, which are so very important for their physical and mental health. Koontz at 10.
6. Keeping these routes open is also very important for the business health and sustainability of many local commercial establishments, (many of whom are contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA), which is far more important than any marginal benefits to be gained from the routes’ In Moab and Green River, many outfitters and events utilize some of the subject 317 miles of routes, which provide opportunities that cannot be substituted by other routes for their customers. Koontz at 11.
7. In addition to being unique and of high quality, many of the 317 miles of routes contribute significantly to the trail system’s carrying capacity. That system carrying capacity is a unique and hard won, and hard to preserve resource value in which COHVCO, CORE, RWR, TPA and their contributors have a vital interest and stake, due to the countless hours Petitioners have spent maintaining, repairing, and improving that carrying All of that stands to be harmed quickly and irreparably from the Decision Record’s closure of the 317 miles of routes. Koontz at 12. None of that investment of time and hard work was analyzed, much less analyzed in the NEPA documents supporting the Decision Record.
8. The resource values of roads and trails with uncompromised carrying capacity, in which so many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA place such a high value, stand to be directly and irreparably harmed by the Decision Record’s 317 miles of closures, thus forever impacting the recreational lifestyle through overcrowding and deterioration of the remaining routes. Koontz at 13.
9. Closing the 317 miles of routes makes it significantly harder for a variety of motorized recreationists, including the many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA to have an enjoyable experience. Closing the 317 miles of routes will not allow the BLM to meet current demand for recreation, let alone future demand. Koontz at 14.
10. Also in direct and irreparable harm to the values of the many contributors of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA, the Decision Record’s looming closure of the 317 miles of routes is quite likely to drastically reduce compliance with the TMP, as frustrated recreationists travel on closed routes, blaze unauthorized routes, and travel on no route by simply going cross country. Such activity will lead to more negative impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife as the wildlife won’t be able to predict or habituate to patterns of human travel. Koontz at 15.
11. The core values of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA will be irreparably harmed further, in that closing the 317 miles of routes is also quite likely to increase user conflict as more motorized recreationists travel off of designated routes and/or develop animosity toward the types of recreation for which the routes were ostensibly closed. Such animosity could also extend to the natural and cultural resources for which the routes were ostensibly closed. This is just bad land management policy, and it is too bad the BLM did not take seriously the input of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA in this regard. Koontz at 16.
12. Of the subject 317 miles of routes, closing most of them to motorized use won’t significantly benefit non-motorized recreation, such as closing overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon that are 1,000 ft above the Green River, as non-motorized river runners barely see or hear people at those overlooks (much less be bothered by them). Some of the closures would actually harm non-motorized recreation because they’re used for bicycling or for driving to a parking spot in order to start a hike. Any isolated benefits to non-motorized recreation of closing the whole 317 miles of routes are dwarfed by the harm to motorized recreation of drastically reducing the quantity, quality, and connectivity of this trail system. Koontz at 17.
13. Likewise of the subject 317 miles of routes, closing most of them to motorized use won’t significantly benefit wildlife. The boiler-plate rationale for closing many of these routes is to minimize habitat fragmentation, but these primitive singletracks and doubletracks appear unlikely to fragment habitat, even They’re far less obtrusive than modern highways, and they don’t even break up a canopy of trees as may be the case with forest roads. Many wildlife tracks can be seen across these primitive routes, and vehicle collisions with wildlife are virtually unheard of. Koontz at 18.
14. All of these negative consequences to Petitioners and their contributors, to the natural resources, and cultural resources are likely to be immediate and long Simply put, closing the 317 miles of routes will make recreation far more difficult to manage, so it should not be rushed. Koontz at 19.
15. In contrast, delaying closure of the 317 miles of routes until the appeal is resolved would do no significant or long-lasting harm to contrary Koontz at 20.
16. Blatant, serious resource and land management problems abound in the Decision Record. The analysis of negative impacts from closing the 317 miles of routes is grossly inadequate. The Decision Record’s estimation that motorized recreation comprises only 6% of the recreational use in the LRGB TMA has no basis in The Decision Record cites Manti-La Sal National Forest, but the draft Land Management Plan of that forest actually states “Motorized trail activity in general is reported as a main activity for approximately 20 percent of all visitors to the Forest in 2016 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2017) and 32 percent in 2021 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2023).” Compared to national forests, the portion of visitation to the LRGB planning area that’s motorized trail riding is probably larger. The Decision Record also cites a 2007 study of recreation in the Moab Field Office that was designed to test the accuracy of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) methodology of the USFS when applied to BLM lands. The results demonstrate that NVUM methodology is inaccurate especially when applied to activities such as motorized trail riding that are highly dispersed (which makes riders harder for surveyors to reach) and of a faster pace (that makes riders far less likely to voluntarily participate). These sampling biases could easily have led to motorized trail riders being underrepresented by a factor of six and, since 2007, motorized trail riding has grown faster than most other forms of outdoor recreation in the LRGB TMA. Koontz at 21.
17. The Decision Record provides rationale for closing each route, but many of the reasons listed are completely inaccurate and unapplicable while others are generic statements such as closure “minimizes impacts to soil” without demonstrating that substantially adverse impacts have occurred or even have significant potential to occur to these routes with which Petitioners have personal knowledge. Koontz at 22.
18. The following constitute a small sample of such inaccuracies from just one part of the LRGB TMA, which is Tenmile Point: All of Tenmile Point is in the Labyrinth Rims / Gemini Bridges SRMA, which includes the management goal of providing opportunities for “quality on-route mountain biking and backcountry driving experiences on established routes throughout the SRMA” and “Maintain the scenic character of Labyrinth SRMA to allow visitors to enjoy an unconfined ” Closing the 317 miles of routes certainly confines the opportunities of motorized recreationists. Koontz at 23.
19. All routes north of the Trin-Alcove Bend and Tenmile Point graded roads (B377 and B336) are also in the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area, which is the only motorized trail focus area in the Moab Field Office. The 2008 RMP states “the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area is established for motorcycle and ATV use. All competitive motorized events would be directed to this area. By emphasizing and managing for specific recreation activities in these Focus Areas, recreation conflicts are Focus Areas set visitor expectations for a specific type of recreation experience, thereby reducing potential conflict. Those who choose to hike in a motorized Focus Area should not be surprised by the amount of motorized activity. Focus Areas in the Approved RMP provide opportunities for the widest range of recreational activities and attendant business opportunities.” It further states “Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (35,290 acres) for motorcycle and ATV use: This is the area for competitive motorized events…Establish a managed OHV route system with provision for ongoing management of existing single-track routes to maintain their singletrack character.” Clearly the 2008 RMP emphasizes motorized trails in this focus area yet, when it comes to Tenmile Point, the 2023 Decision Record does the opposite. The highlighted routes that fall within this focus area are listed at paragraphs 20 through 25 as well as 29 below. This focus area also abuts paragraphs 27 and 28 below. The routes are generally listed in a counterclockwise fashion. Koontz at 24.
20. Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1): The Decision Record prohibits the use of ATVs (under fifty inches in width) on this trail even though all four alternatives in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment allow such use. Therefore this prohibition falls outside of the decision space, which is why Petitioners didn’t comment on such a prohibition. Petitioners assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2013 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since then. An agent for Petitioners utilized $6,750 awarded by the Polaris ‘T.R.A.I.L.S.’ Grant Program, which is specifically for projects open to use by ATVs or The route is almost entirely on slickrock and old constructed roads that are entirely suitable for ATV use. Even though most use of the route is by motorcycle, it should remain open to ATV use, as some ATV riders seek trails that are narrower than 4WD routes. Koontz at 25.
21. Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B): This primitive road provides views of the Green River as well as providing a bailout for riders of Dead Cow Loop. The Decision Record closes this road to all motorized use even though the route is left open in all four alternatives in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. Therefore this closure falls outside of the decision space, which is why Petitioners did not comment on such a closure. Rationale for this closure include reducing “fragmentation in desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat and in pronghorn fawning habitat.” However, according to maps from the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan, this road isn’t in bighorn sheep lambing habitat nor pronghorn fawning habitat. Rationale for this closure also includes “minimizing potential for soil erosion” despite that no significant erosion has occurred, nor is there significant potential given the shallow bedrock along most of the route and low grade along all of the route. In short, the route has significant recreational value, and it poses no significant negative impacts. Koontz at 26.
22. East end of Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (DC2 northeast of D2761B): The Decision Record limits this 0.06-mile route to motorcycle use, but on the ground it is actually the east end of the Dead Cow Loop Bisect Granted, historically the alignment may have followed D2761B (south of DC2), but the Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road has followed DC2 for the past couple of decades. In fact in 2014 the BLM closed D2761B (south of DC2) and opened DC2 northeast of D2761B to full-size vehicle use (see Map 2 of Minor Travel Plan Adjustment 7, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2013-0248-EA). Accordingly in 2015 D2761B (south of DC2) and marked DC2 northeast of D2761B were noted as open to use by full-size vehicles. Therefore the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment should have indicated via the no-action alternative that DC2 northeast of D2761B is currently open to full-size vehicle use. It also should have indicated via the no-action alternative that D2761B (south of DC2) is currently closed to motorized use. Petitioners brought these points to the attention of Moab Field Office recreation planners in 2021, but it was not corrected in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. Petitioners reminded them of the persistent problem in 2022, but it was not corrected in the 2023 Decision Record either. Koontz at 27.
23. Southeast end of Dead Cow Loop (DC2 southwest of D2761B): This 82-mile route is the southeast end of Dead Cow Loop, but it can also be used to ride Dead Cow Cutoff in lieu of the full Dead Cow Loop. Petitioners assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2015 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since then. It was essentially a reroute of the west end of Five Mile Of Whoops, which Petitioners assisted the BLM in closing because the whoops caused trail widening. In contrast, the rerouted southeast end of Dead Cow Loop is almost entirely on slickrock, and the few sections on soil have been designed with flowing turns that drain rainwater and entice riders to stay on the trail while also encouraging slower, consistent speed to minimize the development of whoops. In other words, this route is a model of good trail design, and it is working well. Whether for accessing Dead Cow Loop or Dead Cow Cutoff, the trail is pleasing to ride and it poses no significant negative impacts. The Decision Record rationale is that closing this route will “contribute to retaining and restoring soil and vegetation cover, minimizing potential for soil erosion. Closing this route will minimize impacts to wildlife (e.g., desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn crucial fawning range) and enhance wildlife movement by reducing habitat fragmentation. Closing this route will minimize the potential for harassment of wildlife.” Actually closing the route would not significantly contribute to restoring soil and vegetation cover or minimizing potential for soil erosion because the route is on slickrock. Further, the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. Closing it is unlikely to reduce habitat fragmentation because the route is just a singletrack on slickrock that lacks constant use like one may find on a modern highway. Closing the route is unlikely to minimize the harassment of wildlife because the type of people who harass wildlife are the type of people who ride wherever they want in the open desert. The Decision Record makes several claims in its rationale, but none of them match the reality on the ground, and there is no legitimate reason to close this text-book example of a quality trail. Koontz at 28.
24. South half of Dead Cow Cutoff (the part of DC3A that’s between DC3 and DC2): The Decision Record closes the south half of Dead Cow Cutoff, claiming significant impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife, none of which is accurate because the south half of Dead Cow Cutoff does not traverse riparian habitat whatsoever. It does traverse a hill with steep grades on either side, but the route has exposed the underlying bedrock, so widening or deepening of the trail bed is unlikely. Even if the current alignment were to become unsustainable, the BLM could work with motorized recreation groups to realign it and reduce the grade. The south half of Dead Cow Cutoff provides a moderate challenge for riders, and rewards them with hilltop views to the Green River and beyond. In short, the trail is of significant value, and it poses no significant harm. Koontz at 29.
25. Dead Cow Loop (DC3A except for the part that’s between DC3 and DC2): Dead Cow Loop is arguably the premier motorized singletrack in southeast Utah. Many motorcyclists visit Green River or Moab specifically to ride Dead Cow because of the narrow flowing canyons and views near the Green River, which cannot be substituted by any other routes. The slickrock base minimizes the potential for erosion or other negative impacts to soil. While Dead Cow Wash and the Tubes are riparian tributaries of the Green River, so are about a dozen other tributaries in the LRGB TMA, not to mention another dozen on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon. The 2008 TMP already closed the Low Water route to reduce exposure near the river, and agents for Petitioners spent many days particularly from 2012 to 2014 blocking off the Low Water route to all motorized use and blocking off The Tubes to use by wider vehicles. The comments Petitioners submitted last year explained more mitigation that could be accomplished quite feasibly, such as rerouting the section that’s near the river to be further east so it’s behind a long gravel deposit from the perspective of non-motorized river runners. This project could actually reroute Dead Cow Loop to avoid the lowest end of The Tubes drainage as well. Likewise the High Water section that’s up on the flats could be rerouted further east to utilize slickrock, which would avoid the development of moguls or subsequent trail And likewise this project could actually reroute Dead Cow Loop to avoid the lower end of Dead Cow Wash as well. Closing the current routes would be exponentially easier to accomplish after the new routes are in place. These additional management actions would be worthwhile since Dead Cow Loop is a “bucket list” trail for many motorcyclists worldwide. Koontz at 30.
26. Road south of F Canyon (D2845): This spur reaches a slickrock expanse with unique overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon. Any off-trail travel could be stopped by more clearly defining the route’s end, and preferably designating an end point with a good view for the many recreationists who are unable to walk far beyond their parking spot. The Decision Record’s rationale claims that closing the route would minimize impacts to pronghorn fawning, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. The Decision Record also claims that “Closing D2845 and adjacent overlooks minimizes potential for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users.” The “adjacent overlooks” are already not designated open by the 2008 TMP, so blocking them off wouldn’t require closing D2845, as D2845 doesn’t get within a half-mile of the river. Further, even the “adjacent overlooks” are a quarter-mile away from the river, and they’re several-hundred feet above the river. Motorized use of D2845 or even use of the adjacent overlooks is simply not likely to significantly conflict with non-motorized use of the river. Koontz at 31.
27. South Tenmile Point Road (D2840): The Decision Record makes several false claims in its rationale to close this It claims that closure would reduce impacts to crucial fawning range, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. It claims that closure would help “minimizing impacts to soil cover” despite that no significant impacts to soil have occurred, nor is there significant potential given the low grade of this road. It claims closure would result “in a less redundant route network” despite that the Tenmile Point graded road which is a half-mile to the north is no substitute for this primitive road. With BLM’s coordination, in 2017 agents for Petitioners marked this road as “Tenmile Point”, a featured 4WD route to organize the use patterns of vehicles over fifty-inches wide that would not be permitted to use Tri Tip ATV Trail. This road may not be famous for 4WD recreation, but it provides a much more trail-like opportunity than the graded road, and it is key to keeping people off of the many other primitive roads across Tenmile Point that have been closed over the past fifteen years. Koontz at 32.
28. East end of Five Miles of Whoops (DC1): Even though this ATV trail used to be the east end of Five Miles of Whoops, it’s entirely on slickrock that has a smooth, hummocky surface which is ideal for ATV and motorcycle In 2012 agents for some of the Petitioners worked with the BLM to reroute this trail to minimize cultural impacts. They also marked the route with many signs so the slickrock wouldn’t require annual painting, and agents for petitioners installed fifty-inch width limiters at each end. The Decision Record states “DC1 is closed to motorized travel. DC1 is 0.54 miles long and provides access to Ten Mile Wash, which is closed to motorized travel. Closing DC1 reduces confusion and minimizes impacts to soil, water, vegetation and desert bighorn sheep and pronghorn fawning habitat.” Actually this ATV trail is nearly a mile away from the access point to Tenmile Canyon, so the route is valuable and appropriate regardless of the status of Tenmile Canyon. Although this ATV trail is less than a mile long, it is an absolute highlight for riders because it adds slickrock undulations to the relatively flat and sandy roads nearby. In short, the trail is of significant value, and it poses no significant harm. Koontz at 33.
29. Shortcut between Tenmile Point and Red Wash graded roads (D2863): This primitive road offers nice sweeping turns as it climbs a gentle grade, but mostly it offers efficiency for recreationists connecting Tenmile Point with Red Wash or other destinations to the north. Otherwise one must travel a mile further east only to double back on another graded road. Closing this primitive road will tempt people to go off-trail across the quarter mile or less of flat, open desert that separates the two graded roads. If the road were posing significant harm, perhaps closure would be justified, but the Decision Record’s rationale doesn’t hold up. It claims that the road is in pronghorn crucial fawning range, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. The Decision Record also claims that closure would help “minimizing the potential for soil erosion” despite that the road is quite unlikely to cause significant soil erosion due to its gradual turns and gradual grade. In short, the road is serving a transportation purpose, and closing it would probably cause more negative impacts overall. Koontz at 34.
30. Tenmile Wash – Tenmile Point Cutoff Road (Object ID 42353 / Route Plan ID 36): By omission, the Decision Record closes a Class D primitive road that shortcuts the graded roads of Dripping Spring and Tenmile Point. For reference, the primitive road lies at the northwest end of Pinnacle Trail (PINTT1). For ATV and 4WD recreationists who can’t use the singletrack of Pinnacle Trail, this primitive road is both more enjoyable and more direct than staying on the graded roads to connect Dripping Spring with Tenmile Point. The 2008 TMP designated this road as an ATV trail limited to vehicles less than fifty-inches in width, but fortunately the BLM later reopened it to full-size vehicles as shown on its TMP Map 19 dated 1/9/2017. Despite being a route currently designated open for full-size vehicles, the route was missing from the preliminary no-action alternative in 2021. Petitioners brought this route to the attention of Moab Field Office recreation planners in 2021, but it was not corrected in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. Petitioners reminded them of it in 2022, but it was not corrected in the 2023 Decision Record either. This primitive road is useful, and poses no significant harm. Even if there were a compelling reason to close it, the road should’ve been shown in the no-action alternative of the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment, followed by a rationale for closing it and an invitation for public comment. Koontz at 35.
31. The route closures highlighted above from just one small portion of the LRGB TMA provide a glimpse into the many unfounded claims that the Decision Record made to justify closing the subject 317 miles of routes. Koontz at 36.
32. Petitioners have invested thousands of hours in working to help the BLM implement and refine its TMP in the LRGB TMA for the benefit of recreation, natural resources, and cultural resources alike. Unfortunately the Decision Record abruptly undermines the progress of this partnership by taking drastic actions that are not grounded in facts, conditions on the ground, nor the feasibility of gaining compliance, doing immediate irreparable damage to the important value of diverse recreation in the LRGB TMA, which is so essential to stakeholders COHVCO, CORE, RWR, TPA and their Koontz at 37.

ARGUMENT

Petitioners rely on and incorporate herein the Argument portion of the Companion Appeal. In addition, Petitioners state the following:

The foregoing detailed statement of facts demonstrate that granting a stay of the LRGB TMP Decision Record pending appeal, is justified for the four concise reasons stated above. The statement of facts show that, again:

1. Far greater harm will result to the Petitioners and their contributors from this unprecedented closure, pending appeal, of 317 miles of popular, long-used and well-established roads and trails, than will result to the BLM from leaving them open pending Petitioners and many of their members and/or contributors are losing the opportunity to use these roads and trails, forever. BLM on the other hand, stands to only wait a little longer to close them, forever. There is no remedy that will correct that wrong, besides staying the decision. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(i).
2. The NEPA documents used by the BLM to justify the Decision Record’s unprecedented closure of 317 miles of world-class, longstanding roads and trails in a single travel management area, are so bereft of sound reason and logic, so unsubstantiated by data and experience, and so driven by factors unrelated to good recreation management and resource protection principles, that a substantial likelihood exists this appeal will succeed on the merits. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(ii).
3. A closure of this magnitude (317 miles) in such a world-class, high-demand destination as the LRGB TMA, will severely concentrate the public’s use of the remaining roads and trails if the stay of decision is not granted, resulting in immediate crowding as well as road and trail degradation that will irreparably harm Petitioners’ investment of countless hours partnering with the BLM to improve, develop and preserve the integrity of all LRGB TMA roads and trails. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(iii).
4. The public interest favors granting the stay of decision pending appeal. Moab, Utah’s world-class signature trail system is the LRGB TMA. Users and dozens of user groups, including the Petitioners and their contributors, rank it as unprecedented. Local area ancillary businesses (hotels, restaurants, OHV outfitters and guides, to name a few) all have an immense interest in maintaining the open status quo of the 317 miles of roads and trail slated for closure in the Decision Surely it is not too much to gear down and take time for a careful appellate review of the BLM’s actions, especially when the matter regards roads and trails that are so well established as to garner long-standing world class regard and destination. And to repeat what was stated above, Petitioners and many of their members and/or contributors are losing the opportunity to use these roads and trails forever. 43 C.F.R § 4.21(b)(1)(iii).

CONCLUSION

Based on all of the foregoing, a stay pending appeal of the BLM’s September 28, 2023 Decision Record for the LRGB TMP, should be granted both in this and the Companion Appeal.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of October 2023.

/s/ J. Mark Ward

Attorney for Petitioners Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance

¹ Shell Gulf of Mexico, 187 IBLA 290 (2016).

https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/187IBLA/187IBLA290.pdf.

² Board of Pitkin County Comm’rs, 186 IBLA 288 (2015), https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/186IBLA/186IBLA288.pdf.

³ Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, 188 IBLA 143 (2016), https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/188IBLA/188IBLA143.pdf.

J. Mark Ward (Utah Bar No. 4436)
BALANCE RESOURCES
3004 Sweet Blossom Drive
South Jordan, UT 84095
Telephone: 801-783-7643
mark@balanceresources.org

 Attorney for Appellants Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Off Road Enterprise, Ride with Respect, and Trails Preservation Alliance

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS

DECLARATION OF CLIF KOONTZ 

I, Clif Koontz, make the following declaration. I understand that this declaration will be filed with the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals in the above captioned case, and I understand that this declaration is the legal equivalent of a statement under oath.

1. I live in Moab, I am the Executive Director of Ride with Respect (RWR), a Utah nonprofit corporation in good standing and a defendant intervenor in this matter. I am also an agent of Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE), and Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), all Colorado nonprofit corporations in good standing and defendant intervenors in this matter. I have been active in these capacities since 2001 for RwR, since 2016 for COHVCO and TPA, , and since 2018 for CORE.
2. In my executive director role for RWR and my agent roles for COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, I have represented all four organizations in working with the United States Bureau of Land Management for the Moab Field Office (Moab BLM) in doing groundwork, resource inventorying, photographing, studying aerial and satellite photography, attending meetings, submitting comments, reports and other pertinent materials and input to the Moab BLM for multiple years, all in an effort to help the Moab BLM during a NEPA process to develop the Moab BLM 2023 Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan (2023 LRGB TMP) in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges travel management area (LRGB TMA) in the Moab BLM planning area. This work in which I was personally involved included engaging in and advocating for motorized recreation opportunities on the roads and trails in the LRGB TMA.
3. In my executive director role for RWR and at all pertinent times in my agent roles for COHVCO, CORE, and TPA, I have worked with the Moab BLM to develop, implement, and refine the 2008 Moab TMP. In fact I have spent thousands of hours doing so just within the LRGB TMA alone. Further I have spent hundreds of hours doing so specifically on the 317 miles of routes closed by the 2023 LRGB This work included inventorying the routes and their characteristics with photographs in a GIS database, installing and maintaining signs, fences, kiosks, cattle guards, and width limiters at trailheads. It included performing tread work such as installing and maintaining drainage, ramp, and tread hardening structures. It included operating heavy equipment to groom whoops, which are moguls that form on trails in unstable soil. It included assisting the BLM in planning and implementing over a dozen reroutes to relocate trails away from sensitive resources. It included developing educational content for the kiosks, as well as more remedial tasks such as collecting truck-loads worth of trash and raking or blocking many off-trail vehicle tracks.
4. I also represented and worked on behalf of COHVCO and TPA to further their interests in the negotiations that led to the approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah of the 2017 Settlement regarding travel management plans to be implemented in several BLM travel management areas around the State of Utah, including the LRGB TMA. I always understood during this negotiation phase that the purpose of the 2017 Settlement Agreement was to provide the foundation and framework for developing the 2023 LRGB TMP and other BLM travel plans to be developed in other BLM travel management areas, and to provide a path forward for the BLM to approve travel plans administratively rather than tying them up in court.
5. Now in the present IBLA matter, RWR, COHVCO, CORE, and TPA appeal the subject September 28, 2023 Decision Record, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2020- 0097-EA, issued and approved on September 28, 2023 by Nicollee Gaddis-Wyatt, BLM Canyon Country District Manager, who has supervisory authority over the Moab Field Office (collectively the “Decision Record”).
6. Within the LRGB TMA, the BLM closed 766 miles of inventoried routes in 2008, plus another couple-hundred miles of existing routes that were not submitted during the narrow window (11/1/2003 to 12/30/2003) that the BLM was willing to accept route data across the entire Moab Field Office. The Decision Record closes an additional 317 miles of route to motorized use, many of which are of very high value for motorized trail riding and other forms of recreation.
7. Many of the subject 317 miles of closed routes are used thousands of times each year, and the ones that are lesser-traveled provide valuable opportunities to avoid crowding. For example, the Dead Cow Loop including Dead Cow Canyon and The Tubes is the all-time favorite trail of many motorcycle riders because it follows the flowing slickrock of quite narrow canyon bottoms with views of the Green River, an opportunity that’s incomparable to virtually any other trail. Primitive roads like Tenmile Wash, Hey Joe Canyon, Hell Roaring Canyon, and upper Mineral Canyon weave through wider canyon bottoms of Labyrinth and its tributaries. This opportunity cannot be substituted by the routes in this setting that were left open by the Decision Record, which are only the graded roads of Spring Canyon and lower Mineral Canyon.
8. Similarly the Decision Record left open the Labyrinth Canyon overlooks that are graded roads as well as a few Easter Jeep Safari (EJS) routes, but it closes most of the overlooks, leaving most stretches of Labyrinth Canyon unviewable from above, let alone viewable from
9. Across the whole LRGB TMA, the Decision Record closes routes that are themselves attractive (such as Mashed Potatoes), that provide connectivity (such as the rim of South Fork Sevenmile Canyon), that reach other points of attraction (such as the roads above Dellenbaugh Butte), and that reach many existing campsites (such as the roads above Dry Fork Bull Canyon). The value of such campsites wasn’t even analyzed prior to closing the routes.
10. Many recreationists (including contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA) prefer the unique qualities of motorized trail riding over non-motorized recreation, while others require motorized travel due to physical limitations. Depending on its form, motorized trail riding can provide physical exercise, a mental challenge of one’s focus and skills, and a sense of flow or harmony with nature. It also provides access to remote settings that some people depend upon for their sense of well being and wholeness. The Decision Record irreparably harms these important virtues for many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA, because of the many routes that the Decision Record closes, which are so very important for their physical and mental health.
11. Keeping these routes open is also very important for the business health and sustainability of many local commercial establishments, (many of whom are contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA), which is far more important than any marginal benefits to be gained from the routes’ In Moab and Green River, many outfitters and events utilize some of the subject 317 miles of routes, which provide opportunities that cannot be substituted by other routes for their customers.
12. In addition to being unique and of high quality, many of the 317 miles of routes contribute significantly to the trail system’s carrying That system carrying capacity is a unique and hard won, and hard to preserve resource value in which COHVCO, CORE, RWR, TPA and our contributors have a vital interest and stake, due to the countless hours we have spent maintaining, repairing, and improving that carrying capacity. All of that stands to be harmed quickly and irreparably from the Decision Record’s closure of the 317 miles of routes.
13. The resource values of roads and trails with uncompromised carrying capacity, in which so many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA place such a high value, stand to be directly and irreparably harmed by the Decision Record’s 317 miles of closures, thus forever impacting the recreational lifestyle through overcrowding and deterioration of the remaining routes.
14. Closing the 317 miles of routes makes it significantly harder for a variety of motorized recreationists, including the many contributors to COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA to have an enjoyable Closing the 317 miles of routes will not allow the BLM to meet current demand for recreation, let alone future demand.
15. Also in direct and irreparable harm to the values of the many contributors of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA, the Decision Record’s looming closure of the 317 miles of routes is quite likely to drastically reduce compliance with the TMP, as frustrated recreationists travel on closed routes, blaze unauthorized routes, and travel on no route by simply going cross country. Such activity will lead to more negative impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife as the wildlife won’t be able to predict or habituate to patterns of human travel.
16. The core values of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA will be irreparably harmed further, in that closing the 317 miles of routes is also quite likely to increase user conflict as more motorized recreationists travel off of designated routes and/or develop animosity toward the types of recreation for which the routes were ostensibly closed. Such animosity could also extend to the natural and cultural resources for which the routes were ostensibly closed. This is just bad land management policy, and it is too bad the BLM did not take seriously the input of COHVCO, CORE, RWR and TPA in this regard.
17. Of the subject 317 miles of routes, closing most of them to motorized use won’t significantly benefit non-motorized recreation, such as closing overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon that are 1,000 ft above the Green River, as non-motorized river runners barely see or hear people at those overlooks (much less be bothered by them). Some of the closures would actually harm non-motorized recreation because they’re used for bicycling or for driving to a parking spot in order to start a hike. Any isolated benefits to non-motorized recreation of closing the whole 317 miles of routes are dwarfed by the harm to motorized recreation of drastically reducing the quantity, quality, and connectivity of this trail system.
18. Likewise of the subject 317 miles of routes, closing most of them to motorized use won’t significantly benefit wildlife. The boiler-plate rationale for closing many of these routes is to minimize habitat fragmentation, but these primitive singletracks and doubletracks appear unlikely to fragment habitat, even They’re far less obtrusive than modern highways, and they don’t even break up a canopy of trees as may be the case with forest roads. Many wildlife tracks can be seen across these primitive routes, and vehicle collisions with wildlife are virtually unheard of.
19. All of these negative consequences to our contributors, to the natural resources, and cultural resources are likely to be immediate and long Simply put, closing the 317 miles of routes will make recreation far more difficult to manage, so it should not be rushed.
20. In contrast, delaying closure of the 317 miles of routes until the appeal is resolved would do no significant or long-lasting harm to contrary interests.
21. COHVCO, CORE, RWR, TPA and their contributors see blatant, serious problems warranting IBLA attention in the overall appeal. The analysis of negative impacts from closing the 317 miles of routes is grossly inadequate. The Decision Record’s estimation that motorized recreation comprises only 6% of the recreational use in the LRGB TMA has no basis in fact. The Decision Record cites Manti-La Sal National Forest, but the draft Land Management Plan of that forest actually states “Motorized trail activity in general is reported as a main activity for approximately 20 percent of all visitors to the Forest in 2016 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2017) and 32 percent in 2021 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2023).” Compared to national forests, the portion of visitation to the LRGB planning area that’s motorized trail riding is probably larger. The Decision Record also cites a 2007 study of recreation in the Moab Field Office that was designed to test the accuracy of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) methodology of the USFS when applied to BLM lands. The results demonstrate that NVUM methodology is inaccurate especially when applied to activities such as motorized trail riding that are highly dispersed (which makes riders harder for surveyors to reach) and of a faster pace (that makes riders far less likely to voluntarily participate). These sampling biases could easily have led to motorized trail riders being underrepresented by a factor of six and, since 2007, motorized trail riding has grown faster than most other forms of outdoor recreation in the LRGB TMA.
22. The Decision Record provides rationale for closing each route, but based on my personal knowledge of each route in question having spent countless hours riding them and working to maintain many parts of them, my first-hand testimony is that many of the reasons listed are completely inaccurate and unapplicable while others are generic statements such as closure “minimizes impacts to soil” without demonstrating that substantially adverse impacts have occurred or even have significant potential to occur to these routes with which I have personal knowledge.
23. To provide a small sample of such inaccuracies and empty claims found by myself who has first-hand knowledge of these routes, here is my testimony regarding a portion of routes from just one part of the LRGB TMA, which is Tenmile Point: All of Tenmile Point is in the Labyrinth Rims / Gemini Bridges SRMA, which includes the management goal of providing opportunities for “quality on-route mountain biking and backcountry driving experiences on established routes throughout the SRMA” and “Maintain the scenic character of Labyrinth SRMA to allow visitors to enjoy an unconfined experience.” Closing the 317 miles of routes certainly confines the opportunities of motorized recreationists.
24. All routes north of the Trin-Alcove Bend and Tenmile Point graded roads (B377 and B336) are also in the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area, which is the only motorized trail focus area in the Moab Field Office. The 2008 RMP states “the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area is established for motorcycle and ATV use. All competitive motorized events would be directed to this area. By emphasizing and managing for specific recreation activities in these Focus Areas, recreation conflicts are Focus Areas set visitor expectations for a specific type of recreation experience, thereby reducing potential conflict. Those who choose to hike in a motorized Focus Area should not be surprised by the amount of motorized activity. Focus Areas in the Approved RMP provide opportunities for the widest range of recreational activities and attendant business opportunities.” It further states “Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (35,290 acres) for motorcycle and ATV use: This is the area for competitive motorized events…. Establish a managed OHV route system with provision for ongoing management of existing single-track routes to maintain their singletrack character.” Clearly the 2008 RMP emphasizes motorized trails in this focus area yet, when it comes to Tenmile Point, the 2023 Decision Record does the opposite. The highlighted routes that fall within this focus area are listed as paragraphs 25 through 30 as well as 34 below. This focus area also abuts paragraphs 32 and 33 below. Note that the routes are generally listed in a counterclockwise fashion.
25. Tri Tip ATV Loop (TTIP1): The Decision Record prohibits the use of ATVs (under fifty inches in width) on this trail even though all four alternatives in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment allow such use. Therefore this prohibition falls outside of the decision space, which is why we didn’t comment on such a prohibition. I assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2013 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since then. I utilized $6,750 awarded by the Polaris ‘T.R.A.I.L.S.’ Grant Program, which is specifically for projects open to use by ATVs or UTVs. The route is almost entirely on slickrock and old constructed roads that are entirely suitable for ATV use. Even though most use of the route is by motorcycle, it should remain open to ATV use, as some ATV riders seek trails that are narrower than 4WD routes.
26. Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (D2761B): This primitive road provides views of the Green River as well as providing a bailout for riders of Dead Cow Loop. The Decision Record closes this road to all motorized use even though the route is left open in all four alternatives in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. Therefore this closure falls outside of the decision space, which is why we didn’t comment on such a closure. Rationale for this closure include reducing “fragmentation in desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat and in pronghorn fawning habitat.” However, according to maps from the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan, this road isn’t in bighorn sheep lambing habitat nor pronghorn fawning habitat. Rationale for this closure also includes “minimizing potential for soil erosion” despite that no significant erosion has occurred, nor is there significant potential given the shallow bedrock along most of the route and low grade along all of the route. In short, the route has significant recreational value, and it poses no significant negative impacts.
27. East end of Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road (DC2 northeast of D2761B): The Decision Record limits this 0.06-mile route to motorcycle use, but on the ground it is actually the east end of the Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road. Granted, historically the alignment may have followed D2761B (south of DC2), but the Dead Cow Loop Bisect Road has followed DC2 for the past couple of In fact in 2014 the BLM closed D2761B (south of DC2) and opened DC2 northeast of D2761B to full-size vehicle use (see Map 2 of Minor Travel Plan Adjustment 7, DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2013-0248-EA). Accordingly in 2015 I blocked off D2761B (south of DC2) and marked DC2 northeast of D2761B as open to use by full-size vehicles. Therefore the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment should have indicated via the no-action alternative that DC2 northeast of D2761B is currently open to full-size vehicle use. It also should have indicated via the no-action alternative that D2761B (south of DC2) is currently closed to motorized use. I brought these points to the attention of Moab Field Office recreation planners in 2021, but it was not corrected in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. I reminded them of it in 2022, but it was not corrected in the 2023 Decision Record either.
28. Southeast end of Dead Cow Loop (DC2 southwest of D2761B): This 0.82-mile route is the southeast end of Dead Cow Loop, but it can also be used to ride Dead Cow Cutoff in lieu of the full Dead Cow Loop. I assisted the BLM in planning and implementing the construction of this route from 2015 to 2017, and have assisted in maintaining it since then. It was essentially a reroute of the west end of Five Mile Of Whoops, which I assisted the BLM in closing because the whoops caused trail widening. In contrast, the rerouted southeast end of Dead Cow Loop is almost entirely on slickrock, and the few sections on soil have been designed with flowing turns that drain rainwater and entice riders to stay on the trail while also encouraging slower, consistent speed to minimize the development of whoops. In other words, this route is a model of good trail design, and it’s working well. Whether for accessing Dead Cow Loop or Dead Cow Cutoff, the trail is pleasing to ride and it poses no significant negative impacts. The Decision Record rationale is that closing this route will “contribute to retaining and restoring soil and vegetation cover, minimizing potential for soil erosion. Closing this route will minimize impacts to wildlife (e.g., desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn crucial fawning range) and enhance wildlife movement by reducing habitat fragmentation. Closing this route will minimize the potential for harassment of wildlife.” Actually closing the route would not significantly contribute to restoring soil and vegetation cover or minimizing potential for soil erosion because the route is on slickrock. Further, the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. Closing it is unlikely to reduce habitat fragmentation because the route is just a singletrack on slickrock that lacks constant use like one may find on a modern Closing the route is unlikely to minimize the harassment of wildlife because the type of people who harass wildlife are the type of people who ride wherever they want in the open desert. The Decision Record makes several claims in its rationale, but none of them match the reality on the ground, and I see no legitimate reason to close this text-book example of a quality trail.
29. South half of Dead Cow Cutoff (the part of DC3A that’s between DC3 and DC2): The Decision Record closes the south half of Dead Cow Cutoff, claiming significant impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife, none of which is accurate because the south half of Dead Cow Cutoff does not traverse riparian habitat whatsoever. It does traverse a hill with steep grades on either side, but the route has exposed the underlying bedrock, so widening or deepening of the trail bed is unlikely. Even if the current alignment were to become unsustainable, the BLM could work with motorized recreation groups to realign it and reduce the grade. The south half of Dead Cow Cutoff provides a moderate challenge for riders, and rewards them with hilltop views to the Green River and beyond. In short, the trail is of significant value, and it poses no significant harm.
30. Dead Cow Loop (DC3A except for the part that’s between DC3 and DC2): Dead Cow Loop is arguably the premier motorized singletrack in southeast Utah. Many motorcyclists visit Green River or Moab specifically to ride Dead Cow because of the narrow flowing canyons and views near the Green River, which cannot be substituted by any other routes. The slickrock base minimizes the potential for erosion or other negative impacts to soil. While Dead Cow Wash and the Tubes are riparian tributaries of the Green River, so are about a dozen other tributaries in the LRGB TMA, not to mention another dozen on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon. The 2008 TMP already closed the Low Water route to reduce exposure near the river, and I spent many days particularly from 2012 to 2014 blocking off the Low Water route to all motorized use and blocking off The Tubes to use by wider vehicles. The comments we submitted last year explained more mitigation that could be accomplished quite feasibly, such as rerouting the section that’s near the river to be further east so it’s behind a long gravel deposit from the perspective of non-motorized river runners. This project could actually reroute Dead Cow Loop to avoid the lowest end of The Tubes drainage as well. Likewise the High Water section that’s up on the flats could be rerouted further east to utilize slickrock, which would avoid the development of moguls or subsequent trail widening. And likewise this project could actually reroute Dead Cow Loop to avoid the lower end of Dead Cow Wash as well. Closing the current routes would be exponentially easier to accomplish after the new routes are in place. These additional management actions would be worthwhile since Dead Cow Loop is a “bucket list” trail for many motorcyclists worldwide.
31. Road south of F Canyon (D2845): This spur reaches a slickrock expanse with unique overlooks of Labyrinth Canyon. Any off-trail travel could be stopped by more clearly defining the route’s end, and preferably designating an end point with a good view for the many recreationists who are unable to walk far beyond their parking spot. The Decision Record’s rationale claims that closing the route would minimize impacts to pronghorn fawning, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. The Decision Record also claims that “Closing D2845 and adjacent overlooks minimizes potential for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users.” The “adjacent overlooks” are already not designated open by the 2008 TMP, so blocking them off wouldn’t require closing D2845, as D2845 doesn’t get within a half-mile of the river. Further, even the “adjacent overlooks” are a quarter-mile away from the river, and they’re several-hundred feet above the river. Motorized use of D2845 or even use of the adjacent overlooks is simply not likely to significantly conflict with non-motorized use of the river.
32. South Tenmile Point Road (D2840): The Decision Record makes several false claims in its rationale to close this route. It claims that closure would reduce impacts to crucial fawning range, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing It claims that closure would help “minimizing impacts to soil cover” despite that no significant impacts to soil have occurred, nor is there significant potential given the low grade of this road. It claims closure would result “in a less redundant route network” despite that the Tenmile Point graded road which is a half-mile to the north is no substitute for this primitive road. With BLM’s coordination, in 2017 I marked this road as “Tenmile Point”, a featured 4WD route to organize the use patterns of vehicles over fifty-inches wide that would not be permitted to use Tri Tip ATV Trail. This road may not be famous for 4WD recreation, but it provides a much more trail-like opportunity than the graded road, and it is key to keeping people off of the many other primitive roads across Tenmile Point that have been closed over the past fifteen years.
33. East end of Five Miles of Whoops (DC1): Even though this ATV trail used to be the east end of Five Miles of Whoops, it’s entirely on slickrock that has a smooth, hummocky surface which is ideal for ATV and motorcycle riding. In 2012 I worked with the BLM to reroute this trail to minimize cultural I also marked the route with many signs so the slickrock wouldn’t require annual painting, and I installed fifty-inch width limiters at each end. The Decision Record states “DC1 is closed to motorized travel. DC1 is 0.54 miles long and provides access to Ten Mile Wash, which is closed to motorized travel. Closing DC1 reduces confusion and minimizes impacts to soil, water, vegetation and desert bighorn sheep and pronghorn fawning habitat.” Actually this ATV trail is nearly a mile away from the access point to Tenmile Canyon, so the route is valuable and appropriate regardless of the status of Tenmile Canyon. Although this ATV trail is less than a mile long, it is an absolute highlight for riders because it adds slickrock undulations to the relatively flat and sandy roads nearby. In short, the trail is of significant value, and it poses no significant harm.
34. Shortcut between Tenmile Point and Red Wash graded roads (D2863): This primitive road offers nice sweeping turns as it climbs a gentle grade, but mostly it offers efficiency for recreationists connecting Tenmile Point with Red Wash or other destinations to the north. Otherwise one must travel a mile further east only to double back on another graded road. Closing this primitive road will tempt people to go off-trail across the quarter mile or less of flat, open desert that separates the two graded roads. If the road were posing significant harm, perhaps closure would be justified, but the Decision Record’s rationale doesn’t hold It claims that the road is in pronghorn crucial fawning range, but the route isn’t in pronghorn crucial fawning habitat according to maps in the 2016 Moab Master Leasing Plan. The Decision Record also claims that closure would help “minimizing the potential for soil erosion” despite that the road is quite unlikely to cause significant soil erosion due to its gradual turns and gradual grade. In short, the road is serving a transportation purpose, and closing it would probably cause more negative impacts overall.
35. Tenmile Wash – Tenmile Point Cutoff Road (Object ID 42353 / Route Plan ID 36): By omission, the Decision Record closes a Class D primitive road that shortcuts the graded roads of Dripping Spring and Tenmile For reference, the primitive road lies at the northwest end of Pinnacle Trail (PINTT1). For ATV and 4WD recreationists who can’t use the singletrack of Pinnacle Trail, this primitive road is both more enjoyable and more direct than staying on the graded roads to connect Dripping Spring with Tenmile Point. The 2008 TMP designated this road as an ATV trail limited to vehicles less than fifty-inches in width, but fortunately the BLM later reopened it to full-size vehicles as shown on its TMP Map 19 dated 1/9/2017. Despite being a route currently designated open for full-size vehicles, the route was missing from the preliminary no-action alternative in 2021. I brought this route to the attention of Moab Field Office recreation planners in 2021, but it was not corrected in the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment. I reminded them of it in 2022, but it was not corrected in the 2023 Decision Record either. This primitive road is useful, and poses no significant harm. Even if there were a compelling reason to close it, the road should’ve been shown in the no-action alternative of the 2022 draft Environmental Assessment, followed by a rationale for closing it and an invitation for public comment.
36. The route closures highlighted above from just one small portion of the LRGB TMA provide a glimpse into the many unfounded claims that the Decision Record made to justify closing the subject 317 miles of routes.
37. I have been proud of spending thousands of hours on behalf of COHVCO, CORE, RWR, and TPA to help the BLM implement and refine its TMP in the LRGB TMA for the benefit of recreation, natural resources, and cultural resources alike. Unfortunately the Decision Record abruptly undermines the progress of this partnership by taking drastic actions that are not grounded in facts, conditions on the ground, nor the feasibility of gaining compliance, doing immediate irreparable damage to the important value of diverse recreation in the LRGB TMA, which is so essential to stakeholders COHVCO, CORE, RWR, TPA and their contributors.
38. For the sake of protecting against this immediate irreparable harm, I believe that a stay of the LRGB TMP Decision Record is vital and necessary pending this I believe the foregoing sample analysis of routes in the TMA shows this appeal is likely to succeed on the merits. I have read the foregoing and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.

Executed this 30th day of October, 2023.

CLIF KOONTZ
Declarant

US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region
Attn: Reviewing Officer
C/O Director of Strategic Planning 2nd floor
1617 Cole Blvd. Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

 RE: Objection to GMUG RMP

Dears Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the objections of the Trails Preservation Alliance (“TPA”), Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) to the GMUG National Forest Resource Management Plan and related analysis and decision documents. Collectively this group of documents will be referred to in this objection as “the Decision.”  The Organizations believe it is important to note that we are largely supportive of the Decision as we have been actively participating in the development of the plan since its inception. Our objections are seeking to: address minimal data issues that have come to light since the decision was released; obtain management flexibility on issues to avoid future conflicts regarding maintenance of the opportunities provided; and more fully understand the basis and concern around route density standards in designated Wildlife areas.

Who we are.

The TPA is a volunteer organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the 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 ensure 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.  Colorado Snowmobile Association (“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 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.  TPA, CSA and COHVCO are referred to collectively in this correspondence as “The Organizations.”

Objection 2. Colorado Trail Defenders and CORE objection.

The Organizations are aware that the Colorado Trail Defenders and CORE are providing a separate objection addressing RMP boundaries in several locations and possible impacts to existing trails that could result from these boundary issues.  This objection is based on site specific issues that have arisen around poor trail mapping in those areas. The Organizations are aware that the low quality of existing trail and boundary mapping was an issue that was rapidly identified in the scoping efforts and draft plan.  USFS has worked hard to address these issues, which is appreciated by everyone, but it appears our efforts on this issue were incomplete previously. We are objecting to allow for these important routes to be preserved and not lost simply due to low quality data.  The Organizations vigorously support this objection and simply have not reproduced it here to avoid duplication of efforts and documents being submitted.

Proposed resolution of objection #2

Adjacent boundary designations should be amended to reflect to correct location of motorized routes in the area to avoid closure of these routes due to conflict with management standards.

Objection 3(a). Wilderness Proposals have been overweighted in the decision as President Biden’s  2022 Camp Hale Proclamation addressing areas proposed as Wilderness.

Prior to addressing the recommended Wilderness areas in the  GMUG decision in greater detail, the Organizations would like to commiserate with USFS managers on the ongoing Wilderness discussions on the GMUG.  We are intimately familiar with the highly contentious and passionate nature of these discussions as we have been participating in these political efforts for decades. The pressure can be immense, artificial in nature and often based on exceptionally poor-quality data and research. We are also very concerned that the highly political nature of these efforts causes important components of decisions to be overlooked, such as the fact that much of the areas again proposed to be recommended Wilderness in the decision have been hard released for multiple use previously by Congress.  The value of these hard releases cannot be overlooked as exemplified by recent decisions on areas outside the GMUG that have stopped well short of Wilderness designations despite decades of Congressional efforts seeking designation of these areas as Wilderness. While we understand the Decision represents a political decision by the agency that reduces short term conflict for the agency in the management of these areas, this decision is not supported by relevant federal law.  The Organizations are also aware that while the Decision reduces short term conflict over these areas for the agency, it expands long term conflict in these areas for our Organizations. Federal law in these areas have sought to reduce ALL conflict around these areas permanently and the Decisions proposed resolution does not comply with this requirement. Planners must apply existing federal law in planning rather than proposals to amend existing federal law.

The limited value of failed Congressional actions throughout southwestern Colorado to designate areas as Wilderness was recently again exemplified.  These failures are highly relevant to our objections as often advocates for Wilderness designations comically overvalue the weight in planning that should be provided for various proposals. Evidenced of the consistent overvalue of Congressional Proposals in planning was again provided as on October 12, 2022 President Biden signed a Presidential Proclamation designating more than 53,000 acres outside Minturn, Colorado as the Camp Hale/Continental Divide National Monument.[1] In this Proclamation, summer and winter motorized usage of the area was specifically protected and no limitation on road or trail construction was mandated.  This Proclamation was a major step in protecting important recreational opportunities in Camp Hale as almost all this planning area has been proposed to be Wilderness by Congress in the last two decades.   The scale of this win is apparent after even a brief comparison of the various Legislative management proposals for the Camp Hale area include Congressional designation of most of these areas as Wilderness under the Hidden Gems Proposal[2] as far back as 2010. This map was provided as part of the original round of legislative efforts on Hidden Gems.

Both Thompson Divide (Thompson creek/Assignation Ridge), Ten Mile  and Camp Hale have been partially or fully addressed in several versions of Congresswoman DeGette Wilderness proposal.[3]  These Proposals would have prohibited all motorized usages permanently in the Thompson Divide and Ten Mile areas.  Subsequent Legislative Proposals then sought to designate large portions of the Camp Hale Area as a National Historic Area, mandating no new trails be allowed and only recognizing snowmobile usage as a characteristic of the area.[4] Under the Proclamation, there is no cap on trail development and all forms of motorized usage are protected. This Proclamation was a major win for multiple use recreational interests as multiple use access to all these areas would have been lost if they had been designated as Wilderness.

The value of the Proclamation is further evidenced by the recent Legislative efforts also have identified more than 200,000 acres known as the Thompson Divide area for management targeting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This generalized requirement was very concerning as motorized recreation is directly tied to the production of very small amounts of greenhouse gases.  This requirement posed a serious long-term threat to the motorized usage of the Thompson Divide area. Under the Proclamation, this threat was removed as the Thompson Divide area was excluded from oil and gas leasing  for the next 20 years instead of the permanent Legislative designation requiring mitigation of greenhouse gases as a management goal.  Again, a major win that would not be reflected if Congressional Proposals were looked at in isolation.

The value of removing these recommended Wilderness areas in reducing long term conflict is provided by the fact we will also be able to approach future Wilderness Proposals with a clear recognition from the President that previously proposed Legislative protections for recreation were insufficient to be supported by a larger group. We hope the failure of the extreme wilderness Proposals would result in more recreational benefits in the future as extreme proposals have not been supported. The win for motorized usages from the Proclamation should not be overlooked and provides a concrete example of why we are concerned about any forest planning being based on legislative proposals.  These proposals have a long history of failing and often what is finally moved forward  is FAR more favorable for recreation than any that was proposed in legislation.  Resolutions of conflicts around management of Proposed Wilderness such as those provided in the Proclamation are not furthered by a short-term reduction in conflicts such as those provided in the Decision.  When management decisions are based on failed legislative efforts, this is a problem. When a management Proposal seeks to weigh legislative proposals more heavily than existing federal law, that is even more problematic.

3(b).  Recommended Wilderness boundaries are based on inaccurate mapping of trails which has consistently been an issue on the GMUG.

The Organizations are aware that there is immense political pressure on the GMUG planners around the issue of Wilderness on the GMUG.  While we are very involved in these political efforts and discussions this is based on the immense impacts that Wilderness designations could have on our interests and public access to the forest. We are aware that many of the Proposed Boundaries for recommended Wilderness on the GMUG are asserting to be based on a corridor width for existing trails of only 20ft in width. Many of these boundaries seem to have simply been moved over from various legislative proposals.  We are aware that a corridor of this narrow width is totally insufficient to allow for maintenance of the trail, which could lead to closures in the long term.

As has previously addressed on the GMUG, corridor width for the protection of the CDNST has been set in miles, not feet.  As has previously been recognized in GMUG planning as well, often trail maps are not exceptionally accurate in their ability to reflect the actual location of trails. We have found and resolved many trails and boundary issues that were off by hundreds of feet in USFS data. Trail mapping is simply not that accurate. With the corridors that are proposed, many of the existing legal trails would be moved into recommended Wilderness simply due to boundaries not being accurately reflected in USFS data. For this reason alone, we are objecting to any recommended Wilderness Boundary that is close to an existing legal route on the Forest. We would ask that any boundaries for Recommended Wilderness be drawn to allow for lower quality data issues and to allow for maintenance of the routes.

3(c). Comically poor data quality has been exhibited throughout the Citizen Wilderness legislative process.

As we have previously noted, the Organizations welcome the changes that the Forest has undertaken to develop the most accurate application of current management boundaries in the Decision.  This has resulted in significant changes to existing management boundaries allowing recreation to continue on tens of thousands of acres on the GMUG.  This same low-quality data appears to have been applied in various legislation addressing Wilderness and often times it has been our experience that these legislative proposals have developed even lower quality data than that relied on for the forest.  We have a long history of attempting to ground truth boundaries and usage designations for decades to confirm assertions that there is no impact to existing usages from these proposals. Early in the community engagement efforts on the Wilderness proposals, our requests for information such as shape files for boundaries and areas simply went unanswered.  Once these basic requests for information were provided, our efforts to ground truth information has not given us any confidence that existing recreation has been avoided with the Proposals.

The following provisions of the objection are provided as an example of the exceptionally poor quality of data that has been used for the development of the various legislative proposals for Wilderness on the GMUG and throughout the region. This low-quality data appears to have carried through Wilderness Proposals only compounding our concerns about relying on various Wilderness Proposals as a planning tool.   Our most recent efforts to ground truth information in the Proposals has occurred on the San Juan NF  and this ground truth effort indicated major concerns remain with the accuracy of data in Wilderness Proposals. The map of our ground truth efforts around the Paradise Valley area on the SJNF are reflected below. [5]

The conflicts reflected in the map are immediately concerning as the Paradise Valley area is an exceptional snowmobile area heavily used by local riders as it is reasonably accessible and legal. Loss of a 650-acre riding area has been simply brushed aside in previous efforts but remains very concerning to us.  Further more this was an area where the Wilderness boundary was asserted to be drawn based on FSR 679 but when this was ground truthed the boundary in this small area ranged from less than 10 meters to hundreds of meters from FSR 679.   This gives us little confidence in the accuracy of any data used in various legislation and directly evidences why these Proposals may not properly be used for management decisions.

3(d). Corridor standards for trails should be consistent regardless of adjacent management.

The Organizations are also aware that many of the Congressional proposals for Wilderness are within almost unheard of distances of globally important recreational trails. Often corridors provided in Legislative Proposals around these globally significant recreational routes are only 10-15 ft in width and are based on unsubstantiated assertions of compliance with generalized existing USFS standards for management of trails and other uses near Wilderness.[6] We have been unable to substantiate where these standards came from or confirm these standards with any USFS staff and they are FAR narrower than trail corridors we are familiar with. Rather we continued to simply be provided unsigned memos without even an agency letterhead asserting general standards for trail corridors. This is simply unacceptable to us as the history of factual accuracy has been exceptionally weak around these Wilderness Proposals only making possible loss of corridor even more of a concern. This is a major concern for us as many of these boundaries in the decision appear to mirror the boundary in the various legislative proposals that have failed.

The stark difference in the USFS standards asserted to be applied in these Legislative Proposals is the fact that most trail corridors we are aware of in planning are approaching at least ¼ mile in width.  In the Decision several references to trail corridor width around the CDNST are made for corridors that are miles in width[7]. The Organizations must also object to the sole application of any generalized standard for trail management corridors adjacent to a Wilderness boundary  as this type of generalized boundary is insufficient to override the clearly identified documentation and reasoning for Congress placing particular boundaries in particular locations as often these decisions area exceptionally well documented and are driven by the Congressional determination of the site specific buffer necessary for the trail in relation to the Wilderness that was designated.

Proposed resolution of objection #3

The Decision must be returned to the forest for the development of recommended Wilderness areas that align with previous site-specific decisions currently provide in federal law.  While legislative proposals should be addressed, they are insufficient to overrule existing federal law until they are passed into law.

Objection 4(a). Many of the areas recommended Wilderness designation have been previously released for multiple use or further designation by Congress despite ongoing legislative proposals.

Our first landscape level concern involves the relationship of the site-specific inventory of much of the GMUG by Congress and the site-specific hard release of many of the same areas from further review for possible designation as Wilderness in the future by Congress.  The hard release of these areas by Congressional action is critically important to our interests and efforts, as hard release language by Congress is seen as the strongest manner that Congress can express a wish to release an area from future designation as Wilderness with. The previous site-specific release of areas by Congress from future designation as Wilderness overrides the fact that there may be legislation now before Congress to redesignate these areas in a citizen-based Wilderness proposal. These concerns are irrelevant as a matter of law until they are passed into law.  Any other conclusion lacks any basis in law or fact. If the hard release of any area by Congress was found to be insufficient to avoid redesignation as possible Wilderness in subsequent planning this would be deeply concerning for us and impact our ability to collaboratively attempt to release areas from possible designation as Wilderness in the future.

The Organizations are aware there is great pressure on land managers to recognize legislative drafts that have been before Congress, sometimes for decades, in planning. The Congressional decision NOT to designate these areas as Wilderness that actually passed Congress and became law must be properly weighted against the existence of a legislative proposal that has not passed either house of Congress and often completely lacks even a sponsor in the House of Representatives.  Any argument that a stalled legislative proposal should carry more weight than a site-specific analysis and decision that has actually passed Congress regarding the ineligibility of the area for future designation is probably lacking legal and factual basis.  The Organizations submit that many of the citizen Wilderness proposals that are currently addressing GMUG lands are not moving because they are simply badly out of balance and would designate Wilderness in areas that were released in previous Wilderness legislation.

There is a long and vigorous history of Congress specifically addressing the non-Wilderness management of public lands on the GMUG and of those protections provided outside designated Wilderness needed to be able to move land management legislation through Congress. It is troubling that many of the areas that have been specifically identified for non-Wilderness multiple use management in order to develop a balanced land management bill that would move through Congress were recommended for Wilderness. Congressional protections of multiple use on lands recommended for Wilderness include:

1. Congress specifically finding that Non-wilderness multiple uses being identified for protection areas not designated as Wilderness;
2. Congress specifically stating that there shall be no restrictions of usages outside Wilderness areas to create buffer areas for the Wilderness;
3. Congress specifically crafting boundaries to protect existing usages outside the Wilderness; and
4. Removal of primitive area designations.

While addressing issues involving legislative history may seem unnecessary, it is important as many of the areas recommended for addition to the Wilderness system have been the basis of ongoing discussions for possible Wilderness designations since well before the Wilderness Act was originally passed in 1964. As a result, the lack of success around recent efforts to add these areas is important but also the history of each Wilderness areas that were designated and also areas that were not designated is important as well.    In addition to the determinations of why these areas were found unsuitable for Congressional designation, these areas have been the basis of extensive inventory by the USGS and Bureau of Mines pursuant to §3b of the Wilderness Act as these were existing Primitive Areas when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.  Given the specific review and release of many of these areas from further designation by Congress, the Organizations must question how the same areas could be recommended for Wilderness in the USFS planning process, despite what has been more than 50 years of review of possible basis for designation.

Any assertion of a legal basis for management of areas recommended Wilderness in the Decision as proposed in the various legislative efforts instead of recognizing existing federal law ignores the weak legislative support for these types of proposals in Colorado.  The history of both the Continental Divide Proposal, and  earlier versions of this legislation that trace back to the original Hidden Gems Proposal and San Juan Wilderness Proposals by Senator Bennett clearly shows the lack of support for the expanded designations across larger communities. When Wilderness Proposals from Congresswomen DeGette’s Office are addressed, the failure of Congress to move on the proposed changes for management of these areas spans more than 30 years.   Rather than being a basis for management of these areas as recommended Wilderness these proposals provide a concrete basis for management of these areas in compliance with existing federal law mandating multiple use.

A brief history of the San Juan Wilderness Legislation reveals a long history of nonsupport for the proposal in Congress, as there has never been a house sponsor even named for the Proposal.[8] Even in the Senate, the San Juan Proposal has moved to hearings on several occasions and while it has gotten out of committee, the larger Senate has never even voted on this Proposal. This is a strong indication of the lack of support for the Proposal. Even more troubling is the fact that the San Juan Legislation has not even been introduced in the Senate since 2013.  The Organizations submit that the 5-year hiatus for the legislation speaks volumes to the true amount of support for the Legislation.

While the Continental Divide Legislation does not address lands on the GMUG, it provides further basis for the caution that land managers should be approaching any proposal with.  The Legislative history of the Continental Divide Legislation provides no basis for management decision as this Proposal has been submitted in various forms for almost a decade and has also not moved beyond committee hearing, and many years has been unable to even get a hearing. This Legislation was originally proposed in Congress in 2010 with claims of broad support and extensive vetting of the Proposal through the Hidden Gems based discussions.  Vetting of the proposal provided to be less than complete and many problems were immediately identified and as a result the Central Mountains version of Hidden Gems was reworked several times as exemplified by the Rocky Mountain Recreation and Wilderness Preservation Act of 2012.[9]  This did little to build community support for the Proposal.  Recently the legislative name was changed and minor changes to the proposal were undertaken, and this version again failed to move. Existing federal law must be honored until such time as it is successfully amended.

The Organizations would be remiss if the troubling legislative history of other proposals that have incorporated San Juan and Continental Divide boundaries was not addressed, such as Congresswoman Dianna DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act that was originally introduced in 1999 was not mentioned[10].  These Proposals have also failed to move beyond a committee hearing despite being introduced for almost two decades as well.  As result, managers now have a clearly identified basis to not incorporate these legislative proposals into planning as there is clearly defined track record of minimal public support for the Proposals.  The failure of these proposals in Congress simply does not create a valid basis for planning actions by Congress.

This lack of support for the San Juan and Continental Divide version of Hidden Gems, is further evidenced by the fact that while these proposals have languished in Congress for more than two decades in one form or another, other land use legislation including Wilderness designations has been developed and rapidly moved through Congress regarding Colorado public lands.  This legislation would be the Hermosa Watershed Legislation of 2013, which was developed, passed into law and subsequent planning completed in a decade less time than San Juan and Continental Divide have been languishing in Congress without larger support.  While the mandates of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation are not legally binding on the GMUG, the factual differences are highly relevant to the value of land management legislation that does not move.  In 2013, the Hermosa Watershed Legislation[11] was not even a Legislative Proposal but this legislation was developed from the ground up, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President while other pieces of legislation remained stalled. [12] While the Hermosa Watershed Legislation does not impact GMUG planning the rapid movement of this legislation through Congress speaks volumes to the lack of support around the other pieces of Legislation that have been in existence for much longer and simply never moved. Their value in planning is marginal at best.

While USFS policy asserts that citizen Wilderness proposals be addressed in the planning process, USFS policy cannot contradict the site-specific determinations of Congress in existing federal laws.  The Organizations vigorously assert  that even without site specific Congressional determinations for any area, the mere recognition of a Wilderness Proposal is not enough review to support inclusion of any area as recommended Wilderness in the final alternative.  The entirety of the history of these citizen Proposals must be reviewed in the planning process.  This is exemplified in the GMUG plan  as many of the recommended Wilderness areas have been the basis of citizen Wilderness Proposals since before 1980.  This is directly evidenced by the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act[13] when the boundaries of many of these areas were established and drawn to protect many of the same usages that remain in these areas to this day.  The boundaries proposed for many areas on the GMUG in planning are the same areas that Congress specifically excluded from Wilderness when the areas were designated, as exemplified by the discussions of why wilderness boundaries are in the locations they currently are as provided on page 7 of House Report 96-617 issued in conjunction with the passage of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.  Those provisions are discussed in greater detail in subsequent portions of these comments and a copy of this full report is attached as Exhibit 5.

The second landscape level concern around merely designating recommended Wilderness based on citizen proposals for Wilderness is a policy concern and involves a consistent position taken by land managers that the public should work together attempt to bring solutions to issues to them. When land managers are recommending areas for possible designation that have been previously released by Congress, the managers are now working against the public collaborations that were the basis for the release of the area back to non-wilderness multiple use.   If there is a consensus position regarding the management of areas that has been achieved and passed into law by Congress it should be enforced with regard to all interests, regardless of the position. Consensus positions should be supported and defended by land managers in Colorado as there has been a lot of balancing and collaboration that has gone into the Congressional action for management of public lands for decades. When land managers recommend Wilderness for areas that have been specifically inventoried by Congress and found ineligible, land managers are undermining a consensus position that was achieved. Despite insisting that collaborative efforts targeting consensus management are needed here, managers would be undermining the very consensus they seek to obtain by trying to recommend Wilderness in many areas on the GMUG. Additionally, recommending Wilderness based on these failed legislative proposals would undermine the public process as the legislation is simply badly out of balance in terms of land use and as a result has little support from the general public.

4(b)  Congressional determinations providing hard releases of areas for  non-wilderness management are not addressed in the Decision prior to recommending many of the same areas for Wilderness.

As previously noted, there is a long history of site-specific Congressional determinations around usages of lands on the GMUG and throughout Colorado.  These determinations are simply never mentioned in the decision despite the fact it is existing federal law which must be recognized in planning under basic principles of law and under Forest Service requirements for the development of Wilderness areas in planning.  Forest Service guidance documents governing Wilderness inventory specifically require federal determinations of areas for non-wilderness usages MUST be recognized as follows:

“In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

4. National Forest System lands statutorily designated for management for nonwilderness purposes. Indicate effective dates, if any.” [14]

Given the repeated decisions of Congress specifically identifying areas on the GMUG for multiple use and unsuitable for designation as Wilderness the Organizations assert strict application of the above standard has resulted in an RMP recommendation that conflicts with federal laws specifically governing these areas.

This site-specific clarity of Congressional action regarding non-wilderness usages on large areas of the GMUG and throughout the state is exemplified in the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act that created the Colligate Peaks, Raggeds and Fossil Ridge Wilderness areas. Given the high levels of relevance of this legislation to these discussions of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, a copy has been enclosed for your convenience as exhibit 3. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act specifically spoke of the need to protect non-wilderness multiple use in areas it was not designating as Wilderness as follows:

“SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds that-

(3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management

planning process and other applicable laws……

(b)(2) The purposes of this title are to……. Insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado are available for non-wilderness multiple uses.” [15]

The desire of Congress to return non-Wilderness uses to areas not designated as Wilderness is evidenced by the fact that this desire was stated twice in the 1980 version of the Colorado Wilderness Act. Additional clarity regarding the desire of Congress to return multiple use to areas that were not designated as Wilderness in the 1980 legislation is also provided by Section 107 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness legislation, which clearly states as follows:

“(3) areas in the State of Colorado reviewed in such Act; for study by Congress or remaining in further planning upon enactment of this Act need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans; and”[16]

Given the long history of clear Congressional action regarding the non-Wilderness management of so much of the GMUG planning area,  any assertion that these areas may be recommended as Wilderness is impermissible as it directly contradicts both federal law and Forest Service inventory requirements to recognize these area designations in the decision-making process.

Clearly these previous Legislative actions developed high levels of public participation and consensus and must be honored.  The fact that one group did not get exactly what they wanted in consensus efforts previously does not create the need for new consensus efforts without a serious change in the circumstances in the area. Also, recommendations of Wilderness in these areas must at least recognize the previous legislative determinations and explain why these determinations are not controlling for these areas any longer and why these areas may again be recommended for designation as Wilderness by Congress.

4(c). Many of recommended Wilderness areas directly violate Federal law prohibiting buffer areas around Wilderness areas on the GMUG.

As identified above there have been significant Congressional actions to address the management of many areas within the GMUG planning area for more than 50 years. The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act specifically released all areas not designated  as Wilderness back to non-wilderness multiple use.  The 1993 Colorado Wilderness acts implemented additional protections for usages of areas outside the designated Wilderness areas with the addition of the “no buffer” concept to further protect multiple usage in boundary areas.  Congress has specifically reviewed these areas and determined where the boundaries should be located.  Fossil Ridge, Colligate Peaks, Uncompahgre, Powderhorn and Raggeds Wilderness areas were created by the 1980 and 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, and both of these pieces of legislation specifically required no buffer requirements as the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act as follows:

“(e) BUFFER ZONES. —Congress does not intend that the designation by this Act of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado creates or implies the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” [17]

While federal law is exceptionally clear on the usages that are allowed outside Wilderness areas this clarity is not addressed despite the fact that almost every Wilderness area on the GMUG is subject to these restrictions in the federal laws that designated the Wilderness.   Again, these are specific Congressional determinations that must be addressed in Wilderness inventory under USFS requirements as follows:

“5.  Evaluate the degree to which the area may be managed to preserve its wilderness characteristics.  Consider such factors as:

c. Specific Federal or State laws that may be relevant to availability of the area for wilderness or the ability to manage the area to protect wilderness characteristics;” [18]

Despite this clear mandate, many of the recommended Wilderness designations are based on the idea that such a boundary change would make preservation of Wilderness characteristics of the areas easier to manage.  Asserting such a basis for management designation would be exactly the type of buffer that is specifically prohibited under the Colorado Wilderness Act and its amendments. The complete failure to recognize existing federal law requiring “no buffers” for Wilderness is exemplified by the repeated recognition of the positive effects of an area to provide additional buffers for existing Wilderness areas in the inventory is exemplified by the following portions of the inventory. Many of these areas are now recommended Wilderness in the decision.  In the Tellurium G11 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between travel routes and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness.”[19]

In the Taylor Canyon G15 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between NFSR 742 and both Fossil Ridge Wilderness and Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area.”[20]

In the Slumgullion P5 inventory provisions the buffer is recognized as follows:

“As is, this area provides an effective buffer between NFSR 709/private property and West Elk Wilderness.”[21]

The failure of the decision to address the “no buffer” provisions for Colorado Wilderness areas currently existing in federal law is vigorously opposed by the Organizations. This situation has existed since original inventories of the GMUG for Wilderness suitability and has never been addressed and has returned in the decision.  While we understand the immense amount of pressure being applied to the USFS staff on this issue, this also does to absolve the duty of planners to comply with existing federal laws.

4(d).  A large portion of the GMUG has been inventoried as primitive areas and subsequently hard released for multiple use by Congress.

In addition to the extensive Congressional action specifically drawing many of the boundaries of Wilderness areas on the GMUG, Congress additionally reviewed the inventory of three primitive areas that were existing in the southern portions of the GMUG when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. These three primitive areas were identified as the Uncompahgre Primitive area, Uncompahgre Adjacent Primitive area and the Wilson Mtn Primitive areas.   When the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act was passed these inventories were reviewed for possible designations by Congress and areas that were found suitable for designation were designated as Wilderness.  The remainder of these primitive areas were abolished and returned to multiple use. Again, many of the areas in the decision that are identified as recommended Wilderness are in these primitive area boundaries that have been released by Congress.

The 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act clearly abolished exiting primitive areas designations areas as follows:

“The previous classifications of the Uncompahgre Primitive areas and Wilson Mountain Primitive area are hereby abolished”  [22]

In the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act, Congress then clearly identified in §101 of this Legislation the fact that any areas not designated as Wilderness was to be released back to non-wilderness multiple use as follows:

“(b) The purposes of this title are to—

(2) insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado be available for nonwilderness multiple uses.”

The Organizations submit that any assertion that the primitive area designations existing on the GMUG and specifically released for non-wilderness multiple use could again be recommended for Wilderness by the USFS defies both legal and logical defense. Despite specific federal law on this issue, these previous designations are not even addressed in the decision.

These types of determinations regarding primitive areas are again clearly identified to be within the scope of the Wilderness Inventory process as follows:

“The Interdisciplinary Team shall record all lands included in the inventory on a map of the planning area.  In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

1. Existing designated wilderness and primitive areas….

National Forest System lands statutorily designated for management for nonwilderness purposes.  Indicate effective dates, if any.”[23]

While Congress has designated extensive portions of the GMUG as possible primitive areas in the past and then removed these designations with a specific requirement of using these areas for non-wilderness multiple usage in areas not designated as Wilderness, these determinations are again not addressed in the decision prior to Wilderness recommendations.

We have enclosed the complete inventory of each of these primitive areas as Exhibit 4 to allow planners to fully understand the detail and scope of these inventories and understand the scope of what was released by Congress for non-wilderness multiple use and is not addressed in the current decisions Wilderness recommendations. After a detailed review of these reports, it should be noted that many of the pre-existing usages recognized in these reports and inventory that prohibited Congressional designation of these areas as Wilderness in 1980 have existed in these areas since at least the early 1970s.  These usages and management challenges often remain in the areas that were recognized by the Department of Interior and Bureau of Mines, adding more credibility to the USFS inventories of these areas subsequently undertaken.  Again, we simply cannot understand a fact pattern where Congress could specifically decline an area for designation as Wilderness, protect the non-Wilderness multiple use and then land managers would again recommend the same areas for designation in the planning process. Such a position simply lacks rational basis in facts or law.

4(e). Specific boundaries of the Uncompahgre (Big Blue) and Mt. Sneffels Wilderness were drawn with great detail by Congress.

In addition to the release of the large primitive areas that predated the 1964 Wilderness Act and comprised a large amount of the southern portions of the GMUG, the 1980 Colorado Wilderness act addressed the specific locations for the boundaries of both the Uncompahgre and Mount Sneffels Wilderness with unusually high levels of detail.  The value of this level of detail should not be overlooked and again would draw any assertion of suitability for these areas as recommended Wilderness in the RMP into question. While Congress has provided exceptionally high levels of detail in why boundaries were placed where they are in existing federal law, this detailed information is not addressed in the decision and many of these areas are again re-recommend for wilderness designation.  These new recommended Wilderness boundaries on the southern portion of the Forests are as follows: [24]

Section 9 of the House Report issued for the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act provides a large amount of highly site-specific detail into the scope of analysis undertaken by Congress in developing this legislation and why boundaries are in the locations they are in. This bill memo provides:

“9. Lizard Head, Mount Sneffels, and Big Blue Wildernesses: These three separate wilderness proposals of 40,000, 16,200, and 100,000 acres, respectively, comprise what many feel is the most scenic and spectacular area in the entire State of Colorado, and is sometimes called the “Switzerland of America”. The area’s outstanding beauty and wild nature has been officially recognized since 1932 when the Wilson Mountains and Uncompahgre Primitive Areas were established by administrative regulation. In accordance with section 3 (b) of the Wilderness Act, the wilderness character of the two primitive areas was reviewed, and a wilderness recommendation on five separate tracts was forwarded to Congress in 197 4. The RARE II process resulted in further wilderness recommendations on lands contiguous to three of the five tracts. The Committee reviewed the Administration’s recommendations and determined that the 16,200-acre Mount Sneffels proposal was adequate to protect the highly scenic country north of Telluride. To the south west, the Committee proposes a 40,000-acre Lizard Head Wilderness to link up the Administration’s Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak recommendations and include the headwaters of the Dolores River plus the landmark Lizard Head and Wilson Meadows. These additional lands largely lie within the existing Wilson Mountains Primitive Area and have important wildlife values as well as superlative wilderness qualities. The Committee therefore determined that wilderness should replace the current primitive area designation.

Similarly, the Committee recommends a 100,000-acre Big Blue Wilderness to join the Administration’s Big Blue and Courthouse Mountain proposals. The Committee additions include the heart of the eastern urut of the Uncompahgre Primitive Area and such outstanding natural features as Matterhorn Peak, Wetterhorn Peak, Precipice Peak, Dunsinane Peak, Cow Creek and portions of the West, Middle and East Forks of the Cimarron River. The Committee feels the addition of these lands is vital to the overall integrity of any Big Blue Wilderness, and especially notes their outstanding scenic and watershed values. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that the public currently relies on motorized access to certain key areas, and therefore amended the bill to exclude lands in the vicinity of Nellie Creek and to excise two road corridors which extend part of the way up the Middle and West Fork Cimarron River drainages. Another boundary adjustment was made on the extreme western end of the area near Baldy Peak to exclude about 1,500 acres which are used by grazing permittees for frequent motorized access and intensive management activities associated with livestock grazing. The bill abolishes the Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountain Primitive Area designations for those residual Primitive Area lands lying outside the boundaries of the three proposed wildernesses. Most of these remaining lands are so interspersed with patented mining claims that their management as wilderness would prove infeasible.”

A complete copy of this House Report memo outlining the high levels of sight specific analysis that was undertaken by Congress is attached as Exhibit 5 to this objection for your reference.  Given that many of the uses that Congress wanted to avoid impacting are still existing in these areas and have been specifically protected by federal law the Organizations must ask why manager would ever want to violate the clear statements of Congress as to the location of these Wilderness boundaries.

When both the Mt Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness Areas were designated as Wilderness in 1980, the following provisions were included in the preamble of that statute:

” (3) the Department of Agriculture’s second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstanding wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be available for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land management planning process and other applicable laws.”[25]

The Organizations must question why areas that have been specifically released by Congress for multiple use management and consistently found unsuitable for designation as Wilderness would ever be found now available for Wilderness designation. The Congressional release of Primitive areas, such as Sunshine, Wilson Mesa, Whitehouse and Liberty Bell are highly relevant due to the proximity of many of the new proposed Wilderness Area additions to both the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness and that these areas were specifically excluded by Congress from Wilderness management previously.

Resolution of objection issue #3 & #4.

1. Planners must apply existing federal law rather than unsuccessful proposals to amend federal law in the planning process. Remove recommended Wilderness designations in areas already previously hard released by Congress and remove any recommended Wilderness designations from areas within ¼ mile of existing routes and comply with existing site-specific Congressional decisions made in these areas.
2. Redraw recommended Wilderness Boundaries to avoid conflict with existing statutory designations and decisions regarding boundaries and concepts such as buffers around existing Wilderness areas.

Objection 5. Most areas of  Recommended Wilderness were found unsuitable for designation as Upper Tier Roadless areas in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule Process.

The Organizations wish to highlight the repeated exclusion of many areas now sought to be identified as recommended Wilderness in the RMP from lower levels of management in previous administrative reviews.  Most recently these areas were found unsuitable for upper tier designation as part of the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule. Again, USFS requirements for the Wilderness Inventory process require inclusion of this information as follows:

“The Interdisciplinary Team shall record all lands included in the inventory on a map of the planning area.  In addition, the Team shall identify on the same map (or a series of maps), at a minimum, the following lands:

1. 1. Areas identified in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 2, November 2000), or in a Forest Service State-specific roadless rule, or identified as undeveloped or for primitive nonmotorized management in the current land management plan.”

While Roadless inventory information is specifically required in the inventory process at no point in the GMUG wilderness inventory is the conclusions of the 2012 Roadless Rule inventory for the proposed area even mentioned. Throughout the Roadless area inventory process many conclusions regarding the unsuitability of areas for recommended Wilderness were again reached in the development of the 2012 Roadless Rule.  The systemic conclusions that many of these areas were never suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness system started with the RARE and RARE 2 inventories due to the high levels of existing usages of these areas included high levels of recreational value. These areas would include the Wilson Mesa area, Sunshine, Whitehouse, Liberty Bell and many other areas.[26] While the site-specific information from the RARE and RARE 2 process is available for review if your office should desire such a discussion, these conclusions are not discussed at length in these comments as they are repetitive to the conclusions of the Colorado Roadless Rule development in 2012.  The Organizations must ask why these areas, which have never been suitable for designation as Wilderness, despite almost 50 years of inventory, would now be thought suitable for designation as Wilderness?  The question about the need for Wilderness designations becomes more concerning when Congressional action has previously returned these areas to multiple use management.

The Organizations were heavily involved in the development of the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule, where both additional management flexibility was to be provided in Roadless areas and additional protection of less developed areas was explored.  Unlike the single standard of management in the national roadless rule, in the Colorado Roadless Rule process, generally two categories of management inventory were explored, which were Colorado Roadless areas and Upper Tier Roadless areas.  In an Upper Tier roadless area, management was closer to a Congressionally Designated Wilderness and in Colorado Roadless Area management direction was moved towards higher levels of usage and flexibility. Extensive site-specific inventories of areas were again provided as part of development of the Colorado Roadless Rule to ensure that current information about any area was relied on in the inventory process.  As a result of this process, significant portions of the areas now recommended Wilderness were inventoried for possible inclusion in upper tier roadless designations under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule development.  Similar to the RARE inventory conclusions almost every area proposed to be recommended Wilderness was found unsuitable for management as upper tier only a few years ago. The Organizations must question why the heightened restriction of Wilderness management is thought to be warranted, when lower levels of protection have already been identified as unsuitable several times. Clearly this is information that must be included in the Wilderness inventory and has not been.

In the Colorado Roadless Rule development extensive portions of public lands were inventoried for various levels of management.  Alternative 2 (preferred) the designation of Upper Tier Roadless management is reflected in areas highlighted in yellow on the map below and alternative 4 of the Proposal provided a more extensive acreage of areas for possible upper tier designation, which is reflected in the red freckled areas on the map below.[27]  The stark differences between the scope of alternative 2 and alternative 4 of the inventories are reflected in the map below:

The Organizations must note that almost EVERY area now recommended Wilderness with a HIGH designation was reviewed under Alternative 4 of the Roadless Rule EIS and found to be unsuitable for the lower level of protection and management of an Upper Tier management designation.   In the site-specific descriptions of each of these areas, a detailed discussion of the reasons for designation of these areas either as CRA or Upper Tier was provided.  The overlap of the CRA process and RARE inventories conclusions is significant and weighs heavily against the recommendation of any of these areas as Recommended Wilderness in the draft RMP.

The Organizations must object to any assertion that these areas are suitable for Wilderness recommendations in a Forest Plan, when these areas were recently inventoried and found unsuitable for the lower level of protection provided by an Upper Tier Roadless designation.  Any assertion of factual basis for such management would not be supported by the extensive site-specific inventory and review that was created as part of the Colorado Roadless Rule development. The Colorado Roadless Rule process was another administrative confirmation that these areas do not warrant heightened protections and should be managed for multiple use but such a discussion is simply not provided in the Decision.

Proposed resolution of objection #5

Redraw recommended Wilderness Boundaries to avoid conflict with existing decisions regarding the location of upper tier and Colorado Roadless areas.

Objection 6(a). Route density standards as part of Wildlife management areas.

The Organizations vigorously support the management and protection of wildlife in the planning process and recognize that the GMUG has done a commendable job of balancing all uses previously.  The Organizations are very concerned that these standards are included as the result of political pressure rather than a sound scientific and management basis for addressing problems effectively. We also vigorously support the decisions grandfathering of designated motorized trails in the designated wildlife areas. Every one of these trails has been through several rounds of site specific NEPA since the adoption of the travel management Executive Orders in 1972 by President Nixon.  These decisions have been the basis of extensive site specific NEPA and site specific NEPA is always more reliable and higher quality information and planning  than landscape level NEPA.

The Organizations would be more supportive of the decision  to apply density standards in the manner proposed if we thought this would reduce conflict between wildlife, recreation, and other forms of development over the life of the Plan. If the designation of wildlife areas could reduce conflict and streamline planning in trail development areas also designated in the Plan, that would a major step forward.  It has also been our experience that this type of balancing does not occur  as we continue to fight about wildlife in all phases of site-specific planning regardless of special designations.  We are not optimistic that the designation of these areas will have this effect and as a result believe these new designations will increase conflict rather than reduce it. This concern is since numerous Wilderness areas have been designated on the GMUG to provide wildlife habitat.  While these designations have occurred, they have really done nothing to reduce conflict on wildlife, or proposed wilderness, in other areas of the forest.

The Organizations are concerned that even with the grandfathering of these routes in the current decision, any wildlife planning area where routes are above the mile per mile route density will be put at risk of closure in any subsequent travel planning process. The Organizations are also concerned that many of the new dedicated wildlife management areas are being developed in current management areas that are permitting route density of up to 4 miles of routes per square mile. The Organizations are also very concerned that existing planning provides for standards that are largely aspirational. The decision moves these standards from aspirational to mandatory.  The decision provides no analysis to support the restriction of existing management to these lower density levels now required for the protection of wildlife.

While  we support the existing management in the areas now designated as Wildlife Management areas, the application of landscape level mandatory route density standards will result in poor management analysis in the future.  This management model is an attempt to apply landscape data to site specific concerns and this is often unsuccessful as many factors may be present on the landscape and not present on the localized area and vice versa and this disconnect can result in exceptionally bad decisions.  By comparison, statistically in the US men are about 7% taller on average than women.[28]  While this statistical confirmation is entirely accurate for addressing population level questions, this landscape level information is largely useless for predicting the if a particular man is taller than a particular woman. There are a wide range of factors that impact the particular height of every man or woman that simply cannot be captured in landscape level analysis as there are too many localized factors and issues that .

This similar situation existing with attempting to make site specific habitat quality and travel management decisions based on route density standards.  There are simply too many local variables as not all roads are created the same. Not all roads have similar levels of usage, which greatly impacts their ability to disrupt wildlife. By definition roads are significantly different than trails. Trails have wildly different levels of usage again impacting their ability to disrupt wildlife.

The application of mandatory route density standards in the decision fails to address hugely effective mitigation efforts that have been undertaken around roads, exemplified by the recent success of wildlife overpasses and fencing efforts throughout the region, which has been done in partnership with a diverse range of interests.  As an example, the State of Utah has effectively developed wildlife overpasses and large fencing projects to mitigate impacts of routes in Wildlife crossing areas.  The State of Utah in partnership with the Western Governors Association has well documented that these efforts have saved hundreds of animals of all species in every location that they have been introduced as Utah DOT has recognized as follows:

“It is estimated that a minimum of 102 accidents will be prevented each year through this collaborative effort. Utah State University will study this project over the next five years to provide feedback to the partners on the effectiveness of their efforts and to provide information on how best to design solutions to similar problem areas for wildlife and motorists.”[29]

CPW has effectively developed similar overpasses and fencing outside Kremmling Colorado with similar results, which CPW has summarized in their research brief as follows:

“The study established that the mitigation investments on SH 9 resulted in a 92% reduction in WVC crashes and a 90% reduction in carcasses. In addition to improving safety for motorists, the study demonstrated the success of the crossing structures in maintaining connectivity for mule deer across SH 9 for all age and gender classes of the population. The research documented 112,678 mule deer successful passages across the seven structures, with an overall success rate of 96%. The study also established the value of the wildlife crossing structures and other mitigation for a number of other species, including elk, pronghorn, moose, bighorn sheep, white-tailed deer, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, and other meso and small mammals.”[30]

Clearly these overpass and fencing efforts have provided direct benefits that would never be captured in the application of route density standards for management.  At best this is the horrible twisting of a hugely successful project into something largely irrelevant to land managers as this type of a success would not be reflected in a route density analysis. In addition to the above CPW research, CDOT has decades of research addressing the variable level of impacts roads have on wildlife and the evolution of management tools to address these issues. [31]

Too often route density is simply a surrogate for the identification of issues that are occurring around the route. With the decision to close or limit routes in these areas how would efforts such as this be developed or applied in these areas? The decision simply fails to address this issue and these are partnerships the decision should be facilitating rather than ignoring moving forward.

6(b).  Application of trail density of routes and trails are recommended against by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

While we are aware there is a large amount of public concern voiced around the need for route density standards, this is not the management process that CPW recommends for wildlife areas for roads or trails.  This is directly evidenced by the fact that the 2021 CPW Trails and Wildlife planning tool recommends avoiding route density analysis.[32] The 2021 Trails and Wildlife Guide outlines this conclusion as follows:

“There are two important considerations to keep in mind with route density:

• Site-specific factors, such as topography, may influence the quality of habitat, and are not accounted for in the calculation for route density.
• Route density calculations do not necessarily account for how trails are spatially distributed across the landscape(Figure 6).

The overarching intent of the route density consideration is to minimize habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat functionality for wildlife. It is important to note that this consideration is meant as a starting point for conversation about how to minimize wildlife impacts, and is not regulatory in nature. Also, route density only applies to specific high priority and sensitive habitats and species – there are many areas in the state where it isn’t (see Appendix B for more detail). Consultation with local agency staff and on the ground evaluation of the habitat are important to avoid any misapplications of route density. Remember that these strategies are part of a larger suite of BMP recommendations; it’s always important to consider how other strategies can be applied to minimize and/or mitigate impacts on wildlife.”[33]

As CPW has publicly endorsed a large and collaborative process for the management of trails instead of the application of hard limits on density, there is clearly a different course of management for these areas.  The application of route density standards without addressing the tools that have been found to be hugely successful and outlined in the CPW Trails and Wildlife Guide, such as seasonal closures, education of users and mitigation of other factors such as off leash dogs is again problematic as it conflicts with best available science. The Organizations must object as this entire management model is now rendered useless in favor of the application of a landscape tool that is poorly suited for the problem it is trying to solve.

6(c). Changes from existing plan to decision regarding the use of density standards are not addressed.

The Organizations must object to the inclusion of the mandatory  mile per mile route density requirement for the management of wildlife areas given the complete lack of discussion or authority to support this management standard. The decision does recognize that these new standards will impact a significant portion of the forest but fails to provide any analysis of possible impacts to other uses moving from a standard that was largely aspirational in nature to a standard that is now mandatory in these areas. Not only is the mandatory density standard poorly suited to achieve the goals it is seeking to address, the decision fails to address why there is a need to significantly restrict trails access in these areas from management levels that are currently provided.  No analysis is provided to address why the highly flexible and variable standards in the current  plan are dropped in favor of a single mandatory standard in the decision.  This decision impacts a major portion of the planning area and simply is never analyzed.

Under the existing RMP  the following aspirational route density standards are provided for:

Mile per mile in management 8b wilderness closed to moto[34]

2 miles per mile in 8c- wilderness closed to moto [35]

4 miles per mile in 2a – semi primitive moto [36]

4 miles of routes in 2b [37]

Wildlife areas had wide range of management designation under 4b, 4c, 4d, 5a, 5b and these aspirational standards have proven to be effective. The success of these voluntary management standards was outlined in great detail in our comments on the draft RMP.

While these standards have been found to be effective, these varying standards are dropped in favor of a single highly restrictive mandatory management standard in the wildlife areas. The scale of the impact of this management change is reflected in the EIS as follows:[38]

The significant impact that these changes could have on public access to more than 400,000 acres of public lands is immense and not consistently applied across the forest when various maps are reviewed.  Often the impacts of these changes are disproportionally centered in particular areas that are not adjacent to other restrictive management standards such as Congressionally designated Wilderness. As an example, the existing RMP provides the following  management area map 2, on the Colorado Plateau.

Under the New RMP the large amounts of wildlife area management designation is reflected in the light blue designations on the map.

As noted in the decision EIS, the changes in wildlife management route density standards could impact more than 400,000 acres of land on the forest. While the Organizations welcome the summary of the scale of the impact, the decision fails to provide discussion of how moving from largely aspirational standards of route density to mandatory standards of route density on this number of acres would impact public access for a wide range of issues. This analysis must be provided and has not been.

6(d). Route density is not best available science and supported by quality data as required by NEPA.

This lack of integrity in the development and implementation of this new mandatory mile per mile standard is a direct violation of the new NEPA provisions added in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.  These NEPA provisions are  now specifically applying generally applicable data quality standards that have historically been present to the NEPA process. While these new NEPA specific requirements are recent additions specifically to NEPA these provisions require application of statutory requirements that have been in place for decades including Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act of 2016[39] and Data Quality Act of 2001. [40] As an example, the Data Quality Act provided the following general standards for all government efforts:

”(D) ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussion and analysis in an environmental document;

”€ make use of reliable data and resources in carrying out this Act; [41]

The NEPA provisions added in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023  further clarify the applicability of existing provisions of the Data Quality Act and Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act to the NEPA process as follows:

”(3) SOURCES OF INFORMATION.—In making a  determination under this subsection, an agency—

”(A) may make use of any reliable data source; and

(B) is not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable.”[42]

The Organizations are unable to identify any information in the EIS that could satisfy these requirements with regard to the route density standards or the move from an aspirational management standard for route density to a mandatory and often lower route density standard. The Organizations objections extend beyond the mere impact of route densities but continue into the lack of discussion around how the density of one mile per mile was identified as necessary. The Organizations are unable to identify any research that discusses the varying impacts of moving from one mile per mile density to two miles of trail per square mile or three miles of routes per square mile.  Analysis such as this would be critical in supporting the decision to move from these higher intensity developments limits to the lower intensity development efforts.

Proposed resolution of objection #6.

The Proposal must be returned to the Forest for further analysis of route density standards in Wildlife areas to provide sufficient analysis for proposed standards or to create standards that can be supported by peer reviewed analysis.

The Organizations are generally supportive of the decision and would thank  the USFS for the years of effort that have gone into the development of the current decision. We believe the simplicity of the new decision will be a major step forward when compared to current planning documents. It has been a long road for everyone involved. We are seeking these objections to be resolved as we are concerned that the current decision will expand conflict around management of these areas on the forest.

The Organizations believe it is important to note that we are largely supportive of the Decision as we have been actively participating in the development of the plan since its inception. Our objections are seeking to: address minimal data issues that have come to light since the decision was released; obtain management flexibility on issues to avoid future conflicts regarding maintenance of the opportunities provided; and more fully understand the basis and concern around route density standards in designated Wildlife areas.

Proposed resolution of objection #2

Adjacent boundary designations should be amended to reflect to correct location of motorized routes in the area to avoid closure of these routes due to conflict with management standards.

Proposed resolution of objection #3 &4.

The Decision must be returned to the forest for the development of recommended Wilderness areas that align with previous site-specific decisions currently provide in federal law.  While legislative proposals should be addressed, they are insufficient to overrule existing federal law until they are passed into law. Planners must apply existing federal law rather than unsuccessful proposals to amend federal law in the planning process.  Remove recommended Wilderness designations in areas already previously hard released by Congress and remove any recommended Wilderness designations from areas within ¼ mile of existing routes and comply with existing site-specific Congressional decisions made in these areas.

Redraw recommended Wilderness Boundaries to avoid conflict with existing statutory designations and decisions regarding boundaries and concepts such as buffers around existing Wilderness areas.

Proposed resolution of objection #5

Redraw recommended Wilderness Boundaries to avoid conflict with existing decisions regarding the location of upper tier and Colorado Roadless areas.

Proposed resolution of objection #6.

The Proposal must be returned to the Forest for further analysis of route density standards in Wildlife areas to provide sufficient analysis for proposed standards or to create standards that can be supported by peer reviewed analysis.

The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities and any other challenges that might be facing the GMUG moving forward at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact Chad Hixon at (719)221-8329 or Scott Jones, Esq. at (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
TPA Executive Director

[1] FACT SHEET: President Biden Designates Camp Hale – Continental Divide National Monument | The White House

[2]

[3] A brief summary of the 2018 effort on this issue from Congresswoman DeGette office is available here:  DeGette Bill Will Save Colorado’s Remaining Wilderness Areas from Plunder at a Time When They Are Under Greater Threat | Congresswoman Diana DeGette (house.gov)

[4] See, Title III of S173 of 117 Congress – CORE Act Bennett Thompson Divide

[5] A complete copy of this map is attached as Exhibit “1” to this objection.

[6] As an example of this problematic decision making in the development process for legislation, we have attached an email and attachments from 2018 where we discussed this issue with Senator Bennett’s representatives as Exhibit 2.  Other examples can be made available but have not been included simply to avoid voluminous submissions of information.

[7] As an example, please see the discussion of the CDNST corridor starting on pg. 597  of the FEIS.

[8] More information on this Proposal is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1635?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s1635%22%5D%7D&r=1

[9] More information on this legislation is available here:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1701?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%221701%22%5D%7D&r=79

[10] More information on this legislation is available here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/829?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22degette+colorado+wilderness+act%22%5D%7D&r=12

[11] A complete history of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed Legislation into law is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1839/text

[12] Various press coverage of the passage of the Hermosa Watershed legislation as part of the National defense Authorization act of 2014 is available here: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?p=release&id=3209

[13] See PL 96-560

[14] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (3)(4)

[15] See, PL 96-560 at §101.

[16] See, PL 96-560 at §107.

[17] See, PL 103-77 @ §3(2)(3).  Similar provisions are found in section 110 of the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act.

[18] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (5).

[19] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 31.

[20] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 36.

[21] See, USFS GMUG Wilderness Evaluation at pg. 70.

[22] See, Public Law 96-560 at §102(b).

[23] See, USFS Wilderness Inventory Handbook at 1909.1271 (1) & (4).

[24] GMUG decision map – San Juan Geographic area

[25] See, PL 96-560 @ §101(a)(3).

[26] See, USDA Forest Service; FEIS Roadless Area Review and Evaluation; Appendix E; January 1979 at pg. 216  & 220.

[27] A complete electronic version of the conclusions of these inventory process for Colorado Roadless Rule upper tier designation is available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5366289.pdf

[28] Human Height – Our World in Data

[29]  A complete copy of this joint State of Utah and Western Governors research report is attached as Exhibit 6 to this objection.

[30]  A copy of this brief is attached as Exhibit 7 to this objection.

[31] A complete copy of these documents is available here for review as they are far too voluminous to attach as an exhibit. Colorado Wildlife Prioritization Studies — Colorado Department of Transportation (codot.gov)

[32] A complete copy of the 2021 CPW Trails and Wildlife Guide is available here: Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind (without appendices) (state.co.us)  but has not been included in this objection due to the size of the document.

[33] See CPW 2021 trails and wildlife guide at pg. 25.

[34] See 1983 RMP at pg. 228

[35] See 1983 RMP at pg. 235

[36] See 1983 RMP at pg. 112

[37] See 1983 RMP at pg. 122

[38]  See, Decision FEIS at pg. 324.

[39] See, 15 USC §3724

[40] See,  PUBLIC LAW 106–554 §515

[41] (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))

[42] 42 U.S.C. 4321

BLM
Via email at blm_hq_recreation_feedback@blm.gov

RE: BLM 21^st Century Blueprint for Recreation Strategy & Community Engagement Strategy

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the above Organizations about the recently released BLM 21^st Century Blueprint for Recreation Strategy (“The Recreation Strategy”) and the BLM new Community Engagement Strategy that was coreleased with the Recreation Strategy.    The Organizations have concerns across these documents that are centered around three general concepts:

1. The limited public engagement process that has been undertaken with both Proposals;
2. The failure of either document to address the significant staffing shortages that the BLM is currently facing as a barrier to achieving any of the goals of the strategy; and
3. The relationship of the documents to other planning efforts was never addressed.

Our members and partners have had the opportunity to attend several of the meetings on the Recreation Strategy, and found these meetings to be somewhat disorganized and attended by a large number of persons who lacked even a basic understanding of the proposal and current efforts of partners.  Several of our members attended the in-person meeting in Las Vegas hosted by the Foundation for Public Lands around the Recreation Strategy and found the effort to be somewhat confusing and often seeking to achieve multiple goals at the same time.  We believe the consolidation of multiple initiatives into a single event was done in an attempt to create efficiency. We are concerned this model has created more problems than it resolved as often the scope of issues being addressed was confused and paths forward on particular were not clearly provided.  We are worried about the success of a public engagement strategy that fails to engage with the public in its development or after its release.

These comments are based on our Organizations partnerships with all levels of government managers in providing sustainable recreational opportunities for all on public lands for more than 50 years.  Our partnerships with all levels of land managers are unique, given the large amount of funding that our voluntarily created registration programs provide to the managers to support basic operations on public lands.  These partnerships provide between $200 and $300 million per year to all levels of managers for the benefit of all users.  Unlike most other users we often provide funding to perform the NEPA, hire BLM staff to manage the area, enforce seasonal closures to protect resources and long-term consistent funding to maintain the infrastructure that is built.  This highly advanced partnership creates significantly different challenges that most other partners are encountering.  Our hope would be that these comments allow these challenges to be addressed and allow our partnerships to continue to evolve as many of our groups have exceptional relationships with land managers that we would like to expand and adapt to current and future challenges.  We also hope that with resolution of these challenges other partners will be allowed to a far more advanced level of partnership with managers and expand recreational capacity even greater in the long run.

1a.  The Recreation Strategy needs far more public engagement.

The Organizations are very concerned that the Recreation Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy was released after very little public engagement during development and very little public engagement after its release to the public.  We are not aware of any comment periods being provided for public input before the Recreation Strategy was released. As far as we can tell there were only three meetings occurred nationally around the Recreation Strategy. This is a VERY different course of development from the efforts that have driven the USFS 10 Year Trail Strategy development and implementation. The USFS efforts have been based on years of public engagement that has remained ongoing throughout the implementation of the USFS effort.   We would recommend that the BLM adopt the general direction of the USFS on this issue as BLM efforts to date are simply insufficient for the development of any national strategy.  Failing to engage with partners to understand barriers to engagement and specific details and desires of the public which results in a Recreation Strategy that is unrelated public needs and desires.  This failure to engage also sends a negative message to the public about the value placed on their desires for management and utilization of these resources.

The highly insufficient nature of the public engagement on the Recreation Strategy and Community Engagement Strategy is directly evidenced when any comparison to other planning efforts is made. Often the development of an Environmental Assessment for a highly localized effort will have significantly larger number of public meetings to engage the public through.  This is an indication that engagement is insufficient.

1b.  Public meetings have been confusing and slightly misdirected and VERY limited in nature.

Several of our members attended the Foundation for Public Lands meetings in Washington DC and  Las Vegas, Nevada that coincided with the role out of the Recreation Strategy. We were also able to attend the virtual meeting held on October 5, 2023.  These meetings suffered from a weak foundation for engagement as most partners at the meetings were not notified that the Recreation Strategy was released prior to the meeting.  This was compounded by the fact that meeting facilitators seemed to lack an understanding of efforts already in place with land managers and many of those attending lacked an understanding of existing efforts and resources that were already in place with partner efforts.

Our members generally found these meetings to be confusing when trying to identify the goals and objectives of this meeting as often attendees did not know if they were commenting on the Foundation development or the BLM strategy. Even after the meeting it was unclear if comments that were addressing the Recreation Strategy would be compiled and submitted to the BLM or if they would be used to guide future public engagement for the Recreation Strategy or were going to be used entirely internally with the Foundation.  These are problematic challenges and questions for a document and effort that seeks to guide recreational usage of BLM lands for the foreseeable future. These problems only compound the need for an effective engagement process with the public for the BLM as exemplified by the lack of a clear next steps to be developed after the meetings.

The Organizations are unsure if partnering with fledging organization, such as the Foundation for Public Lands, that is ramping up its own development and organizational mission is advisable as exclusive means of outreach for a national strategy. We are concerned that the two efforts occurring together will confuse the public on larger engagement efforts and result in less public engagement rather than better public engagement.

The confusion of the entities and intent of the meeting creates significant immediate concerns as the message of the meeting was somewhat contradictory in nature.  Would it be proper for the BLM to be asking what can partners bring to BLM management?  This type of question is a frequent topic of discussion as alignment of resources can be a major challenge between managers and partners.   Existing partners should be leveraging and expanding efforts on BLM lands not engaging with new partners that could only serve as an additional administrative layer in projects.  This type of a question becomes problematic, with the introduction of an entirely new partner that lacks a clear mission and defined goal and objective for participation.

The confusion involved in these meetings was compounded by the fact the relationship of partners was backwards.  In our experiences new partners should be targeting input on what can the Foundation bring to the partners to facilitate and expand impacts on public lands.  Rather than leveraging resources the tone of discussions often seemed to be what can partners bring to the Foundation rather than what can the Foundation bring to assist existing partners. Foundationally these are two different questions and while each are equally important, they are very different. While BLM staff participating in these meetings were well versed in recreational usage and existing partnerships, meeting facilitators seemed to lack this type of understanding despite their history of holding highly visible positions. Often panelists provided by the meeting facilitators seemed to lack engagement with the BLM and represented very small groups or interests.  Rather than being national leaders, panelists were more aligned with a local club type level of engagement or were trying to address issues they had little background with.  While these efforts were well intentioned this created immense confusion of basic issues and frustration for those attending.  These issues only compounded other challenges such as who specifically is the group the public is engaging with. The conflicting nature of each of these questions will dilute the limited input that is provided and will also serve as a barrier to obtaining information from a targeted effort to develop input on efforts or challenges that partners may have overlooked in isolation.  We also believe that many partners simply will not engage further in these discussions.

Another frustrating factor that should be addressed in any future efforts of this nature is the fact that the BLM has access to a wide range of existing tools that could be used for public engagement of strategies such as the 21^st Century Blueprint and Community Engagement Strategy.  BLM has many Recreation Advisory Councils (“RAC”) across the Country and it is our understanding that several are fully staffed and functioning.  The RAC clearly have authority to provide informal guidance to the BLM on issues such as this.  There are other partner groups, such as the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable that could have assisted as well.  The members of the ORR are reasonably versed in BLM challenges, strengths and weaknesses and clearly would have taken the opportunity to provide input on issues such as what we raise in these comments if they had the opportunity.

BLM also has a wide range of highly effective partners that have developed a wide range of tools for the BLM in the past.  An example of this would have been the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) that partnered with the BLM in development of the State motorized action plans for more than 30 years. This very concerning as most partners are immensely busy and are constantly forced to prioritize efforts and resources. Again, we must question the limited outreach and choice of a new group to undertake the public engagement. This simply must be improved.

2. Relationship of the Recreation Strategy to other planning documents must be addressed.

The Organizations are concerned that the BLM recently has undertaken a lot of various national efforts and initiatives, such as:

• the 21^st Century Blueprint for Recreation,
• the Community outreach effort; and
• the recent Landscape Conservation and Sustainability Proposal.

While we welcome these discussions, we are also very concerned that these are efforts that appear to be developing in a silo isolated from each other rather than a coordinated strategy for the agency to move forward with.  This is very concerning as there are large amounts of ambiguity in the relationship between these various efforts and resolving this ambiguity is often critical for the success of efforts such as these.  The Organizations are also concerned that this siloed management approach quickly leads to all efforts being prioritized as the number one priority for the agency.  This situation will cause conflict and confusion of efforts rather than leveraging each effort to achieve goals.

We are also concerned that this siloed approach creates immediate conflict between the efforts.  As we have noted in other portions of these comments, we are very concerned that the Recreation Strategy is seen VERY limited public engagement.  We have similar concerns around the very limited public engagement that occurred with the development landscape sustainability proposal as well, as often massive concepts and initiatives were buried in a single sentence in the middle of the sustainability Rule.  This situation is in direct conflict with the Community engagement initiative goals of engaging communities at all levels all the time, which is outlined as follows:

“Strategic Focus: Externally, the BLM will capitalize on its recreation brand of America’s “Backyard to Backcountry” treasure, consistently coordinating with community and regional landscape-level representatives when planning and managing recreation settings, services, and facilities; prioritize recreation areas that provide the most significant public benefits; and leverage financial resources through community partner organizations to ensure that top-priority sites and services are maintained.”[1]

The failure of the Recreation Strategy to achieve this goal is problematic, leading us to questions about why these goals would not be aligned better, as the efforts were being developed at the same time.   These are questions that are uncomfortable for us as partners to have to be asking after documents have been released and undermine our confidence in any of the efforts.  As these efforts move forward, we are concerned that many other groups will ask many of these same questions and this will erode public confidence and support for these efforts even further.  This is disappointing at best.

We are also concerned that throughout the engagement efforts strategy there is no recognition of the highly effective partner efforts that are currently in place and how those efforts will be addressed moving forward.  This is very concerning again as many of the efforts and partners with BLM have already addressed goals such as updating planning documents in relevant areas.  We are aware that there are large areas of BLM managed lands that have management plans that are horribly out of date, but there are also large areas of BLM lands that have newer plans in place.   How does the community engagement effort relate to those areas? Again, this is another example of why these various efforts must be aligned with each other.

While partners are generally addressed in the Community Engagement strategy, these are often very generalized and abstract references.  While these references are passing and generalized, this distinction is critical as many NGO partners can effectively address issues in manners that BLM or local government simply cannot.  Often BLM is the direct recipient of these benefits, making these indirect relationships highly valuable to the BLM.  A recent example type of interaction would be the recent successful requests from our Organizations, and a limited number of State partners, to the Federal Highways Administration for the issuance of waivers of Buy American/ Build American provisions in the Infrastructure Bill for the Recreational Trails Program.  The RTP program provides $84 million in funding to support all forms of recreation and in states with BLM lands, a large amount of this funding flows to the BLM for a wide range of programs. With the new BABA requirements, these funds would have become largely unusable but with the waiver program now in place these funds will continue to flow to BLM managed lands.  These are minor distinctions that can have major implications to land managers.

3. Existing staffing challenges for BLM must be recognized in one of the strategic efforts.

The Organizations are very concerned that the relationship of these various plans to each other is never discussed and without basic alignment of the efforts, multiple plans may repeatedly address a single issue while other critically important issues may be overlooked. The Organizations are concerned that one of the foundational challenges we are seeing at all levels of BLM efforts is a horrible shortage of employees.  This problem has only compounded and expanded since the events and challenges experienced since 2020 as most offices are only at 50% staff levels and many of staff that is in these offices is either acting or filing multiple roles. Too often our members are the constant in office or issue and the ever-changing agency staff is the variable. The reversal of relationship presents major challenges to any management effort as partnerships and collaboration require high levels of trust and carry through on planning.  Without addressing these basic issues, success will be very difficult for any planning effort no matter how well intentioned.

Our concerns around the failure to address staffing shortages is compounded as the community engagement strategy fails to mention staffing challenges as a concern.  Even more concerning is the fact the community engagement plan appears to be taking the position that staffing is not an issue as there are broad goals for community engagement outlined and appear to assume sufficient staff is in place to achieve these goals.  We would vigorously disagree with that assumption.  The Organizations believe it is important to recognize that we are referring to currently open positions within the agency and not positions that are aspirational in the future.

Is this staffing shortage an issue that another strategy is addressing?  Based on our years of partnerships with land managers, we can state that staffing challenges are the single largest barrier we have to working with all land managers. Prior to 2020 staffing levels had eroded and since 2020 staffing levels have simply collapsed.  Too often our local members are trying to engage with offices that may have a position to engage with our members but that position has not been filled for years.  Even if the position is filled, the person filling the position is in an “acting” role, and as a result has limited authority and is often trying to cover multiple positions. We are aware that acting staff is successful if they achieve some headway on one project.  It is becoming FAR too common for our local members to adopt a position of waiting until the position is permanently filled before trying to engage on issues, as it is simply less stress that trying to educate an acting person on the effort.  Engagement of managers over the long term is the single largest intangible resource needed to achieve success on projects or initiatives and this requires each partner trust each other.

The Organizations believe the recognition of staffing challenges in the Recreation Strategy or in a consolidate manner across all planning efforts will also allow systemic barriers to be more effectively addressed.  One such barrier would be the USAJOBS website and unified hiring processes.  Generally, USAJOBS is difficult to work with and requires immense amounts of information that is unrelated to the position being sought. It has been the Organizations experience that often lower GS level positions are filled through local efforts and engagement of land managers in the local community and centralizing hiring processes are a major barrier to this type of engagement.  Too often hiring windows on centralized platforms are open for short periods of time and during times of the year that are unrelated to the position being hired.  Too often positions are offered months before the position can be filled and potential employees have taken other positions available sooner by the time the position can actually be started. These are barriers that could easily be resolved, but if these challenges are not recognized they will never be fixed.

Also, the failure to recognize staffing challenges in the Strategy sends a message to partners that are working hard to address this issue already.  We are aware of numerous partners working with local or state BLM offices to address staffing challenges by adapting their partnership to leverage the comparative value of moving from a GS type position to a wage/hr. type of position and moving from a pure seasonal employee to a permanent seasonal type employee. Many partners are working to understand basic questions on federal hiring issues such as: Is the private sector more effectively addressing staffing challenges than the public sector?; what effect does salary have hiring? Are land managers seeing more of a challenge than other government branches, such as Internal Revenue Service?; are state or local agencies having more success in hiring than federal partners? Addressing questions and challenges such as this will not be successful if BLM does not want to address the lack of staffing.  That is a concern.  We are also concerned that failing to recognize staffing as an issue at all, sends a message to partners, and that message is not positive about their efforts.  Again, this is a concern.

Conclusion.

The Organizations would vigorously request that far more public engagement be developed for each of these Proposals as high quality engagement with the public will develop better goals and objectives for moving forward.  The Organizations also urge the BLM to use existing resources to achieve this public engagement rather than developing entirely new resources for this effort.   High quality engagement can be achieved with current resources.  The Organizations also believe that integration of each of these multiple planning efforts with each other must be achieved to ensure that critical shortfalls in achieving these efforts, such as the critical lack of staffing currently being experienced, do not delay successful implementation of the integrated planning efforts. The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com) or Fred Wiley (661-805-1393/ fwiley@orba.biz).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
United Snowmobile Alliance (USA) Vice Chairman, CSA Executive Director, COHVCO Authorized Representative

Fred Wiley
ORBA President and CEO

Elexis Nelson
One Voice, Chairwoman

Steve Egbert
United 4 Wheel Drive, Chairman

Chad Hixon
Executive Director, Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President, Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE)

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director, Nevada Offroad Association

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, Idaho Recreation Council (IRC)
Authorized Representative, Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA)

[1] See, BLM Community Engagement Plan; Pg 2.

Colorado 600 – Trails Awareness Symposium

Written and Photos by Chad de Alva
Republished with permission from Upshift Online: Issue 86 – October 2023

The story of off-road motorcycle riding in the western United States is typically told using words like closed, managed, and re-designated. Veteran riders all have their stories about how we used to be able to ride here, or there used to be a trail that connected there, and trails that used to be for dirt bikes that are now closed to motorized use. These stories are usually followed by discussions of how motorcycle advocacy has almost always been a game of defense: we’re constantly on our back foot, holding up our figurative shield against the onslaught of those who close our trails. The game has been to minimize damage to our riding opportunities, but over the years we’ve lost quite a bit of ground. Yet a Colorado based non-profit organization called the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), has been working to change our stance from defense to offense. The TPA has been supporting local clubs and advocating for off-road riding opportunities in Colorado and the surrounding states. The TPA hosts the Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium, a five-day riding and advocacy symposium that was held in South Fork, CO for 2023. At the 600, TPA shared their history, current state, and future plans for motorcycle advocacy – and it’s something you need to be a part of.

The Trails Preservation Alliance is unique in the world of off-road motorcycle advocacy. While local clubs are the boots on the ground, engaged with their local land managers and working on issues in their respective back yards, the TPA exists to support the efforts of local clubs and advocate for off-road riding on a state-wide level. Whether a new club needs support to get up and running, or an established club needs help with a fight to keep their backyard trails open, or additional support to make projects go, the TPA has the resources to help. This combination has proven to be quite effective, and off-road motorcycling would be in a better place if a TPA existed in every state. A recent example of the impact of the TPA’s efforts was just announced in south-western Colorado.

The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest, which encompasses 3.2 million acres of land in western Colorado just released their draft Record of Decision (ROD) on the first forest plan that they’ve completed in 40 years. Forest plans are supposed to be completed every ten to fifteen years, so the impact of this decision is that much more significant. What’s exciting about this draft ROD, is that out of all the proposed alternatives that the forest could have chosen, they chose the one that creates a minimal amount of wilderness and could allow for more motorized recreation op- opportunities (read: new trails) when the forest starts their next round of travel management. The draft ROD specifically states that the forest planners received “a large number” of helpful comments that were advocating for motorized recreation on the proposed alternatives, and these comments were submitted by the TPA, local clubs, and many other motorized users.

In Upshift 62 the feature story on 2021 Colorado 600 specifically mentions the GMUG being in the planning process for this forest plan, and the importance of commenting on the process. Two years later, the results of those advocacy efforts have paid off. Instead of taking another hit to the number of motorized trails in the GMUG inventory, effective comment submittals by motorized users have contributed to a win: a forest plan that allows for more motorized recreation opportunities.

The TPA has also been working on what they call the Colorado Off-Road Motorcycle Strategic Plan. By working with GIS specialists, biologists and other subject matter experts, they’ve been able to capture a comprehensive picture of the current inventory of trails in Colorado, and what potential opportunities exist for improving motorized recreation. According to COTREX data, there are 2,273 miles of motorized single track currently in Colorado. Note that many of these trails have seasons and are only open for a few months out of the year in many cases. There are currently 23,661 miles of non-motorized trails in Colorado, but if a trail is designated as motorized, any other user group can use it. If you sum up the total mileage of motorized single track, 50-inch ATV trails, and non-motorized trails, you get 28,351 miles of trail for non-motorized recreation. Motorized single track is 8% of the total trail mileage in the state.

The Strategic Plan also identifies a number of opportunities for improving off-road motorcycle recreation in Colorado. Objectives such as more trails, youth and beginner trails, connecting existing systems, and creating loop routes were just a few of the concepts mentioned. Looking at the map of where all of these new opportunities could go is exciting – there is so much potential out there for new riding.

If we as off-road motorcyclists want to protect the trails that we have today, and to create new trails to ride in the future, WE ALL need to get involved today. Riders cannot just assume that trails will continue to exist for our enjoyment and that someone else is going to make this happen. Make no mistake about it, there are well organized, very well funded user groups out there that would love to get dirt bikes off our public lands. This fight is ongoing, and every rider needs to get in the game.

Here is what you need to do: join your local trails club. This should be standard practice for every off-road rider. Ideally that means going to some club meetings and participating in events like trail work days, but at the bare minimum, you need to pay to be a member. Clubs are not service providers, so become an active member, not just a subscriber.

Support the local clubs anywhere you travel to ride. Determine who cares for the trails where you’re going and find out what you can do to help. Become a member of that club and treat the trails you’re riding on like they are your local trails. If you come across a tree that’s down or some other thing that needs attention while you’re out riding, either fix it yourself or let the club know. Respect gets respect, and caring for the trails you’re using will get you respect from anyone else you run into while out riding. Working on a trail also wins you all the good will with other user groups, especially non-motorized users.

Get involved with land managers and their management processes. The fact of the matter is that land managers take time to make decisions, so we need to exert what the TPA calls hydraulic pressure by being vigilant, patient, and contributing constructively at every step of the process. The GMUG ROD is a great example of how fast (read: slow) this process goes, but it’s also a great example of how engaging in the process can result in favorable outcomes.

The 2023 Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium was empowering. Over the course of four days, we got to learn about exactly what the TPA has been doing, is currently doing, and is planning on doing in the future. Each day started with a presentation over breakfast, and then we spent the balance of the day riding everything from adventure bikes to dirt bikes on some of the best single track in the state. When you learn about something during a presentation, and then get to experience it firsthand by riding on it, the combination is quite moving and thought provoking.

What if there was a TPA in every western state? What if all of these states had a Strategic Plan that painted a data-driven picture of what our current and potential riding opportunities are? What if every local club had a TPA backing them up at the state level, and bringing additional resources to bear when needed? How many more riding opportunities could we create by doing these things?

The only way to find out is to get involved and put in the work. If you’re already part of a club and involved in making the world a better place to ride, then good on you. If you’re not, you know what you need to do. Call out your riding buddies that aren’t involved as well. Off-road motorcycle advocacy is building momentum toward a better riding future, and getting more riders involved will only help produce better results. Events like the TPA’s Colorado 600 are a great way to learn more about the world of off-road riding advocacy, and a great way to see firsthand the trails that are worth protecting, and the trails we can work to create in the future.

For more information on the Trails Preservation Alliance, visit coloradotpa.org
For more information on the Colorado 600 Trails Awareness Symposium, visit colorado600.org

The Colorado 600 wouldn’t be possible without support from the following companies: Rocky Mountain ATV/ MC, Motion Pro, KLIM, MotoMinded, Texas Sidewinders MC, Billet Racing Products, Apex Motorsports, Centura / St. Anthony Pre-hospital Services, Doubletake Mirrors, AMA, KTM, Upshift Online, Dunlop, Stuck Nutz, Kate’s Real Food, Tomichi Creek Trading Post, Dave Mungenast Motorsports, Slavens Racing, TBK Bank, and Monarch Investment Group.

For more great articles like this, check out Upshift Online!