Archive | May, 2024

El Paso County Parks & Community Service Department
El Paso County
2002 Creek Crossing Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80905

SUBJECT: Public Comments, Jones Park Master Plan draft, El Paso County

Please accept these comments from the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and our partner Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) regarding the Jones Park Master Plan draft.

The TPA is a Colorado based 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers; working with agencies like the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple-use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that land managers allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands access to diverse, multiple-use trail recreational opportunities. The Colorado Off- Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization with over 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists to protect and promote 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.

We appreciate the opportunity to engage with this process and recognize the issues that are challenging El Paso County (the County) in the Jones Park area west of Colorado Springs and causing resource concerns associated with all forms of recreation currently ongoing in Jones Park and the adjoining areas. The TPA is committed to helping the County find reasonable solutions to provide high quality recreational opportunities for multiple-use and especially motorcycle recreation in the Jones Park area.

The TPA along with our local partner, Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association (CMTRA) were both stakeholders in the original Bear Creek Roundtable and worked cooperatively with the USFS, Pikes Peak Ranger District, the City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities to find cooperative solutions to protect the Bear Creek Watershed, Jones Park and the Greenback Cutthroat trout in Bear Creek. The issues the County is now facing since taking ownership of Jones Park are not new to us and we have been supporting reasonable solutions for decades. It is also noteworthy that both the TPA and CMTRA have both been instrumental in securing grant funds from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Off-Highway Vehicle grant fund for multiple-use trail work both in the Bear Creek Watershed and Jones Park. The amount of these grant funds is not insignificant and has provided substantial resources to protecting the trout along with maintaining and building sustainable, multiple-use trails in the area.

The TPA along with our partners have several concerns about this Master Plan draft and the proposals that the County is currently proposing for Jones Park. Our concerns have been based upon documents prepared by/for the County and posted to the County website, titled Jones Park Master Plan – Draft, April 2024.

1. General Comments: 

1. Despite engaging with the public for input to the Jones Park Master Plan draft, the County is choosing to disregard the need and desire to provide for additional trail based recreational opportunities in the Jones Park area within an identifiable timeframe.
2. The Public Community Survey results clearly show and demonstrate that the Multiple-use trail recreational community, namely the motorcycle community (40%- 45% of responses) was the predominate respondent to the survey and very engaged in the public planning process to provide enhanced, multiple-use trail based recreational opportunities within Jones Yet the County has disregarded the desire and need for enhanced trail opportunities (e.g. looped routes, new trails, etc.) in the Master Plan draft and not included even as a long-term goal a pathway to meet this specific need identified by a very large number of both motorized and non-motorized respondents (58% of responses). The Master Plan draft states on page 2-7: “Finally, the survey results show a majority of respondents desire an expansion of the trail network in Jones Park.” However, the Master Plan does not speak to or provide a viable route forward that credibly enables the vision of future trails to be realized.
3. In Section 5 of the Master Plan draft, we find it difficult to clearly and succinctly identify what specific and tangible recommendations the County is proposing within this portion of the This section would benefit from the inclusion of comprehensive descriptions for all of the recommendations for improvements and developments in Jones Park. Perhaps this section has been mislabeled and should simply be titled as Interpretative and Education Opportunities rather than Master Plan Recommendations.
4. In Section 9 Implementation Priorities, the “Short Term” and “Medium Term” Recommendations have been identified, but what is lacking are “Long Term” priorities or any sort of implementation timeframe or schedule.
5. The TPA and our partners must spotlight the inequity and unbalanced amount of diverse singletrack opportunities available to motorized users/motorcycles vs non- motorized users in the Colorado Springs area. This inequity and lack of opportunity can be addressed by the County and specifically, Jones Park provides an excellent opportunity for the County, along with their partners at the USFS and City of Colorado Springs, to collaborate with the motorized community, the TPA and our partners and begin to correct this unbalanced availability of an underserved and unique recreational opportunity.
6. The design and construction of diverse, sustainable multiple-use trails is not unique, difficult, or unprecedented within the Pikes Peak New trails or trail connections to form loops that are indeed sustainable, that reduce erosion and control sediment can be achieved within the Jones Park area and should not be overlooked or omitted from the Jones Park Master Plan. The TPA along with our partners is willing to offer our expertise in trail design and provide the County with a copy of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council’s Great Trails Guidebook and the separate Great Trails Field Guide upon request.
7. We generally support the proposed Trail Rating System for Jones Park as described in Section For this to be successful we feel it will be imperative that the trail network provides a spectrum of diverse trails that both meet user expectations and provide opportunities for multiple levels of user ability. If the preponderance of key trail sections remain “Difficult” (e.g. numerous portions of Trail 667, Captain Jack’s Trail) without alternatives for less skilled users (e.g., beginners and intermediate users) the area will continue to be challenged by rouge trail building, braided trails and off trail use.
8. We support and endorse the comments prepared by our partners at CMTRA that will be submitted.

2. Conclusion

The TPA, COHVCO and our partners would like to thank El Paso County Parks for reviewing and considering our comments and suggestions. However, we feel that our input and that of our constituents to the Jones Park Master Plan draft has largely gone ignored and disregarded. The Master Plan lacks any sort of clear path forward to realize the need and desire for additional sustainable trails in Jones Park. We feel the County has put forth little effort to develop or seek solutions to provide the much needed and unambiguously stated desire (by multiple user groups) to enhance and improve the trail based recreational opportunities within Jones Park. Together we look forward to continuing to work with and partnering with the County to develop a reasonable and achievable plan for additional trail opportunities in the Jones Park area. We look forward to a revised Plan that provides recreational opportunities for off-highway motorcycles, enhances the recreational experiences of motorcyclists and other users, sustains the health and conservation of Jones Park, protects the Greenback Cutthroat trout and most importantly provides opportunities within Jones Park that simply to do not exist today or are clearly underserved.

Federal Highways Administration
Via Portal @ http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket: DOT-OST-2023-0037 & DOT-OST- 2023-0040

RE: Notice of Proposed Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs, Small Grants, and Minor Components, Docket # DOT-OST- 2023-0037 & DOT-OST-2023-0040

Dear Sirs:

Please accept these comments as a further supplement to the comments submitted by the Organizations regarding the original proposal, the 2023 expanded request for information on waivers and the relationship of the waivers to the Recreational Trails Program. (“RTP”). For the purposes of these comments, we are referring to the current request for information as “the 2024 Proposal” in order to clarify which step of the multiple year effort we are addressing.  The Organizations have not resubmitted the highly detailed information provided in our previous concerns simply to avoid repetition of information. While this information is not resubmitted, those issues and factors remain a concern for our interests should there were revisions that could impact the de minimis waiver process outlined in the 2023 determination that was previously recognized. It is the Organizations understanding that the 2024 request for information is addressing the general waiver for manufactured products that was issued in 1983 by FHWA and its relationship to the most recent revisions to the BABA provisions for all agencies from the Infrastructure Act. We hope this proposal brings clarity to the entire process as since the 2023 determination, it has been our experience that there is a lot of confusion and conflict around the administration of the RTP program as a result of the multiple revisions of regulations that has recently occurred.

We are providing this input in the hope of resolving conflicts and building an administrative process that is efficient and effective in achieving goals of specific programs across FHWA and large-scale compliance with BABA requirements and other requirements, such as minimum acquisition thresholds.  We have also had the opportunity to meet with FHWA representatives on this issue and welcomed the candor of these discussions.  We hope these meetings fostered understanding of our concerns and issues as our concerns are far from the normal concern that FHWA encounters in the administration of their programs and efforts. It is our understanding that the current request for information is specifically seeking input around the withdrawal of the general waiver that was issued by FHWA in 1983 in response to previous BABA requirements for manufactured projects. We do not believe that the de minimis waivers previously provided for in the BABA compliance process are at issue and may be entirely outside the scope of the current request for input.

1. De minimis waivers process must remain for all materials and grant programs.

During our preliminary review of the Current Request, concerns around possible impacts to small projects waiver that were previously authorized was a major concern.  We were thrilled that both documents clearly stated that the de minimis waivers would be carried through permanently.  We mention this preliminary review as many of the administrators we have reached out to are in varying degrees of alignment with the conclusions in the most recent versions of the Proposals.  Some states have taken a very narrow approach to defining the temporary nature of the 2023 waivers, while other states have applied a very broad definition of the temporary nature of the waivers. This has created conflicts and confusion in the administration of programs we are involved with, and we hope these conflicts are resolved with the 2024 Proposal. While we are aware our programs are a tiny portion of programs FHWA administers we hope this information provides clarity and information to FHWA administrators that can supplement input from other parties and allow for the creation of the effective complaint programs.

As we have previously discussed in greater detail, the expansion of the BABA provisions without a process to avoid overly burdensome regulations on the small projects would simply force the programs we operate under to cease to function. Expansion of BAB provisions without de minimis waivers would be exceptionally bad for these hugely successful small projects our Organizations consistently undertake for public benefit.  Our initial concerns were removed when the portions of the 2024 Proposal addressing small projects was reviewed. The Organizations vigorously support the outline of the relationship between de minimis waivers and removal of generally applicable waivers for manufactured products outlined on pg. 17797 of the Proposal. This portion of the Current Request was helpful in creating an understanding of what is and what is not within the scope of the current effort.  The Organizations support the rational and concerns outlined in this summary as without the de minimis waiver, the impacts to small projects could be overwhelming. Basically, these projects would cease to exist. While these waivers may be a small concern in terms of the rulemaking, this waiver process is critical to the success of many programs that fund small projects.  While we are most directly concerned with RTP, we are also aware that there are many other FHWA that would significantly benefit from these waivers as well. The Organizations support for the de minimis waivers extends to those other programs as well, even if our input focuses on the RTP program most consistently.

2. Highly detailed process that simply does not align well with small projects and more particularly RTP program.

With regard to the 2024 Proposal, the Organizations are impressed by the detailed history of the many intricacies and complexities and general evolution of these discussions on BABA type provisions that have spanned decades. A significant portion of the 2024 Proposal appears to be addressing the generalized waiver for manufactured goods issued by FHWA in 1983. While this information is impressive, the fact that the process of proving BABA compliance is HIGHLY complex and often driven by analysis of individual pieces of equipment or materials in concerning. It is for this reason we are voicing our support for the continued application of the minimum acquisition thresholds in the administration of the grant process by FHWA. The de minimis process is simple and will streamline the implementation of any program as applicants and administrators will be able to understand the program and the project specific waiver easily.  This is a significant difference from the highly complex and almost transactionally driven process that has been applied previously. This efficiency should not be overlooked as again we are seeing confusion among administrators in how to apply the 2023 waivers for small projects. Administration should be consistent across state boundaries to allow for the effective administration of the basic tenants of the programs.

3. Barriers to BABA and tracking materials have diminished but still exist.

As the Current Request outlines in great detail the 1983 BABA waiver was issued based on the inability of manufacturers of equipment to effectively track the origin of materials that they are using in order to prove BABA compliance.[1]  The Organizations would agree that this process has improved since 1983 but it has been our experience that this process remains a major barrier for smaller projects  and smaller manufacturers of the highly specialized equipment and resources that are funded with RTP grants. These simply are not huge multinational companies building these pieces of equipment but rather small companies who have developed equipment to address challenges they have faced in trail maintenance. Often production of these highly specialized pieces of equipment may only be 5-10 units per year.  Materials are often simply sourced from general retailers in small amounts and those general retailers are unable to provide any sourcing documentation even if the materials were produced a few miles down the road.

The inability to document the source of products as BABA complaint is significant even when manufacturers are not involved. As we previously identified in greater detail, many of our projects are not buying materials but rather using naturally available materials for the project and are frequently using trees and materials on site to complete trail projects. Bringing in outside resources simply is not possible or cost effective due to the remote nature of the work being performed.   We simply are not able to envision a process where BABA certification could be achieved within these project parameters.  This is again a major difference from the traditional FHWA project that warrants discussion and continued application of the de minimis waivers.

Even when our projects include the acquisition of more commonly available equipment, manufacturers are unable to certify that a single unit is built with BABA compliant materials. As an example, Kawasaki has built their OHVs in Nebraska since the early 1970’s and Polaris has traditionally been built in Minnesota.  Even with clearly identified BABA manufacturers we are unable to obtain BABA certification for these units, as we simply do not buy large numbers of these units. This is a barrier to the goals of any project being achieved in isolation.  This impacts of this issue have been greatly compounded over the last several years, as there have been significant issues with the supply chain to dealers generally. These supply chain issues have caused us to try to obtain equipment or materials that were simply available. The incentive for dealers to provide any additional documentation was weakened greatly as there was one unit that could be sold literally dozens of times without any additional paperwork.  Our volunteers struggled to find any unit to fill their needs, and this was made more difficult given the additional complexities of funding that have been encountered. While this issue appears to have been resolved generally, there is no guarantee this issue will not return at some point in the future. Again, this warrants the continued use of the De Minimis waiver in the manner previously allowed.

4. De Minimis waivers are not generally applicable waivers.

The Organizations do feel compelled to address one concern that was raised in the current request for information, mainly the preference against general applicability waivers that has been specified in the most recent round of BABA requirements.[2] This is generally based on the provisions provided in §70914(d) of the Infrastructure Act.   The Organizations would vigorously assert that the de minimis waivers are not a general waiver but rather a highly specialized waiver process that is based on specific factors and addressing specific issues that result from the management of small projects. The de minimis waiver is also statutorily mandated under the NDAA and repeatedly reaffirmed and updated by Congress.  There are extensive regulations regarding the applicability of the factors generally found in 2 CFR part 200.  The applicability of this de minimis waiver has been the topic of almost constant updates from the Office of Management and Budget. The updated policy manual from OMB for agency staff is 16 pages in length. This level of analysis and guidance is simply not required for a generally applicable waiver. The Organizations would again reaffirm the need for a simple and streamlined process for the administration of these small grants, as minimization of the administrative burden for these small projects can be a critical component of these projects’ success.  If there is too much burden our volunteers simply will not pursue the grants. That would be a significant loss for the public interest these small programs have been highly successful in addressing.

5. Conclusion

It is the Organizations understanding that the 2024 request for information is addressing the general waiver for manufactured products that was issued in 1983 by FHWA and its relationship to the most recent revisions to the BABA provisions for all agencies from the Infrastructure Act. We hope this proposal brings clarity to the entire process as since the 2023 determination, it has been our experience that there is a lot of confusion and conflict around the administration of the RTP program as a result of the multiple revisions of regulations that has recently occurred.

We are providing this input in the hope of resolving conflicts and building an administrative process that is efficient and effective in achieving goals of specific programs across FHWA and large-scale compliance with BABA requirements and other requirements, such as minimum acquisition thresholds.  We have also had the opportunity to meet with FHWA representatives on this issue and welcomed the candor of these discussions.  We hope these meetings fostered understanding of our concerns and issues as our concerns are far from the normal concern that FHWA encounters in the administration of their programs and efforts. It is our understanding that the current request for information is specifically seeking input around the withdrawal of the general waiver that was issued by FHWA in 1983 in response to previous BABA requirements for manufactured projects. We do not believe that the de minimis waivers previously provided for in the BABA compliance process are at issue and may be entirely outside the scope of the current request for input. The Organizations are also open to discussion on possible contingencies or guardrails to narrow the scope of any waiver, but we believe a waiver is necessary to streamline our acquisitions and efforts.  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.
Executive Director CSA
Authorized Representative COHVCO

Fred Wiley
President & CEO
ORBA

Steve Egbert
Chair
United 4 Wheel Drive Association

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director
Nevada Offroad Association

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC
Authorized Representative, ISSA

Edward Calhoun
President
Colorado Snowmobile Association

Michele Stevens
President
Alaska Snowmachine Association

Nick Haris
Government Relations
American Motorcyclist Association

[1] See, Current Request at pg. 17796.

[2] See, Current Request at pg. 17790.