COHVCO 2024 End of Session Report

There were 710 bills introduced this session, larger than the average of about 550. Many environmental; clean air and clean water bills were run. Overall, most negative legislation was stopped or amended.

FYI Postponed Indefinitely is the term used when a bill dies.

Jerry Abboud

Priority Legislation:

SB24-056 – (Hinrichsen, Will/Snyder, Weinberg) – Out-of-State Snowmobile Permit & Search Rescue Fee

The bill expands the snowmobile registration exemption to include all snowmobiles use on private property, regardless of whether the snowmobile is being used commercially.

The bill requires an owner or operator of an out-of-state snowmobile to obtain a permit when recreating on public land. Snowmobiles exempt from the permit include those owned by governments, operating in an authorized organized event, or operating for nonrecreational purposes. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in the Department of Natural Resources must begin issuing the permits by January 1, 2025, and establish the fee for a permit, which will be deposited into the snowmobile recreation fund. Permits are valid from April 1 of the current permit year through March 31. The fine for not displaying an out-of-state permit is $100. Snowmobile program in dire need of additional funds for groomers and grooming

The bill also adds the backcountry search and rescue fee to out-of-state snowmobile and off-highway use permits.

• Position: Support and amend for needed corrections for establishing fees by Parks and Wildlife Commission
• Outcome: Governor signed on April 11, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-081 – (Cutter/Kipp, Rutinel) – Perfluoroalkyl & Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals

The bill updates the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAs) Chemicals Consumer Protection Act and other requirements enacted by House Bill 22-1345. Current law establishes a phase-out timeline for the sale of products that include added PFAS. The bill moves some phase-out deadlines forward and adds additional products to the phase-out, including certain outdoor wear, cookware, and artificial turf.

Background. PFAS chemicals are synthetic chemicals that were developed to coat products to make them resistant to heat, water, and oil. They are prevalent in a variety of products including nonstick cookware, water-repellant clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, and firefighting foams. PFAS break down very slowly in the environment, and current scientific research suggests that exposure may lead to adverse health outcomes. More information about PFAs can be on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website.

• Position: Amend. Motorcycle Industry Council claimes most OEMs could not meet the deadlines to remove all PFAs in product. PDAC amended out powersports vehicles and motorcycles. Unable to sell such product after 2032 in CO without the amendment.
• Outcome: Signed by Governor May 1, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect upon signature of the Governor, or upon becoming law without his signature.

SB24-079 – (Hinrichsen, Smallwood/Mabrey, Weinberg) – Motorcycle Lane Filtering & Passing

The bill authorizes a two-wheeled motorcycle to pass another vehicle in the same lane if:

• the overtaken vehicle is stopped and the traffic in the adjacent lane to be split is also stopped;
• lanes are wide enough for the motorcycle to pass safely;
• the motorcycle is driving 15 miles per hour or less; and
• conditions allow the motorcycle to pass safely.

The bill prohibits a motorcycle from overtaking or passing a vehicle:

• on the right shoulder;
• to the right of a vehicle on the farthest right-hand lane if the highway is not limited access; or
• in a lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.

These provisions repeal on September 1, 2027. By January 1, 2027, the Department of Transportation must issue a report to the General Assembly on motorcycle collisions before and after the bill’s implementation date.

• Position: Support and make corrective amendments for the safety of motorcyclists.
• Outcome: Governor signed April 4, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

HB24-1117 – (McCormick, Soper/Marchman) – Invertebrates & Rare Plants Parks & Wildlife Commission

The bill adds rare plants and invertebrates to the species that can be studied and conserved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) under the “Nongame, Endangered, or Threatened Species Conservation Act,” which is renamed to be the “Nongame, Endangered, or Threatened Wildlife and Rare Plant Conservation Act.” The bill allows for CPW to conduct investigations and surveys of rare plants and invertebrates to determine any necessary conservation and management measures, and to undertake programs designed to conserve, protect, and perpetuate rare plants and invertebrates. The bill requires that the General Assembly appropriate sufficient funding either from the General Fund or the Wildlife Cash Fund (excluding revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses) for the implementation of the bill. The bill also adds rare plants to the management programs that can be funded with the Species Conservation Trust Fund. The DNR must present on CPW’s rare plant and invertebrate investigations at its annual SMART Act hearing beginning January 2026.

• Position: Opposed but supported amendments to change how studies were conducted. Still wanted to kill, but Dem majority easily passed. Governor’s agenda.
• Outcome: Signed by Governor May 17, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

HB24-1257 – (Catlin, McLachlan/Will) – Sunset Natural Areas Council

Under current law, the Natural Areas Council in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) repeals on September 1, 2024. The bill continues the council until September 1, 2034.

• Position: Monitor: Bill continues status quo. Again this is useless, but Governor’s baby.
• Outcome: Governor signed April 19, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-026 – (Roberts, Will/McLachlin, Catlin) – Agriculture & Natural Resources Public Engagement Requirement

The bill requires the Governor-appointed members of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Colorado Agricultural Commission to participate in two public meetings each year. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture (CDA) must track and report the meetings of board members and commissioners, and reimburse members for reasonable costs to conduct public meetings.

• Position: Monitor: At least provides a forum for motorized recreation with a Parks and Wildlife Board member.
• Outcome: Governor Signed May 1, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect January 1, 2025, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-037 – (Simpson, Bridges/Lynch, McCormick) – Study Green Infrastructure for Water Quality

The bill requires that the University of Colorado and Colorado State University collaborate with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to study the feasibility of substituting green infrastructure, a planned and managed network of natural green spaces, for traditional centralized wastewater and drinking water treatment mechanisms. The study must determine if green infrastructure:

• is feasible as an alternative compliance mechanism for water providers that can be aligned with other state and local interests, including wildfire mitigation;
• attracts new sources of environmental-focused funding for water quality compliance and for water infrastructure projects; and
• creates cost savings for the CDPHE and local water providers.

The feasibility study must begin by October 1, 2024. The universities and CDPHE must complete the study by July 1, 2025, and report findings to the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee. Following the study, and with approval of CDPHE, the universities may establish up to three pilot projects to demonstrate the use of green infrastructure as an alternative compliance program supported with environmental-focused funding.

• Position: Monitor Impacts unknowable. Designed to allow small comm unites that cannot afford large wastewater treatment plants to use alternatives for purification.
• Outcome: Governor signed May 27th, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-058 – (Baisley, Roberts/Titone, Bird) –Landowner Liability Recreational Use Warning Signs

Under current law, the Colorado Recreational Use Statutes (CRUS) serves to limit landowners’ liability arising from the recreational use of their land. However, the CRUS does not absolve landowners of liability in cases where death or injury results from their willful or malicious failure to warn against known hazardous conditions. The bill introduces provisions to ensure that a landowner is not deemed to have willfully or maliciously failed to warn of dangerous conditions, provided the following conditions are met:

• a warning sign must be prominently displayed at the primary access point;
• the landowner is required to maintain evidence of each warning sign; and
• any dangerous conditions leading to injury or death must be described on the sign.

Moreover, the bill mandates that individuals accessing the land for recreational purposes must adhere to designated trails, routes, areas, or roadways; failure to do so may result in trespassing charges. The bill also specifies that the CRUS does not curtail a landowner’s authority to impose restrictions or prohibitions on the recreational use of their land, including setting times when the land is unavailable for use or seasonal closures.

• Position: Monitor. Better than current landowner liability, but the landowner must install signs on access routes showing potential dangers. If statute and signing followed, landowner pretty much has absolute immunity from liability. The signs create problems of being constantly maintained. May not have much impact unless the landowner has a means of keeping signs up at all times.
• Outcome: Governor signed on March 15, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-065 – (Hansen, Fields/Froelich, Ortiz) – Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving

The bill modifies laws and updates penalties related to the use of a mobile electronic device while driving.

Prohibition on use of mobile electronic devices while driving. Current law prohibits individuals under 18 years of age (minors) from using a wireless telephone while driving, and prohibits adults from using a wireless telephone for the purpose of text messaging or engaging in data entry while driving. The bill repeals and reenacts this section of law to prohibit everyone from using a mobile electronic device while driving, with exceptions for hands-free accessories, handheld radios, contacting a public safety entity, emergencies, and certain job requirements. Law enforcement may not stop or cite an individual for a violation of this prohibition unless they see an individual actively using a mobile electronic device while driving and the driver was in a designated zone or if the individual committed certain traffic offenses.

Penalties. The bill also updates penalties. Under current law, minors using a wireless telephone while driving commit a class A traffic infraction, subject to 1 license suspension point and a $50 penalty for the first violation and a $100 penalty for subsequent violations. Adults using a wireless telephone for texting or data entry commit a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, subject to 4 license suspension points and a $300 penalty. Under the bill, the offense is classified as a class A traffic infraction for everyone, and the penalties are:

• for a first offense, $75 fine and 2 license suspension points;
• for a second offense within 24 months, $150 fine and 3 license suspension points; and,
• for a third/subsequent offense within 24 months, $250 fine and 4 license suspension points.

A first-time violation will be dismissed if the individual produces a hands-free accessory or proof of purchase of a hands-free accessory, and affirms under penalty of perjury that the individual has not previously had a mobile electronic device charge dismissed.

The bill does not authorize the seizure and forfeiture of a mobile electronic device.   The bill also repeals two existing class 1 misdemeanor traffic offenses for adult texting results in injury or death to another.

Awareness campaign. By October 1, 2024, the bill requires the executive director of the Department of Transportation (CDOT), in consultation with the Colorado State Patrol (CSP), to create a culturally and linguistically competent campaign to raise awareness of the bill requirements and the dangers of using mobile electronic devices when driving. TLRC reporting. By May 15, 2026, and each year thereafter, the CSP and each local law enforcement agency that employs peace offices must submit certain information to the Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC) on each citation issued as a result of the bill, including demographic information, action taken by the officer, and whether the individual was searched. During the 2029 legislative interim, the TLRC must make a recommendation regarding whether to continue the prohibition on mobile electronic devices while driving.

• Position: Monitor ( improves safety on all streets and roads)
• Outcome: Sent to Governor May 17, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

SB24-095 – (Kirkmeyer, Rodriguez/Bacon, Evansl) – Air Quality Ozone Levels

The bill addresses high ozone levels in the Front Range through a variety of mechanisms, as described below.   High-Emitter Vehicle Program—vouchers. The bill creates the High-Emitter Vehicle Program, operated by the Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise, to provide incentives for the owner of a passenger car or light-duty truck to voluntarily repair their vehicle in order to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. Under current law, vehicles that fail an emissions test must be repaired, and if they subsequently fail another emissions test they may receive a certificate of emissions waiver. The program identifies vehicles that have received a waiver or which have been identified has having high emissions from the Clean Screen Program and provides a voucher to offset the cost of additional repairs to the vehicle’s owner if they reside in an ozone nonattainment area. The rebates are funded from revenue generated by vehicle registration fees. The program repeals if Colorado achieves attainment of federal ozone standards.

Electric lawn equipment rebate program. The bill provides $100,000 to the Regional Air Quality Commission to be used for a rebate program for the replacement of gas-powered lawn equipment with electric lawn equipment.

Clean Fleet Enterprise expansion. Under current law, the Clean Fleet Enterprise operates a grant program that includes promoting the adoption of electric vehicles in fleets. The program considers fleets primarily composed of heavy-duty vehicles, medium-duty vehicles, and refrigerated trailers. The bill adds light-duty vehicles to this list. It also directs the enterprise to prioritize awarding fleet electrification grants to local governments. Photochemical modeling. When CDPHE revises the State Implementation Plan (SIP) in 2026, it must contract a research institution for photochemical modeling and data analysis as the basis for the revision.

Motor vehicle emissions inspections. Under current law, a emissions testing facility can charge a fee of no more than $25. The bill raises the fee maximum to $35, which is adjusted annually for inflation, and directs CDPHE to renegotiate or renew existing contracts in FY 2024-25 to incorporate the new fee maximum, increase testing stations, and expand Clean Screen inspection units.   In addition, under current law, a vehicle fails its emissions test if the check engine light is illuminated. In FY 2024-25, the bill directs CDPHE to submit, following a stakeholder meeting, a SIP revision to the Environment Protection Agency for approval that would replace current onboard emissions testing based on the check engine list with an IM240 tailpipe emissions test.

• Position: Monitor (licensed motorcycles and OHVs exempt.
• Outcome: House Committee on Finance Postponed Indefinitely May 7, 2024

SB24-133 – (Baisley) – Motor Vehicle Insurance & Registration Enforcement

The bill creates the Insurance and Registration Reform Task Force to study motor vehicle Insurance (no fault) requirements and enforcement. The task force is composed of five members representing the Department of Revenue (DOR), the Colorado State Patrol, district attorneys, the motor vehicle insurance industry, and the public. The task force will hold its first meeting by September 15, 2024, will meet at least once every month, and will issue a final report to relevant legislative committees by January 3, 2025.

• Position: Opposed, No fault discussion could kill motorcycle and possibly OHV use if no fault medical insurance is a part of any no fault vehicle insurance laws. Premiums for no fault medical are astronomical)
• Outcome: Senate Committee on Transportation & Energy Postponed Indefinitely February 26, 2024

SB24-165 – (Priola, Cutter, Rutinel, Garcia) – Air Quality Improvements

The bill establishes a variety of programs and reports to reduce emissions of ozone precursors in the ozone nonattainment area.

Indirect emissions sources. The bill authorizes CDPHE to adopt rules limiting emissions in the nonattainment area from indirect sources, which are sites that generate or attract mobile sources of emissions including roads, parking facilities, and buildings. CDPHE may approve alternative compliance proposals from the owner or operator on an indirect source, and it may establish a fee on indirect sources to cover its direct and indirect costs.

Ozone season pause of preproduction activities. The bill prohibits preproduction activities of oil and gas operators in the nonattainment area during the implementation season beginning in 2025 until the area meets federal air quality standards. This restriction does not apply to preproduction activities powered from the electric grid.

Emissions reports. The bill requires oil and gas operators and CDPHE to publish annual reports about emissions from oil and gas operations beginning in 2024.

By June 30, operators must report on emissions of greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants, and ozone precursors. By October 1, CDPHE must publish an emissions inventory report that includes an evaluation of progress towards the goals in the state’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap, descriptions of initiatives taken to reduce emissions, the impacts of oil and gas operations on federal air quality standards, and opportunities for interagency coordination on air quality.

By November 30, operators in the nonattainment area must estimate their nitrogen oxide emissions for the subsequent ozone season. By February 1, CDPHE must publish a nitrogen oxides report that includes the estimates. The Energy and Carbon Management Commission in the Department of Natural Resources must create a nitrogen oxides emission budget and use information in the report to limit emissions from oil and gas operations.

Vehicle emission budgets. CDPHE must develop annual budgets for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from 2026 through 2050 for on- and off-road vehicles in the ozone nonattainment area. The budgets must decrease every five years and the department must report on the budgets in its annual SMART Act hearing.

• Position: Oppose. Would have allowed the state to close certain roads and highways from operation of any vehicle, street or OHV, during the week on the front range in cities and counties. Terrible for all retail businesses and anyone traveling to ride or drive in the mountains on or off road.
• Outcome: Senate Committee on Finance Postponed Indefinitely May 2, 2024

SB24-171 – (Will, Roberts/McLachlan, Mauro) –Restoration of Wolverines

The bill authorizes Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to reintroduce the North American wolverine in Colorado. As long as the wolverine remains on the list of threatened or endangered species under federal law, CPW may not reintroduce the wolverine until the species is designated as a nonessential experimental population by rule established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. If CPW reintroduces the wolverine, it must create rules for providing payment of fair compensation to owners of livestock for losses caused by wolverines.

The bill also authorizes $750,000 from the Species Conservation Trust Fund for implementing the reintroduction beginning in FY 2024-25, which remains available until fully expended.

• Position: Monitor ( impact to OHV recreation will be minimal, snowmobile use may run into some issues(unknow) and introduction will be the opposite of wolves, there will be full transparency)
• Outcome: Signed by Governor May 20, 2024
• Effective date: The bill takes effect 90 days following adjournment of the General Assembly sine die, assuming no referendum petition is filed.

Bureau of Land Management
Moab Field Office
82 East Dogwood
Moab, Utah 84532

RE: Dolores River Travel Management Plan (DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2024-0029-EA)

Dear Dolores TMP Project Manager:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the Dolores River (DR) Travel Management Plan (TMP) that was opened for scoping by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

1. Background of Our Organizations

In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following four groups:

Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group based out of Buena Vista Colorado whose mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy. CORE achieves this through trail adoptions, trail maintenance projects, education, stewardship, outreach, and collaborative efforts.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado.  COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, including some within the DR planning area, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands to diverse multiple-use recreation opportunities.

2. Introduction

The DR planning area is very important for motorized trail riding and driving. Although it has less use than the Labyrinth Rims area, DR includes popular routes such as Top of The World and Kokopelli’s Trail, and the planning area provides a more backcountry experience on primitive routes with great views from both sides of the Dolores River. It will be important to plan thoroughly, including a complete inventory of routes and analysis of their relevant and associated socio-economic value, in order to sustain diverse recreational opportunities.

3. Consider the context of public lands surrounding the planning area.

The forthcoming Environmental Assessment (EA) should consider at the landscape level the many opportunities for solitude and non-motorized recreation that already exist throughout the Moab Field Office planning area, before considering whether any such additional areas should be designated within the DR planning area at the expense of existing motorized roads and trails already there. Immediately north of the planning area is the Black Canyon Wilderness and Westwater Canyon WSA as well as being the Westwater Canyon River Use and Hiking Area. Immediately west of the planning area is another non-motorized focus area, the Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock Hiking and Climbing Area.

4. The DR TMP planning process should begin with a complete inventory of all existing routes.

The 2017 court settlement agreement that directs the BLM to review its DR TMP also states:

Public scoping. At the initiation of the travel planning scoping period for a new TMP, BLM will make available to the public and stakeholders maps of all BLM-inventoried routes being considered for designation under 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1. Such route inventory maps will include spur routes leading to Utah State Institutional Trust lands, facilities, campsites, and other points of interest, which may include overlooks and natural and historic features.

43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 addresses the designation process and places no limits on the inventory process, so the 2017 settlement clearly directs the BLM’s scoping to provide maps of all BLM-inventoried routes. Obviously BLM-inventoried routes includes all routes in the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS for the Moab Field Office RMP and TMP. However it should also include routes that were missed at that time, as the BLM didn’t do its own thorough route inventory, and instead relied on Grand County’s inventory that was funded by the State of Utah. Generally Grand County did a good job, but the county chose to exclude many routes, including motorized singletrack or ATV trails and wash bottoms with no evidence of mechanized construction. Further, particularly on the east side of the Dolores River that’s inaccessible from Moab for most of the year, Grand County simply missed routes despite that they’re full-size vehicle routes outside of wash bottoms. Some of the missed routes may not be used or not have an obvious purpose and need, such as some of the many seismic lines on Dolores Point. However other missed routes absolutely are used, provide great value, are viable to be managed sustainably, and in any case deserve to be acknowledged and analyzed by the forthcoming EA. Sound decisions depend on a thorough appraisal of the current conditions, which is a tenant of NEPA, and a complete route inventory is required by the 2017 settlement.

5. Examples of missing routes

Although it is not the Organizations’ responsibility to provide a complete route inventory, we’ll provide a couple examples of routes missing from your scoping inventory map that were in the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS, and a couple examples of routes missing from your scoping inventory map that were also missing from the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS. The following examples are listed from south to north, with UTM coordinates in NAD 83 of their starting and ending points, and their locations between the ends clearly visible on satellite images:

A. Southwest of Lumsden Canyon
starting point 668239.437, 4278359.787
ending point 668870.302, 4278376.770

This primitive road is missing from the scoping inventory map, but was in the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS. The entire route receives periodic use, is designated open for motorized use by the BLM on the Colorado side of the state line, and provides significant connectivity.

B. West Dolores Point loop
starting point 668725.521, 4281588.955
ending point 668788.136, 4282182.548

This primitive road is missing from the scoping inventory map, but was in the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS. The entire route receives periodic use, is designated open for motorized use by the BLM on the Colorado side of the state line, and provides connectivity for a large loop that’s of tremendous value as it flanks Dolores Point.

C. Southwest Scharf Mesa
starting point 657849.192, 4296575.11
ending point 656125.386, 4297459.180

This primitive road is missing from the scoping inventory map, and was missing from the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS, but has existed for many decades. The entire route receives periodic use and has significant recreational value as it flanks Scharf Mesa, providing unique glimpses of the Dolores River canyon.

D. Scharf Mesa – Buckhorn Mesa link
starting point 656854.700, 4300208.870
ending point 658327.180, 4303146.738

This primitive road is missing from the scoping inventory map, and was missing from the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS, but has existed for many decades. In fact, the route is shown as a “4WD trail” on USGS topographic maps. The entire route receives periodic use and has significant recreational value as it links Scharf Mesa and Buckhorn Mesa, providing north-south connectivity that’s rare on the north side of the Dolores River other than the graded roads.

Again, there are many other important routes missing from the scoping inventory map, but these four examples illustrate the fact that a lot more bona fide routes are missing than seismic exploration lines which were presumably deemed redundant.

6. Starting with a complete route inventory is also needed to meet the intent of revisiting the 2008 TMP decision.

The 2017 court settlement agreement states that the existing TMPs will remain in effect until the BLM issues new TMPs for the twelve Travel Management Areas (TMAs). However it does not state that the existing TMPs will become the baseline for analysis of the new TMPs. Since the 2017 settlement essentially directs the BLM to revisit twelve parts of the 2008 TMPs (i.e. the twelve TMAs), the appropriate baseline would be the one that was used to develop the 2008 TMPs in the first place, which is the No Action alternative of the 2008 FEIS. In other words, to revisit the twelve parts of the 2008 TMPs, we must consider the motorized-travel policies that existed prior to the 2008 RODs.

To truly revisit the Dolores River part of the 2008 TMP decision, the forthcoming EA should provide for one alternative that includes all the existing routes. That would amply show how much minimization the BLM has already done through the routes closed as part of the 2008 TMP decision.

Further, to truly revisit the Dolores River part of the 2008 TMP decision, the forthcoming EA should unambiguously acknowledge that most of the planning area was open to cross-country travel by motor vehicle until 2008. Even if all the existing routes were designated open, it would still occupy less than 1% of the acreage, thus any TMP will greatly reduce motorized access and any adverse impacts from the status quo prior to the 2008 decision.

7. The route inventory shouldn’t exclude routes merely because they appear to be partially “reclaimed” or difficult to follow.

The lack of on-the-ground appearance of some routes doesn’t justify excluding them from a route inventory because it doesn’t mean that:

1. The routes have received no OHV use in recent years (as some terrain is prone to quickly disguising evidence of use),
2. The routes have no current value for OHV use (as a lack of use could be due to a lack of wayfinding signs),
3. The routes have no potential value for OHV use (as the amount and types of recreational use increases), or
4. Use of the routes would cause significant adverse impacts (as some routes are essentially innocuous, especially when they receive a modicum of management like basic maintenance and user education, which can be supported through resources such as OHV groups and the State of Utah.

In fact, often the more primitive routes are quite manageable because basic measures can be taken before any major increase of use, and often they are of higher quality for OHV riding. Most OHV riders favor remote settings and trail characteristics that offer more challenge, a sense of flow, and connection with the surroundings.

8. At least one alternative must propose to open many of the currently-inventoried routes in order to provide an adequate range of alternatives.

Thorough and adequate planning depends on considering a diverse range of alternatives and, if it wouldn’t be unreasonable to designate a given route open, then it should be open in at least one of the alternatives.

9. The EA’s decision matrix should put the onus on requiring justification before closing any existing route, rather than requiring justification to keep an existing route open.

Leaving a route open would not only follow the status quo of management prior to the 2008 TMP decision, it would carry out the BLM’s mission of multiple use provided that the route can be used sustainably. Any resource-conflict concerns should consider the full array of options to mitigate those conflicts. Route closure is often not needed or even the most effective solution. Alternatives include educating visitors how and why to practice minimum-impact guidelines, trail work (e.g. marking the trail / blocking off the sides / stabilizing the tread in order to prevent erosion and discourage bypassing), and rerouting the trail to avoid sensitive sites altogether. The EA should identify these solutions and set a course to pursue them rather than unnecessarily closing a route even temporarily. Route closures tend to have their own costs in terms of public relations, noncompliance, and the displacement of negative impacts. They should be done only as a last resort after fully pursuing less-restrictive measures.

10. When developing TMP alternatives, the 2017 settlement does NOT require an alternative to close routes in lands with wilderness characteristics, only in natural areas and WSAs.

The 2017 court settlement agreement does NOT require an alternative to close routes in LWCs, only in the subset of LWCs that are “natural areas” (which is an RMP decision) as well as WSAs, as indicated by the very heading of that part of the 2017 settlement:

f. Alternative route networks within WSAs and Natural Areas.

For routes or portions thereof that are located on public land within wilderness study areas (“WSAs”) and Natural Areas, BLM will analyze in the NEPA document at least one alternative route network that would enhance BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics by designating the routes or the relevant portions thereof as closed to ORV use, unless ORV use of the route is authorized by an existing right-of-way or other BLM authorization or by law. To the extent ORV use of a route is authorized, this alternative route network will include measures limiting ORV use to enhance BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics to the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable laws, regulations, or existing right-of-way authorizations.

Therefore your forthcoming draft alternatives should not propose to close any routes outside of natural areas or WSAs for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics (WC).

11. When making the TMP final decision, impacts to wilderness characteristics should not be minimized outside of areas that the RMP directs to manage for wilderness characteristics.

Through approving the 2008 Moab RMP, the BLM decided to manage for WC in the Beaver Creek natural area and decided not to manage for WC anywhere else in the DR planning area. Outside of the Beaver Creek natural area, the BLM should not restrict recreation for the purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, nor should it manufacture other purposes. Rather the BLM should comply with the RMP decision to not manage for WC.

12. Within the Beaver Creek natural area, the EA should recognize that impacts to WC have already been minimized.

Within natural areas such as Beaver Creek, the BLM is not required to further reduce any adverse impacts to WC, and it has already minimized such impacts through the 2008 TMP that closed many valuable routes, some of which weren’t even inventoried. For example, motorcyclists used to ride down Beaver Creek itself, and the 2008 TMP eliminated this exceptional recreation opportunity among others. Any routes within natural areas left open by the 2008 TMP were determined not to impair WC as they were deemed “ways” that are maintained without mechanized equipment. Such routes tend to be particularly valuable for motorized trail enthusiasts due to their more primitive character, and they are worthy of conservation in their own right.

13. The EA should be scoped to consider the important socio-economic resource value of motorized recreation.

Motorized recreation is without question a major component of tourism industries from Moab to Grand Junction, and OHV riders tend to spend more per day than other recreationists. The forthcoming EA must utilize best available data, such as that from the Bureau of Economic Analysis regarding outdoor recreation and that funded by Colorado Parks Wildlife regarding OHV recreation.

The EA should not repeat the Labyrinth Rims TMP’s false assumption that only 6% of visitation in the planning area is motorized trail use, for which the Labyrinth Rims TMP cited two erroneous sources. The first source is a 2007 survey that was intended to test the accuracy of a methodology that’s new to BLM lands. The methodology depends on finding recreationists during their visit to BLM lands and persuading them to take a long survey. Motorized trail use tends to be more dispersed, making those participants less likely to be reached, let alone to convince them to fill out a survey instead of continuing on their ride or drive. The second source is the Manti-La Sal National Forest draft plan, which doesn’t actually state that motorized trail use is 6% of visitation, but rather states that “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).”

14. The EA should be scoped to consider the full consequences of route closure, including a loss of carrying capacity.

The Labyrinth Rims TMP claimed that closing 317 miles of motorized routes wouldn’t harm casual or commercial use because of miles of routes are still open in that planning area, and thousands of miles are open in the Moab Field Office. However many of the remaining routes are graded roads or lack the quality, connectivity, or variety sought by almost any trail enthusiast. To the extent that good substitute routes still exist, the closure of many miles still greatly reduces the given trail system’s carrying capacity. Even if high use levels would never occur on every single route, lesser-used routes are quite valuable to a segment of motorized recreationists. The fact that some routes are spared from closure is of little consolation for the mileage lost. Closing many miles of route would be a substantial loss for the quality of life and livelihood of many motorized trail enthusiasts.

15. The EA should be scoped to consider the full consequences of route closure, including non-motorized use of motorized routes.

Motorized routes provide access for everything from picnicking to camping, hiking to biking, and photography to base jumping just to name a few. For another thing, most of the routes are not causing the degree of conflict that’s claimed by groups seeking to vastly expand wilderness designation across public lands. Spur roads to overlooks rarely bother anyone who might be hundreds of feet below them, and each overlook is separated by miles of rim that has no motorized route. Non-motorized recreationists benefit from trails, both motorized and non-motorized. More non-motorized trails can be established, in certain instances by converting an old road (which should seek state approval), but in most cases by designating a new trail. Likewise, wildlife often benefits from trails, as they streamline human activity, and the vast majority of detrimental routes were already closed by the 2008 TMP.

16. The EA should be scoped to consider the full consequences of route closure, including a likely decrease compliance and increase the burden of maintenance.

The Organizations don’t condone noncompliance, but closing many more miles of route would likely make it more prevalent. As the TMP becomes austere, frustrated recreationists would be more tempted to use the closed routes, make new routes, or simply travel cross-country. This disruption of managed use patterns would make it harder for non-motorized recreationists and wildlife to predict where motorized use will occur, thus negatively impacting these resources. Closing many more miles of route would also likely increase braiding of the remaining routes due to increased use levels leading to increased traffic density, passing between vehicles, and potential soil erosion leading to increased ledging and rutting of the trail tread. Confining a given amount of use to a much smaller network of routes is more expensive because whatever savings might result from fewer signs are quickly lost from increased tread work that’s more expensive than signs, not to mention the cost of getting people to stop using the closed routes.

17. The EA should be scoped to consider the full consequences of route closure, including a likely increase crowding and conflicts.

Closing many more miles of route would obviously increase use of the remaining routes, turning low-use routes into moderate-use routes, moderate-use routes into high-use routes, and high-use routes into exceptionally high-use routes. Perceptions of crowding would increase on routes of all these use levels, which increases the potential for conflict. Motorized recreationists may feel entitled to use the remaining routes more exclusively, and may feel animosity toward the non-motorized recreationists for the closures, which erodes goodwill. As with many other negative consequences, the conflict becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when closures are excessive, as the closures are often driven by ideology more than a focus on actually resolving issues.

18. The EA should be scoped to consider the full consequences of route closure, including a likely reduction in the stewardship capacity of motorized recreationists.

Closing many more routes would lower the morale of OHV groups partnering with the BLM, and it would hamper volunteer recruitment and retention. While most of us still want to contribute toward trail work and education projects, we now have less capacity to do so, as more of our bandwidth is absorbed by advocating against excessive closures. When it comes to some of these closures, we feel compelled to protect our investments by challenging closures, which costs a lot of time and money. Resources that OHV groups, businesses, and individual enthusiasts put toward advocacy of access can’t go to stewardship projects. Likewise the land management agency budgets have increasingly gone to legal defense instead of actually working on the land. Similarly the state could spend even more to assist the federal agencies if it weren’t so compelled to challenge them. None of these trends bode well for the actual conservation of resources in the long run.

19. The EA should be scoped to consider emerging technologies such as electric vehicles and electric bicycles.

Within the next decade, the majority of vehicle and bicycle sales may become electric as opposed to an internal-combustion engine vehicle or traditional bicycle, which would greatly reduce the sound produced by the use of motorized trails. Electric vehicles are already available commercially in the bicycle, motorcycle, ATV, UTV, and full-size markets, and electric is already the fastest-growing segment.

20. Conclusion

Rather than regarding the DR TMP as another generation of travel planning (yet with self-imposed limitations such as excluding all route additions from any consideration), the DR TMP should be regarded as a re-evaluation of the decisions made in 2008, thus accounting for and analyzing changes to the previous conditions and rules that were in place. Starting with a complete route inventory, the forthcoming EA should recognize the importance of motorized trail-based recreation and of each route in the planning area, clearly stating any resource concerns and favoring mitigation measures before closure would be deemed necessary. This process is justified given the importance of routes on both sides of the Dolores River.

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Scott Jones, Esq.
Authorized Representative
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition

Rio Grande National Forest
Att: Winter Planning Team
Submitted Via Portal only

Re: Winter Suitability/OSV Planning

Dear Planning Team Members;

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the motorized community with regard to the public comments on the proposed OSV suitability mapping that has been provided. There is a long history of winter recreation on the Forest without conflict between uses and this has to be the starting point for analysis. We are aware that recently planning efforts on the Forest has resulted in significant asserted conflict on issues, but this has not reflected the historical level of challenges facing the Forest. The motorized community has enjoyed a long partnership with the Forest and has always enjoyed proactively addressing challenges on the forest in a collaborative manner.

It has been the Organizations experience that while USFS planners have effectively managed OSV recreation for decades without resource impacts, they are also hesitant to rely on this successful management history as the basis for future planning.  We hope the information below supplements this generally accepted knowledge with a high level of scientific certainty and encourages managers to avoid large scale changes to OSV management in the hope of avoiding possible impacts to resources or a lack of scientific certainty around the commonly understood conclusions that managers have relied on for decades in OSV management.

The Organizations are aware the scale of information and scope of information provided on these issues may be much larger than expected. This response is being provided in the hope of streamlining and speeding up the planning process as much as possible. While there is a large amount of information provided on these issues, we have significantly more information on many of these issues. There are also many topics we did not provide information on as we are hoping these are comparatively minor in scope. We hope this information triggers an ongoing dialogue with the forest on issues they are encountering in the Planning process so these resources can be effectively used.  We have devoted significant resources towards avoiding overly sensational resources or information that lacks basic credibility.  In addition to this resource specific information, we have also provided information we believe is relevant to planning, such as the financial sustainability of our clubs grooming support through the CPW grooming program, which we are in the process of updating currently.  We hope these efforts and information provide an accurate picture and vision for the winter grooming efforts of our clubs, as this is the primary method all public users rely on to access the winter backcountry on the forest.

1. Who We Are.

Prior to addressing the specific concerns, the Organizations have regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 250,000 registered OHV users in Colorado seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations. The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is a largely volunteer organization whose intention is to be a viable partner, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of trail riding.  The TPA acts as an advocate of the sport and takes the necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate to trail riding a fair and equitable percentage of access to public lands. Colorado Snowmobile Association (“CSA”) was founded in 1970 to unite the more than 30,000 winter motorized recreationists across the state to enjoy their passion.  CSA has also become the voice of organized snowmobiling seeking to advance, promote and preserve the sport of snowmobiling through work with Federal and state land management agencies and local, state and federal legislators telling the truth about our sport.  CORE is an entirely volunteer nonprofit motorized action group out of Buena Vista Colorado.  Our mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy.  For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA, CORE and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations.”

2a. Our partnership with the Rio Grande NF.

Our Organizational representatives have been active participants in winter travel management decisions and planning across the western United States, including the 5 forests in California that were forced to review their winter travel decisions after the release of the 2012 Planning Rule.  As a result of the years of involvement in partnership with the USFS addressing winter travel management issues, we have developed a large database of information.  Our partnerships with the Rio Grande NF extend far beyond the recent USFS efforts addressing winter travel, as the grooming clubs on the Rio Grande NF were some of the oldest clubs in the State and were some of the first to embark on a public benefit grooming effort that they funded.

The Colorado Snowmobile Association has partnered with several local snowmobile clubs on the RGNF to provide hundreds of miles of groomed winter access to the Forest for decades for all type of uses to the public free of charge. These grooming efforts have been provided through special recreation permits issued by the USFS and have reflected the partnerships with users that the USFS is now moving towards as their management model more generally.   These local club partners include the South Fork Powder Busters, Creede Snow Country Explorers, Wolf Creek Trailblazers out of Pagosa and Lake City’s Continental Divide Snowmobile Club. The hundreds of miles of groomed winter routes on the Forest provided by these Clubs support motorized recreation, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, ice fishing, dog sledding and many other forms of recreation.  This groomed network also provides consistent and critical access for search and rescue teams, various 911 infrastructure such as radio repeaters, administrative access for efforts such as wildlife counts and private lands access.

The consistency of our efforts in providing public access for a wide range of usages stands in stark contrast to the trail maintenance provided to the public by some permitees on the Forest, who only chose to maintain their routes when it suits their own needs. We do not believe it is appropriate to discuss this group by name but we are also confident managers will not need us to clarify the group at issue. We are aware that both managers and representatives of our clubs have gotten complaints from the public who erroneously believe the USFS or our clubs are responsible for maintaining these routes,  when these routes are not maintained by either group.  When there is snow that is easier for the group to maintain, routes on the Forest are often ignored until the lower more easily accessible routes are no longer holding snow.  Too often these routes are simply treated as a private resource for that Organizations interests and any impacts from other uses is seen as something other than a reason to regroom the routes. This is a stark difference when compared to the efforts of CSA clubs and the motorized community that works consistently to provide opportunities for all and funding for the USFS to hire staff and buy equipment for all seasons.

Our recent winter partnerships with USFS  extend far beyond grooming trails.  Our efforts have included expansion  and improvement of the Tucker Ponds parking area.  CSA is also proud to partner with local interests such as Mountain Skillz, who provides a wide range of educational and guiding services, globally recognized avalanche training and serves as a hugely positive role model for all forms of recreation.  Our summer based partnerships have included funding to support good management crews on the Divide and District and also a heavy maintenance crew on the Divide RD.  CSA in partnership with the USFS and  Tylers Backcountry Awareness, our club based in Fort Collins dedicated to avalanche safety, has placed almost three dozen avalanche beacon checkpoints throughout the western United States.  These units are funded by local partners and maintained throughout the season by local snowmobile clubs. Several of these checkpoints are on the Wolf Creek Pass planning area and help remind all users of the winter backcountry to turn on their avalanche beacons and remind them that batteries in these units need to be periodically replaced.  These signs have evolved periodically but generally are represented by the following photo.

It has been an interesting experience to discuss these signs as many of the public simply do not understand how these signs were developed or who is maintaining these signs. We hope the presence of these electronic checkpoints remind all users of the critical need to check their beacon and other avalanche equipment every time they go in to the winter backcountry. We have partnered with several nonmotorized groups to provide this type of resource in other areas of the state as well.

The motorized community believes our partnership with managers is somewhat unique in the Colorado, as we attempt to work to resolve the ever evolving and changing challenges facing public lands in a proactive and effective manner.  This stands in stark contrast to many other users and interests who simply seek to create new problems and challenges on public lands that will force closures or will result in opportunities for a consistently reducing portion of the public. This difference is profound in its application as the Colorado motorized community, in partnership with CPW and the programs we have voluntarily created is seeking to address issues like how to provide additional funding to the forest for basic operations.  We are working hard to address issues like making positions more appealing for new hires, moving from a seasonally based good management crew to a permanent seasonal model of hiring, streamlining saw training, providing motorcycle certifications and trail trainings for the seasonals that the forest hires through the OHV program.

CSA is aware that many of these examples are  summer based, it is highly relevant as this same mentality is hugely present in the winter  program as often in other states the USFS is largely performing grooming of winter routes, that may be supplemented with volunteers. The Colorado model is foundationally different as the clubs own and operate the groomers operated under special use permits. Last year our member clubs provided more than 20,000 volunteer hours to support grooming on USFS lands across the State  in addition to the almost $2 million in direct funding that our voluntary registration program provides for winter grooming operations. While the CPW program provides significant funding, CSA and our clubs provide significant additional funding and resources, such as the purchase of annual liability insurance for grooming programs throughout the state.  Last year this insurance cost more than $50k to purchase for the year.  This is a cost that can be easily overlooked and is incurred before a single groomer starts or fuel is purchased to operate this equipment.

In Colorado, winter grooming is almost  entirely performed by CSA clubs which is a profound difference from most other states and one we hope is providing additional resources to the Forest to allow them to perform basic operations.  We believe this type of partnership is easily overlooked and with many new faces on the forest, may not be well known.  We are also aware of the rather grim nature of the agency operational budgets currently being faced and the even more grim outlook being faced moving forward.  We are hoping that the large amount of information we are providing in these comments will allow possible issues to be quickly addressed with high quality information and effective winter travel plan. Efficient development of an effective plan will allow limited resources to be used for active management of resources on the Forest.

2b. Our 50 year partnership with CPW.

We are providing this section of our comments to allow the planning team to understand where our partnership is currently and where we are hoping to go with the partnership over the life of the winter travel plan being developed. CSA and our member clubs have partnered with CPW for more than 50 years for the operation of the winter grooming program.  CSA and CPW recently secured passage of legislation to clarify the need for out of state residents to obtain a permit for use of a snowmobile in Colorado and that the $.25 Search and Rescue surcharge was required on the sale of all permits. [1] This legislation requires the out of state permit, made mandatory again by SB24-56, be set by the CPW commission by January 1, 2025.  We are also working with CPW to increase the snowmobile registration and permit fees within this timeline  to provide more funding to support grooming and improvement of other infrastructure such as parking lots and toilets at winter trail heads. CSA has supported moving the registration/permit fee  from the current level of $30 to a $50 annual cost.  This will bring us into alignment with most states around Colorado.  We hope that this new funding will be an important resource for the winter community moving forward and we believe the health of this partnership and new funding streams to support efforts on the RGNF that we provide to the public free of charge is an important component of the success of this planning effort.

Our partnership with CPW extends beyond the operation of the winter grooming program.  CSA has been working with CPW to develop winter educational materials on the Colorado Trail Explorer (COTREX) platform. We have worked with CPW to accurately inventory existing groomed routes and provide accurate snowfall information in various areas of the State. We are also working to make real time avalanche forecast information available on COTREX platform. We hope this information provides safety to all users. CSA is also aware that CPW administrative funds created through the snowmobile registration program also supports the Winter Skills training efforts (WISTA) that CPW has run for years.  WISTA training events allow basic education of CPW and USFS staff to obtain basic training on  winter survival, the operation of snowmobiles in a wide range of conditions and teach them how to recover snowmobiles when they become stuck.

3. Winter travel triggers

The Organizations were active participants in the development of the winter travel rule nationally and support the requirement of sufficient snow for operation of a snowmobile that the rule provides.  While we are aware that sufficient snow has questions, it is superior to other tools we reviewed.  In our opinion, hard start and stop dates are often unrelated to conditions on the ground.  This disconnect results in a double loss of opportunity for our community as any early snow cannot be ridden as the snowfall has occurred before the start date for winter travel.  This is a lost opportunity for our community, which has occurred on the planning area on many years. If there is no snow on the start date for winter travel that is applied, we still cannot ride as there is no snow.  Again, this is another lost opportunity.

Candidly, CSA believes that the dates that have been relied on for many winter travel plans are the result of other management models being poorly applied to winter travel management issues, than a reasonable resolution of issues facing winter travel. Hunting seasons are based on dates, which resulted in seasonal closures for OHV usage. OHV management guided a lot of winter travel decisions.  This process is understandable in how and why it developed but also is probably a model that really does not relate well to winter travel decisions and recreational experiences. The Organizations would also urge the office to avoid novel standards, such as use of a minimum altitude, as was attempted on several forests in California.  These efforts created more issues than they resolved.

The use of snow depth as a trigger for starting winter travel management decisions allows for more management flexibility to address local access improvements. The Organizations  support lower snow depths for the use of roads for OSV travel when compared to off trail or cross country usage. USFS roads or improved trails are hardened for the use of wheeled vehicles, meaning low pressure vehicles such as snowmobiles, pose little risk of damage to the surface of the roads.  This means there is less snow needed to protect these surfaces. These lower snow depth requirements for the use roads also provide an important opportunity for the snowmobile community.  Many riders will seek out roads with minimal amounts of snow early in the year to confirm their snowmobile is mechanically reliable and ready for the season.

Riding in conditions such as this allow our members to ensure that mice have not eaten wiring, fuel has not gone bad, drive belts have not hardened in the summer heat, miscellaneous important bolts have not worked loose in storage or spark plugs need to be changed.  These conclusions can be reached and resolved quickly under these conditions. It is a lot easier to address these issues on a road with minimal snow when compared to more remote areas that could have feet of snow later in the year. It is not out of the realm of possibility that if issues such as these are encountered under the wrong conditions, this could result in a call to search and rescue, which only taxes exceptionally limited management resources even further.  This is an important opportunity for our members who can later enjoy the rest of the riding season with comparable confidence that their equipment will function reasonably well. The need for sufficient snow in these situations is basically self-enforcing as all sleds manufactured in the last decade or more are equipped with an automatic shut off feature if the machine tried to overheat. The machine simply shuts off and you wait for it to cool if there is not enough snow.

4(a) Snow depth as a trigger for winter travel decisions.

We support the flexibility provided in the Proposal on measurement of snow depth and when usage is allowed in relation to snow depths.[2] Measurements of snow depth has proven to be one of the major challenges we have encountered in developing winter travel plans on other forests that are using this standard. The larger amounts of flexibility to address changing snow depth is vigorously supported by our Organizations.  Often the Rio Grande receives such immense depths of snowfall to make this a minor concern for most of the season but we are compelled to address this.

While the RGNF received large amounts of snow, understanding the behavior of snow under a wide range of mechanical and natural processes is important to understanding the decisions being made. Based on our experiences with winter planning on other forests throughout the region, we are aware that the behavior of snow under a wide range of conditions has proven to be a major planning issue for certain interests. These analysis seem to always start from an erroneous assumption that no one has researched the compaction and behavior of snow, both naturally and as a result of outside factors.  This simply could not be further from the truth as numerous highly credible organizations have devoted large amounts of research to snow properties and behavior including the avalanche research community, land managers, the US military and private industry.

The mechanical properties of snow and the  behavior of snow  under a wide range of natural and manmade forces has been studied by the Army Corp of Engineers since the mid 1940’s. This research was performed by their Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. (“CREEL”).[3] A large amount of this information was deemed classified and was outside the public purview, but this information recently has been declassified and available for public consumption. The development of this information appears to have been driven by many factors, which have evolved over time.  In the 1940’s through the 1980’s this information was developed for national defense purposes and focused on the ability to traverse snow effectively and the development of winter roads to supply remote outposts to defend the country from Arctic invasions through Alaska.   In the 1990’s to current, this information was developed to facilitate exploration of the Antarctic Continent and involved targeted research around landing loaded transport planes on snow runways in Antarctica. Most recently the research of snow behavior has targeted the development and operation of autonomous vehicle systems and understanding the consistency of snow from season to season.  Much of this newer research from the Army Corps of Engineers has been performed in Colorado on forests immediately adjacent to the Rio Grande NF, making the conclusions highly relevant to the Rio Grande Planning efforts.

The Organizations have also included extensive additional research around the behavior of various types of snow under a range of forces that roughly falls into  four general categories.  These four categories are snow compacted by man; 2.  Snow compacted by natural forces; 3. Uncompacted snow subjected to high pressure vehicles; and 4.  Uncompacted snow subjected to low pressure vehicles.  We hope this new information is helpful.

The Organizations have investigated the wide-ranging scientific analysis that has been previously conducted regarding the application of force to snow in both an uncompacted and compacted nature. While this process has been long and costly to undertake, this research has also been highly fruitful as it yielded a large body of work from the Army Corp of Engineers regarding activities they have been conducting in the Antarctic continent since the 1940’s.^[4] It is significant to note that while the research methodology and management standards have dramatically evolved over the life of this research, the basic conclusions have remained highly consistent over time, mainly that snow is a highly effective buffer of force. Unfortunately, snowmobiles were found early in research process to not meet the purpose and need of the project due to the inability of early snowmobiles to carry large amounts of cargo, inability to start in exceptionally low temperatures, and that sleds were generally unstable. ^[5] As a result, this research can provide a lot of general information of varying relevance but cannot directly answer the questions around winter travel of OSVs.   Researchers have also come to embrace newer snowmobiles as part of the management and operational process.

The value and credibility of much of the Army Corp work and information to the US Government cannot be overstated as much of the information was deemed to be “CLASSIFIED” when it was developed in the 1940s and 1950’s^[6] and the classification of this research continued into the 1980’s.  Clearly if there were concerns about the basic accuracy or integrity of the information such a determination would not be warranted.  Much of the research and activity on the Antarctic Continent has been the subject of similar or higher levels of conflict and scrutiny as USFS OSV planning efforts have been, again speaking to the veracity of any of the conclusions reached. It is also important to note that while this research has been occurring for more than 75 years, there has been little question or controversy around the scientific method used to reach the conclusions regarding groomed snow or the conclusions regarding the ability of groomed snow to absorb force. After being declassified, much of this information has been subjected to additional rounds of publication and review.

Prior to addressing the conclusions of this research, the Organizations believe it is critically important for USFS managers to understand the strict management guidelines in place for any activity on the Antarctica Continent and to recognize that any actions in Antarctica are managed to a “zero impacts” standard for activity.  This is far stricter when compared to the multiple use management requirements that are the management goals and objectives of the USFS.  Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty as amended^[7] (Hereinafter referred to as “The Treaty”) all actions on the Antarctic Continent are subject to the following management standard:

“The protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research essential to understanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area.”

The remainder of Article 3 of the Treaty provides a detailed process to apply the zero-impact standard to the wide range of actions occurring on the Antarctic Continent.  It is also significant to note that pursuant to Article 8 of the Treaty, all actions on the continent are fully subject to NEPA planning requirements to insure there are zero resource impacts to the Antarctic Continent. As a result, any actions that are taken on the Antarctic Continent are fully subject to NEPA requirements and are managed to a much stricter zero impacts standard than USFS efforts multiple use requirements for OSV.  Again this provides strong indications of reliability for these efforts.

In the following portions of these comments, the Organizations are not attempting to provide a complete review of the Army Corp of Engineers research, as such documentation would necessitate the use of a large capacity jump drive.  Rather the Organizations are attempting to summarize the most up to date information in particular areas or subjects. Much of the Army Corp of Engineers research efforts centered around the operation of high-pressure vehicles on snow, such as large military transport planes and transport vans as the cost-effective movement of supplies and other resources needed for Antarctic research has been a significant hurdle for researchers. Army Corps research on the ability of compacted snow to provide a suitable landing surface for a wheeled C141 transport plane provided the following conclusions:

“Present studies indicate that this type of processing is needed for only the top 25 cm of a cold, dry processed base course in order to land wheeled C141 and other similar large whether or not an additive such as sawdust is really needed for the base course. Depth processing the snow with a snow miller, in combination with water or heat injection (or dynamic compaction of the top layer), may be adequate.”^[8]

Early research centered on the use of bulldozers, road graders, wheel loaders and other large construction equipment to prepare these runways. Subsequent research performed by the Army Corp concluded that snow compacted with the utilization of snow grooming equipment, which is almost identical to the equipment currently used on the RGNF  and throughout the country for preparation of snowmobile trails, was the most cost-effective manner to prepare compacted snow.  The subsequent research by the Army Corps provided significantly greater detail regarding the levels of force being applied to the snow as part of the landing of wheeled C-130 and C-141 aircraft on the prepared snow, which are as follows:

“For a snow road or a snow runway to be feasible, a method of snow processing is needed such that the resulting snow pavement attains a strength that can support tire pressures in the range of 690kPA.  Most cargo-carrying vehicles can easily be equipped to operate with tire pressures at or below 690 kPa and the C130 Hercules tire pressures normally ranges from 550 kPa to 690 kPa.  Ideally, a snow strength that could support r1380 kPa would be desirable since that would allow the operation of essentially any conventional surface vehicle or cargo plane.”^[9]

The conclusions of this Army Corp research regarding the effectiveness of 25 cm of groomed snow to absorb the forces of landing a wheeled C130 or C141 were as follows:

“This snow maintained a strength between 3000 and 7000 kPA throughout the course of our 12-week study.  This strength is more than suitable for the support of heavy wheeled vehicles and aircraft that typically do not require more than 1,000 kPa strength.” ^[10]

There appears to have been no criticism of the Army Corps 1997 research and this unanimity of research community around these conclusions was exemplified by the fact the conclusions of this research were again the basis of further analysis and review in 2017.  It is significant to note that the conclusions of the earlier works were not questioned in any manner and there was no discussion of concerns around the original conclusions after more than 10 years of landing of high-pressure aircraft and use of high pressure wheeled vehicles on the groomed snow surface. ^[11]  It was accepted that 25 cm of snow provided that level of resource protection.

It is uncontested that OSV usage averages 5 kPa of force on the snow, even under worst case scenarios.  Given the clear conclusions decades of Army Corps of Engineers research concluding that 25 cm of groomed snow can support 300 to 1,400 times the amount of force applied by a snowmobile for prolonged periods of time, the Organizations submit the levels of snow proposed in the Proposal are more than sufficient to protect resources from much lower pressures.  Significantly lower levels of snow than those proposed would allow the landing of a C130 aircraft on the snow without resource impact.

7b. Snow compaction via natural forces occurs throughout the world and results in material density similar to asphalt.

The Organizations are also aware that developing a complete understanding of snow compaction, both from natural processes and recreational activity, has been a significant factor in allowing OSV travel on roads and trails with lower amounts of snow. There is an exceptionally well-developed body of research regarding snow compaction from natural processes, a process which is commonly identified as snow sintering or snow metamorphosis. This large body of research is most directly targeting avalanche safety but also is directly involved with issues such as large construction projects on snow such as roads or mines, the monitoring of polar ice cap activity with satellites^[12], flooding in high alpine communities and the advancements in the construction of ice breaking vessels. The Organizations assert that snow compaction is the same regardless of what natural force is compacted and the conclusions of research should be the same regardless of what continent the research is performed on.

In this portion of our comments, the Organizations are not seeking to provide a complete outline of this rapidly developing snow science body of research that has resulted from the avalanche research community generally. This general body of work has been outlined in the 2016 textbook entitled “Snow and Ice Related Hazards, Risks and Disasters” edited by Wilfried Haeberli, collectively referred to as the “Haeberli Text” in these comments.[13]   Generally, Chapters 2 through 4 of the text provide an introduction to the compelling body of work that now supports snow sintering and metamorphosis and significant data that clearly can be relied on in defense of the varying snowfall totals based on surfaces under the snow and explaining why current management has been so successful.  This edition of the Haeberli text appears to be the most complete peer reviewed body of work on this issue and represents a consolidation of an enormous number of articles from globally recognized leaders in snow science.

This global summary of snow science research starts with the recognition that:

“Once deposited on the Earth’s surface, snow and fin density increases through metamorphism, eventually approaching the density of ice.  Metamorphism is a combination of both physical and thermal properties of snow.” ^[14]

Snow scientists recognize that sintering alters snow significantly, which is summarized as follows:

“New snow generally has the lowest densities with about 100 kg/m -3 and densities increase with aging snowpack due to metamorphism to about 350-400 kg/m -3 for dry old snow and up to 500 kg/m -3 for wet old snow.” ^[15]

Snow compaction is important  to developed ski areas for avalanche management and general operations.  These ski area efforts found that fallen/existing snow is subjected to additional snow load on top of the compacted snow densities continue to increase. Why is the ongoing sintering or metamorphosis process a general management issue for the downhill ski community?  The industry is trying to resolve the problem of skiers catching an edge on a ski run, which at best provides for a lower quality skiing experience for users and can also result in serious injury or death to skiers if an edge is caught at the wrong time or locations or occurs under competition conditions.

The conclusions of this long-term snow compaction research for developed ski areas are outlined as follows:

“Fresh fallen snow has a low density, <100 kg/m3. The snow is a mixture of solid snow crystals, liquid water and gaseous air. Over time it is compacted by wind. Snow crystals are sintered by daily temperature variations. The snow loses most of its gaseous and liquid content and, because of this, snow densities rise to 100–500 kg/m3. After a long time, snow converts to firn (500–800 kg/m3) and, under the load of newer snow, it even transforms to ice (917 kgm3).”^[16]

Given that best available science clearly concludes that the impacts of natural processes, such as wind, sun and gravity, can compact snow to a density of 5 to 9 times what the density of uncompacted snow, the Organizations submit this type of understanding is helpful in understanding snow compaction. Understanding snow compaction is important to the management of OSVS under the wide range of natural conditions seen on the RGNF.

Developing a general understanding of snow behavior is significant for other reasons as well.  The scientific conclusions that the natural compaction of fallen snow results in snow density levels of 500-917 kg/m3. In isolation, this conclusion simply means nothing.  When this conclusion is compared to more commonly understood materials, the conclusion is highly relevant.  These conclusions become more compelling when this density is compared to many other common road and construction materials as many land managers are far more familiar with the highly rigid behavior of these materials when forces are applied to them.  By comparison, the average weight and density of common building materials for roads and skyscrapers hundreds of stories tall is as follows:

The relationship of the density of compacted snow and asphalt cannot be overlooked as this comparison adds good context to the levels of protection from possible OSV impacts to resources that is provided by compacting snow. This information also provides scientific context and defensibility to explain why current management is effective in protecting resources. While land managers are very familiar with the performance of asphalt roads in avoiding contact with resources that might be under that roadway, often their experiences with snow are very limited. Given that the average road appears to receive 2-3 inches of asphalt with 4-6 inches of base under it to support motor vehicle traffic that commonly approaches 80,000 lbs. for a commercial motor vehicle on the asphalt for decades, even a minimal amount of compacted snow is sufficient to provide resource protection at levels very similar to asphalt when forces of an OSV are applied.

The relationship between the weight of compacted snow and asphalt cannot be overlooked in determining what is sufficient snow and what levels of resource protection are provided by snow from the time it falls to the times when it is fully compacted. Given that a snowmobile only applies .5 lbs. per inch on the snow or 5 kPa, while natural processes result in pressures many hundreds of times that of an OSV clearly the significant factors identified above must be addressed in any research addressing additional impacts to compacted snow from OSV travel. Additionally, the similarity in weight of snow and asphalt gives rise to another question, mainly if resources can survive the hundreds of Kg of pressure on them that can result from a meter of snow being on them, why would the .5psi of pressure from an OSV be a concern? Often these resources are buried under several meters of compacted snow for extended periods of time and emerge from the burial in the spring without issue. Several meters of compacted snow can easily result in sustained pressures on any resource of tons of force for many months drawing concerns about snow compaction into further question.

While not as developed to the research and analysis levels referenced above, the Organizations believe the position of the downhill ski industry regarding the impacts of snow sintering or metamorphosis is also very important to this discussion as the downhill ski industry has developed extensive technologies to improve mechanical grooming of downhill ski runs to address the continued impacts of sintering after the initial grooming of ski runs.^[19] These technologies are relevant to this discussion as downhill ski grooming and snowmobile trail grooming occur with the same pieces of equipment and there is no question that the sintering process continues after the grooming has completed. Asserting that sintering does not continue after grooming simply is not an option in the skiing or avalanche community, and the Organizations believe this compaction is equally relevant in the OSV world as a result of natural processes snow compacts into stronger and stronger layers and into layers that are far more compacted that could ever result from OSV traveling over the snow. The Organizations believe this compaction provides continued protection for resources even after the depth of snow from a storm has ended and has been compacted.

4b.  Snow sintering/natural snow compaction has already been recognized as a natural process in best available science by the USFS.

As discussed above, there is a huge body of work now available that clearly identifies the impacts of natural processes such as gravitational, thermal and physical forces on snow over time and conclude that these factors can significantly improve the ability of the snow buffer between recreation and any resource to function.  This type of protection is significant in allowing OSV usage on roads and trails with lower amounts of snow that is often the result of compaction. The Organizations would also note that the failure to address the natural forces resulting in snow compaction directly conflicts with best available science identified by land managers. The USFS, USFWS and BLM experts have concluded this by clearly stating as follows:

“Snow compaction in the Southern Rocky Mountain region is frequently a result of natural process and not recreational usage;”^[20]

In 2021 wolverine researchers reached similar conclusions about the compaction of snow resulting almost entirely from natural forces such as sun, wind, gravity and other factors. [21]

Given that the natural process causing the compaction of snow has already been recognized as best available science on what is a natural process occurring throughout the world, the Organizations must question how research can be identified as best available science on any issue involving snow depth without addressing this factor in some manner. The Organizations submit that best available science brings new information and understanding to allow managers to explain why current management of OSV travel on the RGNF has been effective rather than providing the basis for change of this management.

Best available science must be applied to allow for OSV usage on roads and trails recognized in summer travel management as significantly smaller amounts of groomed snow are sufficient for resource protection in these areas as these areas are important recreational corridors for usage of areas with deeper snow and will bring the RGNF to a consistent position with adjacent forest OSV decisions.

4c. Research addressing behavior of high-pressure vehicles in uncompacted snow from Army Corps of Engineers.

The Organizations would also like to address Army Corp research regarding the use of high-pressure vehicles on uncompacted snow.  While the specific conclusions of this research are not relevant to these discussions regarding the use of low-pressure vehicles, the recognition of several basic facts are important to the discussion.    Army Corp researchers concluded that comparatively high levels of force resulting from wheeled vehicle usage over small areas of uncompacted found that could be modeled for both hard snow and soft snow using the Capped Drucker-Page model.^[22]  Similar modeling could also be developed for exceptionally small amounts of force being applied to thin layers of snow.^[23]  Army Corp and other researchers also accepted the fact that expanding the foot print of the vehicle reduced the pressure applied to the snow.  While the conclusions are clearly not dispositive to the OSV travel questions due to the exceptionally large and small scales the work was performed at, the fact that snow density can be modeled consistently is significant to recognize as USFS efforts have been applying such a model on the ground for years to avoid possible impacts to resources. Such modeling is clearly possible and scientifically valid as a management tool and would support the conclusions of the 35 or more years of OSV management on the RGNF, mainly that snow is a highly effective buffer between recreational activity and resources under the snow.

The Canadian Government has decades of experience managing ice roads accessing hugely remote portions of the country.  Canadian governments ice road management policies for the operation of trucks up to 120,000 lbs.  This article specifically addresses  the portage/fen  areas where ice roads are transitioning from frozen lake surfaces to a more soil based medium, where the Canadian government has a long history of documenting minimal impacts with only 15 cm of snow for operation of the 120,000lb wheels trucks. Protocols have allowed grooming of these areas to start with only 5cm of snow.[24] We have also provided an article from 1975 providing further detail into the long history of highly detailed research of these sites and minimal impacts that have resulted.[25] While this information does not specifically identify usage of OSVs, the Organizations believe it is highly valuable information for the discussion.

4d.  Behavior of low-pressure vehicles in uncompacted snow.

A compelling body of work has generally originated out of the University of Calgary and has been driven by Professor Bruce Jamieson who has researched the behavior of uncompacted snow in the development and actions of avalanches for more than 2 decades in the Canadian Rockies. The Organizations would like to direct USFS to a series of three studies Mr. Jamieson conducted with Scott Thumlert and several others, published in the Journal of Cold Regions Science and Technologies, which for purposes of this document will be referred to as the “Jamieson/Thumlert” studies. Copies of each of these research documents have been included with these comments for your convenience as Exhibit “8”.  The Jamieson/Thumlert studies were generally in light snow as the densities were 191 kg/m3, 203 kg/m3 and 219 kg/m3, respectively (averaged for the top 90 cm) and as a result are addressing snow densities similar to those found on the RGNF.  In later stages of the research, the scope was expanded in include more compacted/multilayer snow in the research process.   In this research, snowmobiles climbing a hill under full throttle and skiers were traversing down the same hill were measured and factors such as snow displacement were incorporated into the analysis.  This research concluded:

“the static stresses applied to the surface of a mountain snow cover are similar for a typical skier (2.6 kPa, from 85 kg skier, 0.32 m2 area) compared to a typical snowmobile (3.8 kPa, from 350 kg machine and rider, 0.9 m2 area). The fact that the magnitude of stress added to the snow cover should be similar for skiers and snowmobiles was further evidenced in Fig. 5 which showed stress vs. effective depth. There is no substantial difference between the fitted curves for the skier and snowmobile data.”^[26]

A variety of testing processes were used over the three years started with skiers simply skiing over the test areas and advancing to skiers falling onto the testing areas and snowmobiles simply traveling over the area to snowmobiles jumping onto the test area or climbing uphill in the test area to simulate worst case scenario conditions. Video available for their research process here.^[27] While the Jamieson/Thumlert studies provide ground breaking information into low pressure snowmobiles and skiers for application of force on snow, the scale or context of the work is difficult to apply for the creation of management decisions as the works are more targeted at how these minimal forces are related to avalanche triggering rather than application of force on flat ground. The concerns around the levels of force necessary to trigger avalanches is simply much lower levels of force than the levels of force that would result in resource impacts but this research provides additional context and understanding into the movement of force through various depths of uncompacted snow and how the effectiveness of snow as a buffer improves as the snow compacts naturally.

While the conclusions of the Jamieson/Thumlert series of works are valuable alone as it is precedent setting nature of the dynamic measurement of force on snow from OSV/skier travel, these works are complex and difficult to place in a context for comparison. Earlier works of Bruce Jamieson with Brown provide good context for comparison of the Jamieson/Thumlert conclusions, as these earlier works provide conclusions around generalized force from compacted snow on materials under the snow.  This earlier research provides as follows:

“Figure 7 illustrates the response of weak layer shear strength to increasing overlying load due to continued snowfall. The weak layer deposited on 16 January had an initial shear strength of 195 Pa and strengthened over 9 days to 1532 Pa (Fig. 7a). Overlying load increased by 196 Pa during the same interval. For the layer deposited on 21 February, Figure 7b shows shear strength and load increasing by 403 and 216 Pa, respectively over 5 days.

For three separate time series measured shear strength is plotted against the overlying load (Fig. 8). At each observation snowfall had increased the load and strengthening in the weak layer was measured. In all three cases strength is positively correlated with load (Fig. 8; Table 2). The average loading rate and average strengthening rate varied for each time series resulting in different slopes of linear trend lines fit to the data.”^[28]

The data set for the above conclusions is provided in the following charts:

When the conclusions of the Jamieson/Thumlert works, mainly that skiers apply 2.6 kPa and snowmobiles apply on average 3.8kPa of force on the snow, is compared to the conclusions of the 2006 Brown/Jamieson research, mainly that natural snow compaction results in between 196 kPa and 216 kPa the conclusions are highly valuable and provide highly valuable conclusions in terms of scale of forces being applied. This research was also invaluable in understanding how snow is a more effective buffer as time and natural forces are applied to the uncompacted snow.  When the force of an OSV or skier through minimal amounts of snow is compared to the force of the snow on the ground, the conclusion is that the snow provides almost 50 times more force on the ground than an OSV.  While this is not dispositive for management, the fact that natural resources commonly survive application of forces averaging 50 times more than an OSV applies through minimal amounts of snow is highly valuable. This information is being provided to allow for a more detailed analysis and understanding of why current management has been effective in resource protection and why lesser amounts of snow may be permitted in certain circumstances, such as use of OSVs on developed roads and trails. Adoption of separate snowfall depths for on and off trail usage that are supported by best available science conclusions that snow is a highly effective buffer of force and recognize that snow compacts naturally and this compaction results in greater resource protection than uncompacted snow in the planning process.

5. A multi-year study on the Medicine Bow/Routt NF determined that fens are not impacted by snowmobile usage.

The Organizations have been actively involved in the development of the Rio Grande RMP and the GMUG RMP over the last decade. As planners are aware we intervened in the defense of the USFS decision on the Rio Grande when it was litigated and it is disappointing that we are assuming the same type of legal challenge will be brought against the GMUG.  We raise this issue  as during these objections and legal challenges we have consistently heard assertions that fens are not well understood and are highly sensitive and could be impacted by human activity in summer and winter.

Given that we anticipate this position to be again taken we have attached the results of a multi-year study that was performed on Rabbit Ears Pass on the Medicine Bow/Rout NF by the USFS in conjunction with CSU.  After a multiyear study the researchers were unable to establish any relationship or impact from snowmobile usage on fens. These researchers were unable to establish any impact to fens from low to medium recreational usage, which they summarized as follows:

“Our data and analyses indicate found no significant impacts to fens from winter recreation activities in the areas we investigated on the Routt NF.”[29]

The researchers were able to find a variety of relatively minor impacts from highly intensive ski grooming associated with developed ski areas such as steamboat.  This was quickly distinguished from dispersed recreation by the researchers as follows:

“Mechanized grooming associated with Alpine skiing operations is both intense and frequent, but on an aerial basis, the extent of impact is typically smaller than that possible with snowmobiling. However, our failure to document significant changes in areas subject to high snow machine use such as Rabbit Ears Pass suggest that more remote areas are unlikely to show greater impacts.”[30]

We hope this research can proactively address concerns around possible impacts to fens from low to medium intensity recreational activity and that this information will allow an effective and streamlined planning process to occur.

6(a) The Proposal must apply best available science on Canadian Lynx management.

The Organizations are aware there has been a large amount of staff turnover on the RGNF since the finalization of the RMP in 2020.  As a result of this turnover, we would like to outline our involvement with lynx and the forest plan since it was finalized, as the Organizations have intervened with the USFS in defense of the legal challenges that have been brought by interests that are simply not involved with the forest.  The Organizations are aware of the wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated assertions that are made in the legal challenges centered around the Canadian Lynx on the RGNF.  While we are confident these allegations will eventually be dismissed in Court, we are also aware that these allegations and the Court action could impact planning efforts such as those currently being undertaken.

The Organizations vigorously supported RGNF planning efforts,  and more specifically the research of John Squires with the Rocky Mountain Research Station to understand the behavior of lynx in the large fire scars now on the forest.[31]   The Organizations vigorously support management based on best available science as best available science is not a static goal but rather is an ever evolving effort in planning.  Steadfast reliance on out-of-date theoretical planning docs is not in compliance with these requirements.

The Organizations are also aware that significant other research has been occurring throughout the region on lynx management issues.  The body of best available science was again updated with the release of the most recent version of the Lynx Recovery strategy  for public comment on December 1, 2023 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. [32]  This comment period closed on Jan 30, 2024 so we doubt RGNF planners were aware of this document as scoping efforts were moving forward on the winter suitability effort.

The Organizations are concerned that the lynx standards outlined in the Proposal may reflect planning standards that are badly out of date, such as closure dates for lynx. This conflicts with new USFWS planning tools that has entirely removed motorized usage as a threat to the Lynx and only requires Lynx be counted in motorized recreation areas. This new standard is clearly stated in the 2023 USFWS Recovery plan for the Lynx  as follows:

“10. Minimize sources of human-caused mortality, particularly vehicle collisions (cars, logging trucks, snowmachines) and incidental trapping or hunting mortality (including mistaken identity) in each SSA unit (Recovery Criteria 1, 4). 10.1. Evaluate the relative influence of human caused mortality on population viability within each SSA unit.

10.2. Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to limit new highway development in lynx habitat, or steer development in a way that is minimally harmful to lynx (e.g., implement wildlife crossings, speed limits).

10.3. Increase awareness among vehicle (car and snowmachine) operators in areas of lynx presence of potential for collisions.

10.4. Monitor development of new motorized trails for recreational vehicles and levels of use.

10.5. Continue to work with state and tribal furbearer/hunting managers to refine and ensure implementation of measures to limit incidental take from trapping/hunting. Examples may include improving hunter/trapper education programs, Habitat Conservation Plans with state agencies, or trapping prohibitions or restrictions.” [33]

The Organizations have never even heard rumors of a lynx being struck by a snowmobile or other OHV being used recreationally, which mitigates our concerns around the need to address this type of an issue in the Proposal.  The Organizations are unable to find any requirements of timing or other restrictions for recreational usage of lynx habitat.  As a result, we are addressing these new lynx standards early in the process as we are VERY concerned that again the RGNF is relying on badly out of date information on the Lynx, rather than applying best available science.

The Organizations concerns around the need for management that is based on Best Available Science as we are intimately aware that social conflicts around wildlife in Colorado are at unprecedented levels, which is creating immense conflicts and challenges for managers and the public.  While this conflict is most directly focused on wolves, lynx management remains a difficult challenge due to the unintended impacts from that successful reintroduction by CPW in 2000. Conflict around the species has been immense as the lynx was successfully reintroduced and then listed on the ESA list.  Conflict was immediate and significant as research was generally lacking on  lynx management issues and the failure of the reintroduction to address the listing status. Conflict has continued as when science advanced, planning efforts lagged far behind these efforts. We have been working hard with CPW to address these issues and CPW has directly partnered with Colorado State University to develop better materials to engage the public with.[34] We hope this winter planning effort can be a plan that has moved forward from the highly arbitrary research of the early 2000s on the lynx and applies new science.  This would be a major step towards reducing and hopefully removing conflict around the Canadian Lynx.

6(b)  Reintroduced Wolves as a management concern for the Proposal.

The Organizations are aware that a huge amount of effort has gone into the wolf restoration efforts mandated by Proposition 114. We believe it is important to recognize that this has occurred but has resulted in significant conflict in a wide variety of ways, and unfortunately recreational usage of public lands has been drawn into this discussion.

The Organizations need to clarify that our concerns on wolf management issues have nothing to do with herds of wolves chasing motorized users.  That would be silly. The Organizations are also aware that both the USFWS and CPW management plans are silent on the possible need to restrict access to recreational opportunities as a result of the wolf reintroduction.  We have had the opportunity to discuss this possible issue with CPW representatives who have simply chuckled that anyone could asset such a management standard. Similar silence is found in the USFWS determinations and analysis around the 10j population designation provided for the wolves in Colorado.

We are concerned that wolves will impact species populations and behaviors, such as moving them away from traditional wildlife viewing locations.  When this movement occurs the public will not understand why this has happened and seek to blame factors other than wolves for this decline. Our concerns are certainly not abstract or remote on the possible indirect impacts of the wolf reintroduction to recreational access as this type of issue was on full display in the years of public meetings around the wolf reintroduction we have attended. Many other states have noted significant ungulate population declines as a result of wolf reintroductions.  Some of these declines were large on a localized level as these species are simply unfamiliar with  this new predator. The poorly understood nature of the ungulate response to fear from a reintroduced alpha predator was recently outlined in great detail by other researchers who concluded as follows:

“Similarly, in systems where predators have been locally extirpated and are later reintroduced or naturally recolonize, wild prey animals may be naive to risk cues. This naivety has been observed in multiple ungulate species in response to wolf extirpation and recolonization in North America and Europe, and while some populations quickly learn to fear predators, others have not exhibited typical anti-predator responses even after generations (Berger, Swenson, & Persson, 2001; Sand et al., 2006; Berger, 2007b). Further species-specific research is needed to understand the consequences of predator reintroduction for prey behavior and demography and inform potential management strategies.”[35]

Yet more researchers have summarized the poorly understood nature of the fear response of ungulates to newly introduced predators and how this is a management concern as follows:

“In the presence of predators, prey generally alter their behavior to become more difficult to capture, detect, or encounter. Antipredator behaviors are a complex suite of innate and learned behavioral responses, which can be individual or species-specific (Chamaillé-Jammes et al., 2014; Thurfjell et al., 2017). They can be affected by predator species and habitat characteristics.” [36]

The Colorado Wolf Plan outlines the anticipated indirect impacts to consumptive recreation of the wolf reintroduction to the availability of hunting licenses for deer and elk as follows:

“Ungulate harvest objectives in Colorado may need to be adjusted over time as a result of wolves on the landscape, which will impact hunting opportunities for resident and non-resident hunters, as well as businesses that rely on hunting, such as Outfitters. Additional regulatory restrictions, such as shortened hunting seasons to reduce hunter success rates, may need to be considered in some areas where wolves become established. Management prescriptions should be based on the most up-to-date science and data available to ungulate managers.”[37]

The Organizations believe this summary of indirect impacts to the consumptive recreational activities is probably accurate and should be hugely eye opening for many in the hunting community. This will cause conflict.  Expanding management responses to issues that have been found unrelated to ungulate population declines will only expand this conflict and that must be avoided.

6c. Wolverine reintroductions should not impact the Proposal.

The Organizations have been working with CPW on wolverine reintroduction for more than a decade.  Given the intense public interest that has followed the species and only expanded after the wolf reintroduction, we would like to provide input on this issue as well.  While we are sure that recent Wolverine listing efforts, which are currently being challenged by most states that support Wolverine, will be prominently featured in comments from those that oppose multiple uses, we would like to share the direction of our preliminary efforts and discussions with CPW on the wolverine reintroduction required under SB24-171.

CSA and the motorized community was engaged in discussions around plan development to support a possible reintroduction of wolverine in Colorado around 2012. In these efforts the draft plan that was created with CPW, USFS, USFWS and many others provided significant protections for multiple use recreation.[38] In our wolf discussions with CPW we raised the status of this draft plan and the upcoming wolverine reintroduction. CPW managers have stated they cannot see any reason for any closures to multiple uses on public lands as a result of the Wolverine reintroductions and that protection would be more clear than previous guidance documents.  These experts clearly stated they have little concern around the wolverines ability to survive in Colorado if they are not shot or poisoned.

7(a). Exclusionary corridors around CDNST.

The Organizations were concerned when the preliminary review of the Proposal revealed large green corridors around several of the routes on the forest.  We were concerned that   the exceptionally poor partner guidance on the use of trails designated by the National Trail System Act (“NTSA”) that we have encountered on other forests had already been incorporated into this Planning effort.  In the various public meetings our representatives addressed this concern with USFS staff who immediately informed us that these lines were not trail buffers but rather planning area boundaries.  The GIS team has simply made a poor choice in colors when identifying planning area boundaries and areas that were prohibited for motorized.  This was a great relief for many reasons.

While we vigorously support the assertion this issue is the result of poor color choices we will address this issue briefly as we have absolutely encountered this on other forests.  The map zooms below represent the types of corridors we are concerned about.

Our first concern on this issue would be how would this function on the ground?  Informing the public of this boundary would be functionally impossible. USFS staff would have to post multiple signs along these routes to inform the public of this somewhat random closure area on the forest. Given the huge snow depths that are seen on the RGNF post would have to be at several heights so the signage could be seen at times with lesser snow and at times of deeper snow. If the signs became buried in the deep snow, the value of the sign would be zero.  We are aware of the staffing challenges on the Forest and that posting such as this would be a lower priority than other issues.

The conflict that would result from this type of designation would also be immense as you could no longer ride across the planning area as these boundaries would essentially divide the forest into large sections that did not connect. This simply would make no sense to the average recreational user.

As a result of almost a decade of effort on this issue we are providing significant information on this issue in scoping in the hope of the issue being resolved quickly and effectively.   While we have no objections to these corridors excluding non-trail related usages along the route, such as timber, solar fields, wind farms and other uses not related to trail usage, we vigorously object to any attempt to elevate some trail uses above other trail uses on the route.  This concept has been struck down for decades despite the erroneous materials from other partners that continues to resurrect this idea.

7b. The 2020 US Supreme Court  determined that NTSA designation dis not alter the multiple use mandate for trails and areas adjacent to the trail.

The possible  exclusion of motorized usage around numerous routes on the Forest, and most consistently around the CDNST has been addressed by the US Supreme Court with the issuance of the 2020 US Supreme Court decision in Cowpasture River Assoc v USFS. [39] A copy of this decision has been attached for your convenience as Exhibit “11”. We are asking that the CDNST be managed in the manner that the USFS argued for in their recent Supreme Court effort where motorized usage was protected. The USFS argued successfully that the designation of any route under the National Trails System act does not alter the multiple use mandate applied to those lands. The Court found that if Congress did not clearly and explicitly remove lands from multiple use, they must remain multiple use areas. We agree with the Court and the USFS argument hat the NTSA is far from clear enough to support removal of routes from multiple uses on the trail .   While there is basis in the NTSA for removal of uses that are inconsistent with the trail designation and recreational usages, such as building a large solar or wind farm on or adjacent to any designated trail, we are unable to find any portion of the NTSA that mandates any particular usage of the trail over others.  Rather the NTSA explains the multiple use mandate on and around NTSA routes in great detail.

We would also be remiss if we did not raise the concern that the concept of single use recreation on the trail was presented to the Supreme Court by several recreational interest groups who have opposed the multiple use concept as a principal.[40]  It is significant that the Court declined to apply the theory that these groups sought to obtain.  While this interpretation of the NTSA has been soundly defeated at the US Supreme Court, this concept and effort continues in local and regional planning efforts with guidance materials from certain partner groups.  We are aware that this presentation can be somewhat compelling to a lay person and feel compelled to address this issue as it is an entirely inaccurate summary of the NTSA that fails to mention that there are provisions that repeatedly identify and protect multiple uses or that this interpretation and argument lost at the Supreme Court. While we are unable to explain this position continuing to be asserted, we will note that seeking to apply a position that the US Supreme Court declined to apply is simply not the behavior of a partner to land managers.

7c. Federal law specifically protects all  recreational usages of a nationally designated trails.

Given the CDNST is a Congressionally designated route, Congressional requirements for its management and the intent of Congress in their efforts is critically important to the scope of allowed and prohibited on particular segments of trail.  Since 1968, NTSA specifically identifies that all segments of the National Trails System shall be managed as follows:

“Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land.“[41]

Congress clearly had the opportunity to manage NTSA routes under a single management standard, such as “horse or hike only” and specifically chose not to require such management.  Rather than excluding uses, Congress specifically provides that management must be harmonized with existing multiple use goals and objectives for the areas. As discussed in later portions of this objection, Congress has provided great deal of documentation regarding why the NTSA has been framed in the manner it is currently in.  The NTSA also specifically identifies that all national scenic trails shall be managed as follows:

“(2) National scenic trails, established as provided in section 1244 of this title, which will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.”[42]

As the CDNST is a National Scenic Trail, Congress has specified that all national scenic trails be managed to provide for the maximum outdoor recreational potential. This Congressional intent for this amendment was clarified in 1983 with the addition of NTSA subsection j which specifically permits motorized and multiple uses of all NTSA routes as follows:

“(j) Types of trail use allowed
Potential trail uses allowed on designated components of the national trails system may include, but are not limited to, the following: bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities, jogging or similar fitness activities, trail biking, overnight and long-distance backpacking, snowmobiling, and surface water and underwater activities. Vehicles which may be permitted on certain trails may include, but need not be limited to, motorcycles, bicycles, four-wheel drive or all-terrain off-road vehicles. In addition, trail access for handicapped individuals may be provided. The provisions of this subsection shall not supersede any other provisions of this chapter or other Federal laws, or any State or local laws.”[43]

When subsection j was added to §7 of the NTSA in 1983 generally allowing a wide range of uses on all routes identified under any designation, Congress clearly stated the desire to permit multiple use of trails outside Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.  This is clearly stated in the bill memo which provides as follows:

“A new subsection 7(j) is added to specify various types of potential uses which may be allowed on specific components of the National Trails System. The uses listed are not intended to be all inclusive, but to illustrate the wide range of recreation pursuits which may be served by various trails. While the new subsection would permit the appropriate secretaries to allow trail bikes and other off-the-road vehicles on portions of the National Trail System, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this provision gives authority to the secretaries to permit such uses where appropriate, but that it must also be exercised in keeping with those other provisions of the law that require the secretaries to protect the resources themselves and the users of the system.”[44]

The imposition of mandatory corridors not only directly conflicts with the letter of the NTSA, the intent of Congress but also conflicts with one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation as any large scale exclusion of usages conflicts with Congressional requirements that usages of the CDNST be addressed on a segment by segment basis rather than forest or regional restrictions of usages.

The Organizations hope that the previous information is helpful to USFS staff in addressing this issue if it should arise. Unfortunately this has arisen on many other forests since the Supreme Court decision and addressing this issue has created unnecessary conflict.  The Organizations support the interpretation of the USFS that non-trail related multiple uses have been placed at a lower priority in conjunction with any NTSA route designation as clearly the NTSA route elevates recreation in these areas. We also support the determination that trail usages on and around the NTSA are subject to Congressional designations, such as Wilderness.  We are not asking to ride in Wilderness. We are asking that recreational values on these trails and areas be maximized as the NTSA  does not elevate any recreational uses above others but rather protects all recreational usages.

8. Minimization criteria in winter planning.

The Organizations are aware that one of the major barriers for any form of recreational planning effort on federal lands has been the minimization criteria in the Executive Orders.  We are aware of several planning effort that became tangled with this issue for years, such as the recent travel planning efforts on the Pike/San Isabel NF.  It has been our experience that areas closed to motorized usages by Congressional designations are often removed from the minimization discussion.  This is a decision that simply cannot be defended as many of these designations were made to benefit non-motorized recreation, which was clearly identified by Congress when the Weminuche was designated and repeatedly expanded. Many of the interest groups aligned with the Weminuche continue to identify this area as “backpacking at its best”. [45] We don’t contest that position that the Weminuche provides backpacking at its best, but do vigorously assert that the Weminuche provides backpacking at its best throughout the year. These Congressionally protected recreational opportunities are highly relevant to minimization.  We are unable to identify any portion of the minimization criteria that requires only motorized areas to be reviewed in this process. These must include Congressionally designated non-motorized opportunities that are closed to OSV usage.

We are aware that Wilderness trail maintenance on the Weminuche has been difficult over the last several years but are also aware that the Rio Grande has made huge progress in reopening trails in the Weminuche that have been heavily impacted by beetle kill, wind events and sizeable landslides on other districts. The Organizations are also aware of the heavy toll taken on the Weminuche in recent wildfires. While the toll has been high, these fires reopened major portions of the Wilderness areas on the forest for easier and safer recreational access in the area.  Users simply do not have to deal with jack strawed dead trees piled 20-40 high for hundreds of acres.

The Organizations are also aware often assertions are made that these areas are too remote or do not have access via groomed routes. We would agree that often these areas do have limited access for a variety of reasons. Our position is this same assertion could be made for any winter recreational opportunities if the snowmobile community had not moved to provide groomed trails on the forest almost 50 years ago.  Without the groomed routes, most of the forest would be inaccessible. The Organizations vigorously assert we should not be penalized in planning with exclusions to provide opportunities for nonmotorized uses due to the fact we worked to address this access challenge many years ago. The nonmotorized community has had the opportunity to create a similar program over the last 50 years and simply has chosen not to address this access issue.  This is not our fault, and on several occasions we have offered to share our experiences with grooming and help them develop a nonmotorized grooming program. These offers have consistently been declined.

The Organizations are also aware that planners have proposed boundaries for usages around groomed routes, such as allowing non-motorized uses north of a groomed route and motorized usages south of a groomed route. While this appears reasonable to some, we oppose this type of  decision as the motorized community provided the route to get to the area.  As a result this is a 100% lost  opportunity for the motorized community and simply cannot be asserted to be a balance of any interests. We performed all the volunteer work, fundraised locally to support the grooming, partnered with CPW in the creation and  administration of the winter program and then only are obtaining half the benefit.

The Organizations vigorously assert that the RGNF has effectively minimized conflict on the forest for decades in compliance with the minimization criteria. Much of this is the result of large Congressionally designated areas on the RGNF.  This successful management must be the starting point for any minimization discussion. Minimization must also account for nonmotorized groomed routes on the forest do not appear to be addressed in minimization of impacts as minimization is a forest level effort. Minimization must also address nonmotorized routes outside the USFS management as we are aware there are several larger nonmotorized networks that are publicly available for the payment of a small fee.  While these areas are closed to snowmobile, and should remain closed, these area opportunities for recreational usage that should be identified when opportunities areas are balanced or impacts minimized.

9. Roadless areas are multiple use areas by definition.

We are concerned that the Proposal does identify Colorado Roadless areas as a desired characteristic for nonmotorized users.  It is desirable for motorized usage as well and motorized usage is specifically identified as a characteristic of a roadless area. This is clearly and repeatedly identified as follows in the Colorado Roadless Rule as follows:

“In addition, the rule allows motorized and non-motorized access into CRAs”[46]

This clarity is again provided for Upper Tier Colorado Roadless Areas:

Upper tier allows for motorized recreation, including future development of off-highway vehicle trails;[47]

The Colorado Roadless Rule also specifically addresses snowmobiles as a permitted usage in a Colorado Roadless Area as follows:

None of the alternatives affect access or use of existing roads and trails, including motorized travel on roads and trails, nor do they regulate recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, mountain biking, summer/winter motorized recreation and skiing.[48]

We are asking the Colorado Roadless Rule be applied as required in the 2012 Colorado Proposal, which provides no preference for any usage and only address road construction and maintenance and specifically protects trails in all forms as a characteristic of these areas.

We are aware there is a portion of the public which seeks a winter nonmotorized experience that is often drawn to motorized trail heads due to the groomed routes we provide. We have never understood this course of action. There are significant opportunities for winter solitude and nonmotorized only opportunities on the forest, which are provided by the Weminuche Wilderness, which is the largest Wilderness area in the state of Colorado and other Congressionally designated areas. While there are not groomed routes for these opportunities, we are also aware that grooming is prohibited by these designations.  We have had discussions with those seeking these opportunities and have offered our experiences and relationships to start a nonmotorized winter grooming effort that could access these areas. That offer has never been accepted. These same barriers that are preventing access to these areas in the winter are the same barriers that forced us to start the winter grooming program with CPW 50 years ago.

10. Wilderness buffers are prohibited by the Colorado Wilderness Act.

The Proposal also seeks to protect non-motorized uses adjacent to Wilderness areas.  The management of these types of buffer areas is an issue we deal with FAR too frequently in the creation of Wilderness areas through legislation and in planning. This type of management designation is illegal as the Colorado Wilderness Act specifically prohibits the creation of buffers around Congressionally designated Wilderness for the protection of Wilderness values inside the boundary. This is specifically addressed as follows:

” Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Colorado lead to the creation of protective perimeters of buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.”[49]

The Congressional reasoning for this decision is also clearly identified in the Act as follows:

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

(1) designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, in order to promote, perpetuate, and preserve the wilderness character of the land, protect watersheds and wildlife habitat, preserve scenic and historic resources, and promote scientific research, primitive recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge, and inspiration for the benefit of all the American people, to a greater extent than is possible in the absence of wilderness designation; and (2) insure that certain other National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado be available for nonwilderness multiple uses.”[50]

CSA would vigorously assert that the possible designation of bufferes around Wilderness areas, such as those that may be looked at, it exactly the type of conflict that the Colorado Wilderness Act sought to avoid.  We are not asking to ride in Wilderness as it is illegal but we are asking to have to have a full opportunity to ride outside Wilderness  as has been previously provides for by Congress.

11(a). Accurate economic analysis will be critical to this planning effort given the heavy reliance of small communities on recreation.

The Organizations have worked with local communities across the Forest for decades and they can play an integral part in providing quality recreational opportunities on public lands. We are also aware that these communities are heavily reliant on winter recreational opportunities on the forest to generate tax revenue and income to businesses that remain open in the winter.  Often these businesses are providing critical supplies and resources to members of the community and recreational visitors. As a result of this relationship, the Organizations vigorously support the development of accurate and detailed economic analysis and are providing several quality resources to support these calculations.  The Organizations are also aware when these types of efforts end up with results that cannot be defended factually, it can create significant conflict between managers and the public.  Again, we would like to avoid this situation in the development of the Rio Grande Winter Travel Plan.

We have attached the most recent research from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis that outlines spending amounts and profiles for all recreational groups nationally as Exhibit  “12”. We have also attached the Dept of Commerce state level research that provides simply immense amounts of information on recreational spending at the state level as Exhibit “13”.   This report has 5 tabs, which can be easily overlooked, that provide even more information.

In addition to the Department of Commerce research, we have attached the most recent economic analysis from the US Forest Service that is created in conjunction with the National Visitor Use monitoring process. This is Exhibit “14”. While we are aware that there are often concerns about the sampling of visitors around this process, the economic analysis is respected, high quality and we believe accurate.  We would be remiss if we did not highlight the spending profile conclusions in this work: [51]

Again, it should be noted that this USFS research concludes the motorized winter community outspends the cross country ski community at a rate of 2-3 times the amount spend.  This is critical information for planning in communities that are heavily reliant on recreation on federal lands for their survival.

The final economic contribution information we would like to provide is the newly released COHVCO economic contribution study for motorized usages in Colorado for 2023, which is attached as Exhibit “15”.  This was created in partnership with CPW, USFS and BLM. There is dedicated winter recreational information in the report on pg. 17 of the report and the report also provides regional spending information. We believe this is the most site-specific information available on this issue and it is highly relevant as it was just updated in partnership with the USFS regional office.

11(b) Good visitation information is necessary to economic analysis.

The Organizations are aware that accurate analysis of visitation to any planning area is critical to the calculation of economic contributions.  We have included a copy of the most recent national visitor use monitoring report for the RGNF as Exhibit “16”. While we are aware that the small sampling size of the NVUM effort has been a constant criticism of the process, this is also based on decades of research at this point.  The conclusions of the research have been consistent and at least provides a starting point for analysis.   NVUM research clearly identifies the strength in the interest as of the snowmobile community as almost all of them identify snowmobiling as the main activity they are visiting the forest to achieve.[52] Almost no other user group approaches this level of single minded usage of the forest.

The Organizations have also been an active participant in the NOCO places planning effort occurring along the Northern Front Range of Colorado.  While we are aware that these planning areas are clearly not adjacent this effort is relevant as we have been able to obtain what can only be summarized as groundbreaking visitation information about recreational usage in the planning area. This information has been presented in the following dashboard.

Workbook: NoCo 2050 Dashboard (tableau.com)

The Organizations are discussing how to obtain this type of data for the state with the USFS Regional office and with CPW.  Funding may be available for this type of effort from several sources. The Organizations have also explored obtaining this type of information for site specific projects with funding from the OHV/OSV programs in the future.  While we would not be optimistic about the success of this type of effort currently, given the highly competitive nature of these programs currently, we are more optimistic that data such as this would be a competitive grant after registration fees have been increased.

12. Wildlife Populations are strong and stable in the planning area.

Prior to addressing specific species or issues more directly, the Organizations would like to express our frustration with the situation we encounter far too frequently on wildlife issues across the state. Managers and partners are simply unable to celebrate success on issues. Almost every species in the State is at or above population objectives and many species have been successfully reintroduced. Deer populations are strong across most of the state, and are only slightly below average due to significant winterkill issues in northwestern Colorado.   CPW again outlined the populations of elk at the State level with the release of the 2023 Wolf reintroduction management plan which clearly stated as follows:

“The sum of Colorado’s post-hunt HMP population objective ranges for elk statewide is 252,000-306,000 for all 42 elk herds combined. These data indicate that Colorado’s elk population is over objective”[53]

The wolf management plan also clearly outlines the generally good position of the deer herd populations in the State.  This plan also states the primary threat to deer continues to be Chronic Wasting Disease and the huge localized impacts that resulted from the unprecedented winter kill issues in Northwest Colorado as follows:

“The statewide deer population has been more stable recently, averaging 420,000 over the last 11 years. The sum of all herd population estimates is still far below the sum of individual HMP population objective ranges of 438,000-520,000 for all 54 deer herds combined. Declines in deer populations are primarily in the largest, western most mule deer herds in the state. In 2021, 26 of 54 (48 percent) deer data analysis units were within their population objective ranges and 18 of 54 herds (33 percent) were below their population objective ranges. There is on-going interest from various constituents to increase mule deer populations; however, for many deer herds, population management is largely dictated by herd productivity and performance, winter severity, and Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) prevalence.”[54]

Overall the ability to provide conclusions such those in the wolf plan are a huge win for decades of management efforts by CPW, USFS, BLM and partners like the motorized community and it is frustrating that success like this cannot be recognized or celebrated.

Despite the strong and repeated positions of CPW on these types of issues, The Organizations involvement in the RGNF RMP revision and several other adjacent planning efforts has made us intimately familiar with unsupported assertions that wildlife populations are collapsing throughout the state.  As a result, we again expect these types of assertions to be made around this effort.  As a result, the guidance and conclusions of the herd management plans for DAU on the RGNF and the regional elk report for the planning area from CPW that these herds are at or above objectives and have been at these levels for an extended period will be relevant. [55] These reports clearly and directly conclude that units on the RGNF are at or above management objectives and these herds have a long history of stable populations along with previous levels of recreational access.

The Organizations are also compelled to share our experiences with the basis for these population declines.  It has been our experience that these assertions are based on comparisons to historical high-level populations in a planning area, rather than the population goal that has been set by CPW.  We are aware of several units where CPW has significantly increased levels of hunting on the unit to reduce populations to sustainable levels.  This situation is not the basis for restrictions on recreational activities on the RGNF.

Winter travel on the forest also occurs in areas that are not winter range and generally calving occurs after the winter season has concluded. While often concerns are raised about calving areas etc we are simply not using these areas for snowmobile recreation as calving areas are lower elevation areas and areas that lack snow.  We snowmobile in areas with exactly the opposite criteria.

15. Trail widths for winter travel.

The Organizations frequently are asked if there is any preference or need for 50 inch type trails  for winter travel or if there should be a width restriction on winter trails. We do not support any width designation for trails in the winter. Our groomers are often far in excess of 10 feet in width and any attempt to restrict trail width to 50 inches would be a major concern for our grooming operations. While we are aware of challenges around the usage of wider vehicles in other portions of the country, due to limited width efforts to groom trails or trails being provided via easements that only allow snowmobile usages we are not aware of these type of issues on the RGNF.

We are also aware of the growing use of track type Conversions of ATV and SxS or other summer type vehicles that can create concerns.  We are also aware these conversions area often used for a wide range of uses including recreation but also allow private lands owners access to their property, search and rescue, ice fishing and many other uses. We have include research into the usage of these type of vehicles and fat tire bicycles on winter routes as Exhibit “17”.  Growing community that is restoring older snowcats.  We support this type of access and would be concerned if any closure or restriction was proposed to address these uses.

The Organizations must also recognize that the concept of a 50 inch trail is becoming outdated in summer travel management circles with larger machine being produced for summer usages. We are not aware of any restriction or requirement even for summer travel that trails are only 50 inches in width.   Many trails are growing in width to accommodate these uses and on many forests existing low level roads are being converted to trails so accommodate larger SxS and to reflect the levels of usage historically found on these routes.  Again, this is process we vigorously support.

16. Conclusions.

Please accept this correspondence as the input of the motorized community with regard to the public comments on the proposed OSV suitability mapping that has been provided. There is a long history of winter recreation on the Forest without conflict between uses and this has to be the starting point for analysis. We are aware that recently planning efforts on the Forest has resulted in significant asserted conflict on issues, but this has not reflected the historical level of challenges facing the Forest. The motorized community has enjoyed a long partnership with the Forest and has always enjoyed proactively addressing challenges on the forest in a collaborative manner.

It has been the Organizations experience that while USFS planners have effectively managed OSV recreation for decades without resource impacts, they are also hesitant to rely on this successful management history as the basis for future planning.  We hope the information below supplements this generally accepted knowledge with a high level of scientific certainty and encourages managers to avoid large scale changes to OSV management in the hope of avoiding possible impacts to resources or a lack of scientific certainty around the commonly understood conclusions that managers have relied on for decades in OSV management.

The Organizations are aware the scale of information and scope of information provided on these issues may be much larger than expected. This response is being provided in the hope of streamlining and speeding the planning process as much as possible. While there is a large amount of information provided on these issues, we have significantly more information on many of these issues. There are also many topics we did not provide information on as we are hoping these are comparatively minor in scope. We hope this information triggers an ongoing dialogue with the forest on issues they are encountering in the Planning process so these resources can be effectively used.  We have devoted significant resources towards avoiding overly sensational resources or information that lacks basic credibility.  In addition to this resource specific information, we have also provided information we believe is relevant to planning, such as the financial sustainability of our clubs grooming support through the CPW grooming program, which we are in the process of updating currently.  We hope these efforts and information provide an accurate picture and vision for the winter grooming efforts of our clubs, as this is the primary method all public users rely on to access the winter backcountry on the forest.

The Organizations welcome this opportunity to provide input and hope our input is not overwhelming. We are also aware that there are always new challenges to be addressed and that this is a voyage and not a destination.  We would welcome the opportunity to engage with RGNF planners to address these issues as they arise.  The Organizations would welcome a discussion of these opportunities and any other challenges that might be facing the Rio Grande National Forest moving forward at your convenience.  Please feel free to contact  Scott Jones.  His phone is (518)281-5810 and his email is scott.jones46@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
CORE

Scott Jones, Esq.
Executive Director CSA
Authorized Representative COHVCO

[1] See, SB24-56

[2] See, Proposal at pg. 3.

[3] More information on this office is available here About Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) (army.mil)

[4] For a complete summary of the more than 75 years of research that has been performed by the Army Corps of Engineers please see Shaprio et al; Snow Mechanics; A Review of the State of Knowledge and applications; US Army Corps of Engineers CRREL Report 97-3 August 1997.

[5] See, Blaisdell et al; First International Conference on Winter Vehicle Mobility; US Army Corps of Engineers; Special Report 93-17 (July 1993) at pg. 91

[6] A partial copy of foundational research from 1948 and 1952 are attached as Exhibit “1”.  Complete copies of these works are available but have not been included with these comments as the conclusions are addressed in subsequent works identified with far greater detail.

[7] A complete copy of this treaty has been enclosed for your reference as Exhibit “2”.

[8] See, Lee et al; Improving snow roads and airstrips in Antarctica; US Army Corps of Engineers Special Report 89-22 (July 1989) at pg. 17.  A copy of this research is enclosed as Exhibit “3” to these comments.

[9] See, Lang et al; Processing snow for high strength roads and runways; Journal of Cold Regions Science and Technology 25 (1997) at pg. 18. A copy of this research is included as Exhibit “4” to these comments.

[10] Supra note 28 at pg. 29

[11] See, White et al; Review of ice and snow runway pavements; International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 311-320.

[12] See, Arthern et al; In situ measurements of Antarctic snow compaction compared with predictions of models; JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, F03011, doi:10.1029/2009JF001306, 2010

[13] A complete copy of this text is available for your review at the following website: Snow and ice-related hazards, risks, and disasters : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[14] See, Haeberli at pg. 38.

[15] See, Haeberli et al at pg. 101.

[16] See, Mossner et al; Measurement of mechanical Properties of snow for the simulation of skiing; Journal of Glaciology, Vol 59, No 218 2013 at pg. 2013. See Also, Fauvre et al; Optimal Preparation of Alpine Ski Runs; Proceedings of the 2004 International Snow Science Workshop, Jackson Hole, Wyoming; University of Montana; 2004.

[17] See, https://theconstructor.org/building/density-construction-materials/13531/ for values of asphalt and cement

[18] See, https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml for density of lightweight concrete

[19] For a representation of this technology please see https://www.prinoth.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/prinoth_snowdepthmeasurement_EN_NA_01.pdf

[20] See, Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. at pg. 26.

[21] See, Glass et al;  Spatiotemporally variable snow properties drive habitat use of an Arctic mesopredator; Oecologia (2021) 195:887–899.  A copy of this research is attached as Exhibit “5” to these comments.

[22] See, Haehnel et al; A Macroscale model for low density snow subjected to rapid loading; Cold Regions Science and Technology 40(2004) 193-211.  See also, Richmond et al; A macroscopic view of snow deformation under a vehicle; Army Corp of Engineers Special Report 81-17.  July 1981.

[23] See, Huang et al; Mechanical properties of snow using indentation tests; size effects; Journal of Glaciology; vol 59 No 213 (2013)

[24] See, Sladen; et al;  Evaluation of threshold freezing conditions for winter road construction over discontinuous permafrost peatlands, subarctic Canada Cold Regions Science and Technology 170 (2020) 102930;  A copy of this article is attached as Exhibit “6”

[25] See, Adam et al; Snow and Ice Roads: Ability to Support Traffic and Effects on Vegetation; Snow and Ice Roads (1975). A copy of this article is attached to these comments as Exhibit”7″

[26] See, Thumlert/Jamieson et al; Measurements of localized dynamic loading in a mountain snow cover; Journal of Cold Regions Science and Technology; Vol 85 ed 94-101; 2013 at pg. 99 emphasis added.

[27] See, https://vimeo.com/20563669

[28] See, Brown & Jamieson; Evolving Shear Strength, stability and snowpack properties in storm snow; Proceedings of the International Snow Sciences Workshop 2006 Telluride Colorado at pg. 15. (Emphasis added.) A complete copy of this research has been included with these comments as Exhibit “8”

[29] See, Gage et al;  EVALUATING SNOW COMPACTION EFFECTS TO FEN WETLANDS ON RABBIT EARS AND BUFFALO PASS OF THE ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST; Final Report; Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. 08-CS-11020603-032 Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University May 30, 2013 at Pg 51. A complete copy of this work has been attached as Exhibit “9” to these comments.

[30] See, Gage et al Pg 50.

[31] Squires, J.R., J. Ivan, J. Holbrook, R. Lawrence, S. Savage, and R. Ghormley. 2018. Habitat relationships of Canada lynx in spruce bark beetle impacted forests – analysis summary March 2018. USDA Forest Service internal report for the Rio Grande National Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula. MT. 34 p. including tables and figures.

[32] We have enclosed a copy of these new lynx management plans as Exhibit “10” to these comments.  More information on this effort is available here:  Canada lynx draft recovery plan available for public review & comment | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov)

[33] See, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Recovery implementation strategy (RIS) for the contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of Canada lynx. November 2023. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Denver, Colorado. At pg 7.

[34] See, CO-WildlifeValuesReport.pdf (colostate.edu)

[35] See, Gaynor et al; An applied ecology of fear framework; linking theory to conservation practice; Animal Conservation; #24 (2021) at pg. 312.

[36] See, Chitwood et al; “Ecology of Fear” in ungulates; Opportunities for improving conservation; Ecology and Evolution; February 3, 2022

[37] See, CPW Wolf Plan at pg. 23

[38] A copy of this plan has not been included as we expect the new wolverine plan to be finalized before the completion of this effort. If you desire a copy of this draft plan can be provided.

[39] 590 U.S. ___ (more);140 S. Ct. 1837; 207 L. Ed. 2d 186

[40] Copies of these documents are available if you should desire to review them. We have not included them here simply to reduce the size of this document and avoid information that is only questionably relevant to these proceedings.

[41] See, 16 USC 1246(a)(2) emphasis added.

[42] See, 16 USC 1242 (a)(2).

[43] See, 16 USC 1246 (j).

[44] See,  H.R. REP. 98-28, 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 112 at pg. 6.

[45] As an example Weminuche Wilderness: Trails, Camping, and Guides – SJMA

[46] 39585

[47] 39589

[48] 39589

[49] See, §110 PUBLIC LAW 96-560; 94 STAT. 3265; DEC. 22, 1980

[50] See, §101 PUBLIC LAW 96-560; 94 STAT. 3265; DEC. 22, 1980

[51] See, White 2017 at pg.58.

[52] See, Exhibit 16 at Pg 20.

[53] See, CPW 2023 Wolf plan at pg. 16. Full Copy of this plan is available here: Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan Final (state.co.us)

[54] See, 2023 CPW wolf plan at pg 17.

[55]  Copies of all relevant herd plans above are available here: Colorado Parks & Wildlife – Herd Management Plans (HMP) (state.co.us)

BLM Utah State Office
ATTN: HQ GRSG RMPA
440 West 200 South #500
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

RE:  Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMP Amendment & DEIS

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the vigorous support of the above Organizations for Alternative 1 of the Greater Sage Grouse Draft RMP Amendment and DEIS (“the Proposal”).  The DEIS fails to provide even basic information necessary to make a meaningful comment  and is often internally contradictory regarding the scope of analysis. After reviewing the Proposal, the Organizations are unable to answer basic generalized questions around the effort such as: “Why have previous management efforts been found unsuccessful so quickly?”  Given the short time frame of this decision we must also ask how much of the previous management effort was even implemented.  Additional foundational information addressing why the large scale revision of existing planning has been found necessary simply are not meaningful addressed, which only confounds basic understanding of the Proposal.

Our Organizations have partnered with the BLM for decades and provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support sustainable recreational opportunities on federal and state public lands across the nation.  While this is an important partnership for our interests,  we must question the agency value on this relationship as recreational usage simply is not even analyzed in the Proposal.  This is concerning as the Proposal asserts recreation access is not an issue to be analyzed but then every specific topic or issue addresses recreation.  The Organizations vigorously assert that recreation in all forms must be recognized and analyzed in the Proposal as it is mentioned 216 times in the first volume of the EIS. This simply has not happened as the Proposal asserts that recreational issues are outside the scope of the Proposal and the EIS provides a mere 2 pages of generalized discussion of recreational impacts from the Proposal. The Organizations simply cannot reconcile these positions in the Proposal.

This failure is immense when the Proposal is viewed in isolation.  The failure exponentially expands when various outside requirements addressing recreational access are included in the scope of review. Analysis of how to improve recreational access and detailed examination of the economic contributions of recreational opportunities is required by President Biden’s Executive Orders such as 14008 and 14057. Again, the Proposal omits any analysis of possible changes in the economic contributions from recreational activity in the planning area despite these requirements. The failure of the Proposal to meaningfully address recreational impacts and economic contributions from recreation to local communities is expanded when the newly released BLM 21^st Century Outdoor Recreation Blueprint. While the BLMs 21^st Century Recreation plan makes sweeping assertions of engagement and partnerships, none of these goals are addressed in the Proposal, despite the Proposal addressing an immense percentage of the lands managed by the BLM.

Who we are.

Before addressing the Organizations specific concerns regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed.

Off-Road Business Association (ORBA) is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner.

One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration.  One Voice provides a unified voice for motorized recreation through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community.

United Snowmobile Alliance (USA) is a nationally recognized 501 (c)(3) dedicated to the preservation and promotion of environmentally responsible organized snowmobiling and the creation of safe and sustainable snowmobiling in the United States.

United Four-Wheel Drive Association (U4WD) is an international organization whose mission is to protect, promote, and provide 4×4 opportunities world-wide.

Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) is a non-profit trade association that represents over 7,000 mostly small businesses around the country that manufacture, distribute, and retail specialty parts and accessories for motor vehicles. The industry employs over 1 million Americans and produces performance, functional, restoration and styling-enhancement products for use on passenger cars, trucks, SUVs, and special interest collector vehicles. SEMA members market products that enable automotive and off-road enthusiasts to personalize the style and upgrade the performance of their motor vehicles, including everything from classic cars to four-wheel drive vehicles to dedicated race cars.

Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

Trail Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple-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 multiple-use trail recreational opportunities.

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

Colorado Off-Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping motorized trails open in Central Colorado and the region.

Idaho Recreation Council (IRC) is a collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts on the following activities: 4 x 4, Equestrian, Backcountry Aviators, Mountain Biking, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Rafts/Jet boats, ATV/UTV’s, RVers, Recreational Miners, and Rock Hounds. The Idaho Recreation Council is comprised of Idahoans from all parts of the state with a wide spectrum of recreation interest and love for the future of Idaho and a desire to preserve recreation for future generations of Idahoans. If you believe access is important to your recreation please consider joining a club in your area.

Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA) is a Not for Profit Organization dedicated to preserving, protecting, and promoting snowmobiling in the great state of Idaho. Our members may come from every corner of the state, but they all share one thing in common: their love for snowmobiling.

Nevada Off Road Association (NVORA) is a non-profit Corporation created for and by offroad riders. NVORA was formed to specifically fill the void between the government managers and the rest of us who actively recreate in the Silver State. NVORA does this by maintaining a consistent, durable, and respected relationship with all stakeholders while facilitating a cooperative environment amongst our community.

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands. Over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. RwR and its contributors have spent several-hundred hours maintaining trails designated for motorized use in the planning area. We have promoted minimum-impact practices including the preservation of cultural sites given their nonrenewable nature and tremendous value to our nation, particularly to indigenous Americans.

Collectively, ORBA, U4Wd, One Voice, SEMA, TPA, CORE, CSA, IRC, ISSA, NVORA, RwR and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations” for purposes of these comments.

2(a).  Critical foundational information around the purpose and need for the Proposal is not provided.

The Organizations were active participants in previous landscape efforts around Sage Grouse management that led to significant management changes for the benefit of the Sage Grouse in 2015. It has also been our understanding that these previous management changes had significantly benefitted Sage Grouse populations and habitat was improving.   After reviewing the Proposal, we are unable to identify the basis and need proposed for additional management changes for the Sage Grouse. Has the Sage Grouse population declined suddenly after these management changes? Is there a change in some other new environmental condition since the last management effort? We have reviewed the Proposal and been unable to identify significant new research on the Sage Grouse that has been released. Rather most of the Sage Grouse resources that are addressed predate the 2015   management decisions.

The Proposal provides the following summary of new Sage Grouse science that has been published and cites two surveys of research as the basis for the assertion of new data as follows:

“1.2.3 New GRSG Science

The GRSG planning processes have consistently been based on and informed by science. Since the 2015 and 2019 planning efforts, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications on GRSG and management of their habitats have been published. Many of the BLM’s state and federal partners are significant contributors to this new science, and much of it is based on the data collected by state wildlife agencies. Some of these new publications are consistent with science that the BLM previously considered while others identify information not previously available. Several provide new spatial information on important population and habitat parameters for GRSG. The USGS has also compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports related to GRSG since January 2015 (Carter et. al., 2020, Teige, et. al., 2023). The BLM considers this new information and relevant science from our previous in developing and analyzing proposed management on BLM administered lands.”^[1]

The Organizations had the opportunity to review these reports and would question the accuracy of the summary provided in the Proposal.  These are merely periodic surveys of possible publications on Sage Grouse from a variety of sources. The Carter work only cites 15 documents in total, and 11 of these documents (75%) are other DOI documents that  are references to BLM and DOI decisions on site specific planning that is implementing the 2015 management decision on Sage Grouse. An example of this would be the USFWS findings made regarding the 2015 petition to possibly list the Sage Grouse. The Carter survey also references materials that are simply unrelated to any decision addressing the effectiveness of the 2015 management decisions such as:

Fundamental Science Practices Advisory Committee, 2011, U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1367^[2]

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017, Report in response to secretarial order 3353: U.S. Department of the Interior, 15 p., accessed December 19, 2017^[3]

We question how an outline of the implementation status of the 2015 management decision supports any conclusion that the 2015 planning effort needs to be reopened. This report shows the 2015 decisions have not been implemented on a large scale, which would support the decision to continue implementing the 2015 decisions rather than a significant change in management direction. We are unable to identify any work that is addressing new information or factors that might be impacting the sage grouse or even addresses the effectiveness of the 2015 standards.

After a review of the Tiege work,  the Organizations are forced to reach the similar  conclusions regarding the need to reopen Sage Grouse planning as the Teige  work references 30 documents on a wide range of issues.  10 publications  are citing other BLM decisions or surveys which are implementing the 2015 management decisions , or 8 of which are addressing data obtained prior to implementing the 2015 standards. The  survey further provides analysis of issues absolutely unrelated to a determination on the effectiveness of the 2015 Sage Grouse Management decisions such as the following citations:

Kleist, N.J., Willems, J.S., Bencin, H.L., Foster, A.C., McCall, L.E., Meineke, J.K., Poor, E.E., and Carter, S.K., 2022, Annotated bibliography of scientific research on pygmy rabbits published from 1990 to 2020: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022–1003, 75 p., accessed August 22, 2022,^[4]

Ooms, J., 2018, cld2—Google’s Compact Language Detector 2, R package (ver. 1.2): R Project for Statistical Computing software release, accessed September 15, 2020, at https://cran.r- project.org/ web/ packages/ cld2/ index.html.^[5]

Ooms, J., 2020, cld3—Google’s Compact Language Detector 3, R package (ver. 1.3): R Project for Statistical Computing software release, accessed January 5, 2021, at https://CRAN.R- project.org/ package= cld3.^[6]

Westgate, M.J., 2019, revtools—An R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis: Research Synthesis Methods, v. 10, no. 4, p. 606–614, accessed February 11, 2021,^[7]

The Proposal makes generalized assertions of the need for new planning based on  publications of information around the Greater Sage Grouse that have occurred since the 2015 efforts. These generalized assertions are not supported by the information provided in any manner as many of these publications are referencing data obtain before the 2015 management changes or are addressing other species or are on items unrelated to management of any species at all. While the authority on the various database protocols and evidence screening methodology may be relevant to the survey process and  may be relevant or interesting to Sage Grouse researchers, we are unable to indemnify any legal basis to reopen planning based on generalized research being published. This type of publishing happens all the time on many issues with no response at all from planners. Why would these publications be treated any different?

As further detailed later in these comments, publication of economic analysis around recreational economic contributions on BLM lands has skyrocketed in the last decade and this is simply omitted from analysis. The annual Department of Commerce works would be an example of the large amounts of new information being published on this issue as this information was only in its infancy when the final Sage Grouse management decisions were previously made in 2015.  Clearly the mere publication of information is not the threshold.

2b.  The Proposal asserts management threshold triggers were exceeded but provides no explanation of how this determination was made.

The Proposal simply asserts that 16 monitoring triggers have been exceeded in the previous Sage Grouse planning documents, but provides no meaningful discussion of what these management threshold triggers were or what factors might have caused the management threshold trigger levels to be exceeded. In a perplexing  development at other points in the Proposal, it is asserted that 42 monitoring triggers were exceeded.^[8]  How can there be such a range of management threshold triggers being exceeded? Are the events causing the management threshold trigger to be exceeded natural events, such as fire or drought?  Manmade events? Was there some new environmental factor that was only recognized since the last planning effort?  How does a localized management threshold trigger point being exceeded relate to the landscape scale of planning? Was the particular management threshold trigger exceeded everywhere in the planning area?  Were certain management threshold triggers exceeded in certain locations?  If so, what management threshold triggers were exceeded in what locations for how long? Again,  this is basic information that is critical to the process.  These were also foundational decisions for the planning process that appear to have been entirely omitted from this effort. Without information such as this, how can the public confirm we are all addressing the same issues or that the planning effort even has a common starting point.

Even when there is information provided on what the management threshold trigger is that was exceeded  the information is simply insufficient to answer basic questions.  The Proposal makes a passing reference that wildfires may have contributed to management threshold triggers being exceeded as follows:

“Sixteen adaptive management habitat triggers were tripped between 2015 – 2020, mostly the result of sagebrush loss to wildfires.”^[9]

This type of analysis immediately creates questions such as why would we reopen all planning due to localized impacts of wildfire? Why would issues like Sage Grouse habitat restoration not be addressed in post fire management efforts, like a burned area response (“BAER”) effort? Had these areas been mitigated? It is beyond argument that wildfires are getting more severe and that in several years following the 2015 management revisions the Western United States has had bad fire years.  Clearly the Proposal is not asserting that wildfires must reduce in scope and scale to avoid further management actions on Sage Grouse.  Again, these are basic questions that must be addressed on the local level before making the decision to reopen a multi-state planning effort.

The inclusion of highly localized factors as the basis to reopen the previous landscape planning efforts still creates further questions about the purpose and need for the effort. What percentage of these areas was managed in compliance with range standards previously proposed? How much of the planning area had been subject to any implementation efforts at all? How was the timeframe between this planning effort and the close of previous planning efforts determined to be the appropriate timeframe to determine the success or failure of these management efforts?

This brings the Organizations to our first question on this Proposal.  “What is the problem?” and secondly “How do we define success of any management effort?”  We are unsure how to meaningfully address the Proposal without this type of information.  We are also concerned that this unsupported decision-making process for the protection of species sets a VERY bad precedent that will undermine species protection efforts in the future. The Proposal appears to assert that since some portion of sage grouse habitat was impacted by wildfire and various publications about sage grouse were made, planning revisions are now needed. This is a terrible precedent for the basis of any planning as this basis could continue almost infinitely.   Without the ability to define success and address the problem that is to be resolved, this will allow planning efforts to arbitrarily be reopened. This is exactly the situation that NEPA was put in place to avoid. The highly arbitrary basis for planning to be reopened will also be a barrier to implementation as managers will not want to implement any decision that could simply alter direction next year and be deprioritized or even found to be a threat to the species.

3. Recreation in all forms must be addressed in the Proposal or entirely removed from analysis.

The Organizations were simply shocked at the scale of conflicting guidance that is given in the Proposal regarding possible recreational concerns  to the Sage Grouse populations and impacts to recreational access and usage that could result from Sage Grouse management decisions. The Proposal begins by asserting that Recreational access and travel management will be addressed as follows:

“ES.3.1 Issues Retained for Further Consideration in this RMPA/EIS

The following resource topics identified during public scoping are being carried forward for further analysis in this RMP Amendment/EIS.

• • Special status species (including GRSG)
  • Fish and wildlife
  • Air resources and climate
  • Soil resources
  • Water resources
  • Vegetation, including riparian areas and wetlands
  • Wild horses and burros
  • Cultural resources
  • Lands with wilderness characteristics
  • Wildland fire ecology
  • Livestock grazing
  • Recreation
  • Travel and transportation
  • Mineral resources
  • Lands and realty
  • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
  • Tribal interests
  • Social and economic conditions, including environmental justice”^[10]

Thie asserted scope of the Proposal on recreational and travel analysis was  immediately contradicted  in introductory provisions of the Proposal where the initial assertion that recreation and travel management was reversed  as follows:

How should recreation and travel be managed to protect GRSG and sagebrush habitat?

Recommendations for recreation and travel management received during public scoping are either already in the existing RMP language from 2015 and 2019, or are not RMP-level decisions (e.g., guidance on site-specific route designations, recommended route densities, limitations on dispersed recreation). Because such actions would be consistent with existing management or are not applicable at the RMP-level, no changes in RMP management actions need to be considered. ^[11]

The Proposals  assertion that  recreation and travel management are outside the scoped of analysis simply does not align with the analysis in the Proposal, as in the first volume of the EIS alone recreational usage  is addressed  216 times. These two situations simply cannot be reconciled. If the desire is to avoid impacts to recreational access in the Proposal, this analysis and conclusion must be far more directly and clearly stated.  If the Proposal is addressing recreation and travel management, as is evidenced by the 216 references to recreation in the first volume of the EIS, the Proposal needs to do this in a manner that complies with NEPA. This simply has not occurred either as the recreational and travel management portions of the Proposal span a mere two pages and no economic analysis for recreation is even mentioned.

Even if the exclusion of recreation and travel management from the Proposal analysis noted above is asserted to be precise, the summary of BLM planning efforts  simply fails to reflect the diversity of BLM plans and age on the landscape. This decision also leaves an immense ambiguity in the possible protection of recreational access simply based on the limited date range of BLM RMP that are reviewed for recreational standards. While the Proposal starts analysis from 2015, we are aware of many RMP in various habitat areas that are FAR older than 2015. As an example, the Big Desert BLM planning area in Idaho  is still operating on a management framework plan approved in 1981. As a result, we are unable to identify the relationship of this effort to those areas. This type of ambiguity is simply insufficient to comply with NEPA requirements.

The Proposal failure to meaningfully address recreation, despite the fact it is mentioned 216 times in the first volume of the EIS alone, is problematic.  The current determination that recreational access is outside the scope of the Proposal is simply never explained or reconciled to the fact recreational issues are raised throughout the Proposal when addressing specific concerns. While no analysis of possible recreational impacts and travel management decisions are provided in the two pages of analysis provided^[12], these types of concerns are woven throughout the Proposal.  Again, this is an immense problem as many standards directly reference recreation and possible relationships of recreation and sage grouse. This is simply insufficient to support any assertion of NEPA sufficiency.

4. Executive Orders issued by President Biden specifically requiring economic analysis of agency actions and expansion of recreational opportunities have not been addressed in the Proposal.

The Organizations are vigorously opposed to the Proposal assertion that recreation and travel are outside the scope of analysis of the Proposal, which simply cannot be reconciled with the analysis provided.  This assertion will not protect recreational access but rather compound impacts as no analysis of possible impacts of management decisions has been provided. Rather this failure to provide meaningful guidance will result in steps being taken to restrict recreation for almost any possible basis in future site specific planning with the mere assertion it is benefitting Sage Grouse.  There will simply be nothing to rebut this assertion in the Plan. Our concerns around the systemic failure to address recreational values for landscapes is further compounded when the various protections and analysis required by several Executive Orders from President Biden are reviewed.   The Organizations would note that Executive Orders(“EO”) 14008  and 14057 simply are not referenced in the Proposal despite these Executive Orders being issued by President Biden.

The Proposal provides no meaningful discussion of how compliance with various standards in Eos was determined and this is in stark contrast to the analysis required for these Executive Orders as they mirror many of the sentiments raised in the Proclamation. A full review  and analysis of the various components of EO 14008 is critical to bringing balance to public lands and the Proposal is critical as there are three times recreational access and economic benefits of recreation are identified for improvement is specified in EO 14008.

§214 of EO 14008 clearly mandates improved recreational access to public lands through management as follows:

“It is the policy of my Administration to put a new generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters. The Federal Government must protect America’s natural treasures, increase reforestation, improve access to recreation, and increase resilience to wildfires and storms, while creating well-paying union jobs for more Americans, including more opportunities for women and people of color in occupations where they are underrepresented.”^[13]

The clear and concise mandate of the EO to improve recreational access to public lands is again repeated in §215 of the EO as follows:

“The initiative shall aim to conserve and restore public lands and waters, bolster community resilience, increase reforestation, increase carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protect biodiversity, improve access to recreation, and address the changing climate.” ^[14]

§217 of EO 14008 also clearly requires improvement of economic contributions from recreation on public lands as follows:

“Plugging leaks in oil and gas wells and reclaiming abandoned mine land can create well-paying union jobs in coal, oil, and gas communities while restoring natural assets, revitalizing recreation economies, and curbing methane emissions.” ^[15]

Our position is the Proposal violates the mandate of 14008 to address recreational access and economic benefits of recreation to local communities. This must be corrected and addressed in the Proposal with required analysis and protections for recreational access. The Proposals’ complete failure to address similar Executive Orders is not limited to a failure to address compliance with EO 14008 but extend to  EO 14057 issued by President Biden on December 13, 2021.  The immediate concern over the failure to address Executive Order 14057 is again apparent when EO 14057 is actually reviewed. EO 14057 starts with this general statement of purpose:

“In responding to this crisis, we have a once-in-a-generation economic opportunity to create and sustain jobs, including well-paying union jobs; support a just transition to a more sustainable economy for American workers; strengthen America’s communities;”^[16]

EO 14057 has repeated and specific requirements to address economic contributions and impacts from agency actions as follows:

“c) reform agency policies and funding programs that are maladaptive to climate change and increase the vulnerability of communities, natural or built systems, economic sectors, and natural resources to climate impacts, or related risks; and” ^[17]

EO 14057 specifically addresses the need for incorporation of economic contribution in agency actions to create or improve sustainability of both the agency actions and management decisions. Again, the Organizations are unable to identify any attempt to outline how these requirements were complied with in the development of the Proposal as there is no discussion of how the asserted compliance was determined.

5(a).  Economic analysis is identified as an important characteristic in NEPA analysis.

It is well established that economic impacts and contributions from all multiple uses are an important factor required to be addressed in the NEPA process. Despite this legal requirement of NEPA analysis being of heightened importance for recreational activities in several Executive Orders, the Proposal falls woefully short of a legally sufficient legal analysis of this issue and well short of the analysis of an issue identified as an important sector of the planning area community.

Economic contribution calculations are often complex and involve a balance of numerous factors that directly impact the spending habits of those sought to be studied, and often involve far more analysis and discussion than planning for other issues.  The basic complexity of any economic determinations and the size of the calculations to be made are summarized by the Western Governors Association’s recreational economic contributions study  as follows:

“How is “economic impact” calculated? Many people might think of a consumer buying equipment – a tent, fishing pole, ATV, bicycle, boat, snowboard or rifle. However, the impact is much more complex than the manufacture and sale of gear and vehicles. Gas stations, restaurants, hotels, river guides and ski resorts benefit from outdoor recreation. In total, equipment and travel expenditures represent billions in direct sales that create jobs, income, tax revenues and other economic benefits.”^[18]

The complexity of the calculations undertaken for economic impact calculations is immediately evidenced by the sheer number of pages required in most economic impact reports, as the explanation of the analysis process used to arrive at any final figure of any economic contribution analysis is often as valuable as the total economic contribution that is reached. Given the complexity of the process, we must question how the decision was made to provide no economic analysis of contributions from recreation and how these could be impacted by additional management restrictions was made in the Proposal.

5(b) Proper integration of economic information in the planning process is an ongoing issue in federal planning.

The proper integration of accurate economic information is often a weakness of the public land planning process in the Western United States, which has resulted in the creation of many other longer-term problems when decisions reflecting an imbalanced multiple uses are implemented.  The Organizations submit that the failure of many planning efforts to accurately address economic impacts and contributions was a concern addressed around the development of previous Sage Grouse planning efforts.   The Western Governors Association released its Get Out West report in conjunction with its economic impact study of recreation on public lands in the Western United States which specifically identified that proper valuation is a significant management concern as follows:

“Several managers stated that one of the biggest challenges they face is “the undervaluation of outdoor recreation” relative to other land uses.”^[19]

The Get Out West report from the Western Governors’ Association also highlighted how critical proper valuation of recreation is to the development of good management plans based on multiple use principals.  The Get Out West report specifically found:

“Good planning not only results in better recreation opportunities, it also helps address and avoid major management challenges – such as limited funding, changing recreation types, user conflicts, and degradation of the assets. Managers with the most successfully managed recreation assets emphasized that they planned early and often. They assessed their opportunities and constraints, prioritized their assets, and defined visions.”^[20]

The Organizations believe our concerns regarding the Proposal and those expressed in the Western Governor’s Get Out West report virtually mirror each other. This concern must be addressed prior to finalizing the Proposal in order to avoid increases to many other management issues that were sought to be minimized with the creation. There can simply be no factual argument made that recreation has not been significantly undervalued in the Proposal and this has directed the range of alternatives provided for multiple use recreation in the planning area.

5(c)  Accurate analysis of economic impacts from planning is an exceptionally complex task to be addressed in every phase of planning.

As noted in the Western Governors’ Get Out West report, public lands are a major economic driver for many Western communities that are often completely surrounded by large tracts of public lands.  Usage of these public lands takes a variety of forms, but the largest user of public lands throughout the West is the recreational user. To ensure economic contributions of public lands to local communities and western states, relevant federal statutes and BLM planning documents implementing these statutes explicitly require economics to be addressed in every stage of the planning process.  The BLM handbook requires planners to document economic methods in two stages before the releasing draft alternatives. The Organizations believe these mandates simply have not been complied with in the development of the Proposal and will result in long term increases in user conflicts and degradation of assets and economic contributions, all of which are identified as priority concerns in several Executive Orders and NEPA.

The basic mandate to include documented economic analysis early  in the interdisciplinary team process for public lands planning is provided by the Federal Lands Planning and Management Act (“FLPMA).  FLPMA  specifies the various criteria that must be incorporated at specific times in the development of a land use plan as follows:

“(c) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall–

(2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences;…” ^[21]

The basic mandate of FLPMA regarding the critical need for documented economic analysis is more specifically and extensively addressed in Appendix D of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook.    Appendix D opens as follows:

“A. The Planning Process

To be effective, social scientific data and methods should be integrated into the entire planning process, from preparing the pre-plan to implementation and monitoring. The main social science activities for the various planning steps are outlined in Table D-1.

The Organizations must note that economic concerns are the only factor that is addressed in every step of the planning process laid out in the BLM planning handbook. Documentation of economic forecasts and analysis methodology is required in two separate stages before release of draft alternatives.   The required documentation of these concerns is exactly the information the Organizations seek to review but cannot review in the Proposal as required as the information provided is simply not provided for recreation.

5(d) The Proposal fails to recognize the immense contributions of recreational activity in the planning area identified by other planning agencies.

The Proposal provides what appears to be a reasonable analysis of many activities that could be negatively impacted by the new management standards, making the Proposals silence on recreational impacts only that much more vivid. This silence is only compounded when the consistent recognition of the economic importance of recreational opportunities on BLM lands is addressed. For the last several years the BLM has provided their “BLM A sound investment for America” in 2022 brochure, which we believe is an important resource for managers and partners.^[23]  This brochure provides a highly detailed breakdown of the economic importance of recreation on BLM lands as recreation is the primary economic contributor to communities in almost every state BLM owns lands in, which is reflected in the following chart:

The 2022 BLM Sound Investment analysis further provides the following summary of the economic importance of recreation to local communities as follows:

RECREATION: More than 99 percent of BLM-managed lands are available for recreation at no fee to visitors. Lands used for recreational activities attract visitor spending and contribute significantly to local economies. In FY 2021, BLM-managed lands received more than 80 million recreation-related visits, an increase of about 10 percent over the previous year.^[24]

The immediate conflict between these two positions being taken by the BLM cannot be overlooked.

The economic importance of recreation to western states was also recognized by the US Department of Commerce in the their annual Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account on the issue.^[25]  The summary highlights the immense percentage of GDP that recreation provides to western states as follows:

The Department of Commerce also provides a highly detailed annual report and breakdown of the specific benefits to each state from outdoor recreation.  A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “3” to these comments. The USFS also has recognized the immense value of multiple use recreational opportunities on their lands in the most recent economic analysis conducted with their National Visitor Use Monitoring efforts. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “4” to these comments. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition has partnered for decades with the USFS, BLM and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to provide high quality economic data for motorized recreation in the state of Colorado.  COHVCO recently updated this research and released a detailed analysis of these conclusions and process for use in planning.  A copy of this work is attached as Exhibit “5” to these comments.

The Organizations are deeply concerned that the Proposal provides no guidance on how these proposed Alternatives could impact recreational economic contributions, despite numerous Executive Orders, NEPA requirements and high quality detailed information being provided from partner agencies on this issue.  For this reason alone the Organizations are unable to support any Alternative other than Alternative A of the Proposal.

6. The BLM Blueprint for 21^st Century Outdoor Recreation strategy has simply been ignored in this effort.

The Organizations have been engaged in recent efforts of the BLM around their 21^st Century Recreation Strategy, including attending public meetings in Las Vegas and Washington DC last year. Our efforts have also included numerous rounds of comments and meetings with a wide range of BLM staff. These have been significant efforts on our part that we have undertaken in good faith in an attempt to understand the challenges facing the BLM as a result of decades of budget cuts and staffing challenges. In these meetings and comments, we have voice significant concerns about the failure of various planning efforts to meaningfully integrate various efforts, which appear to the public, to be occurring largely in isolation from each other. We have been consistently informed that the new recreation strategy would start to address these types of concerns.  After reviewing the Proposal, we are unable to identify any integration of various issue specific efforts into the larger vision reflected in the recreation Strategy.

Given the scale of the Proposal and of the 21^st Century Recreation Blueprint, we would have expected this effort to be mentioned in the Proposal and meaningfully discussed as this would send a strong message to recreational partners such as ourselves that in many areas are now entirely providing all funding to the BLM for staffing and recreational projects.  Rather than proactively identifying the relationship of the two efforts, the silence on this issue also sends a strong message and it is not positive about the value of these partnerships.

Our frustration with the failure to meaningfully address recreation in planning is compounded when the Executive Summary of the BLM’s 21^st Century Recreation Blueprint is reviewed.  This Executive Summary provides as follows:

“Executive Summary

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing a “Blueprint for 21st Century Outdoor Recreation” (Blueprint) intended to guide investments, partnerships, outreach, and program development to respond to current demand and chart a course to meet future needs.

The Blueprint presents several major shifts in how the agency prioritizes and supports outdoor recreation. The BLM is committed to durable change, which means it must work closely with communities and partners to respond to varying recreation opportunities and pressures and seek continuous program improvements. Another principle of change is a shift from reactive recreation management to a proactive approach, enabling planning to consider sustainable resource management needs. Importantly, the Blueprint advances the “U.S. Department of the Interior Equity Action Plan” and builds on prior work through the “Connecting with Communities: BLM Recreation Strategy,” offering a new path forward that promotes equitable access to outdoor recreation opportunities, while conserving, protecting, and enhancing BLM’s one-of-a-kind resources and experiences.

As part of this Blueprint, BLM has established a new vision to proactively manage for exceptional and one-of-a-kind recreational experiences that invite all to share in the enjoyment and stewardship of their public lands and waters. The Blueprint vision includes four strategic pillars. Each pillar outlines desired outcomes, core strategies, and partnership success stories. The BLM believes these pillars will serve as the foundation for successful recreation management in the 21st century.

The Four Strategic Pillars are:

1. 1. Grow and Diversify Resources for BLM Recreation
   2. Prioritize and Embrace Partnerships
   3. Expand Outreach and Establish a Culture of Inclusion
   4. Meet the Demand, Protect Resources, and Improve Access”^[26]

The overlap between the stated mission of this information and the information we are seeking in this Proposal cannot be overlooked.  While the Proposal seeks to reopen Sage Grouse management as some percentage of management triggers are exceeded and various publications on Sage Grouse were made, the 21^st Century Recreation Blueprint has been ignored in both letter and spirit despite 100% of the goals being exceeded in the Proposal.  Even more frustrating is the fact we are unable to identify a single step that has been taken in furtherance of these goals or a single planning effort where this document as been taken into account.

Conclusion.

The Organizations are forced to support Alternative 1 of the Proposal and vigorously oppose each of the other Alternatives.  The DEIS fails to provide even basic information necessary to make a meaningful comment  and is often internally contradictory regarding the scope of analysis. After reviewing the Proposal, the Organizations are unable to answer basic generalized questions around the effort such as: “Why have previous management efforts been found unsuccessful so quickly?”  Given the short time frame of this decision we must also ask how much of the previous management effort was even implemented.  Additional foundational information addressing why the large-scale revision of existing planning has been found necessary simply are not meaningful addressed, which only confounds basic understanding of the Proposal.

Our Organizations have partnered with the BLM for decades and provide hundreds of millions annually to support sustainable recreational opportunities on federal and state public lands across the nation.  While this is an important partnership for our interests, recreational usage simply is not even analyzed in the Proposal.  This is concerning as the Proposal asserts recreation access is not an issue to be analyzed but then every specific topic or issue addresses recreation.  The Organizations vigorously assert that recreation in all forms must be recognized and analyzed in the Proposal as it is mentioned 216 times in the first volume of the EIS. This simply has not happened as the Proposal asserts that recreational issues are outside the scope of the Proposal and the EIS provides a mere 2 pages of generalized discussion of recreational impacts from the Proposal. The Organizations simply cannot reconcile these positions in the Proposal.  Analysis of how to improve recreational access and detailed examination of the economic contributions of recreational opportunities is required by President Biden’s Executive Orders such as 14008 and 14057. Again, the Proposal omits any analysis of possible changes in the economic contributions from recreational activity in the planning area despite these requirements.

The failure of the Proposal to meaningfully address recreational impacts and economic contributions from recreation to local communities is expanded when the newly released BLM 21^st Century Outdoor Recreation Blueprint. While the BLMs 21^st Century Recreation plan makes sweeping assertions of engagement and partnerships, none of these goals are addressed in the Proposal, despite the Proposal addressing an immense percentage of the lands managed by the BLM.

The Organizations would welcome discussions on development of an Alternative that provided high quality recreational opportunities and protected other values as well. This type of alternative could be developed largely based on existing management.    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.
COHVCO & USA, Authorized Representative

Fred Wiley
President & CEO, ORBA

Eric Snyder
Manager, Government Affairs
SEMA

Edward Calhoun
President, Colorado Snowmobile Association

Chad Hixon
Executive Director, Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
One Voice, Chairman
CORE, President/Founder

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC
Authorized Representative, ISSA

Steve Egbert
United 4 Wheel Drive Association, Chair

Matthew Giltner
Chairman,  Nevada Offroad Association

Clif Koontz
Executive Director, Ride with Respect

[1] See, Proposal at pg. 1-4.

[2] See, Carter pg. 10.

[3] See, Carter pg 11.

[4] See, Teige pg. 10.

[5] See, Teige pg.11.

[6] See, Teige pg. 11.

[7] See, Teige pg. 11.

[8] See, Proposal at pg. 1-3.

[9] See, Proposal at pg. 1-3.

[10] See, Proposal at pg. ES-3.

[11] See, Proposal at pg. 1-10.

[12] See, Proposal §3.19 & 3.20

[13] See, President Joe Biden, Executive Order 14008; 86 Fed Reg 7619 At pg. 7626 (2021)

[14] See, EO 14008 at pg. 7627.

[15] See, EO 14008 at pg. 7628

[16] See, President Joseph Biden; Executive Order 14057; 86 Fed Reg. 70935(2021).

[17] See, EO 14057 at pg. 70938.

[18] See Western Governors Association report; A snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation; prepared by Southwick and Associates; July 2012 at pg. 1.

[19] See, Western Governors Association; Get out West Report; Managing the Regions Recreational Assets; June 2012 at pg.. 3.

[20] See, Get Out West Report at pg. 5.

[21] 43 U.S.C. §1712

[22] See, BLM LUP Handbook H-1601-1 at Appendix D pg. 2. Emphasis added.

[23] A complete copy of this report is attached as Exhibit “1” of these comments.

[24] See, Sound investment strategy brochure at pg. 2.

[25] A copy of the Dept of Commerce 2022  Naitonal Report on recreational activity  is attached as Exhibit “3” to these comments.

[26] See, DOI , BLM Blueprint for  21^st Century Outdoor Recreation; August 2023 at pg. 1.

Bureau of Land Management
Richfield Field Office
150 East 900 North
Richfield, UT 84701

RE: Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge TMP (DOI-BLM-UT-C020-2018-0006-EA)

Dear BLM Planning Team:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge (HMFG) Travel Management Plan (TMP).

1. Background of Our Organizations

In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following four groups:

Colorado Off Road Enterprise (CORE) is a motorized action group based out of Buena Vista Colorado whose mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy. CORE achieves this through trail adoptions, trail maintenance projects, education, stewardship, outreach, and collaborative efforts.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado.  COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

Ride with Respect (RwR) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. Since then, over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. Primarily in the Moab Field Office, RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands.

The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple use recreation. The TPA acts as an advocate for the sport and takes necessary action to ensure that the USFS and BLM allocate a fair and equitable percentage of public lands to diverse multiple-use recreation opportunities.

2. Introduction

HMFG is a huge planning area at the heart of canyon country that’s quintessential to southern Utah recreation, containing many motorized trails of great value, with routes traversing from nearly the top of the Henry Mountains to the bottom of the Dirty Devil River. While the scale of the area may make planning feel overwhelming, the scale is part of what makes this network of routes so outstanding. It’s critical to fully assess the quantity and quality of routes, as they combine to provide diverse recreation that’s only becoming more important in modern life across our nation.

3. The route inventory must be completed in order to reach a sound decision.

Good planning starts with fully documenting the current conditions so that the affects of any alternative can be accurately analyzed. The HMFG route inventory is clearly missing hundreds of miles of existing routes, most of which are primitive roads while others are OHV trails, and most of which have existed for many decades.

Even if an existing route would remain closed in all of the alternatives, it needs to be included in the route inventory to assess things like minimization, particularly since this TMP is intended to redo the TMP from 2008. Most of the missing routes were not inventoried prior to 2008, so they have never been properly analyzed, and this TMP represents the time to give them a fair shake. Nearly all of the missing routes were open prior to 2008, so they should be reconsidered to designate them open or to finally account for the positive and negative effects of their closure.

Missing routes are a major issue across the planning area, all of which should be revisited to complete the inventory, but the organizations will provide six examples:

1. Many primitive roads are missing from the route inventory between North Hatch Wash and Big Ridge (as one can easily see from aerial photos in addition to observation at ground level), including one that connects the bench road (GABD0511) all the way to the Simplot Dugway, providing a tremendous trail experience that is not substituted by the graded road of North Hatch Canyon.
2. Another primitive road in that same vicinity illustrates the personal meaning of many such routes. Specifically it’s in the southeast corner of the TLA section that’s a couple miles southwest of the Simplot Dugway. As one can easily see from aerial photos in addition to observation at ground level, it gently climbs from the graded road up to the bench and ends at a camp where half a dozen trailers spent half a year building the Simplot Dugway for Kirkwood Oil. One of our members has fond memories of spending the summer of 1980 there despite historic flooding that year, and he would love to visit the camp, but he depends upon motorized access due to his mobility limitations.
3. Several motorized singletracks exist along Skyline Rim and down it (connecting Upper Blue Hills and Lower Blue Hills), providing trail-based motorcycling opportunities through this striking area, which were a prized consolation after open cross-country travel of this area was prohibited in 2003.
4. Wild Horse Canyon Road actually crosses Muddy Creek (from WYNC0011d to WYNC0045c). While it may be obscured by the natural meander of Muddy Creek, we have crossed it for many decades, as it provides the only through-going route besides the graded Reef road and the paved highway.
5. North of Backburn Draw / Little Meadow, a full-size vehicle route connects WYBD0199 to WYBD0177), creating loop opportunities northeast of Hanksville with more flowing trail and scenic views than most routes in the sand flats further northeast. From this route, an old constructed road climbs north to reach WYBD0198, thus staying further away from Little Meadow. Since the old road wasn’t designated open in 2008, it is now less apparent, but still offers a viable connection from WYBD0199 to WYBD0198.
6. Several routes to the planning area boundary are missing despite that they are designated open on the other side, such as one that follows the west side of North Spring Wash (northwest of Little Saucer Basin) and becomes SD333 as designated by the San Rafael Desert TMP decision of 2022.

Perhaps some of the missing routes were excluded from the inventory because they appeared to be partially “reclaimed” or hard to find. This appearance doesn’t justify exclusion because it doesn’t mean that:

1. The routes have received no OHV use in recent years (as some terrain is prone to disguising evidence of use),
2. The routes have no current value for OHV use (as a lack of use could be due to a lack of wayfinding signs),
3. The routes have no potential value for OHV use (as the amount and types of recreational use increases), or
4. Use of the routes would cause significant adverse impacts (as some routes are essentially innocuous, especially when they receive a modicum of management like basic maintenance and user education, which can be supported through resources such as OHV groups and the State of Utah as well as Garfield and Wayne counties).

In fact, often the more primitive routes are quite manageable because basic measures can be taken before any major increase of use, and often they are of higher quality for OHV riding. Most OHV riders favor trail characteristics that offer more challenge, a sense of flow, and connection with the surroundings.

Also perhaps some of the missing routes were excluded from the inventory to avoid the expense of doing more Class III cultural surveys. While the 2017 settlement may require cultural surveys to be done on HMFG routes that will be designated open, it does not require cultural surveys to be done on HMFG routes that will be merely proposed to be designated open by an alternative, and it does not require cultural surveys to be done on HMFG routes that will be included in the route inventory. When it comes to actually designating the routes open, the additional time needed to perform cultural surveys would surely be granted given that its purpose is to comply with the 2017 settlement.

4. At least one alternative must propose to open many of the currently-inventoried routes in order to provide an adequate range of alternatives.

Good planning depends on considering a healthy range of alternatives and, if it wouldn’t be unreasonable to designate a given route open, then it should be open in at least one of the alternatives. Many such routes (that were included in the route inventory and are reasonable to open) are not open in any of the preliminary alternatives.

Viable routes being excluded from every alternative can be found across the planning area, all of which should be revisited in at least one draft alternative, but the organizations will provide three examples:

1. Between North Hatch Wash and Big Ridge, the bench road (GABD0511) is “reclaiming” according to your preliminary route report, but it clearly exists and is still passable as you can see from the following photo of its entrance in 2021.
   Also the bench road is “in Mexican spotted owl critical designated habitat” according to your preliminary route report, but it’s hundreds of feet below the cliffs, so it seems possible that it will not cause considerable adverse effects. Likewise the route has “potential for conflicts between off-road vehicle users and dispersed, non-motorized/non-mechanized forms of recreation” according to your preliminary route report but, in the vicinity of the bench road, non-motorized use doesn’t seem common or particularly sensitive to responsible use of the road. Plus those seeking more exclusively non-motorized recreation can find it in the wilderness study areas (WSAs) that are north and south of the bench road as well as the national recreation area and national park that are east of the bench road, as Big Ridge is an island of traditional multiple-use management. The organizations are open to additional information but, at this stage, it seems entirely appropriate to open the bench road in at least one alternative.
2. The primitive road up Cass Creek (GAHM0308b) climbs from 8,600′ to 9,800′, and the additional elevation provides more forest cover as well as the sense of being “in the mountains” instead of merely “on the mountain,” not to mention the welcome challenge of scaling a rocky route. We have ridden this route prior to 2008, and it’s quite important along with the few other primitive routes in the Henry Mountains, as motorized travel is confined to graded roads in most of the Henry’s. The preliminary route report states the potential for negative impacts to soil and wildlife, but seasonal restrictions could be applied so long as it’s open for most of the summer and fall. The preliminary route report states the potential for negative impacts to the surrounding WSA, but much of the sights and sounds of motorized use are screened by the route’s location, as it sits in the bottom of a major drainage surrounded by vegetation.
3. The Coal Mine Wash route (WYNC0047c) is an important link as well as providing striking views in a relatively remote part of Lower Blue Hills and a challenging climb up to Upper Blue Hills. The preliminary route report states the potential for negative impacts to endangered plants species, but basic measures like route marking could ensure that the vast majority of use would be confined to the designated route. It also states the potential for negative impacts to cultural sites, but there’s plenty of room in the given terrain for rerouting as needed. Going back decades, we have enjoyed riding this route, as well as every other route mentioned in these comments. Opening the route shouldn’t be ruled out at the outset of the draft TMP, so it should be open in at least one alternative, then it can be vetted further.

5. When developing TMP alternatives, the 2017 settlement does NOT require an alternative to close routes in lands with wilderness characteristics, only in natural areas and WSAs.

Many of your preliminary route reports state “Per the Settlement, BLM is analyzing at least one alternative route network that designates routes in BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics as closed to public OHV use.” Also your preliminary Alternative B closes virtually every route within lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) other than those that form cherry-stems or other boundaries of LWCs.

However the 2017 does NOT require an alternative to close routes in LWCs, only in the subset of LWCs that are “natural areas” (which is an RMP decision) as well as WSAs, as indicated by the very heading of that part of the 2017 settlement:
“f. Alternative route networks within WSAs and Natural Areas.
For routes or portions thereof that are located on public land within wilderness study areas (“WSAs”) and Natural Areas, BLM will analyze in the NEPA document at least one alternative route network that would enhance BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics by designating the routes or the relevant portions thereof as closed to ORV use, unless ORV use of the route is authorized by an existing right-of-way or other BLM authorization or by law. To the extent ORV use of a route is authorized, this alternative route network will include measures limiting ORV use to enhance BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics to the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable laws, regulations, or existing right-of-way authorizations.”

Therefore your draft alternatives should not propose to close any routes outside of natural areas or WSAs for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics (WC).

6. When making the TMP final decision, impacts to wilderness characteristics should not be minimized outside of areas that the RMP directs to manage for wilderness characteristics.

Through approving the 2008 Richfield RMP, the BLM decided to manage for WC in 12 areas that it calls natural areas to distinguish them from other LWCs, which the BLM decided not to manage for WC. The 12 natural areas total 78,600 acres on top of the WSA acreage. Outside of natural areas and WSAs, the BLM should not restrict recreation for the purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, nor should it manufacture other purposes. Rather the BLM should comply with the RMP decision to not manage for WC in the remaining LWC acreage.

7. Conclusion

The organizations hope these comments help you to honor the 2008 RMP decisions, comply with the 2017 settlement, and thoroughly inventory the HMFG routes along with their recreational value to accommodate the growing enthusiasm for motorized trails in this inspiring landscape.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Scott Jones, Esq.
Authorized Representative
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition

BLM Monticello Field Office
ATTN: Monument Planning
365 North Main
Monticello, UT 84535

RE: Bears Ears Proposal RMP revision

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the support of the above Organizations for Alternative A of the Proposal as the Alternatives provided are based on factually indefensible assertions and erroneous calculations at such a level to avoid meaningfully review of impacts. The above Organizations  are vigorously opposed to Alternatives D and E of the Proposal as we are unable to align these Alternatives with the basic purpose and need of the project or the requirements of the Proclamation designating the area. While the Proclamation repeatedly identifies a wide range of recreational opportunities and other values and factors to be protected in the Monument, these Alternatives consistently fail to recognize these values.  We are unable to reconcile protecting recreational values in an alternative that would designate most of the planning area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern or see to develop an entirely new planning model, when compared to USFS and BLM planning regulations. The long-term conflict and challenge of attempting to align decisions such as this with traditional BLM management, such as budgeting and efforts like Great American Outdoors Act funding would be immense. Not only does this type of designation fail to meet the purpose and need of the Proclamation, many legal concepts and standards are twisted into new definitions to support the Alternative.

Our opposition to concerns around Alternatives B and C are centered around three issues:   First numerous recreational benefits are asserted to be coming out of these Alternatives, but we cannot identify any management decisions that would support these conclusions. Rather all management decisions and guidance provided would make expanding recreation more difficult rather than easier. Rather than identifying Special Recreation Management Area (“SRMA”) type designations where recreational access could be improved and expanded, every management designation would make recreational development more difficult as existing SRMA designations are greatly reduced in size or are simply redesignated to Extensive Recreation Management Areas (“ERMA”) designated areas.  The Organizations have never seen this type of management model expand recreational access.

Secondly, these generalized assertions of benefits are made without recognition or analysis  of the major or indirect components of the recreational usage asserted to be benefitted.  An example of this would be assertions that more camping access is made, but there is no recognition that camping is often driven by motorized access.  There is no location where motorized access would be improved making any assertion of improved opportunities like camping difficult to support.

Thirdly, significant portions of analysis simply  do not have any factual accuracy, such as the economic analysis and the complete lack of cultural resource inventory information despite the Proclamation identifying several different cultural values to be protected, such as cultural sites and cultural landscapes. The Proposal introduces entirely new planning concepts, such as a cultural landscape, but fails to provide any definition used in the development of the Proposal or that could be used in any subsequent site-specific planning efforts.

Without basic definitions and analysis on landscape level  foundational terms and concepts such as cultural landscape or what a soundscape management plan would require, how can subsequent planning be guided by the RMP. We are unable to find any definitions for these and many other concepts in BLM regulations or existing statutes further compounding the failure of the Proposal on this issue. When our efforts forced us to seek other authorities for a possible definition of a cultural landscape, these definitions simply failed to align in any way with the concepts or analysis in the Proposal. The Proposal not only fails to align with third party definitions of cultural landscapes, and fails to provide any cultural standards at all. Is a cultural site more protected than a cultural landscape?  Is there a certain density of cultural sites necessary to have a cultural landscape? Is the entire Monument a cultural landscape? How many cultural sites have been identified already in the planning area? We simply do not know.  Almost a decade has passed  since the issuance of the Original Proclamation by Obama December 28, 2016 designated the Monument. Despite this amount of time passing, it appears significant foundational work has not been completed.  This again is a concern as there is significant foundational work remaining and we have no basis to assume this will be completed in a timely manner.

1. Who we are.

Before addressing the Organizations specific concerns regarding the Proposal, we believe a brief summary of each Organization is needed. The Off-Road Business Association (“ORBA”) is a national not-for-profit trade association of motorized off-road related businesses formed to promote and preserve off-road recreation in an environmentally responsible manner.

One Voice is a non-profit national association committed to promoting the rights of motorized enthusiasts and improving advocacy in keeping public and private lands open for responsible recreation through strong leadership, advocacy, and collaboration.  One Voice provides a unified voice for motorized recreation through a national platform that represents the diverse off-highway vehicle (OHV) community.

The United Snowmobile Alliance (“USA”) is a nationally recognized 501 (c)(3) dedicated to the preservation and promotion of environmentally responsible organized snowmobiling and the creation of safe and sustainable snowmobiling in the United States.

United Four-Wheel Drive Association (“U4WD”) is an international organization whose mission is to protect, promote, and provide 4×4 opportunities world-wide.

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (“SEMA”) is a non-profit trade association that represents over 7,000 mostly small businesses around the country that manufacture, distribute, and retail specialty parts and accessories for motor vehicles. The industry employs over 1 million Americans and produces performance, functional, restoration and styling-enhancement products for use on passenger cars, trucks, SUVs, and special interest collector vehicles. SEMA members market products that enable automotive and off-road enthusiasts to personalize the style and upgrade the performance of their motor vehicles, including everything from classic cars to four-wheel drive vehicles to dedicated race cars.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (“COHVCO”) is a grassroots advocacy organization of approximately 2,500 members seeking to represent, assist, educate, and empower all OHV recreationists in the protection and promotion of off-highway motorized recreation throughout Colorado. COHVCO is an environmental organization that advocates and promotes the responsible use and conservation of our public lands and natural resources to preserve their aesthetic and recreational qualities for future generations.

The Trail Preservation Alliance (“TPA”) is an advocacy organization created to be a viable partner to public lands managers, working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to preserve the sport of motorized trail riding and multiple-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 multiple-use trail recreational opportunities.

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

The Colorado Off-Road Enterprise (“CORE”) is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping motorized trails open in Central Colorado and the region.

The Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is a collaboration of Idaho recreation enthusiasts on the following activities: 4 x 4, Equestrian, Backcountry Aviators, Mountain Biking, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Rafts/Jet boats, ATV/UTV’s, RVers, Recreational Miners, and Rock Hounds. The Idaho Recreation Council is comprised of Idahoans from all parts of the state with a wide spectrum of recreation interest and love for the future of Idaho and a desire to preserve recreation for future generations of Idahoans. If you believe access is important to your recreation please consider joining a club in your area.

Nevada Off Road Association (“NVORA”) is a non-profit Corporation created for and by offroad riders. NVORA was formed to specifically fill the void between the government managers and the rest of us who actively recreate in the Silver State. NVORA does this by maintaining a consistent, durable, and respected relationship with all stakeholders while facilitating a cooperative environment amongst our community.

Ride with Respect (“RwR”) was founded in 2002 to conserve shared-use trails and their surroundings. RwR has educated visitors and performed over twenty-thousand hours of high-quality trail work on public lands. Over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. RwR and its contributors have spent several-hundred hours maintaining trails designated for motorized use in the planning area. We have promoted minimum-impact practices including the preservation of cultural sites given their nonrenewable nature and tremendous value to our nation, particularly to indigenous Americans.

Collectively, ORBA, U4Wd, One Voice, SEMA, TPA, CORE, CSA, IRC, NVORA, RwR and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations” for purposes of these comments.

2. The Organizations are forced to support Alternative A as assertions critical to the Proposal are entirely unsupported by facts.

The Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal systemically makes assertions of generalized benefits to recreation but fails to connect these generalized benefits with actual management decisions and standards proposed. Often positions such as “more recreational use” would result from an Alternative when compared to current management are stated but not meaningfully addressed. This is a problem in isolation when addressing NEPA compliance, but this problem is greatly expanded given the recognition of a wide range of recreational uses identified in the Proclamation and that economic contributions from recreation are identified as an important value in the Monument.   The open-ended nature of the entirely new management standards for cultural landscapes compounds our concerns on the ability to provide even basic infrastructure to support recreation on the Planning area. If the Proposal cannot identify general areas to be improved and explain the general nature of the improvement, implementation of these standards will be impossible.

The Proposal fails to address the fact that existing management of recreational opportunities in the planning area has been found effective in protecting resources. Questions such as: “How could existing management be adapted to align with the Proclamation?” are simply never addressed.  After reviewing the Proclamation and identifying the numerous recreation opportunities identified, we are unable to identify if these opportunities area are even in an SRMA for protection and development.  An example of the Proposal’s systemic use of broad unsupported assertions of benefit to recreation is the summary of recreational access issues made in the Executive Summary of the Proposal which asserts as follows:

“Under Alternative B, the BLM and USDA Forest Service’s management decisions would support more recreational use by allowing for more development of visitor amenities in backcountry and primitive areas. This could increase visitors to BENM, which could increase or decrease economic contributions from recreation depending on the type of visitors and projected expenditures for the visitors.”^[1]

We are unable to identify any locations where designations associated with the expansion of recreational uses, such as an SRMA designations on BLM managed lands are expanded in the Proposal.  What the Organizations do find in every Alternative is a significant expansion of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics designations, or other restrictive new designations like ACEC designations for the entire planning area which would be a barrier to expansion of recreational opportunities rather than an improvement.  Every Alternative provided for the review expands the LWC designation by more than twice existing designations, which again causes concerns about the accuracy of these assertions.^[2]

Many of these newly proposed LWC areas are areas were previously found unsuitable for designation or management as an LWC in the 2008 Monticello RMP due to the recreational usages of these areas and various transportation routes in the area.^[3]   Appendix O of the 2008 Monticello RMP specifically identifies 21 different locations that were removed from possible LWC designation due to the high levels of routes and recreation present in the area. Given the uncontested nature of development in the Monument since 2008, any assertion of Wilderness Characteristics improving in the area lacks a factual and legal basis. This new expansion of LWC areas is provided without any substantiation or support from the Proclamation, which only mentions Wilderness three times when it is discusses existing Wilderness areas in the Planning area. Again, this type of detailed discussion is not provided, and clearly, this type of an expansion of recreational restrictions in every Alternative of management would be contrary to an assertion of expanding recreational infrastructure.   This type of inaccuracy gives the Organizations significant concern regarding any of the Alternatives Proposed.

The lack of support for any assertion of improved recreational access is not limited to just motorized recreation, but appears to involve every recreational activity reviewed in the Proposal. Rather than providing detailed discussions of how the Proposal is expanding recreational access, the Proposal makes the unusual assertion that decisions will increase recreational conflicts as follows:

“Alternatives A, B, C, and D would generally allow recreational shooting except in campgrounds or developed recreation sites, rock writing sites, and structural cultural sites (with the inclusion of WSAs and LWC under Alternative D). Alternatives B, C, and D would also prevent recreational shooting where prohibited under SRMAs, RMZs, or MAs. This management would continue to result in potential conflicts between user groups over recreational shooting.”^[4]

We are not aware of any situation where increased recreational conflict has led to increased access.  There are always winners and losers in these decisions. Clearly recreational shooting is a component of recreational usage on public lands, making this large-scale closure of opportunities difficult to align with any assertion of improved recreational opportunities.  It has been our experience that conflict with recreational shooting and most other recreational uses can be more significant than conflict between other uses.  Conflict around shooting starts at an immense level and move up from there.  While the Proposal recognizes the increased conflict that will result, again no resources are identified to address this issue. We are aware that recreational shooting opportunities can be developed to address generalized shooting closures on public lands.  An example of this type of strategy is exemplified by the efforts of the Arapahoe/Roosevelt NF in northern Colorado in addressing their unmanaged recreational shooting issues on the Forest.^[5] Again, no information or analysis is provided to streamline this type of discussion despite the fact Forests that have adopted this strategy have found the development of shooting facilities in association with landscape level shooting closures highly effective in addressing this issue.

Any assertion of streamlining recreational access is even more problematic when reviewing the USFS managed lands; significant portions of the USFS managed  planning area that are open to designated routes would be moved to a closed designation. Building any motorized recreation opportunity in these areas would now require an RMP amendment as part of site-specific planning, making this planning FAR more difficult.  Even if a project was building trailheads for hiking or other uses in these areas, this project would be more complex and time consuming after the changes proposed.  These designations and facilities for nonmotorized opportunities are useless if the public does not have motorized access to the areas. Building basic infrastructure for even basic access for other uses will be complicated in an area closed to motorized usage. The Organizations submit each of these designations makes any expansion of recreational access in any form more difficult and clearly does not facilitate expansion of recreational opportunities.

The ability to factually support an assertion of improved recreational access is limited given the large number of LWC and other restrictive types of designations are reviewed.  The Proposal continues these unsupported assertions of improved recreational access from management alternatives as follows:

“Under Alternative B, the BLM and USDA Forest Service’s management decisions would support more recreational use by allowing for more development of visitor amenities in backcountry and primitive areas. This could increase visitors to BENM, especially those who enjoy dispersed camping and recreating in more remote areas. Under Alternative B, there could be an increase in percentage of visitors who stay overnight on BENM (so that they are able to access the more primitive areas), rather than visitors who stay off of BENM. As highlighted in Table 3-119 and Table 3-120, a decrease in the percentage of visitors who stay off-site could result in an overall decrease in recreation-related expenditures, which could result in a reduction in economic contributions. On the other hand, if, under Alternative B, there is an overall increase in the number of total visitors to BENM, then there might be an increase in expenditures and economic contributions. The extent to which this change in recreation visitors and type of visitors would impact overall economic contributions would depend on the number of projected visitors and the change in percentage of visitor segments.”^[6]

The accuracy of the above assertions is immediately problematic when SRMA/ERMA designations under Alternative B is compared to existing management for the same area. The lack of factual support would  be exemplified by the Indian Creek SRMA, White Canyon SRMA and Beef Basin SRMA designated under current management for the development of recreational opportunities.  The problematic nature of the assertion is based on the fact each of these existing SRMAs is either entirely removed or downgraded to an ERMA with far less recreational based goals, despite the fact these existing management designations are consistent with the Proclamation.  Under the 2008 Monticello RMP, the Indian Creek SRMA is managed for the following general goals and objectives: ^[7]

“- Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM, NPS, State of Utah, and the Nature Conservancy

-Provide for premier rock climbing experiences, outstanding OHV opportunities, scenic vistas, cultural site interpretation at Newspaper Rock, destination camping areas, and a gateway to Canyonlands National Park.

By the year 2012, manage this SRMA to provide opportunities for visitors to realize personal development and growth, enhanced lifestyle increased local tourism revenue and maintenance of distinct recreation setting character, providing no fewer than 80% of responding visitors and impacted community residents at least a moderate realization of these benefits: (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderate, 4 = total realization).”

The Indian Creek SRMA also had the following specific  goals and objectives: ^[8]

“- Camping is prohibited in the Indian Creek riparian corridor from Newspaper Rock to approximately 1 mile downstream of the Dugout Ranch.

– Camp sites will be removed from the Newspaper Rock area and rehabilitated.

–  A picnic area will be constructed adjacent to the Newspaper Rock parking area.

– Camping along the Bridger Jack Mesa Bench is limited to designated sites.

– A new campground called Shay Mountain Vista Campground will be constructed.

– The area is unavailable for private and/or commercial use of woodland products, including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires. Campers must bring in their own wood for campfires.

– Campfires are restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. In dispersed camping areas, where fire rings are not available, campfires are subject to “Leave No Trace” standards. No campfires are allowed in the Lavender Mesa ACEC.

– Rock-climbing routes in conflict with cultural sites will be closed.

– Camping fees will be charged if deemed necessary to provide needed facilities and services.

– Parking areas will be developed.”

The White Canyon SRMA is managed with the following general  goals and objectives under the 2008 Monticello RMP: ^[9]

“- Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, while protecting natural and cultural resource values through integrated management between the BLM and NPS (including the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Natural Bridges National Monument).

-Provide a spectacular canyoneering recreational experience in a popular, world renowned and easily accessible slot canyon; including backcountry hiking and backpacking, remote camping, cultural site visitation and exploration.”

The Beef Basin SRMA is managed with the following general goals and objectives under the 2008 Monticello RMP:^[10]

“- Provide outstanding recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resource values.

– Provides a popular, remote, backcountry driving experience with primitive camping and cultural site exploration opportunities. Management focus for the SRMA is heritage tourism, traditional cultural values, and scientific research of prehistoric cultural landscapes.

– Provide a semi-primitive recreational experience for visitors to enjoy the world renowned cultural resources and scenic values. Use visitor  information and interpretation as a primary tool to protect sensitive resources, discourage vandalism, and encourage visitor appreciation of public lands.”

The Beef Basin SRMA is managed with the following general goals and objectives under the 2008 Monticello RMP: ^[11]

“Beef Basin SRMA (20,302 acres) (Map 9) is managed with the following prescriptions:

– Available for private and/or commercial use of woodland products (including on-site collection of dead wood for campfires).

– Open to disposal of mineral materials under special conditions.

– Available for oil and gas leasing subject to timing limitations.

– Livestock use will continue but may be limited if cultural resources are impacted.

– Available for range, wildlife habitat, watershed improvements, vegetation treatments and other surface-disturbing land treatments if consistent with management plan objectives.

– OHV use limited to designated routes.

– A car campground will be developed in Ruin Park for primitive camping.

– Primitive car camping areas will be designated in Middle Park, House Park, and along Beef Basin Loop Road, as well as other areas as necessary to control impacts to cultural resources.

– Until primitive camping areas are designated in this area, dispersed vehicle camping will be allowed in previously disturbed areas within 150 feet of designated routes.

– Campfires are allowed and are restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. In dispersed camping areas, where fire rings are not available, campfires are subject to “Leave No Trace” standards.

– Dispersed campsites that impact archaeological sites will be closed.

– Cultural site visitation limited to designated trails.

– Groups larger than 20 people total are required to camp in designated areas. Human waste must be packed out.

– Manage as VRM Class III.”

Any assertion in the Proposal that recreational access will improve without these types of designations is problematic as there are no newly designated SRMA areas and several Alternatives almost entirely remove these SRMA designation from the plan or reduce them to EMRA designations with highly generalized requirements.  The Proposal position is directly contrary to our experiences and with BLM national guidance on the use of SRMA designations.  Many of these existing designations could have been easily updated or amended to come into compliance with the Proclamation.  When the proposed changes between existing management and Alternative B are reviewed there can be only one conclusion, which is that SRMA designations for recreational improvement and expansion have been entirely removed from management moving forward.  For this reason alone, we are opposed to Alternative B, as we are unable to understand how recreation will be protected in the Proposal. This is critical as recreational usage of the area is identified as a characteristic of the area to be protected and Alternative B is proposed to be the most advantageous for recreational usage of the area.

The Proposal’s SRMA and EMRA designated are often provide little to no specific guidance about secondary or indirect usages and related activities necessary to achieve the goals.  As an example, dispersed camping is consistently accessed with motor vehicles, regardless of whether camping is with a tent or similar infrastructure.  Most dispersed campers use a trailer to camp, and this means motor vehicle access must be provided in some manner, as we are sure the planners are aware of, management of dispersed camping has proven to be problematic throughout the region. Previous SRMA designations addressed these indirect factors by providing distances from roads where people could camp, requiring parking and other camping related infrastructure.    We are unable to identify any management designation in the SRMA in the Proposal that would allow for the development of even basic infrastructure to support designated dispersed camping like fire rings.  Basic guidance on how far dispersed camping would be allowed from roads, kiosk development, trash removal and other things commonly associated with dispersed camping simply are not addressed in the Proposal despite these issues being addressed previously.

The failure to provide this type of guidance is directly in conflict with the Proclamation but will also create immense conflict in the area. This type of conflict is on display in the Moab FO, immediately north of the planning area, where there is a lack of management standards to support the public’s desire to recreate on the FO was not provided.  As an example, the Moab RMP requires motorized users to park on trails and then access camping areas by foot.  Legally parking in this manner to camp immediately creates conflict with other trail users as often parking to camp results in trails being blocked as trails cannot safely allow passing.  Trail users have tried to go around parked vehicles to use  these dispersed camping sites and then are told they are off trail and routes are closed due to unacceptable impacts from this type of legal activity. The Organizations vigorously assert that managers of the monument must learn from these failures by providing greater detail in how decisions were made on specific components of standards. Rather than mitigating these issues, the Proposal expands the probability of larger and more intense conflicts as less guidance is given.

Our concerns around the failure to analyze changes such as moving from an SMRA to an ERMA type designation extend far beyond types of recreation allowed at sites. SRMA designations are a priority funding area for funding provided under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF). As LWCF was fully funded with the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act in 2018, significant reductions in SRMA acreage could greatly impact funding available for management. While National Monuments are also a priority funding under the LWCF program as well, a monument with a larger number of SRMA simply will be more competitive for this program. Given the collapsing land management budgets we have faced for decades, the Organizations must wonder why every effort would not be made to align planning efforts with funding criteria to allow this limited funding to be directed to priority areas.

The Organizations vigorously assert that recreation in all forms is protected by the Proclamation and has additionally required analysis in other Biden Executive Orders such as 14008 and 14057. Guidance on recreation management provided in the Proposal is woefully inadequate and, in many situations, existing SRMA type designations, with decent goals and objectives for management of the area, are simply removed entirely or reduced to ERMA designations with any reason provided. At no point does the Proposal attempt to replace or expand these resources that are being removed.  Naked assertions of improved opportunities are not a replacement for management with deliverable standards and definable goals nor are they sufficient for NEPA compliance.  This must be corrected simply to comply with the Proclamation and other Executive Orders requiring similar analysis for all management actions taken.

3. Executive Orders issued by President Biden specifically requiring economic analysis of agency actions and expansion of recreational opportunities have not been addressed in the Proposal.

Our concerns around the systemic failure to address recreational values for landscapes is further compounded when the various protections and analysis required by several Executive Orders from President Biden are reviewed.   The Organizations would note that EOs 14008  and 14057 simply are not referenced in the Proposal despite these Executive Orders being issued by the same president within months of the Proclamation requiring the planning effort.

The Proposal provides no meaningful discussion of how compliance with various standards in Eos was determined and this is in stark contrast to the analysis required for these Executive Orders as they mirror many of the sentiments raised in the Proclamation. A full review  and analysis of the various components of EO 14008 is critical to bringing balance to public lands and the Proposal is critical as there are three times recreational access and economic benefits of recreation are identified for improvement is specified in EO 14008.

§214 of EO 14008 clearly mandates improved recreational access to public lands through management as follows:

“It is the policy of my Administration to put a new generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters. The Federal Government must protect America’s natural treasures, increase reforestation, improve access to recreation, and increase resilience to wildfires and storms, while creating well-paying union jobs for more Americans, including more opportunities for women and people of color in occupations where they are underrepresented.”^[12]

The clear and concise mandate of the EO to improve recreational access to public lands is again repeated in §215 of the EO as follows:

“The initiative shall aim to conserve and restore public lands and waters, bolster community resilience, increase reforestation, increase carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protect biodiversity, improve access to recreation, and address the changing climate.” ^[13]

§217 of EO 14008 also clearly requires improvement of economic contributions from recreation on public lands as follows:

“Plugging leaks in oil and gas wells and reclaiming abandoned mine land can create well-paying union jobs in coal, oil, and gas communities while restoring natural assets, revitalizing recreation economies, and curbing methane emissions.” ^[14]

Our position is the Proposal violates the mandate of 14008 to address recreational access and economic benefits of recreation to local communities. This must be corrected and addressed in the Proposal with required analysis and protections for recreational access.

The Proposals’ complete failure to address similar Executive Orders is not limited to a failure to address compliance with EO 14008.  EO 14057 issued by President Biden on December 13, 2021 are made.  The immediate concern over the failure to address Executive Order 14057 is again apparent when EO 14057 is actually reviewed. EO 14057 starts with this general statement of purpose:

“In responding to this crisis, we have a once-in-a-generation economic opportunity to create and sustain jobs, including well-paying union jobs; support a just transition to a more sustainable economy for American workers; strengthen America’s communities;”^[15]

EO 14057 has repeated and specific requirements to address economic contributions and impacts from agency actions as follows:

“c) reform agency policies and funding programs that are maladaptive to climate change and increase the vulnerability of communities, natural or built systems, economic sectors, and natural resources to climate impacts, or related risks; and” ^[16]

EO 14057 specifically addresses the need for incorporation of economic contribution in agency actions to create or improve sustainability of both the agency actions and management decisions. Again, the Organizations are unable to identify any attempt to outline how these requirements were complied with in the development of the Proposal as there is no discussion of how the asserted compliance was determined.

4. Cultural/historic resource analysis has not been performed.

The Proposal is tasked with creating a plan balancing many values after the Proclamation including wildlife, water, cultural and historical resources, scenic values and recreational values. Some multiple uses are of higher priority when the balancing of uses occurs and others are limited or removed under the Proclamation. Of the multiple uses generally available on public lands, the only general classes of values removed from analysis by the Proclamation is oil and gas exploration and drilling.  Even those values that are reduced or limited, such as grazing, are still provided detailed analysis. While some values are addressed in significant detail in the analysis, foundational information necessary to address critical values, such as cultural resources are not provided at all.  This is despite the Proclamation identifying  multiple classes of cultural resources, including cultural sites and cultural landscapes.  While we are familiar with the management of cultural sites, we have never addressed cultural landscape management and are unable to locate any regulations on this type of management.

The complete omission of analysis of cultural resources is directly contrary to the  Proclamation specifically requirements of maximum public involvement in the Process to develop the Plan. This maximum public involvement requirement is specifically stated  as follows:

“The Secretaries shall provide for maximum public involvement in the development of that plan, including consultation with federally recognized Tribes and State and local governments. In the development and implementation of the management plan, the Secretaries shall maximize opportunities, pursuant to applicable legal authorities, for shared resources, operational efficiency, and cooperation.”^[17]

This additional specific requirement of maximum public involvement in planning becomes immensely problematic as basic information required for NEPA, the Antiquities Act or APA is not provided at legally sufficient levels.  Even without the Proclamation, the Antiquities Act requires many values permitted in the planning area to be analyzed in the legally required manner. These requirements are expanded with the maximum public engagement requirements of the Proclamation and not reduced or removed.  Rather than maximizing public engagement on these designations, the Proposal provides no information at all despite the standards being entirely new to planning requirements.

An example of a priority usage of the area that is not addressed in the analysis is cultural/historic values and this creates an immense problem for the Proposal. We do not contest the BEC held meetings on a wide range of issues, the activities of a partner are not sufficient for NEPA or APA compliance.  The Proposal recognizes this fact as the BEC created its own alternative to the Proposal. The BEC is not a substitute for NEPA and also does not improve engagement for those that were not able to attend or participate in the meetings held by the BEC.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§320301-320303) authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain a wide range of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historical or scientific interests and other values. At no point does the Antiquities Act allow planners to avoid NEPA compliance in identifying other values and their relationships to uses in the Monument.  The Proposal’s omission of cultural resources analysis has been catastrophically destructive to use of other values identified in the Proclamation, such as recreational values. NEPA requires analysis on how the competing values are balanced and this has simply not occurred with management of cultural resources in relation to other values identified in the Proclamation.  Providing an alternative that has little chance of adoption in NEPA from a partner group is not a replacement for meaningful public engagement as this alternative is only one of five alternatives provided.

The Organizations are intimately familiar with the management of cultural/historic values on public lands, and as a result we will clarify we are not asking for any site-specific information that would be protected based on the value of the site as a cultural resource. We are aware that significant information could still be provided without site specific information. We have participated in planning that: 1. Merely mapped Low/medium/high cultural values; 2. Other efforts have outlined what is cultural information already publicly available; 3. Some plans have provided information on  areas already inventoried;  and 4.  Other plans outline what locations have been found suitable for listing on the National Register of Historic places, what locations were applied to protection and found suitable, what areas have not been inventoried at all. We are unable to locate any information such as cultural information we have seen previously and are forced to conclude that all sites and possible sites were valued above all other opportunities and protected.

Even with this type of maximum protection assumption for cultural sites, we are unable to theorize what protections would be for cultural landscapes.  NEPA requires this information and decision-making process to be analyzed.  Prior to addressing the complete lack of compliance with NEPA requirements, APA compliance must be addressed as the Proclamation sought to create a new rule under the Antiquities Act to implement that authority, the Proposal is insufficient to satisfy administrative Procedure Act requirements. Courts have consistently applied the following standards for rulemaking by agencies:

“Procedure, not substance, is what most distinguishes our government from others. In the not-so-distant past, a government agency in the Soviet Union could impose controls on the production of commodities without bothering to involve the public in the decision making process. By contrast, a government agency in the United States must usually give notice to, and accept comments from, the public before undertaking to place manacles on the invisible hand. 5 U.S.C. § 553”^[18]

Given there is not even an attempt to reference regulations on a cultural landscape in the Proposal, the Organizations would vigorously assert this management is exactly the invisible hand of government that the 9^th Circuit has taken such a dim view of in their decisions. The requirement of rulemaking and public notice and comment for this type of action is not mitigated by the engagement of a third party or informal process.  This strawman  situation is clearly struck down by the 9^th Circuit as follows:

“We thus conclude that the Secretary’s rulemaking fails to satisfy the APA’s requirements because he has not demonstrated good cause for failing to give sufficient notice in the Federal Register of the weekly NO AC meeting and failing to allow the public to comment by means other than personal participation at the NO AC meeting….Thus, if the harmless error rule were to look solely to result, an agency could always claim that it would have adopted the same rule even if it had complied with the APA procedures. To avoid gutting the APA’s procedural requirements, harmless error analysis in administrative rulemaking must therefore focus on the process as well as the result. We have held that the failure to provide notice and comment is harmless only where the agency’s mistake “clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached”^[19]

Even if the BEC is claimed to have created this cultural landscape management standard, this does not resolve the public notice and engagement requirements under the APA or NEPA. The immensely problematic nature of this failure to comply with APA requirements is compounded by the fact that the Proclamation clearly and specifically requires “maximum public involvement,” we are unable to participate in any planning as basic planning terms are simply not defined.

While a “cultural site” is defined in the Proposal a “cultural landscape” is not defined in the Proposal, which creates immense problems when NEPA sufficiency is addressed.   The need for a single definition as  a starting point of analysis for a cultural landscape is critical as many different organizations have created definitions for this, and often, these are significantly different. We are aware that UNESCO, The European Landscape Convention Treaty, the National Park Service, and the City of San Diego all have separate and distinct definitions they apply.  There is extensive scholarly discussion on the proper definition of a landscape even is.^[20]

Most definitions have varying factors and values to be protected and some classes of cultural landscapes have high levels of human activity across the entirety of the landscape.  Without defining a cultural landscape,  we are unable to define its value in comparison to other values identified as important in the Proclamation for NEPA. Other basic questions such as:  “Is a cultural site more important than a cultural landscape?”  “What uses might be consistent with a cultural landscape but not a cultural site?” “Is the Proposal managing cultural landscapes under a single standard or multiple categories” simply cannot be addressed.

These questions are not academic but critical to the foundation of the planning effort. The need for a basic definition of a cultural landscape as a starting point in the NEPA planning process is directly evidenced by the fact a cultural landscape, as defined by UNESCO, encompasses wide-ranging uses of the landscape.  The UNESCO definition specifically identifies these categories as follows:

“CULTURAL LANDSCAPES. Definition

6. Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the “combined works of nature and of man” designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.

7. They should be selected on the basis both of their outstanding universal value and of their representativity in terms of a clearly defined geo-cultural region and also for their capacity to illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of such regions.

8. The term “cultural landscape” embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment.

9. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land-use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land-use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity. Definition and Categories

10. Cultural landscapes fall into three main categories, namely:

(I) The most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

(ii) The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories: – a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form. – a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

(iii) The final category is the associative cultural landscape. The inscription of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.”^[21]

Given the diversity of the above definition, the Organizations will again assert the need for a single starting point for NEPA analysis. This definition is not provided in BLM regulations, the Proclamation or the Proposal.  Clearly if the three categories of designation are being applied in the Proposal, there are areas where expanding recreational access would be entirely consistent with the definition of a cultural landscape that is created by man. If the Proposal seeks to apply all three subcategories of the definition, then each subcategory should be mapped and identified along with permitted uses and levels of protection for each subcategory. This simply has not happened, and as a result, this portion of the Proposal falls well short of the maximum public engagement required under the Proclamation or needed to satisfy NEPA.

5. The Proposal’s range of alternatives is legally insufficient as a result of inadequate analysis of many issues.

The Proposal’s lack of integration of impacts of changes in management between expected current recreational usage and resources provided to users of the Planning area after implementation has directly impacted the very limited range of alternatives provided in the Proposal.  This range of alternatives is even more unacceptable as recreation and economics being identified as priority issues in the Proclamation.  Even the most development intensive alternative provided in the Proposal fails to provide any meaningful guidance for the developing and utilizing recreational opportunities in the planning area.

The failure to tie proposed changes in the Alternatives of the Proposal  to the impacts desired outcomes after implementation has resulted in a Plan being provided for public comment that has many viable options for management not being explored.  The Organizations believe these analysis flaws have resulted in a range of Alternatives being presented that simply bear no rational relationship to the planned usage or benefits that are currently accruing to the local communities from the recreational usage of the BENM or possible impacts to these communities from these changes.

Providing an accurate and reasonable range of alternatives to the public as part of the NEPA process is a critical component of the NEPA process.  The rational decision-making process of NEPA is compromised when agencies consider only a limited range of alternatives to their proposed projects.^[22]  When reviewing range of Alternatives provided in a NEPA analysis, the Court’s conclusions have consistently been summarized as:

“The alternative section is ‘the heart of the environmental impact statement,‘ 40 C.F.R. 1502.14; hence, ‘[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.” ^[23]

When determining if an EIS has provided a satisfactory range of alternatives,  Courts have held the proper standard of comparison is to compare to the purpose and intent of the EIS to the range of Alternatives provided.  The Courts have consistently held:

“[E]ensure that federal agencies have sufficiently detailed information to decide whether to proceed with an action in light of potential environmental consequences, and [to] provide the public with information on the environmental impact of a proposed action and encourage public participation in the development of that information.” ^[24]

Given the numerous critical terms such as a cultural landscape are not defined, the horribly inaccurate economic analysis and failure to provide any information on issues such as soundscape planning and ACEC designation clearly alternatives have been overlooked in the creation of the Proposal. The Organizations believe that these failures have caused a range of alternatives to be presented that is simply legally insufficient.   As an example of the failure to provide a range of alternatives, Alternative D makes the entire monument an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.   This would directly conflict with the Proclamation as many other uses are recognized in the Proclamation outside protection of natural resources.   Alternative E provides an alternative that in no way aligns with BLM or federal public lands management requirements.

The remaining alternatives are artificially limited in scope, as exemplified by the requirement to develop a soundscape management plan for the management area despite this not being required in the Proclamation. Rather the Proclamation mentions solitude in specific locations, not entire planning area.^[25] The need for a soundscape plan on every Alternative is further evidence of the predetermined range of alternatives provided,  there is simply no data provided to identify the need for this type of plan. It clearly is not required in the Proclamation.  The failure of the Proposal to provide a legally sufficient Range of Alternatives is further evidenced by USFS lands management under every Alternative provides for OHV closures to move from 46k acres closed to motorized to 177k for all Alternatives.

As addressed in greater detail in other portions of these comments, the failure of the Proposal to align assertions made with existing standards of management is problematic to the range of Alternatives.  The evaluations of the effectiveness of the current management standards make these existing management standards even more relevant.  Despite these conclusions existing management simply is not addressed in the Proclamation. Many recreational designations and existing decisions could be slightly amended and updated to comply with the Proclamation.  The effectiveness of OHV management in protecting cultural and other resources was clearly and directly stated in 2015 Monticello RMP Evaluation found OHV management effective to protect resources. This 2015 evaluation clearly stated this as follows:  ^[26]

These types of conclusions regarding the effectiveness of current management provide the basis for an Alternative of the Proposal that merely refines current management to align with the Proclamation.  Current management could simply remove oil and gas standards and move forward with implementation. This Alternative is even more viable if these management standards were updated and reviewed. Again, this simply has not happened, and rather than address this issue, current management is simply ignored.   The Organizations would like to understand how existing management has moved from success to such failure as to warrant no further discussion at all in such a short time period.  We would like to avoid these failures in the future in other locations.

6(a).  Economic analysis is identified as an important characteristic for management in the Proclamation.

As previously addressed, maximum public comment are required for development of the Plan.   Economic contributions from recreation and other uses are also clearly identified as an important characteristic of the planning area in the Proclamation as follows:

“While not objects of historic and scientific interest designated for protection, the proclamation also describes other resources in the area, historic grazing, and world class outdoor recreation opportunities—including rock climbing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, whitewater rafting, mountain biking, and horseback riding—that support a booming travel and tourism sector that is a source of economic opportunity for local communities.”^[27]

Given this clarity of the importance of economic contributions by the Proclamation as more important than other values in the area, it would be reasonable to expect a highly detailed and accurate analysis of this issue would be provided. This type of analysis would be critical in developing maximum public input on the Plan.  Despite these clear requirements, the Proposal fails to accurately address economic contributions of recreation. This failure is more egregious as reasonably accurate economic contribution information being developed in other planning efforts within the Monument being conducted at the same time.

In addition to these specific requirements in the Proclamation, economic impacts is a factor that also required to be addressed in the NEPA process. Despite this legal requirement of NEPA analysis being of heightened importance for the Proclamation, the Proposal falls woefully short of a legally sufficient legal analysis of this issue and well short of the analysis of an issue identified as an important sector of the planning area community.  Until large scale violations of the Proclamation and NEPA requirements can be resolved, the Organizations are unable to support any of the proposed Alternatives.

Economic contribution calculations are often complex and involve a balance of numerous factors that directly impact the spending habits of those sought to be studied, and often involve far more analysis and discussion than planning for other issues.  The basic complexity of any economic determinations and the size of the calculations to be made are summarized by the Western Governors Association’s recreational economic contributions study  as follows:

“How is “economic impact” calculated? Many people might think of a consumer buying equipment – a tent, fishing pole, ATV, bicycle, boat, snowboard or rifle. However, the impact is much more complex than the manufacture and sale of gear and vehicles. Gas stations, restaurants, hotels, river guides and ski resorts benefit from outdoor recreation. In total, equipment and travel expenditures represent billions in direct sales that create jobs, income, tax revenues and other economic benefits.”^[28]

The complexity of the calculations undertaken for economic impact calculations is immediately evidenced by the sheer number of pages required in most economic impact reports, as the explanation of the analysis process used to arrive at any final figure of any economic contribution analysis is often as valuable as the total economic contribution that is reached. Given the complexity of the process, we must question how the decision was made not to review the economic analysis contributions found in the Analysis with other planning efforts going on in the planning area at the same time.  This failure has allowed catastrophically inaccurate information to be provided to the public in the Proposal despite the numerous provisions mandating high quality information this issue.

6(b) Proper integration of economic information in the planning process is an ongoing issue in federal planning.

The proper integration of accurate economic information is often a weakness of the public land planning process in the Western United States, which has resulted in the creation of many other longer-term problems when decisions reflecting an imbalanced multiple uses are implemented.  The Organizations submit that the failure of many planning efforts to accurately address economic impacts and contributions was a concern addressed by the Proclamation in the planning area.   The Western Governors Association released its Get Out West report in conjunction with its economic impact study of recreation on public lands in the Western United States which specifically identified that proper valuation is a significant management concern as follows:

“Several managers stated that one of the biggest challenges they face is “the undervaluation of outdoor recreation” relative to other land uses.”^[29]

The Get Out West report from the Western Governors’ Association also highlighted how critical proper valuation of recreation is to the development of good management plans based on multiple use principals.  The Get Out West report specifically found:

“Good planning not only results in better recreation opportunities, it also helps address and avoid major management challenges – such as limited funding, changing recreation types, user conflicts, and degradation of the assets. Managers with the most successfully managed recreation assets emphasized that they planned early and often. They assessed their opportunities and constraints, prioritized their assets, and defined visions.”^[30]

The Organizations believe our concerns regarding the Proposal and those expressed in the Western Governor’s Get Out West report virtually mirror each other. This concern must be addressed prior to finalizing the Proposal in order to avoid increases to many other management issues that were sought to be minimized with the creation. There can simply be no factual argument made that recreation has not been significantly undervalued in the Proposal and this has directed the range of alternatives provided for multiple use recreation in the planning area.

6(c)  Accurate analysis of economic impacts from planning is an exceptionally complex task to be addressed in every phase of planning.

As noted in the Western Governors’ Get Out West report, public lands are a major economic driver for many Western communities that are often completely surrounded by large tracts of public lands.  Usage of these public lands takes a variety of forms, but the largest user of public lands throughout the West is the recreational user. To ensure economic contributions of public lands to local communities and western states, relevant federal statutes and BLM planning documents implementing these statutes explicitly require economics to be addressed in every stage of the planning process.  The BLM handbook requires planners to document economic methods in two stages before the releasing draft alternatives. The Organizations believe these mandates simply have not been complied with in the development of the Proposal and will result in long term increases in user conflicts and degradation of assets and economic contributions, all of which are identified as priority concerns in the Proclamation.

The basic mandate to include documented economic analysis early  in the interdisciplinary team process for public lands planning is provided by the Federal Lands Planning and Management Act (“FLPMA).  FLPMA  specifies the various criteria that must be incorporated at specific times in the development of a land use plan as follows:

“(c) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall–

(2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences;…” ^[31]

The basic mandate of FLPMA regarding the critical need for documented economic analysis is more specifically and extensively addressed in Appendix D of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook.    Appendix D opens as follows:

“A. The Planning Process

To be effective, social scientific data and methods should be integrated into the entire planning process, from preparing the pre-plan to implementation and monitoring. The main social science activities for the various planning steps are outlined in Table D-1.

The Organizations must note that economic concerns are the only factor that is addressed in every step of the planning process laid out in the BLM planning handbook. Documentation of economic forecasts and analysis methodology is required in two separate stages before release of draft alternatives.   The required documentation of these concerns is exactly the information the Organizations seek to review but cannot review in the Proposal as required as the information provided is simply comically inaccurate.  While the critical nature of economic contributions in the planning process is specifically identified, these mandates were simply not followed or even addressed in the creation of the Proposal.

6(d)(1) The Proposal developed and relied on per-party spending assumptions that are shockingly low or entirely misleading.

As the Organizations have noted in previous sections of these comments, we have concerns about the accuracy of the social surplus component of the economic analysis provided in the Proposal. The Organizations must question why this type of information was provided or sought out when the conclusions of the basic economic analysis are simply lacking factual basis in any manner. As noted the Proclamation clearly states economic contributions are an important planning factor and makes no mention at all regarding concepts such as surplus economic values not captured in various uses.   The concepts of “economic contributions” and “surplus economic value” are two entirely separate concept for economic analysis with very little overlap.

Under the INPLAN model of economic analysis, and economic contribution is defined as follows:

“special modeling techniques are required in these cases to ensure that the results accurately reflect the addition/loss of just the projected/current level of Output of the industry of interest plus the indirect and induced effects in other industries.  This is the purpose of what we at IMPLAN term Contribution Analysis.  The basic idea is to disallow indirect or induced purchases from the industry of interest in such a way that does not affect the indirect and induced effects on other industries.”^[33]

Surplus economic values are defined as follows:

Economic surplus, also known as total welfare or the sum of consumer and producer surplus, is an important concept in economics that represents the total benefits that traders (consumers and producers) receive from participating in a market. It is defined by the difference between what consumers are willing to pay for a good or service (their maximum price) versus the actual market price, combined with the difference between the market price and the price at which producers are willing to supply the product (their minimum selling price).^[34]

While surplus value may be conceptually interesting, it by definition, cannot be an economic contribution.  Rather it is the difference between what is paid and what might be paid.  The Organizations would note that the Proclamation directly recognizes the importance of economic contributions to local communities but at no point raises the need to address possible surplus values in commodities on the planning area.

Many of the categories provided simply do not appear on the planning area with any intensity at all, such as downhill skiing.  We are aware the NRA adjacent to the planning area provides significant  motorized boating opportunities but we question how relevant this usage is for the planning area analysis. Again, why would these categories even be addressed as the Proclamation speaks to contributions to communities from activities on the Monument, not activities next to the monument that would be outside the scope of planning.

When the generalized review of recreation spending profiles provided by the Proposal is reviewed, several categories of information are provided that are so completely inaccurate as to render the analysis without  merit at all. While information that is largely academic in nature is provided along with information on uses not occurring on the planning area, many of the basic contributions recreational activity on the monument is simply not accurately addressed. A brief review of the accuracy of basic calculations and assumptions critical to understanding the economic contribution of outdoor recreation provides conclusions that cannot be defended factually or legally and are verging on simply impossible to achieve. The Proposal provides the following table outlining the conclusions that were used for the calculations of economic contributions for recreation: ^[35]

Our concerns on the accuracy of the economic analysis expands when the actual spending estimates used for calculations of economic contributions for recreational usages are reviewed. Many of these estimates are so low that we must question the factual accuracy of these estimates.  An example of the failure to provide an accurate analysis of resources critical to all forms of travel for recreation would be estimated fuel costs for various trips. Given the size of the planning area and the intense climate present throughout, bicycle and other means of travel to access recreational opportunities are so small it can be disregarded.  Before addressing the inaccuracies in these fuel cost assumptions provided in the Proposal, it is necessary to identify what a gallon of fuel costs in the Planning area. The average cost of a gallon of fuel per American Automobile Association fuel calculator in the planning area is as follows:^[36]

Application of this average fuel price to the Proposal leads to conclusions that are simply impossible to achieve.  The Proposal asserts that average local day trip spends $10.96 per trip for a group of 2.8 people. This means the average day trip is estimated to consume 2.77 gallons of fuel at current fuel prices. Given the size of the planning area and size of the group this estimated average is optimistic at best and probably inaccurate. When compared with USFS data used on the Manti/LaSal NF 2023 RMP revision the conflict is immediate as the Manti/LaSal estimated this cost at $15.87 for low spending profile forests in 2017.^[37]

This is a foundational failure of analysis that cannot be resolved, especially when the American Automobile Association estimated fuel costs were, on average, more than a $1 less per gallon in 2017 than currently.^[38] This means the Manti/ LaSal estimated average fuel consumption to be more than twice what is used in the Proposal even though these efforts assert to be calculating the same resources and values.

The immensely problematic nature of the assertions of the Proposal’s economic assumptions on this issue exponentially compounds when fuel costs of nonlocal travel are reviewed. The Proposal asserts that nonlocal day trips only spend $7.36 additional in fuel as calculated below:

This additional $7.36 in fuel costs translates to an additional 1.86 gallons of fuel to travel to the planning area from a nonlocal point of origin. For purposes of this calculation, we are applying the industry standard of a trip of more than 50 miles one way is a nonlocal trip.^[39] This amount of fuel is totally insufficient to transport a group of 2.8 people 50 miles in each direction.  You might be able to transport a single person on a motorcycle, which remains the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the roads, 50 miles each direction with 1.86 gallons of fuel, but even this is probably going to be unsuccessful.  Moving 2.8 people with these assumptions is impossible as multiple motorcycles are needed. This is a problem. The assumption that no fuel will be used once reaching the Monument is equally problematic.

The immensely problematic nature of much of the analysis continues when fuel costs for camping overnight are reviewed.  For reasons that defy logic, the Proposal asserts that non-local campers actually use less fuel than those simply day-tripping in the planning area. This conclusion is calculated as follows:

The immediate problem here is the assertion that fuel costs go down $1.27 for this trip, which lacks any factual merit given that these visitors are now carrying camping supplies, such as a tow behind camper, tents, sleeping bags and basic food for three people rather than merely supporting a day trip.  This is a large amount of supplies and fuel costs will increase rather than decrease.  Any assertion of fuel economy improving when towing a camper entirely lacks factual basis and simply will not be discussed further.  The Proposal asserts that these increased amount of  supplies will reduce the needed amount of fuel for the trip to 1.54 gallons of fuel.  Again, this assertion lacks any factual basis at all.

The lack of factual basis that appears systemic in the Proposal is not limited to estimates of fuel costs and usages.  The Proposal asserts that a local day trip recreational user will cost $7.26 per trip to use restaurants and bars per day. The immediate problem with this estimate is  the public is unable to buy a fast food cheeseburger type meal for one person for this amount.  The problematic nature of the asserted amount explodes when this estimate is allocated to a group of 2.8 people.  Expanding this to include three meals per day being purchased in this category of meal this would mean that each meal for 2.8 persons for $2.42 total.  This is completely without basis as you cannot buy three bottles of water for $2.42 as the Proposal estimate concludes that each person can obtain a meal for $.81.  Again, this is so inaccurate that it will not be discussed further.

The erroneous economic assumptions continue in the Proposal as it asserts that an average lodging cost for a group of 3 is $129.50 per day.  Again, we struggle to find any lodging single lodging for this price, and finding multiple rooms for an average of this cost is simply impossible. The Organizations are not stating this amount is impossible to achieve from an exceptionally frugal group of travelers.  We are asserting that an average of $129 per trip is not factually supportable. This problematic level of these lodging estimates amounts is further exemplified by a comparison of the spending amounts the federal government will reimburse to employees traveling in the area. Currently the federal reimbursement for nightly lodging is $210 per night. ^[40]  The fact these estimates are almost 50% lower  than federal per diem rates for lodging is immensely problematic.

Assertions of a group of 3 staying in motels can eat three meals at restaurants in the planning area for an average amount of  $53.86 per day is difficult to accept.  Estimates of food costs for campers are equally inaccurate as campers on the monument are estimated to spend between $8.73 on a restaurant experience  and $11.73 for a group of 2.8 people on groceries.  The conclusion reached is you can feed 2.8 people three meals a day in the planning area for a total of $20.46 simply cannot be defended regardless of where they are staying.  Campers staying off the Monument are estimated to spend $15.52 in restaurants and $14.10 on groceries to feed 2.8 people three meals per day. This total is only slightly better as it asserts the total raises to $29.62, which is still a shockingly low estimate to feed three meals to 2.8 people. The immensely problematic nature of these conclusions that the average recreational user can eat for these amounts of money in the planning area cannot be overstated.  As this is an average, this calculation asserts that a significant portion of these groups are able to eat for less than these amounts.  Again, the immediate conflict with calculations from the Manti/Lasal NF estimates cannot be overlooked as their estimates are 2-3x more for food despite occurring in 2017.

The astonishingly low nature of these estimates are immediate when compared to guidance from various travel organizations and other researchers. In Moab tourism guides estimated food to cost $37 per day per person. ^[41] For a group of 3 people this would equate to $111 per day on average for food. Per diem for meals  for federal employees traveling in the area is $69 per day per person.^[42] This means 3 employees traveling on per diem in the area would spend $207 per day for meals. Simply comparing per diem for federal employees to the estimated costs in the Proposal results in the conclusion that the per diem estimate is almost 7 times more than the average group can feed themselves for in the planning area. The Organizations are intimately aware of the inability of most federal employees to travel in the area and stay within their per diem amount as we host many trainings and events for federal employees annually. Again, these numbers and experiences cannot be reconciled with the estimates in the Proposal.

The Proposal’s failure to provide economic calculations that are factually possible to achieve the desired recreational outcomes must be addressed.  With a budget based on the amount of funds provided, the general public would simply never be able to achieve their desired recreational opportunities. Failures such as this are problematic for NEPA compliance and even more problematic for an activity that was a priority for analysis in the Proclamation. There simply cannot be an accurate assertion that recreational values have been properly balanced in the analysis when these values have been so completely undervalued.

6(d)(2)  Economic estimates used in planning directly conflict with agency research used for USFS planning in the Monument.

As previously noted in these comments, economic contributions from recreation are identified as an important factor to be addressed in subsequent planning in the Proclamation.  Many of these activity-based estimates used in the Proclamation are so low they render it impossible for the average visitor to achieve their desired opportunity with funds at the level asserted to be average. In isolation, this is a major concern.  When the planning efforts that have occurred on the monument at the same time as the Proposal are reviewed the conflicts in conclusions become unresolvable.

The Proclamation specifically requires that the USFS and BLM collaborate in the development of the Plan as follows:

“For purposes of protecting and restoring the objects identified above and in Proclamation 9558, the Secretaries shall jointly prepare and maintain a new management plan for the entire monument and shall promulgate such regulations for its management as they deem appropriate.”^[43]

Given this specific requirement in the Proclamation, alignment of spending profiles and other factors analyzed in the economic analysis would be required to comply with the Proclamation. Discrepancies between the calculations and conclusions of the two agencies would also have to be addressed.  Given the geographic overlap of the two planning efforts, collaboration of the two agencies and consistency of conclusions is critical to the planning for the Monument as a whole, as the Manti/LaSal NF also makes approximately 22% of the Monument Planning area. The need for alignment of basic conclusions for the planning area is driven by the fact that Manti/LaSal NF has been undergoing an RMP update over the same basic timeframe as the planning has occurred on the BENM, making the conclusion and process highly relevant to the Proposal. As the Organizations have also been involved in the Manti/LaSal NF RMP revision, we are aware that the spending amounts and profiles used in the Manti/LaSal plan are reasonable in their conclusions. The 2023 Manti/LaSal RMP revision outlines the basis for their calculations as follows:

“Recreation: Total annual recreation visits were obtained from the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program (Forest Service 2016). For this analysis, an estimated 295,000 annual recreational visits were assumed. The distribution of visitor type (local or nonlocal visitor) and use type (for example, wildlife-related visits) from the most recent round of monitoring are used to estimate visitor spending. Average visitor expenditures by type were obtained from the Forest Service’s NVUM program (see White 2017 for methodology and descriptions).”^[44]

The conflict between the economic conclusions in the Proposal and the economic contributions of recreation in the Manti/Lasal are immense in nature and hugely problematic to the accuracy of the conclusions in the Proposal. As previously discussed, the spending profiles in the Proposal are simply so low as to lack factual basis. It is also highly relevant that each Proposal has been developed over the same timeframe, on the same landscapes and the USFS is managing about 22% of the Monument.  The USFS NVUM used by the Manti/LaSal planning team research reflected in the White 2017 research provides a detailed breakdown of various spending profiles based on the USFS NVUM research program as follows: ^[45]

The Organizations would be remiss if the immediate conflict between these profiles was not highlighted. The cumulative impacts of so many specific recreational usage types being poorly estimated is calculations that are off more than 50%.  The chart below represents a brief summary of the immense conflict between these works in their estimates of recreational spending profiles. Even when the low spending estimates of the USFS NVUM research is compared to the Proposal estimates,  the differences are unresolvable.

When the cost estimates of the Proposal are compared to the high spending forests and areas identified in the USFS NVUM research summarized in the White 2017 work, the conflict becomes exponentially worse between the two economic analyses. These comparisons are below:

With conflicts such as this between efforts occurring at the same time and allegedly being coordinated by planners, the Organizations must ask: How did these types of issues occur? Answering this question in isolation is problematic factually and will immediately conflict with the Proclamation.

The Organizations ability to support any of the economic  conclusions of the Proposal is  even more shaken as the research of White et al, created as part of the NVUM process, is 7 years old at this point. Given this passage of time inflationary adjustments to the spending profiles must be made. Since the works of White were completed in 2017, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that inflation has increased price levels in 2023 by 29% on average.^[46] This adjustment of the White research only compounds the failure of the Proposal as follows:

The Organizations vigorously assert that when the most accurate categories of economic analysis calculations in the Proposal are 60% below estimates that are used by the USFS in the planning area this is an immense problem.  Errors such as this are why the Organizations are forced to support Alternative A of the Proposal.

6(e) The Proposal spending profiles cannot be aligned with the conclusions of partner research adjacent to the planning area.

The immense conflict of the economic profiles used for calculation of economic contributions from recreation are again highlighted when compared to research created by the USFS, BLM and state managers.  The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition has partnered for decades with the USFS, BLM and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to provide high quality economic data for motorized recreation in the state of Colorado.  COHVCO recently updated this research and released a detailed analysis of these conclusions and process for use in planning.  A copy of this work is attached as Exhibit “2” to these comments. While the Proposal and the COHVCO research assert to be using many of the same tools, such as the INPLAN database the conclusions simply cannot be reconciled.  The alignment of the COHVCO research and the NVUM data that has resulted from decades of research and is outlined in the works of White also cannot be overlooked.

6(f). Estimates of consumer surplus values in the Proposal are of questionable value.

The Organizations commend planners for attempting to tackle the social component of economic analysis in spending profiles across user groups.  The Organizations agree that the value of simply knowing these opportunities are available is an important component of planning. While the consumer surplus of particular groups is interesting, the Organizations would be remiss if we did not point out the fact that certain user groups assert their recreational opportunities are priceless in nature and other user groups appear to be able to quantify their values much more accurately. The Organizations also would note that this calculation is not required under the Proclamation but an accurate calculation of economic contributions from recreation are required.

The Organizations have extensive experiences with the difference between an asserted social economic value and the desire to actually convert this surplus economic social value into a monetary value and an economic contribution that can be used for management and maintenance of the resource.  With the eroding budgets of USFS and BLM federally for basic operations, our members have started to be engaged by various states and other interests on how to replicate the OHV registration program that has become highly effective in Utah and other states. The desire has been to create similar programs for hiking, biking, camping and other uses. To date the motorized recreational community continues to be the only non-consumptive user group of public lands that have adopted the pay to play model. Many other user groups have been openly hostile to the concept of monetizing this type of surplus economic value for the benefit of public lands.

This makes our members question any asserted surplus value from opportunities on public lands, especially since the surplus value is asserted to be many times more than any registration or permit would cost annually. Through these efforts we have found that other interests who assert the highest consumer surplus in their opportunity are also the least willing to pay anything. The Proposal asserts that there is an average consumer surplus of value estimated to be $77.04  per person.^[47]  Our concern with this estimate is the fact that if the excess value was anywhere near this assertion in terms of dollars our requests for a 20 or $30 annual registration to support these opportunities should be an easy sell.  To date we have not seen any interest in any level of support despite some highly detailed meetings. This causes us concern about the value of these efforts and calculations.  While the calculation of this surplus economic value may be an interesting academic effort, these surpluses cannot hire staff, empty trash, grade roads or support basic operations in adjacent counties.  Again, we must question why this would be included as it is not required in the Proclamation, and it has been our experience that these estimates are not able to be converted into an actual economic contribution.

7(a). Soundscape planning is outside the scope of the Proclamation and entirely undefined in the Proposal.

Before addressing the concerns and challenges around developing a soundscape management plan required under every Alternative, the Organizations believe it is necessary to state that this requirement is largely a novel concept and clearly not worthy of inclusion in every Alternative. At no point does the Proclamation require the development of a Soundscape Plan and the Proclamation fails to mention sound or concepts such as quiet or  silence. Rather the Proclamation speaks to the solitude available in particular locations.  Levels of sound are one of many planning requirements required to be addressed in existing planning for the Proclamation, and as a result we must question why a soundscape plan would thought to be necessary.  It should be largely redundant to existing planning, as without a definition of what is required we again must ask how this requirement was thought to be analyzed sufficiently for NEPA purposes.

While the Proposal requires a Soundscape Plan at some unspecified time in the future, the Proposal is entirely silent on a definition of what a soundscape plan is, what factors would be addressed, and how would they be measured and managed.  This is highly relevant as we are unable to identify a soundscape plan currently effectively in place in the United States. We are aware of sound management efforts around airports and other activities in highly developed areas, but these are in no way similar to the Monument.  In an even more troubling development,  we are unable to identify any regulations, under the USFS 2012 Planning Rule or recent BLM Planning efforts that could guide the development of this type of a plan.  Would the Plan attempt to apply an existing model? How would the plan address protected usages that make sound?  These are basic questions that absolutely no guidance is provided regarding.

The Organizations are intimately familiar with the fact that many activities already have sound management standards in place through other agencies for the production of vehicles.  Various agencies have developed sound standards for the workplace, such as OSHA, FAA, FHWA, SAE and FIA.  We must ask how these will be integrated into this plan? How would conflicts between standards be resolved? Each of these existing managers has detailed processes for the measurement of sound, but often these are different processes addressing different issues and concerns. This is exemplified by the differences between  SAE 1287, which tests sound levels of a stationary vehicle, and SAE  J2567, which measures sound of a passing vehicle. The Organizations are intimately familiar with the highly technical nature of the management of sound, as it has been our experience that sound is one of the first issues raised in OHV management by those who are simply opposed to the use of OHVs in any manner. Sound can be heavily impacted by issues like topography, weather, humidity and many other natural factors.  Simply having a standardized tool for the measurement of sound would be a basic need for NEPA compliance.  This has not been provided or even discussed.

One of the foundational challenges we have encountered in the development of a soundscape type analysis is the perception of sound by the recipient and how it is classified. While sound is merely a transfer of energy across a medium, there is a huge difference in how sound is perceived.  Classification of the energy once received by the ear is highly subjective and difficult to consistently classify.  Sound that is enjoyable to the recipient of the energy is known as music.  Even defining what is and is not music has proven difficult as there are different types of music.  If the type of music is enjoyable the sound remains music, if it is not enjoyable to the recipient it immediately becomes noise and should be regulated.

The need for a single definition of a soundscape plan is again highlighted by the Proclamation as the need for national regulations on this issue are immediate when various questions foundational to a soundscape plan are addressed.  While there are workplace standards and standards for private lands under certain circumstances, we are not aware of any standards for public lands. NPS has limited standards but the planning area is not a National Park and is not managed by the NPS. Rather President Biden’s Proclamation clearly identifies the role of the NPS as follows:

“The Secretaries, through the USFS and BLM, shall consult with other Federal land management agencies or agency components in the local area, including the National Park Service, in developing the management plan.”^[48]

We are able to identify national parks that have attempted to develop soundscape plans but none of these have been completed.  Most research and efforts we have found have identified more problems with the concept than success.

We are very concerned that without national standards and guidelines for this type of plan, this effort would result in immense conflict between uses, at best would be hugely subjective in nature,  and would be problematic to defend in any legal action.^[49] Legally management plans that have attempted to manage sound on public areas have a low percentage of surviving legal challenges given the large number of protected Constitutional rights that can be impacted. We are unable to identify any portion of the Proposal that addresses how basic constitutionality of a soundscape plan would be achieved as one of the primary challenges to soundscape efforts has been Constitutionally protected frees speech of the public. Rather than avoiding the systemic failures that have plagued this effort, this requirement seems to embrace the desire to continue to plan based on inaccurate or non-existent requirements, such as the cultural landscape concept.

7(b) Soundscape planning exhibits the same lack of accurate analysis exhibited throughout the Proposal and sets a VERY poor precedent.

The Proposal also creates expectations for sound levels that are functionally impossible to achieve in any manner.  The Organizations have participated in professional sound testing as part of planning efforts in remote areas that are outside the scope of human created sounds, and this reporting simply does not align with any asserted planning or goals outlined in the Proposal.^[50]  The horribly insufficient nature of information currently available on sound in the planning area is represented by the following map on sound levels in the area: ^[51]

The problematic failure of this information is again immediately apparent, as major state highways are often estimated to have similar sound levels when compared to remote areas far removed from anything on the planning area.  While we do not contest that often these state highways may see limited amounts of usage, we also must recognize that the Federal Highways Administration estimates highway traffic at 70 to 80 dB.^[52] This level of sound cannot be aligned with the Proposal assertion that state highways are averaging 40 dB. The inability of the soundscape inventory to align with existing decisions is again highlighted by the fact that the corridors around these routes do not align in any way with the ROS designations around these routes.  ROS designations are required to address sound levels as one of the characteristics.  While these tools may not overlap completely, there should be a strong correlation with these designations and there clearly is not.

The Organizations concerns around the basic accuracy of the inventory expand as the most common level of sound asserted to be found on the Planning area is 32-37dB.  This is immediately problematic as light rainfall is commonly estimated to be 40 dB.^[53] When this is compared to the map above, the assertion that most of the area is quieter than a lightly falling rain becomes problematic. Without a good understanding of the current conditions, the Organizations must question the quality of analysis supporting the assertion for a sound plan for the area. Again, this soundscape management plan is asserted to be needed under every Alternative provided to the public, but given the poor quality of data available, any meaningful analysis of possible impacts to satisfy NEPA is simply impossible.

The Organizations are very concerned that the Proposal moves well outside the scope of the Proclamation on the issue of sound management. We are unable to identify any portion of the Proclamation where this type of effort is required or even addressed. While this planning effort is not required under the Proclamation, the Proposal immediately identifies that sound is OHV, drone and aircraft based.^[54] How were these impacts identified and measured?  Simply identifying the proper standards for measurement of sound has been a difficult undertaking in any planning effort.  The Proposal simply omits this step and makes the conclusions noted above. This is an obvious concern and sound from many uses will exceed the levels the Proposal seeks to allow. Clearly, there are other sources of sound that would need to be addressed, and often, sound simply does not translate to the solitude identified for certain sites in the Proclamation.

We are unable to identify any portion of the Proclamation that requires or hints at this type of requirement as the Proclamation only makes passing references to solitude available in several locations.  Low levels of sound and solitude are two very different requirements.  A large group of people can reduce their sound production to levels identified in the Proposal.  That same large group of people will never achieve solitude as the mere proximity of other people prohibits solitude.  Clearly, there is a significant difference between solitude and sound, and these requirements are already addressed with tools such as the ROS designations and Wilderness designations created by Congress that the Proposal already provides for.   The Organizations are also concerned that neither  of the planning documents currently in force for the area have any requirement for this type of soundscape plan. As a result, we must question the requirement for a soundscape plan in every Alternative, as we are unable to identify any requirement of this nature.

7(c) Unintended impacts from soundscape plan will be significant given the lack of basic data in the Proposal on this issue.

The Organizations are immediately concerned about the possibility of low-quality data being used in the development of a sound scape plan, as there is immense conflict between the assumptions used in the analysis of existing sound and the ROS.  This is immediately apparent when the ROS maps around state highways are compared to the levels of sound found around these state highways.  The ROS corridors are much wider than the sound level corridors and this causes immediate concern as Department of Transportation has well developed science on the activity of sound around highways.

The Organizations are also concerned that any attempt to manage the monument under a soundscape type plan could have massive unintended impacts. How would the soundscape plan allow for overflights of firefighting planes? Given the proliferation of wildfires in size and number across the planning area, this type of a question would be foundational.  How would the plan deal with activities off public lands, such as municipal fireworks display on holidays? The Organizations are unable to identify any analysis of these types of basic issues before the soundscape management plan was included in every Alternative of the Proposal.

8. Conclusion.

The Organizations are forced to support Alternative A of the Proposal and vigorously oppose each of the other Alternatives. These Alternatives often do not meet the purpose and need of the effort and often directly conflict with the Proclamation, such as a designation that would result in the entire monument being an area of critical environmental concern.  Our concerns with the Proposal extend far beyond mere purpose and need concerns, as the Proposal requires many new planning standards to be applied but lacks even basic definitions of these new planning designations.  While the Proclamation addresses cultural sites and cultural landscapes, we are unable to find any portion of the analysis that defines what a cultural landscape is or how this type of designation would be managed differently than a cultural site.   Not only does the Proposal fail to define basic terms critical to the Proposal, the cultural inventory provided is simply nonexistent despite cultural values being a management priority in the Proclamation.

The need for extensive development of accurate information on management priorities extends far beyond cultural resources  as the economic analysis provided with the Proposal simply cannot be rationally defended.  Often estimates are hundreds of percentage points lower than any estimates from credible sources. Often estimates provided are 7 times less than per diem amounts for that activity that are provided to federal employees traveling in the planning areas. These conclusions cannot be legally or factually defended despite economic contributions of recreation being specifically identified as an important factor for management planning in the proclamation.

The Proclamation failures of analysis extend into designations such as SRMA and ERMA designations. While the Proposal makes broad assertions of improved recreational access to the Monument as a result of the Proposal, when any attempt to reconcile current designations with proposed designations. Existing SRMA designations that have been found effective at protecting values identified in the Proclamation are simply entirely removed or significantly reduced in size and recreational benefits and deliverables are simply removed.  This type of management structure cannot be aligned with improved recreational access.

The Organizations would welcome discussions on development of an Alternative that complied with the Proclamation and provided high quality recreational opportunities and protected other values as well. This type of alternative could be developed largely based on existing management.    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).

Scott Jones, Esq.
Executive Director CSA
Authorized Representative COHVCO

Fred Wiley
President & CEO
ORBA

Eric Snyder
SEMA

Edward Calhoun
President
Colorado Snowmobile Association

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President – CORE
Chairman – One Voice

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC

Steve Egbert
Chair – United 4 Wheel Drive Association

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director
Nevada Offroad Association

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

^[1] See, Proposal at pg. 3-378

^[2] See, Proposal at pg. ES-15.

^[3] See, Monticello FO RMP; Lands with Wilderness Characteristics  2003 Update; Appendix O at pg. O-4

^[4] See, Proposal at pg. ES-26.  Emphasis added.

^[5] A link to this forest level effort on the Arapahoe/Roosevelt NF  is found here : Forest Service (usda.gov)

^[6] See, Proposal at pg. 3-379

^[7] See, 2008 Monticello RMP at pg. 106.

^[8] See, 2008 Monticello RMP at pg. 107

^[9] See, Monticello Field Office 2008 RMP at pg.  109

^[10] See, Monticello Field Office 2008 RMP at pg.  110

^[11] See, Monticello Field Office 2008 RMP at pg.  110

^[12] See, President Joe Biden, Executive Order 14008; 86 Fed Reg 7619 At pg. 7626 (2021)

^[13] See, EO 14008 at pg. 7627.

^[14] See, EO 14008 at pg. 7628

^[15] See, President Joseph Biden; Executive Order 14057; 86 Fed Reg. 70935(2021).

^[16] See, EO 14057 at pg. 70938.

^[17] See, Biden Proclamation at pg. 57332

^[18] See, Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992)

^[19] See,  Riverbend Farms Pg 1487

^[20] As an example: Cultural Landscape – Geography – Oxford Bibliographies

^[21] World Heritage Centre – Cultural Landscapes (unesco.org) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention pg. 85. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (unesco.org)

^[22] James Allen; Does not provide a range of alternatives to satisfy NEPA…..NEPA Alternatives Analysis: The Evolving Exclusion of Remote and Speculative Alternatives; 2005 25 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 287.

^[23] See, Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F. 2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985).

^[24] See, Kunzman, 817 F. 2d at 492; see also Citizens for a Better Henderson, 768 F. 2d at 1056.

^[25] See, Biden Proclamation at pg. 57325.

^[26] See, DOI, Bureau of Land Management; Monticello Field Office; RMP Evaluation September 2015 at pg. b-18

^[27]  Monument Proclamation at pg. 57322

^[28] See Western Governors Association report; A snapshot of the Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation; prepared by Southwick and Associates; July 2012 at pg. 1.

^[29] See, Western Governors Association; Get out West Report; Managing the Regions Recreational Assets; June 2012 at pg.. 3.

^[30] See, Get Out West Report at pg. 5.

^[31] 43 U.S.C. §1712

^[32] See, BLM LUP Handbook H-1601-1 at Appendix D pg. 2. Emphasis added.

^[33] Economic Impact, Economic Contribution, and Export Base – IMPLAN – Support

^[34] Economic Surplus Definition & Examples – Quickonomics

^[35] See, Proposal at pg. 3-373

^[36] See, AAA Gas Prices Accessed 5/23/24

^[37] See, White, Eric M. 2017. Spending patterns of outdoor recreation visitors to national forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-961. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p. Pg 13.  A complete copy of this work is attached as Exhibit “1” to these comments.

^[38] AAA Gas Prices

^[39] See, White, Eric M. 2017 supra note 36.

^[40] 2024 Moab, Utah Federal Per Diem Rates (federalpay.org)

^[41] As an example of these estimates: Moab Travel Cost – Average Price of a Vacation to Moab: Food & Meal Budget, Daily & Weekly Expenses | BudgetYourTrip.com

^[42] See, 2024 Moab, Utah Federal is Per Diem Rates (federalpay.org)

^[43] See, Proclamation at pg. 57332.

^[44] See,  USDA Forest Service; Manti/LaSal RMP revision EIS;  Appendix G Socio-Economic Methodologies F.6-57 (Aug 2023).

^[45] See, White, Eric M. 2017. Supra note 36

^[46] CPI Inflation Calculator (bls.gov)

^[47] See, Proposal at pg. 3-365

^[48] See, Biden proclamation at pg. 57332

^[49] See, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); See Also;  Montgomery v. State; 69 S3d 1023(2011); See Also; People v Arguello; 765 NE2d 98 (2002).

^[50] A copy of an example sound report from a planning effort is attached as Exhibit “3”.

^[51] See, Proposal Figure 3-34

^[52] Living With Noise | FHWA (dot.gov)

^[53] Decibel Level of Common Sounds: Comparison Chart + Calculator (May 2024) (soundproof.expert)

^[54] See, Proposal at pg. ES19