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)

Also see:
June 10 2024: Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge TMP Comments

Dear BLM Planning Team:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) of 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

The DEA doesn’t resolve any of the concerns that the Organizations raised in our June 10th letter, so we have enclosed it to incorporate as part of our October 26th comments, thus we ask the BLM to respond to all comments from both letters. Both letters follow the same section headings (1 through 6), so please review each section from the June 10th letter followed by reading the same section from our October 26th comments.

The June 10th letter stressed that the HMFG planning area is huge, with thousands of miles of valuable routes that should be fully assessed to develop a satisfactory TMP. The Organizations now add that motorized recreation has increased here in the past couple decades, and that the extensive route network is increasingly important as places like Moab and even the San Rafael Swell become crowded.

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

The Organizations’ June 10th letter outlined the critical nature of a thorough route inventory, and provided six examples of existing routes missing from the inventory, explaining why less-established routes are often the most valuable ones for OHV recreation, and pointing out that the 2017 settlement doesn’t require Class III cultural surveys for routes to be merely included in the inventory or an action alternative. The Organizations now add that, when it comes to designating a route open, the 2017 settlement deadline could be further extended so there’s time to survey additional routes for designation, as extensions are permitted to ensure that travel planning is done properly. When it comes to HMFG, the 2017 settlement’s clear purpose was to survey the designated routes, not to prevent consideration of existing routes merely because of the survey requirement.

Nothing in the 2017 settlement relieves the BLM of its duty to develop a thorough route inventory. The 2008 RMP on Page A9-1 states:

“The RFO is aware that the current inventory of roads and trails being used for the route designation process is not 100 percent correct or complete.”

“BLM will collaborate with affected and interested parties in evaluating the designated route network for suitability for active OHV management and envisioning potential changes in the existing system or adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands.”

“The Approved RMP completes the initial route designation component of the Travel Management Plan and implementation process. These routes would be the initial basis for signing and enforcement.”

Indeed the route inventory wasn’t “100 percent correct or complete,” nor 90% or 80% complete, especially in the HMFG planning area. While the BLM has added 146 miles to the inventory, hundreds of miles of existing routes remain excluded, despite the passage of sixteen years. And it’s no wonder why, as the BLM hasn’t come close to following through on the RMP’s pledge to “collaborate with affected and interested parties in… adding new trails that would help meet current and future demands.” Thus the BLM hasn’t progressed from the RMP’s “initial route designation component of the Travel Management Plan and implementation process,” and thus the BLM wisely hasn’t implemented the current TMP by and large because the BLM doesn’t have a complete TMP because it never completed its route inventory.

The 2008 TMP is based on a grossly incomplete route inventory yet, in the subsequent sixteen years, the BLM has not invited the public to submit route data during any formal comment period, and the DEA refuses to add such routes to its inventory. A route inventory should’ve been completed during RMP scoping in 2003, and the fact that it’s still not done over twenty years later is unacceptable. The Organizations’ June 10th letter provided a half-dozen examples of missing routes, and half of them (specifically #3, #4, and #5) were within ten miles of Hanksville that’s far easier for inventory workers to reach than the rest of the planning area, which speaks to the extent of missing routes. Those three routes near Hanksville provide key connectivity, yet they’ve never been added to the BLM’s inventory, which again speaks to the extent of missing routes.

Of these hundreds of miles of missing routes, the vast majority of them have been continuously used for decades, and they should not be closed as if they never existed. Prior to 2008, the HMFG planning area was open to cross-country travel, with the exception of WSAs that were either limited to existing routes or closed. Such routes should be left open unless route-specific analysis demonstrates a need for closure.

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

The Organizations’ June 10th letter stressed that many inventoried routes are excluded from every preliminary alternative despite having great recreational value and having resource impacts that are low or can be greatly mitigated, and the letter provided three examples. The DEA continues to exclude from every draft alternative these three routes and many others, and it doesn’t update the route reports or provide any clear reason why such routes would be excluded from the scope of analysis, thus it’s completely unresponsive to the Organizations’ June 10th letter. The 2017 settlement requires the BLM to invite public input on its scoping report / preliminary route reports / preliminary alternatives for the purpose of meaningfully considering such input. The Organizations’ June 10th letter detailed comments on these three routes among others, yet the BLM’s new draft route reports and alternatives are identical to its preliminary ones, so there’s simply no indication our comments were meaningfully considered.

Regarding all of the alternatives, sound planning must clearly articulate the rationale for each proposed decision. The information set forth in the DEA, including the route reports (however voluminous they may be), is NEPA deficient when it comes to explaining the basis or rationale for the various proposed route closures in the range of alternatives. The information amounts to little more than route-by-route conclusions as to what will be closed, with little to no underlying data, and no analysis and application of data or other criteria to explain any of the proposed route closures. The NEPA deficiencies here include (a) failure to take a hard look at the routes and the conditions in support of or against closure, (b) a failure of transparency, (c) failure to inform the public, and (d) arbitrary and capricious governmental decision making.

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.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter explained why the draft alternatives should not propose to close any routes outside of natural areas (NAs) or WSAs for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics (WC). Unfortunately now the draft Alternative B continues to close virtually every route within lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) other than those that form cherry-stems or other boundaries of LWCs, which is inconsistent with the 2008 RMP and 2017 settlement.

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.

The Organizations’ June 10th letter stressed that, outside of WSAs and natural areas (where the BLM chose to manage for WC), the BLM should not restrict recreation for the purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, nor should it manufacture other purposes. Unfortunately now the DEA does exactly that in all of its action alternatives by disproportionately closing routes in LWCs that are not NAs. While the targeting of LWC routes for closure is wholesale in Alternative B, it exists in Alternative C, and is even clear in Alternative D. To varying degrees, all of the action alternatives would essentially manage the LWCs as NAs without going through the required process of amending the 2008 RMP, which is inconsistent with the 2008 RMP and 2017 settlement.

The DEA in Section 3.4.10 “Affected Environment” on Page 92 states:

“Similarly, the 2017 Settlement Agreement stipulates that “For purposes of minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, the BLM will consider the potential damage to any constituent element of wilderness characteristics, including naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, for each alternative route network.””

Where the 2017 Settlement Agreement refers to minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, it refers to minimizing damage to those public lands, not minimizing damage to the WC themselves. Furthermore the 2017 settlement refers to considering the potential damage to any constituent element of WC, it directs the BLM to consider such damage, but it doesn’t direct the BLM to minimize such damage. If the 2017 settlement were to direct the BLM to minimize impacts to WC, it probably wouldn’t have been approved by the court, which cautioned against creating de facto wilderness in its 2018 dismissal of Utah’s appeal.

The Organizations urge the BLM to comply with the RMP decision to not manage for WC outside of NAs and WSAs particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings. This year even more reasons have emerged for the BLM to avoid promoting WC in the HMFG planning area, specifically recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 that reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. The draft TMP in Section 3.3.2.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 34 asserts “Distinct from any planning decisions, under 43 CFR §8342.1 the BLM has the obligation to minimize impacts to resources, including wilderness character, when designating OHV routes.” The BLM should be cognizant of the extent to which such agency guidance is actually grounded in legislation. When clear authorization is lacking, administrative actions are now more likely to be ruled a bypass of requirements such as the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA. The argument that the BLM is merely conducting minimization pursuant to the 2017 Settlement Agreement could be unavailing if that exercise is wholly or partially beholden to administratively-created special designations that wind up no longer holding under the glaring Congressional authority of the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA.

7. The recreation and socioeconomic analyses fail to recognize major negative impacts of every alternative.

The DEA claims few negative impacts to motorized recreation or local economies by claiming that motorized use levels would not be significantly different, which is absurd. First of all, due to the gross incompleteness of the 2008 route inventory, TMP, and its implementation, motorized use has continuously occurred on hundreds of miles of routes that continue to be missing from the inventory and aren’t accounted for anywhere in the DEA. These missing routes tend to be primitive and prized by OHV riders. Thus actually implementing Alternative A—let alone the action alternatives—would greatly reduce the quantity and quality of opportunities for motorized trail enthusiasts.

To prove the BLM’s claim that motorized recreation and local economies would be unharmed by every alternative’s closure of these hundreds of miles of missing routes plus hundreds of miles of inventoried routes, the DEA sites Leaver 2024, which is a high-level summary of tourism in Utah. The Leaver 2024 report doesn’t even attempt to address the question of how motorized access affects visitation, thus the BLM’s claim is completely unsubstantiated.

Not only would implementing any of the DEA alternatives reduce the enjoyment of current OHV riders, it would reduce the potential for growth in this prominent form of recreation, as the quantity and quality of motorized routes determines the carrying capacity of this planning area. The network of existing routes is important now, and even more so in future as places like Moab and the San Rafael Swell become crowded. The communities of Hanksville and Ticaboo are increasingly depending on OHV visitation, and such recreational opportunities improve the quality of life for residents, which could draw new residents so long as the BLM leaves the vast majority of existing routes open.

Another way that the DEA greatly underestimates socioeconomic impacts is by estimating $34.38 per visitor day of economic output (see Table 43 on Page 123). Motorized recreationists often spend that amount on fuel alone, particularly in this remote planning area. Suffice it to say that analyzing socioeconomic impacts is needed, along with a more realistic analysis of impacts to motorized recreation.

8. Conclusion

The Organizations do not expect the BLM to permit cross-country travel outside of small open areas, nor do we necessarily expect every existing route to remain open. Nevertheless we expect travel plans to be developed upon a foundation of thorough route inventory, explanation of any negative impacts to natural or social resources, and accounting of the impacts to motorized recreation and local economies. It’s worth getting these things right given the incredible trails in this incredible 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

Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Att: Jody Kennedy
Via email only

RE: Preliminary Thoughts on Outdoor Strategy

Dear Jody:

The Organizations would like to supplement our original comments on the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy previously submitted July 27, 2024.  When our original comments were provided on the SCORP, we had not had the opportunity to review the Outdoor Strategy in any detail. After having the opportunity to review the Outdoor Strategy more completely we can simply say we are disappointed and frustrated with the Draft Outdoor Strategy (“The Proposal”).  Our disappointment centers around several general issues including: strategic recreation planning has simply been largely disregarded in the Proposal despite it being a cornerstone of the effort; the Proposal is silent around the huge success Colorado has had in providing sustainable recreational opportunities for decades; many CPW partner groups and their successes and challenges in providing sustainable recreational opportunities simply not mentioned in the Proposal;  and often third party information is relied on instead of CPW data.  The need to accurately understand and recognize challenges facing Colorado will be critical in crafting an accurate and effective response in furtherance of mandates of EO 2020-008.  While we are aware that data we hope will be developed  from the effort will be highly valuable to the recreational community moving forward, the first usage of this new data cannot be to correct poorly directed management efforts that resulted from foundational failures in the Proposal.  Much of the public and land managers failed to understand that the motorized community has been legally required to balance recreation and conservation on federal public lands since 1972 with the issuance of Executive Order 11644 by Richard Nixon. The Organizations are very concerned that the cumulative impacts of the challenges of the Proposal reliance on imperfect information and failing to recognize the success that has already been achieved will result in poor management decisions.

In several locations the Proposal asserts large concerns for wildlife populations based on public perceptions, such as climate change or growth of state populations. The Organizations don’t contest this perception exists in Colorado, as we have been addressing this issue for years in various federal NEPA efforts and had numerous discussions with CPW leadership on this issue. We do not contest that vocal minority of the public appear to have the perception wildlife populations are plummeting and closures are necessary.  When these perceptions are compared to CPW data, these public perceptions are immediately identified as less than accurate. These types of conflicts based on incorrect or incomplete information are exactly the type of situation the Outdoor Strategy was designed to address. As a recent example of the challenge that may result from poor data being relied on is the planning effort undertaken on the GMUG NF in 2021, where many in the public asserted wildlife populations on the GMUG were plummeting.  When this assertion was compared to CPW herd specific data on the GMUG  it was determined that elk populations were 35% above goals and deer populations were only 10% below goal due to recent winter kill situations on the forest. Unfortunately, this example is not the only time we have encountered this issue. Building awareness of this success in conservation and recreation would be a major step towards the goals of EO 2020-008 as repetitious efforts could be avoided and other users could use this model moving forward. Failing to recognize success does not foster future success.

This growingly systemic lack of public awareness and understanding on the current balance in conservation and recreation values forces us to ask a basic management question: “What is the proper management response to the situation?” Is this a situation that needs an on-the-ground management response or is this an issue addressed with an educational effort regarding before any on the ground response is undertaken?  This situation highlights our concerns as any management response must include education of the public and not just tighter management restrictions and closures to achieve a goal that may have already been achieved.  Accurate information from CPW has been published for years on what these goals for wildlife populations are and challenges in achieving these goals. CPW has consistently stated that recreational activity is often a nonexistent threat to these resources.  If there is a desire to change these conclusions on the proper level of any resource,  then the public should be educated what the process is and how to engage in the process. The Proposal simply moves past this critical step, as education is not recognized, and success is not highlighted.

We continue to struggle with understanding how the Proposal is to be coordinated into other planning efforts and are very concerned that the effort will result in minimal benefit to anyone but immense conflicts between users being fostered.   Regardless of where the distinction and focus of the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy ultimately falls, recreation must be addressed in the Outdoor Strategy as required in Governor Polis EO 2020-008 and various mission requirements for CPW identified in the Colorado Revised Statutes. We are disappointed that the Proposal fails to even recognize that everyone and everything wins when there is a healthy ecosystem for the public to enjoy.   A healthy and vibrant ecosystem is a critical step providing all recreational opportunities, even for those that will only experience these opportunities through a picture on the internet.  Building  well planned and maintained trails and other infrastructure when they are needed contributes to a healthy ecosystem. This is simply never addressed.

These comments are troubling for us to even write as the Organizations have partnered with CPW for more than 50 years. Over this time there have been good times and less than good times throughout this partnership over this time. Recreation has always been an important component of CPW efforts as many in the State did not pursue consumptive wildlife activities.  Recreational opportunities like State Parks have been a critical tool for CPW to engage the public on different issues and this critical tool is simply not addressed at all in the Proposal. CPW has recently led efforts that have been nationally recognized for their groundbreaking collaboration to proactively balance trails and wildlife but are not mentioned in the Proposal.  The silence in the Proposal is deafening.  The Proposal could be an important step in creating balance for the public and furthering the decades of success in achieving these goals.  Educating the public on this success could unify interests in the outdoors and move both conservation and recreation forward. Rather than uniting the communities, the Proposal divides further. For many in the public, CPW has become the agency reintroducing wolves in Colorado despite this effort only being  a small portion of what CPW is mandated to do, and has been successfully doing for a long time. The wolf reintroduction has already created numerous unforeseen challenges such as having to relocate packs already and loss of sources for more wolves. We remain concerned that when wolves impact ungulate populations, motorized  recreation and trail usage will be blamed.  The Proposal will only expand existing conflicts around recreation and wildlife as the Proposal does not address that well planned and managed recreation will further recreation and conservation.  The Proposal should unite interests and move forward with success rather than further divisions and conflict.  This type of result simply will not happen as recreation benefits are not mentioned at all.

1(a) The Proposal fails to reflect the balanced agency mission and objectives identified by the Legislature.

This document should be a celebration of success on issues where there is an immense amount of successful planning and effort already in place. The Organizations are very concerned that if this Proposal was provided to someone unfamiliar with CPW, this document would not assist them in understanding the long history of success in Colorado on the issues being addressed or help them to understand challenges that are being faced.  It falls well short of that goal despite the overlap of many of the planning documents on both their goals and objectives, which gives the Organizations concerns about how the document would be used in the future.

The erroneous and troubling direction and scope of the Outdoor Strategy is immediately apparent when the statutory mission of CPW is reviewed. Article 9 Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes clearly lays this mission  as follows:

“SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:

(a) The people of Colorado value and seek to preserve the state’s unique park, wildlife, and outdoor recreation heritage;

(b) Maintenance of a healthy outdoor recreation program is vital to local, regional, and state economies;

(c) It is important to leverage existing fiscal, personnel, and capital resources to achieve the greatest accountability, efficiency, and customer-focused service delivery possible;

(d) Combining similar or overlapping programs and functions has the potential to reduce costs, streamline processes, and provide a net benefit to state budgets;

(e) Coloradans and visitors to the state will benefit from the preservation of important programs, such as the aquatic nuisance species program, the recreational trails program, and the natural areas program, that would otherwise need to be scaled back or eliminated under current budget proposals;

(f) Policies, procedures, and accounting methods to ensure transparency, to prevent the unauthorized commingling or impermissible use of moneys in distinct funds, and to ensure that moneys are expended consistent with the purposes for which they are received, collected, or appropriated are fundamental to any successful effort to realize efficiencies;

(g) Preserving the missions of the division of wildlife and division of parks and outdoor recreation is a priority, as is transparency of the process for combining functions, streamlining processes, and reducing costs; and

(h) The board of parks and outdoor recreation and the wildlife commission have created strategic plans that identify goals and objectives for the division of parks and outdoor recreation and the division of wildlife for the next five to ten years, and combining divisions so that resources are shared and allocated toward the achievement of shared and mutually beneficial goals will further these objectives, including:

(I) Protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitats;

(II) Providing and protecting opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife-viewing opportunities;

(III) Enforcing regulations that protect fish and wildlife;

(IV) Increasing public knowledge of agency missions;

(V) Increasing public awareness of, and participation in, a variety of outdoor activities;

(VI) Attracting and retaining a diverse workforce and promoting excellence within that workforce;

(VII) Creating and strengthening outreach and partnerships; and

(VIII) Maximizing funding.”[1]

It is important to note the CPW has had a statutorily balanced mission since the merger of Division of Wildlife and Parks in 2012.  Contrary to much of what we continue to hear in public meetings, this balancing of interests and protection of all values is not a new concept in Colorado but one that CPW has been required to do for more than a decade.  While this merger was a huge effort for the Organizations, it is astonishing how quickly this nuance has been lost.  Again, this decade of effort working towards balance should be highlighted and celebrated in the Proposal rather than simply overlooked.

A similar balance of interests between recreation and conservation is again highlighted in Governor Polis’ EO 2020-008. This EO refined and updated these basic goals in the Statute as follows:

“A. DNR, in consultation with CPW and the CO-OP, shall develop the Initiative to achieve the following goals:

1. 1. Ensure that Colorado’s land, water, and wildlife thrive while also providing for equitable and safe access to quality outdoor recreation experiences;
   2. Convene voices from different outdoor interests, races, cultures, ages, and sectors through the Regional Partnerships to identify regional priorities and strategies;
   3. Collaborate with Regional Partnerships to develop a State-level vision and Plan for conservation and recreation; and
   4. Identify stable and long-term funding from multiple, sustainable sources to provide for the critical investments needed to conserve Colorado’s landscapes, rivers, wildlife, sensitive habitats, and recreational opportunities.”

The Organizations would be remiss if our concerns around the relationship of the Proposal and the goals and objectives mandated by Colorado Revised Statutes and refined with EO 2020-008 was not addressed.  Our concerns expand as the Proposal delves into many topics that are outside the Statutory CPW mission and values.  Are these issues important?  Absolutely. Should the Proposal seek to align with these other planning resources that specifically address these topics?  Absolutely.  Should these other planning resources be used instead of CPW resources to address these challenges?  Probably.  The Organizations would request that the Proposal balance the two overarching goals within their statutory mission and in the EO before adopting a higher level of focus on more refined topics that CPW may not be well suited to address. At best, this is mission creep for CPW and that is never a good thing.

1(b) CPW needs a balanced message moving forward and the Proposal could be a major step in this direction.

The Organizations had hoped and advocated for this document to be balanced and reflect the strategic multi-faceted roles that CPW is fulfilling.  This type of messaging is critical to the long-term success of CPW given the challenges that CPW is facing especially regarding the limited public understanding of CPW operations as a whole. This balanced message is more important due to the public perception that CPW is overly focus on wolves. While Proposition 114 mandated wolf reintroduction, it did not alter the mission of CPW.  Prop 114 merely identified CPW as the lead agency for this effort. This change has created significant challenges for the agency that have not gone unnoticed. The challenges that the wolf reintroduction has created for CPW were recently highlighted in a Summit Daily news article addressing the perceived imbalance of CPW efforts and the stress it is placing on the agency as a whole.[2] While CPW representatives attempted to put a good face on the wolf issue, outlining the balance of CPW efforts in the Proposal would be a significant indication of where CPW is going and the success that CPW has had on these issues  beyond wolf reintroduction already.  The value of the Proposal only expands when the upcoming reintroduction of the wolverine are undertaken by CPW in the next several years.

While the Proposal could be a major resource for CPW to use in responding to public concerns such as those presented by the wolf and wolverine reintroductions, this opportunity is simply not pursued.  The Proposal could provide a balanced message to the public and as a roadmap to address management challenges that are identified. With efforts of these scale and stature, tools and resources such as the Proposal should be identified and fully utilized. This document could easily provide a balanced vision of CPW does wolves, wildlife, recreation and it benefits everyone in the state.   The Proposal could also provide guidance on how CPW will work to balance and educate the public on the wide range of efforts that CPW has successfully undertaken since the merger.  Failing to use this document in this manner is at best a missed opportunity.

1(c) The Proposal highlights existing imbalances in strategic planning resources but does not address how to correct this imbalance.

The impacts of the  failure of the Proposal to strategically address recreation in balance with other values is not just limited to CPW ability to respond to wolf and upcoming wolverine management issues. The Organizations welcome that the Proposal highlights the existing imbalance in strategic planning available on the values of recreation and conservation which highlights the critical need for data and strategic planning on recreational issues.  Simply recognizing this situation is important so strategic planning for recreation can be undertaken to address the imbalance.  The Proposal fails to highlight the need for this resource to be developed and expanded in any of the milestones proposed.  The failure of the Proposal to address this type of systemic imbalance in strategic planning values is perplexing given the target of this effort has been to identify imbalances and resolve them.

The Proposal is the first effort we are aware of that identifies the list of statewide conservation or recreation plans, which is provide on page 9 of the Proposal.  After a cursory review, it is immediately apparent that the number of recreation plans is simply dwarfed by the number of conservation plans.  The Proposal clearly identifies 13 conservation plans and only 8 recreation plans currently in place in the State. The Proposal provides an additional itemized list of statewide conservation and recreation plans on pg. 25 of the Proposal.  This chart again highlights the imbalance in existing statewide plans as this chart clearly identifies 27 conservation plans and only 15 recreation plans.  While merely counting the number of plans is not dispositive of the issue as plans address many topics and not all plans are created equally, these initial imbalances cannot be overlooked.  The imbalance becomes much worse when the nature of the plans is addressed as almost all conservation plans are highly strategic in nature and overwhelmingly the recreation plans are single issue driven plans. The Organizations submit this is a challenge that must be recognized and addressed. Rather than addressing this imbalance, the Proposal carries this highlighted imbalance of existing resources forward into strategic milestones for the effort.  After a brief review of these milestones, it appears only 3 milestones relate to recreation and 10 are related to conservation and another 18 are not directly related to either issue. Again, the Organizations vigorously assert this falls well short of the balance required in the agency mission and also the requirements of EO 2020-008. This must be corrected.

The Proposal does highlight the historical imbalance in planning resources that have been directed towards conservation issues and recreation issues. Even under the most broad interpretation of recreation plans, conservation plans outnumber recreation plans almost 3 to 1 in terms of the number of plans. While recognizing this situation has value, the Organizations submit this situation has been present for an extended period of time even if no one has identified the problem. The Organizations submit at least part of the problem being presented is that Planners simply assumed recreation infrastructure was sufficient in size and types of opportunity provided.  This assumption in strategic planning was never confirmed and as a result, in many areas recreational issues lag far behind other issues in strategic planning. The Organizations are aware that the data goals in the SCORP and Proposal will be of significant value in the long term, these long-term goals cannot be the only benefit as these tools will take years to bring on-line.

While the recreational community lacks the data to define objectives and factors impacting access and quality of experience that is available for many other issues, this does not mean recreation planning can be ignored until new data is available. We are aware there are rapidly growing challenges for recreational access in many areas and avoiding these known problems will not resolve them.  Creating a plan that undervalues recreation simply because this activity is not as easily defined as other efforts would be a mistake. The recreational community hopes that data developed at some time in the future will not need to be used to return recreational opportunities that were lost as the data was developed.  There are challenges facing recreation such as population growth and increases population concentration along the Front Range and ignoring these issues will not make them go away. These are strategic challenges that should be balanced in CPW efforts and messaging moving forward. The Proposal fails to do this entirely.

This itemized list is helpful in identifying how few state recreation plans are currently in place as there are almost twice as many wildlife/climate plans in place when compared to recreation plans.  This only compounds our request for balance in the Proposal. Rather than addressing this imbalance, the Proposal appears to contribute to it further as milestones from the Proposal exhibit the same imbalance in values as has been highlighted previously. While the Organizations vigorously support the need for expanded data on recreation, we are also concerned that significant portions of the data being developed is only in the early stages of development. The Proposal estimates some of data collection efforts  will not be completed until 2030.  We should not wait this long to start to address challenges. Implementation of plans to address this new data development could take years to complete and even more time for planners to understand and implement locally to provide a benefit.  Recreation will need to adapt and expand over these years but the Proposal fails to address this issue.

1(d) Strategic recreation plans are different than issue specific recreation management plans.

The strategic nature of the Proposal and the poor alignment of the existing issue driven plans identified as recreation compounds our concerns around the Proposal as we have a mismatch in the desired results of the Outdoor Strategy and scope of many of the plans identified as recreational in the Proposal.   The challenges presented from the imbalance of existing planning resources identified compounds when the overly optimistic scope of the limited number of recreation plans is reviewed. Simply comparing the number of conservation plans with recreation plans makes a fatal assumption, mainly that each plan is reasonably comparable in terms of scale and development.  This assumption would be incorrect.  Most recreation plans simply are not strategic recreation plans but rather are plans attempting to manage specific recreation issues or an issue only incidentally related to recreation.  Unlike most of the wildlife or conservation plans that are identified which develop strategic goals and objectives, most recreation plans identified are simply not strategic in nature and some plans are identified as recreational in nature but fail to address recreational issues.

The overwhelming portion of the recreation plans identified target recreation management issues and entirely fail to ask basic strategic questions around recreation supply and demand generally.  Many recreational plans simply seek to manage recreational issues and fail to answer foundational questions around recreation in all forms or any specific information on particular uses or opportunities that could be developed to address these challenges.  We are not aware of planning efforts that approached addressing strategic recreational questions like: “Do we have areas of the state that are currently facing shortages of recreational access?”.  For too long recreational management has been driven by pictures such as these of a Wilderness Trailhead outside Crested Butte.

After pictures like this appear, everyone agrees there is a need for more parking at the location.  No one ever asks “How did we not see this issue coming?” and a parking lot hopefully gets built.  After the parking lot hopefully gets built no one ever asks a question like “What can we do to avoid this situation in the future?” Asking strategic questions like this could address failures such as this in the future and protect wildlife resources and improve recreation.

We are not aware of strategic questions like “Could we put a public golf course at a state park?”  being asked either. These types of questions could lead to State Parks being a more valuable resource for the public and CPW expanding its recreational role in the state while making the State Park System more financially sustainable. Rather than understand possible  future demand for State Parks the Proposal simply does not talk about them at all despite many State Parks seeing similar situations on busy weekends as is reflected in the trailhead pictures above.  These questions are not answered without significant effort and data, most of which is not available.  This basic information for what the recreational community needs to be sufficient is the equivalent to identifying the necessary herd size and habitat zones for wildlife management and sustainability. It is the first step in planning. Conservation has addressed these foundational questions decades ago, the larger recreation community is only starting to understand there could be a need to address usages at this level. While cellular based data will be critical in resolving these questions, we simply cannot wait for this data to be obtained and understood. Recreational interests will simply be further behind by that point and questions will remain unresolved.

Our concerns around the narrow scope of recreation analysis is exemplified by the focus of existing plans being issue driven management in nature and scope. The first plan highlighted in the Proposal that suffers from this issue of a limited scope of analysis is the Colorado Tourism Office’s Destination Stewardship Plan.   We have worked with Colorado Tourism Office for several years in the development of the CTO plan and support the conclusions of this stewardship effort. This planning effort has targeted important issues like managing expectations of the public, the need to educate the public in the backcountry and building awareness of the recreational public to avoid impacts on a very high level. These are critical goals for recreation but are also needed for public safety, as exemplified by the fact most of the recommended needs for backcountry recreation are also highly relevant to simply traveling in Colorado in the winter. We would assert that the CTO plan is a recreation management plan rather than a recreation plan. CTO would be poorly suited to even address expanding recreational opportunities or understanding recreational demands in a planning effort.  Questions like:  “Could we build a golf course at a state park?” are simply outside the scope of these efforts as the CTO plan would address management of a golf course once built. While these are important factors to understand, these shortcomings undermine the value of this plan for strategic use.

Another planning effort generally identified as recreation which falls outside the scope of a strategic recreation plan and targets recreation management is the OREC planning effort forthcoming.  The OREC plan primarily targets economic development for the outdoor industry but is identified  as an Outdoor Recreation Plan.  We have enjoyed a good relationship with the OREC office for many years, and many of our members have been engaged in their COILS efforts and various roundtables.  We support their efforts and mission as economic sustainability is important to all activities in Colorado. While we support this effort, it does not alter the fact that this is an economic development plan that targets recreational businesses  in Colorado.  Again, this is not a strategic recreation plan but rather a planning effort that incidentally relates to recreation. With this narrow scope of the effort, many basic recreational questions will simply be outside the scope of authority for the Office and clearly outside any research that OREC might be conducting for a planning effort. While this effort is valuable, this type of issue driven effort will not address recreational balance at any scale.

While some plans have a limited strategic value for recreation, some of the issue specific plans identified entirely lack any meaningful discussion of outdoor recreation. An example of issue specific plan identified as recreation plan which really does not address recreation would be the Colorado Historic Preservation Plan. When reviewed the only mention of recreation in the Historic Preservation Plan is provided in the summary of the statutory scope of various agencies involved in public lands management, making any assertion of outdoor recreation problematic with the scope of the plan. Are historic resources a possible recreational opportunity sought by the public?  Of course, but this activity is more aptly summarized as tourism rather than recreation.  If the Proposal hugely broad definition of outdoor recreation is applied to the Denver Broncos, the Bronco’s  strategic planning efforts could be included in the Proposal as a recreation plan  as the Broncos are a major tourism driver and people are outside. The Organizations do not believe this is the focus of this effort and would result in the fact the Colorado Historic Preservation Plan does not meaningfully address outdoor recreation being overlooked.

When the strategic nature of the Proposal and the strategic nature of recreation plans is compared, there are only a few plans that start to address recreation, such as the CPW Strategic Plan, State Trails Plan and GOCO plan that address recreation in a strategic manner.  The Proposal must address strategic development of recreational plans to begin to address recreation challenges in a strategic manner. We would encourage the Proposal to clearly focus on outdoor recreation planning to avoid inclusion of plans only incidentally address outdoor recreation being identified as a plan highlighting recreational needs.  The Organizations are aware there are immense questions and challenges that the state faces that are simply outside the scope of the CTO, OREC and State Historic Preservation Office effort to even address and as a result they were not addressed as they were outside the mission of these offices.

2(a)  CPW has created similar strategic plans and they reasonably balanced recreation and conservation.

The Organizations have partnered with CPW for an extended period of time and it is unfortunate to note that this is not the first time that there has been significant pressure on CPW for a variety of reasons. The Organizations are concerned that unlike previously heavily pressured planning efforts, the strategic long-term benefits of recreation planning are not addressed in the Proposal.  This messaging could have significant impacts on other efforts of CPW to develop partnerships with new user groups. This type of unintended impacts of the Proposal would be exemplified by CPW discussions around the development of a mountain bike registration program similar to the OHV and snowmobile programs. Our Organizations and CPW has found exceptionally successful in achieving the goals of the EO.  The Organizations have participated in these strategic programs and discussions for almost a decade and previously a report such as the Proposal has been used to guide these efforts.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the Proposal will not further these types of strategic efforts, as there is simply nothing in the Proposal that CPW can identify to support the need for the mountain bike community to collaborate in the same manner as our Organizations have for decades.. CPW has always found a way to balance the values and move forward with its mission.  The Proposal simply fails to achieve these strategic goals and must be balanced to further the history of success that CPW has had in balancing many critical values for the state.

Historically, an example of this type of strategic planning effort would be from the merger of the old Division of Wildlife and Division of Parks, which was a massive undertaking and resulted in conflicts and divisions of interests during the merger process. Balance was achieved in this effort despite immense public pressure.   As the merger moved forward, CPW created what was known as the Path Forward document to identify major challenges and clarify planning objectives.  A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit “A” to these comments.  The Organizations must specifically address the fact that the major challenges identified in the Path Forward planning document largely mirrors the goals and objectives of EO 2020-008.  As the merger moved forward the Path Forward plan was developed.  A copy of this Plan is attached as Exhibit “B” to these comments.

CPW and partners have made major headway in resolving these strategic challenges in the decades since the Path Forward. This is clearly evidenced in the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan almost immediately after the Path Forward was completed. The Organizations were again vigorously involved in this planning effort and can say with absolute confidence that many of the same concerns and issues were present when the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan was developed as are present here.  These issues were balanced and success was achieved because of the balance in the plan.  Since the 2016 CPW Strategic Plan was finalized, species have been reintroduced, new parks have been opened, new funding streams created, visitation to all forms of recreational opportunities expanded with hundreds of millions in grants flowing to a wide range of local communities and recreational operations and wildlife operations were integrated.  This is the long term strategic success we believe must be the goal of the Proposal and simply has not been achieved. The Organizations are aware that if these historical planning documents were out of balance, strategic success such as this would not be achieved.

As a long term partner of CPW, we welcomed the issuance of EO 2020-008 as we thought this recognition was an important step in maintaining the strategic focus and  updating existing efforts around these strategic goals as these needs are always evolving and changing. We must ask why success around these existing foundations would not be highlighted in the Proposal.  If we do not periodically review these goals and celebrate success, efforts can get off track. Unfortunately after reviewing the Proposal, we must express concern that the strategic check in effort to ensure the long term goals of CPW has gotten off track.  Rather than confirming the basic course and providing basic corrections or alterations to address changes in strategic goals since the 2016 Strategic Plan, the Proposal paints a very different and more troubling picture for the relationship of the factors previously identified as priority challenges. The Organizations really hope this is incorrect as we have not seen the last decade of partnership with CPW as anything less than a major success. The model for a successful balancing of these strategic values already exists and should be used.

2(b) Newly designated State Parks and the success of the existing State Parks are not even mentioned in the Proposal.

The imbalance of analysis of values in the Proposal has led to hugely successful efforts simply being overlooked. This imbalance in analysis was immediately visible in the Proposal as the State Park system is simply not addressed in the Proposal.  While the Organizations are most commonly engaged with CPW on motorized trails issues in the State, our interests and those of our members extend beyond just motorized trails. Many of our members are passionate about our system of State Parks, and often hunt, fish, hike and experience Colorado outside the use of motorized trails. The fact that the State Park system is often the first place many youth and underserved communities able to obtain an outdoor experience in any manner cannot be overlooked. This portion of CPW operations has always been a huge  success  in achieving the goals of the Outdoor Strategy as State Parks are often reasonably accessible for the public and provide a more intensive and managed recreational opportunity for the public when compared to the self-guided type of opportunities that those more advanced obtain on Federal lands across the State.  The State Park System has also opened two new State Parks and looking at a third in the next couple of years.  While there have been challenges around the two parks opened to date, such as exceptionally low visitation to Fisher’s Peak SP,  these are major efforts and should not be overlooked. If success is not highlighted, how is success ensured in the future?

The omission of any mention of State Parks in the Proposals is simply confounding given their huge success for an extended period of time.  Even more confounding is the recent release of the CPW book celebrating the Colorado State Parks System and more specifically the strategic efforts of the Organizations in providing sustainable recreational opportunities as follows:

“Responsible motorized users, represented by the Colorado Snowmobile Association and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition realized that without regulation,  their access to public lands would soon be severely curtailed or possibly prohibited.  In the spirit of public/private partnership these recreationists approached State Parks and requested help in establishing the Colorado Snowmobile and Off-Highway Vehicle Programs. The premise of the programs was simple yet unique.  First, set up a registration program to track the ownership of the vehicles and create a funding base to support maintenance of existing trails and construction of new trails. Second set up safety and use regulations to help promote a family orientated sport that respected Colorado natural resources.  These two programs have been hailed as examples of how the government and the public can work together to provide new forms of recreation while protecting Colorado natural resources.”[3]

The Organizations vigorously welcome recognition of this partnership in the new State Parks book and must question why sentiments such as this have been entirely omitted from the Proposal. This book release has coincided with this Proposal is being introduced and while the book is appreciated, it is not a replacement for strategic planning. A copy of the announcement from CPW is as follows:

Given the overlap of these two efforts, the Organizations would have to believe that the newly released book could be adopted in the Proposal in some manner.  Again, why wouldn’t success such as this be highlighted?

Our concerns around the failure to mention the immense amount of strategic success that Colorado has been able to achieve with the State Park System relates to the fact there are simply no strategic questions asked to ensure the future success of the State Park System in the Proposal or most underlying planning efforts.  These strategic questions would include: “How many Parks are at or beyond existing capacity?” or “Are there opportunities for the public that could be provided on a State Park but have not been?” or “Would the public be willing to pay more to obtain these additional experience?” Strategic planning may be needed for some efforts but other responses could be developed quickly and easily to remove pressure from uses on adjacent federal lands.  Many of these strategic challenges are being more visible in certain geographic areas of the State.  Ignoring them will not make them go away.   If we are unwilling to address challenges such as this in a strategic recreation and conservation plan, the Organizations would ask what type of plan is needed and why are we not seeking to create this type of plan currently.

It is unfortunate to see a difficult financial situation looming for CPW  similar to that which faced CPW at the time of the merger.  The Organizations are expecting budgets to become exceptionally tight and the Organizations can remember merger meetings where ¼ and ½ costs of full time employees were being identified in an effort to control costs in the merger discussions.  The Organizations cannot overlook the fact that the preliminary efforts of the 2025 Joint Budget Committee have preliminarily identified a $1,000,000,000 shortfall for the State budget this year. While we are sure that the JBC will be able to minimize these impacts and CPW budgets do not look as grim as the State more generally, this situation is concerning and would cause us to express the need to be strategically addressing recreation needs in a more challenging budget situation than is currently being faced. These are simply long-term challenges that should be addressed.

2(c) Groundbreaking CPW efforts to recognize trails and conservation have been nationally recognized by partners but entirely omitted from the Proposal.

The existing imbalance in the Proposal on recreation and its possible benefits to conservation has resulted in what can only be summarized as unusual shortfalls for the Proposal. While we are frustrated that State Parks are not mentioned, the silence on trails issue is even more problematic to our Organizations.  CPW Trails embarked on a groundbreaking effort to update the Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind Guide in 2022. This effort took two years and more than a dozen partners including conservation groups, recreation groups, local and state governmental interests and federal land managers to develop. This updated guide was heralded by all interests in Colorado as a huge success. The USFS recently issued their final DEIS on Old Growth Timber management, which specifically recognized the groundbreaking nature of the Trails and Wildlife Guide as follows:

“State wildlife agencies are responsible for managing wildlife populations. The Forest Service is responsible for managing habitat. However, the Forest Service has a unique mission with a multiple use mandate. Some state wildlife agencies are developing more interest in recreation and how to meet wildlife conservation outcomes at the same time. One example of this is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife “Guide for planning trails with wildlife in mind” (2021). The guide was developed with the participation of the Forest Service and several other agencies and organizations. Integrating conservation into recreation and trails planning is one of the guides purposes and it provides a framework for how to do it.”[4]

One of the foundations of our partnership with CPW, and other land managers, is the collective understanding that planned and maintained trails benefit recreation and conservation. The situation where partners are willing to nationally recognize Colorado success in balancing recreation and wildlife in trail development and management and CPW is not willing to address this success in any manner is awkward at best.  This is a significant indication of the failure of the Proposal to balance these values.

2(d) CPW has many other successes balancing recreation and conservation that are not highlighted.

The immensely successful CPW efforts to balance conservation and recreation extend far beyond the State Park System.  The motorized components of the State Trails Program have provided more than $100,000,000 in total funding for the balancing of recreation and conservation since the inception of the various programs. The Organizations would submit that the mere value of the program in terms of direct and unique partner funding would have made the program sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the Proposal. The value of these programs extends far beyond the value of the program as the strategic value in recognizing these types of partnerships in a document such as the Proposal cannot be overlooked. As previously noted in these comments, the Organizations have been involved in discussions with the mountain bike community about formation of a program similar to the OHV program for mountain bikes.  Failing to recognize these benefits of existing partnerships will not encourage the development of future partnerships being formed with CPW.

While the Organizations  are certainly biased on the desire to recognize that program at any point, CPW’s OHV program has also provided millions of dollars to the Colorado Youth Corp over the last several years. The mission of the Youth Corp partnerships almost completely overlaps with the vision of the Proposal. The mission statement of the Youth Corp effort is clearly identified as follows:

“The Colorado Youth Corps Association aspires to be the leader in conservation and service and empowers corps to change lives statewide. CYCA will focus on five strategic goals through 2022:

• • Secure project work on behalf of members
  • Channel Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness resources to corps
  • Optimize member services and programs
  • Ensure revenues are resilient and sufficient
  • Tell the collective corps story to a broader audience

The overarching outcome of this strategic plan will be that more youth, young adults, and veterans in Colorado will experience the transformational impact of service through corps.” [5]

Again, we must question why an effort such as this would not be recognized in the Proposal.  Clearly strategic development of programs such as this should sought to be developed given the immense overlap between the goals of the Proposal and the success of this effort.   The efforts of the Youth Corp and CPW OHV program were highlighted in a video about the benefits of these efforts in restoring access to burn scar areas so additional management and resource and wildlife protection can occur.[6]

CPW partnerships through the OHV program extend far beyond Youth Corp efforts.  CPW OHV grants restored exceptional recreation opportunities in partnership with National Forest Foundation repairing the Palisade Wall outside Gunnison, Colorado. The impact of this effort was celebrated in their video highlighting this efforts and the unique benefits it has provided to individuals that may not have experienced the outdoors in this manner previously. [7] The same project has been recognized as immensely successful by the OHV community as well.[8] Each of these efforts is worthy of recognition in isolation.  When these efforts are compared to the goals and objectives sought to be achieved in the Proposal, that need for recognition only expands exponentially.  Not recognizing successes such as these sends a message as well and that message should be avoided.

Another hugely successful strategic effort which has resulted in CPW success with partners in balancing recreation and conservation is evidenced by the development of the COTREX application.  This free to the public app has been an immense step forward in balancing the desire of the public to recreate while protecting wildlife.  Now the public has  tools to understand when trails are open and when they are closed for wildlife and other reasons  Colorado is unique in providing this resource to the public and now the public can understand if a trail is open or closed and why the closure is in place. This is an immense step forward and should be recognized.

The failure of the Proposal to address the State Parks system  or other partner efforts was perplexing for the Organizations.  Even more perplexing is the failure of the Proposal to address hunting and fishing opportunities and the challenges that those activities might be facing.  These are activities that simply never mentioned in the Proposal despite the North American Model of Wildlife management being the foundation of CPW and its ability to balance recreation and conservation on hunting and fishing related issues as well.  The Proposal also fails to recognize many other partners who have worked towards success with CPW such as the farming and ranching community.  Not only has this community been integral to the success of CPW historically, this partnership is also critical to recreation as many of the winter grooming efforts are based on ranches.

3(a)  Planning documents must rely on accurate up to date information.

The Organizations frustrations with the Proposal continue beyond the mere omission of quality long term partnerships with CPW that have balanced recreation and conservation efforts for decades.   Much of the data provided as the baseline for analysis is overly divisive in both the nature of the data and how it is presented.  This situation is compounded as often much of the information is simply badly out of date.   This is exemplified by the Proposal provisions on  of climate resilience provide as follows:

“The vast majority of Coloradans (83%) support a national goal of conserving 30% of America’s lands and waters by the year 2030, and 60% believe that loss of habitat for fish and wildlife is an extremely or very serious problem.11 According to CNHP, approximately 20% of Colorado’s mammals, birds, and reptiles are at risk and 40% of fish and amphibian species are at risk.12”[9]

The impact of this at best out of date and negatively presented provision cannot be overstated as this is one of the few locations hard data is provided on issues the Proposal is addressing. The Organizations initial concerns on the above provisions would start with accuracy of the data being relied on for this position and basis for action being more than a decade old. This starting position of analysis is problematic simply because of the age of the information.  We hope that the decade of effort that has been provided by CPW and partners would have impacted these conclusions at some level.  We simply must do better from this perspective.

Taking these provisions in the order they are presented in the Proposal, we will start with the information around what has come to be known as the 30×30 concept which has been memorialized by President Bidens EO 14008.   It is frustrating to the Organizations that the Proposal opens the discussion on the 30×30 concept and then provides absolutely no information on what has been done to date to address these concerns. Data shows the immense success of efforts to date. Every acre of public lands in the State is protected from disposal or misuse as these lands have specific statutory public engagement requirements and findings of fact that must be complied with to be disposed of.  Many acres have received protections well beyond these basic levels of protection. USFS estimates that almost 60% of the lands they manage is protected at higher levels than traditional public lands. DOI has expressed similar levels of success on achieving these goals.  Why wouldn’t this information be included in the document.

The failure of the Proposal to accurately address the current status of the 30×30  issue extends beyond the presentation of inaccurate and out of date information. There are impacts from this presentation that are simply not addressed. As a result of the information and data being out of date, implementation questions around next steps for management decisions are not addressed.   If this information is updated and public understanding of these issues remains at these,  this would identify the need for a public educational effort on these issues. The scale of success is immense as  the USFS estimates that almost 60% of lands they manage in Colorado have already received some form of heightened protections (Wilderness or Roadless or other designations).   DOI is still calculating their levels of additionally protected lands and are approaching the 30% goal.  CPW lands are 100% protected.  The average of these estimated levels of  compliance with the goals identifies a huge success! Again, if the public is not aware of this success we should be starting with education and not requesting additional protection. Misguided efforts such as this will only create conflict and erode support for future management efforts.

If only 20% of species are perceived to be at risk this means that 80% of species are perceived as NOT at risk. No matter how we look at the proverbial glass in terms of ½ full or ½ empty, this is a HUGE success and should be highlighted in the Proposal. Again rather than seizing this success and educating the public the Proposal some how finds a mandate for management response.  The scale of the success in species management cannot be overstated as most species are doing historically well in terms of populations.

We are also concerned that the Proposal uses information from outside sources over information from CPW, despite the fact that CPW is the agency  with the statutory obligation to manage wildlife in the State.  The Proposal’s failure to address populations with the most accurate information possible will have profound effects on the accuracy of data being provided in the Proposal. CPW’s  own species population estimates provided in the 2023 Wolf Management Plan have widely different populations trends for the most visible species in Colorado identified from those in the Proposal. The 2023 Wolf Plan clearly estimates that elk populations are more than 30% above objective in the State 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”[10]

The 2023 Wolf Plan outlines that mule deer populations  were roughly 10% below objectives. This 2023 Wolf report outlines how the challenges from the mule deer population situation presents a more complex management situation 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.[11]

The 2023 Wolf Plan also clearly identifies that the moose population are exploding as follows:

“CPW transplanted moose into Colorado to create hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The first transplant occurred in 1978–1979 into North Park. Other major transplants included the Laramie River drainage (1987), Upper Rio Grande River (1990), Grand Mesa (2000), and White River drainage (2010). As a result of these efforts, moose have become an important big game hunting and popular watchable wildlife species in Colorado. Moose popula­tions are increasing, and they continue to pioneer into new habitats on their own. The statewide 2021 winter moose population estimate is 3,500.”[12]

The 2023 Wolf report accurately outline the success of wildlife efforts in Colorado, which is unparalleled and extends well beyond the wolf reintroduction and the species addressed in this report.  Since 2012 the Canadian Lynx reintroduction has been declared a success, black footed ferrets have been successfully reintroduced, many species of fish have also been successfully reintroduced to name a few successes. The Organizations are aware that there are many other species in similar situations.  These successes simply are not mentioned at all the Outdoor Strategy despite these efforts being huge successes for conservation. This  must be corrected in order to allow management efforts to move forward and build on the success in place.

The combined impacts of relying on third party data that is simply old and poorly focused has allowed the Proposal to recommend management tools that will only further divide interests and never address the challenges facing the state.  This allows badly needed management responses, like the need to educate the public about the huge successes in Colorado wildlife successes, to be overlooked.  Given the discrepancy in actual data and what the perceived situation is for the public on wildlife that the Proposal outlines, the Organizations would assert Colorado does not have a situation where radical changes in wildlife management are needed.  Rather Colorado is in a situation where the public needs  a wildlife education program that is educating the public that most species are doing well in the state.  This is a type of a strategic educational program would be vigorously supported by the Organizations and unfortunately the Proposal does not even address this but rather continues to move forward with inaccurate analysis.

3(b) The Proposal creates distinctions on terms that don’t exist and then attempts to craft responses based on these arbitrary distinctions.

The Organizations are very concerned that the limited amount of recreational information provided in the Strategy is not accurately outlined.  Compounding this concern are attempts in the Proposal to creates distinctions between concepts we have supported for decades for reasons that remain unclear.  The Proposal seeks to draw distinctions on efforts that simply cannot be distinguished or justified, such as attempting to distinguish between stewardship and maintenance.  These types of efforts are only going to create confusion of the public and direct resources that are often limited to areas and issues that are of limited value. In several locations the Proposal seeks to apply SCORP research but fails to address SCORP research accurately.  This results some priorities being diminished in favor of other challenges.  The Proposal fails to recognize that the priority concern clearly identified in the SCORP manager survey is improved access for recreation. This conclusion is simply never mentioned, while other concerns around lower priority management challenges around various recreational activities are addressed. Strategic planning efforts should not pick and choose results of supporting documents. If there is confusion in underlying documents either the confusion should be recognized and addressed or other management documents should be used.

As an example of the unique positions taken in the Proposal, is the interpretation of the SCORP data  and attempts to distinguish between the concept of stewardship and maintenance.  Both of these are concepts the Organizations vigorously support and we would submit are concepts that are poorly distinguished in the SCORP research. The Organizations would generally accept that stewardship is more of an ethic while maintenance may be focused on boots on the ground and issues being resolved.  While we might be able to distinguish between these concepts with highly detailed definitions, most of the public will not see a difference in these concepts. Rather than clarifying the accuracy of this type of distinction, the Proposal attempts to highlight these two concepts as entirely separate issues and then provides separate management responses to each.

These distinctions of efforts become academic as the Proposal then combines definitions as it identifies efforts for stewardship including picking up trash and other maintenance type activities. While this type of confusion would normally be overlooked,  the Proposal tries to assert that management responses and priorities should be different based on the distinctions between stewardship and maintenance.  The problematic nature of the Proposal compounds due to the fact that often stewardship scores significantly lower than maintenance responses in some portions of the research but this is not recognized in the Proposal.  In several locations, the Proposal creates management needs and responses that appear to be based on arbitrary distinctions of this data.  These types of distinctions are unique in nature and are presented in at best a confusing manner, which is exemplified by the discussion on pg.  57 of the Proposal that appears to assert that stewardship and maintenance are different goals as follows:

“For example, in the 2023 land manager survey conducted for the SCORP, about 70% percent of respondents identified addressing stewardship issues from increased use as a ‘high’ trail-related priority, while federal and state managers identified it as the top priority.”39

The Organizations would first have to question this summary of the SCORP survey as we are unable to identify any portion of the survey that provides the conclusion that stewardship was the largest priority for land managers. Rather the survey clearly outlines its priority for management response as follows:

“High priority new outdoor recreation sites

-Overall, survey respondents identified developing new trails or expanding existing trails as the highest priority with respect to new outdoor recreation sites (72%), followed by connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems (66%), and developing neighborhood, community, or special use parks or facilities (e.g., playgrounds) (60%).

– Local and federal respondents prioritized similar outdoor recreation sites.

– For example, developing new trails or expanding existing trails was the highest priority for both groups (Local = 73%; Federal = 82%) (Table 1).

– Connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems was the third highest priority for local (67%) and federal (72%) respondents (Table 1).

– Expanding the amount of land open to the public and obtaining access easements were also in the top five highest priorities (by percentage).

– The highest percentage priority among state respondents was expanding opportunities for hunting and fishing (92%).

– However, similar to their local and federal counterparts, state respondents also identified expanding the amount of land open to the public and obtaining access easements as high priorities.

– Similar to federal respondents, about 72% of state employees identified developing campgrounds as an important priority (compared to 77% of federal respondents) (Table 1).

– Respondents to the 2019 SCORP LMS also identified developing new trails or expanding existing trails as their highest priority (56%).

– Connecting to adjacent or regional trail systems was the second highest priority in 2019 at 49%, and developing neighborhood, community, or special use parks or facilities was the third highest priority (44%).”[13]

Our concerns around the impacts of this inaccurate presentation of information are immediate as the highest priority issue from the land manager survey simply is not addressed at all in the Strategy. This priority for most managers is developing new trails and infrastructure, which is an immense strategic planning  problem.  The Proposal then fails to even address the situation that the Survey seems to assert that stewardship and maintenance are so how mutually exclusive.  This is outlined in Table 2 of the Survey as follows:

Rather than providing a clear basis for management response, the immediate question the Organizations have on this issue centers around our concern that respondents understanding of the asserted difference between stewardship and maintenance when the survey responses were collected.  The Organizations would submit this lack of clarity on this distinction is a weakness of the Survey and not the basis for different management responses.

The problematic nature of the summary in the Proposal is immediate as stewardship and maintenance are identified by some managers at similar levels of concern in the Survey, while other managers provide significantly different levels of preferences, making any distinctions problematic in nature. This conflict would be exemplified by the conclusions of local mangers that maintenance is a priority 81% of the time while stewardship is a concern only 62% of the time.  By comparison  federal managers identify stewardship as prioritized goal 96% of the time and maintenance is also identified as the top priority 96% of the time. Rather than using this data to create management responses, the Organizations submit these conclusions are inconclusive or needing further review.   These concerns are compounded as this research concludes stewardship is the #2 management concern and many managers have a strong preference towards improving access. This lack of clarity in goals and objectives will create challenges in implementation and move away from the large support that management and stewardship have received from the public and the Organizations for decades. This is a distinction that simply does not exist.

4(a). LEAN process on meetings.

As previously outlined, when any planning effort relies on inaccurate or outdated information to support its decisions this is problematic as strategic management options addressing the true challenges facing the balancing of recreation and conservation may not be addressed. Many existing challenges we are facing in achieving these goals could be made worse rather than better as a result of poorly directed or misguided management responses. An example of this type of an impact would be the meeting/volunteer fatigue we have experienced over the last several years. The Organizations are concerned that the Proposal is going to lead to more overlapping meetings with similar missions occurring across the State. It has been our experience that currently there are simply too many meetings for the public to engage with and often these meetings have overlapping goals and objectives and seek to reopen issue that were just completed.  The Organizations would note that even when there are isolated efforts to address recreational issues, they are often problematic.

Our concerns around meeting/volunteer fatigue impacts to the organized recreational community as more meetings are already identified in the Proposal.    This is exemplified by the requirement in the Proposal on Page 14 discussion on more groups and meetings being developed in 2025 as follows:

“Convene an outdoor recreation leadership roundtable among federal, state, local and private recreation executive-level leadership to drive greater coordination and alignment of goals and actions.” [14]

While we welcome more coordination of resources for recreation, we must question why more meetings and groups are thought to be needed for this effort? This is VERY concerning as there are too many meetings already and many of these efforts could easily be incorporated into existing efforts such as the COOP.  This would avoid repetition of efforts and strengthen existing partnerships and efforts and avoid situations where groups addressing similar challenges come to different conclusions. It has become an all to frequent response in meetings when there is a mention of a new series of public meetings that the entire room utters a collective groan.

As an example of the management responses that could address the meeting fatigue would be a goal in the strategic plan of reducing the number of meetings and making existing meetings more effective.  The motorized community underwent a LEAN type planning process in 2015 when there were too many steps in the grant process.  This effort resulted in a grant process that was far more effective and streamlined. This was a huge success, which probably does not warrant inclusion in the Proposal but the experiences from this effort are highly valuable and could lead to a goal of rather than more meetings we should focus on our existing meetings becoming more effective. Again, these types of impacts should be avoided as they benefit no values identified in the Proposal or EO.

4(b) Hiring of employees is a massive barrier to moving forward with all values but this is not mentioned in the Proposal.

The Organizations are concerned that one of the largest barriers currently to recreation, stewardship, maintenance and conservation efforts throughout the Country is the inability to hire employees at almost all levels of government. This challenge is simply not addressed in the Proposal at all despite this being an immense problem in Colorado. The Organizations are intimately aware that over the last several years almost 50% of the funding from the OHV program provide to federal lands managers for the hiring of seasonals is returned. As we write these comments, federal hiring and retention of seasonal employees under the Continuing Resolution has again become a problem.  These are impacting all forms of recreation on federal lands, and while CPW has performed better than federal agencies for hiring these resources fall well short of filling the need.

The Organizations would vigorously support inclusion of how to address this challenge as a goal of the outdoor strategy as this would promote all values of the effort. Is this something that could be addressed with expanded hiring of maintenance staff for federal lands through CPW? What barriers are present to allow partners to fill this void? How can other barriers in federal hiring be addressed?  This is a large multifaceted challenge that warrants discussion and may take years to resolve.  While there are many values that are elevated in the Proposal, this challenge that could be resolved and unite all interested parties simply is not addressed.

5. Guidance should be provided regarding the timing of Proposal in relation to regional plans.

In the discussions that the Organizations have participated in regarding the Proposal one of the most common questions we have heard is why is the State Plan is out before any regional plans?  The Organizations would ask the similar question. While we are aware that implementation of EO 2020-008 has proven to challenging due to the aggressive timeframes it sought to develop and the evolving nature of the regional efforts, this is a valid question and basic information and guidance should be provided. Without guidance on this issue, regional efforts may be inclined to try and align their plans developed subsequent to this with the Proposal rather than the opposite as was required by the EO.  is there an intent to align with regional plans or update at some point?

6.The public remains confused about the effort.

The Organizations remain concerned that the public understanding of the goals and objectives of the Proposal is limited and this creates concern regarding how the Proposal will be used. We recently concluded our annual OHV workshop and training in partnership with CPW, USFS and BLM, where we celebrated the numerous highly visible and successful projects of the trails community that have been achieved in partnership  with CPW.  This was attended by more than 80 people and included a targeted session on the SCORP and Outdoor Strategy.  The most common question about the Outdoor Strategy was: “Why is the State undertaking this effort and how does it relate to existing planning?”  Several more questions expressing similar concerns were provided in the feedback forms participants were asked to complete at the end of the event. Copies of these forms are available upon request. This concern cannot be overlooked and concerns such as these are made more difficult to address when the Outdoor Strategy is badly out of balance in terms of conservation and recreation. When layers of uncertainty are added to each other, the possibility of mission creep expands for CPW and the possibility of unintended impacts from the effort become more significant.  The Organizations submit that clarity and balance in the Proposal is of heightened importance in these situations to avoid these types of impacts and that has not been provided.

7. Conclusion.

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Proposal and hope the Proposal can be developed in a manner to allow  recreation and conservation issues to be addressed more effectively and recreation and conservation can also be balanced.  This alignment will also allow shortfalls in the recreational planning process to be addressed in the long term to allow for challenges to be most effectively addressed. The Organizations can simply say we are disappointed and frustrated with the Proposal.  Our disappointment centers around several general issues including: strategic recreation planning has simply been largely disregarded in the Proposal despite it being a cornerstone of the effort; the Proposal is silent around the huge success Colorado has had in providing sustainable recreational opportunities for decades; many CPW partner groups  and their challenges in providing sustainable recreational opportunities simply not mentioned in the Proposal;  and often third party information is relied on instead of CPW data.  The need to accurately understand and recognize challenges facing Colorado will be critical in crafting an accurate and effective response in furtherance of mandates of EO 2020-008.  While we are aware that data from the effort will be highly valuable to the recreational community moving forward, the first usage of this new data cannot be to correct poorly directed management efforts that resulted from foundational failures in the Proposal. The Organizations are very concerned that the cumulative impacts of the challenges of the Proposal reliance on imperfect information and failing to recognize the success that has already been achieved will result in poor management decisions.

The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com), Chad Hixon (719-221-8329 / chad@coloradotpa.org).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

[1] See, §1 SB 11-208

[2] https://www.summitdaily.com/news/colorado-wolf-reintroduction-parks-wildlife-employees/

[3] See, CPW; “At Home in Nature A History of Colorado State Parks”;  2024 at pg. 52.

[4] See, Dept of Agriculture; US Forest Service;  DRAFT Social, Economic and Cultural Impacts Analysis Report for the Draft EIS for Amendments to LMPs to Address Old-Growth Forests Across the NFS; June 2024 at pg. 59.

[5] Strategic Plan – Colorado Youth Corps Association (cyca.org)

[6] Restoring impacts from the East Troublesome Fire in the Sulphur Ranger District (youtube.com)

[7] A copy of this video is available here: National Forest Foundation | Looking for an epic drive on the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)? Come along with @baratunde for the highest… | Instagram

[8]  A copy of this video is available here: Alpine Tunnel Palisade Wall Rebuild I Project Overview I Funding I Tomichi I Williams I Hancock (youtube.com)

[9] See, Proposal at pg. 43.

[10] See, Wolf report pg. 16.

[11] See, Wolf report pg. 17.

[12] See, Wolf report pg. 17.

[13] See, 2024 SCORP land manager survey at pg. 23. A copy of this survey is attached as Exhibit “3” to the Proposal for your reference.

[14] See, Proposal at pg. 14.

BLM Director
Attention: Protest Coordinator (HQ210)
Denver Federal Center, Building 40 (Door W-4)
Lakewood, CO 80215

RE: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument RMP (DOI-BLM-UT-P010-2022-0006-RMP-EIS)

Dear BLM Director:

Please accept this protest from the above organizations regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS).

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. Interest of Our Organizations and Issues

The Organizations have an interest in the GSENM RMP and would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS. As the Organizations stated in our DRMP comments (enclosed):

“The GSENM encompasses a vast area with over a thousand miles of motorized routes that are of high quality for responsible riding and driving. In addition to providing access to remote places of varied geology among other resources, the motorized routes provide opportunities for exploration, a sense of harmony with nature, camaraderie with one’s group, and even some exercise or challenge from the roughest routes.”

In multiple ways, all of these recreational interests would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.

As stated in the Utah/Arizona ATV Club letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments (enclosed), excessive OHV Closed designations:

would limit the access to remote areas and areas that the physically impaired could not reach. With the US Census Bureau predicting that in just 35 years 25% of Americans will be 65 years and older, and that the number of 85-plus year olds will triple, having more travel routes to better accommodate our aging population is more important than ever. Any time a historically used route is closed, it limits access and is a form of discrimination against our aging and the less mobile individuals that are physically challenged.

As stated in the Travel Management section of Garfield County’s letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments (enclosed), motorized routes:

represent the lifeblood of connectivity for our local communities, facilitating access to our shared public lands, supporting economic activities, outdoor motorized recreational opportunities, greater access off which to base all types of recreational activities, and vital search and rescue and law enforcement activities that ensure the safety and well-being of residents and visitors alike.

The Organizations recognize that recreation is just one of many uses that would be adversely affected by the PRMP/FEIS.

Additionally motorized routes are key conduits for effective and efficient management, whether it’s performed by the BLM, Utah, local government, or nonprofits such as the Organizations. Motorized routes are particularly critical for the kind of active management and adaptability that was recommended by the BLM’s Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) in June of 2019 and incorporated into the GSENM and KEPA RMPs in 2020.

3.Parts of the Plan being Protested and their Adverse Effects

The Organizations protest the thin analysis and extreme outcome of the:

1. OHV Area designations (Figure 2-36 and corresponding text) as well the underlying designations, specifically the
2. Primitive Area (Figure 2-2 and corresponding text) and
3. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) that would be managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics (Figure 2-12 and corresponding text).

The PRMP/FEIS appears to deny adverse effects of these three designations by stating that only 7 miles of motorized routes would be closed, specifically the V-Road. However, relatively few motorized routes are designated open across the 1,865,600-acre planning area, particularly in the vicinity of the V-Road, which reaches within a mile of the remarkable “cosmic” rock formation.

These three designations would hobble management of the motorized routes that are currently designated open. For example, the OHV Closed area boundaries run up to the sides of many routes, thereby preventing reroutes that could otherwise be done to reduce resource impacts or increase public safety. Another example is LWC management to protect wilderness characteristics that may prohibit using heavy equipment to maintain routes. Even the LWC management that merely minimizes impacts to wilderness characteristics, and even the mere proximity to the Primitive Area or similar designations, would set the stage for more route closures during subsequent travel planning if history is any guide.

These three designations would obstruct the due consideration to re-open many other existing routes, including hundreds of miles of primitive roads claimed by Garfield and Kane counties and the State of Utah. For one thing, the R.S. 2477 bellwether case in Utah District Court recently favored Garfield and Kane counties, putting onus on the BLM to refute R.S. 2477 claims rather than operating as if the claims are unaffected by closing more routes and areas. For another thing, even when it comes to existing routes not claimed by the counties or state, such routes were not necessarily given a fair shake by the travel management plan (TMP) that was wrapped into the 2000 GSENM RMP. Persistent controversies could be partly resolved by more thorough travel planning, but such planning would be precluded by the designation OHV Closed, Primitive Area, or LWCs to be managed for wilderness characteristics.

Finally these three designations would prematurely prevent future planning of a single mile of new route across 1,245,700 acres that would be OHV Closed. Granted, new routes are rarely approved in national monuments, especially GSENM given that nearly half of it is comprised of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). However the monument and WSA status ensure that route proposals would have to meet an especially-high standard, which is all the more reason to let such proposals be addressed rather than being preemptively denied. The fact is that motorized access facilitates the enjoyment of monument resources and the appreciation of monument objects. Across most of the monument, planners should retain the option of adding a route as technology, society, and environmental conditions change. This managerial flexibility should extend to mechanized travel such as mountain biking. Designating 1,217,100 acres as a Primitive Area “without motorized or mechanized recreational access” would prevent bicycling from ever being considered in nearly two thirds of the planning area.

These adverse effects add up to an offensively grim outlook for recreation that depends upon motorized or mechanized access, not just in the WSAs, but across the other hundreds-of-thousands of acres that would be engulphed by the designations of OHV Closed, Primitive Area, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.

4.Explanation of how the PRMP/FEIS is Flawed

The heart of the Organizations’ DRMP comments is our “OHV Area Designations” section as follows:

The Organizations are very concerned by the extent of areas proposed to be closed to OHV travel in all three action alternatives, which would force the subsequent travel planning to severely reduce motorized recreation opportunities that are already lacking when one considers the sheer expanse of GSENM. All three action alternatives would force the closure of some motorized routes by zoning their locations are closed to OHV travel. This enormous impact of travel planning isn’t even addressed let alone analyzed at the route-specific or cumulative scales, which violates NEPA and hampers our ability to meaningfully review and comment. Even where the route is “cherry stemmed,” boundaries are so tight that it sort of straitjackets the route and hobbles potential management actions such as a reroute. Further, the closed area designation prohibits even the mere consideration of adding a route in future. Obviously approving any additional routes has proven very difficult, as few routes have been added across the entire GSENM over the past couple decades. Nevertheless it’s important to preserve this flexibility for future planners to discover those instances when adding a route may be appropriate to benefit recreation or mitigate its negative effects. After all, such routes could be as minimal as an e-bike trail, or as useful as a short road to cluster campsites in order to close dispersed sites elsewhere. This RMP may be in effect for decades, by which time the majority of motorcycles and possibly automobiles may become electric and even quieter. The organizations accept some scrutiny when it comes to subsequent travel planning and certainly when new routes are proposed, but area designations at this highest level of land-use planning should only be closed to motorized use outright if it’s certain that the given area won’t ever become suitable for any extent of e-biking or other emerging uses. The fact that the BLM can manage more proactively than the NPS is a distinction that could help GSENM achieve the aspirations of the former BLM state director.

The PRMP/FEIS resolves none of these concerns and, despite that our “OHV Area Designations” section raised at least a half-dozen substantive points, they weren’t addressed by the BLM response to comments.

A. Regulatory Context

Consider the statutory authority for OHV area designations, which the BLM identifies through Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989. These orders, issued before FLPMA had been implemented, were intended to further the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. When invoking fifty-year-old executive orders, agency actions should firstly remain grounded by the underlying legislation, and secondly employ executive orders and agency rules conservatively.

Executive Order 11644 as amended states:

Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted…

When issuing the orders, did presidents Nixon and Carter regard “areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted” to include a 1,245,700-acre area prohibiting all mechanized travel by the public? When passing NEPA in 1969, is this the extent of authority that Congress intended to delegate? Even BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

OHV Closed Areas. OHV use is prohibited in a closed area. Areas should be designated closed when limitations on OHV use will not suffice to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts.

This BLM guidance calls for designating OHV Closed areas when an OHV Limited designation “will not suffice.” For each of the 1,245,7000 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even asked the question of whether an OHV Limited designation will not suffice, let alone answered it affirmatively.

NEPA and FLMA require the BLM to invite meaningful public participation, and Executive Order 11644 as amended states “The respective agency head shall ensure adequate opportunity for public participation in the promulgation of such regulations and in the designation of areas and trails under this section.” Accordingly 43 CFR § 8342.2(a) Public Participation states:

The designation and redesignation of trails is accomplished through the resource management planning process described in part 1600 of this title. Current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. Prior to making designations or redesignations, the authorized officer shall consult with interested user groups, Federal, State, county and local agencies, local landowners, and other parties in a manner that provides an opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given consideration.

For each of the 1,245,7000 acres that would become OHV Closed, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t provide analysis of the current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses, which is needed for the public to meaningfully participate.

One might argue that OHV Closed designations and other layers of “protection” are justified merely by virtue of the national monument status, but it’s another example of the executive branch going out on a limb, as GSENM wasn’t established through legislation. Regardless of monument status, RMPs in this planning area should be moderate in order to provide lasting guidance, and the current RMPs wisely relied on existing “protections” such as WSA and national-monument status covering half the planning area rather than piling additional layers onto hundreds-of-thousands of additional acres. If natural and social resources have suffered, it’s only because managerial resources have been diverted to satisfy a heavy-handedness of the executive branch, not because the current RMPs lack the designations of OHV Closed, Primitive Area, or LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics.

B. Purpose, Need, and Analysis of Environmental Impacts

Since the OHV Closed area would cover the WSAs, Primitive Area, and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics, its purpose is presumably to further the purposes of these designations. The purpose and boundaries of the WSAs are clear but, given that the WSAs already cover 881,100 acres, the need for a Primitive Area and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics is highly unlikely. In any case, the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t make the case for LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics or a Primitive Area covering two thirds of this massive monument.

i. Primitive Area

In regard to Alternative C, which proposes a slightly smaller Primitive Area than Alternative E, the PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-242 states:

The majority of GSENM would be managed as a primitive area, which would benefit natural and biological uses and recreation users seeking solitude and primitive opportunities to a greater extent than would the other alternatives.

It appears to assume that the Primitive Area designation would benefit natural resources even though it would be less accessible for active and adaptive management. It appears to assume that the Primitive Area designation would benefit solitude seekers and primitive opportunities even though most of those acres can only be reached by an overnight backpacking trip. While a much higher density of routes may indeed detract from solitude and primitive opportunities, such a low current density of routes makes most of the acres inaccessible for typical day hiking, yet this tension is not handled by the PRMP/FEIS.

 ii. LWCs Managed for Wilderness Characteristics

Likewise managing LWCs for wilderness characteristics could wind up hampering their very purpose. For example, BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

6.5 Travel and Transportation Management within Presidential and Congressional Designations or Similar Allocations

F. BLM Manual 6320 – Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the following apply:

1. In lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the BLM will not designate primitive roads and motorized/mechanized trails and will not classify them as assets within lands managed for wilderness characteristics protection in land use plans.

Therefore converting more LWCs to manage for wilderness characteristics would prevent managers from ever adding a route even for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects.

In addition to undermining their very purposes, designating a huge Primitive Area and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics simply isn’t needed. The PRMP/FEIS hasn’t demonstrated that demand for such things isn’t met by the current RMPs, let alone identifying why the demand is unmet, as the answer could be a lack of motorized access among other things. The PRMP/FEIS does provide a rationale for the Primitive Area, stating on Page 3-243:

Because the majority of the primitive area is made up of WSAs, ISAs, and LWC managed to protect, this management direction is consistent with the Wilderness Act and FLMPA.

The logic appears to be that the BLM has free rein to designate a huge Primitive Area so long as it doesn’t effectively double the acreage of WSAs and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. The Organizations assert that, when restrictive designations such as WSAs occupy nearly half of a planning area, sparing the other half becomes essential to meeting FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate. As for the Wilderness Act, Congress intended to preserve existing wilderness, and most of the planning area that hasn’t already been designated as a WSA indeed doesn’t qualify (as indicated by county road claims among other things).

Even if a purpose and need were established to designate a huge Primitive Area and managing nearly all LWCs for wilderness characteristics, changing those areas to OHV Closed isn’t needed. Albeit uncommon, it’s possible to add existing routes to the TMP in those areas, and eliminating that possibility altogether isn’t needed.

iii.  OHV Closed

Leaving the Primitive Area and LWC status aside, OHV Closed designation isn’t needed to cover 1,245,700 acres, and the PRMP/FEIS doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Granted, the 1,500-acre No Mans Mesa RNA would continue to be OHV Closed “in part because on-the-ground OHV use is not feasible” and because it hosts a relict plant community, which is a specific resource in a specific location. For the rest of the 1,245,700 acres that would be OHV Closed, no such specificity is provided, other than a rather brief explanation of the V-Road closure that will be covered later in this document.

Beyond the Primitive Area, LWC, and WSA designations, the purpose and need for an enormous OHV Closed designation might be implied by the PRMP/FEIS on Page 3-253, stating:

Under Alternative E, OHV use would be limited to the 914 miles of designated routes across 648,500 acres, this is a decrease of 7 miles of designated routes compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative E, the BLM would manage 1,217,100 acres as closed to OHV travel… More so than Alternative A, B, and C, this management would limit resource damage from cross-country and other OHV travel, but to a lesser extent than Alternative D.

Limiting resource damage from cross-country travel and other OHV travel, on its own, does not justify an enormous OHV Closed designation. Outside of the Little Desert RMZ that’s currently OHV Open, cross-country travel is prohibited, and changing designations from OHV Limited to OHV Closed wouldn’t make cross-country travel any more prohibited than it already is. This issue is clearly not a matter of managerial designations, rather one of law enforcement, education, and perhaps trail work. The same matters are probably the case when it comes to the issue of “other OHV travel,” although the vague phrase makes it impossible for the public to know what the PRMP/FEIS refers to, which is why it must become far more specific about the problems and potential solutions in each location of the planning area. If major negative impacts are occurring, demonstrate them as well as a comprehensive analysis of alternative actions along with their positive and negative effects, as it would be far more fruitful than simply converting the majority of the planning area from OHV Limited to OHV closed.

On Page J-297 of the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM response to comments did provide four criteria regarding OHV Closed designations:

OHV area designations very across alternatives and were developed based on the protection of the resources and GSENM objects. In identifying area designations, the BLM applied OHV closures to areas within GSENM that 1) would minimize damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, air and other resources, and 2) would minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats and 3) would minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors and 4) would minimize potential adverse effects to primitive areas consistent with the intent of the area designation. These alternatives were designed to meet the purpose and need of this document. Additionally, under the Proposed RMP, only primitive areas have been designated as OHV-closed.

The first three criteria are copied from Executive Order 11644 as amended, but the PRMP/FEIS hasn’t even begun to show the BLM’s work of applying these criteria to the 1,245,700 acres that would become OHV Closed, especially the hundreds-of-thousands of acres beyond the WSAs.

The fourth criterion resembles that of the same executive order, as both use the term Primitive Area, however they have very different meanings. Executive Order 11644 as amended refers to Primitive Areas designated by a higher level, such as the congressional designation of Grand Gulch Primitive Area. The PRMP/FEIS presumably refers to Primitive Areas designated at the level of the BLM’s Paria River District, and this designation is one of four types of Management Areas that are proposed to cover the entire planning area. Given that this fourth criterion of the PRMP/FEIS isn’t copied from Executive Order 11644 as amended, the other three criteria would be needed to justify expanding OHV Closed designations beyond that of the current GSENM and KEPA RMPs.

As with the huge Primitive Area and managing LWC for wilderness characteristics, OHV Closed designations could actually lead to more negative impacts upon natural and social resources. As the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges on Page 3-234, “ATV and UTV use have become one of the fastest-growing recreational activities.” For this and other forms of recreation on motorized trails, the carrying capacity is a function of the motorized trails, themselves. The PRMP/FEIS recognizes the pitfall of use displacement when it comes to an OHV Open area like the Little Desert RMZ, stating on Page 3-240 that:

Alternative B would eliminate access for cross-country OHV recreation on 100 acres when compared with Alternative A. This could result in unauthorized cross-country OHV travel occurring in the previously 100 acres OHV-open area under Alternative A, eliminating the OHV-open area near the town of Escalante, and would likely displace users of the OHV-open area, resulting in unauthorized cross-country travel.

If there isn’t a managed alternative to the use of this area, such as designating a high density of challenging routes at Little Desert RMZ or managing an OHV Open area elsewhere nearby the community of Escalante, then the use becomes more likely to occur in an unmanaged fashion. The same phenomenon is likely to occur when additions to a TMP are prohibited from being considered due to OHV Closed designations, and when subtractions to a TMP are made virtually inevitable by new restrictive layers of management such as a huge Primitive Area and LWCs managed for wilderness characteristics. Therefore these three designations of the PRMP/FEIS would increase the likelihood of motorized and mechanized travel that’s unauthorized across the entire planning area and, on the routes that remain open after the subsequent TMP revision, would increase the likelihood of crowding, conflict, and degradation of the routes.

C. Travel Management Planning

The PRMP/FEIS essentially dismisses concerns about travel management planning since it will be done subsequently, but the PRMP/FEIS would in fact make travel planning decisions that would be irreversible without amending the RMP.

On Page J-299 of the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM response to comments seems to imply that thorough travel planning of the V-Road is unwarranted because the agency proposes to close the entire area rather than closing just the route:

The BLM monitors the V-Road and has monitoring data documenting adverse impacts to the WSA that surrounds both sides of the V-Road since it was designated as open to motorized use. Consideration of these impacts informed the BLM’s alternatives and through application of an OHV area designation, the BLM would minimize impacts to the WSA by closing the area to OHV use.

However, the area of closure includes the designated route (along with other existing routes along with proposed ones), so the fact that the BLM proposes to close more than just the route doesn’t justify shortchanging the meaningful public participation of this proposed action. Further the 2020 decision to re-open the V-Road was analyzed and approved in accordance with 43 CFR 8342.1 and accompanied by robust site-specific analysis demonstrating that the opening of these routes was consistent with providing the proper care and management to monument objects. In contrast, the PRMP merely asserts on Page 3-251 that “Closure of this route would minimize adverse impacts to the adjacent WSA, as V-Road is cherry-stemmed into the WSA. The impacts to the WSA are the result of off-route incursions, unauthorized widening of the route, and user created pullouts and parking areas.” However, as stated in the Utah/Arizona ATV Club letter that the Organizations incorporated into our own DRMP comments, closure is not needed to minimize the impacts claimed by the PRMPFEIS. First of all, are things like pullouts actually impacting the WSA significantly? If so, should a modest number of pullouts be accommodated and delineated? What other measures, from trail work to education to enforcement, could be done to mitigate significant impacts? What implementation resources, from local communities to state grants, have been readily and consistently available to the BLM? None of these questions are addressed by the PRMP/FEIS.

Far beyond the V-Road, the PRMP/FEIS makes major travel planning decisions by removing the 1,245,700 acres from any further discussion. This enormous area goes far beyond the WSAs, even beyond LWCs. It contains many county-claimed roads, other existing routes, and locations where a new route may become entirely appropriate for some kind of mechanized use over the lifecycle of an RMP. Aside from properly vetted exceptions (e.g. No Mans Mesa), only by leaving areas OHV Limited can the BLM truly leave travel planning decisions to the subsequent TMP revision. After all, for TMP revision, Page 2-235 of the PRMP/FEIS states the following objective:

Establish a transportation system that provides for appropriate access, protects GSENM objects and resources, provides for appropriate access, minimizes impacts on other resources, and minimizes user conflicts.

The PRMP/FEIS would reduce the OHV Limited acreage from 1,864,000 to 619,900, yet the rationale for this change consists of a few sentences. One cannot have confidence that the remaining 619,900 acres will be adequate to meet the objective of providing for appropriate access. Sticking with the current OHV Limited acreage will allow travel planning to genuinely occur, while existing parameters such as WSA status will ensure the protection of GSENM objects and resources.

5. Conclusion

The Organizations urge GSENM planners to choose Alternative A (the no-action alternative) when it comes to OHV Closed designations, LWCs managed to protect or minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, and the Primitive Area. The proliferation of these three designations in alternatives B through E (the action alternatives) is completely unnecessary given the other layers of management, such as the 881,100 acres of WSAs in the planning area. When it comes to these three designations, the status quo would avoid adversely affecting the Organizations’ interest in diverse recreation opportunities. The status quo is needed in order to provide a motorized route network of ample quantity, quality, and variety. Such a network is not only compatible with the protection of monument objects, but also essential to “providing visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote landscape rich with opportunities for adventure and self-discovery” as stated in Proclamation 10286.

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

US Forest Service
Att: Randy Moore, Chief
201 14^th Street SW
Washington DC 20250-1124

RE: Seasonal hiring and budget guidance

Dear Chief Moore;

The above Organizations are contacting you regarding the USFS budgeting situation generally and more specifically on the somewhat ambiguous guidance around hiring of seasonal employees and prohibition on hiring of employees from external sources that is being provided across the Country. We are aware that the agency is facing unprecedented budget shortfalls in the upcoming seasons and these guidance documents are issued in response to this situation. We also believe that limiting the hiring of seasonals is often seen as low hanging fruit for a response to budget constraints. Often seasonals are hired with partner funding rather than direct agency budgets, which will limit any benefits to agency budgets from not filling these positions and could result in significant additional costs to USFS from not hiring these positions.  The Organizations are aware that current efforts appear to focus the issuance of guidance around seasonal hiring through the Regional Offices. While there is value in this Regional Office flexibility, some Regional Offices have addressed this situation in a very proactive manner.  Some Regions have chosen to address funding sources, specific positions or programs and levels of seasonals (1039, 13/13 and 18/8) while others have remained silent on these types of issues.

The silence or inconsistent messaging on funding sources or comparative values of the types of seasonals being addressed is concerning to the Organizations. Many of these positions are critical to the agency providing safe opportunities to the public in the upcoming season, such as avalanche center employees or firefighting resources in the Western US. While concerns around avalanche and fire may not be significant in the Southern Region, the use of seasonals in emergency response will be a major concern after Helene’s impact in the Southern Region.  As a result, partners have stepped up to directly fund particular positions in areas facing these challenges and partners would like to see these resources used effectively. The lack of guidance on partner funded seasonal positions is leading to inconsistency and possible long-term conflicts as many Ranger District or Forest level hiring roles continue to be unfilled or filled with employees in acting or temporary positions and they simply don’t understand the nuances of these positions.  This lack of clarity is creating confusion and alarm for the public and with many partners as well.

The Organizations are asking that you help us help you in the short and long term. The Organizations believe there is value nationally in this model of partnership, which if proven successful could be a model for many other uses as well.   This partner driven management model for public lands that has been championed by the National Office for many years and ensuring these resources are effectively used should be a national goal as mandated by the National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act. Our Organizations have championed partner efforts, through our voluntarily created OHV programs that provide significant partner funding to the agency to address previous budget shortfalls through the funding of seasonal positions.   These programs were created to partially address these types of budget shortfalls.  The Organizations are concerned that some of the hiring guidance we have seen would disproportionally impact these programs, when compared to other interests that may not have actively sought to address this type of a situation. This sends a negative message to the public that cannot be overlooked. We are hoping to mitigate this message and assist in making these partnerships as effective and responsive to the current situation as possible.

This type of staffing has been critical in providing a wide range of benefits to all the users of public lands such as seasonal trail maintenance, avalanche forecasting and these types of staffing questions have been dealt with on a regional basis. The Organizations are aware that in many areas seasonal hiring is largely a motorized issue given the large amount of funding from our programs.  It is important to note these decisions will impact all uses and the general safety of the public. Many forests are in the critical position of needing to hire avalanche forecasters for the upcoming winter. We are concerned that if seasonals are simply not hired, discussions on how to improve and refine these partner funded programs will stop as well.

If seasonals are not hired in a timely manner, many partner programs will have to adapt quickly to the unexpected return of this money to provide programmatic services to the public.  The Organizations are concerned that the current guidance prohibiting all seasonals is overly broad and could heavily impact partner programs. This will create its own unique challenges for these programs as some programs are funding seasonals that need to be hired for the current winter season. Other partner programs are accepting grants for funding seasonal maintenance crews over the next several years. If these grants are not going to be submitted, these programs should be informed sooner rather than later so other provisions can be made. If seasonals are not hired, are these funds that could be redirected away from USFS to state efforts to achieve the same goals with state employees.  While this is possible, we are also aware there are many barriers to achieving this goal and discussions would need to start earlier rather than later with this type of realignment.

The Organizations are also concerned that the current guidance could result in significant cost increases as existing USFS staff will need to unwind existing contracts and commitments to partners. Rather than saving money, this policy will cost the agency money.  The Organizations would vigorously assert that this type of impact would be more effectively used to ask questions such as: “Are there costs associated with the seasonal that are not being covered by partners?”  If the answer is yes, we should be discussing how to have these costs covered in both current and new hires.

The Organizations are concerned that if current guidance is implemented seasonals will simply cease to be a resource. We are asking for your assistance in addressing these concerns in a systemic and consistent manner so we can educate our partners on USFS concerns and guidance. The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality and sustainable recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com) or Fred Wiley (661-805-1393/ fwiley@orba.biz).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative
USA, Vice Chair

Fred Wiley
President & CEO
ORBA

Marcus Trusty
President/Founder
Colorado Off Road Enterprise
One voice, Chairman

Steve Egbert
United 4 Wheel Drive Association, Chairman

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC
Authorized Representative, ISSA

Hello Everyone!

The 2024 TPA Moto Adventure Sweepstakes has come to an end!  From all of us at the TPA – Thank You! We couldn’t do this without your donations, the supporters/partners who donated their time, the bikes and parts, shops who put our posters up, and the motorcycle clubs who helped get more donations!

While there are only three lucky winners, your support makes everyone a winner when trails stay open!

Congratulations to our winners:
Grand Prize – #028254 – Eric Balzhiser
600 tickets – #129410 – Douglas Wills
$1000 klim card – #018957 – G Bielinski

Drawing – Recorded Live!

Watch the video of our Executive Director Chad Hixon and Board Member Ned Suesse drawing the winners!

Thank you sponsors!

Thank you to all of our sponsors; Attack Graphics, Barspur Photography, BRP, Colorado RV Center,  Doubletake Mirror, Eline,  Klim, KTM,  Motion Pro, MotoProHQ,  Motominded, Nacho Offroad Technology,  Rocky Mountain ATV/MC,  Seat Concepts,  Scotts,  Trail Tech,  Tusk,  and Upshift – for making this year’s sweepstakes a huge success!

Thank you shops!

Thank you to all of our shops, who graciously put up our posters and signs; Apex Sports, Davis Service Center, Elite Motorsports, Fay Meyers, Gunnison Motorsports, Highland Cycles, Teddy Morse’s Grand Junction, Motorado, Performance Cycles, Sun Enterprises, and Sun Sports Unlimited – for making this year’s sweepstakes a huge success!

US Forest Service
Att: Director Ecosystem Management
201 14^th Street SW- mailstop 1108
Washington DC 20250-1124

Submitted via portal only.

RE: Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Direction for Old Growth Forest conditions across the National Forest System

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the comments of the above recreational interests in support of Alternative 2 of the Proposal.  The Organizations are opposed to Alternative 3 of the Proposal due to the more restrictive standards that are applied and the large amount of additional analysis that would be required to implement these standards.  The Organizations are also opposed to any expansion of the scope of the Proposal to include areas that have been identified as mature forest or any identification of areas to be designated as old growth management areas in planning.  This would be in direct conflict with the EO. This would result in significant barriers to the management of other multiple uses in a timely manner.

The Organizations welcome the concept of Alternative 4 of the Proposal and its desire to allow a larger scope of management of old growth areas but the Organizations are concerned that Alternative 4 of the Proposal removes several standards, such as NOGA-FW-STD-02b, that provide significant additional clarity around activities in old growth areas that are not related to commercial timber harvest. It has been the Organizations experience that clearly stating the desire to avoid an impact or clearly identifying that an activity, such as the maintenance of recreational infrastructure, is allowed in an area is critical to avoiding unintended impacts from any Proposal. The removal of the various provisions in Alternative 4 would limit these protections for multiple uses.  The idea that we would now need to undertake inventories for old growth timber concerns when undertaking basic management efforts simply is not appealing to us and would be a significant barrier to those management actions. These management actions unrelated to commercial timber harvest are critical in protecting all forest resources from their primary threats, which the Proposal accurately addresses as wildfires and poor forest health.   The Organizations also welcome the clarity in the Proposal that the mere presence of an isolated old tree is not sufficient to trigger the requirements of old growth timber management analysis or create a new step in review and analysis. Again, this type of implementation would be an immense barrier to the management of other multiple uses such as recreation.

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 representing the OHV community 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. CORE is a motorized action group dedicated to keeping motorized trails open in Central Colorado and the region. Idaho Recreation Council (“IRC”) is comprised of Idahoans from all parts of the state with a wide spectrum of recreational interests and a love for the future of Idaho and a desire to preserve recreation for future generations. The Idaho State Snowmobile Association (“ISSA”)is an 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. 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 most of which has occurred on national forest lands. Over 750 individuals have contributed money or volunteered time to the organization. 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. Advocates for Multiple Use of Public Lands (“AMPL”) is an organization made up of passionate recreationists, which was formed in 2017.  Our focus includes the organization of public support and the creation of a unified voice to maintain and protect broad access to our public lands for motorized and well as non-motorized recreational uses in a cooperative and cohabitant manner. We believe in the coexistence of recreation and conservation for all. Collectively, TPA, NVORA, CSA, CORE, IRC, RwR, ISSA, AMPL and COHVCO will be referred to as “The Organizations” for purposes of these comments.

The Proposal starts from a very reasonable position on the old growth timber issue as it: 1. appears to have granted a high level of flexibility to local managers to address issues; 2.  recognizes that many RMP in place have already addressed old growth timber issues and forest health more generally; 3.  Seeks to avoid new management analysis requirements; and 4. Recognizes the need to manage the forest to prevent catastrophic wildfire.  Prevention of catastrophic wildfire must be the major planning concern for any land management agency given the horribly unhealthy nature of most forests on public lands.  When public lands are impacted by wildfire the ramifications of wildfires will last decades and these impacts are often far more extensive in both the scale of impacts and scope of geographic area impacted. We support active management for this issue as when an area is impacted by fires or floods recreational access to these areas can be lost for decades. This is very concerning for the trails community and as a result we support the general theory of an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure for any management issue. This basic theory of management is not furthered when additional steps for analysis are required to confirm a resource is not present in the area and the Proposal appears to start from this management position.

2. The Organizations vigorously support new management standards to allow maintenance of trails and other recreational infrastructure.

The Organizations are highly supportive of the additional standards added to the draft from the scoping version to address removal of old growth timber as part of maintenance of recreational opportunities with the Proposal. The new provisions in standards NOGA – FW-STD-02 B&C will add significant clarity to the management process around recreational maintenance and avoid any unintended impacts from the effort to existing recreational infrastructure.  These provisions will also expand the ability of managers to provide safe recreational opportunities on public lands as old growth trees that present a safety issue for infrastructure can be removed in a timely manner.   Our basis for these amendments was outlined in our scoping comments and will not be reproduced in these comments to avoid repetition of information being submitted.

The Organizations are also aware that management of public lands is often a long-term multifaceted effort based on many highly localized issues and concerns.  We support any and all flexibility in management standards that would allow localized efforts and plan components to move forward, such as the Proposal identifying and reviewing the effectiveness of existing protections of various values in existing plans.  We would be vigorously opposed to the imposition of national standards for the management of old growth as the concept is hugely variable across the country and would prohibit local flexibility. This type of standard would also create confusion and ambiguity in the implementation of any local effort as managers would not have to align local standards with national goals.

The Organizations would like to recognize the value of these amendments to all forms of recreational opportunities.  While we have heard extensive concerns about the value of old growth trees, the Organizations submit that even after the issuance of EO 14072, old growth timber is simply another in many values that the agency must balance in management.  This management balance means resources must be actively managed and sometimes management means cutting trees. Passive management will not achieve these goals but will allow poor forest health and impacts from wildfire to continue to expand.   While the draft does a good job at highlighting the limited number of developed recreation sites that would be impacted by the amendments,[1] this amendment would allow flexibility for all recreational opportunities, and this is critical as well.  This clarity could be more important for dispersed opportunities as they are far more extensive in scope and usage but often as valuable to the recreational communities that are using and supporting these dispersed recreational opportunities. Any situation where old growth timber could be removed in a campground setting but not be able to be removed on trails adjacent to the campground would be very concerning to the Organizations as our members actively use both campgrounds and dispersed trail networks.

We must state our concerns regarding the fact that many of the tree diameters proposed to be the minimum for designation as old growth are small in size, even if they are measured at breast height.  The Organizations are aware that immense amounts of conflict have resulted from competing interests in timber and recreation as evidenced by the NYS litigation on tree diameter and its impact on the ability to maintain trails on NYS lands.   The Organizations vigorously assert the NYS experience must be used as a learning experience for the USFS effort and allow us to avoid the USFS effort to avoid these problems moving forward. The Organizations would also request more information in the EIS related to altered determinations on tree diameter and how this could relate to management designations and progression of forests through their anticipated lifespan.

3(a) We welcome the clarity around the proactive stewardship concept.

The Organizations welcome the consistency that has been applied around proactive stewardship as concept. Under the scoping version of the Proposal, this concept was applied to old growth timber in isolation, which could have created confusion in implementation.  While the Proposal focuses on old growth timber, the concept of proactive stewardship is a general management concept and has been effectively applied to many resources.  As an example, often our efforts address the proactive stewardship of recreational opportunities for trails, such as repairing storm damage on trails before the entire trial washes into the stream below and possibly creates significantly more management challenges.  We believe that the Proposal now reflects the concept of proactive stewardship in a more generally applicable manner, and this should aid the application of the concept in a consistent and efficient manner.

3(b) We welcome the clarity that the mere presence of old trees does not trigger old growth management requirements.

The Organizations also vigorously support the recognition in the Proposal that Old growth areas are more than just old trees.  The Proposal clearly states this as follows:

“NOGA-FW-DRC describes old-growth forests as dynamic systems that are distinguished by, but comprised of more than, old trees. NOGA-FW-DC-04 also recognizes the contributions of old-growth forests to the ecological integrity of other terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Still, unit- and regional-level old-growth criteria are generally tree-centric. Thus, even when areas continue to meet the definition and associated criteria for old-growth forest after incidental tree cutting or removal (per NOGA-FW-STD-02b), there may be impacts to understory species and other resources valued by people. These potential impacts would be evaluated in project-level environmental analysis.”[2]

It has been the experience of the Organizations that often targeted planning efforts fail to recognize these efforts create impacts on the larger ecosystem and what is more effective for all interests is the development of a healthy and vibrant ecosystem.  A healthy and vibrant ecosystem provides quality wildlife habitat, fisheries, high quality recreational opportunities and habitat for healthy trees.  As has been highlighted by efforts such as the Endangered Species Act, when planning overly focuses on a particular resource or value above the entire ecosystem, the entire ecosystem is negatively impacted. This negative impact can create far more problems than it resolves, and we are glad this symbiotic relationship of all values is recognized in the Proposal. Protecting old growth timber at the expense of all other management values makes little sense.

As the Organizations noted in the scoping comments on the Proposal, the NYS Court of Appeals Protect the Adirondacks decision from 2021 highlights how well-intentioned management decisions that lack clarity can have significant impacts on other resources and values. The Organizations support the basic direction of the Proposal in avoiding these types of situations on federal lands. Any removal or reduction in management standards providing this type of clarity and flexibility would be immensely problematic for other multiple uses of federal lands and would be opposed by the Organizations.

4. Management decisions must be kept local.

The Organizations have participated in RMP revisions and updates across the Country for extended periods of time and can confirm that old growth timber has been a major planning concern for decades. The Organizations vigorously support the movement of these local RMP updates forward in the Proposal as old growth timber has often already been resolved in the balance that these plans have struck for the management of these areas.  The last thing the Organizations would want to do is reopen all these RMP to rebalance these uses under the erroneous assumption that old growth timber was not addressed at the time of the RMP development. We are aware of several RMP and RMP Amendments that sought to balance old growth timber management with the protection of other important resources such as communities from wildfires. Reopening the balance that these existing RMP have struck could take years and generally our interests would be less than supportive of the need to update in this manner given the years to effort that has already occurred in the development of these RMP.  The Organizations are also aware that many of these RMP have adopted significantly different definitions of old growth timber, and we welcome the clarity that a definition of old growth will provide in future planning efforts.

5. Conclusion.

Please accept this correspondence as the support of the Organizations for Alternative 2 of the Proposal.  The Organizations are opposed to Alternative 3 of the Proposal due to the more restrictive standards that are applied and the large amount of additional analysis that would be required to implement these standards.  The Organizations are also opposed to any expansion of the scope of the Proposal to include areas that have been identified as mature forest or any identification of areas to be designated as old growth management areas in planning.  This would be in direct conflict with the EO. This would result in significant barriers to the management of other multiple uses in a timely manner.

The Organizations welcome the concept of Alternative 4 of the Proposal and its desire to allow a larger scope of management of old growth areas but the Organizations are concerned that Alternative 4 of the Proposal removes several standards, such as NOGA-FW-STD-02b, that provide significant additional clarity around activities in old growth areas that are not related to commercial timber harvest. It has been the Organizations experience that clearly stating the desire to avoid an impact or clearly identifying that an activity, such as the maintenance of recreational infrastructure, is allowed in an area is critical to avoiding unintended impacts from any Proposal. The removal of the various provisions in Alternative 4 would limit these protections for multiple uses.  The idea that we would now need to undertake inventories for old growth timber concerns when undertaking basic management efforts simply is not appealing to us and would be a significant barrier to those management actions. These management actions unrelated to commercial timber harvest are critical in protecting all forest resources from their primary threats, which the Proposal accurately addresses as wildfires and poor forest health.   The Organizations also welcome the clarity in the Proposal that the mere presence of an isolated old tree is not sufficient to trigger the requirements of old growth timber management analysis or create a new step in review and analysis. Again, this type of implementation would be an immense barrier to the management of other multiple uses such as recreation.

We must state our concerns regarding the fact that many of the tree diameters proposed to be the minimum for designation as old growth are small in size, even if they are measured at breast height.  The Organizations are aware that immense amounts of conflict have resulted from competing interests in timber and recreation as evidenced by the NYS litigation on tree diameter and its impact on the ability to maintain trails on NYS lands.   The Organizations vigorously assert the NYS experience must be used as a learning experience for the USFS effort and allow us to avoid the USFS effort to avoid these problems moving forward. The Organizations would also request more information in the EIS related to altered determinations on tree diameter and how this could relate to management designations and progression of forests through their anticipated lifespan.

The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality and sustainable recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC
Authorized Representative, ISSA

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Will Mook
Executive Director
AMPL

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director
Nevada Offroad Association

[1] See, Proposal Socio-Economic report at pg. 54.

[2] See, DEIS at pg. 117.

Bureau of Land Management
Price Field Office
125 South 600 West
Monticello, Utah 84501

RE: San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan (DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2019-0019-EA)

Also See: March 3, 2021 Comments BLM Scoping Document in the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan

Dear SRS TMP Project Manager:

These comments on the BLM’s Draft Environmental Assessment of the San Rafael Swell (SRS) Travel Management Plan (TMP) are an addendum of the supplement to the primary comments that all three of our groups submitted earlier today along with the Colorado Snowmobile Association and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition.

1. Background of Our Organizations

In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following three 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.

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. RwR has performed over 20,000 hours of high-quality trail work on public lands, most of which was in the Moab Field Office. In the Price Field Office, RwR has participated in the 2008 RMP and subsequent travel planning.

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

As stated in our supplement to the primary comments, the Organizations are providing feedback on the draft TMP because the BLM requested it, but we also urge you to start with amending the Price RMP and developing an SRS Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) before proceeding with the TMP.

In this addendum, the Organizations also urge your agency not to close routes for the sake of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics (WC) in lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) units or natural areas (NAs).

In both LWC units and NAs, Alternative B closes many routes for the express purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, as stated in Section 2.2.3 on Page 23:

Alternative B prioritizes protection of resources, including, but not limited to, wildlife habitats, natural and cultural resources, ecosystems, and landscapes. OHV use is more constrained under this alternative than under any other alternative. For example, route closures were prioritized in BLM natural areas and LWCs…

In both LWC units and NAs, Alternative C closes many routes that may not be for the express purpose of minimizing impacts to WC, but the clear correlation between Alternative C closures and LWC units or NA status suggests that it’s more than a coincidence. While Alternative C may close few routes in LWC units or NAs than Alternative A, Alternative A is based on a TMP that–in many parts of the planning area–is irrefutably incomplete in its development, implementation, and enforcement from 2008 to present. Alternative D is the baseline that most closely represents on-the-ground use patterns from 2008 to present, thus it’s what visitors would regard as the status quo. Compared to Alternative D, Alternative C closes many routes, and it closes a higher percentage of routes in LWC units and NAs than in lands without WC. Figure 3-1, “Miles of Evaluated Routes by Alternative in LWC” on Page 37, shows 56% of LWC route miles closed in Alternative C compared to just 4% in Alternative D. In the planning area at large, Alternative C closes 21% of the total evaluated route network, thus Alternative C’s closure percentage in LWC units is over 2.5 times greater that Alternative C’s closure percentage in the planning area at large. Thus, while Alternative B is more severe than Alternative C in LWC units and NAs, Alternative C nevertheless minimizes impacts to WC as much or more than it minimizes impacts to other resources. These statistics suggest that even Alternative C closes many routes for the purpose of promoting WC, albeit less expressly and less severely than Alternative B.

The promotion of WC outside the designated wilderness in this planning area is inappropriate for many reasons that go back many years, including the 2008 Price RMP, the 2017 settlement agreement, the 2019 Dingell Act, and recent Supreme Court rulings as this addendum will outline.

3. 2008 Price RMP

The draft TMP in Section 3.3.2.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 34 states “LWC units are not solely managed for the protection of their wilderness character unless a BLM land use planning decision has been made to manage the unit as a BLM natural area.” This statement inaccurate in multiple ways. First, NAs are not solely managed for the protection of WC either. The BLM insists that NA designations don’t constitute a decision because they can manage for WC among other things at the agency’s discretion. If—as the draft TMP assets–NAs are solely managed for the protection of WC, then they don’t leave enough discretion to avoid recognizing NA designations as decisions. Second, LWC units are not even partly managed for the protection of WC, as the BLM insists that LWC classification is purely descriptive. Thus the SRS TMP should not prioritize route closures in LWC units because the Price RMP directs the BLM to not manage for WC in those LWC units, yet Alternative B does so expressly and Alternative C does so effectively.

4. 2017 settlement agreement

The draft TMP in Section 3.3.2.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 34 states:

Similarly, the 2017 Settlement Agreement stipulates that “For purposes of minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, the BLM will consider the potential damage to any constituent element of wilderness characteristics, including naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, for each alternative route network.”

Where the 2017 Settlement Agreement refers to minimizing damage to public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness characteristics, it refers to minimizing damage to those public lands, not minimizing damage to the WC themselves. Furthermore the 2017 Settlement Agreement refers to considering the potential damage to any constituent element of WC, it directs the BLM to consider such damage, but it doesn’t direct the BLM to minimize such damage. If the 2017 Settlement Agreement were to direct the BLM to minimize impacts to WC, it probably wouldn’t have been approved by the court, which cautioned against creating de facto wilderness in its 2018 dismissal of Utah’s appeal.

5. 2019 Dingell Act

5(a).  Preserving the Balance Inherent to this Compromise Legislation

The Dingell Act designated roughly half of the SRS to be wilderness and the other half to be very accessible, which is what the Organizations reminded the Price Field Office of in our Price RMP Amendments scoping letter, “2022-01-07 Price RMP comm from CCOHVA-SRMC-RwR” (which is also Exhibit 3 of our primary comments from earlier today). Specifically our Price RMP Amendments scoping letter stated:

Please remember that Emery County agreed to the massive wilderness designation so the remaining areas would continue to be managed more inclusively by the multiple-use form of conservation. Indeed, settling the wilderness debate was the spirit shared by all congressional sponsors of the Emery County bill… the packaged Emery County bill of 2019 proposed to designate over 650,000 acres of wilderness, with those additional acres encompassing 73 miles of Class D roads and at least that many other motorized routes that had not been marked “closed” on the ground, nor had they even been analyzed for closure (through a complete travel-planning process that would start with a complete inventory of existing routes). The point is that designating approximately 660,000 acres of wilderness permanently closed many well-established routes to motorized and mechanized travel.

The Organizations reiterated these points in our SRS TMP scoping letter, “2021-03-03 SanRafSwel TMP scoping comm -RwR COHVCO TPA,” which is enclosed. Our SRS TMP scoping letter concluded that “Route inventories in all parts of the TMA should include a baseline of all roads and trails, if any, that are or will be proposed to be closed as a result of the Dingell Act wilderness designation.”

5(b).  Accounting for the Permanent Closure of Existing Routes in New Wilderness Areas

Over three years later, the draft TMP fails to provide a baseline of all roads and trails that are in wilderness designated by the Dingell Act within the SRS TMP planning area. As stated, the Organizations are aware of 74 miles of Class D roads and at least that many miles of other motorized routes that were in continuous use for decades up to 2018 or later. Ten examples of such routes are enclosed. We are also aware that your agency has an inventory of these routes, so it would be easy for you to show them to the public on a planning map or at the very least acknowledge the total mileage of these routes permanently closed by wilderness designation, which is what the San Rafael Desert TMP did when acknowledging that 80 miles of existing routes were permanently closed by the Labyrinth Rims wilderness area.

5(c).  Managing Displacement due to Closures by the Dingell Act and the Draft TMP Alternatives

Given that at least 150 miles of routes were permanently closed by wilderness designation in the SRD TMP planning area, displacement of that use to other parts of the planning area is inevitable, yet the draft TMP yet again denies the existing of such displacement from these routes or the hundreds of miles of routes that would be closed by alternatives B or C. The draft TMP in Section 3.3.4.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 51 states “Based on this prominent concentration of recreational use, even though the alternatives would change the route networks available for motorized recreation opportunities, they would not meaningfully change visitation to these popular areas nor would they result in visitor use being distributed differently across the TMA.” In fact, displacement has already begun through blocking off the existing routes permanently closed by wilderness designation, and it would increase greatly by alternatives B or C that would result in blocking off hundreds of miles of more existing routes. This reality must be acknowledged and handled by any environmental assessment such as the draft TMP in order to successfully manage recreation and conserve resources.

5(d).  Honoring the non-wilderness management for areas not designated as wilderness

The September 18th, 2019 Congressional Record from Senator Romney stated “The driving force for this compromise bill was the desire for countywide land use certainty.” This certainty applies to non-wilderness areas just as it applies to wilderness areas. He elaborated:

For example, it was important to not close a road, trail, airstrip, or prohibit other existing use in the legislative text or corresponding map with a wilderness designation. Further, to avoid applying more restrictive designations, such as wilderness, to areas it would limit ongoing activity, such as grazing or recreation.

Clearly if Congress had intended NAs in the SRS TMP planning area to be managed as wilderness, it would’ve designated them as wilderness. This is yet another reason not to promote WC in NAs let alone LWC units.

5(e).  Honoring continued access of the routes that comprise wilderness boundaries

The September 18th, 2019 Congressional Record from Senator Romney also stated:

On the topic of roads, stakeholders worked closely with BLM to ensure all roads in the 2008 Resource Management Plan were “cherrystemmed,” meaning they were not included in a wilderness designation. Our intent was to maintain these roads and for those designated as “open” to stay open. These cherry-stems are of various sizes and were intended to ensure an adequate corridor exists to facilitate necessary maintenance.

Given that Senator Romney’s entire statement was roughly 700 words, it’s reasonable to assume that this intent would apply to other types of routes that comprise wilderness boundaries, such as the Waterfall Trail. Yet this motorized singletrack that has been designated by the BLM and maintained by motorcycle groups for decades is closed in Alternative B. Such a closure would be a violation of the good-faith agreement that was shared among those that negotiated during this bill’s process.

6. Recent Supreme Court Rulings

This year even more reasons have emerged for the BLM to avoid promoting WC in the SRS TMP planning area, specifically recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, June 28, 2024 that reaffirmed the judicial review of an agency’s legal interpretation. The draft TMP in Section 3.3.2.1 “Affected Environment” on Page 34 asserts “Distinct from any planning decisions, under 43 CFR § 8342.1 the BLM has the obligation to minimize impacts to resources, including wilderness character, when designating OHV routes.” The BLM should be cognizant of the extent to which such agency guidance is actually grounded in legislation. When clear authorization is lacking, administrative actions are now more likely to be ruled a bypass of requirements such as the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA. The argument that the BLM is merely conducting minimization pursuant to the 2017 Settlement Agreement could be unavailing if that exercise is wholly or partially beholden to administratively-created special designations that wind up no longer holding under the glaring Congressional authority of the Section 603 release and Section 202 multiple-use mandate of FLPMA.

7. Conclusion

For all these reasons, the Organizations caution your agency against promoting WC outside of the many wilderness areas that have already been designated in the SRS TMP planning area. As for the many other natural and cultural resources, managing for them should start with completing an RMP amendment and RAMP before the TMP, as the proper order is important when planning motorized routes that are cherished by millions of Americans.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

Bureau of Land Management
Price Field Office
125 South 600 West
Monticello, Utah 84501

RE: San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan (DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2019-0019-EA)

Dear SRS TMP Project Manager:

These comments on the BLM’s Draft Environmental Assessment of the San Rafael Swell (SRS) Travel Management Plan (TMP) are a supplement to the primary comments that all three of our groups submitted earlier today along with the Colorado Snowmobile Association and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition.

1. Background of Our Organizations

In our comments, the “Organizations” will refer to the following three 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.

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. RwR has performed over 20,000 hours of high-quality trail work on public lands, most of which was in the Moab Field Office. In the Price Field Office, RwR has participated in the 2008 RMP and subsequent travel planning.

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. Clarification of our Primary Comments

Regarding the primary comments that we submitted earlier today, which suggested amending the 2017 Settlement Agreement mentioned herein, please note that the Organizations (CORE, RwR, and TPA) were referring only to amending the SRS TMP deadline originally set forth in that Settlement Agreement. Specifically the deadline should provide sufficient time to complete Price Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments related to the Dingell Act and to develop the SRS Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), both of which are identified in the BLM’s 2023 scoping report for RMP amendments, and then to finish the subject TMP. The Organizations (CORE, RwR, and TPA) see this deadline extension as being necessary due to the unforeseen superseding event of the Dingell Act and its wide impact on the planning area for the SRS TMP.

3. The draft TMP baseline for analysis is inaccurate.

The planning area’s current management situation under the 2008 Price RMP is not accurately described in the draft TMP’s No Action Alternative, Alternative A. That Alternative as currently drafted misstates and misinterprets on-the-ground and management conditions under the no-action scenario. For example, many routes reflected in the 2008 baseline map are not included in the 2024 Alternative A map. These routes are critical to any analysis seeking to create a new travel plan in 2024 for many reasons.

4. The TMP stepdown plan should be done after completing its foundation in the RMP and RAMP.

It is nonsensical for the draft TMP to leapfrog the Dingell Act and tether the Alternative A No-Action scenario directly to the 2008 RMP. There was no Dingell Act Congressional Wilderness in the planning area in 2008. This results in an incorrect rendering of the No-Action Alternative, particularly given the Dingell Act’s at-law and factual releases of significant parts of the planning area back into multiple use management.

The state of Alternative A as described above, shows among other things that the current San Rafael Swell travel management planning effort must be put on hold, until the Price FO RMP is properly amended under a NEPA compliant FLPMA 202 process to reflect and implement all changes brought to the planning area by the Dingell Act. Otherwise, this TMP process is “cart-before-the-horse,” premature, and unlawful under NEPA, FLPMA, and the Dingell Act itself. Examples of impacts to travel planning from general RMP amendments include WSA releases and the important consideration of potential changes to the SRMA, Natural Areas, and resulting fragmentation of such polygons here and there in the planning area as a result of implementing the Dingell Act in the 202 plan amendment process.  These weighty potential impacts to travel planning considerations point to only one rational and NEPA compliant sequence:  Amend the RMP first, consider its effects, and then and only then turn to travel planning.

The foregoing considerations apply equally to the SRS RAMP. The Dingell Act’s designation wilderness acres, release of acres from WSA status greatly impact the ability to gauge the extent and character of sufficient recreational opportunities in the area. All of this needs to be considered and implemented to provide an accurate baseline understanding of Alternative A for TMP purposes, and counsels strongly for putting the current TMP process on hold. The Swell RAMP is only at the development stage and far from complete. Any potential change in the Swell RAMP must first be considered. This sequencing problem renders the current travel planning effort out of order and thus inherently NEPA, FLPMA, and Dingell Act deficient.

Further under FLPMA Section 602 and 603, the Dingell Act’s release of certain public lands in the planning area from further WSA/ISA status, returns those lands to the default FLPMA multiple use and sustained yield management regime. The current draft TMP has failed to adequately consider and provide for this reality.

No amount of excuse-making by the BLM in the draft TMP could reasonably alter the foregoing fundamental NEPA planning requirements, but in any event, the draft TMP omits any mention of the RMP amendment process at all and makes only scant reference to the RAMP, at Section A.4 of Page 117.

In addition to halting the current TMP process, the BLM as a party to the 2017 Settlement Agreement should seek an extension of the Agreement’s TMP deadline long enough to implement the Dingell Act and do the needed plan amendments referenced above. The Dingell Act brought significant changes to conditions and controlling standards for the planning area. Those changes were unforeseen, and they render the current travel planning effort premature, out of order, and without crucial foundation in relation to the fundamental planning area changes that must first take place in light of the Dingell Act. These conditions warrant extension of the Settlement Agreement TMP deadline.

5. Sound planning must clearly articulate the rationale for each proposed decision.

The information set forth in the draft TMP, including the route reports (however voluminous they may be), is NEPA deficient when it comes to explaining the basis or rationale for the various proposed route closures in the range of alternatives. The information amounts to little more than route-by-route conclusions as to what will be closed, with little to no underlying data, and no analysis and application of data or other criteria to explain any of the proposed route closures. The NEPA deficiencies here include (a) failure to take a hard look at the routes and the conditions in support of or against closure, (b) a failure of transparency, (c) failure to inform the public, and (d) arbitrary and capricious governmental decision making.

6. Minimizing potential adverse effects to cultural sites cannot be the rationale for restricting use on more than a few of the routes that are included in any of the four alternatives.

The DEA Table 3-5, “TMP Effects on Historic Properties Under Section 106,” indicates that, of the routes in any of the four alternatives, only 6 cultural sites could potentially be adversely affected. Therefore any TMP decision that restricts use on more than a few of these routes to minimize potential adverse effects to cultural sites would. Even when it comes to routes that have the potential to adversely affect these 6 sites, closure should only be considered after other remedies such as interpretive signs, route marking, tread work, or relocating the route.

7. The socioeconomic analysis fails to recognize major negative impacts of alternatives B and C.

Alternative B and even Alternative C would greatly harm the livelihoods and lifestyles of surrounding communities. First, the analysis area should certainly include Wayne County, as Hanksville and Loa are the closest towns to the southern half of the SRS TMA. Both towns rely on dispersed recreation opportunities across the San Rafael Swell and Mussentuchit areas.

Second, the draft TMP states “On the basis of the above analysis, BLM believes there would be only minimal impacts to the planning area’s economy under any alternative, and detailed analysis is not required. There are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would alter this conclusion” (Section A.10 AIB-10 on Page 126). The idea that alternatives B and C would have only minimal impacts to the planning area’s economy is absurd. Motorized recreationists from all over the world visit this area for the network of trails that are generally uncrowded, extensive for exploration, and reaching remote areas with rugged terrain and exceptional views. All of those qualities would be more scarce in alternatives B and C, greatly reducing the effective carrying capacity of the route network, and greatly reducing its word-class nature.

For example, Alternative B would close Five Miles of Hell, VJ, and Waterfall Trail. These are not only some of the best motorized singletracks in the Temple Mountain trail system, but best in Utah, best in the United States, and best in the world. These gems couldn’t be substituted by other routes such as the Green, Blue, and Red trails. Even if they could, it’d double the crowding. These gems couldn’t even be reproduced by constructing new trails, as the high-quality terrain has been designated wilderness or a recreation area that prohibits constructing new motorized routes. Thus closing these gems could easily reduce the number of people who choose to stay in—or establish residency in—nearby towns such as Green River and Hanksville. Suffice it to say that analyzing socioeconomic impacts is needed.

8. The draft TMP route inventory is substantially incomplete.

The “total evaluated route network” is missing many existing routes that warrant analysis through a route report and consideration in draft alternatives. Some of these routes are on motorized route maps produced by Emery County as well as the Emery County Trails Committee. Others are not county roads, but are nevertheless viable worth of due consideration. Here are just a couple examples:

1. Parallel route of UT-72 between SS6193 and SS6184 – This old constructed road, which is just west of Highway 72, is three miles long. It allows OHV riders to connect many routes without going on the highway, which benefits recreation as well as highway users.
2. Old Woman Wash from SS2533 to UT-24 – This major wash connects the Reef road to the San Rafael Desert on the other side of Highway 24. It goes under a highway bridge that’s unobstructed, at which point it’s less than a quarter-mile from a route designated open in the 2022 San Rafael Desert TMP. This route, Old Woman Wash, is what most OHV riders actually use to cross Highway 24 instead of Temple Wash. Also this route, Old Woman Wash on the west side of the highway, is part of BLM-permitted motorcycle race courses including the 1987 Mail Run.

9. Alternatives B and C would close many routes without any reasonable justification.

Alternatives B and C would close hundreds of miles of routes that are of great recreational value, that are quite feasible to manage, and that would not cause considerable adverse effects. These routes have been continuously used for decades, and should not be closed without compelling reasons. Here are just a couple of examples:

1. Overlook of Blue Trail Canyon (SS66096) – This old bladed road reaches a great view of Blue Trail Canyon. It has a flowing alignment through gentle hills of pinion and juniper that naturally encourage OHV riders to stay on the route. The view is just a half-mile from Interstate 70, thus the setting is already quite motorized.
2. Farnswoth Tanks Loop (SS2540) – This old bladed road has a sinuous alignment and modest grades, providing a short but fun loop in an area with high OHV use from campers and day visitors alike.

10. Conclusion

We appreciate the work that your agency has done thus far to develop an SRS TMP, but it is simply premature, and the focus should be turned to amending the Price RMP and developing an SRS RAMP.

Sincerely,

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
Colorado Off Road Enterprise

BLM Price Field Office,
125 South 600 West
Price, UT 84501

Via Portal Only

Re:  San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the request of the above Organizations for development of a meaningful manner to engage with the public regarding a single vision for the future management of this area.  Unfortunately, managers are not providing a single cohesive planning effort for the entirety of the Swell area that might be legally sufficient, such as those created by an EIS.  Rather the public has been provided a series of Environmental Assessments that are at best questionably relevant, poorly reconciled and even more poorly supported with detailed analysis or recognition of the complexity of current planning in the area.  Planners appear to want to push resolution of the many challenges in the area to the public in commenting rather than providing a range of alternatives to the public for comment under an EIS. Any assertion that the remnants of the Price RMP in the Swell area, the newly designated Recreation Area, more than 400k acres of new Wilderness can provide a cohesive vision for the management of the area is immediately undermined by the further legal issues around the Price FO efforts and that the Recreation Area plan is only in scoping.

This lack of cohesive vision reopens many of the planning failures that resulted in the settlement agreement the Proposal asserts to satisfy.  BLM has already asserted to the 10^th Circuit that they could undertake meaningful planning in all the areas within the Settlement Agreement.  We would assert they have been unable to achieve this goal. Without this cohesive vision for the area, how can any argument be made that travel plan is minimized impacts in alignment with the requirements of EO 11644.  Such an assertion simply cannot be made as the RMP standards do not exist. As an example, the Dingell Act mandated that all areas identified in the §603 inventory not designated as Wilderness must be managed for multiple use. The existing Price FO RMP does not have provisions to address this situation, making RMP compliance on this issue impossible.  While this request is technically outside the scope of the Proposal, The Organizations believe development of a travel plan must start from a position of a solid vision of management goals and objectives now and into the reasonably foreseeable future. That simply has not been provided.

With regard to the current TMP Proposal ( hereinafter referred to the “Settlement TMP” or Proposal), the Organizations must voice their support for 2008 current management in the Area and concern that 2008 current management is not reflected in Alternative A of the Proposal as is mandated by the Settlement Agreement in this matter. Rather Alternative A is an updated interpretation of 2008 management where the most restrictive interpretation of any ambiguity is taken. Under the Settlement Agreement, what is presented as Alternative A cannot exist as there was no Congressionally designated Wilderness in the planning area in 2008.  Many routes were reflected in the 2008 baseline map that are not included in the Alternative A map in 2024.  Some trails such as the ebike network at the north end of the planning unit are never mentioned in the RMP at all. These routes are critical to any analysis seeking to create a new travel plan in 2024 for many reasons. The Organizations vigorously assert that Alternative A must at least start from a single point in time but has rather incorporated closures and other projects when it was suitable. The EA fails to provide even a range of alternatives on the many ambiguities in the existing RMP. Alternative A must be the baseline and only reflect the 2008 TMP effort with all its ambiguities and problems and this baseline is critical.

The motorized community vigorously objects to Alternative B of the Proposal as this entirely fails to provide any meaningful multiple use opportunities for recreation. While Alternative D of the Proposal is might be closest to something we can support as it asserts to close only 52 miles (2%) of routes, this Alternative fails to address that existing RMP/TMP decisions that were challenged already closed more than 730 miles (25%+/-) in the planning area. While a 2% closure may appear appealing, it is 27% closure rates from historical usage. Our concerns with the management baseline expand further as the management baseline fails to address the Congressionally mandated changes in the planning area, that heavily impacted public access to many areas. These were large changes; they warrant meaningful analysis in the Alternatives which simply has not been provided.

Our support for current management is also driven by a foundational failure in the Proposal, mainly that the cumulative impacts of the various planning efforts within the area are not meaningfully addressed.  The Organizations cannot overlook the fact that the Swell Recreation Area RMP is under development.  This causes concerns on how these planning efforts will be aligned and conflicts between decisions be resolved.  If there is a change in the Swell Recreation Area RMP that is inconsistent with the Settlement TMP, how would that be resolved? Is the existing 2008 Price FO RMP even a viable planning document? We are now facing many challenges that were never addressed in the 2008 Price FO RMP. The designation of 400,00 plus of Wilderness and more than 200,000 acres more where road development is capped creates problems on issues of how sufficient recreational opportunities will be provided in the area? This limitation in the Swell Recreation Area makes an accurate version of Alternative A critically important. The Price FO RMP identified many areas for expansion of recreational opportunities that are now closed to most recreational opportunities.  Where can these areas be replaced? This type of balance and analysis is critical given the numerous Statutory and Executive Orders mandating these analysis processes in planning.  We are unable to find any analysis that even arguably satisfies this requirement currently or in the situation of multiple planning efforts moving at the same time in the same planning area.

The Organizations have been involved in discussions around access to these areas for more than a decade, both in the development of travel and resources management plans. In addition to the planning efforts, our involvement has continued on behalf of recreation interests in litigation, stretching from the Settlement in SUWA v. U.S. DOI, Case No. 2:12-cv-257 DAK (D. Utah). to bringing successful jurisdictional challenges in SUWA v. Babbitt, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22170 (D. Utah 2000), rev’d, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002), rev’d and remanded, Norton v. SUWA, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). We remain committed to this presence in the ongoing management of Utah BLM lands. Many of our local partners have intervened in defense with the BLM when legal challenges were brought that has resulted from the Settlement now being implemented and have continued to be involved with planning/travel efforts throughout the region. We have worked hard to support these efforts in many ways.  We are intimately familiar with the difficulties that the BLM has encountered in the management of this area and region more generally. This makes successful management decisions critical to allowing access to the Planning area which is one of the few remaining multiple use areas in the region. Moving forward with the successful path that has been developed for this area is the only way forward in the Organization’s opinion but unfortunately that path has not been provided in the Proposal.  While the routes and opportunities at issue in the Proposal are world class, the analysis of the Proposal falls well short of aligning with that value.

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. 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. RwR has performed over 20,000 hours of high-quality trail work on public lands, most of which was in the Moab Field Office region. In the Price Field Office, RwR has participated in the 2008 RMP and subsequent travel planning. Our mission is to keep trails open for all users to enjoy.  For purposes of these comments, TPA, CSA, CORE, RwR and COHVCO will be referred to as “the Organizations.”

1b. Preliminary thoughts

The Organizations vigorously assert that there is a compelling need for a coherent plan and coordinated planning process for this area.  This simply has not been provided.  What has been provided is a confusing often conflicting effort that has two management efforts in the same area occurring at the same time and often interchanging terms.  Not only is this process confusing, many of the failures in the underlying 2008 RMP/TMP process are simply never addressed.

2. Scoping was confusing as to what areas were being discussed. Should clearly identify zones accurately with names that are unrelated to designations. Management areas should be called zone 1 zone 2 zone 3. Even basic decision making such as this has been avoided.

History is complex and overlapping which only compounds the need for consistency in analysis on issues such as what is the proper planning effort to raise concerns in.  A brief summary of the planning history of this area is as follows:

The frustration from this entire process is immediate as the Organizations and our members consistently hear from BLM about the need for substantive comments on proposals from users’ groups. Here problems are immediately apparent from scoping on the ability of the public to provide substantive comments and rather than resolving this confusion planning efforts with tools that are available to the BLM, these tools have largely ignored this confusion and on many occasions made confusion much worse.

Many issues present in the 2008 RMP/TMP remain unresolved and in many cases are worse now than ever before.  The Organizations are frustrated that confusion of issues and planning efforts should have been immediately identifiable with a basic review of public scoping from the 2021 effort on the Settlement. Our frustration from this failure stems from the fact that in the 3 ensuing years from this scoping, BLM has done nothing to resolve this conflict, such as utilizing the specific provisions of the Settlement to address unforeseen issues that arise from its implementation.  The Organizations would vigorously assert that the passage of the Dingell act would be such an unforeseen issue.  The passage of the Dingell Act made resolution of the underlying failures in the RMP/TMP only that much more important in the planning area, regardless of the name sought to be applied.

2(a) Why an EA instead of an EIS?

Prior to addressing the numerous challenges created by the Proposals failure to recognize the RMP silence on many issues critical to the TMP, the failure of the Proposal to address the numerous other planning efforts that are occurring concurrently with this effort in the planning area must be addressed.  Currently the Swell Rec Area RMP and the Settlement TMP are proposed to be separate, which is problematic on the ground and overlooks the significant changes that have been mandated as a result of Congressional actions in the TMP outside the Swell Rec Area. The BLM proposes to create an RMP for the recreation area created by the Dingell Act, which alters the management of almost 50% of the FO footprint and then manage the remaining portion of the FO under the 2008 RMP. These changes clearly alter significant portions of the assumptions and conclusions that were reached in the 2008 Price FO RMP.  This situation is simply never addressed in the Proposal, and after reviewing the Proposal, the public could easily conclude that the recreation area planning effort is not occurring, as it is never mentioned in the Proposal. This creates immense problems for the Proposal.

The project and its more than 2 decades of history of the failures in BLM attempting to manage this area clearly warrant an EIS level of analysis to resolve issues the Dingell Act created within the Swell Recreation Area and to address the management changes that the Dingell Act created outside the Swell Recreation Area as well. This only compounds the many issues and ambiguities in the 2008 Price FO RMP outside the Swell Recreation Area. Rather than structuring the basic NEPA analysis as an EIS with an RMP amendment to attempt to resolve these all issues with some level of consistency, the Proposal moves forward with several EA’s for the planning area. This EA fails to address the fact there are multiple efforts being undertaken and largely avoids any discussion of many foundational issues around the TMP or the possibility that an RMP amendment must be undertaken to resolve the challenges in the area.  This history is problematic enough and sometimes compounds failures of the BLM management that have spanned more than 50 years that the Dingell Act actually resolved.

2(b) Many Offices were challenged on the minimization criteria within similar timeframes and many have resolved these challenges and moved on.

The Organizations are aware that many planning offices across the country received legal challenges on the sufficiency of their minimization efforts from many of the same plaintiffs that challenged the Price FO RMP/TMP. Our Organizations and partners have intervened in defense of these claims, in the same manner our groups intervened in the legal challenges to the Price FO efforts.  As an example, the Pike/San Isabel NF received the same type of legal challenge from same plaintiffs at almost same time and a settlement was reached in this challenge in November 2015. This is where the planning efforts between these offices take profoundly different paths as the PSI immediately moved forward with an EIS not an EA and embraced development of an accurate and complete Alternative A.  The PSI efforts presented their own complexities as most travel planning on the PSI had been done with site specific efforts as their RMP was issued in 1984.  Much of the documentation for these EA had been lost simply due to the passage of time which compounded the challenges presented by an RMP that was at best comically out of date. A final decision was issued by the PSI on November 2020.[1]  While there are of course challenges to this decision, it has been completed.

The Organizations do not contest that the PSI effort is a far less complex management situation as there was no intervening Congressional actions involving WSA releases, WSA designation as Wilderness and Congressionally designated Recreation Areas in the PSI effort.  Despite the far more complex management situation presented, the Price FO has chosen to slowly move forward with a series of EA, that are only entering scoping after other offices have completed their obligations under similar settlement terms. This is simply a problem on many levels.

3(a) NEPA requirements for the planning situation now being faced in this area.

The challenges facing the planning area and the Proposal are significant, multifaceted and cannot be overlooked, especially since they have been the basis of a 10^th Circuit Court action already almost a decade old.[2] Rather than meaningfully addressing these challenges as was recognized as necessary by the Circuit Court and providing a Range of Alternatives when there is ambiguity in current planning the Proposal draws horribly arbitrary divisions in planning. Rather than recognizing the ambiguity and addressing it with a decision at the proper level of planning and then providing a range of alternatives, absolutely no analysis is provided regarding how these decisions were made is provided in the EA. These decisions will create conflict and present an inaccurate summary of the efforts by the agency and Congress to minimize impacts in this area. The Proposal moves forward with a model that expands these conflicts by attempting to address each effort in isolation and fails to address the basic requirements of NEPA and other planning documents to resolve situations like this.

The Proposal suffers from foundational failures in analysis in the Settlement TMP process that stem from failures in the RMP and drove the Settlement Agreement originally. These foundational 2008 RMP/TMP failures were challenged by numerous parties in the various litigation underlying this matter. While we intervened in defense of claims against the BLM, we had concerns with the 2008 TMP as well. In the development of the Proposal, it appears that entirely different planning standards are interchanged without recognition that these are two entirely separate planning standards and requirements. These failures do not resolve concerns around underlying sufficiency to decisions but rather highlights them.  As an example of this interchanging of management standards would be reflected in the management of open areas the RMP specifically identifies for future management actions.  BLM admits the 2008 RMP erroneously published maps with no routes in these areas in the Proposal. We would agree that this mapping error occurred and should be fixed and would like to retain the option of future planning in these areas. This is simply not provided under any alternative.  BLM appears to assert that their compliance with EO 11644 is somehow achieved compliance for NEPA purposes. There is no such presumption we are aware of and presumptions such as this are what caused the original settlement agreement to be reached.

The Organizations must recognize the unusual path that the Office has chosen for NEPA compliance. Many other offices have faced similar legal challenges around their compliance with the minimization criteria and almost exclusively have moved into an EIS.  Often these Offices have moved forward with an EIS in management situations that are far less complex than those facing the planning area.   This decision largely aligns with the NEPA statutes that clearly and specifically requires an EIS be prepared in the following situations:

(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall–
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man’s environment;
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations;
(C) consistent with the provisions of this chapter and except where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements, include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on–
(i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action;
(ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(iii) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal;
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented.[3]

The Organizations submit this entire planning effort fails to achieve these goals at any level. Rather than utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man’s environment the public has been provided multiple over lapping planning efforts spanning decades. The lack of a systemic approach is further compounded by the Proposal failing to address why decisions were only partially implemented, decisions are altered or changed in the current management outline.

CEQ regulations specifically addresses the need update or amend existing NEPA analysis as follows:

(d) Supplemental environmental impact statements. Agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if a major Federal action is incomplete or ongoing, and:

(i) The agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or
(ii) There are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis.
(2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.
(3) Shall prepare, publish, and file a supplement to an environmental impact statement (exclusive of scoping (§ 1502.4 of this subchapter)) as a draft and final environmental impact statement, as is appropriate to the stage of the environmental impact statement involved, unless the Council approves alternative arrangements (§ 1506.11 of this subchapter).[4]

While there is ambiguity in these statutes and CEQ requirements, the failure of the BLM to provide any analysis on how this ambiguity was resolved and how the determination that multiple overlapping EAs could achieve the goals and objectives of the settlement agreement is problematic.  Rather than addressing these issues they are avoided and the Organizations are concerned that these decisions have directly impaired public comment and engagement on issues critical to the long-term success of the management of the area.  The Organizations are further concerned that ultimately this EA will be another in the long string of failed management efforts in the planning area.

3(b) Council on Environmental Quality 40 questions provide detailed guidance on the appropriate manner of supplementing an EIS.

The problematic starting position of the Proposal and its desire to resolve all the issues facing implantation of the EIS the planning area with just an EA is immediate when the guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality provided in the NEPA 40 Questions guidance is reviewed. The CEQ 40 questions guidance specifies an EIS as follows:

32. Supplements to Old EISs. Under what circumstances do old EISs have to be supplemented before taking action on a proposal? A. As a rule of thumb, if the proposal has not yet been implemented, or if the EIS concerns an ongoing program, EISs that are more than 5 years old should be carefully reexamined to determine if the criteria in Section 1502.9 compel preparation of an EIS supplement. If an agency has made a substantial change in a proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, a supplemental EIS must be prepared for an old EIS so that the agency has the best possible information to make any necessary substantive changes in its decisions regarding the proposal.

The problematic nature of the Proposal assertions that an EA can be used to resolve the major challenges that have arisen from the 2008 EIS is immediately apparent when the Regulations are reviewed.  The decision is further drawn into question given the decisions of other planning offices that have faced similar challenges in a less complex management environment. It would have to be an exceptionally detailed EA to satisfy these challenges and the EA provided is far from exceptionally detailed.  These failures cause the EA to fall short of and sufficiency of an EA.

The Council on Environmental Quality has also explicitly addressed situations where there have been significant changes in proposals and objectives of polices and legislation impacting the analysis area. Again, the CEQ regulations clearly and directly require changes to be addressed in a systemic defensible manner as follows:

23a. Conflicts of Federal Proposal With Land Use Plans, Policies or Controls. How should an agency handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives of Federal, state or local land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned? See Sec.  1502.16(c).

A. The agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future when the plans are finished (see Question 23(b) below), the EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. If there are any possibilities of resolving the conflicts, these should be explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will impair the effectiveness of land use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS.

Again, the Organizations are not asserting it is impossible to resolve issues such as this with an EA, however it would have to be an exceptionally detailed EA. That has not been provided and forces us to question why the guidance of the CEQ 40 Questions on the appropriate level of analysis was not followed in this situation.

3(c) NEPA regulations mandate an EIS to resolve issues such as those facing the management areas.

The planning efforts for the area have taken an unusual path of development given the many recent plan revisions, court settlements and Congressional actions that have mandated significant changes to much of this portion of the Price FO. The complexity of the situation is made even greater as a result of the Price FO failure to implement many of the changes required and failure to move forward with site specific planning for other areas as was promised in the RMP.

In many areas, recreational access was permanently lost or heavily restricted by Congressional action in areas that were identified for expansion of recreational opportunities in the RMP. The challenges presented by this situation alone are immense.  These are significant changes to current management that must be resolved and addressed to comply with NEPA, BLM regulations and relevant court cases.  This simply has not occurred in the Proposal or any related planning effort as the Proposal simply picks different particular points in time to address changes rather than addressing all changes at a single time.  Certainly, the necessity of an EIS cannot be avoided simply through the manipulation of the planning process to allow a decision that related actions are unrelated. This is improper and allows RMP provisions to be violated as exemplified by the closure of areas that were restricted to existing routes only and identified for future site-specific planning. The failure to address these basic changes in a systemic and rational manner will result in immense new user conflicts in the planning area. After review of the Proposal, we are unable to locate any portion of the Proposal that outlines challenges such as user conflicts or how they could be impacted by the various Congressional efforts impacting the planning area or how the Proposal seeks to reduce these conflicts.

Again, the Proposal avoidance of questions such as those we have raised already is contrary to the NEPA regulations addressing the proper scope of a NEPA action.  NEPA regulations clearly define the scope of any planning effort as follows:

“Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its relationships to other statements (§§ 1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of environmental impact statements, agencies shall consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include:
(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be:
(1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:
(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.
(2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.
(3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.”[5]

If the Planners were able to achieve a plan that allows a much narrower scope that is provided for in the regulations, the Proposal must address how planners have reached decisions and determined several EA can achieve the alignment of decisions within the scope of an EA this must be addressed.  If there are safeguards that are being put in place to avoid conflicts between these decisions and how issues such as the possible need for an RMP update have been resolved with the process. None of this information has been provided and the immense problems that will result cannot be overlooked. Many of these decisions are critical to the success of the many related efforts being developed

4. The Proposed scope of analysis conflicts with BLM travel planning regulations.

As addressed previously, the Organizations have concerns regarding the positioning of this effort for successful NEPA compliance. Unfortunately, NEPA compliance is not the only standard that the Proposal fails to satisfy.   The profound conflict that results with BLM travel planning regulations is evidenced when the relationship of the goals and objectives of a TMP and the current effort are compared.  These goals and objectives are specifically outlined as follows:

“The TTM process seeks to identify and understand the use of existing transportation features (roads, primitive roads and trails), incorporate the existing and future needs for transportation, access and recreational opportunities, and use an interdisciplinary planning process to develop appropriate travel networks and recreational opportunities that reflect the environmental concerns and legal requirements of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) process.

The goal of the TTM process is to create travel networks that are logical and sustainable, as well as meet the increasingly diverse transportation, access and recreational needs of the public. The process moves from broad scale interdisciplinary planning achieved in a RMP, to more specific Activity or Area Plans, and further to specific implementation and maintenance actions for roads, primitive roads, trails, and other access and recreation related needs.”[6]

While viewing the settlement agreement in isolation might be perceived as an easy path forward, we must question that decision. The Organizations must make it clear that we are not asserting the Settlement Agreement should have foreseen the passage of the Dingell Act and the dramatic differences and revisions for the planning area that would result from its passage. The Organizations must question why the settlement agreement was not updated subsequent to the passage of the Dingell Act as this is a significant change in conditions for the planning that was unforeseen. What the public has been provided is an EA that fails to meaningfully address challenges and gaps in the RMP.  This is unacceptable as the goals of the TMP process cannot be achieved without a single vision and starting point of discussion and planning.

5. Relevant court decisions have consistently struck down attempts at structuring EA to avoid an EIS

As noted in these comments, the Proposal faces immense challenges in establishing the basic legal sufficiency of the scale and scope of the management model that has been adopted for the effort. The Organizations vigorously assert that the decision to move forward with several EA rather than an EIS for the area has allowed basic issues to remain unresolved.  Questions around the applicability of the RMP to the management situation being faced are not addressed. What is the proper starting point for the planning effort are again not addressed as these are multiple EA rather than a coordinated EIS.  Courts reviewing these requirements have strictly applied these statutory and regulatory requirements for NEPA as evidenced by the Supreme Court decisions, which clearly state as follows:

“Section 102(2)(C) requires that an impact statement contain, in essence, a detailed statement of the expected adverse environmental consequences of an action, the resource commitments involved in it, and the alternatives to it.”[7]

The conflicts with this standard are again immediate for the Proposal. Resources have been committed to developing a defensible TMP for the planning area for decades. There can be no argument that the possible commitments of resources have already begun as the Recreation Area plan scoping effort has already begun.  As the RMP for the Swell Recreation Area is mandated by federal law, recompletion of this effort will be achieved.  There are many questions of how the relationships between the settlement and intervening legislative action can be resolved. Rather than developing and resolving this situation in a coordinated and systemic manner under an EIS, planners have chosen to adopt several smaller EAs for a piecemeal analysis of issues in isolation to each other. No discussion has been provided regarding how these decisions were developed. This chosen path of issue resolution and plan development will create more conflicts than it resolves.

The model adopted for development of the settlement TMP where satisfaction of the settlement requirements and complying with various legislative requirements is achieved in this piecemeal manner has been consistently stuck down in planning efforts far less complex.  When Courts have addressed the alignment of only two planning efforts on a single area, the Courts have consistently held as follows:

Characterizing any piecemeal development of a project as “insignificant” merits close scrutiny to prevent the policies of NEPA from being nibbled away by multiple increments, no one of which may in and of itself be important enough to compel preparation of a full EIS. (See, e.g., Named Individual Members of San Antonio Conservation Soc’y v. Texas Highway Dep’t (5^th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 1013.)[8]

There can be no argument that the nibbling of major projects with a series of smaller analysis prohibited by the Courts is exactly what is occurring with the Proposal and the numerous other factors that are involved in the management of the project area. With this clear concern from the courts on this model of NEPA compliance, Courts have refined the mandate of the Kleppe Supreme Court decision to more clearly define the definition of when an EA is sufficient and when an EIS is mandated.

“Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires an EIS for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (1982). While it is true that administrative agencies must be given considerable discretion in defining the scope of environmental impact statements, see Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 412-415, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2731-2733, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976), there are situations in which an agency is required to consider several related actions in a single EIS, see id. at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. at 2729-2730. Not to require this would permit dividing a project into multiple “actions,” each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact.” [9]

The Thomas Court laid out six questions for roads that courts will look at to identify when an EA is needed and when an EIS is needed. These factors review issues such as the purpose and need; the sufficiency of current management, the cost/benefit analysis of separate EA to a single EIS; When these factors are addressed there can be only one conclusion, the Proposal and planning challenges must be addressed with an EIS. This resolution also requires an RMP update or amendment to resolve many other questions.

6(a)(1).  Alternative A must reflect current management prior to the 2008 TMP and not a partially updated version of 2008 TMP provided under the guise of Alternative A.

The Organizations concerns around Alternative A of the Proposal are immediate and profound as the Settlement Agreement clearly requires an entirely new TMP for the planning area. This was the heart of the legal challenge originally raised by the Petitioners and specified by the Settlement Agreement.[10]  Paragraph 13 of the Settlement Agreement paragraph specifically mandates that new TMP will be created as follows:

“13. New Travel Management Plans subject to this Settlement Agreement. BLM will issue a new TMP for each of the following travel management areas (“TMA”) within the Richfield, Vernal, Price, Moab, and Kanab Field Offices according to the deadlines set forth below, which will start to run on the effective date of this Settlement Agreement established in Paragraph 37. Each TMP will be considered issued upon the date the authorized officer signs the decision document approving the TMP.”

It is significant to note the settlement agreement says NEW TMP not updated TMP or something similar. The efforts to develop the Settlement TMP has to be management prior to 2008, which would be the 2003 TMP as this is the ONLY TMP that has been signed by the authorized officer and not withdrawn. As result this planning effort must start with the TMP in place in 2007 immediately before the 2008 TMP was finalized as Alternative A of the Proposal. What has been provided in the Proposal as Alternative A is not this map but something else as it appears planners immediately confused an update of an approved TMP with an entirely new TMP. In this updated Alternative A, many decisions have been made without public input and engagement on issues critical to the TMP baseline. Under NEPA the 2008 baseline for management was 2003 TMP not the 2008 RMP/TMP that has been subjected to an updating process without public input in any manner. That updating process would occur in violation of NEPA.

The improper updating of the 2003 TMP decision under the guise of Alternative A violates other provisions of the Settlement Agreement.  The issuance of an entirely new TMP is further mandated in the Settlement Agreement which specifically provides that none of the various claims against the TMP can be recognized as follows:

“3. This Settlement Agreement is for the purpose of settling the above-captioned litigation. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed as precedent in this or any other proceeding or shall constitute an admission or concession by any party as to the validity of any fact or legal position concerning the claims or defenses in this or any other proceeding.”

Many of the decisions made in the updating of Alternative A would result in the concession of many claims of parties, including those of the Organizations, which was specifically prohibited in the Settlement.  Questions such as the OHV-7 area management, various admitted mapping errors and other concerns outlined in these comments are important and we will make no concessions on their resolution.  The Organizations had concerns in the final plan and they have been in no way resolved.  NEPA requires a full analysis of these areas and a range of alternatives for resolution of management challenges in these areas. We are seeking that in this effort admit has not been provided.

The provisions of the Settlement Agreement allowing the 2008 TMP to be applied while the Settlement TMP is developed also do not support updating Alternative A outside the NEPA process in the manner that has occurred.  The Settlement Agreement clearly defines the scope of this application as it provides that the existing TMP may remain in effect but it does not alter the baseline for creation of the new TMP as follows:

“The TMPs for the Richfield, Vernal, Price, Moab, and Kanab Field Offices that are in effect as of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement will remain in effect until BLM issues new TMPs for the TMAs identified in paragraph 13;”

The Organizations vigorously assert that the current version of Alternative A directly and materially violates Paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement.  The Organizations had many concerns on mapping errors, incorrect boundaries and other issues with the TMP that the BLM asserted would be corrected as some of these failures were clearly recognized in the RMP.  It is unclear if these corrections ever occurred and Alternative A does not reflect what the TMP was supposed to be based on. As a result, the current version of Alternative A of the Proposal represents an interpretation of many issues that would directly prejudice our interests.  Alternative A would constitute a concession of many claims of our Organizations on the application of standards and other management decisions that was specifically preserved in the Settlement for our interests. We cannot accept this concession.

6(a)(2). The proposed application of the Settlement Agreement would result in the Settlement being illegal and void as a matter of public policy.

When the limited number of parties to the agreement are compared to the immense number of parties that have interests in the planning area and how Alternative A questions were resolved in the updated version provided even more foundational problems are immediate. The application of any portion of the Settlement Agreement in a manner that allows Alternative A to evolve or change from the decisions in place prior to the 2008 RMP/TMP would be in direct violation of public policy that NEPA has sought to advance. These interests that are not signors to the Settlement Agreement would be prejudiced by their inability to raise concerns about the update process. This type of decision making would violate the very tenants of NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act and dozens of other statutes.

Courts have consistently concluded that any agreement between parties that collude to violate the law is immediately null and void as a matter of public policy.  Courts have recognized this basic principle as follows:

“While there is no unanimity of opinion as to the reason for this rule, the authorities are in accord with its results. The reasons given by Courts differ depending upon the particular view taken as to whether an illegal contract is void or simply unenforceable. If an illegal contract is regarded as being void, then there is nothing to enforce after the invalidating statute is repealed…… Other authorities hold that an illegal contract is not void  but is imply unenforceable. Starting with this proposition that “no polluted hand shall touch the pure fountains of justice” (Collins v Blantern (1767) 95 Eng. Rep 850, 852) they reason that the repeal of the statute does not cleanse the stain from those hands”[11]

Any interpretation of the Settlement Agreement in a manner that would result in it being struck down as contrary to public policy would be vigorously opposed to by the Organizations as we are also signors of this Agreement. With the challenges facing this planning effort, any allegation of polluted hands touching the pure fountains of justice in the Settlement process must be avoided at all costs.

6(b)(1). The Proposal violates the Settlement Agreement signed by the Parties.

Alternative A of the Proposal also presents an interpretation of many legal issues and claims that was found deficient for other reasons and some of these were specifically recognized in the District Corut decision in this issue that drove the Settlement. While we would assert that minimization was completed and poorly documented this does not alter the fact that current management cannot be based on a TMP that was found legally insufficient by the District Court of Utah.  This is problematic from a legal perspective given the previous findings of the District Court but violates the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

The failure to address the relationship of existing RMP decisions and how they relate to management decisions in the Settlement TMP process on issues such as minimization is explicitly and directly recognized in the 2017 Settlement Agreement as follows:

“WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, the district court issued a merits ruling that was partially adverse to Federal Defendants. The court found that “[i]n designating 4,277 miles of routes in this case, BLM did not discuss the minimization criteria in the ROD, RMP, or any other travel planning documents,” and “therefore, there [was] no evidence in the ROD that the minimization criteria was applied or applied correctly.”[12]

With regard to minimization criteria and how compliance was thought to be achieved, NEPA requires this process to be transparent. Rather than a transparent process with public engagement, the Proposal does not address minimization in its analysis at all.  This silence is deeply problematic.  The comparison of the silence of the Proposal on minimization could not be more complete when compared to other efforts we are aware such as the PSI. In the PSI EIS minimization analysis was addressed with dozens of pages of specific discussions and then addressing this issue in the detailed discussion of alternatives. We would like to be able to resolve management of these areas at some point in the future and avoiding analysis of issues that have already been insufficiently analyzed is not a step towards final resolution of management of these areas. Again, issues like these make us request a single EIS for the area rather than the series of uncoordinated EAs we have been provided with.

While the Court specifically struck down the TMP for its failure to comply with the minimization criteria based on claims of SUWA, the Settlement Agreement protects all parties existing claims and concerns around the sufficiency of management documents for the various areas involved in the litigation as follows:

“3. This Settlement Agreement is for the purpose of settling the above-captioned litigation. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed as precedent in this or any other proceeding or shall constitute an admission or concession by any party as to the validity of any fact or legal position concerning the claims or defenses in this or any other proceeding. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to be an admission or shall constitute evidence that the commitments made by BLM in this Settlement Agreement are necessary to satisfy any requirement under any applicable law.”[13]

While our concerns are outside the minimization criteria, there can be no legally sufficient argument that the current treatment of numerous decisions, such as OH-7/ open area/existing routes designations and WSA management and other factors, exhibits the same failure to support TMP decisions with RMP decisions and standards as was previously identified as a failure by the Courts.

The Settlement Agreement provided the BLM time to resolve failures in the 2008 RMP/TMP and this requirement was confirmed by the 10^th Circuit. Rather than resolving these challenges the BLM has simply chosen to try and avoid analysis of these failures, which is immensely problematic.  Given this previous Court findings on the legal insufficiency in decision making around the 2008 RMP, we must question why the same failures are thought to be sufficient in this effort. Not only is this process a violation of the Settlement it is also a violation of various NEPA regulations as well. The only way for the Proposal to preserve all claims and avoid concessions of claims is to start the planning effort with the 2003 TMP that was in place before the 2008 TMP was finalized.

6(b)(2) The Settlement Agreement specifically protects the ability to open or add new routes in the Settlement TMP.

With the intervening Congressional actions of the Dingell act in the planning area, the Organizations must question basic assumptions for multiple use recreation in the planning area.   These changes alter the management of more than 600,000 acres in a planning area of 1.1 million acres and we must ask how public access has been found to support demand after these Congressional Actions. The failure of the Proposal to meaningfully address the full scope of alternatives allowed in the Settlement Agreement for resolving management uncertainty and using a full range of options for management of the area directly conflicts with the Settlement Agreement previously reached in these matters.  The Settlement Agreement identifies the scope of BLM authority in planning as follows:

“However, subject to valid existing rights, nothing herein restricts BLM’s discretion to revise or amend the 2008 TMPs, to impose limitations or closures, as provided by 43 C.F.R. §§ 8341.2 and 8364.1, to open, close, modify, or add new routes, or otherwise consider or institute temporary management prescriptions in accordance with applicable law and regulations.”[14]

None of the Alternatives provide for the creation of a single mile of routes in the planning area. Rather than complying with the specific terms of the Settlement agreement and various NEPA regulations, the Proposal appears to embrace the same management failures on many issues despite claims around these decisions being specifically protected in the Settlement Agreement. Could trails be built in areas released from areas previously classified as WSA?  Yes.  Were some WSA areas have terrible management histories and have tried to be removed as ISA before WSA designations were even thought about? Yes. Are closures in these areas to routes that the BLM recognized existence and high levels of usage on for more than 50 years?  Yes.  Could recognition of the previous failures and confusion of the open/existing/designated routes issue have been resolved by merely carrying existing routes forward?  Yes.  For reasons that are never discussed these types of questions are resolved with the closure of all routes in these areas under alleged current management. This is simply unacceptable.

6(c) The Proposal fails to address planning deficiencies recognized in an existing Order from the 10th Circuit Court in underlying litigation.

The Proposal’s failure to resolve issues underlying the RMP and TMP creation is only made more egregious given the State of Utah appeal in underlying litigation that appears to be partially driving this planning effort. The State of Utah’s appeal to the 10^th Circuit in 2018 raised concerns around the ability of BLM to resolve all various concerns under the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement. The State was concerned that the Settlement Agreement addressed several RMPs, spanned large portions of the state and addressed many different issues. Given the current situation in planning, this appeal appears to have raised valid concerns that simply could not be addressed by the Court.

While this Appeal was dismissed as not ripe for adjudication, it must be recognized that the 10^th Circuit recognized the concerns around the State of Utah appeal and ruled that BLM has the authority to resolve the various issues involved matters within the scope of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit “2” to these comments.  Many of the underlying matters specifically raised concerns around issues such as NEPA sufficiency and analysis failures that are again coming to the front in this Proposal The failure of the BLM to resolve problems with problems in these efforts already recognized by the 10^th Circuit should be concerning.  Rather than resolving these concerns in the Proposal, BLM has simply chosen to ignore them.

6(d). The Settlement Agreement specifically addresses intervening circumstances and how they should be resolved which has been addressed in the EA.

The ambiguity of the analysis on many issues is not required under the Settlement Agreement.  The ability to resolve the challenges resulting from the 2017 Settlement Agreement and the 2019 passage of the Dingell Act and its associated impacts on the requirements for planning area is addressed in the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement specifically outlines how issues that would include unavoidable legal impediments or prohibitions must be addressed under the Agreement as follows:

“39. Deadline limitations. BLM is not obligated to meet any of the deadlines identified herein if it is prevented from doing so due to an event beyond the reasonable control of BLM that prevents BLM from fulfilling any obligation required by this Settlement Agreement despite the exercise of due diligence. Such events may include, but are not limited to……. as well as all unavoidable legal impediments or prohibitions….. In the case of such an event, BLM shall be relieved of those specific obligations directly precluded by the event, as well as those other obligations whose performance is precluded by the inability to perform, or delay in performing, the directly precluded obligations, and only for the duration of such event, as provided herein. Where BLM cannot comply with any deadlines identified herein due to such an event, it shall provide notice to the parties and, should the deadlines be one of those over which the district court has continuing jurisdiction, shall also notify the district court. Such notice shall include a new estimated date by which BLM will comply with the deadline and a description, to the extent then known by BLM, of the steps taken or proposed to be taken to prevent or minimize the event’s interference with BLM’s performance of any affected obligations under this Settlement Agreement. BLM will provide status reports to the parties at regular intervals not to exceed 90-days notifying the parties and the district court, if applicable, of BLM’s efforts to address and  resolve the event. If any party disputes BLM’s claim that it cannot comply with any of the deadlines identified herein due to an event, or the adequacy of BLM’s efforts to address and resolve such event, such party shall proceed in the manner specified in paragraph 40.”[15]

The Settlement Agreement also exclusively provides the ability to request this resolution to the BLM. The Organizations must ask why the BLM has not sought to revise and clarify the Settlement Agreement to address the Dingell Act requirements as these are clearly the type of challenges that would normally be classified as unavoidable legal prohibitions or impediments. Moving areas from open OHV designations with goals of development to Congressionally designated Wilderness would generally be sufficient to support triggering these provisions.   This type of alignment would also allow planners to comply with the mandates of NEPA.

Given the specific nature of both the Dingell Act and the Settlement, the Organizations would vigorously assert that how and why this decision was made must be included in a detailed statement of high-quality information on why a planning decision was made. This is a basic NEPA requirement and clearly would satisfy as an alternative for analysis. This resolution would avoid many of the timing issues that now are deeply problematic with the Proposal as there is a TMP occurring at the same time as an RMP development for the recreation area.  This clearly provides immense challenges and the possibly of decisions that directly contradict each other due to the separate planning efforts. Not only would this be the recommended course of action under the settlement, but the resulting clarity would also be hugely helpful in developing a plan for the area that was consistent, understandable to the public, allow the public to meaningfully engage with the process and be a decision that could be implemented rather than ties up in court for decades.

6(e) Amendments to the Settlement Agreement would resolve conflicts with added clarity.

The challenges to public engagement around this planning process and associated processes are profound as no reconciliation of the mandated changes from Congressional action and the existing 2008 Price FO RMP are provided.  This preliminary step is critical given the profound impact that these Congressional Actions had on the RMP as more than 410,000 acres have been designated as Wilderness, another 217,000 acres were designated as the Swell Recreation area.  Understanding the current baseline of management in these areas will be critical to minimization efforts and also to the development of the RMP for the Swell Recreation Area as the Swell Recreation Area is proposed to be limited to existing routes identified after planning.

Generally, the balancing of usages within a Field Office and related traits such as solitude and motorized usage areas are issues for the Resource Management Plan(“RMP”), not the travel planning process. Travel plans are used as a tool to apply existing RMP goals and objectives and are not the basis for significant landscape level changes that would conflict with the RMP.  BLM planning regulations specifically state this relationship as follows:

“The BLM must incorporate TTM into the development of all new and revised RMPs to address access needs with regard to resource management and resource use goals and objectives. Generally, an RMP only includes land use planning decisions for TTM; the development of implementation-level TTM decisions concurrently with the development of the RMP is not a viable planning approach (see section 3.6 for details on exceptions).”^[16]

The Price Field Office RMP was finalized in 2008 and is highly relevant to the discussion as the RMP was outside the scope of the settlement agreement in the litigation.  This is unlike many of the other Field Offices where RMP from the 1980s are still relied on for management and at best questionably relevant simply due to the passage of time.  The Organizations vigorously assert that the motorized opportunities on the FO may appear out of balance with other resources such as 410k of new Wilderness and more than 210 acres of Swell Recreation Area that is largely closed to OHV access.

Decisions such as allowing motorized usages in WSA/WCA/ISA areas released for multiple uses are decisions for the resource management plan, not the travel plan process.  The RMP goes into reasonable detail regarding why decisions were made to allow motorized usage in WSA and WCA areas, and the Organizations submit this reasoning still remains valid at this time. Many areas have historically had higher levels of usage that has eroded over time.  These could be areas where access could be expanded to address the lost opportunities in other areas. We would ask for the opportunity to address these possible uses of these areas and that has not been provided.

7(a) The 2008 current management vs 2024 current management maps are profoundly different and these differences are critical to the planning process.

An accurate understanding of current management of this area is critical to addressing any TMP and providing detailed discussions of how minimization is achieved. This accurate baseline is only more critical given the Congressional designations that have occurred in this area since 2008.   The value of this baseline is further increased as the Settlement Agreement explicitly provides for the baseline for the development of the 2024 TMP has to be the 2008 baseline.  There is no 2008 TMP to be relied on given the foundational flaws in the TMP effort identified by the Courts and in the Settlement.

While establishing the baseline map for the area should be a point of conflict, the map provided as Alternative A of the Proposal does not align with the 2008 Baseline map. Even the 2008 baseline map is problematic as there are numerous open areas that have not been closed but are not reflected on this map.  The 2008 baseline map should largely reflect the 2003 TMP decision which is reflected as follows:

When the 2008 TMP baseline map is compared to the Proposed Settlement TMP baseline map the difference between these maps could not be more profound. The 2024 current management map provides as follows:

The factual impossibilities and challenges presented by the map are immediate and will significantly impact any expansion of opportunities and also calculations of the minimization that occurs.  Most of the Wilderness areas on this map did not exist in 2008 so we must ask why they would be on a map of current management in 2008.  After reviewing this map, the public could assert that no routes were closed in the designation of these Wilderness areas.  Again, the Settlement TMP baseline is simply factually and legally incorrect.

While we do not contest that the Dingell Act Wilderness areas closed routes subsequent to the 2008 TMP, accurate identification of the routes closed will be critical to understanding and satisfying user needs. Our proposed resolution of this situation presented from the subsequent Congressional designations would be a two-step process.  Step One.  Start with the 2008 baseline map and do not reflect any Wilderness areas as this is current management prior to the 2008 TMP. We would support the inclusion of these new Congressionally designated Wilderness areas under every Alternative as clearly we are not asking to ride in a Wilderness area. Step Two.  In conjunction with these boundaries being reflected in every Alternative, closed routes from these Congressional designations must also be reflected.  Recreational opportunities allowed under the 2008 RMP and those now available must also be reflected in another series of maps. The need to accurately understand the impacts of Congressional actions that protected access and also closed access will be critical in developing an RMP that can be legally defended. With failures in the Proposal such as this we are off to a weak start. 

The benefits of the above process will extend beyond recreational opportunities as the minimization criteria require all changes in management be addressed, not just those that are undertaken by the federal land managers.  Asserting that Congressional changes in land management must be excluded from the minimization analysis would be legally problematic at best. Not only does this improve recreational opportunities for all this also improves the BLM chances of success in defending this decision from the inevitable legal challenges that will be posed to any decision. This type of information is critical to the effective engagement of the public in supplemental comment periods that must be provided after accurate and complete information is provided.

7(b) The Organizations preserve our concerns around the 2008 RMP/TMP planning process as these concerns have directly impacted the baseline map. 

As noted in these comments previously, the Organizations have profound concerns around the sufficiency of landscape level management decisions made in the RMP/TMP process to date. [17] Previously commented on and basis of years of discussion prior to the current planning effort in areas such as OHV-7 existing/designated/ WSA issues like Link Flats. While we are discussing these areas in some detail in these comments, this input should not be assumed to be the entirety of our concerns in the area.  Our ability to meaningfully comment on our concerns is immensely impacted by the fact that the Proposal does not provide basic information on areas that planners have already admitted have failures in planning.  This would be critical in assisting us in the development of concerns for these areas or the range of alternatives for the management of these areas. Concerns over the current management situation not being reflected in Alternative A are compounded when the scope of mapping errors is addressed in the RMP and related documents.  One situation was outlined in the response to public comment as follows:

“Response: While the Chimney Rock/Summerville/Humbug Trail system was included in Alternative map 2-54 of the DEIS it was inadvertently left out of the preferred alternative map 2-56. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS has been changed to reflect this and now includes the Chimney Rock/Summerville/Humbug Trail system in all appropriate alternatives.”[18]

In order to meaningfully comment on this issue, basic information must be provided, such as the exact location of these trail networks and if Alternative A reflects resolution of these concerns.  We are concerned that Alternative A may not reflect this type of management resolution but rather simply assumes that these commitments were honored and are now resolved. We would oppose that assumption and assert that given the management history these commitments were never analyzed and are not reflected in Alternative A of the Proposal.

While the above response to comments in the RMP/TMP Rod outline specific trail networks this document A second mapping failure of a far more generalized nature is also quickly identified as follows in the FEIS:

Response: The ROS inventory was updated and corrected as a result of public comment and meetings with cooperators (Carbon and Emery Counties). There were errors in the mapping and these have been remedied. The text of the document has also been revised to remove the term, “High Use Zone,” and replace it with the more correct, “Recreation Management Zone.” SRMA goals are defined in the proposed RMP and in fact, activity plans exist for all SRMAs with the exception of the San Rafael[19]

While the FEIS asserts these problems would be resolved in the final RMP, we have to question if that was actually done.  We have concerns given the almost immediate legal challenges that resulted.  If these decisions were made, what was that process used to the correct maps in Alternative A of this effort. These are commitments made in the RMP/TMP process that must be addressed to provide any level of NEPA sufficiency.

7(c) How was the opportunity for future planning in the OHV-7 areas promised in the RMP lost?

The systemic failures of the NEPA analysis process are again highlighted with the treatment of the areas previously identified for future management efforts.  While the 2008 RMP specifically and directly provided for these opportunities, even under Alternative A of the Proposal, those opportunities have been lost. They are then also lost in every Alternative provided in the Proposal. This creates immediate conflict with the Proposal assertions that they are applying the 2008 RMP directly.  This is simply impossible. This management change for these areas also is created in violation of NEPA requirements, as NEPA requires that if planning opportunities such as this are removed planner must describe how these decisions were made.  These is simply no discussion of how this change in current management was determined to be necessary or how the underlying problems for these areas was addressed.

As noted previously conformance with the RMP is problematic for areas released from WSA but this is not the only failure of the Proposal to achieve consistency with management decisions. The complete inability of the Proposal to align with existing RMP requirements is again highlighted with the OHV-7 issue.  This issue addresses open areas that were incorrectly reflected in the 2008 RMP. While the RMP/TMP asserts a desire to move to an entirely designated route model but with assertions such as those made in the OHV-7 provisions we again must question how that was achieved in the planning area.  Again, the ability to comply with NEPA requirements has been made impossible as the Office admits that the NEPA planning for these areas has never occurred and the mapping that was provided to the public was not accurate and did not reflect the management decisions that were made. It is relevant to review the Proposal assertion that it complies with the RMP as follows:

“1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLANS
The action alternatives described in this document are in conformance with applicable management direction, including the 2008 Price RMP and 2008 Richfield RMP, which provide overarching management decisions, goals, and guidance for this travel planning effort. RMP decisions and goals to which this project conforms are listed in Table 1-2.”[20]

The immediate conflict between the various assertions that Alternative A is made of conformity with the 2008 RMP and assertions that the failure of maps to reflect the entire management decision should result in trail loss.  A map is only a part of the management decision making process and does not reflect the whole NEPA process.  NEPA requirements extend FAR beyond merely making a map of areas. While that may be the absolute minimum required for a TMP, drawing a map in isolation is insufficient to satisfy NEPA.   While the Proposal claims to be in conformity with the 2008 RMP, the Proposal also asserts there are several areas that were not identified for future management decisions subsequent to the RMP, which is outlined in table 1-2 of the Proposal as follows:[21]

Any assertion of conformity with the RMP must start with resolving how this question was answered in the planning process for these areas. Where are these areas that were not displayed due to an oversight in management? why would we believe simply considering routes in these areas is sufficient to resolve the issue.  Are these areas that were managed under the existing routes standards? How was the decision made to move these areas from an existing route to closed standard? We simply do not know and accept the naked assertion of compliance with the RMP.  This type of assumptions and assertions in any NEPA document is simply a violation of any NEPA requirements.

The immediate contraction of the OHV -7 areas and other assertions could not be more complete, as again the Proposal fails to resolve the OHV-7 area issues as it merely asserts:

“The TMP does not alter the area designations made in the 2008 Price RMP. The entirety of the TMA acreage remains limited to designated routes.” [22]

While the BLM may have wanted to move the entire area to designated/existing routes for management, we must question how that could happen since the BLM openly admits that supporting documentation for these areas was never provided.  That by definition is insufficient to comply with NEPA. The problematic nature of this assertion is expanded in other provisions of the Proposal where the FEIS repeatedly asserted that open areas are possible in the FO as follows:

“During activity level planning or as resource conditions warrant, route designations may be changed. Open areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) for previously disturbed areas near communities.  Several trail systems are being established for OHV use.”[23]

The application of the most restrictive interpretation of the 2008 RMP ambiguities such as these continues in Alternative A of the Proposal as there were routes and areas that were merely identified for future planning and management but permitted to continue under an existing route standard for TMP purposes. This is a completely valid step in the TMP process as we are aware that FO consistently apply the existing routes standard as a step towards designated routes.  Rather than address this ambiguity in the management process around Alternative A the Proposal simply assumes all these existing routes were closed as follows:

“Since 2008, incomplete implementation of the 2008 route designations and confusing RMP decisions (2008 Price RMP’s Map R-18 includes “other” routes which are undesignated3 (not specified as OHV-Open or OHV-Limited or OHV-Closed) and 2008 Price RMP’s OHV-7 defers route designations within approximately 5% of the TMA to future activity-level planning) have resulted in a challenging management situation involving user conflicts, resource impacts, user confusion, and public safety challenges. To address these issues, the BLM began inventorying routes in 2011.”[24]

Our opposition to this assumption could not be more complete as the process outlined for these areas specifically applies the BLM travel planning regulations for situations such as these. The erroneous nature of these assumptions in Alternative A is immediate and complete as the incremental management decision making for areas such as those identified above is the recommended course of management for areas in the BLM TMP regulations.  Those regulations specifically outline this process as follows:

B. Determine Concurrent or Deferred TTM Planning

The planning unit TTM action plan and planning schedule should indicate which areas, if any, of the LUP planning unit are to have implementation level TTM planning completed concurrently with the land use planning process and which areas, if any, are to be deferred until after the LUP process has been completed. Possible reasons for not completing the final network might be size or complexity of the area, controversy, incomplete data, or other constraints.

If sufficient travel and transportation information is available for a smaller area or sub-unit within the planning area, such as a TMA, consider completing the TTM planning as part of the RMP and deferring the remainder of the RMP planning area to an implementation level travel management plan(s).

The TTM planning can be prioritized to focus on areas that are most heavily used, or areas that have existing social conflicts, resource concerns, or a defined need for route definition or development for administrative, public access or other needs first. These areas may require consideration of new route development and/or existing route relocation in addition to route decommissioning.

In some cases, the need for TTM is in the development of a functional and sustainable transportation system that meets current and future needs. In other cases, TTM is necessary to restore areas with a proliferation of user-created routes. These areas may place greater reliance on evaluating existing routes and decommissioning undesirable routes in the TTM process. [25]

The BLM TMP regulations further mandate the management process regarding how the changes in management from open areas to existing routes to designated routes is developed, applied and the benefits and challenges of this management process as follows:

“Area designations limiting motorized use to existing roads, primitive roads and trails can only be made on an interim basis as a preliminary step leading to the selection of a designated network of roads, primitive roads and trails. This interim designation may only be used when the development of a designated road, primitive road and trail network for all, or a sub-unit, of the planning area is deferred until after the RMP is completed. The RMP must clearly identify the process leading from the interim area designation of “limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails” to the development of a designated network of roads, primitive roads and trails. The RMP should state that the area designation will change from “limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails” to “limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails” upon the completion of a travel management plan. Even though ‘use on existing roads’ appears within the definition of ‘limited area’ in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(g), it has been determined that, due to the specific mention of ‘areas and trails’ in 43 CFR 8342.1(a)-(d), individual routes must be evaluated to determine whether they can be managed in accordance with the designation criteria; regardless of whether use is to be limited to ‘existing’ routes. This leaves little practical distinction in the evaluation process between ‘designated’ and ‘existing’ routes. A ‘designated’ route system provides more long-term management flexibility in terms of being able to add, delete or relocate routes in the transportation system.”[26]

The BLM travel management regulations continue to identify the proper application of the existing routes standard in the management system for chapters of the regulations.  These are entirely too large to address in these comments, and as a result the Organizations will simply refer to this issue as the existing trails designation management model. The failure to identify a single point in time for management only compounds this failure as the most restrictive interpretation of WSA’s currently is applied but the most restrictive interpretation of the 2008 RMP is also applied in the development of Alt A.

While the Organizations are aware that there have been numerous intervening actions since the 2008 RMP, this does not alter the fact that these routes under the existing routes standard are properly designated for future management.  The fact that the BLM never undertook this management does not alter the legal and valid management designation that was placed on these routes in the TMP.  The settlement agreement reached does not address the RMP, only the TMP.  Where are these routes in Alternative A and how was the decision made that all these routes were closed rather than designated for future management. Issues such as this are why a range of Alternatives is critically necessary for the NEPA process and is direct evidence of the complete failure of the Proposal to comply with NEPA.

7(d). Other management ambiguities such as routes in WSA are resolved with closures without analysis or recognizing previous NEPA failures.

The future management of WSA areas released by the Dingell Act is unfortunately not the only example of issues the Proposal simply avoids discussion of and seeks to apply the most restrictive alternative for management of these areas under the guise of current management. Rather than utilizing the opportunity to address deficiencies in the existing analysis provided by the Settlement Agreement, BLM has chosen to ignore these issues entirely.  Bad NEPA analysis cannot fix previous bad NEPA analysis of issues, it only compounds the problems created by previous NEPA insufficiency. The conflict of these positions is immediate as The most restrictive interpretation of the management situation as alternative A continues from page 1 of the EA which inaccurately summarizes the Alternative A position as follows:

“Throughout this EA those routes that were undesignated in the 2008 Price RMP will be included with the OHV- Closed routes in Alternative A.”[27]

This clearly directly conflicts with the information provided as Alternative A reflects not only routes closed in the 2008 RMP but also removes any routes closed in subsequent Congressional action from any analysis.  There were routes in the 410,000 acres of Wilderness that were lost and those are entirely removed from the Alternative A map. Clearly these are lost opportunities that should be addressed in the TMP but the public is not provided any information regarding how this decision was made, where these routes are located or how many miles of routes are currently managed under the existing route standard.

While the 2008 RMP/TMP have been permitted to be applied on the ground under the settlement agreement, the Settlement agreement also preserved all challenges to the RMP/TMP previously made. Issues such as this were challenged by the motorized community and BLM addressed these concerns in the Settlement Agreement by asserting that NEPA compliance would be provided.  NEPA has not been provided despite this recognition in the Settlement Agreement and creation of another TMP for the area.

8(a).  Planners must provide an accurate and consistent view of current management and simply have not.

The Proposal fails to meaningfully address the impacts of management changes when compared to the management baseline in a rather muddled and confusing partial summary of the current situation. Rather than choosing a single year to base management baselines on the Proposal often analysis chooses different points in time to address what is current management.  Different timeframes are used for different issues and often only partially reflected in the current management. This failure to identify a single point in time is immensely problematic as information is simply not consistently conveyed and this prohibits meaningful public engagement. The problems that result in any planning analysis from the failure to identify a single point for management are immense and are compounded by the fact that in certain portions of the Proposal, current management is attempted to be reflected but the concurrent development of an entirely new RMP for most of the planning are under the Dingell Act is never mentioned. At no point is there any attempt to outline the changes from the RMP that resulted from the designation of large Wilderness areas in portions of the planning area that were managed for multiple use expansion previously.

As previously noted, there are extensive provisions of the Settlement Agreement that could have been relied on for the development of a cleaner and neater starting point for public engagement on the planning area. However, the variable starting point of analysis used throughout the Proposal extends far beyond the scope of the Settlement and alignment with the Dingell Act.  As an example, several times the Proposal states there are no Wilderness Study Areas in the TMA as follows:

“There are no Wilderness Study Areas located within the TMA. The nearest Wilderness Study Areas to the TMA are as follows:”[28]

While this is technically correct currently, it was not accurate when the 2008 RMP/TMP was finalized.  If we are applying the RMP, there were five WSAs in the planning area, covering more than 200,000 acres which is reflected in the WSA Map provided with the plan as follows:

The 2008 RMP specifically provided motorized access to several of these WSA that were subsequently designated as Wilderness by Congress in 2019. This designation resulted in more than 410,000 acres of Wilderness in the planning area.  The failure to accurately address the baseline is clear when more than 200,00 acres of Wilderness was created outside existing WSA.  Many of these areas had OHV opportunities on them that were immediately lost. How was this impact addressed? Are areas outside the recreation area being developed to provide opportunities?

Even after the Dingell Act was passed, issues with WSA remained and are partially addressed in the Proposal. The Proposal cannot apply the 2008 RMP to WSA areas that were released by Congress for multiple use.  These types of decisions around uses in these areas should be Congress release these areas at some point in the future was specifically avoided in the RMP. Significant areas of planning area are in this category as reflected in the scoping maps for the RMP development for Swell Recreation Act.[29]

By operation of law, these areas can no longer be managed for their Wilderness characteristics as Congress specifically released these areas back for multiple uses. This is an issue that again appears to have been left to future management in the RMP, which identifies this as follows:

“WSA-7
Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands will be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM will examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis but will defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions until it completes a land use plan amendment.”[30]

Per the Dingell Act areas previously managed under the §603 inventory for WSA standards are specifically released for non-wilderness uses as follows:

“SEC. 1234. RELEASE.
(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that, for the purposes of section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)), the approximately 17,420 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the County that has not been designated as wilderness by section 1231(a)has been adequately studied for wilderness designation.
(b) RELEASE.—The public land described in subsection (a)— (1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c));
and
(2) shall be managed in accordance with—
(A) applicable law; and
(B) any applicable land management plan adopted under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).”[31]

The release of these WSA areas is significant given the no buffer requirements of these released areas are specifically identified in the Dingell Act as follows:

“(e) ADJACENT MANAGEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Congress does not intend for the designation of the wilderness areas to create protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness areas.
(2) NONWILDERNESS ACTIVITIES.—The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness area shall not preclude the conduct of those activities or uses outside the boundary of the wilderness area.”[32]

This provision of the Dingell Act does not appear to have been addressed in the Proposal, despite it being hugely relevant to the future management of the WSA areas that were released. While the Dingell Act is addressed, its application is highly arbitrary in the Proposal. Clearly resolving the future management of the released WSA areas would require an RMP amendment for areas outside the Recreation Area.  While the Proposal provides highly limited summary of the WSA release issue, the Proposal provides no analysis of other changes to what is asserted to be RMP management from the Dingell Act, such as a summary of how many acres of multiple use were lost in the Dingell Act.  How many of these WSA areas were never suitable for designation as Wilderness after the preliminary inventory of these areas in the 1970s and 1980s. We don’t know but clearly a range of Alternatives for these areas should be provided.  This has not been provided.

We are not aware of any scoping for such an RMP Amendment to have even begun for these areas outside the Recreation Area. While the RMP for the recreation area is under development, this effort is only in scoping and has not even provided a range of alternatives for possible discussion. This type of an issue highlights why an RMP must be developed prior to the TMP being attempted.  This issue simply is not discussed and clearly the most restrictive interpretation of these developments has been provided to the public under the guise of current management.

8(b) RMP specifically allowed motorized usage in WSA.

The Organizations concerns about the accuracy of Alternative A are again supported by the decision in the Objection resolution decision issued on the RMP/TMP. This clearly is stated in the decision as follows:

“Where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, continue such use on a conditional basis. Use of the existing authorized routes in the WSA (“ways” when located within WSAs) could continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy (IMP) (BLM 1995). If the Congress designates the area as wilderness, the routes may be closed, unless otherwise specified by Congress. In the interim, if use and/or non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area‘s suitability for wilderness designation, the BLM would take further action to limit use of the routes or close them. The continued use of these routes, therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values.”[33]

Again, we must note that the RMP/TMP is problematic for many reasons. These reasons were specifically identified in repeated decisions ranging from the objection decision to decisions of the 10^th Circuit. Despite the decades of recognition many of these problems remain unresolved.

8(c) How does the Proposal implement the goals and objectives of San Rafeal Swell SRMA in the RMP.

The Proposal further resolves other open management issues by simply not addressing them on larger recreation issues in the areas that will be critical to the development of the TMP.  Our request for analysis of how existing expansion areas provided for the RMP would be balanced or replaced after the Dingell Act designations.  The  2008 RMP identifies large tracts of lands that can no longer be managed to achieve their recreational goals and objectives.

Under the 2008 RMP the Swell SRMA was entirely overlapping the planning area, which is reflected in the following map of the SRMA.  The SRMA was then subdivided into smaller Recreation Management Zones with specific management goals and objectives.  Many of the specific goals and objectives were yet to be defined and implementation was to be addressed at some point in the future.  This SRMA and RMZ areas were outlined in the following map:

Under the 2008 RMP, the Swell SRMA designations outlined the following goals and objectives:

A San Rafael SRMA activity plan would be completed within 5 years. The San Rafael SRMA activity plan would include special rules for—

• • Fire—Limited fuel-wood gathering would be allowed in specified areas, and ground fires would be allowed.
  • Vehicle camping—In the high-use areas, vehicle camping would be allowed only in developed and designated sites. Vehicle camping outside the high-use areas would be allowed in developed, previously impacted, or resistant/resilient sites, except where critical resources exist. Backcountry camping would be allowed throughout the SRMA.[34]

Given this commitment to future planning that has not occurred, compliance with the RMP cannot be achieved with merely a TMP as these management efforts for site specific issues have not occurred.  The Organizations simply cannot comment on possible resolution of these issues as some of these challenges might be able to be resolved in a Wilderness areas, some might be able to be resolved in the Swell Recreation Area created by Congress and others may have to be satisfied with the remnants of the Price FO left outside the Swell Recreation area.

The RMP further identified high use zones in the San Rafael Swell SRMA which were provided to created further clarity around usage of these areas. 2008 RMP outlines goals for the recreation zone areas as follows:

Recreation management would focus on sustaining natural resources while meeting social and economic needs. Three high-use recreation areas in the San Rafael Swell SRMA (Map 2-25) would be established to facilitate the provision of recreation amenities. The following areas would be BLM operated and maintained high use areas:
Temple Mountain/Little Wild Horse/Behind the Reef
– Buckhorn/The Wedge/ Mexican Mountain
– Head of Sinbad/Swasey Cabin/Sid’s Mountain and the trail system [35]

These High Use/recreation areas were designated with the following boundaries in the RMP:

The RMP specifically identifies the goals and objectives of these RMZ areas as follows:

RMZs in the San Rafael Swell SRMA:

REC-49
Recreation management will focus on sustaining natural resources while meeting social and economic needs. RMZs (Map R-15) will be established to facilitate the provision of recreation amenities. The following areas will be BLM-operated and -maintained RMZs:

– Temple Mountain, Little Wild Horse, Behind the Reef

– Buckhorn, The Wedge, Mexican Mountain

– Head of Sinbad, Swaseys Cabin, Sids Mountain, and the trail system.

REC-50
At sites accessed by motor vehicles, visitors will be required to provide their own fuel-wood (Map R-15).

REC-51
Gathering wood from standing trees, live or dead, will be prohibited.

REC-52
At sites accessed by motor vehicles, campers without a BLM-provided fire grill will be required to use a fire pan to contain the fires, ash, and charcoal.

REC-53
Vehicle camping will be allowed only in developed and designated sites.

REC-54
Portable toilets will be required at designated campsites that do not have toilet facilities.

REC-55
The BLM will retain overall management of RMZs to provide maximum development of recreation opportunities with minimal commercial concessionaire involvement. [36]

Again, the Proposal fails to address any of these issues in a substantive manner and avoids any challenges that might need future planning such “maximum recreational opportunities”. While some of these goals are not impacted by management changes, such as mandating portable toilets many of these, such as vehicle camping would be profoundly impacted by these management changes.  Vehicle camping is not even addressed in the Proposal.  Could campers park within 100ft of the road to vehicle camp?  We simply don’t know as this is not addressed.   While the RMP highlights the need for economic sustainability with the development of these areas, the Proposal simply brushes this concern off as follows:

“The analysis area is Carbon and Emery counties because those are the counties most affected by recreation in the TMA. The temporal scope of analysis is 20 years (see Section 3.1.1). Any impacts to the socioeconomics of the planning area (Carbon and Emery counties) would come from changes in recreation visitation to the TMA and resultant changes in expenditures by visitors to the TMA. As discussed in the recreation analysis in Section 3.3.4, PFO expects little if any change in recreation visitation from the various alternatives. Nonetheless, it is useful to describe the current contribution of visitation to the TMA to the economy of the planning area. Additionally, we can compare that impact to the overall impact of both recreation spending on BLM lands in the PFO and the overall impact of recreation and tourism to these two counties.[37]

The Organizations would assert that the Proposal entirely avoids application of the RMP requirements. Conflict with RMP and Proposal are foundationally evidenced when the RMP requirements and the Proposal analysis are compared on the SRMA and RMZ requirements. RMP speaks to meeting social and economic needs or what would now be identified as sustainability. This would entail sustainability over some period of time. Given the planning document, we would assume this sustainability would be the life of the plan. While economic sustainability of the region is highlighted as a goal of the SRMA and RMZ this concern is simply avoided.  The Proposal provides information on the anticipated economic analysis identified above and then follows with a summary of basic data provided in the IMPLAN process. Data is not analysis.

The Organizations would object to this rather dismissive analysis of economics around possible impacts to recreation from the standards in the Proposal, as there are clear challenges that the Proposals faces on this issue.  Existing BLM documentation and analysis clearly identifies that some states already have significant economic benefits from solar energy development as follows:

This analysis clearly identifies that Utah is heavily reliant on recreational opportunities on BLM for huge amounts of recreational revenues [38] Simply recognizing this situation would have been highly valuable for the public and resolving maximizing recreational development to support local economies.  Failing to recognize this existing data in the Proposal is disappointing at best. Clearly this level of analysis is insufficient to comply with the specific mandate of EO 14008 or EO 14057, which the Proposal simply never mentions. This level of dismissive economic analysis falls well short of the requirements of economic analysis for NEPA compliance. This simply must be remedied.

The Organizations are concerned that the current modeling of recreation and planning requirements will result in disproportional impacts to multiple use recreation when compared to other uses.  These impacts will be more severe on developed or multiple use recreational areas, simply since the usage of these areas has been clearly identified by the Department of Commerce as the largest economic drivers of economic contributions.  Areas that are available for multiple use recreation are used much more frequently by users who spend significantly more money than those that choose to pursue recreational opportunities in areas with higher levels of protection.

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis provided the following representation of the comparative spending of several sectors within the recreational economy.  The BEA analysis of 2022-2023 for outdoor recreational uses provides the following breakdown of the highest value contributors for recreation as follows:[39]

The Organizations submit that every one of these activities would be able to be pursued in most of the areas identified as suitable for large scale solar development and would also be prohibited under most of the designations that also prohibit solar development. The immense conflict that immediately results from this situation warrants meaningful analysis of the comparative alternatives and exploration of tools or standards that could mitigate these possible impacts.  This is not only legally necessary but would bring recreational protections into alignment with the many protections of other uses that are already provided in the Proposal.

Again, the Proposal fails to address basic questions such as how was this assumption made?  What timeframe was identified to determine the assumption was correct? This is basic information and analysis required for any NEPA effort.  These requirements are only compounded in areas that are targeted for maximum development to create economic sustainability. Again, we must question how these goals and objectives for all recreational usage will be addressed as these goals largely conflict with the requirements of the Dingell Act designation of much of these areas as Wilderness or Swell Recreation Area with a capped road and trail network.  A developed campground without roads to the campsites will be of little value if there are no roads to access the campsites.  The difference economically between a tent campsite and a pull through style campsite that can accommodate a multi-million dollar RV could not be more stark and complete.

9(a). Why would a map with new lands with wilderness characteristics be included in a TMP?

While many of the foundational problems with the RMP/TMP remain unresolved despite assertions of the BLM in the Settlement and to various Courts, the Proposal appears to address issues entirely outside the scope of the Settlement as well.  The Proposal exemplifies this as it includes a map of LWC that fails to represent any portion of the existing RMP or any version of the Settlement Agreement. What is even more troubling is this inventory addresses areas outside the areas designated by the Dingell Act and includes large portions of the areas identified as now having Wilderness Character despite the fact that these were not managed for wilderness character in the existing RMP.  Large portions of the areas identified as having Wilderness character were specifically identified as not have wilderness character in the 2008 RMP.  The Organizations must ask what this map is attempting to reflect and why is it here as most of these new wilderness character areas are outside the Swell Recreation area as well.   This map is reflected as follows:

The RMP, which to our understanding is not being amended with the Proposal, provided the following map of areas that were managed for Wilderness Character.  This map also shows large areas not managed for wilderness character and areas that entirely lacked Wilderness character in the site-specific analysis that was provided in the 2008 RMP.  The 2008 RMP inventory and decision map is identified as follows:

The immensely problematic nature of the map begins with asking why would such a map be thought necessary when so much of the underlying analysis is insufficient on its face? When compared to existing designations and changes from the Dingell Act, almost all the areas identified as Natural Areas on this new map were designated by Congress as Wilderness Areas, such as Middle Horse Mesa, Wild Horse Mesa, Reds Canyon and Little Ocean Draw Wilderness areas.  This step alone makes a separate designation of Wilderness Character Protection Area entirely irrelevant to any management decision. This type of concept is never mentioned in the RMP and would immediately create problems with the no buffer standard and other releases provided in the Dingell Act. This is simply another example of the faulty management analysis that has previously been exemplified by the Link Flats ISA/WSA area that was released as it was included in FLPMA §603 for nonwilderness multiple use in the Dingell Act.

9(b). Assumptions that WSA were closed to motorized compounds BLM failures in management spanning more than 75 years.

The Proposal immediate assumption that all WSA were closed to motorized usage at some point in the past is simply not accurate as the RMP specifically allowed motorized usages in limited amounts. This is a problem in isolation.  The impacts of the Proposal assumption that WSA have been closed to motorized can also compound existing failures of BLM management and inventory of these areas previously.  The long history of BLM errors and failures in the management of these areas can be immensely problematic as evidenced by the history of the Link Flat WSA/ISA outlined in the supplemental WSA inventory provided by the BLM:

“In sum, the status of Link Flats as a bona fide Natural Area is questionable. First, the Flats were never properly studied nor designated as a Natural Area; second, the original rationale for designation appears flawed; third, the legal description as published in the Federal Register appears to be in error; and fourth, there is a discrepancy between the actual area of Link  Flats and the area described.” [40]

The completely failed history of the Link Flat area for possible further management is discussed in great detail in the history of designation of the area, which provides as follows:

“Previous Designation: Link Flats was identified as a potential Research Natural Area in 1964 to protect a reported ungrazed association of plants. Although discussed for several years as a potential Natural area, it apparently was never formally designated. However, Link Flats did appear on an official listing of Natural Areas. On October 29, 1968 it was segregated from  entry or location under the general mining laws, and surface use and occupancy under the mineral leasing laws by official notice in the Federal Register (which referenced it as “Link Flats Natural Area”). The next year the District Manager informed the State Director that the area did in fact have a history of grazing use and recommended the Natural Area listing be discontinued because Link Flats did not qualify. This recommendation was never implemented.

It is not clear what the exact extent of the Natural Area was intended to be. The total acreage mentioned for the Natural Area in 1964 was 960 acres of vacant public lands and 350 acres of State lands. Sections 28 through 32, T23S, R9E, SLM, but the exact area was unspecified. The only legal description published for the Natural Area was in the 1968 segregation notice in the Federal Register:
T23S, R9E,
Sec. 29, Sl/2 NE1/4, SEl/4, El/2 SWl/4;
Sec. 30, SEl/4 NWl/4, El/2 SWl/4;
Sec. 31, Wl/2 NWl/4, Sl/2 NEl/4, Sl/2;
792 acres
There appears to be some error in this legal description. The acreage noted totals 912 acres, not 792 acres as stated. The Wl/2 NWl/4, Section 31 is not part of the Flats, but rather contains a steep bluff; the El/2 of the NWl/4 is totally on the Flats but is not included in the legal description. When comparing the legal description with the physiographic boundaries of the Flats, about 180 acres of the described area is not on the Flats and about 220 acres of the Flats on BLM lands is not included in the legal description. There is no mention of any area in Section 28 as there was in the 1964 notation of the area.” [41]

These failures could directly impact motorized access to the Link Flat area as significant motorized usage on a small parcel that is separated from other areas designated as specifically noted in the 1991 inventory  as follows:

“Naturalness: The ISA contains approximately 4 miles or roads (one of which bisects the ISA), 1 mile of travelled way, 2 miles of visible wheel tracks (probably associated with claim assessment work), and a stock reservoir. The ISA has lost its natural character.”[42]

It should be noted that the Link Flat WSA/ISA was recommended not to be designated Wilderness in the 1991 WSA inventory. We would submit that this recommendation was a factually and legally sounds recommendation in 1991. Congress actually followed through with this recommendation in the Dingell Act and released this area back to multiple uses.  The Organizations would submit that rather than continuing the failed and erroneous management of this area outlined in the BLM inventory, the Proposal should actually correct the error in the BLM records that has spanned almost 75 years that has been provided with the Congressional release. Alternative A must recognize the routes in this area as currently open and then recognize the erroneous decision making was also corrected by Congress when they released the area from possible future designations and allow these routes to remain open.

9(c).  Link Flats is an area that was managed pursuant to §603 inventory and was released under Dingell Act

The Organizations address the Link Flats ISA/WSA area in detail as this is an example of how the failure to accurately address management designations more than 20 years ago has snowballed over time.  This effort has caused trails to be closed and these were concerns raised in the original legal challenge by many parties. Given the confusion of so many planning efforts, the Organizations must question where the correct planning effort is to address issues such as these.

Contrary to most assertions in the Proposal changes to Link Flats managed were NEVER required by Congress.  FLPMA 603(c) specifically provides for the protection of existing uses of these areas.  Management of these areas is specifically identified as follows:

“(c) During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness, subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was being conducted on October 21, 1976: Provided, That, in managing the public lands the Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources or to afford environmental protection. Unless previously withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, such lands shall continue to be subject to such appropriation during the period of review unless withdrawn by the Secretary under the procedures of section 204 of this Act for reasons other than preservation of their wilderness character. Once an area has been designated for preservation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilderness Act [16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.] which apply to national forest wilderness areas shall apply with respect to the administration and use of such designated area, including mineral surveys required by section 4(d) (2) of the Wilderness Act, [16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(2)] and mineral development, access, exchange of lands, and ingress and egress for mining claimants and occupants.[43]

Link Flats ISA was included in the §603 inventory finally approved by BLM in 1991. A copy of that site specific analysis from the 1991 report is attached as Exhibit “4”to these comments.  One passing reference to Link Flats in 2008 RMP/TMP no analysis is provided as to why management would have changed in the TMP/RMP. Given this failure of the management process, we must ask how the public was expected to engage in this process.  The Dingell Act specifically released all areas identified in §603 not designated as Wilderness for non-wilderness multiple use. We would like to understand how trails were lost in this area given the decades of what BLM has specifically identified as questionable management decisions for the area spanning 75 years.  We must also ask how it was thought to be proper as establishing a credible legal baseline for existing routes at the time these areas were designated must occur prior to addressing how they should be managed in the future.

10. Minimal impacts of recreation when compared to statutory changes since RMP.

The Organizations are very concerned that even the limited information provided around the Proposal entirely lacks context but reflects a generally successful management situation.  The site-specific route inventory only notes 66 points of concern over a four-year period on more than 875 miles of routes.  This is a minimal management concern and simply does not justify any closures to existing routes.   For many of these reports we must question the nature of the damage report as the use appears highly isolated for many areas, such as a single set of tracks accessing an area. We doubt this has consistently occurred over 4 years.

Often the limited route inventory provides limited and overly conclusory determinations around what is a legal usage and what is damage.  Almost every location reference wilderness character as an issue impacted but fails to address why only sites in Wilderness managed areas were inventoried. Critical information about these areas is not provided such as if these WCA areas or WSA areas. Again, issues such as interim Wilderness Study Area management are not addressed, despite these requirements being highly relevant to any analysis as these guidelines do not prohibit any impact, they prohibit impacts that go beyond usage at the time the area was inventoried and impair the areas possible designation as Wilderness by Congress.  There are many facets to this decision that should be addressed if these site-specific reports are sought to be the basis of management decisions.

These reports further include management issues that are entirely outside the scope of the travel management process.  As an example, the Proposal inventory identifies damage is often asserted from ranchers maintaining fences (we have to assume under a permit and outside travel management).    By definition this activity is managed under the terms of a specific permit not the travel management process.  We are aware some permits require the use of horses or foot for maintenance.  We are unable to address an issue such as this as permitted activities are outside the scope of this effort. Given this situation, we must ask why route closures for public recreational usage would be relied on to address this issue. If there are problems with a permitees the permit must be the first place for management. Closing recreational access will not fix this as permitees are aware they are not bound by travel management decisions. Closures of public access will create immense amounts off conflict between the managers and the public.

Many of these site-specific reports also mention the public accessing dispersed camp sites. While these conclusions are made, there is no mention if this damage is in violation of the RMP, which provides almost no guidance on camping regulations for areas outside SRMA designated areas. Even within the SRMA areas we must question if these standards would be in conflict with the unresolved planning requirements for these areas.  We find it difficult to justify an assertion of a fire ring being damage in an area where fire rings were permitted or targeted for development.  This type of assertion only becomes more problematic in areas previously identified for maximum development for economic sustainability.  These goals and objectives, regardless of their level of implementation, would be highly relevant to this effort.

Managers accept no responsibility for their failure to provide basic information.  Several references in the inventory identify damage based on the public overshooting corners or missing turns. This is immediately identified to be damage without excluding possible legal reasons to continue on the route or asking if the route was properly marked.  These types of conflicts are exacerbated by the failure to address routes managed as existing routes designations in the RMP.  Are these routes that were managed as an existing route with the expectation of future management efforts and never closed?  This type of information would be highly relevant to discussions such as this.

11. User Conflict is created between the public and managers in their attempt to resolve possible conflict between uses.

The second reason we are compelled to address conflict is our experiences with travel management on a national level as it has been our experience that often areas can be successfully managed for decades with minimal to non-existent user conflicts.  When there is the mention of travel planning being updated immediately there are certain interests that start claiming conflicts are escalating and the only management tool that can reduce conflict is through closure.  Often these user conflicts are asserted to be occurring at large levels between that user group and others despite the group using a planning area at only very limited scales or limited times of the year.  The Organizations are always hesitant to even address user conflicts with management decisions and processes in this situation.

The Organizations believe that analysis of how best available science supports the management decisions and direction any proposal constitutes a critical part of the planning process, especially when addressing perceived user conflicts.  This analysis will allow the public to understand the basis of alleged user conflicts and why travel management has been chosen to remedy the concern.   Relevant social science has clearly found this analysis to be a critical tool in determining the proper methodology for managing and truly resolving user conflicts.

When socially based user conflict is properly addressed in the Proposal, the need for travel management closures will be significantly reduced. Researchers have specifically identified that properly determining the basis for or type of user conflict is critical to determining the proper method for managing this conflict.  Scientific analysis defines the division of conflicts as follows:

“For interpersonal conflict to occur, the physical presence or behavior of an individual or a group of recreationists must interfere with the goals of another individual or group….Social values conflict, on the other hand, can occur between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell&Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba& Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups……When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy.  When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. In the Mt. Evans study (Vaske et al., 1995), for example, physically separating hunters from nonhunters did not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the nonhunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area resulted in the perception of conflict. For these types of situations, efforts designed to educate and inform the different visiting publics about the reasons underlying management actions may be more effective in reducing conflict.” ^[44]

Other researchers have distinguished types of user conflicts based on a goals interference distinction, described as follows:

“The travel management planning process did not directly assess the prevalence of on-site conflict between non-motorized groups accessing and using the yurts and adjacent motorized users…. The common definition of recreation conflict for an individual assumes that people recreate in order to achieve certain goals, and defines conflict as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). Therefore, conflict as goal interference is not an objective state, but is an individual’s appraisal of past and future social contacts that influences either direct or indirect conflict. It is important to note that the absence of recreational goal attainment alone is insufficient to denote the presence of conflict. The perceived source of this goal interference must be identified as other individuals.”^[45]

It is significant to note that Mr. Norling’s study, cited above, was specifically created to determine why winter travel management closures had not resolved user conflicts for winter users of a group of yurts on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. As noted in Mr. Norling’s study, the travel management decisions addressing in the areas surrounding the yurts failed to distinguish why the conflict was occurring and this failure prevented the land managers from effectively resolving the conflict.

The Organizations believe that understanding why the travel management plan was unable to resolve socially based user conflicts on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is critical in the Price FO planning area.  Properly understanding the issue to be resolved will ensure that the same errors that occurred on the Wasatch-Cache are not implemented again on the Paunsaugunt planning area to address problems they simply cannot resolve.  The Organizations believe that the Price FO must learn from this failure and move forward with effective management rather than fall victim to the same mistakes again.

12. Executive Orders requiring an expansion of recreational opportunities issued by President Biden must be accurately addressed in the Proposal.

Our concerns around the numerous actions by Congress have directly targeted landscape level planning requirements that are not accurately summarized or entirely overlooked in the Proposal, are addressed previously. These concerns extend to various Executive Orders, several of which have been issued and refined by numerous administrations. While some Executive Orders may have been in place for more than 50 years, and as a result might be more easily excused for not being analyzed, many Executive Orders issued by President Biden are mentioned but in a woefully inaccurate manner. The recent issuance of Executive Order # 14008 by President Biden on January 27, 2021 would be an example of a decision that is partially and woefully inaccurately summarized in the Proposal.  According to the Proposal EO14008 requires the following:

“Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad calls for quick action to build resilience against the impacts of climate change, bolster adaptation, and increase resilience across all operations, programs, assets, and mission responsibilities with a focus on the most pressing climate vulnerabilities. Section 211 of Executive Order 14008, calls on Federal agencies to develop a Climate Action Plan.”[46]

The Organizations do not contest that a climate action plan is a portion of this EO, but the EO spans more than 27 pages and addresses a wide range of other topics that must also be addressed as part of this effort. These other factors simply are ignored in the Proposal, as exemplified by the fact that EO14008 specifically addresses the requirement of expanding recreational access and economic benefits FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in the EO. §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.”

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.”

§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.”

There is significant concern raised around the 30 by 30 concept and climate plans that are memorialized in EO 14008 in the Proposal. While the EO does not define what “protected” means, the EO also provided clear and extensive guidance on other values to be balanced with. From our perspective the fact that large tracts of land are Congressionally designated or managed pursuant to Executive Order far exceeds any goals for the EO. While there is overlap between these categories that precludes simply adding these classifications together, this also does not alter the fact the planning area has achieved these goals of 30% of acreages being protected.

Unfortunately, this is not the only time that new Executive Orders issued by President Biden are not accurately summarized in the Proposal. EO 14072 is also referenced numerous times in the Proposal and again the Proposal fails to reflect the scope and intent of this Order, and again this EO specifically recognizes and protects recreational usages as follows:

“Section 1. Policy. Strengthening America’s forests, which are home to cherished expanses of mature and old-growth forests on Federal lands, is critical to the health, prosperity, and resilience of our communities….We go to these special places to hike, camp, hunt, fish, and engage in recreation that revitalizes our souls and connects us to history and nature. Many local economies thrive because of these outdoor and forest management activities, including in the sustainable forest product sector.”[47]

EO 14072 specifically addresses recreational issues and opportunities as a factor to be addressed in the planning process as follows:

“Sec. 2. Restoring and Conserving the Nation’s Forests, Including Mature and Old-Growth Forests. My Administration will manage forests on Federal lands, which include many mature and old-growth forests, to promote their continued health and resilience; retain and enhance carbon storage; conserve biodiversity; mitigate the risk of wildfires; enhance climate resilience; enable subsistence and cultural uses; provide outdoor recreational opportunities; and promote sustainable local economic development….”[48]

EO 14072 continues to recognize the need to protect recreational access and related economic benefits as follows:

“(d) The Secretaries, in coordination with the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall within 1 year of the date of this order: (iii) develop, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and with the private sector, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and the scientific community, recommendations for community-led local and regional economic development opportunities to create and sustain jobs in the sustainable forest product sector, including innovative materials, and in outdoor recreation, while supporting healthy, sustainably managed forests in timber communities.”[49]

After a review of the Proposal, The Organizations are not able to identify any portion of the Proposal that might comply with the requirements of EO 14072 or EO 14008. The public should not be required to review every document referenced in a Proposal of this scale to ensure that the provisions of the regulations or Executive Orders are at least accurately summarized. This is disappointing to say the least.

13. Buckhorn/Wedge designations of ebike only trails.

The specialized Turbo, the first commercially viable ebike in north America was not introduced until 2012. Sales remained slow for almost another decade in North America.  This is problematic as the Proposal asserts this area was restricted to Ebike only usage prior to 2008. While we don’t oppose creation of any trail we are vigorously opposed to the closure or restriction of access to any trail for the benefit of any user group without public engagement.  Any assertion is decision is moving the 2008 Price RMP forward in alternative A is deeply problematic as the RMP entirely fails to mention ebikes.

14. Conclusion.

Unfortunately, managers are not providing a single cohesive planning effort for the entirety of the Swell area that might be legally sufficient, such as those created by an EIS.  The motorized community vigorously objects to Alternative B of the Proposal as this entirely fails to provide any meaningful multiple use opportunities for recreation. While Alternative D of the Proposal is might be closest to something we can support as it asserts to close only 52 miles (2%) of routes, this Alternative fails to address that existing RMP/TMP decisions that were challenged already closed more than 730 miles (25%+/-) in the planning area. While a 2% closure may appear appealing, it is 27% closure rates from historical usage. Our concerns with the management baseline expand further as the management baseline fails to address the Congressionally mandated changes in the planning area, that heavily impacted public access to many areas. These were large changes; they warrant meaningful analysis in the Alternatives which simply has not been provided.

The Proposal further fails to resolve many of the underlying failures in planning and analysis that resulted in the Original Settlement Agreement. These failures are exemplified by the extensive number of critically specific standards and decisions that are attempted to be resolved in this Proposal without the scrutiny of the NEPA process despite the settlement agreement in this matter specifically requiring this type of analysis.

The Organizations would welcome discussion with managers on how to provide sustainable high quality recreational opportunities in the planning areas.  We would also welcome a discussion regarding a strategy to develop meaningful plans for the area and resolve the issues underlying the numerous problems presented in these comments. The idea of further litigation in this matter, which will probably be successful simply does not appeal to us. At some point we would welcome resolution of planning issues in the area so we can move into implementation of recreational opportunities in conformity with the Proposal.   If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com), Chad Hixon (719-221-8329 / chad@coloradotpa.org), or Clif Koontz (435-259-8334 / clif@ridewithrespect.org).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
CSA Executive Director
COHVCO Authorized Representative

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 10th circuit decision

Exhibit 2 suwa ex 1 settlement agreement 101718

Exhibit 3 2022-01-07 Price RMP comm from CCOHVA-SRMC-RwR

Exhibit 4 1991 Link Flats WSA report

[1] A copy of any of the documents on this effort are available upon request.

[2] A copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit 1 of these comments.

[3] See, 42 USC 4332(2)

[4] 40 CFR 1502.9

[5] See, 40 CFR 1508.25a1

[6] See, BLM Travel Management regulations at 8342-1 (I)(A)

[7] See, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 96 S. Ct. 2718 (1976)

[8] See, Alpine Lakes Protection v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975)

[9] See, Thomas v Pederson 753 f2d 758; 758

[10] For your convenience a copy of this settlement agreement is attached as Exhibit “2” to these comments.

[11] See, Interinsurance Exchange Auto Club of Southern California v. Ohio Casualty Insurance; 23 Cal Rprt 592, 594, 373 P.2d 640, 642 (1962)

[12] See, 2017 Settlement Agreement at pg. 2.

[13] See, 2017 Settlement Agreement §a(3) pg. 4.

[14] See, 2017 Settlement Agreement at pg. 7.

[15] See, 2017 Settlement Agreement pg. 37 para 39

[16] See DOI; Bureau of Land Management; BLM Manual 1626: TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT; 9-27-2016 at pg. 3-1

[17] A copy of these comments are attached to these comments as Exhibit “3”.

[18] See, 2008 Price FO RMP FEIS at pg. 5- 168

[19] See, 2008 Price FO RMP FEIS at pg. 5-168

[20] See, Proposal at pg. 5

[21] See, Proposal at pg. 5.

[22] See, Proposal at pg. 5

[23] See, 2008 Price FO RMP FEIS at pg. 5-168

[24] See, Proposal at pg. 1.

[25] See, BLM TMP handbook pg. 10

[26] See, BLM TMP handbook at pg. 13.

[27] See, Proposal at pg.  1.

[28] See, Proposal at pg. 17.

[29] A copy of this map is available here: San Rafael Swell Recreation Area Released WSA Lands Scoping Map (blm.gov)

[30] See, RMP at pg. 129

[31] See, Public Law 116-9 §1234

[32] See, Public Law 116-9 §1232

[33] See, RMP Director Objection resolution to 2008 RMP/TMP pg. 85 See also pg. 87,88

[34] See, 2008 RMP at pg. 2-76

[35] See, 2008 RMP at pg. 2-77-78

[36] See, PFO ROD at pg. 110.

[37] See, Proposal at pg. 126.

[38] See, The BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2022

[39] See, Dept of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2022; New Statistics for 2022; Updates for 2017–2021; No 17, 2023 at pg. 5. A full copy of this report is available here: Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2022 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

[40] See, BLM 1991 WSA Inventory at pg. 1027-28. A full copy of this inventory report is attached as Exhibit “4” to these comments for your convenience.

[41] See, BLM 1991 WSA Inventory at pg. 1027

[42] See, BLM 1991 Inventory at pg. 1026

[43] See, 43 USC 1782(c)

[44] See, Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain biker; Journal of Leisure Sciences, 23(1) at pg. 58.  

[45] See, Norling et al; Conflict attributed to snowmobiles in a sample of backcountry, non-motorized yurt users in the Wasatch –Cache National Forest; Utah State University; 2009 at pg. 3.

[46] See, Proposal at pg.  19587

[47] See, EO 14072 at §1

[48] See, EO 14072 at §2

[49] See, Exec Order 14072;  Vol. 87, No. 81 Federal Register 24852 (2022)

Senator Michael Bennet
261 Russell Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator John Hickenlooper
374 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert
1713 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Regional Forester Troy Heithecker
U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region
1617 Cole Blvd.-Building 17
Lakewood, CO 80401

U.S. BLM State Director Doug Vilsack
PO Box 151029
Lakewood, CO 80215

Governor Jared Polis
200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203-1716

Re: Possible Colorado River Canyon Monument designation

Dear Sirs:

Please accept this correspondence as the Organizations vigorous opposition and deep concerns to the Proposed Dolores River National Monument.   Our Organizations have been very engaged with the Proposal area for decades and have been monitoring this discussion in the hope of obtaining some type of clarity of what is and what is not being discussed.  Given the confusion and conflicting messaging that is being displayed, we believe the time has come for us to state why we are opposing the Monument. Too often splashy headlines have been chosen over substantive meaningful discussions of ideas, developing understanding and possibly working towards a collaborative vision.  Discussions have failed to provide consistency on what is being discussed and the inability to start from a single coordinated point for any discussion is deeply concerning. Too frequently certain groups are speaking for other user groups that they do not represent, and basic questions, like what is wrong with current management of the area, are not addressed.

Our opposition to the Proposal starts with a question: “What has changed in the management of these areas since the close of the last collaborative efforts around management of these areas?” Our position is that nothing has changed.  Some groups assert they did not get the outcome they desired out of recently completed planning efforts and clearly this small number of groups have sought to drive this effort because they did not get what they wanted.  This is a major concern as the motorized community lost opportunities in the GJFO RMP revision and appears to be the only group that would immediately lose access in this Proposal as well. Rather than identifying areas where access could improve, these discussions seem to start with a position that all closures for multiple use remain in place, and access will be lost in many more areas as well. This simply is not collaboration in any form and for obvious reasons this is unacceptable for us.

Existing planning was completed less than a decade ago.

The Organizations have a long history of collaborations and discussions in this general planning area, including efforts around the development of the BLM Grand Junction FO RMP in 2015, the BLM Tres Rios FO RMP finalized in 2013 and the USFS GMUG RMP update completed in 2022. Our efforts to collaboratively resolve management of this area have literally spanned more than a decade.  Despite more than a decade of discussions and attempts to balance these concerns in planning with management efforts, much of the concerns raised by supporters of the Monument were found to be factually incorrect in previous planning. As an example, in the recent GMUG planning efforts, there was a narrative from some groups that wildlife populations were collapsing. This was not supported by any documentation as when the population goals for wildlife were reviewed, elk populations on the GMUG were 30% above goals and deer populations were only slightly below objectives due to heavy snowfalls during the last several years. We have little interest in collaboration to resolve issues such as these.  The information being used is often incorrect or the management solution cannot be provided in any regulatory process.

We believe that it is important recognize the almost complete overlap of the GJFO analysis areas and the current monument Proposal.  Many of the areas now sought to be made a Monument and be subjected to immediate access restrictions, were specifically reviewed for higher levels of restrictions to the public in the Grand Junction Field Office RMP development process.  Those restrictions were eventually declined to be applied by land managers. Some of these areas had important trails for all forms of recreation that were lost, while access to other areas was maintained despite citizen proposals to close the entire area.

Generally, we thought that planning documents such as the GJFO RMP struck a reasonable balance of interests in this area as no single group got exactly what they wanted. Generally, the Organizations would assert that management needs to occur in the area as the largest concern we hear in the area is poor signage and a lack of infrastructure.  There is no need for more collaboration on further restrictions to public access as RMPs have been updated. While we are aware there is legislation that would force a collaboration type effort, prior to our support for any collaborative, we must receive a reasonable answer to why any collaborative effort for the area would thought to be needed.

Once questions of why collaboration would be reopened on issues resolved in the GJFO RMP, we would like to understand how the starting point of any collaboration was established as motorized access to areas that were closed in the RMP would be outside the scope of reopening.  Several of these areas have historical access and we would like to have that access restored. If a collaborative effort were to move forward clearly everyone should start with an equal foundation and position. The Proposal fails to provide that foundation as it starts the motorized community from a double loss position as we cannot reopen discussions on access to areas closed in the RMP and motorized is the only group that would immediately lose access, with a prohibition on road construction, is the motorized community. The Organizations are further disappointed that the only motorized value recognized by many in this discussion is the Rimrocker trail. While the Rimrocker Trail is an important resource in the planning area, it is far from the only value in the area.

Collaboration fatigue.

We are also concerned that many in these discussions seem to want to force another collaborative effort despite the failure to explain the need for the collaboration in the first place. Collaboration simply to collaborate is of little value and exacerbates a consistent issue we are seeing throughout the State. There are simply too many collaboratives on too many issues and this over collaboration diminishes the value of all collaboratives.  Many of the public simply do not have time to participate in each of these efforts despite the public interest in the effort or topic being addressed.  Too often these collaboratives start with a particular target but as time passes the target of the discussion shifts to other topics, often without public notice of these changes. This only further diminishes the value of any collaboration as we should look forward rather than reopening issues.

The sheer number of collaboratives in the last several years has become overwhelming.  Colorado has collaborated on wolves, we expect to be collaborating on wolverines in the near future, the western slope has been through multiple federal forest level planning efforts, dozens of site specific NEPA efforts, the Governor’s Office is driving efforts to balance recreation and conservation through B2020-008, forest health efforts with the USFS. This creates a situation where there are too many collaboratives function at the same time as often we hear that multiple meetings are occurring on the same nights at the same times.

We must ask why another collaborative is thought to be needed for issues we see as resolved?  Often basic questions such as these are simply not addressed.  If these existing groups do not want to discuss a citizen proposal, that is a statement of the lack of support on the Proposal and not the need for another collaborative effort. It is our position that the Proposal does not have sufficient support to move forward with any effort as most communities that are near the planning area have already opposed any further efforts towards a monument.

Our partnerships with land managers.

The Organizations have taken a very different collaborative path to provide sustainable recreational opportunities in the planning area. Rather than developing another legislative effort that never gets implemented or seeking another round of planning, the Organizations have partnered with land managers to provide funding for the actual management of these areas. This effort has now spanned more than 50 years in partnership with CPW. This collaborative effort provides funding rapidly approaching $10 million in grants a year to land managers for the management of public lands. While we are proud of the benefits this program and the benefits of sustainable recreational opportunities it provides for all users of public lands, this program takes significant volunteer effort to administer and implement. Partner grants must be applied for and managed, contractors must be overseen, tax returns must be completed.  These are all done by the same volunteers that are now being asked to collaborate with those that want to close these opportunities. This request must be declined by our interests as we support current management and will not benefit from the monument designation.

We are intimately aware of the current budget situation facing federal managers and we are the only recreational group working to mitigate this situation by directly funding staff for these managers. If there are additional funding needs that are unmet, we provide some of that funding. We are aware that regardless of management prescriptions for any area, management still needs to occur and that takes money and staff on the ground.  Managers still need to monitor areas and maintain infrastructure.  If  there is a seasonal closure in place to protect wildlife, managers need to open and close gates in the area.  We often fund employees to do this.  If the agency cannot afford gates, the program will buy them as well. The Organizations are VERY disappointed that despite our decades of partnership with managers for the benefit of all uses, the motorized community is the user group that starts from a double lose position in current discussions. This is simply unacceptable to us.

The management decisions currently in place are also driven by the fact the motorized community is the only recreational group who has been legally required to balance recreational opportunities with wildlife/resource protection.  This balancing has occurred since Executive Order 11644 was issued by President Richard Nixon in 1972.   Over this 50-year span, we have worked hard to proactively address wildlife/resource needs in conjunction with recreation.  This effort has a successful partnership of interests and in most areas of the state, wildlife populations were well above goals for the species and often challenges were entirely unrelated to motorized recreation. Our Organizations have also become the single largest partner with land managers in funding sustainable recreational opportunities on public lands across the state. This partnership and its benefits have been repeatedly recognized by agency leadership. Despite this recognition by managers, motorized usage is the only group to double lose in any monument proposal. We are very concerned that while many groups have made insignificant contributions to protect resources and wildlife, their concerns are provided greater protections. Again, this is deeply disappointing.

Conclusions.

We are forced to vigorously oppose the possible creation of the Monument as basic questions around the need to establish the need for a monument have not been resolved. Why would collaborations that spanned almost a decade and resulted in the GJFO RMP be reopened simply because a small portion of the public did not get exactly what they wanted. Even if the need for a monument was established, many of the proposed starting points for any discussion are entirely unacceptable to us. Many of these proposed starting points of discussion are not just insufficient but are insulting to our interests and the decades of funding that we have provided for the management of this area.

The Organizations and our partners remain committed to providing high quality recreational resources on federal public lands while protecting resources and would welcome discussions on how to further these goals and objectives with new tools and resources. We simply do not believe the designation of the area as a Monument achieves this goal as rather than resolving conflict, the effort would create conflict and exacerbate the overly collaborative situation we are seeing in Colorado currently. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com) or Chad Hixon (719-221-8329/Chad@Coloradotpa.org)

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
Executive Director CSA
Authorized Representative COHVCO

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Bureau of Land Management
Monticello Field Office
365 North Main Street
Monticello, Utah 84535

RE: Bears Ears National Monument Resource Management Plan (DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2022-0030-RMP-EIS)

Also see:
October 31, 2022: Bears Ears National Monument Comments from Ride with Respect
November 16, 2023: Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and RMP – TPA and RWR Comments

Dear BENM RMP Project Manager:

Please accept this correspondence from the above organizations as our official comments regarding the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) Draft Resource Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) that was released by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, which our comments will refer to as the “Lead Agencies.” Note that these comments are in addition to the June 10, 2024 letter signed by our organizations and eight others.

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. 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.

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

Our concerns have only increased since reviewing the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) in 2022. The RwR October 31, 2022 letter (included) listed 21 concerns. Although #9, #10, and #12.E were resolved, and #11, #12.H, and #12.I were partially resolved, the remaining 15 concerns have persisted or worsened, therefore we are including the RwR October 31, 2022 letter as part of this submission for the Lead Agencies to review (along with the Organizations’ June 10, 2024 letter).

3. The BENM DRMP/EIS showcases the failure of the Lead Agencies to heed the legal authorities that control this process.

A.
The Lead Agencies have failed to “to give … State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.”  FLPMA Section 202(f), 43 U.S.C. § 1712(f) (Emphasis added).  The State of Utah and San Juan County (“the State,” “the County,” and/or “the State and County Cooperators”), much less the public of which the Organizations are a part, have been allowed no meaningful opportunity to  “participate in the formulation” of the DRMP/EIS.  The dictionary defines “formulation” as the act or process of formulating.  The dictionary definition of “formulate” is to devise or develop.  The dictionary definition of “devise” is to contrive, plan, or elaborate; invent from existing principles or ideas.  The dictionary definition of “develop” is to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.  In light of these well understood definitions, in no meaningful way have the State, the County, and the Organizations been allowed to participate in the formulation of the elements of the DRMP/EIS.

Despite numerous requests for the opportunity to participate in the formulation of the subject document, the most that can be said is that the State, the County, and the Organizations have been asked to comment, after the fact, on various documents produced by Lead Agencies along the way, documents which the Lead Agencies alone have formulated  – with perhaps a little help from the so-called Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, whose members are mostly out of state or out of local area, thus making a mockery of the traditional planning area-based coordination, cooperating agency, and planning processes dictated by Lead Agencies Organic Acts, NEPA, and their associated regulations.

In short, the DRMP/EIS simply is not something that the State and County Cooperators and Organizations can say they have helped to “formulate.”  This stands as an irremediable violation of FLPMA 202(f).  Accordingly the BENM DRMP/EIS process to date should be scrapped, re-noticed and the Lead Agencies should start over and this time comply with FLPMA 202(f).

B.
In violation of FLPMA Section 202(c) obligations, see 43 U.S.C.  § 1712(c), the Lead Agencies have made impossible the mandated coordination work among the Lead Agencies and the State and County cooperators to achieve maximum consistency with state and local plans and policies, to the maximum extent possible, while achieving the objective of protecting the relevant inventoried BENM objects.  Why has this become impossible?  Because the Lead Agencies have failed to properly inventory and reveal to the State and County Cooperators, what those Proclamation mandated objects for protection even are.  There is nothing in the hundreds of pages of the DRMP/EIS that indicates otherwise.  Thus the “coordination” work among the Lead Agencies and State and County Cooperators, necessary to uphold state and local resource management plans to the maximum extent possible while still protecting identified monument objects, is an impossible non-starter in this case.  The BENM DRMP/EIS process has utterly failed in this regard.

One can hardly make this stuff up, to think that the State, County, the Organizations and other members of the public, now have a DRMP/EIS they must comment upon, when none of the needed coordination and consistency work has even been started in order to justify the DRMP/EIS and its restrictions on travel in the Monument, as well as restrictions on other established resource uses.  Again, this is all due to the Lead Agencies’ refusal to first determine, and then share, information on the objects to be protected.  One may reasonably wonder whether the Lead Agencies themselves even have in their possession a comprehensive inventory of such objects, much less have shared them.

Consider how dysfunctional the above-described situation is while contemplating the following mandate under FLPMA  § 202(c)(9):

(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under chapter 2003 of title 54, and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.  (Emphasis added.)

C.
The foregoing FLPMA 202 obligations are reflected in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ regulations) to which the Lead Agencies are subject.  40 CFR § 1507.1   The Lead Agencies have failed to “[engage] in interagency cooperation before or as the environmental impact statement [DRMP/EIS] is prepared, instead arbitrarily opting to await submission of comments State and County Cooperators on a completed document,” in violation of 40 CFR § 1500.5(d).  The Lead Agencies from the very beginning in this EIS process, have merely submitted completed documents and sections thereof and waited for the cooperating agencies to comment.

Getting together with the State and County Cooperators from the beginning and together write and construct the DRMP/EIS, have not been features of this process.  This failure to engage State and County Cooperators in preparation of the DRMP/EIS from the start, also seriously violates the Lead Agencies’ duty and obligation under 40 CFR § 1500.5(j) to “[eliminate] duplication with State, Tribal, and local procedures by providing for joint preparation of environmental documents where practicable.”  It was certainly practicable here; the Lead Agencies just chose to ignore their regulatory obligation.

D.
“The Lead Agencies have ignored and violated their 40 CFR § 1506.2(b) obligations, namely:

“To the fullest extent practicable unless specifically prohibited by law, agencies shall cooperate with State, Tribal, and local agencies to reduce duplication between NEPA and State, Tribal, and local requirements, including through use of studies, analysis, and decisions developed by State, Tribal, or local agencies. Except for cases covered by paragraph (a) of this section, such cooperation shall include, to the fullest extent practicable:

(1) Joint planning processes.
(2) Joint environmental research and studies.
(3) Joint public hearings (except where otherwise provided by statute).
(4) Joint environmental assessments.”

Contrary to the above-quoted regulation, the Lead Agencies failed to have joint planning processes with the State and County Cooperators. The Lead Agencies failed to do joint environmental research and studies with the cooperators.

E.
The Lead Agencies failed “with respect to [the State and County] cooperating agencies,” to “use the environmental analysis and proposals of cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent practicable,” in violation of 40 CFR § 1501.7(h)(2).  Virtually every proposal and analysis of the County have been ignored, almost maximally.

F.
In violation of 40 CFR § 1501.7(i), the Lead Agencies, instead of developing an EIS schedule “in consultation with … cooperating agencies,” have one-sidedly and dictatorially forced an unreasonably accelerated EIS timeline and schedule, despite repeated requests for a lengthened EIS timeline.  Adding insult to injury, the Lead Agencies have dictated this accelerated schedule all while failing and refusing to provide State and County Cooperators with critical information about objects to be protected on the National Monument, thus depriving the State and County Cooperators of their ability to meaningfully function as coordinating partners and cooperators.

G.
Any notion that Lead Agencies have no choice but to stick to an arbitrarily rushed EIS timetable, is contrary to 40 CFR § 1501.10(b)(2) and (c), which state:

“(b)(2) [Agencies shall complete] environmental impact statements within 2 years unless a senior agency official of the lead agency approves a longer period in writing and establishes a new time limit. Two years is measured from the date of the issuance of the notice of intent to the date a record of decision is signed.

(c) The senior agency official may consider the following factors in determining time limits:

(1) Potential for environmental harm.

(2) Size of the proposed action.

(3) State of the art of analytic techniques.

(4) Degree of public need for the proposed action, including the consequences of delay.

(5) Number of persons and agencies affected.

(6) Availability of relevant information.

(7) Other time limits imposed on the agency by law, regulations, or Executive order.”

(Emphases added)

This regulatory language puts the lie to any claim by Lead Agencies that they are somehow bound to a ROD timeline in time for the 2024 Election. They as “senior agency officials” are entitled under regulation to lengthen that timeline in consideration of factors which include the following:

–  The potential for environmental harm.  Environmental harm, or effects, as Lead Agencies well know, includes effects to the human socio economic environment.  See, e.g., 40 CFR § 1508.1(g)(4), which states: “Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial.” (Emphasis added.)

– The potential for widespread and deep socio economic harm to local constituents and local economies, that may result from this EIS/RMP, are significant.

–  The size of the proposed action.  This factor, given the overwhelming size of the BENM calls for consideration in terms of lengthening the EIS time line.

– The degree of public need for the proposed action.  It is absurd, the notion that there is a “public need” to damage the local economies and recreational traditions.  The only “public need” is to slow down and take the time necessary to make sure this matter is studied and vetted thoroughly.

– The “consequences of delay” also weigh in favor of extending the timeline. There is no serious dire consequence that will result from a sizable time extension.

H.
The travel management portion of the DRMP/EIS has the obvious substance and tone of a document serving to justify anti OHV decisions already made between the current administration and groups advocating the vast expansion of wilderness designation, with no or little regard for its impact on the human environment.  This runs afoul of 40 CFR § 1502.2(g), which states: “Environmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.” (Emphasis added.)    The very idea of assessing impacts of actions, as required by this regulation, is impossible due to a lack, to date, of any credible inventory of the Monument objects to be protected, much less an assessment and analysis of why any wholesale OHV/no-OHV area designations and other motorized travel restrictions are necessary to protect such objects, despite that the Lead Agencies have yet to analyze the individual routes that they’re preemptively closing.

I.
Collaborative efforts by the Lead Agencies should remain faithful to the congressional directive of public lands to benefit the public as a whole.  Statutory and regulatory authorities recognize the roles of States, Local Governments and Tribes as the entities to represent the public interest, particularly in the administrative phase of a NEPA process.  Yet with the BENM DRMP/EIS, the Bears Ears Commission (BEC) have abrogated center stage in the process, the BEC have been blindly following the recommendations of a private nonprofit group called Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (BEITC), whose positions are completely in line with the wilderness-expansion groups that share the same funding sources, and the BEITC have essentially captured the Lead Agencies in that the DRMP/EIS carries forward the BEITC LMP’s emphasis on “a holistic approach to all resources that gives primacy to indigenous knowledge and perspective on the stewardship of the Bears Ears landscape.”  The legal failing with this slow-walked accretion of BEC and BEITC influence and control by winks and by nods, is to unlawfully marginalize and squeeze out the time-honored, warranted, and rightful statutory and regulatory based roles and input of the State and County coordinating and cooperating partners in the Planning Area, as well as that of other important public stakeholders, such as the Organizations.

J.
It is discouraging that such detailed pains have to be taken to explain to the Lead Agencies in these Comments, the foregoing legal requirements and principles of inventorying and reasonably identifying monument objects to be protected, and of coordinating with State and County officials to achieve maximum consistency with State and County plans and policies while protecting those Monument objects.  You all know better; you already understand these requirements and principles.  All you need are the will and the determination to apply them instead of undermine them.

K.
From the foregoing points, Lead Agency action items essential to salvage the legality of the BENM DRMP/EIS process include but are not limited to the following:

– Discard the current timeline, discard the current DRMP/EIS, and extend the DRMP/EIS process by at least 18 months;

– Start over and this time honor your coordinated formulation requirements and give State and County Cooperators and the Public including the Organizations where appropriate, a fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in the formulation of the DRMP/EIS, particularly the travel management plan portion thereof;

– Provide a reasonably detailed inventory of all Monument objects to be protected;

–  Strive to achieve maximum consistency with State and Local travel management plans; otherwise, justify inconsistencies between the State and County travel management plans and the travel management portion of the DRMP/EIS by objectively and rationally demonstrating why each inconsistency is necessary to protect a reasonably inventoried object to be protected;

– Discontinue the practice of waiting until release of the public draft EIS before ever informing the State and County Cooperators and Public of the different travel management alternatives.  Instead, give the State, County, the Organizations where appropriate, and the rest of the Public where appropriate, to work side by side with the Lead Agencies to formulate the travel management alternatives, to formulate descriptions of the affected environment, and to work in conjunction to assess the estimated impacts thereto.

4. Recognize our organizations as important stakeholders in BENM.

In addition to advocating access for responsible OHV riding, the Organizations have spent countless hours partnering with agencies to effectively manage motorized recreation, which cannot be substituted by other stakeholders. Of course we also recognize the contributions of other OHV groups such as SPEAR, the input of local government such as San Juan County, and indigenous Americans particularly when it comes to managing cultural sites. Specific to BENM, RwR and its contributors have spent several-hundred hours maintaining motorized singletrack like Vega Creek, Shay Mountain, and Indian Creek, on ATV trails like Gooseberry and Shay Ridge, and on primitive roads like Chicken Corners. We are one of the many stewards of BENM that the Lead Agencies should encourage rather than marginalize.

5. Recognize recreation as instrumental to appreciating and ultimately protecting monument objects.

Input from the BEITC and wilderness-expansion groups seems to have made the DRMP/EIS regard recreation as a nuisance rather than a necessity for humans to thrive and foster a sense of genuine stewardship. The draft refers to “traditional, cultural, and spiritual uses” as if they’re separate from recreation, yet activities like camping and travelling through the landscape are often how these concepts like a spiritual pursuit are actually practiced, thus recreation is instrumental. While the DRMP/EIS action alternatives apply the most excessive restrictions to motorized recreation, the Organizations note that some excessive restriction applies to non-motorized recreation, such as the preferred alternative’s prohibition on hiking off of designated trails in the Remote RMZ that covers over three-quarters of the planning area. While limiting hiking to designated routes may be appropriate in settings such as an archaeological site, doing so across more than one-million acres is just one way in which the DRMP/EIS (and especially the preferred alternative) would actually work against the values associated with traditional, cultural, and spiritual uses.

6. Recognize active and practical management as instrumental to protecting monument objects.

Just monument objects aren’t protected by excessive restrictions to recreation, excessive restrictions to management are also detrimental. Management often requires negative impacts upfront to reduce negative impacts in the long term, such as mechanical treatments as a key tool for forest health, and the same is true of recreation. Much of the DRMP/EIS (especially the preferred alternative) would only make it harder for the Lead Agencies to effectively manage visitation.

By the same token, it’s important to place certain guardrails on management in terms of the range of actions and the process of future planning. While the DRMP/EIS (especially the preferred alternative) isn’t sufficiently flexible for things like travel management, it’s too vague when it comes to concepts like a cultural landscape or processes like leaving many decisions to the co-stewardship of the Lead Agencies and BEC without clear opportunities for public review and participation.

7. Work with the state and county to manage motorized use of the road in Arch Canyon.

The BLM has recognized the historic use of Arch Canyon Road so, rather than contradicting this recognition by attempting to close the road, the Lead Agencies would be far more productive working with the State of Utah and San Juan County to more closely manage motorized use of the road given Arch Canyon’s significance for natural and social resources including the road itself.

8. Accommodate Over-Snow Vehicle Use as an important recreational use of BENM.

The Manti-La Sal National Forest portion of BENM provides valuable opportunities for snowmobiling and other over-snow vehicle (OSV) use, which is appropriate compatible with resource conservation. Other than when reciting the current LMP for this national forest, the DRMP/EIS doesn’t seem to address OSV use whatsoever, yet the action alternatives seem to restrict is severely.

The DRMP/EIS states that the following definitions for OHV area designations:

“Limited: Designated areas where motorized vehicles are restricted to existing and designated routes. Off-road, cross-country travel is prohibited in limited areas, unless an area is specifically identified as an area where cross-country, over-snow travel is allowed. Some existing routes may be closed in limited areas.

Closed: Designated areas where off-road motorized vehicle travel is prohibited year-round. Emergency use of vehicles is allowed year-round.”

These definitions suggest that OSV use would be prohibited in areas zoned as OHV closed, which the DRMP/EIS proposes to expand dramatically to cover most of the high-elevation terrain where OSV use is possible. So conserving wintertime motorized recreation is yet another reason to simply keep the OHV area designations in place, as winter ROS zones could be added to carefully restrict OSV use in a portion of the OHV Limited areas, but ROS zones could not be added to carefully allow OSC use in a portion of the OHV Closed areas.

9. Reform Recreation Management Zones to avoid essentially expanding the restrictions of other managerial layers such as ROS and OHV Area Designations.

The DRMP/EIS preferred alternative would make over three-quarters of the monument a Remote RMZ, which includes strict policies such as “New mechanized trails would not be allowed in the Remote Zone.” We’re concerned that this arrangement would hobble effective OHV management in much of the acreage that’s spared from non-motorized ROS and OHV Closed zoning. Therefore RMZ acreage and policy should be scaled back so that they assist the Lead Agencies to manage recreation rather than effectively expanding the ROS and OHV Area restrictions that are already proposed to be severe.

10. Preserve ROS zoning that has worked well for decades.

See the RwR and TPA November 16, 2023 letter to Manti-La Sal National Forest LMP planners (included), specifically parts 19 through 27, as well as the attached “ROS zoning details.”

11. Preserve OHV Area zoning that have worked well for decades.

See the attached “OHV Area zoning details.”

12. Correct Alternative A errors on the DRMP/EIS tables and figures regarding current ROS, current TMP, and OHV Area zoning.

The specific table is 3-133, and figures are 2-28, 3-40, and 2-38 through 2-42, which are described in the attached “Alternative A error details.”

13. Conclusion

Please go back to the drawing board and develop a sound DRMP/EIS for this area that’s so important to all Americans.

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

ROS zoning details

The current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) zones from the 1986 LMP of Manti-La Sal National Forest have worked well. In the nearly forty years since then, there has been no significant development of OHV trails that would warrant drastically expanded non-motorized ROS zones, although we are open to carefully refining the boundaries after the given areas are more closely analyzed by the Lead Agencies and the public.

The RwR and TPA November 16, 2023 letter to Manti-La Sal National Forest LMP planners (included) addressed ROS in parts 19 through 27, and those parts are applicable to the BENM DRMP/EIS, so please review them as part of our comments.

Keeping areas in a motorized zone provides the most flexibility for managers to designate routes that would occupy up to 1% of the area (as TMPs almost never exceed that density) or designate no routes (as motorized ROS zones don’t require a minimum route density).

However if motorized zones will be shrunk, they should at least provide buffers wide enough to reroute and otherwise manage motorized routes as needed. For example the DRMP/EIS action alternatives proposes a corridor that appears to be 100 meters wide for Shay Mountain motorized singletrack (Trail 098), leaving just 50 meters on either side, which is like putting the trail in a straitjacket. Since USFS planners are aware that this trail would benefit from rerouting, and they’re presumably aware that rerouting within a 100-meter corridor would require many switchbacks that are costlier, it suggests that the ROS zoning is setting the stage to close the trail. After all, RwR has implemented the construction of many reroutes with USFS on Red Ledges and Robertson Pasture Trail, several of which were up to 200 yards away from the original location, and one that was over 500 yards away. Motorized zones provide the latitude to optimally place routes through rugged terrain and away from sensitive resources.

Motorized zones typically provide great opportunity for non-motorized recreation in part because most Travel Management Plans (TMPs) have a low density of routes. Also motorized zones can be enhanced for non-motorized recreation through reducing vehicle sound, but not in the manner that the DRMP/EIS proposes. An environmental sound limit of 30 dBA, let alone 25 dBA, may require vehicles to be more than a mile away. Such low limits area easily affected by the sounds of nature, plus they require precise measurement that’s much costlier, and they’re impractical to enforce.

Excessive sound is mostly due to individual equipment and individual behavior. The equipment can be effectively regulated by stationary sound testing of vehicles such as SAE J1287 for off-highway motorcycles, J2825 for on-highway motorcycles, J1492 for automobiles, and J2567 for snowmobiles. Some behaviors like “throttle jockeying” can actually be regulated and enforced, but most behaviors are best improved through education from peer groups. The organizations have supported stationary sound testing and education to mitigate excessive sound, and we would gladly help to further resolve noise concerns, especially when they reasonable address it at the individual level rather than assuming that all vehicles are inherently loud. Also electric vehicles are projected to become the most common ones during the life of the BENM RMP.

That said, it’s important to set realistic expectations when planning across 1.36 million acres, as there will always be someone somewhere at some time who would regard a given sound as noise. The DRMP/EIS states “Hopi people believe that the spirits of their ancestors still reside at BENM, and any disruption of peace will disturb them.” It may be feasible to resolve this kind of concern at an archaeological site, and quiet may be fairly certain in portions of BENM such as primitive areas, but significant sounds periodically occur in many other portions (and not only along the highways) without disrupting the vast majority of visitors.

The Organizations caution the Lead Agencies from regulating sound to severely, not just because it’s unwarranted and impractical to enforce, but because the directive is thin. The 2016 proclamation merely mentions “natural quiet” and deafening silence” in a single paragraph, while the 2021 proclamation just mentions “solitude” in Dark Canyon, which is already designated as a wilderness area. Advocates of proclaiming a BENM emphasized healing between peoples, but the designation by executive fiat rather than congress has only caused more division. The lead agencies could moderate the situation by carrying out the proclamation more modestly instead of placing it further out on the proverbial limb.

OHV Area zoning details

The DRMP/EIS fails to justify drastically expanding OHV Closed area zoning. Similar to ROS, OHV Limited zoning does not require a minimum density of routes, and designated routes in OHV Limited zones occupy far less than 1% of the ground. It gives lead agencies flexibility to add a route which, in the case of BENM, would have to meet the threshold of being for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects. This threshold is plausible when it comes to major reroutes, e-bike trails, or campground loops to concentrate impacts.

Perhaps the Lead Agencies developed all action alternatives to drastically expand OHV Closed zoning because they assume it won’t be realistic to meet this threshold. In fact the DRMP/EIS states:

Alternatives aimed at increasing motorized access.
Rationale: Several commenters suggested the agencies consider and analyze increasing motorized access in BENM. Such alternatives were not carried forward for detailed analysis because they are inconsistent with management direction in Proclamation 9558, which is incorporated into Proclamation 10285. Specifically, Proclamation 9558 prohibits cross-country motorized vehicle use except for emergency or authorized purposes and prohibits the designation of new roads and trails for motorized vehicle use unless they are for the purposes of public safety or the protection of Monument objects. In other words, the agencies do not have discretion to increase motorized access within the Monument.

Actually the agencies DO have discretion to increase motorized access within the Monument, as the 2016 proclamation clearly allows such increases that are for the purposes of public safety or the protection of monument objects. To claim otherwise and drastically expand OHV Closed zoning is to decide that this threshold won’t be met in the TMP process over the life of the RMP, which is predecisional, plus it hobbles effective management.

One classification where the Lead Agencies would not have discretion to increase motorized access is in lands managed for wilderness characteristics, which is a subset of lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC).  BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

6.5 Travel and Transportation Management within Presidential and Congressional Designations or Similar Allocations

1. 1. BLM Manual 6320 – Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, the following apply:
   2. In lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the BLM will not designate primitive roads and motorized/mechanized trails and will not classify them as assets within lands managed for wilderness characteristics protection in land use plans.

Therefore converting more LWCs to manage for wilderness characteristics would prevent the Lead Agencies from ever adding a route even for the purpose of public safety or protecting monument objects. BENM already includes many areas that are managed for wilderness characteristics, such as natural areas, WSAs, ISAs, and designated wilderness. In the remainder of the monument, somewhat less restrictive management is needed for all kinds of uses that are compatible with monument protection.

What’s more alarming is that at least half of the routes currently designated for motorized use that are in LWCs which would be managed for wilderness characteristics in alternatives D and E are not cherry-stemmed out (i.e. the LWC boundaries are not drawn around the roads), thus it appears that these routes would be closed by alternatives D and E, yet these routes are not even highlighted (let alone analyzed) by the DRMP/EIS. It should clearly and completely address the ramifications of alternatives D and E on each one of these routes.

As with the issue of deciding to manage for wilderness characteristics in LWCs, to expand the OHV Closed zoning, the Lead Agencies would need to do far more analysis than what the DRMP/EIS presents. BLM Manual MS-1626, “Travel and Transportation Management” states:

3.1 Designation of Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas

The decision-making process used to designate OHV areas must be thoroughly documented in the administrative record, summarized and analyzed in the NEPA document supporting the designation decisions. The BLM must specifically document how it considered and applied the designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1 in making OHV area designation decisions (see Section 3.3).

The Lead Agencies have not met any of these requirements, whether in general across the 1.36 million-acre planning area, or specifically at each affected location within the planning area. The DRMP/EIS would preemptively close routes, many routes in the case of alternatives D and E, and each route deserves to be analyzed before being closed. It is not the public’s responsibility to do this analysis but, to illustrate its significance, the Organizations will give you a few examples of such roads.

First are three roads that would actually be closed by every alternative if the GIS data isn’t fixed. In each case, we believe that the route data has been updated to benefit from the accuracy of modern GPS, while the OHV Closed boundaries are still based on older technology (as evidenced by their more broadly-sweeping features), thus the imprecise boundaries inadvertently cross the roads.

A. Winter access road to Beef Basin northwest of Boundary Butte (D1870)

The main road to Beef Basin skirts Horse Mountain, which can be snowy, and an alternative is this primitive road that stays below 8,000′ of elevation while providing view of the mountains above and desert below. The road is regularly used from the east end (first photo below) to the west end (third photo below) except for less than a quarter-mile section in the middle (second photo below) that’s rougher, but even that section has been used many times by two- and four-wheeled vehicles for many decades, and it’s a constructed road the whole way through. If increased use were to increase erosion, the section has plenty of potential for realignment or the installation of drainage structures.

Note:  In addition to the middle of this road being shown as inside of an OHV closed zone in every alternative, the west end of this road is in an LWC that would be managed for wilderness characteristics in alternatives D and E, which would apparently close the road since the LWC boundary isn’t drawn around it.

B. Last 300 yards of Collins Canyon Road (B260)

The last 300 yards of this graded road, from the TLA boundary (first photo below) to the hiking trailhead (second photo below), is also shown as being in an OHV Closed zone in every alternative. In addition to hiking access, the last 300 yards provides mobility-limited visitors with a modest view over Collins Canyon, while the road and parking area don’t intrude the hiking trail.

C. John’s Canyon western overlook road (D0053)

This spur goes from the TLA boundary (first photo below) to a modest overlook of John’s Canyon (second photo below) that also provides primitive camping, yet it’s shown as being inside of an OHV Closed zone in every alternative.

Second are three examples of the many roads that would preemptively be closed by the drastic expansion of OHV Closed zones in Alternative D, as well as apparently being closed by the decision to manage many more LWCs for their wilderness characteristics in alternatives D and E since those LWC boundaries are not drawn around those routes.

D. Mikes Canyon Road (D0004)

This road climbs up the Red House Cliffs (first photo below), where it passes rock towers (second photo below) and then rounds a gap before dropping into Mikes Canyon (third photo below). It’s a wonderful backcountry route that, if use increases, could easily benefit from realignment or the installation of drainage structures.

Note:  There is an LWC boundary paralleling the north side of this road, but it appears to simply separate two different LWCs rather than excluding the road from LWC, thus the decision of alternatives D and E to manage for wilderness characteristics in both of these LWCs would apparently close the road.

E. Northeast Red House Cliffs road (D0036)

This road heads east from Red Canyon Road and traverses the top of Red House Cliffs (first photo below), where it passes an antique truck (second photo below), finally turning north to reach a view of Tables of The Sun (third photo below) offering views in every direction over its four-mile length.

F. John’s Canyon overlook road west of Muley Point (D0046)

This road goes from Muley Point Road to its own overlooks of the San Juan River (first photo below), then to overlooks of John’s Canyon (second photo below), with many remarkable dispersed campsites on slickrock.

Even if the Lead Agencies were to fix GIS data of the OHV Area boundaries in order to keep roads A, B, and C open, the OHV Area boundaries of Alternative D would preemptively close roads B, D, E, and F, while the alternatives D and E decision to manage wilderness characteristics in LWCs would apparently also close roads B, D, E, and F. Again these are just examples of many routes that would be closed by the OHV Area boundaries of Alternative D or the alternatives D and E decision to manage wilderness characteristics in LWCs that don’t cherry-stem the given route. The negative effect of these closures to recreation would be enormous, yet it’s not acknowledged let alone analyzed by the DRMP/EIS, which are fundamental flaws when it comes to planning on public lands.

Alternative A error details

A table and figures of the DRMP/EIS are grossly inaccurate about the no-action alternative, which makes it impossible for the public to understand the changes being proposed, again creating a fundamental flaw when it comes to planning on public lands.

A. Current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) zones

The current ROS zones from the 1986 LMP of Manti-La Sal National Forest place the vast majority of the Manti-La Sal National Forest portion of BENM in a motorized class. This fact is plainly reflected in the national forest’s 1986 LMP itself as well as the DLMP from 2023. However the BENM DRMP/EIS erroneously portrays only half of this area to be in a motorized class, and then it proposes the same ROS in all the action alternatives, thereby totally misleading the public into thinking that the proposed ROS zones are currently in place. This inaccuracy is in the following table:

The inaccuracy is also in Figure 2-28:

The interactive map on e-planning is inaccurate in the same way as Figure 2-28.

The same ROS inaccuracy was clearly stated in #8 of the RwR and TPA October 31, 2022 letter, yet the Lead Agencies continued to propagate the inaccuracy in the DRMP/EIS. During the April 23, 2024 public meeting in Blanding, the organizations notified multiple USFS leaders of this inaccuracy and its significance, one of whom acknowledged the inaccuracy of the ROS table and said he was already aware of it. However the Lead Agencies have yet to correct any of their planning documents, and actually later uploaded an ROS poster to e-planning that continues to propagate the inaccuracy. The persistence of the Lead Agencies to inaccurately portray the current ROS over and over suggests a complete disregard for the public to meaningfully participate.

B. Current Travel Management Plan (TMP) in terms of mis-classified routes

Figure 3-40 of the DRMP/EIS inaccurately portrays at least 15 motorized routes in the national forest as being non-motorized. In other words, it should show the routes in black instead of brown. The Organizations have highlighted the 15 routes in green:

This same inaccuracy is found in the “FS BENM Roads Draft” layer of the interactive map on e-planning. In fact the interactive map is worse, as it omits over 40 motorized routes, the same routes highlighted in our next point (C) below.

During the April 23, 2024 public meeting in Blanding, the organizations notified multiple USFS leaders of this inaccuracy and its significance. However the Lead Agencies have yet to correct any of their planning documents.

This inaccuracy should not be dismissed by the fact that a TMP will be developed later. Inaccurately portraying at least 15 motorized routes as being non-motorized hamper the public’s ability to meaningfully participate in RMP planning now. For example, USFS Trail 203 (which is the northernmost of the 15 motorized routes on Heifer Mesa) is in an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), and accurately portraying the route as open to motorized use could inform the public’s comments on the IRA aspects of the DRMP/EIS.

C. Current Travel Management Plan (TMP) in terms of missing routes

Figures 2-38 through 2-42 of the DRMP/EIS inaccurately omit over 40 motorized routes. The organizations have highlighted the 40 routes in green:

This same inaccuracy is found in the corresponding layers of the interactive map on e-planning (“BENM Routes in OHV Areas Alt A Draft,” “…Alt B Draft,” “…Alt C Draft,” “…Alt D Draft,” and “…Alt E Draft”).

During the April 23, 2024 public meeting in Blanding, the organizations notified multiple USFS leaders of this inaccuracy and its significance. However the Lead Agencies have yet to correct any of their planning documents.

This inaccuracy should not be dismissed by the fact that the missing routes would not be closed by the proposed OHV Area designations. Their omission from the five figures does hamper the public’s ability to meaningfully participate in RMP planning now. For example, in all of the action alternatives (B through E), the proposed OHV Closed boundaries go right up to the edge of many of these omitted routes. The presence of these routes could inform the public’s comments on the proposed OHV Closed boundaries given the potential future needs such as rerouting.

All three of these inaccuracies mask the major opportunities for motorized trail riding that have been in BENM for generations, many of which RwR has maintained, and many of which would be greatly affected by multiple geographic designations. Given these inaccuracies, plus the lack of acknowledging and analyzing LWC and OHV-Area ramifications, plus the lack of coordination (with the state, local government, and public) to formulate the draft RMP and identify all the monument objects or even define new concepts such as cultural landscapes, the Lead Agencies should start from square one with planning. In many ways, a more thorough process is likely to conclude that the current BLM and USFS rules and regulations have been adequate in most cases. What’s lacking is resources to enforce rules, educate visitors, maintain trails, and other management tools that are tried and true. There’s great potential for more resources and grassroots support so long as planners honor the tradition of diverse recreation from Mexican Hat to nearly Moab across this ninety-mile landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. General Comments: 

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

2. Conclusion

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

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

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

Dear Sirs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. De Minimis waivers are not generally applicable waivers.

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

5. Conclusion

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

We are providing this input in the hope of resolving conflicts and building an administrative process that is efficient and effective in achieving goals of specific programs across FHWA and large-scale compliance with BABA requirements and other requirements, such as minimum acquisition thresholds.  We have also had the opportunity to meet with FHWA representatives on this issue and welcomed the candor of these discussions.  We hope these meetings fostered understanding of our concerns and issues as our concerns are far from the normal concern that FHWA encounters in the administration of their programs and efforts. It is our understanding that the current request for information is specifically seeking input around the withdrawal of the general waiver that was issued by FHWA in 1983 in response to previous BABA requirements for manufactured projects. We do not believe that the de minimis waivers previously provided for in the BABA compliance process are at issue and may be entirely outside the scope of the current request for input. The Organizations are also open to discussion on possible contingencies or guardrails to narrow the scope of any waiver, but we believe a waiver is necessary to streamline our acquisitions and efforts.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact Scott Jones, Esq. (518-281-5810 / scott.jones46@yahoo.com) or Fred Wiley (661-805-1393/ fwiley@orba.biz).

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott Jones, Esq.
Executive Director CSA
Authorized Representative COHVCO

Fred Wiley
President & CEO
ORBA

Steve Egbert
Chair
United 4 Wheel Drive Association

Matthew Giltner
Executive Director
Nevada Offroad Association

Chad Hixon
Executive Director
Trails Preservation Alliance

Marcus Trusty
President
CORE

Sandra Mitchell
Executive Director, IRC
Authorized Representative, ISSA

Edward Calhoun
President
Colorado Snowmobile Association

Michele Stevens
President
Alaska Snowmachine Association

Nick Haris
Government Relations
American Motorcyclist Association

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

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