LEFT HAND CANYON APPEAL IN BRIEF

• Here the argument is the District did not comply with the Travel Management Rule (TMR) and referred to it as “policy”, when it is a rule with the force and effect of law.

• The District violated the TMR by not doing Travel Management on the entire District. The Rule is clear that only past decisions can be used to designate routes. The District will not be able to use the LHC Decision to create the travel map because it was issued after the Rule went into effect and does not include the entire District.

• The Decision fails to do an adequate analysis of social trails (new name for user created routes) which fails the “recreational opportunities” section of the TMR by wholesale closure. Type of vehicle and seasonal closures where not properly evaluated. The agency did not proactively engage COHVCO or other user groups in screening and assessment of social trails.

• The closures and alternatives were based upon the Roads Analysis Process that was not subject to public input. The TMR uses the RAP to provide a “…comprehensive evaluation of motorized travel” including user needs, supply of motorized recreation opportunities, info about demand. The opportunities to comment under NEPA were insufficient when assessed under the rule.

• With regard to NEPA, COHVCO was actually omitted from the EA mailing list giving it inadequate time to prepare comments. When measured against the COHVCO partnership identified in the Region 2 Implementation Plan it becomes particularly egregious.

• The AR Forest Plan allocated all of LHC for motorized recreation. Stated Federal Guidelines for motorized recreation recognize that an adequate user experience must have sufficient quantity of available routes, cutoffs and loop trails. The Forest Service Handbook recognizes that as a general rule motorcycles cover 25 to 100 miles per day depending on rider experience and ATVs may cover 15 to 80 miles.

• After this kind of treatment and spending over $250k, COHVCO questions the Boulder Districts failure to address such contributions. Volunteers and cooperators supplement the agency resources and under the TMR these contributions should be considered in route evaluation. They were not.

• It is apparent that the BD purged its mailing lists between scoping and the EA. The agency should not have done this but rather, reached out to COHVCO and other participants. (this is where we wonder if Roz and Vera were purged)

• The criteria employed by the RAP also skewed against keeping roads open. The RAP analyzes 10 separate criteria, only one of which addresses recreation use. This factor added the number of users to the level of difficulty. Most of the routes were rated a 9 or 8 and a few have a 6. If these criteria were applied to a ski area for example, then popular ski runs rated Black Diamond or Double Black Diamond would be classified for closure, only because they are popular and difficult. By adding a 9 to many of the routes, the total score was increased when the risk to soil, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife was quite low or relatively low.

• The LHC decision oddly keeps open roads with allegedly high environmental risks and closed roads with relatively low environmental risks in direct contradiction of the concept of sustainability. Sustainability refers to a route that can be maintained without significant environmental risk.

• The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed Colorado case law in determining when an R.S. 2477 right-of-way arose. The Decision Notice disregards this change in case law. Fairview Peak roads are closed on the basis of claims of no legal access. In short the agency should not be the one making an R.S.2477 determination of no legal right-of-way on roads that were existing as roads prior to the reservation of the forest.

• The appeal goes on to identify specific routes and ask for reconsideration of their status for a variety of reasons many alluded to above.