NPS Proposes Irresponsible Increase in OHV Use at Glen Canyon NRA

CPANP 2018 Letterhead

April 12, 2018

William Shott, Superintendent
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
P.O. Box 1507
Page, Arizona 86040

Subject: Proposed Rule on Motor Vehicle Use, Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AD93

Dear Superintendent Shott:

I am writing to you on behalf of over 1,500 members of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), a non-profit organization composed entirely of retired, former, or current employees of the National Park Service (NPS). The Coalition studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System (System). As a group, we collectively represent more than 35,000 years of experience managing and protecting America’s most precious and important natural and historic places.

Many of our members worked in parks that allow properly managed off-road vehicle (ORV) use. We are well aware that Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GLCA) has been out-of-compliance for many years with the following ORV management requirements:

  • Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989. Section 3(a)(4) of EO 11644 provides that ORV “[a]reas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park System, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.
  • 36 CFR § 4.10 (b), which requires that “Routes and areas designated for off-road motor vehicle use shall be promulgated as special regulations.”
  • NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 2.3.1 Motorized Off-road Vehicle Use, which states in part: “In accordance with the executive order, they [ORVs] may be allowed only in locations where there will be no adverse impacts (emphasis added) on the area’s natural, cultural, scenic, and esthetic values, and in consideration of other existing or proposed recreational use.”

Regrettably, implementation of the proposed ORV rule would continue NPS failure to properly manage ORVs at GLCA. Specifically, it would allow a significant increase and more far-reaching ORV use and impacts than is currently allowed absent the proposed regulation. As a result, we have numerous concerns about the proposed rule, which are described below.

INTRODUCTION

In March 2014, the Coalition submitted written comments on the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GLCA) Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan / Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A final ORV management plan/EIS (FEIS) was issued in January 2017. The proposed rule is based on the FEIS’s Preferred Alternative. Following the public comment period on the proposed rule, NPS will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) and implement the ORV management plan.

GENERAL COMMENTS

There were numerous shortcomings in the FEIS’s Preferred Alternative, which translate into shortcomings in the proposed rule. These include, but are not limited to:

1)  The proposed rule would significantly increase the levels and locations of ORV use at GLCA – Despite the emphasis in the executive orders and NPS regulations and management policies cited above (that “ORVs may be allowed only in locations where there will be no adverse impacts”), the proposed rule would significantly increase the levels and locations of ORV use at GLCA. For example, the rule would expand the level of street legal ATV use from 2 locations, 430 acres to 16 locations, 6430 acres (FEIS, Table 37). It would also open 220 miles of unpaved park GMP roads to off-highway vehicles (OHVs). OHVs are currently prohibited on ALL park GMP roads (FEIS, Table 38). Of major concern is that OHVs typically do not meet the same safety equipment requirements as street legal vehicles; and, in Utah, OHVs can be operated by unlicensed and uninsured drivers. It is a fundamentally bad idea to allow unlicensed, uninsured drivers to operate non-street legal motor vehicles on ANY park road.

2)  The proposed action is NOT adequately funded or financially sustainable, which raise serious doubts it would be adequately staffed and effectively managed – Effective implementation of any new ORV regulation requires adequate and consistent enforcement. Given the limitations of current staffing and enforcement of rules pertaining to existing ORV use, it is extremely doubtful that GLCA will have sufficient staff to effectively manage the proposed expansion of ORV use. The FEIS, Appendix B, p. B-11, states:

At current staffing levels, Glen Canyon would require additional funding and staff to address all ORV management activities called for in the plan/FEIS. Use levels at the accessible shorelines would be expected to increase as a result of the authorization of 14 accessible shorelines to conventional motor vehicles and street-legal ATVs (with OHV use continuing at Lone Rock Beach and Lone Rock Beach Play Area). Because conventional motor vehicles, OHVs, and street-legal ATVs would be authorized to operate on 21 miles of designated ORV routes in Ferry Swale and other locations, and on 220 miles of unpaved GMP roads, responsibilities for all operational divisions would increase. Additional costs would be incurred to close and restore 33 miles of ORV routes in Ferry Swale.

While this acknowledgement is appreciated, the FEIS is NOT reassuring that these costs can and will be consistently covered. According to the FEIS (p. B-11), the special use permit fees to be collected for ORV use would only “partially recover costs incurred by the education, enforcement, monitoring, site improvement and other actions called for in the plan/FEIS.” Page B-14 indicates that the one-time start-up costs of the proposed action will be over $3 million and the increase in annual recurring costs will be over $900,000 per year. How will these costs be covered?

Given the most recent NPS budget appropriations bill, it is highly unlikely that GLCA would receive additional base funding to support the proposed ORV program. The lack of increased base funding translates into a chronic lack of adequate staffing to implement and enforce the proposed rule, which further translates into increased resource impacts. As a result, effective management of ORV use and implementation of the rule, as proposed, does not seem likely unless NPS assertively recovers the full cost of the program through the collection of special use permits fees. See additional comments below about the proposed permit program.

3) The rule would open portions of the Orange Cliffs area to increased ORV and OHV use and thus increase the likelihood of adverse impacts– (FEIS, p. 82) “OHVs and street-legal ATVs would be authorized on unpaved roads, with the exception of most roads in the Orange Cliffs Unit. Approximately 8 miles of GMP roads (Route 633 proceeding north to Route 730 and proceeding west to the park boundary) which are part of the Poison Spring Loop would be open to OHVs and street-legal ATVs.”

Coalition members familiar with GLCA know this remote location as a special place, noted for its natural beauty and solitude. They also know that due to its remoteness the area is infrequently patrolled by NPS law enforcement staff and thus more vulnerable to impacts of both legal and illegal ORV use than other more accessible locations in GLCA. Allowing increased ORV use, including non-street legal OHV use, in this area, as proposed, without explicitly providing for increased law enforcement presence is irresponsible; will inevitably lead to an increase in off-road vehicle violations and related adverse impacts; and is fundamentally inconsistent with the ORV management guidance provided by the executive orders, NPS regulations, and NPS management policies.

COMMENTS ON “PROPOSED RULE” SECTION OF PREAMBLE

1) Types of Motor Vehicles – The Preamble states: “Among ORVs, the proposed rule would distinguish between conventional motor vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and street-legal ATVs;” then it goes on to define those terms. These distinctions are important and relevant to many of our comments below. To improve clarity of the definitions, we suggest the following edits:

  • “OHV” would be defined as any motor vehicle – excluding snowmobiles – that is designed primarily for off-road travel. ATVs, dirt bikes, sand rails, side-by-sides, and dune buggies would be examples of OHVs. (ADD the following words) “Under current Arizona and Utah law, most types of OHVs such as dune buggies, sand rails, go-karts, and rock crawlers cannot be licensed as street-legal, except for street-legal ATVs as defined below.
  • “Street-legal ATV” would be defined as an ATV that qualifies under Arizona or Utah motor vehicle and traffic code to be operated on state roads and highways. (STRIKE the following wordsUnder current Arizona and Utah law, dune buggies, sand rails, go-karts, and rock crawlers cannot be licensed as street legal.

2) Adoption of Non-Conflicting State Motor Vehicle Laws – The Preamble states: “Existing NPS regulations at 36 CFR § 4.2 adopt state traffic and vehicle laws to manage the use of motor vehicles within NPS-administered areas, unless specifically addressed by NPS regulations(emphasis added).

Comment:  Simply put, under 36 CFR § 4.2, NPS is NOT obligated to adopt ALL state traffic and vehicle laws, particularly state laws that conflict with the fundamental purpose of parks as described in the NPS Organic Act, which is to:

“to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (54 USC§ 100101(a))

In addition, the Office of the Solicitor has previously notified NPS parks in Utah that they are NOT obligated to allow ORVs that are NOT street legal on park roads. In June 2004, Acting Intermountain Regional Solicitor Lawrence Jensen wrote a memo to all Utah NPS superintendents stating that the NPS generally adopts State vehicle codes unless the use of ORVs on park roads has been specifically addressed by regulations. The memo outlined that, at the time, “…under Utah state law ORVs are not ‘street-legal’ and that, with few exceptions, they may not be operated on freeways, controlled access highways, streets, or highways. This is the general rule and the one that should be enforced within the boundaries of NPS units.”[1] The memo also stated that “Several Utah counties have adopted ordinances opening some Class B and Class D roads in the counties to use by off-road vehicles, including certain roads within the boundaries of certain units of the National Park System.”[2] Mr. Jensen asserts that “…park superintendents maintain their authority, pursuant to 36 CFR § 1.5, to impose restrictions on such use if local conditions require them.”[3] In other words, despite NPS inferences to the contrary in the FEIS, NPS is NOT obligated or justified in allowing non-street legal OHVs to use ANY park roads, even if under Utah law some local jurisdictions allow OHVs to use local roads.

3) Permit System – The Preamble states: “To the extent practicable, the NPS intends to recover the costs of administering this special use permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104.”

Comment: The Coalition fully supports the implementation of an ORV special use permit requirement at GLCA and the collection of appropriate ORV permit fees to recover ALL costs of administering the ORV program. ORV permits have been a critical component of, and funding source for, effective ORV management at other parks such as Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras National Seashores. As described in FEIS Appendix B (p. B-14), initial start-up costs for implementing the Preferred Alternative would be over $3 million and annually recurring costs would be over $900,000. Permit fees would be used to recover NPS costs for managing areas designated for off-road use. Costs include monitoring, signs, education programs, partnerships, and the costs associated with administering the permits. Despite these estimates, the FEIS is vague about the expected cost to purchase an ORV permit, saying it could be in the $25-100 range; and it is unclear  to what extent NPS will actually recover program costs. At this stage of the planning process, NPS should be able to provide a cost analysis (showing total program costs and projected # of permit sales) to determine the necessary fee(s) adequate to recover program costs. This information should be disclosed to the public.

4) Operational and Vehicle Requirements – The Preamble states: “To reduce the degree and geographic extent of impacts from vehicle noise on soundscapes in the recreation area, NPS is proposing to implement a 96 dBA noise limit on all vehicles. Noise level would be measured by NPS staff using the SAE J1287 standard.”

Comment: We have serious concerns about the adequacy of this proposal. As background, NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 4.9, Soundscape Management, requires the NPS “to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks.” Despite this clear policy directive and of significant concern regarding GLCA’s proposed action, the FEIS (p. 463) states, “With the 96 dBA noise limit mitigation measure, noise from OHVs or street-legal ATVs is expected to travel 5,460 feet from the GMP roads before it reaches the 20-dBA natural ambient sound level.” In other words, at GLCA noise from ATVs and OHVs will routinely be heard over a mile away from roads that traverse some of the most remote locations in the park. This is unacceptable!

Underlying our concern about soundscape impacts at GLCA is the deeper concern that NPS is choosing to open more than 200 miles of unpaved park roads to non-street legal OHVs simply to cater to recreational interests. The reality is that street-legal vehicles are typically quieter than non-street legal OHVs due, in part, to more stringent equipment requirements. For example, street-legal vehicles in Utah must meet the requirements of Code Section 41-6a-1626[4]; but non-street legal OHVs are held to the lower standard of Code Section 41-22-10.7[5].

With regard to the proposed adoption of SAE J1287, we also have concerns. First, it is fundamentally misleading for NPS to portray SAE J1287 as a “noise limit” in the Preamble, since it clearly does not “limit” noise to 96 dBA. Under SAE J1287, vehicle exhaust noise is measured at 20 inches from the exhaust of a stationary vehicle operating at half-throttle. According to SAE International (SAE)[6], “This [1998] SAE Standard establishes the test procedure, environment, and instrumentation for determining the sound levels of motorcycles under stationary conditions. This test will measure primarily exhaust noise and does NOT represent the optimum procedure for evaluating total vehicle noise.” In discussing a 2017 update of J1287, SAE further states[7], “Care must be taken not to confuse stationary sound pressure levels with total motorcycle sound pressure levels. This test does not evaluate total motorcycle sound during operation.(emphasis added) As a result, the limitations of using SAE J1287 to manage noise impacts at GLCA are clear. The reality is that the majority of ORVs at GLCA, when in use, will be in motion and operated above half-throttle; and the noise generated will inevitably be louder than 96 dBA.

Second, we wonder why NPS chose NOT to follow the existing NPS motor vehicle noise standard at 36 CFR § 2.12, since this decision is not explained in the FEIS. As we understand it, when adjusted for distance, the motor vehicle noise level measured under SAE J1287 is similar to that of § 2.12. Section 2.12 prohibits:

“Operating a motor vehicle (and other listed items) in a manner: (i) That exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet; or, if below that level, nevertheless; (ii) makes noise which is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct, location, time of day or night, purpose for which the area was established, impact on park users, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.”

Third, the proposed noise standard (as well as the § 2.12 standard) is not easy to accurately implement in the field and therefore is unlikely to be enforced. We seriously doubt that NPS has the capacity or commitment to vigorously or even routinely enforce the proposed noise standard at GLCA. Effective enforcement would require that every law enforcement ranger be trained and equipped with the proper noise monitoring equipment and then consider enforcing the regulation as a routine patrol function. Even if that were to occur, being able to accurately conduct the sound test under variable field conditions seems highly unlikely.

Because the adoption of SAE J1287 by itself is a questionable solution to addressing ORV noise concerns at GLCA, we recommend that NPS also establish a readily enforceable “no modification clause” with regard to ORV exhaust noise. This would be similar to Montana Title 23. § 23-2-634[8], Regulation of snowmobile noise, which we understand is more practical and effective to implement than roadside or drive-by ambient noise measurements. Section 1, the key part of this provision, states the following:

“Except as provided in this section, each snowmobile must be equipped at all times with noise-suppression devices, including an exhaust muffler in good working order and in constant operation. A snowmobile may not be modified by any person in any manner that will amplify or otherwise increase total noise emissions to a level greater than that emitted by the snowmobile as originally constructed, regardless of date of manufacture.”

In light of these many concerns, we are deeply disappointed that NPS is planning to allow increased noise impacts, caused primarily by allowing a dramatic increase in non-street legal OHV access on park roads, to intrude into the most remote locations in the park.

The solution to protecting backcountry soundscapes at GLCA from unnecessary ORV noise impacts is simple: We urge NPS to prohibit the use of non-street legal OHVs on ALL park roads!

5) Travel on GMP Roads –The Preamble states, in part: “OHVs and street-legal ATVs would be allowed to operate on most unpaved GMP roads. OHVs and street-legal ATVs would be prohibited on GMP roads in the Orange Cliffs Special Management Unit, except for the Poison Spring Loop. On-road OHV and street-legal ATV use would be subject to the same restrictions and rules as conventional motor vehicle use.” (emphasis added to underlined sections)

Comment: As background to provide context of the scale and far reaching implications of the proposed action, the FEIS (p.2) describes a “GMP road” as a paved or unpaved park road that is open to motor vehicle travel as designated in the 1979 Glen Canyon General Management Plan (GMP). FEIS p. 150 says that the1979 GMP left open approximately 313 miles of unpaved roads and approximately 75 miles of paved roads for public use.

In general, we don’t understand why NPS continually uses the term “GMP roads” in the FEIS and proposed rule. This seems to imply that “GMP roads” are somehow different than “park roads,” as defined in 36 CFR § 1.4.  If they are the same, why not just explain their origin in the 1979 GMP, then refer to them thereafter as “park roads”? If they are indeed different, then please explain the difference.

Our underlying concern in wanting to clarify what NPS considers to be a “road” at GLCA is that it appears that NPS plans to manage over 200 miles of “park roads” (i.e., unpaved GMP roads) as de facto ORV routes by allowing non-street legal OHVs to use these roads. This is contrary to the clear distinction made in NPS regulations and management policies between “park roads” and “ORV routes and areas.” By any definition, park roads, whether paved or not, are still “roads;” and OHVs generally do not meet the legal requirements for on-road use, even in Utah.

We are also concerned that NPS is misinterpreting or misapplying Utah motor vehicle code in an attempt to justify non-street legal OHV use on park roads in the Utah portion of the park. (Note: This is not an issue with Arizona code.)  Relevant Utah code includes the following (emphasis added to underlined sections):

  • Utah Uniform Driver License Act, Code Section 53-3-202(1)(a)[9], states that a person may not operate a motor vehicle on a “highway” in Utah unless the person is licensed as a driver;
  • Utah Traffic Code Section 41-6a-102(26)[10], defines “Highway” as “the entire width between property lines of every way or place of any nature when any part of it is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for vehicular travel.” Note: This is similar to the NPS definition of “park road” found at 36 CFR § 1.4. In essence, by definition a “park road” is a “highway” in Utah; and NPS requiring a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle on any park road, including unpaved GMP roads, would be consistent with the Utah Uniform Driver License Act;
  • Utah State Code for Off-Highway Vehicles[11] includes the following sections:
    • 41-22-2(23) defines “street or highway” as the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part of it is open to the use of the public for vehicular travel. Again, this is similar to the 36 CFR definition of a “Park road.”
    • 41-22-10.1 states that on posted public land “currently registered OHVs may be operated on public land, trails, streets, or highways that are posted by sign or designated by map or description as open to off-highway vehicle use by the controlling federal, state, county, or municipal agency.
    • 41-22-10.3 states that “A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle upon any street or highway [that is] not designated as open to off-highway vehicle use.”

In other words, the regulatory norm in Utah is that motor vehicles that are operated on public roads, streets, or highways (which by definition includes park roads) must be street-legal and the operators must be licensed and insured. While Utah code does, in fact, authorize non-street legal OHVs to travel under certain circumstances on certain designated secondary roads, it is the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, the State clearly defers to the respective federal land management agency to determine if OHV use is appropriate on federally-managed roads, which it is not.

Given such clear guidance from the Solicitor, as well as in the sections of the Utah motor vehicle code cited above, NPS has not adequately explained or justified its decision to allow non-street legal OHVs on over 200 miles of park roads, albeit unpaved roads. For example, the NPS explanation for this on FEIS p. A-26 does not withstand scrutiny. NPS states, in part:

“Arizona statute requires a valid driver’s license for travel on any road or highway open for vehicular travel. Utah statute provides for the use of OHVs on roads designated for their use by youth age 8–15 with an OHV Education Certificate…During consultation with cooperating agencies in the preparation of the plan/EIS, NPS received comments about the use of unpaved GMP roads for heritage education, especially along the Hole-in-the-Rock Road and the Hole-in-the-Rock Trail. It was noted that family groups visit these sites and use OHVs with youth operators in order to do so. The agencies noted that the establishment of a driver’s license requirement in excess of state requirements would adversely affect the use of Glen Canyon by traditionally associated people. (emphasis added to underlined sections)

First, if family groups have been using OHVs on park GMP roads to “visit these sites,” as stated above, then these groups have been in violation of current restrictions on OHV use at GLCA. According to FEIS Table (p. 56), only street legal ATVs, not OHVs, are currently allowed to use park GMP roads (in addition to conventional motor vehicles).

Second, it is inaccurate to say that prohibiting OHVs on park GMP roads would be “in excess of state requirements.” The reality is that it would be more consistent with Utah motor vehicle code if NPS were to prohibit the use of non-street legal OHVs on park roads. The State clearly defers to the responsible federal land management agency to determine which “trails, streets, or highways” are designated as open to OHV use. As a result, there is no presumption under Utah code that any park road should be open to non-street legal vehicles (i.e., OHVs). NPS’s decision regarding OHV use at GLCA should follow NPS policy; and OHVs should be managed as ORVs, not as if they were conventional motor vehicles. In brief, OHVs should be prohibited on park roads and restricted to only those designated ORV routes and areas that NPS considers appropriate for that use, consistent with the executive orders and 36 CFR § 4.10(b).

Third, the FEIS paragraph mentions “traditionally associated people” (or “TAP”) as an apparent reason to open GMP roads to OHV use. This explanation is vague at best, does not make sense from an NPS ethnographic resources perspective, and is not backed up by any information or analysis in the FEIS to support it. We ask: Is there really a documented history of TAPs relying on OHVs to access traditional cultural properties to conduct traditional cultural activities at GLCA? Alleging that OHV use at GLCA is a “heritage” activity in order to justify opening hundreds of miles of GMP roads to all OHV use is preposterous. If, indeed, there are certain documented TAPs at GLCA with recognized access privileges to conduct appropriate cultural activities, then such access/activity should be allowed to continue under an appropriate instrument (such as a special use permit or a memorandum of understanding).

Lastly, we also are not keen about the proposal to open the majority of park road system to street-legal ATV use. We are not aware of any other unit of the National Park System that allows such extensive use of ATVs on a park road system; and believe the GLCA proposal establishes a bad precedent in that regard. That said, when compared to the proposed OHV use of park roads, which is not justifiable, street-legal ATV use of some park roads at GLCA may be justifiable under 36 CFR § 4.2. As described in Utah Code §41-6a-1509[12], street-legal ATVs must meet many of the same requirements as conventional vehicles in order to operate on state roads, streets, and highways. This includes: operator licensing; motor vehicle insurance; and extensive vehicle safety equipment requirements.

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

36 CFR § 7.70 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.(f) Motor vehicle use.

(1) What terms do I need to know?
We suggest the following revision of the definition of “GMP road”: GMP road means a paved or unpaved (add) park road (add) , as defined in § 1.4, that is identified in the Glen Canyon 1979 General Management Plan as open to motor vehicle travel. (Comment: The added language clarifies that “GMP roads” are, in fact, “park roads.”)

(2) Off-road motor vehicle permit requirement.
We suggest the following revision of section (i): “A special use permit issued and administered by the superintendent (add) , and for which NPS charges a fee to recover its administrative costs, is required to operate a motor vehicle off GMP roads at designated locations in the recreation area.” (Comment: This is similar to language in the CAHA ORV permit regulation. In essence, NPS should make it explicit in the rule that a fee will be charged for the permit and how funds collected will be spent.)

(3) Designated off-road motor vehicle locations.
We have no specific comments.

(4) Table to § 7.70(f)(4)(i)
In the third row (regarding OHV use), the second and third columns should be changed to “No.” (Comment: OHVs should NOT be allowed on ANY unpaved GMP roads or on the Poison Spring Loop in the Orange Cliffs Special Management Unit. As discussed previously, OHVs by definition are not street legal and should not be allowed on park roads.)

(5) Motor vehicle and operator requirements.
(Add new section (i) as follows)

(i) Except as provided in this section, each motor vehicle must be equipped at all times with noise-suppression devices, including an exhaust muffler in good working order and in constant operation. A motor vehicle may not be modified by any person in any manner that will amplify or otherwise increase total noise emissions to a level greater than that emitted by the motor vehicle as originally constructed, regardless of date of manufacture.

(Renumber and revise previous section (i) as follows)

(ii) (Delete first sentence) Motor vehicles must have a functioning muffler system. Operating a motor vehicle that emits more than 96 decibels of sound (using the SAE J1287 test standard) is prohibited. Creating or sustaining unreasonable noise considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct, impact on park users, location, and other factors which would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person is prohibited during quiet hours.

(Add new section (iii) below)
(iii) Authorized persons may inspect the vehicle to determine compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. (Comment: This is similar to the vehicle inspection section in the CAHA ORV rule.)

CLOSING COMMENT

The proposed rule would significantly increase the kind and amount of motor vehicle use in remote portions of GLCA by allowing non-street legal OHVs to access over 200 miles of park roads (the unpaved GMP roads). In effect, NPS is proposing to manage much of the park’s extensive system of roads as de facto ORV routes in contradiction of applicable executive orders, NPS regulations, and NPS management policies. The primary objective of the ORV management plan and special regulation should be to improve management and reduce impacts of ORV use; not to make ORV use more pervasive and impactful than it currently is.

The most effective thing NPS could do at this point to address the many concerns expressed in our comments above would be to prohibit the use of non-street legal OHVs on ALL park roads.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Phil Francis Signature

 

 

Philip A. Francis, Jr., Chair
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks


[1] Memorandum, 3 June 2004. Lawrence J Jensen, Acting Regional Solicitor, Intermountain Region. Page 4.

[2] Ibid, page 1.

[3] Ibid, page 5.

[4]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S1626.html

[5]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter22/C41-22_1800010118000101.pdf

[6]https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1287_199807/

[7]https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1287_201704/

[8]http://codes.findlaw.com/mt/title-23-parks-recreation-sports-and-gambling/mt-code-ann-sect-23-2-634.html

[9]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53/Chapter3/53-3-S202.html?v=C53-3-S202_2017050920170509

[10]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/C41-6a_1800010118000101.pdf

[11]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter22/C41-22_1800010118000101.pdf

[12]https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/C41-6a-S1509_2017050920180101.pdf

 



Comments are closed.

This page last modified: April 12, 2018 @ 8:24 pm