FR 2024-30059

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a final supplementary rule governing the use of public lands in Colorado, specifically those managed by the Tres Rios and Gunnison Field Offices. This rule addresses the use of motorized and non-motorized vehicles, establishes designated day-use areas, and sets regulations for protecting wildlife habitats, as well as rules for camping and campfires. The rule is grounded in prior management plans and aims to protect both visitor health and safety and to preserve natural and cultural resources.

General Summary

The rule outlines specific regulations pertaining to different areas across several counties in Colorado. It dictates where and how vehicles can operate, zones suitable for day use, and times when wildlife protection measures are enforceable. Camping and campfire guidelines are established to mitigate environmental impact. The rules were crafted following significant public and stakeholder input during the development of earlier Resource Management Plans (RMPs).

Significant Issues or Concerns

The primary concern stems from the complexity and length of the document, making it potentially challenging for the general public to digest and comprehend all the stipulations. Definitions within the document, like "mechanized vehicle," may be unclear to some readers, leading to possible noncompliance due to misunderstanding. Additionally, requirements such as the use of a "fire pan" and "portable toilet" lack detailed specifications, which could result in varied interpretations of compliance.

There is also critique regarding the response to public comments. Some commenters feel that the BLM did not adequately address concerns, specifically with regard to mechanized travel restrictions and the rationale behind certain closure dates. This perceived lack of responsiveness might discourage future public participation in planning processes.

Broadly Impact on the Public

For recreation enthusiasts and regular visitors of these public lands, the rule formalizes existing recommendations into enforceable regulations. While these changes aim at resource protection and visitor safety, they may also limit certain activities that individuals previously enjoyed without restrictions. The enforcement of these rules, which includes the possibility of fines or imprisonment, might further deter some from visiting these lands.

Positive and Negative Impacts on Stakeholders

From a positive perspective, the rule provides a framework to safeguard fragile ecosystems and sensitive wildlife in these areas. Conservationists and wildlife organizations would view this as a win, ensuring that activities on public lands do not compromise ecological integrity.

Conversely, those relying on these areas for recreational activities—such as hikers, bikers, and river users—might view the new rules as restrictive. Outfitters and businesses that facilitate outdoor activities could experience economic impacts due to these increased restrictions and requirements. Furthermore, the imposition of new obligations, like river trip registrations, might incur additional costs for users.

In conclusion, while the BLM's final supplementary rule intends to foster responsible use and protection of public lands, it also raises concerns about accessibility, clarity, and public engagement in policy formulation. It exemplifies the ongoing challenge of balancing environmental conservation with public enjoyment and economic activity on public lands.

The document indicates that the final supplementary rule established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not anticipated to have significant financial impacts. Specifically, it states that the rule will not have an annual effect of $200 million or more on the economy. This assessment suggests that the implementation and enforcement of the rule, which relates to the management and use of public lands in various counties in Colorado, does not involve substantial economic activity or financial appropriation that would disrupt or significantly influence the broader economy.

Additionally, under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the document clarifies that the supplementary rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments exceeding $100 million per year. This suggests that the rule is not expected to require these governments or entities to spend more than this amount without federal funding support. This is an important assurance for smaller or local governments that might otherwise be financially burdened by new regulatory requirements.

However, the rule does not specifically allocate financial resources or describe any financial appropriations related to its implementation. The focus is instead on ensuring that the rule itself will not create substantial financial burdens or require significant economic adjustments from those affected, particularly small businesses and government bodies.

Relating to the identified issues, the document suggests that the financial considerations have been factored into the planning and creation of the rule. For example, the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis indicates that the economic impacts have been deemed minimal, addressing concerns about potentially arbitrary decisions leading to new financial obligations for users, particularly regarding river registration and restrictions.

Moreover, the document explains that most public land users will not notice meaningful changes because the rule codifies long-held recommendations. This information suggests an effort to mitigate unforeseen financial impacts on small businesses and individual users by preserving the status quo where possible. There is a notable absence of extensive financial justifications or economic analyses, which might have addressed public concerns regarding the necessity and cost-effectiveness of new obligations imposed by the rule.

Overall, the document approaches financial references as reassurance rather than detailing specific spending or allocation plans, underscoring the rule's lack of significant economic disruption without directly addressing concerns regarding operational or compliance costs for those affected.