Archive | News
BRC/TPA/COHVCO motion for the Utah BLM case
TPA/COHVCO combined comments to the Grand Junction BLM RMP
 |
March 17, 2009 General Notes: BLM policy is to perform a analysis of all routes and produce a travel plan for all modes of transportation. The inventory of the general access and the recreation routes is almost complete (on the maps made available in February of 2009), however, routes constructed in recent years that access the gas industry infrastructure is not included. Because the gas industry routes are expected to be in operation for a long time, it is difficult to do a comprehensive travel management plan without this information on the maps. We suggest that the Field Office consider designating motorized routes for intensive management only in SRMAs. These include the present SRMAs and those areas classified as SRMAs in the new RMP. Designating and implementing the motorized and non motorized routes throughout the field office is a daunting task. This high level of management can not be sustained over the entire field office. In remote areas with low visitor numbers, a less intensive prescription can be adopted. The "open to existing only" prescription is far more feasible. Maps, entry kiosks and strategically located signs, to make sure the visitors know these areas are no longer open to cross-country travel have proven sufficient in the past, but only when BLM is pro-active about getting the signs in place, and making sure maps are easily obtainable. It is also very important that the signs be maintained. This approach is consistent with the custodial nature of recreation management on BLM lands not classified as SRMAs. It is unclear at this time what method GJFO will use to determine which routes will be designated into a travel management system. We do expect the GJFO staff to make the selection of the guidelines public during the alternative development phase of this analysis, and we do expect to be full participants throughout the entire process. We also expect rational explanations for any routes that the Field Office wants to remove from the inventory. Map F: In sections 11 and 12 , just south west of the Pyramid Rock ACEC is a system of single track routes that are used primarily by motorcycle trials riders. (specifically F551-F572-F502-F538-F536-F602-F575-F573-F580-F633-F579-F503-F715-F615 ) This is a very valuable recreation opportunity. We would like to see this opportunity developed for trials motorcyclists. It provides an opportunity for both casual use and organized competition of a very high caliber. The natural features of rock and slick rock are highly sought after for a quality trials location. Map G: Map I: Some of these unfinished trails include the MTB/ motorcycle trail parallel to V.8 Road and connecting to Ross Ridge, the reroute of the Lippan Wash single track trail around the waterfall, and the motorized single track alternative the Lippan Wash (Waterfall) Trail. The Ross Ridge area is an ideal location to begin a long-distance dual sport /backcountry route with a destination in Debeque. A number of existing BLM and county routes can be connected to made this opportunity possible. A trail connection would have to be made from Ross Ridge to McCay Fork to the east. This connects to county Rd. X.9. This connects to County Rd. O.9 to South Shale Ridge Rd. then east to X.9, east to County Rd.200 and south on Roan Creek Rd. to Debeque. Less than one mile of trail needs to be constructed to create this excellent opportunity. The rest is on existing county or BLM routes. Map K: Map L: However, the North Desert’s close proximity to the city of Grand Junction, and a lack of official presence, has allowed the growth of a number of activities that are a hazard to the recreationists who like to visit and ride in this area. We have witnessed drug dealing, drug-taking, trash dumping, prostitution, assaults, and other bad stuff. We often find used needles and other illegal drug materials, human waste, and alcoholic drinking trash. The failure of BLM to make even the slightest effort to reduce these criminal activities is irresponsible. Public health and safety is one of the few well-defined responsibilities of the BLM, and the public has a right to expect the BLM to take considerably more interest in reducing the criminal activity in a heavily used recreation setting. As BLM staff so very rarely visits the area, we will tell BLM that the criminal activities conflict with the legitimate recreationists during the nightime and early morning hours. The reason is, many recreationists have come from out of state and "camp out" in expensive motor homes, with their families, in the North Desert. They bring a substantial amount of valuable personal property. These innocent out-of-town visitors too often find themselves confronted by Individuals who need to fund a drug habit GJFO should be ashamed that these visitors must share the recreation area with a serious criminal element. Furthermore, the persistence of the drug trade and other criminal activity in the city is facilitated by the BLM’s disregard for the fact that these people use the North Desert to escape from the city police jurisdiction. GJFO is conspicuously aiding and abetting the drug and crime problem in the Grand Valley via its neglect of the North Desert. Therefore, we insist that in the RMP, GJFO make it a high priority to increase its presence in the North Desert, and we insist that GJFO coordinate with the County Sheriff’s Office to drive the criminal element out of the recreation area. For the managing agency (BLM) to continue to ignore this area is stunningly irresponsible. At some time in the past, hundreds of small catch basins and sediment dams were installed throughout the north desert. This is a significant step to control sediment travel and selenium transfer to the Colorado River. The proliferation of routes between 27 ¼ Rd. and 21 Rd. can only be attributed to the BLM ignoring a obvious management issue for decades. Issues that complicate the designating specific routes : Lots of commercial uses-oil and gas transmission lines-power line corridors-grazing leases-numerous entry points along the urban interface-4 county roads in planning area- inability for the public to differentiate between routes due to density- possible displacement of historic uses- mild terrain- sparse vegetation- arid environment- Mancos clay is the dominant soil type with high levels of selenium- slow vegetative recovery rate Lets look at the pluses (+) and minuses (-) of some different management options: 1. Define a designated route system between 27 ¼ Rd. and 21 Rd. 2. Expand the Grand Valley open Area all the way to 21 Rd. Fence the west side of 21 Rd to delineate the open area from the designated trails area of the adjoining North Fruita Desert. Leave pass-throughs at the designated trail intersections on the west side of 21 Rd. The city of Grand Junction has proposed major development for 29 Rd. to the east of the airport. An overpass and cloverleaf are proposed. The city would like to develop a light industrial park and truck service facility on private and state land in this area. The present use as a trailhead for OHV recreation onto BLM lands would be displaced. There is obviously a huge demand for large, open motorized recreation areas. The exceptionally high annual visitor numbers for the North Desert makes this abundantly clear. Accommodations for the displaced BLM visitors must be built into the planning and development strategies for the proposed industrial development. The above management options would help to offset this loss. Although we would prefer to keep the area west of 27-1/4 Road "Limited to Existing" prescription, we realize there is a considerable amount of diversity within the motorized recreation community. To effectively keep the area west of 27-1/4 Road from becoming another Open Area, GJFO should fence the west side of 27-1/4 Road to clearly delineate the different areas, and install clear and unmistakable instructions to the visitors of the change in regulation from "open" area to "Limited" area at the "pass-throughs.". Map O: The urban interface zone accessed by the 34 & C Rd. entry is currently classified as an SRMA. The area has received only custodial management over the past decade. The plan that was written and adopted for the area in the early 1990s has not been implemented. As a result the area continues to be unmanaged. We recommend that the Grand Mesa Slopes be reclassified to an ERMA. The prescription for ERMAs is custodial management. We recommend that all the existing routes be designated except in the vicinity of the 34 & C Rd. entrance (Area 01). In Area 01 barriers and fences need to be erected to define the designated routes that lead to the roads and trails beyond. The fragmented ownership pattern would make enforcement of a designated route system in the rest of the Grand Mesa Slopes very difficult. Map P: Bangs Canyon This map does not accurately show the present condition. Some of the corrections that need to be made include: GJFO seems to have hit a snag in the implementation of motorized trails as described in the Bangs Canyon EA FONSI. Progress on the Snyder Flats single track trails for motorcycles and bicycles appears to be stalled. We suggest, as a solution, that the single track trails shown in the original plan be moved. The mileage can be compensated for by the construction of the 5C trails as shown in the final EA for Bangs Canyon. In addition, single track trails should be added in area 4 and area 5 to provide the same level of opportunity as was planned for in the 2006 EA. The demand for quality, purpose built single track experience has not diminished, but the supply has been stalled. As noted above, there is considerable diversity within the off-highway community, and the Bangs Canyon trail system is a handsome addition to the Grand Valley motorized opportunity spectrum. Our recommendation for additional single track trails in areas 4 and 5 are presented on the attached map. This issue can be resolved by a supplemental EA to the Bangs Canyon Implementation EA or through the RMP process. We suggest a supplemental EA, completed in a timely way, due to the high public interest that GJFO generated in the plan and in the trails during 2007 and 2008. Map Q: Glade Park The area east of Miracle Rock, near route Q528 has many more routes than are shown on the map. This is a popular hunting area. Access is important to hunters. These omissions are a mistake, and need to be corrected. Map S: Cactus Park/ Dominguez Due to the evidence of unmanaged camping and day use, a trailhead or primitive campground near highway 141 (S648-S651-S646) would help reduce impacts from visitors. Access to Dad’s Flat is important . routes S189-S379-S106-S9 We recommend that S117 and S161 remain open to motorized use as ATV trails. These routes provide spectacular views of the WSA for those not physically able to hike in. These routes end on the tops of cliffs, so intrusion of vehicles into the WSA is not likely. The area to the west of Divide Rd. in the vicinity of routes-S197-S354-S356 and west to S7 –has seen a lot of cross country travel ( currently legal) by fire wood and stone gatherers. This un managed activity is stripping vegetation and disturbing stable soils. We recommend that if these activities continue to be allowed the routes of travel must be delineated and cross country travel prohibited. The two through routes between Cactus Park and county Rd.24.2 are important recreational routes. They form part of the Tabaguhe trail. The routes take many different numbers in the BLM map. They do string together to make a variety of recreation experiences for the long distance off road “adventure” trail opportunity. Map U: Granite Creek Delores Point offers a spectacular OHV opportunity. The mix of easy roads and technical trails provides a quality experience of great riding and views of the south west canyons and cliffs. The specific routes include: U520-U544-U605-U599-U135-U110-U107-U382-U380-U379-U71-U37-U35-U36-U38-U47-U77-U80-U84-U731-U425-U69-U422-U56-U730. Map V: Gateway Mesas The rugged and remote nature of the mesas have great allure to locals and destination vacationers alike. The rocky nature of many locations is well suited to OHV. The routes created by miners up to 100 years ago are still often usable with no maintenance at all. Comprehensive signing and visitor maps will increase the fun and benefit the safety of all visitors. We encourage that all the existing through routes be designated as multiple use trails. We also encourage that day use and overnight facilities are written into the plan so the public can better access the undiscovered place without the impacts from camping. The number of routes and the complex nature of ground disturbance in the Gateway Mesa area makes route designation a very big task. We suggest that this work can be accomplished using a combination of BLM and NGO help in a collaborative process. In recent conversations with the Grand Valley Ranger District of the GMUG, the possibility of designating or constructing interconnecting trails between the Gateway Mesas and the Uncompaghre Plateau motorized trails was favorably received by the District Ranger. We urge GJFO and the Grand Valley RD to communicate and co- operate on these potential routes. TPA would be willing to work with both agencies to help accomplish this goal. |
TPA 2008 End of year and financial
|
January 1, 2009 Subject: Trails Preservation Alliance 2008 End of Year ReportThe Board of Directors (BOD) wants all TPA supporters and donors to be aware of the actions we have taken during 2008 to protect the sport of motorcycle trail riding in Colorado. Since 2008 was our start-up year, we incurred numerous preliminary costs to establish a web site and an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. These one-time costs and our ongoing costs for IRS accounting and reporting are time consuming and expensive. Be assured that your TPA BOD is making a concerted effort to reduce our overhead operating costs and to maximize donations that go towards supporting TPA goals. Listed below are the major efforts undertaken by the TPA in 2008. It is hard to judge success in many of these areas, since measurable success may not come for some time. However, the TPA has been successful in establishing itself as a working partner with the FS and BLM on motorcycle trail riding issues. Please see our web site news section for updates on the most current issues. • Alpine Trail Systems • BLM Grand Junction Field Office Support • Colorado Motorcycle Clubs • Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition ( COHVCO) • Correspondence with FS Chief • Fundraiser Activity Support • GNF TMP Issue Still ongoing, expected to be a major effort in 2009 • GNF/Taylor Park Trail TPA trail crew performed extensive trail maintenance • Moab RMP • NF FS and BLM Office Participation • Position Papers • RMP Protest • San Juan Trail Riders Support Assisted in TMP issues with Pagosa FS district and San Juan NF recreation planning • SMEs – Forest Service TMP/DEIS and BLM RMP Issues • WR TMP/SDEIS Response • Utah Motorcycle Organization Support The TPA BOD appreciates the support and donations from motorcycle riders throughout the United States provided to the TPA in 2008. 2009 will be a critical year in our ongoing efforts to protect our sport. If you have any comments or suggestions on TPA plans and actions, please let us know. Thank you for your support. *Statement of Financial Position is attached in PDF. |
Comments for the Grand Junction Field Office RMP
|
January 05 2009 Bureau of Land Management Dear ID team: The following are the scoping comments for the Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plan as presented by the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO). These two organizations represent over 200,000 off road vehicle user in Colorado. We look forward to working with the GJFO on the RMP. General Comments We would like the GJFO to make finishing the implementation of the plans already completed the highest priority in the RMP. For example, the North Fruita Desert Plan is finished, yet several trails that were analyzed and approved in the Plan have not been built. The upgrade of existing trails to the standards that were approved in the Plan has not been done. The Bangs Canyon SRMA Plan is finished and the trails approved, but again, the implementation is incomplete. The community has a vested interest in the completion of this trail system. We encourage GJFO to work co-operatively with TPA and other interested partners to secure funding and any other support necessary to construct these important recreation assets. We would very much like to see the GJFO finish the Gateway Plan, and not do it as part of the RMP. The Gateway resort and surrounding BLM lands have been discovered by the public. It is unrealistic to ignore the Gateway area for the several years it will take to complete the RMP. Perhaps the Gateway Plan could be completed concurrently with the RMP, so that implementation can begin as soon as possible. Travel Management It is unreasonable to expect the GJFO to maintain a signed and patrolled designated route system covering over one million acres for the indefinite future. The public is better served to have GJFO prioritize its resources in high use areas (SRMA’s) and leave the remaining land to custodial management as instructed in the planning handbook. We think the direction being taken by the Wyoming state office is a far more achievable approach. Wyoming is doing detailed route inventory and evaluation in SRMA’s. The travel management implementation, using signs, maps, and other visitor amenities will be fully accomplished in those areas, and in all other parts of the Field Offices travel will be limited to existing routes as defined by the inventory. We think this is a realistic way to address the expected scarcity of agency resources. We think that the RMP process should reconsider the substantial costs of completing some of the earlier and somewhat unrealistic plans, such as the Grand Mesa Slopes and north DeBeque (Garfield County). These already have designated routes as their travel management prescription, yet the BLM has been unable to implement them. None of these areas have recognizable designated routes. Maps and signs have not been provided to guide the public. These areas receive light visitor use and are some distance from the population center. No interested partner has stepped forward to help the BLM implement either of these plans. In other words, the public has little interest in these particular management areas. The GJFO might consider that because these areas receive light visitor use and there are no agency partners to help, the need and cost of analyzing and designating the routes, then maintaining, patrolling, signing and mapping the system, may not be the best use of the agency’s limited resources. Those agency resources could be better used in the SRMA’s that are closer to the population centers, such as Bangs Canyon and the North Fruita Desert. Changing that allocation of agency resources can be done in the RMP. In other words, we would encourage the GJFO to reduce the scope of the tasks it sets for itself, instead of increasing its workload to the point where none of the RMP goals can be achieved. Wild and Scenic Rivers We are strongly opposed to the consideration of the Delores River and any of its tributaries for consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. It was not eligible in the last review, and nothing has changed to make it eligible now. The Delores is not free flowing. The flow is determined by the irrigation needs of downstream agriculture. This is not to imply that it is without value as a recreation and scenic resource. What we object to is the imposition of land use restrictions similar to those of designated Wilderness without Congressional approval. This may be the case if the subjective measure of “Outstanding Remarkable Values” is being used to determine the suitability of the Delores Our sentiments are the same for every new W&S river nomination: None were eligible in the last review, and nothing has changed to make them eligible now. Heritage Areas The designation of Heritage Areas is a new and unprecedented expansion of agency authority. There is no statutory or executive authority for such a designation. This new designation implies a new category of use limitations and restrictions, and the material supplied by the GJFO does not answer that implication. We hope this new restriction on public access is dropped from consideration in all alternatives. Cultural resources are already protected by the Archeological Resources Protection Act. We see no need for a local designation that would add yet another layer of land use restrictions. The descriptions of the Heritage Area locations seem to coincide with the presence of T&E plants. We can see no rational connection. Like cultural resources, rare plants already have protection. In what we are sure is an oversight: The Tabaguache Trail has not been shown on the cultural map as an historic route. Back Country Byways We would like to recommend the designation of two new back country byways. The designations will direct attention to the outstanding recreation experiences as well as facilitate funding opportunities from federal, state and outside sources. The two byways are the Tabaguache Trail and the Gateway Byway. The Tabaguache Trail is the present alignment (modified to include the new connector segment). The Gateway Byway would include the Niche Road (Mesa County 6.3) and the John Brown Road to the Utah border. Dominguez Canyon WSA We strongly object to the expansion of wilderness designation beyond the present WSA boundaries. Any change in the presently prescribed allocation of motorized and non motorized uses would not be in the best interests of the community. Motorized intrusions into the WSA in its present form are rare. Changing the boundaries would create new and un-necessary expansion of restrictive regulations. Wilderness values are presently well protected. North Desert/ Bookcliffs This area reaches from the Utah border to Mt. Garfield and from Interstate 70 to the northern border of the FO. Beginning at the east: A network of single-track trails exists along the Utah border west of Prairie Canyon Rd. The trails extend across the border into the Moab Field office. Moab has chosen to ignore the existence of these routes in their recently signed RMP. We want the GJFO to include these trails in the designated route system and to work with the Moab FO in an effort to designate the portion of the network that is in their jurisdiction. Colorado State Parks maintains a high quality camping facility at Highline Lake. These facilities are busy in the summer when water sports are popular, but they are not busy in fall and spring when the North Fruita Desert SRMA has its highest use time. Legal motorized / mountain bike access from the Highline Lake campgrounds is not presently possible. Only a short section of a route that already exists needs to be designated as a trail to accomplish this goal. We would like to have GJFO work co-operatively with Colorado State Parks to remedy this situation. North Fruita Desert is a good example of shared use motorized/ non- motorized recreation as described in the plan. The only problem is that not all of the development and trail upgrades have been accomplished. We would like to see the remainder of the motorized trails constructed and the upgrades to current standards be applied to all trails as described in the plan. Specifically, we would like to see the motorized trail in Lippan Wash and the new trail that will parallel V.8 Rd. constructed. Finishing the implementation of existing plans is an RMP- level decision. The extension of 21 Road, Hunter Canyon, is a popular area for rock crawling. The fact that it changes each year with the rock obstacles moving about as a result of the seasonal flows is an added attraction. Suitable access agreement should be made between GJFO and the legitimate rights of the private in-holder. Moving east, the area between 21 Road and 27 ¼ Road should remain an ERMA and custodial management applied to the existing trail and road network. The Grand Valley Open Area extends east from 27 ¼ Rd. to Mt. Garfield. This area is highly valued by hundreds of thousands of local visitors, and thousands more out-of-region and out of-state visitors during the winter months. It functions well for its intended purpose. We want to see that area continue as it is presently designated, which we understand, to be open to cross-country travel east of 27-1/4 Road, and limited to existing routes west of 27-1/4 Road. More signs to inform the visitors that this is the rule would be appreciated. The reason we ask for that is because the installation of the two kiosks in the last three years has helped to reduce the cross-country travel on the west side of 27-1/4 Road. This shows that people will follow the rules when they know what the rules are. We would also like to point out that the signs are not vandalized. An even more effective improvement would be a fence on the west side of 27-1/4 Road, with clearly defined entry points. At the entry points, we would like signs that tell people what the rules are. Considering the huge visitor numbers this area receives, the absence of any amenities whatsoever seems irresponsible. We realize that many people access these areas who are not “recreationists,” and this makes providing sanitation and interpretive and regulatory signing difficult to maintain. However, if the amenities are placed further north on 27-1/4 Road, we feel that BLM visitor compliance would improve and enforcement would be easier. The two shooting ranges are important recreational assets in the Grand Valley. We appreciate the work that BLM and its volunteers have accomplished to improve these sites. We would like to see the ranges continue to be maintained to safe and sanitary standards. DeBeque The area south and west of DeBeque presently sees little recreation pressure. The natural gas industry has a large presence with many wells, pipelines and roads. The terrain remains visually very exciting with cliffs and washes that offer extraordinary desert scenery. A system of single-track trails connects many of the gas industry roads with quality trail opportunities and access to the washes and slick rock. We would like to have these trails designated as single-track motorcycle and mountain bike trails. Little infrastructure is necessary due to the present level of use. It is foreseeable that additional recreation pressure and the growth of the town of DeBeque, over the life of the RMP may have impacts on the area. An improved partnership with the town and the energy companies would be a feasible source of support for tail and infrastructure development in the future. Bangs Canyon SRMA The Bangs Canyon SRMA is a project in progress. We at TPA hope to be able to further our partnership in order to assist GJFO in the successful completion of the trails and infrastructure in Bangs. To that end, we offer to help secure financial and in kind support for this project. It is important that the internal GJFO resources and priorities be focused on accomplishing the goals set out in previous decision before new projects are undertaken. Prioritization for implementation of existing plans is an RMP level decision Cactus Park/ Dominguez Canyon WSA Cactus Park is adjacent to the Bangs Canyon SRMA, the Dominguez WSA and the Uncompaghre NF. The existing system of travel routes serves the ATV and 4X4 communities well. The Tabaguache Trail also goes through the area. Dispersed camping and wood gathering has left a poor imprint on the vegetation and routes. Designation of the existing through routes and the establishment of a developed campground will go a long way to reduce the impacts and retain the recreation opportunities. In addition, a developed campground will help accommodate the foreseeable increase in visitors as the Bangs Canyon and Tabaguache Trail improvements come on line. We would like to see greater restrictions on residential wood gathering and Christmas tree harvesting on the sparse, desert pinion forests. The removal of these very, very old pinion pines should be more closely monitored, and both of these activities encourage cross country travel by large vehicles during times when the soils are wet. We hope that these activities will be better managed in the future. Gateway We recommend that the mesa tops and access to the mesa tops be allocated to shared use primitive motorized recreation. The existing network of routes needs to be designated as shared use for all visitors. In addition we would like to have a system of single-track trails to enhance the quality of the trail experience, which will in turn coincide with the destination quality of the Gateway region. The designation of a Back Country Byway in the Gateway region (see Back Country Byways) will increase the ability to compete for federal, state and private funds to implement and maintain a quality system of recreation routes on Delores, Calamity, Outlaw, Blue and Tenderfoot Mesas. We also want the travel plan to include trail and road connections to the neighboring Uncompaghre National Forest. Granite Creek The routes along the Utah/Colorado Border near Granite Creek cross back and forth between states and BLM jurisdictions. It is important for commercial and recreation access that routes on both sides of the border are open to vehicle access. Please co-ordinate with the Moab Field Office to be sure that these important routes remain open to public access. Both the TPA and COHVCO are ready to work with the GJFO in all aspects of the RMP. The resources of both organizations can be utilized to assist in a recreation plan that helps all user groups. Volunteer personnel as well as OHV grant development to support the GJFO are areas that both the TPA and COHVCO can assist on. We look forward to reviewing the next stage of the RMP development. Sincerely Don Riggle |
Comments to the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan SDEIS
|
January 5, 2009 WRNF Travel Management Plan and SDEIS Submitted via U.S. Mail and email to wrtmp@contentanalysisgroup.com Subject: Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition Organization (COHVCO) comments to the WRNF TMP and SDEIS Dear Content Analysis Group: The TPA and COHVCO are pleased to offer our comments to the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (TMP/SDEIS). TPA and COHVCO represent the majority of off highway vehicle users in the State of Colorado, which number over 200,000 OHV users. The TPA and COHVCO, as well as many local clubs and organizations have been actively involved with the WR TMP/SDEIS process since the work was started 3 years ago. The TPA and COHVCO have contacted these organizations, The Rocky Mountain Enduro Circuit (RMEC), the Colorado 500 Legal Defense Fund (C500LDF), the Colorado Back Country Trail Riders (CBTRA), the Summit County off Road Riders (SCORR) and the White River Alliance (WRA), and have included their analysis in this report. All of these organizations have spent a significant amount of time and resources attending FS meetings and reviewing all documents published by the WR FS staff. The TPA, COHVCO and these other organizations intend to remain an active partner with the FS throughout the remainder of the TMP process. Our comments in this document are oriented towards the entire TMP/SDEIS and the overall lack of motorized single-track recreation opportunities. The miles of trails and 4WD road miles that are taken away in this plan do not reflect the actual use or projected demand for motorized recreation. There is instead a distinct anti-motorized recreation bias throughout many areas of the SDEIS. For whatever reason motorized recreational uses (both current and future) were not adequately addressed in the current plan. The TPA and COHVCO look forward to working with the WR FS Staff to help develop a TMP that can fairly address all forms of recreation in the WRNF. BACKGROUND The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the White River National Forest Plan, September 2008, is a document that brings forward a preferred alternative to support a set of decisions on travel and transportation for the Forest. The SDEIS goal was to be a comprehensive plan that accommodated the needs of the public by balancing opportunities for adequate access with the on-going need to protect our natural resources. This Plan and SDEIS is a task that has seen a need for completion following the conclusion of the White River National Forest Resource and Management Plan in 2002. Because of the controversy and complexity of the Forest Plan implementation, the Travel Management process and Plan were separated in order to include the public in a more site and project specific manner. During the development of the Travel Plan, the November 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) 70 Fed.Reg. 68264-68291 (Nov. 9, 2005) provided unprecedented direction on travel planning and compelled the Forest to complete an additional process, if not already completed in a previous travel planning process, to also designate routes and areas for motorized and non-motorized activities and produce a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) for the public by 2009. The initial Forest Plan transportation planning efforts and TMR requirements were combined in an SDEIS and released to the public for review in July 2006. After receiving public reactions and analyzing comments, completing additional road and trail inventory work and mixed-use assessments, the Forest released this SDEIS for a 60-day review period to assure complete opportunities for involvement and additional input. Comments and Reactions These comments are generally organized to address issues in the order presented in the SDEIS. Utlimately, an Appeal Reviewing Officer or court will apply what is known as the “arbitrary and capricious” review standard to the final decision. Under this standard a reviewing court is empowered to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or found to be “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) & (D). The arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential and does not allow a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency: The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made….Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Board of Adams County Comm’rs v. Isaac, 18 F.3d 1492 (10th Cir. 1994).. Many special interests will improperly seek to brandish the threat of appeal or litigation as an attempt to stifle agency discretion, but this standard, properly understood, is deferential and provides the agency great latitude in designing a travel management system that will make sense and maximize both recreational opportunity and conservation objectives. Rather than constraining its options and analysis, the agency will achieve a “better” result, both legally and on-the-ground, by encompassing the positive input of diverse user groups and creatively seeking solutions to management opportunities. Against this background, we offer the following comments. 1. The Forest has chosen, in part, to substitute language for describing issues and concerns, goals and objectives, different and perhaps contrary to the TMR. The Summary page of the SDEIS states that “The White River National Forest travel management plan (TMP) will develop a travel system across the entire White River National Forest to accommodate and balance the transportation needs of the public and to provide adequate access for forest and resource management, while still allowing for protection of natural resources.” Concerns are listed in the SDEIS (abbreviated) as: Objectives are listed (abbreviated) as: Key issues that drive the development of alternatives are listed as: Examples of inconsistencies with the language of the rule are: These examples are intended to highlight our concerns about how the alternatives and maps were developed, what the standards and criteria were for the inventories of trails and roads (including the user-created routes) and how the decision criteria will be structured and developed for the FEIS and Transportation Plan. More specifically, the DSEIS has a Forest Service organizational and natural resource centric set of themes and issues, and tends to not list or focus on enhancing positive user public experiences and benefits. Phraseology such as “attempting to balance” or “resolving conflict” instead of “minimizing conflict”, and “identifying resource solutions to impacts of the transportation system” in lieu of “identifying recreation use alternatives to impacts of the transportation system” would give the document and pending decision more balance by allowing a more public centric approach. The SDEIS, as currently written, discloses an apparent forest staff or Forest Plan strategy to designate motorized routes and produce an MVUM, rather than take a comprehensive look at enhancing a balanced set of recreation opportunities for all users. In the end, the TMR directs the Forest to apply varied criteria in fashioning designated travel management systems, and to “consider effects on …natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands…” and other factors. Id. at 68289 (newly designated 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(a)). In other words, the Forest should be looking at a way to create a system that works for all users, as opposed to creating minimal opportunities through a fear of challenge. This SDEIS document, at times, reads like it responds to a motto of “Caring for the Land and Serving the Forest Service”. We understand the problems of low budgets, poor staffing, stretched enforcement personnel, and how to support the needs for good stewardship of our national natural resources. However, the enhancement of sustainable, high quality public recreation use needs to be more apparent in the “up front” set of goals, objectives, purposes and need statements, and final decision criteria to include the “Serving People” aspects of the USFS mission and the original intent of the Travel Rule. 2. Chapter 1, page 5, second paragraph add “2006” to June as it helps clarify the sequence of planning processes that have tiered to the completion of the Forest Plan. 3. The History discussion, page 7, is informative in helping to understand the development of the Forest’s current road and trail system. However, there is some negative editorial overtone about historic roads and trails being “built without much forethought into planning for the future access and maintenance needs or environmental protection” (paragraph 1). This sort of negative historical critique does not respect the many good decisions that forest officers and resource staff made based on their time in the agency, their respective budgets, experience and public support to develop a public road system. The SDEIS takes the position of minimizing any new road and trail systems. However, today’s times are different and the forest has the opportunity to take advantage of an existing system, based on many good historic reasons to rearrange routes to meet today’s needs. 4. Purpose and Need for Action, page 9. The Purpose statement reads: “…to identify the transportation system with the goal of balancing the physical, biological and social values of the forest”. (Emphasis added) This is a clear and maybe unintended statement which demonstrates another Forest Service centric bias in this document. Social values do not belong to a forest or the management team on a forest. Social values belong to the community of users, citizens of associated towns and rural areas, their guests and visitors. This statement needs to be edited to attach social values to people and their needs rather than to “the forest”. Forest needs are captured by the physical and biological aspects of the statement. Similar to paragraph 3 above, the Purpose and Need statement incorrectly states, that “user•created” routes “were created without due process and therefore are considered illegal.” This statement ignores necessary site-specific inquiry, improperly stigmatizes such routes, and implies that their presumptive or “default” status should be “undesignated” in the travel planning process. Such an approach plainly contradicts the TMR, which calls for a reasoned and site-specific analysis of viable options to travel management planning, to specifically include designation of appropriate “user-created” or “unauthorized” routes. See, 70 Fed.Reg. 68268 (“[s]ome user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and nonmotorized users alike…[o]ther user-created routes are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts.”; at 68269 (“some user-created routes would make excellent additions to the system of designated routes and areas. The Forest Service is committed to working with user groups and others to identify such routes and consider them on a site-specific basis.” 5. The second Need statement (bottom page 9) implies, as written, that older timber, range, mining, oil and gas exploration roads that were not closed are illegal because they were created without due process. This is an inaccurate, generalized and misleading statement as many of these roads were approved, permitted and maintained by the Forest Service, cooperators or contractors with due process. Again, this style of writing establishes a suspected, potential bias in the mind of the reviewer that is based on the agency criticizing and unnecessarily faulting past management and community use patterns. There is a clear need to adjust the current system, but justification needs to include analysis of current needs, and not the unnecessary and unsubstantiated fault finding of previous managers and publics. 6. Page 10, paragraph 4, conflicts with paragraph 5 page 19. The page 10 reference establishes that this travel planning process will clarify the travel system on the forest. Page 19 discussion establishes that CFR 212.54 requires the need for revision of designations to meet changing conditions. It is a dynamic process, as stated on page 19, not just a clarification process to designate a travel system. The two discussions need to be brought into the same context. 7. Page 10, paragraph 6 expands the discussion on the need for alignment of “system and mission”. Paragraph 6 says, in part, that “mountain bikes and motorized uses are competing with non-motorized uses (hiking, horseback riding and backcountry skiing for the same (emphasis added) land base”. This is a misrepresentation of the facts on the forest as it ignores and disregards the acres in designated Wilderness (755,000 acres) and road-less areas (640,000 acres) that provide a land base for essentially non-motorized use with much less conflict opportunity. This statement causes SDEIS reviewers to believe that the forest is only interested in resolving conflict and not analyzing, displaying, enhancing and balancing recreation opportunities for all users across the forest. There are many areas on the forest where there is no conflict, or conflict is handled by appropriate user behavior and user substitution of choices. This SDEIS bias is further established in the 1st paragraph of page 11 where balance is defined as resolving user conflict and adequately protecting resources. There is no discussion here about balancing recreation opportunities to meet a diversity of user and community needs. The Forest Service is not capable of resolving personal conflicts as they exist between individuals and their personal expectations. The Forest Service can provide a spectrum of settings that allow recreation users to choose among alternative or substitute settings and activities, and thereby invest in a system that attempts to minimize conflicts. Resolving conflict is an impossible goal. 8. Page 11, under the Proposed Action Objectives, there is no objective for providing or developing a sustainable system of roads and trails to meet public recreation and administrative needs. Rather, the list includes only objectives that the system is in compliance with laws are designated, define modes, mitigate impacts, and restore undesignated routes. There is no objective here that proactively states the goal of providing a choice of high quality recreation settings and opportunities and enhancing experiences. How is it possible to monitor the effectiveness of a plan if there are no measurable or stated objectives for assessing social experiences and benefits? “Quality recreation, producing desired satisfaction and benefits for participants, is the objective and concern of both managers and recreationists”. 9. The commitment to the consideration of user-created routes has been positively noted and is appreciated. This is a positive response to the Department of Agriculture’s direction that evaluation of user-created roads and trails is best handled at the local level. Unlike other Rocky Mountain Region Forests and units, this should yield opportunities that help generate alternatives for some issues and contribute to finding solutions and routes to achieve balance of use goals. 10. It appears that the SDEIS presents a unique analytical method for user-created routes, in which decision options are whittled down through some internal process, and candidates for designation are incorporated into an alternative. All other non-system routes will be considered “not designated” and will be “rehabilitated.” SDEIS at 10. The SDEIS seemingly outlines a one-time analysis which will conclusively determine, for all non-system routes, whether they will be designated or decommissioned. Id. at 9 (“user-created roads and trails will be examined for designation or elimination. This is a one-time consideration of these travelways….”); id. at 11 (user-created routes “either have to be added to the system or decommissioned.”). This “either-or” approach is not mandated by, and is contradictory to, the TMR, which only directs the Forest to designate roads, trails and areas for motorized use. This approach is not comparable to that undertaken by most forests under the TMR. Perhaps more importantly, and regardless of how one interprets the direction of the White River Forest Plan, the act of decommissioning is a site-specific action which itself requires commensurate site-specific analysis. In other words, a user-created route that is not presented for official designation in this process cannot immediately be slated for decommissioning, at least not using methods involving ground disturbance, until a suitable project-level NEPA analysis has specifically analyzed that project and its associated effects on the human environment in the context of that route. To amplify and support this point, we attach as Exhibit A hereto an administrative appeal decision dated January 27, 2000, issued by the Intermountain Regional Office. The “either-or” approach of designating or decommissioning non-system routes does not comply with the law and unnecessarily constrains further public input and future Forest planning. This aspect of the DSEIS should be revised. 11. Page 12, paragraph 1. This is the first formal citation of the Travel Management Rule, CFR 212.52, and should be more visible earlier in the final EIS document as a process decision document. It should be referenced to improve readability along with references to the Forest Plan and Travel Management plan discussion in the Summary, page 1, and Legal and Administrative Framework, page 8. 12.Page 12, top of page, paragraphs 1 – 5 regarding user-created routes, appear defensive and somewhat challenging. These paragraphs suggest that all user created routes were examined by ranger district personnel (against some standards that are not disclosed) that made them eligible for consideration as a part of a set of alternatives for possible designation. Then, the contexts of the inclusive paragraphs suggest that those user-created routes that were not found are now illegal and will be rehabilitated if found. This implies that the District did not deal with complete information and has taken the position that this TMP process will yield the final designated route system. This is somewhat contrary to the reference on page 19 that this is a dynamic process that continually examines the best opportunities, when discovered, for use within the designated system and in helping to reduce impacts. CRF 212.52 requires the public to be involved in the designation process. It is not clear in the SDEIS that the public was used in order to help identify user-created routes or that they are aware of what standards were used by various district staffs to evaluate routes to be included in the construction of the alternatives. 13. Page 16. There is a confusion of statements at this point in the document regarding status of mixed-use studies. Under paragraph 3, “Safety”, it implies that the White River National Forest conducted a mixed-use study on national forest roads. There is no reference here to a coordinated study as required and established on page 15 of the SDEIS with regard to MOU’s with State and FHWA agencies. Under “Recreation”, page 16, there is an implication that the Forest will work with the various other agencies to help develop a decision in the final travel management plan. This suggests a coordination action that is yet to be completed, and data and alternative routes may not yet be complete or considered in this SDEIS. This further suggests that alternatives and maps are incomplete and not ready for display or decision. This potentially incomplete, or yet to be completed, mixed-use study status statement is further supported by similar statements in paragraph 2, page 67 and paragraphs 4 – 5 on page 121, SDEIS. However, on page 123 “Motorized Mixed-Use”, paragraph 2, states that during 2006 and 2007 mixed-use analyses were conducted by “the forest’s engineering department”. No reference is made to any coordination with other road management agencies or jurisdictions. As 246 miles of road were considered and referenced by the engineering staff it implies that this task is completed and the route alternatives and considerations are all in the SDEIS. The reviewer is left confused as to how to understand the actual status of coordination, completion of analysis, and if complete inclusion of all eligible routes in various alternatives is even in the SDEIS. While the agency has broad latitude in adopting ultimate interpretations of the data and input obtained, it cannot pick and choose whether or which information to disclose to the public. Instead, it “shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24; see also Siskiyou Regional Education Project v. Rose, 87 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1098 (D.Or. 1999) (laying out “general reasonableness” standard for incorporating materials in NEPA document by cross-reference). Our concerns are that all eligible routes be displayed and disclosed in this SDEIS and not just in a final document after consultation with other agencies. This is a very important fact since the majority of trail motorcycles are licensed street legal vehicles and are already authorized for use on public roads. This opens up, or retains, many more miles of opportunity and loop trips that may not have been considered by this current inventory and/or process. 14.Page 20, paragraph 3 states that no new construction of roads or trails is proposed in the SDEIS, but future construction may be initiated through some future project specific analysis. As stated on the cover page, “Abstract”, this transportation plan and SDEIS is intended to be a comprehensive process for the White River National Forest. The elimination of no new construction projects seems to limit the array of alternatives that should otherwise be considered in a stated comprehensive planning process. The elimination of the “no new construction” option also keeps the forest from favorably positioning itself for competitive capital construction budgets. This would allow entry into a proactive implementation schedule with public support for accomplishments under the Forest Plan. 15.Page 22, “Key Issues” discussion from the DEIS comment period has statements that are further cause for concern. The discussion shifts away from the concept of balance identified in the TMR, where “the agency must strike an appropriate balance in managing all type of recreational activities…that will enhance public enjoyment of the National Forests while maintaining other important values and uses on NFS lands”. 70 Fed.Reg. at 68265. The shift in the discussion moves towards a stated “blending” strategy where travel management alternatives are not evenly distributed and are placed into “zones” or areas. This may be in accordance with the Forest Plan as further justified by a follow-up “niche” plan, which we feel was outside of the NFMA, NEPA and public review processes. This substitution of terms was justified in the SDEIS by the statement of “how each geographic area would best serve the forest as a whole”. This “geographic service” approach to “serve the forest” is a bureaucratic tangle of terminology that further creates the impression of a forest centric approach to transportation planning. Geographic resources serve human goals and objectives, not “the forest”. It eliminates the consideration of social and historic use patterns by businesses, residents and visitors to help determine a balance of use across the forest. The use of this strategy between the DEIS and SDEIS by twisting jargon and definitions creates the impression that the forest planning team has had a struggle and urgency in completing a comprehensive travel management process required by the Forest Plan and getting a designated motorized use map completed by 2009. 16.Page 23. There are no references to or discussion about the relationship and coordination of this plan with other adjoining national forests, public lands or public transportation planning documents. The concern here is the need to have some assurance about the continuity and compatibility of public roads and trail systems with adjoining units. Also, there is a need to document a coordinated regional approach that avoids the unintended consequences of eliminating historic use areas and sending the current and future users to new places not expecting the associated impact of increased usage. The duty to evaluate cumulative impacts in an EIS is “mandatory.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160 (9th Cir. 1997). “Cumulative impact” is defined by the relevant CEQ regulation as: the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 17. “Travel Opportunities”. The apparent decision to establish exact dates and times of snow-free seasons, i.e. “Thursday 0000 Midnight before Memorial Day”, seem unnecessarily burdensome and bureaucratic. We suppose it might be necessary for law enforcement needs. However, this policy assumes consistent weather, climate and road conditions year to year. This might unnecessarily constrain visitor transportation choices when extended good weather allows access without impacting the system. With the thousands of access points on the Forest, a policy that requires postings and closure order exceptions beyond posted dates seems administratively impossible and costly. 18. Page 30, “All Seasons”. Paragraph 1 makes a policy statement that: “At no time may any transportation use take place that will cause resource damage”. This language is inartful at best. The relevant inquiry is whether the impacts are acceptable within management criteria. The TMR generally addresses this subject by focusing on whether use is causing “considerable adverse effects.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.52(b)(2)(2007). See also, 70 Fed.Reg. at 68280. We support the stewardship of our national forests and management systems that reduce unacceptable chances for resource damage. While “damage” remains undefined and thresholds not clearly identified, we hope that informed managers, enforcement personnel and recreationists are responsibly versed in differentiating between acceptable user impact and unacceptable resource damage. The balance to this discussion is that management actions, lack of maintenance programs, and deviant visitor behavior can cause damage to user’s experiences. 19.The range of alternatives issue is of primary importance in any NEPA analysis and is particularly so here. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (“agencies shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”) The alternatives section is considered the “heart” of the EIS and a NEPA analysis must “explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. A NEPA analysis is invalidated by “[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative.” Resources, Ltd. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1119-1120 (10th Cir. 2002). In terms of general format, we question the validity of the SDEIS approach, which essentially reduces the range of alternatives from the DEIS and truncates public input upon, and formal consideration to, only two “action” alternatives. Particularly in travel planning, where there are numerous permutations of management strategies and route networks, the agency and public are best served by a robust range of alternatives which will foster open analysis and dialogue in the planning process. Instead, many viable alternatives were either never formally stated or were thrown on the scrap heap of alternatives “considered but eliminated from detailed study.” SDEIS at 33-34. This is an unjustified risk given the likelihood that other viable alternatives could have been crafted and presented to the public. For example, the route-specific suggestions of TPA/COHVCO and other recreational groups were presented to the Forest, but were not made available for public input or ultimate selection by the Deciding Official. 20. Page 39 and 40. Comparison of Alternatives, Table 2.1 and 2.2 are generally helpful in trying to understand the summary differences between the Alternatives. However, the Forest continues to ignore or avoids the display of recreation use activities by mile via ROS setting class. This would help in the full disclosure of balance of opportunities among user groups. The document gives a fair description of the ROS Recreation setting on page 72, Recreation Affected Environment, but there is no disclosure or tables on use/mode types by ROS setting class. This greatly affects the ability for an objective review of balancing uses. Page 73 shows acres of ROS class on a forest wide basis which is not much help when dealing with a forest travel plan that tracks miles of opportunity by geographic area. Page 78, last paragraph, states that “nearly 800,000 acres of Forest are currently available for designated motorized routes in the summer and approximately 700,000 acres for open motorized travel in the winter”. This is an apparent attempt to soften the effects of less motorized recreation inside a documented transportation planning process to designate routes and areas with comparisons for balance measured in miles of opportunity. Motorized use is historically and customarily planned and monitored on miles of opportunity by class of vehicle. In this case of designated route use by people wanting a motorized route experiences, it is padding the data and deflecting the issues to reference acres of access. The experience changes to foot travel (hiking) only if a vehicle is parked and the user changes to a walking mode of transportation into a dispersed off- road area. 21. It appears that single-track motorized use has been allocated only 67 miles of opportunity in undisclosed settings, at least in the plan narrative (pg 39). However, on page 86, Motorcycle Opportunity by Alternative, it shows that there are over 200 miles of single-track trails. A map interpretation has to be completed to get to any understanding of what opportunities in what ROS settings still remain. Table 2.2 suggest 1,060 miles of two wheel motorized opportunity which includes a hierarchy summation of some combination of ML 1-3 roads in, again, undisclosed ROS settings. It appears from reviewing the alternative maps that most of this mileage is on the west side of the forest at lower elevation road settings and is out of balance with historic semi-primitive motorized settings forest-wide. The problem is that there is still no discussion of where the visits are taking place under the alternative, no thorough presentation of demand by ROS setting, and no complete treatment or disclosure of trend information by user group. i.e., wilderness use down and recreation vehicle sales and registrations up. Colorado, for instance, in 2008 has registered 33,583 snow machines, and 130,784 RV’s (not including over 10,000 out-of-state OHV permits). This is important data in fully disclosing use demand information, especially if the final decision criteria include an item to help find a balanced set of diverse recreation opportunities. 22. Apparently, much of the historic single-track opportunity of 596 miles, page 39, Table 2.1, has shifted to the mechanized bike rider category, but without a setting calculation and disclosure it’s difficult to assess fairness, balance and compliance with Forest Plan objectives. 23. The Roadless area direction is inaccurate and the Forest cannot proceed with Roadless area closures on the rationale identified. The U.S. District of Wyoming court has declared unlawful and set aside the 2001 Roadless Rule, and the U.S. Northern District of California court has modified its earlier injunction to eliminate any suggestion that any of its prior orders would have required the Forest Service to follow the 2001 Rule, at least in Colorado. We understand the SDEIS contends that its management approaches comply with both rules (SDEIS at 94), but in reality there is no identified basis for closure of existing routes in inventoried roadless areas. The analysis of these routes covers only a few pages, presents no meaningful citation to data or any authority, no route-specific identification (let alone analysis), and presents conclusory statements about any of the routes in question. The constantly-changing legal fabric is admittedly difficult to follow. The safest approach for the Forest is to ignore reference to any national Roadless rule, and acknowledge the Colorado rulemaking process that is 24. The SDEIS on pages 104, 105 and 121 discloses the importance of the ski industry on the forest. This discussion includes a brief reference to the employment and the direct economic impact this industry has on the local communities. We understand that the White River National Forest has had to respond to an increasing demand for downhill skiing since the 1950’s. The Forest provided for allocation of 1,000’s of acres for this private development and use through Forest Planning and NEPA processes. We do not think the Forest has delivered the same level of attention to travel systems and motorized recreational opportunities on the Forest. The Forest has taken pride in providing for 11 special use permit ski resorts (page 121) in its desire to provide high quality year-round recreation opportunities. There is no disclosure of a similar, comparative discussion for motorized recreation needs25. In a further example of an inequitable organizational mindset and analysis, the same above discussion on page 121 shows that there are 211 miles of roads and trails serving ski area operations. It is noted here, that those 211 miles are more miles than allowed under Alternative G for ATV use forest-wide. Page 126 shows only 143 miles available for ATV use. In quick summary, there is 32% more road and trail opportunity on ski areas than for a recreation activity that is taking place forest-wide and is increasing in demand, all without a similar response or recognition from the Forest. 25.Motorized related recreation use is also increasing as evidenced by the November 6, 2008 NVUM Report for the White River National Forest. The continued and increasing demand by the public visiting the White River National Forest for driving for pleasure, use of scenic byways, OHV uses, and viewing wildlife is clearly evident in this most recent document. Because the timing of the release of this document overlaps the release of the SDEIS, there was obviously no opportunity to include that data in this SDEIS document or include reference to it in the Literature Cited, Appendix F. This 2008 NVUM document for the White River National Forest needs to be used to update the data and subsequent analysis in the FEIS. The public, as they consider the impacts of Alternative G, must have the most recent information. The Forest Supervisor will need to have this updated report to fully assess current use conditions and trends. The Report is revealing in that it shows the reduction in wilderness use and the upward trend in motorized recreation uses. This document also displays a high degree of overall visitor satisfaction (95%) with recreation expectations and experiences on the forest. 26. This recreation analysis is not a comprehensive approach, nor does it apply standard recreation science to the process. The document has thorough discussions and citations on Recreation Conflict Research, ROS, recreation use statistics, trends, budgets shortfalls, but no full disclosure of the application of ROS and its outcomes by alternative. At least enough disclosure has to take place for the reviewing public to compare the “blended” Alternative G to the Forest Plan objectives for recreation. 27. There is an unacceptable, bio-centric bias in the Travel Management Plan. Discussion of “effects” in Chapter 3 ignores disclosing the impacts on recreation users, their experiences and benefits when changes occur between alternatives. The tendency of each discussion seems to mainly describe the impacts of people on natural resources. Examples are as follows: A. Road-less Area Management, Cumulative Effects (page 96). The second paragraph states: “the increase in recreation uses within the forest (emphasis added) and inventoried road-less areas will likely have cumulative effects on the characteristics of solitude and remoteness”. One, it implies that as written, “solitude and remoteness” objectives apply to recreation use “within the forest”. As written, this means that solitude and remoteness objectives apply forest-wide, and not in just wilderness and road-less areas. This is an exposure of the forest’s possible intent to move decisions outside of the promised balanced or blended distribution of uses. Solitude and remoteness terminology is borrowed from the Wilderness Act and does not have application to the other board set of recreation settings and experiences available on the Forest. Two, there is no follow-up discussion or display on the impacts of designations or closures on the historic patterns of public use. B. Scenery Management. Direct and Indirect Effects (page 101). The discussion here states that: “Alternative G best meets the Scenery Management System’s (SMS) underlying ecological aesthetic. Under SMS, activities which improve forest health also improve forest aesthetics, and therefore move toward the forest plan long-term desired condition. The Alternative G would best protect scenic resources, although a lower number of people would have access to the scenery.” While trying to avoid being overly critical, it is humans who attach definition to the quality of scenery. And, it is a personal “in the mind of the beholder” concept of individual choices and preferences. Humans define the relative aesthetics of what they see and feel. “Ecology” does not determine its own aesthetic. Blaming human use for lower quality scenery is to conveniently put “scenery” above human definitions and subscribe to it its own human like personality. This is another area where objectives for the enhancement of recreation opportunities needs to be discussed and displayed at the same level and the scenery’s concern for its dust, scars, and erosion. C. Social-Economics, page 102. This “Effected Environment” discussion rightly concentrates on jobs, income and dependence on natural resources by some area individuals and industries. However, the document at this point, in this chapter just presents another discussion about conflict management and its supporting science. There is an appeal for all users to be more tolerant, and that not every acre is available for all uses. There is still no tabulation or discussion or strategies presented that talk about sustaining historic recreation, monitoring social benefits and enhancing opportunities over time in peoples’ special places. This is the place where that discussion needs to be presented, so reviewers can fairly evaluate sustainable social systems (recreation and travel opportunity) impacts by alternatives. The underlying request by the Forest, while it tends to concentrate on the impacts of people on bio-physical resources and the sustainability of those resources without change, is to ask the public to change where and how they recreate. The attitude used in the SDEIS seems to say, “you’ll get use to it (the new changes) over time, and will have a higher quality experience as a result” (page 108, paragraph 4). This is highly presumptuous and superimposes a set of decision criteria that is yet undisclosed or incomplete. 28. Page 42 Monitoring. The presentation on monitoring strategies includes outlining the NVUM process, interviews and timing standards. The NVUM is a well documented process, with protocols clearly established that are providing recreation use data that is accepted as reliable. The following paragraph on “other tools” directed at monitoring the effectiveness of the travel management plan does not have the same level of monitoring requirements, time schedules or established standards as the NVUM paragraph. The “reconnaissance strategy” by forest staff with citizen reports is much less specific, has no time or technique standards identified. Without some established objectives for monitoring protocols, and schedules for transportation system inspections at the same level as NVUM, we fear monitoring will not be completed. Additionally, there will be no comparable data for correlation with NVUM or any understanding by diverse recreation users groups as to components or standards for monitoring. The public users need to have a common understanding of the complete and balanced monitoring plan. 29. Page 42 Implementation. This Implementation section does not include any reference to discussion about volunteer programs, grant programs, or permittee programs to help implement and maintain the designated system of roads and trails. The narrative at this section says only: “The Forest will dedicate funding toward accomplishing the goals set in this plan”. We know this approach will continue to strain the White River National Forest budget for high priority road and trail work. The SDEIS, in other sections, recognizes and identifies the need for continued user support and volunteerism to help maintain the road and trail system across all alternatives, and we support that continued recognition and further agree that everyone working together and combining resources will allow for a lot more of the on-going critical maintenance to take place. However, this is the section that should disclose the opportunities for volunteers and grants from all user and interest groups. In example State OHV grants, now at $3.0 million dollars per year state-wide, are available to help with maintenance and signing needs. The White River National Forest needs to more actively apply for funding that is generated by OHV registrations to help off-set lack of appropriated funding. There are about 18 crew’s state-wide that are assisting National Forest Districts with their maintenance needs. The current funding level is now double what it was in recent years. 30. Page 42 Law Enforcement. This section is out of date and needs to reflect the new opportunities for an integrated and coordinated law enforcement program. The State of Colorado Legislature passed House Bill 1069 during the 2008 session that authorizes all law enforcement officers in the State to enforce the travel management regulations on federal land. This Bill was signed by the Governor and was effective July 1, 2008. This legislation allows sheriffs, deputies, highway patrol, Division of Wildlife officers, Division of Parks officers, and other local jurisdictions to enforce federal land travel regulations and orders. This bill is also broad enough to allow these same jurisdictions to help educate users. The Forest needs to prepare a cooperative law enforcement plan that will utilize these additional trained officials to supplement the current, overextended, three full time Forest Service officers. 31. As part of our analysis of the WR TMP/SDEIS, the TPA, COHVCO and local motorized organizations, have developed an initial list of trails and 4wd roads that have be deleted from the TMP. These trails and 4wd roads are critical in providing a ROS for motorized recreation. In addition to the trails/roads listed below, there is another 400 miles of motorized routes that we would like to see included in the final TMP. The description of these routes, trail numbers, etc. will be provided to the FS at a time when detailed route analysis can be accomplished in a joint planning secession with the FS planning staff. Basalt Mtn/ Red Table Area The sum of the above trails both North and South of Red Table Road constitutes a system loop of about 50 miles which would be an adequate day of motorcycle riding for many people. Sloane Peak/Lenado Area Alt G has the trails west of the above trails already in place. The above trails would create a complete system and put trail users down Woody Creek and back to the starting point. The distance included in this complete loop system is approximately 60 miles. Thompson Creek Area Alt G doesn’t contain any of these trails. This loop would be about 30+ miles long. Four Mile Area Golden Horseshoe Area These routes generally offer excellent and sustainable opportunity, provide important connections to other trail systems, and would enhance public safety and visitor perceptions by reducing the need for OHVs to travel roads. Tenderfoot Mountain -There is a beautiful network of several miles of very fun and exciting singletrack northeast of the top of Tenderfoot Mountain and trail 5-55.2b that connects the top of Tenderfoot with 5-66W.2H. Summit County (General- outside Golden Horseshoe and Tenderfoot Mtn. areas) Again, these routes offer unique and sustainable recreational opportunities and a better network of connected access facilitating both motorized and nonmotorized activities. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The loss of roads and trails thru wholesale closures by Alternative G does nothing but create an environment that does not meet the best use of the public lands in the NF. Significantly lacking in the TMP analysis is the misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge, that the majority of off road trail motorcycle are registered and licensed street legal vehicles that can utilize all level of FS roads, and at the same time utilize trails as part of their recreation routes. This important, but previously missing, information should assist the FS staff in reexamining the majority of trail and road closures in Alt G. The TPA and COHVCO, and other user organizations in the WR NF, are prepared to work with the FS planning staff to accomplish this task. The WR NF needs to provide a balanced approach to serve all forms of public recreation and we can help in this process. /s/ Don Riggle Don Riggle cc: Jerry Abboud, COHVCO |
Alpine Trail Letter
|
October 16 2008 Charlie Richmond Tammy Randel Parker Dear Mr. Richmond, Ms Parker, The Colorado 500 (C500) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) would like to thank you and your trail crews for the work they have done on the Alpine, Lou Creek and Nate Creek trails. These trails are used extensively by the annual C500 and many other motorized trail users. The work your trail crew does each year, combined with the volunteer trail work of many Colorado motorcycle riders, helps keep this trail is usable condition for all user groups. I would like to give you some historical background on these trails from the view point of the C500. In the early 1980’s the C500 under took the task to re claim the Alpine trail. It was over grown, significant amount of down fall, and not in a usable condition for recreation. It took the C500 trail crew 3 summers to cut all the down fall, repair switch backs, etc to get it open. In the early 1990, the FS trail crews along with Colorado OHV grants (submitted by the C500), started providing professional trail maintenance, with hired help and the FS trail repair crews. The C500 trail crew and other local user groups do annual maintenance on the entire trail system. This is where we are today. The C500 and the TPA then undertook the task to reclaim the Lou Creek and Nate Creek Trails. This was done in conjunction with an Ouray District FS employee, marking the old trail, and the C500 trail crew building and cutting the down fall. The trail system was completed by a Colorado OHV grant, submitted by the C500. And what you have today is a very good, but limited trail system that all user groups can enjoy. I am giving you this information to lead into a request from the C500 and TPA. There is a significant amount of unused (or very light usage) trails in the area described above. You combine this with the lack of designated motorized trails in the NW RGNF, SW GNF, and the Ouray district, this makes the areas that are open for motorized use, get over used. The C500 and TPA would like to ask that your recreation planners consider more motorized trails in the area. These could be the Deer Creek area (which was motorized), but now over grown, and not used by any one other that the private land owners that are adjacent to the FS area. Or the Fails creek area and other old user trail on top of both Alpine Plateaus. Another major trail that is not used, and should be considered for motorized designation is the Dallas Trail. This was motorized, but the designation was changed in the early 2000, but the trail is now used by almost no one. It is over grown, down fall, etc. The goal of the C500/TPA is to develop a motorized trail system (multi-use) that connects the Alpine Guard Station in the GNF to the Dallas Divide road, to the last Silver Dollar road in the Ouray District. The increase in motorized recreation in your area is extensive (and will continue to grow). From our view point we see a decline in foot traffic use on all of these trails. We request that your recreation planners take this into consideration, when reviewing trail recreation use, and take whatever steps necessary to open more trails for multi use designation. The C500 and the TPA are prepared to work with you and your staff towards this goal. There is OHV recreation funds that are available to help with multi use trail projects. Please let me know if this is a project that the motorized users can work on with the FS. Sincerely |
Protest Monticello PRMP/FEIS
|
September 21 2008 Director (210) Re: Monticello PRMP/FEIS This protest is being filed by: Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) Our interest in filing this protest:
Issues Being Protested:
Parts of Plan Being Protested:
THE RESOLUTION WE SEEK: We seek a higher review all of our comments. We seek the appropriate and necessary corrections to the PRMP where we have asked to have true information directly related to the analysis added, and where we have asked to have inaccurate information corrected or deleted. After making the corrections we ask for, we seek a reconsideration of the proposed decision, where our comments clearly mandate a change in the outcome of the analysis. Concise Statement of Why the Director’s Decision Is Wrong: The comments we submitted during the comment period for this plan are attached, and will speak for themselves. Please review our comments, and withdraw this PRMP in order to make the appropriate revisions. We contend that BLM’s failure to address any of our concerns during the comment period is clear evidence that BLM had already selected the outcomes BLM wanted. Our comments took issue with several of BLM’s proposals, and BLM could not properly and legally address our comments without substantially changing the (previously selected) Decision, and so BLM declined to publish our comments or to respond to them. We have provided substantial evidence supporting our contention that BLM is using the RMP as an instrument to manufacture Wilderness. We contend that resolving user conflict is not an RMP decision and is a serious, substantive issue arising in this and other BLM proposed plans. Publishing and lawfully addressing our concern will require a change in the BLM outcome and in the BLM policies set by this RMP, and thus BLM had no choice but to disregard our concerns. This is a serious breach of trust and a serious disregard for the lawful NEPA process as set forth by the CEQ. We contend that basing any land use allocation decision upon resolving user conflict is arbitrary and capricious. Why? Because “conflict,” as manifested by individual differences of philosophy, values, or cultural attributes, is an ephemeral event. The evidence of a “user conflict” is hearsay, causing every incident of “conflict” to be supported only by hearsay. “User conflict” is neither defined nor quantifiable; and there is never any physical evidence. We strongly contend that, because of the diversity of publics who recreate on public lands and the diversity of the American population, resolving philosophical/cultural/values differences between public lands visitors engaged in different lawful activities could never have been a duty assigned to BLM by Congress. We contend that the “policy conflict” between BLM and NHPA (in the matter of OHV) was manufactured by the BLM to enable itself to arbitrarily expand its authority over public lands visitors who use “OHV’s” for access and recreation. After review of our comments, the reason BLM Monticello disregarded them will be obvious. Thank you for your attention to this matter. * Endnote referenced on page one of this protest, under Our Interest in Filing This Protest We are not attempting to deny that the are physical effects upon the natural environment from OHV recreation. We are attempting to help the BLM produce an accurate analysis. We all know there will be some effects. But the purpose of the NEPA is not to find that place where there are no effects. The purpose is to find the balance between the benefits of the human activity and the effects upon the natural environment. NEPA, Section 2 “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man”, and Section 101 under Title I, “recognizing the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man.” There is a large body of literature, developed over the last 30 years by sociologists in the leisure/recreation field that describes the emotional and social benefits of what is called “serious leisure.” If you review some of the literature, you will find that: BLM may wish to deny that these qualities define motor recreation. That is clear evidence that BLM needs recreation specialists who know motor recreation, the same as BLM has recreation specialists for most other recreation activities pursued on BLM lands. |
| See attached PDF for letters to the Monticello Field Office RMP Comments Bureau of Land Management Monticello Field Office sent in January 2008 |
|
Response to the Proposed Action in the Pagosa Ranger District Travel Managment EA
|
September 2008 Kevin Khung, District Ranger Gentlemen: The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) contend that the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) in the Pagosa Ranger District Travel Management Environmental Assessment (EA), which closes all but 18 miles of trail in the C&D zones on the Pagosa Ranger District, is irrational and arbitrary, for the following reasons:
Mixing actions in a specified, limited geographic portion of the District with District-wide actions of a different nature.
Relief we seek: The Evidence Supporting Our Contention that these road and trail closures are arbitrary and capricious: Let’s try to untangle the FS claim that the closure of the existing trails in the C&D zones (the only zones whose trails are under analysis) is a gain, not a loss. The reason we are going into detail here is that a close inspection of this analysis reveals that the proposed action for the C&D zones appears to result in a 68 percent loss of trail mileage, not an increase in trail mileage. 1. Disregard for the standards set by the CEQ for the no-action alternative The Forest Service escapes its old Forest Plan commitment in the C&D zones by providing no no-action map, and no stand-alone no-action alternative. The absence of the no-action map and the absence of a complete and accurate disclosure of the existing condition (including a map) obstructs three vital elements of the CEQ standards: 1) The analysis must include a no-action alternative that accurately describes the existing conditions. 2) The absence of a no-action alternative precludes a comparison between the effects of the proposed action and the existing conditions. 3) The absence of a no-action alternative thwarts informed public participation and comment (as abundantly illustrated by the frustrated comments from the public sector most affected by the proposal, in Appendix A). Skipping the no-action alternative analysis also enables the Forest Service to make the acreage numbers more important than the miles of trail: Of course there will be zero acres open to cross country travel, to comply with the TMR. But we are not designating acres, we are designating miles of trail. If the Forest Service had analyzed an honest no-action alternative, we (and the appeal review officer, and the court, if necessary) would realize that the number of acres open to cross-country travel in mountain terrain is relevant only to the change of the area designation. It is not relevant to the number of miles of existing trail that the Forest Service proposes to designate. 40 CFR 1502.10 allows a for slightly differing formats, if the agency determines a compelling need to do so, but it does not allow any variance in the presentation of the alternatives. On page 8 the Forest Service states that it believes that their description of the Affected Environment will satisfy the no-action requirement at 40 CFR 1502.14. This is a strange claim, because a stand-alone No Action alternative is clearly required by Section 1502.14 (d): agencies shall, “Include the alternative of no action.” The CEQ’s Forty Questions further clarifies, “it is difficult to think of a situation where it would not be appropriate to address a "no action" alternative. Accordingly, the regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency which must be analyzed. Section 1502.14(c)”. The CEQ makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of the No Action alternative is to provide the baseline, to which the other alternatives are to be compared. The scope of this analysis is intentionally limited to the designation of existing trails in the C&D zones, and a few changes to the present NFS routes District-wide but no designation changes District-wide. However, a very narrow scope doesn’t justify leaving CEQ-required elements out of the analysis. But this is just a minor little EA, covering a tiny part of the Forest and some trails that somebody made thirty or forty years ago (page 24, “Prior to 1980, most of these trails were open to motorized use…”) Well, let’s take a look at how the Pagosa R.D.’s unusual presentation of “no action” affects the presentation of the proposed action:
For example, the EA persistently refers to “cross-country travel.” The implication is that vehicle users are behaving in random, unpredictable ways because theoretically, they can operate their vehicles anywhere they wish. However, examining the USGS 7.5 quad maps of the C&D zones under study indicates that this is not and cannot be happening, because the topography is too steep and rough, and the terrain too heavily vegetated. The Forest Service makes no effort to disclose this in the analysis. We fully intend to present the USGS maps and 3-D modeling media to the appeal review officer and to the court if necessary, so that any person, whether experienced in mountain recreation or not, can see that random, unlimited cross-country vehicle travel is not what is actually happening in the C&D zones on the Pagosa Ranger District. What is occurring, and has occurred for at least 40 years— is “repetitive use of cross-country routes” (pg. 22). This does indeed make travel ways, for people to find their way through the mountains. That is exactly what Knight & Gutzwiller, Bowles, Cole & Landres, are telling us—use the travel ways. They are not telling us we must close all lightly-utilized travel ways in remote areas (like the C&D zones on the Pagosa R.D.). We can easily find a good example of how the absence of a no-action alternative skews the data. Refer to page 42: Table 5: Estimation of elk habitat available under the No Action, Alternative’s 1 and 2 (sic). Table 5 does not present a comparison of the existing situation to the proposed action. The figure of only 657 acres of available elk habitat is skewed because random, unrestrained “cross-country” driving is not the existing condition. Repeated use of “cross-country travel ways” is the condition. If we had a map showing these repeatedly used travel ways, and a description of the size and uses of them, we would see that there is far more elk habitat than 657 acres. A CEQ-compliant no-action alternative would show large blocks of land for elk habitat that is not interrupted by random, unpredictable “cross-country” travel. 2. Disregard of prior commitments to the travel ways in the C&D Zones It was a Forest Service administrative decision to allow this activity in C&D zones. The Forest Service’s present claim that the trails that became established as a result of this decision do “not count,” (page 32), because they are not “system routes,” or, they are “not maintained,” and thereby causing those travel ways to be considered somehow “not acceptable,” or “not important,” and not worthy of their own no-action map and analysis, is the essence of capricious. Why? Because the Forest Service left all those trails open to the public for at least 25 years. For all we know, the Forest Service built at least some of them prior to 1983, in the 1970’s, or even during the Great Depression when the government hired unemployed workers—and the Forest Service employed many of those people and established living quarters and camps for them and one of their tasks was to build trails. This would represent a major Forest Service commitment. The Forest Service knows that someone is keeping those trails open, either by repeated use of “cross-country travel ways” or by actual maintenance activities. That is undeniably an implied commitment. The Forest Service issues permits to outfitters (pg. 93) who use those trails, a clear and specific commitment. And, “extensive site specific surveys” were conducted during 2007 to locate and map any OHV use of routes other than open system roads and trails in the C and D zones (page 25). 3. No unresolved conflicts are presented There’s another problem with leaving the no-action alternative out. Under the CEQ regulations, the Agency is required to: Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the Act. (40 CFR 1501.2(c)). The Forest Service has correctly applied this requirement in the context of whether or not to prepare an EIS. By the same token, the Forest Service presents no rationale for not designating all of the existing trails, as shown on other agency maps and other commercially available maps, as well as all user-submitted maps. Nowhere in this EA are any unresolved conflicts (in the matter of the trails in C&D zones) ever brought to light. What is “impact,” anyway? How is it measured? How can we compare the impacts of one alternative to another if the impacts are very likely not even measurable as described in the summary of Knight & Gutzwiller (E.A. pages 40 & 41)? Referring to page 40, 3.7.4.1 Terrestrial MIS, the entire passage summarizing the Knight & Gutzwiller collection of essays and case studies strongly supports designating trails and requiring people to stay on them. Yet nowhere in the Knight & Gutzwiller work is any evidence or research cited that justifies closing all or even most of the trails in dispersed wildland recreation environments. We refer back to the C&D zones on the Pagosa Ranger District: a dispersed wildland recreation environment. The Knight & Gutzwiller work urges designated trails. Except for bullet item 5, the Forest Service summary refrains from its own third hand speculation. Further implicating the Forest Service speculation is the Forest Service’s own statements that the use of the existing travel ways is relatively low. There are no “areas (roads and trails)” in the C&D zones on the Pagosa Ranger District that are “heavily used. And, further discrediting the Forest Service speculation is that, after reviewing the essays in the Knight & Gutzwiller book, we can say with confidence that when those writers discuss “greater disturbances,” they are referring to heavily visited wildlife refuges, developed recreation sites, and water recreation. The term “heavily used” does not appear in any discussion of remote trails that are used on a predictable schedule: summertime; weekends; and, as proposed, only on the designated roads and trails. Not mentioned by the Forest Service is the fact that the Knight & Gutzwiller work includes a chapter on case studies of wildlife refuge and bird sanctuary management issues. Where human visitation was causing measurable, negative disturbance to the wildlife, the solution in every case was to restrict the humans to their motor vehicles. We fully intend to present this reference work to the appeal review officer, and to the court if necessary (our expectations of the Forest Service reaction to our comment is based on the Forest Service response to other comments), to prove our point. Please refer to Table 3, “Forest Plan MIS reviewed for this analysis:” Twenty four species are listed. Of those 24, 19 use habitat or have been observed in the C&D zones. Of those 19, 15 have populations that are stable, trending upward, or abundant. One species has stable to slight downward trend in “east side of SJNF.” It is not stated whether the “east side of SJNF” includes the C&D areas in the Pagosa Ranger District; private land and the city of Pagosa Springs occupies a large block of acreage between the C&D zones and the eastern part of the Forest. Three species have “downward trends. These are fish species, and the habitat locations cited in the table, “portions of the Piedra River and Devil Creek” are not in the C&D areas under study: No designated motor trails are allowed along the Piedra River except NFSR 622. Devil Creek, about 20 miles in length, is not in the C&D areas. It appears that approximately one mile of Devil Creek lies in the C zone under study, and the other 20 miles are in B zone (motorized on designated routes only), private property, and the State Wildlife Refuge. A quick review of the Environmental Consequences directs the reader back to Table 3 and provides no further factual, site-specific information about the effects of motor trails in the C&D zones. At page 21 in the E.A.: The Rio Blanco River, Chama Creek, and Stollstiemer Creek not affected by activities in the C&D zones because they are in different watersheds. At page 22: “Off- road motorized use within the C and D areas occurs on closed roads along with some cross-country travel. The roads are generally rocky and dry, especially in the area around Devil Mountain. Erosion and sedimentation resulting from existing off-road motorized use is localized.” In other words, insofar as resource issues, this analysis presents no evidence that the current situation (what ever it is) is having any detrimental effects. 4. No climate information Seasonal closure: the Forest Service has left out of the analysis all information about the climate of the area. The Forest Service has omitted any discussion of the differing effects of rainfall and snowmelt on the condition of single track trails and unmaintained two-track roads. This is an astonishing omission, considering that seasonal closures due to weather is a centerpiece of the analysis, and road closures that are dependent upon weather conditions are mentioned at least eight times throughout the document. 5. No visitor use numbers to support predictions about levels of use and the resulting effects of the use. From page 25: “Use of these routes was determined to be relatively low both in terms of the numbers of routes receiving use, as well as the number of people using them.” And, at page 29: “The proposed closure of the First Fork Road (NFSR 622) to ATVs and motorcycles will negatively affect some Forest users, but will not result in any loss in RVDs for the area or any off-District displacement of users.” Neither the statement or the prediction are credible, because we can find no factual information in the analysis that could serve as a baseline—even an estimated baseline— from which these claims may be derived. It is difficult to imagine how to rationally analyze the effects of any visitor activities when the number of visitors is completely unknown. 6. Silence on disposition of the remaining trails not closed by this Decision It appears from the page 25 and page 29 narratives that there are existing trails in the C&D zones which the Forest Service perceives are not being used by motorcycles or OHV’s. This raises five new questions that the EA does not answer: • The Forest Service is silent on who else is using those trails; 7. Shifting representations of the trail category called “designated” Whatever the objective of emphasizing Designated Routes in Table 1 and in the narrative on page 31 may be, for the purpose of comparing the change of trail mileage in the C&D zones under study, this emphasis is moot. Why? Because none of these designated trails are in the C/D zones, and the scope of the analysis insofar as trail designation changes, is limited to the C&D zones. In other words, the trails under consideration are ALL non-system trails. This analysis looks exactly like a Ponzi scheme. Here’s why: In the environmental consequences (page 27), the FS references 37 miles of lost trail mileage….but those don’t count, if you read page 32, because they’ve not been maintained nor are they designated or system routes…but here we are back to the problem of there being no “designated/ system/maintained” routes in the C&D zones. There are only “ cross-country routes (pg. 22)….” Yet the 37 miles is called out in the Environmental Consequences for Recreation….this must mean that it counts in recreation discussion but it does not count in the transportation discussion. On the other hand, where did the 18 miles the FS chose to designate come from, in an area with no system/ designated/ maintained routes? Further obfuscating the discussions, the Forest Service names the proposed action “new motorized trail designations.” In genuinely Orwellian fashion the Forest Service does not name the proposed action “close 37 miles of trails” ….maybe/probably because the Forest Service loosely interchanges categories of trail ….designated? System? Maintained? while at the same time shifting the significance of those categories….and dismissing any trail that’s not a “system” or a designated trail….in an area that has no system or designated trails….which in turn enables the FS to claim they’ve increased the mileage in the category of designated routes…well, of course they have. Except that no such category exists in C&D zones. There are only “unmaintained” “non-system routes” and “cross-country routes” that are repetitively used”…sounds like a trail…. .in the C&D zones…at least 55 miles of them. Probably more. We do not know, because there is no map and no data of the existing situation. In fact, when you add up the omissions caused by skipping the no-action alternative, it sure can be perceived that the Forest Service is adding considerably less than 18 miles of trail to the designated system And except for the fact that those pesky 37 miles (or 55, or 74, or whatever) are mentioned in the recreation discussion (3.4.2.1,) and show up on everybody else’s recreation maps, we might not realize that this is a major loss of trail mileage. 10. Mixing actions in a specified, limited geographic portion of the District, with District-wide actions of a different nature. This odd distribution of analyzed actions has caused even the most involved publics to misunderstand the objectives of the analysis (see page 7, 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). 11. No evidence that the appropriate level of site-specific NEPA analysis was actually conducted (40CFR 1500.2 (b) and 40CFR1502.1) In other words, the disclaimer on page 7 is inappropriate to this document. The scale of this analysis is so small that it is hard to imagine any reason for not providing detailed maps and site-specific data. A single example: from page 11, Design Criteria for Proposed Action: “Close, decommission and rehabilitate…..trail along fence off NFSR 730.” The Forest Service is silent about what fence, whose fence, the purpose of the fence, and where exactly this fence and trail are located. The Forest Service is silent about what is so unique that the passage of several motorcycles, a few times per season, represents or could possibly represent, an irretrievable commitment of resources. In the EA, at page 25, the Forest Service says,“Extensive site specific surveys were also conducted during 2007 to locate and map any OHV use of routes other than open system roads and trails in the C and D areas.” And at page 28: “….field surveys were conducted to determine the location and condition of routes being used by the public in these areas.” However, no maps of these surveys are provided. Especially conspicuous by its absence is a map of all the existing roads and trails in the area. It is quite reasonable to expect at least this level of specificity for a project-specific EA in a small geographic area, which as stated in the P&N, is what this EA is (page 1: “….history of the project proposal….the purpose of and need for the project …”). We contend that the Forest Service is obliged, and should be pleased, to provide the maps they made in support of this EA. Instead, all we have is a very general description of conditions (page 25) and we are expected to assume that this very general description is of the study area only by the inclusion of the named roads: “Extensive site specific surveys were also conducted during 2007 to locate and map any OHV use of routes other than open system roads and trails in the C and D areas (i.e., closed roads and user-created routes). Use of these routes was determined to be relatively low both in terms of the numbers of routes receiving use, as well as the number of people using them. Closed roads are generally in good/fair condition, but some display signs of vegetation impacts, rutting, soil loss, poor drainage, etc. Most of the observed use appeared to be occurring during big game hunting seasons, especially along sections of roads closed to full size vehicles such as 730A, 804, and 920, with some additional signs of activity from non-hunting ATV and motorcycle users recreating in the vicinities of NFSR 730, 920, and 626.” The Forest Service is silent on the rationale for selecting only trails that showed “signs of” OHV/motorcycle use; the Forest Service is silent on what those “signs” are; the Forest Service has chosen to omit any maps generated by these extensive surveys; the Forest Service is silent on what “light” use is, as opposed to moderate, heavy, or overcrowded; and, the Forest Service is silent about any site-specific issues observed during these surveys. Skipping the stand-alone no-action alternative affirms this suspicion. We would contend that the narrative on page 25 and page 28 do not meet even a minimal standard of evidence that might satisfy the intent of 40 CFR 1500.2 and 1502.1. 12. Misrepresentation of the Literature Cited, The phrase “many studies” is inappropriate in any analysis, and so we must discard all implications that such phrases offer. In the matter of misrepresentation, neither of the studies cited for this analysis about elk habitat had anything whatsoever to do with single track motorcycle trails or unmaintained two-track. The literature cited is about logging roads servicing timber harvest, arterial Forest roads, ditched and graded, with frequent full-size vehicle and frequent truck traffic. It is inappropriate to use this research as the model for the effects of lightly-used single track motorcycle trail and lightly-used, unmaintained roads. We have these references. We will include them in our presentation to the appeal review officer and the court, if necessary. Insofar as the statement on page 42 “Less human disturbance in the area could equate to increased hunter success for hunters who pursue game away from designated open roads” raises a question that is outside the scope of this analysis: do we want elk habitat for the benefit of the elk or for the benefit of the hunters? 13. No rationale for closing road 622 Please refer to Appendix D, First Fork Road Mixed Use Survey. From page 94: THE CRASH PROBABILITY IS ASSESSED TO BE HIGH DUE TO THE DEMONSTRATED ACCIDENT HISTORY, TRAFFIC TYPE CONSISTING OF A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF TRUCK/TRAILER COMBINATIONS, POOR ALIGNMENT AND TIGHT RADIUS CURVES, LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE, PRESENCE OF ROADSIDE OBSTRUCTIONS. THE CRASH SEVERITY WAS ASSESSED TO BE HIGH DUE TO THE STEEP EMBANKMENT ALONG MUCH OF THE ROADWAY, THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS ROADSIDE OBSTRUCTIONS, AND THE ROCKFALL/LANDSLIDE HAZARD. MITIGATION MEASURES COULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO REDUCE THE CRASH PROBABILITY AND SEVERITY RISK. That can be dangerous stuff, to be sure, but that dangerous stuff will be present regardless of whether non-highway-legal vehicles are allowed on the road. The report makes no direct or indirect claim that any of these hazards have any relation whatsoever to the presence of non-highway-legal vehicles on road 622. The Forest Service reports a total of two separate single-vehicle accidents. We perceive that to mean that only one vehicle crashed, all by itself, in each incident. The Forest Service presents no connection between these crashes and non-highway-legal vehicles being allowed on the road. In fact, the Forest Service tells us that the accidents were caused by excess speed and driver inattentiveness. The Forest Service is silent about what type of vehicles crashed. The Forest Service is silent about the severity of the injuries. The Forest Service is silent on how the presence of unregistered vehicles on this road have any connection to these two crashes. And, the Forest Service has no record of its own of any other crashes on this road. The Forest Service fails to explain how or why removing “OHV” traffic will be the “most effective” mitigation for the hazards listed in the report. In fact, “OHV” and/or “non-highway-legal vehicles” are not even discussed after page 95 —until the suggested mitigation measures are presented on page 97: “Mitigation Measures: “THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS TO REDUCE CRASH PROBABILITY AND SEVERITY RISK WOULD BE TO DESIGNATE THIS ROAD FOR USE BY HIGHWAY LEGAL VEHICLES ONLY. ALTERNATIVELY, THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO REDUCE CRASH RISK.” And there follows an astonishing price tag for putting up one warning sign, removing 10 trees less than 24 inches in diameter, putting up 10 object markers, adding one mile of guardrail, moving one sign, and brushing approximately seven miles. In other words, there is no rational connection between the Decision (designating this road for use by highway legal vehicles only) and the data (the recorded hazards and crash history of this road). It appears as though the Forest Service simply desires to “effectively remove the ability of users of these (non-highway-legal) vehicles to link up these areas and trails.” (page 29) 14. Intentionally destroying route connectivity The Forest Service is fully aware that it is destroying the connectivity of these routes: From page 29: “The construction of a parking area for the 804 trail will provide a means for users to access the trail, but it will not alleviate the problem associated with its lack of connectivity to other routes in the area, which in turn will render the trail less appealing and utilized in the future.” From page 29: “…. lack of connectivity of the proposed trail network…” And from page 29, “…..will effectively remove the ability of users of these vehicles to link up these areas and trails….” And from page 29 “…..longer rides utilizing multiple trails and roads….. would no longer be possible under this alternative.” Another example, also from page 9, “Close, decommission and rehabilitate…..trail around (not through) spring at upper end of NFSR 920…” This spring must be pretty critical. Maybe it’s the only one. Maybe MIS habitat is there. Maybe migrating birds use it. Except that if we study the USGS maps of the area, and the commercially available recreation trail maps of the area, and maps published by other agencies, we find , along or near to road 920 and within or very close to the C&D areas under study, Mesa Spring # 1, Mesa Spring # 2, Farrow Springs, the cited “spring at upper end of 920,” Snow Springs, Lost Springs, Horse Mountain Springs, Ford Spring, and two un-named springs. NEPA is about irretrievable commitments of resources. The Forest Service has nothing to say about what or how one mile of single track (the trail that we speculate goes along the fence of NFSR 730), which amounts to .0001 percent of the acreage under study (one ten-thousandth of one percent), could represent any possible irretrievable commitment of resources. By the same token, the Forest Service provides no rationale for intentionally destroying the recreational value of a coherent, connected system of trail loops (the human part of this environment). 15. No Standards are set for determining which routes can be designated This different from “Design Criteria.” We would not know that “not crossing a perennial stream” is a requirement except that we have Forest Service response to previous comment in which this phrase appears to be a “rule.” The same is true for requiring trails to be in “rocky, dry soils,” and “well-graded.” In the E.A., it is not presented as a rule. It is mentioned, in context, as desirable, but not specifically called out as a requirement. These particular requirements are arbitrary, for the following reasons
16. Failure to disclose the indirect, long-term effect of the Proposed Action The fact of this matter is that the Forest Service has failed to disclose the single measurable environmental consequence of the proposed action for the C&D areas: the proposed action will make the area less accessible, it will have fewer travel ways, and this, in turn, will cause the area to become similar to an “unroaded” area. Thank you in advance for reconsidering this proposed action, and initiating a CEQ-compliant, professional analysis to replace it. Sincerely, |
Moab Protest Letter
|
August 2008 These actions were a result of a year’s worth of work, culminating last fall in extensive and detailed comments on the Moab Draft RMP. Utilizing information provided by members of the TPA, COHVCO, Ride with Respect, and a number of individuals, TPA/COHVCO submitted over 16 separate documents in a cooperative attempt to change the Moab proposals that will clearly harm motorized access and motorized recreation. In every comment we provided a solution that BLM could use in the Final RMP. Unfortunately, BLM did not accept enough of our changes to preserve what we consider a viable “OHV” route system on Moab BLM lands. A copy of our protest package was also provided to the Blue Ribbon Coalition to insure that all interested groups share their information. The three Moab PRMP/FEIS protests: Moab Protest # 1. We protested the insertion of “resolving user conflict” into the Purpose and Need for the Moab RMP. This is a very dangerous change-of-course for BLM RMP’s. We contend that it was never the intent of Congress for BLM to consider “user conflict” in any land use allocation decisions, and therefore this “need” is seriously outside the authority of RMP Decisions. Moab Protest # 2. We protested the Travel Plan in total. We protested the methods that BLM used to gather route inventory data, and we protested the methods BLM used to designate (or not designate) motor recreational trails. Our basis for the protest was multi-fold: BLM lacked sufficient factual information about Moab visitors and their chosen activities to make rational allocation decisions; BLM’s Travel Plan analysis lacked specific, factual information about the OHV trails that were closed; and, the research BLM used to support the closures did not “inform” the designations. We used GIS analysis to show that the Travel Plan, as it relates to motor recreation, is simply irrational. Moab Protest #3. We protested the establishment of the “Bookcliffs ERMA.” BLM wants to make everything north of I-70 non-motorized. They will designate a few of the existing roads and a few fragments of the Thompson Trail, but the emphasis will be non-motorized recreation. All of the existing singletrack has been omitted from the BLM maps. The Bookcliffs ERMA, just by chance we suppose, completely surrounds the three largest WSA’s in the Moab jurisdiction. We provided detailed evidence that Moab BLM is using the RMP process to manufacture Wilderness. BLM has promised a prompt decision on our protests, but they have set no deadline. If they decide against us, the next step is litigation. We have built a very strong case right from the beginning of this process, so we believe we have a better-than-usual chance to prevail if we do have to go to court. Let’s hope that BLM recognizes this in our protests, and sends the Travel Plan back for a proper re-do, changes the Bookcliffs ERMA designation, and, perhaps the most important of all, removes “resolving user conflict” from the Purpose and Need. IN ADDITION TO THE MOAB WORK, TPA and COHVCO have also submitted documentation to the following other BLM draft RMP plans: Richfield. We recognize and appreciate that many organizations and individuals have put thousands of hours, dollars and tears into saving access in Richfield. We sincerely hope that our effort helped. We requested BLM remove user conflict from the purpose and need, same as Moab. We submitted corrections to the research BLM is using to evaluate the effects of trail-based motor recreation. We attacked the rationale behind making the largest contiguous acreage of the Richfield F.O. “emphasize non-motorized recreation,” and, just by chance we suppose, connecting several WSA’s—and so we again provided detailed evidence that BLM is using the RMP process to manufacture Wilderness. Monticello. We demanded that resolving user conflict be removed from the Purpose and Need, again. We attacked the proposed nonmotorized SRMA, which would—-yup, connect several WSA’s—and in effect manufacture more Wilderness. We used GIS analysis to show how their proposed route designation method was not only contrary to BLM directives, it was just plain irrational. We did comment on the Price SEIS, however, our effect was limited to the SEIS only. |
Letter from BlueRibbon Coalition to USFS
|
July 2008 Letter from Brian Hawthorne, Public Lands Director of BlueRibbon Coalition to Abigail Kimbell & James Bedwell of US Forest Service regarding TMR Implementation Schedule Concerns. |
Editorial from the COHVCO
|
Where do we go from Here? An editorial written by Jerry Abboud Executive Director of the COHVCO regarding the letter from the Forest Service regarding the Travel Management rule. |
Designation Digest, published by USFS for July 2008
|
July 2008 Designation Digest – US Forest Service – PDF published as needed by the Washington Office and contains updates on the route and area designation process taking place on National Forests and grasslands, and related off-highway vehicle topics. |
Letter from Attorneys to USFS regarding TMR Implementation Schedule concerns
|
July 14, 2008 Letter from Attorneys Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke to Abigail Kimbell, Chief, US Forest Service and James Bedwell, Director of Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources for the USDA Forest Service regarding TMR Implementation Schedule concerns. At the end of this letter the following documents from the USDA Forest Service are included. May 2008 – Environmental Assessment, Forest-wide Travel Management Project – Superior National Forest May 2008 – Environmental Assessment, Lakes Travel Management – Columbine, Hinsdale, and La Plata Counties, Colorado April 2008 – Travel Plan Project, Environmental Assessment – Coeur D’Alene River Ranger district May 2008 – Environmental Assessment – National Forests in Mississippi Route Designation May 2008 – Environmental Assessment, Pagosa District Travel Management Rule Analysis – Pagosa Ranger District, San Juan National Forest Archuleta, Hinsdale & Mineral Counties, Colorado – May 2008 |
TPA Balance Sheet
|
Statement of Changes in Net Assets – Inception to May 2008 |
Letter to the Pagosa Ranger District, San Juan National Forest
|
This letter is a combined response from the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado off Highway Vehicle Coalition, (COHVCO to the Pagosa Ranger District’s Environmental Assessment on their proposed implementation of their Travel Management Rule. This is also a letter of protest based on the lack of a thorough, integrated, collaborative transportation assessment in context with an updated Forest Plan. |
Letters regarding the San Juan Plan Revision
The Trails Preservation Alliance along with the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition sent these letters to the SJNF regarding the San Juan Plan Revision.
|
The Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition wrote this request that five revisions be made to the DLRMP Plan and analysis. |
|
This is a consolidated response from the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) to the SJPLC Plan Review Committee. |
|
This is a letter regarding the "“Proposed” Hermosa Wilderness in the San Juan National Forest and the request that this proposal be removed from any of the alternatives in the Final Plan. |
Position Paper – FS MVUM & TMR
The Trails Preservation Alliance position on the Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and Travel Management Rule (TMR).
See full letter here:
Letter to the Forest Service
The Trails Preservation Alliance sent a letter to the Forest Service regarding the Rocky Mountain Region TMR Implementation Schedule.
See full letter here:
Letter to the San Juan National Forest
The Trails Preservation Alliance sent a letter to the SJNF regarding their Hermosa wilderness study.
See full letter here: