Arizona Roadless Area Use meetings

[crawler#976]

http://www.azgfd.gov/artman/publish/article_551.shtml

Please take the time to attend your local meeting!

[Jonathan Hanson]

Thanks for posting the notice, Crawler. I hope everyone who can will attend a local meeting.

I also hope everyone on this forum will support the continued protection of the remaining roadless areas in Arizona. I've taken the liberty of reprinting below an op-ed piece I wrote for the East Valley Tribune, supporting the petition which the governor must submit this November. It's also on file in the Conservation section on the main Expedition Portal site.



It is local control: Americans support the Roadless Rule


By Jonathan Hanson

A recent editorial in the East Valley Tribune excoriated Janet Napolitano and the other governors and state attorneys general who support the so-called Roadless Rule, which banned new road construction in about 58 million acres of our national forests, mostly in the West. The editorial accused Napolitano et al of pandering to “green extremists,” and claimed that the “controversial” rule merely locks up public land for the exclusive use of “neo-Druids” and, worse, democrats, who the Tribune apparently believes are the rule’s only supporters.

As a Republican, 4x4 owner, and hunter lumped in with those neo-Druids, I wonder if the Tribune could stop pandering to lumber and mining companies long enough to get the facts straight.

Far from being some last-minute Clinton plot, the Roadless Rule was adopted after a two-year process involving over 600 public meetings. The Forest Service received four million comments on the proposal—more than for any other issue in its history. American citizens who supported the plan outnumbered those who didn’t by almost two to one—a significantly greater majority than that which returned George Bush to office. According to one poll, over 80 percent of hunters and anglers supported the plan. The Outdoor Industry Association, which represents 4,000 companies involved in the $20 billion outdoor industry, supported the plan. Even the corporate headquarters of KB Homes, one of the nation’s largest builders, sent a letter of support. Information is lacking on how many neo-Druids have infiltrated executive positions at KB.

The reason for this groundswell of support is simple: Americans overwhelmingly want to preserve the last pristine wild areas with which our country is blessed, along with the wildlife that lives there. The Roadless Rule affects only a third of all national forest land. The majority is still open to logging and other resource extraction, as well as motorized recreation, along 386,000 miles of existing Forest Service roads—enough to circle the earth 15 times. If that doesn’t qualify as “multiple use,” what would? Incidentally, the Forest Service has a $10 billion backlog on maintenance for those roads—which, remember, are funded by taxpayers in the first place, not by the lumber companies that benefit hugely from them. Public lands timber sales cost the public millions of dollars every year.

The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas. Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.

Bush’s move to rescind the Roadless Rule doesn’t restore “local control” over national forests, as claimed by the administration and the Tribune. In fact it gives state governors only 18 months to identify and study areas they believe should remain roadless, and to then petition the under-Secretary of Agriculture to develop management strategies for those areas. The under-Secretary is free to alter or reject outright those petitions. Does that sound like local control? Since the current under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, spent 20 years as a timber industry lobbyist, one can predict where his sympathies might lie. Rey was a chief architect of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s version of the 1997 National Forest Management Act, which would have eliminated citizen oversight of national forest policy and made timber harvest levels mandatory and enforceable. Does that sound like local control?

America does need lumber and minerals and oil. We also need space for fans of motorized backcountry recreation. That’s why over half of all national forest land remains open for such activities. And this doesn’t count 260 million acres of BLM land, most of which is also accessible by vehicle, or millions of acres of state land.

The Roadless Rule is supported by a solid majority of Americans (and Arizonans) and backed by sound science. It might be our final opportunity to preserve the last pristine areas of our national forests, for the enjoyment of ourselves and our children.

Even those we haven’t raised as Druids.

[erin]

:coffee:
I hadn't caught that before,very well written Jonathan.

[Ursidae69]

I love that Jonthan. :clapsmile Did they print it I hope?

[edgear]

good stuff
:luxhello:

[Jonathan Hanson]

Thanks guys. Yes, they not only printed it, but a revised version has gone out in the newsletter for PARA (Protect Arizona's Roadless Areas).

You wouldn't think that in Arizona, the last frontier in the lower 48 (we were the 48th state), the issue of protecting our last bits of pristine public land would generate even a whiff of contention. Nice to see support on a 4x4 forum - but then I expected that here!

[BajaTaco]

Thanks very much for the heads-up Mark.

Thursday, July 20 - Prescott (Prescott National Forest), Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Office, 1015 Fair St. 6-9 p.m.

I'll have to haul my druid *** over there ;)

BTW, I DO have a photo of crawler976 hugging a tree :p

[DesertRose]

The Arizona Republic printed an op-ed by Jonathan today, on the values of roadless areas and supporting the Roadless Rule:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0710hanson-roads.html

All us 4x4-driving neo-druids will be there!

[Ursidae69]

The Arizona Republic printed an op-ed by Jonathan today, on the values of roadless areas and supporting the Roadless Rule:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0710hanson-roads.html

All us 4x4-driving neo-druids will be there!

Great article. :bowdown:

[BajaTaco]

Another good piece Jonathan. :)

FWIW, Arizona covers 73 million acres. There are only 1.2 million acres of inventoried roadless areas here.

[crawler#976]

Info on AZ FS land that's been inventoried, broken out by Nat Forest:

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/states/az/state3.shtml

I don't understand the process - reason #1 why I'll be attending the meeting.

My concern is that this process creates defacto wilderness areas - if the area is deserving of such designation, then why not do that vs. some policital machination that can be changed by future political hacks. Secondly, as a "motorized" hiker, I really don't want to lose more opportunities - enough area has been lost as it is.

I'm looking forward to being edified :cool:

[Seldom Seen]

Hope I can help out a little. Here in Colorado we are about to rap up the process of reinstating the Roadless Rule. We had a different opportunity here than other states. Our governor and the state legislature formed a task force to examine the 2001 rule and, with public input, recommend changes to the rule to better serve Colorado and it's mtn. communities.

I have been very involved with our club to help our land use coordinator keep our club informed about the process. I have attended several meetings and have done a LOT of research on the 2001 rule and the reinstatement process.

1st a little history is in order. Back in 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act. The act mandated that public land managers inventory all public lands and identify all lands suitable for wilderness status. In typical government fashion it took longer than expected and involved many law suits. So they did it again in the early 70's. The inventory was called RARE I. Again the same old BS and they did it again ending in 1979 and was called RARE II. You will hear these terms thrown around a lot. Fast forward to 1998, Forest Chief Mike Dombeck realized that the USFS had a backlog of maintenance on existing roads so he put a temporary ban on road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) and adjacent primitive areas. He also gave notice to his bosses (the Sec. Of Agriculture and the Pres) that the USFS was proposing a rule change to make the ban permanent. During the public comment period on the proposed change the USFS received a record number of comments, the overwhelming majority were in favor of making the changes permanent. In 2001 Pres. Clinton made the changes permanent. After Bush was elected, and there was a changing of the guard, several states filed suit in federal court to repeal the 2001 rule. IIRC there were 9 cases and all upheld the rule. In late 2004 or early 2005 Bush suspended the rule and set forth a process in which the governor of each state can petition the Sec of Agriculture on how best to proceed with the rule in their state. Most states have petitioned to reinstate the rule. CA, OR and NM have decided to let a federal court decide after hearing from all sides. Other states have filed paper work saying the will abide by the decision in the CA et-al case even though they are not directly involved in the case.

OK a little background that I hope will answer a few questions and dispel some of the rhetoric you will hear.

What is the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) process? Well basically it's an inventory. Like a shop keeper keeps inventory of this stock, the USFS keeps an inventory of lands that have primitive characteristics. Much like a shopkeeper's, the USFS's inventory is dynamic and land is added and deleted during FS plan revisions. The inventory exists as a set of lines on a map enshrined somewhere in Washington DC.

How does an area get included in the inventory? An IRA has to be at least 5,000 acres or adjacent to an existing Wilderness Area. The IRA has to be relatively free from human impact and have mostly a primitive characteristic.

Why are there ROADS in a ROADLESSarea? This one is going to be difficult as I am a visual person and it will be difficult to explain in writing. Give me a white board and 20mins of your time and I guarantee you will have an AH-HA moment. Any way here it goes so bear with me.

Let's say you have a forest, it is >5,000 acres and is mostly free of impact. However smack dab in the middle of it there is an abandon mine and leading to the mine is a FS road. You look on a forest service map and it says that this forest is an IRA. :confused: When the USFS does the inventory they first look at the overall characteristic of the area and if there are some roads in the area they create a buffer zone around the road. The zone is 300 feet wide (150 feet either side of the road). Then, if say the road switchbacks up a hill instead of making the buffer zig-zag up the hill, leaving little slivers of land between the switchbacks, they "round" or "smooth" the edges so the buffer includes the switchback and all the ground in between. With me so far? Next they will create a buffer zone around the mine. All the acreage with in the buffer zone is subtracted from the overall acreage of the forest and if the forest is still >5,000 acres than it can be included in the inventory.

The best example I can use is Holy Cross City and the road leading to it. Holy Cross is surrounded on 3 sides by the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. If you look at the map you will see that the city (ghost town) the trail and the associated buffer is excluded from Wilderness status. (the process going from IRA to Wilderness is not the same as going from forest to IRA. This is the best example I can think of, if you look at the map and see how the boundaries are "rounded")

Got it?

Is inclusion as an IRA the 1st step in the Wilderness process? The short answer is yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated. The Inventory only identifies areas with potential. During FS plan revisions the lands are constantly re-evaluated for suitability as wilderness. Over the years as new leases are granted and development take place within IRA boundaries less land is eligible for Wilderness status. That plus the the ever increasing "Forest/Urban Interface", more land is removed from inventory than is added to Wilderness.

A lot of rumors, mostly inflammatory in nature, were spread by both radical and reactionary forces during our public comment process. I hope I can shed some light on what I found out from the USFS instead of reacting to these rumors.

Inclusion as an IRA IN NO WAY gives the area any "special status" like a Wilderness Area.

When an area is included it is not granted any special protection, so that it will remain in reserve for wilderness status. The 2001 rule did grant a Prohibition from new mining surface leases, commercial timber harvest and new road construction with in these areas. It's the 2001 rule and not inclusion as an IRA that created the Prohibition.

Inclusion as an IRA is not a "stand alone" management plan. IRA's are NOT managed as "de facto wilderness areas". IRA's have been, are and will continue to be managed under the USFS plans and it's revision process. When developing or revising plans the USFS assigns a "category" to all the land under its control. These categories (some times called "Themes" or "Prescription) range from Cat I to Cat VIII. Cat I&II are the most primitive, Cat VIII is the most developed (Think ski area base complex). Cat I&II usually exist together. Cat II is the most "wilderness like" designation and is some times called "flora and fauna" and is used to define areas that are fragile habitat. Cat II usually are small pockets with in Cat I. Cat I is considered "primitive." Cat III is less primitive and can have developed campgrounds, picnic areas and also allows for cattle grazing ect. The reason I mentioned the 1st 3 categories is that almost all of the IRA's fall into these management themes. It is because of their primitive and less developed characteristic that they are assigned these prescriptions and NOT because of their inclusion as an IRA. Its been a chicken and egg debate here, But it's because of their "wilderness like attributes" that they are IRA's and NOT because they are IRA's that they are managed as "de facto wilderness."

Cat I allows for roads and trails for motorized and non motorized recreation (cat II usually does not) Cat III allows for motorized recreation, and as I stated before, development of less primitive facilities.

OK still with me? Lets look at the 2001 rule

The rule DID NOT close even 1 inch of USFS system roads or trails with in IRAs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(page 3253)

The rule DOSE NOT effect "Trails" for motorized and non motorized use. Trails are defined by the USFS as being less than 50" wide (page 3250). The rule only effects "Roads" (>50" wide)

Trail construction can continue under the 2001 rule.

In the opening pages of the rule, under "Purpose" (page 3245) the rule states "Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they have many wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes and other mechanized means of travel often allowed". (note the use of capital letters in wilderness)

The USFS interpretation is; since you can't ride your ATV, motorcycle or mt bike or drive your 4x4 in Wilderness areas the rule will preserve primitive areas, for their wilderness like attributes, where you can take a motor vehicle.

There are downsides to the rule and I can address them in another post, but my eyes are going buggy so I'll post up latter. In the mean time I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Happy Trails, Seldom.

P.S. all page # in my posts will refer to The Federal Register page #, its how the rule is numbered. The rule is only 47 pages long.

[crawler#976]

Wow!

Thanks for the info!

[HongerVenture]

Ah Ha! Thanks Seldom... that helps me understand a lot better. Although I live in Indiana, I do care about these matters. Thanks for shedding light.

It's funny to me that you gave the page numbers for the federal register. Just a few weeks ago I completed a federal bridge inspection course and the instructor was constantly referring to page numbers in the federal register for differen't FHWA regs.

The federal register is huge! It's actually kinda sad sometimes to realize that the size of the federal register points to a lot government meddling into things that just shouldn't be of concern. Sorry, I'll shut up now!

[BajaTaco]

SUPERB POST :bowdown: Thanks for taking the time to help us understand.

I am definitely interested to hear more of your perspective on the downsides as you alluded to (when your eyes recover :D )

Tell Heather and Jake we say HI :wavey:

[Seldom Seen]

Tell Heather and Jake we say HI :wavey:

Jake says Hi, Heather is off on a ladies only 4wheel'n adventure weekend I'll let her know when she gets back.

[Ursidae69]

SS, thanks for the detailed post, I learned quite a bit from that, in fact, I need to read it again! Make sure I got it all. :eek:

[Seldom Seen]

OK just re-read my post and I guess by eyes weren't the only thing going buggy. Oh well, let me recap:

An IRA Is:
-A list of lands that have primitive characteristics.

-The first step taken to identify land for potential addition to the Wilderness system.

-The inventory is dynamic, land can be added or remove during the USFS management plan revision process. One note: it is easier to remove land, from the inventory, than it is to add it to the Wilderness system. It literally takes an act of Congress for an IRA to become Wilderness. Land can be removed at the local level.

-At least 5000 acres or adjacent to an existing Wilderness area.

-Can and do contain roads.

An IRA is not:
-A designation.

-Does not afford the area special protection.

-A management plan.

The 2001 Roadless Rule did:
-Prohibit new lease for extraction industries

-Prohibit new road construction.

-Allow existing leases to remain.

The 2001 rule did not:
-Close any FS system roads or trails

-Prohibit construction of new trails.

-Prohibit motor vehicle use in areas where they are already allowed.

OK, so now some of the problems to watch out for.

Like any good government rule or reg :rolleyes: The 2001 rule has it's exceptions. The exceptions do allow the USFS to build permanent or temporary roads under certain circumstances.

From the USFS:

- To protect health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property.
- To conduct environmental clean up required by federal law.
To allow for reserved or outstanding rights provided for by statute or treaty.
- To prevent irreparable resource damage by an existing road.
- To rectify existing hazardous road conditions.
- Where a road is part of a Federal Aid Highway project.
- Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease, or for new leases issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease.

The problem, as the FS legal eagles identified it, is the language granting these exceptions is ambiguous at best. As the language stands now just because the FS *can* build roads it doesn't mean they *should* be able to build roads to protect lives, property and forest health. The language doesn't make it impossible but it does draw out the decision making process. A lot of the discussion revolved around the word "imminent". Here in CO we have experienced a Bark Beetle epidemic the likes of which has never been seen before. Add to that the drought conditions over the last few years and our forest are approaching explosive fire conditions. Seems simple enough but the FS is having a tough time proving that a fire is "imminent". Lucky for us the Task Force has proposed changes to the rule to make it easier for the FS to access IRAs to reduce fuel build up and to do "treatment" for beetle kill.

Another problem is (and I didn't mention it before, because it deserves special attention) the 2001 rule prohibits RECONSTRUCTION of existing roads within IRAs !! The rule does allow exceptions to the prohibition of reconstruction for the same reasons above BUT, and it's a BIG BUT, if you take another look there is NO mention of a roads recreational value!!!:Wow1:
If a road falls in to disrepair and it doesn't meet the criteria for reconstruction the FS is under NO obligation to rebuild the road based on its recreational value alone !!!

The last issue that surfaced is, although the rule did not close any "system roads" in is silent on NON system roads. During the FS's 2005 Travel Management revision process (AKA the OHV rule) the FS identified the issue that there are potentially thousand of miles of non system roads on USFS land. Some of these routes were user created. Some were created, back in the good 'ol days, when cross county travel was allowed. The FS has acknowledged that some of these routes ARE legitimate sustainable routes with high recreational value. The FS also acknowledged that there are legitimate roads on FS land the they were never aware of. some of these roads predated the FS's ownership of the land and may have never showed up on any of their maps. Some of the roads simply fell through the cracks. The Task Force, here, has realized that the 2001 rule and the 2005 rule need to be reconciled as to these non system roads.

I gotta go so I'll let ya'll chew on this stuff for a while. I'll post more later. again if you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them.

Happy Trails :wavey:

[Jonathan Hanson]

SS, thank you for contributing so much good information.

Crawler, the reason the Forest Service is proceeding with this plan is that it is a much simpler way to protect the last remaining bits of roadless Forest Service land in the country, and it requires less regulation than a formal wilderness area. And it saves taxpayers' money!

In Arizona the rule affects 1.7 percent of the state's total land area, which hardly qualifies as the wholesale land grab detractors claim.

And it's almost certainly a complete myth that we've lost motorized access to public land, except in extremely local and frequently well-deserved cases. Over the last 50 years thousands of miles of new roads have been bladed into public land, not even counting wildcat roads that become "legitimate" through constant use. The RACR simply ensures that every last square mile of National Forest doesn't wind up with a road through it.

[DesertRose]

Wow, Seldom Seen - GREAT posts, thank you so much for taking so much time to share everything. As someone who used to be executive director of an organization that did all the "roadless" inventories in Coronado National Forest and parts of many other national forests in AZ and southern NM, I can say not even any of my staff at the time did this good of a job on a background paper (and I was a hard%$# boss when it came to details on such things)!

In my opinion, the Roadless Rule is unfortunately named. It's not about removing legal roads, losing rights (unless I guess someone considers it their right to create new roads on public land), or about losing access that's already there. It's about protecting a heritage that we're all responsible for: wild places, left relatively untouched by humans, so that future generations will have them - to use for hunting, hiking, or just to know they there. As hunters, we really support protecting these areas because they are so important for wildlife - who need places where vehicles don't harass them all the time, just to eat and breed. As explorers and outdoorspeople, we really want places to exist where we can be fully challenged by nature on our own - without vehicles. We want plenty of both types - vehicular vs human-powered - of recreation. We're simply losing the great wild places far faster than we're losing access to roaded adventure.

Someone asked, Why not just do Wilderness? Well, actual Wilderness designation is damn hard to get - it's a massive endeavor needing an Act of Congress, and it's much more restrictive in usages than the Forest Service lands that will have Roadless Area designation. And right now almost no Senators or Congresswo/men will climb on board an active Wilderness bill - it's political suicide.

I personally like the compromise the designation allows: keep it as it is, including existing roads but build no new roads, - and keep it as wild as possible.

[crawler#976]

Thanks to all of you!

This should allow me to ask intelligent if not intelligible questions...

[BajaTaco]

Me too. THANKS SO MUCH for the great info and insight. :clapsmile

[Scott Brady]

Do we want to coordinate going to this? Maybe get a beer afterwards.

[BajaTaco]

Do we want to coordinate going to this? Maybe get a beer afterwards.

Sounds good to me. Meet at Fair St at 6pm and then after the meeting head over to the Raven or PBC?

[crawler#976]

I'm off at 4:30, heading into town for a quick bite before the meeting. Prolly be fast food...

I'll be leaving about 8:00 PM or so depending on the format of the meeting. I'll tip back a :beer: with ya on Friday!

[datrupr]

I might make the trip up there to meet you guys for this meeting.

[BajaXplorer]

Prescottonians,
Don't expect much from the meeting. I attended the Mesa meeting and it was purely informational. All of which is available on the web. The main thing is to remember you have until 31 August to submit your desires on what the state should do about the IRAs.
Seem like most of the people (or at least the most vociferous ones) there were either uninformed of the purpose of the meeting or had their own agenda. There were the tree huggers who wanted the IRAs closed to everything, and the-sky-is-falling off roaders who did not want any IRAs as it meant the beginning of the end off roading all together. The fact is that how the IRAs will each be managed (rules, etc) is determined under another process within each of the individual forests they are located within. Going with the original forestry plan really seems the best to me.
Have fun...
BX

[calamaridog]

Help me out here folks.

These areas are not closed to hunting and fishing?

Existing roads will be maintained and open?

It's almost 3am, I'm tired, and I'm not 100% sure I'm getting it.

[calamaridog]

I might make the trip up there to meet you guys for this meeting.

Oh sure, Scott says :beer: and suddenly you are all interested:p

[Jonathan Hanson]

NO! Not closed to hunting and fishing! Existing roads remain open!

This is a very simple plan to preserve the last bits (remember, it's 1.7 percent of the land in Arizona) of pristine land in the state, and the country. It is not a plot by Druids to lock up the forest! Besides, even designated wilderness areas aren't closed to hunting and fishing.

It will result in:

Better wildlife habitat
Fewer catastrophic fires
Savings to taxpayers
Peace and quiet
Proof that humans can still think beyond their own self-interests

Signed -

Jonathan Hanson, founding member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
No affiliation with any known Druid sect

[calamaridog]

Just wanted to clarify, I know you are not a druid or even a wood elf.

All the Wilderness areas I've visited are closed to motorized vehicles, mountain bikes, and hunting. I was ok with that since I was backpacking. But since this is not a Wilderness designation, it doesn't matter.

And I still don't know if the existing roads are maintained or do they become impassable after a few bad storms and therefore become closed? This is actually the most important question I think.

Honestly, what you do in AZ in none of my business, I am just trying to figure out the rules of the game since CA is waiting for the Courts to decide how they will proceed in this roadless business. The trend seems to be to let locals decide what they want to do, and I'm ok with that.

And BTW, the term "roadless" is lame. Seems to cause much confusion.

[Scott Brady]

We should find out a lot tonight. Look for a report from the Prescott contingent early next week

[BajaTaco]

And I still don't know if the existing roads are maintained or do they become impassable after a few bad storms and therefore become closed? This is actually the most important question I think.

To quote from SeldomSeen's previous post:


"Another problem is (and I didn't mention it before, because it deserves special attention) the 2001 rule prohibits RECONSTRUCTION of existing roads within IRAs !! The rule does allow exceptions to the prohibition of reconstruction for the same reasons above BUT, and it's a BIG BUT, if you take another look there is NO mention of a roads recreational value!!!:Wow1:
If a road falls in to disrepair and it doesn't meet the criteria for reconstruction the FS is under NO obligation to rebuild the road based on its recreational value alone !!! "



And BTW, the term "roadless" is lame. Seems to cause much confusion.

I have to agree with you there. I think that moniker has probably had a damaging effect as far as trying to allow any kind of diplomatic negotiations from the public on the matter. I think a better term would have been "Primitive Area Rule".

[Jonathan Hanson]

I agree too. The problem with the term is that the anti-roadless area people will point to any wildcat, single-use ATV track and say "Hey, there's a road here; you can't call this roadless." And the Druids will ignore a four-lane state highway if they see a chance to get a new designation. "Primitive Area" would be a better designation; it would avoid arguments over every single track.

Generally, however, the Forest Service does a pretty good job. Roseann has been involved in roadless area surveys and I can tell you the people who do the studies put in a hell of a lot of work.

In the end, the people who argue over details of protocol and definition are usually pushing one or the other agenda, whether they admit it or not. The simple question is: Do we really want to have roads bladed into every last square mile of our public lands?

[Seldom Seen]

I attended the final Task Force meeting on Wed. so I have more info to add, and maybe I can clear up questions.

I didn't mean to imply that the 2005 OHV Rule should be used to legitimize every outlaw/renegade/wildcat trail, that some bone heads, ever created. During our public comment process the OHV rule issue was brought up. The Task Force determined the the issue was valid and sought the USFS's input. The USFS was not sure on how they would proceed on the issue. The TF determined that it was within their scope to make recommendations on how to rectify the issue of non-system roads roads within IRAs.

Maybe a little background on the OHV Rule is in order. The OHV rule is a departure for previous travel management plans in that it applies to all USFS lands where OHV use is allowed and it shifts the burden to user groups. The rule was issued in 2005 and sets a time line for completion in 2009.

The 1st step is identification. The USFS is allowing user groups to GPS map non-system roads and trails. This is a huge departure from USFS policy, as Desert Rose probably can attest to. Usually this type of data gathering requires GIS information, surveys and USFS engineers doing a lot of head scratching.

The next step is evaluation. The USFS, with the GPS data in hand, will go out and evaluate the route for sustainability and suitability. This step is not as easy as some user groups would lead you to believe. Just because you map it doesn't mean it will be legitimized. I have it on good authority that (at least for a couple of the Ranger districts around Denver) that they are going to scrutinize these routes with nearly the same standards as the USFS would be held to if they were to build a road from scratch. The only difference is the USFS rarely, if ever, builds roads for the sole purpose of recreation and for these routes they will consider a routes recreational value.

The next step is authorization. Not only will the USFS determine which routes are to remain open, but will determine what type of vehicles will be allowed to use the route.

The last step is, in 2009 the USFS will publish a map of all roads and trails. The map will contain info on what type of vehicle is allowed on what trails. This is another departure from previous travel management plans as it puts the responsibility on the user. You need to know before you go, no more excuses !! If you are not on a route that's on the map, you are wrong. If you are on a route, in the wrong vehicle, you are wrong!!

Any way our TF has drafted 3 alternatives and will hold a public comment period on these alternatives. 1) Close all non-system roads and trails within IRAs. 2) Close all non-system roads but allow non-system trails. 3) Defer disposition on non-system roads and trails in IRAs to the 2005 OHV Rule.

I'm still not sure on how I am going to respond. I certainly DO NOT want to see any more loss of acreage within IRAs!!! On the other hand, through my experiences with working with the USFS on other projects, I have observed that closing a road doesn't make it go away. Often times it makes the situation worse by not allowing maintenance to mitigate environmental damage.

The other issue, the one about reconstruction for recreation, I'm still drying to get a definitive answer. From what I have read and heard, it seems that the TF's proposed changes to the ambiguous language in the exception clause, will cover reconstruction for recreation. Also I found out that the 2001 rule DOES NOT prohibit the USFS from maintaining roads in IRAs.

Happy Trails :wavey:

[Ursidae69]

I've really enjoyed this dialog. However, one thing that needs addressed by congress (through political pressure from the public) is funding, funding for road maintenance and law enforcement.

Over the last seven years, I've spent considerable time for work and recreation in the 1.6 million acres that comprise the Santa Fe National Forest, open roads, closed roads, back-pack trails, etc. There are not many roads I have not explored. In all that time I have never seen or ran into any law enforcement off the pavement. I think that is due to there being like 3 or 4 people patrolling the whole thing.

This whole process is pointless if the USFS doesn't have the funding to enforce anything. The National Environmental Policy Act requires this whole process because well-intentioned (we hope) environmental groups are suing the USFS all the time because most of their land management plans have not gone through the NEPA process.

Seldom Seen, how do you see funding, or lack thereof, playing into this whole thing as it moves forward? It might be the driving force to select the proposed action in each case.

[calamaridog]

In the end, the people who argue over details of protocol and definition are usually pushing one or the other agenda, whether they admit it or not. The simple question is: Do we really want to have roads bladed into every last square mile of our public lands?


Jonathan,

Everything is in the details and I absolutely have an agenda. We all have agendas.

I don't want any new roads, I just want many existing roads to be maintained in a manner that allows a 4wd with low range to travel them. Many wildcat routes should be closed, I don't disagree with this.

I certainly haven't made up my mind yet 100% about anything and remain open to most ideas.

***

http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=39

The Blue Ribbon Coalition supports a land use designation called "Backcountry" designation:

Backcountry Designation:
Legislative Objectives

The following is a list of desired outcomes from the identification of Congressionally Designated Backcountry. The legislation that is drafted should include necessary wording to ensure that these results can be achieved.


The Legislation should:

Provide a method to protect areas that may not qualify for Wilderness designation as a result of the presence of incompatible facilities or uses.

Emphasize the need to provide for a wide range of recreation opportunities within the designated areas including motorized and mechanized uses where appropriate.

Require an inventory of all developments including: roads, routes, travelways, trails, cabins, or other human caused development or disturbance.

Require an analysis of all existing routes to determine the environmental effects of the routes in their current conditions.

Identify the funding required to relocate, reconstruct or maintain the existing routes to ensure compliance with existing environmental requirements.

Preserve the backcountry or rustic character of the lands while still allowing ﾓlight touchﾔ or compatible management activities.

Allow management activities necessary to maintain and improve wildlife habitat

Not preclude management activities to protect the health of the forest within the designated area.

Not preclude vegetative management activities that are designed to reduce fuel loading and wildfire intensities.

Continue to allow management of the designated area by the agency having original jurisdiction.

Provide an opportunity to experience a more primitive form of recreation without significant developments for the enhancement of visitor comfort.

Allow management and maintenance of the recreation roads, trails and facilities using the most efficient and effective means.

Encourage management of roads, trails and ways in a manner that will minimize the conflicts between these travelways and the environmental resources.

Preserve any valid existing rights at the time of designation.
Allow for commercial or permitted events and activities that are appropriate to the character of the area and that support the recreational or other purposes.

Maintain the rights of the owners of private lands included within the designated areas.

Ensure adequate access for landowners of included private lands as necessary to allow reasonable use and enjoyment of those lands.

Require an annual report to Congress on the status of the designated areas including a description of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, expenditures for management and maintenance of the area, amount and type of recreation use and any other information they deem appropriate.

[calamaridog]

I've really enjoyed this dialog. However, one thing that needs addressed by congress (through political pressure from the public) is funding, funding for road maintenance and law enforcement.

Over the last seven years, I've spent considerable time for work and recreation in the 1.6 million acres that comprise the Santa Fe National Forest, open roads, closed roads, back-pack trails, etc. There are not many roads I have not explored. In all that time I have never seen or ran into any law enforcement off the pavement. I think that is due to there being like 3 or 4 people patrolling the whole thing.

This whole process is pointless if the USFS doesn't have the funding to enforce anything. The National Environmental Policy Act requires this whole process because well-intentioned (we hope) environmental groups are suing the USFS all the time because most of their land management plans have not gone through the NEPA process.

Seldom Seen, how do you see funding, or lack thereof, playing into this whole thing as it moves forward? It might be the driving force to select the proposed action in each case.


Exactly!

The whole thing is a smoke screen without the means to enforce the rules.

The BLM has a whopping 200 law enforcement agents to patrol 264 million acres of OUR land. That is right, 200 agents for 264 million acres.

USDA Forest Service has 193 million acres to patrol. Not sure exactly how many law enforcement officers they employ but I believe it is less than 500.

Now my point in all this continues to be there is a gross lack of law enforcement resources available to enforce the rules on public lands. The likelyhood of getting caught must be minuscule.

[Seldom Seen]

The BRC just cracks me up some times. 90% their Backcountry Designation plan is covered by the 2001 rule. Yet they continue to appose it at every bend in the road. The BRC has filed, in the CA/OR/NM suit, against the the 2001 rule. They have chosen to ally themselves with the oil/gas/mining companies. I don't think they quite get it, with out the protection of the rule, new leases WILL be granted and new roads WILL be bladed into IRAs. The BRC is naive in their thinking that this will increase recreational opportunity. THEY COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!!! Here in CO, since the 1st of this year alone, we have lost 3 areas due to new leases and the lease holder GATEING the roads that the BRC is pretending to protect. I firmly contend without some protection this will become the norm.

I had the displeasure to witness the BRC and the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (following the BRC's lead) make total Asses of them selves in several public comment meetings. They were misinformed and, to the end, continued to call for the abolishment of the IRA process, an option that is simply not possible under the CO procedure. The BRC and COHVCo squandered every single opportunity to address the issues, add constructive input on modifications to the rule or suggest ANY alternative!

I have always viewed the BRC's statements with some skepticism (in the same way I view SUWA's) but I have always heard them out and checked the facts from the most objective source I could find (usually directly from the USFS) BUT never again, after watching them in action I am convinced that they do not represent OHV users, that their agenda is to serve out Clark Collins personal vendetta against the Sierra Club. If the SC is for something you can gar-un-damn-tee the BRC is going to be against it regardless of how it effects the people the supposedly represent.

Well I'll get off my soapbox and try to answer some questions.

Enforcement: as far as the 2005 rule goes, the rule empowers users to self police. There is a volunteer program where users are trained on how to spot violations and how to gather the info needed to prosecute offenders. Seems to be off to a good start. A very good example can be found here:http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=1768 It aint much right now but it's a start. Oh and the Rangers from the BRD have assured us that they will follow up on any violators that are turned in.

The burning question on everyone's mind is always $$$$$$$ mine too!!! I've been doing research on the subject and have come up with a few solutions.

In CO we have the Great Outdoor Colorado campaign. It's a program where Lotto proceeds go to parks and rec. The program is underutilized. GOCO can't always be used for backcountry projects on federal land but it can be used on front country improvements, freeing up some funds.

There is a new program (less than a year old) funded by the US Dept. of Trans. that I just found out about : http://www.americantrails.org/resources/fedfund/douwesfund05.html a program where $$ can be used for projects on federal land.

I also found out that Tread Lightly has a program to assist groups in securing grants.

One of the concerns I had during the early days of the 2001 rule is how did effect the USFS's adopt-a-trail program? more directly would there be any prohibition on trail projects in IRAs? I can tell you that any concerns are unfounded.

Happy Trails :wavey:

[calamaridog]

I have always viewed the BRC's statements with some skepticism (in the same way I view SUWA's) but I have always heard them out and checked the facts from the most objective source I could find (usually directly from the USFS) BUT never again, after watching them in action I am convinced that they do not represent OHV users, that their agenda is to serve out Clark Collins personal vendetta against the Sierra Club. If the SC is for something you can gar-un-damn-tee the BRC is going to be against it regardless of how it effects the people the supposedly represent.

It sounds like you have some good ideas, too bad people can't agree about this stuff. Now that Clark Collins is no longer pulling the strings at BRC maybe your impressions of them will change in the future. They still remain the most influential group in the Nation representing 10,000 OHV users and 1,200 business members, not to mention one of the only groups having a full time professional staff.

"Backcountry" has a nice ring to it, instead of "roadless", don't you think:D

Anyways, BRC has supported the amended Northwestern California Wilderness Bill (HR233) which includes provisions to allow some popular OHV, equestrian, and mountainbiking trails to remain open.


Enforcement: as far as the 2005 rule goes, the rule empowers users to self police. There is a volunteer program where users are trained on how to spot violations and how to gather the info needed to prosecute offenders. Seems to be off to a good start. A very good example can be found here:http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=1768 It aint much right now but it's a start. Oh and the Rangers from the BRD have assured us that they will follow up on any violators that are turned in.

"Self Policing" is just a way of saying the agencies are not going to do anything because they don't have a budget for adequate enforcement activities. Not only that, but some of the advise I've heard about "self policing" is downright dangerous. Confronting stupid people in the backcountry can be very dangerous.

The bottom line is that infractions and misdemeanors that do not occur in the presence of a law enforcement officer will seldom be prosecuted and in many cases they cannot be (by law).

While your anecdotal link to the feel good story about these idiots who actually received tickets certainly makes me smile, it does nothing to address the reality that the chances of getting in trouble are still minuscual and the agencies are totally understaffed and underfunded to manage their acreage with even a moderate effect.

[Ursidae69]

Enforcement: as far as the 2005 rule goes, the rule empowers users to self police. There is a volunteer program where users are trained on how to spot violations and how to gather the info needed to prosecute offenders. Seems to be off to a good start. A very good example can be found here:http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=1768 It aint much right now but it's a start. Oh and the Rangers from the BRD have assured us that they will follow up on any violators that are turned in.

I have friends at the USFWS and they tell me that their biologists cannot drive marked vehicles in the Gila National Forest because the locals take pot-shots at them! :ar15: A small minority there really hates the wolf reintroductions... My point is though that self-policing is out of the question in most rural areas. It might work on Moab trails or popular trails in CO listed in the trail books, but out in the middle of any forest in New Mexico, you don't want to approach a group of people to lecture them, try to get plates or anything like that or you may not leave the forest.

[crawler#976]

Our local meeting was quite disapointing due to several factors - primarily because the meeting location at the county had the AC turned off. We were stuffed into a non-ventilated room at 90 degs...

My basic inclination is to stick with the current ruling. We've been under it since 2001 with no noticable impact.

The other issue that I am concerned about is unrelated to the IRA situation, but showed up on the IRA maps. The FS is in the process of updating the long term management plans (NFMA) for the Prescott Nat. Forest, and the maps showed a lot of roads scheduled for out right closure or another designation that the FS rep couldn't explain to us. (I don't have the maps here at work to give ya'll the exact term). This process has a much greater impact than the IRA plan does for motorized FS users...

[flywgn]

I finally have enough time to read all of this most important thread. Thank you Jonathan, Seldom, Calamari, Crawler...the list goes on...for so much substantive information and for taking the time to write it here. It's taken more than one cup of :coffee: to absorb all this but it's been worth it.

Allen
(...and with 'Russell' as a surname there's probably more than a smidgen of Druid genes coursing through my veins :D )

[BajaXplorer]

The other issue that I am concerned about is unrelated to the IRA situation, but showed up on the IRA maps. The FS is in the process of updating the long term management plans (NFMA) for the Prescott Nat. Forest, and the maps showed a lot of roads scheduled for out right closure or another designation that the FS rep couldn't explain to us. (I don't have the maps here at work to give ya'll the exact term). This process has a much greater impact than the IRA plan does for motorized FS users...

Mark,
It was the same in Mesa. It appears that each Forest will develop a management plan without public input. It appears that the management plans will have a much greater impact on forest users than anything done on the IRAs.
BX

[BajaTaco]

WHOA - help Scott! I just tried to write a reply to Chris' post and I didn't realize it logged me in AS A MODERATOR, which I didn't know I was ! - and I erased and edited his post instead of replying to it! SORRY CHRIS!!! I can't restore it, either!!
Scott! Helppppp!!!
Roseann

[Jonathan Hanson]

One thing we have found is that the people at the forest Service who deal with public input are virtually always grateful when someone comes to them with well-thought-out, truly constructive input. A group that says, "Look, we really support the roadless plan, but we think it's wrong to close down this area here or this road here," will get MUCH more attention than those merely yelling, "Close it all!" or, "Don't close anything!"

[crawler#976]

Thanks Chris!

The term that the FS rep could not define was "Basic Custodial Care (CLOSED)" - it doesn't sound good tho.

[DesertRose]

Chris - you wrote "This definitely warrants some studying on our part and meeting with the USFS to talk about it."
I agree - I wanted to throw in something to chew on, too:

The USFS can't afford to maintain all the roads that are now there - there's a huge backlog, and we hear a lot of complaining from the 4x4 and backcountry crowd about it.

I've been involved in a lot of hiking clubs, but in general these clubs/groups haven't gotten the idea that somehow it's their right to demand that all trails are maintained by the government to their satisfaction. Instead, most of these groups have committees to work with the government to maintain trails on a volunteer basis - a work crew for free. It's a great thing for all involved, and the local FS and NPS and BLM folks are very grateful.

Just something to think about when we chat with the FS folks! (And I know many 4x4 groups do trash clean ups, but I'm talking about real road maintenance - or putting up a fund if it's not possible to do it w/out heavy equipment; another food for thought: nature-lovers who have relationships with Wildlife Refuges often form "Friends of XYZ Wildlife REfuge" and raise/ put up their own funds to help maintain trails and nature education and even hunting opps.)

[calamaridog]

Most of the reputable off road clubs actually do the adopt-a-trail programs and do real hands on trail maintenance. Our local OHV area close to San Diego, has major 4x4 trails that are maintained every year by the two biggest local clubs. I have participated in their efforts in the past and they always have a huge turn out of members and other local 4x4 enthusiasts.

These same trails are also open to equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers but access is maintained by the 4x4 clubs.

As a matter of fact, many trail systems are closed/impassable during the winter and are opened in the spring by volunteers from local 4x4 clubs.

The volunteer efforts seem to be from old fashioned clubs, not the internet spawned groups like TTORA, who are just loosely affiliated groups of people from all over the place.

So let me know if expeditionportal decides to adopt-a-trail and I will try to drive out and help:wavey:

[Ursidae69]

The other issue that I am concerned about is unrelated to the IRA situation, but showed up on the IRA maps. The FS is in the process of updating the long term management plans (NFMA) for the Prescott Nat. Forest, and the maps showed a lot of roads scheduled for out right closure or another designation that the FS rep couldn't explain to us. (I don't have the maps here at work to give ya'll the exact term). This process has a much greater impact than the IRA plan does for motorized FS users...

I was wondering if you ever got any clarification on these closings?

Also, I was browsing the New Mexico Game and Fish site and they had a 42 page pdf on roadless areas in New Mexico. If anyone is interested, here is the link for that. http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/documents/RoadlessReport.pdf

[crawler#976]

Nope, I'm gonna have to try and take time off and go to the main office. The person I spoke to at the meeting didn't have on a name tag - so I'm gonna call my buddy Doug and see if he can set me up.

[crawler#976]

GOT THIS TODAY


Your message

To: Roadless
Subject: IRA Comments
Sent: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:56:11 -0700

was read on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:26:51 -0700

[Seldom Seen]

Well it all *might* be moot, all the details are not in and I just got the PDF of the courts decision. As it looks now the 9th district court has struck down the state petition process stating the USFS failed to do an EA prior to instating the petition process. I'm not 100% sure if the ruling applies to all states or just the ones named as plaintiffs but, it looks like it's back to the drawing board.

IX. CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are granted and Defendants’ motion is denied. The State Petitions Rule is set aside and the Roadless Rule, including the Tongass Amendment, is reinstated. Defendants are enjoined from taking any further action contrary to the Roadless Rule without undertaking environmental analysis consistent with this opinion.


*edit* more news here: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4370738

[crawler#976]

gotta love it...how much time and money has just been wasted :(