Seldom Seen
Observer
BajaTaco said:
Jake says Hi, Heather is off on a ladies only 4wheel'n adventure weekend I'll let her know when she gets back.
Arizona Roadless Area Use meetings
- Thread starter crawler#976
- Start date
Jake says Hi, Heather is off on a ladies only 4wheel'n adventure weekend I'll let her know when she gets back.
Seldom Seen
Observer
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
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:
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
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:
Last edited:
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
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.
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
Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
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.
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.
Last edited:
crawler#976
Expedition Leader
Thanks to all of you!
This should allow me to ask intelligent if not intelligible questions...
This should allow me to ask intelligent if not intelligible questions...
Scott Brady
Founder
Do we want to coordinate going to this? Maybe get a beer afterwards.
crawler#976
Expedition Leader
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!
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!
BajaXplorer
Adventurer
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
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
Expedition Leader
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.
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
Expedition Leader
datrupr said:
Oh sure, Scott says :beer: and suddenly you are all interested
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
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
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