Arizona Roadless Area Use meetings

[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

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 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 )

 

[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