Editorial - Attack on ATV use continues

In November 2013, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball handed down a ruling with the potential to devastate regional tourism economies as well as the public’s ability to access federally administered land.

For the past two years, officials have been waiting to see what this ruling would ultimately mean.

Kimball’s ruling put a resource management plan designed for 2.1 million acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s Richfield office into question.

A memorandum decision and order issued by Kimball May 22 gives everyone a better indication of what his earlier ruling will ultimately mean.

Unsurprisingly, it will mean millions of dollars will have to be spent over the course of the next three years to study the effects of off-highway vehicle use on archaeological sites and other resources inside the BLM administered land.

Judge Kimball said in his ruling that just because the BLM is going to re-review these routes, doesn’t mean it will necessarily come to a different conclusion about whether they should remain open or not.

In all likelihood, some routes will be shut down, such as on the Henry Mountains, which the court implicitly ordered to be declared an area of critical environmental concern.

Once the court mandated three-year review period is over, the overall plan may or may not see significant change.
The only certainty is that no matter how much the plan changes due to this ruling, it will not be enough for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the plaintiffs of the original case.

SUWA’s suggestion to the court was to simply close all designated routes on the Richfield resource management plan while the review is conducted. While the court didn’t grant that request, it is very telling of SUWA’s ultimate goal.

SUWA will sue the BLM again and try to close down more trails. By using litigation, SUWA’s plans seem to be aimed at ultimately shutting down any use of public lands — off-highway vehicle use, mining, petroleum exploration or grazing.

READ ENTIRE EDITORIAL

Avalanche of hostility over environmental analysis re-do

If you didn’t know any better, you might think you walked in on an angry game of dodgeball between Plumas National Forest officials and local residents last week in Quincy. However, it was really a townhall meeting in the Mineral Building on the Plumas-Sierra County Fairgrounds stemming from a 2013 court settlement between the U.S. Forest Service and Snowlands Network, Winter Wildlands Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity. A condition of that settlement requires the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region to re-do an environmental analysis of over-snow vehicle use under the National Environmental Policy Act. The study will result in the designation of National Forest System roads, trails and areas for over-snow vehicle use with minimal impact to natural resources. “The previous analysis we did was found to be inadequate,” said Bart Lander, a Forest Service environmental coordinator. “It’s unfortunate we didn’t do an adequate job the first time.” Five national forests are impacted by the agreement: Eldorado, Tahoe, Stanislaus, Lassen and Plumas. Area residents are concerned this may take its toll on winter recreation and industries including snowmobiling, downhill and cross-country skiing, trails, grooming, tourism and more. Before the $1 million “enterprise phase” of the second analysis gets underway, Forest Service officials told the standing-room-only crowd they needed public input. “The need is for you guys to better do your jobs,” countered area resident Gordon Hardgrave. “Why are we spending a bunch of money to re-do an analysis we’ve already done?” asked Kyle Felker, of Quincy. “Another nail in the coffin affecting our economic development,” added Portola Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Gault. As officials explained, apologized and pledged to do better, they were often booed, heckled, subjected to name-calling and made targets of offensive language. “This is probably the most contentious (project) I’ve worked on and I’ve been doing this for 12 years,” said Lander. “Most of my colleagues do five in a career; I’m doing five all at once. We can only do the best job we can.” Four of the five national forests have already hosted townhall meetings on the issue. Tahoe National Forest representatives say they will schedule similar meetings after the NEPA process begins next month.  Source

Forest Service road closure affecting hunters

Brian Davis and his wife have hunted elk up on public land above Vail Mountain ski resort for years. This season, however, will present new challenges. Mill Creek Road, a dirt U.S. Forest Service road that leads up the ski resort and 10 miles up to Benchmark, is among a number of public roads that are now closed to vehicle traffic. That poses a problem for hunters like the Davises, who are unhappy that their favorite hunting grounds are now much more difficult to access. “It’s going to be really different now,” he said. “Now we’re going to have to hike up there, and I’m a little concerned about parking in the Vail structure and having my wife walk up Bridge Street with a rifle. We’ll probably have to carry our kill down Bridge Street. That’s not a problem, but as a respectable hunter, I try not to do that to other non-hunters.” Mill Creek is one of a few heavily used roads that are now closed to motor vehicles as part of the Forest Service’s 2011 land management plan. Other popular roads that are now restricted include Davos Trail in West Vail and Spraddle Creek north of Vail. District Ranger Dave Neely said the closures went into effect several years ago as part of the White River National Forests’ travel management plan after a public process — but many people are just starting to take notice now as gates go up to block cars, ATVs and dirt bikes. “It’s nothing new. In 2005, regulations directed all national forests to make a travel management plan, and that included designating the roads that people use for travel and recreation,” said Neely. “What people are seeing now is the implementation.” In the case of Mill Creek, the road was closed to motor traffic both to protect wildlife habitat and to keep vehicles from interfering with summer resort work and operations...more

Santa Fe forest travel plan upheld by court

Conservation groups say a federal court has upheld a travel management plan for the Santa Fe National Forest that limits access for recreational use. The U.S. District Court in Albuquerque ruled Friday that a statewide off-highway vehicle user group that sued the forest over the plan did not have a persuasive enough argument. The New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance filed its lawsuit in 2012 after a forest supervisor signed off on the plan. The group had argued in its complaint that the plan closes more than 70 percent of existing roads and trails on the northern New Mexico forest, significantly reduces camping options and makes it difficult for hunters to retrieve game. Conservationists say the plan protects more than 400,000 acres of land and wildlife...more

Grant County Commissioners vote to appeal Gila National Forest Travel Management Plan

The commissioners also voted to appeal the U.S. Forest Service's Gila National Forest Travel Management Plan, a document that was eight years in the making. The travel plan, which was unveiled in early June, received mostly positive responses from a variety of organizations, including The New Mexico Wildlife Federation, the state chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the state Public Lands Coordinator for Trout Unlimited. The Center for Biological Diversity expressed some concerns about the plan when it was made public, but Todd Schulke, senior staff and cofounder of the group, said at the time he saw "positive changes," in the travel management plan. Grant County commissioners, however, have written a 108-page appeal. According to statements from Gila National Forest supervisor, Kelly Russel, made in June, those who commented on the draft during the public comment period from January to March 2011, had 45 days to appeal the new rules. Now that the commission is appealing, a series of discussions with the Forest Service and ultimately a regional forester will take place. The regional forester will make the final decision. If a regional forester rules in favor of the Forest Service, Grant County commissioners can take the matter to the courts. There are two main issues at stake, Robinson said after the meeting. "The Forest Service did not cooperate with local agencies," Robinson said. She also said roads closed by the Forest Service were not included in the travel management plan and the county considers this a grave issue...more

Gila National Forest to restrict motorized travel

The Gila National Forest plans to generally prohibit motorized cross-country travel within the forest in southwestern New Mexico. According to forest officials, the plan chosen by Forest Supervisor Kelly Russell designates a system of roads, trails, and other areas for motorized vehicle use. The forest says the plan chosen by Kelly keeps 96 percent of non-wilderness land within two miles of a road and 99 percent within three miles. Under the plan, approximately 3,300 miles of road are kept open for vehicle use while just over 900 miles of road are closed for non-emergency uses. Most closed roads are a mile long or shorter. There are special provisions for various users, including hunters, campers and firewood cutters. The forest says publication of a legal notice starts a 45-day appeal period. AP

Off-Roaders' Dream or Environmental Nightmare?

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public land is the issue this week in a Salt Lake courtroom. On Tuesday, the first of six Resource Management Plans by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will come under fire from conservation groups. It is a battle that started in 2008, when they first challenged the Richfield Resource Management Plan (RMP) for south central Utah. Attorney Steve Bloch with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), said his group believes the plan puts too much emphasis on off-roading and oil and gas development in areas that deserve greater protection. "What we're seeking at this hearing on Tuesday is to bring some balance back to how the public lands are managed," Bloch said. "It's our position that designating more than 4,200 miles of dirt roads and trails, in this office alone, is not a balanced decision." Supporters of keeping the Richfield RMP as it is have pointed out that it resulted from six years of input and is a compromise plan, so none of the parties involved got exactly what they wanted. The conservation groups' challenge has languished in Washington, D.C., for the past few years until being reassigned to the federal district court in Salt Lake City, where oral arguments will be heard on Tuesday...more

Judge sides with backcountry skiers in use lawsuit

A federal judge in Idaho says the U.S. Forest Service broke the law when it didn’t craft rules to govern snowmobile travel, handing powder-loving backcountry skiers and snowshoe enthusiasts a victory that could extend to national forests nationwide. U.S. District Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush ruled Friday that the Forest Service must go back to work on its 2005 Travel Management Rule and draw up regulations designating areas of use and non-use by all off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles, on national forest lands. The Idaho-based Winter Wildlands Alliance had argued the agency’s decision to allow individual forests to exempt snowmobiles from the rules was illegal and has created conflicts between snowmobiles and backcountry skiers. The judge agreed with the skiers’ group, ordering the Forest Service to write a new rule consistent with his decision within 180 days. The decision will lead to changes in national forests in Idaho, but could also prompt national forests across the West and other states to revisit their off-road policies. “The Court finds the OSV (over-snow vehicles) exemption is contrary to law,” Bush wrote. “The Court finds that the 2005 Travel Management Rule is arbitrary and capricious to the extent that it does not require designations for the use of OSVs upon the national forest lands.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Idaho, which represented the Forest Service in the case, said the review process has not yet started to determine if an appeal is appropriate...more

Grant County Commission opposes travel plan in Gila National Forest

The Grant County Commission has sided with the New Mexico Association of Counties in a resolution to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's travel management plan which would limit motor vehicle access to some roads in the Gila National Forest. In the resolution, the association states that New Mexicans need public access to roads, even in the forest, for emergency purposes, protection of the rights and values of private property owners, natural resource management, economic and social well-being, recreation, and the customs and cultures of the communities and citizens of New Mexico. It goes on to question whether the Gila National Forest has followed the original, federal travel management rule in some of its decisions present in the proposed Travel Management Plan. For instance, where the rule states that forest officials must coordinate with federal, state, county, local and tribal government officials in areas effected by the plan, the association believes the forest has not met its obligations. Gila National Forest supervisor Kerry Russell disagrees. "We've been putting this plan together for almost eight years," said Russell. "I think we've worked pretty extensively with elected officials in all that time." In that time, though, as is the nature of our government system, several elected officials have held seats in the effected areas and worked with the forest on the plan. Russell is also the third Gila National Forest supervisor in that time...more

The FS does like to move their folks around, but three supervisors in eight years?

NM counties concerned with forest travel planning

In a state where tourism is big business, leaders from New Mexico's 33 counties want to make sure the federal government gives them a seat at the table as the U.S. Forest Service decides which roads and trails should be closed to motorized traffic. County leaders voted Saturday to approve a resolution addressing the agency's effort to establish travel management plans for millions of acres in New Mexico. The resolution drafted by the New Mexico Association of Counties says the closing of some byways could have significant impacts for communities and any plan that doesn't reflect collaboration with local governments shall be opposed. Jon Paul Saari, the manager of Grant County, which encompasses the southern half of the famed Gila National Forest, said the rural communities that are scattered across the mountains depend on recreationists, hunters, anglers and guides. "We're tourism, and the thing that stays constant is people come here to enjoy our open spaces, our wilderness," he said. "That's where the county commission's concern is. If you shut down access, how are these people going to get out there and enjoy what has been enjoyed for generations?" With the resolution, the association of counties is requesting that the travel plans consider the importance of access for everything from emergencies to resource management and the "customs and cultures of the communities and citizens of New Mexico."...more

 Then there is the Forest Service response:

 "We've done extensive public engagement and have worked with the local governments and counties as we've gone through travel management over the last several years," said James Melonas, the agency's county liaison. "That's really a hallmark for the travel management process."

If the FS had "worked with the local governments and counties" and provided the appropriate amount of coordination, NMAC wouldn't have found it necessary to pass this resolution.

Gila travel plan raises many opinions at County Commission meeting

A special meeting of the Grant County Board of Commissioners brought a standing-room crowd Tuesday night for a report from the Gila National Forest on the controversial Travel Management Plan. The announcement of the Forest's presentation brought a crowd of people almost never seen at an evening special meeting. Folks either supportive or critical of the Forest's plan filled the provided seats, sat and stood along the walls, and even threatened to spill out into the lobby. Forest officials explained that the Plan has been in the works since late 2005 when the Forest Service published a new Travel Management Rule. The Rule required each national forest to designate the roads, areas and trails that are open to motor vehicle use. Following the rule, the Forest held the first of 46 public open houses to introduce the rule and options for the Forest's action going forward. These were followed by further workshops where Forest officials talked to many local parties. More than 900 people attended these open houses and workshops, all providing input. This input later helped shape the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. When released, more than 2,000 comments were received from concerned parties. These comments came from all over the country and even overseas, but most from the state of New Mexico. Of those, most were from Grant County. The plan developed after so much input acts as what the Forest sees as a compromise between those who want no roads closed to motorized traffic, or even more opened, and those who want more roads closed. It restricts the roads in the Forest to about 3,300 miles, but allows some trail systems to expand. Donna Stevens, of the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance, spoke in favor of the Forest's plan as a compromise. She then showed a map indicating that aside from the actual designated wilderness areas, there was almost nowhere in the Forest that was more than a mile from a road, saying there really wasn't a very big difference. Many supporters mentioned the environmental degradation to the wildlife habitat and the roads themselves. The first speaker against the road closures said he knew of an area currently closed to motorized traffic with a barrier that has been broken for the better part of a year, allowing what it was intended to stop. He had called the Forest Service to let them know months ago, and nothing had been done. He asked how the Forest expected to enforce even more closures when they can't police those in place now. Most of the speakers against closures were outraged by their belief that several hundred miles of roads were not even considered roads in the plan and not included on the map, effectively closing them automatically. Several even questioned the plan's legality based on those roads. Each of the Grant County Commissioners took their turn to speak and invited Hidalgo County Commissioner Darr Shannon and Catron County Commissioner Van Allred to do the same. Each spoke out against the proposed closures...more

Feds Must Rethink Newly Opened Trails Because of Richard Nixon

The U.S. Forest Service improperly opened 2,000 miles of Sierra Nevada trails to vehicles legal both on and off public highways, a federal judge ruled. Stanislaus National Forest stretches from Lake Tahoe to Yosemite National Park in California. The battle over the use of public lands by unauthorized off-highway vehicles, or OHVs, has simmered for decades. In 1972, President Nixon issued an executive order holding that OHVs are "in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values and other types of recreational activity." He bolstered that finding with a second order in 1977. The Forest Service's Travel Management Rule (TMR) implements the executive orders that manage OHV use to protect resources and public safety, and minimize use conflicts. In 2009 the Forest Service concluded a four-year review and updated its motorized travel management decision for the area. This decision restricted motorized travel within Stanislaus National Forest to National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) routes only, though it added 137 miles of previously unauthorized trails and logging roads to the official map. While the Forest Service also changed 93 miles of NFTS roads to allow off-road vehicles, it restricted another 400 miles of roads once open to OHV to highway-legal vehicles only. Three environmental groups - Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, the Wilderness Society and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - sued the U.S. Forest Service in 2010, claiming violations of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)...more

Notice that the travel plans on all these forests implement Nixon's EOs.  Oh yes, tricky dick was quite a friend to the enviros.  Let's see, there was:

° NEPA in 1969
° An EO to create the EPA 1970
° An EO to create the CEQ 1970
° An EO to ban Compound 1080, strychnine, cyanide, and thallium by federal agents on federal lands
° Clean Air Act in 1972
° Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972 
° Endangered Species Act 1973

I'm sure there was other stuff I can't remember but he was a good buddy to the environmental movement.

And by the way, Reagan issued an EO rescinding Nixon's ban on chemicals for predator control.