HIGH PRIORITY ACTION ALERT
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
BRC does not send URGENT ACTION Alerts to our National List unless the issue has national significance and your comments will help us keep roads and trails open. This alert is one of those requests.
Please read our alert, do the action items and pass along this alert to your friends and family.
As always, if you have any questions please contact us.
Brian Hawthorne
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 102
SITUATION:
Note: There are a lot of important details in this Action Alert, but for those of you who don't want to know the details, and just want to know what we need you to do, please scroll down to ACTION ITEMS below.
As you know, there are many U.S. Forest Service (FS) Travel Management planning projects underway across the country. Right now, there are two that are extremely important and will have national significance:
1) Colorado's White River National Forest
2) Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest
Both the Lewis and Clark NF and the White River NF are taking comments on draft travel management plans. Both forests want to eliminate a lot of motorized access. BRC needs our members to make several important comments to both planning teams right away! Comment deadlines are approaching so please take action on our ACTION ITEMS below.
National Significance:
Aside from the fact that these are the first two large planning projects to occur after the new FS Travel Management Rule, both of these projects are extremely important and will likely impact the way the agency does planning in other areas.
Both plans combine winter and summer recreation in one planning process. This unnecessarily complicates an already complicated process. Not to mention the fact that they are extremely different activities affecting totally different habitats. In addition, the White River apparently wants to "designate snowmobile trails" so snowmobile use off groomed trails will be illegal in some areas. One alternative in the Lewis and Clark NF would eliminate up to 62% of the available acres for snowmobiling.
Both forests have refused to formulate pro-recreation alternatives. Law and regulation require a wide range of management options. Despite numerous requests from recreational groups, all action alternatives severely limit recreational access.
Both plans are attempting to close a significant percentage of the forests to motorized users. I'd like to be able to tell you how many roads, trails and snowmobile areas will be closed, but the plan is so poorly written, and the maps are so bad it is impossible to tell! We can say, however, that even under the best alternative over 50% of what was originally open under the old forest plan will be closed to motorized use. The Lewis and Clark NF want to close 600 miles of roads (yes - ROADS) and one alternative closes 86% of the motorcycle trails and 65% of the ATV trails. (While non motorized uses would realize a 612% increase!).
Both forests are limiting OHV use on many of the system roads making it very difficult to connect loops. In addition, both plans are using faulty and biased analysis on wildlife disturbance and using that as justification to close routes to motorized users, but not to other activities with equal or greater disturbance to wildlife.
Both forests are taking a very disturbing approach to funding. Both are making decisions based on the ability to fund road and trail maintenance. Worse, the White River plan includes this: "Any future trail expansion will likely have to rely heavily on user groups to assist in taking on the costs associated with planning, construction, and maintenance of those routes." (Page 69 White River DEIS and TM)
The White River plan for the first time makes the motorized public responsible for planning, construction and maintenance of any future expansion or addition to motorized trail systems. Mountain bikers will likely suffer the same fate.
IS THERE ANY GOOD NEWS?
Yes. Both forests have National, State and Local clubs working on the issues and sweating the details. But we need help from folks all over the country to counter the well-funded anti-access comment generators.
In Colorado, BRC is working with Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition and the Colorado State Snowmobile Association, as well as local clubs to identify routes and areas that need to be opened. Jerry Abboud and Valerie Douglas over at COHVCO are sweating the NEPA details and the Colorado State Snowmobile Association has hired Kim Raap to formulate winter recreation recommendations.
In Montana, BRC is working with Craig Osterman at the Treasure State Alliance and several local groups including the Meagher County Little Belters, the Great Falls Snowmobile Club, the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders, the Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association and the Great Falls Chapter of the Safari Club International.
MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEB:
Each forest has information, maps and comment info on their website.
White River National Forest:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/project...ent/index.shtml
Lewis and Clark National Forest:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark/project...lts_index.shtml
ACTION ITEMS:
We need you to make two email comments TODAY.
DEADLINE FOR LEWIS AND CLARK COMMENTS IS OCTOBER 20, 2006
DEADLINE FOR WHITE RIVER COMMENTS IS OCTOBER 26, 2006
We've included several important comment suggestions below. Please cut and past those comments into your email or use your own words.
Important note:
Please include your name and address in your email. Anonymous comments are often discarded.
Email 1: White River National Forest
Email Address:
wrnftmp@contentanalysisgroup.com
Dear Planning Team,
I enjoy using motorized vehicles and/or mountain bikes for access and recreation on public lands and National Forests in Colorado. It is important to me that the White River National Forest provides the American public with an abundance of recreational trails.
The Forest Service failed to provide an alternative that maximizes recreational use on the forest. Please create an alternative that at least does not reduce motorized vehicle trail mileage.
Of the alternatives provided for public review, I support Alternative D with changes to increase motorized use for summer recreation and Alternative C for winter recreation.
All segments of classified roads that provide a connector to "make a loop" should be designated open for unlicensed vehicles.
On page 69 of the plan it states: "Any future trail expansion will likely have to rely heavily on user groups to assist in taking on the costs associated with planning, construction, and maintenance of those routes." I oppose the agency charging the general public for recreational use outside what is lawfully permitted by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
While some winter recreation routes are designated routes, the majority of snowmobiling occurs in areas that are open to motorized use and are play areas and should continue to stay that way going forward.
DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS!
Email 2: Lewis and Clark National Forest
Email address:
comments-northern-lewisclark@fs.fed.us
Dear Planning Team,
I enjoy using motorized vehicles and/or mountain bikes for access and recreation on public lands and National Forests in Montana. It is important to me that the Lewis and Clark National Forest provides the American public with an abundance of recreational trails.
The Forest Service failed to provide an alternative that maximizes recreational use on the forest. Please create an alternative that at least does not reduce motorized vehicle trail mileage.
Of the alternatives provided for public review, I support alternative 3 for summer and alternative 1 for winter.
I do not support the proposed road and trail closures. The closures reduce access for hunting, camping, picnicking, fire wood cutting and just driving to your favorite place to get away (solitude).
I support the management alternative provided by the local snowmobile club, the Meagher County Little Belters.
DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
Linear Mode
