Travel Management: One Voice Letter to the Chief and a Call For Standardized Information

I hate to be overly repetitive, but it seems like travel management is another example of where a Peoples’ Database would be helpful. We all weigh in from our own local experiences. For example, Mike commented “my experience most of the road closures that do occur are not a result of wildlife or other resource concerns, but a result of landowners, utility companies, and permittees.”

The Rio Grande’s neighbor to the west, the San Juan, had a travel management decision that seemed to be litigated either way they made the decision (that;s how it reached the RO).. the the TM decision from heck. And it was not about landowners or utility companies or permittees. But perhaps those are the intractable problems that just seem common because they are most noticeable? In my experience, new roads tended to be by landowners for access. And closures of FS roads at the request of landowners or others would seemingly require some kind of documentation? Perhaps outside of standard TM decisions?

In  the Peoples” Database, I would like to see, by year and District: miles of roads, temp or permanent, additions, closures, maintenance and remediation, by year, funding/work sources and purpose/reason. I think that would tell us a great deal, both locally and at broader scales for more detailed discussion.

*************
Anyway, here is the text of the One Voice/USA/ ORBA? letter to the Chief. Below are their specific concerns.  I see some commonalities with what others (including retirees) have said.  Note their focus on the importance of forest planning (NFMA).

A1. Repealing the TMR does not address the fact that most forest plans also require a travel planning process in their RMP. The US Forest Service had the authority to manage recreational usage before the 2005 TMR was finalized as they have broad authority to manage actions that are thought to be impacting resources negatively. Most forests we work with had plans in place to address open areas and motorized opportunities prior to the 2005 TMR being adopted.

A2. Revisions are needed to ensure that travel issues are meaningfully dealt with in a coordinated and thoughtful manner. Without basic coordination of goals and standards opportunities will be lost. Planners will never address one of our major concerns, which is when motorized trail opportunities are provided they are highly scattered across the landscape.

A3. Open riding on a landscape level will degrade opportunities and impact resources. Good planning focuses management resources. Without the ability to focus resources, the public will be provided an exceptionally poor experience as infrastructure, like parking lots, toilets, maps and other infrastructure will be difficult to provide. Maintenance of routes is critical to basic access in many areas that continue to face challenges with poor forest health. Without maintenance of these routes, access to these areas would be lost.

A4. Safety of users will degraded. We are intimately aware that all forms of recreation in the backcountry results in safety concerns. Some are preventable, such as the need to educate users of unavoidable width restrictions on trails or areas such as shelf roads/trails. Wheeled vehicles frequently get stuck on snowmobile trails as they don’t understand the opportunity provided by a groomed trail. Without basic management education of the public will be made more difficult.

B. Proposed standards and goals for a new management process to provide recreational access. Our Organizations would welcome the opportunity to work with the USFS to develop high quality recreational opportunities on forest land to fill the void currently being faced. Withdrawal of the TMR would place this type of discussion as a high priority for future administration. Future administration may have a VERY different opinion on priorities.

B1. Clearly repeal President Nixon’s Executive Order 11644/11989 as these goals conflict with federal law. Any effort to replace the TMR must include revocation of EO 3 11644 issued by President Nixon. The minimization criteria created by this EO are horribly out of date and conflict with Federal law.

B2. Adequate road and adequate trails must be prioritized as identifiable management goal. A major weaknesses of the current TMR is all decision making is local. No guidance or standards are provided for local managers other than minimizing impacts under EO 11644. As a result, local resources are commonly directed towards other resources that have standards and performance requirements.

B3. Summer and winter must remain separate planning processes. Summer and winter travel planning are entirely separate management processes to address entirely distinct management challenges. If these differences are not recognized, the public will lose open areas for winter immediately as the difference in planning process and goals is a constant point of education with new agency staff.
B4. We vigorously support the concept of “no net loss for trails and roads”. This type of standard must be applied in a new travel rule and a requirement for interim management as a new travel rule is developed. Our Organizations are all too familiar with how effective the “no net gain” standard has been on closing motorized opportunities.
B5. Road to Trail Conversions. Clear and extensive guidance on this planning process must be provided. This type of a standard has to apply to administrative routes until they were reviewed for suitability to convert to trails as mandated by existing TMR and legacy roads to trails. We are aware of a minimal number of TMP that have performed this analysis despite it being clearly required since 2005 TMR adoption.
B6. Open riding areas are highly valuable and unique opportunities that are not provided on forests at any scale. Any revisions to the 2005 TMR should stress the value of these opportunities where appropriate. Even comparatively small summer open areas simply don’t exist on USFS lands currently and these would be highly sought after opportunities on the landscape.
B7. Recreational opportunities are provided in balance with other values such as wildlife, water, grazing and other multiple uses. Balance avoids conflicts.