Recreation

Thank You, Aspen Times! More on Burnt Mountain

by

A while back on this blog here, I wondered about Ark Initiative’s ongoing interest in Burnt Mountain (800 trees 6.5 acres, and mass extinctions).

Fortunately, a reporter for the Aspen Times had the time and the skills to investigate more.
Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

“What exactly is the Ark Initiative, and why is it interested in Burnt Mountain? It’s largely a one-person operation run by environmental consultant Donald “D.J.” Duerr, who helped found the organization and serves as its president and director. Duerr is a veteran of the conservation movement who has a reputation of being very capable but also very difficult to work with. One source, who asked not to be quoted by name, said Duerr isn’t a team player and often thinks his approach is the only approach to an issue.

Duerr created the Ark Initiative in the late 1990s. The organization’s website, http://ark.savelifenow.org, says it is “dedicated to protecting life, including human life. Our highest priority is halting the global mass extinction.”

The website says the Ark Initiative works on a “wide variety of life preservation issues,” but none are cited. The organization’s finances are also closely guarded — more so than many other environmental nonprofits. Nonprofits are required by the Internal Revenue Service to fill out a Form 990 on their finances. The website Guide Star posts the forms, with the cooperation of the nonprofits, so it provides reporters, prospective donors and interested members of the public with a glimpse at an organization’s operations. The Ark Initiative’s financial forms aren’t available through Guide Star. Duerr didn’t respond to a request by The Aspen Times on Monday to provide Ark Initiative’s latest annual report, nor did he respond to repeated requests for an interview.

So far, it’s been impossible to tell from public records where the Ark Initiative’s money is coming from for the Burnt Mountain fight.

A limited amount of information is available about Ark Initiative at the Wyoming secretary of state’s website. In addition to listing Duerr as president and director, Leila Bruno, of Laramie, Wyo., is the treasurer and director. Sylvia Callaway, whose mailing address is in care of an Austin, Texas, residence, is listed as vice president and director.

The extent of the Ark Initiative’s environmental activism is difficult to gauge. Public records indicate Duerr submitted comments to the Forest Service to oppose two timber sales: one in Wyoming in 2009 and the other in South Dakota in 2010.”

Interesting. I had heard through the rumor mill that it was a neighbor who didn’t want more people skiing around.. it’s possible that “keeping out the riff-raff” will be hard to distinguish from legitimate environmental concerns. Again, thanks to the Aspen Times for investigating.

“Standardizing” Recreation Residence Fees- House Bill

by

So my understanding is that it’s hard to figure how much market value really is for some of these properties; however, I wonder about the rationale for reducing fees because owners “can’t afford” them. I’m sure National Park access fees are high for some people, .. how about means testing them? If the problem is that different forest units interpret the regulations differently, well, that’s another problem.

It seems like this group might be considered to have “undue political clout” even though they are not a corporation, which would feed into our previous discussion of what is “appropriate” political clout. But to them, it’s just an organized grassroots strategy, which you can check out at their website here.

Given the people on this blog’s different experiences with recreation residences, what do you think the problems are, as well as solutions? (if you are currently working, you can use an alias). Some have suggested that just selling these parcels would be better for the public, due to the costs of administration and the fees never being able to keep up.

I’m also curious as to whether Environmental Groups who Use Litigation as a Frequent Tactic or EGULFTs have ever turned their attention to these folks and the Recreation Residence program. Seems like the continuing presence of these folks in the forest might have environmental impacts as significant as, say 500 acres of thinning…

Here’s the Examiner.com story.

Here’s a link to the bill.

800 Trees and 6.5 Acres .. Litigation.. and Mass Extinctions

by
Popular skiing terrain on Burnt Mountain East. The area is outside of the Snowmass Ski Area’s operations boundary, but inside its permit boundary. The trail in question would allow skiers to access this terrain and then return to the Two Creeks base area. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith

I have been following this project (Burnt Mountain) and here is a link to a news story from Friday from the Aspen Times, and below is an excerpt.

So I am totally not a skier, so perhaps I don’t understand the complexities of why this could be good or bad in terms of safety. I do understand the idea of 6.5 acres and 800 trees, though, and I don’t understand how the Ark Initiative mission relates to 6.5 acres. And how the area around an old road could be special because it’s roadless…

I looked up the Ark Initiative here.. it seems to be concerned with the mass extinction of species. I’m just not getting the connection with 800 trees and 6.5 acres.

In an email earlier this month, Ark Initiative representative D.J. Duerr explained the organization’s position.

“Fitzwilliams could call this part of Burnt Mountain a parking lot if he likes, but that wouldn’t change the simple fact that this forested area contains no roads and is in the same wild and undeveloped condition as the immediately adjacent Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness,” Duerr said.

For The Ark Initiative, the dispute pertains to terrain beyond the egress.

“Around 2002, the USFS drew the original boundary for the ‘inventoried’ Burnt Mountain Roadless Area to exclude the exact area where Skico wanted to cut the new ski runs,” Duerr claimed. “It appears the ‘inventoried’ roadless boundary in this part of Burnt Mountain wasn’t based on whether the lands were actually roadless but on Skico’s desire to cut up this area for more profits. The Colorado Roadless Rule reclassifies even more of the roadless lands on Burnt Mountain out of ‘roadless’ status to facilitate the new ski runs.”

Fitzwilliams countered Thursday that the Forest Service spent six years on administrative analysis of Skico’s proposal and that two courts upheld the decision. He maintained that work on the egress is allowable, but he wanted the Forest Service attorneys to make sure the process was adequate in case of a challenge from The Ark Initiative.

“If we’re not going to affect roadless, I don’t know what the issue is,” Fitzwilliams said.

He also questioned the legitimacy of The Ark Initiative as an environmental organization. No local groups, such as Wilderness Workshop, have challenged the Forest Service decision, he noted.

Fitzwilliams suggested The Ark Initiative is a front from powder skiers who don’t want their stash turned into inbounds skiing.

“This isn’t about roadless,” Fitzwilliams said. “This is about fresh tracks at the bottom of the hill.”

In practical terms, the status of the traverse remains in limbo at least for this ski season.

“That is part of the area that is still under Forest Service review,” Skico spokesman Jeff Hanle said.

Burkley said Skico can work on a small portion of the 1,900-foot-long traverse from below and from above, but it can’t touch the middle 1,400 to 1,500 feet. The traverse, ironically following an old road, is 15 to 30 feet wide and steeper than Skico wants for intermediate customers.

“We don’t want to create a terrain trap where we suck people in,” he said. “For an expert skier, it’s not an issue.”

The new terrain will be accessed from Longshot. Skiers and riders will work to their right. The new terrain won’t be named.

“You’d be hard-pressed to identify any one run,” Burkley said.

Let me just add that skiers are not roads, and removing trees as part of “activities not otherwise prohibited” seems to be OK under the 2001 Roadless Rule. It’s just not clear to me why this is a Big Deal, related to extinctions of species, and worthy of expensive lawyer time for the plaintiffs, and, ineluctably, the taxpayer.

I’m with Scott.. something here simply doesn’t add up.

Here’s another article from 2009 (!) on the same subject and here’s a quote

Ark’s lawsuit contends that the Skico’s master plan amendment should have triggered studies on effects on roadless areas and on elk. The initial approval and environmental studies were performed in the early 1990s, so conditions might have changed, the group contended. As an example, it wanted a new study on the work’s potential impact on elk.

“If it’s a minor amendment, it might not need NEPA analysis,” Brawer said. “This wasn’t minor and [the initial approval] was old.”

Ark contends that the Forest Service analysis has been piecemeal and it has lost sight of the cumulative impacts on Burnt Mountain. It wants the ski area project blocked “until and unless” full-blown environmental studies are performed on Skico’s amendment to its master plan.

The Forest Service’s arguments essentially flip all the claims made by Ark. The agency said its review was cumulative and satisfied NEPA requirements. The project has no significant effect on elk or endangered species like lynx, the agency said. It wants the review to stand.

The two sides argued the case in Denver earlier this year before U.S. District Judge Walker Miller. It is unknown when a ruling will be made.

Here’s another article from 2011 about how the legal battle was “over”..

A trio of judges in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal on Nov. 8 in a lawsuit seeking to block the construction of an egress trail connecting lower Burnt Mountain East to Two Creeks, which was approved by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003.

The decision, written by Judge Paul Kelly, Jr., ends the legal process for the plaintiffs in the suit opposed to the trail, the Ark Initiative, Donald Duerr who is connected to the Ark Initiative, Paul “PJ” Smith, who works at the Gene Taylor’s ski shop in Snowmass Village and Alex Forsythe, a Florida resident who skis frequently on Burnt Mountain.

The U.S. Forest Service was the defendant in the suit and Aspen Skiing Company was not named.

However, Skico legal counsel David Bellack attended oral arguments recently in Denver just in case he was needed to support the Forest Service’s case.

It’s not clear yet what the resolution of the legal challenge to the trail means in terms of actually building the trail.

“We are aware the appeal was rejected but haven’t discussed anything internally regarding Burnt Mountain at this time,” said Aspen Skiing Company Vice President of Mountain Operations Rich Burkley.

The trail in question exists today in crude form, but the legal battle begin after the U.S. Forest Service approved a wider and formalized trail.

So.. people already go there and there are folks against something “wider and more formalized”; but it’s not a road and it’s bad for “roadless”??

Like I said, something just doesn’t add up.

Feds to limit forest drop-off of ATVs, snowmobiles, mountain bikes

by

I thought this article in the Denver Post was interesting. Here’s the link. Below is an excerpt.
Having been in the San Juans on vacation where ATVs were on roads and trails, and climbers used ATV’s to access trailheads, it seems to me the key thing is to keep ATV’s on roads and trails. I don’t know if renters are worse about going off roads and trails? And if there can be too many ATVs on ATV roads and trails? How would you know? And most complex of all, if you don’t restrict private, how can you know how many commercial you can have within the total limit (maybe they monitor and reset the commercial every year)? The many ways of managing being “loved to death” is clearly a 21st century problem.

Federal land managers say they must balance commercial use with protection of public forests, which serve as watersheds and as habitat for wildlife. But this is causing conflict with people who make their living by delivering machines to increasingly savvy consumers of mountain recreation experiences.

“It’s killing me,” said Scott Wilson, owner of Colorado Backcountry Rentals. Wilson rents 20 sleds in the winter and 15 ATVs in the summer — a business he established in 2004. His five-employee company offers to supply “your ride” at any season in places “where you will ride unguided through the backcountry of the Colorado Rockies.”

Now, after receiving a letter at the height of the summer season that declares him “in violation” and orders him to “immediately stop,” Wilson is preparing a legal challenge.

For years, he has been consulting with federal forest and highway authorities about the legality of his operations and seeking permits.

But federal rangers, corresponding with Wilson’s attorney, Lee Gelman, last week maintained their position that Colorado Backcountry Rentals’ operations on Vail Pass and at the Tiger Road area in Summit County “are not authorized activities.”

Federal foresters “keep using the word ‘unauthorized’ — and, to that, I say, ‘bull,’ ” said Wilson, who moved to Colorado from Texas in 2001 and serves as the linebackers coach of the Summit High football team.

“When you have thousands of people going out into forests, how do you regulate that? I get that. They are doing their job,” he said. “But why not give me a permit? You can limit my user days.”

Restricting rentals

The mountain-bike rentals in Summit and Eagle counties are expanding by 10 percent a year, with more than a dozen companies delivering bikes and offering shuttle transport to forest trailheads, Pioneer Sports manager Jeremy Mender said. Beyond Vail Pass descents, Pioneer offers “full-suspension mountain bikes” so that visitors can “enjoy a variety of single-track trails” around Summit County.

“If you put a cap on that, you would be putting a cap on the whole community as far as tax revenue is concerned,” Mender said.

Restricting the trailhead rentals is complicated because federal managers of the White River National Forest, which covers 3,571 square miles, already have issued 200 permits for other commercial activities ranging from skiing to guided mushroom hunting. About 154 permits have been issued to outfitters that rent equipment and provide guides who accompany visitors.

“It makes sense to me why people would be looking at rentals,” said David Neely, the ranger in the forest’s Eagle- Holy Cross district.

But there’s a downside, Neely said, because the vehicle deliveries at trailheads “place somebody who may never have engaged in that activity on a fairly powerful machine.”

Decision time

A decision will be be made this fall on forest commercial capacity for rented snowmobiles, Forest Service officials said. A decision on summer use of ATVs and mountain bikes will require more time, they said.

Forest officials told Wilson’s attorney they began work this summer with a university to gather data to help determine “a summer-season commercial capacity” for areas accessible from the Vail Pass summit.

A key factor, said Rich Doak, the recreation-policy specialist for the forest, is the growing movement for “quiet use” by limiting motorized vehicles such as ATVs.

“The quiet-use issue is popping up everywhere,” he said.

Doak said rental operations are likely to be limited, perhaps to only companies that send guides with their vehicles.

“We’re in the process of determining what the capacity is up there,” he said. “I’m not positive that we’re going to do rental operations up there. It may be guided. It may be not at all.”

Federal data show that the numbers of visitors in Rocky Mountain forests have reached 32 million a year. The crowds are growing by about 4 percent a year, with 8.4 percent of visitors relying on ATVs or other personal motorized vehicles, said Chris Sporl, acting director of recreation, heritage and wilderness resources at Forest Service regional headquarters in Denver.

Three national forests in Colorado rank among the nation’s six busiest, Sporl said. The White River National Forest draws 9 million people a year.

Since 2005, forest managers have worked at creating sustainable designated routes for motorcycles and ATVs in forests — trying to make sure this use is compatible with forest soils, the need to prevent erosion and other users’ interests.

“One of the things we’re focusing on is restoring and adapting recreation settings. We’ve got areas that have been loved to death,” Sporl said. Future projects will restore heavily used areas “back to where they need to be, back into balance with the ecosystems.”

“We’re constantly dealing with changing recreation opportunities over time,” he said. “We look at how to adapt.”

Freedom to drive

Meanwhile, Wilson is trying to adapt. Last week, he dropped off a load of ATVs in mountains north of Breckenridge, along Tiger Road, for a family from Texas and two newlyweds, fresh from safety seminars and crowned with bright, shiny helmets.

Wilson sent them on their way with some trepidation. Summit County officials who oversee some land in the area have notified Wilson that they share federal land managers’ concerns about unauthorized commercial ATV- and snowmobile-rental operations.

The Texans told Wilson they had previously rented ATVs for unguided riding near Durango and loved it.

The appeal, 52-year-old Jon Jobe said, “is to have freedom to drive around and see things you want to see when you want to see it.”

As these smiling visitors rolled out on their vehicles, Wilson turned to his ringing cellphone. It was a sheriff’s deputy calling. Private-property owners nearby had complained about Wilson’s drop-offs and staging on that road. “You gotta leave,” the deputy said.

Stone-faced, Wilson gulped.

House Bill Standardizing Fees for Recreation Residences

by

Here’s the link, below is an excerpt..

The House Natural Resources Committee last week reported the Cabin Fee Act of 2011 (H.R. 3397), which would standardize the fee structure. The committee approved the bill last November but waited till now to officially send it to the House floor for a vote.

Owners would only have to pay $100 a year “if access to a cabin is significantly impaired, either by natural causes or governmental actions, such that the cabin is rendered unsafe or unable to be occupied,” according to the committee report on the bill.

And when someone sells a cabin or transfers title, the government would collect a transfer fee.

The U.S. Forest Service has always collected fees from cabin owners but in a haphazard manner that did not accurately reflect their valuation – sometimes more than $10,000. And many owners couldn’t afford them.

The bill would set a structure of fees ranging from $500 to $4,500 per year.

The transfer fee would consist of $1,000 for all sales and transfers plus an additional five percent on prices between $250,000 and $500,000, and an additional 10 percent on sale amounts exceeding $500,000.

Companion legislation (S. 1906) is pending before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which conducted a hearing in March. Here is a link to the bill.

Note from Sharon: I wonder about the causes of what the reporter (or the Congressfolk) terms “haphazard” .. there is a great deal of political pressure not to increase the fees by recreation residencers, but the FS is attempting to implement regulations, which are conceivably based on the intent of Congress and probably have some kind of deadline to collect the currently appropriate fees. I wonder if there is more to this story, and about the perspectives of people who contribute to this blog on recreation residences and fees?

Is there a Retaining Public Access for Public Land NGO?

by

I was asked if I knew of an NGO or coalition that focuses on maintaining public access to federal lands or FS land (without getting into the OHV, hiker, bike issues). For example, funding or encouraging legal work to open roads that private landowners close to the public, to deal with trespass violations, and to review administrative or congressional land exchanges that may have impacts on public access. You also might call this topic “maintaining the federal estate.” Or something catchier.

I didn’t know of any, but thought I would ask this knowledgeable group.

OHV’s LInked to Weather: Could This Be True?

by

Sometimes I think there should be a category on this blog for “things that seem too strange to be true but I don’t have time to look at the document myself.” See the italicized sentence in the quote below.
Does anyone out there in blogland have a copy of the report we can post?

PS, who forgot to tell me when the perfectly good English words “resilience” and “relevance” were replaced with “resiliency” and “relevancy” does it follow that prurience is now “pruriency”.. I just wanna know?

Here’s the story:

Specifically, Vilsack said the USFS decided to remove the report, titled “A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Management,” and cease distribution of hard copies and video discs “to clarify the context for the reference to Wildlands CPR’s BMPs [best management practices] and how the Forest Service develops and uses its own national BMPs.

“The Forest Service also had concerns about some of the graphics and the relevancy of some of the information,” Vilsack wrote.

Vilsack’s letter was in response to a letter dated March 9 in which the AMA and six other organizations demanded answers concerning the anti-OHV statements and innuendo in the document as well as the inclusion of information from the Wildlands CPR, which is an anti-OHV group.

Besides the AMA, organizations signing the letter were the All-Terrain Vehicle Association, the BlueRibbon Coalition, the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, the Colorado Snowmobile Association, Trails Preservation Alliance, and the Utah Shared Access Alliance.

The intent of the guidebook is laudable: to help OHV trail managers develop sustainable trails and protect the environment surrounding the trails.

But Wayne Allard, a former U.S. senator and U.S. representative from Colorado who is now the AMA’s vice president for government relations, noted that “the document includes a variety of statements and innuendo that reflect an anti-OHV bias, and cites as a source for information an anti-OHV group. This type of government guide should be fact-based and neutral. It shouldn’t include inflammatory, biased language and the recommendations of a group known to oppose OHVs.”

Among other things, the 318-page guide stated: “This framework was developed to help trail managers corral the OHV management dragon. The author hopes it has provided some insight into the nature of OHV trails, and some tools to help keep the beast at bay. Happy herding and happy trails!”

The guide also claimed that OHV use causes an “increase in frequency and intensity of weather events,” and acknowledged gathering information from the Wildlands CPR.

BYO TP, plus Conundrum Management

by
People soaking in the Conundrum Hot Springs can also soak in the view of the beautiful valley, looking north.
Max Vadnais / The Aspen Times

When I am out of the blogging loop for awhile, and read a load of stories, there seem to be strange juxtapositions. Here are two stories, one about “not enough” use; the other about “too much” use. The common denominator seems to be “not enough money.”

I think we should be able to do better. I would call it a “third-world” approach to recreation- except that that would be a disservice to the third world.

Here’s the “not enough use” story: Forest Service to cut some services at old camp areas, here.

And one on the Conundrum Hot Springs area, currently big in the press for the dead cows, here, “Forest Service: Conundrum faces bigger woes than cows: Popularity of hot springs is affecting the beautiful valley.”

Mono Lake Tufa Preserve

by

On the south shore of the picturesque Mono Lake is a collection of rock formations known as tufa. For thousands of centuries, the level of Mono Lake has fluctuated, with ancient lakeshores easily visible from commercial airliners. As the lake rises, more minerals cling to the existing structures, building them larger and taller. It really seems unlikely that the water levels will be rising, in the near future, even with the waters from Rush Creek being permanently sustained. There are just a few pocket glaciers left in the Sierra Nevada but, there were some very wet years in the 80’s which pushed water levels higher. This is a Forest Service site, which requires a fee or pass. Improvements include a nice boardwalk, bathrooms, a parking area and periodic road grading.

I stayed until well after sundown, capturing some dramatic shots. There were about another 30 photographers there, as well. It is a fragile place but, I haven’t seen much damage in the 30 years since I first saw it.

http://www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

Collaboration Example: Black Hills Travel Management with FACA Committee

by

If, as stated by many, collaboration is a tool of “industry”, what industry are we talking about here?
Here’s an example of how the recommendations and agency action interrelate on the draft Travel Management Plan.

Proposed Action
Early development of the proposed action involved extensive consultation with many individuals and groups. Some of this work was conducted by the National Forest Advisory Board. Other efforts were conducted by the Forest Service. The following section summarizes these efforts.
National Forest Advisory Board Efforts
The Forest conducted preliminary public involvement from April 2003 to November 2007 through the work of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB). This board was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 2003. In March 2005, the Board established the Travel Management Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) to develop recommendations to the larger NFAB for travel management on the Forest. It was intended that advice provided by the NFAB would be used by the Forest Service to develop a proposed action or alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Members appointed to the Subcommittee represented a wide variety of interests, including both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists.
To assist their efforts in evaluating the potential for establishing a designated OHV trail system on the Forest, the Subcommittee distributed a User Needs Questionnaire to solicit input from both OHV and non-OHV users. By December 2005, some 559 responses had been received. To supplement the information received from this effort, the Subcommittee also conducted four public meetings in South Dakota and Wyoming in which they listened to ideas, suggestions and concerns from off-highway vehicle users, outdoor recreationists, interested stakeholders and community members.
NFAB Recommendations – Based on public input solicited and received, the Subcommittee issued a report on June 8, 2006 (Blair et al. 2006). The report contained eleven core recommendations regarding design and management of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. The report made it clear that these recommendations “are intended to be general in nature.” The eleven recommendations offered by the Travel Subcommittee to the NFAB are incorporated by reference in this analysis, and are summarized as follows:
9
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan
1. Our Setting/Niche – “The Subcommittee recognizes that motorized vehicle use including OHVs is an important part of the recreation experience on the Black Hills. The Subcommittee recommends that an OHV trail system be developed, within the context of overall motorized uses, which provides for a variety of opportunities but does not dominate or unreasonably interfere with other multiple uses on the Forest.”
2. Active or a Passive System? “The Subcommittee recommends an ‘active’ system versus a passive one. A passive system is similar to what we have today—routes and areas are designated as open or closed, and people use these routes/areas as desired. An active system is one that is specifically designed, maintained, and enforced to provide for specific uses. The Subcommittee recognizes that funding would play a large role in the size and nature of the system.” (Emphasis added.)
3. What are the economic and funding issues? “The Subcommittee recognizes that the size and nature of an OHV system will depend substantially on the funding sources available. The Subcommittee supports pursuing all possible funding options.”
4. What would be the role of the States and local communities in developing and managing an OHV trail system? “The Subcommittee recommends that OHV management on the Black Hills National Forest be a cooperative effort between the Forest Service, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, and local counties. The Forest Service would have primary responsibility for an OHV trail system (as well as other transportation systems) on NFS lands.”
5. What should the system look like/consist of? “The group likes the concept of “Gateway Communities” or of at least connecting/tying in communities in some fashion. In general, the system should consist of a main arterial system extending throughout the Black Hills and a network of routes branching off the main system. The focus would be on multiple scale loops as opposed to dead-end spurs. Many of the routes would be shared by multiple users… The group recognizes that, for the most part, there are already an adequate number of routes on the Forest that could be developed into a system [and that] some current, non-system routes may need to be included in the system.” The Subcommittee stated that they did not envision that a large number of new routes would be developed, and that the development of new connections or “limited new routes…should be off-set by the removal of other existing routes. In the end, there should be less ‘tracks on the ground’ than currently exists.”
6. How do we address populated areas? “General consensus was that it is important to limit the amount of noise and potential conflicts adjacent to communities/ subdivisions, and that an OHV trail system should focus more on areas away from populated areas.” The Subcommittee recognized that concentrating motorized use near populated areas “can be a nuisance for some and cause conflicts” and that efforts should be made to reduce this nuisance and conflicts. The Subcommittee noted that providing motorized access from these areas while reducing conflicts could be “the most difficult aspect of the entire process.”
7. Game Retrieval – “The Subcommittee recommends that allowances be made for game retrieval as part of the motorized use designation process.” The Subcommittee recommended further that the program on the Forest should be consistent with other Federal and State agencies, notably Custer State Park, and that “No unacceptable 10
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
resource damage, as defined by the Forest Service, will occur as part of retrieval operations.”
8. Firewood Collecting – The Subcommittee recognized that many residents collect firewood on the Forest to heat their homes, and recommended “that motorized use to collect firewood:
a. Require a firewood permit.
b. Be limited to areas designated by the Forest Service which can be modified as needed.”
9. Dispersed Camping – “The Subcommittee recommends that dispersed camping using motorized vehicles off designated routes be allowed, but motorized vehicles be restricted to within 300 feet of an open, designated route using the most direct route to the camp site.”
10. Cross-Country Motorized OHV Use – “The Subcommittee recommends that cross-country motorized OHV travel be allowed only within designated areas. Exceptions to this would be for administrative and permitted uses, public safety, fire suppression, and search and rescue.” The Subcommittee offered no recommendation as to the size and nature of these designated areas.
11. Mud-Bogging – “The Subcommittee recommends that no mud-bogging be allowed on National Forest System lands,” noting the resource damage that accompanies such use.
Forest Service Efforts
The Forest Service also conducted work outside the framework of the NFAB. During this preliminary public involvement stage, Forest leadership met with Indian tribal leadership to consider the travel planning process. The Forest Service also sponsored and conducted workshops. The Forest, in cooperation with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) conducted an OHV Route Designation Workshop in October 2006 for agency personnel and the public. The purpose of this workshop was to acquaint agency personnel and the public with the Travel Management Rule and its implementation. In November 2006, the Forest conducted four “Travelways” workshops. The purpose of these workshops was to gather public input and ideas for developing a proposed action. Individuals attending these workshops identified routes they felt should remain open for public use on Forest lands, and suggested changes or additions to the travel system. Participants at these workshops contributed site-specific information that was used to develop the proposed action.
The Forest then convened decisionmakers and resource specialists from the Supervisor’s Office and all four Ranger Districts, to design and display a motorized travel system that would follow the NFAB recommendations and meet public desires expressed up to that time. The aim was to develop a system that a system that would also reduce or minimize potential resource damage, and be practical to implement.