public meetings with forest service, roadless rule

colorado_matt · May 26, 2011

Here is an an email I got from our local snowmobile club president and csa district rep. I will be happy to email the entire attachment with more information to anyone interested. Just post or pm me your email address and I will forward it to you.

Thanks, Matt

Greetings,

The Forest Service will be hosting four public meetings throughout western Colorado during the month of June to provide information on the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. Meetings will be held in Monte Vista, Durango, Montrose and Glenwood Springs. Please see the attachment below for a detailed schedule and information about submitting public comments on the proposed rule.

We hope to see many of you in attendance!

Public Meetings
The Forest Service will host four public meetings throughout western Colorado during June regarding the proposed rule. Meeting Date Associated Unit City Location

Tuesday, June 7, 2011
5:30 — 7:30pm
Rio Grande National Forest Monte Vista, CO
Monte Vista High School
349 Prospect Avenue

Wednesday, June 8, 2011
5:30 — 8:30pm
San Juan National Forest Durango, CO
Community Recreation Center
2700 Main Avenue

Wednesday, June 15, 2011
6:30 — 9:00pm
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests and Manti-La Sal National Forest
Montrose, CO Montrose Pavilion
1800 Pavilion Dr.

Thursday, June 16, 2011
5:30 — 7:30pm
White River National Forest
Glenwood Springs, CO Community Center
100 Wulfsohn Rd.

Please register for these meetings at http://coroadless.eventbrite.com . Although
registration is not required to attend, it will assist us in planning for the meetings.

Dogmeat · May 26, 2011

What is the "Roadless" rule?

Kicking more people off land since they can't get wilderness ramrodded through congress?

paulharris · May 26, 2011

Dogmeat said:
What is the "Roadless" rule?

Kicking more people off land since they can't get wilderness ramrodded through congress?

www.fs.usda.gov/goto/coroadlessrule
The proposed Colorado Roadless Rule is a regulation specific to Colorado that, when finalized, would provide management direction for 4.2 million roadless acres of National Forest System lands in Colorado. A roadless area is undeveloped land that generally is at least 5,000 acres, and has a number of unique characteristics.
The Forest Service is inviting public comment on the proposed rule and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) which is a product of ongoing and cooperative work with the State of Colorado that dates back to 2005.
On April 15, 2011, the Forest Service announced a 90-day public comment period on the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule and RDEIS, which will end on July 14, 2011.

put one of these meetings on your calendar people. you can guarantee that this will close snowmobile areas if you dont get involved. Just as important though you need to submit a written comment on the website. You know the granolas will show up at these meetings....will any snowmobilers show up?? here is the link to FS website:www.fs.usda.gov/goto/coroadlessrule

dejadoo · May 26, 2011

Many existing National Forest roads and trails are set to be closed(to wheeled vehicles) but this roadless rule does not close any areas to snowmobiles. The maps for these closures are already set.
I went over the maps at the Forest Service in Gunnison because I own land that is affected by the closures.

What they are proposing now is areas where no new roads can be constructed.
I was told the roadless rule does not cover what they call over the snow vehicles,
but the enviros are lobbying for it to cover snow vehicles.

Dogmeat · May 27, 2011

So in other words, yes it IS them trying to place wilderness in effect over 4.2 million acres by way of regulations because they know it doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing congress.

paulharris · May 27, 2011

back2cat said:
Many existing National Forest roads and trails are set to be closed(to wheeled vehicles) but this roadless rule does not close any areas to snowmobiles. The maps for these closures are already set.
I went over the maps at the Forest Service in Gunnison because I own land that is affected by the closures.

What they are proposing now is areas where no new roads can be constructed.
I was told the roadless rule does not cover what they call over the snow vehicles,
but the enviros are lobbying for it to cover snow vehicles.

I can guarantee you that the next step will be pushing for wilderness designation of these "roadless" areas....get involved now people

dejadoo · May 27, 2011

I have no doubt that more wilderness areas are being pushed, but that is
much more complicated to get done than this roadless rule.
I own 40 acres in Gunnison National Forest that is at 11,500-12,000 ft.
In the last 5-10 years I have seen much damage being done by mostly ATVs to high mtn meadows and creek beds in the National Forests. It used to be somehwhat uncommon to see wheeled vehicles get off of existing trails, but not anymore. The Forest Service has no real way to police this and that is the main reason they are closing roads and areas down to wheeled vehicles.
They currently are not changing any rules for snowmobiles.
I know this will be unpopular with most of you, but if that is the only way to limit the landscape getting torn up, I am somewhat neutral on the plan.
Hopefully it will not lead to more restrictions and unfortunately those few doing the damage will probably ignore the new rules and the closed roads will just effect the majority that stay on the trails.

Dogmeat · May 27, 2011

back2cat said:
I have no doubt that more wilderness areas are being pushed, but that is
much more complicated to get done than this roadless rule.
I own 40 acres in Gunnison National Forest that is at 11,500-12,000 ft.
In the last 5-10 years I have seen much damage being done by mostly ATVs to high mtn meadows and creek beds in the National Forests. It used to be somehwhat uncommon to see wheeled vehicles get off of existing trails, but not anymore. The Forest Service has no real way to police this and that is the main reason they are closing roads and areas down to wheeled vehicles.
They currently are not changing any rules for snowmobiles.
I know this will be unpopular with most of you, but if that is the only way to limit the landscape getting torn up, I am somewhat neutral on the plan.
Hopefully it will not lead to more restrictions and unfortunately those few doing the damage will probably ignore the new rules and the closed roads will just effect the majority that stay on the trails.

That just tells me the USFS needs to get their people off their asses and PATROL the areas they are supposed to be instead of just banning everyone from everything.

backcountryislife · May 27, 2011

Dogmeat said:
That just tells me the USFS needs to get their people off their asses and PATROL the areas they are supposed to be instead of just banning everyone from everything.

But there's no way that anyone right or left wants to throw that kind of $$ at the forest circus.

We need to police ourselves, we need to report the A-holes doing this type of thing.

dejadoo · May 27, 2011

even if they threw a bunch of money and people at enforcing the rules,
it would still be next to impossible to cover all the miles of trails out there.

aphoric · May 27, 2011

Article from the Mountain Mail USFS: 'New rule would not affect existing uses'

I still don't understand what that means. Areas I ride are affected, but how?

colorado_matt · Jun 8, 2011

Attended he meeting in Monte Vista last night....... very poor turnout. There weren't but 10 people from the public at most. I do feel more informed on this topic now and supposedly ....... recreation will not be effected. I'm not buying that long term. I can't even imagine the amount of time and money that has been invested in this. Yet all I heard about when asking questions was how much their funding has been cut. I highly encourage anyone that has the opportunity, to attend one of the upcoming meetings and submit any comments. I believe July 14 is the deadline for submitting comments.

dejadoo · Jun 8, 2011

colorado_matt said:
Attended he meeting in Monte Vista last night....... very poor turnout. There weren't but 10 people from the public at most. I do feel more informed on this topic now and supposedly ....... recreation will not be effected. I'm not buying that long term. I can't even imagine the amount of time and money that has been invested in this. Yet all I heard about when asking questions was how much their funding has been cut. I highly encourage anyone that has the opportunity, to attend one of the upcoming meetings and submit any comments. I believe July 14 is the deadline for submitting comments.

They may not be closing anything with this go around, but they already finalized a plan to close many forest service roads and trails last year.
I heard they were going to start putting up signs this year.

The last line of the 1st link says snowmobiles are not affected.
Last year they had a map up that showed all the closed roads in red, now the map in the 2nd link just shows the open roads with many roads just not shown.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5163387.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5305664.pdf

Here is the map that shows the closed roads in red

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182957.pdf

psychoneurosis · Jun 19, 2011

We really need to start fighting the fact that even in the summer the roadless rule is explicitly designed to provide a dispersed recreational experience to both motorized and non motorized users of the forest. If the greenies can read the statute or understand it, they sylvan learning I am sure can help them.

36 CFR §294.11 explicitly provides:

primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes, and other mechanized means of travel is often allowed. These areas can also take pressure off heavily used wilderness areas by providing solitude and quiet, and dispersed recreation opportunities. 3244 Federal Register / Vol. 66 @ 3245

The roadless rule has no applicability to trails even those over 50 inches wide(level two roads), that is dispersed rec. Rather the protection of the dispersed motorized experience is the BIG difference between a roadless area and a designated wilderness area, and it is a big difference

Also travel management decisions and the roadless rule are really two different standards.

paulharris · Jun 19, 2011

psychoneurosis said:
We really need to start fighting the fact that even in the summer the roadless rule is explicitly designed to provide a dispersed recreational experience to both motorized and non motorized users of the forest. If the greenies can read the statute or understand it, they sylvan learning I am sure can help them.

36 CFR §294.11 explicitly provides:

primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes, and other mechanized means of travel is often allowed. These areas can also take pressure off heavily used wilderness areas by providing solitude and quiet, and dispersed recreation opportunities. 3244 Federal Register / Vol. 66 @ 3245

The roadless rule has no applicability to trails even those over 50 inches wide(level two roads), that is dispersed rec. Rather the protection of the dispersed motorized experience is the BIG difference between a roadless area and a designated wilderness area, and it is a big difference

Also travel management decisions and the roadless rule are really two different standards.

this is a great info to put in a letter. The forest service needs to see valid comments when writing a letter. not just "stop closing areas" here is an email to send comments july 14 is deadline: COComments@fsroadless.org

psychoneurosis · Jun 19, 2011

COHVCO should have a draft letter out for public use/comments in the next week or so on the roadless issue. I will try and get it posted on here

psychoneurosis · Jun 24, 2011

COHVCO's letter is:

Colorado Roadless Rule/EIS
P.O. Box 1919
Sacramento, CA 95812
Dear Sirs:
I am contacting you to voice my support for the 57,600 acre reduction in designated Roadless areas provided by Alternative 2 of the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. I am vigorously opposed to Alternative 4 of the proposal. I also support the continued management of dispersed motorized recreation in Roadless Areas under the Travel Management Planning process. Motorized recreationalists utilize these areas for the dispersed recreational experience they are designed to provide, a fact often lost in the application of the roadless rule.
While I support Alternative 2, I do not support the theory of upper tier area included in this proposal, as often the Roadless Rule is a source of confusion and frustration for the users of the forests. An additional level of roadless area designation will not help this situation. The upper tier area theory will make the frustration and confusion experienced by forest users worse. In addition to increasing frustration, the upper tier theory simply makes no sense in terms of providing flexibility to managers to address local fire prevention concerns. Alternative 4 simply makes no sense from this perspective as it provides an upper tier area
I believe the increased flexibility provided by the Colorado Roadless Rule proposal is superior to the existing Roadless Rule. Given the exceptionally high fuel loads present as a result of the pine beetle epidemic, it is critical that forest managers have the full range of possible options to address the most cost effective way to reduce the risk of forest fires to mountain communities and homes. The EIS goes to great lengths to address the need for flexibility in dealing with fuels issues on the forests. The theory of upper tier area directly conflicts with this analysis as significant numbers of local communities will be directly limited in their ability to address fire prevention as a result of upper tier designations within a short distance of the community.
I am also opposed to the negative economic impact that will result from the upper tier theory in the new Roadless Rule which will result in a negative impact to the Colorado economy in excess of $100 million dollars. Given the poor state of the Colorado economy for the foreseeable future and the mandate of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act requirement of balancing economic interests with all other interests, I don’t think this required balance has been achieved after the inclusion of the upper tier areas.
I also have concerns regarding the proposed 107,300 acre increase in roadless areas on the Pike/San Isabel Forest and the 22,300 acres increase on the San Juan Forest. These expansions of roadless areas are directly in conflict with the stated need for flexibility in fire management that is discussed at length in the EIS. Clearly an areas designation as roadless will reduce the tools available to managers to deal with fire mitigation issues.

Sincerely
(please remember to include your address )

Feel free to alter or amend to your position

Thanks for anyone who can send one in

paulharris · Jul 2, 2011

sent my letter in today on this

Search

public meetings with forest service, roadless rule

colorado_matt

Well-known member

Dogmeat

Well-known member

paulharris

Well-known member

dejadoo

Well-known member

Dogmeat

Well-known member

paulharris

Well-known member

dejadoo

Well-known member

Dogmeat

Well-known member

backcountryislife

Well-known member

dejadoo

Well-known member

aphoric

Well-known member

colorado_matt

Well-known member

dejadoo

Well-known member

psychoneurosis

Well-known member

paulharris

Well-known member

psychoneurosis

Well-known member

psychoneurosis

Well-known member

paulharris

Well-known member

Similar threads