USFS Rule Changes Action needed

[2TrakR]

I bet this is already a thread somewhere else, but just got the alert from the CCC and need your help.

First, send an email either with your own comments or just copy/paste this and ADD your contact info at the bottom.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition has a form available as well, but doesn't cover the CCC's position entirely. http://capwiz.com/share/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6328041
-->

To: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Rule for Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use
Message:

I support the Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan's (CCC) comments regarding this proposed rule.

Summary of their comments:

CCC supports a route designation process and a prohibition on cross-country travel outside of designated Areas.

CCC expects a comprehensive inventory roads, trails and Areas that allows full participation by interested OHV publics, and a funding level by the USFS equal to the stated priority of the issue.

CCC opposes any deadline for completion of the route designation process. Due to the scope of the effort and unknown funding, any attempt to set a deadline will undermine an accurate inventory, open the door for legal challenge, and potentially reduce OHV opportunity through failure to complete the process. OHV travel on currently legal routes must remain legal until the route designation process is complete.

Your Contact info here

 

[2TrakR]

Here's the info as released by the CCC (fully formatted Word doc or PDF available if you want):

September 12, 2004


Proposed Rule for Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use
C/o Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 221150
Salt Lake City, Utah 84122-1150


Re: Comments on ÒTravel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use


Please accept the following as the comments by the Cycle Conservation Club (CCC) on the Proposed Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (the Proposed Rule.)

The purpose of CCC, as a multi state off highway vehicle (OHV) organization of recreation enthusiasts, is to develop and provide a wide spectrum of family OHV programs, eduction, maintenance, materials and information, to our members, affiliated Chapters, and the general public in order to further increase and enhance a positive future for responsible OHV recreation.

Two of the ten CCC specific objectives are to:

¥ Improve and promote responsible OHV recreation management and resource protection by working in partnership with private and public land managers and recreation planners; and
¥ Provide and promote best management practices for OHV recreation planning, development and management to policy makers.

The following comments are offered to meet these objectives. The comments identify the section of the Proposed Rule, the CCC concerns or support of the identified section, and request for revision. Please accept these comments as part of the official record.

PREFACE TO COMMENTS

The Proposed Rule for Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use follows a major public outreach program by the United States Forest Service (USFS) titled ÒFour Threats to the Health of the NationÕs Forests and Grasslands.Ó Unmanaged recreation is identified as one of the ÒFour ThreatsÓ with a focus on off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation. According to the USFS National OHV Policy & Implementation Teams January 7, 2004 website update, ÒIn response to this issue the Chief has chartered two National Teams to develop contemporary policy and tools to address this issue effectively at the field level.Ó and, ÒThe policy development is focusing on three key issues: (1) Moving the agency to a system of designated routes for OHV activity, (2) Generally prohibiting cross-country travel by OHVs, and (3) Completing OHV designation decisions at the field level.Ó CCC supports these three policy issues. However, there is serious concern with focusing so much effort on a route designation program without equal attention to the design and construction of new trails, repair and maintenance of existing trails, education of the public, law enforcement, and monitoring of such efforts. CCC is not confident that depending on only one aspect of good management will correct over thirty years of insufficient management.

Furthermore, while, ÒThe Chief of the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially the undesirable impacts from OHVs, as one of the key threats facing the NationÕs Forests and grasslands,Ó CCC sees little in the Proposed Rule or the implementation planning for additional or sufficient funding of this stated top priority issue.

Much appears to be expected of the OHV public. And, the CCC expects that the OHV public will respond with a high level of assistance as they have in the past through the national Recreation Trails Program, support of the Fee Demo program, funding through OHV State programs, and tens-of-thousands of volunteer hours. In return, the USFS must be diligent in its implementation of the Proposed Rule and provide the funding resources necessary to make the stated goals of the program a reality.



COMMENTS


SECTION: SUMMARY

Support: CCC supports the Òestablishment of a system of roads, trails, and Areas designated for motor vehicle use.Ó In particular, CCC supports the provision of sufficient systems that offer high quality loop and destination opportunities to improve the OHV recreation experience and meet OHV public needs.

Support: CCC supports the proposed prohibition of cross-country travel outside of designated Areas. Past inconsistent cross-country policies between ranger districts, between National Forests and for different forest visitors has caused confusion, conflict and adverse resource impacts. What applies to one mechanized visitor group should apply to all mechanized visitor groups.


SECTION: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Concern: The term Òoff-roadÓ in reference to off-highway vehicles (OHVs) is used throughout this section. The term is misleading. The vehicles affected by the Proposed Rule are vehicles designed for off-highway, or off of paved road travel. In many national forests (NFs) OHVs are required to remain on signed and referenced roads, must utilize roads as trail system links, or must rely on roads as the only opportunity offered.

Request: That all reference to vehicles allowed to travel off of paved surfaces within NFs be referred to as OHVs with the exception of vehicles designed exclusively for travel over snow.

Concern: The background section identifies a variety of OHVs. However, the identification of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as an OHV is conspicuously missing. National sales and population trends included in the Ò2003 Motorcycle Industry Council Statistical AnnualÓ clearly show the popularity of ATVs and their use on public lands.

Request: That ATVs be recognized as a common type of OHV in all further documents concerning the Proposed Rule.


SECTION: Revisions to Part 212-Travel Management

Concern: The proposed revision for the Part 212 heading from ÒAdministration of the Forest Transportation SystemÓ to ÒTravel ManagementÓ with subparts governing administration of the forest transportation system and designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and Areas on National Forest System lands (the NF System) continues to infer that OHV routes are simply transportation corridors from a point A to B.

Request: That in the revised Part 212 OHV activity be recognized as a recreational pursuit and that OHV management focus on adequate quantity and quality of opportunity rather than just opportunity and travel.

Concern: The Proposed Rule states, ÒThe proposed rule would remove the current part 295, as its provisions, with the exception of section 295.6, requiring the annual review of motor vehicle management plans and temporary designations, would be integrated into part 212, subpart B, of the proposed rule.Ó This statement is confusing as to whether an annual review will be required or not.

Request: That the section be clarified and that if annual review is required that the review process be reasonable, well defined, and within the capabilities of the responsible offices.


SECTION Part 212: New Subpart A Ð Administration of the Forest Transportation System Ð Section 212.1 Definitions

Support: CCC supports the inclusion of definitions as listed in this section of the Proposed Rule. In particular we support the ability to define and manage a ÒroadÓ as a trail. We believe that this will encourage management of such routes for their quality recreational value and better protect their narrow and primitive nature.

Request: That an additional category of single-track trail be added to the definitions as those trails of 24 inches or less in tread width. Area and visitor level may require sharing of trails by ATVs and off-highway motorcycles (OHMs). However, in those areas where topography, space or demand allows, single-track trails offer the highest quality and most sought-after OHM experience.

Support: We support the definition of ÒAreaÓ and the inclusion of Areas in the NF System.

Concern: The definition of snowmobile may limit necessary and acceptable travel and recreation activity by vehicles built or redesigned for travel over snow.

Request: That the definition of snowmobile be revised to include other vehicles capable of over-snow travel or that an additional category of ÒOther over-snow vehiclesÓ be added. The allowance for all vehicles capable of over-snow travel increases management flexibility where multiple vehicle types are appropriate and where such use is fully compliant with environmental requirements.


SECTION 212.5 (a)(1):

Concern: This section is confusing.

Request: That the section be clarified in its intent. The Proposed Rule should retain the authority of the FS to preempt state law to allow travel by all categories of OHVs where appropriate and justified on forest roads. OHV recreation is a family-oriented activity. Where OHV travel is allowed on FS roads there must also be provision for non-street licensed operators. Without provision for non-street licensed operators, families with children under sixteen years of age, would in some states be unable to utilize designated OHV forest roads.


SECTION 212 (a)(2)(ii)

Concern: The Òdistinguishable groupingsÓ make no sense. Trucks may be four-wheel drive vehicles. Motorcycles, trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles are commonly designed and identified as off-highway vehicles. What is the difference between a passenger car and an automobile?

Request: That Òdistinguishable groupingsÓ be revised. And, that in Section 212.5 the term off-highway vehicle is defined and inclusive of all vehicles capable of off of paved highway travel, including off-highway motorcycles, dual-sport motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, dune buggies and rails, and full-sized two and four-wheel drive vehicles capable of off-highway travel.


SECTION 212.50: Purpose and Scope

Concern: This section is not clear. The section could be interpreted to mean that OHV travel on currently legal routes is no longer legal until the route designation process is complete.

Request: That the section be clarified in its intent and include that motorized travel and recreational activity where currently legal will continue as legal until the route designation process is completed.


SECTION 212.52 (a): Public involvement in the designation process

Support: CCC supports public involvement in the designation process and that the OHV public be notified of the opportunity to comment on all proposed or revised designations. The OHV public will be a valuable asset in identifying and mapping existing trails and quality systems.


SECTION 212.52 (b)(1): Absence of public involvement in emergency closures and elimination language

Concern: The Proposed Rule does not define a specific time for, ÒTemporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects are intended to be short-term.Ó Without a defined time period, accountability and pressure to correct a problem are limited.

Request: That the Proposed Rule state, ÒTemporary and emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects will be limited to not more then one year.Ó

Request: That the Proposed Rule state that extending temporary and emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects, beyond one year, must require public involvement.


SECTION 212.52 (b)(2): Temporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects

Concern: There is concern with the language; Òto protect public health and safetyÓ and Òor will cause adverse effects on public safety.Ó These are social conflicts that may be easily fabricated to restrict OHV activity.

Request: Remove language referring to social conflict. Retain only that language pertaining to measurable adverse impacts to soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources.

Support: CCC supports the use of Òmitigated or eliminatedÓ adverse effects in reference to, ÒÉForest Supervisor or other responsible official shall immediately close that road, trail or Area to motor vehicle use until the official determines that such adverse effects have been mitigated or eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.Ó


SECTION 212.53: Coordination with Federal, State, County, and other local governmental entities and Tribal governments.

Support: CCC supports this provision. OHV recreation trails often pass through multiple government jurisdictions. Coordination between agencies will provide more consistent mapping, signing, enforcement and general management.


SECTION 212.54: Revision of designations

Support: CCC supports Section 212.54 to address changing conditions.




SECTION 212.55: Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas.

Support: CCC supports (a) ÒGeneral criteria for designation of National Forest System Roads, National Forest System trails, and Areas on National Forest System landsÓ and in particular the inclusion of Òprovision of recreational opportunitiesÓ as one of the designation criteria.

Concern: CCC supports in general (b) ÒSpecific criteria for designation of trails and areasÓ and in particular (5) ÒCompatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors;Ó However, the USFS must recognize that active management including maintenance, education, enforcement and monitoring can reduce or eliminate compatibility concerns. If the USFS establishes such criteria it must make a diligent effort to provide such management and work in collaboration with various interest groups, including the OHV public, to maximize its management efforts and build compliance.

Request: That a seventh criteria be added to the six proposed ÒSpecific criteria for designation of trails and area.Ó

(7) Reliance on existing roads, trails, and areas that offer a poor recreation experience, rather than redesign or relocation to enhance the recreation experience and address environmental concerns.


SECTION 212.56: Identification of designated roads, trails, and Areas.

Support: CCC supports the identification of roads, trails, and Areas on maps that are readily available to the public. In CCC OHV Recreation Management Workshops across the country the OHV public and land management agency staff commonly state their frustration with the lack of maps and dated maps. Correct and understandable information must be reasonably available if the public is expected to comply with designations and regulations.

It is further suggested that;

¥ NF units do their utmost to post maps and pertinent area information on kiosks at OHV trailheads, staging areas, and websites;
¥ Area information indicate allowable and prohibited activities; and
¥ Maps and posted material include interpretive information to educate and build awareness and appreciation for the areas resources and history.



SECTION 212.57: Monitoring of effects of motor vehicles on designated roads and trails and in designated Areas.

Support: CCC supports a regular monitoring program. Monitoring programs must be realistic with consideration for the size of the administrative unit, level of use, number of resource concerns, natural conditions, and budget and staff constraints.


CONCLUSION

CCC supports a route designation process and a prohibition on cross-country travel outside of designated Areas.

CCC expects a comprehensive inventory roads, trails and Areas that allows full participation by interested OHV publics, and a funding level by the USFS equal to the stated priority of the issue.

CCC opposes any deadline for completion of the route designation process. Due to the scope of the effort and unknown funding, any attempt to set a deadline will undermine an accurate inventory, open the door for legal challenge, and potentially reduce OHV opportunity through failure to complete the process. OHV travel on currently legal routes must remain legal until the route designation process is complete.

CCC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule for Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. We will continue to encourage the OHV public to offer comment and actively participate in the route inventory and designation process.

 

[70 marlin]

Done! Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Nestrick]

Hey 2TrakR ...

I too have replied per your request ... thanks for your continued efforts which keep us up to date on these important issues!

terry nestrick :cool:

 

[miScott]

I sent off an email as well. Thank you for your efforts in keeping us informed.