Jump to content

colorado The Pike/San Isabel NF releases travel plan required by settlement

Recommended Posts

Just got this email from COHVCO and thought I would share:

 

Action Alert!!! 

 

 

The Pike & San Isabel National Forest (PSINF) has recently released the Motorized Travel Management (MVUM) Analysis, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This DEIS is the result of a 2015 settlement agreement of a 2010 legal challenge to the PSI’s previously prepared travel management plans.  The TPA and motorized community has invested significant funds and labor to intervene on behalf of the USFS in the litigation.  Since 2015, the TPA and motorized community has  invested considerable financial and staff resources to analyze, research and prepare comments during the Scoping Phase of the project.  On September 19, 2019, the DEIS was released for public review and comment along with supporting public meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to review the five different Alternatives.

 

Upcoming meetings occurring in the second week of October

 

Our general thoughts

We support the preferred Alternative C with some amendments (as long as there are no additional closures, decommissioning, restrictions or conversion of the routes to Admin Use Only or Maintenance Level 1 in Alternative C) as the best option and compromise that will both provide adequate access to manage the Forest and provide the widest spectrum of opportunities for access to the Forest and recreational opportunities for OHV recreation.However, there are several critical modifications and additions that the TPA advises must be included in Alternative C prior to finalization.Note that Alternative C does recommend that several existing National Forest System Roads (NFSRs) be converted to “trails” open to all vehicles (aka full size vehicles) or another trail designation such as open to vehicles 50” or less, etc.
 

Only Alternatives C and D provide a transportation network that will be adequate, minimized and can simultaneously meet the needs for effective Forest management and provide access for all forms of recreation to the public lands of the PSINF.
 

We are vigorously opposed to Alt B as it closes 34% of roads and trails, simply because previous analysis documents are unavailable.This ignores the fact that most of the closures are not justifiable with additional analysis.
 

We are vigorously opposed to Alt E of the Proposal, not only does this close 50% of roads it simply does not meet purpose and need or recognize that existing travel management on the PSI effectively.
 

Neither Alternative B nor E meets the needs for sustainable and proper forest, timber and fuels management along with motorized travel management and multiple-use recreation.Elimination of routes at the magnitude proposed by these two alternatives (e.g., elimination of the 717 trail system, Cap’n Jacks, etc.) will not protect the environment, will not protect natural or cultural resources, and does not fulfill the originally stated Purpose and Need of this project.
 

Alternative A relies upon old, out dated information and does not adequately reflect current conditions and lacks planning for future uses.
 

If you have participated in trail projects on the PSI, please mention that in your comments and pictures are always worthwhile when responding to these issues.

 

More information on the preferred alternative (including maps) is available here:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48214

Then click on the analysis tab for most recent information

 

Submit comments via USPS:

PSICC Forest and Grasslands Supervisor

Travel Management

2840 Kachina Drive

Pueblo, CO, 81008

Comments via portal:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=48214

 

Deadline for Public Comments:

November 4, 2019

Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition
P.O. Box 741353
Arvada, CO 80006

518-281-5810
info@cohvco.org

Edited by Donny18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whollymaolly. I got to page 53 of 378 and my head hurt.  No wonder the federal gov is so bloated and expensive, at least they don’t support “plan b”.

Edited by 2milehighspike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:


×
×
  • Create New...