Southern Arizona Hiking Club

Transcription

1 Southern Arizona Hiking Club P O B o x T u c s o n, A Z Kerwin Dewberry Forest Supervisor 300 West Congress St. Tucson, AZ Dear Mr. Dewberry, 1 December 22, 2016 I wish to submit an objection per 36 CFR 218 to the following project: Proposed Changes to Motorized Travel System on the Nogales Ranger District. Details are as follows: 1. The objector s name and address with telephone number if available: James Terlep 5751 W. Placita Del Risco, Tucson, AZ (520) A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for may be filed with the objection): See enclosure 1 for a copy of my scanned signature. 3. The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name(s) of the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented: Proposed Project: Proposed Changes to Motorized Travel System on the Nogales Ranger District Name and title of the Responsible Official: James D. Copeland, District Ranger, Nogales Ranger District, Coronado National Forest Name(s) of the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented: Coronado National Forest, Nogales Ranger District 4. A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and a statement that demonstrates connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection. There are three aspects of the proposed project addressed by my objection: existing roads in inventoried roadless areas; de facto buffers around wilderness areas; and inconsistent policy treatment of motorized recreation in the Santa Rita Mountains EMA. In each of these issues I believe the District s proposed decisions either violate law or established Forest Service policy, or pre-empt decisions to be made in forthcoming Coronado National Forest planning documents.

2 a. Existing Roads within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). I am attaching my previous written comments dated July 13, 2015 concerning this project. See enclosure 2. Paragraph 8 of my comment letter stated the following: Analysis of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The Draft EA fails to fully consider the importance and recreational value of existing roads within Inventoried Roadless Areas. It proposes to close these roads by default. Example: route R-1. Table 2 states the following for this road: Needed to meet Forest resource and other management objectives. Add as ML 2. High value for recreational and hunting opportunities. Road will end at IRA. However, why must the road be closed at the IRA boundary? The Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule does not prohibit travel on existing roads or motorized trails in IRAs. Roads and motorized trails can be present within IRAs. The District should reevaluate these roads and assess the value of keeping them open for public use within IRAs. This is the approach that was used in the Gila National ForestFinal EIS (see pages ) which resulted in designation of 223 miles of roads open for public use within IRAs. In the Response to Comments, the District stated the following: Routes occurring within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are considered new roads and cannot be designated as NFSRs under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule). 36 CFR states: a road may not be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System.. However, I strongly disagree with this statement and believe it is contrary to the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule. I am attachingat enclosure 3 the Federal Register Notice dated January 12, 2001 which published the Final Rule. On pages 3249 and 3250 of this document, the Forest Service responded to issues raised concerning public access and multiple use during the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Specifically, the following statement clarifies the treatment of existing roads in IRAs: The Roadless Area Conservation rule, unlike the establishment of wilderness areas, will allow a multitude of activities including motorized uses, grazing, and oil and gasdevelopment that does not require new roads to continue in inventoried roadless areas. Currently, a wide range of multiple uses is permitted in inventoried roadless areas subject to the management direction in forest plans. A wide range of multiple uses will still be allowable under the provisions of this rule. The National Forest System contains an extensive system of roads measuring approximately 386,000 miles.this final rule will not close or otherwise block access to any of those roads; the final rule merely prohibits the construction of new roads and thereconstruction of existing roads in inventoried roadless areas. Under this final rule, management actions that do not require the construction of new roads will still be allowed, including activities such as timber harvesting for clearly defined, limited purposes, development of valid claims of locatable minerals, grazing of livestock, and off-highway vehicle use where specifically 2

3 permitted. Existing classified roads in inventoried roadless areas may be maintained and used for these and other activities as well. Also, as further clarification, see Volume 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, chapter 11, paragraph 7 under Access (p. 121). This paragraph addresses the future disposition and use of unclassified roads. It states the following: The alternatives do not prohibit the use or maintenance of existing unclassified roads. The Roadless Rule s procedures do not make decisions on closure or decommissioning of unclassified roads. I believe the above statements invalidate the District s default policy to close roads in the IRAs. Specific remedy requested: I request that the Reviewing Official take the following actions: (1) Re-evaluate the value of existing roads in IRAs for public access and recreational use. Collaborate with myself and recreational groups (hunters, hikers, off-highway vehicle (OHV) groups) to determine which roads should be retained as open for public use. Affected roads include: R1, R1, R2, R1, R1, R1, R3, R1, L1, and R1. (2) Consult with the Region 3 staff of the Forest Service to ensure consistent application of the Roadless Rule by the Coronado National Forest. If the Gila National Forest Travel Management Plan resulted in 223 miles of roads remaining open in IRAs, why is the Nogales Ranger District proposing to decommission virtually all roads in IRAs by default? The Roadless Rule should be consistently applied by all national forests within Region 3. b. Buffers around Wilderness Areas. In my July 13, 2015 comment letter, I cited multiple cases where the District was proposing to close or restrict forest system roads that provide important access to a wilderness boundary or to an area near the wilderness boundary. I specifically mentioned these issues in my comment letter as follows: (1) Tumacacori EMA: Routes 4180 and The proposed change would redesignate 3.01 miles of route 4180 and 2.42 miles of route4181 to "restricted toadministrative or permitted use only". Comment: These routes provide public access to a large portion of the forest north of the Pajarita Wilderness andeast of Montana Peak and Tanaja Spring. These routes are forest system roads (not user created roads) thatshould remain as "open to all vehicles" due to the recreational values they offer for hunting, hiking, dispersedcamping, and other multiple uses. Routes 4180 and 4181 offer the only motorized access to the northern boundaryof the Pajarita Wilderness. Route 4181 also offers motorized access to traditional campsites that areused by hikers, birders, and other visitors to stage hikes into the Pajarita Wilderness on the SycamoreCanyon Trail. These routes should remain open for the important benefits they offer to the public. Whyis the Forest Service proposing to deny public use of these roads? 3

4 (2) Santa Rite EMA: Route 785. The proposed change would close the last 1.42 miles of this road. Comment: this NFSRroad has important recreational value and should be retained as "open to all vehicles". It provides a criticalaccess route to the Gardner Canyon Trailhead at the wilderness boundary on the east side of Mt.Wrightson. This trail is the most popular route for hiking to Mt. Wrightson from the east side. By closing the last 1.42 miles of route 785, the District would effectively make this hike too long and difficult for mosthikers to be able to dayhike to the top of Mt. Wrightson. Why is the Forest Service denying the public thismotorized access to the wilderness boundary? It should be noted that management of a wilderness areadoes not imply that buffer areas are to be established next to the wilderness boundary. In fact, this is expresslyprohibited by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 which states: The Congress does not intend thatdesignation of wilderness areas in the State of Arizona lead to the creation of protective perimeters orbuffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that non wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundaryof the wilderness area. Finally, it should be noted that this route is included in the Santa Rita BackcountryTouring Area as an approved OHV route. (3) Santa Rita EMA. Route 92. The proposed change would close the last 1.30 miles of this road. Comment: this NFSR roadhas important recreational value and should be retained as "open to all vehicles". It provides a critical accessroute to the Cave Canyon Trailhead at the wilderness boundary on the east side of Florida Saddle.This trail is the most popular route for hiking to Florida Saddle and the Crest Trail from the east side. By closing the last 1.3 miles of this road, the District significantly lengthens the hike to Florida Saddle.Plus most hikers would not enjoy hiking 1.3 miles along a rocky, 4WD road just to gain the trailhead.one s ability to hike to Florida Saddle and other destinations on the Crest Trail would be seriouslydegraded. Why is the Forest Service denying the public this motorized access to the wilderness boundary? It should be noted that management of a wilderness area does not imply that buffer areas are to beestablished next to the wilderness boundary. See above comment regarding the Arizona WildernessAct of 1984 and its prohibition on buffer zones. Finally, it should be noted that this route is includedin the Santa Rita Backcountry Touring Area as an approved OHV route. In the District s Response to Comments, it cited various reasons for the closures or restrictions, including protection of threatened and endangered species (roads 4180 and 4181), and road damage due to the 2005 Florida Fire (roads 785 and 92). It further stated that access to the top of Mt Wrightson was available from trails in Madera Canyon (roads 785 and 92). However, in my view, these are not compelling reasons. With respect to roads 4180 and 4181, the public access and recreational benefits should outweigh the presumed benefit to endangered species. These roads are located in a remote setting where road density is very low, so closing or restricting these roads would not in my view provide any significant marginal benefit. Also, with regard to fish species in Sycamore 4

5 Canyon, an improved water crossing where road 4181 crosses Sycamore Creek (north of the wilderness) should alleviate concerns over downstream sediment impacts. Furthermore, it should be noted that in the Coronado National Forest Draft Land and Resource Management Plan (October 2013, p. 140) these roads lie within the Roaded Backcountry Land Use Zone. The Draft Plan further states on p. 97, under Desired Conditions for that Zone that Forest visitors can enjoy semi-primitive motorized recreation and explore the backcountry in off-highway vehicles (OHVs) along designated roads or motorized trails. Thus in the context of the Roaded Backcountry Land Use Zone, closing or restricting these roads to the public is inconsistent with the Draft Forest Plan. With regard to roads 785 and 92, users with four wheel drive high clearance vehicles can still continue to access the wilderness boundary trailheads. These roads can continue to provide recreational value even in their rugged condition. Regarding the District s comment that users can access the top of Mt Wrightson from trails in Madera Canyon, it is not really a substitute for folks living in communities east of the Santa Rita s (such as Sierra Vista) due to the much longer travel distances involved in driving to Madera Canyon compared to the Gardner Canyon or Cave Canyon trailheads. To summarize, by closing or restricting roads 4180, 4181, 785, and 92 the District is in effect establishing de facto buffers around wilderness areas that is banned by the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act. I expressed this concern in my July 13, 2015 comment letter and the District s response does not negate my concern. Specific remedy requested: I request the Reviewing Official re-evaluate the public access and recreational value of these roads (4180, 4181, 785, and 92) and retain them as system roads open for public use. c. Motorized Access and Recreation in the Santa Rita Mountains EMA. In my July 13, 2015 comment letter, I cited several instances where the District failed to properly analyze the recreational use patterns in the Santa Rita Mountains EMA which caused an inaccurate assessment of the importance of motorized access and recreation. See paragraph 6a in my comment letter. I stated that The Draft EA fails to accurately analyze the recreational environment and use patterns. I also stated The Modified Proposed Action proposes to dramatically reduce the levelof roads open to the public and by so doing will seriously impact the public s ability to enjoy theirfavoriterecreational activities in the forest. I also pointed out in my paragraph 6b the following: In addition, the District s MPA fails to consider theproposed recreation zones that are envisioned in the Draft Forest Plan, i.e., the Santa Rita MountainsEMA is a location designated for a Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in the Preferred Alternative.The Draft Forest Plan recognizes this historical OHV use pattern in the Santa Rita s. In paragraph 6c, I pointed out the significant loss of motorized recreation opportunities that have occurred in the Santa Rita Mountains EMA. I stated the following: In contrast, 5

6 opportunities for semi-primitive motorizedrecreation have greatly diminished in the area due to various road closures over recent years. Examples include the Oak Tree Canyon road closure and road closures associated with the RosemontMine. In fact, the Rosemont Copper Project Draft EIS states that the Mine would result in loss ofnearly 6000 acres of the semiprimitive motorized recreation setting along with loss of 30 miles ofpublic roads. This loss occurs in one of the most popular off-highway vehicle riding areas in the SantaRita Backcountry Touring Area. The MPA would further exacerbate this loss by decommissioningabout 98 miles of roads and converting from open to restricted another 46 miles of roads. Finally, in paragraph 7 of my comment letter, I cited the importance of routes in the Santa Rita Backcountry Touring Area. A brochure/map of the area has been widely disseminated by the District and yet as I pointed out The District s travel management proposalhowever would decommissiona large number of roads that were designated for the Santa Rita Backcountry Touring Area... and substantially reduce OHV recreational opportunities in this area. I suggested that the Forest Service take a very serious look at each of the routes involved andretain them as open to all vehicles or re-designate them as motorized trails. So, to summarize, I wish to make the following points pertaining to the District s proposed travel management decisions for the Santa Rita Mountains EMA: The District s analysis and assessment of recreational use patterns was flawed. The District failed to properly consider the dramatic loss of motorized access and recreational opportunities resulting from their proposed decisions in light of losses that have already occurred (road closures associated with Oak Tree Canyon and the Rosemont Mine, loss of nearly 6000 acres and 30 miles of semi-primitive motorized recreation setting). The District failed to anticipate emerging decisions in the Draft Forest Plan (for motorized recreation), and thus its proposed decisions to decommission numerous roads would pre-empt the ability of the Forest to achieve desired conditions set forth in the Draft Forest Plan. Similarly, the District failed to anticipate the potential need to mitigate the dramatic loss of motorized recreation opportunities associated with the Rosement Mine, and thus its proposed decisions to decommission numerous roads would pre-empt the ability of the Forest to accomplish mitigation actions for motorized recreation. The District s proposed decisions would dramatically reduce public access and motorized recreational opportunities within the Santa Rita Backcountry Touring Area which is counter to the Draft Forest Plan desired conditions and intent. Based on a review of the Touring Area Map, I found there were 23 roads inside the Touring Area proposed for restriction or decommissioning or about 35 percent of roads within the area. Specific remedy requested: I request the Reviewing Official take the following actions: 6

7 (1) Re-evaluate the value of all roads proposed for restriction, closure, or decommissioning in the Santa Rita Mountains EMA and assess their importance for public access and recreational use. Collaborate with myself and recreational groups (hunters, hikers, off-highway vehicle (OHV) groups) to determine which roads should be retained as open for public use keeping in mind the desired conditions of the Draft Forest Plan and the emerging/potential need to mitigate loss of motorized recreation due to the Rosemont Mine. (2) Where road closures are agreed to, consider placing roads in the ML1 status in lieu of decommissioning. This would give the District flexibility to re-open the road if future needs dictate that action. (3) Increase awareness of best practices for management of off-highway vehicle recreation throughout the Forest. Consider the resources available at this link: Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. I look forward to working with the Forest as this process continues. Sincerely, //signed// James Terlep 7