SAS
Seeking higher vistas
I had posted this in the 'private' forum but a CLCC member suggested I post in the open forum to be more visible.
Bottom Line: I'm asking you to write one or more pro-motorized access comment(s) in the Public Comments.
Background: In 2011, "environmental" groups sued the Forest Service, claiming that the FS added hundreds of miles of illegal roads to the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). In 2015, the PSI settled the lawsuit by agreeing to conduct analysis and revise the MVUM. The project is in the middle stages, with the FS having published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). They are proposing five courses of action--Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. (All five courses of action reduce/eliminate roads, some more than others).
PSI states that their preferred course of action is Alternative C. Motorized use clubs/organizations here in Colorado support Alternative C but with modifications. Any comment(s) you can provide in support of Alternative C with modifications is appreciated.
The public comment period closes on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4th.
Bottom Line: I'm asking you to write one or more pro-motorized access comment(s) in the Public Comments.
Background: In 2011, "environmental" groups sued the Forest Service, claiming that the FS added hundreds of miles of illegal roads to the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). In 2015, the PSI settled the lawsuit by agreeing to conduct analysis and revise the MVUM. The project is in the middle stages, with the FS having published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). They are proposing five courses of action--Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. (All five courses of action reduce/eliminate roads, some more than others).
PSI states that their preferred course of action is Alternative C. Motorized use clubs/organizations here in Colorado support Alternative C but with modifications. Any comment(s) you can provide in support of Alternative C with modifications is appreciated.
The public comment period closes on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4th.
Last edited: