New Tonto Travel Management Plan

[inkpot]

OK folks, here it is. Look it over and check it out. Post up complaints/requests soon so they may be considered before this plan is locked into place. Now is the time to get involved, or you have no room to complain about the results.

I just got this an hour ago, so I will be spending a lot of time over the weekend reading thru it and going over the maps. John

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From: Mailroom R3 Tonto <Mailroom_R3_Tonto@fs.fed.us>
Subject: Tonto National Forest Environmental Assessment for Motorized Travel
Management



Dear Interested Party:
The Tonto National Forest is seeking comments on the Environmental Assessment for Motorized Travel Management. The purpose of this effort is to comply with the Travel Management Rule by providing a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year on the Tonto National Forest.

The Proposed Action would close about 101 miles of roads, open about 442 miles of roads, create a 233-mile motorized trail system, seasonally restrict access on 105 miles of road, administratively restrict access on 253 miles of road, create special use permit zones for 315 miles of road, add about 291 miles of unauthorized routes to the transportation system, allow motorized cross-country travel on 1,417 acres and motorized retrieval of big game (elk and bear) up to 200 yards off either side of NFS roads and motorized trails. A Forest Plan amendment would prohibit all other motorized travel off the designated road system across the forest.

The proposed action and associated analysis can be obtained from the Tonto National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2324 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85006; and on the internet at Tonto National Forest - Home. Click ‘Forest Projects’ under the ‘Quick Links’ column on the right-hand side of the page.

Comments must be submitted within 30 days following date of the legal notice published in the Capitol Times on January 6, 2012. Please submit comments using one of the methods below (listed in order of preference for ease of processing through the content analysis process):

Internet (using a comment form): https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=28967

Email: comments-southwestern-TMRTonto@fs.fed.us using one of the following formats – directly in the body of the email, word document-preferred format (.doc or .docx), portable document format (.pdf), rich text format (.rtf), text (.txt), and hypertext markup language (.html).

Postal mail: Gene Blankenbaker, Forest Supervisor at the address listed above

Phone: 602-225-5213

Only those who provide comment or otherwise express interest in the proposed action during the comment period will be eligible to appeal. Interest expressed or comments provided on this project prior to or after the close of this comment period will not constitute standing for appeal purposes. In order to appeal, each individual or representative from each organization submitting comments must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record of this analysis and will be included in the final project record. Pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.

If you have questions concerning this process, please contact Genevieve Johnson at (602) 225-5213.


Sincerely,

/s/Donna Sherwood

(for) Gene Blankenbaker
Forest Supervisor

 

[Tools R Us]

... The Tonto National Forest is seeking comments on the Environmental Assessment for Motorized Travel Management. ...

My understanding: The routes are locked. This is only for Environmental Assessment comment. So if you believe that motorized access would cause an environmental issue in an area, this is the time to make your case for closing it.

 

[inkpot]

My understanding: The routes are locked. This is only for Environmental Assessment comment. So if you believe that motorized access would cause an environmental issue in an area, this is the time to make your case for closing it.

Does kinda sound like it, now that I take time to read the notice. Still worth looking at so folks know what is going on. John

 

[sjpitts]

Yeah, this upsets me. Over 1000 miles of "administrative use only" roads. Of course, they only claim to be adding a few hundred miles to this list, but many of these roads that they were claiming to have been previously administrative use only were signed and numbered like any other road.

I wrote to them during the first comment period-- I complained about four roads in particular, but it looks like they didn't change their mind on any of them.

Red Creek to the Verde -- "administrative use only"
Roads north of Top of the World---- "administrative use only"
1076 (which parallels Coon Creek north of Cherry Creek road)-- "administrative use only"
A couple of roads that take off 16 on the road to Childs -- "administrative use only"

It also appears like they might again be trying to close the Verde Crossing at Childs. Hard to tell on that one

I still see no reason for remote access roads like that to remain open to ranchers but not open to hunters.

Jared

PS-- and it looks like they are keeping all of Sunflower closed?

 

[sjpitts]

My understanding: The routes are locked. This is only for Environmental Assessment comment. So if you believe that motorized access would cause an environmental issue in an area, this is the time to make your case for closing it

"make your case for closing it"

??????????


What are you trying to say with that? That it does not do us any good to complain about the roads they are closing?

 

[Tools R Us]

It is my understanding that the route inventory is done, is what it is. This comment period is only for environmental concerns. The agencies are expecting challenges/lawsuits in this area.

For example: These route are marked open, they go close to or through the only breeding grounds for the scared, rare, paper monkey, threatening it's future. This type of shenanigans could close more routes.

Will find out more on it at the TRAL meeting on Wednesday.

 

[Tools R Us]

... It also appears like they might again be trying to close the Verde Crossing at Childs. Hard to tell on that one

My guess: Just about all routes that go near water will eventually be closed "riparian areas". Driving in water is bad.

I still see no reason for remote access roads like that to remain open to ranchers but not open to hunters.

Or OHV, the public, etc, but we are talking government "logic". IMHO, if a route is open, used, traveled by someone, it should be usable by everyone?

PS-- and it looks like they are keeping all of Sunflower closed?

Most of Sunflower is private, mainly the Diamond Ranch?

 

[sjpitts]

My guess: Just about all routes that go near water will eventually be closed "riparian areas". Driving in water is bad.

I agree that in general it should be avoided, but this one that should be kept. Closing it makes FS 16 a big giant dead end.

Last time they tried to close it they claimed there was never a legit crossing there. Until someone showed them that this was actually the original road to Childs. And it is clear that Congress, in drawing the Wilderness and Wild River boundaries intended to keep this crossing open. The FS closing the road goes directly against the will of Congress. The same is true for the Red Creek Road.

Or OHV, the public, etc, but we are talking government "logic". IMHO, if a route is open, used, traveled by someone, it should be usable by everyone?

I would agree in general, but hunting is expressly authorized by law. FS cannot close access to hunters. And I don't really like ATV's.

Most of Sunflower is private, mainly the Diamond Ranch?

I was really referring to the Reno pass roads, and the others that come off there. I think you can blame this one lawyers. I guess we always called that Busnhell tanks.

 

[Tools R Us]

... And I don't really like ATV's.

I agree, somewhat, they are easy to pick on, have a higher percentage of abusers than most groups. But, this is a bad attitude to have, as OHV users we are lumped together, so it is a hang together or we will surely hang separately deal, we all have to work together.

I was really referring to the Reno pass roads, and the others that come off there. I think you can blame this one lawyers. I guess we always called that Busnhell tanks.

There is move afoot to open that area, we have done a couple of "assessment" days in there. My guess is a free permit/gate code setup, like Bulldog. The "administrative use only" tag doesn't necessarily equal "closed", just administered differently than "open". If you look, Bulldog is tagged "administrative use only", administered with a free permit/gate code. In the case of Bushnell, the thought is for the permit to have a warning about the risks of the area, by signing the permit, your are indicating that you are aware of the risks and accept responsibility.

 

[Saddletramp]

Yeah, this upsets me. Over 1000 miles of "administrative use only" roads. Of course, they only claim to be adding a few hundred miles to this list, but many of these roads that they were claiming to have been previously administrative use only were signed and numbered like any other road.

I wrote to them during the first comment period-- I complained about four roads in particular, but it looks like they didn't change their mind on any of them.

Red Creek to the Verde -- "administrative use only"
Roads north of Top of the World---- "administrative use only"
1076 (which parallels Coon Creek north of Cherry Creek road)-- "administrative use only"
A couple of roads that take off 16 on the road to Childs -- "administrative use only"

It also appears like they might again be trying to close the Verde Crossing at Childs. Hard to tell on that one

I still see no reason for remote access roads like that to remain open to ranchers but not open to hunters.

Jared




So here is a thought, I want to travel some of these or all of these trails before they are closed. Many of you know that Red Creek holds a special place in my heart, so I propose starting with it. I will start a separate thread in the next day or two.

 

[DSRTRDR]

well, after my FR17 proposal was received so well, I am willing to second the FR18 proposal

wait, that was on my list from the very get-go for this wheeling season ;p

 

[Tools R Us]

So here is a thought, I want to travel some of these or all of these trails before they are closed. Many of you know that Red Creek holds a special place in my heart, so I propose starting with it. I will start a separate thread in the next day or two.

We have been making a point to run them. That is what this run was about: https://forum.ih8mud.com/az-copper-state-cruisers/536785-fr160-sugarloaf-11-27-2011-a.html

Several have been a deal, agree that if some routes need to be closed, some that we have run are the correct decisions, a few I don't agree with. For some of us, there isn't as much urgency, the "administrative use" routes will need to be "administered", as forest service volunteers, we are "administrators".

 

[Tools R Us]

I misunderstood how this step works, our comment is important. Rich made a great presentation on it at last night's meeting. Determining what is the best way to comment/vote is critical, so the comment isn't wasted. There will be a series of meetings over the next week or so, to boil the elephant down to a summery, determine what is best for OHV and likely make a sample comment letter. If you would like to attend, post up or PM me.

 

[Tools R Us]

Also, those who attended last night got a Bulldog permit. to Amy, she does have a heart!

 

[azTony]

DAMN! Missed the permit

Too much running around after work last night to make it

 

[Tools R Us]

TRAL had a meeting on this last night. Art attended and shared some tips/expectations from the other perspective, very informative/valuable. Working on a full set of comment talking points, guidelines, when this is out, will start working on the body of the comment. Some quick observations:

It is not a vote, to be effective, a case needs to be made on each point. Simply saying "this sucks" is worthless. Explaining why it is important and how you would prefer to solve the problem has value. This is rarely done and is welcome, so that type of comment has the most value and will get the most attention.

They are looking for input from users, bombing them with redundant comments, "votes" is worthless. Best is a well thought out comment letter representing the concerns of a group. That said, if you have strong concerns, I don't see how an additional personal letter would be anything but helpful? But, it needs to be in your own words, significantly differ from the group comment.

Comment on individual trails is welcome and this is where we need to start. Go over the maps, any purposed closed trail that is important to you, post it. Need to make a case for it like; this is why it important, this is why it is unique, provides this type of entertainment value, etc.

 

[packetstormin]

So why has no one sued to get an injunction yet? Could tie this thing up in court a few more years until we get a interior secretary that tells the green groups to pound sand.

 

[Tools R Us]

So why has no one sued to get an injunction yet?

Feel free to do that? In my limited experience, suing the government is not cheap and rarely ends how you expect it to?

Could tie this thing up in court a few more years until we get a interior secretary that tells the green groups to pound sand.

I doubt that it will do any good? The forest service is under the department of agriculture and this mandate is old, going back at least one administration. I don't see how the plan of waiting for a different brand of politicians to save us will be productive?

I'm not so sure this mandate was started or has anything to do with "green groups"? The way I understand it: The agencies the manage our public lands have always had "management plans" that they operate under. The one currently being used is very old, during that time, the needs, use, stresses, etc, on the lands have changed, so time for a new plan, to better manage our lands.

Our inside info says that the "green groups" are not doing that effective of a job, mainly operating by intimidation, lawsuits, etc, so not very popular with the agencies. If we get our poop in a group, work with the agencies, likely can be effective at getting our point across?