Travel management plan for Sandia mountain and Cedro peak areas - synopsis

[alia176]

I'm trying to make some sense of the proposed alternatives and the addition/deletion of motorized trails by reading the Environmental Assessment for Travel Management on the Sandia Range (It's much easier to read a hard copy than from a monitor). As my familiarity is limited in this area, I defer to the list's expertise on what seems fair or unfair; however, my opinions are noted. The main reasons for creating this synopsis are to help me understand the plan better and to educate everyone else so that we can make the right decisions for the future (spoon feeding is good!). It's best to open up couple of Internet windows so that you can look at the map and read the Alternatives at the same time. The maps are in pdf and very bandwidth intensive. We have to send our comments to by 2/28/08. Nancy Rose is the head honcho of this plan and will be making her decision soley based on people's comment on the proposed alternatives.

I'm going to summarize each area/alternative and raise questions so that we can comment intelligently! Our individual comments should be on each Alternatives to Nancy Rose.

Sandia mountains North of I-40. Here is how it is today existing map link. Notice the motorized travel areas on the top left and top right. The trails are grey in color.

Here's the proposed map. This map reflect alternatives 1, 4, 5 & 6.

Notice that top left trail color changed to Red which is Hwy legal vehicles only. The trails on top right, 62B & 62C are going way completely. This area is located north of the La Madera Road.Is this agreeable?

Alt #2 is No action, North of I-40. I think some sort of an action is required. Don't agree.

Alt #3 refers to the same areas as mentioned on Alt #1,4,5 & 6. map link Eliminates trail #445C & #445H. On the top right side of the map you'll notice that trails 62B & 63C is now Blue, which is for all motorized vehicles and there's a trail head parking lot. Agreeable?

Cedro Area as it stands today. Map link. This is a hot bed of activity! There are lots of issues/conflicts between the Equines, MTBs, motos, ATVs, hikers, near by residents and full size 4x4s. The soil in this area is low load bearing and can rut easily when wet. We've seen this first hand. Unauthorized trails are created by the users which lead to vegetation damage and impact wildlife. Also, a trail that sees all different sort of motorized vehicle supposedly create conflicts. I guess it's bad if an ATV runs into my front ARB at full speed.

Nancy stated that she received lots of comments from folks when the scope was made up and she really needs to hear feedback about the alternatives in this area to help her with the decision making.

Alternative #1 - map link. You'll notice that Blue color is applied to trails for all motorized vehicles. Purple color is added for areas designated for dispersion camping. A big issue is with campers pitching tents anywhere, thereby increasing the risk of wild fire. Some trails on the west side of hwy 337 (south 14) changed from Moto/ATV/MTB use to MTB/single track use. Couple of new Trail Heads are designated for ATV trailers parking to ease congestion. Do we agree?

Alt #2 - no action map link. I don't like this one as I'd hate to see the current state of the trails continue and get worse each year. I think some sort of a plan is necessary to preserve the trail system and bring some sort of order for all users. Don't agree

Alt #3 - this one is more favorable for ATVs and full size 4x4s. Very similar to Alt #1 with additional 4x4 trails (highlighted in Blue) and more designated camping sites along trails. Here is the map link. I'm liking this one very much! Agreed?

Alt #4 - This one is for allowing ATVs and motos only. 4x4 trails added in Alt#3 are removed. Map link. No dispersed camping allowed on motorized trails, blah, blah, blah. Don't agree, meh.

Alt #5 - This one reduces more trail access, has only area for dispersed camping, only one trai head parking lot, blah, blah, blah. Map link. Don't agree

Alt #6 - This one pretty much states to stay the hell away from here if you are using a motorized vehicle of any type. Map link. Don't agree, Nazi alert

Well, that's about it in a nutshell. Obviously these are my feelings on the subject so feel free to interject yours. As far as commenting, I'm not sure what's the best way to comment: as HDC group or as individuals. As individuals, we can make the comments more personal IMO.

Amen.

 

[Cruisergreg]

What a confusing mess. First off, I don't think we care about anything north of I-40 - nothing interesting there except wilderness trail access to Sandia.

Cedro area gets A LOT of use especially for camping in summer which implies full-sized vehicles. Back in the day we used to go out there a lot and drag our pop-up into various spots. Been out there many times when finding a spot without hearing the next guy's stereo was difficult. More disperson with the guys running Suburbans is a good thing. A lot of the roads that are shown as full-sized vehicle options aren't really - too many trees and tight spots, even for a 40 pulling a pop-up. If the FS intends to "improve" these routes to accomodate a Suburban then we probably don't much care as they won't be wheeling.

The FS has little understanding of what we do with our "full size" vehicles and I'm concerned that anything designated for that use will be capable for the average soccer mom SUV. I would have to vote for Alt#2 as it seems the only way to ensure OUR access would be mostly unrestricted.

My .02

 

[alia176]

50 views and only one comment?

Remember to send in your comments by the 28th!!

 

[slimbuddha]

I have only been up in the area once a long long time ago, so I will have to second Ali's opinions, as he seems knowledgeable with the area.

 

[sirenmoses]

Kudos to Ali for the comprehensive review.

My thoughts as someone who has lived and worked in the area for 7 years: NIMBY.
Keep engines north of Juan Tomas (FR 242). The FS can't afford to maintain what they've already got (wildland fuel breaks, developed camping areas): how are they going to fund this

That's all. Flame away. I'll come run my dogs, mountain bike, cross county snowshoe & ski in your backyard, k? ;p

 

[evanz80]

Ali -

I appreciate your analysis. I would agree with your suggestions. I will be submitting comments today.

Evan

 

[Beowulf]

Bump.

Tomorrow is the deadline for comments so get them in today if possible.

-Mike-

 

[alia176]

Thanks for the bump Mike. Remember, your emails are not getting counted as votes for one Alt or another. They need to state what you do and don't like about the Alternatives and do you have your own suggestions on the future of the trail system.

Thanks.

 

[Beowulf]

What a confusing mess. [...] I would have to vote for Alt#2 as it seems the only way to ensure OUR access would be mostly unrestricted.

My .02

I understand what you are saying Greg, but be aware that voting only for Alt #2 would be like voting for a write-in candidate for President. It is NOT going to happen.

National Environmental Policy Act regulations require analysis of the no action alternative. Although it is not compliant with the Travel Management Rule that requires designation of roads, trails and areas, “no action” serves as a baseline for comparing the effects of other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(d) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 23.1). No action is the continuation of existing uses for motor vehicle use on the Sandia Ranger District, thus the changes identified under alternative 1 would not be proposed under this alternative.

Basically, she is saying that they have to include Alt #2 in the list but that alternative is not compliant with the NFS rules.

I have sent in my comments and hope that everyone in the club will do the same. I listed each of the alternatives and commented whether or not that it would be acceptable.

Ambivilance is not going to influence any decisions.

-Mike-

 

[alia176]

Decison made

Cibola National Forest - Sandia Ranger District Travel Management


TIJERAS, NM – July 14th, 2008 – Cibola Forest Supervisor Nancy Rose, after careful consideration of the many public comments and review of the project analysis, has issued a decision for the Environmental Assessment for Travel Management on the Sandia Ranger District. The legal notice of the decision was published in the newspaper of record, the Albuquerque Journal, on July 14, 2008.

The selected alternative 4 with modifications designates a system of roads and trails for public access and motorized recreation travel. This decision includes:

• Prohibiting cross county motorized travel off of the designated system on the Sandia Ranger District.

• Designating 42.66 miles for motorcycle use, 1.76 miles for vehicles under 50” (ATVs and motorcycles) and 10.12 miles open to all vehicles (including OHVs.) There are also 7.02 miles designated for highway legal vehicles only.

• Approval to construct 3.5 miles of trails for motorized use to address resource and access concerns and one trailhead facility to accommodate motorized recreation.

• Use of the Oak Area in the Oak Flat Picnic Ground as a motorized trailhead in addition to the reservation group picnic area use.

This decision will result in the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Designations made with past decisions will also be shown on the MVUM. After the MVUM has been released, travel off the designated system will be prohibited unless authorized by permit or other authorization. The Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact can be obtained from the Supervisor's Office at Cibola NF, 2113 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87113, or can be requested by phone at 505-346-3900, by email cibolatravel@fs.fed.us, or on the Sandia Ranger District Travel Management web site:

Cibola National Forest - Sandia Ranger District Travel Management

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR 215.

Now that the decision has been made and a legal notice of decision has been published in the Albuquerque Journal, there will be a 45 day appeal period. Individuals and organizations who submitted a comment that meets the requirements of 36 FR 215.6(3) during the EA comment period following the publication of the legal notice in the Albuquerque Journal on January 29th through February 28th have standing to appeal. If there are no appeals a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be released this fall for the Sandia Ranger District. If the decision is appealed, the MVUM would be delayed until the appeal has been resolved.

If you have any questions about the Sandia Ranger District Travel Management please contact:

Nancy Brunswick at 505-346-3900 or cibolatravel@fs.fed.us.

 

[Beowulf]

+6%( #"%= !
.& @'
1.&

+&$
2.+ c.)+&$
4 .+
!
c

!
4!5.

Interesting... the Travel Management documents that she distributed are PDF. The above is what I get when I try to copy+paste from her PDF to anything. Says these are an embedded subset of an Adobe Type 1 "custom" encoded font. Sharing information is going to be difficult unless I can get this figured out.

-Mike-

 

[pappy]

I get the same result. You're on your own.

 

[SteveLCetc]

What's the link and what part of it are you interested in?

 

[SteveLCetc]

From Nancy Rose:

Dear Interested Reader:
Enclosed is the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the Travel Management on the Sandia Ranger District project on the Sandia Ranger District in Bernalillo and Sandoval County, New Mexico. I signed the DN/FONSI on July 10, 2008, selecting Alternative 4 with modifications for implementation.

 

[Beowulf]

What's the link and what part of it are you interested in?

I was going to post the section explaining why she did not select Alternative 3. Basically she says the motorcycle and bicycle enthusiasts beat us on this one.

-Mike-

 

[alia176]

I was going to post the section explaining why she did not select Alternative 3. Basically she says the motorcycle and bicycle enthusiasts beat us on this one.

-Mike-

Yup, this is the sign of what's to come if we don't get off our arse

 

[SteveLCetc]

We should be looking at the parallel thread on santa fe nf travel management and doing something there.

 

[sirenmoses]

Did anybody else notice that the text refers to 05252C Meadow Ridge being a 4x4 full size trail, but the map doesn't show it as such?


Here's our in:

"Partnerships and volunteer opportunities for proposing, constructing and maintaining motorized road and trail routes, user education, and monitoring will be emphasized.

User education and information will be emphasized as management tools to inform the motorized recreationists of appropriate uses, ethics and interactions with other users. Information will be distributed through active user groups and clubs to achieve compliance." (transcribed from decision, p10.)

Hello Mr/s Ranger, I'm from HDC, and we're here to help build trails we can drive on.

It's what the hikers & bikies have been doing for years now.