Verde River Crossing at Childs (1 Viewer)

[sjpitts]

Did you guys know that? I can't believe it--- there is only one place to cross the river for miles in both directions and they want to close it.

I checked out the website

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/verde_crmp

They say that Forest Road 57 and Forest Road 16 both currently go to the river but neither cross it. So they refused to even consider leaving either crossing open.

I think closed 57 along time ago, but you have been able to cross from 502 to 16 for a long time. A long long time.

Does anybody know more about this?

Jared

 

[BMT]

Did I know about it...no
Am I suprised the FS wants to close this down...no
Am I pissed...yes
What can we do...

 

[Pskhaat]

[quote author=BMT link=board=27;threadid=15045;start=msg141683#msg141683 date=1082405731]
What can we do...
[/quote]

Copper State Cruisers can ADOPT this portion of the trail and maintain it as to facilitate it being open?

 

[RUSH55]

Well we can definitely try!! Who do we contact??

 

[Pskhaat]

[quote author=RUSH55 link=board=27;threadid=15045;start=msg141882#msg141882 date=1082424582]
Well we can definitely try!! Who do we contact??
[/quote]

I'll see if I can find some conyacts...it's worth a shot.

 

[sjpitts]

Take your shot, I am interested to hear what you find out. But I am not hopefull. The FS is serious about this wild and scenic river thing. I generally support this kind of stuff, but closing this one crossing clearly goes way overboard.

The documents on the FS website made it clear that the FS does not consider there to be a legal crossing at Childs, and that providing such a crossing would damage the verde river.

An absurd result I think.

My best guess is that the only real solution is to prove that the FS assumptions are wrong. Prove that there is an established crossing at Childs that predates the wilderness and/or wild river designation. Perhaps an established right of way under RS 2477. I am never sure of how 2477 works in Arizona. I know it is a big issue in Utah, but I have never seen it raised here.

Proving that there is a long existing crossing would be a good way to attack the closing, because by their own admission the FS never even considered leaving the crossing open. This is inspite of the fact that they received numerous comments requesting it.

The power plant has been there forever. The power lines have been there forever. My guess is that the road has been there at least that long.

Anyone have any old maps that might show the road? My dad has an old forest service map or two, I will try and look it up.

Jared

 

[Pskhaat]

My brother does environmental impact studies and I bet I could get an ``expert opinion.'' He's pure pro-enviro, but he's gung-ho 4WD. I could convince him to come down and take a look

I'm trying to get his input currently to this thread.

 

[desertdude]

this off the FS site about limited useage:

Using Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) to define acceptable levels of use that protect and enhance the ORVs and other resource values. This could include a voluntary river runner registration system and increased river patrols;

n   Continuing existing wildlife protection closures along the river and considering additional closures as necessary to protect wildlife and historic/cultural values; and

n   Implementing a closure order prohibiting motorized travel in the riverbed in areas where no closures currently exist.



Public Involvement


The Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests invite you to review and comment on the issues and alternatives presented here.  Comments or concerns specific to this proposed Verde Wild & Scenic River CRMP should be postmarked by February 28, 2002 and may be sent via by regular mail to:


Carl Taylor
Tonto National Forest
2324 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ  85006


Comments submitted in response to this notice should include your name, address, and the project name (Verde Wild & Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan).  All comments will become part of the project record and available for public inspection.  Individuals and organizations that comment may have their letters released in their entirety, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act.  Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215 and 217.


If you have no comments at this time but wish to remain informed of the progress of this project, please send us notification of your continued interest.  Those who do not provide a response to this letter will be dropped from the project mail list.


Feel free to contact Carl Taylor at (602) 225-5230 with any questions.

 

[Lars]

The comment period on this has been over for more than 2 months.

The reason they dont recognize the river crossing is because they dont see it as one continuous trail. From Bloody Basin to the river is the trail is FR16. On the east side of the river it's FR57. In the opinion of the forest service, this indicates the trail ends at the river (from both directions) and does not "resume" on the opposite bank.


Here is my friends exact words... ***The ranger I spoke with, Carl Taylor, said he did not feel any high pressure from the greenies to close the river crossing at Childs (I specifically asked him about this very point!) In his words, "There are so few vehicles crossing the river that is not a real issue." Obviously then, in their own words, if it is NOT an issue, then leaving the "not recognized by the USFS" river crossing as it currently is should NOT be a problem for anyone.***

 

[RUSH55]

Actually it looks to me the comment period ended two months and two YEARS ago. I remember hearing that they were gonna shut Child down about that time, but it's still running. And true, the crossing isn't used very often, but I have seen it in use for over 10 years.

 

[desertdude]

I was down near Sheepsbridge early in march and thought it would be nice to get down there and clean it up. Shame to see a broken CD, bottles, plastic on the sand near the water and a few junk cars. That river is a jewel in the desert , and could use some TLC

 

[hj60]

We should definately pursue at least a cleanup of this area.
I'm trying to take some time off to get away with Yashica after I graduate
(May 15) and may be able to incorporate some wheeling/cleanup time as well.
I'll let you know when I know.

 

[RHINO]

i'm all for a clean-up at sheeps bridge.

 

[fj803fe]

First off, I'd request a copy of the EIS or EA for the Resource Management Plan. And a copy of the RMP as well. You may also contact the regional FS office and make a formal request for all documents regarding the management of the Verde River under the Freedom of Information Act. In general "Wild and Scenic" Rivers are provided more protection than those rivers that are just rivers (how someone decides one river is better than the next is beyond me); however, usually in a RMP there will be two guiding documents; a 30 year management plan and a 10 year implementation plan. IN general the 30 year plan wil make some comment like "work to protect the biological integrity of the Verde River from X point to Y point." Then one of the 10 year management plans may say "close this river crossing to vehicle access." The 30 year plans are generally unchangeable, but the 10 year management plans are constantly altered to meet the goal set forth by the 30 year plan. As this crossing is considered a "low ford" crossing and does not require a "fill" of the water course I don't see any outside regulation such as the Clean Water Act that would affect the closure of the crossing. It would be an internal (regional) objective set forth by the district to meet the 30 year plan goal.

I don't see that pursuing a legal reason for halting the closure is a good idea or would even be relevant. However, mention of "adopt a trail" programs are often a good stewardship approach. I would approach the district office in this regard and see if they would consider leaving the crossing open, maybe even offer to propose a management plan and enhancement plan for the crossing area to promote the "biological health of the waterway." If they have a grazing allotment that falls over the Verde River course they have MUCh more environmental degredation problems to deal with than a low ford vehicle crossing.

Sorry I can't be of more service, these types of things are often up to public comment and in general the comment period is for show-the FS will do what they want in the end.

-Pierto
11255

 

[fj803fe]

One more thing. Most wild and Scenic Rivers will have a TMDL set by the EPA or a Total Maximum Daily Load limit for things like copper, Total Disolved Solids, and Total Suspended Solids. I'd get that TMDL data from the EPA and maybe show that the crossing would not significantly increase Total Suspended Solids currently occuring in the river course and would not breach the TMDL set by the EPA.

You just need to take a sample during a crossing period and take one when a crossing has not occured for some set time in a clean beaker or glass container (seal it) and take it to a local AccuLabs for sampling. In case anyone wondered how to tell if you are reaching the TMDL

 

[RUSH55]

Good grief there sure is alot of crap involved in FS stuff . Thanks FJ803fe for the info, but I'm still completely in the dark. You've mentioned several things like outside regulations in which there could be several more that apply, that I and people like me have no clue about. You also mention TDS, TSS, and TMDL I'm sure there's more of those. Is there some books or websites you would recommend to someone who wanted to learn more about these terms, and general FS information that could help people like me "catch up" and be of use in these types of ordeals? It's good to have one or two guys who are really in "the know" about this stuff, but would be even better if most of the group had a more than basic education in the fields that are associated with our hobby.

 

[sjpitts]

I don't know how far along the FS process is-- I would like to know more. I really only know what they said on the web site. I scanned through all the documents. Basically, they looked at four alternatives as to how they are going to manage the area, but it did not say that they had made a final decision.

Several of the alternatives said they were going to take steps to close the crossing. None of them considered leaving it open-- although perhaps the status quo would leave it open by default.

Here is a quote from the Environmental Assessment:

There was considerable discussion surrounding the river crossing between Forest
Road 57 and Forest Road 16. Both of these roads currently go to the river, but neither crosses it. There is a forest closure on cross-country travel in this area,
however, users routinely leave the roadbed and cross the river in vehicles. It was
determined that this crossing should not be made a legal river crossing because
repeated vehicular use in the riverbed contributes to resource damage, wilderness
trespass by motorized vehicles, water quality degradation, and causes liability
concerns. The action was dropped from further consideration.


Now I can't tell if they have actually decided to do anyhing at this point, but several their alternatives they are considering would close the road some distance from the river--effectively preventing people from crossing the river.

For example, several of the plans close forest road 57 one mile from the river and forest road 16 one quarter mile from the river. One document on the web site said the plan was to implment this in 2005.

I still think that their premise is wrong. One of the best ways to get a government decision overturned is to show that it was based at least in part on a bad facts, or that they did not properly consider the alternatives. By their own admission, they did not consider leaving the crossing open, so if we can show that this crossing is legal, or was legal at some time before-- then we would have a basis to challenge the closing.

Still, this would probably leave us having to sue the FS over it. That can't be easy, but if it is limited to the one issue it might not be too bad.

Jared

 

[fj803fe]

Jared, VERY TRUE! You must prove that alternatives to closure of the crossing were not addressed, this would be a violation of the NEPA process. To clue you in about Environemntal Impact Statements and EAs; NEPA does not provide a venue to postpone or challenge an EA or EIS on the basis of bad science alone, there must be a challenge on the process followed. To review regulations on preparation of EIS and EA documents you can do a web search on 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) most of the info (I think) is under Section 1500(+) There should be many references to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which sets these regulations and has the authority to modify them as well.
I told my brother last night (3fj40) that the FS and BLM like to skirt the regulations by following them...but not entirely. They will usually issue an RMP (Resource Management Plan) and will provide the plan for public comment. They will then call the RMP a RMP/EIS (because they do not want to prepare two seperate documents). Poor protocol if you ask me. EISs and EAs are/should be prepared to address impacts FROM a proposed action, RMPs on the other hand are/should be written to PROPOSE "actions."

Moreover, in regards to LAC or Limits of Acceptable Change-I would dare anyone to find this language in an ACT or law anywhere in the books. This term is used by recreation specialists to address impacts from recreation (i.e. camping/hiking/Off-road vehicle use). In a sense I guess it is a scary term with no teeth to it in the end, moreover its use is generally surrounded by ALOT of subjectivity.

The quote from the plan regarding the crossing at Verde River sounds to me like a public comment recieved and a response. I say this because the word "legal crossing" is used. In my expreience with permitting road crossings, there is no "legal" crossing. There are those crossings built that are regulated by some agency (FS or US Army Corps of Engineers) but crossing a river with no apparent impact to a threatened, endangered, or candidate species, or fill of the river for the crossing (i.e. culvert and road base), or impact to a migratory bird, or impact to the River's overall biological integrity is no different than driving across dry land. I have never personally seen the crossing so I can't speak for the impact it may pose, but I can say that most crossings can mitigate their impacts 'within limits of acceptable change."

I'm going to do some more research on Wild and Scenic Rivers and thier regualtion authorities.

Peter

 

[Pskhaat]

I vote that we make fj803fe (my blood brother an honorable member and woo him with Happy Hour beer to have him come down and take care of all this for us! And then we get to put a plaque by the river

fj803fe

 

[BMAN]

HERE HERE!