OP
I am still trying to figure out exactly what they are trying or proposing to do. I have only found a two page Notice that mentions changing the motor vehicle use management plan. As far as I know this is a lawsuit brought against the USFS by the Wilderness Society, Quiet Use Coalition, Wildlands CPR, Center for Native Ecosystems and Great Old Broads for Wilderness. I am still trying to find the actual draft Impact Statement. All I can find so far though is a list of Alternatives:
A) The No-Action Alternative, as per settlement agreement language, would consist of the public motorized routes depicted on the following MVUMs minus 30 NFS routes/route segments identified in the settlement agreement, that are either already decommissioned or would be temporarily changed to administrative use only during the interim EIS process: •2010 Pikes Peak Ranger District MVUM •2010 South Park Ranger District MVUM •2010 Salida Ranger District MVUM •2012 Leadville Ranger District MVUM •2012 San Carlos Ranger District MVUM •2013 South Platte Ranger District MVUM
B) This Alternative would consist of the public motorized routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) database, as of June 16, 2016, minus routes contested by the Plaintiffs and identified in the settlement agreement.
C) This Alternative would consitutue the routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service INFRA database, as of June 16, 2016, plus certain revisions to those roads that were considered as urgent, priority changes, in conformance with the results of the PSI’s TAP Addendum Reports. Over the course of the last three years, PSI resource specialists conducted TAPs covering each ranger district. A TAP is a process whereby personnel representing key resource areas assign benefit and risk ratings to each road. The results of each TAP were compiled in a TAP Addendum Report. Urgent, priority changes may include, but would not be limited to: decommissioning and/or conversion of unneeded authorized routes, elimination of mixed use modes of travel on certain roads, seasonal closures, road/trail reroutes, construction of new motorized recreational trails and/or extensions to existing trails, downgrading of maintenance levels, and other such revisions necessary for the effective management of the NFS transportation network. The goal of this alternative would be to move toward a safe, affordable, and environmentally sound transportation system, while leaving room for future site-specific revisions as needed.
D) This Alternative would consist of all the Alternative C revisions, plus additional, non-urgent changes, which would direct the PSI toward the minimum NFS network needed for safe and efficient travel, and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). The additional changes would be made in accordance with the opportunities and recommendations provided in the TAP Addendum Reports for the individual districts on the PSI.
Just reading this, and not know what the impact statement says, C seems like the logical choice. However the Travel Analysis process, the way it is presented in the Alternative C, can still shut down and decommission the trail. That little tid-bit would likely need mentioned in any comments submitted.
I definitely want to comment and urge to keep the trail open, but I also want to get all the facts first.
A) The No-Action Alternative, as per settlement agreement language, would consist of the public motorized routes depicted on the following MVUMs minus 30 NFS routes/route segments identified in the settlement agreement, that are either already decommissioned or would be temporarily changed to administrative use only during the interim EIS process: •2010 Pikes Peak Ranger District MVUM •2010 South Park Ranger District MVUM •2010 Salida Ranger District MVUM •2012 Leadville Ranger District MVUM •2012 San Carlos Ranger District MVUM •2013 South Platte Ranger District MVUM
B) This Alternative would consist of the public motorized routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) database, as of June 16, 2016, minus routes contested by the Plaintiffs and identified in the settlement agreement.
C) This Alternative would consitutue the routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service INFRA database, as of June 16, 2016, plus certain revisions to those roads that were considered as urgent, priority changes, in conformance with the results of the PSI’s TAP Addendum Reports. Over the course of the last three years, PSI resource specialists conducted TAPs covering each ranger district. A TAP is a process whereby personnel representing key resource areas assign benefit and risk ratings to each road. The results of each TAP were compiled in a TAP Addendum Report. Urgent, priority changes may include, but would not be limited to: decommissioning and/or conversion of unneeded authorized routes, elimination of mixed use modes of travel on certain roads, seasonal closures, road/trail reroutes, construction of new motorized recreational trails and/or extensions to existing trails, downgrading of maintenance levels, and other such revisions necessary for the effective management of the NFS transportation network. The goal of this alternative would be to move toward a safe, affordable, and environmentally sound transportation system, while leaving room for future site-specific revisions as needed.
D) This Alternative would consist of all the Alternative C revisions, plus additional, non-urgent changes, which would direct the PSI toward the minimum NFS network needed for safe and efficient travel, and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). The additional changes would be made in accordance with the opportunities and recommendations provided in the TAP Addendum Reports for the individual districts on the PSI.
Just reading this, and not know what the impact statement says, C seems like the logical choice. However the Travel Analysis process, the way it is presented in the Alternative C, can still shut down and decommission the trail. That little tid-bit would likely need mentioned in any comments submitted.
I definitely want to comment and urge to keep the trail open, but I also want to get all the facts first.
