CPA Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bridgeport Travel Management Project
Bridgeport Ranger District
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
September 8, 2009

PDF File download here 

Dear Ms Probert:

The Coalition for Public Access (CPA) is a Nevada nonprofit corporation dedicated to protecting and preserving open access for all Nevadans.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) – Bridgeport Travel Management Project (TMP).  We appreciate the effort expended on this undertaking by you, your staff and other Forest Service support personnel.

CPA, in general, supports the concept of designating roads, trails and areas for off-highway vehicle use (OHV) as long as public input is given credible, balanced and demonstrated consideration.  CPA appreciates the efforts by the Bridgeport Ranger District (BRD) to solicit public input.  CPA believes that federal lands should be accessible by all, for whatever legal purposes the public requires such access.  The areas of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest that lie within Nevada provide for a broad spectrum of public uses.  The public has long utilized the majority of these areas since the state’s earliest years before the areas were set aside as forest reserve lands in the early part of the 20th century.  In addition to traditional uses such as mining, hunting, grazing, fishing, wood cutting, and pine nut harvesting, today the forest lands provide for multiple recreational opportunities, including camping, off road vehicle riding, and motorized back road touring.

CPA believes that access within, through and over forest lands is essential and necessary to provide the public with the maximum benefit.  Limitation on travel within the forest only serves to reduce and inhibit the public’s use of the public’s land.  While it is understandable that some areas of the forest may now require exceptional treatment due to resource conditions, the majority of the lands within the Nevada section of the forest have long been used for all the above mentioned purposes for over 155 years.  Early use of trails, routes and roads has always been pivotal for Nevadans who are burdened with an astounding 86% of its land falling under federal control.  Therefore, Nevadans are quite naturally protective of their opportunities to continue to access those lands.

We have reviewed the DEIS with respect to the limitations on access and use, the Proposed Action alternative would result in, and find many areas of concern.

Roads, Trails and Areas

CPA believes the BRD understands the growth and popularity of OHV recreation.  However, CPA is concerned that the proposed action will close a significant number of “user created” routes (many of which are legal, ecologically sound, currently in use and part of the OHV trail infrastructure) that could actually increase the likelihood of “conflicts of uses” and the potential for adverse impacts to resources, by concentrating OHV use (and other system uses) on a smaller motorized vehicle route network.

• CPA applauds the BRD for their bold action, perhaps controversial, but correct assessment in recommending an 85-acre area for OHV use.  In the future it is hoped that additional acreage/areas will be determined suitable for the same designation.
• CPA strongly requests the BRD to include, in the BRD’s route inventory, all routes (system or otherwise and whether or not the route is recommended for closure), which have been legally created and are known to the BRD by their own records, research and mapping activities and/or supplied to the BRD by the public in the form of maps, Global Positioning System (GPS) data or other suitable coordinates or reference.  The Clinton Roadless Rule acknowledges the prior existence of roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas and it is important to acknowledge the presence of these legal and pre-existing routes.  If these existing routes are not properly recognized they will, by their absence in the official inventory, become “illegally constructed” routes and could be subject to exclusionary rules or legal challenges if the public or the BRD recommends any of these routes be considered for motorized vehicle use in the future.
• CPA supports any temporary or permanent closure of routes where a science-based analysis of concerns regarding ecosystems, plant ecology, animal habitat, threatened and endangered species, soil and water, air quality, fisheries and aquatic species, cultural and historic resources, etc. indicate a clear and present danger.  CPA requests, in the case of temporary closures, the BRD designate the shortest period of time rather than a longer period, as it is easier for the BRD to extend, by Forest Order or similar action, a period than it is to shorten any period identified in the Final EIS and Record of Decision.
• CPA is concerned the apparent, and significant, reliance on computer modeling techniques to conclude a route exists in a sensitive area is biased toward route closure.  It is clear that the use of models is highly dependent on the complexity of the model, “input” parameters, “sensitivity” parameters and the validation/correlation of the results to actual field conditions.  CPA is also concerned that the BRD may have extrapolated either input data or results from the use of models in other districts.  The application of models in developing the “Proposed Action” appears not to contain an appropriate amount of corroborating field data from the BRD.
• The BRD should not arbitrarily reject a route because it is in an “IRA” or “bisects IRA” as indicated in the Travel Analysis Report (TAR).  As indicated above, CPA believes the Roadless Rule does not mandate closure of preexisting vehicular routes (OHV or otherwise).
• The BRD should re-assess all “user-created” routes that have been identified, by the public or are known to the BRD, and rejected by the BRD because the “need is not determined”, “redundant, not needed”, or “reclaimed mine road”.  CPA views these reasons as inadequately considering public input and indicates that the BRD took the approach that if there is not an intuitive need then the route should be closed.  CPA believes that a more responsive and effective approach would be to accept that there is a valid reason for the route and, short of any real and substantial contrary resource factors, the routes should be open for public use.  Specifically, CPA requests all routes listed in the TAR and rejected for reasons specified in this paragraph be designated as an open road or trail.
• CPA believes the BRD should more fully embrace the concept of converting “roads to single-track trails” and/or “roads to motorized trails less-than-fifty-inch in width”.  This could allow a number of the routes that have been recommended for closure to remain open.  CPA believes that there are opportunities for such route designations and this would increase the OHV experience and reduce the potential for conflict of use.
• The BRD should not arbitrarily reject a route simply because segments of it end or transect private property.  To do so could be denying the public explicit or implicit legal access and use rights conferred on them by Nevada or California law regarding public access/easements on private land.

Parking, Staging and Dispersed Camping

As the BRD has acknowledged, the portion of the Forest that is within Nevada has numerous dispersed camp sites and areas that are used for parking and staging of OHV, equestrian and other recreational activities.  The BRD has also indicated they don’t wish to inhibit these uses of the Forest unless a specific location has been determined to cause harm to a sensitive resource.  CPA is extremely concerned that the ability to use the Forest for recreational activities will be dramatically impeded by the Proposed Action.  CPA is of the understanding that motorized vehicles will not be legally permitted beyond “one vehicle length” off of an open (authorized) road or trail.  Taken literally (and there is no other interpretation) this will exclude the vast majority of dispersed camp sites, parking and staging areas from legal and practical use.  OHV, equestrian and dispersed campsite users require trailer parking in a manner that facilitates loading, unloading and other uses of a trailer.  Parking within one vehicle length of a road is not practical in many cases, and poses a real and significant safety hazard.

• CPA recommends that the BRD adopt a policy that parking and staging within 1000 feet in length and 300 feet in width of a road/trail entrance to the Forest be open for parking and staging.  This would be a general rule and exceptions would apply at specific locations as determined by the BRD.  For purposes of this rule “a road/trail entrance” are authorized (open to the public) system roads and trails that enter the Forest from a non-Forest location; for example, the entrance to the Forest via Sand Canyon road on SR338 in Lyon County.
• It is impossible to know where the Proposed Action “spurs” and “turn-outs” are by viewing the draft MVUM maps.  Even the 3’x4’ draft MVUM maps require prior knowledge and a magnifying glass to find just some of the locations.  CPA understands, although generally doesn’t agree, that the BRD is opposed to defining buffers along certain routes that would alleviate the issue of parking, staging and dispersed camping; however, the draft maps and the limited number of recommended “spurs” and “turn-outs” are inconsistent with the expressed desire by the BRD to accommodate these recreational uses.  CPA urges the BRD to re-evaluate their Proposed Action alternative and implement a solution that adequately acknowledges these recreational uses, makes these opportunities obvious to the general public when reading a published MVUM and provides for lawful and practical use of the numerous locations within the BRD.
• The following specific locations are requested (as parking, staging or camping locations) to be included in the Final EIS and Record of Decision:
• The following locations are found along 42050 (Risue Road) and Desert Creek Road.
  • 38°35’08.66”N : 119°18’40.90”W
  • 38°35’04.32”N : 119°18’33.01”W
  • 38°35’02.58”N : 119°18’30.72”W
  • 38°35’00.92”N : 119°18’28.00”W
  • 38°34’59.69”N : 119°18’26.66”W
  • 38°35’12.62”N : 119°18’50.07”W
  • 38°35’11.32”N : 119°19’12.94”W
  • 38°35’10.43”N : 119°19’19.20”W
  • 38°35’09.74”N : 119°19’28.24”W
  • 38°35’16.66”N : 119°19’46.58”W
  • 38°35’20.71”N : 119°19’50.41”W
  • 38°35’25.58”N : 119°19’55.26”W
  • 38°35’40.20”N : 119°20’08.32”W
  • 38°35’43.17”N : 119°20’09.89”W
  • 38°35’53.57”N : 119°20’11.89”W
  • 38°35’55.13”N : 119°20’12.48”W
  • 38°37’27.29”N : 119°20’22.40”W
  • 38°37’37.15”N : 119°20’13.74”W
  • 38°38’59.33”N : 119°19’34.88”W
  • 38°39’00.40”N : 119°19’34.12”W
• The following locations are found along 42031 (Sand Canyon Road).
  • 38°37’19.67”N : 119°13’52.83”W
  • 38°37’09.78”N : 119°11’51.22”W
• The above 22 locations are not a complete inventory of parking, staging or camping locations that should be identified by the BRD as open for public use.

Economic Impact Analysis

CPA believes there will be a negative economic impact on businesses in Lyon, Mineral and Douglas counties (Nevada) resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action.  One only has to talk to business owners to learn that a significant amount of revenue is derived from OHV recreationalists.  Many businesses have indicated that over the past few years there have been an ever increasing number of Californian OHV visitors.  Talking to these Californian visitors CPA is told that they come here because of a significant number of route closures in California.  CPA believes the quality of the economic impact analysis is inadequate and is based on conjecture, extrapolation of non-scientifically gathered visitor data, and use of computer models and spreadsheets using erroneous or non-validated data.  CPA believes the significant number of recommended closures of routes/trails, the lack of single-track and two-track (<50”) trails, and the inadequate parking/staging conditions will result in a weakened local economy, and for some small businesses this action could prove to be a breaking point.  CPA requests the BRD to perform a proper economic impact analysis.

• The following statements are from the DEIS:
  • “VISITS TO NFS LANDS AND MOTORIZED RECREATION ON THE DISTRICT ARE NOT EXPECTED TO CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.”
  • “Restricting motorized use to designated roads and trails is not expected to lead to an increase in traffic on designated routes.”
  
  Assuming statement 1 is true (which CPA does not agree with) then how can statement 2 be true?  That is, if the number of OHV users is the same and the number of routes is reduced and cross-country travel is eliminated, it seems only logical that the amount of use on the designated routes would have to increase.  Assuming statement 2 is true then one has to conclude (using the same logic in reverse) that the number of visitors will be reduced which will impact the local economy.  CPA requests the BRD to re-evaluate the visitor analysis (which is a component of the economic analysis) and produce congruent conclusions.

Annual Review Process

CPA agrees with the BRD that the initial MVUM will not be perfect.  CPA believes an Annual Review process is critical to evolving toward an optimal MVUM and supports the BRD in its effort to develop a simple and short process for updating the MVUM.  CPA would like to be involved in developing the process either as a design participant or reviewer.

Maps

CPA has several times communicated to the BRD that the Maps, provided to the public via the website or by CD, are incomplete, contain errors, do not employ a coordinate system that the general public can easily use, have a confusing legend, use a route designation scheme (color-line) that is difficult for many people to differentiate, and are different from the maps used by the BRD at Open House meetings.  CPA feels that this condition likely caused people not to engage in the public input process which is inconsistent with Federal law and Agency directives.  CPA understands that the BRD or Forest had opportunities to request additional time to complete the TMP and chose not to make such a request.  Regardless of whether the BRD had compelling reasons to stick with their schedule or not, it seems unfair that local residents and users of the Forest were overwhelmed and/or intimidated by the process, schedule and available public documents.

Additional Comments

Comments in this section that are specific to the language in the DEIS are additive to the general comments above.  That is, the lack of a specific comment in this section does not imply that CPA is therefore in agreement; especially if the language in the DEIS is contrary to our concerns and requests identified in prior sections of this document.

• CPA is concerned that if any alternative other than No Action is implemented the public will be subject to any number of infractions due to the dramatic change from historically allowed use.  It is hoped that the BRD and its law enforcement staff would apply “educational” enforcement for all but the most egregious violations of the TMP/MVUM.
• The following comments are specific to the DEIS document:
  • Pg 15 – “The description of the baseline FTS changed from 1,500 miles of routes in the NOI to the actual current system of 1,290 miles described in this DEIS.  The net effect of these modifications decreased the mileage to be added to the FTS from 300 to 210.  Refer to the Proposed Action map for information on specific routes.”  The “net effect” appears to be a reduction of user-created routes from 300 to 210 because of some mathematic extrapolation which is inconsistent with the 1985 Toiyabe Forest Plan which states “… off-road vehicle use will be allowed where such is not incompatible with other resource programs …” (also reiterated on page 3 of the DEIS).  CPA believes the BRD should perform a complete assessment of user-created routes and let the results compel the inclusion of user-created routes, not some pre-determined number.
  • Pg 29 footnote – “1. Within the FTS mileage, 120 miles are closed.” This footnote means the current FTS, consisting of 1290 miles of routes, includes 120 miles of already closed routes which would further reduce the number of system routes that are open to the public.  CPA has been told that this footnote is erroneous and that all 1290 miles of system routes are open to the public.
  • Pgs 30-31 – The “Sweetwater Range” and “Pine Grove” sections contain references to State roads 338 and 208 in “California”. These routes are in Nevada.
  • Pg 32 – “For the purpose of this analysis, we will use the inventoried ROS from the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1986) as well as a modeled ROS based on type and density of motorized routes to compare alternatives.  The inventoried ROS created for the 1986 forest plan is outdated and does not reflect current conditions.  The inventoried ROS shows 71 miles of FTS road in SPNM as a result these mapping discrepancies.”  This appears to state that the BRD will use known incorrect data and modeling to evaluate alternatives.  CPA objects to the use of known incorrect data, especially when coupled with modeling (which can easily produce incorrect results), as the basis for any evaluation.
  • Pg 34 – “The environmental effects to both motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences are measured by the relative difference between the amount SPM and SPNM acres.”  What does this statement mean?  CPA does not agree that environmental effects resulting from motorized and non-motorized recreation should be evaluated by a comparison of total acres in SPM and SPNM.  Motorized recreation, as stated in the DEIS, will be limited to roads and trails, which is significantly less than the total number of acres in a SPM area.
  • Pg 36 – “Many of the 630 miles of known unauthorized routes currently available for motorized use provide quality recreation opportunities.  Others are redundant and are not providing additional recreation opportunities.”  CPA is concerned the BRD is using qualitative or subjective criteria to define a “quality recreation opportunity” and to determine routes “not providing additional recreation opportunities”.  CPA believes that redundancy is, in fact, another opportunity.
  • Pg 47 – Section labeled “Pine Grove North IRA”.  While CPA believes the recommended routes identified in this section should be approved, it does not understand the lack of supporting rationale.  CPA disagrees with the general description of this area which implies a non-motorized recreational area – this is implied because of concerns over “sights and sounds… tire tracks, and dust... affect primitive recreation and solitude”.  Why is the phrase “a potential wilderness area” included when the 2006 assessment of wilderness potential concludes that this IRA is not capable of wilderness?
• The following comments are specific to the TAR document:
  • Appendix D – “Routes Proposed to be Added…”  CPA requests each route listed in this section of Appendix D be added to the Forest Transportation System as an authorized route.
  • Appendix D – “Unauthorized Routes and FTS Roads previously closed to public that are not included…”  CPA is confused by the title to this section.  This appears to be a list of all unauthorized routes that are not included in the Proposed Action and not a list of “previously closed” routes.  If these routes have not been closed to the public by a previous Forest Order or similar action, CPA requests each route listed in this section of Appendix D be added to the Forest Transportation System as an authorized route unless there is a resource factor of such significance that precludes such authorization.
• The following comment is specific to the document labeled “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: WILDLIFE” made available to the public at the Reno Drop-in Open House on August 24, 2009.
  • “…but it borders sage grouse… habitat along its southwestern boundary.  The main impact caused to sage grouse from motorized use of this area would be due to disturbance, if the edge of the habitat near the cross country area was being used by grouse.”  A map made available at the referenced meeting indicated no such sage grouse habitat along any border of the proposed 85-acre open area.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.  CPA has serious concerns over the impact the Proposed Action will have on recreational uses where OHVs and vehicles with trailers are involved.  In summary CPA feels the Proposed Action is too restrictive, fails to adequately respond to public input, and documents unreasonably conservative evaluations, conclusions based on non-scientific modeling, and extrapolations of data from other Districts or Forests.  CPA believes that significant work is yet to be done prior to completing the Final EIS and Record of Decision.  CPA stands ready to provide assistance in completing the remaining activities and to answer any questions.