SJTR Fundraiser March 10th, 3pm

San Juan Trail Riders is having a fund raiser for our Legal Defense fund at David Pierce’s Motorcycle museum on March 10th at 3:00pm. The address is 401 S. Lorena in Farmington. We will have food, bench racing maybe a few celebs and the greatest collection of motorcycles in the 4 corners area.

Please RSVP on the Facebook Page HERE or have your buddy do it for you so we know how much food to have on hand. Tell your friends and come join the fun!

 UPDATE: We will be having door prizes and some very special silent auction items, So keep checking the web site  photo gallery and our Facebook page to see these items. 

January 2018: Objections Filed to Rico/West Dolores Travel Management ROD

 

On November 15, 2017, the San Juan National Forest Dolores Ranger District released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft Record of Decision for the Rico/West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) project. Members of the public can review the documents, maps and other project information at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44918.

There is a lot of interest in the Draft Record of Decision on the Rico West Dolores Travel Management Project for the San Juan (CO) National Forest.

Sharetrails.org/ BlueRibbon Coalition has worked under the direction of Colorado members in this project for many years, particularly including assisting as an intervenor in the Forest Service’s successful defense against the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers lawsuit filed in 2009. Sharetrails.org/BRC continued to follow the leadership of our local partners, and was named in objections recently submitted by the San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR), Public Access Preservation Association (PAPA), Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA), and Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO).

If you would like further information, you can view the TPA announcement and the SJTR Member Alert below, each of which include the objections submitted by our attorneys. This is a top priority and these groups are vigorously fighting to maintain and improve access in the Rico West Dolores and surrounding areas. Ric Foster, Public Lands Department Manager, BlueRibbon Coalition

PAPA, TPA, COHVCO, BRC and the SJTR’s Board of Directors finds it very important to keep you updated on the steps that are being taken to challenge the USFS Dolores, CO Ranger District’s recent move to significantly reduce single-track motorized recreation in the Rico/West Dolores Landscape of Southwest Colorado.

On December 29 th, 2017 a very significant list of objections to the Draft Record of Decision (DROD) developed by the Dolores Ranger District was submitted to the Region 2 offices of the U.S.F.S. in Denver, CO. These objections will be reviewed by an assigned reviewing officer as a part of the process. We will be waiting to hear of any actions that may or may not result as to the review that will be made. We will keep you abreast of future developments.

A full list of the objections to the DROD by the Dolores Ranger District are posted HERE for your review. Please take the time to look over these objections carefully to get a full understanding of all that is in play with this action.

Best regards to all our loyal and supportive members who are committed to preserving our future recreation opportunities.
Your San Juan Trail Riders Board of Directors.

2017 Year in Review: Ride with Respect

Another year, another handful of trails improved. In 2017, Ride with Respect (RwR) contributed three-and-a-half-thousand hours of quality work to public lands. Also, when land-management lawsuits came to Moab and administrative actions came to Monticello, RwR tried to promote moderation and cooperation.
With so much activity in 2017, we’ll need to raise several-thousand dollars just to start 2018 in the black. You can make tax-deductible contributions by sending a check to Ride with Respect, 395 McGill Avenue, Moab, Utah 84532.
Already we’ve had over thirty donors and a hundred volunteers. A Polaris TRAILS grant entirely funded our construction of the new Tri Tip ATV loop south of White Wash. New support also came from the Off-Road Business Association, plus long-standing support from Utah State Parks, Grand County, and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) based in Colorado.
Below are seven highlights of what trail riders can accomplish when we work together.
~ Tri Tip ATV loop at Dubinky
Tenmile Point is a bit of a sand box, and the Five Miles of Whoops were severely braided. Fortunately, north of there lies a slickrock expanse where RwR constructed seven miles of 52″-wide trail that forms a loop with three prongs to connect Red Wash Road with Dead Cow Loop and the Midway access of Tenmile Canyon. For vehicles wider than 52″ to make the same connection, we marked some primitive roads as Tenmile Point 4WD route. Finally we blocked off three miles of the Five Miles Of Whoops for a net gain of four miles. We should credit the wilderness-expansion groups for not appealing the project because, even though it’s located a few miles away from Labyrinth Canyon, this proximity does require a degree of accommodation. Most of the project involved installing a couple-hundred metal signs across the slickrock so that Tri Tip doesn’t need to be painted in perpetuity. In addition to supplying these signs, the BLM provided a compressor to drill the holes. This project was also made possible by Polaris Industries.
~ campsites near Sovereign Trail
Although trails remain the focus of RwR, their immediate surroundings sometimes have issues where we can help. Particularly along Willow Spring Road, camping has become extremely popular. To start managing this use more closely, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration contracted RwR to fence the boundary of a dozen campsites that needed delineation. We also fenced off areas to prevent the proliferation of new sites. Finally we closed a dozen campsites that were either in the flood zone of Courthouse Wash, in a tributary wash, or in a drainage structure of the graded road. While there are still dozens of established sites available to camp in along Willow Spring Road, and dozens more along Dalton Wells and Klondike Bluffs roads, they are full during peak weeks in spring and fall. So be prepared to camp even further from Moab by following the BLM rules and minimum-impact practices:
As an alternative to remote camping, you could also pay for a place nearby, like Green River to the north or our friends at 3 Step Hideaway to the south.
~ La Sal and Abajo cattle guards
In the past decade, RwR has installed a dozen cattle guards, mostly in the La Sal and Abajo Mountains. They offer convenience for trail users and a piece of mind for ranchers that their cattle won’t be lost due to an open gate. However, cattle learned how to cross these guards, so we modified them by adding side rails, a sheet-metal base, and narrower gaps between cross rails. The 5″ gaps are narrow enough to discourage cattle but still wide enough that any cattle attempting to pass can free themselves and back out. Finally we relayed these fun lessons in physiology and psyCOWlogy to the cattle-guard manufacturer who is refining his design so that no one else has to work on these products in such remote spots.
~ Mel’s Loop reroutes SW of Rabbit Valley
Mel’s loop is somewhat isolated from the trail system of Utah Rims along the Colorado border. Across the Westwater boat-ramp road, riders had been connecting from Utah Rims to Mel’s Loop via Westwater Wash, which is a riparian corridor for wildlife. RwR routed riders away from the wash to the new South Link singletrack along a rim to reach Mel’s Loop. Further southwest, where Mel’s Loop crossed private property, the owner generously assisted RwR in rerouting closer to the railroad tracks. Although the new route is loose, it will compact somewhat over the seasons, and will make Mel’s loop a couple miles longer. In fact, the BLM graciously permitted RwR to construct singletrack parallel to Kokopelli’s Trail rather than simply following the doubletrack. In this way, the new part of Mel’s Loop and South Link could be used by motorcyclists and bicyclists who seek a more challenging version of Kokopelli’s Trail. Special thanks to the Buzzards MC, the Bookcliff Rattlers MC, and especially to the MTRA of Grand Junction for recruiting a total of 52 volunteer days!
~ Tread Lightly’s “Respect and Protect” campaign
To include OHV riders in its campaign about preserving cultural resources, Tread Lightly invited RwR to its video shoot in Sego Canyon:
RwR suggested the locations and provided riders for Tread Lightly to film. We think the video turned out well, conveying the valuable and irreplaceable nature of archaeological and paleontological sites. We commend Tread Lightly for incorporating local OHV groups into its educational products. Over the last few years, Tread Lightly has strengthened its staff to start reaching an OHV audience more effectively. It’s our job as riders to help distribute responsible-riding materials consistently, whether it’s coming from Tread Lightly, NOHVCC, or Stay The Trail Colorado. Remember that education is a little cheaper than trail work and a lot cheaper than law enforcement, although all of these tools are key ingredients. The surge in side-by-sides brings more people and, in particular, more people who are new to the backcountry. Let’s spread the riding ethic to conserve access, not mention conserving the land, itself!
~ settlement of BLM resource management plans
RwR proudly assisted BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) to create a path forward for the resource management plans (RMP’s) that govern BLM land across the southeast half of Utah. Along with the TPA and COHVCO, BRC intervened in the case, and thoroughly consulted a few key OHV advocates statewide. Together we ensured a fighting chance to maintain equitable access of public lands. BRC’s press release includes links to the settlement:
A decade ago, most BLM land was completely open to motorized travel anywhere. RMP revisions limited OHV riding to designated routes, and their new travel plans closed half of the existing 4WD, ATV, and motorcycle trails. Although this loss of access was a tough pill to swallow, RwR has spent several-thousand hours helping BLM implement and refine its travel plans. Meanwhile, wilderness-expansion groups sued the BLM for not restricting OHV’s and other uses even further. Although the court ruled in favor of the BLM on most counts, it ruled adversely on a few others, primarily because BLM didn’t sufficiently document the evidence and rationale for its otherwise-reasonable decisions.
This ruling forced BLM to hemorrhage millions of dollars (e.g. paying archaeologists to survey every designated route by foot, even old mining roads) in order to keep its routes open. With the appeal process stalled, and the settlement process open to intervenors like OHV groups along with the state and counties, we tried turning lemons into lemonade. Draft after draft, BRC et al. proposed changes not only to benefit public access, but also to allow for effective management. The wilderness-expansion groups wisely accepted a couple dozen meaningful revisions, earning our support of the final agreement.
Although the final agreement was unsuccessfully challenged by the state and counties, it doesn’t diminish their role during the implementation of this settlement. In fact, recently BRC et al. consulted the affected counties when commenting on areas that BLM must reconsider for ACEC evaluation as part of the settlement. The settlement requires BLM to do more analysis, but it doesn’t dictate a decision. The settlement makes BLM’s procedures more cumbersome for the six affected RMP’s, but it doesn’t set precedent for subsequent RMP’s or other field offices. These procedures may not be a model of pragmatic management, but under the circumstances, they are a prudent compromise. Most of all, the settlement fully vacates the court’s previous ruling against BLM, so the agency is no longer forced to choose between immediate closure or immediate archaeological survey for every mile of route on its travel plans.
What does all of this mean for OHV riders? Basically the BLM must redo half of its travel plans, and it’s the “good” half, which includes Labyrinth Rims (i.e. all the trail between Moab and Green River), the San Rafael Swell, Factory Butte, and Hog Canyon (see PDF pages 37-43 of agreement). These areas have different deadlines, ranging from two years to eight years (see PDF pages 7-8 of agreement). We stand to lose hundreds of trails, but if we step up to the plate, we could keep the vast majority of trails and even add news ones (whether previously-closed trails or better-yet brand new ones with proper design). The wilderness-expansion groups are banking on the redo resulting in many trail closures, but most of the trail access can be defended again, and we should think outside the box for new trails (especially to improve the connectivity of current trail systems).
As you can imagine, the next few years will take all hands on deck, from local clubs to state and national organizations. Primarily we can help BLM with this larger workload by inventorying the routes and monitoring the conditions. We need to obtain inventory data from the BLM and counties, then GPS any routes that they missed. An incomplete inventory is the kiss of death for a travel plan, and BLM may refuse to accept route data later on in the process, so the time to GPS routes is now. Keep in mind that the current travel rules are still in effect, so obtain BLM travel maps (available from BLM and some county-tourism websites), and stay on designated routes when traveling by vehicle.
Signing a settlement with traditional adversaries is no one’s idea of a good time, but we appreciate BRC et al. for soliciting RwR’s input. This experience gave us confidence that they made the right call.
~ Bears Ears National Monument
Across the nation, politics seems to be getting more melodramatic, and the two million acres from Moab down to Mexican Hat was no exception. RwR has done a couple-thousand hours of trail work there, mainly on the northeast side of the Abajo Mountains, where there are few significant archaeological sites, and where motorcycle and non-motorized trail users seem to appreciate our contribution.
The area is already “protected” to varying degrees, and after three years of developing a comprehensive land-use bill, in 2016 the Utah Public Lands Initiative (UPLI) was poised to “protect” the area even further, along with a stronger Native American influence on management of the area, and modest assurances to secure recreational access and other land uses where appropriate. Despite offering a quadruple “win,” wilderness-expansion groups rejected any compromise in favor of unilateral action. Unfortunately most mainstream conservation groups went along, which convinced the majority of Congress to discard the PLI rather than refining it. For details, please see RwR’s 2016 year in review:
As promised, after election season had passed, the Obama administration proclaimed a 1.35 million-acres of BLM and USFS land as Bears Ears National Monument (BENM). The boundary generally followed a couple NCA’s proposed by the UPLI, but the proclamation included none of the measures to conserve OHV access, let alone any of the other OHV assurances that the UPLI had offered beyond its NCA’s. The monument offered no substantial increase for Native American influence, and it reduced the influence of local residents and elected officials who are most affected. Most of all, the monument went beyond the Antiquities Act authority to proclaim monuments, “the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” The 1.35 million-acre BENM covered many areas without significant cultural sites and many areas with significant OHV trails, including some of the motorized singletrack and ATV trails that RwR has cared for. This proclamation was an enormous setback for the resolution of many issues on public lands.
Fortunately the new Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, reviewed all of the really-large national monuments proclaimed within the last two decades. Having spent twenty-million dollars campaigning for BENM, wilderness-expansion groups then campaigned to misinform the public about this review process. To clear things up, RwR’s executive director wrote his personal perspective for the American Motorcyclist Association:
Unlike our previous Interior secretary, the new one provided a formal public-input period to give every American the opportunity to submit comments that would be documented, and RwR participated. Predictably, the vast majority of comments opposed scaling back the most controversial monuments, but the vast majority of them were based upon several false premises. Secretary Zinke listened to reason over volume when recommending that BENM be scaled back while urging Congress to actually increase Native American influence and actually increase archaeological preservation through budgetary support.
On December 4th, the Trump administration shrunk BENM to 200,000 acres, comprised of two main units called Indian Creek and Shash Jaa, which is Navajo for Bears Ears. The majority of excluded acreage is already “protected” through other designations. These other protections include several wilderness study areas, as shown on this map:
The map does not show additional designations, such as Valley Of The Gods, which is currently “protected” as an Area Of Critical Environmental Concern. Beyond all of these designations, what little acreage is left simply doesn’t warrant the sort of emergency action that monument proclamations were intended to be.
Since the 200,000-acre BENM focuses on areas that weren’t already “protected,” it certainly encompasses valuable OHV trails that are in jeopardy of closure when management plans are approved for the monument within about five years. In the Shash Jaa unit are 4WD trails like Texas Flat and Hotel Rock. In the Indian Creek Unit are motorized singletracks like Shay Mountain and Indian Creek leading up to the USFS trail system. These routes provide outstanding OHV opportunities and key connectivity, but RwR is willing to resolve any new management issues by doing trail work or even rerouting as needed. Unlike the overwhelming nature of a 1.35 million-acre BENM, the current Shash Jaa and Indian Creek units are concentrated enough that we can adapt. They still might constrain OHV riding, but not constrict it completely, RwR is willing to work in good faith to help protect the monument’s resources for all visitors.
More myths about the 200,000-acre BENM are dispelled in the infamous Zephyr, which advocates expanding wilderness designations yet critiques the tactics of wilderness-expansion groups that have emerged over the last couple decades:
Most members of the public haven’t even heard these myth busters, so they don’t even question claims that scaling back BENM would harm antiquities, harm natural resources, and—get this—harm recreational access. While it is theoretically possible for a monument proclamation to bolster recreational access, the 1.35 million-acre BENM didn’t do so. On public lands, there’s an inherent tension between preservation versus access, and we can certainly debate the right balance point. But we can’t debate the fact that “protected” areas have traditionally reduced access. To claim otherwise is to one-up George Orwell on doublespeak.
Another Zephyr article highlights the need for more law enforcement to protect archaeological resources:
We agree, and point out that actively managing recreation is another key ingredient, which is often relatively inexpensive and effective. After all, in the Twenty-first Century, deliberate looting is far less common while inadvertent impacts are far more common, as recreation use grows. As RwR has proven in partnership with federal and state agencies, most activities can be managed well with thoughtful planning and thorough implementation. Plus, putting recreation technicians out there in the field provides a management presence. This realization is shared by most people who spend time on the land, yet it gets lost when polarization escalates into a turf war. Reestablishing a middle ground may help to identify common solutions on the ground.
U.S. Representative John Curtis has taken a stab at resolution by introducing a bill covering the 200,000-acre BENM to increase (a) law enforcement, (b) funding that could cover recreation management, and (c) Native American influence actual decision-making rather than mere consultation. It would also effectively ban mining over the 1.35 million-acre area previously proclaimed as BENM. He’ll have an uphill battle, as some on both sides prefer to let litigation play out. However it could take years for the courts to truly settle whether either of the administrative actions—proclaiming a 1.35 million-acre BENM or subsequently scaling it back—were legal in the first place. Regardless of the outcome, the scaling back gives mega-monument advocates a taste of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of sweeping administrative action:
It’s only a taste because scaling back BENM leaves only a small chance that the 1.35 million-acre area would be developed imprudently, whereas implementing a 1.35 million-acre BENM leaves a large chance that the best OHV trails would be closed, not to mention all the other BLM and USFS land at risk of monument proclamation every four to eight years. That risk has risen exponentially since passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, as monument proclamations have proliferated despite that there’s less and less land not already “protected,” not to mention that all federal lands have become more restricted with each passing decade.
Even if the judicial branch rejects the executive scaling back of BENM, it’s in everyone’s interest to reform the Antiquities Act legislatively. Only through this reform will multiple-use and access advocates take interest in compromise because they would know that such an agreement couldn’t be trumped by another mega-monument. In the absence of our modern laws and agencies, the Antiquities Act was designed for emergency action to protect archaeological sites. Now it’s being used overtly to protect “cultural landscapes” and covertly to break the promises of FLPMA, the organic act of the modern BLM. When the federal government reversed its policy of selling BLM land to a policy of “retention” in 1976, it promised to ensure local input and an inclusive form of conservation through several measures:
These pillars have steadily eroded and are on the brink of crumbling if the mega-monument trend is not reigned in. Inclusive conservation matters because it allows people to use and connect with the land in their own way without encroaching on another’s right to do the same. Local input matters because nearby residents have a greater stake and are more familiar with their surroundings than the average person living a thousand miles away.
For example, a million-acre monument campaign sounds great from a distance because it is viewed in the abstract, so “the more land, the better.” In fact, though, it wouldn’t create more land. The proposed boundaries encompass existing places with existing uses that would be displaced or, without alternative locations, simply extinguished. Applying the name Bears Ears to everything that’s west of U.S. 191 and southeast of Canyonlands / Glen Canyon NRA down to the edge of the Navajo reservation would make sense to anyone looking at the area from a map of U.S. highways. It makes less sense to people looking at the area from their backyards. That’s why the Bears Ears campaign was less effective in San Juan County despite saturating social media, traditional outlets, and outdoor-clothing catalogs. Yet the campaign succeeded in persuading the only person needed, and that is the person who signed the proclamation. So you can understand the local impulse to transfer federal lands into state hands. However, the land-transfer movement would be rendered moot by simply honoring the intent of the Antiquities Act, FLPMA, and the balance between state and federal government.
At first blush, this allusion to federalism might sound like geographic tribalism, which former president Bill Clinton recently warned against:
He writes “All too often, tribalism based on race, religion, sexual identity and place of birth has replaced inclusive nationalism in which you can be proud of your tribe and still embrace the larger American community.” Indeed, combining this tribal diversity with a common thread of national identity creates a sort of Venn diagram of links that strengthen our society. He continues “Twenty-five years ago, when I was elected president, I said that every American should follow our Constitutional framers’ command to form a more perfect union, to constantly expand the definition of ‘us’ and shrink the definition of ‘them.’ I still believe that. Because I do, I favor policies that promote cooperation over conflict and build an economy, a society and a politics of addition not subtraction, multiplication not division.”
Let’s apply this ideal to President Clinton’s proclamation of a 1.88 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) in 1996. Most states have very little federal land within their borders, and they hold a majority in Washington, D.C. In contrast, Utah is comprised primarily of federal lands, and this kind of state is the minority. In effect, not only is Utah’s influence diminished in its own state, but also in D.C. In other words, non-federally dominated states have the most influence within their own borders AND within the borders of federally dominated states. If the non-federally dominated states were exposed to an overreach of the Antiquities Act, the law would be reformed in a New York minute. This disparity between states was only furthered by President Clinton’s proclamation of GSENM. In theory it benefited the nation, but in practice, it benefited the non-federally dominated states. It had a guise of nationalism, but an effect of tribalism. Over twenty years later, perhaps President Clinton will realize that ensuring a more equal footing for states like Utah would be the way to form a more perfect union.
These days, self-reflection is more scarce than antiquities, which makes it refreshing to see another Zephyr article about “standing in the other man’s shoes”:
While this level of candor has alienated the editor from wilderness-expansion groups, it’s courageous, and desperately needed among the shrinking field of journalism (which compels us to pay for content from the Zephyr and High Country News to Range Magazine or something in between). While his first 500 words poignantly summarize how we wound up with a BENM, the subsequent 5,000 words explore his own role in the current dysfunction, and therein lies the recipe for resolution. If politicians, lobbyists, and ordinary citizens followed this trail, where would it lead?
Meanwhile, on the literal trails, RwR will continue to focus on maintenance and education with great appreciation for our supporters, partners, and the public lands.

Rico West Dolores Issue: Alert Message from SJTR

San Juan Trail Riders – Member ALERT!

From:  The SJTR Board of Directors

The Rico/West Dolores issue has spiked again, with the November 14, 2017 release of two Draft Records of Decision.  We make this announcement to inform our members and supporters, to assure you of our plan for responding, and to seek consistency in how we respond to the agency and implement our plan of action.

The proposed decision(s) would impose drastic and unacceptable reductions in access.  They would reduce about 30 percent of existing motorcycle riding, on prime trails in Bear Creek and Little Bear Creek, would eliminate motorized trail access to the Town of Rico, would eliminate critical connectivity, and would impose seasonal restrictions.  These restrictions on motorcycle access appear to be justified, in part, by a contrived effort to “create” new opportunities for larger motorized vehicles, including 62” width class vehicle.

San Juan Trail Riders has been working on this issue for years, particularly since the 2009 Backcountry Hunters & Anglers lawsuit, which we aided the Forest Service in successfully defending.  We have worked in concert with Trails Preservation Alliance, COHVCO, PAPA, and BRC/Sharetrails.org.  We continue to engage experienced legal professionals.  We will continue to vigorously participate and take aggressive legal action, as needed, to maintain historical riding opportunities in the Rico/West Dolores.

These decisions are NOT yet final.  They cannot be implemented until the objections are ruled upon, and any instructions resolved by the Dolores Ranger District.  We appreciate the efforts and support of our members and partners.  This promises to be a long and difficult process.  The best way to fight for access and fight against these closures is to provide financial support for our efforts.  We recommend making donations to the Trails Preservation Alliance, which is a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) nonprofit.  The donation should include a note it is for the “RWD project” and can be made by visiting http://www.coloradotpa.org/how-to-help/donations/.

The next step in this process will be to file formal objections to the proposed decisions.  We do NOT recommend that you take individual action or file personal objections.  As indicated, we will proceed through legal counsel and will leave no stone unturned in that effort.  The objection process is NOT like commenting on an environmental impact statement – too many objections will cloud the issue, consume the agency’s attention/resources, and dampen any ability we might have to achieve change through the objection process.  We assure you that we will vigorously and with full transparency advance our community’s interests in this process, and any ensuing litigation.

To provide additional background for those who are interested or may not be aware, your San Juan Trail Riders legal and government relations team has been working with the Dolores Ranger District in Dolores, CO since 2009 on the Travel Management Plan for the Rico / West Dolores landscape.  It has been an up and down exercise with the USFS and anti-access / anti-motorized activists to keep 14 significant and premier single-track motorized trails open for our type recreation even though these trails have over 50 years of historical motorcycle use.  And, just 3 years ago the 10th Circuit agreed with the USFS that these trails should remain open to the single-track motorized designation.  This was a true win for our recreation type that was supported monetarily by all of you through memberships and special donations.  We thank you again for helping to keep these world-class trails open to so many.

Most recently SJTR has worked through 3 years of USFS meetings, planning sessions, compromise meetings, alternative recommendations meetings and supervisory sessions to try and work through a plan to preserve these critically important trails for our recreation.  Today the Draft Decision for the entire Rico / West Dolores landscape was released by District Ranger Derek Padilla.  With much dismay I must report to you that the USFS has neglected to accept any of our input to the plan and is recommending a plan to reduce the last of our high quality trail riding by over 30%.  In addition, the plan calls for a full seasonal closure that will also limit riding time on the few remaining trails for single-track use.  In his plan he gives preference to those who have moved into the existing trail areas who do not want motorcycle use to continue.  He also gives significant preference to a private resort area that now wants the nearby trails for their personal use over the general public.  He gives grazing permit holders preference over the general public to close trails that may possibly disturb cattle in the area of current motorized trails.  He has also closed a key public easement to only motorcycles that has been used by our recreation type for more than 40 years.  The Plan completely prevents motorcycles from using existing trails into Rico, CO for fuel and food.  In his Draft Decision the District Ranger provides much less restriction to all other users, only motorcycles get the axe and he announces this proudly.

San Juan Trail Riders made it clear to the Dolores District going into this TMP / EIS Process that we would work hard with them to work out a plan and that we would accept no net loss of trail miles in the end.  We recommended multiple opportunities and options to replace the trail miles they wanted to designate as non-motorized.  They refused to consider even one option.

The project file, Draft Records of Decision and Final EIS can be viewed online at  https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44918.

Rest assured that we will be reviewing the entire document very carefully over the next short period of time to assess potential objections that we will submit during this next step in the process.  Our submissions will be public record, and we will keep you posted and abreast of any additional actions to be taken as we fight to preserve this historic riding area.

Again, we want to let you know how serious we are taking this.  It should not be necessary at this time to submit a flood of written responses to the Dolores District.   We will advise you along the way as to what actions, when appropriate, will be needed to support the fight.  Right now, your donations in dollars is what will be most needed to take on this challenge.  Please consider anything you can contribute and rest assured it will be used wisely on your behalf.

Rico West Dolores Project Draft Decision Available with Opportunity to Object

The Final Environmental Impact Statement and two Draft Records of Decision are available for the Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) Project. 

The project will now enter a pre-decision objection process.  The information in the Draft Records of Decision is preliminary.  If no project changes are identified in the pre-decisional objection process the information in these Draft Records of Decision will become the final decisions of the project.  The Draft Records of Decision explain the minimum road system, designations for motor vehicle use, and project specific amendments to the Forest Plan.  Only those persons who commented during one or more of the public comment periods held previously will have standing to object to these Draft Records of Decision.  A brief summary of the Decision and instructions for submitting objections are explained in the Cover Letter attached.  I welcome you to read the documents posted on the website.  This is not a public comment period so comments about the alternatives or the analysis are not solicited, however, my staff and I are available to answer questions about the project at any time.  I have read the public comments received previously and feel these draft decisions reflect my understanding of public concerns and impacts to the environment.  

The Cover Letter, Draft Records of Decision and the Final EIS are available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44918

A 45 Day objection period begins today November 14th and there is a 60 day objection time period for the Forest Plan amendment which begins tomorrow.  For questions about the objection process, or to receive a CD or hard copy of the documents please contact Debbie Kill at  or call 970-882-7296

 

The preliminary decision is Alternative B (Modified). From the current situation the decision would remove motorcycle use from 31 total miles of single track motorized trail at various locations, add 12 miles ATV/UTV trail, downgrade 5 miles from gravel surface to native surface, convert 5.32 miles of road to trail, decommission 7 miles of ML2 or ML3 roads and decommission 40 miles of ML1 roads. Alternative B would reduce single track motorized trail riding in most but not all of Bear Creek, the Ryman Creek Trail, trails near the Town of Rico, and in the area west of Forest Road 471. The Calico trail and its connectors, East Fork trail, and trials near Taylor Mesa and Stoner Mesa maintain single track motorized opportunities.

We don’t have to tell you that the preliminary decision is devastating to the single track motorized trail user group. We urge you to use your right to comment. Conveniently submit your comments electronically online at:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=44918

Thank you for your participation.

PAPA Board

 

 

Support National Monument Designation Reform

H.R. 3990 Would Require Improved Transparency and Stakeholder Input in the National Monument Designation Process

Please Take Action now to let your Member of Congress know that you support H.R. 3990, the “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” or “National Monument CAP Act.” H.R. 3990 would reduce the size of future National Monument designations and create a formal process for reductions of existing monuments. This legislation limits the size of new monument designations to 85,000 acres, ensures designations between 640 acres-10,000 acres are reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and requires approval of all local and state governments impacted by a National Monument for any designation between 10,000-85,000 acres. Additionally, H.R. 3990 clarifies the authority of the President to reduce the size of National Monuments, requiring reductions greater than 85,000 acres in size to be approved by the impacted counties, state legislatures, and governors, and to have undergone NEPA analysis. 

The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed H.R. 3990 in October of this year, and the legislation now awaits consideration on the House floor. In an era with politically driven land grabs and unilateral executive overreach that negatively impacts local economies and creates restrictive land-use regulations for OHV and other recreational activities it is imperative Congress reforms the antiquated monument designation process.

Please send a letter to your Representative in support of H.R. 3990 to require improved transparency and stakeholder input during the monument designation process.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison (GMUG) Forest Plan Revision

GMUG Update from PAPA: The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests are undergoing a Forest Plan Revision. The Forest Plan is an overarching document that guides forest management through broad direction, standards, and guidelines for years to come. For an overview, click here:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51806

The USFS wants to hear from individuals. Please comment on this project by October 22, 2017. To send your comments on this Project, click here:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=51806

 

 

 

 

Rico / West Dolores Colorado High Country Trails

We know that everyone is very anxious to get to the high country trails and enjoy the cool and scenic atmosphere we find in the exciting and challenging single-track trail riding experience in and around the Rico/West Dolores Colorado trail system.

Fortunately and unfortunately the area received higher than average snowfall this season and many of the trails above 10,500 ft. are still partially blocked by large snow drifts and un-cleared downfall.  The reports from the Forest Service trail crews are that a few riders (of which we believe are not associated with SJTR, PAPA or Timberline Trail-riders) are attempting to break through blocked trails by creating new routes around large downfall trees and blocking snowdrifts.  This is just not the kind of behavior that we want to support as it can potentially harm the resource and may even encourage further bad trail use behavior.  

So, we are asking all of our members and other single-track motorized riders either in or out of our region to take very seriously any decision to plan rides on currently snow and downfall blocked high country trails for a few more weeks.  Yes, it often works out that small drifts can be ridden over or through without much difficulty.  However, not properly clearing trees and making new tracks around them is not the behavior any of us wants to see.  Riders of high country trails in the summer need to be fully prepared to clear downed logs or go directly over them until they can be properly cut out.  The best for everyone though is to properly saw them out when encountered.  If all of us dedicate ourselves and share with others the need to follow these behaviors, our trails can be properly preserved.  

Thanks to everyone (and other riders you may coach) for making these trail riding considerations for the high country trails this season.  As it stands, there are many trails at lower elevations in the Dolores Ranger district that have been cleared and ready for your riding enjoyment.  Please contact the Dolores Ranger District in Dolores, CO. for more information.   Tom Rice is the recreation specialist there and a great guy to talk to.  He can be contacted at 970-882-6843 or cell at 970-749-6432 and ., on changing trail conditions in areas you may want to go.   It is our hope that you have a great summer trail riding experience in the Dolores Ranger District should you plan to go there.  

Respectfully,

The San Juan Trail Riders Board of Directors