Coronado Travel Management

[Jeffshadows]

I'm sure many folks on here may already know, but for those who do not: Coronado has put out its first draft of a proposed travel management plan for the forest. It doesn't look good for those of us who like our trails intact and our outdoor experience to be quiet and relaxing. I attended a workshop last night put on by Sky Island Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity and they had some pretty appalling statistics, pictures, and stories to share.

Basically, in the Tucson district, Coronado has about 210+ miles of roads in the forest that they know about. Their own analysis concludes that they can adequately maintain and patrol less than 9% of that total, so the are basically saying that all they can really maintain is the portion of Catalina Highway that Pima County doesn't cover. One would think that they would then be making moves to close a lot of these uncontrolled FSRs. Instead, they're actually going to *expand* the number of roads. To those of us who have been out in some of these places and seen the destruction some OHVs leave, especially those of us who are responsible OHV users who abide by Tread Lightly, this makes absolutely no sense. (See here for further info: http://www.hikearizona.com/phoZOOM.php?ZIP=75517)

Speaking from experience: OHVs like Trucks and Jeeps are not the problem, the real issue here is the proliferation of quads and dirtbikes. What is really happening is that places like Redington have become so Mad Max as to be almost completely lawless and ATV-types have torn hundreds of new miles of trails into the land out there. Coronado is probably afraid of what would happen if they tried to crack down, so they're rewarding bad behavior by designating a few of these popular illegal trails as FSRs.

The comment period on this plan ends on the fifteenth; Tucson folks - please contact Coronado via email or phone and tell them you disagree with what they want to do.

Now, let me just head something off before it happens. I know someone is going to reply and tell me what a fascist I am for trying to take their right to go trash the forest on a pollution-belching noise machine. A lot of these guys are real-life bullies who show up at the public comments meetings and push the predominately pacifist hikers and backpackers around. We do ourselves a huge disservice by backing down and not making our voice heard. If you want to make the untenable and meretricious argument that more ATV trails are needed, feel free; just don't expect me to run away and beat a bongo. Some of us are unwilling to let these people do thousands of years of damage for five seconds of fun for themselves...stand with us. ;)

[dysfunction]

Even the Jeep/rockcrawling crowd tends to complain about quads/dirtbikes, both regarding attitude and damage to trails. I'm torn, I spent a lot of time working on OHV trails and maintaining access to them throughout the years, only to start seeing them more and more misused.

Thanks for the comment

[writelots]

We do ourselves a huge disservice by backing down and not making our voice heard.

I think this is the most important statement anyone can make here. As with all actions taken by the government, the loudest group willing to invest the most time and money is most likely to get what they want. It isn't really majority rule - it's volume rule. We're up on those mountain tops all the time - so use the high ground and shout! We need to make use of our numbers.

I agree that responsible OHVers have just as much right to areas like Reddington Pass as hikers and birders and other tree hugging dirt worshipers. However, the instance of abuse is very high, and the forest service has little or no funding for enforcement (or maintenance as you mention). In this current environment of cut backs and staff reductions, it just doesn't make any sense to expand their enforcement or maintenance requirements. Even if ALL of the OHVers were responsible - do we really have the resources to publically support their hobby on this level?

[chumley]

With all respect due to Jeff MacE, please do your own research on this. While I don't dispute anything he has posted above, when you view facts through the prism of somebody else's opinion, you might conclude something different than you would have concluded on your own.

This information is readily available. The Coronado National Forest website has a link on the homepage to the travel management page, and there are numerous other links with detailed information and maps of proposed changes to the plan. If you are remotely interested in what happens to the forest, please read the information. Understand what you are reading, and then comment or attend the public meetings. The Forest Service requires public input before making changes to the travel or management plans, so let your voice be heard. The Coronado travel page has specific contact information regarding comments on the travel plan including, mail, telephone, and email addresses.

If you don't want to do all the research, here's a snippet of the changes as posted by the forest supervisor on the travel management page:

Dear Friends and Neighbors of the Coronado National Forest:

I am writing today to let you know that the Forest is proposing the following changes to the current system of designated roads, trails, and areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Santa Catalina Ranger District that are open for motorized travel. Details are provided later in this notice.

Designate 5.75 miles of new Forest System roads (FSRs).
Re-route 0.95 miles of FSR 4431.
Decommission 1.27 miles of FSRs.
Prohibit motorized travel up to 300 feet off the following roads for the purpose of dispersed camping: Happy Valley Road (FSR 35) and connecting roads (FSRs 4307, 4406 and 4409; proposed FSRs 35-1 through 35-19, 4307.0.14R-1); and roads accessed by the Mt. Lemmon Highway (FSRs 1, 5, 7, 9, 9A through 9H, 10, 11, 11A, 12, 14, 19, 21, 607, 615, 750, 807, 4477). The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; 1986, as amended) will be amended to reflect this proposed change. Incidental parking up to one-vehicle width off the road will continue to be allowed on these roads when it is safe to do so and not otherwise restricted.
Designate spur roads by which the public may access dispersed camping at locations off Happy Valley Road. These roads will be depicted on the MVUM, which will be available to the public on the Forest website and at the District office.
Amend the Forest Plan to clarify that on the Santa Catalina District, hiking trails are closed to motorized travel.
This action is needed for the Forest to comply with the requirements of recently issued Forest Service regulations regarding management of motor-vehicle use on national forests and grasslands. Management of motorized travel on roads that are not under Forest Service jurisdiction but are legally accessible to the public from NFS lands is not part of this proposed action.

With this Scoping Notice, I am providing you with a description of the proposed action and inviting your comments on the scope of the upcoming National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental analysis of the proposal. Your response to this notice will play a vital role in our NEPA review. Information on how and when to comment is provided below.

[Jeffshadows]

I absolutely encourage people to learn about the issue, but don't take my word or the forest service's word... Go and see first- hand. Watch the ATV crowd in action, compare multiuse and foot-only trails and decide which you prefer. ;)

[chumley]

Go and see first- hand

Just do it before the 15th. You have 5 days... !

[Jeffshadows]

I know!! The FS did a rotten job of getting the word out on this one. It might be because they were afraid of what they would hear back from both sides, !!