FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the FISHLAKE OHV ROUTE DESIGNATION PROJECT 12 October 2006 INTRODUCTION The forest incorporated existing comments from prior public participation processes during the pre- NEPA (NFMA) assessment. The following documents from these efforts are incorporated by reference: Public comments received for the 2001 OHV Event Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain and Fillmore Jamborees. The assessment covered all of the Fishlake and portions of the Dixie and Manti-LaSal National Forests as well as Richfield BLM. OHV and travel management comments received by mail or at public meetings for Forest Plan revision efforts. Meeting notes and final presentations and reports from the Forest Plan revision Topical Working Groups (TWiGs) for OHVs, dispersed camping, and undeveloped area suitability. These records are included in the OHV project file and are incorporated by reference. The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2004. The NOI included a proposed action (Alternative 2) that designated routes and areas open to motorized use on the Fishlake National Forest. The effect of these designations is to close the forest to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed action by July 30, 2004. Immediately prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local governmental officials, motorized advocacy groups, businesses, and environmental groups. The project web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/ohv.shtml, press release, and postings at some trailheads were used to disseminate information and gather comments. About 198 scoping responses from individuals, advocacy groups, State and other federal agencies were received and analyzed for content (see project file or project web page). Public involvement efforts following the NOI included public open houses in Richfield, Fillmore, Beaver, Loa, Junction, Salina and Salt Lake City, Utah. Subsequent to those open houses, comments on the project were reviewed and the proposed action was revised. The forest developed two additional alternatives based on public comment that also incorporated new route inventory data from the summer of 2004. The final preferred alternative, Alternative 5, has been formalized between draft and final to capture modifications to Alternative 3 (Modified Proposed Action) and to incorporate desired attributes from the other alternatives such as Alternative 4 (Non-motorized Emphasis) and a proposal from the Three Forest Coalition. The changes are the result of a substantial amount of additional internal review and consideration of public comments. These reviews also led to inclusion and disposition of additional routes to the GIS inventory. Public open houses were held in Richfield, Fillmore, Loa, and Beaver Utah in August of 2005 following release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Twenty-four comments were received between the formal scoping period and the formal DEIS comment period. Fifty comments were received during the formal DEIS comment period and an additional 15 comments arrived after the formal comment period. Thus, 89 written comments were received between release of the DEIS and the Final EIS (FEIS). District staff and forest specialists evaluated all of the individual route or area specific comments [regardless of when the comment was received] to determine what if any changes should be made for the final preferred alternative. This process took months to complete, in part because some of the comments necessitated updates to and additional review of the route inventory. This document represents a compilation of public comments to the DEIS received beginning August 5, 2005. The formal DEIS comment period ended on September 19, 2005, however, letters received by February 9, 2006 are included. Public responses include hand delivered comments from four public meetings and correspondence received through e-mail and letters. All tolled, the forest received responses from individuals and organizations in 16 States and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. Most comments originated from addresses within Utah. Only Sevier and Wayne Counties provided written responses, but numerous briefings and meetings have occurred with all of the affected counties. Other federal agency comments came from the Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8, and the Department of Interior including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Capitol Reef National Park. State agency responses included the Utah Public Lands Coordination Office, Utah Division of Drinking Water, Utah Division of Water Quality, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah State Extension Service, Fremont Indian State Park, and a Utah State OHV Advisory member. Advocacy groups providing written comments include the Bear River Watershed Council, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc., Grand Canyon Trust, International Mountain Bike Association, Red Rock Forests, Sand Rock Ridge Riders ATV Club, Southern High Rollers 4x4 Club, Southern Utah OHV Club, Three Forests Coalition, USA-ALL, Utah Environmental Congress, Utah Forest Network, Utah Snowmobile Association, Utah Water Project – Trout Unlimited, Western Resource Advocates, and Wildlands CPR. Representatives from Utah Power and Light, the Richfield Reaper, and DBW Metals Recycling also provided comments. METHODS The processing and analysis of the comments follows the procedures developed by the National Forest Service Content Analysis Team (CAET August 2003). A list of the mail handling procedures and coding structure used can be found in Appendix A. Each sender and letter was assigned a unique identification number for tracking in the CAETv1 ORACLE database. Comments within each correspondence were given a code to group like comments by the type of action requested, the rationale provided, and by site-specific location if referenced. Each individual comment was then entered into the CAETv1 database word-for-word, except for the correction of spelling and minor grammatical errors. As processed, the 89 letters received contained 541 comments. These data were then exported to a Microsoft Access database developed by the CAET team. The Access database allows the user to develop public concerns from the individual comments. The 541 comments were grouped by specific resource topics and by specific routes or site locations. Thus, the 541 comments are grouped into 101 individual public concerns that are attached in the following report. The public concern groupings attempt to display unique aspects of the information provided by the public. However, there is unavoidable overlap among several of the public concerns. The database was used to generate the responses to comments provided in this report. The Access export function has bugs that cause the ends of responses and comments to unpredictably be truncated. Every attempt was made to correct these errors after being exported, but some may still be present. The database contains all of the data even if is not displayed in the report. The Forest Service has attempted to make no endorsement or criticism of the comments provided by the public. Rather, the forest has tried to provide fact-based responses that hopefully clarify and address the comments and questions submitted by the public. The public questions, concerns, and comments assisted the Forest Leadership Team and the Interdisciplinary Team in the development of the final preferred alternative (Alternative 5). The forest provided separate formal and informal responses when requested in individual letters. A Microsoft Access database, developed by the forest, was used to link site and route specific information to public comments. This database, which is incorporated by reference, provides additional information and context to the responses provided in this report. Thanks to Bob Dow, Frank Lamb, and Don Green of the Content Analysis Team and Ellen Daniels for their continued crucial support! Prepared by: Dale Deiter, OHV Team Lead Public Concerns, Responses, and All Comments Public Concern Order Public Concern ID 1102 Specialist Assigned DD Public Concern Some respondents commented on the relationship and need for integration between the travel management project and the current Forest Plan and ongoing Forest Plan revision. Motorized user groups represented by the Blue Ribbon Coalition are concerned that access decisions, particularly route and area closures made in the route designation project, will be expanded through the Forest Plan revision process. Preservation groups represented by the Three Forest Coalition assert that changes to the existing travel plan require a Forest Plan amendment. Response The Forest Leadership Team (FLT) oversees the travel management and plan revision teams. The team leaders from both projects coordinate and communicate frequently and share some team members. This improves consistency between the two projects and reduces the potential that travel management decisions will unintentionally conflict or narrow or eliminate Forest Plan decision space. Travel route and area designations that potentially impact strategies, guidelines, or special area designations are jointly reviewed and decided upon or deferred if necessary. These decisions are being made public in both projects so that there should be no surprises in either