FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS for the FISHLAKE OHV ROUTE DESIGNATION PROJECT 22 September 2004 INTRODUCTION This document represents a compilation of public comments received between June 7, 2004 and September 22, 2004, for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project. It includes hand delivered comments from the seven public meetings and comments received through e-mail and letters. We received responses from individuals and organizations in 14 States although most are from Utah. Beaver, Piute, and Wayne Counties provided written comments, but numerous briefings and meetings have occurred with all of the affected counties. Other agency comments came from the Capitol Reef National Park, Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8, Utah State Extension Service, and a Utah State OHV Advisory member. Advocacy groups providing written comments include the Blue Ribbon Coalition, Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc., Red Rock Forests, Sand Rock Ridge Riders ATV Club, Southern High Rollers 4x4 Club, Southern Utah OHV Club, USA-ALL, Three Forests Coalition, Utah Forest Network, and the Utah Environmental Congress. Utah Power and Light also provided comments. METHODS The processing and analysis of the comments follows the procedures developed by the National Forest Service Content Analysis Team (CAT 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 198 letters received contained 893 comments. These data were then exported to a Microsoft Access database developed by the CAT team. The Access database allows the user to develop public concerns from the individual comments. The 893 comments are now represented by 67 individual public concerns and are attached in the following report. The public concerns attempt to display unique aspects of the information provided. However, there is unavoidable overlap among several of the public concerns. The public concerns identified in this report simply characterize what the public told the Forest Service about the OHV Route Designation Project. The Forest Service makes no endorsement or criticism of the content. Since these are scoping comments, the Forest will not make formal responses, but the public concerns and site-specific comments will be used directly by the Forest Leadership Team and Interdisciplinary Team to shape the development of Alternative 3 and any subsequent alternatives. The Forest has however provided formal and informal responses when requested in individual letters. A separate Access database developed by the Forest is being used to track site-specific comments so that comments can be considered route-by-route as we develop Alternative 3, which will be a modification of the proposed action that is based on updated inventory and public comments. Thanks is due to Bob Dow, Marry Stewart, Matt Zumstein, and Don Green of the Content Analysis Team for their training and support! Ellen Daniels deserves a Congressional Medal of Honor for managing the Herculean task of mail processing and data entry. Prepared by: Dale Deiter, OHV Team Lead Public Concern Public Concern Number 101 Public Concern Order 1 Public Concern The Forest Service should complete a Forest scale Roads Analysis as part of the travel management planning process: a) to comply with agency policy, b) to achieve an optimal transportation system, c) to protect natural resources. Issue Number Ltr# Cmnt# OrgType Action Rationale Comment 46 1 P TRANS.4070 1 Completion and integration of Roads 0 Analysis (for class 0-6 oml) is critical to transportation planning. The travel plan must be developed in the interest of a minimum acceptable route network. It is not adequate to simply place all known routes in the "open" category, then close just a few of them. 161 2 P TRANS.4070 300 I urge the Fishlake to examine the basic, 0 minimum transportation system that's truly needed to accomplish access and management goals, with the aim of reducing road density and resource damage. The Roads Analysis process, detailed in FS misc. publication 643, should be followed closely, instead of simply designating nearly every route "open" that has ever been mapped, GPSed, aerially interpreted, or anecdotally mentioned. 173 25 P PRCSS.1000 165 The Fishlake NF must also follow the 0 direction in 36CFR212. The forest "must develop and maintain a forest transportation atlas." As part of road system management, the FS "must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands,?" 36 CFR212.5(b) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Forest Service must conduct a roads analysis as contemplated by the regulations and Forest Service Manual. As stated in the Forest Service Manual, "[r]oad management decision made after July 12, 2001 must be informed by a roads analysis." FSM 7712.5. Public Concern Number 102 Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Page 1 of 202 Public Concern Order 2 Public Concern The Forest Service should have a detailed and complete inventory of routes prior to making travel management planning decisions: a) to perform Roads Analysis, b) to perform cumulative effects analysis, c) to allow the public to influence the decision, d) to determine the value of the route to motorized recreation, e) to maintain motorized recreation opportunities. Issue Number Ltr# Cmnt# OrgType Action Rationale Comment 107 1 I ATTMT.9999 510 Enclosed is a map taken from your website 9 which we have filled in the following:1. Roads you were not aware of on your latest map for approval to be left open.2. Existing roads you closed last fall that should be reopened.3. Roads we pointed out to you that should be closed and where signs are needed. We have colored in (Green) roads/trails we recommend to be closed and more signs will need to be put up. As we told Kurt, we will travel again with your workers, if needed, to point out the areas we feel should be closed. Also, we will be happy to assist in putting in the signs, thereby cutting off these newer 'homemade' trails. 173 2 P NRMGT.301 510 During the next few months we intend to 00 supply additional new information about roads and trails proposed for inclusion in the travel plan. Properly assessing and examining such a system could take many weeks of field work. We look forward to seeing how you incorporate our information and comments in the development of the Forest Plan amendment. 173 3 P ATTMT.9999 510 Enclosed: 1. Compact disk containing 9 photos and Excel spreadsheets with UTM coordinates for the photos.2. Printed copies of selected photographs with notes about the pertinence of the photograph to the travel plan amendment. 48 4 I NRMGT.301 30 I have served on the Sanpete County Land 00 Access Committee for the past three years. We have identified every single road and trail on the forest. We have made written comments for each trail such as: when it was created, what it is used for and what kind of shape the road is in. Our final recommendation was to designate the road or trail for specific use and inclusion or exclusion from the travel plan. I'm confident that you have also followed this procedure. Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Page 2 of 202 155 4 F NRMGT.301 513 The northern hiking trail shown to Paradise 00 Flats (T27S, R5E, section 31) does not exist nor has it ever existed. Park staff have tried to locate this trail on several occasions and there is no evidence of a trail in that vicinity. We believe that it is a cartographic error and recommend that it be removed from the plan to eliminate -188 4 I ATTMT.9999 510 Map attachment 1: Map displaying routes 9 missing from FS inventory, route ages, and suggestions for routes to be open and signage needs. Map also shows routes needed to bypass Highway 25. 161 5 P NRMGT.301 510 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 00 The UFN maintains a database of digital photographs of routes and their condition forest-wide, and is happy to share this information with the Forest Service planners and staff upon request. 173 9 P NRMGT.301 620 He was totally unfamiliar with the trail prior 00 to this visit. His report can be found at http://utah.sierraclub.org/ogden/shoshone/p aiute/. In eighteen photographs and accompanying comments he portrays multiple ORV problems associated with the Paiute ATV trail. 98 9 I NRMGT.301 510 A number of the proposed routes were 00 impossible to even locate, even with a map and GPS in hand, others obviously have had only very infrequent visitation that would hardly justify including the route in your Travel Plan. 194 13 P NRMGT.301 300 We are going to submit additional 00 site-specific comments on individual roads and trails that are being proposed for inclusion in the revised travel plan as soon as possible. We will focus on those routes that are particularly harmful to the natural resources that we believe the FLNF is not currently conserving effectively. This includes wildlife populations, wildlife habitat, soils, water quality, and the severely degraded aquatic habitats across the FLNF. Of course, effects to TEPS and MIS should also be a central concern. We had hoped to have that analysis done by now.