Issue and Alternative Descriptions
from http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/chippewa/projects/nepa/progress/ohv_07/6212Alts_Chippewa_ORV.pdf
Public Involvement
Motorized access into public land is of interest to many people. The
(CNF) staff recognizes the opportunity to develop a collaborative planning process involving the
the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe; Townships; and others interested. The
provide a comprehensive forest access policy that considers all stakeholders’ thoughts, issues, and
concerns.
Current Multi-Governmental ORV Planning Team
A multi-governmental ORV Planning Process Team meets regularly in northern
strategically guide ORV planning. The team consists of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe’s
Director of Natural Resources and a law enforcement representative; a county commissioner from
each of
representative from
regional commissioners, the Chippewa Forest Supervisor, and necessary Forest Service and
Minnesota DNR staff. This group provides direction, guidance, and information for the
development of community workshops and multi-agency working groups (addressing current
road condition; mapping; signing; public information; law enforcement). The group also
facilitates dissemination of information to the variety of government officials, land management
agencies; and the public (via newsletters, presentations and conversations).
General Public Involvement on ORV Planning to Date
In the winter of 2006, five community workshops were hosted by the Forest Service,
DNR; Cass,
comments from interested people regarding ORV access. In October 2006 three community
workshops were held to review the work to date on proposals for forest access with ORVs. These
workshops were once again jointly hosted by the Minnesota DNR; Forest Service; and Cass,
ask questions about specific road access proposals and land management agency motorized
access policies. Comments were taken from attendees on the proposals. Public comments and
information from both workshops were used to develop the Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel
Access Project Proposed Action.
Throughout the ORV planning process, four newsletters have been sent to date to over 300
people. These newsletters provide information on the progress and stages of ORV planning, and
contact information for those individuals seeking further information.
Presentations were made by Forest Service District Rangers to the
included proposed forest access recommendations, the process of determining forest access, and
responses to individuals’ questions.
Tribal Involvement
In January and February 2006 staff representing the Forest Service; Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources; Cass,
Issues and Alternatives PR Number: 621-2
Date:
This is a controlled document: 2
The official version is located in the project record at the
Townships, convened to assess every road within the CNF boundary for ORV use. The
discussions and information was used in the development of the Off-Highway Vehicle Road
Travel Access Project Proposed Action. Forest Service personnel have also attended Local Indian
Councils (of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe) meetings. Information about the ORV route
designation process and proposal was presented and people shared their thoughts, issues, and
concerns about individual roads and
into the Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project alternatives. The
Supervisor has also talked with individuals within the LLBO leadership to keep them informed
and involved with the process.
The CNF Technology Team Leader also coordinates with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe’s
THIPO and staff concerning spatial data related to the ORV planning process and proposal.
Issues
An issue is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with a proposed action based on some
anticipated effect. Forest Service personnel receive public comments and categorize them into
significant or non-significant issues. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA
regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study
the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review
(Sec. 1506.3)…”
Significant issues are those with a clear direct, or indirect, causal relationship from implementing
the proposed action. Non-significant issues are identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the
proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level
decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by
scientific or factual evidence.
Significant Issues
The Forest Service identified the following seven significant issues from public scoping.
Issue 1: Provide more connections for loop and longer day recreation experiences
Many people expressed a desire to have more roads open to ORV use that connect to each other
for longer day riding opportunities and to create loops. Having the longer riding opportunities and
loops available can reduce the ORV hauling required and provide more recreation opportunities
and different types of riding experiences in a centralized area. People also expressed a belief that
providing loops and longer day experiences would bring economics benefit to surrounding
communities.
In response to the expressed belief that providing loops and longer day riding opportunities may
bring an economic benefit to local communities, roads near the community of Remer, the Big
Fork area on the
open in alternatives addressing this issue. An estimate of miles of road connected to each other
developed through geographic information system analysis (GIS) and written descriptions of
connected areas on the
Issue 2: Provide increased access during hunting season
Issues and Alternatives PR Number: 621-2
Date:
This is a controlled document: 3
The official version is located in the project record at the
Many hunters expressed a need for increased access during hunting season. A timeframe of
September 15 to December 31 was suggested to address the many different types of fall and early
winter hunting.
The dates for additional ORV access and the specific roads open are listed as indicators that
address this issue.
Issue 3: Provide increased access for recreation experience
Many people that recreate with ORVs expressed a general concern for the loss of a recreation
opportunity currently available to them. For some, the loss they expressed came from their
identity, culture, and sense of community associated with ORV riding. Many people recreate with
their family or friends and expressed a concern that decreased access would affect those
relationships or opportunities to build or enjoy those relationships. Other people simply wanted
more access to the
or because they did not want their personal freedom limited.
The number of miles open to ORV use across the entire
an alternative addresses this issue.
Issue 4: Protection of resources and non-motorized recreation experiences
The CNF users that want non-motorized recreation experiences expressed concerns for protection
of non-motorized trails from ORV use and a desire for more quiet areas within the
people suggested establishing “buffers” of non-motorized areas near trails and other suggested an
overall feeling of “too much motorized access” on the
concerns for ORV use having a negative impact on natural resources in general and for specific
species such as
were also frequently mentioned.
Roads open within a given proximity to non-motorized trails will be used as an indicator for
addressing protection of non-motorized trails in alternatives that address this issue. The indicator
mentioned previously for Issue 4 of general density of miles open to ORV use will also provide
an indicator for people concerned with “too much” motorized access on the
open to ORV use within lynx analysis units (LAUs) will be used an indicator.
Issue 5: Dead ends may encourage illegal use
Several people expressed concerns that roads designated for ORV use and roads “dead-ending” in
the forest may lead to illegal use from the designated end point into the surrounding forest.
For the purpose of the analysis in this project, dead-ends will be defined as roads designated open
to ORV use that do not connect to another route open to use and are less than
number of dead-end routes will be displayed for each alternative. Miles of road open to ORV use
within riparian management zones (RMZs) will be also be used as an indicator of potential effects
to natural resources.
Issue 6: The Lack of Road operations and maintenance funding
The CNF receives a finite allocation of Federal funds to operate and maintain roads. Many people
expressed a belief that the amount of funding the
and that there will not be enough funding available to manage the road system to required
Issues and Alternatives PR Number: 621-2
Date:
This is a controlled document: 4
The official version is located in the project record at the
standards. Another concern involves whether or not enough funding will be available to maintain
the roadways and stream crossings for environmental protection and to provide brushing and
clearing to insure public safety.
One area of concern mentioned frequently is law enforcement, specifically if funding will be
sufficient to adequately patrol roads, give citations to people riding illegally, and therefore protect
resources. Another concern involves whether or not enough funding will be available to maintain
the roadways and stream crossings, and provide brushing and clearing to insure environmental
protection and public safety.
The operation and maintenance cost for each alternative will be listed. Law enforcement costs
will be shown separate from road operations and maintenance costs.
Issue 7: Environmental Justice access to traditional hunting and gathering areas
The designation of roads open to ORV use must be in compliance with Executive Order (EO)
12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations. The EO states that when low-income or minority populations of the affected
area, or county, are greater than twice the state percentage for low-income or minority
populations, an environmental justice assessment must be conducted. In
State percentage is 17.4 percent for low-income populations and 11.0 percent for minority
populations. Conditions in Beltrami, Cass, and
Reservation meet these requirements.
The EO also requires the Forest Service to consider:
• Impacts of the proposed action to public health and whether or not impacts are present or
absent.
• Impacts of the proposed action to traditional hunting and gathering.
• Whether or not opportunities for public involvement in the proposed action are present or
absent.
The Forest Service considers potential impacts to public health from the proposed action to be
limited to road safety issues. Therefore, potential impacts to public health and safety will be
considered as part of the mixed-use analysis (highway-legal vehicles and off-road vehicles
traveling along the same roadway) and general topic of public road use safety.
Potential impacts of the proposed action to traditional hunting and gathering will be analyzed
spatially through a comparison of roads designated open within areas identified by Tribal
members as important traditional areas. Miles of roads open in identified traditional Tribal
hunting and gathering areas will be listed for each alternative.
Opportunities for public involvement, and the specific actions taken by Forest Service personnel
to involve Tribal and low income populations, are described earlier in this section (see Public
Involvement Opportunities for Tribal and Low Income Populations).
Issues Considered but Dropped from Further Analysis
Issue Dropped: Impacts of consolidating use on a smaller system
People expressed a concern that consolidating ORV use to a limited number of roads would lead
to negative impacts to road surfaces and create a need for increased maintenance. Many people
also believed that increased use on certain roads could create user safety problems through
Issues and Alternatives PR Number: 621-2
Date:
This is a controlled document: 5
The official version is located in the project record at the
increased traffic or increased interactions between highway-legal vehicles and ORVs. Some
people living along the proposed designated routes believed that consolidating use would lead to
increased noise and dust near their homes. Increased use on the designated routes could also lead
to increased impacts to natural resources along designated routes or within the surrounding
forested areas.
The Chippewa Forest Plan Monitoring Matrix (Table MON-4) includes two requirements that
relate to ORV use on the
annually) includes: To what extent is the
of the ORVs on the physical and social environment, and how effective are forest management
practices in managing ORV use. #5 Transportation System (completed every 1 to 5 years)
includes: To what extent is the
for administrative and public use.
There is currently not enough scientific evidence to analyze effects regarding consolidating ORV
use onto a smaller network of roads, hence the issue will be dropped from further analysis for this
project. However, because the
gather such information, CNF staff expect to able to address these concerns with Forest Plan
monitoring data and adapt management practices as appropriate in the future.
Issue Dropped: Keep specific roads open
Many people requested that a specific road remain open based on their personal recreation habits.
Forest Service staff made note of these comments and incorporated them into alternatives based
on the consistency of the request with addressing other significant issues in the alternative. An
alternative that only considers specific road requests was not brought forward for a complete
analysis.
Issue Dropped: Law enforcement costs
One of the factors that can contribute to resource damage from ORV use is people riding off of
designated routes illegally. Many people commented that the CNF does not have enough funding
to provide sufficient law enforcement to enforce people riding on legal routes and, as a
consequence, illegal riding and resource damage would occur.
Because law enforcement costs are not a spatial issue, an alternative is not provided specifically
to address this issue. However, an estimate for law enforcement costs is listed for each alternative
for the deciding official to consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment