BRC Action Alert - IDAHO'S OWYHEE FIELD OFFICE

[HummBebe]

KEY ISSUE #2:
THE "COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL PLAN" DILEMMA
A motorized travel plan is a plan that specifically designates roads, trails and areas for motorized use, designates which vehicles will be allowed on which routes and if seasonal restrictions apply. A comprehensive trail designation plan does the same thing except it includes all trail uses, including mountain bike, equestrian and hiking.
It is a very important distinction.
Why is this distinction so important? Well, the anti-access groups usually attempt to convince the planning team to develop a "comprehensive" travel plan by using only the existing inventory of motorized routes. They do this by identifying existing motorized trails that are good for mountain bikes, equestrians and for bird watching... or whatever.
This is a very bad scenario because it takes the current motorized route inventory and tries to make it THE route inventory for all users. It leaves out possibilities for constructing or otherwise developing non-motorized trails and sometimes totally ignores existing non-motorized trails that exist in both the planning area and adjacent lands.
Now, that doesn't mean the agency can't take into consideration the effect each alternative will have on non-motorized visitors. It can - and it should. That is part of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis. But that is totally different from specifically providing a non-motorized trail system via the existing inventory of motorized routes.
It should be noted that BRC supports the creation, designation and management of non-motorized trails. In fact, in many instances there is a need for the construction and development of mountain bike and equestrian trails. We often help non-motorized users submit comments asking specifically for new trails for their use. In fact, lots of times such suggestions make sense. BRC believes the agency should consider construction of mountain bike and equestrian trails whenever possible. But the agency must not develop a "comprehensive" recreational trail plan using only the existing motorized trail system.
Comment Suggestions:
* I support the creation, designation and management of non-motorized trails, but not at the expense of motorized visitors. I ask that the BLM not use the existing motorized trail inventory for designating non-motorized trails. Instead, if there is a need for non-motorized trails, the BLM should consider options that do not reduce the existing opportunity for motorized users.

KEY ISSUE #3:
ISSUE: CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OHV RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
If you are like many OHV enthusiasts, you have experienced recent closures in your favorite riding area. This is an important issue to bring up and could have an impact on the decision. Below are some comment suggestions to help if this issue applies to your area.
Indeed, a quick review of the Sawtooth and Payette National Forest indicates thousands of miles of road and trail closures are just around the corner.
The issue of "cumulative loss of OHV recreational opportunity" is a valid issue we must bring to the BLM for consideration in this process.
Comment Suggestions:
* The cumulative loss of recreational opportunity by OHV users in Idaho is a significant issue that should be incorporated into the analysis and into the decision making process.
* Motorized recreational opportunity has been, and continues to be, reduced throughout the region. Through the past several decades, there have been literally thousands of miles of roads and trails closed to motorized use in Idaho. More closures are planned for the immediate future.
For example:

• The Payette and Sawtooth National Forests are proposing significant reductions in current miles of roads, trails and areas for motorized vehicles.
• Many BLM Offices in Idaho will be formulating travel plans that will close roads, trails and areas for motorized use in the near future.
• Federal land managers in states adjacent to Idaho are contemplating significant closures via ongoing travel management plans.

This proposal must not continue the trend of eliminating opportunity for vehicle-based recreation.
* The cumulative loss of recreational opportunity for OHV users in the region has been significant and should be brought into the analysis and incorporated into the decision making process.
* The analysis should also include a brief but accurate description of the ongoing travel management planning projects on adjacent lands as well as other public lands in the region and estimate the cumulative impact of the Murphy Sub-Region travel plan to motorized users in context with all of the other closures.
* The planning team is encouraged to consider the cumulative loss of recreation as a planning issue.