nuclearlemon
Hard Core 4+
had to do this in multiples cause i got an error message stating i was long winded 
Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area
Travel Management Plan
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
USDA Forest Service
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland
Boulder Ranger District
Boulder County, Colorado
May 2006
Introduction
Location
The Lefthand Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area is located on north-east portion of the Boulder
Ranger District on the east side of the Continental Divide in Boulder County, Colorado in Township 2 North, Range 71 West, sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29 in the 6th Principal Meridian. The Lefthand OHV Area is located in the James Creek Geographic Area, as described in the 1997 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan pgs. 70 to 74).
Map 1: Location
Background
The Lefthand Canyon OHV Area has been a highly popular recreation area for off-highway-vehicle
enthusiasts for the past several decades in the Boulder area. Forest Service budgets and staffing levels have not been able to keep pace with this growing trend of use in Lefthand Canyon, and as a result, the majority of off-highway-vehicle activity has gone unmanaged. This has led to extreme resource damage, watershed degradation, motorized intrusion into a core habitat area designated by the Roosevelt National Forest as critical for wildlife, the creation of numerous user-created routes, user conflicts, trespass issues, and illegal parking and congestion in the State highway right-of-way. The Lefthand Canyon OHV Area needs to be managed to provide quality recreation experiences for users while avoiding resource damage, irresponsible and unsafe use, and trespass onto private lands. Impacts of concern include the disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife, degradation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, erosion and compaction of soils, and watershed health degradation. Designation and proper location of roads, trails and trail heads, in conjunction with law enforcement are the most effective ways of providing for quality recreational experiences, longterm resource protection, and protection of private land. In order to provide a variety of travel experiences within the capability of the resource, the Boulder Ranger District has proposed and analyzed a network of trails and roads and infrastructure improvements for continued, long-term use in the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area.
The purpose and objectives of this project are to:
Implement Forest Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 2, pages 70-74)
Motorized travel on 4WD routes and single track trails will be featured in the Lefthand
OHV area. Pursue the possibility of formally managing the area through a concession permit or
some other type of partnership. Designate an appropriate system of roads and single-track trails to meet management area objectives. This may include relocation of some roads and trails and closure of others to prevent damage to meadows, dry drainages, and riparian areas.
Consider the development of a trailhead with safe parking, area information, and sanitation.
Fairview Peak Core Area: Minimize recreational impacts on wildlife populations and ecosystems by discouraging additional recreational use. Protect natural resources while providing quality recreational experiences within the Lefthand OHV Area.
• Provide and maintain a sustainable and manageable road/trail system.
• Obtain required easements for access for administrative use and the public.
• Eliminate unclassified routes and cease the creation of more undesignated routes. Close any
user created routes on discovery.
• Restore impacts caused by motorized use.
• Decrease the spread of noxious weeds.
• Provide facilities/improvements that fit into the landscape.
• Decrease vandalism, partying, trashed out camping areas.
• Provide protection for the wildlife core habitat area at Fairview Peak.
• Increase/improve signage and install traffic control devices to keep people on route.
• Decrease trespass onto private land.
• Promote responsible use through education.
• Provide and maintain safe and adequate parking/staging areas.
Decision
Based upon my review of the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area Travel Management Plan
Environmental Assessment (EA), public comments on the EA, the responses to these comments, and
information contained in the project record, I have decided to implement Alternative B with
modifications. My decision is to implement the following:
Management Actions:
• Charge fees for use of the OHV area. Fees will be charged at the two entrance areas, or an
annual permit may be purchased at the office. The Forest Service will collect the fees. This
does not exclude the possibility of an external partnership to help formally manage the area.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private landowners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings.
• Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Eliminate connecting motorized/mechanized recreational uses to Fairview Peak and the core
habitat area. Close Fairview Peak to motorized and mechanized use and pursue administrative access only for enforcement purposes.
• Provide a rock crawl route that uses 286.1B to RC-A to 286.1D. Maintain 286.1D at a high
difficulty rating (though not as a rock crawl route exclusively) and provide rock crawl obstacles that users can bypass if they desire. Please see included map for locations.
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on Appendix A map in this document). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to accommodate
vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw north of the
main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see EA Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route.
Please see Appendix A to this document for a map of the decision.
Modification
This section describes the modifications made to Alternative B for this decision. The modifications are based on comments received during the 30-day public comment period on the EA and input from the project Interdisciplinary Team.
1. Add to the decision from Alternative C:
Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to
mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route provided access can legally be obtained or
access can be provided via re-routes around private property along 287.1.
Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or route U-at, both
will be available to the rider) to routes U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
2. Add to the decision from Alternative D:
Fires will only be allowed in designated fire-rings. 5 locations were identified for the placement of the fire-rings (please see Decision Map in Appendix A). They are:
1) Bottom of U-ag
2) 5-points 3) Intersection of U-BJ and 286.1D
4) Intersection of 286.1 and 286.1D
5) Intersection of 286.1A and east end of U-bp
• Provide toilet, trash, and information facilities at 5-points.
• Provide a Rock Crawl route using routes 286.1 to access the rock crawl route, to 286.1.D to
RC-B to U-bj. This will require that 286.1 be widened in order to accommodate traffic heading
to the rock crawl route. 286.1D will have rock crawl obstacles and bypasses around those
obstacles so that non-rock crawl off-highway-vehicles may also find opportunities along this
route.
Mitigation and Project Design
Effects of Alternative B with modifications, which I have selected, are addressed through project design and mitigation measures. These will be implemented as part of my decision.
Recreation:
1. All designated system routes will have difficulty ratings (per FSH 2309.18) and will be maintained at those ratings. These routes will be signed with route number and difficulty rating.
2. All designated system routes rating as “extreme” will be one-way routes for safety purposes.
3. All user-created routes created and/or discovered after this decision will be immediately closed.
4. Post and cable (or another type of traffic control device such as post and pole) will be added where needed (e.g. on a road or surrounding an area needing protection) after use patterns develop which are outside regulations.
5. Impacts from motorized use will be restored where needed within the designated system.
6. Obliterate access points on routes scheduled for closure.
7. Closed routes/areas will be rehabilitated to a natural state.
8. Barriers will be provided at single-track access points to prevent full size vehicles from entering those trails.
9. Fees will be structured to have negligible impacts on users and should not exclude people from using the area.
Scenery:
10. Ensure revegetation mimics color, distribution and texture of the natural ground cover and/or forest conditions.
11. Minimize site disturbance and unnatural contouring such as cut and fill slopes and linear features.
12. Buildings and structures should be low profile, located at transitions (the edge of clearings), simple compact forms, with foothills roof profile (per FS, BEIG 2001), clustered, not isolated.
13. Building materials should be native rock, wood and other natural materials when they are
available and practical to use. Substitute manufactured materials, such as synthetic rock, if they can achieve the appearance of natural materials.
14. Whenever possible building materials, including signage and traffic closure devices should blend in color and/or texture with the natural environment (such as integral colored concrete sidewalks).
15. In U-az and/or FS Road 286.1 at CR 94, use a combination of berms, vegetation, boulders and/or low rock retaining walls to buffer views of parking areas and/or rock crawl areas, and buildings as viewed from County Road 94.
16. In U-az, locate rock crawl area 150 to 200 feet from County Road 94.
17. Minimize signs throughout the development, and minimize unprimed galvanized sign backs and
signposts.
Water/Riparian:
18. All designated system routes in water (riparian areas) will be rerouted out of the riparian areas where possible.
19. Stream crossings will be improved (hardened or culvert or bridge – depending on need).
20. All designated system routes in wetlands will be rerouted out of the wetlands.
21. A 50 ft. buffer around streams will be protected in the design of facilities with the method that best fits the area.
22. Sediment control and pollution control for chemicals from vehicles will be designed and built where determined necessary (i.e. downslope from the rock crawl areas).
Wildlife:
23. Design rock crawling area RC-B on the ground to protect the effective habitat to the northeast, considering visual and noise impacts from this new activity. Confine use to the designed area with appropriate and effective barriers, especially keeping users from expanding to the northeast, onto and over the ridge.
24. During construction, staging areas for equipment must be in areas that are permanently affected, offsite, or that are outside Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat (300 feet from the 100- year floodplain or as determined by project biologist).
25. Restore at least 0.9 miles of potential Preble’s habitat in Carnage Canyon. Along with the 0.9 miles, 2.2 acres of Preble’s habitat will be restored as native shrubs, grasses and sedges are planted within the riparian corridor (20-foot wide corridor along 0.9 miles will equal 2.2 acres of restored habitat.)
26. Submit a report to USFWS describing the success of restoration efforts 3 years after the initial restoration of the 2.2 acres of habitat in Carnage Canyon. Pictures of the areas to be restored, both before and after restoration, will be included.
27. In the unlikely event that a Preble’s mouse (dead, injured, or hibernating) is located during construction, the Colorado Field Office of the Service (303) 275-2370 or the Service’s Law Enforcement Office (303) 274-3560 shall be contacted immediately. Plants and Weeds:
28. Treat invasive plants in areas where ground disturbance is planned, prior to the ground-disturbing activity, and continue monitoring and treatment after project implementation.
29. Require off-road equipment to be used in this construction project to be free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds, prior to entering National Forest System lands.
30. Require Forest Service approval of any seed mixes and additives used by contractors, partners, volunteers, etc.
31. Comply with FS Rocky Mountain Region Order No. R2-2005-01 requiring the use of certified
weed-free hay, hay cubes, straw, grain, or other forage or mulch product. Use certified weed-free straw instead of hay for mulch, erosion control, etc. to minimize risk of introduction of noxious weeds and minimize germination of the grass species comprising the straw.
32. Purchase only “Certified Seed” (blue tagged) or “Source Identified Seed (yellow tagged) (ARP Forest Re-vegetation Policy, September 2001). Require independent testing of seed purchased for re-vegetation for presence of noxious weeds as follows: Test purchased seed for “all States noxious weeds” according to the Association of Official Seed Analysts standards, certified in writing by a Registered Seed Technologist or Seed Analyst as meeting the requirements of the Federal Seed Act and the appropriate State Seed Law regarding testing, labeling, sale and transport of Prohibited and Restricted noxious weeds. Include seed labels in the project file.
33. If populations of any Forest Service sensitive plant species are found, they will be documented and evaluated by the project botanist. Adjustments will be made to the project if needed. If populations are found for which anticipated project impacts would change the determination of impacts made in Section V of this report, the determination will be revisited and appropriate additional documentation will be prepared and /or project activities will be adjusted.
34. As per Forest Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 1997), if previously-undetected fens,
wetlands, or wet meadows are encountered within the project area, consultation with a botanist or hydrologist will occur to avoid and minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitat.
35. The project botanist will consult on restoration or rehabilitation projects resulting from this analysis.
Project Monitoring
Monitoring:
• Monitor compliance for users staying on route. Non-compliance will result in area closures or
the installation of traffic control devices such as post and cable (or others).
• Monitor for effectiveness of closures.
• Monitor route through Castle Gulch. Should route become degraded, or repeated trespass on
private land occur, the route will be closed to the public.
• Monitoring will be conducted during and immediately following project implementation to
determine if proposed design criteria, mitgation measures, and watershed conservation
practices were implemented. Effectiveness monitoring will also be conducted twice a year to
determine whether design criteria, mitgation measures, and watershed conservation practices
were effective in protecting soil, water, and aquatic resources.
• Monitoring to evaluate the effects of treatment will be conducted by the project botanist for: noxious weed establishment and spread, riparian areas, aspen stands, and known
occurrences of Larimer aletes. Results may be used as the basis to modify project design in
the future.
• Monitor restored areas at least twice annually to ensure successful establishment of
vegetation and assess drainage concerns. Take corrective action if needed. Corrective action
could range from recontouring, erosion control, and revegetation. Monitoring will continue as
long as the area is managed for OHV use.
• Monitor the extent of Preble’s habitat affected to ensure that it does not exceed the area
authorized in the December 1, 2005 Biological Opinion from the USFWS (1,800 square feet).
Rationale for the Decision
I have made this decision after careful consideration of the environmental analysis of the effects of the four alternatives, Alternatives A, B, C and D. My decision meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), responds to the purpose and need for this project described in Chapter 1 of the EA, and addresses the issues identified during the planning process and comments received from the public during scoping and the public comment period. I have made this decision based on the rationale described below.
I first considered whether the proposed activities would achieve and comply with the Forest Plan general direction and then looked at the desired conditions and specific standards and guidelines in the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area (Forest Plan, pp. 71-74). (These examples are not a complete list and are used for illustration only)
Some of the specific goals and desired conditions listed are (p. 73): Motorized travel on 4WD routes and single track trails will be featured in the Lefthand OHV area.
Pursue the possibility of formally managing the area through a concession permit or
some other type of partnership. Designate an appropriate system of roads and single-track trails to meet management area objectives. This may include relocation of some roads and trails and closure of others to prevent damage to meadows, dry drainages, and riparian areas.
Consider the development of a trailhead with safe parking, area information, and sanitation.
Fairview Peak Core Area: Minimize recreational impacts on wildlife populations and
ecosystems by discouraging additional recreational use. Alternative B with modifications best meets Forest Plan and James Creek Geographical Management Plan direction for the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. The No Action Alternative, Alternative C and Alternative D meet some of this direction, but not to the extent that Alternative B with modifications does. Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) does not meet this direction. Secondly, I considered which of the alternatives would best meet the purpose and need of the project (EA, pages 3 and 4). It was especially important to me to ensure that the project objectives were met.
These include: Implement Forest Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 2, pages 70-74) as decribed in the paragrah above.
• Provide and maintain a sustainable and manageable road/trail system.
• Obtain required easements for access for administrative use and the public. • Eliminate unclassified routes and cease the creation of more undesignated routes. Close any user created routes on discovery.
• Restore impacts caused by motorized use.
• Decrease the spread of noxious weeds.
• Provide facilities/improvements that fit into the landscape.
• Decrease vandalism, partying, trashed out camping areas.
• Provide protection for the wildlife core habitat area at Fairview Peak.
• Increase/improve signage and install traffic control devices to keep people on route.
• Decrease trespass onto private land.
• Promote responsible use through education.
• Provide and maintain safe and adequate parking/staging areas.
I am not selecting the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), because is does not fully meet the purpose and need. Maintaining the status quo as Alternative A does, is not in keeping with the mission of the Forest Service nor does it meet Forest Plan direction for the Lefthand Canyon Off- Highway Vehicle Area as described in the James Creek Geographical Area. In addition, Alternative A is not in the best interest of the public which uses the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. This is because increasing Front Range populations are expected to bring additional visitors to the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area and the Forest Service is responding, within the capacity of the area, by improving the recreation experience by adding facilities, developing a high quality, sustainable road and trail system, and enforcing regulations, which will mitigate the expected increased visitation. When compared to the other action alternatives (C and D), Alternative B with modifications will best
meet the stated objectives by proactively protecting natural resources while providing a quality recreation experience and enhancing visitor safety. The Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area will best be enhanced through Alternative B with modifications by establishing a sustainable road and trail network, providing a designed rock crawl course, providing protection from wildfires through campfire restrictions, providing staging areas and facilities throughout the Off-Highway-Vehicle Area including 5-Points, providing resource protection by prohibiting off route travel, closing unauthorized routes, and by repairing resource damage through restoration. In addition, visitor safety would be enhanced under this decision by providing visitor maps, education, and by establishing route difficulty ratings and vehicle right-of-way procedures. Trespass issues are also best addressed under Alternative B with modifications by the closure of access to Fairview Peak and by pursuing easements both for visitors and private landowners within the plans project area boundaries. Conflicts between
users and neighbors will be reduced by the dusk to dawn closure of the area. No motorized or mechanized access to the Fairview Peak area is included in this decision because legal public access to the area is not likely to be granted by the neighbors and the cost of building/rerouting a road/trail around the private lands is prohibitive from a dollar and environmental effects perspective. A further reason behind not including this area for this use is that some motorized singletrack incursion is already currently incurring into the core habitat area to the north of Fairview Peak despite the difficulty of reaching the area. The open character of the landscape in that area makes a ‘defensible boundary’ extremely difficult at best. Allowing Fairview to be open to motorized and mechanized use would be extremely difficult to enforce and would drain resources from the management of the entire OHV area.
I reviewed the EA site-specific analysis that was completed for the project area by resource area and issues raised by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team and by the public and feel there has been sufficient site specific environmental analysis completed on each of the alternatives. Other Alternatives considered For this analysis I considered three other alternatives, Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, and Alternatives C and D. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages 16-23. Alternative A: No Action (EA, pp.8)
Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, the current management of the Lefthand Off-Highway- Vehicle (OHV) would remain unchanged, which would leave the project area in its present condition. Present trends would continue and the area would experience the impacts created by future unmanaged recreation use in the OHV area. This alternative represented the existing condition of the project area and was used as a baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. This alternative complied with 40 CFR 1502.14 (d), which requires that a no action alternative be included in the analysis. Alternative C This alternative was a modification of Alternative B and responded to public comment: to provide access to Fairview Peak, to not be charged a fee, to add mileage to the single-track trail network, not to provide a rock crawl route, to re-route the northern portion of 287.1 (Castle Gulch) and not to allow
campfires. Actions proposed in Alternative C include:
Management Actions:
• No open fires or campfires at any time. Fires will be permitted in gas stoves only.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private land owners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings.
• Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where
needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Provide motorized single-track access to Fairview Peak using routes 281, 281.A and U-bx.
This will then form a loop with U-bx and 285.1. This alternative will require that a new singletrack route be constructed to connect 281.A to U-bx in order to bypass private land (please see map of Alternative C for an illustration of this new connector). All other routes in the Fairview Peak area will be closed. Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route.
Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or U-at, both will be available to the rider) to U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on maps for all action alternatives B, C and D). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to
accommodate vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw
north of the main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route.
Alternative D
This alternative was a modification of Alternative B and responded to public comment: to add mileage to the single-track trail network, to re-route the northern portion of 287.1 (Castle Gulch) and decrease potential fire danger caused by recreationists.
Actions proposed in Alternative D include:
Management Actions:
Fires will only be allowed in designated fire-rings. 5 locations were identified for the placement of the fire-rings (please see alternative D Map). They are:
1) Bottom of U-AG
2) 5-points
3) Intersection of U-BJ and 286.1D
4) Intersection of 286.1 and 286.1D
5) Intersection of 286.1A and east end of U-BP
• Charge fees for use of the OHV area. Fees will be charged at the two entrance areas, or an
annual permit may be purchased at the office. The Forest Service will collect the fees, this
does not exclude the possibility of an external partnership to help formally manage the area.
• Provide toilet, trash, and information facilities at 5-points.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private land owners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings. • Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where
needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Eliminate connecting motorized/mechanized recreational uses to Fairview Peak and the core
habitat area. Close Fairview Peak to motorized and mechanized use and pursue
administrative access only for enforcement purposes.
• Provide a Rock Crawl route using routes 286.1 to access the rock crawl route, to 286.1.D to
RC-B to U-bj. This will require that 286.1 be widened in order to accommodate traffic heading
to the rock crawl route. 286.1D will have rock crawl obstacles and bypasses around those
obstacles so that non-rock crawl off-highway-vehicles may also find opportunities along this
route.
• Widen 286.1 for two- way traffic to accommodate for increased traffic to the rock crawl route.
• Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or U-at, both will be available to the rider) to U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
• Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route.
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on maps for all action alternatives B, C and D). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to
accommodate vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw
north of the main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route. Other alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were not studied in detail. They
were dropped from further analysis because they did not meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives and reasons for their elimination are described in the EA on pages 15.
Public Involvement
On July 12, 2004 a scoping letter was mailed to over 250 people, organizations, and local
governments. The purpose of this letter was to inform the public that the Boulder Ranger District was beginning the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area travel management planning process and that the District was asking for issues that people were experiencing with the area. Three public meetings were also held, July 26, 29, and August 4, 2004, to ascertain the same information.
On January 21, 2005 a second scoping letter was mailed to over 350 people, organizations, and local governments. With the comments from the July 12, 2004 scoping letter and meetings, the
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Plan constructed six alternate themes to resolve the issues heard by the public. This scoping letter asked for input on those themes and for input on what the public would like to see in the Lefthand Canyon OHV planning area to resolve the issues. Two public meetings were also conducted, February 12 and 15, 2005 to collect the same input.
On April 4, 2005, a third scoping letter went out to over 125 members of the public who had
expressed the desire to stay involved in the process after the January 21, 2005 scoping letter. From the comments on the themes, the IDT built the proposed action. This letter asked for concerns, issues, or opportunities specific to the proposed action. This was also the 30- day scoping period on the proposed action. The input received during all these periods were used to develop the alternatives. Using the comments from individuals, organizations, and other agencies my interdisciplinary team of resource specialists identified several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action. Main issues of concern described in the EA on pages 5-6 included:
1. Fairview Peak
• There is no access to Fairview Peak for motorized or mechanized vehicles
2. Fees
• Charge fees only if money collected goes back into the site and Forest Service manages the
OHV area.
• Fees should not be charged at all
• Forest Service should be held accountable to the public for how fees will be spent in the OHV
area.
3. Total mileage of road and trail network
• Do not reduce mileage of the road and trail network from what is currently available.
• Too much is being closed in the proposed action, especially single-track
• There are no connectors to outside the system.
• Keep U-bc, U-aa and Uay – they provide a valuable single track experience. U-bc, 836.1,
268.1 and U-bi should be routes in the system and signed one-way. U-bi should be included
and switch backs added. These are valuable single track trails.
• Please keep 845.1 open to hikers and mountain bikes. Loss of fees would be minimal if this
access point were opened from outside the fee area and the trail is sustainable. Its a nice trail for hikers 4. Rock Crawl Routes
• No rock Crawl routes in order to protect environment.
• Don’t put a new rock crawl route in if goes through undisturbed areas.
• There are scenery management issues with building a rock crawl area.
5. Safety Issues with proposed system of roads and trails
• Having two way traffic and different modes of travel on one route promotes safety concerns
and user conflict.
6. Congestion
• The proposed rock crawl route RC-A will promote congestion by requiring vehicles to stage in
a small area at the proposed staging area and entrance to the rock crawl route off of Lefthand
Canyon Road.
7. Wildfire caused by recreationists in the Lefthand Canyon OVH Area.
• No campfires, open fires, or smoking should be allowed.
8. Castle Gulch Access
• Castle Gulch should be Administrative use only given the private land issues.
• There are resource damage issues at the northern end of Castle Gulch (the part of 287.1
that runs east to west). The road needs to be re-routed.
9. Environmental
• Water Quality in the watershed located in the project area is below standard per Forest
Service and Federal guidelines
• Erosion and sediment from soil compaction is contributing to poor water quality as described
above
• Toxic Metals in water may be contributing to poor water quality
• Riparian areas are being destroyed
• Fish Habitat is being negatively impacted from inappropriate vehicle use and poor water
quality
• Wildlife
- Habitat needs to be protected (loss of soil and vegetation)
- Fairview Peak is an identified wildlife corridor that has been intruded upon
• Vegetation loss due to compaction from people driving off route
10. Public Access
• Easements across private land will be needed
11. Scenic Quality
• Addition of the rock crawl routes may reduce scenic integrity of the site
To address these concerns, the Forest Service created the alternatives described above and also
found in Chapter 2 of the EA. These alternatives were analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.
The official 30-day comment period began the day after publication of a legal notice in the Boulder Daily Camera on August 2, 2005. At the same time, the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment was mailed to 102 individuals, businesses, and organizations that either responded to the Proposed Action scoping letter or expressed an interest in being notified about the project. 282 responses were received within the 30-day period. An additional 19 responses were received after the deadline. The public comments received on the project are summarized and included in Appendix B of this Decision Notice.
Other Disclosures
Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or for the proposed action result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Interagency cooperation between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding proposed, threatened, or endangered species is described in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Definitions relating to “consultation” and “conference” are given in FSM supplement 2600-90-6. An updated list of Federally Listed and Candidate Species for Colorado was received from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Colorado Field Office; Lakewood, Colorado dated August 22, 2003. The letter and list are on file in the project analysis file. The species list was used as a basis for the analysis of threatened, endangered, and proposed species for this project.
Potential effects from the proposed project to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and to the
Mexican spotted owl were addressed through formal consultation and concurrence was received on
December 1, 2005 for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and on April 5, 2006 for the Mexican
spotted owl. The biological assessment, opinion and supporting documentation are on file in the
project analysis file. Therefore, consultation has been completed for this proposed project
Effects of Alternatives on Social Groups There would be no overall differences between alternatives in effects on minorities, Native American Indians, women, or the civil liberties of any American citizen.
Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands
There are minor floodplains associated with Left Hand Creek and it’s tributaries in the project area. These areas should not experience any significant adverse effects from management activities. The floodplains within the project area would not receive measurable impact by upstream influences. The action items of closing roads in stream channels or improving creek crossings or hardening roads where needed would reduce or eliminate current impacts to floodplains and wetlands in the project area. Management activities designed to protect these resources conform to the federal regulations for floodplains (Executive Order 11900) and wetlands (Executive Order 11990).
Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives
The energy required to implement the alternatives in terms of petroleum products would be
insignificant when viewed in light of the production costs and effects of the national and worldwide petroleum reserves.
Effects of Alternatives on Prime Rangeland, Forest Land, and Farm Land
The alternatives presented are in compliance with Federal Regulations for prime lands. The definition of prime forestland does not apply to lands within the National Forests. The project area contains no prime farmlands or rangelands. In all alternatives, Federal lands would be managed with the appropriate consideration to the effects on adjacent lands.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations directs federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment (E.O. 12898 and Departmental Regulation 5600-2). None of the action alternatives would have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil rights of any United States citizen. No alternative would result in a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low-income individuals.
Roads Analysis
Any project decision signed after January 12, 2002, that involves road construction or reconstruction including temporary roads, must have a completed Roads Analysis. A Roads Analysis has been completed for the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Travel Management Plan and is located in the project analysis file.
Finding of No Significant Impact
After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:
1. Context and Intensity
This project is located at a very popular recreation area for off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts, which has been in use for the past several decades. Visitors, largely, are from the Front Range cities of Colorado, though some do visit the area from other states. This project is designed to improve visitors’ recreation experience and minimize any environmental impacts to the area. No significant effects on local regional or national resources were identified in the EA.
Project design and mitigation measures will keep project impacts below the level of significance. Forest Service representatives will regularly inspect project operations to assure conformance with the terms of the EA, the Forest Plan and appropriate State and Federal laws. Specialists who participated in analysis of this proposal will be involved with design and on-site layout of the road and trail system, rock crawl routes, and of the facilities/staging areas to assure that design criteria/mitigation requirements described
in the EA and included in my decision are met. In addition, this project is within the scale and context of current development and recreation management activities within the Lefthand Canon Off-Highway- Vehicle Area. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record. The impacts are within the range of those identified in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. Alternative B and modifications will not have significant impacts on resources identified in the EA. After careful consideration of the EA, the project record, and in documented consultation with resource specialists, it is my finding that the effects of these projects are not significant. My finding that the impacts are not significant is not biased by the beneficial impacts described in the analysis.
2. Public Health and Safety
Proposed activities will not significantly affect public health and safety due to the mitigations/project design included with this decision and from experience implementing and monitoring similar projects. A goal of the project is to provide a quality and safe recreation experience for visitors.
3. Unique Characteristics of the Area
This project is located within Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. The project will not
adversely affect unique characteristics of this Off-Highway-Vehicle area such as historic or cultural resources, wetlands, or ecologically critical areas. My determination is based on the discussion of effects found in the EA, Chapter 3. There are no parklands, prime lands (forest, farm or range), historic or cultural properties, roadless areas, or wild and scenic rivers associated with the project area. By adhering to the project’s construction standards and design criteria/mitigations, impacts to watersheds, wetlands, environmentally sensitive or critical areas and wilderness and roadless values will not be significant.
4. Controversy
The activities described in Alternative B with modifications do not involve effects on the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR 1508.27). Public comment regarding this project focused primarily on the motorized recreation experience, access issues, fees, wildfire, improving visitor safety, protecting the visual quality, and protecting wildlife and other natural resources. These concerns were addressed during alternative development, are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and are also addressed through project design criteria/mitigation. I find the effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are unlikely to involve unique or unknown risks and are not likely to be highly controversial and are, therefore, not significant.
5. Uncertainty
The activities described in my decision will not involve effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR 1580.27). Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis process and the technical analyses conducted for determinations on the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques, reliable data and professional judgment. Impacts are within limits that are considered thresholds of concern. Issues of public concern and possible environmental effects of the selected alternative have been adequately addressed in the analysis of this decision. Therefore, I conclude that there are no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks.
6. Precedent
My decision to implement the activities included in Alternative B with modifications does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. I have made this decision based on the overall consistency of the proposed activities with Forest Plan standards, guidelines and management practices, and the capabilities of the land.
7. Cumulative Impacts
The EA includes all connected, cumulative and similar actions in the scope of the analysis. The
cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered and disclosed in the EA, Chapter 3, and there are no significant cumulative effects.
8. Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
One archaeological site was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (5BL375, the Burn Cabin) however the site is located on a private in-holding in the analysis area and lies outside the area of potential effect. No other sites found within the project area are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Heritage resource specialists based this determination on a Class I literature review of the proposed project and 21 acres were surveyed for cultural resources in the project area of potential effect. Forest Service archaeologists documented a determination of no historic properties affected for this project. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has concurred on this finding. The clearance letter from SHPO and the cultural resource specialist report are included in the project file. Should an unknown cultural resource site be discovered during project implementation, it will be protected under the requirements of Federal law.
9. Endangered or Threatened Species or Their Critical Habitat
The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat (Endangered Species Act of 1973). The Forest Service Biological Assessment dated August 1, 2005 resulted in a determination of effects for implementation of Alternative B of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” for the Mexican spotted owl and “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. No critical habitat for either species occurs in the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Biological Opinion on December 1, 2005, concurring with the determination for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and containing additional required terms and conditions. Implementing these terms and conditions as part of the proposed project will minimize impacts of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action, thereby avoiding jeopardy to the mouse. On April 5, 2006 the FWS issued a letter concurring with the determination for the Mexican spotted owl. No endangered or threatened plant species or their habitats are present in the project area.
10. Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection
The action will not violate Federal, or applicable State and local laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. The action is consistent with the 1997 Revised Forest Plan as required by the National Forest Management Act.
Implementation Date
Implementation of this project will not occur for a minimum of 50 days (45 day appeal period and 5 day stay if no appeal is received) following publication of the legal notice of this decision in the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder, Colorado. If an appeal is filed, implementation will not occur for a minimum of 15 days following disposition of the appeal. If multiple appeals are filed, the disposition date of the last appeal will control the implementation date.
Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities
My decision to implement Alternative B with modifications is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Any written notice of appeal must be consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, Content of an Appeal, including the reasons for the appeal (see below). An appeal may be filed by any person who, or any non-Federal organization or entity that has provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in this Proposed Action by the close of the comment period. Any appeal must be filed with the:
USDA, Forest Service, Region 2
Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer
C/O Appeal Reviewing Officer
P.O. Box 25127
Lakewood, CO 80225-25127
If you fax an appeal, please include a cover page stating how many pages you are faxing.
Fax: 303-275-5134
Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us
It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. An appeal submitted to the Appeal Deciding Officer becomes part of the appeal record. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following (§ 215.14):
(1) Appellant’s name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available;
(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);
(3) When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§ 215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;
(4) The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;
(5) The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d));
(6) Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes;
(7) Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the
disagreement;
(8) Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive comments; and
(9) How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy.
Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 will be dismissed.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.9(a), if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day from the close of the appeal-filing period. All appeals must be filed within 45 days of the date that the legal notice appears in the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder, Colorado.
Contact
For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact:
Cat Luna, Project Leader, Boulder Ranger District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and
Pawnee National Grassland, 2140 Yarmouth Avenue, Boulder, CO 80301 or telephone at (303) 541-
2500.
__/s/ Christine M Walsh _______________________ ____5/31/06___________
CHRISTINE M. WALSH DATE
District Ranger
Boulder Ranger District
Response to Public Comments
Comment Topic 1: Alternatives
1) I would also like to know where these alternatives came about and what the thinking is
behind closing these types of areas instead of coming up with solutions to keep them open or
even opening new areas as alternatives. 282
Response: The alternatives are issue driven as required by NEPA. The Ea analyzes a reasonable
range of alternatives (solutions) that address the Purpose and Need, key issues and is responsive to the needs of the motorized community, local landowners, and the general public. Please refer to the EA to better understand the issues, actions under each alternative and details about environmental consequences for reasoning of how each alternative addresses the issues. Refer to other related responses in this section for additional clarification.
2) The action alternatives play good guy/bad guy against the users and pit user against user.
The effect of splitting available opportunities between different alternatives inevitably splits the user community into competing factions thereby diluting the effect of citizen response to the EA. This is unethical and maybe illegal as it contravenes the intent of the NEPA. 232
Response: The action alternatives are intended to reduce user conflict while balancing motorized use opportunity with adequate resource protection. Design/mitigation and monitoring measures were developed to ease potential environmental impacts and user conflicts the various alternatives may cause. Refer to EA Section 2.2, Design/mitigation and Monitoring Measures, pages 12-15.
3) None of the alternatives differ substantially in terms of miles of route opportunity provided. None of the alternatives allow any substantial new route construction. All alternatives result in the closure of the majority of the current routes. NEPA requires that an agency consider an alternative that addresses unresolved conflicts. None of the alternatives does this. Instead the EA considers no change versus three alternatives that are all but indistinguishable as to the areas and road/ trail segments that would be closed. This does not resolve the resource conflicts but simply substitutes one set of conflicts for another. 226, 280, 296
Response: Each action alternative maximizes motorized use opportunities given limited viable
biophysical resources, parameters for reasonable sustainability, user conflict and many other factors. The Lefthand Canyon Off-highway Vehicle Area Roads Analysis Report -2005 (In Project Record)) identifies opportunities and priorities for developing the Lefthand OHV Area transportation system. The Road Analysis used a variety of risk indicators to help understand/assess the roads/trails in the area and provides recommendations to achieve plan objectives. The difference and effectiveness of each action alternative is a direct result of using these recommendations, engaging in constant public involvement and following detailed requirements of NEPA.
4) The alternatives offered by the USFS are absolutely unacceptable. 124,135,145, 226, 274,
291
Response: Alternatives B, C, and D are reasonable, issue driven by public input, and address the Purpose and Need identified for this project level EA. The No Action Alternative was also considered as required by NEPA. Each alternative was developed utilizing valuable input derived during various forums of public involvement. Please refer to related responses to comments in this section for additional clarification.
5) I would like to request that you choose to adopt Alternative C. This alternative would be a
better solution for me and motorcyclists. It would also result in less impact on the
environment since single tracks don't take as much space and won't erode as easily. This also
would provide valuable access to Fairview Peak I like the loops that would be added, making
form some great riding. I believe Alternative C would be the best choice for this area and
would appreciate your consideration. 63
Response: Alternative C was considered along with Alternatives a, B, and D with regards to meeting the purpose and need and public input.
6) I am frustrated by the fact Alternative C does not include a fee scheme. I fully support fees to help manage such an area. The list of pros and cons for Alternative C shows that it not only provides numerous recreational opportunities and does a good job of protecting plant and
wildlife habitat. The biggest draw back is no fee. Why not make an Alternative C with fees?
Such an option would serve all the interested parties in this area much better. 52
Response: All alternatives were considered with regards to meeting the purpose and need and
public input. The decision does include charging fees at the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area. Please
refer to the Decision Notice for details.
7) I support the recommendations proposed in the Lefthand Canyon OHV Alternative D Travel
Management Plan. Boulder County is concerned that OHV use would negatively impact the
closed and protected areas of parks and open space. Heil Valley Ranch in particular will
benefit by not having OHV use in the Fairview Peak area. Alternative D is balanced and
protects critical wildlife areas and concentrates OHV use in appropriate areas. 6
Response: Each of the action alternatives in the EA consider the affects OHV use would have within and adjacent to the planning area. Your concerns have been considered and will be addressed no matter which alternative or set of actions is determined to most effectively manage use in the vicinity of Fairview Peak. Effectiveness monitoring will ensure compliance with applicable use regulations, while protecting natural resources/critical wildlife habitat.
8) Alternative D offers even better resource protection, so I would advocate for that if the agency can swing it. 9
Response: Alternative D is reasonable and compliments the spectrum of alternatives identified in the EA. Please refer to number 7 above for additional information.
9) The only acceptable alternative in this EA is Alternative A. This is not because Alternative A is desirable but because Alternatives B, C, D are much less desirable than Alternative A.
There is no need for a decision on travel management of this area that is so pressing that users must settle for a bad action alternative. Therefore, I support Alternative A for as long as it takes to generate a truly good and useful action alternative to supplant those offered in this EA. 232, 247, 249, 252, 254, 256, 259, 266, 271, 274, 275, 277, 280, 281,292, 293, 258, 296, 297, 298, 300
Response: To be proactive in recreation management while protecting natural resources, it is necessary to plan for and manage the Lefthand OHV Area. The purpose and objectives are to implement Forest Plan direction and resolve long-standing issues plaguing the area. A reasonable range of alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were developed and analyzed as required by NEPA based on the Purpose and Need and issues received during public scoping. The action alternatives are reasonable, while the No Action Alternative reflects an unacceptable existing situation. Please refer to related comment responses in this section for additional clarification.
10) Plan A (no action): I have noticed that 4x4 activity requires more trail/road maintenance, especially when steep grades are involved. LHC gets a lot of 4x4 traffic and the effects are obvious and need attention. 167
Response: We agree that increased use coupled with steep and oftentimes very challenging motorized opportunities requires additional road/trail maintenance and the need for specialized related services. Reference to these issues can be found throughout the EA.
11) We respectfully ask that all of our comments and information be used to justify motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities in the project area and to counter any opposition to those opportunities. The following is a checklist of issues that affect motorized recreationists and define the current management situation. This checklist is provided with
the request that it be used to develop, select, and defend a reasonable multi-use alternative. 217
Response: The 103 page document is clearly not specific to the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Travel Management Plan EA. Examples of why the Forest Service believes the 103 page document is not specific to this project include but are not limited to (this list is for illustrative purposes only and is not complete): “We respectfully ask that the selected action for the Butte RMP Travel Plan Project be structured to produce this end result by implementing the comments provided”. “The concept of area closure is not consistent with Forest Service regulations as established by appeals to the Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Plan”. “Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) is focused and managed as a fish and wildlife management agency. We request that MDFWP actively promote OHV recreation and OHV tourism. We also request that MDFWP increase the level of OHV management to a level that addresses the needs of motorized recreationists, enthusiastically promote OHV recreation opportunities and enthusiastically develop OHV tourism”. “"Special designations" should be deleted from the proposed alternative”. (The alternatives in the Lefthand Plan do not identify any “special designations”) “The process used puts the average working class citizen at a great disadvantage. The process is inordinately confusing, cumbersome and intimidating to the members of the public who are not organized or experienced which is the majority of the public. The process is inordinately demanding of participation and has unreasonable expectations for the involvement of individuals and families. A 300-page draft EIS and finally a 300+page final EIS is too much for the general public to understand and participate in”. (This is an EA and not an EIS) “The prevailing trend of the past 35+/- years has been to close motorized recreation and access opportunities and not create any new ones. Additionally, roads or trails closed to motorized access are seldom, if ever, re-opened. The underlying objective of the BLM and Forest Service has been to restrict the public to a few major roads within public lands. We request that the cumulative negative effect of these policies be thoroughly evaluated so that a reasonable travel management decision is made”.
(Not site specific to this EA) “We request that the significant impact from all cumulative statewide motorized closures on all of these visitors must be included in the environmental document. A statewide analysis is required because cumulative negative effects are forcing all motorized visitors to travel farther and farther to fewer and fewer places to find motorized access and recreation opportunities”. (Not site specific to this EA) Only comments specifically referencing the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area travel Management Plan EA project by name will be addressed in this Response to Comments and will be addressed in their appropriate sections. The remaining comments will not be addressed because they are not site specific to this project, and it cannot be discerned whether the comment refers to this project or the Butte RMP Plan, Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Plan, or some other project.
Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area
Travel Management Plan
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
USDA Forest Service
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland
Boulder Ranger District
Boulder County, Colorado
May 2006
Introduction
Location
The Lefthand Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area is located on north-east portion of the Boulder
Ranger District on the east side of the Continental Divide in Boulder County, Colorado in Township 2 North, Range 71 West, sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29 in the 6th Principal Meridian. The Lefthand OHV Area is located in the James Creek Geographic Area, as described in the 1997 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan pgs. 70 to 74).
Map 1: Location
Background
The Lefthand Canyon OHV Area has been a highly popular recreation area for off-highway-vehicle
enthusiasts for the past several decades in the Boulder area. Forest Service budgets and staffing levels have not been able to keep pace with this growing trend of use in Lefthand Canyon, and as a result, the majority of off-highway-vehicle activity has gone unmanaged. This has led to extreme resource damage, watershed degradation, motorized intrusion into a core habitat area designated by the Roosevelt National Forest as critical for wildlife, the creation of numerous user-created routes, user conflicts, trespass issues, and illegal parking and congestion in the State highway right-of-way. The Lefthand Canyon OHV Area needs to be managed to provide quality recreation experiences for users while avoiding resource damage, irresponsible and unsafe use, and trespass onto private lands. Impacts of concern include the disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife, degradation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, erosion and compaction of soils, and watershed health degradation. Designation and proper location of roads, trails and trail heads, in conjunction with law enforcement are the most effective ways of providing for quality recreational experiences, longterm resource protection, and protection of private land. In order to provide a variety of travel experiences within the capability of the resource, the Boulder Ranger District has proposed and analyzed a network of trails and roads and infrastructure improvements for continued, long-term use in the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area.
The purpose and objectives of this project are to:
Implement Forest Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 2, pages 70-74)
Motorized travel on 4WD routes and single track trails will be featured in the Lefthand
OHV area. Pursue the possibility of formally managing the area through a concession permit or
some other type of partnership. Designate an appropriate system of roads and single-track trails to meet management area objectives. This may include relocation of some roads and trails and closure of others to prevent damage to meadows, dry drainages, and riparian areas.
Consider the development of a trailhead with safe parking, area information, and sanitation.
Fairview Peak Core Area: Minimize recreational impacts on wildlife populations and ecosystems by discouraging additional recreational use. Protect natural resources while providing quality recreational experiences within the Lefthand OHV Area.
• Provide and maintain a sustainable and manageable road/trail system.
• Obtain required easements for access for administrative use and the public.
• Eliminate unclassified routes and cease the creation of more undesignated routes. Close any
user created routes on discovery.
• Restore impacts caused by motorized use.
• Decrease the spread of noxious weeds.
• Provide facilities/improvements that fit into the landscape.
• Decrease vandalism, partying, trashed out camping areas.
• Provide protection for the wildlife core habitat area at Fairview Peak.
• Increase/improve signage and install traffic control devices to keep people on route.
• Decrease trespass onto private land.
• Promote responsible use through education.
• Provide and maintain safe and adequate parking/staging areas.
Decision
Based upon my review of the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area Travel Management Plan
Environmental Assessment (EA), public comments on the EA, the responses to these comments, and
information contained in the project record, I have decided to implement Alternative B with
modifications. My decision is to implement the following:
Management Actions:
• Charge fees for use of the OHV area. Fees will be charged at the two entrance areas, or an
annual permit may be purchased at the office. The Forest Service will collect the fees. This
does not exclude the possibility of an external partnership to help formally manage the area.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private landowners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings.
• Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Eliminate connecting motorized/mechanized recreational uses to Fairview Peak and the core
habitat area. Close Fairview Peak to motorized and mechanized use and pursue administrative access only for enforcement purposes.
• Provide a rock crawl route that uses 286.1B to RC-A to 286.1D. Maintain 286.1D at a high
difficulty rating (though not as a rock crawl route exclusively) and provide rock crawl obstacles that users can bypass if they desire. Please see included map for locations.
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on Appendix A map in this document). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to accommodate
vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw north of the
main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see EA Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route.
Please see Appendix A to this document for a map of the decision.
Modification
This section describes the modifications made to Alternative B for this decision. The modifications are based on comments received during the 30-day public comment period on the EA and input from the project Interdisciplinary Team.
1. Add to the decision from Alternative C:
Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to
mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route provided access can legally be obtained or
access can be provided via re-routes around private property along 287.1.
Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or route U-at, both
will be available to the rider) to routes U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
2. Add to the decision from Alternative D:
Fires will only be allowed in designated fire-rings. 5 locations were identified for the placement of the fire-rings (please see Decision Map in Appendix A). They are:
1) Bottom of U-ag
2) 5-points 3) Intersection of U-BJ and 286.1D
4) Intersection of 286.1 and 286.1D
5) Intersection of 286.1A and east end of U-bp
• Provide toilet, trash, and information facilities at 5-points.
• Provide a Rock Crawl route using routes 286.1 to access the rock crawl route, to 286.1.D to
RC-B to U-bj. This will require that 286.1 be widened in order to accommodate traffic heading
to the rock crawl route. 286.1D will have rock crawl obstacles and bypasses around those
obstacles so that non-rock crawl off-highway-vehicles may also find opportunities along this
route.
Mitigation and Project Design
Effects of Alternative B with modifications, which I have selected, are addressed through project design and mitigation measures. These will be implemented as part of my decision.
Recreation:
1. All designated system routes will have difficulty ratings (per FSH 2309.18) and will be maintained at those ratings. These routes will be signed with route number and difficulty rating.
2. All designated system routes rating as “extreme” will be one-way routes for safety purposes.
3. All user-created routes created and/or discovered after this decision will be immediately closed.
4. Post and cable (or another type of traffic control device such as post and pole) will be added where needed (e.g. on a road or surrounding an area needing protection) after use patterns develop which are outside regulations.
5. Impacts from motorized use will be restored where needed within the designated system.
6. Obliterate access points on routes scheduled for closure.
7. Closed routes/areas will be rehabilitated to a natural state.
8. Barriers will be provided at single-track access points to prevent full size vehicles from entering those trails.
9. Fees will be structured to have negligible impacts on users and should not exclude people from using the area.
Scenery:
10. Ensure revegetation mimics color, distribution and texture of the natural ground cover and/or forest conditions.
11. Minimize site disturbance and unnatural contouring such as cut and fill slopes and linear features.
12. Buildings and structures should be low profile, located at transitions (the edge of clearings), simple compact forms, with foothills roof profile (per FS, BEIG 2001), clustered, not isolated.
13. Building materials should be native rock, wood and other natural materials when they are
available and practical to use. Substitute manufactured materials, such as synthetic rock, if they can achieve the appearance of natural materials.
14. Whenever possible building materials, including signage and traffic closure devices should blend in color and/or texture with the natural environment (such as integral colored concrete sidewalks).
15. In U-az and/or FS Road 286.1 at CR 94, use a combination of berms, vegetation, boulders and/or low rock retaining walls to buffer views of parking areas and/or rock crawl areas, and buildings as viewed from County Road 94.
16. In U-az, locate rock crawl area 150 to 200 feet from County Road 94.
17. Minimize signs throughout the development, and minimize unprimed galvanized sign backs and
signposts.
Water/Riparian:
18. All designated system routes in water (riparian areas) will be rerouted out of the riparian areas where possible.
19. Stream crossings will be improved (hardened or culvert or bridge – depending on need).
20. All designated system routes in wetlands will be rerouted out of the wetlands.
21. A 50 ft. buffer around streams will be protected in the design of facilities with the method that best fits the area.
22. Sediment control and pollution control for chemicals from vehicles will be designed and built where determined necessary (i.e. downslope from the rock crawl areas).
Wildlife:
23. Design rock crawling area RC-B on the ground to protect the effective habitat to the northeast, considering visual and noise impacts from this new activity. Confine use to the designed area with appropriate and effective barriers, especially keeping users from expanding to the northeast, onto and over the ridge.
24. During construction, staging areas for equipment must be in areas that are permanently affected, offsite, or that are outside Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat (300 feet from the 100- year floodplain or as determined by project biologist).
25. Restore at least 0.9 miles of potential Preble’s habitat in Carnage Canyon. Along with the 0.9 miles, 2.2 acres of Preble’s habitat will be restored as native shrubs, grasses and sedges are planted within the riparian corridor (20-foot wide corridor along 0.9 miles will equal 2.2 acres of restored habitat.)
26. Submit a report to USFWS describing the success of restoration efforts 3 years after the initial restoration of the 2.2 acres of habitat in Carnage Canyon. Pictures of the areas to be restored, both before and after restoration, will be included.
27. In the unlikely event that a Preble’s mouse (dead, injured, or hibernating) is located during construction, the Colorado Field Office of the Service (303) 275-2370 or the Service’s Law Enforcement Office (303) 274-3560 shall be contacted immediately. Plants and Weeds:
28. Treat invasive plants in areas where ground disturbance is planned, prior to the ground-disturbing activity, and continue monitoring and treatment after project implementation.
29. Require off-road equipment to be used in this construction project to be free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds, prior to entering National Forest System lands.
30. Require Forest Service approval of any seed mixes and additives used by contractors, partners, volunteers, etc.
31. Comply with FS Rocky Mountain Region Order No. R2-2005-01 requiring the use of certified
weed-free hay, hay cubes, straw, grain, or other forage or mulch product. Use certified weed-free straw instead of hay for mulch, erosion control, etc. to minimize risk of introduction of noxious weeds and minimize germination of the grass species comprising the straw.
32. Purchase only “Certified Seed” (blue tagged) or “Source Identified Seed (yellow tagged) (ARP Forest Re-vegetation Policy, September 2001). Require independent testing of seed purchased for re-vegetation for presence of noxious weeds as follows: Test purchased seed for “all States noxious weeds” according to the Association of Official Seed Analysts standards, certified in writing by a Registered Seed Technologist or Seed Analyst as meeting the requirements of the Federal Seed Act and the appropriate State Seed Law regarding testing, labeling, sale and transport of Prohibited and Restricted noxious weeds. Include seed labels in the project file.
33. If populations of any Forest Service sensitive plant species are found, they will be documented and evaluated by the project botanist. Adjustments will be made to the project if needed. If populations are found for which anticipated project impacts would change the determination of impacts made in Section V of this report, the determination will be revisited and appropriate additional documentation will be prepared and /or project activities will be adjusted.
34. As per Forest Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 1997), if previously-undetected fens,
wetlands, or wet meadows are encountered within the project area, consultation with a botanist or hydrologist will occur to avoid and minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitat.
35. The project botanist will consult on restoration or rehabilitation projects resulting from this analysis.
Project Monitoring
Monitoring:
• Monitor compliance for users staying on route. Non-compliance will result in area closures or
the installation of traffic control devices such as post and cable (or others).
• Monitor for effectiveness of closures.
• Monitor route through Castle Gulch. Should route become degraded, or repeated trespass on
private land occur, the route will be closed to the public.
• Monitoring will be conducted during and immediately following project implementation to
determine if proposed design criteria, mitgation measures, and watershed conservation
practices were implemented. Effectiveness monitoring will also be conducted twice a year to
determine whether design criteria, mitgation measures, and watershed conservation practices
were effective in protecting soil, water, and aquatic resources.
• Monitoring to evaluate the effects of treatment will be conducted by the project botanist for: noxious weed establishment and spread, riparian areas, aspen stands, and known
occurrences of Larimer aletes. Results may be used as the basis to modify project design in
the future.
• Monitor restored areas at least twice annually to ensure successful establishment of
vegetation and assess drainage concerns. Take corrective action if needed. Corrective action
could range from recontouring, erosion control, and revegetation. Monitoring will continue as
long as the area is managed for OHV use.
• Monitor the extent of Preble’s habitat affected to ensure that it does not exceed the area
authorized in the December 1, 2005 Biological Opinion from the USFWS (1,800 square feet).
Rationale for the Decision
I have made this decision after careful consideration of the environmental analysis of the effects of the four alternatives, Alternatives A, B, C and D. My decision meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), responds to the purpose and need for this project described in Chapter 1 of the EA, and addresses the issues identified during the planning process and comments received from the public during scoping and the public comment period. I have made this decision based on the rationale described below.
I first considered whether the proposed activities would achieve and comply with the Forest Plan general direction and then looked at the desired conditions and specific standards and guidelines in the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area (Forest Plan, pp. 71-74). (These examples are not a complete list and are used for illustration only)
Some of the specific goals and desired conditions listed are (p. 73): Motorized travel on 4WD routes and single track trails will be featured in the Lefthand OHV area.
Pursue the possibility of formally managing the area through a concession permit or
some other type of partnership. Designate an appropriate system of roads and single-track trails to meet management area objectives. This may include relocation of some roads and trails and closure of others to prevent damage to meadows, dry drainages, and riparian areas.
Consider the development of a trailhead with safe parking, area information, and sanitation.
Fairview Peak Core Area: Minimize recreational impacts on wildlife populations and
ecosystems by discouraging additional recreational use. Alternative B with modifications best meets Forest Plan and James Creek Geographical Management Plan direction for the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. The No Action Alternative, Alternative C and Alternative D meet some of this direction, but not to the extent that Alternative B with modifications does. Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) does not meet this direction. Secondly, I considered which of the alternatives would best meet the purpose and need of the project (EA, pages 3 and 4). It was especially important to me to ensure that the project objectives were met.
These include: Implement Forest Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 2, pages 70-74) as decribed in the paragrah above.
• Provide and maintain a sustainable and manageable road/trail system.
• Obtain required easements for access for administrative use and the public. • Eliminate unclassified routes and cease the creation of more undesignated routes. Close any user created routes on discovery.
• Restore impacts caused by motorized use.
• Decrease the spread of noxious weeds.
• Provide facilities/improvements that fit into the landscape.
• Decrease vandalism, partying, trashed out camping areas.
• Provide protection for the wildlife core habitat area at Fairview Peak.
• Increase/improve signage and install traffic control devices to keep people on route.
• Decrease trespass onto private land.
• Promote responsible use through education.
• Provide and maintain safe and adequate parking/staging areas.
I am not selecting the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), because is does not fully meet the purpose and need. Maintaining the status quo as Alternative A does, is not in keeping with the mission of the Forest Service nor does it meet Forest Plan direction for the Lefthand Canyon Off- Highway Vehicle Area as described in the James Creek Geographical Area. In addition, Alternative A is not in the best interest of the public which uses the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. This is because increasing Front Range populations are expected to bring additional visitors to the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area and the Forest Service is responding, within the capacity of the area, by improving the recreation experience by adding facilities, developing a high quality, sustainable road and trail system, and enforcing regulations, which will mitigate the expected increased visitation. When compared to the other action alternatives (C and D), Alternative B with modifications will best
meet the stated objectives by proactively protecting natural resources while providing a quality recreation experience and enhancing visitor safety. The Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area will best be enhanced through Alternative B with modifications by establishing a sustainable road and trail network, providing a designed rock crawl course, providing protection from wildfires through campfire restrictions, providing staging areas and facilities throughout the Off-Highway-Vehicle Area including 5-Points, providing resource protection by prohibiting off route travel, closing unauthorized routes, and by repairing resource damage through restoration. In addition, visitor safety would be enhanced under this decision by providing visitor maps, education, and by establishing route difficulty ratings and vehicle right-of-way procedures. Trespass issues are also best addressed under Alternative B with modifications by the closure of access to Fairview Peak and by pursuing easements both for visitors and private landowners within the plans project area boundaries. Conflicts between
users and neighbors will be reduced by the dusk to dawn closure of the area. No motorized or mechanized access to the Fairview Peak area is included in this decision because legal public access to the area is not likely to be granted by the neighbors and the cost of building/rerouting a road/trail around the private lands is prohibitive from a dollar and environmental effects perspective. A further reason behind not including this area for this use is that some motorized singletrack incursion is already currently incurring into the core habitat area to the north of Fairview Peak despite the difficulty of reaching the area. The open character of the landscape in that area makes a ‘defensible boundary’ extremely difficult at best. Allowing Fairview to be open to motorized and mechanized use would be extremely difficult to enforce and would drain resources from the management of the entire OHV area.
I reviewed the EA site-specific analysis that was completed for the project area by resource area and issues raised by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team and by the public and feel there has been sufficient site specific environmental analysis completed on each of the alternatives. Other Alternatives considered For this analysis I considered three other alternatives, Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, and Alternatives C and D. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages 16-23. Alternative A: No Action (EA, pp.8)
Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, the current management of the Lefthand Off-Highway- Vehicle (OHV) would remain unchanged, which would leave the project area in its present condition. Present trends would continue and the area would experience the impacts created by future unmanaged recreation use in the OHV area. This alternative represented the existing condition of the project area and was used as a baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. This alternative complied with 40 CFR 1502.14 (d), which requires that a no action alternative be included in the analysis. Alternative C This alternative was a modification of Alternative B and responded to public comment: to provide access to Fairview Peak, to not be charged a fee, to add mileage to the single-track trail network, not to provide a rock crawl route, to re-route the northern portion of 287.1 (Castle Gulch) and not to allow
campfires. Actions proposed in Alternative C include:
Management Actions:
• No open fires or campfires at any time. Fires will be permitted in gas stoves only.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private land owners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings.
• Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where
needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Provide motorized single-track access to Fairview Peak using routes 281, 281.A and U-bx.
This will then form a loop with U-bx and 285.1. This alternative will require that a new singletrack route be constructed to connect 281.A to U-bx in order to bypass private land (please see map of Alternative C for an illustration of this new connector). All other routes in the Fairview Peak area will be closed. Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route.
Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or U-at, both will be available to the rider) to U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on maps for all action alternatives B, C and D). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to
accommodate vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw
north of the main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route.
Alternative D
This alternative was a modification of Alternative B and responded to public comment: to add mileage to the single-track trail network, to re-route the northern portion of 287.1 (Castle Gulch) and decrease potential fire danger caused by recreationists.
Actions proposed in Alternative D include:
Management Actions:
Fires will only be allowed in designated fire-rings. 5 locations were identified for the placement of the fire-rings (please see alternative D Map). They are:
1) Bottom of U-AG
2) 5-points
3) Intersection of U-BJ and 286.1D
4) Intersection of 286.1 and 286.1D
5) Intersection of 286.1A and east end of U-BP
• Charge fees for use of the OHV area. Fees will be charged at the two entrance areas, or an
annual permit may be purchased at the office. The Forest Service will collect the fees, this
does not exclude the possibility of an external partnership to help formally manage the area.
• Provide toilet, trash, and information facilities at 5-points.
• Dusk to dawn closure with authorized exceptions. Work with private land owners for their
night-time access.
• Pursue legal public access where needed to provide a sustainable road and trail network
where there is private land, and to also provide legal access for private landowners. Pursue
acquisition of isolated private in-holdings. • Allow permitted trials bike events, provided the designated rock crawl route can meet their
needs.
• Provide education to promote responsible use including a handout with recommended items to
have (tree strap, spill kit etc). Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs as well.
• Have a map to hand out which will include rules and regulations
• Decrease user conflict and increase user safety by:
o Establishing a right of way (who has the right-of-way)
o Establishing One-Way routes (those rated as extreme) and providing pull-outs where
needed on the other routes.
o Provide trail ratings
Road and Trail System Actions:
• Eliminate connecting motorized/mechanized recreational uses to Fairview Peak and the core
habitat area. Close Fairview Peak to motorized and mechanized use and pursue
administrative access only for enforcement purposes.
• Provide a Rock Crawl route using routes 286.1 to access the rock crawl route, to 286.1.D to
RC-B to U-bj. This will require that 286.1 be widened in order to accommodate traffic heading
to the rock crawl route. 286.1D will have rock crawl obstacles and bypasses around those
obstacles so that non-rock crawl off-highway-vehicles may also find opportunities along this
route.
• Widen 286.1 for two- way traffic to accommodate for increased traffic to the rock crawl route.
• Add a single-track loop opportunity using routes 845.1 to 286.1B to 286.1 (or U-at, both will be available to the rider) to U-av to U-aw to U-ay, to U-bc connecting back to 845.1. The northern portion of U-aw will need to be re-located out of the draw and onto the ridge, and the southern portion closed. In addition, a connector will need to be constructed to join U-bc to 845.1
• Re-route the northern portion of Castle Gulch (route 287.1 that runs east to west) in order to mitigate resource impacts occurring on the route.
• Identify and put into place a sustainable and manageable road and trail network.
• Provide signing to meet Agency signing standards and provide enough signs along routes and
in critical areas.
• Close roads within creeks.
• Close or relocate roads causing damage to streams, wetlands, or riparian areas. Harden roads
where needed to reduce erosion/water issues if critical to road and trail network.
• Close or relocate roads traveling through private land if public use easements can not be
obtained for them.
• Use existing routes- keep creation of new ones to a minimum (e.g. re-routes and connectors
are okay) when designing a sustainable road and trail network.
• Build two trailhead/staging areas with parking, trash receptacles, information boards, toilets, and administrative storage (locations are on maps for all action alternatives B, C and D). The entrance road to the main staging area near 286.1A will be widened and improved to
accommodate vehicles with trailers. The second staging area will be placed at the gated draw
north of the main entrance.
• Determine and assign route difficulties to all designated routes using guidance from Forest
Service Manual 2309 (please see Appendix B route spreadsheet for rating definitions).
Provide signs with difficulty ratings and maintain those routes to their difficulty rating.
• Provide single-track for motorcycles and mountain bikes only. No ATVs/OHVs on these trails
as they are not designed to accommodate ATVs/OHVs.
• Routes will be multiple use routes for all users with the exception of single-track - no
ATVs/OHVs on single-track.
• Provide post and cable or other traffic control devices where needed to protect resources and
to keep motorized users on route. Other alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were not studied in detail. They
were dropped from further analysis because they did not meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives and reasons for their elimination are described in the EA on pages 15.
Public Involvement
On July 12, 2004 a scoping letter was mailed to over 250 people, organizations, and local
governments. The purpose of this letter was to inform the public that the Boulder Ranger District was beginning the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area travel management planning process and that the District was asking for issues that people were experiencing with the area. Three public meetings were also held, July 26, 29, and August 4, 2004, to ascertain the same information.
On January 21, 2005 a second scoping letter was mailed to over 350 people, organizations, and local governments. With the comments from the July 12, 2004 scoping letter and meetings, the
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Plan constructed six alternate themes to resolve the issues heard by the public. This scoping letter asked for input on those themes and for input on what the public would like to see in the Lefthand Canyon OHV planning area to resolve the issues. Two public meetings were also conducted, February 12 and 15, 2005 to collect the same input.
On April 4, 2005, a third scoping letter went out to over 125 members of the public who had
expressed the desire to stay involved in the process after the January 21, 2005 scoping letter. From the comments on the themes, the IDT built the proposed action. This letter asked for concerns, issues, or opportunities specific to the proposed action. This was also the 30- day scoping period on the proposed action. The input received during all these periods were used to develop the alternatives. Using the comments from individuals, organizations, and other agencies my interdisciplinary team of resource specialists identified several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action. Main issues of concern described in the EA on pages 5-6 included:
1. Fairview Peak
• There is no access to Fairview Peak for motorized or mechanized vehicles
2. Fees
• Charge fees only if money collected goes back into the site and Forest Service manages the
OHV area.
• Fees should not be charged at all
• Forest Service should be held accountable to the public for how fees will be spent in the OHV
area.
3. Total mileage of road and trail network
• Do not reduce mileage of the road and trail network from what is currently available.
• Too much is being closed in the proposed action, especially single-track
• There are no connectors to outside the system.
• Keep U-bc, U-aa and Uay – they provide a valuable single track experience. U-bc, 836.1,
268.1 and U-bi should be routes in the system and signed one-way. U-bi should be included
and switch backs added. These are valuable single track trails.
• Please keep 845.1 open to hikers and mountain bikes. Loss of fees would be minimal if this
access point were opened from outside the fee area and the trail is sustainable. Its a nice trail for hikers 4. Rock Crawl Routes
• No rock Crawl routes in order to protect environment.
• Don’t put a new rock crawl route in if goes through undisturbed areas.
• There are scenery management issues with building a rock crawl area.
5. Safety Issues with proposed system of roads and trails
• Having two way traffic and different modes of travel on one route promotes safety concerns
and user conflict.
6. Congestion
• The proposed rock crawl route RC-A will promote congestion by requiring vehicles to stage in
a small area at the proposed staging area and entrance to the rock crawl route off of Lefthand
Canyon Road.
7. Wildfire caused by recreationists in the Lefthand Canyon OVH Area.
• No campfires, open fires, or smoking should be allowed.
8. Castle Gulch Access
• Castle Gulch should be Administrative use only given the private land issues.
• There are resource damage issues at the northern end of Castle Gulch (the part of 287.1
that runs east to west). The road needs to be re-routed.
9. Environmental
• Water Quality in the watershed located in the project area is below standard per Forest
Service and Federal guidelines
• Erosion and sediment from soil compaction is contributing to poor water quality as described
above
• Toxic Metals in water may be contributing to poor water quality
• Riparian areas are being destroyed
• Fish Habitat is being negatively impacted from inappropriate vehicle use and poor water
quality
• Wildlife
- Habitat needs to be protected (loss of soil and vegetation)
- Fairview Peak is an identified wildlife corridor that has been intruded upon
• Vegetation loss due to compaction from people driving off route
10. Public Access
• Easements across private land will be needed
11. Scenic Quality
• Addition of the rock crawl routes may reduce scenic integrity of the site
To address these concerns, the Forest Service created the alternatives described above and also
found in Chapter 2 of the EA. These alternatives were analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.
The official 30-day comment period began the day after publication of a legal notice in the Boulder Daily Camera on August 2, 2005. At the same time, the Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment was mailed to 102 individuals, businesses, and organizations that either responded to the Proposed Action scoping letter or expressed an interest in being notified about the project. 282 responses were received within the 30-day period. An additional 19 responses were received after the deadline. The public comments received on the project are summarized and included in Appendix B of this Decision Notice.
Other Disclosures
Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or for the proposed action result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Interagency cooperation between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding proposed, threatened, or endangered species is described in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Definitions relating to “consultation” and “conference” are given in FSM supplement 2600-90-6. An updated list of Federally Listed and Candidate Species for Colorado was received from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Colorado Field Office; Lakewood, Colorado dated August 22, 2003. The letter and list are on file in the project analysis file. The species list was used as a basis for the analysis of threatened, endangered, and proposed species for this project.
Potential effects from the proposed project to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and to the
Mexican spotted owl were addressed through formal consultation and concurrence was received on
December 1, 2005 for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and on April 5, 2006 for the Mexican
spotted owl. The biological assessment, opinion and supporting documentation are on file in the
project analysis file. Therefore, consultation has been completed for this proposed project
Effects of Alternatives on Social Groups There would be no overall differences between alternatives in effects on minorities, Native American Indians, women, or the civil liberties of any American citizen.
Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands
There are minor floodplains associated with Left Hand Creek and it’s tributaries in the project area. These areas should not experience any significant adverse effects from management activities. The floodplains within the project area would not receive measurable impact by upstream influences. The action items of closing roads in stream channels or improving creek crossings or hardening roads where needed would reduce or eliminate current impacts to floodplains and wetlands in the project area. Management activities designed to protect these resources conform to the federal regulations for floodplains (Executive Order 11900) and wetlands (Executive Order 11990).
Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives
The energy required to implement the alternatives in terms of petroleum products would be
insignificant when viewed in light of the production costs and effects of the national and worldwide petroleum reserves.
Effects of Alternatives on Prime Rangeland, Forest Land, and Farm Land
The alternatives presented are in compliance with Federal Regulations for prime lands. The definition of prime forestland does not apply to lands within the National Forests. The project area contains no prime farmlands or rangelands. In all alternatives, Federal lands would be managed with the appropriate consideration to the effects on adjacent lands.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations directs federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment (E.O. 12898 and Departmental Regulation 5600-2). None of the action alternatives would have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil rights of any United States citizen. No alternative would result in a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low-income individuals.
Roads Analysis
Any project decision signed after January 12, 2002, that involves road construction or reconstruction including temporary roads, must have a completed Roads Analysis. A Roads Analysis has been completed for the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Travel Management Plan and is located in the project analysis file.
Finding of No Significant Impact
After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:
1. Context and Intensity
This project is located at a very popular recreation area for off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts, which has been in use for the past several decades. Visitors, largely, are from the Front Range cities of Colorado, though some do visit the area from other states. This project is designed to improve visitors’ recreation experience and minimize any environmental impacts to the area. No significant effects on local regional or national resources were identified in the EA.
Project design and mitigation measures will keep project impacts below the level of significance. Forest Service representatives will regularly inspect project operations to assure conformance with the terms of the EA, the Forest Plan and appropriate State and Federal laws. Specialists who participated in analysis of this proposal will be involved with design and on-site layout of the road and trail system, rock crawl routes, and of the facilities/staging areas to assure that design criteria/mitigation requirements described
in the EA and included in my decision are met. In addition, this project is within the scale and context of current development and recreation management activities within the Lefthand Canon Off-Highway- Vehicle Area. Impacts associated with the project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record. The impacts are within the range of those identified in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. Alternative B and modifications will not have significant impacts on resources identified in the EA. After careful consideration of the EA, the project record, and in documented consultation with resource specialists, it is my finding that the effects of these projects are not significant. My finding that the impacts are not significant is not biased by the beneficial impacts described in the analysis.
2. Public Health and Safety
Proposed activities will not significantly affect public health and safety due to the mitigations/project design included with this decision and from experience implementing and monitoring similar projects. A goal of the project is to provide a quality and safe recreation experience for visitors.
3. Unique Characteristics of the Area
This project is located within Lefthand Canyon Off-Highway-Vehicle Area. The project will not
adversely affect unique characteristics of this Off-Highway-Vehicle area such as historic or cultural resources, wetlands, or ecologically critical areas. My determination is based on the discussion of effects found in the EA, Chapter 3. There are no parklands, prime lands (forest, farm or range), historic or cultural properties, roadless areas, or wild and scenic rivers associated with the project area. By adhering to the project’s construction standards and design criteria/mitigations, impacts to watersheds, wetlands, environmentally sensitive or critical areas and wilderness and roadless values will not be significant.
4. Controversy
The activities described in Alternative B with modifications do not involve effects on the human environment that are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR 1508.27). Public comment regarding this project focused primarily on the motorized recreation experience, access issues, fees, wildfire, improving visitor safety, protecting the visual quality, and protecting wildlife and other natural resources. These concerns were addressed during alternative development, are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and are also addressed through project design criteria/mitigation. I find the effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are unlikely to involve unique or unknown risks and are not likely to be highly controversial and are, therefore, not significant.
5. Uncertainty
The activities described in my decision will not involve effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR 1580.27). Pertinent scientific literature has been reviewed and incorporated into the analysis process and the technical analyses conducted for determinations on the impacts to the resources are supportable with use of accepted techniques, reliable data and professional judgment. Impacts are within limits that are considered thresholds of concern. Issues of public concern and possible environmental effects of the selected alternative have been adequately addressed in the analysis of this decision. Therefore, I conclude that there are no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks.
6. Precedent
My decision to implement the activities included in Alternative B with modifications does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. I have made this decision based on the overall consistency of the proposed activities with Forest Plan standards, guidelines and management practices, and the capabilities of the land.
7. Cumulative Impacts
The EA includes all connected, cumulative and similar actions in the scope of the analysis. The
cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered and disclosed in the EA, Chapter 3, and there are no significant cumulative effects.
8. Properties On or Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
One archaeological site was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (5BL375, the Burn Cabin) however the site is located on a private in-holding in the analysis area and lies outside the area of potential effect. No other sites found within the project area are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Heritage resource specialists based this determination on a Class I literature review of the proposed project and 21 acres were surveyed for cultural resources in the project area of potential effect. Forest Service archaeologists documented a determination of no historic properties affected for this project. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has concurred on this finding. The clearance letter from SHPO and the cultural resource specialist report are included in the project file. Should an unknown cultural resource site be discovered during project implementation, it will be protected under the requirements of Federal law.
9. Endangered or Threatened Species or Their Critical Habitat
The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat (Endangered Species Act of 1973). The Forest Service Biological Assessment dated August 1, 2005 resulted in a determination of effects for implementation of Alternative B of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” for the Mexican spotted owl and “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. No critical habitat for either species occurs in the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Biological Opinion on December 1, 2005, concurring with the determination for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and containing additional required terms and conditions. Implementing these terms and conditions as part of the proposed project will minimize impacts of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action, thereby avoiding jeopardy to the mouse. On April 5, 2006 the FWS issued a letter concurring with the determination for the Mexican spotted owl. No endangered or threatened plant species or their habitats are present in the project area.
10. Legal Requirements for Environmental Protection
The action will not violate Federal, or applicable State and local laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. The action is consistent with the 1997 Revised Forest Plan as required by the National Forest Management Act.
Implementation Date
Implementation of this project will not occur for a minimum of 50 days (45 day appeal period and 5 day stay if no appeal is received) following publication of the legal notice of this decision in the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder, Colorado. If an appeal is filed, implementation will not occur for a minimum of 15 days following disposition of the appeal. If multiple appeals are filed, the disposition date of the last appeal will control the implementation date.
Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities
My decision to implement Alternative B with modifications is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Any written notice of appeal must be consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, Content of an Appeal, including the reasons for the appeal (see below). An appeal may be filed by any person who, or any non-Federal organization or entity that has provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in this Proposed Action by the close of the comment period. Any appeal must be filed with the:
USDA, Forest Service, Region 2
Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer
C/O Appeal Reviewing Officer
P.O. Box 25127
Lakewood, CO 80225-25127
If you fax an appeal, please include a cover page stating how many pages you are faxing.
Fax: 303-275-5134
Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us
It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. An appeal submitted to the Appeal Deciding Officer becomes part of the appeal record. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following (§ 215.14):
(1) Appellant’s name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available;
(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);
(3) When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§ 215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;
(4) The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;
(5) The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d));
(6) Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes;
(7) Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the
disagreement;
(8) Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive comments; and
(9) How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy.
Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 will be dismissed.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.9(a), if no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day from the close of the appeal-filing period. All appeals must be filed within 45 days of the date that the legal notice appears in the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder, Colorado.
Contact
For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact:
Cat Luna, Project Leader, Boulder Ranger District, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and
Pawnee National Grassland, 2140 Yarmouth Avenue, Boulder, CO 80301 or telephone at (303) 541-
2500.
__/s/ Christine M Walsh _______________________ ____5/31/06___________
CHRISTINE M. WALSH DATE
District Ranger
Boulder Ranger District
Response to Public Comments
Comment Topic 1: Alternatives
1) I would also like to know where these alternatives came about and what the thinking is
behind closing these types of areas instead of coming up with solutions to keep them open or
even opening new areas as alternatives. 282
Response: The alternatives are issue driven as required by NEPA. The Ea analyzes a reasonable
range of alternatives (solutions) that address the Purpose and Need, key issues and is responsive to the needs of the motorized community, local landowners, and the general public. Please refer to the EA to better understand the issues, actions under each alternative and details about environmental consequences for reasoning of how each alternative addresses the issues. Refer to other related responses in this section for additional clarification.
2) The action alternatives play good guy/bad guy against the users and pit user against user.
The effect of splitting available opportunities between different alternatives inevitably splits the user community into competing factions thereby diluting the effect of citizen response to the EA. This is unethical and maybe illegal as it contravenes the intent of the NEPA. 232
Response: The action alternatives are intended to reduce user conflict while balancing motorized use opportunity with adequate resource protection. Design/mitigation and monitoring measures were developed to ease potential environmental impacts and user conflicts the various alternatives may cause. Refer to EA Section 2.2, Design/mitigation and Monitoring Measures, pages 12-15.
3) None of the alternatives differ substantially in terms of miles of route opportunity provided. None of the alternatives allow any substantial new route construction. All alternatives result in the closure of the majority of the current routes. NEPA requires that an agency consider an alternative that addresses unresolved conflicts. None of the alternatives does this. Instead the EA considers no change versus three alternatives that are all but indistinguishable as to the areas and road/ trail segments that would be closed. This does not resolve the resource conflicts but simply substitutes one set of conflicts for another. 226, 280, 296
Response: Each action alternative maximizes motorized use opportunities given limited viable
biophysical resources, parameters for reasonable sustainability, user conflict and many other factors. The Lefthand Canyon Off-highway Vehicle Area Roads Analysis Report -2005 (In Project Record)) identifies opportunities and priorities for developing the Lefthand OHV Area transportation system. The Road Analysis used a variety of risk indicators to help understand/assess the roads/trails in the area and provides recommendations to achieve plan objectives. The difference and effectiveness of each action alternative is a direct result of using these recommendations, engaging in constant public involvement and following detailed requirements of NEPA.
4) The alternatives offered by the USFS are absolutely unacceptable. 124,135,145, 226, 274,
291
Response: Alternatives B, C, and D are reasonable, issue driven by public input, and address the Purpose and Need identified for this project level EA. The No Action Alternative was also considered as required by NEPA. Each alternative was developed utilizing valuable input derived during various forums of public involvement. Please refer to related responses to comments in this section for additional clarification.
5) I would like to request that you choose to adopt Alternative C. This alternative would be a
better solution for me and motorcyclists. It would also result in less impact on the
environment since single tracks don't take as much space and won't erode as easily. This also
would provide valuable access to Fairview Peak I like the loops that would be added, making
form some great riding. I believe Alternative C would be the best choice for this area and
would appreciate your consideration. 63
Response: Alternative C was considered along with Alternatives a, B, and D with regards to meeting the purpose and need and public input.
6) I am frustrated by the fact Alternative C does not include a fee scheme. I fully support fees to help manage such an area. The list of pros and cons for Alternative C shows that it not only provides numerous recreational opportunities and does a good job of protecting plant and
wildlife habitat. The biggest draw back is no fee. Why not make an Alternative C with fees?
Such an option would serve all the interested parties in this area much better. 52
Response: All alternatives were considered with regards to meeting the purpose and need and
public input. The decision does include charging fees at the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area. Please
refer to the Decision Notice for details.
7) I support the recommendations proposed in the Lefthand Canyon OHV Alternative D Travel
Management Plan. Boulder County is concerned that OHV use would negatively impact the
closed and protected areas of parks and open space. Heil Valley Ranch in particular will
benefit by not having OHV use in the Fairview Peak area. Alternative D is balanced and
protects critical wildlife areas and concentrates OHV use in appropriate areas. 6
Response: Each of the action alternatives in the EA consider the affects OHV use would have within and adjacent to the planning area. Your concerns have been considered and will be addressed no matter which alternative or set of actions is determined to most effectively manage use in the vicinity of Fairview Peak. Effectiveness monitoring will ensure compliance with applicable use regulations, while protecting natural resources/critical wildlife habitat.
8) Alternative D offers even better resource protection, so I would advocate for that if the agency can swing it. 9
Response: Alternative D is reasonable and compliments the spectrum of alternatives identified in the EA. Please refer to number 7 above for additional information.
9) The only acceptable alternative in this EA is Alternative A. This is not because Alternative A is desirable but because Alternatives B, C, D are much less desirable than Alternative A.
There is no need for a decision on travel management of this area that is so pressing that users must settle for a bad action alternative. Therefore, I support Alternative A for as long as it takes to generate a truly good and useful action alternative to supplant those offered in this EA. 232, 247, 249, 252, 254, 256, 259, 266, 271, 274, 275, 277, 280, 281,292, 293, 258, 296, 297, 298, 300
Response: To be proactive in recreation management while protecting natural resources, it is necessary to plan for and manage the Lefthand OHV Area. The purpose and objectives are to implement Forest Plan direction and resolve long-standing issues plaguing the area. A reasonable range of alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were developed and analyzed as required by NEPA based on the Purpose and Need and issues received during public scoping. The action alternatives are reasonable, while the No Action Alternative reflects an unacceptable existing situation. Please refer to related comment responses in this section for additional clarification.
10) Plan A (no action): I have noticed that 4x4 activity requires more trail/road maintenance, especially when steep grades are involved. LHC gets a lot of 4x4 traffic and the effects are obvious and need attention. 167
Response: We agree that increased use coupled with steep and oftentimes very challenging motorized opportunities requires additional road/trail maintenance and the need for specialized related services. Reference to these issues can be found throughout the EA.
11) We respectfully ask that all of our comments and information be used to justify motorized access and motorized recreational opportunities in the project area and to counter any opposition to those opportunities. The following is a checklist of issues that affect motorized recreationists and define the current management situation. This checklist is provided with
the request that it be used to develop, select, and defend a reasonable multi-use alternative. 217
Response: The 103 page document is clearly not specific to the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area Travel Management Plan EA. Examples of why the Forest Service believes the 103 page document is not specific to this project include but are not limited to (this list is for illustrative purposes only and is not complete): “We respectfully ask that the selected action for the Butte RMP Travel Plan Project be structured to produce this end result by implementing the comments provided”. “The concept of area closure is not consistent with Forest Service regulations as established by appeals to the Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Plan”. “Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) is focused and managed as a fish and wildlife management agency. We request that MDFWP actively promote OHV recreation and OHV tourism. We also request that MDFWP increase the level of OHV management to a level that addresses the needs of motorized recreationists, enthusiastically promote OHV recreation opportunities and enthusiastically develop OHV tourism”. “"Special designations" should be deleted from the proposed alternative”. (The alternatives in the Lefthand Plan do not identify any “special designations”) “The process used puts the average working class citizen at a great disadvantage. The process is inordinately confusing, cumbersome and intimidating to the members of the public who are not organized or experienced which is the majority of the public. The process is inordinately demanding of participation and has unreasonable expectations for the involvement of individuals and families. A 300-page draft EIS and finally a 300+page final EIS is too much for the general public to understand and participate in”. (This is an EA and not an EIS) “The prevailing trend of the past 35+/- years has been to close motorized recreation and access opportunities and not create any new ones. Additionally, roads or trails closed to motorized access are seldom, if ever, re-opened. The underlying objective of the BLM and Forest Service has been to restrict the public to a few major roads within public lands. We request that the cumulative negative effect of these policies be thoroughly evaluated so that a reasonable travel management decision is made”.
(Not site specific to this EA) “We request that the significant impact from all cumulative statewide motorized closures on all of these visitors must be included in the environmental document. A statewide analysis is required because cumulative negative effects are forcing all motorized visitors to travel farther and farther to fewer and fewer places to find motorized access and recreation opportunities”. (Not site specific to this EA) Only comments specifically referencing the Lefthand Canyon OHV Area travel Management Plan EA project by name will be addressed in this Response to Comments and will be addressed in their appropriate sections. The remaining comments will not be addressed because they are not site specific to this project, and it cannot be discerned whether the comment refers to this project or the Butte RMP Plan, Stanislaus National Forest Travel Management Plan, or some other project.
