Waiting on a mule deer crossing…
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to revise the existing Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan. The existing travel plan was implemented in 1984 as directed by the 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. The 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests identified a need to refine travel management on the Forest. The purpose of revising the existing Uncompahgre National Forest plan is to provide safe access to and through the National Forest to support resource management and to provide a variety of recreation opportunities for public users, while protecting the environment. Reasons why the National Forest is proposing to revise the existing travel plan include: 1) There is a need to plan for the current as well as the future recreation demands which will be placed on the Forest. There has been an increase in the amount and a change in the type of public recreational travel on the Uncompahgre National Forest since 1984. 2) There is a need to provide transportation systems that provide recreational opportunities for many different users. Most transportation routes on the Uncompahgre National Forest developed as access for commodity uses, such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting and mining, and were not designed or located for recreational travel. 3) There is a need to restrict indiscriminate vehicle travel off of roads and trails. Currently much of the Uncompahgre National Forest has an open travel designation, which means off-route travel with motorized vehicles is allowed so long as resource damage does not occur. However, unplanned and unauthorized routes have developed through off-route use, and efforts to close routes or restrict travel to meet Forest Plan objectives have been ineffective as a result of the open travel. 4) There is a need to make travel management consistent between the four Ranger Districts on the Uncompahgre National Forest and the various Counties, especially concerning travel by off-highway vehicles (OHVs). The decisions to be made in revising the Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan include: 1) Determining which area-wide travel management option(s) will be applied to what specific areas. Options are: (a) open travel, off-route travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles is allowed. (b) restricted travel, travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles is allowed only on designated routes with the possible exception of snowmobile travel occurring on snow. (c) closed travel, travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles is not allowed. 2) Determining which Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting will be maintained in specific areas. 3) Determining the roads and trails that will comprise the transportation system for the Uncompahgre National Forest. 4) Determining the uses to be allowed on each specific road and trail. 5) Amending the Forest Plan to incorporated changes needed based on the four previous decisions. The Forest Service held a series of 38 public meetings between April 1994 and June 1996 to discuss travel management issues and alternatives. Written comments from people unable to attend these meetings were also accepted. As a result, the following issues were identified; 1) Open road/trail density exceeds Forest Plan standards (as related to habitat effectiveness) in some areas. 2) Unauthorized routes are developing on National Forest System land. 3) Closing some and designating other routes will result in increased use and damage from concentrating use on the remaining open routes. 4) Riparian/ acquatic habitats and other special resources need to be protected. 5) Wet season access needs to be managed to prevent damage to vegetation, soils and water quality. 6) There are conflicts between different types of recreational users. 7) Indiscriminate motorized travel during hunting season conflicts between different types of recreational users. 7) Indiscriminate motorized travel during hunting season conflicts with hunting experience and results in unauthorized route development. 8) Habitat capability is affected by travel. 9) Big game distribution is affected by travel. 10) There are conflicts with winter recreation and big game winter range. 11) There are conflicts with existing and proposed routes in important habitat. 12) Threatened, endangered and sensitive species and their habitat needs to be protected. As a result of public input, five alternatives were developed and will be analyzed in the environmental impact statement. Alternatives vary in the emphasis placed on providing different recreational opportunities; ranging from providing more non-motorized settings, to providing more motorized settings, to no change (no action). Restricting travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles to routes designated for those types of use is common to the four action alternatives. The decision to prepare an environmental impact statement is a result of preliminary analysis indicating that some of the effects to the human environment from revising the Travel Plan may be significant. All public comment received to date will be considered in this analysis. Parties who previously expressed interest have been informed individually by mail that this analysis is continuing. No additional public meetings are planned; however, the Forest Service will consider any new information that may be received as a result of this notice of intent. Written comment should be sent by May 15, 1997.
Knowledge graph centered on Rock Mountain Region; Environmental Impact Stateme with 60 nodes and 59 connections. Top connected: USDA Forest Service (Uncompahgre National Forest), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), BLM Alaska State Office.
Agencies, organizations, and groups mentioned as actors in this document.
Works cited by this document, grouped by type.
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.