Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.
Local official claims national forest road plan is a “takings”
A legal road on the Kaibab National Forest leads to this lookout spot on the rim of the Grand Canyon near the Saddle Mountain wilderness area. PHOTO COURTESY LEIGH WADDEN.
By Bob Berwyn
SUMMIT COUNTY — About 25,000 miles of roads in Arizona’s Coconino County apparently aren’t enough for some people, including the local sheriff, who recently accused the U.S. Forest Service of a “takings” by implementing a new travel management plan.
His letter to state and federal legislators stretches the concept of takings beyond any known meaning; it’s hard to imagine how the Forest Service — which manages lands on behalf of the public — could possibly “take” land from that very same public.
Nevertheless, Sheriff Bill Pribil said the new travel plan restricts public access and could affect the state’s tourism industry.
As on other national forests, the Coconino and Kaibab forests recently went through an extensive public process and environmental review to determine which routes are appropriate for travel and which should be closed to protect natural resources. The review found extensive damage from un-managed off-road vehicle use — identified by top Forest Service leaders as one of the primary threats to the ecological integrity of national forest lands.
As in most parts of the country, national forests in Arizona have a huge backlog of road maintenance. The agency can’t afford to maintain the existing 51,000 miles of existing roads in Arizona and New Mexico forests; most forests only have the resources to maintain 10 percent of their roads each year.
For the region, the road maintenance backlog totals more than $430 million, with nearly $7 million just to tackle critical health and safety needs. When roads are not properly maintained, they deteriorate, cutting off access to hiking and camping. Poorly maintained roads also result in increased risks for public safety because fire and other emergency personnel have difficulty accessing people who need help.
Still, Sheriff Pribil called the plan “wilderness by fiat” and claimed it will make “criminals out of families.”
“Anyone who’s spent any time in the woods around Flagstaff knows these rules are badly needed. Off-road vehicles are trashing our forests and causing long-term damage,” said Cyndi Tuell of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Sheriff Pribil should be advocating for the enforcement of rules that protect our publicly owned forests, not lobbing criticism long after the rules have been put in place.”
“In Arizona, the Forest Service can only afford a couple hundred miles of roads on each forest,” Tuell said. “In this economy it’s flat-out irresponsible for the Forest Service to keep thousands of miles of unneeded, environmentally harmful roads.”
Under the new plans in Arizona and New Mexico forests, the public will still be allowed to camp anywhere they like; they may just have to walk a few hundred feet to their favorite spots, leaving nearly 21 million acres of land available for camping. There are also more than 25,000 miles of roads open to cars and high-clearance vehicles.
“Law-enforcement officers in Arizona can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce based on their personal opinions,” Tuell said. “Sheriff Pribil should know about the toll that unrestricted driving has on the forests that provide water for millions of people in Arizona. These are publicly owned assets that need protection, not destruction.”
Filed under: Environment, forests, public lands, US Forest Service Tagged: | Bill Pribil, Center for Biological Diversity, Coconino County Arizona, Coconino County sheriff, Coconino National Forest, Kaibab National Forest, travel plan
Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
Interesting! So, the good Sheriff feels the F.S. is being unfair? If the money was available to maintain the infrastructure, perhaps he would be singing a different tune. But we all know where the money is going, to the financial looters as well as the war mongers. Oh, and the off shore accounts too. Anyone want to wager how long before the U.S. starts resembling Greece? The whole infrastructure in the U.S. is deteriorating, but the congress is doing nothing about it, unless it’s to aid the special interests who pay the bribes. Perhaps the good sheriff might go out and enforce the law toward the off roaders who are destroying the environment?
Wow, you’re on a rampage this morning, Norman. Probably a good idea to stop short of calling elected officials “terrorists,” though. I know some would agree with you, but the word is over-used and we need to use care in our use of language so that words retain their true meaning (referring to your previous comment which I deleted. There’s probably a better way to describe what’s going on, reserving the word “terrorist” for appropriate context.
Huh. Didn’t know “looter” or “war monger” was the same word as “terrorist.”
Norman is on a rant, but generally I’m on his side.
The position that Sheriff Pribil has taken is commensurate with in the Republican law-enforcement community, enforcing the laws that they think should be in place, rather than the laws that are in place.
The West has had a tradition of “selective enforcement,” for as long as there has been any enforcement. And it gets worse – or at least more of a problem – as there are more people trying to use more of The West
I was referring to another comment Norman made on a different story on oil shale development – that’s the one I deleted.
What a biased and untruthful comment! Blanket statements that OHV use is destroying the environment are flat out lies. When recreation is outlawed, then outlaw recreation is the form that travel will take on public land. It is far better to build relationships with an OHV community and assist the community to educate and maintain public land users than it is to criminalize outdoor recreation. How about we charge a license and recreation fee to all pedestrian and equestrian users – the ones who have been proven to produce far more damage to trails than any form of motorized use? The OHV community pays its way, cooperates with authority, and does not seek to limit hiking access. Perhaps you should study the issues instead of making inflammatory and false statements.
Sheriff Pribil’s comments are exactly on point and represent the view of many Arizonans who enjoy camping, hunting, etc. in the forests. There is little opposition to restricting true off-road travel, or protecting specific sensitive areas. But the plan being implemented in the Coconino closes thousands of miles of usable forest roads and restricts motorized camping to designated areas, all near well traveled roads; in many cases literally parking on the shoulder is all that’s allowed. The plan leaves about 3% of the forest accessible for vehicular camping. To get to dispersed camping areas it’s more than “walking a few hundred feet” – more like hiking 1/2 mile or more to a spot we used to drive to on a numbered forest service road. These roads don’t get a huge amount of traffic and don’t need a lot of maintenance; users expect to need high clearance vehicles and careful driving. What we don’t want is to have nearly all of the traditional use areas made inaccessible and be forced to camp in close proximity to main roads and other campers. The Forest Service is charged to maintain the forests for multiple uses and has failed utterly to consider the needs of the majority of recreational users. Protection of resources and prevention of damage by off-road
driving could be accomplished by less drastic means.
This is exactly right – the agency is failing in its basic duty to maintain these lands for public use by using wholesale closure and restricted access as management technique. Responsible use and minimal impact is accomplished by dispersal of use, not concentration of impact on what little is left open. Very little maintenance is needed on Forest roads, and what is needed is provided in most if not all cases by active members of OHV and socially active organizations. When was the last time you saw a radical environmental activist repairing erosion or building a bridge? – yes, that is right, NEVER. If you want to make a difference, volunteer and show up. The Forest Service will be happy to help you, they are a great organization in those districts where their personnel believe in their motto, “Land of Many Uses”.
[...] of objection to the Legislature. He said the plan would limit activities for hikers and …Opinion: Arizona sheriff streeee-eetches the truthSummit County Citizens Voice all 3 news articles » Click on pen to var [...]
The opinions of the sheriff are just that – opinions. They are not based in reality or fact. Hikers activities are not limited and are in fact enhanced. Grazing activities are not limited and in fact grazing allotments will see improved management because off-roaders will no longer be tearing up the grass.
Cyndi, the percentage of surface area covered by trails is less than 1/10000 of 1%, and OHV users do not go around creating famine conditions for poor suffering cows.
*edited by moderator
You’re welcome to express your OPINIONS about the impacts of motorized use, but not to attack other readers.
Resource damage is the big issue and the fact that the Forest Service is not a road agency. Many roads have been created for no real reason other than just driving. Once the track is created, with lack of maintenance, poor drainage, location (i.e., riparian areas), etc., great damage has been done. Because of simple lack of drainage, ponding begins. Forest visitors choose to create a mud bog or drive around the “pond”; now the damage in this area may grow in width from 8′ to maybe 100′. This road goes nowhere and dead ends in a short distance. This is one of the reasons for closing some roads.
While I enjoy hunting, nothing upsets me more than walking into an area a half mile off the road and while out there I encounter ATVs and other vehicles driving into the area looking around, the driver asking if you have seen anything then driving off. Of course not, the noise scared the animals off.
The Coconino has 8,000 miles of road; the plan is to reduce this by 20%, That leaves me 6,400 miles on which to ride my ATV. I can also camp in an RV within 300′ from the road; the nearest neighbors to my home are a lot closer.
We need to manage these resources of timber, grazing, minerals, and recreation so all can use, enjoy, and benefit from the forest resources.
Most of the decisions about roads have been made and it is a bit late to voice concerns, involvement should have begun early in the Public Comment Period.
In the past Flagstaff/Coconino Forest had a stabile logging industry. The lumber mill is now gone and on the parcel previously occupied by the mill there exists a jail, a health food store, and some “up-scale” stores. There is also construction of apartments in progress. In 2010, the old mill site also was an excellent vista to watch the Schultz Fire burn thousands of acres of merchantable timber and destroy forest resources. PROGRESS?
Damage to the resource can be easily repaired. Many associations exist for that purpose. The process of public comment is not properly advertised and is poorly attended as a result. This appears purposeful to most observers and it is appropriate for law enforcement to comment in that regard..
The issue here is that public access is being being taken away without proper study, without any program of management and repair, and without proper input from the public. When people are disenfranchised and excluded through lack of effort on the part of the agency, the overall climate of engagement with the public the agency is chartered to serve becomes a cycle of management by fiat, closure and restriction that creates negative results.
The Sheriff of Coconino County is correct in his comments. It is vital to understand that if you do not provide a process that engages and satisfies the public need, it fails in its objectives. The failure of the agency to obtain the cooperation of the local Sheriff is just one more example of what is wrong with the process and what is wrong with the actions closing access to the forest.
Mark, as you know, every travel plan revision is done with a full EIS and plenty of public participation. It’s not accurate for you to say otherwise.
The amount and degree of participation in the process of creating an EIS is lacking in many respects. A single ad in a local newspaper and a single paragraph in the Federal register does not constitute proper notice, and this severely limits the scope of participation. No normal human being reads every local newspaper or every line in the federal register. Using limited and obscure means of communication does not constitute “plenty of public participation”.
I totally admire your journalism and your effort to be fair, and applaud every time you voluntarily publish notice of an action such as an EIS. However, It is however very difficult to give a passing grade to the level of participation in the current process of making a decision to eliminate public access. The internal bias of the agencies and effect of current administration policy is a major factor in the actions taken.
In observing this process first hand, I have to conclude that lip service is given to “public input” and actions are taken based on desired outcome, not serious analysis and study based on fact. The process needs to be improved before public access is eliminated. It is difficult to value what you do not have access to. It is the wrong way for these decisions to made.
Well, we can agree that the NEPA process needs some reform and improvement
I can’t speak for the process on the NFs in Arizona, but I do know that the travel plan for the WRNF here where I live was extensive and that the FS worked as hard as possible to balance all the competing uses, to the point that the decision was respected by almost everyone. To just continue the vague rhetoric about losing access doesn’t add anything to the dialogue. My suggestion is to make sure everyone is involved up front, identify specific areas of concern, identify areas of common ground and then move forward from there. And, by the way, the FS is moving quickly toward a collaborative approach. Some of the areas designated as closed to motorized use in the WRNF plan could be re-opened if the motorized community steps up to manage, police and enforce itself. This is pretty unprecedented.
Back to the point of the column: The statements by the sheriff are misleading and inflammatory, as witnessed by the reaction from the conservation community. Instead of grandstanding politically, why not sit down with the motorized users, the conservationists, the ranchers and figure out some specific areas to work on. I don’t doubt that motorized users on those forests have legitimate gripes, as probably do some non-motorized users, but ratcheting up the rhetoric isn’t going to solve anything — and that’s what the good sheriff did, IMO.
I’ll try a different tact today, isn’t it the responsibility of those who practice off road vehicle use, to also be good stewards of the environment? The idea that any damage done by ORV’s, is the responsibility of the F.S. to repair, is truly a stretch. Or am I missing something here?
Do you drive a car? It is obviously your responsibility to repair the potholes you cause. Do you use bridges? It must be your responsibility to repair the bridges you use. Does snow fall on your roads? It is your job to remove it. We share these jobs by building a society and creating a government.
We pay taxes and fees to organize a system where those repairs are made for the good of the community. We pay federal taxes, and it is more than reasonable to expect a significant portion of those funds to be used to maintain the access roads that we use for recreation on public lands. The fact that the agency is failing to do so is not a reason to close access, any more than the state should close a freeway because they want to save money fixing potholes and bridges. It takes participation, communication, and cooperation to achieve results. None of these things are accomplished by eliminating access to public lands.
Actually Mark, I don’t own a car, I take public transportation or walk. You paint with a wide brush in your comment, but avoid the question of responsibility for actions caused. Comparing highway taxes to repairing off road damage, is still a stretch.
Taxes paid to maintain transportation infrastructure and taxes paid to maintain National Forest road infrastructure is a very specific and accurate comparison. The only difference is the amount of pavement.
For example, if you own property but do not have children, you are still a member of society and are responsible for paying property taxes to educate the young. Lifestyle is not a reason to shirk a shared responsibility.
It is incumbent on us all to share the work of maintaining our public lands, and wholesale closure of these lands is not a viable management tool.
I take public transportation and walk more than I drive. It does not make me special, It saves money, cleans up the air, and has health benefits. It does not have anything to do with participation in the decision process of a federal agency.
To return to the original subject, the Sheriff of Coconino County feels this is a case where those decisions do not serve the public interest, and it deserves comment and debate in a public forum.
Replying to your comment is exactly the opposite of avoiding a question of responsibility – it is directly addressing the need for comment and debate.
The economic contribution of OHV recreation to the Colorado economy is over 1 Billion dollars – I can prove that with study created by an independent research institute. What is the cost of eliminating OHV recreation to satisfy overblown claims of environmental damage? It is a price that the local communities of Colorado should not have to pay.
I’m sorry Mark, but you response seems to contradict what your trying to convey. With that in mind, let’s just let this matter die. Have a nice weekend.
You cannot win a debate based on a difference of opinion by backing out of the discussion. I understand your viewpoint, but this issue requires study and analysis far beyond the range of comments on a news article. I will switch my debate to poetry, a form of expression that reaches the human heart.
Cotton Kills – by Samvega and his sidekick Pasada
“Cotton Kills”
declared the spandex weenies.
“Stay ‘hydrated’”
they declared with
obnoxoid outdoor unctuosity.
“Ultralighttrekkingpolelittlestove
driedfoodgoretexREIcatalogue
moisturewicking40belowsleepingbagbivysack”,
echoing from the walls
of the steel and concrete canyons.
____________________________________
I ride the mountains and the valleys
leaving no trace.
I share your sadness
that there are those
who do not share our love of the land
and leave it less perfect.
Through shared values and common effort
we will change them into what we seek to be,
part of nature, welcome and necessary to the whole.
I’ll bet Bob does not edit this one.