Rich Mountain GA Closure, Letters needed

Southern Four Wheel Drive Association

Conservation - Education - Recreation

Stefan Roth

1192 Seven Springs Circle

Marietta, Georgia 30068

April 4, 2004

Jim Wentworth

Brasstown Ranger District

P.O. Box 9

Blairsville, GA 30512

Re: Rich Mountain Road

Dear Mr. Wentworth,

I represent Southern Four Wheel Drive Association and hereby submit our public comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Rich Mountain Road Project, March 2004 (“Draft EA”) to the USDA Forest Service (“Forest Service” or “agency”).

We are of the strong opinion that Alternative 2 should be the alternative selected for future management of the Rich Mountain Road in the Toccoa Ranger District of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Our stand is supported by many reasons, which are outlined in the letter below.

By proposing Alternatives 3 or 4 in the Draft EA, the Forest Service appears to be placing little or no consideration on motorized recreational needs of the public. This attitude runs counter to the many letters received during the scoping period in June/July 2003 expressing a desire for motorized recreation. For motorized recreational users to fully enjoy the road, the entire road should be kept open throughout the entire year. We believe that legal and managed motorized recreation adds significant value to public lands and the rights of citizens to enjoy public lands.

There appears to be an error in the video on the Forest Service web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/images/video/20040325-rmr/ In the video District Ranger Cassius Cash states that the comment period ends April 7. However, the cover letter for the Draft EA states, “Comments must be postmarked or received within 30 days beginning the day following the publication of this notice in the News Observer in Blue Ridge, Georgia. I anticipate the publication date will be March 9, 2004.” The legal notice did indeed appear in the March 9 edition of the News Observer. Thirty days after this date is April 8, not April 7. The public comment period should run its full course.

There are several references in the Draft EA to current law enforcement activities, among them:

It appears to be clear from these statements that the Forest Service has recently been successful in increasing law enforcement presence and reducing and perhaps eliminating illegal activities.

Before these law enforcement activities, there was unlimited access for 30+ years with virtually no law enforcement presence.

Yet in section Element: Heritage Resources, Effects of Alternative 1, Indirect Effects (page 42), the analysis states, “Lack of law enforcement and continued illegal OHV use will allow looting activities to continue.” Does the agency propose under Alternative 1 that law enforcement activities will cease? If so, why? If not, why is it stated that there will be a “lack of law enforcement?” More specifically, why is a lack of law enforcement not assumed under Indirect Effects for all alternatives in the Element: Heritage Resources section? There is no higher occurrence of illegal looting occurring with Alternative 1 than any other alternative, especially in the face of a lack of law enforcement.

Furthermore, no evidence is cited to support the contention that Alternative 2 “does not meet the goal” for preserving Heritage Resources (Table 7, page 24). There is nothing in the administrative record to suggest that criminals active in looting will be any less likely to conduct their illegal acts simply by a change in access through this decision. Is looting seasonal? A more effective way to address looting would be through law enforcement activities. Please provide information as to the number of incidents of looting that have occurred as a result of use of Rich Mountain Road.

In section Effects of Alternative 2, Indirect Effects (page 98), the analysis stated, “Illegal motorized use in the edge of Wilderness.” There is no higher incidence of illegal motorized use in the edge of Wilderness with Alternative 2 than any of the other alternatives. This concern can only be effectively addressed with any of the alternatives with proper law enforcement and/or user education outreach. Furthermore, such law enforcement and/or user education outreach will be equally necessary under all alternatives.

In section Alternative 4, Indirect Effects (page 108) the Draft EA states, “The decommissioning of a portion of the Rich Mountain road and the seasonal and/or administrative closure of the remainder will reduce opportunities for illegal ATV use in the area. This should allow law enforcement personnel to devote more of their time and resources to other portion of the District where this illegal use is occurring.” This unsupported statement seems to imply that reducing access (i.e., closing gates) will stop illegal activities so less law enforcement will be undertaken, yet other sections of the Draft EA imply that continued law enforcement activities are needed to eliminate illegal activities.

Under Alternative 5, (road at level 1 and gated), the Draft EA states that this would reduce illegal ATV usage so it would not even need to be patrolled. If there are people currently driving around gates in other areas of the National Forests to illegally use the area, why would that not be the same on the Rich Mountain road?

Throughout the Draft EA, numerous statements are made regarding increasing or decreasing law enforcement activities on the road. Each of these statements should be clarified to indicate if they represent an observation of past experience, a statement of predication, or a commitment to future law enforcement activities. Predictive statements should be based on referenced studies.

Furthermore, the effects of all alternatives should be compared at the various proposed levels of law enforcement.

We strongly urge law enforcement activities on Rich Mountain road. Furthermore, the Forest Service should engage in rigorous user education programs to help eliminate illegal activities. It is well known that most illegal activities happen through ignorance, not through willful misconduct.

At a recent meeting, Deputy Forest Supervisor Andrew Colaninno suggested the quick adoption of a Volunteer Trail Ranger Program for the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests as shown on the Forest Service web site at: www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/recreation/cohvops/volunteers -rangers.shtml This kind of program will put user groups on the ground to educate users. It can, in effect, be seen as a force multiplier for Forest Service law enforcement efforts.

Among many other possibilities, the Forest Service should post sufficient notices at the entrances clearly outlining the rules and posting the law enforcement phone numbers so that law abiding users can report criminal activities. There are currently very few signs posting the boundary of the Wilderness Area and they do not reach the level of “… that clearly show the public where they can legally ride motorized vehicles” (Appendix. C and also in Chapters 1 and 2).

Throughout the Draft EA document, reference are made to the current road condition. It should be noted that the current road conditions exist as a direct result of over three decades of lack of road maintenance. Some external references suggest the last road work was performed around 1970. Over the last few years, we have repeatedly proposed to the Forest Service that road maintenance activities needed to be performed. We advocate that the entire road be reconstructed to Road Maintenance Level 2. The work for this level of reconstruct will have the smallest level of impact and provide the highest level of public satisfaction possible.

Two significant issues arise in this Assessment relating to the Road Analysis for the Rich Mountain Road (Roads Analysis) referenced on page 3 of the Draft EA. First, the Roads Analysis was not properly prepared insofar as the agency failed to prepare the analysis pursuant to 36 CFR 212.5(b). Agency regulations require it to “involve affected citizens” in determining the minimum road system. Effected citizens, particularly motorized users represented by this organization who utilize the road and who will be effected the most by a loss of motorized access, were not involved in the Roads Analysis at all. This failure to involve affected citizens in the Roads Analysis taints this Assessment.

Furthermore, reliance upon the recommendations of the Roads Analysis prohibits the agency from meeting its obligations pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq). The agency is burdened with rigorously exploring and objectively evaluating all reasonable alternatives, including the no action alternative. Relying upon the scientific information and recommendations of the Roads Analysis renders this requirement impossible. The agency would certainly be arbitrary and capricious in ultimately choosing to implement any alternative which did not meet the recommendations of the scientific information upon which the Assessment relies. When relying upon the recommendations of the Roads Analysis the agency was put in the predicament of being unable to chose to implement the no action alternative or Alternative 2 since neither of these two alternatives meet the recommendations of the Roads Analysis. The agency can not be true to its requirements under NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives when it is otherwise arbitrary and capricious in doing so for any alternatives that do not meet the recommendations of the Roads Analysis. Either the agency must stand by the legitimacy of the Roads Analysis and its recommendations or find itself in the impossible situation of choosing an alternative contrary to its own findings in the Roads Analysis. In this Assessment the agency cannot meet its obligation under NEPA while meeting its obligation to rely upon its own science in way that is neither arbitrary or capricious. For this reason the agency must not render a decision based on this Assessment.

In the alternative, and should the agency render a final decision based on this Assessment and the Roads Analysis, we believe that Alternative 2 most effectively and rationally provides for the greatest utilization of the recreation resource and protection of the environment.

Page 7, Issue C:

Poaching is an illegal activity. There is nothing in the administrative record to suggest that criminals active in poaching will be any less likely to conduct their illegal behavior simply by a change in access through this decision. A more effective way to address poaching would be through law enforcement activities. Please provide information as to the number of incidents of poaching that have occurred as a result of use of Rich Mountain Road.

In Significant Issues, Issue C (page 7), it is stated that changes in access will impact wildlife populations. There is reliable scientific evidence indicating that wildlife species and PETS species are “disturbed” by human activity, whether that activity be pedestrian, equestrian, mountain biking or motorized uses. The only changes proposed in the alternatives studied in detail are to motorized access. Limiting motorized access will not appreciably, if at all, reduce impacts on wildlife populations or PETS species. Therefore, it is arbitrary to reduce access based on limiting only one of many opportunities for human contact with wildlife populations.

Table 9 (page 80) shows that the effects on Project Management Indicator Species is the same for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Since Alternative 2 provides for more recreational opportunities, it should be selected.

In section Element – Fisheries, it is stated that the local fisheries would be negatively impacted by sedimentation. Yet, in section Element - Aquatic PETS and Locally Rare Species, it is stated that these waterways are too far away to be affected by sedimentation from the Rich Mountain road.

We propose that the crossing over Stanley Creek (Segment “D”) be reconstructed to a bridge crossing (as opposed to the current and proposed ford). The foundations of the existing bridge still exist and could be reused (as a side note, the existing bridge is still capable of supporting standard vehicles, despite its decrepit-looking appearance).

Page 98, Effects of Alternative 1, Indirect Effects:

The analysis stated, “High-pitched engines lead to an undesirable impact on primitive recreation experience in both Wilderness and Natural Area”. It is arbitrary to conclude that motorized noise is an undesirable impact on Wilderness. First, the Wilderness boundary was established with full knowledge of the existence of the road. Therefore, it is arbitrary to conclude that such anticipated use would be undesirable. Second, high-pitched engine noise is not indicative of legal four wheel drive vehicle use, but rather the type of noise that may be encountered with ATV use, which is illegal on this road. Proper law enforcement measures to prohibit illegal ATV use is sufficient mitigation to noise concerns.

In section Element Local Economy, Existing Conditions, it is stated, “No specific user related surveys have been completed for the Rich Mountain area” and other admissions of lack of user or economic data. There is no data concerning the impact of OHV users and hunters on the local economy. The conclusions for each alternative are arbitrary, speculative and inconsistent.

In section Effects of Alternative 2, Indirect Effects (page 102), it is stated, “the improved road conditions are likely to reduce the attraction of the area to recreational OHV enthusiasts and a decrease in this type of use is anticipated.” This statement is in direct contradiction to the Draft EA’s statement on page 98 referenced in the immediately above paragraph.

In section Effects of Alternative 2, Indirect Effects (page 107), it is stated, “The improved road conditions would increase use on the road.” This statement is in direct contradiction to the Draft EA’s statement on page 102 referenced in the immediately above paragraph.

Constructing a dead end road (Alternatives 3 and 4) that is only accessible by the public from the eastern end, would cause extra traffic volume due to the fact that every vehicle must turn around and travel back down the same length of road. What is the agency proposing to do for the long sections of road that are single lane only, when state licensed vehicles meet in opposing directions?

The Draft EA states that initially Alternative 2’s reconstruction will cost $30,000 more than Alternative 3 and $56,000 more than Alternative 4 and that there will be an additional $600 annual maintenance cost over Alternative 3 or $1,700 annual maintenance cost over Alternative 4. It may be possible to apply for Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funds through Georgia DNR to help reconstruct sections of the road to Road Maintenance Level 2. Regional 4WD clubs have already volunteered to help provide for trail maintenance.

We believe that the “Mitigation Measures Common to Action Alternatives” cited in Appendix C will repair the environmental damage caused by 30+ years of neglect.

We believe and advocate that the whole Rich Mountain Road should remain open and be reconstructed as Road Maintenance Level 2 and that it should not have seasonal closures.

Keeping all segments of the road open will enhance law enforcement, fire suppression, emergency services, and wildlife management efforts. Reconstructing the road will allow better recreational access for hunters, hikers, equestrians, bicyclists, and state licensed OHV vehicles.

Alternative 2 should be the “Proposed Action” and the “Preferred Alternative.”

Sincerely,

Stefan Roth

Vice President

cc: Kathleen Atkinson

Cassius Cash