INFORMATION RE THE FLORENCE JUNCTION (MGCP) TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PROPOSED PLAN
OHV MEETING
Tues, APRIL 14, 2009
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
1826 W. McDowell, Phoenix
Arizona Game & Fish building at the Fairgrounds located at the junction of I-17 & I-10
PLEASE NOTE: Entrance gate off McDowell (just east of 19th Avenue) will be the only gate open. As entering the gate you will have to explain to the guard you are there for a meeting at the Game & Fish building. Continue straight past the Coliseum and then turn left. You may have to hunt for a parking space as the fair opens the next day and they are worried parking may be difficult. The Game & Fish building is a large building just east of the coliseum.
Wear RED if you chose………….. the important issue is to have NUMBERS. We will get nothing if we don’t show interest!

BLM will be in attendance with the maps. We will not be able to “speak” but BLM will take written questions/issues/concerns at which time they will read and answer to the group as a whole. Hopefully this will help everyone understand the detailed issues and how each of us can help make this work for both sides. I believe BLM have helped make this a quality recreation area but it’s going to be up to all of us to keep it this way as well as improving it as we move forward. Pinal County has supported the MGCP in maintaining this area for recreation……………… We are not going to agree with everything but all in all we certainly haven’t lost like California has. Below are a few of the questions that have been put to me over the past couple of weeks. Please feel free to add to them. I will have paper available if BLM does not. Following this meeting it is asked each of you write comments to BLM. DUE by MAY 8, 2009.


The proposed CLOSED trails:
Lower Woodpecker
Martinez Canyon
Woody’s Wash
Overdose
Broken Ankle
Jawbreaker (this trail has been officially closed for a number of years)
QUESTIONS:
1) Page 5 of the Summary Plan, paragraph a: WHO will be responsible for maintaining roads? Will all roads be maintained “annually” as stated?
2) What if we don’t want roads to be improved unless it’s a safety issue or resourse issue?
3) Page 5 of the Summary Plan, paragraph b: What are “primitive roads”? How do these trails apply to the stated “annual maintenance”?
4) WHY 139.3 miles of CLOSED ROUTES? My concern is by closing this amount of existing trails it only puts more impact on the trails remaining open and it looks as though the ATV’s and bikes have fewer places to ride thusly putting them on the 4x4 technical trails or major routes. This is a safety issue.
5) Are there any plans to designate trails only to ATV’s or UTV’s or bikes?
6) Page 6 of the Summary Plan, paragraph c: Please explain the last paragraph relating to 12.6 miles of routes related to rock crawling to be identified as specialized recreation sites? Does this mean that in the area of the trail the sides or rock obstacles are part of the trail?
7) Page 7, paragraphs 3 & 4: you refer to route widths, intensity, surface, curves etc……. Why would you enhance the problems with managing these issues by closing so many miles of trails. It seems most of the trails on the ground today are due to “supply and demand”. These numbers will not lessen.
8) Will OHV vehicles be restricted from major ingress/egress routes that “hauling trucks” use? If so how will the recreational vehicles be warned?
9) Page 9, paragraph 5b: I don’t find specific plans or proposals regarding the Great Western Trail. Is it specified on the maps?
10) Page 3, paragraph 5c: How do the Pinal County Trails along the river affect OHV recreation? Can OHV no longer access camping sites along the river?
11) Will there be any approved river crossings for OHV?
12) Page 11, paragraph 2: WHO makes the site plans? Many of the “OHV SITES” shown on the maps are simply 4x4 trails. They are not technical trails and do not require any special equipment. WHY do ALL these trails fall under a “special site” designation?
13) Page 12, paragraph D; I note some of the 139.3 miles of closed routes are self claiming…… why are the remaining trails being closed? Many of these depicted trails should be designated for ATV, UTV or bike routes.
14) Due to the fact the State Land Dept. has put so many stipulations regarding access to Trust lands will BLM lands offer anything in the way of “staging areas”; or “camping or event areas”. If not, how do we move forward with getting some of these areas implemented into the area plans?
15) Page 14, paragraph 5 of the Summary Plan it states “pull off a designated route up to 100 ft on either side of the centerline”. What exactly does this mean?
16) Page 15, paragraph I of the Summary Plan talks of issuance of a Record of Decision and map. Please explain and what is the timeline for all of this to take place? Are the existing trails open to our use until such time all this is final?
17) It is my understanding we can propose to BLM additional trails for future use. HOW do we do this and how long does this take?
18) Can we propose reopening trails as the OHV numbers increase?
19) I’m assuming NEPA must be done on any “new trail proposals”. Will this also include trails that are now on the inventory? Will we just be told such things as: “No money, time or personnel to do the required work for new trails?”
20) Regarding dollars for funding NEPA, trails, etc can we, the public, write grants with BLM supporting them?
21) It is my understanding BLM regulations state you need “reasons” for closures. Will you give us the specific reasons for the closures of: Martinez, Lower Woodpecker, Woody’s Wash, Overdose and Broken Ankle?
22) It is my understanding Broken Ankle was suggested for closure by the OHV reps in the evaluation portions of this procedure because it was felt it was unsafe for a novice driver. Can we replace another of the closed trails by rebuilding this trail to be of equal difficulty to replace our loss?
23) I am specifically interested in the reason behind the closure of Martinez. There have been years of accusations towards OHV regarding damage to the structures and resources. I know for fact the damage at the cabin has nothing to do with OHV and the crossing of the stream just above the ponds has been ruled by BLM fish specialist to not be a problem. OHV offered a number of years ago to help rebuild or stabilize the house………… at our cost by the way, but we were never allowed to do anything. We were recently accused of destroying the rock outbuilding where it shows definitively that Mother Nature did the damage. We asked for a partnership proposition of “gating by permit for 3 years” to give time to rebuild and restructure the canyon while being able to monitor who goes into the canyon. By closing out only the OHV only allows the RAVE groups and campers to do whatever they wish. The only thing it does is take the blame off OHV. If this canyon is to be closed it needs to be closed to EVERYONE.
24) If Lower Woodpecker is closed do we have use of the Middle Woodpecker area as a “play area” or just a pass through to Upper Woodpecker without traveling the main road?
Please add additional questions or concerns so everyone sees and understands the issues.
THANKS

Hey Jack,

from the map I saw in reference to Lower Woodpecker, that Lower was closed and a play area is shown on the proposed map? Did I missread it?

In either case this is the best option for us to gain something while we are going to have to give up something.

Just received this from Game and Fish on access tonight:

The participants can come in off the 19th Avenue and the Monte Vista entrances as well as the McDowell entrance. They should park on the east side of the wildlife building (west of the Coliseum) and then enter the building on the south side. Security is aware that we will be there and will be expecting us.

Hope to see a sea of OHV.

Please also note, the question and answers are going to be via written, therefore we don't want to engage them in a verbal discussion. We need to take the high road no matter what, we won't agree with everything they have to say, they are trying to represent both OHV and the Green side. So lets not look bad with outbursts, boo's, heckling of any kind. If you hear something that raises a question, please get it written down ASAP and turned in, but keep it positive, this is our opportunity to find out the facts and prepare our comments for the write in period.

Sorry in advance for the long notes...

First I would like to thank those who attended. It was a very good showing for us and I think it helps to know just how much this area means to us with such a large group in attendance.

I felt we had a lot of good questions, however many vague answers. Most of the trail closures I feel were generalized to fit under Desert Tortoise Habitat, private property, mostly referred to by this is in the general area of a Level 2 Desert Tortoise Habitat. However when asked if there are any, the response was they were not biologists and rely on Game and Fish for this input, yet had no absolute proof that any existed in the area.

I do feel that they tried to answer our questions to the best of their ability, however in my opinion often were not as specific as I would like to have seen.

One good thing to a question Sandee asked was in regards to those routes/trails being closed was would NEPA be required to be performed again if in the future it is requested a route/trail is requested to be re-opened. The response was no, that is a good thing.

I do appreciate the time and effort of the BLM in making this meeting happen.

I do feel a lot of good points did come of this meeting, things we all need to include in our comments to the BLM by May 8th, 2009. Do not let this day come and go with an oops or I forgot or someone else will do it. We need EVERYONE to send in their comments. In addition don’t just cut and paste entire letters and sign your name, every letter needs to be sent on its own, and in YOUR OWN words. Duplicate letters with different names will only be counted as 1 response. For example 1000 letters sent in would be nice, but if they are just a form letter with different names it will only be counted as 1.

In addition be sure to include options when you want to keep a trail open. Look at why they are proposing closure and propose options to keeping it open, request mitigation over closure. Also keep the tone of your letter positive, keep the blame game out of it, they are stuck in the middle between those who want access and those who want to limit access and they have to balance the needs of both sides to create the experience that the public wants on public lands that everyone wants to use. They are between a rock and a hard place.


Below are my opinions and thoughts on these, each person may very on agreement with this, I am just putting out my thoughts in hopes to help others prepare their letters and things you might want to include.

As for the Desert Tortoise issue that was listed on just about every trail, something to note in your letters would be that the Desert Tortoise is not an endangered species, and while it deserves the same rights to a good habitat, it by itself is not a reason for closure. We need to question why on these technical trails where our vehicles crawl so slowly we cannot co-exist. If we were a high speed past time I would agree there would be a high likelihood that an tortoise could be run over. However on the trails they are proposing to close, these are technical trails with a rating of 4.0 or higher and require slow speeds to extremely slow speeds. Thus pretty much eliminating the tortoise from being run over. We need to request that it is proven that a tortoise exists, not just probable based on defining it as a habitat, as the entire state technically is a habitat for the Desert Tortoise. You can restate your opinions about the Desert Tortoise on every trail that it has been used as one of the reasons for closure.

As for the most contested trail in the area, Martinez Canyon, the Desert Tortoise was one of the reasons listed, the above notes can help defend that as an option. Another issue is that often OHV is blamed for the destruction, and per the conversation last night even the BLM was agreeable that it is more often the partiers, rave attendees and some irresponsible people causing the issue. Our mitigation option that was offered was that we do the same type of gate that was done on Bull Dog Canyon on the FS. It would be a free access code you can obtain when signing up. This would keep the people who are not there for the experience of the trail, nor the historic value out. The OHV community even offered to pay for it, thus reducing the costs to the BLM, also requested it be put in place and just as with all other partial or full closures a 3 year study be performed to monitor the progress/success of the gate at mitigating issues. At the end of the 3 years a final determination with the studies findings would determine the final decision. I feel we would want to be less supportive of the gating with a 3 year closure then look at re-opening as we all know after it has been closed, getting it open again would be almost impossible. Gating with a 3 year study gives us 3 years to get it together. In addition in your letters remind them of our offers to assist in re-pairing the area, repeated offers to help make this area pristine with hard work have not been accepted. Let them know that if we can agree on the gate with OHV access and a 3 year study we are willing to adopt the area and make any fixes required. I suggested last night too that by the cabin and any other structures that historical signs be put up so that people can stop and read about the history. Let them know how much this trail means to you and how much of an effort you are willing to put forth in keeping it open by your own works on this trail. One other issue on this trail is parts to cross private property. BLM can not condone traversing this, and this includes hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, etc… Since this is an issue, if it is determined to be an issue for this trail and is closed to any user of the public lands, then it should be used as the same reason to close it to all access, hiking, mountain biking and equestrian too, not just closed to OHV. Suggestions on how the private property can be circumvented would also be very welcome. If you know of a way around it that would be great. In addition the BLM has the right to ask for an ingress/egress across the private property. My thought is if we can the gate proposal passed, it would give the BLM a good card to play with the private property owners to show that access would be limited to responsible users. If the private property issue cannot be solved, and while we know loops are preferred, we do have the right to request that we be allowed access up to the private property and this would be an exception to the norm by not having a loop, but would be accessed by going in and out the same way.

In reviewing Lower Woodpecker, while the petro glyphs are pretty high up on the wall and very unlikely that we would ever drive over them, a quick review of similar situations saw that we would most likely lose this trail. The request of the OHV community was that we be given Middle Woodpecker as a play area and we could support the closer of Lower Woodpecker. We know this will not be a popular decision with everyone, however keep in mind that we most likely would lose it no matter what, and with this option we at least get something out of it.

Many of the options I have provided here in relationship to Martinez Canyon could be used for other trails too. Keep in mind, these are public lands and they have to strike a balance, we are only one user group of the land, representing one piece of the public user puzzle. The enviro’s want it all closed down, and they are also not going to get their way on everything, just like we won’t either. We do have the right to ask for reasons/proof for a closure, we have the right to pursue mitigation prior to closure and we can above all ask for our access. However just saying I have used it for years and want to keep running that trail won’t cut it. We need to do out homework, look up why it is being looked at for closure and then prepare a response that offer options/mitigation that would allow the trail to be kept open.

I cannot stress enough the need for everyone to write in their comments, prepare your own letter in your own words, use information that is available, but make it your own and encourage others that you know use the area and trails to get their comments in as well. Please, please be very specific in what the trail and area means to you, but even more specific about your reason why you want it open and even more specific on ways to mitigate any listed issues that were given as a reason to propose closing the trail that would open the option to keeping the trail open.

Another suggestion that came in was for some of the closed trails, that a clause in the travel plan allow for special permitted access to some of the trails that are proposed closed, that would allow for some limited access on those trails in the future for special events. Not a perfect solution, but one worth noting in my opinion. If you want this as an option I would include very specific parameters, if we leave it too vague then they have the right to refuse all of the requests.

I forgot to get the online site written down last night, if anyone happens to have written it down can you post it here so that everyone can have access to it?

Thanks again to all those that attended, week night meetings like this are hard to attend, I thought we would have between 75-100 and we exceeded that by quite a bit and had standing room only.