Illegal Road Closures:Need your HELP!

[dwagman]

As many of you probably know, the South Rampart Travel Management Plan is underway. It's VERY important for you to get involved in this by submitting your SUBSTANTIVE comments to the Forest Service (FS).

Why is this important and why did I CAP substantive?

It's important because unless you comment you have no appeal rights once they proceed with it. However, once you speak your mind, then you have appeal rights if you don't like what they've done. And best of all, appealing a decision costs you nothing but a stamp. And yes, appeals get reviewed independently and FS decisions have been overturned via this process.

Why did I cap substantive? Because unless you provide a substantive comment the FS will ignore and reject your comment. That said, a statement such as, "I think you should keep this road open because it's beautiful" isn't substantive. Here's how the law defines a substantive comment:

36 CFR 215.2 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS — Comments that are within the scope of the proposed action, are specific to the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action and include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.

With that said, please allow me to provide you with what I have sent the FS. I encourage you to review what the FS has done so far and to provide your own comments (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects). And if you like, use mine as a template of sorts, but do get involved...

EDAW/AECOM
Attn: South Rampart
TMP/EA
240 E. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524

RE: Substantive Comment as per 36 CFR 215.2 regarding the South Rampart Travel Management Plan; submitted via USPS and e-mail (comment@southrampart.net)

To Whom It May Concern:

There are two errors on the 2008 and 2009 MVUM that must be corrected for the final Travel Management Plan and subsequent MVUM.

FSR 322A
This road appears on the 1984 LRMP map and the 1992 Pike National Forest map but has been omitted from the 2008 and 2009 MVUM. In addition, this road has been closed for five years, despite the fact that its closure must be temporary (defined as up to one year, 36 CFR 220 et seq.) based on the Decision Memo For Temporary Closures of Roads and Trails for Resource Protection and Public Safety. This Order expired 4/29/09 and since this road remains closed to the public, that is in violation of the Order. Moreover, omitting this road from the MVUM has not followed the processes prescribed in 36 CFR 212 et seq. and 36 CFR 220 et seq. Therefore, this road must not only be reopened to the public but must also appear on the MVUM resulting from the South Rampart TMP.

FSR 371
This road appears accurately and in its entirety on the 1984 Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) map, has been omitted from the 1992 Pike National Forest map past the intersection with Emerald Valley Ranch as it heads due west, and appears again on the 2008 and 2009 MVUM, though only for approximately half of its length as it heads due west from the intersection with Emerald Valley Ranch (presumably stopping where it has been gated). As it relates to the TMP and the associated MVUM, since this road is a Forest System road, has been identified as such on the 1984 LRMP, and no amendments to the 1984 LRMP indicate otherwise, this road must be represented in its entirety as indicated on the 1984 LRMP map.

[dwagman]

So I went wheeling up Rampart Range on Saturday. I think this is pretty funny...

I drive by the gate for 322A (one if the illegally closed roads) and somebody took a blow torch to it and cut the top off, which is still hanging there, but the rest of the gate is gone. So the FS bolted one of those steel highway dividers or what you see on the cliff side of a mountain pass to two uprights instead. Looked like 1" nuts and bolts to me.

Beyond being funny to me, I can't help but think how Jeffersonian it was to do this. The FS is clearly violating the law in keeping this road closed to the citizens; in the words of our 3rd President, "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

[dwagman]

Earlier today I got off the phone with Jim Manley, an attorney for Mountain States Legal Foundation. These guys essentially do pro bono work as it relates to public access to public lands. This case is something they’re interested in, but...

The long and short of it is that since the Forest Service (FS) is now undergoing new Travel Management Plan (TMP) activities, fighting the closures at this point in time seems sort of a mute point. He very strongly recommended that all interested parties comment regarding FSR 371, FSR 322A, and any other areas that are of concern to you. This, he stated, would provide every person or organization who commented with legal standing, meaning that we can appeal whatever decision the FS makes. He also indicated that he wanted me to keep him abreast of the developments because if it ever comes to an appeal, he and his firm would be interested in looking deeper into this matter and perhaps helping us with the appeal(s), litigation, etc.

So, I refer you back a few messages of mine ago where I shared with you the address to which to send/e-mail your comment(s), along with my comments and an explanation of what a substantive comment must entail. You ought to use that as your guide. Now that the FS is developing a new TMP, let’s see if we can’t get our access back.

A few additional notes. The other attorney I spoke to would as a first step study all of the materials I gathered and would then propose a sit-down with the leadership at the FS to resolve this. He most definitely feels that they don’t have any legal support for their actions. This could be effective, but would cost between 1-2K. In the end, I’m afraid that the FS would simply default to the TMP, and perhaps rightfully so, and 1-2K was essentially spend for nothing. So again, comments is the way to go, get involved in the process! Working through the appeals process costs nothing more than a stamp and at the end of that process, there’s still the option to sue the FS.

On the Governor’s side of things, we’ve been completely ignored. His two policy attorneys that I’ve been put in touch with do not return any of my e-mails or phone calls. Next year is an election year for him and I will be sure to work on his retirement. If anyone is interested in helping out, let me know.

As far as Congressman Lamborn goes, I asked for another meeting in which several of us will ask him to tell us with specificity what he’ll do to get our public roads back. The request went out 10/29 and to date I have not heard back. So earlier today I sent his scheduling person an e-mail. He should be aware that 2010 is an election year for him too.

As always, stay tuned...

[dwagman]

Back in November, Lamborn sent a letter in which he rejected meeting with us. In this meeting he was to explain to his constituency what, exactly, he would do to compel the Forest Service to abide by federal law in closing public roads.

In this letter (http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_ser ... -19-09.pdf), among other things, he claims to have been in contact about this issue with three past Forest Service chiefs. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency in order to ascertain the truth of that statement; hence the delay in my reply (http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_ser ... 1-2010.pdf). It seems that his statement was a fabrication.

Suffice to say, Lamborn has proven to be an utterly worthless representative in this matter, which raises questions about his effectiveness in other, much more complex issues. I believe his retirement is in order and this work is being organized now. Let me know if you care to become involved.

[dwagman]

The Colorado Springs Independent is doing a story on this issue and Lamborn's incompetence on Friday. Apparently the writer has only been given limited space at this time, but it's a good start.

[dwagman]

Please find the latest article on Congressman Lamborn’s ineffectiveness at the following link. This appeared in the Colo. Spgs. Independent on Thursday.

Media, please note that I am available for comment.

http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_service/csi_lamborn_1-28-10.jpg

[dwagman]

Please note that the last public meeting for the South Rampart Travel Management Plan (TMP) took place earlier this month. You have until April 12 to submit your comments. The FS did a very good job of making information available for your review, such as comparison maps, comment forms, the presentation itself, etc. You may find everything you need here: http://southrampart.net/

What I find particularly interesting is that the proposed changes as seen in Alternative B and C (Alternative A is the current situation) do not match. Put another way, in Alternative B FSR 322A is supposed to be reopened yet in Alternative C it is supposed to be categorized as an Administrative trail. This is important because the TMP must be based on science, according to federal law (see 36 CFR 212 for more). So if the science indicates that a trail must be closed, it would seem that this should be so in both Alternatives. Unless, of course, the decision was NOT based on science, in which case it would appear to be arbitrary and capricious. This is the sort of thing the law does not like and would provide us with strong grounds for appeal. Please note that this situation applies to several roads, not just FSR 322A.