Our Quick Thoughts:
Senator Bennet and
Representative Neguse recently proposed the CORE Wilderness Act and it
prohibits motorized usage of almost 400,000 acres of public lands. We
lose legal trails and riding areas right now and even more long-term
expansion opportunities in the future. Many areas proposed to be
designated have been previously released for non-wilderness multiple use
by Congress. Rather than the strong community support that is being
asserted, there is a complete lack of consensus on the CORE Wilderness
Act. Our requests on the CORE Wilderness Act component proposals have
been very reasonable and have been consistently stonewalled.
The CORE Wilderness Act
is simply a combination of two of the usual Wilderness suspects we have
been fighting for a decade or more. They are: 1. The old San Juan
Wilderness Proposal; 2. The old Continental Divide Wilderness Proposal.
CORE also includes the Old Thompson Divide Proposal and a boundary for
the Curecanti National Park around Blue Mesa Reservoir. Despite the
assertions this is a recreation bill, CORE Wilderness Act does not
improve recreation access for most users but rather closes trails, put
far more trails at risk in the long term and closes open areas to future
usage.
This is a Wilderness bill!!
We also would like to
recognize Senator Gardner and Congressman Tipton Office's for resisting
the immense pressure being applied regarding this legislation and
recognizing the negative impacts to public access to public lands that
would result and continuing to work towards a legislative proposal that
protects all forms of recreation and multiple usage of these lands.
Quick Summary of the San Juan Wilderness impacts to motorized recreation:
1. The San Juan portion
of CORE Wilderness closes approximately 55,000 acres to motorized usage
with 32,000 of Wilderness and 23,000 acres of management areas
prohibiting motorized usage. No releases or protections for motorized
are in the San Juan portion of the CORE Wilderness.
2. The CORE Wilderness
closes the Sheep Mtn area outside Telluride to snowmobile usage, which
is currently legal and has been under the GMUG management plan since
1983.
3. While the San Juan
proposal does not close trails it brings the Wilderness within 50ft of
where boundary trails are thought to be. USFS MVUM are simply not
accurate for this type of management and we would lose with any
inaccuracy in mapping. More room is needed to perform maintenance and
reroutes on the trails to keep them open. We have proposed 300 ft buffer
and a Congressional protection (similar to National Scenic or National
Motorized Recreation Trail) for these trails for years - they have
fallen on deaf ears.
4. We are unable to
determine the exact origin of the 50ft buffer standard but by comparison
the US Forest Service recommends a half mile buffer around trails
designated under the National Trail System Act. Why is the buffer so
much smaller here?
5. Many of the areas
now sought to be designated as Wilderness were specifically released by
Congress for Non-Wilderness Multiple Use as part of the 1980 Colorado
Wilderness Act. Many of the current Wilderness boundaries were put in
the specific location to avoid conflict with trails in the area, and the
San Juan Proposal would put the boundaries in the locations Congress
already found unacceptable in 1980.
A quick summary of Continental Divide Wilderness impacts to motorized:
1. The Continental
Divide portion of CORE Wilderness proposes 43,000 acres of Wilderness
and 28,000 acres of management areas that prohibit motorized usage,
while claiming to balance this with management of 28,000 acres for
motorized (which is already open to motorized). Tough to claim that is a
benefit to recreation.
2. The Continental
Divide portion of CORE Wilderness closes extensive legal trail networks
in the Spraddle Creek and Williams Fork areas that were just supported
by travel management planning in 2012.
3. Almost every area
proposed to be Wilderness in Continental Divide portion has been
identified as a future motorized expansion area. This is simply
unacceptable as only 7% of WRNF was suitable and available for
snowmobile usage in the 2012 Forest Travel plan. By comparison almost
30% of the WRNF is already Wilderness and sees approximately 3% of all
visitation.
4. There is no balance
in the Continental Divide as the Ten-mile Recreation area is closed to
motorized along with wildlife areas despite the fact that much of these
areas have legal motorized access currently.
5. The Camp Hale
provisions allowing motorized access to 28,000 acres we already have
legal access to is simply insufficient to balance out approximately
400,000 acres of new Wilderness and closures.
6. The "No Name"
addition to the Holy Cross Wilderness puts the Holy Cross City trail at
risk due to the proximity of the Wilderness impairing the ability to
maintain the trail. This is a nationally recognized route.
A more detailed analysis of site-specific impacts is available here:
2018 San Juan Wilderness Proposal Comments
http://www.coloradotpa.org/2019/02/06/san-juan-wilderness-proposal-2/
2018 Continental Divide Wilderness Proposal Comments
http://www.coloradotpa.org/2018/03/18/continental-divide-recreation-wilderness-and-camp-hale-act/
A draft of our counter proposal protecting public access to recreational opportunities
http://www.coloradotpa.org/2018/09/12/conceptual-paper-on-continental-divide-wilderness-and-recreation-act-proposal-hr-2554/
Our asks from you is submitting comments around these issues:
1. There is no
consensus around the CORE Wilderness Proposal and previous Congressional
decisions made by consensus must be honored. Pursuing consensus efforts
that ignore previous consensus decisions is difficult to understand. A
lot of work is needed to protect all forms of recreation in the CORE
Wilderness act. Don't close the public out of public lands.
2. If we are protecting
recreation, why are so many opportunities being lost? Legally
designated areas should not be closed. Wider buffers for existing legal
trails should be combined with Congressional designations protecting
motorized usage of the route when Wilderness is immediately adjacent to
the trail.
3. Previous legal
determinations regarding the utilization of areas for recreation in the
future must be honored rather than having these areas designated as
Wilderness.
4. Outstanding
commitments made in previous Wilderness bills such as Rollins Pass Road
that Congress mandated be reopened in 2002 must be honored. There are
also areas we would like to see released and protected for multiple use,
such as the North Sand Hills.
|