I wish I had the time to write a long freaking thesis here.
But we need to take a step back and look at the genesis of the problem.
I am going to simply type a few random stream of conscious thought sand try to pull them together at the end.
The USFS is part of the Department of Agriculture.
THE USFS primary mission is defined, by law, as:
"To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations."
The USFS was initially developed to ensure a steady supply of timber for our wood product needs in the face of deforestation. In fact at one point it was posited that even human existence in the US forest was unheathy and should be banned.
That brings us to MUSYA - 1960 most commonly referred to as the "Multi Use Doctrine" but technically know as the Multiple Use Sustainable Yield Act.
This act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to " develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services"
It goes on to define Multiple use - the "management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people and Sustained yield - "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.
What is important and unique about MUSYA is that each of the 5 pillars must be valued equally without bias. Further it says if any one use damages 2 others then the greater good is considered. This sint a decision a local ranger gets to make. This is federal law, violate this and go to federal prison shit. Your average Forester making $35k/yr aint sticking their neck out and risking fed time no matter how they feel.
(For anyone who cares to go to masters class we can discuss "Omnibus Parks and Public Land -1996" and how it impacts all this)
That said, just understand the struggle you are up against.
It has been argued and won that motorized vehicle travel is an approved and just form of recreation. That point is still contentious however and there is a large movement that says motorized vehicle travel is NOT a protected form of recreation. Make sure any letters you write address this - that motorized vehicle recreation is a viable and protected use of the forest.
So once they accept that motorized vehicle use is approved recreation, there is no protection for special or high challenge areas. I encourage you to go read MUSYA - it aint there. Again even being able to traverse is controversial, much less challenge areas.
So next you have to make sure that recreation doesnt impact more than 1 of timber, range, water or wildlife. If it does impact 2 of these then the greater good is to restrict recreation in promotion of these activities. AGAIN THIS ISNT MY OPINION THIS IS THE FEDERALLY DEFINED LETTER OF THE LAW. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS MY BELIEF. ....
Now lets take this line by line:
Does vehicle traffic prevent vegitative growth? If yes then it is impacting timber production.
Range isnt applicable in URE we can discount that one.
Water - this is why its so cruical to prevent water impacts. It doesnt say it has to prevent significant impact, but it shouldnt have ANY impact. This is why Tellico lost and it was the hill I died on trying to fight SFWDA and BRC lawyers. They spent thousands trying to quantify and minimize the damage and point out that the reports were exaggerated. The law doesnt define how much it must impact it, if it impact it AT ALL it is a negative.
Wildlife - AHhh the microscopic 10,000 ton elephant in the room. Thanks to ESA1973 (16 USC ch 35 1531...thank you Dr Wood all these years later I still remember that Damned location) Wildlife is now defined as well and it doesnt have to be significant, financially valuable, or ecologically important...its any living member of the flora or fauna....so does your recreation impact a living organism? If you have ever ran over an ant, or killed a mosquito then the answer is yes.
Why do closed trails never open? Because Green Peace, The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, NWF, DOW et al have lawyers on board and all they have to prove is that any 2 of the above have happened and it is legal reason not to re open.
What does all my rambling mean?
This is a hopeless losing battle. One that cant be won. I personally wont waste a breathe of oxygen fighting it, because the law is written and we violate it every day. Want meaningful impact? Get the law changed. I mean I think thats nearly as impossible but its the only hope.
All the red herring about indian artifact and significant historical cultural site and trout and 3 toed tree sloths and warblers etc....all those are the causes needed for an emergency action to create action without an EA (environmental assessment) and EAP (Environmental action plan) ...but they are not necessary for maintaining closure. The MUSYA is the closure king. To further explain the last point....the ONLY reason we still have any legalized vehicle recreation is because of the very bureaucracy of the federal government. The law basically states that current acceptable actions are considered ok and allowed unless some paperwork is done. and EEA and an EAP are two of the more significant pieces of this paperwork. And in typical government fashion these forms are overly long, very complicated and having a qualified firm complete them is very expensive. $4-5k for someone to fill out and stamp the 2 forms. But federal programs are understaffed. Changing things requires, literally, an act of congress. I am not aware of a single case where motorized recreation has won. But there are only so many battles fought.
Enjoy what you have, but PLEASE support private parks. It is the ONLY future/
