:mad3::shaking::rolleyes::barf::mad3::barf::mad3: :barf:

Preservation on tap
Groups seek to keep area open
By Kevin Welch
kevin.welch@amarillo.com
Post a comment here




Stephen Spillman / Amarillo Globe-News
Nathan Dreasher jumps his motorcycle in the Rosita Flats area of the Canadian River, part of Lake Meredith's watershed. Officials are looking ways to manage the recreation area.


Stephen Spillman / Amarillo Globe-News
Michael Sexton of the Jeep Exclusive Club of Amarillo works his way over a cliff in the Rosita Flats area of the Canadian River.


Stephen Spillman / Amarillo Globe-News
Kodie Hicks, 4, and Ireland Brown, 6, hold on as Brandon Hicks turns his four-wheeler on an incline at Rosita Flats. The National Park Service plans a series of hearings as a preamble to preparing a plan to manage the recreation area.


ARTICLE TOOLS: Email Article | Print-Friendly Format
SHARE THIS STORY: As Lake Meredith's reputation as a popular draw for off-road enthusiasts continues to spread, national park officials are searching for ways to properly manage the land.

Public hearings planned
The National Park Service will host three public meetings to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in a management plan and Environmental Impact Statement for off-road vehicle areas of Lake Meredith.

Meeting schedule


Tuesday: 6-8 p.m. in Fritch at the Sanford-Fritch Middle School;

Wednesday: 6-8:30 p.m. First State Bank, Dumas;

Thursday: 6-8 p.m. Ambassador Hotel, Amarillo
Representatives of the Park Service will be available at each meeting to discuss issues, resource concerns and the planning process.

Additional information


E-mail: parkplanning.nps.gov/LAMR. parkplanning.nps.gov/LAMR. To comment, select the "ORV Management Plan and Regulation" project, select "documents,'' select "Notice of Intent," and then select "Comment" and enter your comments.

Mailed letters: Cindy Ott-Jones, superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036-1460.

Hand-delivered comments: Lake Meredith NRA Headquarters at 419 E. Broadway in Fritch.
"The alternative is if we did nothing, we'd be forced to close them or somebody will get seriously hurt," said Arlene Wimer, chief of resource management for the National Park Service at the lake. "We're going to find a way to manage them and see if we can get a handle on it."
The overriding objectives are to develop plans to preserve resources and increase safety, but still allow public use of Rosita Flats on the Canadian River and the Blue Creek area on the north side of the lake. The planning should cover the next 10 to 15 years.

The park service will conduct meetings this month to define the scope of issues to be addressed.

Off-road enthusiasts are working to have their voices heard on the subject and looking at possibly larger changes than just new rules, especially at Rosita Flats on the Canadian River just east of U.S. 87/287.

"We're working with the Legislature to make it a controlled area (24 hours a day, seven days a week)," said Scott Salter, president of the Texas Off Roaders Association. "There would be controlled gate access and law enforcement so it won't be a free-for-all like it is now."

The association hopes to create a more family-oriented environment.

Members' goal is to swap the Rosita Flats land controlled by the National Park Service for state-owned land elsewhere. That would make Rosita Flats adjoin existing state land under and around the Canadian River Bridge on U.S. Highway 287.

"We're hoping to have the transfer done before the scoping gets too far along," Salter said. "Then we have to worry about Blue Creek."

The process by which the park service is starting to create a management plan will wrap up with the release of the final version and environmental-impact statement in late 2011. There will be another chance for public comment with the release of a draft plan.

"Decisions at the Park Service are not made at the whim of the superintendent or myself," Wimer said. "This is going to be well thought out. It will have scientific data to back up our decisions. There will be public input at various points in the process. This is the initial one."

The Texas Off Roaders Association and another group, the West Texas Outlaws, are working together.

"Most of the West Texas Outlaws are willing to forgo some freedoms such as unlimited availability to camping to ensure continued access to the river and better security and safety, and are gladly willing to pay a daily or yearly fee to do so," according to a statement from the West Texas group. "This spring, we took part in a TORA-sponsored river clean up. Three working meth labs were found and reported. Who wants to be exposed to things like that? Also a set of coherent and enforceable rules is needed."

The off-road groups take the issue of managing the areas personally.

"We treat the river like our backyard, and we take care of our backyard, even if it means picking up after other people," said Jennifer Thompson, secretary of the West Texas Outlaws.

The groups also fear the off-road sites could eventually be closed until the Park Service can develop the management plan.

"It's the same green agenda coming out of California that hit jet skis, and we went two years without being able to use them until rules could be formulated," Salter said.

http://www.texasoffroaders.com/canadianUpdates.html

ANYBODY that has wheeled here or knows what this place is, knows that this is horse shit.
Most of us agree that we would pay to have this place regulated. We need to run off the people that DON'T CARE!
If you live in the area or you ever want to try this area, please get active and help. Idea's are welcome, I am going to tell tham about places like The Independance trail system and Hollister Hills. We have 30 miles of river that can be used. It just needs some rules. What do you advise?

We are a small community of off roaders, We don't say much here on pirate, but we are in need of the PBB.

James

You are about to go thru the NEPA process for a Enviromental Impact study in that area.

There is NO stopping it. Don't feel alone either, these are going down EVERYWHERE. Just happened in Eldorado National Forest out here, Tahoe is next, Upper Tellico is about to finish the scoping period, etc. etc.

You NEED to get people on the ground involved NOW!!

If you would like to see a grassroots plan that is currently being put in use for Upper Tellico's EA by a PBB Task Force, please PM me your e-mail address and I will send it over to you. I will only send it however with the PROMISE that you guys will use it as much as possible.

But step one: UNDERSTAND THE NEPA PROCESS!

I suggest reading the following closely and making sure everyone in your club understands it.

This is taken from John Stewart's (Cal4Wheel) site: www.muirnet.net

John, I know this is copyrighted by you. If you have a problem with me posting it here please let me know ASAP and I will remove it.

It is important that we all understand the NEPA process becuase it's what we are dealing with EVERYWHERE.

NEPA - The Basics

by: John Stewart
Natural Resources Consultant
California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assures that federal agencies will consider the impact of an action on the human environment before decisions are made and the action is taken. It requires that NEPA documents concentrate on issues that are significant to the action in question. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make better decisions based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the human environment.

In accordance with the NEPA Process, the agency conducts an interdisciplinary review of the environmental effects of the proposal so that the relevant environmental information is available to citizens and public officials. The review of the environmental effects of a proposed action can take one of the following four forms:

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS (CX) -
These types of proposed activities do not individually or cumulatively have significant environmental effects and may be exempt from requirements to prepare an environmental analysis. These actions are not included in the online registers.

DOCUMENTATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY (DNA) -
A Documentation of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) identifies previously prepared NEPA documents which adequately describe the environmental consequences of a newly proposed action. In most cases, a DNA is prepared without additional public involvement

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EA) -
An EA is prepared to determine if a proposed action or alternative will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If the impacts are determined to be insignificant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared and is made a part of the decision. If the impacts are determined to be significant, the proposed action may be rejected, modified, or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. Public involvement activities for an EA range from notifying those directly affected by the proposed action to providing review drafts for public comment and conducting workshops and meetings.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS) -
Major federal actions that may significantly affect the human environment require that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. The EIS process includes a formal public involvement process.

HOW YOU CAN BE INVOLVED
All federal agencies encourage the public to get involved in the planning process to help determine how public lands will be managed. Involvement by everyone with an interest in public lands will help ensure the best possible plan is developed and future uses of public lands are well defined. You may participate in any of the on-going planning efforts listed a federal agency. If you have questions or would like to submit comments on a particular project, or if you wish to be on a plan mailing list, contact the appropriate agency office.
NEPA Explained

© MUIRNet Consulting, 2005-2007
John Stewart
Natural Resource Consultant
California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs

Keeping trails and areas depends on access. Keeping that access depends on land management policies and procedures, which depend on environmental issues and concerns. Those environmental issues and concerns are reviewed through NEPA.

So, what is “NEPA”? NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, became law on January 1, 1970 and is the basic national charter for protecting the environment. Ten years in making, NEPA is the controlling guidance for federal agencies for virtually any activity undertaken, funded, or permitted that affects the environment. All federal agencies are covered by NEPA and share some common procedures; however, each agency has different specific rules defining their NEPA process.

Key Point: NEPA applies to any activity for all federal agencies.

NEPA establishes a process that outlines federal agency responsibilities and guides public involvement. NEPA applies to “major federal actions”. The term “major” applies to the significance of the impact on the environment. NEPA is the process of assessing the impacts of actions on the physical, biological, and human environment. NEPA provides for notification by federal agencies that an action will be proposed. It provides for public involvement in the decision making process. And, NEPA provides a strict timeline for and documentation of the federal decision making process.

Key Point: NEPA is a process that includes notification rules, public involvement in decision making and timelines for decisions.

While NEPA applies to federal actions, certain nonfederal activities that require a permit, regulatory decision, or federal funding may be subject to NEPA. The NEPA process starts with a planning process for a proposed agency action, often advertised in the Federal Register. During this step, the agency develops a general description of the proposed action.

There are four main objectives in this step: 1) collect information and document the area; 2) determine the objectives of the planning effort; 3) develop a timeline and budget for the plan; and 4) identify stake-holders.

At this stage, the public has an opportunity to become involved in the planning process and express comments and concerns about the proposed action. It is not necessary to wait for a formal announcement of a proposed action to become involved. Comments and concerns from the public may be submitted at any time and may be used to develop proposed actions. Members of the public should be presenting data and proposals to the agency, as well as, compiling information about what the agency should be looking at during the planning process.

Key Point: The public can and should be involved as early as possible in any project affecting their area of interest. Do not wait!

A review of the proposed agency action and public comments and concerns may lead to a “Categorical Exclusion” or other exemption authorized by Congress. It can also lead to a need for further review through an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The term “Categorical Exclusion” (CatEx) is applied to actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment: typically small, routine actions. As always, exceptions do occur. Categorical Exclusions are not applied in proposed actions that affect wetlands or threatened and endangered species.

Key Point: CatEx’s apply only to small routine projects.

An EIS is required if the proposed action has the potential to “...significantly affect the quality of the human environment”. If the proposed action does not meet the criteria for Categorical Exclusion or other exemption, it is reviewed to determine if an EIS is required. The Environmental Assessment is used for this purpose. Often, the EA is used help the agency determine if the impacts of the proposed action will be significant. The EA will document the need for an EIS or document and justify a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Key Point: The EA leads to the decision of whether a EIS or a FONSI is appropriate.

The EA contains a brief description of the proposed action, reasonable alternatives, and the probable environmental impacts. The EA must consider cumulative impacts when determining that a proposed action significantly affects the environment. The agency is required to provide public notice of availability of EA documents. Each agency has their own regulations concerning the public notice (scoping) requirements. A “scoping period” is not required to prepare an EA. Often, agencies will use a scoping period to define alternatives to a proposal or determine significant environmental impacts.

Key Point: The scoping period is when the public has their say.
The EA will end with a FONSI or a determination that an EIS is required. A FONSI describes why an action not otherwise excluded will not have any significant effects on the environment. The NEPA regulations do not prescribe a public review period for a FONSI. In certain circumstances, the agency must make the FONSI available for at least a 30-day public review. As with an EA, the agency is required to provide public notice of availability of FONSI documents.

Key Point: All documents in NEPA require notice and most require public involvement.

An EIS is required if the proposed action has the potential to “...significantly affect the quality of the human environment”. For an action to “affect” the environment, it must have a causal relationship with the environment: direct, indirect, or cumulative. An EIS is required to provide a full and fair discussion of environmental impacts of proposed alternatives. The EIS contains a full description of the proposed action, reasonable alternatives, and the probable environmental impacts that would avoid or minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed action.

Key Point: The EIS describes the proposed action, the alternatives and the impacts.

NEPA regulations provide for three types of EISs: 1) Individual proposed action, 2) “Programmatic” on broad federal actions, and 3) Legislative.

The “Individual Proposed Action EIS” is specific to single proposed action. The “Programmatic EIS” applies to such issues as adoption of regulations, policies, or plans. The “Legislative EIS” is prepared for proposed legislation. As previously stated, an EIS is required if the proposed action has the potential to “...significantly affect the quality of the human environment”. The Individual proposed action and Programmatic EISs are the most common types prepared by federal agencies or public lands managers.

The NEPA process for an EIS begins with publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. The NOI is the official agency public announcement that a proposed planning effort is starting. During this part of the planning process, the agency solicits public input to identify major resource issues to be addressed in the proposed plan. At this point, the public will have at least 30 days to provide comments pertaining to the area to be addressed in the plan.

Key Point: The first step of an EIS is the NOI which allows at least 30 days for public comment.

The first step, the scoping period, is the first formal opportunity for the public to participate in the NEPA planning process. At this time, public meeting dates may be scheduled during the duration of the scoping period. During the scoping period, you can provide written comments that identify key issues and concerns, identify current or expected uses that can contribute to cumulative impacts on the environment, and identify actions that can lessen expected impacts to the environment.

Key Point: After the NOI, Scoping begins, and the public has its first chance to get involved.

It is very important for members of the public to participate in the scoping stage of the planning process. Frequently, the scoping period will introduce travel management plans. It is important to include any data on existing or incorrectly identified routes to be included in the final stages of the planning process.

The scoping period will define the social, economic, and environmental issues, develop reasonable alternatives, and define mitigation measures. The agency will use this data to develop a draft EIS.

Key Point: Data and comments gathered during Scoping are used to develop the first draft EIS.

A major section of the draft EIS is the range of alternatives. An EIS is required to have at least three alternatives: 1) No Action Alternative; 2) Agency Preferred Alternative; and 3) an Environmentally Preferred Alternative.

The “No-Action Alternative” provides the point of reference for comparison of the environmental affects of the other alternatives. The “Agency Preferred Alternative” is the one that best fulfills the agency mission and statutory responsibilities considering the identified social, economic, and environmental issues. The “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” is the one that best promotes the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA. Generally, this alternative causes the least damage and best protection to the environment.

Key Point: All the possible alternatives must be presented in the EIS.

Depending on the complexity of the proposed action, additional alternatives may be provided. In addition, members of the public have the option to develop and submit their own alternative for consideration.

Each alternative is reviewed and compared using a scientific and analytical basis to determine the environmental effects and any adverse effects that cannot be avoided. In general, the effects include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, conflicts with laws or other plans, and social and economic effects. As noted, the alternatives must provide a “reasonable” range of alternatives and a scientific and analytical comparison of the alternatives. And, measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts must be included in the comparison review.

Once complete the draft EIS is released for a minimum 45-day review and comment by members of the public and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Comments should specific and relevant to the proposed action. In general, comments should identify incomplete or incorrect information, offer a new idea or alternative, or describe why an alternative or element would or would not work.

The draft EIS and all comments are reviewed and used to develop the Final EIS. The intent of the NEPA process is to help agencies make decisions passed on an understanding of environmental consequences. The data contained in the draft EIS and the public comments are used to develop final actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environments.

Key Point: The data contained in the draft EIS and the public comments are used to develop final actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environments.

NEPA requires that federal agencies disclose the environmental effects of their actions and identify alternatives and mitigation measures. NEPA does not require agencies to implement environmentally preferred alternatives or mitigation measures.

The final alternative must have been adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIS. Once selected, the agency will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) stating the final selected alternative along with a statement explaining the decision and factors considered during the decision process. Additional information such as mitigation measures and monitoring and enforcement actions will be included in the ROD. All documentation, including public comments received, becomes part of the official Administrative Record for the proposed action.

Key Point: After all this, a ROD states the final alternative.

Agency responsibility does not stop with the ROD. Every 3-5 years, the decisions documented by an EIS are required to be reviewed. Any new data can generate a new EIS or an amendment to the current EIS.

NEPA regulations provide for an administrative appeal process of the final decision. The exact process is detailed in the individual agency NEPA regulations.

NEPA contains no enforcement mechanism or authority. Enforcement of NEPA is through lawsuits brought by private citizens, special interest groups or state and local governments or agencies. Courts have recognized that NEPA does not impose a substantive duty on federal government to protect the environment.

Instead, the courts have take the role of ensuring that the agency has adequately reviewed the environmental consequences and adequately documented the decision making process. Under a judicial review, courts are restricted to reviewing the official Administrative Record when determining whether a federal agency violated NEPA requirements.

As always, there are exceptions.......

If you start packaging it for sale, I get a cut of the profits.... :))

I don't have a problem with it being posted and used.

God bless the PBB and thankyou for the info.
James

I hope that they are able to get better management for it, I have been wheeling the river my whole life. We have been down there many times for clean-ups and what not, and it never fails that you find cars that are purposely burnt and left, old appliances dumped, and beer cans and trash everywhere. The park service has done a fine job with the blue creek area, and rosita flats, i hope they are able to find a way to manage the areas west of rosita that are open. I also hope they can find a better way to regulate the offroad sticker system they have now. In my opinion, if you are going to take anything down there to play off pavement, whether or not its road legal, it should have to have a sticker. I also think that a daily or yearly pass to use the areas would be a good idea. Maybe it would deter some of the people from going down there to abuse the land, knowing that consequences were to come if they didnt have the proper registration. Designated camping areas are a very good idea to help out some on the trash situation.

They also need a way to get even more park rangers and police there on the busy weekends, such as the sand drags. It seems that every year it gets even more crazy down there during those events, such that its hardly even safe at all to stay down there after dark. Just some ranting from me, hopefully they will come up with some good ideas.