The Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF) today released a draft environmental impact statement regarding its new Travel Management Plan, which includes five alternatives for managing where the public can drive motorized vehicles in the forest. The alternatives would eliminate between 47% and 63% of the Forest’s currently open roads (except for alternative one, which would do nothing). The SFNF also announced eight public meetings throughout Northern New Mexico in August to receive public comment about today’s released documents.
Also today, Daniel Jirón, the supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest, announced that he is leaving his post to serve as the Deputy Regional Forest Supervisor for the Pacific Southwest Region, according to Staci Matlock of the Santa Fe New Mexican. Deputy forest supervisor Erin Connelly will serve as the interim supervisor for the SFNF. Click here to read Ms. Matlock’s article.
The Supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest is automatically an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, so Mr. Jirón will also be departing from his position with the Preserve’s Board and will be replaced by Ms. Connelly. However, in practice, ex-officio members of the Board have had very little power relative to the politically-appointed members of the Board.
The Santa Fe National Forest manages 1.6 million acres of forest in Northern New Mexico, including most of land surrounding the Valles Caldera National Preserve, and about 20% of the geologic Valles Caldera itself.
Read the entire Draft Environmental Impact Statement by clicking here.
Access all of the documents released today by the SFNF by clicking here.
Below are details of the SFNF’s public meetings that will be held to discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Below are details regarding the five alternatives to the Travel Management Plan:
• Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. It represents the existing condition, which is forest staff’s best estimate of where people are driving now.
• Alternative 2 is the original proposed action. It differs slightly from the one mailed to the public in July 2008. It corrects the locations of roads and motorized trails based on the public’s comments and field verification. It also added the ability to retrieve big game with a vehicle in the same fixed-distance corridors proposed for motorized dispersed camping.
• Alternative 3 would provide fewer roads and motorized trails than the proposed action. It allows no driving off roads and motorized trails for any reason. This means, to camp, retrieve game, or participate in any other forest activity, people would have to park next to the side of the road and proceed without their vehicles.
• Alternative 4 would provide more roads, motorized trails, and areas designated for motorized use than the proposed action, but still less than the amount people drive on now. It would allow the most places for people to drive to retrieve game or set up a campsite.
• Alternative 5 would provide about the same amount of roads, motorized trails, and areas, designated for motorized use, as the proposed action but arranges motorized use geographically. This means that alternative 5 attempts to cluster motorized use in certain places on the forest, leaving other places with less motorized use. It incorporates concerns about use conflicts.
