- 1 -

Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project – Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary Report I have provided a PDF of Chapter 1 of the FEIS and suggest that it be read in its entirety. Chapter 1 primarily relates to purpose and need for the TMP action as well as the laws and regulations used by the USFS to make the decisions outlined in the Alternatives. Chapter1 consist of 14 pages. Again I encourage you to read it. I have provided comments, questions, recommendations and concerns from Chapter 2 of the TMP FEIS. I have provided a copy in PDF for you, the chapter is 21 pages and at times very hard to follow and read. The following is a brief of primarily Chapter 2 concerning the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and issue as they relate to Alternative No. 1 and the USFS preferred Action of Alternative No. 2 as outlined in the FEIS: Chapter 2 - Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 of the FEIS 2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, current management plans would continue to guide travel management in the project area.

• No change would be made to the current FTS that includes approximately 1,020 miles of NFS roads and motorized trails, and 1,151 miles of unauthorized roads and trails open to motorized use (table 4). • Unauthorized roads and trails would not have status or authorization as NFS road or trails. • No motor vehicle use map would be issued. Under this alternative, motor vehicles could continue to travel on and off most roads and motorized trails except in designated wilderness areas and areas already closed to motor vehicle use by the Forest Plan. Additional unauthorized routes would likely become established overtime.

If implemented, Alternative 1 would not meet the purpose and need for this project, the requirements of the Travel Management Rule, or Executive Orders (EO) 11644 or 11989. National Environmental Policy Act regulations require the Forest to include the no action alternative even if it fails to meet the purpose and need or is illegal (40 CFR 1502.14) to serve as a baseline for the evaluation and comparison of effects between alternatives. Alternative 1 serves as the baseline for this analysis and addresses the motorized recreation issue.

- 2 -

NOTE: This alternative was used by the USFS as a Baseline and is not considered a viable Alternative due to it will not meet the requirements of the Travel Management Rule, or Executive Orders (EO) 11644 or 11989 as stated in the last paragraph. As you read the Alternatives outlined in the FEIS I believe that on policy will become very clear, in that the USFS has implemented a Prohibitionary Policy as their primary management technique. The USFS has all but ended livestock grazing on the forest; permitting for mineral exploration and future mining operations have be slowed to a minimum; the USFS is closing motorized access to 960,000 acres of public land for recreation and other purposes. As per Dr. George Leaming “public lands that are not accessible by motorized vehicles are lands that will go virtually un-used”. Question: Is this intension ore ultimate goal of the USFS, extremist conservationist and politicians that have established the policies and laws? 2.3.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action (PREFERED USFS ACTION) Alternative 2 would include the following changes and additions to the FTS (table 5).

• Motorized use would be authorized on about 1,030 miles of existing NFS roads. • About 23 miles of existing NFS roads would be reclassified as NFS trails open to motor vehicles to reflect on-the-ground conditions and to better convey their condition and status to the public. • About 937 miles of existing unauthorized roads and motorized trails would be designated as NFS roads (38 miles) or NFS trails open to motorized vehicles (899 miles) for a total FTS of approximately 2,042 miles. The majority of these unauthorized routes would be designated as motorized trails. Most of these routes have been in existence for many years, but have never been formally adopted as a part of the FTS. • The motor vehicle use map would identify those roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. Use that is not consistent with the designations on the map would be prohibited under 36 CFR 261.13.

Table 5. Forest Transportation System under Alternative 2: Proposed Action (miles). Ranger District NFS Roads NFS Trails Proposed Roads Proposed Trails (Motorized) (Motorized) Mountain City 581 31 10 482 Ruby Mountains 274 2 20 295 Jarbidge 175 11 2 160 Total 1,030 43 32 937 Aside from designating additional roads and motorized trails, Alternative 2 has been modified in other ways since publication of the scoping document in January 2009. These modifications are based on information from public scoping and additional analysis on the effects of the roads and motorized trails on Forest resources.

- 3 -

• Vehicle class on motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS would be modified from “trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide” to “trails open to all motor vehicles.” • About 85.5 miles of the proposed roads and motorized trails would be open seasonally to protect important sage grouse and goshawk habitat and critical deer winter range. • Dispersed camping would be allowed in any of the pre-existing dispersed campsites adjacent to, or at the terminal end of the 2,042 miles of designated roads and motorized trails on the districts (figure 1). • In addition to the designation of hundreds of spur roads and motorized trails to individual dispersed campsites, dispersed camping would be permitted at three corridors within 150 feet of designated roads and trails. These dispersed camping corridors are areas where forest visitors have traditionally camped. Because of the gentle topography, low vegetation, and site density, the corridors were delineated instead of designating an individual route to each site. One corridor is near Maggie Summit (Mountain City Ranger District) and extends approximately 1.0 mile along M15774. The other locations are along the Charleston/Jarbidge road (56748). One is located at Coon Creek Summit and the other near the forest boundary north of Charleston. These dispersed camping corridors parallel the road for about 6 miles in the two locations. These areas are located on the maps for the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts (project map on CD).

This alternative would meet the purpose and need for action by designating the FTS and additional roads, trails, and areas open for motor vehicle use to meet the administrative needs of the districts and the access needs of Forest users. This alternative would not require a forest plan amendment. This alternative addresses the recreation issue as it provides many roads and motorized trails open for motor vehicle based recreation activities. It also addresses the economic issue in that it provides continued access on approximately 82 percent of unauthorized roads and trails. Refer to appendix A and the project map for a complete listing of proposed road and motorized trails additions and changes to the FTS. 2.3.2.1. Motorized Big Game Retrieval Option As a result of public comment on the DEIS, the following option may be applied to Alternative 2. Under this option, the use of ATV or UTV machines would be authorized for MBGR up to 0.5 mile off either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the boundaries of the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest on the three ranger districts. A single trip by one vehicle into and out of an area to retrieve a legally taken and tagged elk or mule deer would be allowed. Based on estimates derived from Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) data, there would be approximately 140 trips annually for the retrieval of elk, 1,040 for the retrieval of mule deer, and a combined total of 1,180. Motorized big game retrieval would be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to minimize the disturbance to other hunters’ pursuit. Motorized

- 4 -

vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas (for example, designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds). All applicable Nevada big game hunting regulations must be followed. To protect national forest resources on NFS roads or trails or off the designated road system (cross-country), applicable laws or regulations must be followed, such as:

• Roads should not be damaged and left in a damaged condition (36 CFR 261.12 (c)). • Retrieval of big game should take a relatively direct and safe route. • Motor vehicle use off road should not damage or unreasonably disturb the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15 (h)). • Motor vehicle use should not damage any natural feature or other property of the United States (36 CFR 261.9 (a)).

Table 6 displays the acres by district that would be available for MBGR under this option. Table 6. Number of Potential Acres by District Available for Motorized Big Game Retrieval by Alternative (excluding acres within the 0.50 mile buffer that fall within designated wilderness areas). Alternative Mountain City Ruby Mountains Jarbidge Total Alt. 1: No Action 408,825 236,632 125,124 770,581 Alt. 2: Proposed Action 368,667 187,979 117,712 674,357 Alt. 3: Current System 0 0 0 0 Alt. 4: Visitor Map (Contains MBGR component. Option does not apply but numbers reflect MBGR for Alt. 4) 350,515 171,807 107,460 629,782 Alt. 5: Reduced Resource Impacts 0 0 0 0 By allowing MBGR off all designated routes, the ability to decrease the effects of cross-country travel would be limited. The MBGR option would address concerns from some hunters regarding the need for the use of motor vehicles to retrieve their legally taken animal. Other hunters have expressed concerns that there is no need for MBGR and the use of motor vehicles is disruptive. This option would not require a forest plan amendment. It addresses the recreation and economic issues by allowing game retrieval of mule deer and elk. Allowing game retrieval would not be consistent with travel management decisions made across the Forest or in the Intermountain Region. The ranger districts in northeast Nevada are unique in both the state and region. According to NDOW, of any part of the state this area lends itself to MBGR. They cite the topography and vegetation as key factors that contribute to the ease of the use of motor vehicles to retrieve big game.

- 5 -

Aside from designating additional roads and motorized trails, Alternative 2 has been modified in other ways since publication of the scoping document in January 2009. These modifications are based on information from public scoping and additional analysis on the effects of the roads and motorized trails on Forest resources.

• Vehicle class on motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS would be modified from “trails open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide” to “trails open to all motor vehicles.” • About 85.5 miles of the proposed roads and motorized trails would be open seasonally to protect important sage grouse and goshawk habitat and critical deer winter range. • Dispersed camping would be allowed in any of the pre-existing dispersed campsites adjacent to, or at the terminal end of the 2,042 miles of designated roads and motorized trails on the districts (figure 1). • In addition to the designation of hundreds of spur roads and motorized trails to individual dispersed campsites, dispersed camping would be permitted at three corridors within 150 feet of designated roads and trails. These dispersed camping corridors are areas where forest visitors have traditionally camped. Because of the gentle topography, low vegetation, and site density, the corridors were delineated instead of designating an individual route to each site. One corridor is near Maggie Summit (Mountain City Ranger District) and extends approximately 1.0 mile along M15774. The other locations are along the Charleston/Jarbidge road (56748). One is located at Coon Creek Summit and the other near the forest boundary north of Charleston. These dispersed camping corridors parallel the road for about 6 miles in the two locations. These areas are located on the maps for the Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger Districts (project map on CD).

This alternative would meet the purpose and need for action by designating the FTS and additional roads, trails, and areas open for motor vehicle use to meet the administrative needs of the districts and the access needs of Forest users. This alternative would not require a forest plan amendment. This alternative addresses the recreation issue as it provides many roads and motorized trails open for motor vehicle based recreation activities. It also addresses the economic issue in that it provides continued access on approximately 82 percent of unauthorized roads and trails. Refer to appendix A and the project map for a complete listing of proposed road and motorized trails additions and changes to the FTS. 2.3.2.1. Motorized Big Game Retrieval Option As a result of public comment on the DEIS, the following option may be applied to Alternative 2. Under this option, the use of ATV or UTV machines would be authorized for MBGR up to 0.5 mile off either side of a designated road or motorized trail within the boundaries of the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest on the three ranger districts. A single trip by one vehicle into and out of an area to retrieve a legally taken and tagged elk or mule deer would be allowed.

- 6 -

Based on estimates derived from Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) data, there would be approximately 140 trips annually for the retrieval of elk, 1,040 for the retrieval of mule deer, and a combined total of 1,180. Motorized big game retrieval would be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to minimize the disturbance to other hunters’ pursuit. Motorized vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas (for example, designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds). All applicable Nevada big game hunting regulations must be followed. To protect national forest resources on NFS roads or trails or off the designated road system (cross-country), applicable laws or regulations must be followed, such as:

• Roads should not be damaged and left in a damaged condition (36 CFR 261.12 (c)). • Retrieval of big game should take a relatively direct and safe route. • Motor vehicle use off road should not damage or unreasonably disturb the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15 (h)). • Motor vehicle use should not damage any natural feature or other property of the United States (36 CFR 261.9 (a)).

Table 6 displays the acres by district that would be available for MBGR under this option. By allowing MBGR off all designated routes, the ability to decrease the effects of cross-country travel would be limited. The MBGR option would address concerns from some hunters regarding the need for the use of motor vehicles to retrieve their legally taken animal. Other hunters have expressed concerns that there is no need for MBGR and the use of motor vehicles is disruptive. This option would not require a forest plan amendment. It addresses the recreation and economic issues by allowing game retrieval of mule deer and elk. Allowing game retrieval would not be consistent with travel management decisions made across the Forest or in the Intermountain Region. The ranger districts in northeast Nevada are unique in both the state and region. According to NDOW, of any part of the state this area lends itself to MBGR. They cite the topography and vegetation as key factors that contribute to the ease of the use of motor vehicles to retrieve big game. Notes: Alternative No. 2 is the USFS Preferred Action. Roads: Proposed Road Closures

1) The Action will propose to close approximately 129 miles of currently publicly accessible roads by motorized and other means. (as per the FEIS) Ranger Gar Abbas has publicly stated that there are approximately 170 miles of proposed closures.

- 7 -

2) In addition to the proposed closures about 85.5 miles of the proposed roads and motorized trails would be closed seasonally to protect important sage grouse and goshawk habitat and critical deer winter range. 3) The USFS Travel management Rule and 36 CFR state that all roads are to be available to emergency services, fire protection / suppression, police / law enforcement needs and all other emergency service needs. However, roads that are not maintained or use by the public tend to deteriorate and revert back to a natural state rendering them un-passable within a few years of non-use. This restricts and limits emergency services to the use of roads that USFS have been designated NFS roads. As proposed this will obstruct emergency services in many areas of the forest to be completely in-accessible especially the private / public in-holdings properties roads. This could be considered a health and safety issue within the forest. 4) Elko County and the general public are still apprehensive of the comprehensiveness of the inventory of roads identified on the proposed MVUM’s. The USFS has stated that the inventory is taken from USFS personnel field surveys and from ortho or satellite imagery. I would estimate that there is still a potential for error of 5 to 10% or more within the inventory. The USFS has profusely stated that roads and trails not shown or designated on the MVUM’s will be considered non-existent and closed without question. Many civilians have identified and provided road locations to the USFS on their maps. Elko County has provided GIS generated USGS maps with all road locations as Appendix “J” of the Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan. It is unknown to me if the USFS utilized Elko County road mapping as a source of inventory..

Table 11 shows the proposed road closures by alternate. It also indicates the differences by alternate of accessible acreages within the forest. Table 11. Comparison of Effects Indicators by Alternative Issue/Resource Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Impacts on Recreation Use Roads and Trails Available for Motorized Travel (miles) 2,171 2,042 1,021 1,567 1,480 Changes in ROS Class (acres) Primitive 63,341 129,410 161,049 132,729 148,010 Semi-Primitive 458,780 470,335 568,668 510,001 524,935 Non-motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized 411,704 330,032 219,240 303,333 263,997 With MBGR (acres) Primitive 96,405 99,664 Semi-Primitive 24,390 27,858 Non-motorized 817,369 825,676 Semi-Primitive Motorized

- 8 -

Road Closures / MVUM: In my review of the MVUM’s it appears that closures are related to four different categories: Roads crossing private or in-holdings properties; Mineral Exploration Roads conditional to reclamation; Areas of Environmental Concern; Redundancy or duel access to the identical locations. The proposed closures are primarily consistent as proposed within the DEIS with the exception of private roads leading to public lands boundaries. In addition to the proposed 129 miles of road closures there are approximately 85.5 miles of proposed seasonal closures as follows: Mountain City Ranger District: March 1st through June 15th, (Gos Hawk) and February 20th through May 15 (Sage Grouse). Jarbidge Ranger District: March 1st through June 15th, (Gos Hawk) and February 20th through May 15 (Sage Grouse). Ruby Mountains Ranger District: March 1st through June 15th , (Gos Hawk)February 20th through May 15 (Sage Grouse) and February 20th through April 30th Critical Deer Winter Range). Seasonal closures were enacted to protect Sage Grouse and Gos Hawk Habitat and critical deer winter range. Some seasonal closures are also intended to benefit other wildlife, wildlife habitat and ground vegetation. Dispersed Camping: The Alternative No. 2 proposal permits for the continued use of existing dispersed camp sites. The Alternative provides for the creation of new dispersed camp sites and days use sites along two specific roads in three specific areas;

1) Along the corridor near Maggie Summit (Mountain City Ranger District) and extends approximately 1.0 mile along M15774. 2) Along the Charleston / Jarbidge road (56748). One is located at Coon Creek Summit and the other near the forest boundary north of Charleston. These dispersed camping corridors parallel the road for about 6 miles in the two locations.

The two specific roads in these three specific areas will permit for the user to create a dispersed camp site within 150’ of the edge of the road. The creation of new dispersed camp sites will not be permitted along any other NFS road or trail as per the FEIS. Recommendation: Encourage the USFS to proceed with the planning and advancement of developed recreation areas, day sites, camps sites and facilities that are user friendly and ADA compliant.

- 9 -

Recommendation: Persist that the USFS increase the amount of roads that would provide for the creation of new dispersed campsites as well as increase the road buffer from 150’ to 300’. Cross Country Travel: As with all listed alternatives, excluding alternative No. 1 cross country travel as currently permitted would cease. There are no areas proposed by the FEIS to permit cross county travel excluding the MBGR option in alternative 2 and 4. This issue was discussed during every TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meeting. The prohibition of cross country travel was presented in various options to the USFS during the meetings to facilitate certain demographic groups including; ADA, Elderly Access, disabled veterans and numerous other demographic groups with the physical or mental inability to utilize and access federally managed public lands on foot or horseback. All research performed on this issue indicates that it appears to be a National agenda in that no other TMP has permitted cross country travel as a whole on the National Forest, some other TMP’s have permitted cross country travel by designating specific areas for such use. This prohibition also appears to have been made without the benefit of scientific evidence or monitoring to substantiate the decision. The USFS has not specifically designated motorized cross country travel areas within the FEIS alternative of this TMP. Conversely by the presented alternatives the USFS have effectively prohibited or banned all motorized cross country travel excluding alternative No. 1 and the potential for MBGR (Elk Only) in Alternatives 2 and 4. The FEIS does not provide specific data or monitoring information concerning the impacts of Cross Country travel, they provide general conclusion and speculation that Cross Country Motorized Travel will negatively impact the land by the creation and continued creation of pioneered roads. The prohibition cross country travel also presents the potential of concentrated recreational uses into specific areas of the forest or herding of the public to areas of NFS roads and trails concentrations. This could lead to the overuse of specific areas, thus requiring the USFS to review and potentially establish areas of resource or cultural damage and ultimate closure. The prohibition ultimately limits the use of approximately 960,000 acres of federally managed public lands to primarily recreational motivated motorized access. As per Dr. Tom Harris’s and Dr. George Leaming’s reports this would leave approximately 960,000 acres of forest virtually un-used or accessed causing severe negative economic impacts to the region and the county. This would also logically lead anyone to believe that future plans for most of the forest would be the designation of inventoried roadless areas (IRA) or wilderness designation due to the loss of public attention, access and utilization. The USFS has stated in t he FEIS that the cross country prohibition does not apply to the Agricultural allotment holders for grazing on public lands. The Rancher/ allotment holder will be permitted to herd and graze cattle and or sheep in the manner that has historically been permitted. Logically this would suggest that conceivably the implied impacts of motorized travel are not as severe or anticipated to be as severe as the USFS has implied within the FEIS. However, the USFS has actively reduced and continues to reduce the grazing allotments in the forest with the anticipation that all grazing will be ultimately illuminated. The same applies to mining and exploration operations. Currently the USFS is permitting mining and mineral exploration with a permit obtained by the operator that requires an operation plan for mining or exploration on the forest. However the permit process is lengthy and requires comprehensive study as per the NEPA process and is time restrictive and consuming.

- 10 -

Recommendation: The cross country travel issue should be presented to the USFS as an issue of civil right to access federally managed public lands by the general public. As a minimum the USFS must be required to conform and comply with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Although the act itself primarily viewed as a public facilities and infrastructure issue an argument can be made that the restriction of motorized vehicle by disabled Americans prohibits their right to access and utilize public lands that they as well pay for under federal tax umbrella. The need for motorized access to federally managed public lands by the physically incapable should be accommodated and can be permitted as a minimum allowance in a written permit process. The USFS has not and is not complying with the civil rights of “all” people’s to utilize and access the forest by any of the proposed alternatives, excluding alternative No. 1 (No Action). This could be interpreted as discrimination, and found to be a civil rights violation. Recommendation: Request for information to require the USFS to provide all information, data and monitoring specific to this TMP that has led the USFS to prohibit Cross Country Motorized Travel or conduct research and perform monitoring of the effects prior to the prohibition if justified. Recommendation: As a minimum allowance insist that the USFS accommodate and develop a permit process to allow for motorized travel within the forest for the disabled / physically enabled American public. Recommendation: Insist the USFS provide areas specifically for cross country motorized travel and recreation purposes. The use is permitted within the Travel Management Rule, CFR 36 and other rules used to develop the TMP. The USFS should also be encouraged to develop areas and methods of access that would permit for Motorized Semi Primitive Recreation experiences. Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR) option: The MBGR option within Alternative 2 (preferred action) is for Mule Deer and Elk and Alternative 4 for Elk only permitting for the retrieval of Elk and Mule Deer in alternate No. 2 and Elk only in alternative 4. The MBGR option would permit the retrieval of legally harvested animals 0.5 miles from any NFS road or trail (one trip in one trip out). In alternative 2 the USFS originally listed the potential of permitting for the game retrieval of Mule Deer. However, the mule deer option appears to have been eliminated as and option due to the numbers of mule deer hunting permits issued by NDOW in the National Forest. This would have permitted a single trip by one vehicle into and out of an area to retrieve a legally taken and tagged elk or mule deer. Based on estimates provided by Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) data, there would be approximately 140 trips annually for the retrieval of elk, 1,040 for the retrieval of mule deer, and a combined total of 1,180. Motorized big game retrieval would be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to minimize the disturbance to other hunters’ pursuit. Motorized vehicles would not be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas (for example, designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds). This issue was discussed and reviewed during every Elko County TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meetings. The prohibition of cross country travel and MBGR

- 11 -

was presented in various options to the USFS during the meeting including; ADA, Elderly Access, disabled veterans and other demographic groups inability to utilize and access federally managed public lands. NOTE: The inclusion of Mule Deer under MBGR for Alternative No. 2 has been withdrawn by the USFS as a viable option due to the potential increased cross country trips proposed. Recommendation: This issue must be strongly represented to the USFS as an issue of potential diverse and severe economic, historical and cultural impact. This is due to the fact that Elko County is granted the largest numbers of Mule Deer permits in Nevada by NDOW. The ease of harvest and retrieval could become an issue that would curtail future hunters from coming and hunting in Elko County forest. Recommendation:

1) USFS permit MBGR 1.0 miles from any NFS road or trail for a maximum of four trips for the retrieval of Elk and Mule Deer. 2) Motorized big game retrieval would be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to minimize the disturbance to other hunters’ pursuit. 3) Motorized vehicles would be permitted to cross riparian areas, streams, and rivers except at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. 4) Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in existing off road travel restricted areas such as designated wilderness areas and municipal watersheds. 5) All applicable Nevada big game hunting regulations must be followed. To protect national forest resources on NFS roads or trails or off the designated road system (cross-country), applicable laws or regulations must be followed, such as:

• Roads should not be damaged and left in a damaged condition (36 CFR 261.12 (c)). • Retrieval of big game should take a relatively direct and safe route. • Motor vehicle use off road should not damage or unreasonably disturb the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources (36 CFR 261.15 (h)). • Motor vehicle use should not damage any natural feature or other property of the United States (36 CFR 261.9 (a)).

- 12 -

2.3.6. Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives The following features would apply to all action alternatives and were designed to protect natural and cultural resources and help manage potential user conflicts.

• The Forest would follow national direction for signing and maps. (The Forest Service has developed a standard national format for the motor vehicle use map. These maps would be available at local Forest Service offices and, as soon as practicable, on Forest Service websites). The roads and trails that are designated and shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM) are NFS roads open to motorized traffic. Roads and trails as shown on the MVUM will be identified in the field by road identification placards with a NFS Road or Trail No. in correspondence with the MVUM. Roads and trails closed will not be marked in any way. This is not a logical method of identification. This has a potential negative impact in that many users will not acquire the MVUM prior to visiting the forest as well as the potential for a user to miss identify a road or trail and subsequently being fined for an illegal action. This issue was considered and discussed during the Elko County TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meetings. Elko County believes that all roads to be closed should be properly marked in the field as “CLOSED”. • User education and enforcement of the new travel management regulations would occur. This would include news releases, public meetings, and brochures describing the new travel management policy and use of the motor vehicle use map. The idea of user education is a reputable proposal. Question: Will the USFS implement and enact an education program prior to legal enforcement? Question: To what level and extent will the USFS attempt user education? Question: How committed and how long will the USFS enact and maintain this program? Question: What will the user education program consist of? Question: Will the user education plan address motorized and non-motorized uses? This issue was considered and discussed during the Elko County TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meetings. • Use of dispersed campsites at the end of designated roads and motorized trails would continue to be permitted. Use of these sites would not be restricted to camping. These sites would also be available for day use activities. The continued use of dispersed camping as well as the development of “Developed Camp Sites” was considered and discussed in-depth during the Elko County TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meetings. The USFS has stated on several occasions that there are plans for Developed Camping Sites in the Forest. As stated in my notes above there are two specific roads and three areas that will permit for the development of new dispersed camping sites. The areas are specific and limited to 150’ from the edge of the NFS roads as described above. The USFS states that all dispersed camp sites have been inventoried and identified. Question: What if a camp site is utilized by a user and the site was omitted from the plan and is in fact an illegal site? What are the consequences to the user in such a scenario?

- 13 -

• Parking along designated roads and motorized trails and at the end of roads and motorized trails would be permitted. Parking adjacent to the travel lane, in pullouts, or along wide spots in the road would be considered consistent with the designation (figure1).

The diagram above identifies the permitted use of parking along all other NFS road and trails and proper location of vehicles in relationship to the edge of the road or trail. The USFS has established a road or trail disturbance zone that can and will be enforced by legal action. This presents the education value compared to the enforcement of the infractions. A common user may not acquire the MVUM that will show this diagram. This action also leaves too much interpretation and inconsistency to the user as well as the USFS LEO that would be issuing the violation citation. Not all dispersed camp sites are as well defined as the ones shown on the diagram, thus leaving too much interpretation for compliance or violation with the USFS LEO. • Road and trail maintenance would continue as funding is allocated by Congress. Maintenance would continue to be prioritized on an annual basis to address the most important safety and resource protection needs. • If unacceptable levels of resource damage were occurring, steps to prevent further damage would be taken. If considerable adverse effects were occurring (erosion of road surface, channeling sediment into water ways, creation of parallel routes to avoid eroded areas), the road or motorized trail would be immediately restricted from motor vehicle use until the effects have been addressed or repaired and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence (36 CFR 212.52(b)(2)).

- 14 -

Question: What are unacceptable levels of resource damage and how would they be determined? Would the USFS have to provide research and monitoring data obtained or will the standard be at their discretion without public involvement? Recommendation: Develop the standards required to close roads or areas with public awareness and establish a procedure that must be adhered to during the closure process. The same type of procedures required for civilians or other governmental agencies prior to closing public roads, prescriptive use roads or RS 2477 roads. For the closure of a road or trail the USFS must have sound science and reasoning for closure of the road or trail and it must be a public process. Recommendation: Assert that Elko County is to be established as a cooperating / coordinating agency for all future changes to the TMP including closures of roads, trails and areas and that a procedure be developed ensuring public review and scrutiny. • If considerable user conflict occurs, the districts may intensify education efforts or consider other responses in the future. Question: Who makes the determination as what is considerable user conflicts? It could be two it could be twenty, considerable is an indistinct term such as reasonable. The USFS has stated in the FEIS and DEIS that many conflicts occur now. However, there is no written information or data available as to the numbers of conflicts or the type of conflicts or the severity of the conflicts. The USFS assumes that conflicts will and do occur with little or no substantiation. Education for motorized users as well as non-motorized users to avoid conflict is a preferred method versus enforcement. This issue and the statement made above as well as implied in the FEIS assumes that the motorized vehicle user will always be in erroneous or the initiator of the conflict. The FEIS and DEIS are both written biased against motorized vehicle traffic without justification or quantification in that all negative environmental impacts are directly associated with or aimed at motorized traffic. • Cultural resource monitoring would be implemented on the newly authorized roads and motorized trails where eligible or potentially eligible sites have been identified that might have a potential for some form of damage related to the use of the road or motorized trail. A monitoring plan is found in appendix B. If new threats were identified, mitigation measures would be applied as necessary to eliminate any newly identified risks to cultural resource values. Mitigation measures could include fencing, site damage assessments, excavation, and road or trail closure. The mitigation measure used would be determined through consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Native American tribes, and interested parties. Prior to implementation, the mitigations would have to be documented in a separate site-specific environmental analysis. Cultural resource monitoring on NFS roads and trails must be considered a public issue during the damage assessment of the specific road, trail or area. This would ensure that the public and the county are aware of any potential closures of roads, trails or areas prior to the action.

- 15 -

Recommendation: The specific action should be conducted as outlined above for unacceptable levels of resource damage. Recommendation: Assert that we are to be established as a cooperating / coordinating agency for all future changes to the TMP including Cultural resource monitoring, closures of roads, trails and areas. • A set of mitigation and monitoring protocols have been developed for sensitive plant species and can be found in Appendix B. Monitoring of rare plant locations would be performed to determine if adverse affects were occurring as a result of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails or from MBGR. If effects are identified, signing and the placement of temporary barriers may be used to protect the individual plants or habitat. If these methods prove ineffective, designated routes may be closed or rerouted. If monitoring identifies the need for closure or relocation of roads or trails, additional environmental analysis would be required before these measures could be implemented. Recommendation: The USFS must provide all research and monitoring data that provides sound science concerning sensitive plant species and proposed action prior to the action implementation. For the closure of a road or trail the USFS must have sound science and reasoning for closure of the road, trail or area and it must be a public process. • There are several occurrences where private property, either inside or outside the district’ boundaries, blocks public access to NFS lands beyond the private property. When the proposed action or alternatives identify a NFS road trail or unauthorized route open to the public beyond the private property boundary, the district rangers would work with the private landowner to acquire a right-of-way. If the private landowner does not wish to grant public access, then the road or motorized trail beyond the private land would not be shown on the motor vehicle use map. Some landowners have already notified the Forest Service that they do not want to give the public access across their private property. The Forest Service respects the landowner’s private property rights and would not display those motorized routes as open to the public beyond or across the private property. If over a two-year period (starting from the date of the record of decision) no agreement was made towards public access across the private property, the routes in question would be closed. This two-year timeline may only be extended if the landowner allows access to continue while a formal agreement is being finalized. This issue was comprehensively discussed during the Elko County TMP Committee / USFS facilitated meetings. Our contention is that these types of roads have historically provided access to the Forest boundary and continued as NFS roads and should remain as points of controlled access. Many of these roads were existent prior to the creation of the Forest boundary. The USFS had designated most all of these roads to be closed in the DEIS. The FEIS ensures the USFS a two year window to acquire easements to permit public access. If the easement is not acquired the USFS proposes closure of the road at the point of the Forest boundary. Recommendation: Assert that the USFS must obtain easements on as many roads as possible and leave the remainder of the roads as privately controlled points of access to the Forest. Insist

- 16 -

that all roads that are a continuance of the access roads within the forest must also remain open regardless of public access or privately controlled access. This issue also presents the issue of private property rights to access in-holdings property within the forest boundary. The USFS proposes closures of public roads and trails that cross in-holding property. This creates a negative impact for both the private property holder and the general public in that the proposed closures stop all legal traffic to the private property owner and the right of the general public to access federally managed public lands. The USFS has stated that they respect the right of the land owner. However, by the closure of the road that permits legal access to the respective property they have in fact caused the specific parcel or property to be land locked without legal access as well as creating the same hardship for the next land owner on the closed road and the next… ext.. This could be viewed and mitigated as a “Takings Issue” in that the federal government action has caused immediate and specific loss of value without reciprocation. This will also negatively impact the value of the in-holding property as un-saleable parcel due to the lack of legal and physical access. The USFS has failed to identify the potential of re-sale or conveyance from the existing owner to a future buyer. Legal parcels within the Forest may be bought or sold by any individual with the expectation of the right to access through public lands. The USFS proposes to terminate all legal and physical access by the action of the FEIS. Recommendation: The USFS must leave the roads open to provide continued access to the in-holdings properties as well as the right to access public lands. The USFS must endeavor to acquire easements (if possible) however, do not set a time limit. If necessary develop a new designation and identify the roads as NFS controlled access roads or trails. If such easements are ultimately un-acquirable the USFS must evaluate the private property issue of right to access prior to any action. The agency has a great deal of direction on such topics as cultural resource protection, proper design of road drainage structures, and wildlife conservation. These types of design features are not applicable to this project because no new construction of roads or motorized trails is proposed. Roads and motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS were screened to determine what effects continued use might have on resources. The effects of continued use of these roads and motorized trails, as well as the potential effects of increased use and the concentration of use in areas, are discussed in chapter 3. Also refer to the “Recent, Current, and Planned Activities to be Considered for the Cumulative Effects Analysis” in the introduction to chapter 3 for more information about road maintenance on the districts. The physical closure of roads and motorized trails or the reclamation of unauthorized routes is outside the scope of this analysis. These changes to the FTS will be addressed through additional, site-specific environmental analysis.

- 17 -

2.3.7. Implementation After a decision is made, a motor vehicle use map would be published and made available to the public at no cost. This map is the legal document that identifies those roads, trails, and areas on the districts designated for motor vehicle use, including class of vehicle and time of year. National Forest System roads and trails would be signed on the ground with a road or trail number. The motor vehicle use map would be reissued annually and any changes or corrections necessitated by future travel management decisions would be incorporated. Motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designation displayed on the map would be prohibited. This requires the user to annually update and acquire the MNUM’s prior to travel or use of the Forest. I can’t envision the majority of the public obtaining a MVUM or for the most part to have knowledge of such a map. Question: Will the USFS have any leniency in their enforcement procedures and to what extent? The following is a section of Chapter 2 of the FEIS that provides information concerning public input that was not considered during the development of the document. The information provides suggestion from both sides of the spectrum of motorized vehicular use in the forest. Theme “A” provides most of the TMP Committees suggestion during facilitated meetings with the USFS and promotes Motorized uses. Theme “B” offers suggestions concerning limiting or prohibiting further or increased motorized uses. 2.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis The Forest Service has rigorously explored and objectively evaluated all reasonable alternatives. This section describes those alternatives that were considered and evaluated but not carried forward for detailed study and the rationale for this determination (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received during the scoping process provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives were outside the scope of travel management, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, did not meet the purpose and need, or would cause unnecessary environmental harm or unnecessarily restrict public use of the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, or Jarbidge Ranger Districts. These proposals are grouped into two themes, which include alternatives that reflected suggestions for increased access and those that suggested less access. 2.4.1. Theme A: Fewer Motorized Use Restrictions, More Motorized Use Opportunities Several commenter’s provided a series of conceptual suggestions for development of an alternative that would further emphasize motor vehicle use of NFS lands. These suggestions were considered and many were incorporated into the development and modification of the proposed action, pursuant to Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.5(e)(1)). The key suggestions and rationale for not developing another alternative for detailed analysis follow.

- 18 -

2.4.1.1. Designate maximum number of roads and motorized trails. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternative 1 displays the effects on the social, physical, and biological environment associated with continued use of all existing unauthorized routes in areas not restricted from motorized cross-country use. During the scoping process, the public suggested specific roads and motorized trails for inclusion in the FTS. These roads and motorized trails were reviewed by the responsible officials and were included in the proposed action (1) if they did not present unacceptable environmental effects and (2) provided needed access or motorized recreation opportunities. Consequently, another alternative is not needed. Although the roads and motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS were considered to have acceptable levels of environmental effects, some routes did present some effects. These effects and any balancing of competing needs are discussed in chapter 3. 2.4.1.2. Allow use of all roads and motorized trails not currently included on the inventory until there has been an opportunity to map and study them. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. While the Forest recognizes there may be some routes on the ground that are not included in the current inventory, allowing use on “unknown” or “unmapped” routes would be very similar to allowing continued cross-country travel. This suggestion could not be incorporated within the framework of the Travel Management Rule, which depends on designated roads and motorized trails being reflected on a motor vehicle use map. Alternative 1 would allow continued use on all unauthorized routes and continued cross-country travel on approximately 960,000 acres. Allowing continued use of roads and motorized trails that are currently not mapped would not meet the purpose and need, which is to designate a system of roads and trails vehicles can travel on and prohibit use inconsistent with that designation. 2.4.1.3. Review the historic road network to see if portions could be downgraded from a road and designated as a motorized trail. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternative 2 considers changes in road classification and includes provisions reclassifying certain existing roads as motorized trails. In Alternative 2, approximately 23 miles of NFS roads would be converted to NFS trails open for motor vehicle use. Under Alternative 4, approximately 749 miles of NFS roads would be converted to motorized trails; in Alternative 5, about 17 miles of NFS roads would be converted to motorized trails. New ground disturbing activities are outside the scope of this analysis. Mapping, surveying, and routing new trails on the ground may be considered at some time in the future. Consequently, another alternative is not needed. 2.4.1.4. Designate historic access roads and motorized trails suggested by the public to provide access to areas that have important historic value or serve as connectors. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail or

- 19 -

does not meet the purpose and need. Roads and motorized trails meeting the criteria discussed previously were considered in the development of the proposed action and its modification based on public scoping comments and interdisciplinary team analysis. Some of these roads and motorized trails were incorporated into the proposed action; others were not included in order to protect important historic and cultural resources. Consequently, another alternative is not needed. 2.4.1.5. Create new mountain bike, ATV, and motorcycle trails. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this analysis. This project is focused on managing existing roads and motorized trails. New trail construction is beyond the scope of this project and could be addressed in future site-specific environmental analyses as appropriate. 2.4.1.6. Access should be provided to all dispersed campsites. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. The proposed action was in part designed to designate roads and motorized trails to specific campsites needed for public recreation, including many historically-used campsites identified by the public where resource effects were within acceptable levels. It is possible that some campsites, spur roads, and motorized trails were not identified in this process. As these sites are brought to the attention of the districts, additional access would be considered. Any additional access would include appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement. In addition, because Alternative 1 would not restrict motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails (allowing cross-country travel for access to dispersed campsites to continue), this proposal is included within the range of alternatives analyzed in detail. 2.4.2. Theme B: More Motorized Use Restrictions, More Non-motorized Use Opportunities Several commenter’s provided a series of conceptual suggestions for development of an alternative that would emphasize resource protection and forest uses other than motor vehicle use. These suggestions were considered and many were used in the development and modification of the proposed action and alternatives to it, pursuant to Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.5(e) (1)). The key suggestions and rationale for not developing another alternative for detailed analysis follow. 2.4.2.1. Decommission FTS roads and motorized trails in wilderness; habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species; inventoried roadless areas; cultural sites; and meadows. This suggestion does not meet the purpose and need, is outside the scope of the project, and is already addressed by law. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest completed a comprehensive review of the FTS through the roads analysis process (RAP) in 2004 and the TAP. The reviews resulted in identification of needs for change in the transportation system, including possible additions to the FTS and NFS roads that potentially should be removed from the FTS. This proposal is focused on those actions necessary to restrict motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails, including consideration of appropriate additions to the FTS of unauthorized routes in areas currently open to cross-country travel.

- 20 -

Decommissioning of unneeded NFS roads and trails will be considered in a separate environmental analysis and is beyond the scope of this proposal. No roads or trails where motor vehicle use is allowed are located in wilderness. Alternatives 3 and 5 would not designate any unauthorized motorized trails in IRAs or roads and motorized trails considered high risk to threatened and endangered species. Effects to threatened or endangered species, IRAs, and cultural sites are considered further in this analysis and in particular, on existing unauthorized roads and trails included in the action alternatives. 2.4.2.2. Do not add roads and motorized trails to the FTS within wilderness or special areas. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. The Wilderness Act prohibits the Forest from designating roads or motorized trails in wilderness areas. The proposed action encompasses this suggestion and does not add any roads or motorized trails to the FTS within designated wilderness, the Ruby Crest Trail, or in research natural areas. 2.4.2.3. Do not add motorized trails to the FTS within IRAs. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternatives 3 and 5 would not add any unauthorized motorized trails to the FTS within IRAs. Alternatives 2 and 4 do propose to add some existing trails in IRAs to the FTS. The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) reduces the potential for adverse impacts from motorized vehicles in IRAs by prohibiting use inconsistent with the designations. The trails proposed for addition to the FTS in Alternatives 2 and 4 are motorized trails that have been legally used for years. No new construction of roads or trails is proposed in this project. This project only proposes to add motorized trails currently in use to the FTS; therefore, no new environmental effects would result from this project. 2.4.2.4. Do not add roads or motorized trails to the FTS within habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat, meadows, or Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. This suggestion is encompassed within the existing range of alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternative 3 would not add any roads or motorized trails to the FTS within known habitat for threatened and endangered species, meadows, or riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA). The proposed action would protect wildlife habitat and riparian/meadow areas by substantially reducing the potential for adverse impacts from motorized vehicles by designating roads and motorized trails open for motor vehicle use. Alternative 5 was developed to minimize designation of unauthorized roads or trails in IRAs, aquatic habitat, cultural resource sites, and rare plant habitat. The few roads and motorized trails proposed for addition to the FTS that could have effects on sensitive resources are specifically analyzed in chapter 3.

- 21 -

2.5.1.1. Access and Motorized / Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities The recreation issue is addressed in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. In Alternative 1, motor vehicle users are free to travel on or off NFS roads and motorized trails. Under Alternative 3, the opposite is true. Motor vehicle use would only be allowed on currently designated NFS roads and motorized trails. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would allow motor vehicle use only on NFS roads and trails designated for motor vehicle use. In Alternative 2, dispersed camping would be allowed wherever an existing dispersed campsite is located along or at the end of any of the 2,042 miles of designated roads and trails. Alternative 2 would also designate three dispersed camping corridors where camping can occur within 150 feet of two locations along the Charleston/Jarbidge road (56748) (Coon Creek Summit and near the forest boundary north of Charleston) and along M15774 between the intersection with M15775 south to 56165b (Maggie Summit). These specific locations are being proposed because there is a long history of dispersed camping use in these areas and no single route into them. As stated above the USFS has limited areas available to new dispersed camp sites to specific areas and NFS roads. The non-motorized user has the option to develop dispersed sites at any location in the forest. Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, dispersed camping at sites adjacent to, or at the terminal end of designated roads and trails would still be allowed but there are fewer roads and trails designated in these alternatives and, as a result, some dispersed campsites may not be accessible. Motorized big game retrieval is considered an option for Alternative 2 and a component of Alternative 4. In Alternative 2, the MBGR option was developed to allow the retrieval of elk, mule deer, or both using an ATV/UTV with one trip in and one trip out. Alternative 4 includes MBGR for elk only. In both alternatives, MBGR would be limited to a 0.5 mile buffer. Motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designations would be prohibited. As a result there may be an effect on users wanting to travel cross-country or that have previously used a road not included in the alternative. While all areas of the national forest would be accessible (other than wilderness areas and the Bear Creek municipal watershed) the areas immediately accessible by motorized vehicle would be reduced. This is a false and misleading statement that Mule Deer (MBGR) are included in the preferred action. The USFS has abandoned this option in all Alternatives. For those seeking a non-motorized recreation experience, Alternative 1 would have the highest potential for adverse impacts. Those visiting the national forest with the idea of escaping the sights and sounds of the modern world would potentially have to travel further to meet their needs. Without the restriction of motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails, there would be a potential to find a favorite isolated location accessed by new tracks. Statement is assumption without qualification, there is no scientific data or monitoring provided by the FEIS. Biased statement that motorized vehicle are the only vehicle that would leave tracks or damage landscape. Horses, mules and people all leave tracks and are quite capable of

- 22 -

damage to the environment. This refers to a semi-primitive recreation experience that has been historically permitted by motorized vehicles. Question: Has the USFS genuinely identified the impacts from motor vehicle use in the forest or is this a policy set forth nationally? Alternative 3 would not designate any unauthorized routes and would prohibit motor vehicle use that is inconsistent with the designation. Alternatives 2 and 5 would decrease the number of open roads and motorized trails and prohibit cross-country travel. Recreationists interested in a non-motorized experience would be better served under these alternatives since cross-country travel would be prohibited. The amount of motorized trails designated under each of the alternatives in IRAs and across the districts in general would provide for differing degrees of solitude. Alternative 2 could and Alternative 4 would allow cross-country travel solely for the purpose of big game retrieval; this use would not be allowed under Alternatives 3 or 5. By designating some unauthorized roads and motorized trails to access dispersed campsites and hunting areas, Alternative 2 would continue to provide access into areas that have had motor vehicle access in the past. Not all unauthorized roads and motorized trails would be open, and the prohibition on use inconsistent with the designation would be in effect. Those seeking distance from the sights and sounds of motor vehicles would be less likely to encounter a motor vehicle as they move further away from roads or motorized trails. It appears that a primary objective of the USFS and the national agenda is to eliminate motorized cross county travel, curtail and limit internal road uses within the forest. It also appears that the USFS will develop IRA’s and potentially further wilderness expansion. Question: Will the USFS attempt to end or fully control all multiple uses on the national forest? 2.5.1. Issues 2.5.1.2. Inventoried Roadless Areas The roadless issue is addressed primarily in Alternatives 3 and 5, which avoid any additions to the FTS in IRAs. Contrasting the miles of roads and motorized trails in Alternative 1 currently open in IRAs, the action alternatives would all reduce impacts to roadless attributes and wilderness characteristics. Alternatives 3 and 5 would minimize the impacts to IRAs and biological, physical, and cultural resources by not designating any motorized trails in IRAs. Motorized trails included in the FTS under these alternatives were low or moderate risk to aquatic habitat, soil and water, wildlife, and cultural resources (see project record). These alternatives would reduce the amount of disturbance in IRAs and protect/preserve roadless area characteristics more than the other alternatives because they would not designate unauthorized motorized trails in IRAs to the FTS. This is an area of complete disagreement with the USFS. The preferred action specifically prohibits all creations of new roads and cross country travel. Therefore the remaining 960,000 acres of land currently open to all multiple uses will cease to motorized use. This will create approximately 960,000 acres of defacto roadless areas. Although not inventoried at this time it will leave the option and capacity to the USFS to inventory and designate IRA’s and or

- 23 -

Wilderness areas. All alternatives excluding Alternative No. 1 will end access and travel off any NFS road. Many areas of the forest are currently in-accessible by road or trail, therefore could be classified as roadless areas. Question: Will the USFS take future action to inventory and designate these areas as IRA’s and or Wilderness? Question: Why does the USFS utilize prohibition as their primary management policy? 2.5.1.3. Resource Impacts Alternatives 3 and 5 were developed to address concerns regarding the effects of roads on the biological, physical, and cultural resources. Generally, the effects are evaluated by the miles of roads and motorized trails located in wildlife habitat, rare plant habitat, within a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watershed, or crossing cultural resource sites. Road and motorized trail density was used to identify where the presence of roads and motorized trails could have an impact within the HUC or within a specific wildlife habitat. The result of the road density analysis then focused the effects analysis on specific areas where density suggested the potential for conflicts. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have fewer impacts to the biological and physical resources than Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. The USFS has not provided pertinent and exact information concerning resource impacts. Specifically the USFS has not identified the positive impacts of ground disturbance in relation to fire loads and fuels common to areas that are not grazed or utilized for recreation. The USFS has concentrated primarily on providing a TMP that promotes motorized travel, restricts multiple uses and encourages catastrophic wild fires and the loss of habitat and wildlife. Recommendation: Persist that the USFS re-establish historical levels of cattle and sheep grazing activities on the forest to curtail over growth of vegetation that provides the high fuel loads currently in existence. Recommendation: Encourage the development of sound forest management and to protect all wildlife including Gos Hawk, Sage Grouse and all other threatened or endangered species. Recommendation: Discourage controlled fire methods as an option for reduction of fire fuels and promote multiple uses to reduce fire fuels and loads. The USFS maintains that the protection of watersheds are their primary objective in the development of all USFS RMP, TMP’s and other planning documents. The USFS has failed to identify the negative impacts that are being made to the watersheds by the continued policy of over management or mismanagement permitting the over growth of vegetation in riparian areas. This policy has proven to limit flows and production from springs, creeks and other water sources as per the Elko County Public Land Use and Resource Management Plan. Recommendation: The USFS must be required to identify and monitor the impact to water resources and watershed by permitting the complete naturalization of water sources in the forest.

- 24 -

2.5.1.4. Social/Economic Some people believe that designating roads and trails open for motor vehicle use and prohibiting use that is inconsistent with that designation may affect the economic activities in the county. Restricting motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails means that ranchers and mining companies would need written authorization to drive motor vehicles off the FTS. While such authorization is expected to be routinely granted, the requirement itself may be seen as a restriction on economic activity. Alternative 1 provides a baseline for comparison of economic impacts from the action alternatives. Alternative 2 would designate the greatest number of roads and motorized trails and have the least impact on economic activity of any of the action alternatives. There is a concern that designating roads and trails for motor vehicle use and prohibiting use inconsistent with the designation would impact the economy of Elko County by indirectly reducing the number of hunters coming to Elko County because they would no longer be able to drive cross-country to retrieve legally taken game. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 include provisions for game retrieval, but issues arise when the legality of Alternative 1 and the failure of the game retrieval portion of Alternative 2 and 4 to meet Forest Service Manual direction for including big game retrieval are considered. The USFS has failed to utilize and develop the FEIS in accordance with NEPA, 36 CFR and the applicable Travel Management Planning Rules in that the best commercial scientific data was not utilized in the development of the FEIS. Elko County has provided a study prepared by Dr. George Leaming in December of 2010 entitled Federal land Policies and the Economy of Elko County. The report provides all necessary data to ascertain the impacts that will occur after the implementation of the proposed TMP preferred action. In addition three studies prepared by Dr. Tom Harris concerning multiple uses on public land and their impact on the local economy were provided prior to the development of the FEIS. Elko County has identified and provided the potential negative short and long term regional and local economic impacts. To my knowledge the USFS did not generate or provide any data concerning the potential Social and Economic impacts in the development of the FEIS. The USFS has failed to identify short and long term negative economic impacts to the region and Elko County. The USFS has chosen to state in the FEIS that no or little economic impacts are expected. Recommendation: Request all pertinent data, performed monitoring and research that the USFS utilized to determine their conclusion of no or little economic impacts are expected.

- 25 -

Conclusion: I have provided a copy of Chapters 1,2, 3 and 4 of the TMP FEIS in PDF for your convenience and review. Chapter 3 primarily concerns Environmental issues and consequences. Chapter 4 is identification of those who have contributed and coordinated with the USFS in the preparation of the FEIS. The USFS has provided 5 Alternatives for the action to be taken on the TMP. Even though the USFS has provided and identified a preferred action as Alternative No. 2, the USFS can substitute and interchange any component of any of the five alternatives into their Record of Decision. This includes possible further actions to close additional roads and or areas or prohibit certain specific uses within an area. They may also incorporate the prohibition of motorized and non-motorized access to specific areas of concern. Therefore, we must be very aware and attentive as to the specific action of the Record of Decision. This document is a brief overview of the issues that concern the public and the Board of Commissioners I would be happy to visit with each of you to cover the FEIS on a more comprehensive level if you so chose or answer any question that you may have. The FEIS public comment period is scheduled to end on September 14th, 2011. Elko County has written a letter to the USFS and copied the letter to our congressional delegation requesting a 6 month extension of the public comment period prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). To date the USFS has not taken action on our request. The USFS has requested that Elko County meet with them in an Open Forum one or two day workshop. This request was made by the District Rangers in lieu of our request for an extension. Elko County has agreed the Work Shop but reserved our right to request and extension. We are tentatively scheduled to meet with the USFS in a work shop setting to discuss the TMP FEIS on September 12th, 2011 location and time still pending.