The four Travel Management Alternatives recently released by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests all fail to adequately protect the watersheds that White Mountain communities depend on. All of the Alternatives call for one stream crossing for every 1.2 miles of roads or ORV trails with a third of the road mileage being within 300 feet of surface water.
The Forest Service already has a $48 million backlog of road maintenance. Even the most conservative alternative will increase this backlog by almost $2.5 million each year. Dave Holaway, President of the White Mountain Conservation League, is concerned this makes the plan unsustainable and will lead to deterioration of existing roads and trails. “The range of the Alternatives is too narrow, and should be based on how many miles of roads can be maintained or on the Travel Analysis Process,” said Holaway.
The White Mountain Conservation League has identified several other concerns about the off-road vehicle plan.
- Excessive motor vehicle use spreads invasive plants, start forest fires, and result in countless injuries to users, particularly young ORV or dirt bike riders.
- Camping corridors 600 feet wide (the length of two football fields) will open tens of thousands of acres to cross-country travel.
- Motorized trails will increase by 72% in the Preferred Alternative, disturbing the majority of visitors who enjoy viewing wildlife, viewing natural features, and who like to hike and walk.
- 54% of hunters have had their hunting experience adversely affected by ORV’s. Only one of the Alternatives offered by the Forest Service would protect hunters using traditional methods of game retrieval
.
