The Blanca Peak 4WD road is one of the most challenging and scenic in Colorado. It enjoys a National reputation and draws 4-wheelers from all across the country.
Update (August 24, 1997)
"It appears that we have saved an irreplaceable recreation resource! Nearly a year and a half after the Forest Service issued its decision to close the Como Lake Road (Mt. Blanca) at Como Lake, an important milestone was reached on August 14, 1997, On that day, members of the Alamosa County Commission and the Forest Service accompanied a group of four wheel drive recreation enthusiasts on a trip up the disputed road." see:
Lake Como Road on Mt. Blanca to Remain Open!
Update! (May 20, 1997)
The following statements describe the point that was now reached. Alamosa County said "It's our Road." and the Forest Service said "It's our lake." Though to be technically correct it is a reservoir, as a man made dam on the west end is what created the lake back at the turn of the century. So, a trip is planned in the summer of this year to review the conditions at the inlet to Como Lake, and to determine mitigation that can be done to resolve the Forest Service's concerns.
Following is a brief history and information on what YOU can do to help.
Forest Service Recommends Closure: The Forest Service filed an Environmental Assessment and recommended closing the portion of the trail near the top, eliminating one of the four challenging obstacles and the opportunity to view and enjoy the Alpine scenery above that obstacle. This closure has been ordered despite the Forest Service acknowledged facts that:
650 letters were received relative to the Blanca Peak 4WD road 99% of those letters favored continued use of the Blanca Peak 4WD road The Blanca Peak 4WD has been open for 100 years The Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs offered a detailed plan and help in rerouting a portion of the trail and stabilizing a bog to meet Forest Service concerns
Appeals: The decision was subject to appeal and a record 89 appeals were filed by 4-wheelers across the Country. In addition, contacts were made with the local community which resulted in their support of our position and Alamosa County's promise to file RS 2477 action in support of keeping the Blanca Peak 4WD open to the top. Alamosa County's cooperation is critical and we very much appreciate everything they are doing for us.
We had national support from 4-wheelers, local support from the affected community, no significant public opposition and a win-win alternative to address the Forest Services concerns presented by the Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs.
So where did that get us?
"Your request for relief is denied." See the full text of Forest Service DECISION which denied the
Appeals that sought to keep the 4WD road open to the top of Blanca Peak. Caution: reading
this may lead to intense frustration and anger. Not recommended for anyone with high blood
pressure.
Show your support for keeping the Blanca 4WD Road open all the way to Blue lake by writing Alamosa County. Without them there will be little chance of keeping Blanca open for 4-wheelers. So far they have proved to be strong allies and appreciate letters of support. A quick and easy way to write a letter is to use the Alamosa Chamber of Commerce's E-mail at:
Something along the lines of:
SUBJECT: Appreciation for Keeping the Blanca 4WD Road Open
I learned of Alamosa County's continuing support of keeping the Blanca Peak 4WD road open all the way to Blue Lakes. This is to express my personal appreciation and support of County Government officials and the Chamber of Commerce in keeping this 4WD road open. Keep up the good work!
A legal challenge to the Forest Service Decision is being prepared by the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) in cooperation with the Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs. Unfortunately such challenges are expensive. To make matters worse, as tax payers we pay for both the challenge and the Forest Services defense of their closure! Wouldn't life be so much better if people would just listen, use common sense and work things out? But the Forest Service refuses to compromise. If we ever expect them to listen and cooperate with us we have to prove to them we can challenge them and win in court when they ignore us. Otherwise all hope of stopping the trend of 4WD trail closures will be lost.
The New Mexico 4-Wheelers
Challenge: Here is a copy of the letter that New Mexico
4-Wheelers Club sent COHVCO. They are publicly challenging the rest of the clubs in
the SWFWDA to match or beat their $200 contribution to the legal challenge of the Blanca
4WD road closure. I strongly urge the rest of the 4WD Clubs in the Nation as well as
individuals to take up the Challenge.
Where to send Contributions: Contributions should be sent to the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) at the following address:
COHVCO
P.O. Box 620523
Littleton CO. 80162.
Earmark your funds for the Blanca Peak Legal Defense Fund.
Where to send Information:
Documented facts are critical to any court case. If you know of documented facts that can
support our case please contact Adam
Mehlberg, Land Use Chairman of the Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs. Adam is a
volunteer and has spent countless hours including time off work in his efforts to keep
Blanca open along with all the other Colorado 4WD land use issues he is responsible for.
Please contact him if you have or can obtain any evidence that will help our case.
I will use this heading to post current information on the legal challenge to the closing. I will post them in reverse chronological order so that the most recent is always at the top:
As of August 24, 1997: from Mark Werkmeister
"It appears that we have saved an irreplaceable recreation resource! Nearly a year and a half after the Forest Service issued its decision to close the Como Lake Road (Mt. Blanca) at Como Lake, an important milestone was reached on August 14, 1997, On that day, members of the Alamosa County Commission and the Forest Service accompanied a group of four wheel drive recreation enthusiasts on a trip up the disputed road." see: Lake Como Road on Mt. Blanca to Remain Open!
As of May 20, 1997: from Adam Mehlberg
BLANCA PEAK - One Step Closer
On May 5th, at 9:00am, Jim Bailey (Creepers Jeepers Gang), Terry Rust (Southwest 4WD Association), and myself met with the Alamosa County Commissioners to discuss the Counties Resolution in regards to the Blanca Peak 4WD road. We shared the information we had on Blanca Peak, the Forest Service documents that the closure decision was based on, and the future support of the Four Wheeling community to maintain this 4WD road. The County officials had a distinct concern on what direction the Forest Service would take in the following meeting that was to take place at 10:00am. I gave them my opinion that the Forest Service would take issue with the water impacts, and the tundra impacts, though I felt that the tundra would not be a major concern due the fact that the road has been driven since the days of wagons, and no one is leaving the road to cause environmental damage.
At 10:00am James Webb, Forest Supervisor for the Rio Grande National Forest and Carlos Pinto, District Ranger of the Conejos Peak District, arrived with an officer of the BLM that is an RS2477 expert, and Bill Dauer, the Rio Grande Road Engineer, for a meeting with the County Commissioners to "work out issues" related to the Counties recent Resolution on RS2477 right of ways. We asked the Commissioners if it would be alright for us to stay and observe the meeting. They informed us it was an open meeting an we could stay if we wished.
The first scare tactic offered up by the Forest Service was to raise a concern on the Maintenance issue if the County took control of the road. The County plans to list Blanca as an "Unmaintained County Road".
Next came the Liability scare. What if someone died on the "Counties Road" due to the condition of the road? That falls under the Colorado Government Immunity Act which protects Colorado Counties from just such a suit.
Now the Forest Service changed tactics. How would the County treat this if it were still private property, would they keep the road open if the private owner wanted it close. In other words, was Alamosa County treating a Federal Agency differently than it would treat a private individual? Absolutely not. If the road were crossing private property, and had allowed 20 years of uninterrupted public use, the County was within it's rights to keep the road public under Colorado Revised Statute 201 on Public Highways.
Next the Forest Service assumed that the road was under the control of the County. What was going to be done about the sedimentation into Como Lake, and the massive damage that was taking place at the turn around near Blue Lake? The description of the Blue Lake area by Carlos Pinto took on the visual of major damage to the tundra, and more impact was predicted if the groups going to Blue Lake were larger. Of course Jim Bailey and Terry Rust had both been to this area last year, so they were of course confused by the description given by Carlos, as it did not match what they had witnessed. They both made comment on this.
Finally, we got down to the issue, sedimentation into Como Lake. County Commissioner
Charlotte Bobiski asked how sedimentation was measured in a case like this. James Webb
described the process. Sediment levels would be measured at a point above the crossing,
and again at the entrance to Como Lake, below the road crossing, and any increase would be
attributed to the vehicle traffic. Charlotte was quick to note that this would not be
true, as the section between the two measurement points would also have a
"natural" amount of sedimentation that should not be attributed to the road.
Touche!!
Traffic levels were discussed, yet no one knows what the vehicle usage is during the 2 to 3 months that Blanca Peak is driveable. Solutions to the sedimentation potential were suggested, Terry Rust having some knowledge in this field. Yet the Forest Service felt doubtful because they could not predict the affectiveness of the solution. Curious, when they can predict future environmental impact. Hiking use of the area above Como Lake was also mentioned by Carlos, yet when I asked him about management plans for the hiking that takes place around Blanca Peak, he stated that they were still in the process of working with the Alpine Communities (hikers), and no decisions or proposed management directions were in place. I really wasn't surprised.
Finally James Webb stated that if the County could prove it's claims of RS2477, they would recognize such. So, I handed Bob Zimmerman copies of the five patented claims filed above the Wrisberg (Como Lake) claim, that all pre-date the designation of the Rio Grande National Forest of 1905. After reviewing the documents, James Webb signed an "RS2477 Worksheet" validating Alamosa Counties claim of Right of Way.
The following statements describe the point that was now reached. Alamosa County said "It's our Road." and the Forest Service said "It's our lake." Though to be technically correct it is a reservoir, as a man made dam on the west end is what created the lake back at the turn of the century. So, a trip is planned in the summer of this year to review the conditions at the inlet to Como Lake, and to determine mitigation that can be done to resolve the Forest Service's concerns.
Reflection:
When this all started, the Colorado Association offered it's clubs services to mitigate any problems on the Blanca Peak road to keep it open. We had already proven ourselves with our previous projects by the Creepers Jeepers and the Southern District 4WD clubs.
In the end we are back where this all started. But it has taken three years, hundreds of letters, used our members vacation days and weekends, and cost thousands of dollars. If the Forest Service had accepted our offer at the beginning, the mitigation efforts would be done already.
Adam Mehlberg, Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs, Land Use Chairman
As of May 7, 1997: from Adam Mehlberg
The meeting was 5/5/97 at the Alamosa County offices. We had all commissioners in attendance, Bob Zimmerman, Herry Andrews, Darius Allen, and Charlotte Bobiski. Reference was made to over 200 letters from the motorized users in support of their efforts. This type of response helped show the broad interest in Blanca Peak Road, and bolstered the County.
Editors note: A quick and easy way to write a letter is to use the Alamosa Chamber of Commerce's E-mail at:
Something along the lines of:
SUBJECT: Appreciation for Keeping the Blanca 4WD Road Open
I learned of Alamosa County's continuing support of keeping the Blanca Peak 4WD road open all the way to Blue Lakes. This is to express my personal appreciation and support of County Government officials and the Chamber of Commerce in keeping this 4WD road open. Keep up the good work!
Jim Bailey and I met up with Terry and had an information sharing meeting with the County Commissioners. After our meeting the FS had their meeting and we were allowed to attend. To make it short, the FS asked for proof of the road pre-dating the Forest, 1905, which I had in the form of mine patents prior to 1903. Then the issues were raised. The turn around at Blue Lakes was described as very bad, yet I doubt Carlos Pinto, Conejos Peak District Ranger, has been there. Jim Webb, Forest Supervisor, admitted he had not seen Blue Lakes without snow on the ground. Jim Bailey and Terry Rust have both been to Blue Lakes, and expressed their confusion on the conditions Carlos described. Siltation of Como became the major concern.
In the end, we got an RS2477 worksheet signed by the FS that recognizes the county's claim that the road is their jurisdiction, all the way to Blue Lakes. Now we need to have a trip with all parties, to review the road and determine mitigation plans. The reason for this is in the simple exchange between Bob Zimmerman, Commissioner and Jim Webb;
"It's our road." affirmed Bob. "But it's our Lake." responded Jim.
It is finally in our court to work out a solution. We are planning on a trip to review Como Lake and the turnaround at Blue Lakes sometime in the middle to end of August. Jim Bailey will be working this out with the Commissioners to determine a date.
I am a pessimist, and I wont feel we have succeeded until the mitigation plans are signed by the Forest Service.
Adam Mehlberg
adam_mehlberg@stortek.com
As of May 6, 1997: from Terry Rust
Alamosa went pretty well I thought, we met with the Board and answered questions in general about what folks thought the FS might bring up. We asked if we could stay while the FS was there and were encouraged by the Board to stay, so we did. The FS first contested the actual status of the Como to Blue stretch, saying that they hadn't found any pre 1905 documentation for that area, Adam had 5 patented claims in hand that he shared with them. Point resolved in our favor, FS validated the RS2477 claim. Next they raised the "if you want to assume LIABILITY" issue, the board didn't blink and it was dropped. Next was the issue of erosion above Como and the resulting siltation of the fishery. That didn't seem to bother the Board either, but the FS kept bringing up vehicle impacts, finally I just piped up with sedimentation being remediable from my professional opinion and that any issues like that, that they identified, we could handle. So the up shot is that later this summer we will tour the area with the FS, County, and Clubs to identify areas of concern for our remedial efforts. I volunteered Charlie Wilson to Adam as a resource, I figured his PE and PhD might go further with the FS than I can. Haven't told Charlie yet, but I don't think he'll mind. Carlos Pinto the district ranger did get my info to use in the future if it helps.Worth the drive up I think. RS2477 over the entire length, County wants to maintain use as is over entire length at a cost of some silt abatement work. I told Adam that SJC would be glad to help with labor if needed as well, and that I thought we could muster some additional laborers from SWFWDA too.
terry.
Terry Rust
trust@lanl.gov
As of February 11, 1997: from Adam Mehlberg
Could everyone who writes a letter to Alamosa County in support of their resolution on RS2477 roads please send me a copy for my file. This will let me know who has wrote in support if we have future meetings during the process of asserting Blanca. Send to:
Trailridge Runners 4WD Club
P.O. Box 7513
Longmont, CO. 80501
We all need to write to the Alamosa County Commissioners with our support for their resolution on RS2477 Right of Ways. This will include the Blanca Peak 4WD road.
Address:
Alamosa County
702 4th. Street
Alamosa, CO 81101
(719)589-4848
----------------------------Sample Letter---------------------------------
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Sandia Jeep Club of Santa Fe, Espanola, and Los Alamos New Mexico to thank you for your support of public access to public lands. Your recent resolution regarding RS 2477 routes in Alamosa County is a great step toward ensuring the continued access so vital to all the visitors to your beautiful area. We look forward to enjoying your generous hospitality when we visit Blanca Peak and the many other scenic and historic sites near Alamosa. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to any of you that might be interested, to ride along with our club the next time we come up to visit Blanca Peak or Medano Pass or any of the other trails in the area.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
The Sandia Jeep Club
address
phone number
As of February 6, 1997: from Adam Mehlberg:
Following is the Alamosa County Resolution related to Public Highways. For those interested in Blanca Peak and its status as a public highway, the Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs is working with Alamosa County to take the Blanca Peak 4WD road through the resolutions process of proof and have the county establish its ownership under this resolution. For those driving Blanca in the future, any closures should be brought to the attention of Alamosa County. They will then take the action they feel appropriate.
Alamosa County
702 4th Street
Alamosa, CO 81101
(719) 589-4848
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ALAMOSA COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO: 95-G-5
RE: A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING AND AFFIRMING ALL PUBLIC ACCESS ROADS WITHIN ALAMOSA COUNTY,
COLORADO
Commissioner Zimmerman moved for the adoption of the following Resolution. Commissioner
Jones seconded the motion.
WHEREAS, Alamosa County was established out of Conejos County and Costilla County in 1913
as a ranching, farming and mining area, with intensive prospecting and exploration for
valuable minerals, forest products, agricultural products, and beef and sheep products,
and;
WHEREAS, much of the mountainous areas of the County became laced with wagon roads, trails and horse and foot paths to facilitate such activities. Many of these roads, trails and paths have been in general use by the public since the establishment of Conejos County and Costilia County, and many have been further developed into mining roads, logging roads and access roads, for the removal of minerals, forest products, and other uses, and;
WHEREAS, other of these roads, trails and paths have continued in use, by the general public, for hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding and other recreational uses, and;
WHEREAS, there now exists in Alamosa County, an extensive network of roads, mining roads, logging roads, trails, horse trails, hiking trails and foot paths, all of which provide public access to, and throughout, the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands representing a substantial portion of land within Alamosa County, and;
WHEREAS, Colorado law recognizes that all of these various "public ways" are public highways, and public highways include: all roads over private lands dedicated to public uses by due process of law and not vacated by an order of the Board of County Commissioners; all roads over private lands that have been used adversely without interruption for 20 consecutive years; all roads over the public domain, whether agricultural or mineral, and;
WHEREAS, in the year 1866, the United States government adopted 43 USC 932, also known as RS 2477, the adoption of which statute constituted and express dedication of public highways by the United States government and, prior and subsequent to such statute, countless "public ways" were constructed by public use, and "acceptance" was accomplished by such public use, including the network of roads, trails and paths now located within and without the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands in Alamosa County, Colorado, and;
WHEREAS, under Colorado law all roads and highways which are, on May 4, 1921, by law open to public traffic, shall be public highways, and with the exception of those public highways that are owned and maintained as state or federal highways, all of such public highways within Alamosa County are under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners of this County, and;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Alamosa County, Colorado, considers the existing system of roads, trails and paths as vital to the public welfare and flow of commerce within this County, like the federal and state highway systems are vital to the welfare and commerce of the State of Colorado, and;
WHEREAS, this Resolution includes but is not specifically directed toward those highways and roads that are included within either the County primary system or secondary system; but more specifically those public access roads, trails and paths that are substantially or completely non-maintained, with such lack of maintenance having no impact on the public use of said roads, trails and paths in question.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Alamosa County, Colorado:
1. All public roads located within Alamosa County, Colorado that have not been heretofore formally vacated by the Board of County Commissioners are hereby designated as public highways. "Public roads" and "public highways" as used herein include: highways, roads, mining roads, logging roads, wagon roads, trails, horse trails, hiking trails and foot paths.
2. As such, no said public roads, or public highways, may be closed to the historic use of public travel for which they have been utilized, without express closure and/or abandonment by the Board of County Commissioners of Alamosa County, Colorado.
3. Neither private nor public tracts of land traversed by these public roads may be fenced, gated or otherwise obstructed by any means whatsoever without the express written consent of the Board of County Commissioners.
4. Whenever a public road traverses any private or public property, signs may be posted at all points where the public road crosses the boundary of the public or private property pursuant to CRS l8-4-201 indicating that the surrounding property, for a designated distance, is private property, or public property not available for public use, but no such sign will purport to limit the absolute right of the public to use such road, or deny access to the general public, or deny or limit, the use of such public road by the general public. If any such sign does not specify the distance, then a sign shall be posted at the next point that the road exits the private or public property.
5. Public roads across public lands shall be fully subject to this Resolution and Alamosa County's jurisdiction, notwithstanding concurrent jurisdiction of a public agency. Roads across public lands that are not public roads or public highways, under Colorado or federal law, shall remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate public agency.
6. lt shall be the policy of Alamosa County, that upon the determination by the Board of County Commissioners where a public road is being obstructed in violation of this Resolution, or of any other applicable law and no emergency exists, the County may elect to give 10 days written notice to the owner(s) of record by certified mail and/or to any person(s) know to have created such obstruction, and if the obstruction is not removed within said 10 day period, the County may remove such obstruction at any time and in any lawful manner that it deems appropriate. If an emergency exists, the County may remove the obstruction without notice of any kind.
Passed by roll call vote: three (3) in favor, none against.
DATED this 16th day of October, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ALAMOSA COUNTY
Tim Gallagher, Chairman
ATTEST: Holly Z Lowder, Clerk of the Board
As of November 12, 1996: from Terry Rust:
The Sandia Jeep Club out of the Santa Fe, Espanola,Los Alamos area of New Mexico, all 13 members, sent $250 to COHVC for the Blanca fight.
As of October 11, 1996: from Dave "CRACKER" Pool:
The Ridge Runner 4WD Club of Pueblo and Canon City, Colorado have approved a $200 contribution to the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition earmarked for the Mt. Blanca Legal Defense Fund.
As of August 26, 1996: From Adam Mehlberg:
On August 26th, 1996, Jerry Abboud (COHVCO), Jim Witwer (Trout & Raley law firm), and myself traveled to Alamosa to meet with the County Commissioners and discuss the options for the Blanca Peak 4WD road. We met with Herry Andrews, Jim Jones, and Keith Edwards, all county Commissioners. Also in attendance was Lewis Entz, state representative.
The commissioners are very concerned with the recent changes in the Rio Grande National Forest management practices. More and more access is being closed off to all but hikers in the area. They were very interested in our proposal, and the information we have obtained on the history of the Blanca Peak/Como Lake road. Our lawyer, and the county lawyer, will be collecting data from the Castilla County records, which was the county that had jurisdiction prior to Alamosa.
Our goal is to document the road and pursue RS2477 Rights of Way on it through the county. Once the county gains management responsibility of the Blanca Peak 4WD road, it would become an un-maintained county road, no longer under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The closure would be removed, and the road would be accessible beyond Jaws IV. We would then set up an Adopt-A-Road agreement with the county to maintain the road and preserve the difficulty level. The Creepers Jeepers Gang will continue to maintain that part of the road that is still accessible to the public as further indication of our commitment to work with the managing agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Anderson, the Appeal Reviewing Officer of our Blanca Peak road closure appeal, responded to the comments received during the appeal period. I thought I might share some of them with you.
[4WD] The road qualifies as an RS2477 road and should be public.
[F.S.] RS2477 rights are not at issue below Como Lake since the Ranger's decision does not
preclude travel on this road segment.
My response to that is, RS2477 rights of way may not be viable in the future, depending on future laws. All rights of way that exist, and can be documented, should be asserted immediately. Besides, we don't trust the Forest Service. The next district ranger could close the road at the forest boundary.
[4WD] The decision eliminates one of the featured challenges on the road.
[F.S.] The Ranger indicated that there is no opportunity to mitigate the related effects
under the decision. The modified Alternative II also provides no way to mitigate resource
problems on the section of the road above Como Lake.
The modified alternative was to end the road above Jaws IV. No discussion was made on rerouting the road along the edge of the bog, which we suggested during the road review with the district ranger. We volunteered to do the work, and even finance what ever materials may be required. It was stated in the Soils Scientist report that rerouting the road would require blasting and tree removal. Yet, in the August and September 1996 Project Update from the Rio Grande National Forest there are four (4) non-motorized trail maintenance projects listed that "Minor blasting may occur on rocky sections..." and "...a mini excavator may be used...". No bias here, right?
[4WD] Pre-existing roads should remain open for use.
[F.S.] ...much of the road has stabilized and there is a minimal, acceptable level of
impacts from motorized use. But there is also in the record two Forest Service specialist
reports which independently conclude that impacts are unacceptable from continued use of
the road through the bog at the upper end of Como Lake and into the alpine zone. Both
indicate that these impacts are still growing (sedimentation / soil loss and water
degradation), and both recommended closure of the road so as to protect the bog area and
the alpine area above it.
Ok, the two specialists were the Biologist, Bill Joslin, and the Soil Scientist, John Rawinski. First the Biologists report, which stated that "Conclusive evidence is not a reality that any [threatened or endangered] species inhabit the proposed area." Only potential habitat exists for these species, yet he recommends the road not go past Como Lake "...because of the threat to sensitive habitat and possible vulnerability to species individuals." What species individuals? Talk about double speak! The Soil Scientist report asserts the unstable soil at the bog and in the alpine zone which is not suitable for roads. That's why we have been working on this road for over three years, to stabilize it, which was not mentioned anywhere in their documents.
While were on specialists reports, the Recreation Specialists, Gregory Thompson, report voiced some interesting concerns. No discussion on a trailhead, or how many vehicles it should accommodate. How much use is taking place in the wilderness and on the high mountain peaks? Is this acceptable? Should camping sites be designated around Como Lake? (I love this one.) Do multiple trails exist to Little Bear, Sierra Blanca and Ellington Point? Should we encourage a main route to them to protect the peak's fragile resources? Non of these issues were addressed in the decision on how to manage the area, it seems that road closure was all the management decision was to address. Probably the most important statement by the Recreation Specialist was the recommendation that Alternative V, complete closure, be removed because "...the road has been in existence and used for XX years, this road and area was excluded from the 1993 Wilderness Act and the road and remaining area can be managed for existing recreation uses..." and he goes on to state that the alternative would "...create substantial long term social issues, economic impacts and law enforcement workloads and costs." This is one of the Forest Service Specialists confirming appeal comments. Remember this.
[4WD] The resource concerns could be reasonably mitigated. (We proposed Reroute,
Fencing, Stabilization)
[F.S.] ...these techniques were considered, but were found to be inadequate to protect the
soil and water resources for the long term. When a Forest Service technical expert
develops recommendations, the data, analysis and the recommendations themselves are
subject to challenge. However, it is not enough that respondents simply disagree with a
soil scientist's professional opinions and recommendations. Such challenges must be more
substantive than statements declaring the recommendations to be incorrect. When
respondents are challenging, they must have specific data, technical information, expert
opinion, and similar support for their point of view.
We gave specific data, by directing them to contact the Leadville District and review the record of the Holy Cross City bog project. Also, the Boulder District on the Middle St. Vrain bog project, which includes buck and rail fence as route control. Bogs heal quickly and rerouting the road onto the scree slope bordering the bog would allow the bog to repair itself in a few years, as the previous reroute of the Blanca road demonstrates. Of course the road along the slope would be one tough section, but we like it that way. He goes on to state that no data about traffic volume was included in the appeal record, nor did we provide any. That is not our responsibility. Rio Grande Forest Plan, chapter IV Monitoring and Evaluation, page 3, table IV, under Recreation, the dispersed recreation visitor days are to be monitored. This type of data is what their Recreation Specialist requested to be included in the analysis before the decision.
[4WD] Watershed quality has not suffered.
[F.S.] The EA notes that the watershed as a whole is healthy, but goes on to note that the
road is a disturbance within the watershed.
He forgot the last sentence from the Hydrologists Report (no name given). "Cumulative watershed impacts are not causing significant concerns." The rest of the report talks about ways to mitigate road impacts to watersheds, of course, not mentioned.
In David Anderson's final recommendation he states, "I found no evidence in the record, nor did appellants provide any, of violations of law, regulation or policy." In other words, there are no laws that protect motorized recreation, no policies that the forest service must follow. Our form of recreation is only available until the area we use comes under scrutiny, or some other law, regulation, or policy protected entity conflicts with us.
The District Ranger's decision, and the Reviewing Officer's concurrence, were upheld by Tom L. Thompson, Deputy Regional Forester, Region 2, and Appeal Deciding Officer. That was the end of our available actions within the Forest Service. But we're not beat yet....
As of August 14, 1996: From Marvi and Billy Dollinger:
Billy had invited the Alamos County Administrator to All-4-FUn in Salida, CO.
"Herry Andrews stopped by on Wednesday, for the vendor day. Billy took him around ...... and then introduced him Barry Shields (COHVCO rep), Dave Osborne (most likely the new Colo. State Assoc. president), Chuck Rupp, Jim Webb (Forest Supervisor, Rio Grande Forest) and some others. Harry and Chuck Rupp were discussing when they could do a trip to Blanca at another time."
As of July 16, 1996: From Adam Mehlberg:
"The lawyer retained by COHVCO to fight for Blanca Peak contacted me yesterday. We are still working on a meeting with the Alamosa County lawyer to discuss the RS2477 legal action. We hope to be down in Alamosa one day during the last week of July. During this meeting we will contact some of the individuals that drove the road in the 50's and research the county mining records.
Our goal is to move the road into the hands of the county, and to take over maintenance to maintain it's challenge."
As of July 14, 1996: From the Colorado 4 Wheeling News the newsletter of the Colorado Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, Inc.
"Rising Sun 4WD Club of Colorado, would like to "challenge" all clubs
... that would like to take their vehicles "off-highway" to match or exceed our
donation of $200 to the COHVCO Legal Defense Fund. We, (RS) believe that our Colorado
Association of clubs is very strong and together we can make a BIG difference! Please take
us up on our "challenge" and pool together some money for COHVCO, so they in
turn can continue to fight hard for the hobby we ALL have a lot of time and money invested
in. Thank you in advance, for contributing to the fund that will help insure that we have
a place to go with our Off-Highway vehicles!
Respectfully Yours; Rising Sun 4WD Club of Colorado, Kevin Ehrlick Membership
Director"
"At the 2nd Quarterly Meeting, Mile-Hi Jeep Club also challenged the other Clubs ..... to donate to the COHVCO Legal Defense Fund, after announcing their donation of $1,000!"
As of June 3, 1996: Adam Mehlberg, Land Use Officer for the Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs, attended the COHVCO Board meeting after taking part of the day off of work to meet with the lawyers. Jerry Abound, past president of COHVCO was with him. Adam reports:
"It was a productive meeting. We gave them as much knowledge as we had on Blanca and worked out a strategy. The plan is to obtain an RS2477 Rights of Way on the road from the FS BLM boundary as far up as possible........ RS2477 is very probable from the boundary to the old town site of Commodore. Research was done after our meeting on the 15th. on the history of the Wrisberg Claim. Following is what that turned up.
03/25/1899 Wrisberg Placer claim located by L.A. Fuller
04/18/1899 Claim notice of location recorded in Costilla County, Book 33 page 364.
08/03/1899 Amended location.
08/31/1899 Amended location recorded in Costilla County, Book 33 page 417
09/18/1899 Mineral Survey (#13436) on Wrisberg Placer begins. The survey states that the
nearest town is Commodore. The field notes of the survey reference a wagon road that runs
in a southeasterly direction from the Wrisberg Placer to the nearest railroad station in
Fort Garland. (p 698)
10/01/1899 Mineral survey.
11/21/1899 Mineral survey.
01/29/1900 Mineral survey.
11/12/1900 Patent issued to L.A. Fuller. Mineral Certificate #441
04/11/1902 The San Isabel Forest Reserve established by proclamation.
06/12/1905 San Isabel Forest is enlarged.
10/01/1954 Tracts T28N, R73W Sec 35 are transferred to the Rio Grande National Forest.
04/25/1981 Wright Engineering and Exploration Co. locate the Peak 1, 2, 3 lode mining
claims in sec. 36 T28N, R73W. (claims later abandoned in 1992)
03/20/1981 Wright Engineering locate the Marmot 3, 4 lode mining claims in sec. 36 T28N,
R73W. (claims later abandoned in 1992)
07/03/1981 Wright Engineering locate the Kelly 1 lode mining claim in sec. 36 T28N, R73W.
(claims later abandoned in 1992)
This establishes that the area, and the road were in use before the FS existed. This proof is the most critical to the RS2477 claim.
The next step is a visit to the Alamosa County offices to discuss our intent on an RS2477 claim, to research the county records and to contact the individuals in Blanca that worked the road to Blue Lakes. This will take place in the last week of June. I plan to take time off and go down to Alamosa with Jim Witwer, lawyer. After all of the research the intent is to file suit in the Federal Court to put control of as much of the road as possible, in the hands of the county.
The part that the clubs can participate in now is the collection of businesses in the Alamosa area, or County, that Off Highway Recreationists (OHR), new Blue Ribbon term, use when visiting Blanca. We need to get names and contacts for the businesses that we support in the county to insure their support of this undertaking. You can FAX this information to me at (303) 772-0357. If we can get letters from these businesses that indicate our annual input into Alamosa County's economy, that would be great."
Colorado Trail Guidebooks, Trail Maps, and Trail Videos
| 4X4
BOOKS
.
com World's Best Selection of 4X4, Jeep, & Offroad Handbooks, Trail Guides, Videos, Maps, GPS and More |
4X4NOW
Feature Page
4X4NOW
Trail Reports | Moab
4WD Trails
4X4NOW
"How-To" | 4X4NOW
Buildups
4X4BOOKS
| MAPNOW
get Garmin at
GPSNOW
- Order by 5pm and have it Tomorrow!
Choosing |
for Laptop/Pocket PC | Basic
| Handheld Mapping | 2-way
Radio | Automotive | Motorcycle
| RV/Truck/Bus | Land & Water
Accessories
eTrex H | Legend
| Vista | Venture
HC | Summit HC | Legend
HCx | Vista HCx
GPS 18
DLX | 60
Mobile 10 | Mobile
10 for smartphones
GPSMAP 60 | 60Cx
| 60CSx | 76S
| 76Cx | 76CSx
| 276C | 376C
| 378 | 478
MapSource City Navigator
North America | US Topo | BlueChart
nüvi
200 | 270
| 350 | 360
| 370 | 650
| 660
| 670 | 680
Quest | Quest 2
Rino 110 | 120
| 130 | 520
| 530 | 520HCx
| 530HCx
StreetPilot 2820 | 7200/7500
| c330
| c340 | c530
| c550 | c580
Astro GPS dog tracking system
zūmo 450 / 550
© 4X4NOW