|
National Trail Classification System
August 10, 2006
Mr. Jonathan Stephens,
National Program Manager for Trails
and Congressionally Designated Areas
USDA Forest Service, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff
1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1125
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Stephens,
The Backcountry Horsemen of America provide the following comments on the National Trail Classification System, FSM 2350, and FSH 2309.18 as identified in Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 127/Monday, July 3, 2006.
The “Need for Proposed Directives” on page 38024, is grossly inadequate to drive a revision of this magnitude and one that will have such an adverse impact on the saddle and pack stock segment of the user public. The stated “need” is simply that “Directives provide guidance to field units…” There is no discussion as to why the trail standards/parameters for saddle and pack stock that were time tested over most of the last century are now, suddenly, in need of change, nor how that change will impact recreational stock use.
In “Background” on page 38022, the document discusses a concern that “there was no system for gathering consistent, comprehensive data on real property inventory, facility conditions, program priorities, and budget needs for Forest Service resources,” and talks about efforts the agency has expended to rectify that situation. The document goes on to state that “In 1999, the Forest Service transitioned from the three way, secondary, and mainline trail classes to five trail classes keyed more precisely to the physical characteristics of NFS trails.” There is, once again, no analysis or other data provided to explain this rationale, or documentation that the environmental consequences and potential impacts to a user public were considered.
It appears to us, that in an effort to improve the agency’s information management system as related to trails transportation and access management and without consideration of how their efforts would affect the using public, the agency has totally changed the way trail facilities would be managed, and set specific criteria and established a strategy for the allocation and zoning of trail oriented recreation experiences on National Forest System lands.
Concern #1. The National Trail Classification System as described in Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 127, dated July 3, 2006, reduces the spectrum of experience opportunities, and potentially the amount of area, available to recreational stock users in wilderness and non-wilderness backcountry (primitive and semi primitive ROS).
Prior to the trails classification system recently implemented, the Forest Service had three classes of trails: mainline (easy), secondary (more difficult), and way (most difficult). Each had trail guides (standards for construction and management) adequate to accommodate recreational stock use. Trail Guides (parameters) for a way trail were adequate to accommodate a saddle animal and rider, and secondary and mainline would accommodate packed animals. All three trail classes were acceptable in all recreation opportunity spectrum classes (based on ROS User Guide) and did in fact occur in all ROS classes and in designated wilderness.
As a result of the new classification process a portion of the existing trail system that was previously available to recreational stock users, and the area accessed by this portion, will be managed as TC-1 using design and maintenance parameters that will not accommodate recreational saddle or pack stock. (This presumption has been born out in the inventory data that we have been able to obtain.) The change from a standard that would accommodate recreational stock to a standard that would not accommodate recreational stock was, in most cases, accomplished without effects analysis and public involvement.
Historically, as much as one third of the wilderness trail system (possibly more in some wildernesses) was managed to mainline (easiest) standards. These standards, (specifically clearing widths of 8’), allowed skilled packers to lead strings of 9 or more pack animals safely, and permitted less skilled (as well as skilled packers) to walk alongside their pack animals to adjust their loads and straighten a ‘slipped’ pack or saddle. Parameters established for TC3 are a minimum to allow passage of packed animals offering little opportunity for the packer to access his loaded packstring --especially in heavily timbered or brushy areas and on steep side slopes. As such, the classification system offers little opportunity for lesser skilled recreational packers to access wilderness, and increases the possibility of serious accidents for packers with intermediate skills and all long string packers regardless of skill level.
The proposed classification system establishes that trail standards associated with mainline trails (comparable to those in TC4) are no longer appropriate (or will rarely occur) in wilderness. By making that determination, the agency has made the decision that the type of trail facility common in wilderness when the 1964 Act was passed, and the character of the experience that it provided, was not, or at least will no longer be, appropriate in wilderness.
As a result of these changes a portion of the trail opportunities that previously accommodated recreational stock will no longer accommodate that use, and within wilderness areas the management standards for popular trails (previously managed as mainline or easiest) will be decreased or eliminated, and the ‘character’ or experience opportunity they provided will no longer be available to saddle and pack stock users. The opportunity to provide the “benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” for the use and enjoyment of” the “whole people” has been diminished.
Relief Requested:
A. Back Country Horsemen request that the continuum/spectrum of experience opportunities provided by mainline (easiest), secondary (more difficult) and way (most difficult) trails, and the related standards or parameters described in the 1991 trail guides for pack and saddle stock, be incorporated in the new classification system for TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 trails. We further request that all three trail classes be identified as appropriate in primitive and semi primitive settings both within and outside designated wilderness. The proposed design parameters for hiker/pedestrian could be allowed to remain, as proposed, providing an alternative set of opportunities for those trails (and the areas served by those trails) that have not historically accommodated saddle and pack stock, or that have been closed to saddle or pack stock through an appropriate decision process.
B. Back Country Horsemen also insist that recreational pack and saddle stock be accommodated within each wilderness, and within each portion of each wilderness, where it historically existed when the area was designated as Wilderness; and that customary and historical trail access be maintained to the level and character that existed when the area was designated. The exception would be where it has been determined through an appropriate decision process that the changes are the minimum necessary to preserve the character of the areas that existed when the area was added to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
C. That the Forest Service implement through the directives identified in the above referenced Federal Register, a system of ‘safeguards’ to ensure that the identification/designation of trail management objectives, trail classes, managed uses, and design parameters are consistent with and clearly trackable to land management plans, transportation plans or other appropriate planning documents that meet the requirements of NEPA and NFMA, and in which all interested publics have been given adequate opportunity to participate.
Concern #2: Use of full bench tread construction in wilderness was a big concern during discussions between BCHA and Forest Service personnel when we met in Washington D.C. in 2004. Agency personnel insisted that full bench construction was not appropriate in wilderness. Full bench construction is a necessary practice that has been in use since before the Wilderness Act was passed and has continued to this present day. Horses and mules tend to walk on the outside edge of trails. On steep side slopes, if a major portion of the tread of a TC2 (12-18) or TC3 (12-24”) is perched on ‘fill’, stock will punch through the outside edge resulting in tread failure and excessive erosion and potentially serious accidents.
Historically in steep mountainous country, trails that traverse side slopes do so with either partial bench or full bench construction. The 1935 Forest Trails Handbook references trail tread widths of 24” wide on slopes between 30% and 85%, 24 to 30” on slopes between 85% and 165% on Primary Trails on Primary Trails (Mainline), Secondary Trails not to exceed 24” on slopes between 50% and 85% and on slopes between 84% and 165% not to exceed width of primary trail. The construction design drawings clearly illustrate full bench construction.
There has to be an increase of allowable tread width from 12 to 18” to 24 to 36” for TC 3-4 and 12 – 24” for TC 2 to accommodate benched construction where needed. Also the standard of 24” allows for the ‘settling’ in of the trail bed in reconstruction/construction without relying on fill to accomplish tread width parameters.
Relief Requested: provide discretional authority in the design parameters matrix to use ‘benched’ construction methods both inside and outside wilderness as necessary to protect the trail resource and provide safe passage for the intended type and volume of use.
Concern #3: Cross slope parameters (5-10% for TC2, 5% for TC3 and 4) are unrealistic in steep, mountainous areas of the west.
Relief Requested: Cross slope parameters, at a minimum, must meet the design criteria in place since 1935 and before. These parameters are evident on Trails such as the Pacific Crest Trail (a designated National Scenic Trail) and innumerable other trails throughout the west.
Concern #4: Direction to use native materials on TC1 and TC2 trails and emphasis that native materials will “Typically” be used in TC3 trails imposes unnecessary costs. Treated timber (round or dimensional) waterbars, puncheons, turnpikes, bridge members have a much longer service life than that of native materials.
Relief Requested: Provide discretional authority in TC1 to TC3 to use treated round or dimensional timbers where it can be done in a manner that does not distract from the desired experience of a typical user. Provide discretional authority to use laminated and steel members in the TC3 environs. These flexibilities will result in a more efficient use of limited trail budgets and increase the agency’s capabilities to protect resources and provide quality recreation opportunities.
It is also a concern that use of bridges is not listed in the pack and saddle design parameters for TC2 trails. Use of bridges and other trail structures has been discouraged by many wilderness managers. There is no basis for this in the law. The apparent inconsistency between the law and Forest Service policy regarding structures was noted by wilderness scholars and supporters such as Michael McCloskey, Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. McCloskey (Oregon Law Review 45(4), 1966) recognized that the “summary description of the statutory scheme suggests that there are two purposes of the act: preservation without impairment, and compatible public enjoyment. … If the purpose of the act is broadly construed to include enjoyment as well as preservation, then the basic administration of an area may be thought to include the need for structures such as footbridges across impassible torrents. … The failure to provide them would have to mean a failure to meet the minimum requirements for proper administration.”
The long term policy of the agency that “cost” is not a consideration in wilderness has no basis in wilderness law. The only reference to cost in the 1964 Act is the statement that “No appropriation shall be available for payment of expenses or salaries … required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.” Bridges and other trail structures, and use of motorized trail equipment, were common in most wilderness areas prior to passage of the 1964 law. If the methodology for reconstructing and managing trails in wilderness (including the use of non-natural materials) exceeds the cost that would be incurred if the area were not wilderness, the agency is not meeting the intent of Congress. A reference in the Congressional Record of 1959, p#2645, regarding efficient management; “The [wilderness] bill requires that, so far as practicable, machines be kept out of the areas – that road building and the use of motor vehicles, motorboats, and aircraft be held to the minimum necessary for protection and efficient management of the area,” should also be interpreted to apply to the management of the trail system in general. Adherence to the belief that cost is not a consideration has limited the agency’s ability to maintain the infrastructure necessary to provide the “benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness … for the use and enjoyment of the American people,” and contributed to the enormous backlog in trail maintenance.
On a positive note, the discussion in p2.31b regarding fords is very good! All too often we have observed that trail construction and maintenance efforts stop at the high water mark – large rocks and obstructions are not removed nor are hazards immediately downstream from the ford removed which create an unsafe crossing situation. If fisheries or other resource considerations limit proper (and safe) management of a ford, a bridge should be constructed.
Relief Requested: Provide the flexibility to use bridges as an option over all streams that meet the criteria in paragraph 7 of 2.31b regardless of trail class.
Concern #5: Directional signs at trail junctions are not recommended until TC 3. Emphasis for signing in TC1 and 2 is limited to “regulation and resource protection.” Unskilled travelers are going to venture into the primitive and semi-primitive environs, and even experienced travelers are going to get lost when directional signs and assurance markers are not provided on low standard trails. When tread is intermittent and indistinct (as described in the trail class matrix) most users, regardless of skill level, need at least a minimum of trail signs and markers to tell them they are on a Forest Service trail and not a game trail or user established route. Junction signs and assurance markers are more important on low standard trails than on higher standard trails. User safety must be a consideration on all trails.
Relief Requested: Change the trail class matrix to indicate that minimal signing should be provided at all junctions, and reasonable assurance marking should be provided on all trails. Congress has identified signing as an appropriate feature in wilderness (see House Report 95-540).
Backcountry Horsemen of America welcome the opportunity to comment, and request that we be placed on the mailing list to receive future information regarding this topic. I am attaching a review of the National Trail Classification System prepared for BCHA by a wilderness resource consultant. It will provide additional insights as to the position we are taking regarding the proposal. If you have questions you may call me at 406 227- 6750, or Steve Didier, BCHA Public Lands Chair, at 208 926-4910.
Sincerely,
MERLYN HUSO Chairman, Back Country Horsemen
of America
Dennis Dailey
Wilderness Services
August 4, 2006
A Review of the: National Trail Classification System
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 127/ Monday, July 3, 2006/Notices
The trails classification system remains largely unchanged since my initial review in July 2003. The minor modifications that took place after BCHA representatives and our attorney met with Forest Service officials in October 2004 have been changed back to the way they originally appeared negating any progress made through our previous negotiations. This information is provided to help backcountry horsemen understand the implications of the proposed change. I will also submit a draft of comments to the Forest Service for the consideration of BCHA Executive Committee by August 8th as agreed.
Background: The Federal Register release states that the three category classification for NFS trails was initiated in 1991. A three category classification – primary, secondary and way – is found in trail handbooks as early as 1935. The effort which culminated in the 1991 revision was initiated in 1983 when WO trails program leader Tom Lennon assembled a group of regional trails managers and WO engineers and recreation leaders at a resort in Colorado. I was Region 4’s representative on that committee. The classification system identified in the 1991 handbook, based on difficulty levels, was intended as a change in name only, and was determined to be necessary to make the trail classification more user friendly. The standards or design guides for mainline, secondary, and way, were intended to apply to their respective new difficulty classes – easy, more difficult and most difficult. The statement in the Federal Register that the original trail classes did not correlate with difficulty levels is not correct, or at least it is not consistent with the intent of the trail managers that proposed the change in 1983. Adapting trail classes to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes was also considered at the workshop in 1983 and was not adopted because of the concern that managing trails as strictly a recreation facility would conflict with the transportation function and the need to provide reasonable access throughout Forest System lands irrespective of ROS class.
The proposed classification system will change standards for pack and saddle stock trails that evolved over, and have been time tested for, nearly a hundred years. The multiple purpose trail evolved within the Forest Service as a necessity to provide “(a) safe and unobstructed passage of loaded animals and foot travelers at a walking gait and in single file; (b) durability designed to meet expected use and liability of damage from natural causes.” (Forest Trail Handbook, 1935). The handbook set explicit standards for Forest Service crews and CCC crews of the 1930s and WPA crews of the 1950s. As the agency evolved, it recognized that not all trails needed to be constructed to the same standard. A classification system was devised around the primary transportation function each trail provided. Primary or mainline trails provided access across and through a major Forest block (analogous to an Interstate highway); a secondary system provided access to major locations within each Forest; and ways provided access to lesser used locations. The trail system was constructed by stock assisted crews for travel with saddle and pack stock. Although way trails received less emphasis, they were still constructed in a manner that provided a measure of resource protection and safety for the types of users they were designed to accommodate.
The proposed revision views trails in an entirely different manner -- as a recreational facility. Trail design parameters and maintenance cycles are related to desired recreation experiences or ‘recreation environs’ ranging from primitive to a rural or urban setting. Trails are not just a recreational facility, however, they are an integral part of a Forest's transportation system and may serve many functions and there isn't a clear and consistent linkage between trail class and the recreation opportunity class through which it passes. A recently retired Forest Service trails expert made that point quite effectively with an analogy that, if there were an effective linkage, US 2, which separates Glacier National Park and the Great Bear Wilderness would be, at best, a two lane gravel road. As a transportation facility, the trail system provided access to users with differing access methods and skill levels. Viewing trails as a recreation facility providing a specific type of experience will result in traditional stock users being denied access to areas that have historically been available to them.
Discussion: The new classification system parallels the Recreation Opportunity Planning process. The Recreation Opportunity Planning process or Recreation Opportunity Spectrum has been a recognized recreation planning tool within the agency since the 1970s. Wildland recreation opportunities are aligned on a spectrum with primitive at one end.
Primitive Semi-Primitive Roaded Natural Rural Urban
Non-Motorized Motorized Appearing
___________________________________________________________________________
Wilderness is commonly considered to lie at the primitive end of the spectrum. Hendee, Stankey and Lucas in their book “Wilderness Management” (and a similar pamphlet published by the Forest Service) included as a primary principle in managing wilderness the statement; “Manage wilderness as one extreme on the environmental spectrum…” Although the recreation planning concept evolved independently of wilderness legislation and subsequent to the Act, it has been adapted as a Wilderness planning tool (WROS – Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum). The National Forests are zoned for recreational purposes according to the degree of modification, amount of use and management presence. Wilderness lies primarily in the primitive class with the more heavily used areas being classed as semi-primitive. In the more heavily used wildernesses, use and related management actions near portals and in some of the popular destinations exceed levels appropriate in semi-primitive settings. In these cases, managers have identified these heavily used areas as ‘transition’ areas to avoid the confusion of having an area managed as ‘roaded natural appearing’ within wilderness. Even in heavily used wildernesses, the majority of the acreage falls into a primitive class, and in the moderately used wildernesses of the inter-mountain west, the entire wildernesses (with the possible exception of a small area near popular trailheads) might, according to the criteria in the ROS planning guide, qualify as primitive.
The new trail classification system aligns trail classes to achieve experiences that the agency has interpreted as appropriate within each ROS class:
Primitive Semi-Primitive Roaded Natural Rural Urban
Non-Motorized Motorized Appearing
___________________________________________________________________________
Trail Class Trail Class Trail Class Trail Class Trail Class
1 2 3 4 5
Trail Class 1 is titled minimal/undeveloped and the proposed classification guide lists it as appropriate in the primitive recreation environ; Trail Class 2 is considered to be typically found in the primitive to semi primitive environ; Trail Class 3 is appropriate in the semi primitive to roaded natural setting; Trail Class 4 in the Roaded Natural to Rural setting (the trail class matrix lists it as rarely being present in Wilderness); and Trail Class 5 is associated with Visitor Centers or high use recreation sites (not present in Wilderness and not designed or actively managed for equestrians). Based on the new classification scheme and accepted wilderness management principles that state that wilderness should be managed to provide recreation opportunities at the primitive end of the spectrum, one must assume that much of the wilderness trail system will be classified as minimal/undeveloped or Trail Class 1, and TC4 will be extremely uncommon in Wilderness.
According to the proposed design parameters, Trail Class 1 is not designed or actively managed for equestrians, although, by definition, “use may be accepted.” This latter comment appears to be more an appeasement or legal strategy than an actual accommodation -- the design parameters (clearing width and height) for TC1are simply not sufficient to accommodate stock use. Saying that stock “use may be accepted” on a TC1 trail is analogous to locking a man in a room with bars on the door spaced 6 inches apart and telling him he’s free to go whenever he wants. A TC1 clearing height of 6’ and width “sufficient to define trail corridor” (presumably less than the 24” parameter for a hiker in TC2) would limit stock use to a very short person on an extremely small horse. It is conceivable that TC1 trails in grassland or desert areas without significant trees or woody vegetation might accommodate equestrians, but, since the trails are not designed to a standard which would accommodate the use, it would ultimately result in excessive resource damage and stock use restrictions or complete prohibition.
Except in fairly rare instances, all Forest Service trails were originally designed to standards that would accommodate equines. Mainline (easiest) trails were considered a full pack and saddle stock standard designed to accommodate loaded pack string with minimal resource impact – 8’ clearing width and 10’ clearing height. They were common throughout backcountry and in western wildernesses up through the 1990s and comprised up to or more than a third of the entire system. At the other end of the spectrum, many way trails historically evolved as shortcuts used by packers returning from lookouts and work camps after unloading their freight. The standard for Way (Most Difficult) trails was a clearing width of 3 to 4’ and a clearing height of 8’. Although this is recognizably inadequate for packed animals, it would accommodate a saddle animal and rider, and, over the last century, an awful lot of hunters have used way trails to pack out game. One can assume that all or a portion of the way system will be reclassified as TC1, and as they become logged in over time, they will be inaccessible to stock users. Without saying so (and risking the wrath of stock users), TC1 appears to be an accommodation for the anti-stock element that demand a recreation opportunity removed from recreational stock use.
As most backcountry and wilderness stock users recognize, the way system, in many areas, has not been regularly maintained for many years. In some of these areas, the only maintenance that they may have received has been by outfitters, hunters and recreational stock users. Managers commonly allowed and often encouraged stock users to maintain the trails to a standard that would accommodate their use. It is very doubtful that the agency will permit TC1 trails to be ‘cut out’ to standards that will accommodate saddle or pack stock. Classified as recreation facilities, trail maintenance to a standard greater than that identified for the specific trail class will change the recreation experience intended and would not be allowed. If users did maintain them to appropriate stock standards it could, potentially, lead to fines or, in the case of commercial users, loss of privileges. Since much of the backcountry and wilderness hunting takes place in the more primitive areas, this will have a profound impact on hunters!
The design parameter for TC2 lists a clearing width of 3 to 4’. This is the same as the old way standard -- clearly inadequate for pack stock, but adequate to accommodate a saddle animal and rider. The general written information for Pack and Saddle Design Parameters (p 2.31b of the proposed change), however, recognizes a need for “Three feet on both sides of the centerline” as “minimum clearance for pack trails.” The general information also recognizes “some trails are simple day-use bridle paths and others are built to accommodate long strings of pack animals.” Since TC1 is not designed to accommodate equestrians and, as such, isn’t intended as a “bridle path,” it can be assumed that TC2 is intended to constitute the “day use” portion of the trails continuum, and is not intended as a pack trail. If this interpretation is correct, there would really only be one of the five classes that would accommodate pack and saddle stock use in wilderness and primitive backcountry areas. This could conceivably reduce the amount of trail that would accommodate pack and saddle stock to a fraction of that which was managed to accommodate packed stock prior to the new classification. Interpreted in this manner, the classification system would create a continuum of opportunities such that stock users would be limited to only the most heavily used areas of wilderness and backcountry with their loaded pack stock. From there, they would access an additional portion riding their saddle animals on TC2 trails, and would only be able to access the more remote areas on TC-1 trails if they left both their riding and pack stock behind. This interpretation is further supported by discussions we have had with W.O. trails and recreation personnel in which they stressed their desired intent to provide a distinct continuum of opportunities. The other possibility is that the agency simply erred in listing 3 to 4’ as the clearing width for TC2; in which case (in either case) we need to push to have it changed.
The new classification system also reflects a change from the manner in which recreation direction was determined in existing Forest Plans. The Forests were inventoried in the late 1970s and 1980s using an ROS Users Guide that listed ‘horseback riding’ as an appropriate activity in all settings (including ‘primitive’). In that Users Guide, ‘Remoteness’ criteria for determining appropriate recreation opportunity class described primitive as “an area at least 3 miles from all roads or trails with motorized use,” and ‘Evidence of Humans’ criteria acknowledged that “evidence of trails is acceptable, but should not exceed standard to carry expected use.” Areas classified as ‘primitive’ commonly contained multi-purpose or mainline/primary access trails designed to a full pack and saddle stock standard, as well as secondary and way trails developed to a lesser standard. Consistent with manual direction, these trails were supposedly managed for the mode of travel requiring the most demanding construction specifications.
Prior to the BCHA law suit, the changes to the trails classification system was apparently viewed as an 'administrative prerogative' not requiring public involvement. It is obvious that the choices a manager will have for selecting trail design and management parameters will be constrained by the new classification system. We were unable, through the lawsuit, however, to convince the court that application of the new system (limits imposed on the choices that a manager could make) would result in changes that necessitate NEPA assessment. It will be imperative that horsemen hold the agency accountable for making these changes at a local level.
The proposed classification system as it relates to wilderness legislation and the Congressional record:
At the time of passage of the Wilderness Act, nearly all of the trails in the National Forest System had been reconstructed and were being maintained to a standard intended to accommodate pack and saddle stock use safely and in a manner that would prevent unacceptable damage. The purpose of the Wilderness Act as stated in Section 2 was to “secure for the American people … the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness … for the use and enjoyment of the American people.” The “benefits” or public purposes recognized by Congress were further defined in Section 4b of the Act and specifically mention recreation and historic use. The wilderness trail system comprises an infrastructure necessary to accommodate the recreational and historical uses mandated in Section 4b. The responsibility to “make the wilderness accessible to those Americans who wish to use it” was affirmed in a 1998 Court decision in the case of Wilderness Watch vs. F. Dale Robertson regarding the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.
Senator Humphrey, in a speech introducing the wilderness bill, emphasized that “Existing uses and privileges are respected in this bill, … this is not essentially a reform measure but rather a measure to insure the preservation of a status quo which fortunately includes a great resource of wilderness.” The premise that “the Wilderness Bill is based on the assumption that we still can preserve in America an adequate system of wilderness areas without sacrificing any other program” surfaced repeatedly throughout the eight years of debate leading up to passage. It is further evident in the fact that many pre-existing uses which were thought to be inconsistent with wilderness – airfields, motor boat use, commercial grazing – were specifically allowed to continue where they previously occurred. Senator Church, floor manager when the Act was passed, addressed the issue of preserving existing uses in a speech in 1976: “it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.” Applying the trail class guidance for each respective 'environ' (ROS class) as described in the classification guide, will result in major changes in the way that an area will be managed, and the users and activities that will be accommodated. It is inconceivable to believe that Congress would have condoned practices, such as those in the proposed trail classification system, that eliminate or significantly restrict a historic and accepted use such as pack and saddle stock while permitting existing airfield and motorboat use to continue.
Congress’s intent to preserve the existing character of the areas included in the NWPS and provide for the public purposes of recreation and historical use can be tracked throughout eight years of Congressional proceedings leading up to passage of the Wilderness Act. Nowhere in the law or Congressional record does it require or even infer that the managing agencies must manage to a higher level of purity than that which existed when the areas were established as part of the Wilderness Preservation System. Through the new classification system, the agency is taking a portion of the wilderness that was historically served by low standard (way) stock trails, downgrading the standards to a point where stock is no longer accommodated, and managing these areas for a more primitive type of experience. This type of experience is already abundantly available in all wilderness areas. Many lightly used wildernesses are predominantly trailless. One large wilderness in central Idaho that I am quite familiar with is 98% trailless. Even heavily used wildernesses are commonly more than 50% trailless. These trailless areas can be accessed by cross country travel, as well as by undeveloped routes such as game trails, user created routes, and abandoned Forest Service trails which provide the same type experience intended on TC1 trails.
Neither the 1964 law, nor the congressional reports referenced in the law, specifically addressed trail management. As a result of the Forest Service’s strict policy regarding interpretation of the 1964 Act, Congress, during proceedings leading up to passage of the 1978 Endangered American Wilderness Bill, issued specific direction as to “how the Wilderness Act should now be interpreted as it relates to certain uses and activities.” In House Report 95-540, Congress admonished the Forest Service for it’s purity approach and stated that “After more than a decade of experience, the committee recognizes the problems which differing interpretations of the Wilderness Act create.” To eliminate the opportunity for misinterpretation, the committee offered guidance as to “how the Wilderness Act should now be interpreted as it relates to certain uses and activities…. Trails, trail signs, and necessary bridges are all permissible when designed in keeping with the wilderness concept.” It went on to state, “These are often important to the recreational access and use of a wilderness area. Trail construction or maintenance can include the use of mechanical equipment where appropriate and/or necessary.” To further clarify its intent, it stated that “… the committee expects the Forest Service to maximize efforts to construct, maintain, and improve trails and trail systems in wilderness areas, so as to increase opportunities for a high quality wilderness experience for the visiting public.”
This National Trails Classification System is a return to the principles and philosophy of the “purity doctrine” and a direct contrast to the direction provided by Congress in 1978. In applying a trail standard previously not used (TC-1), the Forest Service has determined that equestrians would not be a managed use (and would not physically be accommodated on trails) within large areas of wilderness that were historically available to them at the time of, and following passage of, the Wilderness Act. By specifying that TC4 trails – the standard that most closely approximates mainline (easiest) -- would rarely occur in wilderness, the Forest Service has imposed hazards or obstacles that would not have been encountered by ‘long-string’ packers on the mainline trails that existed when the law was passed. In so doing, the agency has also redefined the ‘character’ of wildernesses from what it was when the areas were designated, and, therefore, from what was intended, by Congress. |