General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval of Record of Decision - - Off-Road.com
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval of Record of Decision
Publish date: Feb 1, 2002 By:ORC STAFF Source: Off-Road.com
General
Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement
Mojave National Preserve
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval
of Record of Decision
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service has
approved a Record of Decision for the General Management Plan and
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mojave
National Preserve. The Record of Decision details the overall
background of the conservation planning effort, a description of
the decision made, synopses of alternatives considered,
identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, the
basis for the decision, findings on impairment of park resources
and values, a discussion of measures to minimize environmental
harm, and an overview of public and agency involvement in the
information and analysis supporting preparation of the
environmental impact statement (EIS). The impetus for this planning
effort was the passage of the California Desert Protection Act
(CDPA) on October 31, 1994, which transferred over 3 million acres
of California desert lands from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
to the National Park Service and designated nearly 8 million acres
of Wilderness on NPS and BLM lands. CDPA created Mojave National
Preserve (Preserve) and redesignated Death Valley and Joshua Tree
National Monuments as national parks. In response to anticipated
changes in public lands management in the California desert, as
well as the listing of the desert tortoise, increasing development,
various public use pressures, and other factors, the National Park
Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) desert
managers decided to prepare updated or new management plans.
Decision (Selected Action) As detailed in the Record of Decision,
the National Park Service (NPS) will implement Alternative 1, the
proposed general management plan (described in the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan, dated
July 2000, and as amended by the Abbreviated Final Environmental
Impact Statement and General Management Plan, dated June 2001).
Some adjustments to the hunting portion of the proposal have been
made as a result of concerns expressed during the no-action period
and in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the USFWS. Changes in the hunting regulations will require
further regulatory action. Cottontails and jackrabbits would be
added to the list of species that may be hunted, and the NPS would
seek to adjust the seasons to allow hunting only from September
through January, in keeping with the goals of the Desert Tortoise
Recovery Plan. The one-mile safety zone around developed areas has
been dropped (except for Kelso Depot and Kelso Dunes) in favor or
existing State and County regulations of 150 yards. The language
regarding safety zones will be modified to adopt State and County
regulations. The NPS would seek special regulations for the
Preserve through the California Fish and Game Commission to
implement the proposed hunting changes. The selected plan was found
to contain the best mix of programs, strategies, and actions for
managing the Preserve, given varying mandates and diverse public
opinion. The new General Management Plan (GMP) envisions the
Preserve as a cultural landscape and natural environment (i.e., an
arid ecosystem influenced by successive eras of human use dating
back in historic and prehistoric time), where native desert
ecosystems and processes are restored and protected for present and
future generations. Protecting and perpetuating native species in a
self-sustaining environment is a primary long-term goal. The GMP
seeks to manage the Preserve to perpetuate the sense of discovery
and adventure that currently exists, minimizing new development
inside the Preserve to avoid proliferation of directional signs and
new campgrounds or interpretive exhibits. The GMP envisions
adjacent ``gateway'' communities as providing most visitor support
services. The GMP also seeks to retain current opportunities for
roadside and backcountry camping, and access to backcountry via
existing primitive roads, consistent with the NPS mission. Planning
of actions consistent with Wilderness will also be undertaken.
Rehabilitation and partial restoration of the historic Kelso Depot
and its use as a museum and interpretive facility is planned. The
GMP also recognizes obligations to continue grazing, hunting, and
existence of major utility corridors, where specifically charged to
do so by Congress. The GMP acknowledges landowner capacity to
develop private property, provided such development is not
detrimental to the integrity of the Preserve or otherwise
incompatible with the CDPA. Nearly 130,000 acres within the
Preserve are in nonfederal ownership, and the GMP sets a goal of
seeking funding to purchase property from willing sellers. Other
Alternatives Considered In addition to Alternative 1 (selected
actions highlighted above), other alternatives considered include
existing management, and an optional management approach. The
existing management alternative (Alternative 2) describes the
continuation of current management strategies. It is commonly
referred to as the no-action or status quo alternative. It provides
a baseline from which to compare other alternatives, to evaluate
the magnitude of proposed changes, and to measure the environmental
effects of those changes. This no-action concept follows the
guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which
describes such alternatives as no change from the existing
management direction or level of management intensity. However, an
agency not acting to adopt a general management plan does not mean
that no management actions are taken. Since the Preserve is a
relatively new unit of the national park system and no general
management plan was in place, management of the unit has been done
in accord with applicable federal regulations, NPS servicewide
management policies, and subject- specific manuals and guidelines.
Consistent with the no-action alternative, no comprehensive
cultural or natural resource protection program is in place.
However, the Preserve has hired several staff, and funding for
managing some programs, such as minerals management and burro
removal, has been received. Existing staff cooperate on resource
inventory and monitoring with neighboring desert parks, and staff
also are involved with the Molycorp spill abatement, the Cadiz
groundwater storage proposal, and the AT&T cable removal
project. Such efforts are reactive to concerns after they arise,
rather than being a part of a comprehensive program that is planned
and funded. Existing visitor-administrative support services and
facilities are being maintained in current locations, water systems
have been improved, and vault toilets and picnic tables have been
installed. There have been few improvements to existing structures
and no change in road maintenance, although some minor road
improvements have been done. No significant changes in existing
recreation use would occur under this alternative. No action has
occurred to protect Kelso Depot from fire or earthquakes, although
planning for rehabilitation and partial restoration is underway,
and the building is secured to prevent vandalism. Efforts continue
for obtaining funding to acquire property from willing sellers and
for properties where development is potentially detrimental to the
integrity of the Preserve or otherwise incompatible with the CDPA.
The optional approach (Alternative 3) varies from the selected
action in several respects, not limited to those noted below.
Alternative 3 identifies additional tortoise recovery measures,
including fencing of 100 miles of paved roads prevent tortoise from
crossing roadways, designation of critical habitat in the Preserve
as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA), not allowing dogs off
leash for any purpose in DWMA's, permanently reducing the speed
limit on park paved roads to 45 mph, and immediate action to begin
raven removals. Areas of designated desert tortoise critical
habitat currently subject to cattle grazing would be converted to
ephemeral pastures and grazing would not be allowed on these
pastures until ephemeral forage is at 230 lbs. per acre (and
perennial AUM's reduced accordingly). In lieu of fencing the entire
Clark Mountain unit boundary to exclude feral burros, this
alternative proposes to fence springs and other water sources to
limit attracting burros from adjacent BLM lands. Hunting of all
species allowed under State law could occur from July to January.
Power drill usage by rock climbers outside designated Wilderness
would be allowed, and new bolts could be installed in Wilderness
using hand tools. Recreational rock climbing would not be
restricted in the vicinity of the Hole-in-the-Wall visitor center,
except for the placement of bolts. Alternative 3 would not restore
the Kelso Depot; it would be modified to provide improved
protection from fire and earthquakes, permanent comfort stations
would be added, and exterior interpretive exhibits and panels would
be installed. Existing information centers in Baker and Needles
would be expanded in cooperation with other agencies, a visitor
contact center would be established in the Cima area, and the NPS
would seek to locate an interpretive ranger at Soda Springs to
provide tours of the area. Alternative 3 provides significantly
more infrastructure inside the Preserve than any other alternative
by increasing the number of sites at the existing Midhills and
Hole-in-the-Wall campgrounds, and by developing three new
semi-primitive campgrounds. This alternative also would construct a
central field operations facility in the Cima area to provide
office space, shop and storage space, housing and fire engine
garage space for all park functions, and provide for constructing
new employee housing throughout the Preserve to place employees
closer to work sites. Emphasis would also be placed on constructing
several formal wayside exhibits, interpretive displays, and formal
hiking trails. However, adding such infrastructure was deemed to be
inconsistent with the goals of retaining the Preserve visitor
experience as it is now, which was also espoused by the Advisory
Commission and local communities and reflected in public comment.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative Alternatives which are
``environmentally preferable'' are considered by CEQ to be those
actions or/and programs that in combination will entail least
damage to the biological and physical environment, and which best
protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural
resources. Goals that characterize ``environmentally preferable''
were originally set forth in Sec. 101 of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The environmentally preferable alternative for
the Mojave National Preserve General Management Plan is based on
these national environmental policy goals. Alternative 1 was found
to best realize the provisions of the national environmental policy
stated in NEPA. This GMP will protect and enhance natural and
cultural resources by laying out strategies, planning, inventorying
and monitoring, and restoring disturbed ecosystems and historic
resources. These actions will attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation, preserve important
resources, and maintain a variety of individual choice for Preserve
visitors. It will implement recovery measures for the threatened
desert tortoise, fully removes exotic feral burros, presents
strategies for management of grazing, mining and hunting, and
provides for the rehabilitation and partial restoration of the
nationally significant Kelso Depot. Alternative 1 also best
reflects the expressed interests of the public in minimizing
development in the Preserve that would detract from the setting and
sense of self- discovery and adventure that currently exists. A
summary of the comparative analysis of this alternative and others
considered with respect to ``environmentally preferred'' is
detailed in the Record of Decision. Basis for Decision The selected
GMP provides overall direction for managing resources, facilities
and development, and use of the Preserve. The GMP presents a
logical, systematic and proactive approach to management of the
Preserve in compliance with NPS laws, regulations and policies. The
rationale for selection of alternative 1 over the no-action
(alternative 2) is based on the environmental impacts that would be
lessened by seeking funds and implementing activities identified in
the proposed plan. Public comment was also considered in
formulating the NPS preferred approach over alternative 3; in
particular, funding of full removal of burros, implementing Desert
Tortoise and Mojave Tui chub recovery actions, establishment of a
cultural resource protection program, and development of visitor
information centers and interpretive media to inform the public on
desert ecosystems and protection measures. In addition, a strategy
is outlined for the interim management of cattle grazing. Protect
and Enhance Cultural and Natural Resources: The selected GMP
identifies goals and strategies to inventory and protect, where
possible, air quality, visibility, night sky and natural ambient
sound. These resources are key elements of the desert environment
that are critical to an enjoyable visit to the Preserve. The GMP
strives to protect water resources and water rights by seeking to
restore damaged natural water sources and protect groundwater. The
GMP describes cultural resource protection and management
responsibilities, and proposes to inventory, preserve and protect
paleontological, geological, cave and soil resources. Research
would be encouraged to improve the means by which enhanced
protection could be accomplished. These proactive strategies would
also yield valuable interpretive and scientific data. The GMP
provides a more proactive approach to perpetuate native plant life
(such as vascular plants, ferns, mosses, algae, fungi, and
bacteria) as critical components of natural desert ecosystems. The
GMP calls for inventory of all native plants and wildlife, and
seeks to restore disturbed ecosystems, enhance habitat for
sensitive species, eliminate exotic species where feasible and
establish monitoring programs to serve as early warning systems for
health of the system. Two key components of the natural resource
protection strategy include the complete removal of all feral
burros and the adoption of threatened desert tortoise and
endangered Mojave tui chub recovery strategies. Since the burro is
an exotic species and its presence is inconsistent with NPS
management policies and the goal of a native, self-sustaining
ecosystem, the GMP would result in fewer impacts to natural desert
ecosystems. The complete fencing of Clark Mountains would further
control impacts to natural resources from burros. The GMP addresses
numerous activities and strategies for implementing the desert
tortoise recovery plan, and adopts recommendations of the 1994
Recovery Plan where feasible and not inconsistent with the CDPA. In
addition, the NPS is to manage desert tortoise habitat inside the
Preserve according to the recommendations of the Recovery Plan in
partnership with BLM in an identical manner as the BLM's
DWMA-classified lands. All drivers of vehicles are to be informed
about tortoise presence, and the need for reduced speeds in limited
areas or during spring rainy days when tortoises are more likely to
be out on the roads. It's anticipated that this approach would
result in more compliance with speed reductions than would
universal speed limits throughout the paved road network. A
coordinated interagency strategy is to be implemented desert-wide
to foster greater consistency in dealing with raven populations
throughout the area, potentially benefiting much more tortoise
habitat. Finally, under the GMP cattle grazing could occur in
critical habitat, except from March 15 to June 15, even in the
absence of ephemeral forage, provided perennial utilization is
below 30% (as determined through annual monitoring protocols).
During this period desert tortoise are typically in their burrows.
The GMP outlines interim standards that must be followed by
ranchers while a detailed grazing management plan is being
developed by the Preserve. It also states the NPS preference to
permanently retire grazing by working with third party conservation
groups to acquire permits from willing sellers and donate them back
to the NPS. The strategy also limits cattle grazing in desert
tortoise critical habitat whenever sufficient ephemeral and
perennial forage is not present. The GMP provides the greatest
level of protection for park resources consistent with varying
conflicting mandates: to allow grazing (CDPA); to remove grazing
from critical habitat (Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan
recommendation); and the NPS Organic Act to * * * conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife
therein * * * unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Enhance Visitor Experience: The GMP provides for visitor use and
enjoyment while encouraging opportunities for development in
gateway communities. The public and advisory commission supported
this direction rather than concentrating new visitor support
facilities and ancillary infrastructure inside the Preserve. The
GMP retains existing facilities, and even improves some, but would
limit any new development in lieu of relying on gateway communities
for visitor facilities. The GMP sets forth the goal that the
Preserve remain a primitive place of self-discovery with new
facilities primarily in gateway communities, but also calls for
restoring the Kelso Depot to be used as a visitor center. The GMP
entails continuing recreational climbing activity while providing
for resource protection by eliminating the use of power drills and
limiting the replacement of anchors in wilderness areas. This also
reduces visibility of climbing features by imposing restrictions on
leaving of climbing support apparatus and blending of anchors. The
GMP protects bighorn sheep during lambing through climbing limits
on Clark Mountain at certain times of the year. These management
actions would reduce impacts from climbing on park resources more
than either the no action (under which none of these restrictions
would occur) or optional approach (which would allow power drill
use outside wilderness and would not limit replacement of existing
bolts and other fixed anchors). The GMP enhances visitor enjoyment
by providing for potential use of commercial guided tours on the
Mojave Road for visitors not having an appropriate vehicle. The GMP
most effectively reconciles diverse public concerns relating to
hunting by regulated hunting for upland game birds and big game
during their established state seasons, and a limited season for
small game (cottontails and jackrabbits only) consistent with
desert tortoise recovery and the mission of the NPS to protect
wildlife for future generations. Hunting throughout the Preserve is
retained for most game species under state law, while eliminating
non-game and furbearer (predator) hunting. The GMP more fully
achieves the intent of the Recovery Plan with regard to hunting in
the Preserve. USFWS has determined that small game hunting could be
allowed, along with upland game birds and big game, without
substantially altering the analysis of effects on the desert
tortoise in the biological opinion. Provide Effective Operations:
The GMP emphasizes maximum use of existing structures and provides
for limited new construction of facilities inside the Preserve, and
proposes to use existing and acquired structures, improving and
upgrading them where appropriate. Housing obtained via grazing
permit acquisitions would be utilized for employee housing and
interpretive facilities in order to provide onsite maintenance and
security of the facilities. The GMP incurs the least impacts to
currently undisturbed desert habitat and cultural landscape of the
park, while still providing needed administrative facilities. In
summary, the selected GMP (Alternative 1) includes the most actions
that are beneficial to the cultural and natural resources of Mojave
and to the enjoyment of the Preserve. It is also the most
responsive alternative to public input received during scoping and
alternative development. The one exception is on hunting. Hunters
generally supported alternative 2, while a substantial number of
other commenters wanted hunting eliminated completely, an option
not represented in the DEIS because of the CDPA mandate. A
comparison of decision rationales pertaining to all three
alternatives is detailed in the Record of Decision. Findings on
Impairment of Park Resources and Values The NPS may not allow the
impairment of park resources and values unless directly and
specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation
establishing the park. Impairment that is prohibited by the NPS
Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that would
harm the integrity of park resources or values, including
opportunities that otherwise would be present for enjoyment of
those resources or values (NPS Management Policies 2001). This
policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. The
NPS has the discretion to allow a limited degree of impact when
necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so
long as the impacts do not constitute impairment. In the case of
the Preserve, it is noted that human activity and past development
have resulted in the ongoing disruption of natural systems and
processes for many years. The NPS has determined that implementing
Alternative 1 will not constitute an impairment to the Preserve's
resources and values. This conclusion is based on thorough analysis
of the environmental impacts described in the Revised Draft
EIS/GMP, the Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP, with due consideration of
public and agency comments and relevant research (pursuant to
direction in NPS Management Policies, section 1.4). While the GMP
may entail some minor negative impacts, in all cases these adverse
impacts are the result of proactive strategies intended to quickly
implement the NPS mission, policies and regulations in the
management of the Preserve. None of the selected actions would
result in impacts that would impair the integrity of park resources
or values, including opportunities that would otherwise be present
for the enjoyment of those resources or values. Overall, the GMP
results in major benefits to park resources and values,
opportunities for their enjoyment, and it does not result in their
impairment. The collective actions encompassed in Alternative 1
will serve as a means to manage the Preserve in a manner that would
result in a protected native desert ecosystem that functions
without interference from human activities, while allowing visitor
use and Congressionally mandated resource consumptive activities.
While some of these activities could result in resource impacts
that seem contrary to the NPS preservation mission (e.g. hunting,
grazing, mining), Congress specifically provides for these
activities in the CDPA, still subject to other applicable laws and
regulations. For example, any future mining operations would be
required to undergo NPS review and environmental impact analysis
under 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A. A grazing management plan would be
developed to manage cattle grazing activities so that park
resources are protected. Constructing wayside exhibits, maintaining
existing developments, or rehabilitating Kelso Depot could create
minor impacts on some resources locally, but would not result in
impairment. A summary of the comparative analysis of this
alternative and others considered with respect to ``impairment'' is
detailed in the Record of Decision. Measures To Minimize
Environmental Harm The NPS has investigated all practical means to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts that could result from
implementing the selected action. The measures are incorporated
into Alternative 1, and are addressed in both the Revised Draft
EIS/GMP and Abbreviated Final EIS/ GMP. A consistent set of desert
tortoise mitigation measures would be applied to actions that
result from this plan (see Appendix E in Revised Draft EIS/GMP).
Monitoring and enforcement programs will oversee the implementation
of mitigation measures. These programs will assure compliance
monitoring; biological and cultural resource protection; traffic
management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed control;
pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education; and
other mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will also be applied
to future actions that are guided by this plan. In addition, the
NPS will conduct appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, and so forth) for all future
actions. Background of Public and Interagency Involvement
Immediately following enactment of CDPA on October 31, the Preserve
had no existing management plans or general ``blueprint'', under
which more detailed activity or implementation plans could occur.
While not specific in nature, the new GMP focuses on purposes of
the Preserve, its significant attributes, its mission in relation
to the overall mission of the NPS, what activities are appropriate
within these constraints, and resource protection strategies. It
also provides guidelines for visitor use and development of
facilities for visitor enjoyment and administration of the
preserve. The goal of the GMP is to best manage the new unit to
meet the Congressional intent as expressed in the CDPA and the
mission of the NPS. It was the stated intention of this
conservation planning effort to explore only alternatives that
would result in an implementable management plan for the Preserve.
Alternatives were ruled out of full consideration if they needed
legislation before they could be implemented, are contrary to
specific Congressional direction, were inconsistent with NPS
regulations or policy, or could be financially infeasible--these
would not serve the need of creating an immediate management plan
for this new unit. These were among the considerations weighed in
developing the purpose and need section for the EIS. The
conservation planning process began in 1995 with the selection of a
GMP/EIS planning team, which was stationed at the Preserve
headquarters in Barstow. The Notice of Intent for this effort was
published in the Federal Register on September 5, 1995 announcing
the beginning of the conservation planning process. The planning
team conducted 20 public scoping meetings in September 1995 and
April 1997 to gather information about public concerns and issues
on management direction for the Preserve and BLM lands. In
addition, a number of agency scoping meetings were also held. From
this data and meetings with interested parties (such as county
departments, special interest groups, state agencies, Native
American tribes, etc.) and discussions with NPS and BLM staff,
proposed management plans were developed. In September 1998 the
Mojave National Preserve Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
General Management Plan was released for public review.
Approximately 450 printed and 100 CD-ROM copies of the Draft
EIS/GMP were distributed for review. The entire document was also
posted on the Internet with links from the park's homepage and the
Northern and Eastern Mojave planning page. A notice of filing of
the Draft EIS/GMP was published in the Federal Register by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 11, 1998 (FR
48727). Written comments were accepted from September 11, 1998
through January 15, 1999, a period of 127 days. Eleven public
meetings were held in October 1998 throughout the planning region
of southern California and southern Nevada. In addition, the
planning team attended and participated in numerous meetings of the
Mojave Advisory Commission to obtain their feedback, concerns, and
direction regarding the development of the general management plan.
The NPS received approximately 390 comment letters from government
agencies, tribes, interest groups, and individuals. In addition,
members of environmental groups (National Parks and Conservation
Association, The Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society) sent in
approximately 1,800 identical postcards. Several additional letters
and postcards were received after the closing date for public
comments. Due to the large number of substantial changes required
as a result of public comment on the 1998 Draft EIS/GMP, the NPS
decided to rewrite the document. In September 2000, a Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan was
released for 92 days of public review. Responses to all written
substantive comments on the 1998 Draft EIS/GMP were addressed in a
separately bound report. The EPA published a notice of filing in
the Federal Register on September 6, 2000 (FR 54064-54065). Eleven
more public meetings on the revised draft plan were held in
southern California and southern Nevada during October and November
2000. During the public comment period, a total of 202 written
comments were received. Upon review of public and agency comments
regarding the Revised EIS/GMP, it was determined that no new
substantive issues were raised, therefore, the NPS decided to
prepare an Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP, dated June 2001. The
abbreviated format for the Final EIS/GMP was used because the
changes to the revised document were minor and confined primarily
to factual corrections, which did not modify the analysis. Use of
this format is in accord with regulations implementing the 1969
National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.4[c]). This
abbreviated format requires that the material in this document be
integrated with the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and General Management Plan to comprise a full and complete record
of the environmental impact analysis, public and agency comment,
and decisionmaking process. Conclusion Following the signing of
this Record of Decision, the NPS will excerpt and print the final
General Management Plan as a stand-alone document, which can be
readily used by park staff and interested individuals and
organizations as the ``blueprint'' for managing the Preserve over
the next 10-15 years. The selected alternative was the agency
preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred alternative
as documented in the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan, dated June 2001. Persons
desiring a copy of the Presentation Plan when it becomes available,
or the complete Record of Decision at this time, may contact the
Superintendent, Mojave National Preserve, 222 E. Main St., Ste.
202, Barstow, California, 92311. September 28, 2001.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director
[FR Doc. 02-8700 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
post a comment
Untitled Document
Sponsored Links
Off-Road Videos - Check out over ten years of extreme 4x4 action, product testing and the Off Road Nation at play. Baja racing to rock crawling, ATVs in the sand to motorcycles in the dirt, it's all here. Rate them, share them and upload your own.
ATV Reviews - Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, Polaris, Kawasaki, Can-Am. First rides to long-term tests, check out the latest in ATVs, UTVs and Side-by-Side vehicles of every make and model. Read expert opinions and follow custom project vehicles.
Axxxtion Sports..... Axxxtion Sports is heating things up with their 2010 Winter Heat snowmobile calendar! Simply Sexy!
