HOLDING THE FOREST SERVICE ACCOUNTABLE

My Dad gave me his 3 timeless axioms for a successful and happy life when I was but a youngster and those are:
*
1- Be a man of your word
*
2- Be to work on time
*
3- Don’t let people pour water down your neck and tell you it is raining (his original version was more graphic)
*

PHOTO - Don Amador on tour of proposed trail closures on the Shasta Trinity NF

*
Back in 2001/2002, Forest Service officials looked me square in the eye and promised that the California Route Inventory and Designation Process (RID) - now known as the Travel Management Rule - would not be used as a closure tool to get RID of trails.

Turn the clock forward to today where the Shasta Trinity National Forest is proposing to close basically all of their 800 miles of single-track motorcycle trails and ATV trails less than 50 inches in width. Be assured, I am and will be asking the Forest Service to keep their word. You should do the same.
*
BRC and Shasta County Comment Letters on the Shasta Trinity DEIS
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Shasta-Trinity_NF/

*

VIDEO – Don Amador Talks About Holding The Forest Service Accountable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0xm7OQsfTI

*

Thanks for your service!

Shasta County Supervisors Weigh In on Shasta NF DEIS

So far in the travel management saga, I have received the most email and responses on this issue from users, retired FS employees (including recreation officers and regional foresters), and others who are extremely disappointed in the Shasta Trinity National Forest’s DEIS and its proposal to close virtually ALL (over 800 miles) of the Forest’s single track motorcycle trails and ATV trails (see letter from Shasta County Board of Supervisors below). County officials have a key role in standing up for the public’s access rights.

*

Photo is of a volunteer with the Redding Dirt Riders enjoying an ATV trail that would be closed in the DEIS

*

* Aug 25, 2009 Shasta County BOS Letter to Shasta Trinity National Forest on TMR DEIS http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Shasta-Trinity_NF/Shasty%20County%20Comments%20on%20STNF%20DEIS-08.25.09.pdf

*

Again, I believe that the Forest should withdraw the current DEIS and issue a supplemental DEIS that includes a “citizen’s recreation alternative.” That alternative could be the product of collaboration between users, local government, and the agency.

# # #

Shasta Trinity NF DEIS - Closed Trails and Broken Promises

On August 25, 2009 - The General (on behalf of the BlueRibbon Coalition) sent in formal comments on the Shasta Trinity National Forest’s DEIS for Travel Management.
*

Photo: This is the Idaho-style single track trail called - The Dubakellas Trail. It is proposed to be closed to OHV use in the DEIS.

*
BRC Aug. 25, 2009 Comments on Shasta Trinity NF including exhibits
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Shasta-Trinity_NF/

*

*

Regrettably for both users and the agency, this is the best (or worst) example of TMR “gone wrong” in California so far. Basically all of the action alternatives close almost 100% of the existing motorcycle only trails and ATV trails <>

*
See my May blog on the origins of the CA RID process for some perspective
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/05/travel-management-good-idea-or-big.html

*

*

The General hopes that Forest leadership will review public comments (users, local governments, and other stakeholders) and push the “reset button” on TMR. I believe the Forest should withdraw the DEIS and issue a supplemental DEIS that includes a viable recreation alternative that designates a significant number of historic OHV routes. A blanket closure of almost 100% of their motorcycle only and ATV trails is unrealistic, unfair, a violation of public trust, and runs counter to promises made by Region 5 staff to BRC that TMR would not be used as a closure tool.

# # #

Rock The Trail 2009 Update

Back in June, The General wrote about getting celebrities, artists, musicians, and actors more involved in helping support (and join) our efforts to keep trails open for responsible OHV recreation.
*

*
Original “Rock the Trail 2009” Blog
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/06/rock-trail-in-2009.html

*

*
Well, it appears that some stars may be up to that challenge based on a lunch meeting I had yesterday with a retired NFL player with two Super Bowl rings.

2009 may just be the year that OHV access groups “Rock the Trail” with new support from various celebrities who want to help us preserve and protect our right to access recreational opportunities on public lands.

# # #

Friday Update on Roadless Issue and OHV Access

The General has received a number of PMs from riders who want to know a little bit more about the roadless battle and how BRC’s legal effort got started and why we were concerned about access to trails and jeep roads in “roadless areas.”

********************************************

Photo at right is of designated OHV trail in an Eldorado NF "Roadless" Area.

*********************************************

The onus for our effort was based on the fact the Shasta-Trinity NF (circa 2000-2001) had actually decided not to reconstruct jeep trails in their roadless areas near McCloud.
*

*
See 2001 Article published by The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/1066/Court_questions_Clinton_roadless_rule.html

*

*

Again, riders and access interests should continue to monitor the roadless issue and advise BRC if trails or jeep roads are being excluded from designation based on a false interpretation of the Clinton Roadless Rule.

*

Green Groups Defend OHV Trails in Roadless Areas

With the “roadless” issue in the news today, The General wants to remind riders to be ever vigilant on your watch regarding the designation (or lack thereof) of OHV trails in roadless areas.

See LA Times Article with quote from BRC’s Attorney – Paul Turcke
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-roads6-2009aug06,0,1222397.story

BRC has long held and argued that the Clinton Roadless Rule was illegal. Those of us involved in the issue (myself since 1998) knew that no plan crafted in a DC smoke-filled room would past muster.

On behalf of the BRC, I had reminded many Forests (including our successful appeal on the Six Rivers NF) in the TMR process of the following facts:

The BlueRibbon Coalition believes that Region 5 and the Smith River NRA have improperly concluded that existing routes within “roadless areas” must be closed and/or not designated as a result of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of that Rule. In fact, the strongest proponents of the Roadless Rule have consistently pointed to the fact that the Rule preserves existing motorized access in defending the Rule as a necessary and balanced management tool.

Preservationist interests “defended” motorized access to roadless areas in their strong opposition to the intervention of access-advocacy interests in California ex rel Lockyer et al. v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 05-3508 (N.D.Cal.). That case, consolidated with a similar action brought by private groups led by The Wilderness Society (“TWS”) sought to challenge the 2005 State Petitions Rule. The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, American Council of Snowmobile Associations and BlueRibbon Coalition moved to intervene. The preservationist plaintiffs opposed, arguing “the interests that the Off-Road Vehicle Groups assert in motorized recreation in roadless areas are not at stake in this action.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 79) at 7 Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 7, 2006) In reaching this conclusion, the TWS plaintiffs summarized language from the Rule and its associated planning documents, stating “[i]n sum, even if the Roadless Rule is reinstated by this Court as plaintiffs request, it will not prohibit a single person’s off-road vehicle use or close a single off-road vehicle trail as alleged by the Off-Road Vehicle Groups’ declarants.” Id. at 5. The TWS surreply clarifies and extends on these conclusions, again saying the “Roadless Rule does not close any existing vehicular routes (ORV or otherwise) in any National Forest roadless areas.” Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Intervention (Doc. No. 100) at 1, Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 24, 2006) . That document goes on to address specific routes of concern identified by BlueRibbon declarant Don Amador and says “[a]s to the two routes Mr. Amador might hypothetically use for ORV recreation … neither route is more than 50 inches wide, and therefore the Roadless Rule would not even apply to them.” Id. at 2.

Riders should support those Forests who have correctly interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as allowing for designated OHV trails in inventoried roadless areas. If local users spot a trail that has been excluded from designation based on the “roadless” issue, they should cite the above information and remind the Forest that green groups support OHV trails in roadless areas.

As Turcke stated in the LA article…The Roadless Saga Continues.

*

Statesmanship and OHV Advocacy

The General believes it is helpful to occasionally go back in time and review a specific land-use event that may give riders insight into an agency action and what the OHV community’s response was or should have been and if that response was effective.

The case-study for today is the post-Angora-fire decision by the Tahoe National Forest to ban OHV use on their trail network during the summer of 2007 because of critical fire danger.

FS 2007 News Release with OHV Restrictions
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/news/07_news_releases/07_jun_29_addl_fire_rest.shtml

*
*

*

Overview of Angora Fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angora_Fire

*
*
*

As the western representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition, I was shocked by the Forest’s rather unprecedented action to ban OHV use even on designated trails. Historically, most Forests allow OHV use on their trail and road networks – even through times of critical fire danger – since OHVs operating with legal spark arresters on trails are not considered a fire danger.

The closure was met with fierce opposition by many riders who wanted OHV groups to file a lawsuit or raise hell in some form or fashion. However, another tactic was employed by The General and several other organizational leaders and that effort included us voicing our strong objection to the unwarranted closure while also stating our equally strong feelings and understanding about the devastating impacts of the recent Angora Fire on the local community and Forest Service staff.

I believe our message of objection and concern about the unprecedented temporary trail closure combined with a thread of understanding and support including our request that the agency keep OHV trails open in future orders related to critical fire conditions resulted in OHV trails remaining open in this year’s Fire Closure Order
*

*
FS 2009 News Release with OHV restricted to trails and roads
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/news/09_news_releases/news-2009-07-27-fire-restrictions-begin.shtml

*

*

Many times in land-use advocacy the easy way would be to throw red meat to the masses by making undeliverable promises of revenge, litigation, and retribution on agency staff that do not do our bidding. While taking the agency to task on policy issues is legitimate and sometimes necessary, there will come an occasion where you have to blend advocacy, policy, access, effectiveness, and statesmanship into a position that looks at the big picture and considers the human element. Is making the right call easy? Not always, but it should be.

# # #

New GAO OHV Report - Biased and Flawed

Some of you may be aware of a newly released “OHV Study” by the Government Accountability Office. When the GAO first came up with the initial concept of this survey, the BRC and several other OHV groups were asked to review the survey questions and give input. On behalf of the BRC, The General had given his input to BRC leadership regarding the proposed questions/survey.

****************************************************************
BRC News Release on GAO Report – (GAO report is linked in the news release)
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/media/?print=1&story=654

***************************************************************

*

*

*******************************************************************

Feb 2009 OHV Group Letter to GAO About Design Flaws
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Letter_To_GAO.pdf

*******************************************************************


It was his impression that the new survey was filled with double-negative (i.e. have you stopped beating your wife type questions?) questions. This design flaw was pointed out to the GAO, but they refused to change the survey design.

Hence, we end up with yet another “OHV Report/Survey” that is strangely similar to previous Forest Service reports issues in 1985 and 1996. Rather then focus on the need for positive and pro-active management prescriptions or philosophies and cite those units with said tenets, the survey casts a wide net of double-negatives that ultimately results in the GAO making the same tired observations that land management agencies often have no time, no money, and no staff (and no desire in many cases) to manage OHV recreation.

The GAO report is government at its worse. The report is uninspiring and appears to leave the reader with the impression that if OHV recreation is to be sustainable and successful that programs must have good planning, deal with conflict resolution, and have adequate law enforcement. Sure those are key tenets to a successful program, but the report fails to capture the main ingredient to a quality OHV program – people that care.

It has been my observation over the last 20 years of recreation advocacy that if a unit has an agency OHV champion such as a recreation officer, district ranger, forest supervisor, OHV program manager, or area manager… that unit will have a good OHV program.

However, if the unit does not have an agency OHV champion… no amount of law enforcement, public meetings, or planning will substitute for that person’s commitment to have a good OHV program that both protects resources and provides a quality recreation experience.

Thanks to the managers who care. I salute you!