MUST WATCH OHV TV - Video from Congressional Hearing on Clear Creek - H.R. 1838

Don Amador (L) and Ed Tobin (R) Riding

at Clear Creek before the 2008 Closure

The Recreation HQ has fired up its alert system in regards to yesterday’s House Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing on two very important OHV-related legislative initiatives.  Those two bills are H.R. 1838, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and Conservation Act and H.R. 3668, the California Minerals, Off-Road Recreation, and Conservation Act.

For this update, HQ will focus on highlights and key testimony/discussion related to H.R. 1838.  Understanding that folks have limited time, the HQ has noted key times and discussion themes.

This is a must watch video for all of us who have been engaged in efforts to reopen Clear Creek to OHV use.

00 – Chairman Tom McClintock and Ranking Member Debbie Dingall

06:49 – Cong. Sam Farr (history of issue, assumption of risk, OHV commission, economic hit to local business, thanks CA’s odd couple, Tobin, and Ron the Townhall King, etc.

023:50 – Cong.  Sam Farr (wild and scenic rivers)

025:15 – Cong. Sam Farr (assumption of risk, closure is unacceptable)

035:29 – Cong. Jeff Denham (public land should be open for public use, user fees to support mang)

036:21 – Cong. Sam Farr (discusses user fee program to support mang)

037:12 – Cong. Jeff Denham (values local support, etc.)

RECESS

1:25 – Cong.  Tom McClintock (assumption of risk, use of public lands)

1:27 – Kristin Bail/BLM (BLM’s position on the bill and reasons for closure)

1:38 – San Benito County Supervisor, Jerry Muenzer (risk models, economic import, support for bill)

1:43 –  Chairman McClintock (questions Muenzer on closure)

1:44 – Chairman McClintock (questions BLM on closure, hx of serpentine in CA, etc.)

1:48 – Cong. Sam Farr (expresses concerns about BLM’s decision to close and need to find a way to manage the unit for OHV and access)

1:48:46 –Cong. Doug LaMalfa (questions BLM on risk assessment)

1:51 – Cong. Doug LaMalfa (questions Muenzer on EPA and 40 years of no health cases at Clear Creek)

1:53 – Cong. Bruce Westerman (talks about closures being a national issue, need to create access for youth and not create obstacles)

2:04 -  Cong. Tom McClintock (closing remarks about closures being an important issue)

LINK to VIDEO

http://naturalresources.house.gov/videos/?VideoID=ZpUG0f-KhT0

The HQ wants to thank all those involved in supporting this 8 year effort to reopen Clear Creek to managed OHV recreation.  BIG THANKS for not giving up. 

Santa Says Attend CARB/Red Sticker Meetings in Fresno and Diamond Bar

Before your Trail Santa can leave the Recreation HQ to deliver Christmas presents to the OHV community, he needs you to attend the CARB/Red Sticker Meetings next week in Fresno and Diamond Bar.

As many of you know, the CA Air Resources Board has started a 2 year project to review/analyze both the evaporative and exhaust emissions from the “Red Sticker” family of off-highway motorcycles.

I attended the 1^st of three public scoping meetings that ARB is holding throughout the state.  There was solid representation in Sacramento from the MIC, OHV Division and Commission, and user groups. The next two meetings (with directions) are listed below:

Dec. 16 @ Fresno - http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/orrec/fresnoworkshopinfo.pdf

Dec. 17 @ Diamond Bar - http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/orrec/dbworkshopinfo.pdf

Overview of Issue - http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/orrec/orrec.htm

Having worked through the 1997 red sticker debate/fight where the concept of a functional ban of 2-strokes was being considered by the regulators, I was pleasantly surprised by the collaborative and cooperative attitude of ARB staff.  They stated that a BAN as a solution is not being considered nor is it a goal. As a side note, several of them are avid motorcyclists.

ARB staff made it clear that they want to work with us (OEMs, aftermarket, dealers, user groups) in this review process with an end goal of presenting (Dec. 2015) the ARB board with some “common sense” proposals to address red sticker motorcycle emissions with a special focus on evaporative/diurnal emissions.

They are asking for our help via information as to red sticker usage, percentage of 2-strokes vs. 4 strokes, MX/closed course vs. amateur events on public lands, etc.  They are also looking for cost-effective and non-bulky engineering ideas such as small in-frame charcoal canisters, one way check valves, non-permeable plastics/tanks, etc. to address diurnal emissions.  ARB is also looking for suggestions related to their testing parameters.

They will also be analyzing the red sticker issue in a holistic manner by looking at new mitigating factors such as most ATVs now have stringent EPA-mandated emission controls, growing number of red sticker motorcycles that use fuel injection/closed fuel systems,  low emission 2-stroke oils, etc.

ARB staff is also interested in the current economic state (i.e. sales) of red-sticker motorcycles and related industry. Could new regulations kill production of youth motorcycles?  I think it will be important for them to hear from dealers and others on this particular issue.  It seems they are under the impression that off-road motorcycle sales are going gangbusters when just the opposite may be true.

Although this project is mostly focused on analyzing red sticker motorcycles, they plan to test some green sticker motorcycles as a control group.  These initial scoping meetings are just the beginning of the process and I strongly encourage red sticker-related stakeholders to get engaged with this process.  It is a rare item for a regulatory agency to undertake this sort of user-friendly approach.

The proof will be in the pudding (or gas tank in our case) on just how collaborative this process will be.  But for now, we should get engaged and offer our ideas/solutions related to the red sticker program/vehicles. 

Merry Christmas,

Your Trail Santa

OHV ALERT - Attend Special OHV Commission Meeting on March 14 in Sacramento

As most HQ followers already know, government officials are once again proposing to “shift” (don’t know if it is loan or a take) $10 million dollars ($5 million from grants and $5 million from Division) out of the OHV Trust Fund. Also, there is a proposal to “sweep” (don’t know if it is loan or take) $21+ million dollars out of the OHV Reserve Fund.


Because of the thousands of letters and phone calls from extremely frustrated (some are even angry) OHV enthusiasts to your elected officials, park staff, and the OHV Commission, the Commission has scheduled a special meeting/hearing on this issue for Monday, March 14, 2011 in Sacramento.

HQ does not usually urge riders to take time off work or make a special trip (however thanks to those of you who do attend regular meetings) to attend regularly scheduled OHV commission meetings, but this is of such a critical nature that HQ is making a formal request for attendance to those who will be impacted by the shifting of funds out of the OHV program. Those affected stakeholders include OHV enthusiasts, FS/BLM recreation staff and law enforcement officers, county parks, local sheriff departments, search and rescue teams, county park departments, local police departments, and many others.


PLACE:

DoubleTree Hotel
2001 Point West Way
Sacramento, CA 95815

WHEN:
March 14, 2011 at 9:30 am

AGENDA:
http://www.ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/agenda_march_14_2011.pdf

LINKS TO AGENDA ITEMS:
http://www.ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21853

WHO SHOULD ATTEND:
Riders, shop owners, aftermarket manufacturers, federal land managers, local law enforcement, county officials, affected businesses, and other stakeholders that will be impacted by this fiscal hit to the OHV program.

I will be there and I hope that many of you will come and take a stand with me and other members of the OHV family to fight against another raid on the OHV Trust Fund. Let’s put the “Trust” back into the Trust Fund.

See you there.

CA OHV Commission Weighs Into Clear Creek Fight

In the early part of OHV Wars, the CA OHMVR Commission was taken over by leaders of the environmental movement. That body invented the now infamous 2002/2003 CA Route Inventory and Designation Process which defunded many FS/BLM trail projects and laid the foundation for various hybrids of the now equally infamous 2005 National Travel Management Rule.

An audit by the CA Bureau of State Audits found what The General and others already knew – The green OHV Commission was abusing their power to enact an anti-OHV political agenda.

See 2005 article on that BSA report with links to the audit
http://www.blueribbon.org/releases/?filter=media&story=464

The new OHV program (SB742) depoliticized the commission by stripping their grant authority and made grants more of an academic/bureaucratic exercise to be run by OHMVR staff. (side note- the grants program is now more streamlined and efficient then is has ever been with a majority of green sticker monies getting out on the ground for trail recreation projects)

Since SB742, some riders have asked what role the new OHMVR commission will have regarding OHV recreation since they don’t have grant authority. Up until the commission meeting that took place yesterday in San Jose, that question may have had some legitimacy.

Info on OHMVR Commission Meeting
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21853

One of the hottest topics on the commission agenda yesterday was the ongoing battle to reopen Clear Creek for OHV recreation. Testimony was provided to the commission (which only has authority when convened) regarding the fact that CCMA is the largest destination OHV area in Central California and now that it is closed --- other riding areas ranging from Hollister Hills SVRA to Jawbone are being overcrowded by displaced OHVers. The commission also learned that the state OHV program has invested over $9 million dollars (over the last 30 years) at CCMA and has a vested interest as a land-use partner with BLM to see that good science is used before the final decision is made to close it OHV use.

After the presentation by BLM’s, Rick Cooper, and the aforementioned testimony was heard, the OHMVR commission voted to send a letter immediately to the BLM State Director asking him for a 90 day extension to the public comment period which ends March 5, 2010. The commission also directed the OHMVR Division to take the necessary steps to prepare comments on the CCMA DEIS.

The Recreation HQ believes this action by the OHMV Commission could play (when combined with the efforts from OHV groups, elected officials, and others) a pivotal role regarding both the request for a 90 day extension to the public comment period and what the BLM ultimately proposes in the FEIS/ROD.

The General thanks members of the TimeKeepers MC, SRMC, Friends of CCMA, SBR, and other riders who showed up to make a difference.

Thanks for your service!

OHV Commission Meeting in Lake Arrowhead - Sept 24/25

FYI for any riders who can make some or all of the OHV commission meeting in Lake Arrowhead. It's a good chance to make your views known on access issues and to give feedback to the commission and department.

See News Release for Commission Meeting Sept 24-25, 2009
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/Press%20Release_Commission%20mtg%20September%2009.pdf

Thanks for your service!

Celebrate OHV Green Sticker Money Going for Trails

Often you will hear The General remind riders to undertake the difficult task of searching for - and celebrating when found - good news in the midst of these gloomy economic and land-use times.

Just such good news exists in the form of the OHMVR Division releasing their Notice of Intent to Award various trail, restoration, law enforcement, and safety grants. As some of you know, the OHV commission had been taken over by an anti-access majority (circa 2000). That body then enacted their closure agenda by developing the early route designation process (circa 2002/2003) that not only birthed the National Travel Management Rule but defunded most OHV trail projects on FS and BLM lands for 7 years.

After a lot of work in 2007 by OHV leadership and the ecologically-balanced OHMVR Division with support from the Governor’s Office, a new OHV program was authorized in SB742. One part of the bill was development of a new grants program that had the majority of “Green Sticker” funds going to support trails and trail facilities.

Please review the OHV NOI to Award at:
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1164

I would urge you to review these proposals to see if your favorite riding area is recommended for funding. The General also thanks all of you who sent in letters during the public comment period for this grant cycle.

Please take a minute or two and celebrate this victory.

# # #

Travel Management - Good Idea or Big Mistake?

At the recent CA State Parks OHV Commission meeting in San Jose, Commission Chairman Gary Willard asked the Forest Service representative for an accounting of the more than 12 million dollars of “OHV Green Sticker” grant funds that were spent on the CA OHV route inventory and designation process (RID) circa 2002-2007.

With more CA National Forests coming out with their DEIS’ – that are proposing to close a significant amount of historic OHV routes - there is a growing number of users asking if the CA RID process and its off-spring the National Travel Management Rule (TMR) have been “worth it” or if we are witness to a colossal mistake.

In CA, the 12 million dollars for RID essentially dried up grant funding for trail maintenance on most Forests for almost 6 years. Many users, including yours truly, were convinced that RID was simply an elaborate scheme by the anti-access majority on the OHV commission to enact the closure agenda of the extreme preservationist movement. Remember, it was just that sort of agenda-driven decision-making by the OHV commission that resulted in the new CA OHV program in SB742. Also, a number of FS staffers privately told me that those who supported the now infamous CA RID process would rue the day the MOI was signed and a “forced RID/TMR” process was imposed not only on the users, but on understaffed Forests and Ranger Districts.

For copy of MOI between State Parks, OHV Commission, and FS go to:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/routedesignation/moi.php

BRC has always supported the concept of designating “roads, trails, and areas” as outlined in the Nixon/Carter Executive Orders. And I, as BRC’s Western Representative, was a strong supporter of the vetted 2005 version of TMR. However, BRC believed that those planning efforts should be based on, and adapted to, actual on-the-ground needs. For example, the Los Padres NF near LA did an early version of TMR in the mid 1980s because they had a lot of use. On the other extreme, the Modoc NF is a very rural Forest in NE CA -with low visitation numbers- may never need to do TMR.

In the lead up to the signing of the MOI in 2003, BRC opposed the creation of the CA MOI because it was not vetted in the public arena. There was no rule-making process that would have ferreted out its now-glaring flaws. BRC also opposed the MOI because it would divert almost all funds from trail maintenance projects for a number of years.

At the end of the day, the question must be asked about the CA RID and the National TMR. Was it a gigantic waste of 12 million dollars of CA Green Sticker Funds for RID and 100s of millions of dollars for TMR? Did RID/TMR really improve the management of OHV recreation at destination OHV areas or in Forests that already had a strong commitment to managing OHV recreation? Was forcing TMR on Forests that had other priorities (such as water sports, timber, etc.) a good administrative decision? Did post 2005 mutations of TMR turn out to be simply a closure tool invented by anti-access groups and embraced by some –but not all – Forests?

Those are all good questions that deserve an answer. A post TMR analysis will be important to answer the question… “Was RID/TMR a good idea or a colossal mistake?”