Essential for FS to Use Discretionary Authority in TMR Plans

Don Amador Reviewing Draft Smith River 

NRA Travel Plan with Local Access Leader

As BRC states in its June 9 comment letter on the Smith River NRA Draft Travel Plan,  it believes it is both legally necessary and pragmatically essential that the agency use its discretionary authority to formally establish a functional yet sustainable network of designated routes. 

June 9 BRC Comment Letter with Legal Citations

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/smith_river_DEIS_comments_FINAL_June_2014.pdf

As both agency staff and recreationists know, various preservationist and anti-access special interests will always incant a litany of alleged legal violations that prevent adoption of an Alternative that designates any meaningful network of vehicle route.  They are certainly entitled to voice their opinions, but the agency should carefully evaluate any such claims and realize they are thinly veiled efforts to advance an agenda that includes significantly reducing, if not eliminating, recreational use of vehicles in the National Forest System. 

HQ believes the agency is empowered to reject these anti-access positions through correct interpretation of the law, as reflected in various recent court decisions cited in the aforementioned comment letter.

There is a growing body of legal decisions that debunk the notion that “minimization” means the elimination of OHV recreation on Forest Service lands.

2014 NCAT Tour - North Coast "TMR Genie" Has Left the Bottle

The QWR/BRC Official NCAT SUV

As HQ prepares for its 2014 North Coast Access Tour (NCAT) early next week, it is reminded there are no silver bullets or shortcuts when it comes to OHV-related access issues.  The 2005 Travel Management Rule’s Subpart B planning efforts over the last nine years have been challenging for both users and agency officials.

Nowhere has this complexity been more evident than on the Smith River National Recreation Area located on the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California.  During that time-period there have been stakeholder groups, lawsuits, a stipulation, and lack of a substantive or meaningful relationship between the agency and county.  

As the news article states below, it is my hope that the access community can find a way to support an alternative that embraces the tone, direction, and spirit of the earlier stakeholder process.  For better or worse, the “TMR genie” has left the bottle a long time ago and it is time to settle on a base network of routes.  Once that foundation is codified, I believe it will allow the agency and users to ID some post subpart B projects that enhance the OHV experience.

Triplicate Article (short overview of TMR history on the unit)

http://www.triplicate.com/News/Local-News/Designating-Forest-driving

Over the Memorial Holiday, HQ will ground truth the preferred Alternative with local interests to see if it is something that OHV can work with either as presented or in a modified version.  To the agencies credit, it does appear they have listened to some of our concerns by proposing the designation of the 305.125 4WD trail that at one time been slated for closure.

2007 Tour of the Smith River NRA

2007 Video of Jeep Tour of the 305.125 Road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nU194f-ksU

On the other hand, the preferred alternative closes the only single-track motorcycle entrance-to-exit trail on the unit.  Strangely, the closure of that trail had never been proposed in any of the earlier discussions.

2003 Post-Biscuit Fire Motorcycle Tour of Smith River NRA

It is my goal to also stop by and visit with my access contacts in Humboldt County to get an update on TMR on the southern end of the Forest and to see what new OHV opportunities might exist on private or county lands. Hope to see some of you on the tour.  Thanks to all of you who make these efforts possible!

Early Report on QWR/BRC 2013 Summer Northcoast Redwood Access Tour

Del Norte County BOS Building

 

Although HQ is officially closed until Monday, we wanted to get a short story out for weekend readers who want to know how the 2013 Summer Northcoast Redwood Access Tour turned out.  In simple words, it was a huge success.  



NPS/State Park HQ in Orick

 

HQ will go into more details next week, but we attended a number of meetings and/or tours with county officials, users, and agency staff to discuss and review a wide range of state and federal OHV recreation-related issues.

The Land Use Battle Wagon at the Largest (or one of the largest flags) Flag in CA

"Wes Greene's Tractor Service in Arcata"

 

At the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors video link below (44:24 to 52:12) you will find BRC’s, Don Amador, giving public comment to the officials on the following subjects: noting board’s history of fighting for access, non-highway designations for county roads, asking FS to revisit 1999 project level NEPA decision to close 40 miles of routes in High Plateau, county RS2477 filing/request, restoring green-sticker vehicle access at Tolowa Dunes State Park,  potential for a county ATV park, ask county to review its standing/statute of limitations regarding the biology scandal involving Mad River Biologists, and listing the Last Chance Grade Bypass plan as an emergency.

 

Video Link (if you have trouble with Internet Explorer… try launching video in Google Chrome)

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/36301919

 

Popular OHV Route on Smith River NRA

 

 

Thanks to all who helped support this tour.  Watch for more tour-related stories in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties.

 

# # #

 

 

 

LEGAL UPDATE - Minimization Does Not Mean Closure

Example of "Alpine-type" Single Track

 

The Recreation HQ believes two recent federal court decisions support the Forest Service’s authority to designate high-quality alpine-type motorized routes and single track trails despite legal and political objections by anti-access groups.

In early March 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the agency’s right to reopen the South Canyon Road (Jarbidge Road) to motorized use.  HQ believes the court recognized the unit’s efforts to “minimize” environmental impacts of the road in their planning documents.

Link to Jarbidge Decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/05/55449.htm

 

 

According to the article, the Ninth Circuit 3 judge panel further found that the plan the agency chose for the road, "incorporated several mitigating modifications." These included "minimizing the number of river crossings by heavy equipment during construction;" "clearly marking low-water crossings and posting them with 5 MPH speed limits;" and designing the new road not for passenger cars but four-wheel drive vehicles.

 

Last Friday, a federal court sided with pro-access groups regarding the designation of premium single-track trails found in in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest in Colorado.

 

BRC News Release on Rico West Court Decision

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2013/03/25/recreation-enthusiasts-applaud-rico-west-dolores-decisions

 

HQ believes these court decisions reinforce the concept that minimization DOES NOT mean elimination. Instead, reasonable efforts to manage or “minimize” environmental or user conflicts in federal planning efforts can often be adopted to keep high quality alpine routes open for OHV use.

 

 

CODE RED OR DUNES ALERT - Comment Letters Needed Today!

The Recreation HQ is issuing its first CODE RED Action Alert for 2013.  HQ is asking all riders and OHV businesses that depend on recreational access to the OR Dunes, to STOP what you are doing and take 2 minutes to send a comment letter to the Forest Service’s travel planning process at the OR Dunes. OHV dune enthusiasts from across the county (even Europe and Asia) make the OR Dunes a destination site to visit.  Active military often spend their entire leave with their families and friends at the dunes.

 

Between 1972 and 2011, the acreage available for open OHV use has been reduced from 28,000 acres down to just below 6,000 acres.  Just 20 percent of the NRA is available for legal OHV use today.  Over time, that number will dwindle to practically nothing if you don’t act now.

 

BRC is making it easy for you (and your network) to send in a comment letter which is due January 24, 2013.  Anti-access groups are flooding the agency with requests to close the dunes to OHV --- we must blunt that attack with our own counter-offensive.  HQ understands that the agency is counting each closure-oriented form email as one distinct letter.  We will demand the same treatment.

 

BRC Action Alert with link to Letter Generator – the generator will send letter to the Forest Service
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2013/01/15/oregon--comments-needed-on-oregon-dunes-10c-designated-routes-project-deis
 

OHV is not alone in our battle for access at the OR Dunes.  Coos County has joined us in the fight for responsible access for our families and passed a resolution in Dec.

 

Coos County Resolution in Support of OHV Recreation

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Coos_County_Resolution_Dec.4.2102.dunes.pdf

  

Douglas and Lane Counties are also considering passing resolutions that favor responsible recreation and resource management at the dunes.

 

Again, please send in your comment letter today and ask your riding and business network to do the same.

 

Thanks!!!

 

The Recreation HQ

 

 

 

"Minimization" Chapters Needed in Federal Travel Plans

Yesterday, HQ posted an overview on the issue of “minimization” as addressed (or not addressed) in the recent court decision on the Stanislaus NF travel plan.   This rather new and apparent successful legal argument being used by environmental law firms should be a clarion wake-up call to federal agencies who are in the middle (or just getting started) of travel planning efforts.

For example,  there is a federal unit on the west coast that recently released a DEIS where there is only one or two sentences that loosely address the issue of minimizing motorized use impacts to the environment. 

In light of the many “minimization” lawsuits that have or will be filed, HQ believes that the Forest Service (and BLM for that matter) should devote an entire chapter to analysis of minimizing OHV impacts. 

That analysis should include any post Nixon-era land management decisions that already minimized OHV use or user conflicts per directives in his executive order 11644.  Other efforts such as signing that directs non-motorized users to non-motorized areas, etc. should be considered as well.

Nixon Executive Order 11644

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11644.html

 

If OHV and the agency does not get a handle on the minimization issue… HQ believes that OHV recreation could become so minimalized over the next 10-20 years that it could functionally cease to exist -- as we know it today -- on federal lands.

 

Stay tuned on this issue as the fight for OHV recreation continues in 2013.

 

Stanislaus Court Decision and "Minimization"

By now, many OHVers, federal agents, and other observers of motorized travel management have likely heard about the most recent federal court decision in Northern California.  This time the court struck down the Stanislaus NF 2009 motorized travel management decision.  Contrary to enviro spin, the court largely upheld the decision against the green’s standard boilerplate NEPA attack. However, the Achilles heel appears to be the agency's failure to articulate the way in which it applied the "minimization criteria" first outlined in a 1972 Executive Order signed by President Nixon.  This "minimization argument" is the anti-access weapon du jour and it has become very powerful.

BRC Alert on Stanislaus NF Court Decision (with link to court decision)

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2013/01/08/recreation-advocates-react-stanislaus-nf-court-decision

 

The "minimization criteria" directs federal land managers addressing motorized access to "consider effects...with the objective of minimizing" a variety of factors including damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources; harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; conflicts between motor vehicle and other uses; and conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses.  The "minimization criteria" has been around since 1972 and long received only passing interest, but were included in the 2005 Forest Service Travel Management Rule.  See, 36 CFR 212.55(b).

 

The minimization criteria acquired teeth largely through the decision declaring invalid the Salmon Challis NF travel decision.  This decision was issued in 2011, and is published as Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F.Supp.2d 1056 (D.Idaho 2011).  In short, that decision rejected the Forest Service effort to characterize the minimization criteria as providing broad guidance ("consider with objective of minimizing") and interpreted the language as requiring the agency to show, in its NEPA analysis, how it applied the minimization factors in selecting from decision options for specific routes.  There have been several more decisions that have followed similar reasoning.  The decisions to this point have only come from federal district courts, but several appeals from them are pending before the 9th Circuit and it is likely the Court of Appeals will hear at least one of those cases sometime in 2013.

 

The approaches taken by individual Forest Service units to minimization (and other issues) vary somewhat, but the bottom line is that minimization has been addressed in many Forests under a template that is consistently being found deficient in the eyes of the courts.  And there can be a 3 to 5 year time lag between the time the agency conducts its analysis and completion of judicial review.  So the agency has effectively been trapped- it took a similar approach to minimization in the post-2005 rash of travel decisions, and has just recently learned that many of those decisions were apparently built from a flawed decision-making template.  So in a forest like the Stanislaus we have just learned this week that the analysis completed in 2009 was inadequate, based largely on the reasoning of a 2011 court decision.

 

HQ does not feel the latest round of anti-agency minimization decisions will improve agency analysis or on-the-ground management.  We constantly find ourselves asking, how much can our society reasonably demand from land managers who spend years and millions of dollars on decisions that all but universally have to be redone?  Anti-access advocates are driven by complex forces, but we are confident a true desire to carry out President Nixon's vision is far down that list.  Instead they are prioritizing the claim(s) that will best serve them in a never-ending effort to challenge any balance struck by the agency in a system that rewards them handsomely for producing even a flesh wound in the effort.   But we would be foolish to ignore the trend.  As in all aspects of agency planning, we need to work with the agencies to ensure that minimization is properly considered and eliminated as an excuse to second guess agency decisions necessary to ongoing authorization of motorized access.

As Wilderness advocates in the Stanislaus case argue for the closure of OHV routes in roadless areas… it is important to remember that in a previous case… preservationist interests “defended” motorized access to roadless areas in their strong opposition to the intervention of access-advocacy interests in California -- 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.

HQ Blog with more "Roadless" Discussion including citation above
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/08/green-groups-defend-ohv-trails-in.html

Certainly, 2013 will be filled with a number of challenges for OHV recreation… with the ongoing legal battles being front and center in a number of venues.  Stay tuned, it is going to get bumpy this year.

Thanks for your support! 

Siuslaw NF Sticks Head in Sand in ODNRA DEIS

Historic Forest Sand Trail Closed in DEIS

 

 

The Recreation HQ is strongly disappointed in the preferred alternative (Alt. 4) selected in the Siuslaw National Forest’s DEIS.   HQ is still reviewing the document but it appears the agency is basically implementing their Clinton-Gore era 1994 Management Plan.  That plan functionally closes all historic sand trails that exist in forested or vegetated areas.   If the plan is adopted it will forever change the riding experience at the dunes.

 BRC Alert on the DEIS/ Comment Period which ends Dec. 10, 2012

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2012/10/22/oregon--siuslaw-nf-releases-deis-oregon-dunes-nra-10c-designated-routes-project

 

YouTube Video of OHVers on Sand Trail Closed in DEIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCplxKoWCTs&list=HL1350934866&feature=mh_lolz

 

Please see HQ blog from 2011 on FS Closure Plan

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2011/07/algore-roadless-chief-behind-closure.html

 

As some of you know, BRC toured the area last summer with OHV enthusiasts and even had the Forest Supervisor come out for a one day tour of the area.  Unfortunately, it appears the agency has stuck its head in the sand by selecting an ill-advised plan from a bygone era.  

 

For a background of BRC’s concerns about the proposed action, please read our July 25, 2011 comment letter which was apparently ignored by the agency.

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Oregon_Dunes_BRC_comment_letter_07.25.11.pdf

 

HQ believes it is important for OHV users and related businesses in the OR Dunes area to immediately contact their county commissioners and make sure the counties comment on the DEIS too.

 

Thanks for your time to review this issue!

 

 

HQ Cong. Hearing Alert - Forest Planning Rule, TMR, and Permitting Process on Docket

HQ wanted to alert its followers about the hearing tomorrow being held in Washington D.C. before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.


BRC News Release on Nov. 15 Hearing
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2011/11/09/blueribbon-coalition-invited-testify-congressional-subcommittee

As HQ understands, BRC’s Greg Mumm will be testifying on three important topics.
The new Forest Planning Rule, TMR, and excessive “cost recovery” charges and other abuses of the special use permitting process.

Nov. 14 - E&E Article on Hearing Tomorrow (A good overview)
*************************************************************
FOREST SERVICE: House Resources panel to plumb agency's planning rules, permitting

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

The House Natural Resources Committee tomorrow will explore a sweeping Forest Service rule that would serve as the template for managing the nation's 193 million acres of forests and grasslands.

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands oversight hearing will feature testimony from Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and will also probe the agency's management of off-highway vehicle access and its issuance of special-use permits.

The agency's draft planning rule, first announced in February, will determine how the agency's 175 national forests and grasslands develop individual management plans, which govern activities from logging to recreation and the protection of endangered plants and animals (E&ENews PM, Feb. 10).

The rule aims to speed planning efforts, incorporate best available science, engage the public and ensure forests' resilience to climate change, pests and other threats, the agency has said.

But it has drawn its share of critics, including Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee, who warned it could open the door to special-interest lawsuits and would fail to ensure timber harvests will increase across the nation's millions of acres of national forests (Greenwire, May 5). Environmental groups have criticized the proposal for giving too much discretion to local forest supervisors and lacking rigid standards for protecting water and wildlife (E&ENews PM, May 16).

The agency has said it intends to finalize the rule by the end of the year.

Tomorrow's discussion will likely also address the agency's implementation of a 2005 travel management planning rule, which Tidwell has said helps ensure motor vehicle users have guaranteed places to ride in the forests.

While supporters credit the rule for preventing motor vehicles from muddying streams, harming fish and spreading weeds, many Republicans and off-highway vehicle users say it has led to the unwarranted closure of trails.

"Congressional oversight is needed regarding the agency's closure of tens of thousands of roads and trails over the last decade," said Greg Mumm, executive director of the Idaho-based BlueRibbon Coalition, a trail access coalition.

Mumm, who was invited to testify at the hearing, said OHV users initially supported the process but that in some cases it has been used to make landscape-level changes to forest plans and close large numbers of existing legal trails and authorized routes.

Some forest supervisors say travel management planning decisions are the most difficult they make.

The issue came to the fore earlier this year when Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) successfully passed an amendment to a House spending bill that would have restricted the agency's implementation of the rule. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who voted for the amendment at the time, later panned the move as unnecessary (E&ENews PM, March 11).

Mumm said his group has also recently asked lawmakers to pass a bill that would streamline the agency's issuance of special-use permits, a process he called overly complex and expensive.

Tomorrow's meeting comes less than two months after the committee held a field hearing in California to hear from the Forest Service, state officials and citizens about land-use regulations, policies and actions affecting access to agency lands.

Schedule: The hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witnesses: Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, others to be announced.
***********************************************************

Last year HQ wrote a blog with an outline (Next Steps) in TMR called, Designate the $#^&^% Trail
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/designate-d-trail-next-steps-in-tmr.html

OHV advocates should check with their local Forests to see where they are in Round Two or “Next Steps” of TMR. Some Forests have started project level trail planning – good on them. Some have not. Local clubs and riders have to get involved in Round Two of TMR. Kudos to those who are involved and a swift kick to those who are not.


# # #

Is R5 Changing Course on TMR Closure Directives?

The Recreation HQ does not know if it is mere coincidence that Region 5 appears to be revaluating current directives to various Forest units to not designate level-3 roads for mixed-use and to minimize the designation of historic and important unauthorized routes, but it appears that a change is in the air.

The potential signal that R5 is listening to local users, county officials, and Congress is best illustrated by the September 20 Federal Register Notice regarding the Modoc National Forest’s proposal to designate 331 miles of unauthorized routes for motorized travel and designate 513 miles of level 3 roads for mixed-use (i.e. use by non-street legal OHVs).

September 20, 2011 Modoc NF FR Notice
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-20/pdf/2011-23613.pdf

Some of you may remember that back on March 11, 2010, R5 upheld an appeal by one of the current anti-access OHV commissioners and nationally recognized closure guru, Stan Van Velsor, and ordered the Modoc to not designate 331 miles of routes and 513 miles of level-3 roads for mixed-use.

April 2010 Blog with R5 Directive and other Closure/Appeal Info on the Modoc

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/04/ca-ohv-commissioner-wins-appeal-and.html

Another sign based on intel from local users groups who attended a Board of Supervisors meeting yesterday in the Redding area is that the Shasta-Trinity NF is also reviewing future post subpart-B project level trail planning and designation of some level-3 roads for mixed-use.

If, in fact, the Forest Service is reviewing future trail and mixed-use designations, a great deal of praise should go out to an engaged public and to the federal officials and land-managers who are moving forward on more access friendly TMR-related projects.

Sept. 19 Field Hearing - FS TMR Constructed on Foundation of Sand?

By now, many HQ followers are aware of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public land’s field hearing being held in Sacramento on September 19, 2011.


BRC Alert with Info on Sept. 19 Hearing
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=1376

For several years, HQ has blogged about how the 2005 Travel Management Rule was being misused on number Forests as a planning tool to effect landscape level closures of historic roads and trails to non-street legal (and in many cases street legal) OHVs.

HQ is not the only venue that feels TMR has gone astray. The Chico Enterprise-Record just published an editorial that concurs with our observation.

Chico Enterprise-Record Editorial (Sept. 16)
http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/ci_18908994


Wisdom tells us that you should not build a house on a foundation of sand. HQ believes many of the fatal flaws now clearly evident in TMR have their origin in the 2003 California Route Inventory and Designation Process (RID). Proponents of RID (as in get rid of OHVs on public lands) said users did not have to worry about landscape level closures of historic (and legal) OHV routes. In addition, RID/TMR in Region 5 also included the additional “thumb in the eye” of creating a new federal directive that effectively prohibited (except on rare road segments less then 3 miles in length) non-street legal “Green-sticker” OHVs from using level 3 non-paved logging roads. What makes the R5 ruling even more offensive is the California Vehicle Code expressly states that Green-sticker OHVs are allowed on non-paved logging roads.

CVC 38001

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_5/vc38001.htm

Back in 2003 when RID was codified, several FS staffers told HQ offline that supporters of RID would rue the day. BRC strongly protested RID because it was basically an underground regulation created without a formal public process as required by NEPA. Based on the expected tone and direction of the September 19 field hearing it looks like those RID/TMR “planning chickens are coming home to roost.”

Can TMR be salvaged in CA and elsewhere? HQ believes it can, but the agency must work hard to address the user’s legitimate concerns and restore public trust. The FS should also start their long heralded post Subpart B project level trail planning.

Sand should never be used as a foundation nor should it be used as a place where you stick your head. Instead, good planning and management should be based on solid rock and you (the FS) should man-up and admit that mistakes were made in RID/TMR.

See you at the September 19 hearing.

Former Dep. Director of CA OHMVR Dies at Early Age of 44

Dave Widell - R.I.P.

The Recreation HQ deeply regrets to inform riders that the former deputy director, Dave Widell, of the CA OHMVR Program died recently at the early age of 44.

Here is a local newspaper article on his passing
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2011/08/26/142043/grasslands-water-district-gm-dead.html

Dave Widell also wrote an editorial in “Taking the High Road”
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Dave_W_Taking_the_High_Road_Photo0001.pdf

Dave brought a lot of energy and political savvy to that post in the early 2000s. Even though we strongly disagreed on a number of policy issues including his development of the 2003 California Route Inventory and Designation Process (the precursor to the 2005 Travel Management Rule), I considered Dave a friend and will miss his presence on both a professional and personal basis.

The Recreation HQ wants to extend our heartfelt condolences to the Widell circle of family and friends.

Court Says NO to Enviro Subpart A Claims on Eldorado Legal Case

The General on the Eldorado NF

The Recreation HQ wanted to share the good news about a court decision last week regarding the lawsuit filed by environmental groups against the Eldorado National Forest’s Travel Management Plan.

BRC May 31, 2011 News Release on Recent Court Decision
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=736&filter=media

Link to 82 Page Court Decision (a real good read)
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Eldorado_lawsuit_decision_may_2011.pdf

Some of you may remember that BRC and other recreation groups filed to intervene in the case in January 2010.

BRC January 2010 News Release with Motion to Intervene
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=680&filter=media

The recreation groups had concerns that environmentalists would use this case to get a court to link a dollar amount needed by the agency to maintain a “minimum” number of trail miles on the unit. Even though OHV groups did not like the 2008 Eldorado travel plan we wanted to end the endless planning process and move forward with good management programs.

HQ feels that environmental groups are filling an avalanche of Subpart A lawsuits throughout the West to force a number on the agency and/or to require the agency to undergo Subpart A planning to establish a “minimum” route network before doing the Subpart B trail planning.

By using an “oil change” analogy (page 36), HQ believes the court rejected that argument when it denied the plaintiffs (enviro groups) their Subpart A claims.

HQ believes CBD issued a less than accurate news release last week by intimating the court cast aside the 2008 travel plan.

CBD News Release
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles/2011/eldorado-05-27-2011.html

In fact, no remedy has been determined and the decision has asked the parties to address how much of a "remedy" is warranted for technical violations involving such small areas. HQ, on counsel's advice, prefers to leave it at that. We believe it unwise to characterize a court decision that has not yet been made.

# # #

SF Bay Area Democrat Asked to Co-Sponsor H.R. 242 - Herger's TMR Bill

Several weeks ago, HQ issued a challenge to OHV enthusiasts to try and generate support for H.R. 242 by getting co-sponsors for it. As you know, Congressman Wally Herger introduced that legislation to try and address the many closure tenets of TMR in CA.


Well, it looks like at least one of you took that challenge. Eric Lueder, a registered democrat and constituent of SF Bay Area Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey sent her a letter on February 4, 2011 asking her to support H.R. 242.

Link to Letter from Eric Lueder (who is also an OHV commissioner)
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/WoolseyHR242.pdf

HQ continues to urge riders in other states to petition their Member of Congress to either co-sponsor H.R. 242 or to introduce a similar bill if the OHV community in their area got the short end of the stick regarding local TMR plans.

January 27, 2011 Blog with H.R. 242 Info/Articles/Etc.
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2011/01/hq-action-alert-help-cong-herger-hr-242.html

Please send HQ a copy of any letters that you send regarding this issue. The trails you save may just be the ones you used to ride on.

Newspaper Says Herger Travel Management Bill Offers a Fix to Access Issues

Popular OHV Trail Closed by Travel Management Plan - Should be Reopened!

Last Friday many of you read on this blog about Congressman Wally Herger’s bill that he introduced to address some of the flaws in travel management. In that blog you found a link to the legislation as well as other documents that Herger has authored to champion access to public lands.


Friday’s Blog with Herger Bill
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2011/01/112th-congress-introduces-bill-to.html

HQ supports the conclusion reached by the Redding Record Searchlight which states the bill makes sense because it addresses complaints about unwarranted closures filed against the Forest Service by users, county officials, and other interests.

Record Searchlight Editorial in Support of Herger Bill
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jan/10/herger-bill-brings-sense-to-road-plan/

HQ has believed for a number of months that a solution can be found to restore a good working relationship between the agency, county government, and the recreation community. This legislative fix combined with outreach by the agency via a substantive stakeholder process where ideas can be shared in a cooperative manner could be just what the doctor (or General) ordered.

"Designate the D#@& Trail" - Next Steps in TMR

During the recent Gulf Oil Crisis, many of us remember when President Obama issued the order to BP to, “Plug the D$%# Hole.” In a similar vein, The General is urging the Forest Service to, “Plan for and Designate the Darn Trail.”

*

PHOTO: One of the Historic (and signed) OHV Routes closed in Shasta T ROD.

*

The agency has boldly proclaimed at public meetings and in most TMR Subpart B planning efforts that the Record of Decision’s route network was only the foundation of its OHV trail system and that more planning and designations would take place.

Even if you have disagreed with your local Forest’s recent TMR ROD, you should be asking the District Ranger or Forest Supervisor if they will live up to their promise to do subsequent project-level trail planning.

Right now, each Forest is planning their work schedule for FY2011 which starts October 1, 2010. Here is an outline of that effort.

1 - The Forest Leadership Team (FLT) should be in the process of making a decision if a trail planning project(s) will be included in the FY2011 Program of Work (POW). That decision will be finalized in a preliminary format in the next week or two.

2 - If the FLT approves a trail planning POW, the Forest Supervisor must make the final decision to adopt the project (the Regional Office will have to concur). If adopted they should establish the prioritization and expectations for attainment of the project and how it balances with other the Forest POW. The trail projects should be hard targets. If identified as soft targets (i.e. not very important) – they won’t get done.

3 - If a trail project is adopted and prioritized it must be identified in a Forest Program Work Plan (PWP).

4 - Fiscal and Performance Accountability - this is where the plan must identify the necessary fiscal and staff resources for accomplishment.

Should a Forest decide to go forward with trail planning projects, the agency will take the appropriate NEPA procedural steps (such as issuing a SOPA) so that it can be prepared to submit a trail planning grant to a relevant state OHV grant program (various states such as CA, ID, OR, CO, etc. have a grant program).

OHV organizations and The General were assured by FS leadership back in 2002 that the CA RID Process (and the subsequent 2005 TMR) was not going to be used by the agency to effect landscape level closures to non-street legal OHVs. Tragically on many Forests throughout the country, that was a false promise.

Let’s see if the agency attempts to regain its credibility with the public by keeping the ROD’s promise of doing subsequent project-level trail planning. You will know in the next few weeks.