Dark Days Ahead for CA OHV Program

"Hell's a Coming..."

The Recreation HQ is not happy about what happened today at the Assembly Budget Committee hearing.  By now, many of you already know that Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-Petaluma) championed the agenda of the far left environmental movement to defund the OHV grants program to the FS, BLM, and county/city parks so they won’t have the money to maintain trails and facilities.   After which they will complain about the lack of funding to maintain trails and then sue the agencies to force them to close the trails.

BRC News Release on Hearing Today

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2012/05/31/california--ca-legislature-votes-to-gut-ohv-program

SacBee Article from last year that describes the green closure plan

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/03/3673670/public-eye-lawmakers-take-10-million.html#storylink=scinlineshare

 

Video of Hearing (BRC/my comments start about 44.31, other OHV reps follow)

http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=470

 

This is actually one of my darkest days in land-use advocacy in the last 22 years.  It appears the anti-OHV groups have a choke-hold on an all too willing legislature.  It also appears the city/urban legislators have declared POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC WAR on rural parts of the state.

Shame on the Parks Foundation for their part in this scheme.

Just where this ends, I don’t know.  Be assured that the fight is not over, but we are at the bottom of one of the longest political hillclimbs I have ever faced.  Stay tuned for further alerts and action items as this plan moves into conference.

# # #

New Anti-OHV Lawsuit to Stop Bridges and Toilets

By now, many riders that follow the Recreation HQ are aware of another anti-OHV lawsuit filed on July 30 by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation against OHMVR and the Eldorado National Forest.
*

Photo: The General on a trail in the Rock Creek Area

*

CBD News Release on New Lawsuit
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/eldorado-orv-07-30-2010.html

Text of Lawsuit
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/off-road_vehicles/pdfs/Petition_Rock_Creek_07-28-2010.pdf

The filing of this new lawsuit in state court (yet another example in the long line of anti-OHV lawsuits filed by the aforementioned antagonists) seeks to establish a new regulatory “high bar” for grants awarded for trail projects on federal lands. The suit actually is complaining about many of the trail improvements that these plaintiffs have been demanding over the years to address dirt bikes crossing the steam and sanitation at the campgrounds.

The suit complains about new bridges being installed to keep OHVs out of the water crossings, new trail construction, and new toilets being installed where people camp. That’s right… complain about dirt bikes crossing the creek and sanitation and then when the FS/OHMVR works to address those concerns… sue them!

Again, the suit fails to acknowledge those details as well as the fact that OHV recreation has been an “authorized” and approved use of the area via the Forest Plan and the Rock Creek EIS.

The General knows OHMVR and the FS are reviewing this case and believes they too are troubled by the Center’s ongoing and unrelenting efforts to close the area for both casual riding and permitted AMA sanctioned events.

Make no mistake; this suit is a direct attack on users, the FS, and the OHV Division’s grant program. OHV legal interests should be watching this case and intervene at the appropriate time should the need arise.

HQ thanks the followers of this blog who are just as, if not more so, committed to defending our preferred form of recreation from unjust legal action by extreme environmental groups.

Thanks for your service!

July 29 Update on Parks/OHV - Video Included

Based on feedback from a number of riders wanting to know the bottom line on the OHV Program and the State Park System, I wanted to give you my “quick and dirty” overview of the status as it stands today from my perspective.

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

Photo at right is BRC's Don Amador on Tolowa

State Park near the OR Border - a park

that could be on the chopping block

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

OHMVR – The Good – The core OHV program (SVRAs and grants – approx. 60 million dollars) stays intact.


OHMVR - The Bad - $112 million dollars “borrowed” from several special accounts. Who knows when it will be repaid? The prospect of purchasing new lands for OHV at anytime in the near future looks grim.

STATE PARKS - More Bad - They take a $52 million dollar hit (or 21% reduction) for this year and next. Park administration will wait until after Labor Day to close up to 100 or more non-SVRA units.

5 MONTH BUDGET CYCLE – Even Worse - Sacramento will have to do this all over again (another round of budget cuts at best guess) in a few months.

*******************************************************************
Don Amador’s Video Message to Users – Stay Engaged and Involved – Also take advantage of new Rocky Mtn. ATV/BRC Membership Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHpxsczkSp8

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

Rocky Mtn. ATV/BRC Membership Drive
https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/rmatvmc/

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

Thanks for your interest and support on land use issues.

California Budget Cuts - A Train Wreck in the Making

According to breaking news articles that are hitting the wire, Governor Schwarzenegger is planning to close over 200 state parks and cut 2,000 park-related jobs as a result of the current budget fiasco.

As a native Californian, The General is asking the law-makers in Sacramento,”What have you done to my state?” In my opinion, this train wreck has been coming for a number of years. I believe this “worst case scenario” as described by State Park’s spokesman, Roy Stearns, in an AP article, is a result of gluttonous spending, zealous taxation, gleeful over-regulation, and enactment of politically-motivated wacky environmental proposals by wrong minded law-makers in Sacramento -- a clear example of politicians serving themselves instead of the people.

AP Article – Statement by Roy Stearns
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g93pjBNH32Pl10TKma8epVgR39XgD98FS1OO0


It’s no wonder that many of my friends have left California for greener pastures (e.g. states with lower or no taxes, less regulations, and more freedom). If politicians don’t “get it” soon… that number of tax payers leaving the state is only going to grow as they “get the heck out of Dodge.”

Time will tell just what sort of impact the state park budget cuts will have on the OHV program. In theory, the OHV program is user-pay/user-benefit and is “protected” as a Trust Fund, but in this day and age… that may not mean much… we will see.

As the sun shines down on California today, the golden glow it used to cast upon our beautiful state has been replaced with a dark shadow that is ugly.


# # #

Mixed Up on Mixed-Use

The General has received a number of comments off-line on my recent mixed-use blogs. The consensus so far is that Region 5 may have created unneeded bureaucratic hurdles regarding the process required to reclassify a ML 3 road to a ML 2 road. Those required steps in the Jan. 2009 R5 mixed-use memo include;

Mixed use analysis;
Analysis of the proposed change in public use;
Modification of Road Management Objectives and associated Infra data;
Entrance strategies to modify driver expectations, such as surface roughening;
Signing changes, including consideration of the following:
Installation of a sign stating that the road is “Not maintained for passenger car use,” and
Converting standard horizontal route marker signs to vertical route marker signs; and
Determining if any structural changes to the road are necessary, including removal of culverts, installation of rolling dips, and “out-sloping”.

As various national forests in CA go through travel management planning, I have not seen a lot of Forest proposals to reclassify a significant number of ML 3 roads to ML 2 roads. However, I am aware of the Plumas NF reclassifying approximately 130 miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 roads about 1.5 years ago in a separate planning effort. Kudos to them!

With ever decreasing federal recreation budgets and reduced staff, I think Region 5 should consider streamlining their reclassification requirements – particularly in rural or remote areas with little or no accident history – and champion reclassification efforts to address budget issues and provide additional OHV recreational opportunities.

I also think in rural areas that some counties are interested in supporting increased public access (including OHV use) on county roads (combined use), ML 3 roads (mixed use), or an expedited ML 3 to ML 2 reclassification process.

# # #

Thoughts on Mixed Use in Region 5

In response to a Jan. 13, 2009 “mixed-use” memo from Region 5, first let me state that I believe Region 5 has created an number of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles when it comes to the designation of level 3 roads as mixed-use where that road is open for use by both street legal and non-street legal OHVs. I have shared those views with R5 on a number of occasions and in comment letters on travel management planning efforts.

It has been my experience that there is little – if any on some Forests – accident history on level 3 roads between OHVs and passenger vehicles. If there were accidents they were most likely OHV vs. OHV rather then OHV vs. a passenger car.

If there is a silver lining in that memo - it is the direction for encouraging Forests to reclassify a level 3 road to a level 2 road. I think that is a plan of action that OHVers could and should support.

The only other viable approach – and one that I hope R5 will support - would be to construct parallel (companion trails) or alternative trails that lead to the same destination or complete a loop opportunity. Many of those trails could be constructed basically in the road prism where there should be less environmental concerns or obstacles.

In my travels on Forests in Northern California, not many level 3 roads truly meet the conditions required of a level 3 road (site distance, signage, surface etc.) Those roads may have been originally designed as a level 3, but in this age of "no funding," most have deteriorated to level 2 status or maybe even should be reclassified as a road managed as a trail.

Again based on my experience, I believe that many routes that were designed as level 3, can be reduced to level 2. This would not only allow mixed-use opportunities, but would reduce maintenance costs and the liability of meeting the requirements of a level 3 road.

I feel that the Mendocino National Forest is going in the right direction regarding mixed-use. However, it is my concern that other Forests may be using the policy to close some routes and restrict public access. By doing so, they might be making those routes a little safer liability wise, but if the route provides a popular destination or opportunity with no alternative there will most likely be an enforcement problem.

It is my hope that through open and sincere communications between R5, individual Forests, state parks, and users that route designation and the issue of mixed-use can be addressed for the public good.

# # #

What Can I Do To Protect Trail Access

As President-elect Obama prepares to take office, I often get asked by trail enthusiasts, “What can I do to preserve my riding opportunities?”

My first response is to remind folks of two old adages; most politics are local and all land-use decisions are political decisions. Based on those realties, I have always believed that engaging your local elected officials and building relationships with them is critically important.

As some of you already know, pro-access county supervisors or city councils can pass resolutions in support of quality trail programs on federal and state lands. Those resolutions and/or letters of support carry weight with the Forest Service, BLM, or state parks.

Also, building relationships with local land managers and their recreation staff is equally important. Helping as a trail volunteer, doing cleanups, etc. is a good way of getting to know your agency decision-maker.

I think we will have to wait and see just what direction the Obama administration takes on land-use. However, we don’t have to wait to start - or continue with – relationship building with local decision-makers.

In the end, all land-use decisions are political decisions. Building relationships with county supervisors, district rangers, area field managers, town council members, park superintendents, and forest supervisors is always a good strategy regardless of who is in the White House.

# # #

Dirt Rider Mag Does Article on The General

Some of you new to my blog may want to read about my background and how I got started in land use. Dirt Rider Mag did an article and here is the link.

http://www.dirtrider.com/141_0402_don/index.html