Showing posts with label TMR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TMR. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Eldorado SEIS Appeal Resolution - Enviros Get Another Bite at the Apple

One of the "18" Closed Routes - The "Mud Lake" Trail
 
 

 On September 11, 2013 the Eldorado NF reached an appeals resolution with appellants of the June 14, 2013 SEIS and Record of Decision that would have immediately reopened 24 of the “42 meadow routes”  and opened another 18 routes after corrective action (mitigation, such as hardening a meadow crossing, fixing drainage, etc.) was taken.

 
Copy of Agreement
http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/ca/9_16_13_Final_Eldorado.pdf
 

List of the 24 open routes and 18 closed routes
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5435815.pdf
 

FS News Release on Agreement
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldorado/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5435834
 

Those corrective actions could range from a couple of hours of work with a pick and shovel to project-level NEPA efforts that might include a significant reroute or even installation of an OHV bridge.


HQ is still reviewing the resolution agreement, but it appears that environmental groups have managed to create an extra layer of red-tape by requiring the agency to allow them early review of any proposed   meadow project for those 18 routes.
 

The goal of many anti-OHV groups is to create an additional planning hurdle that must be crossed by the agency before that project can be developed.  It appears that goal has achieved in the resolution by creating a new modified NEPA process where those groups can gum up the project before it even gets off the ground.

Although the anti-OHV groups have succeeded in gaining some leverage in mitigation planning for those 18 routes, HQ believes that user groups should hold the agency’s feet to the fire by working hard to effect the Forest Supervisor’s promise to “get on with repairing the other 18 routes.”
 

Stayed tuned on this never ending saga.

 

 

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

House and Senate Question Closure Agenda of Interior/BLM

What Interior/BLM's Wild Lands Plan Means for Rural Economies


HQ wants to commend all the recreationists who sent letters over the last two days to Congress regarding the BLM’s Wild Lands policy. As some of you know, the creation of de facto Wilderness by federal agencies is not our only problem. Throughout the West, OHV clubs are being forced to cancel traditional motorized permitted events because the BLM and FS are now charging up to $50,000 dollars or more for these group activities.


Historically, the agency used to charge only a minimal fee or an appropriate percentage of the gross receipts largely because of the economic benefit it brought to the local community and that hosting public events was part of their congressionally directed multiple-use mandate.

As you might have seen in the Wild Lands hearing yesterday, the BLM admitted it does not have the statutory authority to eleveate the creation of de facto Wilderness above other uses.

Hearing News Release and Video Regarding Statutory Authority
http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=226853

Today, HQ was pleased to see that Senator Lisa Murkowski questioned the Interior/BLM budget priorities with regards to the Wild Lands policy, user fees, and other issues.

News Release from Sen. Murkowski

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: ROBERT DILLON (202) 224-6977
MARCH 2, 2011 MEGAN HERMANN (202) 224-7875

Murkowski Questions Proposed Budget for Interior Department


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, today made the following statement during the Department of Interior fiscal year 2012 budget hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee:

“Chairman Bingaman, thank you for scheduling this hearing.

“Before we begin, I would like to note with sadness the recent passing of former Chairman Jim McClure. Chairman McClure’s strong work ethic and sense of fairness is a vital part of this Committee’s legacy. He was one of a long line of chairmen who have sustained the tradition of the Energy Committee as forum for the fair consideration and resolution of serious policy debates that continues to this day. I would like to extend my sympathy to his family and many friends. He will not be forgotten, but he will be greatly missed.

“Secretary Salazar, thank you for being here to discuss the President’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012. Much has changed in our nation’s political landscape and in the international arena since the last time you testified here. And I must say – I’m deeply concerned that the budget proposal before us today seems to be from that time.

“Many of the Department of the Interior’s recommendations ignore our current reality – among other things, a $1.6 trillion dollar federal deficit, and rising unrest that has spiked oil prices to the point where our economic recovery could be threatened. Instead of addressing those challenges, the Department is seeking to expand the role and “footprint” of the federal government, increase taxpayers’ liability for maintenance, and place more land off limits to recreation and resource exploration.

“There are a few things I would like to specifically address here today. First on my list is the Department’s new “Wild Lands” policy. Your Order has vast potential to lock up and limit access to lands throughout the country, but particularly in Alaska, where two-thirds of our land is owned by the Federal Government.

“On its face, the “Wild Lands” policy appears to be a workaround of limitations in the Wilderness Act. Interior has also specifically stated that BLM land which was previously dedicated for a specific purpose, like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, will be reevaluated and could be designated as “Wild Lands”. So it appears that Interior not only wants to take control over land designations away from Congress, but also intends to review and perhaps overrule past congressional decisions.

“There are serious questions about the wisdom of the proposed increases in so many taxes and fees, across the board, on the energy companies we’re responsible for regulating, and whether that’s really more likely to result in the law being carried out in the expeditious manner Congress has demanded. Given the deeply troubling situations in Libya, Bahrain, and Iraq, there is little, if any, patience for continued delay in bringing back our American energy production and the associated jobs.

“Another proposal that seriously troubles me is the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the category of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative. Given the pressing need to balance our budget, I have to question this spending. Each land management agency within the Department of the Interior already has a sizeable maintenance backlog. The National Park Service alone is at $9 billion. If we cannot afford to manage the land that we already have entrusted to the federal government, then it is irresponsible to acquire more.

“Finally, on a more parochial note, I am very concerned that the Department has recommended a 54 percent reduction in the Alaska Conveyance Program. This program, which is required by the Alaska Land Conveyance Acceleration Act of 2004, works to fulfill the promise made to Alaska’s Native people when Alaska entered the union. It has been 40 years since the original law was signed. With the funding that was provided to the BLM last year, you suggested it would take another 20 years to complete the conveyances.

“Given that most of those people waiting for their conveyances will now have to wait 40 to 50 more years at this proposed funding level, I’m not only going to ask you to explain this choice here, today – I’m also going to ask you to come to Alaska and explain to the people who have waited patiently for so many years why they should now wait forty or fifty more.

“Secretary Salazar, you have certainly lived in interesting times since you became Secretary of the Interior. You have been presented with many difficult dilemmas. I know many of the members of this Committee share my concerns, so I look forward to hearing your side of the story and discussing these issues with you in greater detail.”

###


As permitted motorized events continue to be cancelled throughout the West because of exorbitant and unwarranted user fees, the Recreation HQ believes that it is important for access interests to remain engaged in the fight to protect our access rights. Recreationists should continue to work with Congress to challenge those excessive “cost recovery” fees.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Congressman to Join New Mexico Rally Against FS Road Closures on March 5


For several years, The Recreation HQ has posted numerous examples of where the Forest Service’s 2005 Travel Management Rule has been misused by the agency to effect landscape level closures in California and elsewhere.


OHVers in Oregon had over 2,300 miles of jeep roads closed to non-street legal use in a recent travel decision. BRC, MIC, MTVRA, and other groups sued and won to reopen closed OHV trails and campsites in Montana

See News Release on Montana victory
http://www.mic.org/news070210.cfm

In another case, BRC, Del Norte County, and user groups had to file suit to stop the agency from using travel decisions to illegal rip up historic roads.

Blog on Miracle in Del Norte County
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/12/ohv-christmas-miracle-case-study-in.html

Now it seems the fight against unreasonable closures has moved south to New Mexico where Congressman Steve Pearce is joining a rally against road closures on March 5

News Release from Congressman Steve Pearce on March 5 Rally Against FS Road Closures
http://pearce.house.gov/press-release/southern-new-mexicans-rally-keep-gila-roads-open

HQ remembers when the modern version of TMR was born. That event -- which has turned into a land-use version (circa 2002-2003) of “Rosemary’s Baby” -- came out of an idea hatched between wilderness advocates (who were in charge of the CA OHV Commission at the time), the FS, and even some in the OHV community.

TMR even in its early stages was never sold to the OHV community as a program to effect landscape level closures. Yet it somehow morphed into plans that on some Forests have resulted in 100 percent closures or closures of thousands of miles of historic roads and trails on other units.

HQ applauds Congressman Steve Pearce and the public land access interests in New Mexico for standing up against a program that has really nothing to do with “land management” but in many cases is simply a political decision made to champion the closure agenda of extreme environmental groups.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

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.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

HQ ACTION ALERT - Help Cong. Herger (HR 242) Fix TMR and Reopen Road and Trails

Help Cong. Herger (HR 242) Reopen Closed Roads and Trails

The Recreation HQ is proud to announce the fact that access champion Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA2) had his legislation H.R. 242 introduced into the Congressional Record on January 26, 2011.


BRC Issued a TMR Alert Today with a Link to the Congressional Record
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=1293

HQ believes the alert offers trail users an historic opportunity to engage their own House Member on access issues by having them co-sponsor Congressman Herger’s effort to address the many closure tenets of the 2005 Travel Management Rule as enacted in California’s 19 National Forests.

If you feel OHVers got shafted by TMR in your neck of the woods, you may want to encourage your own House Member to introduce a bill similar to Congressman Herger’s H.R. 242. There may be even county supervisors or county commissioners who want to pass resolutions in support of H.R. 242 or petition their local House Member to co-sponsor the bill or file one for their own state.

As you know, thousands of miles of historic roads and trails have been closed or proposed for closure by the Forest Service. TMR was never supposed to be about landscape level closures of roads and trails used by woodcutters, hunters, OHVers, and other outdoor interests. It got messed up along the way and now it is up to Congress to fix it.

Here is what a local newspaper said about the bill (you may want to show this to your Member of Congress)
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jan/10/herger-bill-brings-sense-to-road-plan/

HQ encourages you to act promptly to show your support for Congressman Herger’s effort to champion responsible access to public lands.

# # #

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Shasta County Asks Congress for Help in Coordination and Improved Communication with FS

Signed/Mapped Jeep Road to Historic Lookout Closed by TMR

For a number of months, HQ has encouraged federal agencies and county governments to try and “find a way forward” as a vehicle to address a lot of the recent TMR-related closure issues.


HQ has suggested on numerous occasions that the various stakeholders enter into a genuine collaborative process where folks are treated with respect and where users and access-oriented county officials are not summarily dismissed by the federal government as uniformed, ignorant, and unimportant.

On July 1, HQ posted a blog that highlighted where the collaborative process has worked more or less. One such example cited was on the Inyo NF.

July 1 Collaborative Blog
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/07/disparity-between-federal-land-agency.html

Since that time, another FS/County/Recreation/Enviro collaborative process has been productive (helped along by a lawsuit filed by access groups) and that is in Del Norte County.

Story on Access Miracle in Del Norte County
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/12/ohv-christmas-miracle-case-study-in.html

HQ believes that Shasta County’s recent request to Congressman Herger for him to facilitate coordination and improved cooperation between the county and the Forest Service could lay the foundation for a future stakeholder process where problems and solutions could be discussed.

January 11, 2011 Shasta County Letter to Congressman Herger
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Shasta_Herger_BOS_Jan_11.2011_letter.stakeholder0001.pdf

Thanks to all of you for your continued support and efforts on behalf of responsible access to public lands.

Friday, January 7, 2011

112th Congress Introduces Bill to Address FS TMR Road/Trail Closures

Single Track Trail Closed by TMR that OHVers Want Reopened

The Recreation HQ salutes Congressman Wally Herger’s continued fight to stop the closure of many Forest Service roads and trails in his District. Congressman Herger ramped things up today by introducing a bill that requires the FS to complete post Subpart B project level trail planning before implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. That Rule in CA closed thousands of miles of historic trails and roads and also prohibited OHV travel (mostly ATVs and UTVs) on most ML-3 roads.


BRC News Release with Link to Herger Bill
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=722&filter=media

This is not the first time that Herger as fought for our access rights. Earlier this year, he sent a letter to Secretary Harris Sherman about FS road and trail closures.

HQ Blog with Links to Letters and Overview
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/congressman-herger-sends-letter-to-sec.html

This fight for access is welcomed news after yesterday’s punch in the gut announcement by green groups that GOP congressmen had introduced new Wilderness Bills instead of proposing access legislation, or bills to address tax-payer funding of eco-lawsuits, or presidential misuse of the Antiquities Act.

HQ hopes to see a lot more access related legislation and/or scheduling of oversight hearings regarding excessive trail closures in Region 5 and elsewhere.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

BBQ Diplomacy and County Coordination


Here at HQ, riders often bring up the topic of county coordination and cooperating agency status as it relates to Forest Service and BLM travel and land-use planning. HQ is acutely aware they are different but related terms but for the purpose of this discussion that is distinction without a difference.

The following article from the Cortez Journal does a pretty good job of explaining the terminology and differences but at the end of the day correctly highlights the fact that local government cannot dictate a course of action to the federal government.

Cortez Journal Article on County Coordination
http://www.cortezjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=12289



Rather than being a legal or administrative club that local officials can use to beat the federal government into submission, The General believes that coordination is a valuable planning tool that allows the federal government to include and engage county commissioners and other stakeholders in what should be a genuine and sincere collaborative process.

In June, The General had the privilege to witness just such an effort on the Inyo NF where that agency was in an apparently successful planning partnership with local government, businesses, tourism, and other agencies.

Blog on the Inyo Effort and BBQ Diplomacy
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/07/disparity-between-federal-land-agency.html



HQ believes the land-use planning ball is in the agency’s court. Will FS and BLM leadership review a number of hot spots in CA (Shasta T, Clear Creek, etc.) and work to engage disenfranchised stakeholders? Or, will they continue to poke their administrative finger in the eyes of what should be their planning partners?

Can anyone smell a county/fed BBQ? Let HQ know and it will bring the chips!



Tuesday, September 14, 2010

November Election and Access on Federal Lands


On this mini ‘Super Tuesday” where there are a several primaries being decided, The General is reminded of the August 25 Forest Service Management Roundtable where Congressman Tom McClintock addressed a number of access issues that are impacting his constituents.
*
PHOTO: A few riders on a "Remember Eddie Diaz" trail ride



See July 21 blog on “Cost Recovery” and Issues on the Eldorado
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/07/ohv-cost-recovery-fight-on-eldorado-nf.html



The Recreation HQ believes the agency’s fear of environmental lawsuits is driving a lot of FS and BLM decisions here in California.

ELDORADO - As HQ points out in the aforementioned blog, the reason for increased cost recovery charges to CERA and the Polka Dots has nothing to do with protecting the environment but are simply self-preservation steps to protect the agency from being forced to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending itself against ongoing and future eco-litigation. And then paying EAJA awards to the litigants.

TMR - The FS closed thousands of miles of forest roads and trails to OHVs because of the enviro’s promise of endless litigation if those closures were not put into effect. Yet despite massive closures, the greens showed their “lust for closures” by filing a lawsuit against the Stanislaus NF’s travel plan because it did not close enough.

See blog on Lust for Closures
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-green-subpart-lawsuit-shows-lust.html



CCMA - Here the BLM decided to make the Central BLM District of CA an “OHV free zone” by closing the 75K acre CCMA. HQ believes this is being driven by the threat of a lawsuit against the BLM unless they close the unit to OHVs. In fact, the BLM even stated that at a public meeting.

See Tobin’s June 22 blog (scroll down to it) and read BLM’s explanation for the closure regarding fear of litigation
http://www.salinasramblersmc.org/Tobin/Blog/blog.htm


What does all of this have to do with today’s primary? Since “all land use decisions [and closures] are political decisions,” the statement by Congressman McClintock to use the power of his position to hold access and recreation related hearings in the next session of Congress could have a significant impact on these issues.

Currently, there is an anti-trail majority in the House of Representatives. Most of the hearings have centered on the need to exclude historic public use of federal lands in favor of highly restrictive land use designations and programs with OHV being the scapegoat for all of this country’s environmental woes. At these hearings, McClintock and other pro-access legislators worked hard to advocate for public access, but most of the time they are ignored since they are in the minority.

If pro-trail interests are voted into office on November 2, access champions like Congressman McClintock and Congressman Rob Bishop will be in a position to hold agency leadership accountable for the decisions they are making. They could also work on EAJA reform. It’s unfortunate that land use has become a political football but that is the stark reality.

2011 could be a very interesting year depending on what happens November 2.


Tuesday, August 31, 2010

BREAKING NEWS - FS Puts Hold on Launch of Subpart A Travel Planning


The Recreation HQ wants to share some breaking news regarding the potential launch of Subpart A of Travel Management in Region 5 and elsewhere.
*
PHOTO: First person to guess where The General is in this photo gets an Official QWR T-Shirt
CONTEST UPDATE: Karl Hankins of the Redding Dirt Riders correctly IDd the trail - congrats to Karl - T-Shirt on the way.
*

Yesterday, The General received a tip from one of his OHV colleagues that the Washington Office of the FS was placing a temporary hold on the launch of new Subpart A travel planning at the Forest level.

That rumor was just confirmed to be true according to an update to the Subpart A Focus Group from the Center for Collaborative Policy that states the FS has indeed postponed the launch of Subpart A planning pending further review.

Subpart A Focus Group Info
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-subpart-focus-group-meets-for.html




This is huge news! HQ believes the many phone calls and comments you have made to FS officials -- cautioning them against launching a new planning effort that had not been fully vetted – played a major role in this decision to hold back the launch of Subpart A.

Also, HQ believes the recent “Subpart A” lawsuit filed by anti-OHV groups against the Stanislaus NF’s Subpart B Travel Plan may have had the unintended effect of showing the FS their “lawsuit cards.” The General likes to call this “premature litigation”

Blog on the Stanislaus NF’s Lawsuit and the Green’s Lust for Closures
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-green-subpart-lawsuit-shows-lust.html



HQ will continue to follow this breaking story. But for now, let us celebrate the fact that the agency appears to be reevaluating the wisdom of launching an ill-advised effort that only guarantees that the FS will be hit with an endless parade of green lawsuits if a unit does not close enough routes to satisfy the enviro’s insatiable appetite for trail restrictions.

This reminds me of the old parable of the Scorpion (greens) and the Frog (FS) where the Stanislaus lawsuit clearly shows what the scorpion intends to do when the frog is piggy backing it across the Subpart A planning pond.

Thanks for your service and vigilance!


Monday, August 30, 2010

"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.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

New Green Subpart A Lawsuit Shows Lust for Closures


The Recreation HQ was not surprised today when it opened its email to find that CBD, The Wilderness Society, and other green groups filed a “Subpart A” based lawsuit against the Stanislaus National Forest’s recent ROD for TMR.
*
PHOTO: The General on Field Tour with Recreation Outdoor Coalition
*




The General along with many pro-access Forest Service employees have known that the original 2002 “Farrington Triangle” and the subsequent 2005 TMR were developed by closure advocates within the agency and lobbyists on K Street to effect landscape level closures or to set up the agency to be targets of anti-access groups and their lawsuits.

Most of us knew the Forest Service would never be able to develop lawsuit-proof TMR plans that could withstand the much anticipated and never ending parade of nuisance lawsuits filed by green groups to force the agency to close tens of thousands of miles of roads, trails, and areas to motorized use.

What is new about this lawsuit is that it largely bases its flawed legal merit on the “minimum road network,” fiscal restraints, and forest-wide travel analysis found in Subpart A.

It is The General’s belief that no amount of planning that treats the OHV community in a fair manner will satisfy the anti-motorized community’s lust for landscape level closures.

All this suit does is substantiate HQ’s working thesis that today’s TMR is being used to close the Forest to public use. In the rare case where a Forest tries to strike a balance, the enviros have shown they will club that unit into submission until they get the desired amount of trails and roads closed to motorized access.

This suit should give pause to the agency as it prepares to launch Subpart A planning in Region 5. The question for the agency is, “Do we have enough resources to craft fair-mined plans that can withstand green lawsuits or should we continue to bow at the alter of the environmental movement to avoid those suits?” I can guarantee you the agency does not have the resources to fight lawsuits on every Forest. Hence, it is my fear the agency will continue to offer the public plans that close historic roads and trails on an unprecedented scale to motorized use.

It may be a good agency strategy to recognize they don’t have the resources at this time to fight these battles. Rather they should simply stick with the current Subpart B plans and allow various Forests to complete the much promised subsequent “trail plans” that were promised to the OHV community in many a ROD’s narrative.

What is for certain is if the agency continues with Subpart A planning, they WILL be sued by anti-access groups if said plans don’t close thousands of miles of roads and trails.

Folks we are in what I call the “OHV Dark Ages” where common sense management and fairness are being replaced by dark lawsuits designed to make riders an endangered species. We should be asking our elected officials to help with NEPA and EAJA reform to counter this onslaught. Some of them already are!

Do we give up? NO! We continue to fight back and stay the course. These times call for a strong heart and will. The HQ thanks you for your efforts and support.


Friday, August 13, 2010

Congressman Herger Sends Letter to Sec. Harris Sherman Regarding TMR


The Recreation HQ wants to give riders an update regarding the fight for OHV access in Region 5. As you know, the Shasta Trinity National Forest and many other units under guidance from Region 5 (head office of the FS in CA) have closed thousands of miles of historic trails and logging roads to both street legal and green sticker vehicles.
*
PHOTO: Jeep road (marked as open on current Forest Map) to a cool lookout was closed to all vehicles in Shasta Trinity ROD.
*

A lot of OHV groups and county officials have protested these unfair closures and were joined by Congressman Wally Herger. Congressman Herger has again weighed into this battle with an August 11 letter to Harris Sherman, an Undersecretary of Agriculture.

Herger’s June 9 and11 Letters to Region 5
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/06/congress-weighs-into-shasta-county-v-fs.html




The General has shared his frustration with Region 5 on many occasions about the unprecedented steps it took to misuse TMR to close roads, trails, and areas to legitimate OHV use.

With Subpart A waiting in the wings to be launched in September by Region 5, the question for them is if they will take a step back from hard deadlines and put some flexibility in Subpart A to allow for units to do important trail planning projects, etc.

See Blog on Recent Subpart A Focus Group Meeting
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-subpart-focus-group-meets-for.html



Stay tuned for more updates on the never ending TMR saga in Region 5.



Sunday, June 20, 2010

Book Review - Climategate - A 21st Century Eco Update


As The General prepares to write a book review of Brian Sussman’s must read book Climategate, he is reminded of the 1993 treatise of the environmental movement called
Trashing the Economy.

On page 3 of that book, the Institute for Policy Innovation wrote, “The rapid growth of government regulations may very well be the single most important obstacle to U.S competitiveness here and abroad.”

In light of government programs like the Travel Management Rule and landscape level closures such as the BLM’s interim “no-human use” prescription for the Clear Creek Management Area, the Recreation HQ would like to rephrase the aforementioned quote to state, “The rapid growth of unchecked government regulations may very well be the single most important obstacle to our personal freedoms both at home and with regards to public land access.”

I believe Climategate gives the reader a 21st century update on just how 1960-1980s era radical environmentalists and their supporters in Congress, the media, and the administration – as so aptly described in Trashing the Economy – are enacting their nightmarish eco-agenda that has very little if anything to do with “protecting the environment.”

Sussman does an excellent job of connecting the dots that exist between eco-icons and/or their schemes/concepts such as Gaylord Nelson, Fred Singer, Carl Pope, Carol Browner, Richard Nixon, Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, Rachael Carson, Earth Day, EPA, Agenda 21, United Nations, Cap and Tax, An Inconvenient Truth, Global Warming, and the Clean Air Act.

As freedom loving Americans and riders, I would urge you to get Sussman’s book so you have a better understanding of what we are up against. It is no joke. The greens are serious about banning OHV use on public lands. You may say how do you know? My response is because that is what they have told me in person and I believe them. You should too!

For those of you who want a more comprehensive historical overview of the environmental movement, I would also suggest that you buy Trashing the Economy and read it before Climategate. After reading both books, you will better understand our opposition.

To order Climategate go to:
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Meteorologist-Exposes-Global-Warming/dp/1935071831




Thanks for your service!


Thursday, June 10, 2010

BBQ Diplomacy Needed in County v. Forest Service Fight

A lot of riders, OHV media, federal agents, and others are watching the ongoing struggle or battle of wills between the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the Shasta Trinity National Forest.

As you know, the BOS held a hearing on June 4 regarding the County’s appeal of the ROD and to have the informal disposition in a public forum as required by law.

June 6 Blog with info, archived news articles, etc.
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/06/shasta-county-close-to-vote-of-no.html


Based on direction by the BOS, the county counsel prepared and sent a letter on June 8 about the Forest‘s failure to appear. This letter was sent to Region 5, the Department of Agriculture, and Congress. The letter asked for a response by the Forest before the close of business on June 9. No response as of today.

June 8 BOS/Counsel Letter to Congress and USDA
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/HeywoodMtgLtr2.pdf


The letter while respectful does rightfully convey the board’s frustration with the Forest’s lack of communication and cooperation. The General does not believe the Forest has any excuse for not showing up. Some of you remember the OHV Commission meetings (circa 2000-2007) where the environmentalists who were running the commission often excoriated and made every effort to humiliate FS and BLM representatives in public. I think a lot of credit should go to those federal representatives who showed up and took the verbal abuse. I don’t know why the Shasta T decided to basically ignore the county’s request for a public forum. I don’t think it would have been near as hostile as the old OHV commission meetings.

Federal line officers should be able to take the heat. Their job today is really more political than resource oriented. Historically, District Rangers and Forest Supervisors integrated themselves into the community. They attended BBQs, fishing derbies, and turkey shoots. It seems that sort of camaraderie is sadly missing on the Shasta T.

Is there a growing rural county movement to challenge arbitrary land closures? We have seen the San Bento County BOS reopen county roads at Clear Creek. Del Norte County has joined recreation groups to challenge illegal road ripping. Shasta County seems to have joined in.

See WND Article on Counties Fighting Back
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137737


In the absence of the Forest Service using “BBQ diplomacy” in rural areas such as Shasta County, the local government has only two options when faced with arbitrary federal actions and those are lawsuits or asking for the line officer to be replaced.

I know recreation groups such as BRC, ROC, et al are committed to working with the agency, but that relationship has to be a two-way street.

Stay tuned as the Shasta saga continues.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Historic OHV Lawsuit To Be Filed in CA


The Recreation HQ wanted to let all riders, FS, BLM, law enforcement, retired military, politicians, enviros, and other folks who read this blog know that a very historic and important proactive OHV access lawsuit will be filed very soon to protest illegal road-ripping (i.e. decommissioning) and the publication of Motor Vehicle Use Maps without a public process.
*
PHOTO: The General on The High Dome Trail in the Smith River NRA
*


It is only when all sides of the land use equation get treated in a fair manner that good decisions can be made. Thanks for your service!
Feel free to send The General a PM or post a note on this blog.
*

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Day Trail-based Recreation Died in Northern California


The Recreation HQ was not surprised by the content of the call it received from the public affairs officer on Monday regarding the soon-to-be announced signing of the Record of Decision for the Shasta Trinity National Forest Travel Management FEIS.

PHOTO: The General on a Single Track Trail Now Closed by the ROD




As many of the troops know, the Shasta Trinity NF is home to about 800 miles of high quality single track motorcycle trails and ATV trails less than 50 inches in width. Up until yesterday, these were legitimate and legal OHV trails that were used by families, contractors, NFL football players, police officers, nurses, doctors, CHP officers, firefighters, veterans, deputy sheriffs, small business owners, retired workers, lumber workers, teachers, sheet metal workers, union members, federal agents, muffler shop owners, etc.

BRC had argued for these routes in its DEIS comment letter – Shasta County did as well
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html



The functional closure of almost 100% of what were legal OHV trails is a form of recreational discrimination against the single-track community. The General on several occasions (on behalf of BRC) had met with officials from the FS Regional Office and urged them not to make this huge mistake. This closure makes a mockery of the TMR public process, the agency, and its laws. This plan was never designed to protect the environment but rather created to satisfy the closure agenda of anti-OHV groups. What other conclusion is there when all of the action alternatives functionally closed all single-tracks and OHV trails less than 50 inches in width?

Be assured The General and BRC will exhaust all administrative and, if needed, legal channels to challenge a document that will be forever remembered by the OHV community as the plan that administratively closed more single-track trails than were administratively closed on Forest Service lands in Region 5 during the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration.

To Join or Support BRC go to:
https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/?c=1



Thanks for your support and staying engaged!

*

Thursday, March 11, 2010

BIG OHV TMR-Related VICTORY


The Recreation HQ was glad to see the news today about recreation groups winning a TMR-related court case.
*
PHOTO: A popular jeep trail in a roadless area on the Eldorado NF
*
See BRC News Release on Court Victory
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=688&filter=media




BRC and partners are fighting for our right to ride, by addressing egregious examples of where the Forest Service (or BLM) is arbitrarily closing too many OHV routes in the TMR decisions.

Current BRC Legal Docket on Page 23 of the BRC Feb Online Magazine
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/issues/february2010/pdf/BRM_February2010.pdf



In some cases, BRC files as an intervenor to stand with the federal agencies (even if we don’t always agree with their final decision) and defend a travel plan from being overturned and having OHV faced with potentially even more closures in a subsequent plan) or sometimes we file a complaint against the agency.

Just how this court decision will impact potential route losses of biblical proportions on some Forests (such as is expected in the Shasta-Trinity Travel Plan) is hard to say. However, The General wants you to know that his office is actively engaged in the land use fight and wants riders to know when we do win a battle.

Stay involved and engaged.

To Join BRC or Donate to BRC Legal Efforts go to:
https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/?c=1



Thanks for your service!
*


Monday, February 1, 2010

Pulling Culverts/Ripping Roads Requires Site Specific NEPA


On January 5, The Recreation HQ published a blog regarding a potential new direction for OHV litigation

Photo: A photo of a culvert that was pulled without site-specific NEPA/public involvement. Funny there is no outcry from eco-groups because in this case... the agency was "closing" a road to all public use. (click on photo to expand it)


On that date, The General asked the troops to keep an eye open for aggressive and potentially illegal federal road decommission projects. The HQ is afraid that some agency units are using TMR (which only identifies the specific routes and seasons of use available for motorized travel) as the inappropriate planning document to authorize aggressive road decommissioning that includes the following ground-disturbing-activities (e.g. pulling culverts, ripping road beds, and recontouring the road prism, and digging tank traps).

Some federal units (see above photo) appear to be using NEPA exempt routine road maintenance authority as cover to go out and obliterate roads. As most of you should know by now, agency actions that include ground disturbing activities (such as pulling culverts and digging tank traps) require project level site-specific NEPA. Approval from USFWS and water boards are often needed as well. Those projects require public notice and involvement.

OHVers, equestrians, mountain-bikers, firefighters, woodcutters, and other access interests cannot stand by while federal agencies use TMR as the driving force to illegally decommission our roads and trails. Be sure and contact the Recreation HQ if you have an example of a road that was decommissioned without the proper NEPA document.

2010 may be the year we have to draw a legal line in the sand on this issue.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Coos County OHVers Face Day of Infamy


As a student of military history, The General believes the lawsuit filed on December 7, 2009 by the Center for Biological Diversity et al against the Riley Ranch Project is just
the first in a series of aggressive legal attacks to be filed against OHV recreation interests in Oregon.

See Dec. 7 Article on Lawsuit
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/12/groups_sue_to_stop_road_buildi.html

(be sure and scroll down to the bottom of the article and read a response/history of project by former Coos County Commissioner and friend of The General and fellow land use warrior – John Griffith)

As some riders in CA know (and OR riders are now finding out), CBD and their enviro buddies are very busy attacking OHV recreation on both federal and state lands.

Actual CBD/PEER Lawsuit filed recently on Eldorado NF
http://sierraconservation.org/Filed%20complaint%20Eldorado%20NF%20TMP%20case.pdf



The BRC Legal Defense Team has been, and will continue to be, engaged in the fight.

See BRC Legal Docket
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?legal=1&nonav=1



The question for OR riders is if they are ready to get some skin in the game and support a strong legal defense of balanced FS travel planning at Riley Ranch and elsewhere?

The General believes the anti-access crowd is watching to see how the OHV community responds to this attack. Just as CA, UT, and other states have seen their share of enviro-lawsuits, I think OR will see a like number filed there against both federal and state OHV travel planning projects.

How OR riders respond to this sneak attack will determine the outcome of the land use battle there and the future of OHV recreation in that state.

# # #