HQ ACTION ALERT - Send Letter Today to Support OHV Use on Level 3 Forest Roads

Let OHVs Use Level 3 Logging Roads

HQ ACTION ALERT – Send a short letter today asking your Representative to oppose any effort by anti-access legislators to have Section 446 stripped out when the House considers H.R. 2584. Section 446 is an effort by Congressman Wally Herger to keep level 3 logging roads open for historic non-street legal OHV use.

BRC Action Alert with Herger’s Dear Colleague Letter – there is a link to contact your representative using Congress.org’s email contact system. You have to register (I did and it is no big deal) to use it.

BRC Action Alert
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=1356

If you don’t want to register to use Congress.org, you can use the link below to plug in your zip code and then send an email to your Congressman.

Contact your Member of Congress
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here is suggested text for your letter (feel free to edit and add your own story)

Tag Line: OPPOSE ANY EFFORT TO STRIP SECTION 446 FROM H.R. 2584

I am deeply concerned that anti-access groups and their supporters in Congress will try and have Section 446 stripped when the House considers H.R. 2584, the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.


Section 446 is Congressman Wally Herger's pro-access language that attempts to fix some anti-access tenets from Region 5's version of the Travel Management Rule. Section 446 is almost identical to bill language in Herger's H.R. 242 that was introduced in February 2011.

The main issue is the Forest Service has proposed to close hundreds if not thousands of miles of old logging roads to non-street legal OHV use. This access is important for continued recreational access, connectivity between existing OHV trail systems, and the rural economy.


Please let OHVers continue to use historic non-paved logging roads in California.

Thanks in advance to taking time to send this short letter!

Budget Cuts and Forest Service Roads

As the new administration grapples with serious budget issues, one area they may want to look at is the Forest Service’s network of maintenance level (ML) 3 roads. I seem to remember a traffic survey done on the Lassen NF that showed only 10% of the vehicles traveling over ML3 roads were low passenger car-type vehicles. The other uses on those roads were high clearance vehicles (jeeps, pickups, etc.) that one often sees on ML 2 roads.

I think if Region 5 or the Washington Office of the Forest Service is looking to cut wasteful spending (and create more backcountry recreational OHV experiences) they should quit maintaining ML 3 roads for low clearance vehicles and reclassify them as ML 2 roads for use by high clearance vehicles and OHVs.

I have seen many ML 3 roads in Northern California and the Sierra where Mother Nature is reclaiming the road which often has a chip-seal (similar to asphalt pavement) in various states of deterioration. Woody debris may have fallen on the route and trees/brush may have grown over the sides of the road. Also rocks may have rolled out on the road bed or cut banks have slid onto the route.

While that may sound like a disaster to a city dweller. The local OHVer, hunter, and wood cutter enjoy the rugged nature of the “non-maintained” route which in many cases has deteriorated into a road that should be managed as a trail or at least be reclassified as a ML 2 road.

As you comment on various Forest Service travel management planning efforts currently underway nationwide – you may want to suggest that the agency review the usage of ML 3 roads by low clearance vehicles and if that use is low to undergo a serious effort to reclassify those ML 3 roads to a ML 2. I think that would help the agency meet its budget objectives while providing the public with more backcountry routes.

# # #

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.

# # #