Stonyford Mixed Use Issue Cleared Up

Over the last couple of weeks, The Recreation HQ has been bombarded with a number of calls from riders who have been getting tickets by riding on the main forest road at the Stonyford OHV Area. As many of you know, this paved road has been and continues to be the main transportation corridor for families who camp at Fouts Springs and Davis Flat to access the trail system in this area.

I remember taking my two sons on their Honda 50s and 80s down this road as it provides the only safe access route for getting youngsters and beginners to the OHV roads and trails.

In his role as the Western Representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition, The General contacted the Forest Service to see if there has been some miscommunication between recreation staff and law enforcement. As some of you know, this paved level 2 road is identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map as open to all vehicle types.

What seems to be the problem is that some local agency staff had misinterpreted Region 5’s mixed use policy as requiring a level 2 road be reclassified as a level 3 road which would require a mixed use analysis and approval by the CHP for use by green sticker vehicles.

I must commend the Forest for taking responsibility for this mix-up by pulling the tickets that were issued, removing the “open for street legal vehicle only” signs, and withholding publication of the new MVUM until this “mixed use” issue is corrected. I believe the Forest now understands what a critical role that 18N03 plays in the safe transport of non-street legal OHVs (dirt bikes, dune-buggies, jeeps, ATVs, and side-by-sides) from the developed campsites to the main trail system.

The Recreation HQ believes that good communication between the users and the Forest is important and is optimistic that this sort of miscommunication won’t happen in the future.

Thanks in advance for your support and understanding.

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.

# # #

More Thoughts on the Mixed Use Issue in Region 5

If my memory serves me correctly, there was an emphasis during the Clinton-Gore era to reduce the number of roads on National Forest System lands. One element of that was the infamous Clinton Roadless Rule. Another lesser known tenet was the reclassification of the higher maintenance level 3-5 roads to a lower maintenance level such as a level 2 road.

I know that some Forests during the late 1990s and early 2000s did look at the reclassification of roads. However, there was often push back from the agency’s road engineering departments because the Forest’s road maintenance budget was based on the number of miles of roads. Since level 2 roads – roads managed for high clearance vehicle such as 4x4s and OHVs – have a much lower maintenance cost – any Forest that reduced the number of miles of level 3-5 roads would receive a reduced fiscal allocation.

Another factor was that in many Forests there exists “checkerboard” lands. Often those lands are owned by timber companies such as SPI and those companies do a cost share with the Forest Service of the maintenance of level 3 roads used to extract timber. I think there was some resistance by agency road departments to reduce that cost share by reclassifying roads.

So realizing that paradigm, it is easy to see that in many areas – efforts to lower a level 3 road to a level 2 was often met with limited success. I don’t think Region 5 at that time was really supportive of the reclassification of roads.

In today’s economy and with reduced appropriated funding to the agency, I believe that the significant cost reduction of maintaining a level 2 road vs. a level 3 would be of interest to those same timber inholders. And when that level 2 road is needed to extract timber, the road could be temporarily improved to a level 3 standard and when no longer needed for that timber project could be reduced once again to a level 2.

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t see the local CHP commanders really being interested in “reviewing and approving” public use of level 3 roads particularly in rural areas. I know of at least one state highway in Northern California that very seldom gets patrolled by the CHP let alone any of the level 3-5 roads or Forest ‘highways” in those areas.

This issue of generally requiring insurance and a drivers license when operating an OHV on a level 3 “mixed use” road could be problematic on Forests where mixed use on level 3 roads in an important element of their OHV program. I am not sure that concept or its unintended consequences has been fully vetted by the agency before release of the January 13, 2009 memo.

I think we all will have to continue to be engaged in the mixed use issue and look for opportunities to offer suggestions or improvements.

# # #

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.

# # #