Shasta County Close to Vote of No Confidence in Forest Service

On June 4, 2010 the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and about 85 members of the public were snubbed by the Shasta Trinity National Forest when the agency failed to show up to hearing on the county’s appeal of the Forest’s TMR Record of Decision.

The day before the meeting, the local paper ran a story about how the Forest had decided NOT to attend the meeting. However, the story did not highlight the fact that the date of June 4 for a public meeting had been previously agreed to by the Forest.

Record Searchlight June 3 Article
http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/02/roadblock-to-talks/



The General, on behalf of BRC, attended that meeting and testified that - at the end-of-the-day – the county government is the public’s last recourse (outside of lawsuits) to challenge arbitrary federal land closures.

I think the Record Searchlight’s June 6, 2010 Editorial captured the extreme frustration unanimously articulated by the Board of Supervisors and the public while challenging all parties to find some common ground. As some of you know, BRC and BRC Legal also filed appeals and during our recent informal disposition meeting, The General also expressed his deep frustration with the Forest's abysmal history of ad hoc non-management of OHV recreation.

June 6 Record Searchlight Editorial on Forest Fight
http://m.redding.com/news/2010/jun/06/supervisors-though-angry-must-reach-out/


As the editorial correctly notes, the BOS is dangerously close to taking the rather precedence setting step of casting a formal vote of no confidence in Forest leadership and request that leadership be replaced. The Recreation HQ believes the only way for the Forest to salvage any remnants of credibility is for the agency to meet with the public and agree to phase in the Record of Decision as new trail projects are completed or better yet, have the Appeal Reviewing Officer recommend the ROD be withdrawn and the Forest restart a legitimate TMR planning process that is not frontloaded to enact a landscape level closure.

Sylvia Milligan, chief honcho of the Recreation Outdoor Coalition, stated in her testimony that the Forest Supervisor said in a public forum that she wanted HER Forest to be a Quiet Forest. If that is in fact the current operational paradigm then Houston (or in this case the Forest Service) we have a problem. Groups like BRC, RDR, ROC, and the BOS have proven willing to work in partnership with land management agencies, but that is hard to do if all you get when you extend that hand of fellowship is a poke in the eye.

The ball is in the agency’s court. Does the Forest Service really desire to pick a fight and enter into an OHV version of the Cold War with people it is supposed to serve? Or, will it push the reset button? Having this battle of wills continue is not healthy for the community or the agency. *

Quiet Recreation is Making Noise

After submitting formal comments on the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS for Travel Management, I am reminded of the growing howl coming from anti-access groups like BARK demanding that more multiple-use roads, trails, and areas be closed to OHV use.

See My Sept 9 Blog on BARK/Quiet Recreation and the Mt. Hood
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/09/howling-at-moon-in-or-to-stop-ohv-use.html

Photo: Amador on Single Track Trail on Mt. Hood

Some of you have seen recent articles espousing the economic virtues of non-motorized “quiet” recreation such as hiking while downplaying the economic benefit of motorized recreation such as ATV or dirt-bike use.

Article in Fiscal Impacts of “Quiet Recreation”
http://www.naturaloregon.org/2009/06/11/making-noise-about-quiet-recreation-in-national-forests/

It appears that a new study called the “Recreation Economic Impact Tool” produced by
Kreg Lindberg at Central Oregon Recreation Services is being used or misused as a bullhorn by the quiet recreation crowd to loudly shout (or BARK in some cases) for blanket closures to OHVs including non-street legal OHVs on Forests going through the TMR process.

Link to CORS and the Tool
http://www.corsbend.com/




I did contact Professor Lindberg regarding my concerns about the fact that I could not find in any of his research where the nexus is appreciated between the use (and hence the economic benefit) of motorized vehicles by forest visitors to access non-motorized activities.

The General served on the California OHV State Park Commission in the 1990s and I remember an old public land planning tool/concept that was used by both state and federal land agencies. That historic foundation block in land use planning was that a vast majority of all types of recreation (motorized and non-motorized) is vehicle-based and takes place with ¼ mile of the vehicle.

See How the Quiet Recreation Crowd wants OHV (Mt. Hood is a good case study) restricted to just a few "small islands" in the NF.
http://nativeecosystems.org/critterthink/shifting-the-recreational-paradigm-by-aaron-clark/comment-page-1



One source of user conflicts between quiet recreationists and the OHV community is often times roads and motorized trails are used by folks who want quiet recreation and then they are frustrated when OHVs use the same area. Since, most quiet recreation occurs (or should occur) in Wilderness or other non-motorized land-use classifications…the quiet user is only ¼ mile or less from the road. Hence, the quiet recreation sought after is sometimes disturbed.






Many quiet recreationists don't have time to hike into the core of Wilderness areas because of a lack of time or resources. Rather they use a vehicle for rapid access to the outer boundaries of the Wilderness (or go to an OHV area!) and then complain about legal motorized uses.

OHV advocates must be aware of Quiet Recreation Groups who are now loudly screaming for you – the OHV user – to not only be silent… but be gone as well.






Thanks for your service!

Buffers, Filters, Camels, and Travel Management

As more National Forest’s enter into the DEIS or FEIS phase of the Travel Management Rule, there is a disturbing trend that has appeared. Some Units appear to have developed
a “decision filter” through which the designation of OHV roads and trails must pass.

*Photo: Don Amador at 2004 Black Dog DS Ride on Mt. Hood National Forest

Yesterday, the public comment period ended for the Mount Hood National Forest’s DEIS. On behalf of the BlueRibbon Coalition, I filed a comment letter on the proposal.

BRC Oct. 28, 2009 Comment Letter on the Mount Hood DEIS
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Mount_Hood_DEIS_BRC_Comment_Letter_10.28.090001.pdf

One of the DEIS’s procedural flaws was that it “created” new OHV policies based on public input and developed a “new” purpose and need/proposed action that was starkly different than the original purposed and need/proposed action. Also, the need to buffer out OHV recreation that was near Wilderness areas or other non-motorized land-use classifications was now an implicit or explicit part of the agency’s decision matrix.

The General wants riders to watch for the “buffer” issue to be used on other Forests.
As some of you know, in most Wilderness Bills (including the recent 130,000 acre Lewis and Clark Wilderness Bill for the Mount Hood) there is very strong language that prohibits the agency from creating buffer zones (including buffers for “quiet recreation”) around Wilderness areas.

See Sec. 105, page 73, for Buffer Language in the 2007 Lewis and Clark Wilderness Act
http://www.oregonwild.org/wilderness/new-wilderness/mount_hood_wilderness_campaign/Lewis%20and%20Clark%20Mount%20Hood%20Wilderness%20Bill%202-14-07.pdf

It is important for OHV advocates to know about this very specific buffer language because you will often find local “quiet recreation” advocates cheering for more OHV routes to be closed next to Wilderness or other non-motorized land classifications

Oct. 25 “Quiet Recreation” Guest Column
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/off-road_vehicles_wilderness_d.html

The General urges OHV advocates and local recreationists to be on the lookout for Forest Service units that have created a highly restrictive “closure filter” through which TMR must pass. From what I have seen on some Forests – it may be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for an OHV route to be designated.

Thank in advance for your continued efforts on TMR. It has, and continues to be, an extremely difficult process. Hang in there!