Travel Management for MTB and Equestrians at CA State Parks

The Recreation HQ has long supported the concept of land agencies designating roads, trails, and areas for OHV use.   Although we disagreed with a number of tenets in the 2005 FS Travel Management Rule, TMR is here to stay.  HQ believes public involvement, a genuine collaborative process, sound management tools, and line-officers that are committed to have a quality trail program are key elements to sustainable OHV recreation for years to come.

TMR also includes wet-weather or seasonal closures to help prevent trail damage during wet conditions and that is why it looks like the CA State Park proposal to designate routes and times of use to better manage MTB and other trail users is appropriate and needed.

CA State Park Rule Proposals (Comments due April 4)

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ccr_amended_draft_regulations.pdf

Some units of the Forest Service open and close designated routes and areas to OHV, MTB, and equestrians to avoid severe impacts to the trail system during wet conditions and HQ believes those Best Management Practices should be used at state parks (SVRAs already use wet weather closures and trail designations to manage OHV) to manage MTB and equestrian use.

OHV, MTB, and Equestrian Trails Opened or Closed Due to Wet Weather

I don’t think the MTB community does itself any favor when they oppose the use of modern trail management tools at regular state parks.  

OHV Gavel of Justice - New 9th Circuit Memo on Minimization

The Recreation HQ has been monitoring the issue of “minimization” for the last several years as that term applies to route designation on federal lands.   Anti-access groups have tried to reinterpret that term and the impliedly necessary analysis, and have unfortunately had some success in U.S. district courts.  These victories have been predictably used in an effort to bully the agencies into dramatically reducing roads and trails available for motorized use.

 

The minimization issue was addressed in a recent memorandum from the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in what HQ hopes marks the beginning of a positive trend for access interests on the topic.  That memorandum rejected an appeal filed by The Wilderness Society that asked the 9^th to overturn a District of Arizona decision upholding route designation by BLM land management plans for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.

 

Link to 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals Memorandum on Minimization

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2013/05/28/11-17482.pdf

 

The 9^th found the minimization criteria does not require the agency to minimize impacts on a route-by-route basis.  In the addition, the 9^th agreed with the district court that the BLM performed a sufficiently detailed analysis to fulfill any obligations under the minimization criteria.

 

HQ hopes this memorandum, when combined with other recent federal court decisions, begins to lay the legal and administrative framework for NEPA travel planning efforts to fulfill the minimization criteria without unrealistic agency burdens and inappropriate pressure for the unwarranted closure of important access and recreation motorized routes.

 

By including a chapter in the planning document that identifies how the agency is specifically addressing the minimization criteria, HQ believes the agency can better defend the project against closure oriented lawsuits filed by anti-access groups.

 

# # #

 

Town of Stonyford Welcomes OHV Community Back to the Mendocino NF

Phil Ray (L), longtime resident of Stonyford and owner of Honda/Kawasaki/KTM

of Modesto, and Don Amador (R), owner of QWR and West. Rep. of BRC sit on historic

landmark bench in front of the Stonyford General Store

 

On behalf of the Town of Stonyford, HQ wants to extend a warm welcome to all the OHVers who have waited for almost one year to return to their favorite riding area.  I had a coffee conference this am with several of the City Fathers and business owners who are excited about having the off-road community back on the Forest.   They said it has not been the same with everybody gone.

 

Restored Trail Thru Impacted Area

Actually, it has been a real hardship for the local grocery store to stay in business during the closure period.  HQ is encouraging riders to stop by the store on your way up to Fouts and Davis Flats this weekend and buy some provisions.  The store has everything from fine cuts of rib-eye steaks to 120-link #520 chain.  When you are in there, be sure and say hi to the store’s owner, Trish Dearman.

 

Trail Marker with Vehicle Types Allowed

 

HQ expects the route network to be about 99% open with the exception of a couple very steep short sections off of Sullivan and Little Sullivan Ridges.

New Trail Width Restrictor

Again, riders can do their part to celebrate the reopening of Stonyford by riding only on designated and signed routes and honoring the vehicle width restrictions.  The agency has worked hard to install width restrictors to help the public identify which routes are appropriate and legal for their vehicle types.  The vertical trail markers should also have the symbol of the vehicle type allowed.

THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON YOU

 

 

Have a fun and safe weekend at Stonyford!

 

# # #

 

 

 

 

Former Dep. Director of CA OHMVR Dies at Early Age of 44

Dave Widell - R.I.P.

The Recreation HQ deeply regrets to inform riders that the former deputy director, Dave Widell, of the CA OHMVR Program died recently at the early age of 44.

Here is a local newspaper article on his passing
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2011/08/26/142043/grasslands-water-district-gm-dead.html

Dave Widell also wrote an editorial in “Taking the High Road”
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Dave_W_Taking_the_High_Road_Photo0001.pdf

Dave brought a lot of energy and political savvy to that post in the early 2000s. Even though we strongly disagreed on a number of policy issues including his development of the 2003 California Route Inventory and Designation Process (the precursor to the 2005 Travel Management Rule), I considered Dave a friend and will miss his presence on both a professional and personal basis.

The Recreation HQ wants to extend our heartfelt condolences to the Widell circle of family and friends.

TMR Now Used to "Create" new Wilderness Areas

The General believes that on a growing number of National Forests - TMR has actually very little to do with addressing “repeated cross-country travel.” Rather, it appears to be laying the groundwork for future Wilderness designations by green groups and Congress.

*

Photo: Note mapped OHV routes - arrows point to OHV routes - that were on the 1994 Forest Map that have either been closed by the new MVUM or other decision (click on map for large format)

*

Nowhere is this “Wilderness creation” concept more evident than on the Smith River National Recreation Area in Northern California where a series of agency management decisions over the last decade have successfully to date banned motorized use on once legal OHV trails that were on official Forest Maps.

See Decision on 2000/2001 BRC Appeal where we offered a managed recreation alternative and it was rejected by the FS:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2001/fy01_0079.htm

Just recently, the NRA published its new MVUM. As you may know, The General (on behalf of the BRC) and Del Norte County appealed and won regarding the unit’s attempt to misuse the Roadless Rule as an excuse to close mapped OHV routes in a previous TMR EA. Now the agency has used a provision in TMR whereby they simply identify “system routes” that are available for wheeled vehicle use and publish the MVUM. No substantive public process is required.

If you go to the NRA’s North Dist. Map, you will see a large block of land where use of mapped OHV routes has now been banned or was banned in a previous decision. It is a strange coincidence that public use has been banned of all mapped OHV routes in the High Plateau Mountain/Diamond Creek area and that this area mirrors the exact outline of a Proposed Wilderness Area.

N. Dist. MVUM (note large blank area in center of map)
http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5084307.pdf

Some of you may remember that in the North Coast Wild Heritage Wilderness Bill (HR233) that enviros used the rationale for new Wilderness Areas in areas that had historic and legal OHV use as follows: “…our Wilderness proposal will not close any currently legal OHV riding.” How convenient?

While protecting landscapes that meet true 1964 Wilderness Act characteristics may have value on a case-by-case basis, the OHV community should be alerted to the potential that current and future Forest planning efforts (including TMR) can and will be used to “create” new Wilderness areas out of lands once used by the public on OHVs.
*
# # #

Travel Management - Good Idea or Big Mistake?

At the recent CA State Parks OHV Commission meeting in San Jose, Commission Chairman Gary Willard asked the Forest Service representative for an accounting of the more than 12 million dollars of “OHV Green Sticker” grant funds that were spent on the CA OHV route inventory and designation process (RID) circa 2002-2007.

With more CA National Forests coming out with their DEIS’ – that are proposing to close a significant amount of historic OHV routes - there is a growing number of users asking if the CA RID process and its off-spring the National Travel Management Rule (TMR) have been “worth it” or if we are witness to a colossal mistake.

In CA, the 12 million dollars for RID essentially dried up grant funding for trail maintenance on most Forests for almost 6 years. Many users, including yours truly, were convinced that RID was simply an elaborate scheme by the anti-access majority on the OHV commission to enact the closure agenda of the extreme preservationist movement. Remember, it was just that sort of agenda-driven decision-making by the OHV commission that resulted in the new CA OHV program in SB742. Also, a number of FS staffers privately told me that those who supported the now infamous CA RID process would rue the day the MOI was signed and a “forced RID/TMR” process was imposed not only on the users, but on understaffed Forests and Ranger Districts.

For copy of MOI between State Parks, OHV Commission, and FS go to:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/routedesignation/moi.php

BRC has always supported the concept of designating “roads, trails, and areas” as outlined in the Nixon/Carter Executive Orders. And I, as BRC’s Western Representative, was a strong supporter of the vetted 2005 version of TMR. However, BRC believed that those planning efforts should be based on, and adapted to, actual on-the-ground needs. For example, the Los Padres NF near LA did an early version of TMR in the mid 1980s because they had a lot of use. On the other extreme, the Modoc NF is a very rural Forest in NE CA -with low visitation numbers- may never need to do TMR.

In the lead up to the signing of the MOI in 2003, BRC opposed the creation of the CA MOI because it was not vetted in the public arena. There was no rule-making process that would have ferreted out its now-glaring flaws. BRC also opposed the MOI because it would divert almost all funds from trail maintenance projects for a number of years.

At the end of the day, the question must be asked about the CA RID and the National TMR. Was it a gigantic waste of 12 million dollars of CA Green Sticker Funds for RID and 100s of millions of dollars for TMR? Did RID/TMR really improve the management of OHV recreation at destination OHV areas or in Forests that already had a strong commitment to managing OHV recreation? Was forcing TMR on Forests that had other priorities (such as water sports, timber, etc.) a good administrative decision? Did post 2005 mutations of TMR turn out to be simply a closure tool invented by anti-access groups and embraced by some –but not all – Forests?

Those are all good questions that deserve an answer. A post TMR analysis will be important to answer the question… “Was RID/TMR a good idea or a colossal mistake?”

Mississippi National Forests Pull Travel Plan

With the “paperwork” avalanche cascading down on the OHV community via numerous travel planning processes on various National Forests throughout the country, I want to report a recent land-use victory regarding the Travel Management Project for the Mississippi National Forests.

A Jan. 30 News Release by the BlueRibbon Coalition
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/media/?story=630

The news release simply states that the agency is “…withdrawing the decision to allow consideration for additional analysis to be documented in the project record.”

Major Kudos should be going to the Memphis Motorcycle Club, the BRC, and the AMA for appealing the Forest’s final decision to not designate basically ANY of the historic user routes which came about through legal means when the Forest had an “Open” for cross-country travel prescription.

This decision could have an impact on the decision-making process on units such as the Shasta-Trinity National Forest that recently came out with a proposed action that functionally closes almost all of the historic trails (many of which I ride on and so do the Redding Dirt Riders) on the Forest.

When a Forest arbitrarily dismisses all of the historic and popular OHV routes (some routes even have carsonite trail or road numbers) that came into existence in a legal manner when that unit had an “Open” designation, the agency creates distrust with the users and lays a poor foundation upon which to build a quality trail recreation program. Ill-conceived and arbitrary final agency actions will only create future management and enforcement problems.

The General reminds the troops to stay engaged in the process. Strongly advocate for a reasonable range of alternatives… some of which should include historic and important user created (unauthorized) routes. Develop and propose your own “citizen’s or club” alternative like the Memphis club did. If you participate in the administrative planning process you are in a position to appeal (and sometimes win) onerous decisions that are unfair and unacceptable.

Last year, the BRC and Del Norte County appealed an unreasonable Forest Service decision that arbitrary closed a number of historic jeep routes in the Smith River National Recreation Area. That unit has also pulled the decision and is undergoing a new planning effort… an effort that hopefully treats the local county officials and OHV users with more respect.

News Release on Smith River NRA 2008 Appeal
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1518

Photo by Don Amador – Rider is Mark Story, Land Use Hero from the Memphis Motorcycle Club
# # #

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.

# # #