Stonyford/Mill Fire Salvage Project Comments Due March 24

The Recreation HQ wants to alert OHV users who ride at Stonyford to the recent release of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Mill Fire Salvage and Hazard Tree Removal Project.  The 30-day public comment period appears to have started on Feb. 22, 2013 which means that our comments should be delivered to the agency by March 24, 2013.

Link to Mill Fire Salvage EA and supporting documents (we used a tiny URL)

http://brc1.us/mill-fire-salvage


HQ first wants to thank all of you who submitted initial scoping comments on the Project.  Many of you attended a meeting in December on the proposal and got actively involved in the process.  You made a huge difference!

Dec. 18 Blog on Mill Fire Salvage Project

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2012/12/christmas-update-on-mill-fire-salvage.html

 

HQ believes the agency has incorporated our collective concerns in the Draft EA including the additions of OHV recreation staff into the project design and implementation.  This benefits both casual OHV use and the permitted OHV events this year.  HQ will be recommending to BRC that it supports the project provided the agency sticks to its commitment to protect and restore the OHV recreational opportunity that we all enjoy there.

 

HQ encourages all of you to read the Draft EA, Appendix A, and the Recreation Report.  There are many key pro-OHV tenets that we should be supporting.  HQ also encourages you to submit your own personal letter with your own specific comments and concerns.  However, for those of you who are short on time, we have created a short letter that you can use as a template.

 

SAMPLE LETTER******************************************

 

Eduardo Olmedo

Responsible Official

Mendocino National Forest

825 N. Humboldt Ave.

Willows, CA 95988

Attn: Jeanette Williams

Email: jeanettewilliams@fs.fed.us

FAX: 530.934.7384

Re: Draft Environmental Assessment Mill Fire Salvage and Hazard Tree Removal Project

 

Dear Mr. Olmedo:

 

As an OHV recreationist, I am writing this letter in support for the Draft Environmental Assessment Mill Fire Salvage and Hazard Removal Project (Project).  The Forest, Project Team, and Recreation Staff should be commended for working in a collaborative manner to address concerns articulated by the OHV community during the initial scoping period.

 

I support this project as a method to restore a safe environment for public use by motorized vehicles on designated roads, trails, and areas impacted by the Mill Fire.

 

I have reviewed the Draft EA and supporting documents.  Here are my key comments and suggestions.

 

1 - As practical, please retain merchantable sized dead trees and all green trees likely to survive along OHV trails to be used as barriers, trail delineators, and route anchors.

 

2 - Keep OHV routes open for weekends, holidays, and permitted events. Temporary closures correctly should be limited to the weekdays and only on the segment of routes where active logging operations are underway.

 

3 - OHV trails that will be used as temporary haul roads or skid routes must be returned to their current trail state after use.

 

4 - Avoid trails where possible during tree felling, skidding, and hauling operations,

 

5 - OHV Manager(s) and Timber Sale Administrators should coordinate and identify any areas where trails need to be crossed or used. These areas must be returned to pre-harvest trail conditions. OHV trails and roads should remain open except when active logging operations are occurring. Alternate routes should  be made available and clearly signed/identified.

 

6 - There are 4 special use permitted events that take place within the Stonyford OHV area each year; one in late May, one in late October and two in November. These events use the majority of the OHV trail system. Please ensure that designated OHV trails and Level II roads within the project area are open for these events, and that equipment is not left along or near trails and/or roads that could pose a danger to the public.

 

7 - Since the unit’s OHV staff have other duties and ongoing trail projects not related to the salvage sale, I urges the agency to consider alternate resources (i.e. trail crews from other units such as Chappie-Shasta OHV Area, OHMVR/SVRAs, and other Forests) to expedite post-project restoration of affected haul and skid routes back to their pre-project condition/classification including the installation of new or reconstructed rolling dips, sediment catch basins, trail delineators, or construction to restore sinuosity of the route.

 

8 - I also urge the Forest to secure non-OHMVR grant funds to aid in the reconstruction of OHV routes directly impacted by hauling or skidding operations. The use of OHMVR grant funds to restore haul/skid routes would be an unauthorized use of said funds.

 

Thanks in advance for considering my comments and for your efforts to protect OHV recreational opportunity during the project.

 

Best regards,

 

Joe Rider

 

 

*************************************************************

 

The Recreation HQ wants to thank all of you who have volunteered up at the Stonyford work projects and looks forward to working and riding with you once again at one of the best riding areas in the state.

 

 

 

 

Valentine Day Present to OHV - CA State Auditor Releases Park Scandal Report

The state auditor released its report today on the infamous state park scandal regarding the 54M dollar slush fund.   After doing an initial quick review of the 60 page report, HQ believes it shows that agenda-driven “sloppy accounting” had become institutionalized at State Parks and has existed for several decades and through many administrations.

Link to State Auditor Report

http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2012-121.1.pdf

 

HQ believes that an ‘accounting subculture’ comprised of non-appointed 2^nd and 3^rd tier bureaucrats

had devised this scheme to create an internal slush fund for reasons not clearly identified in the 60-page report.
 

OHV recreationists owe a great deal of thanks for the work that OHV lobbyist Terry McHale did last year along with a number of OHV representatives.  The OHV program in 2013 is in much better shape because of those efforts.

 

Link to video and other info in last year’s scandal fight in Sac.

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2012/08/ca-ohv-trust-fund-battle-remains-hot.html
 

The only good news in this story is that Governor Brown has appointed General Anthony Jackson to bring accountability and transparency to Parks. 

 

QWR/Amador blog on the appointment of General Jackson

http://quietwarriorracing.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-ca-state-park-director-service.html
 

HQ believes that the final chapter on this issue has yet to be written.  Also, we want to thank all of you who sent in letters and made phone calls last year to the Governor’s Office – it did make a difference!

 

See you on the trail.

 

Don

 

RAC Members Needed for OR Dunes/Siuslaw NF

The Siuslaw National Forest which oversees the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area recently announced they are reconvening (absent for many years) their Resource Advisory Committee (RAC).   Applications are due Feb. 28, 2013.

RAC Announcement including Application Form

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/siuslaw/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5408349

 

According to a Forest News Release on Jan. 31, 2013, The Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee consists of 15 members and three non-voting alternates representing a wide array of interest. Committee duties include reviewing proposed land management projects on, or adjacent to, the Siuslaw National Forest. The committee recommends funding up to $1 million of forest management projects and coordinates with land management agency and county officials.

 

Committee members serve upon appointment by the Secretary of Agriculture without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses. Members must be Oregon residents, preferably, but not necessarily, living in Yamhill, Tillamook, Lincoln, Benton, Lane, Douglas or Coos counties.

 Interim Forest Supervisor George Buckingham emphasized, “I am very interested and committed to ensuring members of the Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee represent the diversity of our communities.”

The geographic boundary of the Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee covers the entire Siuslaw National Forest.

 

The Recreation HQ believes the agency is being motivated to restart the RAC based on a large number of comment letters from various stakeholders (e.g. OHV groups, county govt., civic orgs, businesses, etc.) which cited the lack of outreach (and no RAC) by the Forest at the Oregon Dunes and elsewhere.

 

HQ  encourages civic minded leaders and advocates in the following categories to send in an application to serve on the RAC.

 

Category A: (five regular members and one replacement) who represent one or more of the following interests:

 Organized labor or non-timber forest product harvester groups

 Developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle, commercial recreation
 Energy and mineral development
 Commercial or recreational fishing
 Commercial timber industry
 Federal grazing permit holders or land use permit holders with the Resource Advisory Committee area.
 

Category B: (five regular members and one replacement) who represent on or more of the following interests):

 Nationally recognized environmental organizations

 Regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations
 Dispersed recreation
 Archaeological and historical interest
 National or regionally recognized wild horse or burro groups, wildlife or hunting organizations or watershed associations

Category C: (five regular members and one replacement) who represent one or more of the following interests):

 State-elected office holders

 County or local elected officials
 American Indian tribal representatives from tribes within or adjacent to Resource Advisory Committee areas
 School officials or teachers
 Citizens representing the affected public at large

 

We get the government we deserve and right now it is important for those of you in the affected area to get involved with good government.   Be part of the solution!

Chamber of Commerce Joins Fight at the OR Dunes

The "Future" of OHV at OR Dunes if You Don't Join the Fight

 

The Recreation HQ wants to remind fans of the OR Dunes to send in your comment letters by Jan. 24, 2013.  BRC has created a letter generator to make it easy to send in comments.  They will be routed to the Forest Service official email address and you should get a confirmation that your letter was received.

 

Direct Link to BRC’s OR Dunes Letter Generator (you can add your own specific comments about how you use and enjoy the Dunes)

http://www.sharetrails.org/issues/rapid-response-center

 

Also, HQ wants to let you know that a number of businesses and/or their associations have sent in letters about how important OHV recreation is to the local economy.

 

Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce Comment Letter

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Roseburg_chamber_OR_dunes_SEIS.pdf

 

Again, please send in your comment letter and fwd this alert to your rider network.  If you are a business that depends on OHV recreation at the Dunes… please have all your employees send in a comment letter.

 

Let’s all continue the fight to protect responsible OHV recreation at the OR Dunes!

CODE RED OR DUNES ALERT - Comment Letters Needed Today!

The Recreation HQ is issuing its first CODE RED Action Alert for 2013.  HQ is asking all riders and OHV businesses that depend on recreational access to the OR Dunes, to STOP what you are doing and take 2 minutes to send a comment letter to the Forest Service’s travel planning process at the OR Dunes. OHV dune enthusiasts from across the county (even Europe and Asia) make the OR Dunes a destination site to visit.  Active military often spend their entire leave with their families and friends at the dunes.

 

Between 1972 and 2011, the acreage available for open OHV use has been reduced from 28,000 acres down to just below 6,000 acres.  Just 20 percent of the NRA is available for legal OHV use today.  Over time, that number will dwindle to practically nothing if you don’t act now.

 

BRC is making it easy for you (and your network) to send in a comment letter which is due January 24, 2013.  Anti-access groups are flooding the agency with requests to close the dunes to OHV --- we must blunt that attack with our own counter-offensive.  HQ understands that the agency is counting each closure-oriented form email as one distinct letter.  We will demand the same treatment.

 

BRC Action Alert with link to Letter Generator – the generator will send letter to the Forest Service
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2013/01/15/oregon--comments-needed-on-oregon-dunes-10c-designated-routes-project-deis
 

OHV is not alone in our battle for access at the OR Dunes.  Coos County has joined us in the fight for responsible access for our families and passed a resolution in Dec.

 

Coos County Resolution in Support of OHV Recreation

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Coos_County_Resolution_Dec.4.2102.dunes.pdf

  

Douglas and Lane Counties are also considering passing resolutions that favor responsible recreation and resource management at the dunes.

 

Again, please send in your comment letter today and ask your riding and business network to do the same.

 

Thanks!!!

 

The Recreation HQ

 

 

 

"Minimization" Chapters Needed in Federal Travel Plans

Yesterday, HQ posted an overview on the issue of “minimization” as addressed (or not addressed) in the recent court decision on the Stanislaus NF travel plan.   This rather new and apparent successful legal argument being used by environmental law firms should be a clarion wake-up call to federal agencies who are in the middle (or just getting started) of travel planning efforts.

For example,  there is a federal unit on the west coast that recently released a DEIS where there is only one or two sentences that loosely address the issue of minimizing motorized use impacts to the environment. 

In light of the many “minimization” lawsuits that have or will be filed, HQ believes that the Forest Service (and BLM for that matter) should devote an entire chapter to analysis of minimizing OHV impacts. 

That analysis should include any post Nixon-era land management decisions that already minimized OHV use or user conflicts per directives in his executive order 11644.  Other efforts such as signing that directs non-motorized users to non-motorized areas, etc. should be considered as well.

Nixon Executive Order 11644

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11644.html

 

If OHV and the agency does not get a handle on the minimization issue… HQ believes that OHV recreation could become so minimalized over the next 10-20 years that it could functionally cease to exist -- as we know it today -- on federal lands.

 

Stay tuned on this issue as the fight for OHV recreation continues in 2013.

 

Stanislaus Court Decision and "Minimization"

By now, many OHVers, federal agents, and other observers of motorized travel management have likely heard about the most recent federal court decision in Northern California.  This time the court struck down the Stanislaus NF 2009 motorized travel management decision.  Contrary to enviro spin, the court largely upheld the decision against the green’s standard boilerplate NEPA attack. However, the Achilles heel appears to be the agency's failure to articulate the way in which it applied the "minimization criteria" first outlined in a 1972 Executive Order signed by President Nixon.  This "minimization argument" is the anti-access weapon du jour and it has become very powerful.

BRC Alert on Stanislaus NF Court Decision (with link to court decision)

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2013/01/08/recreation-advocates-react-stanislaus-nf-court-decision

 

The "minimization criteria" directs federal land managers addressing motorized access to "consider effects...with the objective of minimizing" a variety of factors including damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources; harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; conflicts between motor vehicle and other uses; and conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses.  The "minimization criteria" has been around since 1972 and long received only passing interest, but were included in the 2005 Forest Service Travel Management Rule.  See, 36 CFR 212.55(b).

 

The minimization criteria acquired teeth largely through the decision declaring invalid the Salmon Challis NF travel decision.  This decision was issued in 2011, and is published as Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F.Supp.2d 1056 (D.Idaho 2011).  In short, that decision rejected the Forest Service effort to characterize the minimization criteria as providing broad guidance ("consider with objective of minimizing") and interpreted the language as requiring the agency to show, in its NEPA analysis, how it applied the minimization factors in selecting from decision options for specific routes.  There have been several more decisions that have followed similar reasoning.  The decisions to this point have only come from federal district courts, but several appeals from them are pending before the 9th Circuit and it is likely the Court of Appeals will hear at least one of those cases sometime in 2013.

 

The approaches taken by individual Forest Service units to minimization (and other issues) vary somewhat, but the bottom line is that minimization has been addressed in many Forests under a template that is consistently being found deficient in the eyes of the courts.  And there can be a 3 to 5 year time lag between the time the agency conducts its analysis and completion of judicial review.  So the agency has effectively been trapped- it took a similar approach to minimization in the post-2005 rash of travel decisions, and has just recently learned that many of those decisions were apparently built from a flawed decision-making template.  So in a forest like the Stanislaus we have just learned this week that the analysis completed in 2009 was inadequate, based largely on the reasoning of a 2011 court decision.

 

HQ does not feel the latest round of anti-agency minimization decisions will improve agency analysis or on-the-ground management.  We constantly find ourselves asking, how much can our society reasonably demand from land managers who spend years and millions of dollars on decisions that all but universally have to be redone?  Anti-access advocates are driven by complex forces, but we are confident a true desire to carry out President Nixon's vision is far down that list.  Instead they are prioritizing the claim(s) that will best serve them in a never-ending effort to challenge any balance struck by the agency in a system that rewards them handsomely for producing even a flesh wound in the effort.   But we would be foolish to ignore the trend.  As in all aspects of agency planning, we need to work with the agencies to ensure that minimization is properly considered and eliminated as an excuse to second guess agency decisions necessary to ongoing authorization of motorized access.

As Wilderness advocates in the Stanislaus case argue for the closure of OHV routes in roadless areas… it is important to remember that in a previous case… preservationist interests “defended” motorized access to roadless areas in their strong opposition to the intervention of access-advocacy interests in California -- Lockyer et al. v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 05-3508 (N.D.Cal.). That case, consolidated with a similar action brought by private groups led by The Wilderness Society (“TWS”) sought to challenge the 2005 State Petitions Rule. The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, American Council of Snowmobile Associations and BlueRibbon Coalition moved to intervene. The preservationist plaintiffs opposed, arguing “the interests that the Off-Road Vehicle Groups assert in motorized recreation in roadless areas are not at stake in this action.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 79) at 7 Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 7, 2006) In reaching this conclusion, the TWS plaintiffs summarized language from the Rule and its associated planning documents, stating “[i]n sum, even if the Roadless Rule is reinstated by this Court as plaintiffs request, it will not prohibit a single person’s off-road vehicle use or close a single off-road vehicle trail as alleged by the Off-Road Vehicle Groups’ declarants.” Id. at 5. The TWS surreply clarifies and extends on these conclusions, again saying the “Roadless Rule does not close any existing vehicular routes (ORV or otherwise) in any National Forest roadless areas.” Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Intervention (Doc. No. 100) at 1, Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 24, 2006) . That document goes on to address specific routes of concern identified by BlueRibbon declarant Don Amador and says “[a]s to the two routes Mr. Amador might hypothetically use for ORV recreation … neither route is more than 50 inches wide, and therefore the Roadless Rule would not even apply to them.” Id. at 2.

HQ Blog with more "Roadless" Discussion including citation above
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/08/green-groups-defend-ohv-trails-in.html

Certainly, 2013 will be filled with a number of challenges for OHV recreation… with the ongoing legal battles being front and center in a number of venues.  Stay tuned, it is going to get bumpy this year.

Thanks for your support!