California Route Designation Important Meeting

[TUFFTORQ]

***Please take the time to read this invitation***

Dear Interested Party:

As you know, The Pacific Southwest Region of the USDA Forest Service is engaged in a national travel management program to designate routes for wheeled motorized vehicle use. The purpose is to enhance management of National Forest System resources including motorized transportation systems. As a concerned member of the public engaged in Forest Service issues, we would like to invite you to a special briefing on how the program is going and work with you to ensure your participation in the process.

Meeting topics include:
* Route Designation and the National Travel Management Rule
* Region 5 Route Designation Status
* Participation and Collaboration Strategies
* Open Forum for Suggestions, Questions, and Answers

To facilitate your attendance, two meetings with the same presenters and topics will be held, one in Southern California and one in Northern California. We invite you to pick the meeting date and location most convenient for you. If you plan to attend, please RSVP to cobrien@fs.fed.us to help us ensure adequate accomodation and materials for the briefing. For questions or additional information please contact Colleen (Chaz) O'Brien at 707-562-8849.

Northern California Participants
5pm - 7:30pm Thursday, November 2, 2006
Red Lion Hotel, 1401 Arden Way, Sacramento

Southern California Participants
5pm - 7:30pm Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Ontario Civic Center, 2000 Convention Center Way, Ontario

Sincerely,
Kathleen Mick
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Trails Program Leader

 

[Biscuit]

Thanks for the heads up, both here and on the TrailCrew list. Isn't that election day?

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

I'll be at the Sac meeting. Is anyone else coming?

 

[TUFFTORQ]

I thought Tuesday 11/7 was election day...?

Thanks for the heads up, both here and on the TrailCrew list. Isn't that election day?

 

[Biscuit]

I thought Tuesday 11/7 was election day...?

Doh! I'm off a day again...this is what I get by looking at dates by "day of year" at work all day.

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

Anyone else coming tonight?

 

[TUFFTORQ]

NorCal,

How was the meeting? Any details your willing to share?

Anyone else coming tonight?

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

The meeting wasn't all I thought it could have been. They talked about the new FS rule but I already knew more about it than they covered in the meeting. They spent most of the time talking why they are designating routes, the steps they are taking and about the time line they're following. They also talked about how people can get involved in the process and they used everybody's favorite buzz word "collaboration".

In my opinion there was a lot of talking but not much substance to the meeting. My main question was never answer: How are routes going to be evaluated? They never said how they would figure out what would be open and what would be closed. They said that routes with egregious environmental impacts would be closed by they never defined what these impacts are. I wanted to know if they were going to be using a set process to evaluate routes or what. I would have asked them point blank how they were planning to evaluate routes but I work for an environmental consulting/ land planning firm that deals with this issue (but weren't not working on this project) so I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to ask.

One other big issue: Don Klusman from Cal 4wheel (at least I think it was Don) asked how they would handle routes without easements that started on forest, passed through private, and then continued on forest would be handled and he was told that the FS would not/ could not designate routes on private and would not, as a general rule, direct the public towards private land. This means that these routes would be automatically closed no matter how long they are, how long they've been there, or if the private land owner cares if they are there! This answer is partially right but also wrong. There are ways for the public to get right of ways across private land though prescriptive easements but the FS or user groups would need to go after these easements. If nothing is done we stand to lose a lot of routes.

Well, that's about all I can think of at the moment. I apologize for not posting anything about the meeting sooner.

 

[MichiganChapter?]

The meeting wasn't all I thought it could have been. They talked about the new FS rule but I already knew more about it than they covered in the meeting.....and they used everybody's favorite buzz word "collaboration"....In my opinion there was a lot of talking but not much substance to the meeting. My main question was never answer: How are routes going to be evaluated? They never said how they would figure out what would be open and what would be closed.....I would have asked them point blank how they were planning to evaluate routes but I work for an environmental consulting/ land planning firm that deals with this issue (but weren't not working on this project) so I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to ask...... If nothing is done we stand to lose a lot of routes....

Thank you for the first honest evaluation of these meetings.
I was not able to attend the last one here in Michigan 8 hours away (we evidently only get one chance to talk with these people with a few weeks heads up; as compared with the multitiude of meetings spread out in much smaller linear mileage states) as we just made the trip 'up north' just the week before and family took precedence.
Your California workshop agenda at the very least spelled out a "Q and A" period that obviously wasn't taken advantage of by others around you given the fact that your hands were obviously tied (our agenda listed only the 'buzzwords' you referred to earlier).
My question is this...if the 'community' isn't being pressed (both locally and nationally) to come prepared to these meetings with the very simplest and basic of questions that you raised above....what is our leadership trying to tell us here?
Simply 'show up' in decent numbers....but leave all the actual "intelligent talking" involving our positions on these issues to be articulated by them and them only behind closed doors with these same people?
And if this is NOT the case and actual "pointed" discussions involving this critical plan are indeed encouraged by our national workshop sponsors....WHY IN THE HECK AREN'T EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE WORKSHOPS EVEN 'SUMMARIZED' BY THE NATIONAL LEADERS WHO BOTH ATTEND AND OFTEN SPONSOR THESE EVENTS???

Example:
If I got to a Hiawatha National Forest workshop asking just why all of the community's "shared trails" national sponsors are allowing community resources and time to be spent lobbying NFS personnel for trails that will shut down to the vast majority of our users out there....will this important item be included in the 'summary' of said meeting or not? How about multi-use trail issues themselves being included in the agenda itself 'prior'...to spur INVOLVEMENT in said meetings instead of the dry formulaic 'buzzword' agenda we are fed for each and every workshop?

Another example:
The UFWDA is hot and heavy involved presently in asking some very tough questions involving the Manistee National Forest here in Michigan that may just lead to legal action.

Will these national workshop sponsors USE these important issues and opportunities to get MORE people to these meetings and summarize afterwards for those who don't....or do issues like the UFWDA's argument involving our never-dare-talked-about 60" trail allowance not 'make' either the publicized agenda; a community-driven PUBLIC question agenda for the forest service or a simple 'what happened' afterwards?

Sorry, but if there are national sponsors that don't necessarily "like" the subject of "me-only" vs true multi-use trails being brought up at these meetings for both orv community leader and NSF commentary....then that's just to damn bad and an indication (to me) as to just why the "not much substance to the meeting" comment was finally made above.

 

[Mace]

I'm sorry, what was your TLCA # again Michigan?

From what I read there were individuals that came prepared to the meeting. Was Don Klusman's question not answered? All meetings are mostly fluff, it is the nature of the process. Deal. There is nothing you can do about it. They need to go over the rudimentary items so that everyone in attendance undersands what is going on.

You do not know what happened but are taking everything that you want to push (still not exactly sure what you want) out of context to prove something that is entirely useless..

Stop bitching and just do something about it. Show up to a meeting with a VERY succinct statement that others have gone over to correct your ramblings and give it.

Stop inserting your issues where they do not belong and are not wanted.

NorCal, thanks for attending the meetings!!!

 

[Greg Mumm]

The meeting wasn't all I thought it could have been. They talked about the new FS rule but I already knew more about it than they covered in the meeting. They spent most of the time talking why they are designating routes, the steps they are taking and about the time line they're following. They also talked about how people can get involved in the process and they used everybody's favorite buzz word "collaboration".

In my opinion there was a lot of talking but not much substance to the meeting. My main question was never answer: How are routes going to be evaluated? They never said how they would figure out what would be open and what would be closed. They said that routes with egregious environmental impacts would be closed by they never defined what these impacts are. I wanted to know if they were going to be using a set process to evaluate routes or what. I would have asked them point blank how they were planning to evaluate routes but I work for an environmental consulting/ land planning firm that deals with this issue (but weren't not working on this project) so I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to ask.

One other big issue: Don Klusman from Cal 4wheel (at least I think it was Don) asked how they would handle routes without easements that started on forest, passed through private, and then continued on forest would be handled and he was told that the FS would not/ could not designate routes on private and would not, as a general rule, direct the public towards private land. This means that these routes would be automatically closed no matter how long they are, how long they've been there, or if the private land owner cares if they are there! This answer is partially right but also wrong. There are ways for the public to get right of ways across private land though prescriptive easements but the FS or user groups would need to go after these easements. If nothing is done we stand to lose a lot of routes.

Well, that's about all I can think of at the moment. I apologize for not posting anything about the meeting sooner.

For those who don’t fully understand what NorCal (Nate) is talking about in the latter part of his message:

Fragmentation of trail systems as a result of the lack of FS easements across private property inholdings is a big issue across the Forest System and it represents a large potential loss of valuable and historic roads and trails. In the past, there have been many historical routes that people have traditionally used that pass through private property. On some of these routes, the Forest Service may have secured easements with the owner for the use of the route but, in many cases this is not so. In those cases, it has been a matter of tolerance or lack of awareness on the part of the landowner and the FS has been fairly "loose" in the handling of these routes.

But now, as part of the Forest Service’s recently adopted Travel Management Rule, the Forest Service must designate routes for OHV use. But in cases where a route is interrupted by a private landholding, we find the FS generally reluctant to designate a route unless an easement is obtained or is otherwise legally secured and in most cases that is rightly so. Adding to this issue and making it frustrating for OHV, the Travel Management Rule did not come with funding. Obviously for lack of funding and in following a path of least resistance, the FS is also generally unable or unwilling to expend the resources to take the lead in seeking to secure easements in most of those instances.

This situation exists to some degree in all Federal Lands. For example, in the Nicolet NF in Wisconsin, 4 X 4 enthusiasts are frustrated because their only 25 mile section of road/trail is interrupted by landholdings without easements rendering only 6-7 miles of the trail usable to OHV. In other forests back east landholdings that exist as a result of the way the land was settled, mining or oil and gas holdings result in similar situations.

This so-called “checkerboard” pattern of land ownership presents obstacles for members of the public seeking to recreate on trails on public land. Recently in Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula, a multi-use group of enthusiasts (MI-TRALE) faced just such an issue on what they call their Bill Nichols trail. As I understand it, there was a critical connector link that passed through a section of private property (Adventure Mine) with a landowner who upon discovering the previous owner had filed to have the road legally abandoned was subsequently unwilling to allow 4 X 4 access across it. (Obviously, it is more complicated than that but I am just trying to keep it simple)

The “checkerboard” issue is especially true in much of federal land in the West also because of the way the land was settled early on. In fact, we are even seeing where certain anti-access groups are potentially targeting areas where historic trails have passed through a landholding on the “good-ole-boy” handshake for years. When that land then comes available for whatever reason, the anti-access group purchases it and then as the new landowner, closes the access.

The Forest Service acknowledges at a national level that this “checkerboard” issue is huge for them in the designation process. We are working with them to try and find some solutions but I’m not sure I would hold out for a lot of help from that avenue. I believe the resolutions to this are going to have to be driven from the OHV community on a case by case basis.

We are currently working toward some solutions with our legal team to try to assemble a “toolkit”, if you will, that identifies the various solutions or mechanisms that potentially can be followed. Recognizing of course that in the end, each states laws etc. will govern the mechanisms that can be used and how they can be used, we are hoping nonetheless to develop some guidelines that local user groups can use. We are also working toward setting some legal precedent and templates to this end as well. One such example we are working on with our legal team is a historic trail in Northern California (although I am unwilling to say where until it pans out legally-just thought you should know). In the end we think the “toolkit” for addressing this issue could include a variety of solutions from RS2477, to purchase, and various other mechanisms for obtaining easements. We are committed to evaluating all options on individual routes.

Ultimately, the grassroots organizations working at local levels need to enhance their awareness of this situation and to get involved in trying to sort out individual solutions. I am glad that Nate has brought it up here. Shows some real savvy when it comes to access and that is what we need out there on the ground. As things develop, I will try to keep you informed.

Greg

 

[Greg Mumm]

One added issue that makes addressing "checkerboarding" difficult:

Traditionally, OHV enthusiasts and enthusiast groups have held strongly to the ethic of respecting the rights of private property owners. It therefore begs the question in some cases of, "How exactly do you impose your rights of access across private landowners property without stepping on your own ethic?"

Again... This is a sorted issue that we need to be aware of and come to grips with.

Greg

 

[Mace]

Thanks for the clarification Greg

 

[Greg Mumm]

Thanks for the clarification Greg

My pleasure...

Another good point that Nate brought up in his assessment of the meeting was the issue of knowing the process by which the FS leadership team is going to identify and evaluate routes. Critical stuff guys.

Greg

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

The meeting wasn't all I thought it could have been. They talked about the new FS rule but I already knew more about it than they covered in the meeting. They spent most of the time talking why they are designating routes, the steps they are taking and about the time line they're following. They also talked about how people can get involved in the process and they used everybody's favorite buzz word "collaboration".

In my opinion there was a lot of talking but not much substance to the meeting. My main question was never answer: How are routes going to be evaluated? They never said how they would figure out what would be open and what would be closed. They said that routes with egregious environmental impacts would be closed by they never defined what these impacts are. I wanted to know if they were going to be using a set process to evaluate routes or what. I would have asked them point blank how they were planning to evaluate routes but I work for an environmental consulting/ land planning firm that deals with this issue (but weren't not working on this project) so I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to ask....

Michigan- In the above post I should have stated that, in addition to being a member of the concerned public, I attended this meeting as part of my job. I was looking to see how the FS was planing to handle specific issues, mainly route evaluation, because I deal with it in my job. I'm guessing that the others attending the meeting got more out of it than I did since they were asking their questions and having their concerns addressed.

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

How was the meeting last night?

 

[TUFFTORQ]

I was late but from what I understood and with the exception of Don from Cal 4WD's unanswered question, it was a xerox copy of the meeting up north. It looks like SBNF is pretty much on target and their minds made up as far as designated routes and planning. There really wasn't much changed that we didn't already know about. Seemed like their going through the proper motions keeping everyone in the loop, as they promised.

...and I sat in bumper to bumper traffic to hear about something we already knew . My wife was glad to see me home earlier than the norm though .

How was the meeting last night?

 

[MichiganChapter?]

Michigan- In the above post I should have stated that, in addition to being a member of the concerned public, I attended this meeting as part of my job. I was looking to see how the FS was planing to handle specific issues, mainly route evaluation, because I deal with it in my job. I'm guessing that the others attending the meeting got more out of it than I did since they were asking their questions and having their concerns addressed.

I can very much appreciate that fact and even referred to same here:
MC previouslysaid:
"...Your California workshop agenda at the very least spelled out a "Q and A" period that obviously wasn't taken advantage of by others around you given the fact that your hands were obviously tied (our agenda listed only the 'buzzwords' you referred to earlier)...."

If I mistook how you perceived the meeting as a whole from what seemed to be your very heartfelt and refreshingly honest evaluation here:
NCC said:
"...In my opinion there was a lot of talking ***but not much substance to the meeting***. My main question was never answer:
How are routes going to be evaluated?
They never said how they would figure out ***what would be open and what would be closed***..."

Now I'm obviously the least intelligent guy on this board judging from the verbal attacks that I've received from every single person here right on up to 'the top'(thank you for responding without one, by the way)....yet what is it contained in both your above statement and mine...that Greg simply brushes under the carpet with the following and much more?:
Greg previously said:
"...Another good point that Nate brought up in his assessment of the meeting was the issue of knowing the process by which the FS leadership team is going to identify and evaluate routes. Critical stuff guys."

Again, I'm just a hayseed from the swamps of southwestern Michigan....but why do we have to put up with this kind of 'doubletalk' in the first place...when your very legitimate concern was spelled out so clearly from point one?

Tell me something...puttting aside the 'attaboy Nate(s)!' and diversion to the private land issue....did you somehow 'stutter' when it came to describing the FAILURE (both in our leadersip and the NSF's) to describe and take a position on the single most important topic that we supposedly attend these meetings regarding?

I understand why these guys don't want to publicize "Q and A" sessions in their workshop agendas and keep their generic cookie-cutter nature at the 'peon public' level of nothing but the PC "colloboration" crap you mentioned earlier (see my efforts just to get my meetings published and the way we are talked down to here in Michigan)....yet isn't it ironic that all the land issues I've brought up here concerning simple legal trail widths and who seeks to close down trails while acting outside of the 'shared trails' community....come right back down to the hugely important and unanswered question that you had that evening?

I am simply implying that this is why 'simple' folk with long held tell-it-to-me-straight conservative values have been driven out of this orv community here in Michigan....and I see nothing but more good people heading the same way with this type of "baffle them with b.s." attitude.

As in every forum I've left (or been kicked out of) for simply speaking my mind....you are now all free to assasinate my character without fear of actually ever being questioned regarding same.

Good luck with your efforts and may God bless you all,

John

 

[NorCal Cruiser]

John,

I'm sorry, I must have misread your post earlier, I hadn't noticed when you pointed out that my hands were tied. I just wanted to point out that others attendees did seem to get more from the meeting.

DISCLAIMER: this is just my personal opinion-

I think the reason the FS didn't go into more detail about how they're going to evaluate routes in California because they aren't sure of what they're going to do. They have been told that they need to designate routes but they haven't received much guidance about how to accomplish this task. The FS and BLM are in a very tight spot caught between the environmental groups and access groups while trying to follow many different laws and acts which are pulling them in different directions (ESA vs FLPMA and NFMA). They are mandated to provide for multiple use on federal land but they are told to minimize impacts to the environment. It's a tough job to try to accomplish. We, as members of the concerned public, need to work with the federal agencies to have input on how they will go about designating routes to be in compliance with the new rule.

John, it seems like you have been having a tough time working with the FS in your area. All I can say is keep trying and good luck.

Cheers!

 

[Mace]

As in every forum I've left (or been kicked out of) for simply speaking my mind....you are now all free to assasinate my character without fear of actually ever being questioned regarding same.

Good luck with your efforts and may God bless you all,

John

Did it ever occur to you to try a different tact???

You have the desire to make a difference. Me thinks you just need to direct it in a way that is actually useful