Tweet
Dear BlueRibbon Coalition members, supporters and ACTION ALERT subscribers,
BRC's Legal Team has completed their review of the Forest Service OHV
Rule. I'll be posting a detailed analysis on our website later this
evening.
http://www.sharetrails.org
Please do not underestimate the importance of this rulemaking. Given
its potential effects to the OHV community, this could be the single
most important Forest Service planning initiative in decades.
On balance, we believe the Proposed Rule represents a
carefully-reasoned effort to bring necessary guidance to USFS OHV
management. The agency has been reasonably responsive to the
concerns and input we have provided through this point of the
process. Trust me on this, without the involvement of BRC and other
OHV organizations during the early stages, this Proposed Rule would
have been considerably worse.
Further input by those most affected by the rule will improve and
otherwise serve to refine aspects of the Proposed Rule. **READ THAT
AGAIN** It's YOU that's going to be affected by this policy. YOUR
attention to this issue is VITAL!
As I write this message, the anti-access crowd is in Washington D.C.
preparing to distribute glossy 4-color press kits to an eager media.
Their foundation funded lobbyists are already making appointments
with key administration officials and Forest Service employees. Their
obvious intent is to alter the proposed rule so that it becomes a
CLOSURES SCHEME.
Our apathy, our lack of knowledge and our silence will allow them to
succeed. Let's work together to disappoint them, shall we?
If you do your part, I promise we?ll do ours. We are asking you to
forward this email to as many OHV enthusiasts as possible. Encourage
your friends and family to log on to our website and get involved.
Call the leadership of your local OHV club and get the phone tree's
and email networks fired up!
The comment deadline is set for Sept. 13, 2004. For your convenience,
and to facilitate your efforts to get your friends and family
involved, we've posted some info below. There is much more on our
website. http://sharetrails.org
Thanks in advance for taking action,
Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
PS BRC will be posting a "form letter" on our Rapid Response Center
webpage soon. DON'T WAIT! For maximum effectiveness, consider
sending your comments via snail mail, fax or individual emails. Feel
free to use our comment info to help with your letter. Finally, for
super mega-action effectiveness, send a copy of your comment letter
to your Congressional representative. Use our Rapid Response page to
get their contact info (It's easy! Just click here and enter your zip
code http://capwiz.com/share/home/ )
SUMMARY OF BRC MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB FOR COMPLETE INFO AND
MORE COMMENT SUGGESTIONS CLICK HERE: http://www.sharetrails.org
This summarizes BRC's point-by-point analysis of the Proposed Rule
published in the July 15, 2004, Federal Register (69 Fed.Reg. 42381)
by the U.S. Forest Service entitled Travel Management; Designated
Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (the "Proposed Rule").
This analysis is designed to help you participate in the rulemaking
and fully understand its affects on your recreational lifestyle.
The Forest Service is accepting public comment on the draft rules
through Sept. 13 by mail to:
Proposed Rule OHV's
c/o Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 221150
Salt Lake City, UT 84122-1150
by e-mail to trvman@fs.fed.us
and by fax at (801) 517-1014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANALYSIS:
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT IT IS:
The Forest Service proposes to amend regulations regarding travel
management on National Forest System lands to clarify policy related
to motor vehicle use, including the use of off-highway vehicles. The
proposed rule would require the establishment of a system of roads,
trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. The proposed rule
also would prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated
system, as well as motor vehicle use on the system that is not
consistent with the classes of motor vehicles and, if applicable, the
time of year, designated for use.
As part of this effort, the Forest Service is proposing revisions to
36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to provide for a system of
National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and
areas on National Forest System lands designated for motor vehicle
use.
Detailed information is available from the Forest Service on their
website: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GOOD:
* The proposed rule presents broad policy, not "top-down" management.
* The proposed rule avoids unreachable mandates for route designations.
* The proposed rule creates opportunities to include "user created"
routes in the formal designation process but places the onus on
recreationists to identify such routes. The agency and anti-access
forces frequently raise concerns about "user-created" routes and
imply that such routes are illegal and must be eliminated. That is
not correct, however, as many routes were legitimately formed during
"open" management. Many such routes provide desirable and valuable
recreation opportunities, and in some instances might even provide a
better overall access solution than inventoried or formally-approved
alternatives.
* The proposed rule contains important provisions acknowledging the
legitimacy of OHV recreation and access.
* The proposed rule attempts to clarify interpretation of executive
orders which are often used by the anti-access crowd to close trails.
* The proposed rule presents a "wake up call" to the OHV community
regarding the management of OHV use. The rule places a responsibility
on the OHV community to reach out and develop relationships with
forest service personnel when developing and verifying route
inventories and in subsequent travel management planning. in short,
there are no more excuses for the OHV community. We must get involved
or the gates will be locked tight.
* The proposed rule contains a snowmobile exemption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE BAD:
* The proposed rule creates significant and unprecedented logistical
and legal challenges for the agency.
* The proposed rule is supposedly motivated by a desire to address
"unmanaged recreation" but this concern will not be addressed simply
by adoption of any nationwide rule. The organized OHV community
should support the proposed rule only on the condition that an
unprecedented forest service commitment to recreation management
accompanies a final rule.
* The proposed rule leaves the inventory process to the discretion of
local land managers. The rule plainly allows managers to accept
public input identifying uninventoried routes and to consider formal
designation of such routes for vehicle travel. However, the proposed
rule does not explicitly address the question of the degree, if any,
of forest service inventory activity that will precede any
designation process. Thus, under the proposed rule uninventoried
routes may be considered for designation but the onus will fall on
interested members of the public, not the agency, to identify such
routes.
* The proposed rule does nothing to alleviate unlawful abuse of
emergency order powers. Unfortunately, many land managers have seized
on the "emergency" closure authority to effectively bypass a formal
public planning process, implementing immediate closures that have
lasted for years and which have been extremely difficult for OHV
enthusiasts to effectively challenge. If anything, the Proposed Rule
adds to this concern.
* The proposed rule presents a "wake up call" to the OHV community
regarding the management of OHV use. Now, for those of you paying
attention, you will notice this is the same issue we presented in
"THE GOOD" part of the analysis. Why? Because, while Rule give
opportunity to the OHV community to reach out and develop
relationships with Forest Service personnel, it also
has the potential to really hurt us if we don't. IF WE FAIL TO GET
INVOLVED THE GATES WILL BE LOCKED TIGHT!
* The proposed rule creates discretionary authority for some forests
to more formally restrict snowmobile access to designated routes and
areas. The Proposed Rule includes "snowmobile" in the ORV regulatory
scheme, but exempts snowmobiles from the proposed mandatory
designation policy. However, local managers could elect to designate
routes or areas where snowmobile use would be allowed, restricted or
prohibited by using the designation process outlined in Proposed
Sections 212.52-212.57.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE UGLY
The anti-access crowd is pushing hard to morph this rule into a
top-down, impossible-to-implement, one-size-fits-all management
nightmare. They do not seem sincere in their statements about wanting
only to limit OHV's to properly designated roads and trails.
The upshot of their proposal is to close all OHV routes immediately.
They demand every "olo-gist" in the world sign off on every liner
millimeter before allowing any vehicle use. They are pushing hard for
the impossible to achieve "no impairment" standard for OHV trails.
Naturally, they'll demand the Forest Service complete all of that
within a two year timeframe. Miss it by one minute, and you can bet
the farm those foundation funded lawyers will be in the federal
courts petitioning for immediate and final elimination of OHV use.
Let's disappoint them, shall we?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMMENT SUGGESTIONS
* I strongly support the Proposed Rule?s recognition of
vehicle-oriented recreation as a legitimate use of our National
Forests.
* I also strongly support the Proposed Rule's approach of providing
broad national policy guidance while leaving the details of any
decision making process to the discretion of local land managers.
* The agency must reject pressure from anti-access forces to create a
deadline for the designation process or to create specific "one size
fits all" management prescriptions through this rulemaking. It is
inappropriate and unworkable to dictate on-the-ground management
changes through a nationwide OHV rule.
* I appreciate the need for flexibility in the inventory and planning
process. The rule should be modified, however, to require the agency
to acknowledge and fully act upon its responsibility to complete an
inventory of all existing roads and trails. I agree that the public
should be allowed to provide early input into this process,
specifically including identification of legitimate but uninventoried
routes.
* I strongly oppose any national or local deadline or timetable for
inventories. The final rule should continue to acknowledge and
further clarify the importance of user contributions to a flexible
and broad-ranging inventory and scoping process before any formal
route designation.
* The agency's "emergency" closure authority must be better defined
and limited. Some land managers improperly avoid the public travel
planning process by instituting a patchwork of "temporary, emergency"
closures that continue indefinitely. The final rule should clarify
that closures without public notice and input under 36 C.F.R. section
212.52(b) must be documented
by publicly-available monitoring and analysis that identifies the
specific impact(s) and vehicles or uses causing those impact(s) to be
addressed by the closure and cannot remain in effect for more than
one year without formal analysis.
* Please make sure the final rule clarifies that segments of any road
may be designated for use by non-street legal vehicles where
appropriate to avoid blanket prohibitions of non-street legal OHV use
on roads such as Level 3 roads.
* Please make sure the final rule clarifies that any trail may be
designated for use by street legal vehicles where appropriate to
avoid blanket prohibitions of street legal OHVs, particularly 4x4s
and SUVs, on all trails.
* I am concerned about the agency's commitment to effective
implementation of any OHV rule. The rule is supposedly motivated by
a need to address "unmanaged recreation" but good management will not
flow from a whisk of a pen in Washington, D.C. Any final OHV rule
must be accompanied by adequate budget, staffing, and priority to
achieve critical on-the-ground goals.
BRC's Legal Team has completed their review of the Forest Service OHV
Rule. I'll be posting a detailed analysis on our website later this
evening.
http://www.sharetrails.org
Please do not underestimate the importance of this rulemaking. Given
its potential effects to the OHV community, this could be the single
most important Forest Service planning initiative in decades.
On balance, we believe the Proposed Rule represents a
carefully-reasoned effort to bring necessary guidance to USFS OHV
management. The agency has been reasonably responsive to the
concerns and input we have provided through this point of the
process. Trust me on this, without the involvement of BRC and other
OHV organizations during the early stages, this Proposed Rule would
have been considerably worse.
Further input by those most affected by the rule will improve and
otherwise serve to refine aspects of the Proposed Rule. **READ THAT
AGAIN** It's YOU that's going to be affected by this policy. YOUR
attention to this issue is VITAL!
As I write this message, the anti-access crowd is in Washington D.C.
preparing to distribute glossy 4-color press kits to an eager media.
Their foundation funded lobbyists are already making appointments
with key administration officials and Forest Service employees. Their
obvious intent is to alter the proposed rule so that it becomes a
CLOSURES SCHEME.
Our apathy, our lack of knowledge and our silence will allow them to
succeed. Let's work together to disappoint them, shall we?
If you do your part, I promise we?ll do ours. We are asking you to
forward this email to as many OHV enthusiasts as possible. Encourage
your friends and family to log on to our website and get involved.
Call the leadership of your local OHV club and get the phone tree's
and email networks fired up!
The comment deadline is set for Sept. 13, 2004. For your convenience,
and to facilitate your efforts to get your friends and family
involved, we've posted some info below. There is much more on our
website. http://sharetrails.org
Thanks in advance for taking action,
Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
PS BRC will be posting a "form letter" on our Rapid Response Center
webpage soon. DON'T WAIT! For maximum effectiveness, consider
sending your comments via snail mail, fax or individual emails. Feel
free to use our comment info to help with your letter. Finally, for
super mega-action effectiveness, send a copy of your comment letter
to your Congressional representative. Use our Rapid Response page to
get their contact info (It's easy! Just click here and enter your zip
code http://capwiz.com/share/home/ )
SUMMARY OF BRC MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB FOR COMPLETE INFO AND
MORE COMMENT SUGGESTIONS CLICK HERE: http://www.sharetrails.org
This summarizes BRC's point-by-point analysis of the Proposed Rule
published in the July 15, 2004, Federal Register (69 Fed.Reg. 42381)
by the U.S. Forest Service entitled Travel Management; Designated
Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (the "Proposed Rule").
This analysis is designed to help you participate in the rulemaking
and fully understand its affects on your recreational lifestyle.
The Forest Service is accepting public comment on the draft rules
through Sept. 13 by mail to:
Proposed Rule OHV's
c/o Content Analysis Team
P.O. Box 221150
Salt Lake City, UT 84122-1150
by e-mail to trvman@fs.fed.us
and by fax at (801) 517-1014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANALYSIS:
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT IT IS:
The Forest Service proposes to amend regulations regarding travel
management on National Forest System lands to clarify policy related
to motor vehicle use, including the use of off-highway vehicles. The
proposed rule would require the establishment of a system of roads,
trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. The proposed rule
also would prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated
system, as well as motor vehicle use on the system that is not
consistent with the classes of motor vehicles and, if applicable, the
time of year, designated for use.
As part of this effort, the Forest Service is proposing revisions to
36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to provide for a system of
National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and
areas on National Forest System lands designated for motor vehicle
use.
Detailed information is available from the Forest Service on their
website: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GOOD:
* The proposed rule presents broad policy, not "top-down" management.
* The proposed rule avoids unreachable mandates for route designations.
* The proposed rule creates opportunities to include "user created"
routes in the formal designation process but places the onus on
recreationists to identify such routes. The agency and anti-access
forces frequently raise concerns about "user-created" routes and
imply that such routes are illegal and must be eliminated. That is
not correct, however, as many routes were legitimately formed during
"open" management. Many such routes provide desirable and valuable
recreation opportunities, and in some instances might even provide a
better overall access solution than inventoried or formally-approved
alternatives.
* The proposed rule contains important provisions acknowledging the
legitimacy of OHV recreation and access.
* The proposed rule attempts to clarify interpretation of executive
orders which are often used by the anti-access crowd to close trails.
* The proposed rule presents a "wake up call" to the OHV community
regarding the management of OHV use. The rule places a responsibility
on the OHV community to reach out and develop relationships with
forest service personnel when developing and verifying route
inventories and in subsequent travel management planning. in short,
there are no more excuses for the OHV community. We must get involved
or the gates will be locked tight.
* The proposed rule contains a snowmobile exemption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE BAD:
* The proposed rule creates significant and unprecedented logistical
and legal challenges for the agency.
* The proposed rule is supposedly motivated by a desire to address
"unmanaged recreation" but this concern will not be addressed simply
by adoption of any nationwide rule. The organized OHV community
should support the proposed rule only on the condition that an
unprecedented forest service commitment to recreation management
accompanies a final rule.
* The proposed rule leaves the inventory process to the discretion of
local land managers. The rule plainly allows managers to accept
public input identifying uninventoried routes and to consider formal
designation of such routes for vehicle travel. However, the proposed
rule does not explicitly address the question of the degree, if any,
of forest service inventory activity that will precede any
designation process. Thus, under the proposed rule uninventoried
routes may be considered for designation but the onus will fall on
interested members of the public, not the agency, to identify such
routes.
* The proposed rule does nothing to alleviate unlawful abuse of
emergency order powers. Unfortunately, many land managers have seized
on the "emergency" closure authority to effectively bypass a formal
public planning process, implementing immediate closures that have
lasted for years and which have been extremely difficult for OHV
enthusiasts to effectively challenge. If anything, the Proposed Rule
adds to this concern.
* The proposed rule presents a "wake up call" to the OHV community
regarding the management of OHV use. Now, for those of you paying
attention, you will notice this is the same issue we presented in
"THE GOOD" part of the analysis. Why? Because, while Rule give
opportunity to the OHV community to reach out and develop
relationships with Forest Service personnel, it also
has the potential to really hurt us if we don't. IF WE FAIL TO GET
INVOLVED THE GATES WILL BE LOCKED TIGHT!
* The proposed rule creates discretionary authority for some forests
to more formally restrict snowmobile access to designated routes and
areas. The Proposed Rule includes "snowmobile" in the ORV regulatory
scheme, but exempts snowmobiles from the proposed mandatory
designation policy. However, local managers could elect to designate
routes or areas where snowmobile use would be allowed, restricted or
prohibited by using the designation process outlined in Proposed
Sections 212.52-212.57.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE UGLY
The anti-access crowd is pushing hard to morph this rule into a
top-down, impossible-to-implement, one-size-fits-all management
nightmare. They do not seem sincere in their statements about wanting
only to limit OHV's to properly designated roads and trails.
The upshot of their proposal is to close all OHV routes immediately.
They demand every "olo-gist" in the world sign off on every liner
millimeter before allowing any vehicle use. They are pushing hard for
the impossible to achieve "no impairment" standard for OHV trails.
Naturally, they'll demand the Forest Service complete all of that
within a two year timeframe. Miss it by one minute, and you can bet
the farm those foundation funded lawyers will be in the federal
courts petitioning for immediate and final elimination of OHV use.
Let's disappoint them, shall we?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMMENT SUGGESTIONS
* I strongly support the Proposed Rule?s recognition of
vehicle-oriented recreation as a legitimate use of our National
Forests.
* I also strongly support the Proposed Rule's approach of providing
broad national policy guidance while leaving the details of any
decision making process to the discretion of local land managers.
* The agency must reject pressure from anti-access forces to create a
deadline for the designation process or to create specific "one size
fits all" management prescriptions through this rulemaking. It is
inappropriate and unworkable to dictate on-the-ground management
changes through a nationwide OHV rule.
* I appreciate the need for flexibility in the inventory and planning
process. The rule should be modified, however, to require the agency
to acknowledge and fully act upon its responsibility to complete an
inventory of all existing roads and trails. I agree that the public
should be allowed to provide early input into this process,
specifically including identification of legitimate but uninventoried
routes.
* I strongly oppose any national or local deadline or timetable for
inventories. The final rule should continue to acknowledge and
further clarify the importance of user contributions to a flexible
and broad-ranging inventory and scoping process before any formal
route designation.
* The agency's "emergency" closure authority must be better defined
and limited. Some land managers improperly avoid the public travel
planning process by instituting a patchwork of "temporary, emergency"
closures that continue indefinitely. The final rule should clarify
that closures without public notice and input under 36 C.F.R. section
212.52(b) must be documented
by publicly-available monitoring and analysis that identifies the
specific impact(s) and vehicles or uses causing those impact(s) to be
addressed by the closure and cannot remain in effect for more than
one year without formal analysis.
* Please make sure the final rule clarifies that segments of any road
may be designated for use by non-street legal vehicles where
appropriate to avoid blanket prohibitions of non-street legal OHV use
on roads such as Level 3 roads.
* Please make sure the final rule clarifies that any trail may be
designated for use by street legal vehicles where appropriate to
avoid blanket prohibitions of street legal OHVs, particularly 4x4s
and SUVs, on all trails.
* I am concerned about the agency's commitment to effective
implementation of any OHV rule. The rule is supposedly motivated by
a need to address "unmanaged recreation" but good management will not
flow from a whisk of a pen in Washington, D.C. Any final OHV rule
must be accompanied by adequate budget, staffing, and priority to
achieve critical on-the-ground goals.