Summary of 1/27/09 Radio Show – 95.9 FM KNLF Quincy

Mike Lazzarino, Sierra Access Coalition Spokesman

Ron Trumbo, KNLF Host

“This isn’t just about OHVs” (Off-Highway Vehicles). It’s about camping, firewood cutting, hunting, fishing, hiking, and many other uses of the forest that rely on vehicle access. This plan doesn’t restrict use of “system roads”, which are the main roads. It restricts use of many of the other roads and trails in the forest, such as dead end spurs that firewood cutters use.

The “Route Designation Project”, which has since been renamed “Travel Management Plan” as it has proceeded through the process, began during the Nixon Administration. The Forest Service felt that off-road vehicles needed to be controlled on National Forest lands. National Forests near high population areas, such as the Cleveland National Forest, needed regulations to prevent cross country travel that was causing resource damage. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach has been applied across California.

Ron Trumbo asked Mike which areas of the forest have been hardest hit through this process. The Westside of the Plumas has taken the hardest hit. The difference between Ranger Districts (Feather River RD, Mt Hough RD, and Beckwourth RD) appears primarily to be the difference between hydrologists and their personal bias.

During public scoping, 1109 miles of existing routes (trails and roads) were inventoried by the USFS, contractors, and the public. Of those 1109 miles, only 404 miles have been surveyed on the ground. The rest of those miles were eliminated before they were even looked at. We are currently down to 172 miles that are being proposed to be added into the transportation system immediately, if the decision is signed. The USFS says additional routes might be added later if mitigation work is done on them.

SAC has been encouraging the USFS to do a good plan that brings together tourism and local use. The USFS preferred alternative will impact tourism, recreation, and the local economy because of the limited miles that will be available for public use. Out of the 404 miles that were considered by the USFS, only 251 miles are included in the preferred alternative. 173 of those miles will be available if the decision is signed – the remainder of the mileage might be added later if/when mitigation work is completed.

If the same percentage of the 1109 miles that have been surveyed by the USFS was applied to the total mileage, we would have 689 miles available, with 477 available immediately with the difference in mileage added later after mitigation was complete. A complete analysis was not done on all the routes that were inventoried.

Under Alternative 5 (the USFS preferred alternative), only 15% of the existing routes will be allowed for public use. The rest will be restricted. Some routes were originally eliminated because they were “redundant” but when other routes were eliminated, they original routes were no long redundant. It appears there have been some flaws in the analysis process.

A national off-road vehicle group has been in contact with SAC, urging us to accept the USFS proposal as is. SAC doesn’t feel that is what it’s members wants. The California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA) has been very supportive of SAC and we are working closely with them on the Plumas plan.

In the first few pages of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) it states that the USFS inventoried 91 dispersed campsites (camping outside of developed campgrounds), but that dispersed camping is outside of the scope of this project and would not be analyzed. However, reading a few more pages into the document it is apparent that only 31 of the inventoried dispersed campsite will be left open for public use.

Paradise Ridge Riders is an excellent environmentally-conscious trails group. At first, they were reluctant to disclose their trails to the USFS but SAC convinced them to submit their routes to the USFS. As a result, they are losing approx. 200 miles of great trails.

The DEIS calls existing routes (roads and trails) “unauthorized routes”, which places a stigma on them. In reality, they were created legally because the forest was open to cross country at the time they were created. Most of the routes were temporary skid trails and roads for timber sales.

Maintenance level 3 roads are main graveled roads. SAC feels that use of these roads has not been addressed properly. SAC feels that these roads should be analyzed for mixed use because the California Vehicle Code (CVC) doesn’t apply to them, as verified in writing by the California Highway Patrol. The USFS feels that a mixed use analysis needs to be done on these roads before green stickered vehicles can be allowed on them. SAC disagrees with this position. The Modoc NF has designated 538 miles of their road system for mixed use. The Plumas NF has only designated 11.3 miles of road for mixed use. This is approx. only 2% of the level 3 road system on the Plumas NF.

Plumas County is still working on an ordinance that will make all non-residential unpaved roads open to mixed use. SAC urges the USFS to do the same.

SAC has been working weekly with the USFS throughout the process, since 2003. Just when we feel like we’re getting somewhere with them, they slam us down.

Plumas doesn’t have resource damage to the extent that the southern California forests have. SAC feels that we should be treated differently because a “one size fits all” approach isn’t reasonable. The regulations allow the different forests to have some flexibility, but the Plumas is not doing this. SAC feels that the public should have OHV access from campgrounds to the surrounding forest, we should have good loops that will attract recreational tourism, hunting, fishing, and other public uses that will benefit our local economy. The Plumas could have one of the best plans in California, and it was headed in that direction early on in the process. But the USFS preferred alternative is not the good plan that we had hoped it would be.

Firewood cutting is a big issue. The USFS thinks there’s enough wood available on the main system roads. But the “easy wood” roads have been eliminated. Woodcutters know that firewood is most available on dead end spurs that are less traveled. A called asked if commercial woodcutting would be impacted by this. Mike speculated that commercial forest uses would probably be negotiated at the Ranger District, and might be allowed under permit. But non-commercial wood cutting will definitely be impacted.

A caller said that USFS signs call the Plumas “Land of Many Uses” but that doesn’t appear to apply any more. The same caller asked if people with disabilities have been considered. Mike said that SAC is working on that issue, not only for physically disabled people but also for older people. The caller said that horses, bicycles, and hikers also cause erosion. Older people will be locked out of the woods because they can’t hike like younger people can.

Another called said that the USFS has public meetings, but that the decision has already been made before the meeting even start. The general public feeling is that the USFS can’t be trusted, based on past history. They do what they want to do. Evidence of this is the way that the timber industry has been treated over the last few decades. The general public feels that the UFSF has earned distrust.

Hunting and game retrieval is an issue. SAC feel that hunters should have the right to retrieve their game further than 100’ off the road.

Many of the roads that have been submitted by the public throughout this process have been lost or ignored. The USFS has said that routes can be resubmitted at a later date. But we all know that isn’t going to happen. According to their own USFS Handbook, they say there’s a 5-year timeline to get routes added to the transportation system.

Another caller said that everything the USFS does doesn’t get better, it just gets worse over time. Many people feel that snowmobiles will be the next thing to be restricted from National Forests. 90% of the cross-country skiers that are seen in the woods are on groomed trails, which are paid for by green sticker money, so they’re getting a “free ride” at the expense of snowmobilers. There is a fear that snowmobile restrictions are next. The caller felt that the USFS made up their minds before this process even started. But the public needs to keep fighting for our rights. The USFS has proven themselves to be guilty time and time again. There is a definite distrust. Pena lied to the public at the beginning of this project. The USFS hasn’t given the public any reason to trust them throughout this process. The rules keep changing.

Mike said that a little bit of good has come out of this process, such as a better policy for informing the public of proposed decommissioning of roads and trails.

SAC was almost ready to accept Alternative 2, with some modifications. But then the USFS came out with Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative, which eliminated a lot of routes. This was disheartening and created distrust.

SAC is developing their own proposal, which they will submit to the USFS for consideration. None of the USFS alternatives address fixing the resource damage that has been caused by cross-country travel. This is important, and SAC feels that the land management agency should be considering these impacts. So the SAC proposal will include a plan for restoration of resource damage, creation of a cohesive trail system that will attract tourism and recreation uses, as well as providing local people with firewood and camping opportunities. SAC wants everybody to walk away from this process happy.

Litigation might have to happen if the USFS won’t work with us. We have major California groups standing behind us and supporting us.

What SAC needs:

· We need the public to write letters to the USFS. SAC has made this easy by going to their website and using the letter generator. Don’t forget to bc: your letters to SAC.

· We need to submit substantive comments, based in science and fact rather than personal opinion.

· SAC is willing to sponsor a Letter Writing Workshop to help people write their letters, if that’s what they want. We can help! Let us know if that’s what you want.

· Send us money! We probably won’t raise enough money to hire our own lawyer, but we can partner with other groups that are willing to help us.

· Maps are available at all USFS offices, at DuPont Power Tool, and on the SAC website.

SAC is trying to locate the routes that are missing from the original survey. It’s difficult to address these routes because they have been dropped from the maps and are no longer numbered.

SAC believes that none of the proposed alternatives are sufficient to stop cross country travel. It will take a good system of trails and roads to meet the public’s needs. So SAC is proposing a new alternative that will meet the public’s needs as well as repair resource damage that has been done in the past.

Ron Trumbo felt that there hasn’t been enough publicity in local newspapers to let the public know what’s happening.

The Plumas County Board of Supervisors is involved and we hope they’ll help.

Ron feels that until the public goes out in the woods and see the actual closures, they won’t believe it until they see it.

Another caller asked if there is a map that shows which of the inventoried routes have been omitted. Mike responded that Alternative 1 shows the location of all routes, but there are no identification numbers related to them which makes it impossible to comment on them. SAC has requested a map that gives this information, but hasn’t received the data yet. This is a flaw in the DEIS. There is no list of the routes that have been dropped.

The USFS had going through the process saying that Alternative 2 was their proposed alternative, while they were working with SAC and other groups. Then recently in the process, they changed their proposal to Alternative 5, which is more restrictive and is not what SAC members were working for. The caller said they feel that the USFS is trying to wear us down and make us give up. Mike said he’s not giving up.

The Forest Supervisor has the authority to choose any alternative she wants. But the Regional Office puts pressure on the local Forests so they have less of a decision on what happens. At one time, early in the process, it looked like the Plumas was going to be one of the best plans in California. This is no longer the case.

Another caller said that when the USFS pushes, we need to push back and put their feet to the fire. SAC isn’t as backed financially as well as the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Earth Island Institute, and others. The caller thought that SAC is being too polite and that the USFS doesn’t understand “polite”. The caller said SAC should take our case to the new President and to the Plumas Co. Board of Supervisors. “Sock it to ‘em”, she said. Mike said he intends to defend SAC members’ interests.

SAC doesn’t advocate routes in roadless or wilderness areas. Different groups’ interests should be respected. But SAC’s should be, too.

Mike had 20 minutes of one-on-one time with Randy Moore, Regional Forester last year when he was in Quincy. At the time, Mike felt that Randy was hearing SAC’s concerns but it has become apparent that he didn’t hear. SAC believes that the Regional Office staff is incompetent. Some Plumas planners are trying to get a good plan proposed, but the Regional Office is dictating how things will be done.