Are you all familiar with the term "Travel Management"?

I feel this is an important factor for everybody to understand as we move into a new administration. For historical significance, the last Forest Service Chief in the Bush Administration (Dale Bosworth) came up with what he described as the "Four Threats"., which are generally regarded as the four most pressing issues facing federal lands today. I know this because I was involved, and I'll leave it at that. My wife is directly involved with current recreation management issues on National Forests, BLM land, Recreation Areas, etc.

These are the "Four Threats" (to USFS) as directed by Bosworth and his team:

1. Fuels and Fires
2. Invasive Species
3. Habitat Fragmentation
4. Unmanaged Recreation......i.e. unauthorized routes by ATV traffic "causing significant erosion, habitat loss and water quality issues".

#4 is our concern here on this site...."Unmanaged Recreation" This is a HUGE concern for the USFS and BLM in the west; moreso USFS than BLM. This is also a HUGE concern for all the off-roaders of this country who are lucky enough to have USFS lands to ride on (not everybody does, but I do). However, the US Forest Service believes, the use of ATVs is increasing and the trail system is inadequate. Visitors are pioneering their own trails. User developed trails are often not located with soil and watershed considerations in mind, resulting in unacceptable resource impacts.

The point is to get rid of the bad roads and increase the number and miles of "good" roads. Unfortunately, lobby groups glom onto any wording of "road closures" and advertise it as that, and only that, without telling any of the background details.....There is a lot of thought put into these decisions. It is not a bunch of fools in Washington "making decision for us". There is a very robust process called NEPA (President Nixon 1970) which works for the people. NEPA is one of Nixon's greatest legacies to the American people....to be involved in the environmental regulation process and decision making. -So I simply ask that you take what you hear from whatever group is asking you to send emails to your representatives with a grain of salt-. Nothing is as bad as it is claimed and they are desperately trying to get you to do their work for them; for free....this goes for both sides of the aisle. This is their job.

Do your research, learn as many facts as you reasonably can, which will include both sides of the story, make your decision, then write a letter to whom it may concern...Forest Service personell or BLM, etc. [email is generally disregarded as I've said in other posts]. Your state representitive have very little to do with these types of NEPA based decisions. Find out who the people making the decisions are and contact them.

To summarize: Travel Management was developed during the prior administration and is generally accepted as a quality means to limit destruction of federal lands on the most pressing fronts. Resources will be put forth to increase legal trail systems for ATVs and trucks. Travel Managment has not been changed by the current administration so far and will continue as laid out by Dale Bosworth. Much of the road closures you hear about today are the result of Travel Management concepts begun many years ago. Again, all good practices and concepts IMO. Not sure I agree with the order of the threats though.

-Both parties have been very active in this forest management view and both have done a good job with the big decisions IMO. Feel free to reaseach and rebut.

 

Although what you say is true there are several issues that your local politicians can and will help with.
I have been dealing with the FS in my area for quite some time now and have found that the process is not always followed correctly. Yes NEPA must be completed before a change to previous FS plan can be changed. That means that if they close a road, trail or route that was open on thier previous map or plan, the NEPA process must be completed. That is where the problem lies.
1: NEPA not always completed, so public comments have to be made without proper information.
2: Roads, routes and trails being closed that meet the criteria for being left open.
3: FS asked for Routes Trails and roads to be submitted that we wanted left open. But they in turn tell us they do not have the time to look at them and they are closed.
4: Mandate said traditional routes were to be evaluated, but yet they are not even looked at.
5: Here in our area we are being told that submitted routes,trails and roads will be looked at when district water shed studies are completed for that specific area. Some of these Water Shed studies are not even on the radar for up to ten years. This means NEPA process not completed but the routes,trails and roads are closed anyway even though they were considered open in previous plan.

All of the above are issues local and state politicians can and will help with because of the economic impact on the areas involved. Also when the process is not followed one of our best sources are the politicians. Next step is lawsuit. This plan was a Federal Mandate, therefore politicians have an obligation to be involved.

 

Update since the original post.....one thing not mentioned is that the legislature has bowed to special environmentalist interests and bypassed the whole process, and turning anything they like into "wilderness" and forever lock out anyone who is not on foot.

I live at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. We have a very nice set of green sticker legal singletrack woods trails, and a few fireroads as well. But....literally hundreds of miles of street legal only fireroads!

My solution has been to go dual-sport dirt bike!!! I now have access to everything, and even better I can legally ride right from my garage. Any future purchase I make, will have to have a license plate.....

 

Good point Recon, I should have added that. However, the NEPA process can not be bypassed for federal lands (re: Forest Management Plans produced every 10 years or so) But you are correct in that Congress can do it on their own, but this rarely happens without public input. This is nothing new though....they've always been able to do this. So for Forest Management Plans NEPA can't be bypassed, but for Wilderness it can be.

Not sure about the legislature bending to environmentalist interests in the last 100 days. Do we have any examples of this? I don't think any wilderness has been voted on.


That sounds awesome that you can rip out of the backyard and have access to that land. I used to live in Truckee, CA and had direct access to Tahoe National Forest (our property bordered it). We used to ride our dirt bikes and take 4 wheelers into Tahoe City so we wouldn't get a DUI. In hindsight it was probably not that smart, but we were pretty careful coming home.

 

That's unfortunate. We haven't had that situation here. Forest Service has had funding cuts and manpower is an issue for all districts.

I guess they can help a little bit, but they're not going to make any final decisions. They might be able to put a bit of pressure on them, but I've not seen this situation. I believe you that's it happens though.

Not sure I agree with that. The Forest Service was mandated to complete their plans every 10 years. I don't think local politicians have any obligations to that process.

Good to hear some other's experiences with the Forest Management Plans.

 

On the Wallowa Whitman in the Northeast corner of Oregon the term travel management is beginning to equate to shut down, lock out. Over a year ago thousands of individuals provided maps, comments, attended meetings, e-mailed and wrote letters. Union, Baker, and Wallowa counties provided input, suggestions, direction, and more written input. I ended up with a copy of the draft EIS a couple weeks ago. It will not be available to the general public for another couple of weeks.
Near as I can tell the maps and other input of the public was simply a list used to eliminate roads and trails. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is using this bogus USFS effort as a tool to achieve their ultimate goal of total lockout or control of the public. Take a look around your state, take a look around the nation. Control, absolute control of the public and its activities is the objective of the USFS and probably your state wildlife folks. It is a total effort to place individuals in a zoo, easy to control and manipulate, easy to watch over and direct.......Its obvious our other freedoms are suffering also.......at what point can we stop this attack on our spirit and our custom and culture?........Tass

 

I live at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. We have a very nice set of green sticker legal singletrack woods trails, and a few fireroads as well. But....literally hundreds of miles of street legal only fireroads!

The problem we are having here in Wyoming (and this is a county by county decision) is that once the Forest Service travel management routes become final, we are still left with the county roads that criss-cross the F.S. trail routes.

Even though an atv ( registered in Wyoming) can be licenced for public roads, the impact it will have on out of state riders; where they are not able to licences their atv's; they will not be able to ride from trail section to trail section legally. We are now in the process of petitioning our county to enroll the county roads with-in F.S. bounders into the state trail system so non licenced atvs have the legal right to operate on said roads without having to load and trailer them a couple miles to the next section of trail.

As I said before this is a county by county decision and some counties in Wyoming are going this route, but it is a hard sell to get them to do it.
This may be an option for you Reconranger. Go to the source and try and have them designated as part of the trail system.

 

Sorry

My "Quote" form Reconranger didn't come hi-lighted as planned.

Try again to figure that out!

 

Point being: Travel Management = George Bush. Go thank his administration for the current Travel Management rules and all the "suffering" you now endure. The current administration has zero to do with the existing rules. Will they change them, not likely....but they are not the source of your pain.

 

President Obama signed into law a bill which adds more than 2 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System, including lands in and around Joshua Tree National Park and the Eastern Sierras in California, Mt. Hood in Oregon, and Zion National Park in Utah. No mechanized activity is permitted in "wilderness" areas. Some roads and trails were excleded from the wilderness designations and are still accessible, while others were closed. It happened very quickly and didn't provide time for public scrutiny.

In DC they are trying to pass a bill that would designate 19 million acres of land in Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, and Washington, as wilderness areas that generally prohibit roads and the use of motorized vehicles. This bill is primarily sponsored by lawmakers East of the Mississippi who don't understand the usage of these lands within their prospective states. A representative from the Bureau of Land Management also cautioned that the bill may present serious conflicts with uses that may be of importance to the public. The USFS has even expressed concerns with the bill that it is too far reaching. The bill is HR 980.

It remains to be seen if this will pass. If it does, my personal guess is that Obama will sign it. I don't think it takes a prophet for that prediction.

Once again, just my .02 worth.