Trail Issues

- Treading Lightly, adopting a trail and being respectful of our publie lands is a great start but it isn't enough. we need to fight for our trails.

Step 1 - be aware of what's happening - read below!

Step 2 - get involved, donate or help - just ask.

Step 3 - VOTE for OHV friendly legislators!

 

Help Save Ocotillo Wells SVRA

Special thanks to Cameron who accompanied me out to Borrego Springs for the BLM’s DEIS (that’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement) meeting regarding the “Truckhaven” Geothermal projects.   Download your very own copy of this waste of taxpayer dollars right here folks.

Well there is good news and bad news guys ( and gals). 

First the good news -  Truckhaven isn’t effected by this – and neither is Supersition – at least not by the BLM – although the Navy may still lease some of their land – but I’m not sure that would even effect recreation access (will keep you posted).

The bad news is that while the BLM is calling this area Truckhaven, but it is really Ocotillo Wells SVRA! 

They call the area Truckhaven because Phillips Petroleum drilled test wells out there in the early 1970’s when you didn’t need DEIS and before Ocotillo Wells SVRA existed as a SVRA and Phillips called it Truckhaven.  But if you ask me they call it Truckhaven because they didn’t want to stir a hornet’s nest – well Brother the nest is disturbed!

HOLY CRAP – There are only 8 SVRA areas in California – Ocotillo Wells is just a puny 80,000 acres that hosts millions of visitors every year and they want to lease away hundreds of acres – plus build roads that drilling rigs can get to plus pipelines and then maybe 2 powerplants right in the middle of OUR Park!   You better believe they wouldn’t be doing this in the middle of Yosemite or some other Park – but when it comes to the red headed step-child , that endangered species that doesn’t matter – the Off-Roader… who the heck cares.

This is scary folks.   Just open the attached pdf – the striped area is all Ocotillo Wells – see the big squares – right through the heart of Ocotillo Wells for about 3 miles on either side of Pole Line Road – yeah that’s the area they want to lease!

Flawed science -  Please go to page 105  ( it says 3-48) at the bottom of the page.  And read the section about Ocotillo Wells -  YEAH RIGHT they claim Ocotillo Wells gets 15,000 visitors per year,  PER YEAR!  Um Hello! that’s only off by a few zeros – it’s estimated that Ocotillo Wells draws around 2,000,000 visitors per year.  (I have the  Ocotillo Wells’ Ranger Station emailing me compiled figures going back to the 1980’s of daily visitor counts  - she agreed with me that the BLM’s numbers are quite off).

Another way to look at this is, Anza-Borrego State Park has nearly 600,000 acres of land and is the largest park in the CDPR system, it averages about 600,000 visitors per year or roughly 1 visitor per acre.  Ocotillo Wells has just 80,000 acres yet averages nearly 2 Million visitors – that’s 25 visitors per acre per year.  1 acre of Ocotillo Wells SVRA is MORE precious than 1 acre of land in ABDSP if you ask me.

So, so-far we have the wrong name, way wrong visitor counts and a terribly wrong preferred alternative #3 to lease the heck out of this land – our land – our park land!  Of course we can’t find some endangered species to save our land ( they don’t give a crap about the endangered Off-Roader species), but we can deluge the BLM  and  the State Parks Dept and OHV division who signed a MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the BLM agreeing to only manage the surface rights.   We can help by reading the DEIS and looking for more errors – and pointing them out. And by advocating Alternative #1 – no action!

We will talk more about this but here are the Action Items.

  • Please download and help me read this document – can someone volunteer to read a chapter at least? – that would make it easier and many eyes helped to find these flaws we have found so far.
  • Next – last night was just a Q&A session – no formal comments were taken – which is good!  Because formal comments are being taken in writing – but only until April 30th 2007 – so we have less than 45 days.  
  • Comments need to be sent by individuals not just by the club in general – volume helps, but comments need to be accurate, specific and thoughtful – it’s not a vote – its explaining that what they are doing leasing this land is not in the public’s best interest.
  • Send your  comments ( a piece of paper and a 39 cent stamp is better but email will work) to  the BLM at:

Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District Office

Attn: John Dalton

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos

Moreno Valley  CA  92553

Or email  John_Dalton@ca.blm.gov

 

Please also send comments to the OHMVR Commission at ohvinfo@parks.ca.gov and tell them what you think about leasing our parkland.  (It’s BLM Land managed by the Parks dept).

Heck, send a letter to the Governor too –back in the day he drove a Hummer and may actually have been on our side – but we are still voters and citizens of this state.

  • Get this email out to everyone you know in the Off-Road community – get their help – Please!
  • Do you really believe the government will protect us?

Chuck Seeger

Vice President

Geared 4 Fun Four Wheel Drive Club

IT'S TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN RECREATION BUDGETS

Editorial by Brian Hawthorne,
BlueRibbon Coalition Public Lands Director

The perennial battle over recreation budgets for federal land managing agencies, especially the U.S. Forest Service, will likely have just concluded by the time this issue reaches your mailbox. In recent years, BRC has been watching the recreation and trails line items, working to hold the line against proposed cuts.

This year is no different, although with the new Democratic controlled Congress, there is talk about some modest increases. We're not holding our breath, but that's good news. Hardly a day goes by without Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth reminding us that "unmanaged recreation" is one of the four "key threats" to America's National Forests. If recreation is top priority, we expect the Chief to fund it accordingly.

Recreation and trail budgets are the type of issues where you find typically adversarial interests working together. Whenever these budgets land in Capitol Hill hearing rooms, the trails community quits carping at each other and joins in a grand chorus to see that trail budgets are adequately funded. But recently, BRC's enthusiasm for pushing increased budgets has waned a bit.

As we've engaged the Forest Service in the implementation of the Travel Management Rule, our confidence in the budget process has been shaken. What we are finding is instance after instance where individual field offices either failed to take advantage of OHV funding sources, or flatly refused to take grant money, even after it had been appropriated.

One common scenario is where the agency fails to complete the required environmental analysis associated with a project. For example, Mississippi's Holly Springs National Forest refused to accept $14,000 of Recreational Trails Program (RTP) grant monies that had already been approved with the assistance of the Memphis Motorcycle Club. Although no reason was given in the letter refusing the grant money, agency employees told BRC that staff failed to complete the required environmental analysis in time to accept the grant. The agency had two years to complete the analysis.

Another way-too-common scenario is when agency employees fail to follow instructions when applying for grant monies. In one of the most egregious examples, California's Sequoia National Forest lost a chance at $250,000 from the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Program simply because staff failed to follow the required procedure when writing the grant request. According to Chris Horgan with the Stewards of the Sequoia, forest managers said the mistake was made by FS staff that were new and had not received training on writing grants. Horgan dismisses this excuse, noting that the instructions are easily available on the California OHV Program's website.

As we find more and more of this sort of thing, it gets increasingly difficult to sit still and listen to FS employees complain about their recreation and trail budgets. There are times when the complaining sounds a bit like wailing and gnashing of teeth. Given that the two examples above can be found in just about every unit of the U.S. Forest Service, I'm not inclined to sit still much longer.

BRC will continue to support increased recreation funding, but the U.S. Forest Service must be held accountable for how much of that budget gets on the trails. Individual units of the Forest Service must accurately disclose how much it will cost to fully fund recreation programs in each year's requested budget. If the administration refuses to include full funding in their budget, it should explain to the public why.

It is reasonable to assume that--as Travel Management Plans are finalized--it will be easier for each Forest to take advantage of the various grant programs, but I guess we shouldn't hold our breath on this either. If "un-managed recreation" is a top priority, then managing recreation should be the top priority in the budget, don't you think?

--Brian Hawthorne is the Public Lands Director for the BlueRibbon Coalition. For questions or comments, he may be contacted at: BlueRibbon Coalition, 4555 Burley Drive, Suite A, Pocatello, ID 83202. Phone: 208-237-1008 x 102, Fax: 208-237-9424. Email brbrian@sharetrails.org.

EcoLogic Partners, Inc.
Land, Conservation, and Public Access

PRESS RELEASE

November 15, 2005

EcoLogic Partners, Inc. Files Suit Against State Parks
Over Closure of Coyote Canyon Road

On Wednesday, November 16, 2005, EcoLogic Partners, Inc., a non-profit corporation that involves itself in controversial land use matters in the western United States, filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court against the California Department of Parks and Recreation ("State Parks"), alleging that State Parks illegally closed a 3.1-mile segment of Coyote Canyon to motorized vehicles, and that the closure constitutes a continuing public nuisance that must be abated.

The complaint, which also lists two individuals, Jim Arbogast and Wayne Todd, as plaintiffs, indicates that Coyote Canyon was first used as a road in 1775, when Captain Juan Bautista de Anza led an expedition through the canyon on his way from Sonora, Mexico to San Francisco, California (Norte Mexico). In fact, Coyote Canyon is part of the federally-designated Juan Bautista de Anza historic trail. It also happens to lie within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

Public use of Coyote Canyon Road has been near-constant since de Anza’s original journey. During the 19th and 20th centuries the road was used by pioneers and homesteaders, miners, farmers, ranchers, tourists, and desert residents traveling between Borrego Springs in the south to towns such as Anza in the north. The road was also popular with 4-Wheel drive vehicle enthusiasts. According to the complaint, such public use was sufficient to establish Coyote Canyon as a public road.

Vehicle use of the road, however, came to a halt in 1995, when State Parks adopted a new Public Use Plan for Coyote Canyon which called for the closure of the 3.1-mile middle section to protect natural resources. Since that time, both the north and south entrances to the middle section have been gated and fenced.

According to the complaint, however, these obstructions violate California Civil Code section 3479, which forbids anyone from blocking a public road. The complaint acknowledges that some public agencies – namely Caltrans, counties, and cities – have the authority to close public roads, but that State Parks is not among them. Moreover, even those agencies that hold the power to close roads may do so only in limited circumstances, such as when the road must be repaired or no longer serves the public. No agency has the right to close a public road for purposes of natural resource protection, as State Parks did in 1995 when it fenced in Coyote Canyon.

The complaint does not seek monetary damages, but instead asks that the Court direct State Parks to abate the public nuisance by removing the gates, fencing, and other obstructions and thereby reopening the road.

Although the road is located entirely within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the underlying jurisdiction over the road rests with the County of Riverside and the County of San Diego. For this reason, both counties have been named as Real Parties in Interest in the litigation.

The case has been assigned to Judge Jacqueline M. Stern, North County Division of the San Diego County Superior Court.

For additional information regarding the lawsuit, please contact David P. Hubbard, counsel for EcoLogic Partners, Inc., Jim Arbogast and Wayne Todd. His telephone number is (760) 432-9917 and his email address is dph@ecobalance.biz .