Users of the NM Santa Fe National Forest...

[MountainDon]

You may be aware that this past Juky the SFNF finally came out with their final Travel Management plan. It closed miles of backroads, limited unorganized camping and other things all meant to restrict access. There was an appeal and that was denied in October. Today the NMOHVA (New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance ) filed suit in federal district court.

Below is a copy of their letter....
Maps of the routes left open are here...
Eastside of the forest
Westside of the forest
If you are a user you may see favorite trails have disappeared off the maps. They have no gotten around to erecting the restrictive use signage yet.

The New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance (NMOHVA) filed a lawsuit against the Santa Fe National Forest in federal district court on December 11th. Our lawsuit contests the Forest's Travel Management decision signed by Forest Supervisor Maria T. Garcia on June 12th and upheld by the Region 3 Appeal Deciding Officer on October 2nd.  Filing a lawsuit is a major commitment of NMOHVA's time and money.  The NMOHVA Board thought long and hard about this and then voted unanimously to go ahead with legal action.



"NMOHVA filed this lawsuit on the behalf of our members but it really is for everyone who uses a vehicle in the forest," said NMOHVA President Jim Tyldesley. "Most of the public has no idea that this decision closed 70% of the existing roads and trails, reduced vehicle camping nearly 95%, and virtually eliminated hunters being able to use a vehicle to retrieve game. There are going to be a lot of stunned people next spring when they find out vehicle camping is not allowed anywhere along Forest Road 376. It was the most popular camping area in the whole forest!"



Basis for the Lawsuit:   Every lawsuit is based on an accusation that a law has been broken. What law was broken when the Santa Fe National Forest decided to close over 70% of the roads and trails to all motorized use?   The law being broken is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  When a federal agency closes routes, people might think it is done "under NEPA". But, NEPA itself doesn't "close" anything; the law just requires that the Forest Service follow certain rules when they make land use decisions.  Our lawsuit says they didn't follow those rules. 



NEPA is an Effective Tool: NEPA requires that a full and fair analysis of environmental impact be made and disclosed to the public. NEPA is our only legal defense against route closures that are made when the Forest Service doesn't use a full and fair analysis. NMOHVA's lawsuit is based on facts in the agency's documents. These facts show the agendy violated many NEPA regulations.  Violations include how the scientific analysis was completed, lack of data, and failure to properly examine how the closures will affect the public.



How the EIS Breaks the Law:   If the EIS had been done honestly, it would not propose massive closures, because nothing in the EIS shows that vehicle use is causing significant forest-wide resource damage. There is not a single statement, study or piece of data saying vehicle use caused any specific problem in any specific place. But the EIS is not honest. Here are some examples of what we mean by that:



    * NEPA regulations say the EIS must disclose all the science and analysis and the decision must be based only on what is included in the EIS. But letters from the Santa Fe National Forest to green extremists show the agency decided to close trails in the Jemez Mountain salamander habitat before the EIS process was even started. It is illegal under NEPA to make decisions prior to the EIS. In other words, the EIS analysis of the salamander was just a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that a decision to close trails had already been made.  Those dated letters are in the Project Record. The Project Record is the collection of over 900 documents that is the official record of all the work done to prepare the EIS.
    * The EIS ignores the studies of the agency's own scientists which concluded that motorized use isn't causing significant damage to anything. Those studies are part of the Project Record. Under NEPA, those conclusions cannot be omitted. The EIS made conclusions that contradict its own science. NEPA requires that the EIS be rational, consistent and based on proper science; this EIS violated those rules.
    * The EIS says irrational things. It claims trails must be closed because vehicles could run over a salamander.  But the science in the Project Record says the Jemez Mountain salamander lives underground in rock crevices. The only time a salamander comes to the surface is on rainy summer nights.
    * The EIS rigged the results by excluding over 1800 miles of Forest Service system roads and trails from the study.

NMOHVA has posted a list of Frequently Asked Questions on our website at www.nmohva.org on both the lawsuit and the Travel Managment Decision.  We will keep the site updated with all of the latest news and information concerning this action.



What Comes Next:  It will probably take a year before the case is concluded and the court makes its decision.We often get asked, "What can we do that will really help keep roads and trails open?"  With an active lawsuit on our hands, the answer gets really simple:



What YOU Can Do:  Donate to the NMOHVA Access Defense Fund!



Lawsuits are very expensive and only used when all other options have been exhausted and only when an issue is important enough to commit NMOHVA's limited resources.  We have been trying to work with the Santa Fe National Forest since 2005 and they have refused to listen.  The place to make a stand is here.  The time to fight is now!  We call on all of our members and friends to stand with us and help us fight this decision.

[MountainDon]

I know to many this seems like beating your head against a brick wall, or [deadhorse], but it may make a difference. If we don't complain the only other choice is to roll over and be quiet.

[NM_Shooter]

The only agenda of the forest service is to keep people out of the forest.

[MountainDon]

NMOHVA NEWSLETTER
December 2012
   
NMOHVA's Santa Fe National Forest Lawsuit

We apologize for the late newsletter. As all of you know by now, the first part of this month was consumed by our preparation for filing a lawsuit against the Santa Fe National Forest's Travel Management decision. All NMOHVA members and the rest of the motorized recreation community got a wonderful holiday gift: The opportunity to stop the Forest Service's reckless disregard for NEPA and the chance move them back toward managing for multiple use. With the lawsuit officially filed in federal District Court, we are moving to the "communication" and "fundraising" stage.

"Amping Up" the Communication

We have been actively working on the Travel Management Rule in the Santa Fe National Forest since early 2006. During the past seven years, one of the issues that consistently plagued us was that "the general public" didn't have a clue what was about to happen! That situation hasn't changed one bit even after the Forest Service's final decision.  The agency is getting ready to implement its decision (even while we challenge it in court) and "Joe Q Public" will be shocked when he finds his favorite camping site or trail closed next spring. It won't matter one bit that they have been enjoying the same spot for the last twenty years.

The same is true for the hunters who have historically enjoyed the Santa Fe National Forest. They are going to be stunned when they find out that they can no longer retrieve their downed big game with a vehicle unless it is next to a road. And don't forget, there will be over 5000 less miles of road to use in both the hunt and the retrieval. There are going to be a lot of really surprised and angry forest users.

Our big question to you is: "How can we effectively get the word out to the public?" How do we reach those campers and hunters and other forest users?  We want your ideas and feedback. Contact the NMOHVA board at board@nmohva.org. Each of you can also help by talking to your family, friends, coworkers, etc. and letting them know what has happened. Most of them are still completely unaware that the decision to close 70% of the roads and trails in the Santa Fe has already been made.  It is very important that they understand that the access has already been lost and the NMOHVA lawsuit is the only chance to get it back."

Ramping Up the Fundraising

Get ready. Here it comes again. We will keep beating this drum and we won't apologize for it. Lawsuits are expensive. We need financial support to successfully pursue legal action. The Board very carefully considered the potential costs and the strength of our court case. We believe we have a strong case and the costs are easily justified when compared to what we are losing in access. NMOHVA doesn't get funding from deep-pocket foundations or massive organizations. We depend on donations from our members and other members of the public who realize what is at stake.

Just what is at stake? It is very simple. The bottom line is that the Forest Service knowingly violated NEPA.  They arbitrarily decided to close 70% of the existing roads and trails to motorized use simply because that is what they wanted to do. We cannot let them get away with it. Our lawsuit is the last and only opportunity to change the decision. At this point, the best support is money. Like the communication plan above, our fundraising needs to reach the broader public that will be affected by the closures. Each of you can help by educating your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers and directing them to the NMOHVA Access Defense fund website. And if you have additional ideas on how to help fill our coffers, we want to hear them!

We cannot overstate how important it is to challenge this illegal decision. If the agency gets away with it on the Santa Fe, it will keep happeinging again and again and again. The only action left to "hold their feet to the fire" is the court. Each of us needs to give careful thought to how much it is worth to keep the Forest Service honest and keep the roads and trails open to all of us.

The response and support from our members and others has been strong. Thanks to all who have contributed. We expect the lawsuit will take at least a year to resolve so the need for financial support will continue to be high into the future.  So we will keep reminding you how important this lawsuit is to all of us.

Spread the word and send the checks! It is important work we are doing. Together we do more!

[MountainDon]

To those who believe it is an exercise in futility to contest these things I want to post another item.

Dear BRC Member and Supporter,

Many of our members have already heard the news that, working with Shasta County, Sylvia Milligan and the folks at Recreation Outdoors Coalition (ROC) recently scored a major victory for OHV users with the addition of 100 miles added to the Travel Plan on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

A bit of background:
You may remember how outraged the OHV community was waaaay back in April of 2010 when the Shasta-Trinity National Forest announced its final Travel Management Plan.

I know... we were equally outraged at just about every National Forest Travel Plan in California (USFS Region 5)

Among the (many) problems in California was that the Regional office issued guidance that tied the hands of individual Forest Supervisors by not allowing little if any maintenance level 3 roads to be designated for OHV use.

BRC and other OHV advocacy groups maintain to this day that the Region 5 policy was a clear violation of specific directives contained in the USFS 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR). The Rule, citing the wide range of landscapes and circumstances across each NF, specifically reserved such discretion to Forest Supervisors.

The Regional office in Vallejo thought it knew better, I guess.

The problem of not allowing OHVs on level 3 roads is of critical importance. A Forest's travel plan is a system of interconnected roads and trails. Without being able to use sections of level 3 roads, it cuts the OHV travel plan into pieces, hacking it up so as to make it literally unusable. The result was a travel "system" consisting of disconnected segments of roads and trails. It was completely illogical and, we believe intentionally, 'designed to fail.'

An excellent example was the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California's largest, located in northern California. In a barrel of bad apples, the Shasta-Trinity was particularly rotten. Its travel plan was nothing less than a middle finger salute to the users, residents and counties.

One of the most active local OHV advocacy groups fighting for common sense on the Shasta-Trinity is the Recreation Outdoors Coalition (ROC). Sylvia Milligan, ROC's Chair, and others at ROC went above and beyond in efforts to defend responsible and sustainable OHV use. Sylvia, ROC and other CA based OHV groups were critical in getting the U.S. Congress to pay attention to what was happening:
Trail Access Featured At Congressional Hearing (LINK)
California Field Hearing (LINK)

A huge victory
On November 5, the Shasta Trinity NF Supervisor Sharon Heywood took a giant step forward in an attempt to fix the travel plan, which by now had become nearly unmanageable. But not because the Regional office decided to comply with the 2005 TMR. Instead, Heywood decided to change the maintenance level classification on roads that provided the necessary OHV connections. The documentation is here.

LINKS to other info on this
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/dec/06/shasta-trinity-forest-will-open-an-extra-hundred/?partner=yahoo_feeds

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/dec/08/editorial-shasta-trinity-keeps-its-word-to-off/