Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

So I got a call from OHV rec division

Recommended Posts

I wrote the governator a couple weeks ago and had a message this morning from Daphne Green, Deputy Director of the State OHV Recreation Division. I guess in addition to running the SRVAs they're supposed to create statewide leadership and establish relationships with BLM, USFS, etc.

I guess I'll ask her why in Mendocino National Forest, Mike Van Dame the guy in charge of route designation tells me I have to talk to Mike Burmann of the ranger district, and Mike Burmann tells me I need to talk to Mike Van Dame when making suggestions/comments on route designation and what she thinks I should do about that.

While I'm getting the run around by these guys, their idiotic route designation is becoming closer to permanant every day.

Curious to hear what she has to say. I'm guessing it'll be something along the lines of "ensuring responsible, sustainable, ecological :confused::excuseme: :excuseme:

Anything you want me to ask her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like she was instrumental in adding 19 miles of new singletrack at Hollister opening this spring. That's something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

person to person connection and communication is key provided some positive results come of it, be ready to accept very minimum results..........but then once in a rare while actual progress comes form these points of light personal connections we make with the bureaucazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything you want me to ask her?

Gently try to let her know that the general OHV populus is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Let her know the battle lines are forming....

:confused::excuseme:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like she was instrumental in adding 19 miles of new singletrack at Hollister opening this spring. That's something.

Is it opening for sure? Wasn't it supposed to be opened a couple years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There may be some usefull information on their website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/

Please keep in mind that the Mendocino NF is Federal lands and OHMVR Division is a state dept.

Ride on

Brewster

Already have been there read everything and am still trying to be heard. If she has created a relationship with USFS like her job description details, maybe she can help me break through their bureaucratic bullshit.

Both people with the Mendo NF tell me it's not too late to make logical changes but that the other person has to do it. I'm going to try to get them together on a suprise conference call tomorrow. I sent them a letter documenting the run around too.

March 12, 2008

Mike Van Dame

Mendocino National Forest

825 North Humboldt Avenue

Willows, CA 95988

Re: Lake Pillsbury OHV Connector for routes 64 and 65

Dear Mr. Van Dame:

Thank you for your time on the phone on March 3. I wrote you by email later that day and am following up with a formal letter as I haven’t received a response and want to make sure you received my comments and concerns.

Per your suggestion I spoke with Mike Burmann at the Upper Lake Ranger district on March 3 in regard to changes to the OHV route designation in the Lake Pillsbury area. He referred me back to you stating that he believes his office no longer has the ability or authority to make changes to the route designation, but that your office could.

OHV travel is needed on Simmons Road between the southern end of routes 64 and Squaw Creek picnic area/Summer Home tract, or at the least the 1/3 mile section between routes 64 and 65 at Sunset Campground. Currently OHV riders are at a dead end on the southern end of route 65 just 1/3 mile from the rest of the OHV route system.

Opening this section fits travel management plan objectives to create loop opportunities and connectivity with the rest of the OHV route system. This was the logic used to open road M1 on the upper portion of Mt. Hull, which I believe is of the same maintenance level. This will help offset the loss of trail 68 in this area which was closed due to lack of connectivity and loop opportunities.

I look forward to your comments and guidance on how to incorporate this change and decriminalize this logical connector.

Best regards,

"Clack"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it opening for sure? Wasn't it supposed to be opened a couple years ago?

Not sure, I'll ask.

Bill - will do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the added information as to your concern.

Did you submit a document during the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? If you did, you can file an appeal.

This is the process that the forest folks are supposed to follow:

Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/36cfr215_07.html

Hope that helps.

Ride on

Brewster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote the governator a couple weeks ago and had a message this morning from Daphne Green, Deputy Director of the State OHV Recreation Division. I guess in addition to running the SRVAs they're supposed to create statewide leadership and establish relationships with BLM, USFS, etc.

I guess I'll ask her why in Mendocino National Forest, Mike Van Dame the guy in charge of route designation tells me I have to talk to Mike Burmann of the ranger district, and Mike Burmann tells me I need to talk to Mike Van Dame when making suggestions/comments on route designation and what she thinks I should do about that.

While I'm getting the run around by these guys, their idiotic route designation is becoming closer to permanant every day.

Curious to hear what she has to say. I'm guessing it'll be something along the lines of "ensuring responsible, sustainable, ecological :confused::excuseme: :excuseme:

Anything you want me to ask her?

if you really get her, don't waste time by insulting her. Be constructive.

1. where exactly is the balance betwen "ecology" and the "needs/wants/desires" of the off road community.

2. Does the growing numbers in the offroad community mean anything?

3. is the growth of the sport a problem or is the availability of land to ride on the problem?

4. Is there equity in the current process.

5. What is the realistic viewpoint of the commission as to where we will be 5 years from now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. What is the realistic viewpoint of the commission as to where we will be 5 years from now?

With only 2 out of the 9 Commission positions filled, there isn't much to say at this point.

Ride on

Brewster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it opening for sure? Wasn't it supposed to be opened a couple years ago?

We were there 2 weekends ago, and they were having guided rides on the new trails. Maybe tey're getting ready to open them soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys.

Please let me point out that Daphne is not the problem. She is very pro-ohv, but has to balance her position because she gets loads of flak from the greens. Also understand that there is something of a standoff between Ca Dept of Parks and the Forest Service. Daphne supports expanded opportunity in the Forests, but the Forests have their own agenda driven by Travel Management.

Also Mendocino had a different approach to Route Dez. They did theirs under EA's and Decision Notices and did not do a full EIS (correct me if I am wrong). There were still opportunities for comment and appeal, but they are more limited and I think the opportunity has now lapsed. Also they already had a designated system so the changes were very limited. To add any new routes to the system is all but impossible these days because it takes a full NEPA analysis and public comment from the greens will kill it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys.

Please let me point out that Daphne is not the problem. She is very pro-ohv, but has to balance her position because she gets loads of flak from the greens. Also understand that there is something of a standoff between Ca Dept of Parks and the Forest Service. Daphne supports expanded opportunity in the Forests, but the Forests have their own agenda driven by Travel Management.

Also Mendocino had a different approach to Route Dez. They did theirs under EA's and Decision Notices and did not do a full EIS (correct me if I am wrong). There were still opportunities for comment and appeal, but they are more limited and I think the opportunity has now lapsed. Also they already had a designated system so the changes were very limited. To add any new routes to the system is all but impossible these days because it takes a full NEPA analysis and public comment from the greens will kill it.

Additions could come under the original EAs, but that would mean expanding in the already designated parks. those jurisdictions wont expand, because there is no $ for maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the added information as to your concern.

Did you submit a document during the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? If you did, you can file an appeal.

No. I got back into dirtbikes after 15 years when my family got a cabin up in the Pillsbury area about 3 months ago. That's when on my first ride I was stopped by a ranger and told I now needed to trailer my bike on the half mile of dirt roads (in the middle of nowhere) between the designated routes and certainly couldn't stage out of the homesites.

I then researched and found that the comment period was over. I figured there was no shot but called the Forest Service anyway to comment on what I thought was poor planning on the route designation and the managers told me it still wasn't set in stone and that changes could still be implemented.

I'm happy they're talking with me and I don't think they're really trying to pass the buck, I just think they're not sure internally who's responsible for what.

if you really get her, don't waste time by insulting her. Be constructive.

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to be insulting, just thought she could help me through the process. I want to listen for the most part and I like your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another approach that may be easier for the Mendocino NF to implement:

California Vehicle Code

38026. **(a) In addition to Section 38025 and after complying with subdivision © of this section, if a local authority, an agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation finds that a highway, or a portion thereof, under the jurisdiction of the authority, agency, or the director, as the case may be, is located in a manner that provides a connecting link between off-highway motor vehicle trail segments, between an off-highway motor vehicle recreational use area and necessary service facilities, or between lodging facilities and an off-highway motor vehicle recreational facility and if it is found that the highway is designed and constructed so as to safely permit the use of regular vehicular traffic and also the driving of off-highway motor vehicles on that highway, the local authority, by resolution or ordinance, agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation, as the case may be, may designate that highway, or a portion thereof, for combined use and shall prescribe rules and regulations therefor. No highway, or portion thereof, shall be so designated for a distance of more than three miles. No freeway shall be designated under this section.

(:confused: The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission may propose highway segments for consideration by local authorities, an agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation for combined use.

© Prior to designating a highway or portion thereof on the motion of the local authority, an agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation, or as a recommendation of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, a local authority, an agency of the federal government, or the Director of Parks and Recreation shall notify the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, and shall not designate any segment pursuant to subdivision (a) which, in the opinion of the commissioner, would create a potential traffic safety hazard.

(d) A designation of a highway, or a portion thereof, under subdivision (a) shall become effective upon the erection of appropriate signs of a type approved by the Department of Transportation on and along the highway, or portion thereof.

The cost of the signs shall be reimbursed from the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, when appropriated by the Legislature, or by expenditure of funds from a grant or cooperative agreement made pursuant to Section 5090.50 of the Public Resources Code.

................................

Ride on

Brewster

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I'll give details once the strategy is in place and in action but in short, Daphne is awesome and is helping prepare the cavalry. More to come.... :confused:

Brewster - That is a great piece of code. The total milage I'm looking for is about 2. I'd give you gas if they let me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! I'll give details once the strategy is in place and in action but in short, Daphne is awesome and is helping prepare the cavalry. More to come.... :excuseme:

Brewster - That is a great piece of code. The total milage I'm looking for is about 2. I'd give you gas if they let me.

I kcicked some his way for you.:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell her to look up Titles VII and VIII of the 1994 S.21 Act and get them overturned!

What reg's or codes are those in?

Ride on

Brewster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×