Fall '05: Talking Points for Forest Service Open Houses in Southern California

In late September of 2005, the Forest Service released Revised Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) and accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Records of Decision for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. The plans are generally favorable to mountain biking.

Open house meetings where stakeholders can discuss the plans have been scheduled for October and November. IMBA's Jim Hasenauer has provided the following talking points for mountain bicyclists who can attend the open houses.

The plans, as well as a Forest Service FAQ and related materials, can be viewed at the Forest Service's landing page.

View a schedule of open house events.

Talking Points:

1. THANK FORESTERS FOR THE "CRITICAL BIOLOGICAL AREAS" DECISION
The Forests had proposed a designation called "Critical Biological Area" where there were rare or endangered species or habitat. Originally they had proposed banning mountain bikes, but allowing hikers and horses in these areas. IMBA urged them to recognize that bikes were low-impact users who were acceptable in such sensitive areas. The final EIS accepts our position.

Bikes will be allowed in these and all other areas of the Forests (except Wilderness and Experimental Forest) "unless otherwise restricted." This is a major victory, and will be a foundation for future opportunities in the Forests (and elsewhere).

2. ASK THAT OFFICIAL STATUS BE GRANTED TO ADDITIONAL TRAILS
Across the nation, the USFS uses the term "designated trails" in different ways. In the four Southern California Forests, it means bicycles may only ride official system trails (riding bootleg or social trails is forbidden). We commented that by limiting bikes to only official system trails, we would lose historical riding opportunities on the many fine unofficial trails in the Forests. Equestrians and hikers can use any trails official or not. This is still a concern.

The Forests feel they have a big problem with bootleg and social trails, and the plans have a great deal of language about getting these under control. As part of their OHV inventory, all of the CA Forests are currently inventorying all routes (official and unofficial) used by wheels. At the completion of that inventory, some of the unofficial routes may be adopted and designated official.

The OHV rule was not intended to deal with mountain bikes, but it's important that bicyclists look at the OHV inventories as they become available and make sure every trail we ride is on them. There is talk in the plans about using the OHV inventory to designate bike routes. That's not its purpose, but we have to be prepared by making sure our trails are on the maps.

The Forest Plans do acknowledge that there are many unofficial trails that mountain bikes ride and suggest that some of these should be brought into the system. This is something that we have to be continuously involved with.

3. ASK FOR BIKE-FRIENDLY ADJUSTMENTS TO PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS
We were concerned that there were some proposed Wilderness Areas that would close some significant mountain bike riding. As you know, IMBA's position is that while we can often support new Wilderness, we cannot support it when significant bike opportunities are placed within the Wilderness boundaries. In those cases we ask for boundary adjustments, alternative designations or bike-friendly corridors. In response to last year's preferred alternatives, we specifically identified problems with:

a. The Madulce-Buckhorn Proposed Wilderness in the Los Padres. The Forest acknowledged our concern and adjusted the boundary so that the Buckhorn trail is outside the new proposed Wilderness.

b. The Sugarloaf proposed Wilderness near Big Bear. The Forest changed its recommendation for Sugarloaf and now will treat it as a Backcountry non-motorized zone that will allow bikes.

c. The San Gorgonio Southwest Proposed additions. The Forest now proposes a smaller addition of Wilderness. We need to examine the maps and ensure that the trail to little San Gorgonio Peak (#1W08) remains outside the Wilderness.

The new proposed alternative 4A proposes some new Wilderness areas that we did not consider last summer. In general the Forest has been very responsive in making sure our trails are outside the proposed boundaries (even commenting that trail reroutes should be provided if access is restricted). When you go to the open houses, please examine the maps and makes sure that trails we ride are not inside the new proposed Wilderness areas.

These plans are final. The only recourse for those unhappy with the plans is to appeal. The Forests ran a good public process, and generally mountain bicyclists can be satisfied with the final plans.