Sierra Access Coalition (SAC) Spokesman Mike Lazzarino was on Quincy’s FM 95.9 on 11/19/07.

Unforunately the telephone system at the radio station was not functioning during the program, so people couldn’t call in with questions or comments. But the following is a summary of the radio show.

Ron Trumbo asked Mike how SAC was formed. Mike answered that he was talking with Duff duPont about how the public needed a voice in the USFS Route Designation Process. The two men decided to form Sierra Access Coalition. SAC now has over 800 members and is still growing. The group gives the public a voice regarding forest access issues for a variety of users. Members include woodcutters, recreationists, hunters, campers, ATV riders, snowmobilers, miners, ranchers, hikers, equestrians, and many other forest users. Ron said that a lot of people still don’t realize the implications of the Route Designation process yet. It will affect anyone who drives a vehicle in the forest, not just ATVers. Since the beginning of this process, SAC has made a name for themselves, we’ve done our homework, and we’re holding the USFS to their own rules.

The objective of the Route Designation law wasn’t to rush in and close roads. The intent was to stop cross country travel and stop resource damage. On some forests in California, the USFS is going beyond the intent of the law and using it to close routes, which is inappropriate if not illegal. SAC wants to see a long term plan from the USFS. It should be an evolving plan. Funds are tight, but we need a long term plan and a commitment from the USFS.

Law enforcement is key. Past non-enforcement by the USFS has caused their own resource damage. There is no such thing as a resource friendly road and we shouldn’t be able to drive everywhere in the forest. But routes that the public wants to use can be mitigated to reduce or eliminate resource damage.

SAC isn’t here just for the Route Designation process. We will need to adopt routes, do maintenance, pick up trash, etc. SAC will be organizing more cleanup days.

What can people do now? The Lassen NF plan is poor and only proposes 38 miles of OHV routes. (This is in addition to the 2000+ miles of system roads that will remain open to the public.) There are no routes that connect the Lassen to the Plumas, there is nothing designated in the Lake Almanor area, and only 5 small areas on the Lassen NF are being proposed for OHV routes. The Lassen plan will most likely be appealed because it is a poor plan. Connecting routes between Lassen and Plumas have been ignored by the Lassen NF. A lot of money went into their study but very few miles were produced. The High Lakes area is being studied as a separate project, which is a good thing, but implementation won’t be until 2012. In the meantime, some access to the High Lakes area are being closed. The SAC website has links to organizations, county supervisors, and others to help people voice their opinions.

The Plumas NF plan is much better. Maps are available on the PNF website, but SAC has the latest maps posted on their website. These newer maps are not available on the PNF website.

SAC has used the threat of appeal to show the USFS they need to deal with the forest users, not just the obstructionists. Sierra Club and other environmental groups understand the necessity of managing OHVs. SAC hopes they will view the Route Designation Process as a positive thing to manage OHVs, not to close everything.

SAC has been successful dealing with the USFS. For example, on the Empire Project there were many miles of road closures proposed. SAC members documented the lack of resource damage on these roads, negotiated with the USFS and they actually listened. Most of these roads are no longer proposed for closure.

From the public meetings at the beginning, it sounded like the USFS wanted to shut down a lot of roads. But since then, user groups such as SAC have been working with the USFS and they have been listening to the public’s concerns. The Plumas Forest Supervisors have been very supportive, from Chris Knopp to Alice Carlton. However, the change in Forest Supervisors on both the Plumas and Lassen has been deterimental to the process to some extent. Blue Ribbon Coalition and others have been working with SAC behind the scenes. California Off Road Vehicle Assn. (CORVA) has taken a strong position on the Lassen. SAC has knowledgeable members (engineers, biologists, resource professionals, etc.) who are helping. There are no attorneys in our membership, so we will have to rely on Blue Ribbon Coalition or others for legal support.

On the Plumas, no gates will be going up. There may be signs posted, but there will be no gates installed. The Plumas is doing a pretty good job and that can be attributed to strong leadership from Alice Carlton, Forest Supervisor, and her staff including Fred Krueger, Pete Hochrein, and Mark Beaulieu.

Plumas County is working with SAC and the USFS. Rose Comstock is an extremely strong supporter of public access to the forest. Local Chambers of Commerce and Visitors Bureaus haven’t become involved in this issue yet, which is unfortunate. The Plumas NF is likely to be the "premiere" forest in California for OHV trails. The Plumas County Dept. of Public Works is actively working with the USFS. If OHV use is allowed on unpaved County roads, OHV grant funding would be available for maintenance.

Statistics: OHVers spend approx. $100 per ride and $500 per weekend trip. This is important to local economies. OHVers motivation: To enjoy the natural scenery, escape stress, socialize with friends, exploration, and challenge of the ride. OHV units sold from 1972 to 2000 have shown a 700% increase. The #1 selling RV is a "toy hauler", which is a trailer with a garage in the back for ATVs.

People with limited physical abilities need more mileage for forest access. They have special needs that haven’t been adequately addressed.

In many cases on the Plumas, such as at Antelope Lake, Lake Davis and Frenchman Lake, you can’t legally leave a campground on an OHV. This hasn’t been addressed by the USFS yet. We need new construction of trails out of campgrounds or else combined use needs to be made legal.

The USFS is there to protect and manage our forest. But some employees seem to have let their personal views and biases affect their recommendations. Region 5 published guidelines for the forest, but they are only guidelines and the forests have some flexibility in the process.

SAC feels that NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process shouldn’t be required on existing roads, but NEPA should be followed to close roads. This means asking for public input, and doing an environmental analysis.

The Plumas NF team has been working hard to produce a good product. But there are still some unresolved issues such as firewood cutting, dispersed camping and game retrieval for hunters. SAC is optimistic that people on the Plumas NF are being honest. We aren’t getting all the routes that we want, but we can work towards getting more. If your route didn’t get on the map for this round, still send it to SAC and we’ll push for it to be included in next year’s plan revision.

Individual forests need to "buck" the Regional Office and do what makes sense locally. Some forests are more willing to do this than others, and fortunately the Plumas is generally willing to do what they feel is right for us locally.

The Route Designation Process won’t affect logging issues, unless the USFS buries road closures in the projects. SAC will be reviewing all projects to be sure that routes that their members want aren’t being closed. Mining claims, grazing permits, and other special use permits will not be affected.

Ron closed the show by telling his listeners to be informed, and to join SAC.