Upcoming Mass DCR meetings / Draft Criteria

[Swearengen]

Okay boys and girls, we have a couple of weeks at best to get ready for the upcoming DCR meetings regarding the new ORV criteria on the table. We need to be prepared to the best of our ability, and for that reason I am reposting the criteria here in a public forum.

I am looking for anyone and everyone's feedback on this document. I have been told comments in writing WILL be accepted for later review, so let's gets some stuff in writing on here. I am specifically looking for intelligent, common sense, realistic statements, not the normal bitching and complaining... I plan on getting a letter on here for everyone to pm me with their 'electronic' signature on the bottom that will cover the bitching session. Anyways, as for this process, the best thing I could ask for are comments that have some basis in example or law. Eg... Criteria number 2 is overkill, you can reference Pennsylvania ORV policy such and such and see they have a successful operation without this restriction... Stuff like that, I think you get the jist... Its a bit of work on your part, but I would really appreciate any help you can give considering the time frame.

Additionally, anyone who knows a forester, ennironmental scientist, conservationist, any people related to the field who may be able to offer an 'educated' opinion on some of this stuff, please contact them and have them add their two cents if at all possible. Btw, as a note, I'm asking for everyone's involvement here, not just Mass residents... Many of you out of staters ride here on a regular basis as well, so this does affect you, and your voice should be heard.

So, here it is, tear it up!


All ORV (ATV and Motorcycle) trail areas on state-owned property and or utilizing funding from the Commonwealth and or administered by the Commonwealth shall be evaluated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation using a 2-step (coarse filter and fine filter) process.

Coarse Filter Process.   Forests, parks or other areas must be in compliance with the following six coarse criteria to be considered for facility-specific ORV trail development or operation.


1)      Motorized trail use on the property must be consistent with DCR’s Statewide Recreation Opportunity Policies and Standards.

 

2)      Motorized trail use must be consistent with the property's Baseline (Phase 1) Resource Management Plan and any recommended Phase 2 Resource Management Plans prepared for the property."

 

3)      All properties with designated ORV trails must have a baseline or phase 2 resource management plan completed by 2010 .

 

4)      No deed restrictions, laws, or purchase funding source restrictions prohibit the use of ORV’s on the property.

 

5)      Less than 50 percent of the area being considered for ORV use may be composed of the following types of areas in combination: ( DCR will only consider contained and contiguous parcels of adequate size to support an ORV trail system and provide adequate protection of important resource areas. If ORV use is determined to be an acceptable use that ORV use may not occur within these special areas except as provided under applicable regulations or policies):

a)      Priority Habitat as identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

b)      Core Habitat as identified on the MNHESP Biomap and Living Waters projects

c)      Wetland resources protected under the Code of Massachusetts Regulations  (310 CMR 10)

d)      Areas identified as Zone 1 under DCR’s Land Stewardship Zoning classification.

e)      Forest Reserve Areas

f)        Areas designated under the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program

g)      Slopes in excess of 40%

h)      Areas designated under the DCR Wildlands program

 

6)      If it is to be a self-contained trail network, the property is adequate to provide a trail network of at least 30 miles.

 

7)      If it is to be a trail corridor link, the trails which are being connected exist or will exist when the trail corridor link is established, or shortly thereafter.

 

Fine Filter Process ORV areas that have passed the coarse filter criteria above shall be eligible for further analysis during a planning and layout phase.  An ORV Facility Management Plan for the property must be prepared which meets the following fine filter criteria.

 

Trail and Facility Operation and Management

 

1)      The ORV Facility Management Plan must address facility operations needs including funding, budgeting and revenue management; trail and facility maintenance; monitoring, enforcement, and staffing.

.

2)      The facility is supported by an organized ORV club or organization whose responsibilities are established through a Memorandum of Agreement between the organization and the Department.

 

3)      The ORV Facility Management Plan has been reviewed by local municipal public safety personnel for public safety and emergency access considerations.

 

 

Trail and Facility Design

 

1)      The proposed trail layout meets DCR standards for trail design, construction, and maintenance.

 

2)      The proposed trail layout does not violate federal, state, or local laws.

 

3)      Trail and facility design considers local municipal planning and zoning ordinances and other local regulation.

 

4)      The proposed trail layout does not pass through a parcel with deed restrictions regarding motorized trail use.

 

5)      The proposed trail layout does not lead users to private property or utility corridors unless specific written permission is on record with the Department

 

6)      The proposed trail layout would not produce excessive noise impacts in adjacent residential areas.

 

7)      The proposed trail layout segregates incompatible uses.

 

8)      Trail and facility design provides for adequate parking for the amount and type of trail and the number of expected riders.

 

9)      The proposed trail layout incorporates existing motorized off road travel corridors whenever possible.

 

10)  The proposed trail layout complies with legal and public safety requirements for safe crossing of public ways, roads or other trails.

 

 

Environmental & Resource Protection

 

1)      The proposed trail layout does not negatively impact  Priority Habitat as identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program as provided under applicable regulations or policies

 

2)      The proposed trail layout does not negatively impact Core Habitat as identified on the MNHESP Biomap and Living Waters projects as provided under applicable regulations or policies

 

3)      The proposed trail layout is in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act and  Code of Massachusetts Regulations  (310 CMR 10)

 

4)      The proposed trail layout complies with DCR regulations and policies for the protection of areas classified as Zone 1 under DCR’s Land Stewardship Zoning.

 

5)      The proposed trail layout complies with DCR regulations and policies for the protection of Forest Reserves.

 

6)      The proposed trail layout does not negatively impact natural or cultural resources protected under the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program as provided under applicable regulations or policies

 

7)      The proposed trail layout complies with DCR regulations and policies for the protection of areas designated as Wildlands.

 

8)      The proposed trail layout minimizes further fragmentation of blocks of forestland by locating trails on areas with existing development whenever possible.

 

9)      The proposed trail layout complies with Massachusetts regulations and policies for the protection of wellheads as determined by the Department of Environmental Protection.

 

10)  The proposed trail layout is not located on earthen dams, dikes, and spillways.

 

11)  The proposed trail layout avoids areas having soil types identified as restricted for trail or road development as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, unless there is an existing soil condition or surface roadway that can be used to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

 

12)  The proposed trail layout avoids slopes in excess of 30%.

 

13)  The proposed trail layout is in compliance with federal, state, and municipal regulations protecting water resources, wetlands and vernal pools.

 

14)  The proposed trail layout avoids areas protected under the Berkshire Scenic Mountains Act.

 

15)  The proposed trail layout avoids known locations of federally and state

listed endangered or threatened species, or their habitat, as specified on a

site-specific basis by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.

 

16)  The proposed trail layout avoids known locations of rare plants and exemplary natural communities, as specified on a site-specific basis by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program.

 

17)  The proposed trail layout avoids alteration or disturbance of unique

geologic features, formations, and designated state geologic waysides, as

specified on a site-specific basis by the state geologist.

 

18)  The proposed trail layout avoids alteration, disturbance, and adverse

impacts to cultural and historic resources.

 

19)  The proposed trail layout does not impact trails of national, statewide or regional significance.

 

20)  The ORV Facility Management Plan includes a monitoring and response system designed to detect and correct adverse environmental impacts.

[Swearengen]

Here's a few I came up with right away:

a)      Priority Habitat as identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

This one may be a problem.. Has anyone ever looked at the list of 'endangered' species is Massachusetts, there's hundreds of them, in fact, there's like 10 'dragon-flies' that are endangered? I think this is a clause we'll never get removed, but too bad for us as it gives the DCR a LOT of room to do what they want.

h)      Areas designated under the DCR Wildlands program

I think this one has to go... Day Mtn. in Dalton is on this list, why I have no idea, I grew up cutting trails and riding there? Take a look at this quote from the wildlands program:

In 1984, 1988, and 1996 the Massachusetts legislature approved bond bills which have provided funds for the acquisition of open space. In 1990 the sportsmen and women of Massachusetts filed legislation requiring every sportsman to purchase a $5 Wildlands Conservation stamp annually. This particular source of funding has augmented MassWildlife's land acquisition ability by about $1.5 millon/year. Open to fishing, hunting, trapping and other passive outdoor recreation activities, MassWildlife manages nearly 120,000 acres of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) across the Commonwealth.
 
Guess my point here is, if shooting and killing an animal is considered a _passive_ outdoor recreation, how is atv'ing not?!?!

3)      The ORV Facility Management Plan has been reviewed by local municipal public safety personnel for public safety and emergency access considerations.

Here's a great example of wasting money and time If I can get a 4-wheeler in there, then you can get recue workers in there... There's no need to review the Appalician trail is there? Its just a silly clause, not a big deal, but why involve more state and city agencies when its not needed... Give them a trail map when the trails open so they know where to go in case of an emergency, no need for a 'review'.

1)      The proposed trail layout meets DCR standards for trail design, construction, and maintenance.

Which are?

2)      The proposed trail layout does not violate federal, state, or local laws.

Again, why is there a need to put this in there, its obvious.

17)  The proposed trail layout avoids alteration or disturbance of unique

geologic features, formations, and designated state geologic waysides, as

specified on a site-specific basis by the state geologist.

This one needs to be revised... what constitutes a unique geological feature or formation? That needs to be further defined or a fair method of acertaining what is unique needs to be formulated. As far as I'm concerned everything is pretty much unique.

[Hondarider]

Way, way, way too many words there...sorry...can't do it

[Swearengen]

Nobody ever said you were a rocket scientist 

[SonOfCruzor]

That's a lot to digest, but I'll contribute.

Oh, remember, congress is going to be reviewing the "endagnered species act" in the near future. Seems the dumping millions of our tax dollars and creating crazy laws hasn't done a darn thing to protect any of these plants and animals. Commmon sense seems to preval....

[NQRIDER]

It's 6:30am and I am off to Grandma's house!  (Be gone to my Mom & Dad's all day with the kids.)

I'll get into this..you know it...

I am forwarding to both foresters....

Nice start

[SonOfCruzor]

:BranfordCT:

[Swearengen]

Well, I was thinking on the way home from work today, and I came to the conclusion that this ORV Criteria is really lacking something. Its wierd to think about wanting to 'add' something to the list the DCR's compiled to date, but here goes my best effort (I'll need G-Man to clean this up and make it more legalise for me  ) :

In the event that ORV trail(s) and/or trail system(s) currently in use* do not conform to this criteria:

The trail(s) and/or trail system(s) shall remain open to ORV use until such time that the DCR, in conjunction with the organized ORV club or organization whose responsibilities for said State Forest are established through a Memorandum of Agreement between the organization and the Department, are able to create an alternate route by constucting a new trail.

If a trail is to be re-routed to meet the standards of this criteria, it shall additionally be required to conform to these guidelines:

1) The newly constructed trail shall be of similar** or greater mileage than the trail or trail section it is replacing.

2) The newly constructed trail shall serve the same purpose of connecting other parts of the trail system as did the original trail which is to be replaced.

3) If the construction of a new trail is not possible within the constraints of this entire criteria, including items 1 and 2 as listed above,  than a new trail of similar** or greater mileage than that of the trail/trail section it is replacing shall be constructed within the same state forest, having like access, and shall meet the approval of the ORV organization undersigned on the MOA for that forest.

*ORV trails and/or trail systems currently in use shall be those open for ORV access as of May 1st, 2005
**Similar: In this instance similar shall mean equal to or no greater that 1/10 of 1 mile shorter.

[SonOfCruzor]

That's a great way to ensure they don't lock us out of the parks. 

[Paul]

I wish I was able contribute some intelligent feedback on the ORV criteria. However I feel as though I would need an intimate knowledge, or if not at least a basic understanding, of some if not all of the plans, programs, projects, policies, regulations and Acts the criteria makes reference to. Unfortunately I am completely ignorant of all the following that were mentioned.

1. Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
2. MNHESP Biomap and Living Waters projects
3. Code of Massachusetts Regulations  (310 CMR 10)
4. Zone 1 under DCR’s Land Stewardship Zoning classification
5. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program
6. DCR Wildlands program
7. DCR standards for trail design, construction, and maintenance
8. DCR’s Land Stewardship Zoning
9. DCR regulations and policies for the protection of Forest Reserves.
10. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program
11. DCR regulations and policies for the protection of areas designated as Wildlands.
12. Federal, state, and municipal regulations protecting water                resources, wetlands and vernal pools.
13. Berkshire Scenic Mountains Act
14. Baseline (Phase 1) Resource Management Plan
15. Phase 2 Resource Management Plans

Simply put.............I got nothing In any event I will go to the meetings to show support!

[Swearengen]

Paul, I just sent out an e-mail to the dead or recreation at the DCR requesting this information so that, we, as a user group, may offer informed, intelligent input on all of this criteria... Let's see if he wants us to be informed. As of right now I am NOT a big fan of his after doing a bit of research, please hold on a minute while I upload some files and explain why... But... The basic jist is this, at the meeting the other night he passed of 'priority habitat areas' as not being a big deal, and had no answer as to whether or not there was ANYTHING to substantiate ORV's had any negative impact on them... Wait one minute.

[Swearengen]

Okay, I did some research and have been able to _begin_ the process of overlaying the DCR criteria to our state forest, starting with PSF... It took me about an hour or two, and its not 100% to scale. I could not account for grade/slope, but I CAN tell you by looking at a topo-map, PSF cannot have ANY new trails under just that one criteria as it now stands. I was able to cover almost all of the other 'mystery' criteria that Paul mentioned, most of them don't come into play in PSF, but four do. So here's a couple of pictures. By the way, I am not a happy customer right now:



Now the areas in red or outlined by red are 'scenic'... so I assume, covered under the Berkshire Scenic Mountains Act... Not to bad, one can definitely work around this. The areas in Pink are well-head protection zones... again, not so bad... BUT, remember, we're already screwed because of grade... BUt if that wasn't enough.... In the above pic, anything not red or pink would be a possible site for a trail (less the grade/slope regulation)... But then I applied the CORE HABITAT CRITERIA... Under this Criteria, anything in the picture below that is dark green, is a NO GO for a ORV trail... Let's see what it looks like:




I think I'll have some hand-outs and speaking to do at the next meeting. The truth is, out of ALL of the State Forest in Western Ma that may have had a chance to make the cut, PSF probably had the most hope. I will, in the next couple of days be putting together overlays for all of the other parks as well, and printing many copies to hand out to folks at the meetings, this is a bunch of crap and needs to be put to a stop immediately. These people need to be held responsible for trying to pull a quick one here, and there are at least 3 criteria that need to be removed RIGHT NOW or there will never be another ORV trail in this state again.

[SonOfCruzor]

You've gotta be shitting me.....

[Swearengen]

Nope, that green overlay I am 100% sure about 

[SonOfCruzor]

Did they "claim" that the new criteria would not be used to shut down existing areas? Anyone get that in writing or on tape?

[MissinPerson]

Don't think I ever heard that, other than in reference for this year.

[SonOfCruzor]

This is unreal.

[skawtsjax]

that sucks  

[Paul]

Ozzy,

Thanks for helping to put things in perspective. Even though I am red / green color ( the map looks one color to me) I clearly get the idea. This is pretty much what I suspected even with my ignorance of the subject matter.

I also noticed on the PowerPoint presentation the following:

Recreation Opportunity Policies and Standards
•US Forest Service model.
•Experience-based inventory system to ensure a desired range of recreation opportunities.
•2008 time horizon.
•Will not be used to close existing ORV facilities prior to completion.


I think the key words here are PRIOR TO COMPLETION.

The entire ORV criteria seemed to be intentionally designed to be so restrictive, prohibitive, and exclusionary that the sole purpose would be to have a basis for closing all the existing ORV facilities.

[MissinPerson]

I think at the meeting, they definitely alluded to the fact that the current riding areas "most likely" won't make the cut.  Gary said that several times.