ORV advisory meeting

[Creative Fab]

The meeting went well for the most part with Dr. Nelson from MSU giving his recommendations to the board after his most recent ORV study.

This time around the fullsize contingency actually made it into Dr. Nelson's study, thanks to the hard work of some of us attending several public forums he held around the state,he expounded on the fact that there is a definate need to add more scramble areas and chalenges to our exsisiting system. To read Dr. Nelson's full study visit the DNR's web site at study and public comment (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153--124134--,00.html)

After reading this report make sure to voice any concerns or suggestions you might have, as there is a public comment period avaiable to us for one month.
8/11/05 - 9/11/05

The chair of the ORV advisory board also gave a brief presentation on a new senate bill titled Senate Bill 278, it outlines some proposed legislation directly affecting our ORV program. One of these changes would be to the price of the ORV sticker itself, increasing it from the current $16.25 to $25.50.

Also included in this legislation would be the authority to spend down an excess of the ORV fund and create 700 plus more miles of trail as well as increase the amount paid to grant sponsors per mile or trail or route. I will add the link to this item soon.

If you were at this meeting and think I might have left out something please feel free to add it here!

Pat

[Nvrenuf]

One thing I heard and have been researching since. What was said about "Forest Certification". angry

If you google that term it sounds pretty bad for ongoing or future access. It is mostly supported by the "Eco" groups.
I will post more when I get a better grasp on whats out there.

Steve

[Nvrenuf]

I have started researching this and it smells worse. The people/companies that do the certs are from California and New York. There is alot of support from the Eco groups on this. In most of the documentation it sounds like it just is for tracking cutting timber through to final product (lumber, paper, furniture) sale. This sounds almost OK until reading farther and there is talk of economic impact. Sections of forests are to be set aside for comparison to areas to be logged. Studies are required to look for endangered plants and animals. There are provisions for closing trails and roads due to perceived dangers (with no list of dangers).

Want more info Google "Forest Certification" or " GREEN Certification"

I&#39;m putting info and links together on this. :<img src=:" border="0" alt="mad.gif" />

[MuddyPaws]

Keep us posted. :<img src=:" border="0" alt="mad.gif" />

[WhiteRhino]

I figured as much. What a great ploy from the Greenies&#33;
Has United run into this yet?

[Creative Fab]

As soon as Steve posts the links to what he has found I am going to fire off a message on the United delegates list and to Carla, our legislative affairs officer from United.

This is looking scarry from what Steve told me he has found so far&#33;

Thank you Steve for taking the time to look inot this for us&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Pat

[Roadhouse]

Good job researching this Steve.

[Nvrenuf]

angry More to think about. FSC is the group that would certify our forests.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent, non-profit,
non-governmental organization. Led by the World Wide Fund for
Nature, it was founded in 1993 by a diverse group of representatives
from environmental and conservation groups, the timber industry, the
forestry profession, indigenous peoples&#39; organizations, community
forestry groups and forest product certification organizations from
25 countries.


:o Who is the World Wide Fund for Nature?

Back in 1961 when it was founded, WWF stood for the "World Wildlife Fund". However, as the organization grew over the 70s and into the 80s, WWF began to expand its work to conserve the environment as a whole (reflecting the interdependence of all living things), rather than focusing on selected species in isolation. So although we continued to use our well-known initials, our legal name became "World Wide Fund For Nature" (except in North America where the old name was retained).

More and more, however, to avoid confusion and mixed messages across borders and languages, WWF is known as simply "WWF, the global conservation organization."

[lgottler]

Well, they were stressing that one major area that the DNR needed to do much better with was dealing with any and all environmental impacts from ORV&#39;s.....uh oh&#33;

Lucas

[Nvrenuf]

A little more info there are 2 main groups that have been contacted to certify our forests. They are FSC (they are very tight with the "greenies" angry ) the other is SFI ( seems a litte better and there are "greenie hate sites" regarding their "weaker requirments :( ).

Here is a list of "Gaps" to the certification that relate to us (pulled from preliminary reports):

Gaps:
FSC scoping assessment comments:
1. Unauthorized Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) use could threaten compliance. (FSC 6.5.B
2. Gap in road maintenance and management of ORV use on roads that are not being closed even
if local managers wished that they could close the road. (FSC 6.5.B
3. It takes a written order from the DNR Director to close a road, which limits field manager?s
ability to address problem areas. (FSC 6.5.B
4. Road maintenance occurs primarily in conjunction with the ten year cycle (OI) which is too
long of an interval if major problems develop on a site not scheduled for Operations Inventory
for 5-9 years. (FSC 5.1)
5. Some BMP non-conformances were observed and DNR staff acknowledged that there are other
such instances. (FSC 6.5.b, 8.2)
6. Road management maintenance systems and budgets are a concern. (FSC 5.1.c)


SFI Scoping Assessment Comments:
1. Management units do not have road management plans. Instead, roads are inventoried and
planning is done as part of OI or on a 10-year cycle. (SFI 3.1.1)
2. Monitoring of roads seems to be quite variable with BMP violations observed. (SFI 3.1.1)
3. Wet weather events must be addressed. Need clarification of acceptable rutting and soil
compaction. (SFI 3.1.3)
4. BMP monitoring is inadequate. (SFI 3.1.4)
5. Illegal ORV damage to wetlands is occurring. (SFI 3.2.4)
6. Contract language is not enough. Must have enforcement. ( (SFI 3.1.3)

[WhiteRhino]

Steve,
Thanks for the research.

[MuddyPaws]

All that is very skeery....think we&#39;re going to have to get loud at the next meeting about this. angry