Recreation or Wilderness? : U.S. Forests: A Fight Over the Future

Mud and water flying, 10-year-old Danica Parra gunned her powerful four-wheel all-terrain vehicle through the shallow San Gabriel River and zoomed up the bank, bouncing high in the air before she slammed down hard, nearly spilling.

“Slow down,” yelled her father, Augustine Parra of Highland Park. It was Saturday and like thousands of other Southern Californians, the Parras had gone to play in this popular canyon in the Angeles National Forest, just a short drive north up California 39 from Azusa and the San Gabriel Valley.

Nearby, a dozen big-wheeled monster trucks skidded and sloughed through the axle-deep mud and up on the steep, dusty hillsides. Scores of other four-wheel drive pickups and two-wheeled dirt bikes roared around, spewing dust and rocks, as drivers tested their off-road vehicles against the rugged terrain in the Rincon Flats ORV Area.

Overhead a hawk swooped over the trees, a reminder that there is wildlife and wilderness solitude just a short distance from this noisy motorized playground in San Gabriel Canyon. Much of the canyon is rugged and inaccessible, but once past the off-road vehicles area, thousands flock along the highway and river to picnic, swim, hike, fish and shoot firearms.

“We’ve had as many as 45,000 to 50,000 people a day up here in the canyon, and that’s too many,” Ranger Roger Richcreek said. Even with the help of Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and the California Highway Patrol, the situation is never quite under control, he said.

Such crowding, combined with the growing popularity of off-road vehicles, has turned San Gabriel Canyon into a showcase for many of the problems facing U.S. Forest Services officials in Southern California as they work to complete long-term land and resource management plans. These plans, mandated by Congress, will establish how the 154 U. S. forests will be used--decade by decade--for the next 50 years. The four U.S. forests in Southern California are the Angeles National Forest, the Los Padres National Forest, the San Bernardino National Forest and the Cleveland National Forest.

The four forests cover 3.5 million acres, mostly dry, chaparral-covered mountains set aside primarily for watershed and wildlife protection. Because they are so close to an urban population approaching 15 million, they have also become increasingly popular recreation areas. In fact, the Angeles and San Bernardino forests are the most-visited forests in the system nationwide.

“Recreation is the big issue on these (four) forests, that and fire protection,” said Zane Smith, the U.S. Forest Service’s regional chief who must approve the plans for California’s 18 national forests. “And San Gabriel Canyon is the most intensely used area we’ve got. . . . (There and elsewhere) the ORVs are the most compromising use we face. They are noisy and destructive, but so many people have them and want to use them in the forests. . . . We are not sure what the proper balance should be.”

“Balance” is the critical word for forest supervisors as they plan multiple forest uses and monitor the debate among various groups for space and facilities. The debate regarding Southern California forests is centered on recreation--what areas should be developed for what purposes--and which of the lands should be protected as wilderness.

Deeply involved in the debate is a powerful coalition of hunters, fishermen, conservationists and such environmental groups as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Audubon Society. This coalition opposes large increases in off-road vehicle use and the expansion of ski areas. Among the competitors for recreational uses of the lands are those who want more campgrounds, those who seek more hiking trails, bird watchers who want more wilderness, the off-road vehicle users who insist on more motorized trails.

The long-term management plans undergo a lengthy process--the drafting of a preliminary plan, a period for public review and revision of the plan into final form. Then the plans are submitted to the regional chief, who must approve them. Critics then have 45 days to appeal to the U. S. Forest Service chief, Max Peterson. Legal action in federal court becomes an option after that point. The plans establish specific goals for each forest for the next 10 years and broad policies for the following 40 years.

Least Controversial Plan

The Los Padres preliminary plan is under public review. The least controversial of the four, it would more than double the size of its wilderness areas by adding 190,000 acres to that classification and open some of its lands to oil and gas exploration near Santa Paula in Ventura County. Both proposals are bringing strong reaction; off-roaders are upset because they would lose some trails and environmentalists because they oppose the oil and gas exploration.

The plan for the Cleveland forest has been approved by Smith, but six appeals have been filed against it by the Sierra Club and other parties. Among this plan’s goals are improved roads, an expanded trail system and more developed recreational facilities.

The Cleveland document, however, illustrates what leaders of the conservation coalition contend is a basic flaw in the planning process. None of the plans, they point out, consider the impact of federal budget-cutting. The forests’ budgets have been cut sharply in the last three years, and there is not enough money to operate and maintain existing facilities, critics point out. They wonder how forest managers plan to finance expansion of aging recreational systems that have fallen into decay.

Forest managers acknowledge the problem. The Cleveland plan, for example, would require $11.4 million to implement next year, but the forest’s budget has been cut to $7.9 million and is likely to be cut further in future years, said Administrative Officer Brian McGuire. In the Angeles forest, planners want to add 220 miles of hiking trails, but they admit that their $70,000 trails budget does not even pay for enough crew leaders to supervise volunteer trail repair crews.

The problem extends beyond the trails. The Angeles plan’s environmental impact statement estimates that 50% to 90% of the recreational facilities are “substandard” because “fiscal policies . . . limited the available dollars” needed for operation and maintenance.

Even with budget constraints the plans are useful, Smith said. “They set land-use policies and lay out what will be needed for annual budgeting requests,” he said.

However, Smith and other forest officials acknowledge that without adequate funding, parts of these plans can never be fully developed. Faced with cuts of 30% or more in their budget requests, forest supervisors have no choice but to cut back or even shelve some of the planned improvements.

The preliminary plans for Angeles and San Bernardino forests have each gone through the public comment process and are being revised into their final forms.

The Angeles and San Bernardino forests each attract more people annually--logging 7 million visitor-days of use--than either Yosemite or Yellowstone national parks. And in both forests, the primary controversies focus on expanded ski areas and added off-road vehicle trails, developments that are financed either by private capital or state gas tax money.

The Angeles plan would authorize the private owners of the eight ski areas leased from the forest to more than double their size and capacity. This expansion will be funded by the ski corporations. The eight areas now cover 1,000 acres and accommodate 229,000 skier days a season. Conservationists are not happy with these expansion plans or authorization of a new ski area on Sugarloaf Mountain in the San Bernardino forest proposal.

“These plans give too much to ORV and skiing,” said the Sierra Club’s Sally M. Reid. “The problem is that the Forest Service views itself as the mediator between competing recreational interests--skiers, hikers, ORV users, bird watchers. They don’t perceive themselves as people who need to make decisions based on resource protection.”

Conservationists want to limit resource development to preserve these forests for future generations, she said. The ski area expansion would take place next to roadless wilderness areas. She said off-road vehicle trails would open more areas to a use that is destructive.

Off-Road Vehicle Trail

The San Bernardino plan calls for creation of a 127-mile cross-forest off-road vehicle trail. In the Angeles forest, rangers want to add 330 more miles of off-road vehicle trails, a fivefold increase. In both cases, the added trails would be funded in large part by California gas tax revenues. One percent of this tax is earmarked for off-road access development, forest officials said, adding that Angeles forest expects to get $1.4 million of these funds next year.

Conservation coalition members want to cut the trail mileage radically and would have the forest service set restrictive limits on off-road vehicle traffic in the forests, a view shared by California Department of Fish and Game biologists. Current off-road vehicle use in and around streams has been destroying fish and wildlife habitat, causing “irreversible damage,” said Fred A. Worthley, regional manager of the Department of Fish and Game. He singled out the San Gabriel River as an example. “Continued ORV use will destroy the remaining fish and wildlife habitats and preclude any restoration,” he said.

Off-road vehicle use has been soaring. For years it involved a relatively few family oriented, four-wheel-drive clubs that used designated routes in the forest. Then came off-road “dirt bikes” and more recently the ubiquitous all-terrain vehicles that outnumber all other off-road vehicles.

Sales of all-terrain vehicles nationally total about 500,000 a year, according to federal reports that estimate the total number of all-terrain vehicles at 2.1 million. And all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts like Mike Bishop, a member of the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission that administers the gas tax money, want more, not less terrain for all-terrain vehicles.

Currently, the Angeles forest has three off-road vehicle “open” areas totaling 870 acres that have been set aside for off-roaders. These areas--including Rincon Flats in San Gabriel Canyon--are known as “squirrel pits” or “playpens” by users and rangers alike because riders are free to ride wherever they choose without restriction. In addition, the forest has 70 miles of off-road vehicle trails, not nearly enough to meet the burgeoning demand, according to off-road vehicle enthusiasts.

“Three hundred miles (offered in the Angeles plan) are not enough. . . . Our goal is to open more use within the forests. . . . The most effective management tool for ORV is to provide more adequate areas,” said American Motorcycle Assn.’s Jerry Counts.

Rick Bates, president of the California Off Road Vehicle Assn., agreed: “If you don’t provide legal opportunities, then you invite misuse, if not illegal use (in areas closed to off-road vehicle traffic.)”

Nowhere is the controversy over off-road vehicle use more visible than in Rincon Flats. On big weekends, 3,000 off-road vehicles of various kinds crowd into this area, many of them driven by children and young adults. These vehicles do not have to be registered, and there is no age limit on who can drive them.

Even off-road vehicle enthusiasts agree that things get a bit wild when so many people are at play with their rugged machines.

“That’s why we call them squirrel pits because it accommodates people who want to go in and show off, pull wheelies and squirrel around,” Bishop said. “These areas are desperately needed . . . so (these users) will stay off trails where they can do some real damage.”

Law enforcement authorities express concern about the crowds drawn to the off-road vehicle “playpens.” Sheriff’s Capt. Thomas Vetter said: “It’s impossible to patrol. . . . There are just too many people doing their own thing.”

Ranger Don Stikkers agreed: “There is a lot of illegal, unsafe use going on in the ORV area. We know that.”

Department of Fish and Game biologist David Drake fears the environmental impact of off-road vehicles. “They race up and down the streams. . . . The degradation in the area is terrible,” Drake said. “Their tires kill fish, kill fish eggs, tear up spawning gravel.”

When they play in the mud, they also create water quality problems, the biologist said. The silt injures the trout’s gills and the muddy water also blocks the fish from migrating upstream, Drake added.