[pct-l] PCTRI response to the Forest Service upholding PCT mountain biking closure

[Nick Thelen]

Quoted from the "Sharing the PCT" facebook page:

Mr. Randy Moore
Regional Forester
U.S. Forest Service
1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, California 94592-1110

Re: Nonmotorized multiuse on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT)—reply to your letter of Nov. 25.

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter of November 25.

We were disappointed, but not surprised, to read that you are not rescinding Regional Order 88-4 
at this time. Still we are asking that USFS engage in a public process to consider an order or 
regulation that is consistent with current best practices and compliant with the Administrative 
Procedure Act. The 1988 closure order was created and signed by three Forest Service employees 
only after the Forest Service Chief declined to issue a regulation. We continue to believe that 
the Administrative Procedure Act calls for a public process to consider the regulation of trail 
use on the PCT.

The 1978 Code of Federal Regulations declaration, which provides that the PCT is primarily intended 
for foot and horse use, is not an impediment to reassessing the current use regime. We have no 
problem stipulating that the PCT is primarily intended for those historically established uses. 
As is the case with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking can coexist alongside 
those primary uses. Mountain biking exists alongside horse and hiker use almost everywhere else, 
including on those tens of thousands of Forest Service trail and road miles to which your November 25 
letter adverts.

Additionally, and beyond the questions of Administrative Procedure Act requirements and the 
application of the 1978 CFR provision, the Forest Service rightfully prides itself on its own 
participatory rulemaking processes. In the case of the PCT bicycle closure, there was not, nor 
has there ever been, a process that would meet Forest Service standards of practice. A cautionary, 
temporary rule has become established, but because of the lack of an adequate promulgation process, 
its legitimacy is tenuous.

We, like you, are saddened by the acrimony that has emerged over this issue. It continues unabated 
and no end to it seems in sight, judging by posts on the Internet. We pledge to you that for our part 
we will continue to conduct ourselves civilly and with a commitment to the community’s good as we 
continue our advocacy.

We welcome the Forest Service’s generous offer to "organize a professionally facilitated discussion 
in the coming year, with the goal of finding common ground for resolving disagreements" and your invitation 
to us to help locate a qualified facilitator. We are trying to find a facilitator that we can recommend, 
and we look forward to participating in the eventual conference or workshop. We will help create meaningful 
and productive dialogue at any meeting that does take place.

We feel very strongly that any such process should have clear goals, milestones and criteria toward planning 
and creating a national trails system that fairly and transparently reflects conservation and societal needs 
that have evolved since the current system and management practices were put in place.

Per your invitation, we will be in contact with [the] Regional Trails Program Manager, and/or [the] Pacific 
Crest Trail Program Manager, on these matters.

Sincerely yours,

PCTRI