Update - Eldorado NF SEIS Comments Due Nov. 7

The Recreation HQ wants to remind riders that the comment period for the Eldorado NF's
SEIS -- that addresses the "42 meadow routes" that were ordered closed this last summer by a federal court -- are due on Nov. 7.  Many of those routes are popular "high country" trails used by OHVers after the winter snow melts.

BRC has issued an updated alert today on this issue.  The alert below contains some key bullet points for you to consider when making your comments.  Also, it is important for users to talk about the importance of specific routes referenced in the SEIS/Proposed Action.

Nov. 2 BRC Alert (with talking points)
www.sharetrails.org



Here is the snail mail address for your comments:

Be sure and put: Eldorado NF SEIS in the subject line.

Kathryn D. Hardy
Forest Supervisor
Eldorado National Forest
100 Forni Road
Placerville, CA 95667

Email to: comments-pacificsouthwest-eldorado@fs.fed.us

Thanks for your efforts on this subject.

Don

New FS Rule Green Lights Road Ripping

HQ is extremely concerned about the new proposed Forest Service rule that would allow categorical exclusions (Cat Ex) for the aggressive decommissioning (e.g. road ripping) of public routes.

Article on Proposed Rule to Rip Roads
http://politicalnews.me/?id=14873&keys=ENVIRONMENTAL-REVIEWS-RESTORATION-FOREST

BRC Media Release on Proposed Rule (good read and lots of info)

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2012/06/13/blueribbon-coalition-criticizes-us-forest-service-proposed-rule

According to one notorious anti-access champion as cited in an E &E article…”The new categorical exclusions appear less controversial than earlier proposals that sought to exempt certain tree removal projects from NEPA reviews, said Andy Stahl, executive director for the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.”  Hey Andy, how about cutting OHV some slack when it comes to designating historic "non-system" routes that have been used for decades and some even signed and maintained by the FS?

While some of the proposed cat ex’s for restoration work could be used to address OHV trail maintenance issues, HQ believes this new rule - with the usual lack of oversight from either the FS’s Washington Office or Regional Offices – basically gives the “green light” to Forests that are hell bent on the aggressive decommissioning of routes to go forth and rip.

One example of this is where the BRC et al filed a lawsuit which challenged the Smith River NRA’s road ripping (e.g. ground disturbing activities during the rainy season in the watershed of a wild and scenic river) without any NEPA process. 

BRC Lawsuit Challenging Road Ripping

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2010/05/18/county-and-recreation-groups-challenge-illegal-road-decommissioning-northern-califor

Link to lawsuit

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Turcke_Six_Rivers_Lawsuit_Orig_Filed_May2010.pdf

Another example of an overzealous unit when it comes to decommissioning of route is on the Gunnison NF in Colorado.

HQ blog with info on that Unit (letters, etc.)

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2011/09/road-ripping-hits-colorado-nf.html

HQ history of Road Ripping (letters and strategy of eco-groups)

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/05/road-ripping-is-coming-to-forest-near.html

The most recent example of a unit that focuses on road decommissioning is highlighted in BRC’s June 5 scoping comments on a proposed action that combines TMR with a large road ripping project.

BRC’s June 5, 2012 Scoping Comments on the Six Rivers NF/Smith River NRA Proposed Action

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Tyrone_EIS_scoping_comments_6-5-12.pdf
 
 Stay tuned on this latest version of the road ripping saga...

Making Lemonade out of Lemons - Moving Forward on TMR

In HQ’s opinion, “Round One” of TMR has been a huge failure and public relations nightmare on many units. TMR was supposed to be a positive planning effort to address the proliferation of illegal routes and “unmanaged” OHV use on federal timberlands.


However, instead of focusing their energy to manage OHV recreation, TMR focused on landscape level closures (on many Forests) of thousands of miles of historic and popular roads and trails used by the OHV community and general public.

HQ has believed the key to resolving this rather contentious paradigm was for the agency to move into post subpart B project level trail planning and reestablish a good working relationship with local government and users.

The Shasta Trinity National Forest may be a good case study on finding a way forward based on the news article from the Redding Record Searchlight.

Record Searchlight Article on New Travel Planning Efforts and Restoring Public Trust
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/08/county-moves-to-open-roads/

HQ on BBQ Diplomacy (Working with Local Counties)
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/09/bbq-diplomacy-and-county-coordination.html

The planning trail efforts ahead will take a lot of work from various stakeholder groups and the agency. HQ wants to commend ROC, RDR, and others in the Redding area for their access efforts. In addition, we want to thank the agency for moving forward on new planning efforts that include site-specific field review (see BRC comments/review of Beegum Project below).

BRC Comment Letter on Shasta T Beegum Project
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Beegum_Project_20110001.pdf

Kudos to all in the North Country for working in a sincere manner on TMR-related issues.

Roadless Court Decision - Greens and Court Validate OHV Recreation

RDR (left), FS (center), The General (right) on Trail Planning Project Review

The Recreation HQ has received a number of private emails asking what it thinks about the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling regarding suits filed against the Clinton Roadless Rule.

BRC News Release on Court Ruling
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2011/10/24/recreation-groups-respond-roadless-rule-decision

AP Article on Roadless Ruling
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/nation/la-na-forest-roadless-20111022

HQ’s missive today is not an endorsement of the court’s decision that negatively restricts the agency’s ability to do resource management of federal timber in inventoried roadless areas.

Our view from a strictly trail-based recreation perspective is that the court decision validates the appropriateness of OHV recreation in IRAs. Unlike the early days of the roadless battle where you had some Forests closing jeep routes in IRAs because they interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as a closure directive, you now have green groups, FS, and the court supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.

Blog on Green Groups Supporting OHV Routes in IRAs
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/08/green-groups-defend-ohv-trails-in.html


HQ believes the commitment of BRC and other OHV groups to challenge the Clinton Roadless Rule in numerous legal venues over the last 10 years has been of great value because those fights have resulted in the greens and courts validating and supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.


HQ agrees with BRC’s hope that users and the Forest Service can now redirect efforts and energy from court battles to going out on the ground and doing post subpart B project level trail planning.

BRC Example of Recent Project Level Planning Trip on the Shasta Trinity NF
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Beegum_Project_20110001.pdf

Trail Planning in WA
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2011/10/19/washington---olympic-nf-hosts-public-meeting-regarding-orv-riding-in-calawah-watershed

HQ believes post subpart B project level trail planning is what users and the agency should be focused on. It will require a lot of hard work by both parties, but the end result will be worth it.