Eldorado NF SEIS - Water Quality, Conditional Designations, and OHV

Rock Armor on Rubicon Trail

 

As OHV and other access stakeholder groups prepare comments for the Eldorado SEIS, HQ wants to remind readers that water quality-based travel management decisions – particularly in high elevation alpine-like settings – are here to stay.

 

Yesterday, BRC issued an alert/update with key concepts for affected parties to review as they prepare to file comments on the SEIS.  One of those ideas is “conditional designation” or pre-designation of routes once relevant mitigation measures are implemented.

 

BRC Alert with Key Concepts on Eldorado SEIS (link to 11 year Eldo legal fight there too)

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2013/03/05/california--recreation-groups-offer-guidance-on-eldorado-meadow-routes-seis

OHV Bridge at Mace Mill OHV Area

 

OHVers already have examples of water-based legal and political battles at the Rubicon Trail, Mace Mill OHV Area, Minimization Criteria in the Stanislaus legal case, and Carnegie SVRA just to name a few.  Implementation of water-based mitigation measures (trail reroutes, hillside stabilization, bridges, barriers, construction of contour trails, armored trails in riparian areas, etc.) have been critical in those areas to keep trails open.

 

Link to QWR’s Recent Blog with Photos of Carnegie SVRA Mitigations

http://www.quietwarriorracing.com/Blog.php

 

Overview of the “Minimization” Issue in the Stanislaus NF Legal Case

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2013/01/stanislaus-court-decision-and.html

 

Contour Trail at Carnegie SVRA

 

 

 

HQ believes that conditional designations are an effective tool in travel planning.  Several Forests have adopted that prescription to restore access to historic motorized trails in alpine areas.  Also, our good friend, Steve Pretzel, the Director for Trail Bike Management in Australia, has addressed water-quality and other environmental and political issues to enhance OHV recreation in that country.  Trail crews at various state and federal agencies and private firms including the folks at Trails Unlimited and RecConnect spend a lot of their time installing water-based mitigation measures.

 

Link to Inyo NF Conditional Designations

https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5372257.pdf

 

Link to 2012 NOHVCC Conf. where Pretzel, Trails Unlimited, et al gave presentations

http://quietwarriorracing.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-trail-ideas-highlighted-at-2012.html

 

Given the current and foreseeable political, regulatory, economic, and legal climate, OHV user groups and clubs will have to work even harder with land management agencies and partners on efforts to address water-based environmental concerns that will “minimize” trail closures and maximize trail opportunities.    

New Direction for OHV Legal Interests in 2010?

The Carnegie saga woke up a lot of SF Bay Area off-roaders to the fact that motorized recreation is under a vicious and unrelenting assault by anti-OHV groups (that now include “fishing” organizations).

*

Photo: Federal Road Ripping During a Flood Event
*
It has also exposed the soft underbelly of some so-called environmental groups as having an agenda that has nothing to do with “protecting the environment” – but having everything to do with the exercise of political power over their adversaries. (e.g. timber, mining, OHV, ranching, developers, and farmers)

See my Blog on NIMBY War – this book confirms the political ambitions of enviro groups
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/12/book-review-nimby-wars-must-read-for.html

For several weeks, The General has stated he believes off-roaders will see an avalanche of anti-OHV lawsuits in 2010 and beyond based on junk science, crisis mongering, and non-substantive technical violations.

What you won’t see are those same environmental groups challenging aggressive TMR road decommissioning projects that do not have site-specific NEPA documents or worse yet are being worked on with heavy equipment during the wet season (yes, the same wet season when OHV use is either banned or severely restricted). It has been The General’s experience that enviros (and some agency staff) turn a blind-eye to resource impacts if the goal of the project level activity is to CLOSE an area or route to OHV use.

Recreation HQ believes that OHV legal interests should consider filing a lawsuit on federal travel planning projects where there are either gross or technical NEPA violations
or where there are sediment impacts that violate BMPs or other water quality regulations to important salmon (yes, real salmon habitat – not the Carnegie hoax fish habitat) fisheries.

The General is asking the troops to keep an eye open for examples that match the aforementioned scenario as depicted in today’s photograph.

Filing lawsuits against enviro groups or agency bureaucrats based on corruption, dishonesty, or bias - although sounding good - really don’t have much legal merit. However, environmental law suits based on NEPA, water quality, or ESA violations do have merit and maybe that is the type of suit OHV legal representatives should be looking for besides our standard intervention-type legal actions.

Feel free to leave a comment on this blog (you must be signed up as a follower to comment). And yes, your comments are important!

Thanks for your service!

*