el dorado travel management plan email I recieved today

[XJensen]

I might be able to make it. Reserve me a seat!

FYI: It's an open house forum. Feel free to come and go as you please at any time within the listed times of course. They had all the Alt printed out on large maps which were much easier to read.

There were plenty of knowledgeable FS rangers, supervisors, and PR peaople to answer all your questions. Well worth the time.

 

[ocean_jet]

their prefferred method is to keep deer valley (09n83(19E01)) closed:

"Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period for this SEIS. There would not be any amendments to the ENF LRMP under this alternative.
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 with the following exceptions:

Do any of the defined alternatives keep Deer Valley open?

Is there a defined alternative that would be preferred by the offroading community?

 

[XJensen]

Alt 3 states the trails will remain closed until repairs are made

 

[blondejoncherokee]

Actually, the first alternative is to amend the actual forest service definitions along some lines to basically redefine the meadows or trails or something such that no action will be taken to fix the meadow issue, and that all trails remain open. This is not a good option, since surely the group that originally sued over the meadow issue would appeal this option, so the best option is alternative 3, by which we will open the 24 trails that dont cross meadows, and the remaining 18 will be prioritized based on comments and feedback from people like us to say that we prefer the first efforts to be focused on Barret, Deer valley and strawbeery. They have limited resources, limited funding. they are applying for grants to help fund all of this, but as they loose people they are not allowed to backfill for attrition due to budget cuts, therefore they need help with every aspect, not just the actual work days, to help make all of this happen. That is why people that care, like us, need to do what we can to get funding in their hands, as well as volunteer on work days. I plan on joining the hi landers, they have adopted Barret, and after talking to them they plan numerous work days this year to work on the meadow issues and try to get the trail open. I would like to try to do the same for strawberry and Deer valley. The very least you can do is send in comments to eldo forest about your preferences and donations to the right clubs and assocations and also to volunteer your time, that way we can all help get these trails open faster. If we leave it to the understaffed and under funded forest service they will get it done when they have time, but it will be longer than if we help out.

 

[Jeep450r]

Sounds like the USFS is hurting for money to fund the correction of these problems. Instead of fundraising/donating money for CORVA/BRC and the like, is it possible to make a donation directly to the USFS, and specify that the funds be used to maintain/"fix" the closed trails in EDNF? Donating to 3rd party 4wd access groups doesnt sound like it is going to fix the monetary problems in the forest service (which seems like it is the largest problem right now?).

Please let me know if I am interpreting this wrong.

I dont know how things like that (donating to a govt agency for a specific cause) work so I figured Id ask.

And thans jon for breaking the alternatives down for us. Makes more sense to me now.

 

[blondejoncherokee]

right now , what they want to see in the comments are things like :

I prefer alternative 3, and also would prioritize the trails by putting Barret , strawberry, DV, at the top of the list.

You can also recomend changes to the alternatives as well, like

I prefer alternative 3 , but would like to see X Y Z from alternative 4 in there as well,

Also, they do not have to go back to court after this, once the supervisor decides on the final proposed alternative , they are free to move forward (they prefer number 3)

SO they still have to :

1. decide on preferred alternative
2. then conduct the proper analysis at each meadow to determine the best course of action to fix each meadow ( this will take time and be costly , requires environmental engineers to follow NEPA (national environmental policy act of 1972) guidelines and more)
3. actually get funding for the determined methods(applying for lots of grants and OHV funds - it could litterally take years to get funding through these grants)
4. get man power volunteered (in addition to forest service labor) from clubs that adopt the trails and from individuals that want to help out as well


The plan is to do it right this first time around, so we can be assured that we wont have trails closed over meadows in ELDO again, but that wont stop them from suing and closing trails over other reasons.... and that wont stop them from suing other national forests over the same issue.

I am not sure how to directly donate money to the FS, but I am sure we can contact them and figure out the best course of action - ( maybe it will be to donate to the clubs that adopted each trail? )

One great learning from this whole situation is to stay off meadows that are off trail, and to also be mindful when crossing through these things so that we do not further contribute to soil erosion that flows into meadows, diverting water away from meadows, and overall degradation of the vegetation.


here is a link to what some of the solutions may look like, you will have to search for meadow related content in here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment...publications/fs_publications/00232839/toc.cfm

here is a table of contents for trail construction and maintenance from the federal highway administration:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldorado/home/?cid=STELPRDB5362046

pdf of the supplemental impact study:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5410354.pdf


alternative 1:

basically leave everything open and amend the LRMP
" Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment: Amending the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to allow continued public motorized use in sensitive meadow habitats will result in impacts to hydrology, natural vegetation and wildlife habitat."


alternative 2:
Alternative # 2: No Action- everything remains closed and no amendments to the LRMP- except for the 24 routes that dont cross meadows, they will remain open

ALternative 3: (preferred)
24 routes that dont cross meadows remain open, the 18 that do will remain closed until the meadow crossings meet the rules and guidelines in the LRMP

Alternative 4:
was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period for this SEIS. There would not be any amendments to the ENF LRMP under this alternative.
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1 except for the following:
The following routes or portions of routes would be designated for public motorized use: 09N54 (open up to intersection with 09N60, closed to public motorized use past that point), 10N06, 10N26, 11N09A, 11N22, 11N70, 13N24, 09N15, 10NY05 (open from 10NY04 to a point just before drainage near 16E27, and closed beyond that point) and 14N05 (open up to McKinstry Trailhead, closed to public motorized use beyond the trailhead), and 14N27.
17
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Eldorado National Forest Travel Management
The following routes or portions of routes that are currently closed by court order would continue to be a part of the NFTS but would not be designated for public motorized use and identified on a MVUM until the routes are in compliance with Standard and Guideline 100 as it pertains to meadows: 09N01, 09N08, 10N13 (open to a spot suitable for camping just north of Schneider Camp meadow, closed to public motorized use beyond that point), 10N14, 10N21 (16E27) (open except for the section between 10NY04E and the section currently open on the west end), 11N26F (16E21), 11NY32. This alternative identifies these routes for future corrective actions, but does not analyze the actions necessary to bring each route into compliance with Standard and Guideline 100. Corrective actions would be proposed and analyzed as part of future NEPA analyses, as funding to implement corrective actions becomes available. After corrective actions have been analyzed and implemented, the route would appear as a designated public motorized road or trail on the next revision of the MVUM.
The following routes or portions of routes that are currently closed by court order would continue to be a part of the NFTS but would not be designated for public motorized use and identified on a MVUM until mitigation for resource concerns not directly related to Standard and Guideline 100 and meadows is implemented: 08N23B, 12NY15, 08N35, 10N32, and 10NY06. The reasons mitigation is indicated for these routes are documented in the project record, but the mitigation is not analyzed in this document. Mitigation would be proposed and analyzed as part of future NEPA analyses, as funding to implement corrective actions becomes available. After the mitigation has been analyzed and implemented, the route would appear as a designated public motorized road or trail on the next revision of the MVUM. Portions of these routes that are currently open under the court order would remain open for public motorized use.
The following portions of routes that are not currently closed by court order would continue to be a part of the NFTS but would not be designated for public motorized use and identified on a MVUM until mitigation for resource concerns not directly related to Standard and Guideline 100 and meadows is implemented: western 2.26 miles of 09N04 (17E79), and 10N03.
The portions of the following routes that are currently closed to public motorized use under court order would remain closed to public motor vehicle use: 09N54 past intersection with 09N60, 10NY04, 17E12, 14N58, 17E17, 17E21, 09N82 (southern portion 16E26), 09N83 (19E01), 09N95, 10N01 (10N01B), 10N13 (17E73), closed beyond Schneider Camp), 10N21 (portion between 10NY04E and the section currently open on the west end), 10N98, 11N23F (16E33), a portion of 12NY06, 14N05 past McKinstry Trailhead, 14N39, 17E16, 17E19, 17E24 (west and east portions), and 17E28.
A portion of 12NY06 that is not currently closed to public motorized use by court order would be closed in this alternative.




what would be amazing, would be to get every 4x4 club in northern California to raise like 1000$+ each and all donate to the forest service, I would imagine there if there are 50 clubs we could take a real stab at it and raise 50K, which would definetly help a lot , but it would be a big start and it would greatly help keep all of these trails open. We could have like auctions of donated parts where the proceeds go to keeping the trails open, car washes, random stuff like that to raise money.



also I noticed that gold hills Posse is doing their first strawberry maintenance run In May, maybe we could help out with this and work on meadows then etc?

http://forum.posse4x4.org/calendar.php?view=event&calEid=135&sid=f87f1c2875ca96c1bd0072cabfba9750

The hi landers usually do their first maintenence and clean up run on Barret in August by checking their site, so maybe we can help coordinate something there as well.

and the south county trail riders adopted DV: but I cannot find anything on them other than this:
http://www.cal4wheel.com/north-district-clubs/item/south-county-trail-riders

maybe we could help aid in fixing up Deer valley.

Good news about deer valley, there is only one problem spot, that is the first meadow/crossing coming from the 4 side. the rest meet rules and guidelines. If we can get this one meadow up to snuff, we can get DV back open

and we shouldnt forget about the Pardoe trail (squar ridge) here is a list from another naxja thread last year on this issue

This list came from Friends of the Eldorado National Forest

Barrett Lake 4WD
Hi-Landers

Strawberry Creek 4WD
Gold Hills Posse

Deer Valley 4WD
South County Trail Riders

Squaw Ridge (Pardoe 4WD)
Mud Lake
Onion Valley
Porthole Gap 17E24
Motherload Rock Crawlers

Long Canyon 4WD
Sierra Treasure Hunters

Plummer Ridge (not affected)
Sacramento Jeepers

Hell Hole Trail (not affected)
Capitol City Mountain Goats

 

[GSequoia]

Is the forest supervisor friendly to us?

Is there an existing Adopt-A-Trial system in place?

Could you guys aid in creating a "Freinds of El Dorado" group to fund the projects. You cannot donate directly to hte USFS and expect the funds to reach your goal. If you have good USFS personnel you may be able to donate goods (tools, etc).

 

[blondejoncherokee]

The forest supervisor is extremely friendly. we met her on tuesday. She is very much all about keeping the trails open.

I thought there was a FOE already but cant find anything on it anywhere?

 

[EricsXJ]

You cannot donate directly to hte USFS and expect the funds to reach your goal. If you have good USFS personnel you may be able to donate goods (tools, etc).

I agree. Throwing money at the USFS would be throwing it away. I would find out what the FS needs to do to repair the meadow at Deer Valley and apply our own money towards materials, tools, labor to accomplish that specific goal. If we show we are willing to help in this manner I don't see why they wouldn't bump that trail high up on the priority list to get done.

 

[GSequoia]

I thought there was a FOE already but cant find anything on it anywhere?

The name sounds familiar but it could be a Rubicon-centric group. I dunno, I'm just some asshole from down South

 

[Skipper51]

I agree. Throwing money at the USFS would be throwing it away. I would find out what the FS needs to do to repair the meadow at Deer Valley and apply our own money towards materials, tools, labor to accomplish that specific goal. If we show we are willing to help in this manner I don't see why they wouldn't bump that trail high up on the priority list to get done.

I agree Eric throwing money at the government might not be the best way to go. :us:
We are DIY people and throwing in with someone or starting a work day to fix up Deer Valley sounds great and a direct way to help fix the problem. arty:
There is not going to be much snow this year so getting in early may not be a problem. :wave:
What do they want done? wl: Do we want to give up wheeling time to help fix this? :dunno:
:helpme:

 

[16vvincent]

Went to the meeting in Jackson last night. They appear to be very willing to use the manpower (and woman power) to do the necessary repairs / modifications that will be needed to open the trails back up.
But like everything else run by the government, it is in a "planning to make a plan" stage.

I would suggest that as the Sierra Chapter, we would contact the FS and perhaps Adopt the trail that most of the members are interested in (I haven't been through most of these and therefore cannot comment) and leave your input as to what should be done and which trail it should be done to on the comment section of the web site.

Everyone that I met there (especially the Supervisor) last night seemed to be very interested in keeping the areas / trails open but are under the same watchful eye of the Enviroment Wakos that effects us all these days.

Be sure to post your thoughts and comments on the USFS website before April 8 (if I remember correctly).

 

[XJensen]

I would suggest that as the Sierra Chapter, we would contact the FS and perhaps Adopt the trail that most of the members are interested in (I haven't been through most of these and therefore cannot comment) and leave your input as to what should be done and which trail it should be done to on the comment section of the web site.

Already in the works.

Thanks for getting involved!

 

[16vvincent]

And, if and when the time to throw labor and energy (perhaps a little cash), let me know. I am more then willing to do a bunch of trail work.

 

[XJensen]

Please email comments to [email protected]

If you have not already. Just talk about the trails you use and would like to use. Would you like them to open again? I would let them know....