Posted this here because most of you are deeply concerned about future access to trails in the Eldorado NF including the Rubicon.

I am a little confused as to what is actually happening. Here is the five step plan according to their website....

1. Complete an inventory of existing roads, trails, and open areas used by OHV's, and compile Forest OHV Management Direction. Share maps with the public by December 2005. The route inventory includes unclassified roads and provides the baseline data for the route designation effort.

2. Issue Forest Orders prohibiting wheeled vehicles use off the existing roads and trails, as determined by the inventory. These Forest Orders are to be in place no later than Summer 2005 and remain in effect until the designation process is finished.

3. Propose Route designations. Working with you, the Forest will develop a proposal which identifies the existing routes the Forest proposes to designate as OHV routes. Proposals are to be done by October 2005 and public comment solicited by February 2006.

4. Designate Routes. The Forest makes its final decision as to which routes will be designated for OHV use. This decision is to be made by December 2007.

5. Issue Forest Orders for designated routes, sign the routes, and provide user maps. This final step is to be completed no later than September 2008.

We are approaching step 2. Elsewhere on the Eldorado NF website is this info:

Changes to Wheeled Motor Vehicle Use
(Step 2):

The Forest Service will soon be complying with a court order to keep all wheeled motorized travel in the Eldorado National Forest on system roads and trails.

Leads me to believe that access will only be allowed on inventoried trails. Does this include the many spur trails and 'user created' routes that are on the current maps?

Can someone clarify?

Later,
....Mike
http://www.toy4x4.net/

Surprised no one has answered you. Check this thread for info:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=353920&highlight=ElDorado+national+Forest

right now we are waiting for the judge who decided the Eldorado lawsuit to make his final order. should be soon (within this week or next).
Del

The Forest Service will soon be complying with a court order to keep all wheeled motorized travel in the Eldorado National Forest on system roads and trails.[/I]

Leads me to believe that access will only be allowed on inventoried trails. Does this include the many spur trails and 'user created' routes that are on the current maps?

Can someone clarify?

Later,
....Mike


I understand wheeled over the snow travel will be affected also, OFF system roads.

There was significant discussion on this recently here:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378338

In a nutshell, here's what I expect:
1.) (very soon) judge finalizes his response to the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) lawsuit
2.) (shortly after #1) USFS issues an Emergency Forest Order (based on #1) closing traffic in ENF outside USFS system roads or trails. Per the Forest Supervisor, enforcement will be based on the USFS system map, which they expect to release soon.
3.) USFS continues inventory for roads/trails not listed as system roads or trails.
4.) USFS has public process evaluating difference between system roads or trails (~2200 miles) and inventoried road/trails (~3000 miles).
5.) Specifically on/around the Rubicon, USFS has stated their intent to work with the Rubicon Oversight Committee (ROC) to develop access points (I think that's FS-speak for spur trails) and parking areas along the Rubicon Trail.

Here's my take on what we can do, correspondingly, as motivated enthusiasts:
1.) not a damn thing. :(
2.) not a damn thing. :(
3.) make double-damn certain that EVERY trail out there is entered into the inventory, with special focus on every place a tire has ever touched the ground outside of the 50' right-of-way that is the Rubicon Trail
4.) use the USFS public process to lobby insistently, persistently for:
* inclusion of all inventoried trails into USFS system roads or trails
* development of criteria under which new trails/areas can be developed
5.) work with USFS and ROC to develop access points and parking areas along the Rubicon Trail

Note that if we fail to engage at the inventory level *NOW*, we put our faith entirely in the FS responding to reason AFTER the inventory process if through. IF YOU KNOW A TRAIL OR ROAD, BE SURE THAT IT IS ON THE INVENTORY!!!!!

Randii

Don't get distracted by all the legalese-this, judge-that, Washington-says, Supervisor-says... :rolleyes:

This will have a HUGE impact on how the Eldorado National Forest is used. In the near-term, you will not be able to drive ANY spurs off the trail if they aren't numbered USFS system trails. AFAIK, the only FS-approved system road that intersects with Rubicon is Barker Pass, so the following locales will be closed to vehicles (but you can still walk in to the campsites)
* Loon Lake campsites anywhere not numbered and paved
* Loon Lake undeveloped staging area near the kiosk
* Ellis Creek campground
* winter camp, near Little Sluice
* uphill slabs, near Little Sluice (note that Spider Lake is already closed to vehicles)
* almost all of the traditional camping spots below or around Buck will be unavailable.
* overlook area atop Cadillac
Note that all of these, other than the 50-foot corridor where the trail runs, will likely be closed (depends on the wording of the Forest Order)

Your long-term access depends on how well we engage the inventory process now, how well we engage the public process to combine inventoried trails into the USFS system map, and how well we can get the FS to work with us to expand access roads and parking areas after the dust settles.

Homework now is critical.

Randii

I understand wheeled over the snow travel will be affected also, OFF system roads.
Yes, per John Berry, the Forest Supervisor, he plans to specifically exclude snowmobiles from this closure (note that excluding from closure = leaving open). I asked that he broaden that exclusion to "over-the-snow-travel," which is a broader class than snowmobiles, that can include 4x4s in deep snow, but he was very specific that 4x4s would be restricted to system roads and trails ONLY. :(

This will be a significant impact to winter recreation on the Rubicon. :(

Randii

Don't get distracted by all the legalese-this, judge-that, Washington-says, Supervisor-says... :rolleyes:

This will have a HUGE impact on how the Eldorado National Forest is used. In the near-term, you will not be able to drive ANY spurs off the trail if they aren't numbered USFS system trails. AFAIK, the only FS-approved system road that intersects with Rubicon is Barker Pass, so the following locales will be closed to vehicles (but you can still walk in to the campsites)
* Loon Lake campsites anywhere not numbered and paved
* Loon Lake undeveloped staging area near the kiosk
* Ellis Creek campground
* winter camp, near Little Sluice
* uphill slabs, near Little Sluice (note that Spider Lake is already closed to vehicles)
* almost all of the traditional camping spots below or around Buck will be unavailable.
* overlook area atop Cadillac
Note that all of these, other than the 50-foot corridor where the trail runs, will likely be closed (depends on the wording of the Forest Order)

Your long-term access depends on how well we engage the inventory process now, how well we engage the public process to combine inventoried trails into the USFS system map, and how well we can get the FS to work with us to expand access roads and parking areas after the dust settles.

Homework now is critical.

Randii

A lot of the trail is private, major parts of the slabs, spider, the springs etc..

None of that stuff applies there, of course we don't want to lose that right either but it would be nice to have a map of private vs public land in the area..

...it would be nice to have a map of private vs public land in the area..
Be sure to stop by the El Dorado County Parks and Rec office or the Loon Lake Kiosk... the County has recently published a quad-fold brochure that has information, guidelines, and a map on its back that does a pretty good job of showing the various private property parcels. The map is *not* perfect, and has mistakes and improvements that are already in queue for the next printing, but it does provide a high-level overview of that information.

Those private property parcels represent one of the biggest hopes of retaining continued access to the trail, so we need to treat these lands as well as we'd treat our own, so that their owners continue to be flexible with allowing use. For the record, I treat the Forest Service lands as if they are my own, as well -- my tax dollar$ give me that stake, even before the volunteer hours factor in...

Randii

Don't get distracted by all the legalese-this, judge-that, Washington-says, Supervisor-says... :rolleyes:

This will have a HUGE impact on how the Eldorado National Forest is used. In the near-term, you will not be able to drive ANY spurs off the trail if they aren't numbered USFS system trails. AFAIK, the only FS-approved system road that intersects with Rubicon is Barker Pass, so the following locales will be closed to vehicles (but you can still walk in to the campsites)
* Loon Lake campsites anywhere not numbered and paved
* Loon Lake undeveloped staging area near the kiosk
* Ellis Creek campground
* winter camp, near Little Sluice
* uphill slabs, near Little Sluice (note that Spider Lake is already closed to vehicles)
* almost all of the traditional camping spots below or around Buck will be unavailable.
* overlook area atop Cadillac
Note that all of these, other than the 50-foot corridor where the trail runs, will likely be closed (depends on the wording of the Forest Order)

Your long-term access depends on how well we engage the inventory process now, how well we engage the public process to combine inventoried trails into the USFS system map, and how well we can get the FS to work with us to expand access roads and parking areas after the dust settles.

Homework now is critical.

Randii

The above is not acceptable to me. Closing these routes is occuring in Eldorado National forest because the FS is deciding to, not because they have to. The court order will just be the excuse. They still can choose to manage the forest and leave things open during the environmental review period. They can be more flexible on routes, they can work with FOTR to designate viable routes along the rubicon, they can install bathrooms, they can work with us to establish parking and on and on and on.

JMO...In short I believe the FS is not doing anything and I believe don't intend on doing anything. In fact the fewer routes that ultimately get approved/designated the less work the FS has. I'd have to believe they are tickled pink about this route designation process. I just don't like where this is headed at all. I seriously fear this closure will never be lifted. JMO.

right now we are waiting for the judge who decided the Eldorado lawsuit to make his final order. should be soon (within this week or next).
Del

I know that all of this was brought about by a lawsuit claiming improper management, but what are the chances of this whole 'inventory', and 'restricted to classified routes' thing being adopted by other national forests? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who recreates in the Tahoe NF, Stanislaus NF, Sierra NF, etc.

Later,
....Mike
http://www.toy4x4.net/

Mike, AFAIK, this system vs. inventoried routes closure is coming soon to all Forest, and is mandated by Washington. How local forests choose to implement it may vary.

For Eldorado National Forest, the secondary issue is the "improper management" lawsuit, and the Forest Service is responding to it by rolling in the national policy EARLY.

Randii

A lot of the trail is private, major parts of the slabs, spider, the springs etc..

None of that stuff applies there, of course we don't want to lose that right either but it would be nice to have a map of private vs public land in the area..

Not sure if these maps are 100% accurate, although I hope they would be close if they are to be used for future enforcement.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/maps/enf_sw_wentworthsprings.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/maps/enf_se_wentworthsprings.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/maps/enf_sw_homewood.pdf

Later,
....Mike

Mike, AFAIK, this system vs. inventoried routes closure is coming soon to all Forest, and is mandated by Washington. How local forests choose to implement it may vary.

For Eldorado National Forest, the secondary issue is the "improper management" lawsuit, and the Forest Service is responding to it by rolling in the national policy EARLY.

Randii

Hi Randy. I'll be getting down to Rubicon Springs sometime this Friday before dark. I'm hoping to have a chance to talk with you, Del, and others for a few minutes to learn more about what is really going on behind the scenes. There is a lot of misinformation floating around the intarweb.

Later,
....Mike
http://www.toy4x4.net/

A lot of the trail is private, major parts of the slabs, spider, the springs etc..

None of that stuff applies there, of course we don't want to lose that right either but it would be nice to have a map of private vs public land in the area..

ANY regular forest service map shows private parcels. Anything white is private and the green is FS.

Don't get distracted by all the legalese-this, judge-that, Washington-says, Supervisor-says... :rolleyes:

This will have a HUGE impact on how the Eldorado National Forest is used. In the near-term, you will not be able to drive ANY spurs off the trail if they aren't numbered USFS system trails. AFAIK, the only FS-approved system road that intersects with Rubicon is Barker Pass, so the following locales will be closed to vehicles (but you can still walk in to the campsites)
* Loon Lake campsites anywhere not numbered and paved
* Loon Lake undeveloped staging area near the kiosk
* Ellis Creek campground
* winter camp, near Little Sluice
* uphill slabs, near Little Sluice (note that Spider Lake is already closed to vehicles)
* almost all of the traditional camping spots below or around Buck will be unavailable.
* overlook area atop Cadillac
Note that all of these, other than the 50-foot corridor where the trail runs, will likely be closed (depends on the wording of the Forest Order)

Your long-term access depends on how well we engage the inventory process now, how well we engage the public process to combine inventoried trails into the USFS system map, and how well we can get the FS to work with us to expand access roads and parking areas after the dust settles.

Homework now is critical.

Randii
Isn't the overlook area on top of cadillac technically in Tahoe NF, and therefore out of the study area? It looks like the trail is the border there, so anything north of it would be Tahoe NF. Not sure how significant that is.

Isn't the overlook area on top of cadillac technically in Tahoe NF, and therefore out of the study area?
:emb: Yup -- forgive me, I was on a roll. :emb:

The ENF lawsuit and the resulting ENF Forest Order do not apply to TNF, though my understanding is that the inventory process is already underway in TNF, and for that mmater all NFs.

Randii

TNF is covered in the LandUse section: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380999

Earlier, I wrote:

1.) (very soon) judge finalizes his response to the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) lawsuit
2.) (shortly after #1) USFS issues an Emergency Forest Order (based on #1) closing traffic in ENF outside USFS system roads or trails. Per the Forest Supervisor, enforcement will be based on the USFS system map, which they expect to release soon.
3.) USFS continues inventory for roads/trails not listed as system roads or trails.
4.) USFS has public process evaluating difference between system roads or trails (~2200 miles) and inventoried road/trails (~3000 miles).
5.) Specifically on/around the Rubicon, USFS has stated their intent to work with the Rubicon Oversight Committee (ROC) to develop access points (I think that's FS-speak for spur trails) and parking areas along the Rubicon Trail.

Well, we got 1.) and 2.) as expected. We must now execute on 3.) and make damn certain that EVERY trail out there is entered into the inventory, with special focus on every place a tire has ever touched the ground outside of the 50' right-of-way that is the Rubicon Trail. When we're done with that, we can move onto 4.) and 5.) but WE MUST GET EVERY ROUTE LISTED ON THE INVENTORY NOW.

If we fail to engage at the inventory level *NOW*, we put our faith entirely in the FS responding to reason AFTER the inventory process if through.

Are we motivated yet?

Randii

FYI, the Forest Service has started to rev up their information machine... I've started a trhead for press releases and emails over here:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=387411

Randii

FYI, the maps are online....

MOTOR VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS MAP
North Side of Map (PDF, 6.7mb): http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/mvr_fo/enf_mvr_fo-03-05-07_north.pdf
South Side of Map (PDF, 6.1mb): http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/mvr_fo/enf_mvr_fo-03-05-07_south.pdf

FYI, the maps are online....

MOTOR VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS MAP
North Side of Map (PDF, 6.7mb): http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/mvr_fo/enf_mvr_fo-03-05-07_north.pdf
South Side of Map (PDF, 6.1mb): http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/mvr_fo/enf_mvr_fo-03-05-07_south.pdf


Here's some additional info on the website that contradicts some info that has been floating around.


We feel you should know that there were two erroneous messages reported on a local television station concerning the enforcement of changes in where wheeled motorized vehicles can travel in the Eldorado National Forest.

1) Our emphasis is resource protection and public education. We will be issuing citations for violations, as appropriate (it was erroneously reported that we would not be issuing citations).

2) The Court Order, Forest Order, and Recreation Opportunity Guide (found on this website) all make it clear that wheeled motorized vehicles are restricted to system roads and trails managed for motorized vehicles; vehicles are PROHIBITED from driving off of roads (it was reported that vehicles could be DRIVEN up to two vehicles lengths off the road – this is not so). People who are camping or parking must "park on a route that is shown on the free-of-charge Motor Vehicle Restrictions map as open for motorized vehicles (or within a reasonable distance so as not to block the roadway, create a safety hazard, or cause resource damage). You may not travel beyond gates and barriers."

I hope the above information is helpful in clarifying these issues.

John Berry
Forest Supervisor

Anyone know what sort of fines go with the citations? The "reasonable distance" part seems like a bit of a gray area....

Later,
....Mike
http://www.toy4x4.net/

Thanks for posting that, tacomamike... it was in my email but I had not yet put it here.

I have little info beyond what has been provided -- but after talking with the LEO's, there is some room for officer discretion early on, but there will be less later. Remember that this is Forest Order is in response to a lawsuit, so the USFS has to follow it.

At least early on, if the LEO believes that you were truly uninformed, you might get just a warning. Be careful, though -- it ain't just the ticket. Thinking ahead, if we can't show that we'll stay on the trails now, they may be less inclined to cooperate with us in the future, when we want inventoried trails added into the system.

The parking issue isn't much clearer after the email that USFS sent out. If there is a well-defined gravel parking lot, we can't park outside of it... but if there is a poorly-defined dirt-road, I'd be willing to use the two car-length rule, "within a reasonable distance so as not to block the roadway, create a safety hazard, or cause resource damage." That said, I'd be exercising my best judgement, and willing to pay the ticket if the officer's judgement differed.

Randii

At least early on, if the LEO believes that you were truly uninformed, you might get just a warning. Be careful, though -- it ain't just the ticket. Thinking ahead, if we can't show that we'll stay on the trails now, they may be less inclined to cooperate with us in the future, when we want inventoried trails added into the system.

Randii

My concern is areas like the one just below Buck Island Lake. Where is the center of the trail? It gets pretty wide right there, and there are multiple routes. How about the slabs on the south side of the little sluice. Does parking there get you a ticket now? If the sluice is the actual trail, is the bypass on the north now illegal? I want to know where the hell everyone is going to be able to park and not violate this new forest order. Drive straight to Rubicon Springs?

And what is going to happen when people decide that they don't want to pack all their crap down to the existing campsites (not just talking about Buck Island, but everywhere in the ENF) and create a bunch of new tent spots, fire pits, etc. all over the sides of the road/trail?

I'm interested to see how strictly this is all going to be enforced.

This crap is so depressing. I spent the last few days on the Dusy Ershim trail with a bunch of old Jeep guys. Most of them had been wheeling longer than I have been alive. They told us a lot of great stories about the days back before there were wilderness areas and you could actually create new trails to access beautiful places like the Four Wheel Drive Club of Fresno did between 1956 and 1968 when they built Dusy. :mad3:

Later,
....Mike
http://www.toy4x4.net/

Lawsuit details bump, as requested.

wish they would at least give us some lube.

derek