Tahoe National Forest DEIS

Read it and weep:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe/projects_plans/ohv_inv/DEIS_overview.shtml

Right on schedule...................

HEY, cover letter is addressed to "Dear Friend of the Tahoe National Forest". Didn't know we had a FOTNF group, is that an omen?

Where is link to request hard copy and CDs?

Right on schedule...................
Where is link to request hard copy and CDs?

John posted the e-mail around here somewhere...

I will try to find it.

Here is the e-mail addy to submit comments:

tnf_rte_desig@fs.fed.us

OMG!

Wolverine? :shaking:

It was a FARCE!

Wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox: The wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox are wideranging
carnivores that use a variety of vegetation types, but appear to select areas that are relatively free
from significant human disturbance. Both the wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox are designated by
the Regional Forester in the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service as Sensitive Species. Table S-12 summarizes the overall net effect to wolverine and the Sierra Nevada red fox from the proposed
actions from motorized route additions, prohibition of cross country travel, wet weather restrictions, and
seasonal closures. All of the action alternatives benefit wolverine and red fox habitat. The greatest benefit
is in Alternative 3; the least benefit in Alternative 5.

At first glance it's obvious we want to push for Alternative 2.

GREENHORN IS INCLUDED IN ALTERNATIVE 2!!!!!

Kurt,

How quick can you get a letter up on the generator? :D

A FOUR MONTH WINTER CLOSURE????

That's not gonna happen. :mad3:

There are only some bypasses on Fordyce. On alternative 6...:shaking:

I will say, I really like the Road cards.....but the maps are very limited with numbers and such, that makes it difficult.

You need to cross reference them with the index, and then find them on the map.

Kurt,

How quick can you get a letter up on the generator? :D

With all I got going on today, finals, FOE workparty, entering grades......

I will not be able to get it set up until Monday or Tuesday.

Any help with the wording for the generator page and/or a sample letter would be greatly appricated.

With all I got going on today, finals, FOE workparty, entering grades......

I will not be able to get it set up until Monday or Tuesday.

Any help with the wording for the generator page and/or a sample letter would be greatly appricated.

I'll have one ready in a few :D

I'll have one ready in a few :D

Thank you...


E-mail me it if you could.

If you are real entergetic, word the entire letter generator page and I will get it to Travis from BRC today.

What a massive document!

This work thing sure gets in the way of stuff like this.

I printed out the summary and will start reading this evening.

The Down and dirty:

Tahoe National Forest Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fall, 2008

Overview: Off highway vehicle use in the National Forests has increased substantially in the past 30 years, especially in California. With the growing number of users and types of vehicles, there is a need to better manage motorized use.

The purpose of this travel management process is to
protect forest resources while providing a challenging and diverse motorized trail and road system that accesses the forest for a variety of recreation opportunities.


This proposed action was released for formal public comment in the spring, 2007. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was developed based on those public comments. The DEIS has been completed and is now available for about a 2-month public review.

The DEIS will address the following:

- Cross Country Travel: Cross country travel is currently not prohibited on 700,000+ acres in the Tahoe National Forest. This DEIS looks at prohibiting cross country travel throughout the forest, except for designated areas, roads and trails.

- Addition of Trails: In the Tahoe National Forest, there are
approximately 2800 miles of System roads and motorized trails that are already included in the National Forest Transportation System. In addition, there are 1400 miles of unauthorized trails including old logging roads, historic mining trails, and user created trails. The DEIS looks at
adding some of these unauthorized routes to the established motorized trail system.

- Seasons of Use: The DEIS looks at a variety of seasonal restrictions on National Forest Transportation System roads and trails due to:

The needs of winter deer range and holding areas as identified in the Forest Plan;

Wet weather erosion and water quality concerns;

Existing forest orders for site specific needs.

- Class of Vehicles: In general, National Forest System smooth surface roads (graded dirt, paved or chip sealed) would be Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, while rough dirt or rocky roads would be Open to All Vehicles. Some of the alternatives would allow specific smoother surface
roads to be Open to All Vehicles�.

Alternatives: The draft environmental impact statement discusses 7 different alternatives for managing motorized use in the National Forest. Briefly, the alternatives are:

1) No Action - This alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and provides a baseline for comparing other alternatives. Under this alternative no changes would be made to the current Transportation
System of roads and trails. Motorized cross country travel would not be prohibited.

2) Motorized Recreation and Access Opportunities - All site specific routes that were recommended for addition during the earlier public scoping process were added to this alternative totaling 72 miles in addition to 2 open areas. The reservoirs east of Truckee would also be designated as open below high water line. Cross country travel would be prohibited. A modified deer closure would be incorporated, however no wet weather closures would be included. 481 miles of smoother surface roads would be changed to Open to all Vehicles.

3) Cross-Country Travel Prohibited - with No Changes to Existing National Forest Transportation System. The only change in this alternative would be to prohibit cross country travel.

4) Modified Proposal by Environmental Group Coalition - This would prohibit motorized travel off system roads and trails, would add wet weather closures, and would add 31 miles of new trails to the system. None of the trail additions would be in Roadless Areas or in spotted owl or goshawk protected activity centers.

5) Modified Proposal by Blue Ribbon Coalition - This would prohibit motorized travel off system roads and trails, would establish seasons of use to incorporate modified deer and wet weather closures, would maintain most of the roads open to both street legal and off road vehicles; and would add 238 miles of trail to the system. 481 miles of smoother surface roads would be changed to Open to All Vehicles.

6) Preferred Alternative - This would prohibit cross country travel, would establish seasons of use to incorporate a modified deer and wet weather closures, and would add 70 miles to the trail system. None of the trail additions would significantly impact Roadless Area character or spotted owl/goshawk protected activity centers. Considering public need and public safety, 276 miles of smoother surface roads would be changed to Open to All Vehicles�.

7) Notice of Intent - This was the proposal released in the spring of 2007, and would prohibit cross country travel and add 45 miles to the trail system.

Effects of Alternatives: The DEIS discloses the various effects of alternatives for each of the different resources including: air quality, archeology, watershed resources, wildlife species, plant communities, recreation, transportation, Roadless Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, fire,
adjacent ownerships, and socio-economic impacts.

So instead of the traditional 45 days, they are giving us the maximum amount of 60 days.

60 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH TO GET THROUGH THIS BEHEMOUTH1!!!

We need to ask for an additional 30+ days. 90 might be enough.

Dang this thing is HUGE.

And if you read carefully, you find these little tid-bits

Environmental Justice___________________________________

...Many new and revived uses for resources in the national forests (e.g., medicinal plants) or new forms of recreation (e.g., mountain bikes and personal watercraft) and new attitudes about aesthetic enjoyment bring diverse interests into the debate over national forest management. Equity and access are two key issues for which the Forest Service is held accountable by law and public sentiment.

:smokin:

I just got home and found my package with the 10lb paper copy.

LOTS of reading ahead...there are nice big paper maps of all the alternatives this time.

From a quick glance, I don't see huge differences between the various proposals, unlike ENF's. It doesn't appear that they want to flat out "close" as much as ENF did? They convieniently haven't listed how many miles of roads each one would close (unlike ENF's) though too...

4, 5, & 6 all would close 2000+ miles of roads 5 months out of the year though, and BRC's proposal (2500mi) seems more restrictive than the environmental groups proposal (2100mi) in this aspect. :confused:

I should probably shadup and wait for the rest of you who actually know what you're doing to come out with some cliff notes though. :D

Its about time they got those things out..Bebe if we need a place to have a letter writing going over this mess party I have a big shop that we can use on the weekends. I also have access to copy machines...hehehe This thing sucks and we need to get on this ugly mess

Its about time they got those things out..Bebe if we need a place to have a letter writing going over this mess party I have a big shop that we can use on the weekends. I also have access to copy machines...hehehe This thing sucks and we need to get on this ugly mess

Can I e-mail you some flyers??? :D

Does the shop have wifi? LOL Power would work tho. :D

no WIFI but I can just tap into the T1 in the server room and we have lots of hookups. send me the flyer and I will take care of it.

From a quick glance, I don't see huge differences between the various proposals, unlike ENF's. It doesn't appear that they want to flat out "close" as much as ENF did? They convieniently haven't listed how many miles of roads each one would close (unlike ENF's) though too...

4, 5, & 6 all would close 2000+ miles of roads 5 months out of the year though, and BRC's proposal (2500mi) seems more restrictive than the environmental groups proposal (2100mi) in this aspect. :confused:



The mileage charts are in there. The question is not necessarily mileage, but it is.

We need to identify miles of trails vs mile of roads. Maintenance levels 1-5. BRC's probably has more trails than roads, and the EcoT's have more roads than trail. The differences are subtle.


And at first glance you are correct, it does not look as dramatic as Eldo's. And this surely was by design.

This is because many of the roads submitted by OHVer's during the scoping period were not included. So we are basically starting out with less right off the bat.

I'm thinking for now, as we start to dig into this, we should let those folks who know their areas best chime in:

Tinman, Jethrodeg and Rkratz should take Fordyce

SnoWhite and FOTFA to take Gold Valley, Bowman, Omega etc

Bebe, ErikB, 42's on u with Greenhorn, Steephollow, and road 19

Winter closure HAS to be a focus. Camping areas and Dispersed Camping HAS to be a focus.

Our strategy is sure to evolve as more folks get involved. So lets all just try to roll with it. 50 pairs of eyes on a doc this big is better than a few "pro's". (which none of us here are)

We all need to get into it.

Post up here is you find something that doesn't strike you as right. Trust your gut. We'll figure out how to best attack it as we go forward. 60 days is not much time.

no WIFI but I can just tap into the T1 in the server room and we have lots of hookups. send me the flyer and I will take care of it.

cool, I have a linksys :-) Flyer coming shortly :-)

From a quick glance, I don't see huge differences between the various proposals, unlike ENF's. It doesn't appear that they want to flat out "close" as much as ENF did?
Except for the 1188.9 miles off the top that we lose that existed in the inventory but are absent in every alternative, except perhaps Alt 2 (gotta check).

They've framed the bargaining by limiting the options... now we need to take the fight back to them by providing our own alternative. :evil:

Randii

So we are basically starting out with less right off the bat.
What she said...

50 pairs of eyes on a doc this big is better than a few "pro's". (which none of us here are)
Let's not quibble on better or worse -- but I am DAMN certain that 50 pairs of our eyes and a few "pro's" is better than either alone.

Randii

What she said...


Let's not quibble on better or worse -- but I am DAMN certain that 50 pairs of our eyes and a few "pro's" is better than either alone.

Randii


ohhhkay.....I was trying to be clever instead of 2 heads are better than 1, I guess it didn't come out as I had planned. :emb2:

The pro's will be invaluable, but so will each and every person who recreates in the Tahoe.

For someone who is not familiar with Tahoe NF, but can show up to the Auburn meeting, what are the main points that we should be aware of?

From first glance, it definitely looks better than Eldos DEIS... but knowing the FS, what are the tricks up their sleeve? Randi's mention of dropping out trails on the front side has got me curious. Were they existing on prior maps, or were they user created trails in the literal sense?

top

All of the Tahoe Alternatives budgets are 22.0 Million - 28.0 Million.

Their current funding is 2 million.

Why are we even having this conversation? OHMVR and Volunteer Labor cannot possibly make up 20 million just for the Tahoe.

SO they close the Forest in the Winter until the trails are dry (6 months) and now they only need half the budget they needed before.

SO now they will need 10 million a year....still not attainable.

Like I said on the other thread I call BS, the Forest are (I believe) dramatically inflating operations cost to justify closing trials, do not except these numbers demand an investigation. At the same time write to Congress, demand they unravel the legal mess that allows this kind of run away Government spending, the National Dept's now $11 Trillion Dollars get a :flipoff2: clue...TJ

Like I said on the other thread I call BS, the Forest are (I believe) dramatically inflating operations cost to justify closing trials, do not except these numbers demand an investigation.

I completely agree with you on this one.

I'd like to know how they figure there back log numbers also and have it my notes to comment.

I can say with certainty that they do not maintain every maint level 2 and below every year. If they are calculating the back log as per mile what it would cost to fully maintain, that's a bunch of BS:mad3:

Here's another statement that I found that I don't like...

pg 10:
• Method 1: The first method would be to change the vehicle class from “Highway Legal Vehicles Only” to “Open to All Vehicles” by maintaining the road for high clearance vehicles until it meets high clearance conditions (ungraded, rough surface, pot holes, “wash boarding,” etc) which generally have a lower crash risk due to reduced driving speeds...

Prior to designation, a qualified road engineer would assess the actual road condition and determine whether high-clearance vehicle conditions have developed sufficiently to safely allow mixed use. Although some time would elapse between a decision and the actual on-theground designation of such routes for mixed use, each alternative identifies these routes as
“Open to All Vehicles” for analysis purposes in this DEIS.

To go from “Highway Legal Vehicles Only” to “Open to All Vehicles” the FS MUST go through a few steps after making the initial decision. There is public notification and signing to name a couple.

Ride on
Brewster

There is a roads analysis in the Doc....and an engineer has looked and rated all of them (the proposed anyway). I met her last Friday night in Sierraville.

Question for someone to ask at a meeting please....since I cant make any of them :shaking:

Where did they get these estimates from??? A hat?

Volume 1 pg 68. Social Economic Impact

Economic effects tied to motorized and non-motorized activities were estimated to address the economic impact issue tied directly to Travel Management.

Seasonal closures on native surface (dirt) 2 roads and system trails in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 are likely to have some level of impact to the local economy. Yet, this effect, again, is nearly immeasurable in relationship to the overall economy in the area. Any potential effects would likely impact gas stations, convenience stores, and other retail stores in local communities.

Table S-49. Total Employment and Labor Income Effects
Employment Effects
(full and part time jobs)
Labor Income
(2008 dollars)
Non-Motorized Recreation Use 245.5 $4,492,972
Motorized Recreation UseUse 69.1 $1,334,614
All Other Recreation Use 1061.9 $19,782,041
Total for Area 1,376.6 $25,609,626.2

DEIS
in 2005, the tahoe national forest (tnf) completed an inventory of motorized trails un-authorized for motorized use on nfs lands as described in the moi and identified approximately 1,400 miles of motorized trails un-authorized for motorized use. The tnf then used an interdisciplinary process to conduct travel analysis that included working with the public to identify proposals for changes to the existing tnf transportation system. Roads, trails and areas that are currently part of the tnf transportation system and open to motorized vehicle travel will remain designated for such use except as described below under the proposed action. This proposal makes needed changes (vehicle restrictions, additional motorized trails and areas, etc.) to the tahoe national forest nfs roads, nfs trails and areas
on nfs lands in accordance with the travel management rule (36 cfr part 212.50-57).

NOI
in 2005, the tnf completed an inventory of unauthorized routes on nfs lands as described in the moi and identified approximately 2,500 miles of
unauthorized routes. The tnf then used an interdisciplinary process to conduct travel analysis that included working with the public to identify proposals for changes to the existing tnf transportation system. Roads, trails
and areas that are currently part of the tnf transportation system and open to wheeled motorized vehicle travel will remain designated for such use except
as described below under the proposed action. This proposal identifies needed
changes (vehicle restrictions, additional motorized trails and areas, etc.) to the tahoe national forest nfs roads, nfs trails and areas on nfs lands in
accordance with the travel management rule (36 cfr part 212).

Where did this 1100 miles go? Were these unauthorized hiking trails?