Elorado Nat. Forest Closures - Tactic 1

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Stop signing your stuff as "Jac"

Maybe they think Jacquelyne Bebe Theisen is french

[Throttleman]

And "Occupy" an area they want to close, say Deer Valley for example. What could the FS do? Write us all tickets for tresspass. We then fight the ticket in Placerville court.

Additionally is the FS going to spend limited funds and put up new signs all over the place? Seems like a huge waste of precious money that could be used for good somewhere else.

Someone please suggest additional means of fighting these closures. I am down to volunteer and will Paypal some $$ to the cause.

[R290]

I think we need to use what the FS has published to help resolve the conflict about water crossings and or meadows.

since it's a PDF actual a lot of them. I can only post the link.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/


Chapter 5 has some good examples of crossing that would resolve issue on some the routes being closed.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by R290

I think we need to use what the FS has published to help resolve the conflict about water crossings and or meadows.

since it's a PDF actual a lot of them. I can only post the link.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/


Chapter 5 has some good examples of crossing that would resolve issue on some the routes being closed.

Isn’t this whole thing the result of an FS failure to include meadows, wetlands and water crossings in their study?

[jjeep71]

If I read the info correctly these 42 trails are being closed because 4.6 miles of the 136 miles of trails cross meadows. There has to be a way to fix this. I have seen trails that cross critical watershed areas with log bridges or rocks in to keep erosion and sediment down. Is it too late to look at these areas and come up with a plan?

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by jjeep71

If I read the info correctly these 42 trails are being closed because 4.6 miles of the 136 miles of trails cross meadows. There has to be a way to fix this. I have seen trails that cross critical watershed areas with log bridges or rocks in to keep erosion and sediment down. Is it too late to look at these areas and come up with a plan?

Is there not a lawsuit, which was brought against the Forest Service that prompted this to start with?

Is it possible the parties who brought it are going to stand down . . . I dunno?

[jjeep71]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Is there not a lawsuit, which was brought against the Forest Service that prompted this to start with?

Is it possible the parties who brought it are going to stand down . . . I dunno?

Ok, I get your point. Unlikely they will stand down.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by jjeep71

Ok, I get your point. Unlikely they will stand down.

Once the study is completed, depending upon the findings, the determination of the Judge, other lawsuits potentially resulting from his decision if any, and IF we finally are allowed back on ANY of the trails in question . . . then perhaps we can help with remediation of areas and issues deemed problematic, if allowed to do so.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Once the study is completed, depending upon the findings, the determination of the Judge, other lawsuits potentially resulting from his decision if any, and IF we finally are allowed back on ANY of the trails in question . . . then perhaps we can help with remediation of areas and issues deemed problematic, if allowed to do so.

What will likely happen is that the Adopt a trail clubs will get administrative access to mitigate any meadow issues - that's my guess. So if you want to wheel in Eldo this summer on the favorite trails, better cozy up to the AAT clubs and get in on a work party or two.

I love work parties....first we work, then we party

[jjeep71]

Originally Posted by Bebe

I love work parties....first we work, then we party

This!

[Kurtuleas]

We have to keep in mind that the Forest Service DID NOT want to close these routes. If they did, they would have been closed during the FEIS.

They are being MADE to close these routes becuase of the lawsuit by the CBD.

[LYIN' KING]

Very optimistic!

I doubt that anything will be resolved so soon and am certain that no remediation efforts will be allowed in that short time frame, if at all.

Is it not the pattern of the FS to take the path of least resistance and act in a manner that minimizes the chance of further litigation over issues in any given area?

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

We have to keep in mind that the Forest Service DID NOT want to close these routes. If they did, they would have been closed during the FEIS.

They are being MADE to close these routes becuase of the lawsuit by the CBD.

Interesting note:

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER

Federal Defendants hereby submit this brief in support of the proposed order submitted herewith and in compliance with this Court’s Order, ECF No. 106. Federal Defendants have consulted with the parties in this litigation. Plaintiffs have not yet had an opportunity to formulate a position on the proposed order. Intervenor Defendant opposes the proposed order

Federal Defendents = Forest Service
Intervenor Defendents = OHV groups
Plaintiffs = CBD/CSNC aka eco whackos

To address the Court’s Order, the Forest Service proposes that public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be prohibited along the entire length of 18 of the 42 routes.

Link to said FS Proposal <----Click here.

The Forest Service has created a field survey method for the revised RCO Analysis for S&G #100 to determine whether any specific route segment of the 42 routes intersecting a meadow may not meet S&G #100. Markman Decl. at ¶11-13. The Forest Service also has conducted some preliminary on-the-ground evaluations of all meadows along these 42 routes. Id. The preliminary data indicates that some of the route segments intersecting meadows may be consistent with S&G #100 while some routes may not be consistent. Markman Decl. at ¶13.The Forest Service will complete this analysis to determine which of the meadows crossed by these 42 routes may or may not be consistent with RCO#2 S&G #100 before issuing a decision.

This means the FS recommended Closure of these trails after the ENF Hydrologist did a somewhat "rapid assessment" to determine if he felt the trails could remain open (all or in part) during the summer.

The Forest Service proposes that continued public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be permitted along portions of the remaining 24 routes. See Ex. A and 2012 Meadows Maps for 42 Routes (showing travel permitted on portions of routes 08N23B, 08N35, 09N01, 09N04, 09N08, 09N54, 09N82, 09N83, 10N03, 10N06, 10N13, 10N21, 10N32, 10NY04, 11N09A, 11N22, 11N23F, 11N70, 12NY06, 12NY15, 13N24, 14N05, 14N27, 17E24).

Again - it appears as though the DOJ/FS let us down. They went along with the order

Now we are waiting for the Judge to choose somewhere to the left, right or center...

In the mean time, we can make a little noise with our congress Critters who seriously need to know that the economy in ElDorado County is about to get hit really HARD.

El Dorado Forest Closure Tactic 1

[RockMolester]

Originally Posted by Bebe

What will likely happen is that the Adopt a trail clubs will get administrative access to mitigate any meadow issues - that's my guess. So if you want to wheel in Eldo this summer on the favorite trails, better cozy up to the AAT clubs and get in on a work party or two.

I love work parties....first we work, then we party

Count me in!

[LYIN' KING]

If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.

Thank you.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Thank you.

Back at ya!

[ddestruel]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.

This ^

It is funny in montana the exact same thing occured, inventory, public opinion, then do route desigantion and mapping. Once the paper work was filed it was funny how so many of those "inventoried and mapped jeep trails" suddently had tecnicallities that require the entire trail be closed or just the middle section of the trail. (Gold lake trail by philipsburg) The tactic is well known. question is will we actually be able to over come this or do these 42 joint all the other trails of the last 15 years that have been snatched away......... the list of accesible ares is rapidly becoming shorter than it already was.

[resqme]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.

I haven't been a fan of the FS and I'm not getting cozy with them now.

BUT.

Technically, the ENF didn't apply Riparian Conservation Objective guideline # 102 to their analysis of these trails. They admit it and know they blew it.

ENF is closing these trails under the order of a federal judge, not necessarily because they want to. From their point of view, they were leaving these trails open under the TM forest order in 2008. Why, if they already signed a ROD leaving them open , would they cause themselves the extra work of doing the NEPA all over again just so they can close them? Doesn't make sense.

:tinfoil hat:

[Bebe]

Not sure why you all keep missing this but:

To address the Court’s Order, the Forest Service proposes that public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be prohibited along the entire length of 18 of the 42 routes.

There has been no order YET - the FS was assuming this would make everyone including the Judge happy. They Proactively volunteered to close these trails even though there was no order to do so.

The only order as it exists right now is the one that extends the Wet weather Closure on ALL trails to 4/30. The Judge has until then to come up with his final order on the Meadow Routes.

[resqme]

I see your point, Bebe. What is the source of the quote? They told me that some trails would be shut down in their entirety and some, "where feasible" will be shut down at the meadow section, unless Judge Karlton orders otherwise.

I guess we'll wait and see if they follow through on that.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by resqme

I see your point, Bebe. What is the source of the quote? They told me that some trails would be shut down in their entirety and some, "where feasible" will be shut down at the meadow section, unless Judge Karlton orders otherwise.

I guess we'll wait and see if they follow through on that.

The Court Documents.

All links provided in Post #88 of this thread

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=88

[Bebe]

II. Directive Two: Review of the 42 Routes for Compliance with this Court’s Order.
In compliance with Directive Two of this Court’s order, the Forest Service conducted a thorough review of the 42 routes. In this review of the 42 routes, the Forest Service identified the portions that pass through meadows as well as what portions, if any, may in its judgment remain open to the public for wheeled motorized vehicle use.

The correct answer would have been "ALL". But it wasn't.

[Curly]

Received a response today



Dear Timothy:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about public lands and off-highway vehicles. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Preserving our nation's public lands and outdoor recreation heritage are priorities of mine. As such, I will support efforts to ensure that the millions of acres of pristine public land are protected for the public's recreational use and enjoyment.

As you may know, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more public land than any other federal agency; however a 2003 out-of-court decision left it without the means of protecting the land for which it is responsible. In order to provide the BLM with a comprehensive strategy for protecting public land, Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar introduced guidelines through Secretarial Order 3310, which direct BLM to work with the public and local governments to designate wilderness-quality areas, called "Wild Lands." This designation differs from the Congressional designation "Wilderness Area," and the order re-establishes the authority of BLM to protect our nation's public lands, but does not change the status of any specific lands, or those awaiting Congressional designation.

Please know that I understand and appreciate the importance of outdoor recreation, and I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislative initiatives concerning recreational access reach the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your views on this important issue. To learn more about my work in Congress, or to sign up for periodic e-mail updates, please visit my website at www.house.gov/matsui.


Sincerely,

DORIS O. MATSUI
Member of Congress

[sloyoter]

Doris Matsui... ase useless as tits on a Boar...completely clueless