Court Releases Final Decision on Eldorado National Forest Lawsuit

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Just FYI Bob,

The Pacific Legal Foundations Lawsuit is also National

Thank you!

Yes, I get that and thought it was clear in my post but the clarification is helpful for those who may not realize that a suit against the agency in question is "National" by its very nature.

I think the two suits complement each other quite well . . .

[supersmurf]

Once i'm out of law school and pass the bar.... is there a way to donate time/legal service for the preservation of OHV rights? Which firm or attorneys are the OHV organizations utilizing?

Was curious, if anyone knows the amount of money (both directly and indirectly) that the government/eco groups is spending on fighting this?
And the amount of money they intake from the activist groups..
And the amount of time/assets/money they could be using to do something useful.....
What about the amount of money that OHV generate for the state.... offroad shops business, taxes from gas, taxes from vehicle registration, purchasing camping gear, paying for campsites.. etc... (seems small until you add it all up statewide).. not to mention, with Historic trails / well known trails, it brings in cross-state revenue... tourism, money... etc..

The only thing that talks to govt is "money"... highlighting the affects it's having on monetary and asset management streams would probably have a greater effect than opinion based efforts.... just taking a guess that the govt really doesn't truley give a **** about "meadows"....

The other thing is their fear of litigation pending injury.... if there was somehow, technology perhaps that at each trailhead entrance, you had a solar powered unit that let you snap a pic of your rig, type in your name, and accept "I will not sue no matter what happens to me or my rig.... and I will follow all conservationist (tread lightly) type of actions"... (shoot this could even be handled, even with videos/quiz/checkin online @ home... and then you just "checkin" at the trail).. Essentially at the trailhead, you hit a button to accept terms, and choose your name that you're entering the trail. It has timestamps and logs, etc. This could even be done via smartphone (if access)

We could also consider, utilizing social media & crowd sourcing as an aspect to "help" conservationists data/research.... OHV/campers could opt-in to share data/pics about what they see on the trail... totally optional of course. But this would help save govt $, by empowering the people that WANT to go out there, the ability to provide [air quotes with hands] "valuable research data that they don't have the $ to obtain"...

I think there are a lot of avenues that technology can provide that we may be overlooking. Opinion based wars rarely get anywhere.. (which is what the eco's pretty much want i think... it's definetly legal tactic of drudge on forever... which is a huge waste of time, effort, and money, but plays directly into what they want...)

Do they have it clearly defined "what their stance is" in a way that ultimately shuts down OHV groups from helping get "what their goal is" ? If they say they want to maintain environmental aspects like "meadow preservation"... how will they even know the meadow is being preserved without observation? Eco-Friendly OHV users, can provide that observation in quantities that they themselves cannot afford in a wider range than they can accommodate for.

Like the man on here posting "Doug Barr"... he's offering his own time, assets, and resources to kindly help locate, observe, and mark previously mentioned "meadows". Doug, i'd also look closely at what the definition of a "meadow" is, and firmly understand that... so, in your hike, don't just look for the ones that are mentioned.. but note down others that may/may not be brought up in the future... I wouldn't share any "new found meadows" or "enviro-preservation areas" forthright, but keep a log personally of what you see... in case the legitimacy and quality of the actual govt/eco office doing the work hasn't done due diligence in clearly marking all areas.... this might show specific hidden agendas where they "pick and choose what is 'endagered area'"... revealing flaws in the legitimacy of their work/intentions.

If another one of the govt/eco office goals is "protection of endangered species" .... that should be clearly stated... we can then appropriately address that issue with ways we can help towards their goal of that.

I don't see any real clearly defined or documented statements of what goals the opposing organizations have and are trying to "meet"... (other than just being dicks...)... If we had those set out, we could clearly address each issue with alternative solutions....... i'm guessing, they don't want that to happen because it would weaken their case...

Just stream of thought thinking and sharing.....

This has probably all been thought of before, so I apologize... just wanted to pitch in with support.... as it's a shame that my 2 year old son probably will be denied seeing nature firsthand.... and only read about it in a textbook "this is what you're missing out on.. here's a picture"..... (brings up another idea about educational nature OHV runs providing education to children/adults... as well as getting outdoors and active to promote a healthy nation....)

- Geoff

[mannysouza]

So does the FS have to layoff employee's due to less land being managed? I do not understand the reason to keep employee's if the land is not being accessed and used.

[1966Scout800]

Originally Posted by mannysouza

So does the FS have to layoff employee's due to less land being managed? I do not understand the reason to keep employee's if the land is not being accessed and used.

Nah, then Obama's job numbers will look bad. These branches of government are not in it for whats good for the people. They are set up to "create" jobs to GROW the size and power of the government. I wish this wasnt the case .

[WLDWUN]

Originally Posted by mannysouza

So does the FS have to layoff employee's due to less land being managed? I do not understand the reason to keep employee's if the land is not being accessed and used.

They didnt let 40% of there people go after route designation closed 40% of our trails....
this is nothing compared to that

[MochaMike]

It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

It's not elected officials, it's the the State & Federal (.gov) incompentent employees & mangers... Or should I say 'mis-managers.

[mannysouza]

Originally Posted by MochaMike

It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It has to do with Autocrats.

It's not elected officials, it's the the State & Federal (.gov) incompentent employees & mangers... Or should I say 'mis-managers.

Definition; Autocracy is any form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state. It is derived from the Greek αὐτοκρατής: αὐτός ("self") and κρατεῖν ("rule"), and may be translated as "one who rules by himself". It is distinct from oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people").

So what your saying their is a supreme individual running CA?
But who runs the government in CA, and who is the Autocrat?

I just don't understand, me being a business owner. If I have work, then I can afford to have more employee's, but if I have less work, I cannot afford to have employee's. I would love to see the Forest Service's business plan. They do not have a plan because the taxes from the people pay for them to be there, needed or not.

So how can the forest service and BLM justify keeping the work force needed for so much land that has been closed off? Their is no justification as to why they are needed. The Firemen fight the forest fires, Search and Rescue finds the lost, Fish and Game monitors the wildlife, the CHP monitors the roads, Sherifs monitor the lakes and the Forest Service locks the gates. Do we really need gate lockers if the gates never open?

[WLDWUN]

Originally Posted by mannysouza

I would love to see the Forest Service's business plan. They do not have a plan....

here it is...nothing special
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...ev7_018898.pdf

[Bebe]

What they have said throughout the route dez project is that the number of roads and trails we had were unmanageable based on the current staffing levels and budgets.

It gave them the ability to use pure financials as at least one excuse to shut it down.

[MochaMike]

Originally Posted by mannysouza

Definition; Autocracy .......

Fixed

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by MochaMike

It's not elected officials

I guess Ken SaladCzar got his job by a vote of we the people, not appointment by one of them critters. Damn us!

[mannysouza]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

I guess Ken SaladCzar got his job by a vote of we the people, not appointment by one of them critters. Damn us!

So the Salad-Czar needs to be voted out? I will be looking for his name this November. By the way is his position an elected one this year?

Mochamike, The only reason I posted the definition was that since I didn't know what it was, so I figured others didn't either.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by mannysouza

So the Salad-Czar needs to be voted out? I will be looking for his name this November.

SaladCzar is a "Cabinet" level, Presidentially appointed Public Servant, the current United States Secretary of the Interior.

He was anointed by the Senate (which is a mere formality) and serves at the pleasure of the President, answers directly and only to the President, can only be dismissed or retained at the President's discretion, hence we have no say.

[randii]

Layered in and around this decision, there's still something you can do to help Barrett Lake Jeep Trail: /forum/land-use-issues/1089807-action-required-barrett-lake-4wd-trail.html

Randii

[LYIN' KING]

Here is a way another group mitigated a creek and meadow crossing issue.

[WLDWUN]

just got this today

Dear Interested Citizen,
The Eldorado National Forest is beginning to prepare a supplement to the 2008 Eldorado National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement to address whether public wheeled motor vehicle use will be allowed on the portions of the forty-two specific routes designated for such use in the Eldorado National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized Travel Management EIS Record of Decision, March, 2008 (ENF TMEIS) that were found by the court to be inconsistent with the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1988 (ENF LRMP) Standards and Guidelines, as amended by Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The portions of the forty-two routes that are affected have been closed to public motorized use by court order since July 2012. This analysis will be limited to addressing the 42 routes in the judge’s order as they pertain to meadows and Standard and Guideline 100 of the ENF LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA.
As first step in preparing the Travel Management Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (TM SEIS), I have prepared a Proposed Action, which serves as a point from which to begin a dialog with the public about the routes. A detailed description of the proposed action is attached. Additional information including detailed maps and a Question and Answer sheet will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest website Eldorado - Home the week of October 7, 2012. If you have any questions about this proposal, you may contact Diana Erickson, project coordinator, at (530) 622-5061.
At this time, a decision has not been made regarding this project. If you have issues (points of dispute, debate or disagreement regarding potential effects of the Proposed Action) or suggestions on how issues might be resolved, please send these in writing to “Kathryn D. Hardy, Forest Supervisor; Eldorado National Forest Supervisor’s Office; 100 Forni Road; Placerville, CA 15667; attn.: Travel Management SEIS” on or before November 7, 2012. Comments on the proposed action may also be sent electronically to comments-pacificsouthwest-eldorado@fs.fed.us . We will use significant issues and other ideas that are received to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action.

/s/ KATHRYN D. HARDY
Forest Supervisor
Eldorado National Forest


Here is the proposed action


Eldorado National Forest
Travel Management SEIS
Proposed Action ________________________________________
The Forest Service conducted field surveys in 2011 and 2012 at the 95meadows crossed or bordered by the 42 routes to determine compliance with Standard and Guideline #100 of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (SNFPAROD 2004).
This information was used to develop the following Proposed Action for the portions of the 42 routes that were closed by court order:
For the following 9routes that the field survey determined did not cross or border meadows:
1. Designate 08N23B, 10N06, 10N26,10NY04, 11N22,11N70,12NY15, and 13N24as“NFTS Road: Open to All Highway and Non-Highway Legal Vehicles.” Designate 17E12 as “NFTS Trail: Open to Motorcycles only.”

For the following 12 routes where the crossing meets Standard and Guideline 100:
2. Designate 08N35, 09N15,10N32,10NY05,10NY06, 11N09A, 12NY06and 14N27as “NFTS Road: Open to All Highway and Non-Highway Legal Vehicles.”Designate 10N03as “NFTS Road: Open to Highway Legal Vehicles only.”Designate western 2.2 miles of 09N04(17E79) as “NFTS 4WD Trail: Open to High Clearance Vehicles.”Designate 17E17 and17E21 as “NFTS Trail: Open to Motorcycles only.”

For the following route that the field survey determined a logical closure point before crossing a meadow:
3. Designateroute09N54 up to the intersection with 09N60as “NFTS Road: Open to All Highway and Non-Highway Legal Vehicles.” Route09N54is a secondary access road to Leoni Meadows.

For the following 19routes that the field survey determined to not currently meet Standard and Guideline100, and are needed to meet other purposes:2

4. Amend SNFPA Standard and Guideline No. 100 to allow continued public motorized use for these 19 routesand designate09N01, 09N08, 09N95, 10N01 (b), 0.5 miles of 10N13, 10N14, 10N98, 14N05and 14N58as “NFTS Road: Open to All Highway and Non-Highway Legal Vehicles.” Designate 11NY32as “NFTS Road: Open to Highway Legal Vehicles only.” Designate 09N82(16E26), 09N83(19E01), 6.8 miles of 10N13(17E73), 10N21(16E27), 11N23F(16E33), 11N26F(16E21),and17E24 as “NFTS 4WD Trail: Open to High Clearance Vehicles.” Designate 17E16,17E19and 17E28 as “NFTS Trail: Open to Motorcycles only.”

For the following route that the field survey determined a logical closure point after the primary destination and before crossing additional meadows:
5. Designate the portion of 14N39up to Richardson Lake as “NFTS Road: Open to All Highway and Non-Highway Legal Vehicles.”The portion past Richardson Lake would remain closed to public use.

[jjeep71]

Very interested in the outcome of this but not completely up to speed on the jargon.
I printed out the route list and I am trying to figure out desigintion for each route.
Looks like we have until 11/7/12 to send in comments.
From what I can tell items #1, #2 and #3 mean these trails will remain open as they meet the "Standard and Guidelines 100".
Items #4 and #5 mostly to remain open, do not meet "Standard and Guideline 100" but are needed for other purposes.
The decision is not final but this is what the forest service wants to do.
Am I even close to figuring this out?

[chartdog]

I just gave this whole thing a very fast read on the forest web site. My intial reaction is that I see the word OPEN a lot. What am I missing?

[PJohnson]

As I read it, the starting point for the SEIS is that all routes will be remain valid routes with two routes having a portion of them closed.

The Questions & Answers document helps explain things:
Eldorado - Home


Phil

[WLDWUN]

as soon as I got the email today I asked them to include this question

How does the Forest Supervisor’s Proposed Action differ from the decision made in the 2008 Eldorado National Forest Travel Management FEIS Record of Decision?

and they got it on the FAQ list before it was uplaoded today.

The proposed action differs from the previous decision only in that portions of two routes would not be reopened, and that a Forest Plan Amendment would be included for 20 of the routes to except them from meeting Standard and Guideline 100 in the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by SNFPA, at the time of designation.

so as Phil stated it looks like all but a portion of two routes are on their proposed action.

I am sure the eco side is going to comment very strongly against it going this way

[slomatt]

WLDWUN, great job getting that question included since it quickly summarizes what the proposed action is.

At this point the forest service is proposing to keep the majority of the trails open. The next step is the public comment period (ends 11/7/2012) during which people can suggest modifications and alternatives. During this time we need to make our voices heard in support of re-opening the trails and allowing motorized access on these routes. I'm off to write my email...

Proposed Action
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5394257.pdf

Questions and Answers
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5394259.pdf

Submit your comments
Eldorado - Home

- Matt

[slomatt]

From http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldora...ELPRDB5362046:

"The final court order narrowly defines what is being reviewed in the supplemental environmental analysis. These areas are being analyzed for the effect of the routes on the hydrological function of the meadow. Does this route hinder the movement of water in the meadow? Habitat, species effect, etc. is not part of the order."

Assuming the environmental groups will propose alternative plans, they likely will be related to the above definition. Are there any hydrologists on the forum who can explain what effect the routes could have on water flow through a meadow?

- Matt

[MochaMike]

Looks like more & more people are starting to get fed up...


My turn: USFS has locked us out Mountain Democrat

[LYIN' KING]

Better late than never I suppose but still . . . LATE!!!