Pirate 4x4 banner

Seasonal Closures and the FS

3K views 32 replies 9 participants last post by  RCKRATZ 
#1 · (Edited)
UPDATE....UPDATE....UPDATE....UPDATE....

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/enf-route-q-clarify110705.pdf

The above link is from the Forest Service. On page 4 you'll find a clearification concerning "Seasonal Closures."

I like to think the letter writing at least got some attention. Not that this clarification is any specific change in the policy, but atleast they do indicate flexibility. Thanks to everyone for sending letters. I believe it may have had some impact.

In short it states the snow season for wheeling on designated routes...dirt or otherwise...is allowed through this and likely next year.

Having said that, please show respect for the trails and avoid causing unnecessary soil erosion. In other words, don't spin your tires in 1/2 mud and 1/2 snow. Try to stay on the snow. Have fun and be safe.

PS...SNOW IS FALLING RIGHT NOW!!!

Marlon
 
See less See more
#3 ·
The full text for you.


Eldorado National Forest Route Designation Project
Clarification of Questions Asked by the Public
Over the past few weeks, several issues have been raised by the public via email, telephone calls, and our
bi-weekly public conference calls that need to be clarified. The following items seem to be the most
confusing to the public. If there are other issues that you would like clarification on, please contact
Anthony Scardina, Route Designation Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at (530) 621-5276 or by email at
ascardina@fs.fed.us.
DOES THE NEW NATIONAL TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE AFFECT THE
ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST ROUTE DESIGNATION PROCESS?
Yes, the new travel management rule does apply and will be used in the designation process.
On November 2, 2005, the USDA Forest Service released the final rule on the new National Travel
Management rule in the Federal Register. The final rule requires the designation of those roads, trails,
and areas to be open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. The rule
prohibits the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes
and in areas that is not consistent with the designations. As a result of this new rule, the Eldorado
National Forest must ensure that the route designation process and final decision on a designated system
are in accordance with the new rule. However, the Forest will continue to follow the 5-step Regional
Process, the Eldorado National Forest Timeline for preparing and completing an environmental impact
statement to designate routes, and the public involvement plan that we have been implementing. Visit the
project webpage at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/index for more information about the
5-Step Process and to view the Timeline.
On October 26, 2005, the Eldorado National Forest released a Notice of Intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement to designate routes for public off-highway wheeled motor vehicles in the
Federal Register. The language and design of this Notice of Intent is consistent with the final rule.
Although the new rule has some changes in wording, this does not require the Forest to prepare and
release another Notice of Intent. These changes will be corrected in the purpose and need and proposed
action released in the draft environmental impact statement, which is expected to be released by June
2006.
The only changes identified at this time is on page 61779 of the Federal Register for the Notice of Intent
under the heading Compliance With Code of Federal Regulation in the Purpose and Need section. As
a result of the final rule, Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212 governing administration of the forest
transportation system and regulations at 36 CFR 295 governing use of motor vehicles off National Forest
System (NFS) roads were combined and clarified in the final rule as part 212, Travel Management,
covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. Although the items under that heading of the Purpose
and Need section in the Notice of Intent are similar to those in the final rule, some language has changed
and some items have been added, that will need to be incorporated in the Purpose and Need released in
the draft environmental impact statement. The new language and items in the final rule can be found at
the following link (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf) under section 212.55 Criteria
for designation of roads, trails, and areas. The Proposed Action in the Notice of Intent is consistent
with the final rule.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ROUTE INVENTORY MAP AND
THE NEW MOTOR VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS MAP?
Several people have stated that the difference between the route inventory map and the Motor Vehicle
Restrictions map is not clear. It is important to understand the difference between these maps to
effectively participate in the route designation process.
Route Inventory Map
Over the past 4 years, the Eldorado National Forest has assigned crews to map all existing motorized
routes on the Eldorado National Forest with global positioning systems (GPS). As this information was
collected, it was entered into a global information system (GIS), which maps the identified routes on the
computer. This inventory includes all existing motorized routes on the Forest, including National Forest
System roads (identified in black lines on the map), National Forest System trails (identified in red lines
on the map), unauthorized routes (identified in orange lines on the map), decommissioned routes
(identified in green lines on the map), and other areas either open or closed to motor vehicles. These maps
can be found on the Eldorado National Forest website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route,
or they can be acquired on CD by request. The Eldorado National Forest held a 120 day public comment
period on the route inventory map, which ended September 1, 2005. In addition, public meetings were
held in Folsom, Georgetown, Placerville, Jackson, and Markleeville to discuss the route inventory map.
Motor Vehicle Restrictions Map
On August 25, 2005, the Eldorado National Forest Supervisor released a Forest Order restricting wheeled
motor vehicles to the approximately 2,200 miles of National Forest System roads and trails on the Forest.
This order was based on a ruling from the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, which
found the Eldorado National Forest 1990 Off-Highway Vehicle Plan to be in violation of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Subsequently on August 16, 2005, the judge ordered that all
wheeled motor vehicle use on the Eldorado National Forest be restricted to NFS roads and trails until a
new environmental impact statement was prepared and issued to designated routes by December 31, 2007.
The day the Forest Order was released, the Forest also started handing out a new Motor Vehicle
Restrictions map. This map shows all of the National Forest System roads and trails that are open to
wheeled motor vehicles until the Eldorado National Forest designates routes.
The Difference Between the Maps
The difference between the maps is that the route inventory map has all existing motorized routes on the
Eldorado National Forest, regardless of whether they are National Forest System roads or trails. For
example, the route inventory map includes the approximately 700 miles of unauthorized (sometime
referred to as user created) routes existing on the Forest. The Motor Vehicle Restrictions map, only
includes National Forest System roads and trails open for wheeled motor vehicle use while the Forest
designates routes. It does not include the approximately 700 miles of unauthorized routes existing on the
Forest, because they are closed to wheeled motor vehicle use.
The route inventory map is what we are working from as we prepare an environmental impact statement
to designate routes. All existing routes identified on the route inventory map may be considered during
the route designation process. The purpose of the Motor Vehicle Restrictions map, on the other hand, is
only to enforce the court order and forest order recently issued. This map will remain in effect until the
route designation process is complete.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE MAINTENANCE LEVELS DISCUSSED IN
THE NOTICE OF INTENT?
Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road.
Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. The
Forest Service has five maintenance levels. All information related to service and maintenance of
National Forest System roads can be found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58 – Transportation
System Maintenance Handbook, effective September 4, 1992.
Level 1. Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The
closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent
resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities.
Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road
deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and
“eliminate.”
Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be
managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being
maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized
uses.
Level 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a
consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative,
permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate
traffic management strategies are either to: (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars, or (2) accept or
discourage high clearance vehicles.
Level 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger
car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are
typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with
either native or process material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or
“accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.
Level 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate
travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single
lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is
“encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at
certain times.
Level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads
are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The
appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”
In summary maintenance level 1 roads are closed to vehicular traffic, maintenance level 2 roads are open
for use by high clearance vehicles, and maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5, roads are open to passenger car or
highway legal vehicles and subject to the Federal Highway Safety Act. The definition of native surface
mentioned above simply means dirt.
WHY WAS THE SEASONAL CLOSURE IN THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE
NOTICE OF INTENT NOT DISCUSSED AT ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS?
At public meetings and other discussions with the public over the past several months we stated that we
did not intend to address seasonal closures in the environmental impact statement to designate routes on
the Eldorado National Forest. This truly was the our objective. However, after close review of public
input and the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (ENF LRMP) during
preparation of the Notice of Intent, we identified two standards and guidelines that require us to institute
seasonal closures for motorized use. These standards and guidelines can be found on page 61779 of the
Notice of Intent in the Purpose and Need section under the Compliance with standards and guidelines
in the ENF LRMP heading (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/enf-route-final-noi.pdf).
These standards and guidelines state: (1) a closure plan will be instituted for motorized use during wet
weather periods to reduce damage to native surface trails. The plan will allow for trails to be open when
soil conditions permit; and (2) stabilize the surface of roads available for all weather use. Confine use to
the dry seasons except on stabilized roads and trails. Native surface refers to dirt roads and trails,
whereas stabilized refers to gravel and paved roads and trails. In other words, a seasonal closure of dirt
roads and trails must be instituted during wet weather periods to reduce damage to dirt roads and trails.
Based on these standards and guidelines, the Forest Supervisor proposed that all dirt roads and trails
designated open for public off-highway wheeled motor vehicles will be closed from November 1 to May
1 each year to reduce damage to dirt roads and trails.
To be honest, the need for a seasonal closure was unanticipated, but we support and must abide by the
standards and guidelines in our Forest Plan. We truly apologize that this was not discussed at our public
meetings prior to the release of the Notice of Intent. However, please keep in mind that the Proposed
Action is a “proposed action.” This is not something that is immediately implemented and enforced on
the ground. The Forest Supervisor is looking for and open to other alternatives and solutions to the
proposed action, and there are several public involvement opportunities over the next several months to
propose such alternatives and solutions for the Forest Supervisor to consider. There will be no seasonal
closure of any kind until the Forest completes an environmental impact statement and the Forest
Supervisor signs a Record of Decision, which is planned to occur by December 2006.
We value and encourage public involvement in the route designation process, and have designed an open,
honest, and transparent public involvement plan that reflects this. We will continue to follow the schedule
as designed to ensure that the public has all of the necessary information to effectively participate in the
process, as well as ample opportunity to participate before a final decision is made by the Forest
Supervisor. For more information on such opportunities and a schedule of future public meetings, check
the project website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/index.shtml.
 
#4 · (Edited)
OK lets hash this over:

Over Snow Travel

Can I take my wheeled motor vehicle oversnow off of system roads during the interim?

Yes. However, your wheeled motor vehicle must still be on a system road or trail on the new Motor Vehicle Restrictions map, and there must be 12 inches of snow or more on the ground.
Now first it says yes then says be sure to be on a system road. WTF is that?
 
#5 ·
Continuing the standing tradition of clarifications that don't clarify much... :p

IIRC, the hair they are splitting is what is a road and what is a trail (see the discussion above of maintenance level classifications). I suggest simplifying to say that over-the-snow travel is permitted during this forest order for all roads/trails mapped on the Motor Vehicle Restriction Map if there is 12" or more of snow on on the ground, and that paved roads remain unaffected by this forest order.

:rolleyes: I won't comment further on their 'surprise' at the 'unanticipated' seasonal closures, but I do wonder if we can implement a closure plan for wet weather periods based on actual moistured *and* surface conditions in specific sites, as opposed to forest-wide. There's also opportunity to stavilize the surface of roads to make them available for all-weather use.

Randii
 
#6 ·
I just sent this to the FS. I cc'ed it to the FOTR e-mail list. I am so mad right now I can't believe that I can type straight.

Pick up the phone, write a letter, send an e-mail or go knock on thier door. Don't let this happen without a fight.



Anthony,

I am still calling this closure wrong.

I have many reasons why I believe that this closure is not needed or required. First is that the closure bans over the snow travel within the ENF on system roads. There is no "damage to native trails" when you're driving on snow. Second, within the "final rule" is the line, "Designations of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use should be based on accurate, pertinent, unbiased information." Show me that information!!!!! Prove to me for each and every road/trail you want closed there is "damage to native soil".

Futher more, several places wihin the "final rule", the Department of Agriculture leaves the decision to designate roads/trails to the "local level" with public or user input. Don't pass the buck and claim that you (the ENF) are being forced impliment this closure. It was your decision, plan and simple. And you never included the public or users in reaching your decision.

From your clarification: "A seasonal closure of dirt roads and trails must be instituted during wet weather periods to reduce damage to dirt roads and trails." I think this statement is wrong. There are other ways to reduce the impact of use on a dirt road or trail. Water bars to limit the number of water crossings along a road. Better drainage systems to prevent the pooling of water on or near the trail. The placement of gravel or cobble to reduce the amount of sediment going down stream. Education of the users of how to tread lightly. There are many alternatives.

It is my understanding that the ENF does not have an OHV plan. Even so, I would like to formally request a copy of the "Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, January 2004" as refered to in the "Notice of Intent".

You are trying to close my national forest from me and I will not let it happen without a fight. Nor will any of my friends in all of the groups I'm associated with, see signature. We are strong, we are united and we will keep our national forests open for the citizens of the United States of America to enjoy!


Doug Barr

Friends of the Rubicon
Rubicon Trail Foundation - Director
North Tahoe Trail Dusters - Vice President
Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo Four Wheel Drive Club
California Associasion of Four Wheel Drive Clubs
Blue Ribbon Coalition - Life Member
American Motorcycle Associasion
North American XJ Associasion
United Fourwheel Drive
Tread Lightly
 
#7 ·
I just checked my email and it seems that I recieved the same message as many of you. It's gonna take a bit to digest but thanks for getting it on the board already folks.

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]
From: eldoradoroutes@fs.fed.us View Contact Details View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Clarification of Questions Asked by the Public about Route Designation on the Eldorado
To: "eldoradoroutes" <eldoradoroutes@fs.fed.us>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:46:02 -0800

Over the past few weeks, several issues have been raised by the public
via
email, telephone calls, and our bi-weekly public conference calls that
need
to be clarified. The following items in the link below seem to be the
most
confusing. You can also find this link on our website at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/index.shtml.

Clarification of Questions Asked by the Public About Route Designation
on
the Eldorado
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/enf-route-q-clarify110705.pdf

If there are other issues that you would like clarification on, please
contact Anthony Scardina, Route Designation Interdisciplinary Team
Leader,
at (530) 621-5276 or by email at ascardina@fs.fed.us. Thank you for
all of
your participation and input.

Sincerely,

Anthony Scardina
Route Designation Interdisciplinary Team Leader
 
#8 ·
cruzila said:
Based on these standards and guidelines, the Forest Supervisor proposed that all dirt roads and trails
designated open for public off-highway wheeled motor vehicles will be closed from November 1 to May
1 each year to reduce damage to dirt roads and trails.
I'm reading this as all level 2 road/trails. Granted that restricition is based on wet conditions of the road/tail. I have no faith in believing that that won't be ammended to temporary closures due to "x" amount of rainfal in any given 24 hour period....Does Cow Mtn ring a bell?

Don't just roll over people. Contact those you wheel with, pass this on to your clubs.

Simple Man has this right....Pick up the phone, write a letter, send an e-mail or go knock on thier door. Don't let this happen without a fight.
 
#9 · (Edited)
cruzila said:
OK lets hash this over:



Now first it says yes then says be sure to be on a system road. WTF is that?

Scott, I don't see that as confusing...am I missing something. As I read it, from now until at least Dec 2006, it says all roads on the restriction map are open to over the snow travel with 12 inches of snow. Meaning...you have to stay within the easment of the restricted mapped roads and be on 12 inches of snow. I don't think they define "Over the snow travel" as you can go anywhere in the ENF that has 12 inches of snow. They are saying both on the road and 12" of snow...i.e...don't leave the road easement. In other words, you can't just bomb out across any open 12 inches of snow. Not that it makes sense...after 12 inches of snow what does it matter where you are...but that is how I interpret what they are saying and have thought they meant it that way all along.

The 12 inches of snow is right out of their you know what by the way. I'd like to see where that came from within NFS orders etc. Is it reasonable and understandable...maybe, and maybe they are trying to be reasonable...be flexible, but I doubt they can back that up with a citation. I think they know that but really are trying to set a guideline for what conditions should be.

In short I read it this way....until at least Dec 2006...you can go Mckinstry (Via the private SPI land route which is out of the ENF's jurisdiction) or via Wentworth or via Loon. All these routes are on the restricted map and thus okay. You can't "legally" go to the end of Mckinstry and cut through the tree to the trail near the deck/pile of wood even though this would have drastically less potential impact...hence my continued fight to open this route!!

After the Dec 2006 is what we don't know... As I understand that...all paved roads will be open and remain open follow Dec 2006. A dirt road may be closed based on their interpretation and or decision for management and impact purposes. This could mean everything dirt past Airport Flat that is not part of the easement of the county road called the "Rubicon Trail" is potentially closeable. This greatly concerns me and justifies a serious and continued fight espeically when it appears all of this open to local FS interpretation.

Marlon
 
#10 ·
microtus said:
I'm reading this as all level 2 road/trails.
Based on the phone discussions to date, I believe they are speaking about some Level 3 road, as well. Much depends on whether they are 'stabilized' and/or 'native surface.'

microtus said:
Granted that restricition is based on wet conditions of the road/tail.
What they have proposed is based on dates ALONE. It would make *more* sense if closure were based on conditions.

microtus said:
I have no faith in believing that that won't be ammended to temporary closures due to "x" amount of rainfal in any given 24 hour period....Does Cow Mtn ring a bell?
Of the two options (6 months closure across the forest or precipitation/24hrs), the latter might actually be less restrictive, especially if enacted only where precipitation occurred.

Doug is on the right track -- the Forest Service is obliged to document the specific resource damage before enacting closure. Restricting across the whole freaking forest is ludicrous! :mad3: :mad3: :mad3:

Randii
 
#11 · (Edited)
randii said:
Based on the phone discussions to date, I believe they are speaking about some Level 3 road, as well. Much depends on whether they are 'stabilized' and/or 'native surface.'


What they have proposed is based on dates ALONE. It would make *more* sense if closure were based on conditions.


Of the two options (6 months closure across the forest or precipitation/24hrs), the latter might actually be less restrictive, especially if enacted only where precipitation occurred.

Doug is on the right track -- the Forest Service is obliged to document the specific resource damage before enacting closure. Restricting across the whole freaking forest is ludicrous! :mad3: :mad3: :mad3:

Randii
Randii...I don't think they have to document anything specific relating to resource damage as long as the Judge's court order exists...right?

As I see it the the ENF can do the worst case scenario now if they so chose...that being close all dirt roads (And yes maybe even some level 3 roads) on the restricted map after they become damp from morning dew. I don't believe they have to wait at all. They are choosing to wait because they either...agree it is a bit over the top/stupid or because they are feeling the pressure a bit or they are just trying to be flexible and accomodate us or all the above. I think it is all the above. But, please don't think I like any of this. It's BS to me when anything gets closed. Hell, trails need to be opened if you ask me. But, if you look at what they are saying and what they could or even should do per the NFS order, what I see is an attempt to be flexible...To allow over the snow travel with some restrictions...that being 12 inches of snow and within the easement of the restricted map roads. If you put yourself in their shoes, and look at their past reactions to NFS orders, I'm shocked they didn't just shut everything down today. Again...not that I like or agree with it. I'm just trying to be as objective as possible.
 
#12 ·
NOTPRETTY said:
Randii...I don't think they have to document anything specific relating to resource damage as long as the Judge's court order exists...right?
Forest Orders can be invoked for emergency closures. Long-term action has to be based on specifics.

ENF had latitude to screw us WORSE with the initial Forest Order (the one in response to the Judge's order). It may be more politically charged to change that AFTER the initial Forest Order. Dunno.

Randii
 
#13 ·
The judges order is for them to do this designation. The judge never ordered them to do seasonal closure.
What happens in the interim is NOT in question. It is THE plan that we need to focus on. The proposed action. I don' tgive a rats ass what they do right now. It is a bone to placate us if you ask me and you took it Notpretty. See what is being done here. I am so mad I could piss.
 
#14 ·
After the fact with NO public input, NO real data to support resource damage.

That is the only thing you need to remmeber to keep this going.
 
#16 · (Edited)
cruzila said:
The judges order is for them to do this designation. The judge never ordered them to do seasonal closure.
What happens in the interim is NOT in question. It is THE plan that we need to focus on. The proposed action. I don' tgive a rats ass what they do right now. It is a bone to placate us if you ask me and you took it Notpretty. See what is being done here. I am so mad I could piss.
Please give me some credit. I know this is a bone...I am saying just that.

After the Dec 2006 is what we don't know... As I understand that...all paved roads will be open and remain open follow Dec 2006. A dirt road may be closed based on their interpretation and or decision for management and impact purposes. This could mean everything dirt past Airport Flat that is not part of the easement of the county road called the "Rubicon Trail" is potentially closeable. This greatly concerns me and justifies a serious and continued fight espeically when it appears all of this open to local FS interpretation.

It is clear to me that the "Clarification" states the closures as originally stated are in the works and we should keep fighting them at every turn. I definitely don't want people to read my post and think..."Hey, the FS has our long term interests in mind." They don't. That is obvious from the actions we've seen them take. I was just trying to assess this clarification objectively...What I take from it is we have a couple years of snow wheeling left which is better than none...yet hardly a victory.

PS...Cruzila, I have some depends under garments if you need them...:D :cool2:
 
#17 · (Edited)
It ain't even a bone... the Notice of Intent (NOI) is all about the future. The new National Rule came out November 2, followed by the clarification ENF just released, and both of the these are also about the future.

Current access remains unchanged and dates back to the 08/16/05 Forest Order that limits travel to the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Map (note that this is different and smaller than the inventory map).

Current motorized recreation in the ENF is legal, regardless of season, moisture, snow, etc. as long as the route appears on the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Map. Future travel -- seasonal or otherwise -- is TBD, and will be managed as part of the Route Designation Process, so it remains critical that users get their substantive comments and suggested alternatives in by 11/26 (30 days after their NOI).

Scott and Marlon -- we're all on the same side. If you guys start wearing Depends I'm gonna have to join in as a show of unity, and I ain't looking forward to that, so play nice, 'K? :p

Randii (edited to correct the dates)
 
#18 ·
randii said:
It ain't even a bone... the Notice of Intent (NOI) is all about the future. The new National Rule came out November 2, followed by the clarification ENF just released, and both of the these are also about the future.

Current access remains unchanged and dates back to the 08/25/05 Forest Order that limits travel to the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Map (note that this is different and smaller than the inventory map).

Current motorized recreation in the ENF is legal, regardless of season, moisture, snow, etc. as long as the route appears on the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Map. Future travel -- seasonal or otherwise -- is TBD, and will be managed as part of the Route Designation Process, so it remains critical that users get their substantive comments and suggested alternatives in by 11/26 (30 days after their NOI).

Scott and Marlon -- we're all on the same side. If you guys start wearing Depends I'm gonna have to join in as a show of unity, and I ain't looking forward to that, so play nice, 'K? :p

Randii
Agreed...and the thought of any of us in diapers is concerning to say the least not to mention a visual I don't need.
 
#19 ·
cruzila said:
OK lets hash this over: Now first it says yes then says be sure to be on a system road. WTF is that?
I missed this Scott -- you're right, they have a contradiction/error. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/qna/index.shtml#ost
The question: "Can I take my wheeled motor vehicle oversnow off of system roads during the interim?" specifies OFF system roads, and somehow, they answer yes in their answer: "Yes. However, your wheeled motor vehicle must still be on a system road or trail on the new Motor Vehicle Restrictions map, and there must be 12 inches of snow or more on the ground." ...but their follow-on answer discussion conflicts this. I missed this first time around, Scott... good eye.

I have raised this issue with the Forest Service, and expect it to be revised to detail that at no time (snow or not) is travel permitted off system roads and trails (as shown on the Motorized Restriction Map). The 12-inch clarification, per Tony Scardina, comes from the Forest Plan. I've asked that more details on this be presented on the website.

Randii
 
#20 · (Edited)
Okay...I see it now too. Definitely mis-worded. I'd like to think they will not revise it as Randii indicates, but expect they will.

[edit]...maybe they think 'system roads' are road in the inventory but not on the restriction map...??? My best guess...Still very confusing.
 
#21 ·
randii said:
Scott and Marlon -- we're all on the same side. If you guys start wearing Depends I'm gonna have to join in as a show of unity, and I ain't looking forward to that, so play nice, 'K? :p

Randii (edited to correct the dates)
Marlon, you know I am with you and am not trying to belittle you by any stretch.:grinpimp:

Randii, I am kind of done being nice. I may be more blunt, but am the same guy with the same ideas. I won't try to disuade anyone from the fight but encourage those in it, and rebuke those that are not. :evil:
 
#23 ·
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/qna/index.shtml#ost
They did fix their contradiction... they use the same question:
"Can I take my wheeled motor vehicle oversnow off of system roads during the interim?"
Now, they answer no:
"No. However, your wheeled motor vehicle may travel on a system road or trail shown on the new Motor Vehicle Restrictions map as open but there must be 12 inches of snow or more on the ground."[/b]

FWIW, IMHO, both pieces of this statement are flawed:
* how the hell is LEO gonna enforce travel on system roads trails when there's ten feet of snow? I'd be tempted to offer them a shovel to check underneath my rig for a road. :flipoff2:
* IIRC the old Forest Plan allowed cross-country travel as long as there was 12 inches of snow. Is there an enforceable requirement for snow ON-road?

Randii
 
#24 · (Edited)
All rules are off if you're running a tracked vehicle... one of these could be fun:


And there's always Mattracks:


But for shear freakish homebuilt fun, I like this one the best:


Of course, I intend to keep fighting for year-round access for WHEELED vehicles... but it is nice to know that we can hedge our bets! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Randii
 
#25 ·
The 12" inches on road is BS. There is no rule CURRENT for on road snow travel the 12" thing was for OVERSNOW travel. Nothing to do with roads. More now, since we are not allowed off roads, it has to do with tracked vehicles.
 
#26 ·
NEPA help

If anyone needs more info, or just wants night time reading material that will help you sleep (smile), then here is all you want to know about NEPA -- the Act that controls everything that takes place on public lands in the public process of things.
If you really want more, let me know by direct email to me and I will send you one of the Modules from my Leadership Course that gets into more details also.

go here for NEPA stuff and an explanation: http://www.delalbright.com/Access/nepa_intro.htm

Del
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top