PMC Land Use (1 Viewer)

[petescoffee]

Pismo/Oceano Dunes Update

Check out www.oceanodunes.org for more information

The lease runs out in June 2008! Over the last 25 years State Parks has
been leasing a large amount of the land the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle
Recreation Area (ODSVRA) sits on from San Luis Obispo County (from around pole 3 to pole 6).

The lease is up in June of 2008. State Parks has offered to purchase the property but the anti-access crowd is fighting the sale and/or lease. They want to close the area – THEY WANT TO CLOSE THE PARK!!!!
Currently San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is negotiating with
State Parks whether or not to sell, lease or close a HUGE portion of the ODSVRA – called the La Grande tract. The ODSVRA consists of about 1,500 acres of riding area. The La Grande tract consists of 584 acres and sits in the middle of the park.

Friends of Oceano
Dunes Update
FoOD files Lawsuit

FoOD has filed a lawsuit against the San Luis County Board of Supervisors. We are suing in regards to a ruling by the planning commission, upheld by the board of supervisors, which declared that the sale of the La Grande tract is not in conformity with the General Plan.

According to the decision, the planning commission believes that General Plan for the county shows that the La Grande Tract was meant to be an off-limits buffer zone, not a riding or camping area. Therefore, according the planning commission that acreage should be fenced off and not sold
to State Parks.

There are many facets to our arguments, which we will not make public
until the case goes to court; however, one argument is very clear: if the County wanted the land to be a buffer (no OHV), why did they enter into a formal Memo of Understanding with State Parks to use this
area for OHV use?

We believe that state law trumps the county General Plan when the two conflict, which is what happened when the planning commission put a halt to the county’s plans to sell 584 acres of the ODSVRA to state parks.
In the case of the ODSVRA, when the Legislature approved an act in the early 1970s that formalized vehicle recreation areas it put the ODSVRA under state management. So, state law pre-empts a local governments’ General Plans. The sale should go through!
By: Karen Suty, Friends of Oceano Dunes Oceano Dunes 1982: reduced access from 16,000 acres to 1,500 acres Now they want another 584 acres Oceano Dunes September 2007 Off-Roaders In Action 9

 

[petescoffee]

ANNUAL Emissions Tests UPDATE

FROM THE SEMA SAN WEB SITE WWW.SEMASAN.COM :

California Emissions Testing Bill Dead For the Year
Enthusiasts Rally to Defeat Legislation Requiring Annual Smog Check

In a major victory for enthusiasts in California, the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected SAN-opposed legislation (AB 616) that threatened to require annual smog-check inspections for vehicles 15 years old and older. After having been previously approved by the full California Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee, the bill is dead for the year.

“Car clubs and individual hobbyists across the state loudly and forcefully objected to passage of this bill,” said SEMA Vice President of Government Affairs Steve McDonald. “Ultimately, the lawmakers in Sacramento heard their message.”

Through thousands of phone calls and e-mails, SAN members were able to convince committee members that these vehicles constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

In correspondence to his constituents, Senator Dave Cox expressed his opposition to the bill, “I have not yet seen any evidence that 15-year-old vehicles pollute our air substantially more than 14-year-old vehicles. Declaring all vehicles 15 years or older are guilty of being gross polluters without any empirical data is backwards and does not reflect the spirit of the law.”

Of additional concern to the enthusiast community were provisions in the bill that would have required that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which could be used to scrap older cars. “We are especially indebted to those legislators who opposed the bill because it would have placed an undue burden upon car owners simply because their vehicle is older than an arbitrary date set in law,” McDonald added.

The SAN would like to thank the countless individuals and car clubs whose dedication and persistence in contacting lawmakers in Sacramento as this bill moved through the legislative process. Special thanks to the Association of California Car Clubs for the coordinated effort by their member clubs in opposing this bill.

 

[2ndGenToyotaFan]

Cool, they would have pissed off a large number of people with that one.....

 

[petescoffee]

Surprise Canyon update September 24, 2007

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Budlong [mailto:TomBudlong@RoadRunner.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:33 PM
To: Friends of the Panamints
Subject: Surprise Canyon Motor Access Denied -- Again



Monday, September 24, 2007

To the Friends of the Panamints

A Dismissal of the Most Recent Lawsuit by the ORVers

Related Press Release

Chris Wicht Camp Cleanup — Volunteers Needed (Oct 27, 28)

A Dismissal of the Most Recent Lawsuit by the ORVers

Off-road enthusiasts have failed in their second recent attempt to get a court order to open Surprise Canyon to motors. The first attempt, based on the 1800’s-era RS2477 statute, was dismissed in July.

This most recent attempt was described in the July 31 report to the Friends of the Panamints. To recap: The 2001 court stipulation that closed Surprise Canyon to motors conditionally excepted private land owners. After the closure, the off-road groups purchased small parcels of private land in Panamint City to take advantage this clause. They then asked the BLM permission to use motor vehicles to get to Panamint City via Surprise Canyon. Since the BLM has not issued a permit, the off-roaders sued, claiming the BLM was contemptuous of the court’s private land owner exception. The motion to the court was titled ‘Third-Party Beneficiaries’ Motion for Contempt’—Third-Party since these off-road groups were not associated with the original suit that resulted in the closure stipulation.

The motion was filed on August 6, with a hearing date set for September 13. The same judge who authorized the stipulation agreement in 2001, William Alsup, presided over the hearing. He issued the denial on September 17.

Judge Alsup ruled that the stipulation did not give the land owners an ‘affirmative right’, and neither did it relieve the BLM of its responsibility to obey BLM rules and regulations regarding land management. It was on this basis that he denied the motion for contempt and refused to order Surprise Canyon open to their motor vehicles.

The Center for Biological Diversity, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Sierra Club were part of the original suit in 2000 that led to the 2001 closures, and opposed the motion for contempt. After the decision they issued the following press release.

NEWS RELEASE, 9/18/07

Judge Denies Off-road Vehicle Access to Surprise Canyon,

A Unique Oasis in Death Valley National Park

SAN FRANCISCO – Judge William H. Alsup denied a motion brought by off-road interests (the Little Chief Millsite Partnership and the Owners of Independence Millsite) seeking to gain access to Surprise Canyon, a rare and fragile desert stream. This is the second failed attempt in the past year by the same individuals to gain motorized access to the creek, which begins in Death Valley National Park and flows through an Area Of Critical Environmental Concern and wilderness managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

In 2000, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club sued the Bureau of Land Management for violations of the Endangered Species Act because the agency had failed to evaluate the impact of off-road vehicle use and other management policies on endangered wildlife. As a result of a 2001 settlement and consent decree, the agency closed several sensitive areas including Surprise Canyon in order to protect the spring-fed creek flowing through the canyon and the habitat and wildlife it supports. The National Park Service closed the upper portion of the canyon to vehicles in 2002. Since these closures, Surprise Canyon has experienced a remarkable recovery, evidenced by thriving vegetation and the return of such endangered species as the Inyo California Towhee after decades of absence.

"This is a great day for Surprise Canyon. The creek is a haven for people and wildlife, with its cascading waterfalls, towering cottonwoods and lush willows that are home to desert bighorn sheep, endangered birds, and rare species found nowhere else in the world," said Chris Kassar, a wildlife biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The off-road interests had purchased inholdings on old mining claims in Death Valley National Park with the intention of using their ownership of those lands to seek motorized access to the canyon, and brought this motion for contempt against the Bureau of Land Management when it attempted to enforce the consent decree entered in 2001. The groups argued that the consent decree gave them a right to motorized access, but the court disagreed . And to the off-road groups' argument that the Bureau is taking too long to process their access applications, the court replied that the issue must be raised in a new lawsuit "rather than seeking to enforce an old decree in someone else's case concluded years before any agency action was requested."

Karen Schambach, California director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, says her members — employees of federal and state resource agencies — welcome the decision, but are still concerned about the future of Surprise Canyon. "We have our finger in the dike, and so far it is holding. But the longer challenge is somehow getting the off-road community to adopt informed land ethics. Unfortunately, this newest generation of extreme off-roading is doing more and more damage every year to these special areas that were formerly safe by virtue of their inaccessibility. We need more than lip service to environmental responsibility from groups like Blue Ribbon Coalition, who think it is all right to destroy sensitive habitat as long as they pick up their trash."

Previous off-road vehicle use caused serious damage to the canyon. In the 1990s, highly modified four-wheel-drive vehicles began to scale the canyon. The drivers cut down plants and trees, filled in portions of the streambed with rocks, and used winches to pull vehicles up near-vertical waterfalls. A number of vehicles overturned when trying to negotiate the waterfalls and other steep terrain, dumping oil and other pollution into the stream.

Because Surprise Canyon is narrow and constrained through much of its length, it is not possible to resume off-road vehicle use without causing substantial adverse impacts to the creek, the wilderness character of the area, important water resources and other natural values.

"Surprise Canyon is on a path to natural restoration. It was torn up and damaged, but now is thriving with native plants and wildlife," concluded Kassar. "Allowing damaging off-road vehicle activity to return to the canyon would set recovery back by decades, and this decision is at least one more step toward ensuring that doesn't happen."

Chris Wicht Camp Cleanup—Volunteers Needed—October 27, 28

Chris Wicht Camp, as reported earlier, burned completely last September. It was the historic camp at the end of the county maintained road in Surprise, about a half mile below the Surprise Canyon Falls.

The Ridgecrest BLM has done their hazmat evaluation (reportedly found nothing dangerous), and has tentatively scheduled their cleanup for the weekend of October 27 and 28. BLM is calling for volunteers to help with some of the lighter work. (Removing vehicle and building carcasses is reserved for the professionals.)

If you are interested, call Marty Dickes, the BLM Wilderness person, at 760-384-5444 for more details.

Tom Budlong, 310-476-1731, TomBudlong@Roadrunner.com

Email comments, and to be added or removed from the Friends of the Panamints list. Or call.

 

[petescoffee]

Congress Moves To Close Land To Development

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like my 15 minute phone interview turned into one sentence. Oh well, at least I am glad he quoted me on that sentence correctly.

'We called him our gatekeeper," says Dave Hurwitz, chairman of the Snowmobile Alliance of Western States, a Kalama, Wash.-based group representing snowmobile riders, which opposes nearly all new wilderness proposals.'

The democrats are ready to roll and press for a vote on several of the wilderness bills that have been around in Congress for a few years. That is very unfortunate.


http://online.wsj.com/article_...E3OTIwMzUyODM2Wj.html

Congress Moves To Close Land To Development

By JIM CARLTON
September 24, 2007; Page A1

The Democratic-controlled Congress, stepping up a push that gained little ground when Republicans were in the majority, is on the verge of walling off as many as three millions more acres of the nation's wilderness from commercial and recreational development.

Lawmakers are moving to designate nearly as much land as wilderness area over the next year as they did during the Republican Party's recent 12-year tenure in the leadership. During that period, which ended last year, some of the party's more conservative members held key congressional posts, and blocked efforts to add much to the 107 million acres nationwide officially considered wilderness.

By declaring vast swaths of undeveloped land from Virginia to Oregon as wilderness areas, the current flurry of bills would close them to the timber, oil and mining industries. Although few of the often-remote areas involved are at active risk of development, some of them contain commercially valuable timber and others, such as the wild canyon lands of Utah, could harbor reserves of natural gas.

As a result, the bills are provoking bitter complaints from some business interests including the oil industry. They also face opposition from property-rights advocates and users of off-road vehicles, such as snowmobiles, which are barred from wilderness areas.

But many of the bills enjoy strong bipartisan support in the states affected and so are nearly certain to become law. Some even passed the Senate under Republican rule, and had the votes to pass the Republican House, but repeatedly were blocked by a powerful prodevelopment committee chairman who lost his seat in the 2006 election.

The Bush administration hasn't taken a formal position on the pending wilderness measures. But White House and congressional aides say bills with local Republican support, which many of them have, would be likely to win President Bush's signature.

Some of the more politically contentious bills, however, are unlikely to see congressional action. Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the Senate to designate the oil-rich coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness to safeguard it from energy exploration. But Senate aides say oil exploration in ANWR is such a hot-button issue that the bill is expected to go nowhere.

In all, about a dozen bills involving wilderness designation or some other form of permanent protection from development are in the pipeline in the House and Senate, with as many as three million acres at stake. That compares with the 3.5 million acres that won similar status between 1994 and 2006, according to Wilderness.net, a partnership of academics and conservation groups. All the new land in question is national forest or other U.S. property.

"It's almost like the floodgates have opened," says Myke Bybee, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, the San Francisco-based environmental group that has been pushing for many of the wilderness proposals.

Democrats have tended to support more environmental legislation in recent years than their Republican counterparts. And with fears about global warming, many Democrats see environmental issues like wilderness as part of a platform that can help them cement their control of Congress and perhaps even retake the White House. "The environment has been, is and always will be a top priority for Democrats," says Bill Wicker, spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But more so than for many other environmental issues, there's strong bipartisan support for wilderness preservation among both voters and politicians. Among the pending measures, Virginia's Republican Sen. John Warner, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher have introduced the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. The bill would protect from development nearly 43,000 acres of forest in the Blue Ridge Mountains as wilderness.

Other bills likely to be passed during the current Congress include Wild Sky, designating 107,000 acres of wilderness in the Cascade Mountains outside of Seattle. Another bill, affecting Oregon, would add 128,000 acres of wilderness on Mount Hood and in the nearby Columbia River Gorge; that measure is pending in the Senate.

Yet another bill calls for barring development on almost all 265,770 acres of Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park. That bill, which is pending in the Senate and has bipartisan support in Colorado, has been hung up in Washington since 1996. More-stringent use restrictions apply to wilderness lands than to national parks. Many national parks include roads, buildings, lodges and other amenities for park visitors, none of which are permitted in wilderness areas.

Larger wilderness bills are in the works, too. Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, for instance, has introduced a bill that would classify 517,000 acres of wilderness in his home state.

Other bills are expected to be introduced soon. Two that apply to California, for example, could sequester several hundred thousand acres. Senate staffers also say discussions are under way in Utah that could result in a wilderness bill protecting as many as a million acres of pristine canyon lands from development under a compromise with the state's Republican delegation. Environmentalists have been pushing for a much larger area of almost 10 million acres.

But fierce opposition to wilderness designations remains. "The problem with wilderness designations is that there's no recreational access unless you can hike up there," says Greg Mumm, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a Pocatello, Idaho-based group representing all-terrain-vehicle riders and other recreation users. "It's good for only one elite demographic."

Officials of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, meanwhile, say they are troubled that so much wilderness is being proposed at one time because potential energy reserves might be closed off. "It has now become part of the environmental activists' playbook to reduce access to almost all federal lands that could safely produce American energy supplies," says Dan Naatz, a vice president for the Washington, D.C., trade group.

Lobbying by such groups has been partly responsible for blocking passage of wilderness bills for much of the period since Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. In the 12 years prior to the Republican takeover, a Democratic-controlled Congress added 23 million acres of wilderness area -- nearly a quarter of the current total.

Getting land designated as wilderness got tougher in 2003, when California rancher Richard Pombo was elected chairman of the House Resources Committee. A staunch property-rights advocate, he kept most wilderness bills bottled up during most of the four years he ran the committee. "We called him our gatekeeper," says Dave Hurwitz, chairman of the Snowmobile Alliance of Western States, a Kalama, Wash.-based group representing snowmobile riders, which opposes nearly all new wilderness proposals.

One of the bills Mr. Pombo kept on the shelf was Wild Sky, which was introduced in 2002 by two Washington state Democrats, Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen.

Situated in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Wild Sky is different from many other proposed wilderness areas. It is located in the backyard of a major metropolitan area, just 90 minutes from downtown Seattle. And it would include parts of a forest that had been logged, but has since regrown. Most other wildernesses are drawn around lands that have been virtually untouched by industrial activity.

Wild Sky has been less contentious than many other wilderness proposals. With peaks that rise 6,000 feet almost from sea level, much of the higher terrain has remained inaccessible to logging. Its lower-elevation forests, meanwhile, were shielded from logging by local activists. Some groves were so intact they harbored immense Western red cedars estimated at 700 years old.

Although the idea of designating Wild Sky as wilderness has enjoyed broad support in the state, it hasn't been unanimous. Snowmobile enthusiasts, in particular, expressed concern that some areas they like to ride in would be sealed off. With few exceptions, the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the use of motorized or mechanized vehicles in a designated wilderness area.

To help reduce opposition to Wild Sky, Sen. Murray and Rep. Larsen agreed to remove from the bill more than 10,000 acres of land where pack-horse groups, snowmobilers and other forest users complained the new rules would restrict them. The strategy worked; the Washington State Snowmobile Association agreed not to oppose the bill after a popular riding area called Windy Ridge was taken out.

Wild Sky passed in the Senate three times between 2002 and 2006 and had wide support in the House. But Mr. Pombo wouldn't let it out of his committee for a full vote. The reason: He wanted the roughly 15,000 acres of previously logged forest left out because he didn't think it qualified as wilderness. Rep. Larsen and Sen. Murray argued it did because the logging took place decades ago and the forest had grown back as lush as before.

"They said all or nothing, so I said, 'Fine, forget it,'" Mr. Pombo said in a 2005 interview with The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Pombo, who is now a partner at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm, didn't return calls seeking comment.

The seven-term Mr. Pombo was defeated last year by Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney, whose campaign received backing from national environmental groups. Mr. Pombo's old committee, now named the House Committee on Natural Resources, is chaired by West Virginia Democrat Nick Rahall.

Soon after the new Democrat-controlled 110th Congress convened early this year, Sen. Murray and Rep. Larsen re-introduced their Wild Sky bill. It passed in the House in April, and also cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Wild Sky is expected to be the first of the new wilderness bills approved by Congress, with full Senate passage expected as early as the next few weeks, say staffers of the Senate Energy Committee.

Write to Jim Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com

 

[petescoffee]

FOTR Workday Sep. 29th (Sign up)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Public Lands Day FOTR Event: Sep. 29th.
Doug Barr says while he probably can’t be there due to work, he still has a major project for us to finish moving and placing rock on the Tahoe side.

1. Boss/Incident Commander: Scott Johnston (Cruzila)
I’ll help with the planning, paperwork and set up. But I have a BRC Board meeting that weekend in Reno, NV, so I can’t do it.

2. Trailers: We need a dozen trailers (the loader can be there again); max of about 30-40 folks. Unloading crew should not get muddy like last time.

3. Waterbars: The water bars need to be cleaned up. This was part of the agreement between all involved when they were put in place. If they don't get maintained, then the water authority has the power to close the trail. It should only take about eight people (two teams of four) moving from bar to bar. Don't make each one perfect, just make each one better than before.

4. Cadillac: Any bypasses still there need to be blocked. There are no down snags or dead standing snags nearby. This will be a winching/dragging operation to get trees to block the bypasses. This needs to be done because the erosion is already evident. Six or eight people, three vehicles with winches, the chainsaw might be a tough sell with the FS.

5. Camping/Dinner: Camping is suggested for Kaspian Campground right at 89 and Blackwood Canyon. The Rubicon Springs is too far in; the staging area doesn't allow it; they got mad about the tent in the grass at the Blackwood Campground; etc. so Kaspian would be a safe bet. Besides, you get a great view of Tahoe and an awesome sunrise.

6. Hummer: Hummer/GM has donated $5000 recently to the Rubicon Trail Foundation to help us with our efforts on the trail. We’ll set up a nice BBQ on Hummer this time. Probably at Kaspian. I’ll double check with the Foundation for approval on dinner for us. They plan to have about 7 or 8 folks from back east there to help us work.

Because the Hummer/GM folks are staying in SLT, we’ll not start too early on the project. Maybe 8:30 or 9am Saturday am. Then dinner that evening and social event, plus National Public Lands Day celebration.

Sign ups here: http://www.delalbright.com/Rubicon/workday.htm
thanks, Del
__________________
Del Albright
BlueRibbon Coalition Ambassador
Co-Moderator/Founder, Rubicon Trail Forum
Trail Boss, Friends of the Rubicon
Web Site: http://www.delalbright.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[petescoffee]

Update On Wilderness Legislation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE ON WILDERNESS LEGISLATION

Democratic control of both bodies of Congress means wilderness will be a much more active topic in the 110th Congress. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the Chairmen of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees, are both supporters of wilderness designations.

There are numerous wilderness designation bills introduced each session of Congress. Some of the more significant examples in the 110th Congress include the following bills.

H.R. 1975, introduced by Rep. Maloney of New York. This legislation would designate roughly 15,000,000 acres of public land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness. The legislation was not supported by any members of Congress from Idaho, Wyoming or Montana and only six members from Washington and Oregon support the bill.

H.R. 1919/S. 1170, the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act" would lock up millions of acres of land and would likely destroy the economy of rural Utah. In the 110th Congress these measures have acquired 147 House and 18 Senate cosponsors. The vast majority of cosponsors were from Eastern, non-public land states.

The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act, H.R. 39, is sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN). No members of the Alaska delegation support this bill. The legislation would designate the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness thereby permanently eliminating access to the areas estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. This bill currently has 141 cosponsors in the House. Bills to allow limited energy development in this area have passed the House 10 times in previous Congressional sessions, but these measures have all been turned back by the Senate.

Rep. Diane DeGette announced last month that she will introduce the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007, which would put 1.65 million acres of public land in Colorado, including the Roan Plateau, under the most stringent "hands-off" land policies our country can impose.

S. 493/H.R. 860, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) and Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32), would lock up 2.4 million acres of public lands in California.

Click here for more about wilderness legislation pending before the 110th Congress -- http://www.muirnet.net/Public/legisl...oposed-110.htm

 

[petescoffee]

Friends of Eldorado- New organization

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Contact: Kurt Schneider
Tel. 925-596-0432
E-mail: kurt@friendsofeldorado.com



El Dorado County: September 26th, 2007



FRIENDS OF ELDORADO FORMED IN RESPONSE TO ROUTE CLOSURES
Mission is to work with Forest Service to maintain routes and educate forest users



In response to Eldorado National Forest's Draft Impact study, which may remove over 1,800 miles of routes in Eldorado National Forest (ENF), the non-profit group The Friends of Eldorado, (FOE) has been formed by the users of ENF. These users include a vast range of people including OHV users, hunters, campers, hikers, photographers, fishermen, etc.



The mission of FOE is to work closely with the Forest Service and various other organizations such as the BlueRibbon Coalition and The Friends of the Rubicon to help maintain trails, roads and campsites in ENF through work-parties, forest and campsite clean-ups. A secondary goal of the organization will be to educate forest users on responsible use of the forest.



In less than 12 hours after the creation of FOE, the organization's website, www.friendsofeldorado.com, has received over 300 unique visits and has had 50 individuals join the organization. This is no small feat in that FOE went from inception to creation in less than one month.



"Friends of Eldorado is a welcome addition to our family of localized coalitions working to save our motorized access and fight unnecessary closures and restrictions," says Del Albright, BlueRibbon Coalition 4 X 4 Ambassador and Trail Boss Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR). "We stand proud with our new partners and look forward to preserving our Forest access for all the public," Del added.



# # #



If you would like more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with Kurt Schneider, Please call 925-596-0432 or e-mail Kurt at kurt@friendsofeldorado.com

 

[petescoffee]

Mendocino NF Route Designation Process

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
Proposal Name: Ivory Mill Saddle to Snow Mountain OHV Hunting Connectivity
The Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, is proposing to allow mixed use on a segment of M3 from Ivory Mill Saddle to near West Crockett trailhead. Mixed-use allows use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles and drivers. Currently only highway-legal vehicles are allowed. Total length of the segment is about 17.5 miles. The proposed project is located in Glenn County, California, about ten miles southwest of the community of Elk Creek. A draft environmental assessment regarding the proposal is available for review at Mendocino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, address below. Additional information regarding this proposed action can be obtained from Mike Van Dame:
• U. S. Postal Service:
Attn: Mike Van Dame
Mendocino National Forest
825 North Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
• Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us
• Telephone: (530)934-1141
This comment period is intended to provide those interested in or affected by this proposal an opportunity to make their concerns known prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Those who provide comments or otherwise express interest in the proposal by the close of the comment period will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations
How to Comment and Timeframe
Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments concerning this action will be accepted for 30 calendar days following publication of a notice in the Enterprise Record. The publication date in the Enterprise Record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. Those wishing to comment should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the comment period.
Written comments must be submitted to: Eduardo Olmedo, Grindstone District Ranger, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are: 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Oral comments must be provided at the Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone (530)934-3316 or in person. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to comments-pacificsouthwest-mendocino-grindstone@fs.fed.us. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity will be required for appeal eligibility. If using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide verification. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR §215.6.
Published October 11, 2007


We have experienced a delay in getting the draft documents and maps on-line, but should have them up by late Monday afternoon, Oct15. Then the following link will take you to the draft environmental documents that the Forest Supervisor has released for public review and comment.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/#status

The public notice has instructions on how to provide us with comments. If you have any questions or would prefer hard-copies of the documents, please don’t hesitate to call me.

Thanks,

Mike
Forest Planner
Mendocino National Forest
mvandame@fs.fed.us
530 934 1141

 

[petescoffee]

Mendocino Comment Period Runs until November 13, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST
SEEKS COMMENTS ON CHANGES IN
MOTORIZED VEHICLE ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Mendocino National Forest has released two draft environmental

documents for public review and comment. The documents cover two separate

travel management proposals that are part of the route designation process.


The comment period runs until November 13. This is to provide those

interested in or affected by these proposals an opportunity to make their

concerns known prior to a decision being made. The draft environmental

analysis documents detailing the proposals and their effects are available

for review at Mendocino National Forest Supervisor’s and Ranger District

Offices.

One proposal concerns motorized access for dispersed camping (setting

up camp for either overnight or day use in an area that has not been

developed as a campground facility). The proposal is to add 72 short

user-created motorized routes to the existing Mendocino National Forest

designated trail system. These routes would be managed as motorized trails

to provide access to 67 frequently used dispersed camp sites. The routes

are located in various areas across the Forest and their total aggregate

length is 7.8 miles.

The other proposal allows mixed use on a segment of forest road M3

from Ivory Mill Saddle to near West Crockett trailhead. Mixed-use allows

use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles and drivers.

Currently only highway-legal vehicles are allowed. Total length of the

segment is about 17.5 miles. This proposed project is located on Grindstone

Ranger District in Glenn County, California, about ten miles southwest of

the community of Elk Creek.

-more-



Page 2

Locations where the draft environmental analysis documents may be

reviewed are:


SUPERVISOR’S OFFICE/GRINDSTONE RANGER DISTRICT
825 N. Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
(530) 934-3316; TTY (530) 934-7724


COVELO RANGER DISTRICT
78150 Covelo Road
Covelo, CA 95428
(707) 983-6118; TTY (707) 983-6123


UPPER LAKE RANGER DISTRICT
10025 Elk Mountain Road
Upper Lake, CA
(707) 275-2361 or 2363; TTY (707) 275-9524

Additional information regarding these proposed actions and how to

provide comments can be obtained from the Mendocino National Forest route

designation web page at

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/#status , or from Mike Van

Dame at the Supervisor’s Office: Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us; Telephone:

(530)934-1141; TTY (530) 934-7724.

##

Phebe Brown
Public Affairs Officer
Mendocino National Forest
email: pybrown@fs.fed.us
Telephone: 530-934-1137
Fax: 530-934-7384

 

[petescoffee]

Mendocino Forest- Proposal to Close Trail 68

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
Proposal Name: Close Trail 68
The Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest, is proposing to close off-highway vehicle trail 68. The trail is located in Lake County, California, about three miles northeast of Lake Pillsbury. A draft environmental assessment regarding the proposal is available for review at Upper Lake Ranger District Office, 10025 Elk Mt. Road, Upper Lake, CA, and at Mendocino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, address below. Additional information regarding this proposed action can be obtained from Mike Van Dame:
• U. S. Postal Service:
Attn: Mike Van Dame
Mendocino National Forest
825 North Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
• Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us
• Telephone: (530)934-1141
This comment period is intended to provide those interested in or affected by this proposal an opportunity to make their concerns known prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Those who provide comments or otherwise express interest in the proposal by the close of the comment period will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations
How to Comment and Timeframe
Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments concerning this action will be accepted for 30 calendar days following publication of notice in the Enterprise Record. The publication date in the Enterprise Record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. Those wishing to comment should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the comment period.
Written comments must be submitted to: Thomas A. Contreras, Forest Supervisor, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are: 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Oral comments must be provided at the Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone (530)934-3316 or in person. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to comments-pacificsouthwest-mendocino-grindstone@fs.fed.us. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity will be required for appeal eligibility. If using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide verification. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR §215.6.
Publish October 27, 2007


LINK TO MAP- http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/proposed/cabbage/web_cabbage_map.pdf

 

[petescoffee]

Mendocino Forest

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST NOTICE OF DECISION

Proposal Name: Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping
On November 27, 2007, Mendocino National Forest Supervisor Thomas Contreras signed a decision memo to add 71 user-created motorized routes to the existing Mendocino National Forest trail system. These routes will be managed as motorized trails to provide access to 66 dispersed camp sites. The routes are located in various areas across the Forest; aggregate length of the routes is 7.7 miles. Copies of the decision memo are available at the Forest Supervisor’s office (address below). Additional information regarding this decision can be obtained from Mike Van Dame:
• U. S. Postal Service:
Attn: Mike Van Dame
Mendocino National Forest
825 North Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
• Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us
• Telephone: (530)934-1141
In accordance with the October 19, 2005, order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Case No. CIV F-03-6386JKS, this decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer: Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, California 94592.

For hand-delivered appeals, office hours are 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, M-F, except federal holidays. Submit emailed appeals in plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) formats to appeals-pacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us. The identity of the appellant must be identifiable. Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in the Chico Enterprise Record. Appeals received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. Only individuals or organizations who submitted comments or expressed interest in the proposal during the 30-day comment period ending November 13, 2007 may appeal this decision.

Publish December 3, 2007


http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/#status

 

[petescoffee]

Mendocino National Forest Notice Of Decision

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST NOTICE OF DECISION

Proposal Name: Close Trail 68
On December 14, 2007, Forest Supervisor Tom Contreras signed a decision notice to close and decommission off-highway-vehicle trail #68. Total length of the trail is about 2.7 miles. It is located in northern Lake County, California, about three miles east of Lake Pillsbury. Copies of the decision notice and related environmental documents are available at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, address below. Additional information regarding this decision can be obtained from Mike Van Dame:
• U. S. Postal Service:
Attn: Mike Van Dame
Mendocino National Forest
825 North Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
• Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us
• Telephone: (530)934-1141

Forest Supervisor Contreras has determined that the only comment submitted during the comment period is supportive of the proposed action, and that there were no other expressions of interest. Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR §215.12(e)(1), his decision is not subject to appeal.

Publish December 18, 2007

 

[TRT2]

Which one is #68?? I don't recognize that naming convention.

 

[petescoffee]

Travel Management Decisions Regarding Motorized Vehicle Route Designations Announced
Willows, December 14, 2007 - Mendocino National Forest has issued four decisions regarding four separate travel management proposals that are part of the route designation process. The decision and environmental analysis documents detailing the proposals and their effects are available for review at Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's and Ranger District Offices.

One proposal concerns motorized access for dispersed camping (setting up camp for either overnight or day use in an area that has not been developed as a campground facility). The decision will add 71 short user-created motorized routes to the existing Mendocino National Forest designated trail system. These routes would be managed as motorized trails to provide access to 66 frequently used dispersed camp sites. The routes are located in various areas across the Forest and their total aggregate length is 7.7 miles. The decision is subject to administrative review, and will not be final until the appeal process has concluded.

The second decision will eventually allow mixed use on a segment of forest road M3 from Ivory Mill Saddle to near West Crockett trailhead. Mixed-use allows use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles and drivers. Currently only highway-legal vehicles are allowed. Total length of the segment is about 17.5 miles. This road is located on Grindstone Ranger District in Glenn County, California, about ten miles southwest of the community of Elk Creek.

The third decision revises the road management objective for Long Ridge Road (17N16) to be managed for high-clearance vehicles rather than low-clearance vehicles. Long Ridge Road is about 5.5 miles long, and is located in northeastern Lake County, California, about half-way between the Upper Lake and Stonyford Off-Highway Vehicle management areas.

The fourth decision is to close and decommission Off-Highway Vehicle Trail 68. Total length of the trail is about 2.7 miles. It is located in northern Lake County, California, about three miles east of Lake Pillsbury.

Locations where the decision and environmental analysis documents may be reviewed are:

SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE/GRINDSTONE RANGER DISTRICT
825 N. Humboldt Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
(530) 934-3316; TTY (530) 934-7724

COVELO RANGER DISTRICT
78150 Covelo Road
Covelo, CA 95428
(707) 983-6118; TTY (707) 983-6123

UPPER LAKE RANGER DISTRICT
10025 Elk Mountain Road
Upper Lake, CA
(707) 275-2361 or 2363; TTY (707) 275-9524
Additional information regarding these proposed actions and how to provide comments can be obtained from the Mendocino National Forest route designation web page at Mendocino National Forest - Motor Vehicle Route Designation , or from Mike Van Dame at the Supervisor's Office: Email: mvandame@fs.fed.us; Telephone: (530)934-1141; TTY (530) 934-7724.

###

 

[petescoffee]

Which one is #68?? I don't recognize that naming convention.

Here is a link to the maps section. The trail is actually 85468 on the Route Desgination maps
Final Environmental Documents

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/maps/mnf_Lake_Pillsbury_NE.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/draft/trail68/trail68map1.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/mendocino/projects/ohv/draft/trail68/trail68map2.pdf

 

[petescoffee]

Sierra Update

Dear Interested Party:

I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the Sierra National Forest’s efforts to designate a system of roads and trails for OHV and Forest access. As you recall, last September the Forest released a Proposed Action to designate a system of roads and trails and asked for comments regarding the proposal. The public comment period closed on December 3, 2007 and over 10,000 individuals provided us with comments on the Proposed Action. I have enclosed a summary of those comments for your review. Also, I have made available on the Sierra National Forest website a set of maps that displays the user created tracks that the public provided us comments on. To view these maps follow the link below:


Sierra National Forest - Projects & Plans - Rural Community Assistance


Our next step in the planning process is to develop a range of alternatives that addresses the public’s issues as well as the environmental impacts of designating a system of roads and trails. Once the alternatives are developed and environmental consequences addressed, the information will be released to the public in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The document will be available to the public for review and comment. We anticipate the release of the DEIS in early summer.

In closing, I want to share with you that I appreciate all of the work you have done in providing input during the scoping process. Through your efforts, I feel very confident that I have a good picture of the possible OHV and access opportunities that you would like us to consider. Based on this information, it is my desire to look at all of the input provided in order to designate the appropriate system for the Sierra National Forest.


Sincerely,



Edward Cole
Edward C. Cole
Forest Supervisor






Sue Exline
Public Affairs Officer
Sierra National Forest
Phone: (559) 297-0706 ext 4804
Cell Phone: (559) 289-9459
E-Mail: skexline@fs.fed.us

Sierra National Forest
Motorized Travel Management
Designating a System of Roads and Trails
For OHV and Forest Access
March 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ACTION
Last September, the Sierra National Forest released a Proposed Action to designate a system of roads
and trails for OHV and Forest access and asked for your comments regarding the proposal. The
public comment period closed on December 3, 2007 and over 10,000 individuals provided us with
comments.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
We asked forest users to provide us with information regarding the 3,000 segments (530 miles) of
inventoried user created tracks. Specifically, we asked for information on what user created tracks
should be included and which ones should be removed. Below is a summary of the comments
received:
• Total # of user created tracks requested to be add to the Forest system - 994 Tracks
• Total # of miles of user created tracks requested to be add to the Forest system - 280 Miles
• Total # of user created tracks requested to NOT be added to the Forest system - 130 Tracks
• Total miles of user created tracks requested to NOT be added to the Forest system - 52 Miles
In general, OHV users didn’t ask for all user created tracks to be left open nor did the environmental
community ask for them all to be closed. Good, thoughtful comments were received regarding which
user created tracks should be added or removed. To view the specific user created tracks that were
requested to be added or removed from consideration, visit the Sierra National Forest website at:
Sierra National Forest - Projects & Plans - Rural Community Assistance
The Forest now has a good picture of the possible OHV and access opportunities that the public has
asked us to consider. Based on this information, it is our desire to look at all of the input provided in
order to designate the appropriate system of roads and trails on the Sierra National Forest.
Below is a summary of the written comments received. The solicitation of comments was not a vote
count; therefore similar comments are grouped together:
Concerns were expressed on the impacts of decreased access to:
• Dispersed camping (off of spurs, roads, etc.)
o Equestrian parking
• Variety of motorized routes opportunities
o Loops
o Technical (rock crawling, hill climb, etc.)
o For motorcycles, high clearance vehicles, snowmobiles
March 2008
o Specific routes/areas ( “007,” Chepo Saddle, Miami Area, Moon Rock, Star Lakes)
Concerns were expressed on the impacts of decreased access to: (continued)
• Historic routes
• Recreational Opportunities
o hang-gliding launch (Burrough Mountain)
o rock climbing
o vistas
o fishing
o hunting
• Current unofficial concentrated use areas/large parking areas
Concerns were expressed regarding user conflicts between:
• With local private landowners
• Non-motorized and motorized uses
• Equestrian
Concerns were expressed with regards to recreation:
• Quality of non-motorized recreation opportunities (noise)
• Impacts as a result of closing an area to motorized use ( may concentrate use in other areas)
Concerns were expressed with regards to economic impacts to:
• Local tourism/visitor experience (motorized)
• Sporting goods stores
Concerns were expressed with regards to impacts to local private landowners
Concerns were expressed regarding impacts to Cultural Resources
Concerns were expressed regarding the impact to Natural Resources, such as:
• Soil (erosion)
o wet season
o impaction
o slopes over 15%
• Spread of noxious weeds
o Yellow-star thistle
• Water quality (impacts of sediments from motorized use)
o Drinking water
o Aquatic species health
Sediment loads and the effects on Salmonid oxygen supply
Feeder streams
Wild Trout Waters (S. Fork of Merced, Middle Fork of the San Joaquin, and Kings
River)
March 2008
Federally listed trout (Lahontan cutthroat and Paiute cutthroat), especially at Dinkey
Creek (Brewer Route), Cow Creek, and Portuguese Creeks
o At stream and meadow crossings
Important fish and game habitat
o Riparian/ wetlands/ wet meadows (vegetation concerns, too)
o Concerns with watershed protection where creeks originate outside the National Park and also
regarding those creeks that flow into the National Park
Concerns with impacts to Wildlife (noise, habitat impacts and fragmentation)
• Sensitive species: great gray owl, bald eagle, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, Yosemite toad,
mountain yellow-legged frog
• Concerns with the seasonal closures (don’t shorten, make longer)
• Game species
Concerns on impacts to Air Quality (impacts from motorized use)
• Snowmobile
• On health – naturally occurring asbestos
Concerns on Impacts of motorized use to special areas
• Inventoried roadless areas (several specific routes mentioned by multiple respondents)
• Primitive and Semi-Primitive non motorized (several specific routes mentioned by multiple
respondents)
• Research Natural Areas
• Wilderness boundary (Ansel Adams Wilderness )
• Designated and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers (Especially S. Fork of the Merced.)
• Citizen inventoried roadless areas
• Miscellaneous requests/concerns
• Request to consider all user-created routes in analysis
• Maps – accuracy/copies, etc.
• Implementation concerns (costs of LEO)
o FS budget
o Signage ignored
• Other requests
o Building new routes
o Developing staging/parking/concentrated use area
o 2nd “tier” of roads to be used when resource concerns are no longer a concern

 

[petescoffee]

Eldorado NAtional Forest FEIS- Phone call and Open Houses

Received this email today.
Dave

Hello Everyone.

I apologize for the late email. This is a reminder that we will have a briefing on the Travel Management Project on Tuesday, 11 March, at 12:00 pm. To access the briefing follow the instructions below:

Dial: 1-866-720-3489, then passcode: 9683102#.

We will discuss the release of the FEIS and Record of Decision, and the locations and times of the public open houses. We have updated our website and posted the public open house dates, times and locations. Links to that information can be found on the Eldorado National Forest website's home
page:
Eldorado National Forest - Welcome!

We have three open houses scheduled:

Saturday, April 5 from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.
El Dorado Co. Fairgrounds, Organ Room
100 Placerville Dr., Placerville

2. Thursday, April 10 from 3:00 pm to 9:00 pm.
Lake Tahoe Community College, Aspen Room
One College Dr., South Lake Tahoe

3. Saturday, April 12 from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.
Diablo Valley College, Room TBA
321 Golf Club Rd., Pleasant Hill

We encourage you to use the telephone briefings and ask that you inform others about this opportunity. Updates and information can be found on our project website at:
Eldorado National Forest - Projects & Plans. If you have any questions or comments please respond to eldoradoroutes@fs.fed.us.

We look forward to talking with you.

Jason