- Location
- Reno, Nevada
I am a member of the Nevada 4WD Association and they just sent me an update. I have sectioned out the part regarding the Deer Valley trail and am posting it here:
Eldorado NF 42 Trails: compacted
As of this writing, twelve of the original forty two trails remain closed.
As I’ve explained in previous writings, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) alleging that the ENF failed to take into consideration its own Standard & Guideline #100 (S&G 100) when evaluating these trails for inclusion in the ENF Travel Plan. S&G 100 deals with “connectivity of water flows across wet meadows” (an example would be if a trail cause the meadow’s soil to become compacted, therefore restricting normal water flow in the meadow). The court agreed and ordered ENF to close these 42 trails and evaluate and mitigate S&G 100 problems before these trails would reopen. Shortly after the court’s ruling, 18 of these trails were released from inclusion for several reasons (such as the affected meadow being on private land instead of ENF land).
Over the last two years, several of the remaining trails have reopened after mitigation of the S&G 100 problem. This group includes the Richardson Lake and Barrett Lake trails. The remainder (12 trails) remain closed pending ENF’s mitigation of the problem meadows. However, one trail remains a problem for N4WDA members, the Deer Valley Trail.
Deer Valley Trail:
The Deer Valley Trail is, next to the Rubicon, the most-travelled trail in the Eldorado NF. It is also one of the remaining twelve trails that remain unopened pending resolution of S&G 100 meadow problems.
But, THERE IS NO S&G 100 PROBLEM ON THIS TRAIL, OR HAS THERE EVER BEEN. Last summer, N4WDA, along with other appellants to the ENF Travel Plan, was invited to attend an interdisciplinary team trip to discuss the S&G 100 problem at Deer Valley itself. When we pointed out to the team that the second page of the hydrologist’s report describing the area where this problem existed did not match the land that we were actually looking at, the ENF hydrologist (not the one that was on the report – he was no longer on the ENF) stated that THERE IS NO S&G 100 problem and, if he were filling out the form, would not have checked the appropriate box.
The team then looked at other problems that WE pointed out that had been recommended by the South County Trail-Riders of San Jose, CA, the Adopt-A-Trail club during the last 37 years that had fallen on deaf ears. These included some trail re-routes to get the trail away from the bank of the stream at Clover and Deer valleys, some repair of the stream bank where some renegade wheelers had taken upon themselves to create a new crossing, etc. The team suggested hardening the Deer Valley stream crossing to alleviate any silt that might accumulate, from being released downstream when a vehicle crosses the stream. They also stated that the Yosemite Toad, an Endangered Species List candidate may have to be considered. The Forest Supervisor, Laurence Crabtree, agreed that ENF would seek a letter from the FWS stating that there would be “no significant impact” to the Yosemite Toad if this trail were to reopen. The trail was to reopen upon receipt of this letter (which, as of this writing, has never been written, ostensibly due to a lack of time as a result of the King Fire last September on the ENF).
The user groups stated that volunteer help would be offered to ENF to accomplish these goals.
NONE OF THESE OTHER PROBLEMS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CLOSURE OF THE TRAIL UNDER THE S&G 100 COURT RULING. N4WDA feels that this trail is illegally closed by ENF and is exploring litigation, with other stakeholders and organizations. This is a perfect case of “obstructionism” by ENF since they fear litigation by environmentalist groups if the trail should reopen. “Running scared” is not an acceptable excuse by N4WDA.
Meanwhile, ENF, Amador Ranger District, has just released an Environmental Assessment, that, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), states ENF’s intention to accomplish these non-S&G 100 goals and sets four alternatives for comment. These alternatives vary, chiefly, in trail closure dates for protection of the Yosemite Toad. N4WDA suggested that instead of ENF’s proposed Alternative #1, which sets the annual trail-opening date of July 31st (totally arbitrary) the date be determined by the snow melt and water on the trail, which is listed as Alternative #3. In most years, the trail is dry by July 1st, and this year would have been dry by June 15th (let’s, once again, use “good science” in this determination. By the way, after we submitted our comments resulting in Alternative #3, the environmentalists submitted comments resulting in Alternative #4, suggesting that July 31st might be too early for trail opening. We need your help! Please go to: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45439,
the website for this Environmental Assessment, and submit your comment by September 11th supporting Alternative #3.
Eldorado NF 42 Trails: compacted
As of this writing, twelve of the original forty two trails remain closed.
As I’ve explained in previous writings, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) alleging that the ENF failed to take into consideration its own Standard & Guideline #100 (S&G 100) when evaluating these trails for inclusion in the ENF Travel Plan. S&G 100 deals with “connectivity of water flows across wet meadows” (an example would be if a trail cause the meadow’s soil to become compacted, therefore restricting normal water flow in the meadow). The court agreed and ordered ENF to close these 42 trails and evaluate and mitigate S&G 100 problems before these trails would reopen. Shortly after the court’s ruling, 18 of these trails were released from inclusion for several reasons (such as the affected meadow being on private land instead of ENF land).
Over the last two years, several of the remaining trails have reopened after mitigation of the S&G 100 problem. This group includes the Richardson Lake and Barrett Lake trails. The remainder (12 trails) remain closed pending ENF’s mitigation of the problem meadows. However, one trail remains a problem for N4WDA members, the Deer Valley Trail.
Deer Valley Trail:
The Deer Valley Trail is, next to the Rubicon, the most-travelled trail in the Eldorado NF. It is also one of the remaining twelve trails that remain unopened pending resolution of S&G 100 meadow problems.
But, THERE IS NO S&G 100 PROBLEM ON THIS TRAIL, OR HAS THERE EVER BEEN. Last summer, N4WDA, along with other appellants to the ENF Travel Plan, was invited to attend an interdisciplinary team trip to discuss the S&G 100 problem at Deer Valley itself. When we pointed out to the team that the second page of the hydrologist’s report describing the area where this problem existed did not match the land that we were actually looking at, the ENF hydrologist (not the one that was on the report – he was no longer on the ENF) stated that THERE IS NO S&G 100 problem and, if he were filling out the form, would not have checked the appropriate box.
The team then looked at other problems that WE pointed out that had been recommended by the South County Trail-Riders of San Jose, CA, the Adopt-A-Trail club during the last 37 years that had fallen on deaf ears. These included some trail re-routes to get the trail away from the bank of the stream at Clover and Deer valleys, some repair of the stream bank where some renegade wheelers had taken upon themselves to create a new crossing, etc. The team suggested hardening the Deer Valley stream crossing to alleviate any silt that might accumulate, from being released downstream when a vehicle crosses the stream. They also stated that the Yosemite Toad, an Endangered Species List candidate may have to be considered. The Forest Supervisor, Laurence Crabtree, agreed that ENF would seek a letter from the FWS stating that there would be “no significant impact” to the Yosemite Toad if this trail were to reopen. The trail was to reopen upon receipt of this letter (which, as of this writing, has never been written, ostensibly due to a lack of time as a result of the King Fire last September on the ENF).
The user groups stated that volunteer help would be offered to ENF to accomplish these goals.
NONE OF THESE OTHER PROBLEMS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CLOSURE OF THE TRAIL UNDER THE S&G 100 COURT RULING. N4WDA feels that this trail is illegally closed by ENF and is exploring litigation, with other stakeholders and organizations. This is a perfect case of “obstructionism” by ENF since they fear litigation by environmentalist groups if the trail should reopen. “Running scared” is not an acceptable excuse by N4WDA.
Meanwhile, ENF, Amador Ranger District, has just released an Environmental Assessment, that, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), states ENF’s intention to accomplish these non-S&G 100 goals and sets four alternatives for comment. These alternatives vary, chiefly, in trail closure dates for protection of the Yosemite Toad. N4WDA suggested that instead of ENF’s proposed Alternative #1, which sets the annual trail-opening date of July 31st (totally arbitrary) the date be determined by the snow melt and water on the trail, which is listed as Alternative #3. In most years, the trail is dry by July 1st, and this year would have been dry by June 15th (let’s, once again, use “good science” in this determination. By the way, after we submitted our comments resulting in Alternative #3, the environmentalists submitted comments resulting in Alternative #4, suggesting that July 31st might be too early for trail opening. We need your help! Please go to: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45439,
the website for this Environmental Assessment, and submit your comment by September 11th supporting Alternative #3.
