Sonora, Calif., (May 26, 2010)…The Forest Service today announced that 28 Stanislaus National Forest campgrounds and picnic areas will be open to accommodate visitors and campers for this Memorial Day weekend. Due to the heavy snow pack at higher elevations this year, a number of campgrounds will open later as the snow melts. All of the Forest’s 52 developed campgrounds, offering 1,391 campsites, are scheduled to be open and available by mid-summer this year.

For more info, visit the USFS website.

Sonora, Calif., (November 16, 2009)… The Forest Service today announced dates, times, and locations for five public meetings that will provide information on the upcoming Stanislaus National Forest (NF) Motorized Travel Management (MTM) Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. The release of the decision and legal notice is expected within the next three weeks.

Current MTM information is available on the Forest website at:

http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv

The meetings are scheduled as follows:

• 3, 2009, 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Sonora Best Western, Oak Glenn room, located at 19551 Hess Road, in Sonora.
• December 5, 2009, 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the Harvest Hall located at 3800 Cornucopia Way, in Modesto.
• December 9, 2009, a hosted Webinar from 7:00 to 8.30 p.m., check the Stanislaus NF website for additional information http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv (before December 1, 2009).
• January 6, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.
• January 7, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.

Interested individuals and groups are invited to attend one of the above meeting dates, times and locations. For more information see www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv, or call Sue Warren at (209) 532-3671, extension 321.

###

If you do comment, make sure you are familiar with the alternatives and address the issues that concern you. It’s about much more than off-road vehicles. It’s about how you are allowed to access and use it: how far off a road you can drive (proposed to be one car length), how you can get to dispersed campsites (if the road is closed, access will have to be by non-motorized means), what time of year you can drive on the roads, etc. If you’d like a copy of the  Board’s comments that was approved (4/1, Liz Bass opposing) and submitted last week, please email me at info.

Here are a few observations:

• It is important to understand that the system is being evaluated from the standpoint of presently authorized roads, not all existing roads. That makes a lot of difference.
• There are five proposed alternatives, each with drawbacks and advantages. The best choice may be a combination of several alternatives.
• Alternative 2 has been called the “no action” alternative. However, that doesn’t mean that the status quo would be left intact, but that every road that is not presently authorized would be closed: many, many miles fall into that category.
• Each alternative notes that a certain number of miles is proposed to be added and a certain number of roads/miles, closed. The roads added number means added to the official authorized system, not new miles of roads added, and roads/miles closed means existing roads, blocked and off-limits forever or until NEPA analyses are done, whichever comes first.
• There are obviously some roads that users created that should be closed because of their condition and the harm their use causes to sensitive areas. But there are many that are proposed to be closed because the USFS doesn’t have the budget to maintain them.

So again, please invest the time to provide informed and meaningful comments.

Here’s the press release from the Stanislaus National Forest: 

Motorized Travel Management Comment Period Extended

Sonora, Calif., (May 1, 2009)…The Forest Service today announced that the sixty day public comment period on the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been extended for an additional 15 days. Comments on the DEIS are now due by Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

Since the March 6 beginning of the DEIS 60-day public review and comment period the Forest has conducted a total of six public meetings, a series of four open house workshops, and an internet “webinar” teleconference. Copies of the DEIS and newly published Errata are available at all Stanislaus National Forest offices.

The Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management project is part of a national effort to define transportation systems on every National Forest. The goal is to develop a sustainable system of routes that provide an array of opportunities for access and recreation on National Forest lands, as well as protection of various resources by curtailing motorized cross country travel.

Comments are invited on the DEIS, and to be considered, and must be received by the Stanislaus NF no later than Wednesday, May 20 2009.

While comments may be submitted anytime during the analysis process, only those individuals and organizations who provide comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215.

Comments may be submitted to Stanislaus National Forest; Attn: Motorized Travel DEIS; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370. Electronic comments may be submitted to comments-pacificsouthwest-stanislaus with Subject: Motorized Travel DEIS. Comments may be submitted by FAX (209) 533-1890; or, by hand-delivery to the address shown above, during normal business hours (Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Oral comments may be provided by calling (209) 532-3671 ext. 350.

The project web page [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv] includes the latest project updates, schedules for public meetings, and other information. To request additional information regarding this project, contact Sue Warren, Team Leader; Stanislaus National Forest; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370; or, e-mail swarren (to ensure a timely response, it is important to include “Information Request” in the subject line).

Compact Discs containing the DEIS documents, resource reports, supporting documents and maps are available by request. The DEIS is also available for review at the Forest Supervisor’s Office; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370; or, online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv.

A Final Environmental Impact Statement and decision by Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski are expected this summer, with a Motor Vehicle Use Map scheduled for release by the end of 2009. Following the designation of specific motorized routes, motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails would be prohibited, unless under special use permit.

Board of Supervisors’ Comment Letter Approved May 28, 2009

The DEIS presents a proposed (favored) action, a no action alternative and 3 additional action alternatives and describes the environmental impacts of each. The alternatives seek to:

1. prohibit motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads and trails by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use);

2. add 157.39 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS of trails currently open to the public for motor vehicle use; and,

3. make vehicle class changes to the existing NFTS on 623.28 miles of roads. The proposed action replaces all existing seasonal closures with season of use restrictions based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surfaced routes.

For more info and details on how to formally comment, see http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv or contact Sue Warren at (209) 532-3671. The Board of Supervisors will hear a briefing on the EIS in mid-April and will comment formally, as well. A Final Environmental Impact Statement and decision are expected later this year.

Kennedy Meadows decision expected in late April. There’s little to report on the Stewardship Council’s (SC) evaluation of USFS’ and local partners’ (RCD, county, Mother Lode Land Trust) proposals to own, manage, and protect Kennedy Meadows. The SC’s evaluation team will be here in the next few weeks to ask questions about both proposals. Stay tuned – a recommendation for who should own/manage and oversee the conservation easement is expected at the April meeting of the Stewardship Council in Redding.

District Office Hours in April

Tuolumne: Weds., April 1, 10:00 – 11:30 am, Tuolumne Memorial Museum on Carter Street

Twain Harte: Weds., April 8, 10-11:30 am, Twain Harte Community Service District office on Twain Harte Drive across from the Eproson House; and

Mi-Wuk Village: Fri., April 24, 1-2:30 pm, Mi-Wuk Village Library next to the Post Office (office hours will not be held in MWV on Apr. 17th due to scheduling conflict).

Last month Teri rode to Bear Lake with a group of interested citizens and Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment’s (TuCARE) Stacey Dodge to visit the check dam there and learn more about the protracted and ongoing conflict over maintaining check dams in the Emigrant Wilderness. Union Democrat reporter James Damschroeder was along for the ride. Read his account here: Final push made at saving check dams.

This glorious lake exists because of the rocks in the foreground (and the rocks and mortar underneath them), placed there years before the Emigrant Wilderness Area was designated by Congress. This glorious lake predates the check dam there – by thousands of years, according to some – and the depth in the middle is between 30-40′. The check dam raised Bear Lake’s level by about 10′. The check dam was placed and Bear Lake’s level raised before the Emigrant Wilderness was designated by Congress. A series of local and regional USFS decisions ultimately led to a negotiated agreement between the USFS and proponents and opponents of the check dams that allowed for the natural disintegration of some Emigrant Wilderness check dams and maintenance of others determined to be critical habitat and important recreation lakes. [Bear Lake is a relatively short ride in from Aspen Meadows and is often visited so folks can see what the fuss is all about. Bear Lake's was not one of the check dams slated to be maintained in the agreement.]

Unfortunately, Wilderness advocates that did not participate in the negotiated agreement and who are devoted to sequestering wilderness areas from any and all human management activities successfully sued to prohibit the USFS from maintaining any of the check dams.

When the check dam above disintegrates as was mandated by the recent federal court order and as is already happening, Bear Lake will become Bear Meadow. The Lake which provides summer-long downstream riparian habitat will be negatively impacted and this beautiful high country lake will be gone forever. continue to exist, although its level will drop. Ultimately, likely over hundreds of years, Bear Lake will eventually fill with sediment from natural geomorphological processes and become a meadow: with or without the check dam.

There is evidence on the rocks at several Emigrant check dams that disintegration is being “helped along” and accelerated with crowbars or similar prying implements.

Despite the fact that Teri hadn’t ridden in way too long and was a bit sore from the previous day’s Range Ride (see below), she wouldn’t have missed it for the world! Aspen Meadows Pack Station provided TuCare with good riding horses and not only did she learn a lot, but it was a glorious day horseback in the Wilderness. Thanks, Stacey and TuCare!

I voted to support the resolution. Why? Because my job was to simply vote for or against. I had to rely on research and personal convictions. Negotiating an agreement we all could live with wasn’t an option. That’s a pity.

Wilderness Watch has some strong and valid points. The group values the Emigrant. Likewise, the USFS. Forest Supervisor Tom Quinn and his staff were thorough and statesmanlike in evaluating and making a decision to maintain some of the check dams while allowing others to decay over time. Advocates for maintaining the check dams have strong and valid points and also value the Emigrant.

I also value it. I have spent many happy hours there, camping by lakes created by check dams. I value their historical significance and honor the hard-working men and women who created them. I’d like to see at least some of them maintained. So that’s how I voted.

I prefer to sit down with stakeholders and facilitate consensus vs. validate the position of 1 side or another. Taking common interest as a starting point, we might have agreed to something everyone could live with.

A compromise crafted earlier between parties was ultimately rejected by Wilderness Watch and others who apparently felt there was too much to lose on the table. That’s the problem with compromises – people come away thinking about all they gave up.

So who is right? Everyone to an extent. But the bottom line is that because we’re past the stage where an agreement can be reached, we’re stuck in a hardball situation that has to play out. It will eventually culminate in a win by whatever side fields the biggest brother to beat the other side into submission. And that’s a pity too.

Competing interests around the state and nation are coming up with win/win solutions to seemingly intractable disputes. Why not here? Let’s acknowledge common interests, break the dysfunctional cycle of disagreement and litigation over important environmental issues, and develop new dispute resolution habits that are healthy. I know it can be done.

Are you up for that or would you rather continue a tit for tat, adversarial process where somebody is going to lose and usually big?

If you’d like to try it, where should we start?