Irate off-roaders continue to rip forest access plan

A swankier venue, with upgraded sound system and cushier chairs, didn't improve the mood of off-road-vehicle users.

They continued to hammer U.S. Forest Service officials last week over a proposal to significantly reduce the number of miles of roads and trails open to motorized recreational activities in the Eldorado National Forest.

The session July 31 at Folsom's Lake Natoma Inn was the fourth in a series of five Forest Service forums to discuss the draft environmental study that will help determine how wheeled motorized vehicle travel will be managed in Eldorado National Forest.

An estimated 250 people from as far away as Nevada, Walnut Creek and Modesto -- many wearing T-shirts with club logos such as "Rock Zombies" and "Pirates of the Rubicon" -- packed a meeting room. Most of the issues they raised echoed those discussed July 24 in Placerville.

Diane Rubiaco, district ranger for the forest's Pacific Ranger District, acknowledged the crowd's grievances at the outset of the Folsom meeting. Rubiaco said she understood that off-road vehicle users were "mad as hell" that the Forest Service cited maintenance costs as a reason to close routes that off-road vehicle enthusiasts don't want maintained anyway.

But, she said, "I also know there are some people who are mad as hell because (they think) we designated too many roads, and that we are only hearing one side at these meetings."

The environmental study was required under a court order issued in August 2005 by U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in response to a lawsuit filed in 2002 by the Georgetown-based Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation and other environmental groups. They contended that the Forest Service had not studied the effects of off-road-vehicle use in the Eldorado National Forest.

The "preferred" traffic management alternative, selected by forest Supervisor Ramiro Villalvazo as the basis for the final environmental study, would allow use of 844.3 miles of roads and 217 miles of trails, compared with 2,003.5 miles of existing roads and 249.3 miles of existing trails.

One man likened the reduction to closing Interstate 5 and Highway 99 in the Sacramento area, arguing it would mean excessive use of routes that remained open.

Although the current environmental study was prompted by the lawsuit, Forest Service officials said similar restrictions are coming to other National Forests.

All will allow motorized vehicles only on designated routes, Rubiaco said, but forest supervisors will determine which routes to designate and the times of year they should be open.

Rick Ferdon of Pollock Pines said many off-road vehicle advocates provided comments as the draft environmental impact statement was being developed but didn't see them reflected in the document.

Some people suggested leaving all existing roads and trails open, and closing them only if problems arise, citing a closure instituted in 2004 in response to health and safety issues at Spider Lake along the Rubicon Trail.

Some also complained that restricting motorized travel would prevent people with disabilities from experiencing the forest's more remote areas.

Jason Nedlo, team leader for the travel management project, said the plan is intended to establish a system of roads and trails that the Forest Service can reasonably maintain. But he described it as a dynamic document that can be revised annually.

Comments on the draft environmental study are due by Sept. 4. Forest Service officials said that comments must be submitted in writing to have legal standing, and they should address specific issues or routes in the study.

About the writer:

• The Bee's Cathy Locke can be reached at (916) 608-7451 or clocke@sacbee.com.