The Green Alternative for our forest roads – up for review

Mike Lazzarino, Spokesman for Sierra Access Coalition

The Travel Management Plan for the Plumas National Forest (PNF) is currently out for public review and comment. This is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the plan that will limit all motorized vehicle travel throughout the PNF, including pickups, cars, 4x4s, motorcycles, and others. This management plan will affect all forest users (woodcutters, recreationalists, hunters, campers, fishermen, hikers, equestrians—anybody who drives on forest roads.)

Some of the “main” system roads in the forest will have new restrictions on them. The forest will be closed to cross-country travel, as mandated at the Washington level. Sierra Access Coalition (SAC) supports the objective of prohibiting cross-country travel to prevent resource damage, protect water quality, and other values. However, there are some flaws in the plan that don’t address all the environmental issues.

There are currently 5 different alternatives being proposed. Alt. 1 is “no action”, which is unacceptable because it allows cross country travel and potential resource damage to continue. Alt. 2 through 5 all prohibit cross-country travel. Only Alt. 2 was discussed in the 1/28/09 newspaper, which is for the addition of 364 miles to the forest transportation system. Alt. 3 adds no routes and it proposes “Citizen Inventoried Roadless Areas” (CIRAs) which have been submitted by the Wilderness Society. Alt. 4 adds 141 miles, and emphasizes natural resource protection and avoidance of CIRAs. Alt. 5 is preferred by PNF, emphasizes access and motorized recreation opportunity, and adds 251 miles. Alt. 2 and 5 each add a 36-acre open area at Sly Creek. The USFS Proposed Alternative is Alt. 2, but the USFS Preferred Alternative is Alt. 5. We’re not sure what that means, but the best we can tell is Alt. 2 is the carrot and Alt. 5 is the stick. Some of the public’s favorite and historic roads may be eliminated. For example, the road to Deadman Springs (Perry Jones) is deleted in Alt. 4. Most roads to the Middle Fork, such as to Little California, Stag Point, and Spring Garden Tunnel are being eliminated in Alt. 4. Some are also eliminated from Alt. 5.

1109 miles of routes were inventoried, mapped, and submitted to the USFS for consideration for addition to the current road system. Only 23% of those miles are being carried forward into the Preferred Alternative 5. All unapproved routes will be closed to public use.

Many roads were dropped from further consideration based on the sole reason that they were short, dead-end spurs. Plumas County residents know that’s where the best, easiest firewood is. We will no longer be allowed on many of these spur roads. Other roads were dropped early on, after quick meetings in the office where it was decided by a handful of people if these roads had any value. SAC believes if they had no value, that the public would’ve asked for them in the first place. Most routes that intersect County roads were arbitrarily dropped. Dispersed camping has not been adequately considered, and as a result, vehicle access to many family heritage and historical campsites is being eliminated. People will be allowed to drive only one vehicle length off a designated road to camp or park. Hunters can no longer use vehicles, including quads, to retrieve their game off designated roads.

The newspaper quotes Carlton as saying “the public needs to be persistent”. Sierra Access Coalition has been very persistent, but apparently we are not being taken seriously.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting, Carlton was asked about access during fires and she said that “these roads are not recognized”. But ask any firefighter and they know where these roads are. Fires can be stopped faster when a road is available for access or as a fire break, and fire crews don’t have to wait for a bulldozer to open up a closed road to get their engine in. Do we want more catastrophic fires like Moonlight, Antelope, Cold, Canyon Complex, and others?

Some forests near high population areas, such as Southern California or Sacramento, have more resource damage, and obviously need more restrictions. The individual forests have been given some latitude to make decisions on the amount of restrictions needed locally. The Modoc NF is a prime example of that. They have developed an excellent plan which is responsive to public need, protects the environment, and provides many miles for recreational use of the forest. Unfortunately, the Plumas has chosen to be much more restrictive and limiting. For example, the Plumas has chosen to apply the California Vehicle Code to its main level 3 roads and restrict use by green sticker vehicles in spite of the fact that the CHP has ruled that the vehicle code doesn’t apply to those forest roads, and the Code of Federal Regulations says that state vehicle codes apply. The Modoc, on the other hand, has accepted the CHP’s ruling and has not applied the vehicle code to their main roads, which provides green sticker vehicles with superior recreational opportunities. In turn, these recreational uses help stabilize their local economy.

The Plumas DEIS is riddled with errors, omissions, and contradictions. SAC currently has specialists evaluating the document. The public comment period has been extended until March 16. The public is strongly encouraged to voice their opinion. The “preservationists” have been very vocal throughout this process, so it’s important that the USFS hears from everyone. The SAC website (www.sierraaccess.com) has information on how to submit comments. There is also a letter generator on the website which makes it quick and easy to create your comments and mail them to the Forest Supervisor.

SAC is a group of approx. 900 members who have been working with the USFS throughout this process, trying to balance values and needs. However, SAC feels that none of the alternatives currently being proposed adequately address important environmental issues. All of the alternatives propose to “walk away” from past resource damage, allowing it to fester. SAC feels this is unacceptable. The USFS Route Designation Guidebook allows the process to address resource damage, but the Plumas NF currently doesn’t have an alternative that addresses this issue at all. As a result, to protect the environment and provide maximum recreational opportunities SAC will be proposing Alternative 6 (“The Green Alternative”) to the USFS, which is a plan to take care of the existing resource damage and provide more miles of environmentally acceptable access to the forest for public use. Forest Supervisor Alice Carlton has been talking with the Sierra Club, according to the newspaper article, but apparently even the Sierra Club hasn’t acknowledged the need to repair resource damage. SAC sees this as a major flaw in all the alternatives.

Plumas NF may say that repairing resource damage is not part of the process. SAC believes removing a route or trail will not stop resource damage, but will only remove it from sight. If there are severe drainage problems, they will remain and impact water quality. If routes and trails are left open, monitoring could take place and repair could be prioritized and projects could be planned. We realize that the only way some repairs can be accomplished is for the trail to be removed but these cases are rare and most trails need only minor mitigation work.

The Plumas NF has a reputation nationally for its sense of responsibility to restore watersheds and water quality. The Plumas NF and the Coordinated Resource Management group have an incredible track record for watershed restoration. To continue working towards watershed health, unapproved trails such as those that cross meadows or creeks, need to be restored to prevent impacts to water quality and other resources.

It’s hard to get anything done in our national forests. If we allow removal of existing motorized trails that allow access to remote areas of our county, they will likely never be reopened. The USFS manual says it takes 5 years to add a new route back into the system. And that’s assuming they want to do it at all. Most of these routes were built legally for logging, tree planting, mining and fire roads--not illegally as the USFS makes them out to be. If the USFS is allowed to lock us out of these remote areas what’s next?...no snowmobiles, no firewood cutting, no hunting or fishing, no camping…and the thrill of exploring will be lost for the next generation.

This is one of the last chances the public has to speak up for their interests. You are encouraged to submit your comments, good or bad, to the Forest Service before March 16. The SAC website at www.sierraaccess.com has a short summary of the alternatives and has information that will help you make your comments easily and quickly. Now is the time to speak, for yourself and for future generations that will use and love the forest the way we have.