Extreme Fire Danger – what it means to the Rubicon and OHV
Posted: May 3, 2014 Filed under: Access | Tags: ENF, LTBMU, Rubicon, TNF Leave a commentThe winter of 2013/14 was a dud. The governor of California declared a drought for California in January. Mid-summer fire conditions existed in January and continue to get worse. The fire danger on the Rubicon and other trails this coming season will be extreme and fire restrictions will come very early. Unless we get a huge late snowfall, it could be a short wheeling season.
In 2007, the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) declared extreme fire danger and with a July 2nd forest order closed the entire forest to internal combustion engines. That closure included chainsaws, motorcycles and jeeps. This closure rekindled my interest in building an electric Jeep, but that’s a topic for another article.
Due to continued hot, dry, and windy weather, fire restrictions in the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) will be increased beginning Monday, July 2, 2007…the restrictions will affect several activities:
* Fireworks – Absolutely no fireworks are permitted in the National Forest.
* Campfires – Only permitted in those campgrounds that have water systems, metal campfire rings, fire engine accessibility and regular patrols by campground hosts. Visitors can contact any TNF office for a list of campgrounds where campfires are permitted.
* Portable Stoves and Lanterns – Permitted in all campgrounds and the backcountry with a valid campfire permit.
* Woodcutting – Check the woodcutting hotlines each day to determine if chainsaws are
* Off-Highway Vehicle Use – Only permitted on designated roads; the Prosser Pit area near Truckee; and the Sugar Pine OHV area north of Foresthill. (Not permitted on trails other than the areas mentioned.)
* Smoking – Limited to vehicles, buildings, and in a 3-foot cleared area.
* Contract/Permittee Operations – Any operation or permittee that uses internal combustion engines or fire, must have an approved fire plan.
Thankfully, in 2006, the Placer County Board of Supervisors voted to recognize the Rubicon Trail as a “public trail”. That vote transferred control of the Rubicon Trail from the forest service to Placer County. Both forests involved were okay with Placer County claiming the Rubicon Trail as a public trail and thus controlling management of the trail.
WHEREAS the “McKinney Rubicon Trail” is a world renowned off-highway vehicle trail
that is partially located on federal lands within Placer County; and
WHEREAS the Trail has been in public use for at least 150 years; and
WHEREAS the Trail provides valued recreational asset for the citizens of Placer
because of the technically advanced driving conditions that exist in the open space
environment for off-road vehicle enthusiasts; and
WHEREAS the County desires that the Trail continue to be available for public use into
the future;
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer, State
of California, that this Board recognizes the “McKinney Rubicon Trail” as a public trail;
AND HEREBY states its intent to use all reasonable measures available to it to ensure
continued public access.
If Placer County had not voted in favor of the “public trail”, the Rubicon would have been closed in 2007 to vehicular traffic, including both Jeepers Jamborees.
A similar order in 2014, by any one of the three forests along the Rubicon, could close some of the side trails off the Rubicon. So, if you have any intention of wheeling any of these routes, do it early. Fire restrictions are progressive, they start with banning camp fires, then move to ban any open flames (including cigarettes) and progress until they ban all internal combustion engines.
Components of Stages
There are two fire restriction stages: Stage I and Stage II. There is one closure stage: Stage III. To reduce confusion and standardize the restrictions, the following conditions, by stage, should be used in all restriction documents. Additional elements may be added as conditions dictate.
Stage I
The following acts are prohibited:
- Building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire or campfire except within a developed recreation site, or improved site. 36 CFR 261.52(a).
- Smoking, except within an enclosed vehicle or building, a developed recreation site or while stopped in an area at least three feet in diameter that is barren or cleared of all flammable materials. 36 CFR 261.52(d).
- Operating or using any internal or external combustion engine without a spark-arresting device properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order meeting either the USDA Forest Service Standard 5100-1a (as amended), or appropriate Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice J335(b) and J350(a) (36 CFR 261.52(j)).
Stage II
The following acts are prohibited, in addition to the prohibitions of Stage I:
- Building, maintaining, attending, or using a fire or campfire. 36 CFR 261.52(a)
- Smoking, except within an enclosed vehicle or building. 36 CFR 261.52(c)
- Possessing, discharging, or using any kind of firework or other pyrotechnic device.
36 CFR 261.52(f)
- Using an explosive. 36 CFR 261.52(b)
- Operating a chainsaw or other equipment powered by an internal combustion engine between 1:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. 36 CFR 261.52(h).
- Operating or using any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device properly installed, maintained and in effective working order meeting
either:
- USDA Forest Service Standard 5100-1a (as amended); or
- Appropriate Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice
J335 (b) and J350 (a). 36 CFR § 261.52(j) and 43 CFR § 9212.1(h);
- Welding, or operating an acetylene or other torch with open flame. 36 CFR 261.52(i)
- Possess or use a motor vehicle off: Forest System Roads (36 CFR 261.56) Except when parking in an area devoid of vegetation within 10 feet of the roadway; and except for parking overnight in developed campgrounds and at trailheads.
Stage III
The area is closed to all entry (36 CFR 261.52(e)) other than as follows:
- Persons with a written fire entry and activity permit that specifically authorizes the otherwise prohibited act. This may include such persons as grazing-permit holders when entry is needed to gather, move, or otherwise manage their permitted livestock, special-use authorization holders when access is needed to maintain emergency or other communications operations, and others.
- Any federal, state, or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or firefighting force in the performance of an official duty.
- Resident owners and lessees of land within the closed area.
Dates for fire restrictions being put in place on the TNF over the last decade or so range from June 1st to August 18th and in in 2011 I don’t think they EVER had fire restrictions due to the huge and late winter. Dates for lifting the ban on camp fires range from September 1st to October 23rd.
So, get out early this season. Make sure you rig is good to go now so you can take advantage of the early opening dates of the trails in the Sierras. Don’t wait for the waters and air temperatures to warm up because by the time things warm up, they might be closed.
Bring extra layers to wear instead of starting a camp fire every night even if they are still allowed. Eat sandwiches instead of steaks and cereal instead of bacon and eggs. Or have a contest with your buddies to see who can build the better solar cooker for your next camp out.
“Access” – the new dirty word
Posted: May 1, 2014 Filed under: Access Leave a commentYesterday, I took part in one of the Sierra Cascade Dialogs outside of Sacramento. It was a very well run meeting, trying to get input from all types of forest users in order to help FS leadership make decisions. We were not overwhelmed with questions and each table had a trained facilitator to assist the table with coming to conclusions. The FS was trying very hard to get our input and we (OHV users) need to participate but I wonder how much our voices were or will be heard.
I came away with two things standing out in my mind. The first was that the anti-OHV groups don’t like the word “access” because it delivers a negative connotation that there are “restrictions” on the general public from the forest. They wanted to twist or turn the conversation as to why there were closures. As if educating the users as to why they can’t drive down a road they’ve used for decades would make it okay.
From this point on, I will use the word “access” as much as possible.
The second thing that struck me was right at the end. The lady who opened the meeting, and facilitated one of the tables, gave some closing statements. She brought up two lists of words, one that the ‘tables’ had used in answering questions put to them asking what they wanted. The second list was words used by the “Line Officers” of the three forests representatives during their statements and while answering questions.
She then circled the words common to both lists. Although every table used the word “access” at some point during the day during their presentations and answers, at no time did the “Line Officers” use the word “access”.
That says so much to me.
Working with the Eldorado National Forest?
Posted: April 21, 2014 Filed under: Access, Maintenance | Tags: 14N39, ENF, Richardson Lake Leave a commentAs the only pro-OHV appellant from the east side of the Sierras, I have taken a personal interest in getting the Richardson Lake Trail, 14N39, reopened. One of my clubs, The North Tahoe Trail Dusters, often would organize a mid-week after work run to the top of Sourdough Peak for a BBQ and to watch the sunset. We’d then wheel down in the dark.
Trying to work ‘with’ the Eldorado National Forest (ENF) to get this trail reopened has been a challenge. My fallback line to them has been “Partnership Not Pushback” but it seems I get more pushback than partnership.
Early on, before the Record of Decision (ROD), I had organized a tour of 14N39. Scheduled to be there were all the right people from the ENF and the users to drive them. The day before the tour the head ENF ranger, Lawrence Crabtree, pulled the hydrologist to another project. We went anyway and documented the ‘meadow’ issues and how each could be fixed.
The ENF later changed the rules and claimed that no planning could be done on any fixes until the forest hydrologist could visit the trail and get eyes on the issue. They couldn’t read our notes and draft something; they couldn’t look at our photographs and draft something; they couldn’t work from the first hydrologist’s notes and draft something.
Read as a “How can we, the ENF, delay the reopening of this trail?”
But the hydrologist was not available later on to make it to the trail. Then the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit tried to help by sending their hydrologist to look at the trail. But an early snow flurry covered the trail the day before the scheduled tour. Let’s not discuss the fact that it didn’t snow again for months.
Read as a “How can we, the ENF, delay the reopening of this trail?”
So the winter went by with the ENF not willing to talk about possible fixes, not willing to talk about possible reroutes, not willing to talk about possible temporary fixes to the last meadow, not willing to talk about any possible maintenance, basically not willing to do anything that move this project forward. Pushback not partnership.
Read as a “How can we, the ENF, delay the reopening of this trail?”
Over the winter, I’m thinking about possible fixes to both the minor water issues and the last meadow reroute. I email a few questions to the ENF and don’t hear back. I finally email the boss of my ENF contact and I hear back from my contact. They snapped back about other things going on and being short staffed, etc. Pushback not partnership. They never did answered my questions.
Read as a “How can we, the ENF, delay the reopening of this trail?”
Spring arrives. I’ve already drafted a plan for the inevitable tour with the ENF and this time the hydrologist. Its three pages long: goals, objectives, list of possible attendees, communications plan, medical plan, timeline, etc. So, I contact the ENF to lay the groundwork for this tour that is still a month away due to snow.
I receive an email basically telling me that the ENF will send a group to tour the trail and then put out a plan of what the fixes will be. A second tour could be scheduled if needed for the appellants. Then there would be a comment period.
Read as a “How can we, the ENF, delay the reopening of this trail?”
There were so many ‘issues’ in this one email from the ENF that I contacted them and later drove over the hill to meet with them in person.
At the end of the meeting, I had still not got my way but had made a little ground. The ENF would still send out a team without users or appellants and would schedule a second tour with appellants, within a week, prior to drafting and publishing a plan. This would allow input from individuals outside the FS to comment prior to the ENF coming to a decision on how to fix any issues.
There are still many issues to ‘discuss’ with the ENF. The primary one being to start working on possible ways to temporarily ‘fix’ the last meadow issues to allow users to drive to the summit while the years long reroute gets completed.
Don’t worry, I’m still pushing. I’m aiming for a partnership but I’ll take anything as long as I can keep things moving forward.
Rubicon reopens, again.
Posted: April 19, 2014 Filed under: Access | Tags: El Dorado County, Rubicon Leave a commentEl Dorado County has done its measurements on the trail and has declared that the Rubicon is open, again.
The County has very ridged rules it must follow regarding the Rubicon. They measure regularly for water flow, depth and sedimentation.
Although this spring ahs seen a number of closures and reopenings, this is a much better system than in decades past.
If only other trails could be managed with science rather than guess work.
Still lots of snow on the trail
Posted: April 12, 2014 Filed under: Access | Tags: Rubicon Leave a commentI drove up the Rubicon yesterday. Okay, let me confess, your rig works better with both hubs locked. I drove up quite a ways before realizing I never locked my left hub. A Detroit locker and Power Locker really help. I only got as far as the border between the TNF and the LTBMU. The creek crossings were getting a little steep on approach and I figured that being the lone rig and lone driver, that I should stop and hike.
Turning around was one of the biggest challenges. Most of the trail is a two track. It reminded me of driving the cars at Disneyland as a kid.
I hiked up the Richardson lake Trail a little bit to see how the ‘meadows’ were holding up after the winter. They are all still under three feet of snow. I should remind the users that the Richardson Lake Trail is closed. It will be closed for some time as we work to decide on what each ‘meadow’ section needs and when we can perform the fix.
The paved road is getting beat up. Please use caution and look for potholes and a narrowing road. Placer County will be working on the paved section as soon as the snow clear off the road.
I heard that this tree fell late last fall (photo above). It will need a little trimming but is currently passable. There were other trees down in the area. Some had crossed the trail and were already cleared and some were off to the side of the trail. This time of year, always carry a saw and be careful when using it.
It will probably be another month before the trail dries out well enough to be travelled regularly. Right now, there is still enough snow for it to be considered snow wheeling. In a week, it will have melted enough to be wet dirt and possibly damaging.