TNF Trail Work
Posted: October 9, 2026 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: bypasses, FOTR, TNF Leave a commentThe most shocking sight today was how low Lily Lake and Miller Meadow were. Miller Lake was fine.
The TNF was out dumping rock in the low spots along Miller Lake. They brough the rock in from Barker Pass. That’s a long slow drive.
I counted 18 spots where rock was dumped.
I’m not going to show you all of them.
But there were a lot of them.
I went out as far as “The Step”. I threw around a few rocks to build up the area below the ledge on the easy route and replaced a log blocking an illegal bypass.
Further back, I once again replaced the logs defining the edge of the trail in the area some call the “S-turn”.
A little further east, I stopped and blocked even more illegal bypasses. I really don’t understand the bypasses.
I understand these small rock markers will not stop a rig from driving off trail, but at least this way the user KNOWS they are driving off trail. The small row of rocks does not show well here. They should be larger rocks but I’m one guy with an aging back.
FOTR needs to schedule a day to work this whole area. Many trees need to be brought into the area to keep users on the trail.
Returning to the Hummer Bend area, I stopped at another illegal bypass and placed a few logs.
These will not be enough to stop the idiots from driving off trail, but it’s a start.
Again, this is a Band-Aid on a compound fracture.
Part of today’s things to do was to start anew Tahoe Side to do list. In the past I’ve kept it within the group of volunteers that regularly step up. This time I might post the whole thing for the world to see how much work needs to be done on the Tahoe Side.
.
Rubicon Ronin
Trail Maintenance Notifications
Posted: October 5, 2026 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: dump truck, maintenance, TNF Leave a commentI received a question about my last post. A reader asked about the Rubicon Oversight Committee (ROC). They wanted to know if the group was still around and if they knew about the current Tahoe side project. That group was formed and run while Vickie Sanders was still working for El Dorado County. It is no longer in existence and nothing has replaced it. The ROC dealt with issues within El Dorado County, The Tahoe National Forst is primarily within Placer County.
I try and post everything I hear about the trail that might affect the users’ experience. I guess I’m not on Joeb Chavez’ email list for notifications.
The Eldorado National Forest has a link on their website to sign up for email notification about general OHV things within their forest.
I’m pushing the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to implement a similar email OHV notification project. Maybe we need to ask the Tahoe National Forest to do the same thing.
The Rubicon Trail Foundation had nothing on their website, but remember this was a short notice item. I know RTF was aware of the planned project but most likely didn’t get prior notice to the work starting.
Friends of the Rubicon would have been notified only if volunteers were needed.
To give credit where due, I came across a post on the Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo’s Facebook page with the quote from Joe Chavez.
For the record, I reached out and learned that the TNF is moving rock to the low spots in the area of Miller Lake with an articulating dump truck. It’s huge. They are taking the long way in, utilizing Blackwood Canyon and Forest Road 03-04. That’s a long haul!
We all need to keep an ear out for anything going on within the OHV world. If you hear something, pass it on!
.
Rubicon Ronin
TNF Helps Clear 16E76
Posted: June 27, 2025 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: TNF, tree Leave a commentI reached out to the Tahoe National Forest to help clear the last tree on 16E76. They came through.
It helps that they were headed out to give a tour of the new ‘reroute’ of the Rubicon Trail.
I still have not checked 16E79. Maybe this coming Wednesday.
.
Rubicon Ronin
TNF’s VIRTUAL Open House for OHV Grant ideas
Posted: February 5, 2025 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: funding, maintenance, reroute, TNF, USFS Leave a commentEvery year, each national forest applies for funding through a grant program. These forests are required to seek user/public input in order to qualify for these funds.
Sadly, these forests are not required to follow the input of the users when writing the final grant application. But we do the dance in case our particular forest does listen to our input.
The Tahoe National Forest is currently in the driver’s seat regarding the Rubicon Trail and the Fordyce Trail, among many others. It is in our best interest to give our input. The details of how to do that are below. Once the draft grant application has been filled out, there is a public review period. It’s better to get your ideas in before that initial draft than try and get them in afterwards.
There is a needed Rubicon reroute that should get funded through this grant and there may be MAJOR Fordyce work funded through this grant but more likely just Fordyce planning funds.
This year it seems the USFS is still in a covid lockdown as they are only doing a “VIRTUAL” open house.
So, here’s the info…
Tahoe National Forest invites public to provide input on annual off-highway vehicle program grant application
Tahoe National Forest is preparing its annual application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, to request funding for trail and facilities maintenance, law enforcement and education and safety. The forest invites interested individuals and organizations to a virtual open house on Feb. 13 to learn more about the state OHV grants the Tahoe National Forest is considering applying for and how to provide input.
What: Open house to discuss Tahoe National Forest annual OHV grant proposals Where: Virtual, join on Teams
When: Feb. 13, 2025, 6 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Annual state OHV grants provide important funds for the U.S. Forest Service to develop and maintain trails and trailheads, repair winter storm damage and restore trailside environments, as well as provide patrolling, education and monitoring of OHV areas. When finalized, the grants will be available for public review and comment on the State of California’s website ( http://ohv.parks.ca.gov ) from March 4 – May 5, 2025.
Questions, comments or letters can be submitted through the following ways:
- In-person: During the virtual open house meeting via written comments
- Email: Trails Program Coordinator Joe Chavez, joe.chavez@usda.gov
- Mail: Tahoe National Forest, Attn: Joe Chavez, Forest Trails Program Coordinator, 631 Coyote St., Nevada City, Calif. 95959
Feedback on projects and grant opportunities is requested by Feb. 24, 2025.
Two Rubicon Reroutes In The Works
Posted: January 24, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: access, bypass, reroute, TNF Leave a commentLet’s cut to the chase. Here’s the Forest Service map show the two proposed reroutes:
The first and larger reroute would bypass (in orange) the shelf road above Miller Lake. This has been on the books for some-time but this latest proposal moves the intersection of the Rubicon and Forest Road 03-04 further north-west. The new proposal is longer and would bypass two low spots on the trail along Miller Meadow.
The second reroute (in yellow) would bypass the famous “mud” hole that has been repaired and is now just a water hole with a hardened base. At least I think that’s where that one runs.
Here is the “review” from September 2019:
For the record, there has been a previous reroute at the intersection of the Rubicon and Forest Road 03-04. Here’s a link to a previous post of mine, from 2014!
https://wordpress.com/post/theotherrubicon.com/877
If you were looking closely, this document came out in 2019. I became aware of it today, 1-24-24. If you read the document, “The Other Rubicon” was mentioned on page 3 as a “contacted” or “conferred with” person. Although I have worked with the Tahoe National Forest on several OHV issues, I don’t recall any formal conversations about these reroutes. I certainly do not agree with everything in this document. It would have been nice if the FS had sent me a copy of this document when published in 2019, since the3y mentioned me in it.
So, what do I not agree with? Let’s go through the document page by page.
On the very first page it talks about “activities that restore, rehabilitate”. With out going into detail, I’m not in favor of completely doing away with the sections the FS wants to bypass. The long reroute would restrict access to private property.
I laughed that on the second page the document talks about the “hundreds” of annual vehicles on the trail. It should read tens of thousands of vehicles annually!
Also on page two, “decommission three short, user created bypass trail segments”. All three users created bypasses along Cadillac Hill allow for passing, either in the same or opposite direction. I distinctly remember telling this to Joe Chavez, on the trail, while he was attempting to decommission them with a spider excavator without public input. I talked him out of it that day, I guess I’ll have to do it again.
Timeline – this document was signed in 2019. The grant process is taking place in 2024. The plan is to work the trail in 2025.
There will be a formal open house held by the FS to review all of their grant projects. Here’s the downside, the forest service is under no obligation to listen to the users input. Even if every comment is opposed a certain project, the FS can ignore that input and do the project anyway.
We’ll have to find a new way to change their minds.
.
Rubicon Ronin
