Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 176 to 196 of 196
  1. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Keep thinking about it. How many instant WA activists are created if this bill passes? And how do they feel about giving up those lands? Don't bother with Lee and Hatch; start with Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren and Maria Cantwell.
    Last edited by jono; 07-15-2016 at 02:07 PM.

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    95762
    Posts
    276
    If the bill passes and local land managers immediately close (by regulation) all trails in their domain to mountain biking, we still win. Because the blanket ban is gone.

    If all Wilderness trails were somehow opened to mt. biking tomorrow, such a tiny fraction of people who mt. bike would ride them anyway. Rugged adventure rides where hike-a-bike is typical just doesn't appeal to most mt. bikers, in my experience.

    I personally wouldn't want to see any Wilderness trail improved for mountain biking other than clearing downed trees.

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    For trail closure we're not talking about a need to prove that every environmental impact is acceptable, we're talking about proving that one impact is not acceptable. "To protect the environment" is pretty broad.

    Can you point me to the law (title works) that says the NEPA has to be engaged before any part of public land can be closed to protect the environment? Seems like National Park rangers make that determination locally with no hassles, so I'm not seeing why that would be different here.
    I don't really understand your question, but I think I get what you're driving at. NEPA doesn't mandate or require closure, opening, protecting the environment, etc. It is not a law that requires that you protect the environment. NEPA only requires that the environmental impacts of a discretionary decision be studied. Here, under this bill, the discretionary decision would be taking action to identify permissible uses, including whether MTB is allowed on particular trails or not. Identifying permissible uses is a discretionary decision (it requires the agency to use its discretion -- ie., think about it) -- therefore, NEPA applies.

    On the contrary, the agency could do nothing and NEPA would not apply. If the agency does nothing, the trails all open.

    Does that make sense?

    With respect to NP rangers (and other agencies as well), they can take such actions if the impacts on the environment are not significant or another exemption applies (forest fire, etc.).
    Last edited by meter-man; 07-15-2016 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Clarification

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    I think we're talking about this from opposite perspectives: closure can happen with virtually no effort because you can think about it, find a reason for closure, and you're done. The reason NEPA etc is usually so lengthy is that doing something new requires that you look at everything to verify that no unacceptable impact exists. Here it would be the opposite: closure can be warranted at the first issue discovered.

    But you're also saying that a NP ranger can close a trail when no significant environmental impact exists, is that right? Without NEPA? How do they make that determination? (Maybe I'm just confused by your last paragraph.)

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    I think we're talking about this from opposite perspectives: closure can happen with virtually no effort because you can think about it, find a reason for closure, and you're done. The reason NEPA etc is usually so lengthy is that doing something new requires that you look at everything to verify that no unacceptable impact exists. Here it would be the opposite: closure can be warranted at the first issue discovered.
    Closure is generally more protective of the environment (of course, there are many exceptions), but that probably explains why closure is easier to do than opening.

    Agreed on your NEPA statement. That's why I think that most land managers will default to avoiding NEPA - it costs too much, takes too long, and there's an uncertain outcome. So, in the areas where the local land manager chooses to do nothing (thereby avoiding NEPA), all trails would be open without NEPA review

    Where do you see that closure can be "warranted" if there is an unacceptable impact? I don't see anything in this law that would authorize that, much less require it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    But you're also saying that a NP ranger can close a trail when no significant environmental impact exists, is that right? Without NEPA? How do they make that determination? (Maybe I'm just confused by your last paragraph.)
    Sorry, my explanation was incomplete. I don't think an NP Ranger (or do you mean a USFS "District Ranger" - the head USFS official for that NF?) can close trails (or trail systems) willy-nilly. They can take limited actions to protect the environment, particularly if those actions are temporary. Remember, NEPA only applies where there is significant adverse impact on the environment. Generally speaking, the courts afford agencies with lots of discretion to close things, especially where actions are temporary and where such closure is designed to protect the environment. I'd have to research whether they can close individual trails without any public review.

    ETA: This bill will certainly be revised, so it will be interesting to see how it changes.

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    4,168
    The FS around here was going to allow street legal WATVs on roads already open to motorized use but apparently it needs NEPA

    http://methowvalleynews.com/2015/10/...2%80%89-again/
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Where do you see that closure can be "warranted" if there is an unacceptable impact? I don't see anything in this law that would authorize that, much less require it.
    ....
    Generally speaking, the courts afford agencies with lots of discretion to close things, especially where actions are temporary and where such closure is designed to protect the environment.
    The local official's ability to close trails is stated on page 4 (paragraphs and sections are misformatted on my phone, sorry about that): "In making a determination pursuant to this section, a local official may carry out such activities and promulgate such regulations as the local official determines to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or prevent environmental impacts or undue conflicts..." The list of ways they might do that starts with restricting the number of people on a permitted route. Further, on page 5 it is stipulated that nothing requires the official to either open or maintain open any route. I'm taking that to mean they can close one (or restrict the users to zero), and they can do it whenever they want, without regard to the two year initial time limit.

    Ultimately this is the basic law that should exist. The intent of the legislature in passing the WA was never to simply create blocks of acreage where bikes aren't allowed and that is not and should not be a motivator when determining additions to Wilderness. The question of how much time should be allowed for local land managers to decide whether bikes (or horses or mules, for that matter, although that doesn't appear to be part of this) are appropriate on individual routes is a short term problem. I'd be fine with lengthening it to five years in the case of trails that cannot be readily shown to have been open to bikes at some point since 1974, but for trails like the ones in the Boulder-White Clouds and all over Idaho and Montana's RWA's there is no reason to delay and every reason to expect FS Region 1 to delay until hell freezes over if they're allowed.

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    The local official's ability to close trails is stated on page 4 (paragraphs and sections are misformatted on my phone, sorry about that): "In making a determination pursuant to this section, a local official may carry out such activities and promulgate such regulations as the local official determines to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or prevent environmental impacts or undue conflicts..." The list of ways they might do that starts with restricting the number of people on a permitted route. Further, on page 5 it is stipulated that nothing requires the official to either open or maintain open any route. I'm taking that to mean they can close one (or restrict the users to zero), and they can do it whenever they want, without regard to the two year initial time limit.
    I see that list of actions that the local official can carry out, but closing the trail is not on that list. Reducing numbers and other actions are, but closure isn't. That makes sense - allowing the official to close a trail outright runs counter to the purpose of the bill - which is to open trails. But, your argument that a local official could simply close a trail using the determination you noted is a good one too. If the bill becomes law, some land manager is sure to do exactly that, and it will be litigated.

    The second item on page 5 is more of a legislative move - it provides the official with discretion - and discretion means that NEPA can apply if, as noted above, the official takes a discretionary action. If the law was a mandatory duty ("thou shalt open the trails!!!"), then NEPA would not apply, and no environmental review under NEPA would ever be necessary. So, this is also a gesture to wilderness advocates that this isn't a "thou shalt open" bill, and it affords the local official with the opportunity to designate some trails as open and some as closed. It's a good provision. (But, I don't read it to read mean that the local official can close a trail whenever he/she wants to.)

    Good points in your last paragraph.

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    ETA: This bill will certainly be revised, so it will be interesting to see how it changes.
    One example which might be requested, probably of Democratic members of the commitee and/or STC themselves before they get this introduced in the House could go something like this (text significantly shortened and re-purposed from Public Law 92-400, the SNRA Act, but just an example):

    The land manager shall administer the Wilderness Area in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the federal lands in such manner that the disposal of natural resources such as timber, grazing, and mineral resources will not substantially impair the scenic, natural, historic, pastoral, wildlife, and other values, contributing to and available for public recreation and enjoyment and maintaining the Wilderness character of the land.
    Don't know where it should go, but if you're going to revise the Wilderness Act, how could you miss the opportunity to adjust it to eliminate, say, 600 bulldozer and truck trips/year into the Frank Church to explore a mine? And if this bill contained such a revision, who among the supporters of Wilderness would stand up and admit "Nah, mining's fine, I just don't like bikes"?

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,845
    On the issue of NEPA, it'd be pretty easy to decide to keep the trails closed to bikes without conducting a full environmental review. They'd call it a a categorical exclusion, which still falls within the NEPA process, but it's cheap and quick. They can do a CE for any decision that doesn't involve significant environmental impacts, and it seems fairly self evident that closing the trail to bikes (and thus maintaining the status quo) would fall within that definition. CE's get issued for all kinds of decisions all the time - that's why NEPA doesn't (usually) come in to play for basic trail maintenance, issuing permits for minor events, etc.

    TLDR: the trails aren't going to default to open just because the local district doesn't want to pay for a full EIS.

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    TLDR: the trails aren't going to default to open just because the local district doesn't want to pay for a full EIS.
    And the litigation that any EIS would inevitably spawn.

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    And Region 1 can just shut shit down anyway.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    12,479
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    On the issue of NEPA, it'd be pretty easy to decide to keep the trails closed to bikes without conducting a full environmental review. They'd call it a a categorical exclusion, which still falls within the NEPA process, but it's cheap and quick. They can do a CE for any decision that doesn't involve significant environmental impacts, and it seems fairly self evident that closing the trail to bikes (and thus maintaining the status quo) would fall within that definition. CE's get issued for all kinds of decisions all the time - that's why NEPA doesn't (usually) come in to play for basic trail maintenance, issuing permits for minor events, etc.

    TLDR: the trails aren't going to default to open just because the local district doesn't want to pay for a full EIS.
    This is pretty much what I was thinking about this.
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty Beer View Post
    If the bill passes and local land managers immediately close (by regulation) all trails in their domain to mountain biking, we still win. Because the blanket ban is gone.

    If all Wilderness trails were somehow opened to mt. biking tomorrow, such a tiny fraction of people who mt. bike would ride them anyway. Rugged adventure rides where hike-a-bike is typical just doesn't appeal to most mt. bikers, in my experience.

    I personally wouldn't want to see any Wilderness trail improved for mountain biking other than clearing downed trees.
    QFStuckie. ^^This is the important part. The rest is details, as important as those might be.

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    Ok, there are definitely some trails that weren't and won't be designed for mountain biking. I get that.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    On the issue of NEPA, it'd be pretty easy to decide to keep the trails closed to bikes without conducting a full environmental review. They'd call it a a categorical exclusion, which still falls within the NEPA process, but it's cheap and quick. They can do a CE for any decision that doesn't involve significant environmental impacts, and it seems fairly self evident that closing the trail to bikes (and thus maintaining the status quo) would fall within that definition. CE's get issued for all kinds of decisions all the time - that's why NEPA doesn't (usually) come in to play for basic trail maintenance, issuing permits for minor events, etc.

    TLDR: the trails aren't going to default to open just because the local district doesn't want to pay for a full EIS.
    You're prob right about the CE. That's a good point.

    If the bill becomes law, the decision to open, close, or open only certain trails will be done differently in each district.

    So, the big question is... will it pass? Does the bill have any support? I'm sure lots of Western Republicans will like it!

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    I fully expect most western Republicans to ignore it completely. Unless it gets to the floor, in which case we probably get their votes. I guess my theory that they should fix the mining nonsense at the same time might scare them off, though.

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    I fully expect most western Republicans to ignore it completely. Unless it gets to the floor, in which case we probably get their votes. I guess my theory that they should fix the mining nonsense at the same time might scare them off, though.
    There's no way they're adding to the constituency of people who support Wilderness designation and kicking the mining operations out at the same time.

    The only reason they've taken the bill up at all is to twist the Sierra Club's nipples. It's not going anywhere.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    I'd say it has a slim chance of going anywhere just based on the current legislative climate. I'd wager it doesn't get much past committee, if at all.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Write congress first, then complain. Thank the Republicans for having the courage to take on the hypocrites at Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society and all the pro-central planners on the left.

    And thank the Democrats for broadening support for Wilderness in the spirit of Frank Church and his stand for inclusive use and defense of wild places.

    Lisa Murkowski
    Chairman, Alaska

    Republican Committee Members

    John Barrasso Wyoming

    Jim Risch Idaho

    Mike Lee Utah

    Jeff Flake Arizona

    Bill Cassidy Louisiana

    Cory Gardner Colorado

    Steve Daines Montana

    Rob Portman Ohio

    John Hoeven North Dakota

    Lamar Alexander Tennessee

    Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia

    Democrats:
    Maria Cantwell, Washington

    Ron Wyden Oregon

    Bernard Sanders Vermont

    Debbie Stabenow Michigan

    Al Franken Minnesota

    Joe Manchin III West Virginia 

    Martin Heinrich New Mexico

    Mazie K. Hirono Hawaii

    Angus King Maine

    Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts 

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,070
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •