TNF Grant Application for Bypass

Posted: April 28, 2024 | Author: Rubicon Ronin | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Tahoe National Forest (TNF) has applied to CA State Parks – OHMVR Division for a grant to build two bypasses along the Rubicon Trail.

The larger of the proposed bypasses is 3/4 of a mile long and will go around the shelf road above Miller Creek that could, at any time, though it hasn’t in the last 115 years, slide down into Miller Creek, thus blocking ALL through traffic on the Rubicon Trail.

The smaller reroute goes around “The Water Hole” west of “The Potato Patch” which FOTR and Placer County have both worked on over the years.

My biggest concern is what happens to the original route? At the moment, it is still drivable. Will the FS continue to allow vehicle traffic on the original route until it is no longer safe or even possible? Will it be turned into a single-track OHV route? Maybe a mountain bike trail? Maybe walking traffic only?

My question about possible effects on the ability for Placer County to at some point in the future claim RS2477 rights to the Rubicon Trail were quelled by Amy Granat of CA Off Road Vehicle Association (CORVA). She wisely pointed out that there had already been a few reroute in the past and that this reroute would not prevent Placer County from ‘claiming’ the trail, possibly through an easement, at some point in the future, if they so desire. At this point in time, maintenance and management of the trail are working somewhat well, so why rock the boat. But we don’t lose that possibility.

I reached out to Joe Chavez of the TNF for more details about the plan and for any studies that may have been done under the planning grant. The FS usually does a number of studies for any action: leave as is, fix it, remove it, replace it, etc. I’m curious about possible fixes like cutting in to the wall a foot or two, out sloping the road and protecting the face of the slide from runoff, thus postponing further erosion.

Holly Cow! Joe Chavez got back to me with an awesome response. Detailed and thorough. He also included attachments documenting the route a little better and how some of the construction features. Here’s what he shared…

---

Hello Mr. Barr,

I will try to address each of your questions to the best of my ability. 

Studies –

1. Leaving the trail “as is” was ruled out as a viable option, and therefore not studied in detail, since it would eventually lead to the failure of a section of the Rubicon Trail resulting in a physical disconnection of the trail with no immediate option for though traffic.  This assessment and conclusion was developed by Geologist William Harris of the California Geological Survey under contract to the OHV Division back in the fall of 2018.  Mr. Harris’ expert opinion also recommended that just cutting further into the unconsolidated Lateral Moraine material if a portion of the trail fell away was not a long-term solution as the unconsolidated material would keep slipping due to the undercutting action of Miller Creek. This was the impetus for the search for an alternative route to keep the Rubicon Trail open for the short and long term.
2. Repair of the existing route was considered during a field meeting with Forest Service, OHV Division , El Dorado Co staff, including Mr. Harris (Geologist) and Forest Service roads engineer Robert Reugebrink.  The conclusion from that visit was that to stabilize that section of trail would require a major “highway” style structure both below and above the Trail, with impacts to Miller Creek.  This type of structure would be extremely costly, not fit the character and nature of the trail and would necessitate large equipment to install that would require the incoming Rubicon Trail access to be smoothed out, changing the character of that section of the Trail.  So, this was ruled out as reasonable option when compared with rerouting the Trail.
3. There was an environmental analysis conducted for the proposed reroute, resulting in the signed Decision Memo. There are additional specialists reports documenting the potential impacts to the natural and cultural resources  that I do not have immediate access to.  John Brokaw wrote the Decision Memo and should have access to those documents.  John, can you please send Doug the specialists reports for the Rubicon Reroute analysis?  I am attaching information that gives more detail about the planned construction of the reroute.  This will be done in two email to reduce the size of the email to avoid rejection by your email system.  This was asked by others and sent to them via email as well.

NEPA – The NEPA is available for the public, not sure if it is online.  I will refer to John Brokaw about how one can access the documents.  I attached the very simple timeline that is part of the OHV grant application.

Placer County and Reroute – Due to the historic nature of the reroute the Forest Service is not entertaining any actions to decommission the existing route above Miller Creek and Miller Meadow, as well as to keep options open for Placer County.  Forest Supervisor Eli Ilano and Truckee District Ranger Johnathan Cook-Fischer have both talked with the Placer County Supervisor for the relevant county district (Eli on multiple occasions spanning several years) regarding the fact that if Placer County wanted to assert jurisdiction or management of the Rubicon through the Tahoe NF, the Forest would work with them.  That has not changed.  It has been in Placer County’s court for a long time.

The existing route would remain open to hikers and bikers.  Keeping the existing route open to motorized uses until the point that the trail collapses was not the initial plan, but the District Ranger is being asked about this option.  He has to weigh the potential safety risk of a Jeep or other vehicle triggering a collapse and going down with a slide and any continued impacts to water quality of the existing route (one section has intercepted a spring and is actively downgrading).

Currently, the plan includes the reroute becoming part of 16E75 and would remain open year-round like the rest of the Rubicon per the Tahoe NF Motor Vehicle Travel Management Decision (2010) and the Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Tahoe National Forest would work with Placer County if they are interested in having jurisdiction/managing the Rubicon Trail through the TNF, including the new reroute section.

RS2447 legalities is way above me and a subject for lawyers.  I have been learning that it is very complex.  It is my understanding that even El Dorado County manages the Rubicon Trail across El Dorado NF via a special use road permit held by the Forest Service.  That may be the best option for Placer County if they desire to manage the route.  

The 2^nd short reroute is proposed to avoid a chronically flooded low section of trail (about 200 feet) and is located in a low flat section of trail below Potato Patch (it is shown on the maps).  This would be a new reroute.  I cannot find a picture of it at the moment.  I will keep looking. 

Let us know when conditions allow and we would be happy to look and discuss things on the ground. Expect a 2^nd email with more attachments.

Sincerely, Joe

---

I’m in favor of the big reroute but I think a little more rock hardening of the water hole will be enough to fix any issues in that spot.

There will be a tour of the trail as soon as the snow allows to discuss all of this but that will happen well after the grant comment window closes.

What can you do? Make comments.

The comment period is open through May 6th, 5pm. That’s a Monday.

If enough comments are made about the same concern, the applying agency could rewrite the grant to address those concerns. CA State Parks may formally ask the agency to address the concerns. We have a little power to make some changes but only if you speak out.

Here is a copy of the grant:

Here is a link to the comments page: https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=31516

Scroll down to the ‘Tahoe National Forest’ and click to read previous comments.

To make a comment, click on Review Preliminary Application near the top of the page.

Next to the “AGENCY” box, click on the square with the three dots.

Go to page two, scroll down and click on box by “USFS – Tahoe National Forest”

You’ll see “Rubicon Reroute”. Clicking the paperclip icon will get you the text of the grant. Clicking further right on whatever that icon is under “Public Comments” will allow you to comment on the grant.

The state does not allow copies of previous comments to count as another opinion. To make sure your voice is heard, make it your own voice. We can all complain about, or support, the same thing, we just need to do it our own way, different words, better yet, different reasons.

My comments will reflect that we should move forward with the large reroute but take a second look at the smaller reroute and that the original route should be maintained as much as possible and remain open as long as possible.

.

Rubicon Ronin

---