I dunno. If it's true that USFS has shut down all trail maintenance, then it seems like it's overreacting. I would think that each forest could publish a general plan that includes the specifics of maintaining their trails and specifically limiting such work to clearing trees, digging waterbars etc, and clearly excluding building new trail or other disturbances or new construction.
While there's some understandable gnashing of teeth at the effect of this decision, it was brought because of an obvious overreach by the USFS. They tried to include some pretty big projects (timber cutting under the ruse of "emergency fuel clearance") in a blanket exemption using the categorical exclusion rule. USFS was abusing the process and three courts found against them.
NPS, for instance, will write up a categorical exclusion if they want to reroute a trail for up to several hundred feet (don't know the exact number). But anything beyond that and an EA or EIS has to be done. Which is to say there are rules in place to recognize the difference between a large and a small project. It appears USFS tried to drive a tank through what was intended as a narrow exemption and lost.
So who do you blame when stuff like this happens? The "extreme" environmentalists who seem to be trying to hold agencies to existing regulations or the USFS, who seem to be ignoring the stated intent those regulations?
I'm willing to bet there's a stack of letters and meetings over the years from the environmentalists asking USFS to back off -- and that those requests only applied to the egregious violations such as timber harvesting.
Reading the decision, it specifically invalidated the regulation for all of USFS. I would think they now have to negotiate with the groups who brought the suit on what constitutes a remedy. Might be worth writing the lead group to find out the status and bring up the downside. Maybe they're considering separating things like minor trail maintenance to deal with the real issue. (this entire paragraph is a huge guess, but based on what's happening in the HSHA lawsuit).
Hmmm again. Reading the earthjustice site makes it seem that all that's happened is that USFS has to give the public the right to appeal its projects. By using the categorical exclusion, USFS was denying that right. It would make sense that, for trails, USFS would just have to write up a maintenance plan each summer as I suggested above. They could even publish it for comment to be extra safe.
George
