Issues of Concern

Kentucky - Mammoth Cave Trails

10/23/05:  The following information was received by one of our members.  The deadline for public comment has passed, but we should still show our support to the Mammoth Cave Equine Trail Riders Association (MCETRA).  As fellow horsemen, we should actively support this group in their fight to keep their trails!   Bikers also recently opened up more miles of bike trails at Alum Creek in Delaware, Ohio, so we may be fighting this issue in our own backyard.

Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky has trails for bikers in the southern part of the Park.  Last year, at the request of biker groups, the Park suddenly designated the Sal Hollow horse trail off-limits to horseback riders, giving it exclusive use to the bikers. Now the bikers have requested that the Park allow them to use many of the horse trails in the northern part of the park, sharing with horses.  These are the trails that we all use everyday when riding at Mammoth Cave from J&J Stables or from the Park's group camp.

The Park is considering this request and has given a 30 day "public comment" period.  This began Sept 15 and will end Oct 15, which is this week!   So If you believe that mixing horseback riding and bicyclists on the same trails is a bad idea, please write, email, or call the Park Service and voice your concerns.  


   Letters:    Park Superintendent
                    Mammoth Cave National Park
                    PO Box 7
                    Mammoth Cave, KY 42259

    E-Mail:     MACA_Information@nps.gov

   Phone:    270-758-2180

The Mammoth Cave Equine Trail Riders Association (MCETRA) is active in this concern.  Visit their website at www.mammothcavehorsetrails.org and find more information.   

UPDATE 10/25/05: The bikers at Mammoth Cave were not successful in taking the horse trails away.  This is very good news for the horseback riders!

California - Categorical Exclusions

As you know, on July 2, 2005 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order banning the use of Categorical Exclusions (CEs). The ruling required any forest project using a CE to include a formal public notice, be available for public comment and give the public the option of appealing the decision. The order applies to all decisions made with a CE after July 7, 2005. It also applies nationwide.

 The Court has since clarified its ruling in an Order addressing a request for clarification and a request for a Stay from the Forest Service (FS). The Court said that when it struck the regulations exempting certain decisions from notice and appeal periods, it intended that the regulations previously in force would apply.

 Under the previous regulations, categorically excluded timber sales are subject to notice, comment, and appeal. The other categorically excluded activities subject to notice, comment, and appeal under the previous regulations are:

(1) Projects involving the use of prescribed burning;

(2) Projects involving the creation or maintenance of wildlife openings;

(3) The designation of travel routes for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use which is not conducted through the travel management planning process as part of the forest planning process;

(4) The construction of new OHV routes and facilities intended to support OHV use;

(5) The upgrading, widening, or modification of OHV routes to increase either the levels or types of use by OHVs (but not projects performed for the maintenance of existing routes);

(6) The issuance or reissuance of special use permits for OHV activities conducted on areas, trails, or roads that are not designated for such activities;

(7) Projects in which the cutting of trees for thinning or wildlife purposes occurs over an area greater than 5 contiguous acres;

(8) Gathering geophysical data using shorthole, vibroseis, or surface charge;

(9) Trenching to obtain evidence of mineralization;

(10) Clearing vegetation for sight paths from areas used for mineral, energy, or geophysical investigation or support facilities for such activities.

 The Court said the Forest Service need not suspend actions not contemplated in the old rules, such as outfitter and guide permits or gathering forest products for personal use.

 The Court deferred ruling on the Forest Service's motion for stay until all parties in the lawsuit have an opportunity to file further briefing regarding the relative hardships involved in light of the Court's clarification.