Newsletter editor

Dorothy Arjes

10 Packentuck Rd

Ozark, IL 62072

618-777-0296

This Newsletter has been held up, waiting for the DEIS on the Trails Designation Project to be released. Many things came to mind in reading the DEIS, but the most telling are all the phrases made such as: "could cause, could increase, could be expected to, could be opened, it is anticipated, there are potentially, it could be affected, suggests this." These phrases are just possibilities. Adequate funding for trails is necessary instead of just the possibilities of things happening.

Three things are apparent: the forest with its plants, wildlife, and aquatic species is developing into more of a wilderness setting even as equestrians recreate; the water quality in the project area streams, even as equestrians recreate, was rated by the IEPA as "full support" with the exception of Little Eagle Creek as "partial support" which drains privately owned crop and mine lands and continues to be rated very high quality; and, most important, the system and non-system trails and equine confinement areas take up less than 1% of the forest grounds. All alternatives in the Draft Trails EIS will have, according to the FS’s own words, "a minimal effect on the overall project area."

There seems to be an Epidemic of Forest Problems this year. We have had reports of similar forest management plans being proposed and implemented in other eastern states.

The Right-to Ride Bill, S. 781, is sitting in subcommittee.

Bill H.R. 3824 – Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 was passed by the House of Representatives this past week.

Due to all the information in the newsletter last time, we’re playing catch up with our thank you’s. Hopefully, we haven’t missed anyone. Your memberships and donations are truly appreciated.

********************

October’s meeting, at 7 PM on the 20^th, will be the annual membership meeting with election of officers (President, Vice-president, Secretary, and Treasurer) and 7 directors whose terms expire. Please join us between 6 and 7 for fellowship and good food at Dolly’s Place in Vienna.

Our Christmas Potluck will be at Little Lusk Campground Lodge on December 15^th. Come a little before 6 PM and bring a dish (with food in it) to pass. The meeting will follow.

RR #1, Box 23A

Stonefort, IL 62987

618-672-4786

9009 Neber Rd, Marion, IL 62959

618-964-1564

3855 Somerset Rd

Harrisburg, IL 62946

618-252-0077

1055 Gilead Rd

Vienna, IL 62995

618-658-2816

1055 Gilead Rd

Vienna, IL 62995

618-658-2816

Dorothy Arjes

10 Packentuck Rd

Ozark, IL 62972

618-777-0296

Lonnie Barger

RR #1, Box 245

Stonefort, IL 62987

618-672-4303

Bill Barnett

PO Box 186

Eddyville, IL 62928

618-672-4751

David Flanders

RR #2, Box 3020

High Knob Rd

Equality, IL 62934

618-275-4346

Michael Grubbe

2520 St Rd, 127 N.

Jonesboro, IL 62952

618-833-3445

Dick Manders

PO Box 40

Eddyville, IL 62928

618-672-4249

Fax: 618-672-4739

Denny Maxon

RR #1, Box 209

Stonefort, IL 62987

618-672-4748

Scarlett Miller

14618 Monitor Lane

Marion, IL 62959

Mike Scott

60 Hilltop Lane

Simpson, IL 62985

618-695-5157

Sue Simmons

270 Ozark Rd

Ozark, IL 62972

618-777-2775

Lucy Walker

RR #1, Box 219

Stonefort, IL 62987

618-672-5001

********************

*********************

Following is the Summary found in the USDA’s Shawnee National Forest’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Trails Designation Project, Phase 1 for those of you who don’t have access to the manual.

The Trails Designation project draft environmental impact statement presents an analysis of four alternatives for designating, constructing and maintaining a trail system within four watersheds on the Shawnee National Forest. The four watersheds (Eagle Creek, Big Grand Pierre Creek, Lusk Creek and Upper Bay Creek) are located in southeastern Illinois and make up about 30 percent of the Forest.

For the four watersheds, the Forest Supervisor will decide:

1) What trails to designate and what recreational opportunities to provide,

2) Whether to amend the Forest Plan to change trail system management,

4) What mitigation and monitoring would be appropriate.

Under Alternative 1, the Forest would neither designate new system trails nor amend the Forest Plan. Trails management based on the Forest Plan would continue. Under Alternative 1, standards and guidelines for wilderness management and natural area management would continue to be implemented. Riding in natural areas (except on designated trails) would continue to be prohibited. No new trailheads or parking areas would be constructed and existing facilities would be maintained. Under Alternative 1, commercial equestrian permits would be issued in accordance with the Forest’s Decision Notice on Commercial Equestrian Outfitter and Guide Services.

Alternative 2, the Forest’s preferred alternative, proposes to restrict equestrian use to designated trails and proposes a 234-mile trail system. Forest Plan system-trail density-standards would be eliminated. Non-system trails that are not designated into the system would be closed and rehabilitated. A limit of ten people per group would be imposed in wilderness. This alternative would include interim, temporary closures to all equestrian use in wilderness to ensure resource protection while construction and maintenance is accomplished. The seasonal closure, from December 1- March 31, would prohibit all equestrian use in the three wilderness areas. In Lusk Creek Wilderness, following a one-inch rainfall within 24 hours, no equestrian use would be allowed for 24 hours during April, May, September, October and November. Under Alternative 2, four additional stream crossings, totaling about 100 feet, would be provided through the Lusk Creek Zoological Area and a three-mile trail would be provided in the Jackson Hollow Ecological Area. Under Alternative 2, with the restriction of equestrian use to designated trails, a concern about access to the trail system from private property has been identified. Individual permits for access from private land would be considered under this alternative. Special-use permitted trails are analyzed under this alternative in a programmatic sense, but no individual special-use permit authorizations are proposed. Alternative 2 includes the construction of five new trailheads and one new parking area. Total horse-trailer capacity under this alternative would be 50.

Alternative 3 proposes to restrict equestrian use to designated trails in wilderness and proposes a 262-mile trail system. Alternative 3 would expand the designated trail system by incorporating most of the non-system trails. Current Forest Plan trail-density standards for wilderness and non-wilderness areas would be eliminated. Non-system trails in wilderness not designated into the system would be closed and rehabilitated.

Outside of wilderness, cross-country riding would continue to be allowed and non-system trails not designated would be left open. Under this alternative, six additional stream crossings would be provided through the Lusk Creek Zoological Area, two trails would be provided in the Jackson Hollow Ecological Area, as well as a trail along the bluff at Double Branch Hole Ecological Area. This alternative includes the construction of seven new trailheads or parking areas and the expansion of three existing trailheads. Total horse trailer capacity under this alternative would be 70.

Alternative 4 proposes to restrict equestrian use to designated trails and proposes a 179-mile trail system. Currently designated trail miles in Lusk Creek and Garden of the Gods Wildernesses would be reduced to a density of about one mile per square mile for each area. No new trails would be designated in natural areas and about two miles of trail would be removed from the Garden of the Gods Natural Area (within the wilderness). Equestrian use would be restricted to the designated trail system, including the trail corridor, trailheads and stock-confinement areas and cross-country riding would be prohibited. Under Alternative 4, non-system trails not designated into the system would be closed and rehabilitated. This alternative would include a seasonal closure on equestrian use in the three wilderness areas from November 1-May 15, until the designated trails are constructed or reconstructed to harden the trail tread. In addition to the seasonal closure, the Lusk Creek Wilderness would be closed to equestrian use for 24 hours following a rainfall of one inch or more during May, September and October.

Chapter 3 describes the existing condition of the project area and environmental effects of implementing the alternatives on each relevant resource area.

All alternatives would maintain water quality soil quality and site productivity in the project area. Sediment modeling shows that less than 10 percent of the sediment moving through the stream system originates from trails. Alternative one would have the greatest impact on soil and water resources. Alternatives 4, 2, and 3 would have the least impact to the most impact, respectively. Anticipated cumulative effects would be minimally beneficial to undetectable. No impacts to population viability are anticipated.

Alternatives 2 and 4 avoid impacts to rare plant species and provide the best level of protection. These two alternatives also limit the introduction of non-native invasive species to the greatest extent. Alternatives 1 and 3 include cross-country riding and therefore have potential for negative impacts.

Alternatives 1 and 3 include cross-country riding and therefore have potential for negative impacts. Alternatives 2 and 4 limit equestrian access and reduce the amount of wildlife habitat impacted by the trail system. No measurable cumulative impacts are anticipated.

The Illinois Wilderness Act of 1990 designated seven areas of the Forest as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Three of these areas, Garden of the Gods, Lusk Creek and Bay Creek Wildernesses, are located in the project area. The USDA General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151 Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework (Landres et al. 2005) has been used to choose the appropriate indicators for wilderness character. This report refers to the

Wilderness Act to identify four qualities of wilderness character: "untrammeled," "natural," "undeveloped" and offering "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation."

Most effects on the untrammeled character of wilderness would be the same for each area in each alternative. The old fallow fields and wildlife openings would be allowed to progress without management intervention to whatever vegetative characteristics they will assume. The proposed actions, trail management (designation, maintenance and construction) and establishment of stock-confinement areas in wilderness would have an effect on the untrammeled character of wilderness.

In all alternatives, visible remnants of past land use and management, such as recovering farmlands, roadbeds and pine plantations, have an adverse effect on the natural condition of wilderness. In all alternatives, authorized motorized access to private land in-holdings would continue in Lusk Creek. Authorized and unauthorized motorized access, and ATV use would also have an adverse effect on the natural condition in all alternatives. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the continued use of many non-system trails that could not be maintained and would continue to erode and deliver sediment to streams. In all action alternatives, trail maintenance and construction and the construction of confinement-areas would have a short-term adverse effect on the natural condition. All the action alternatives would result in beneficial effects on the natural condition of the project-area wildernesses in the long term.

The action alternatives propose to close and rehabilitate 36 miles of trails in Alternative 2, 22 miles in Alternative 3 and 54 miles in Alternative 4. There would be direct (up to five years) effects from trail closure activities, including brush cutting for screening and ground-disturbance for erosion control. However, indirectly (up to 15 years), these actions should improve the undeveloped nature of wilderness by reducing the effect of recreational use in a substantial area of the wilderness.

Alternative 1 has the least opportunity for solitude for hikers away from the trail system, as it is possible that other hikers or equestrians may be encountered. Solitude for equestrians is available off-trail only in this alternative. No effect is expected from implementation of this alternative. Alternative 2 is likely to result in the minimally adverse effect of diminished opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation for equestrians, while that of hikers would be enhanced. The effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2 but more miles of trail will diminish off-trail solitude. Alternative 4 offers the greatest opportunities for solitude for cross-country hikers. However, the diminished availability of trails in this alternative would increase the likelihood that hikers and equestrians encounter one another while using the trail system.

Alternative 1 would offer the greatest amount of flexibility for non-commercial users of the trail system. In wilderness, trails would be maintained to experience level 2 or 3, which would not provide a sustainable trail system for use by stock. Alternative 2 would provide a framework for long-term sustainability in the trail system, a beneficial effect. It would increase the regulation of equestrians and, so, could diminish the experience of those seeking opportunities to ride off-trail. It would provide good loop-trail experiences and would provide for a marked, mapped and maintained system. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, although it includes additional miles of trail and maintains the ability to ride cross-country outside of wilderness areas. It provides the greatest degree of access of all action alternatives and will provide the most extensive sustainable trail system. Alternative 4 would provide the least recreational opportunity for trail riding and is most restrictive of equestrian use. It provides the greatest opportunity for cross-country hikers to have solitude in wilderness.

Generally speaking, it appears that implementation of any of the alternatives would result in no adverse effects on the economy of the six counties of the analysis area

Pages 42 through 45 have tables with comparisons of alternatives. It was interesting to note on page 168 that some hikers realize that closing horse usage on the trails would subsequently make the trails unavailable to hikers.

In all Alternatives, the Forest would continue to issue commercial equestrian outfitter-guide permits. Also, equestrian use of Forest Service jurisdiction roads would continue.

Under Alternative 1, the Forest Service would not designate any new system trails or amend the Forest Plan. One of the main requirements for using public funds for maintenance is that the trails be designated. Designated trails are the keystone to having trails worked on by the Forest Service. Non-system trails, which can’t be worked on, would be closed if the Forest Service determined there was resource damage or even unacceptable visual effects. A police state within the Forest boundaries would develop as law enforcement was implemented to keep equestrians off those closed trails. However, local access and open riding would remain in place.

Alternative 2, the Forest’s preferred proposal, proposes restriction to a 234 designated trail system in the four watersheds. Note that this is a proposal or a plan. During the time that the designated trail system is under construction and maintenance is accomplished, a seasonal closure, from 12-1 to 3-31 would be in place in the three wilderness areas. The wet-weather closure (after a 1 inch rainfall within 24 hours during Apr, May, Sep, Oct and Nov) would be in place only in the Lusk Creek Wilderness until such time as the designated trails were brought up to standards. These temporary closures would be in place until construction work is completed. If the River-to-River trail is any indication, the construction and maintenance will not get done; the Dec 1 to Mar 31 closure will stay in place. The winter months are usually some of the nicest months to ride in and give the best opportunity for equestrian solitude. The wilderness group limitations of 10 people make for an uncomfortable riding experience if there happens to be more members in say a family group. What would determine the correct distance between two or three groups? Should there be a court case deciding that one bunch of people were too close to another? And what about the wild life? Instead of getting all the people past them at one time, they keep dragging by. And, if a hiker wants solitude, wouldn’t he have a better chance if everyone would come and be on their way? In this and Alternative 4, local access is denied. This would in effect force all riders to trailer to a trailhead, access road or campground.  You would no longer be able ride off your property unto the forest or trailer to a friend's home and ride out. Individual permits for access from private land would be considered, but it was mentioned at one of the open house discussions that less than 10 might possibly be granted. A great many of us purchased our homes with the intent of forest access.

Alternative 3, actually, seems to be a logical way of dealing with a quality recreational experience in the 4 watershed areas. Designation would allow the FS to maintain the designated trails to a standard necessary for resource protection. Continued use at same levels as in the past would then not be detrimental with that maintenance. Construction and maintenance of marked and mapped equestrian/hiker trails would prove that 99% of the users of the forest would stay on these trails making restrictions to trails a non-issue. Maintained and mapped trails are essential to resource preservation, but not all trails need to be maintained to the same level as those that have higher usage. Trails should be designated where the "scenic sites" are located and user-created trails have accessed those. Equine trails would ensure that scenic areas would be accessible by hikers. Its vast unique archaeological features situated within such a small area make multipurpose recreation the largest demand for Southern Illinois. And, a big plus, alternative 3 allows for cross-country riding, which would allow for local access to the trail system.

Alternative 4 would make a few of the hikers happy. What experience I’ve had with hikers leads me to believe that most of them enjoy seeing horseback riders. Clearly, alternative 4 is too restrictive to the equestrian recreationalists.

*******************

********************

    Forest Supervisor

Attn: Trails DEIS

    50 Hwy. 145 South

    Harrisburg, IL  62946

    618-253-1060

    Attn – Trails DEIS

Illinois Senators Durbin and Obama should be apprised of the loss in revenue for southern Illinois if equine recreationalists have their high quality riding taken out of the Shawnee National Forest.

*******************

********************

Carolyn Cushman was told by Leon LaVinge, Eastern Region Trails Coordinator for the US Forest Service, that the current priorities and directives from Chief Bosworth are the following: Non Native and Invasive Species, Unmanaged Recreation, and Fire. It seems that the equestrian recreationalists have all been having the same problems.

The Hoosier National Forest in Indiana evidently has already lost open riding with local landowners having to obtain special access permits if they are lucky, pay a fee for the permit, and pay for maintaining those permitted access trails. Just like the Alternative 2 proposal in the Forest Plan Draft for the Shawnee. Now the forest service in the Hoosier National Forest has taken away many miles of good trails because the forest service doesn’t have the funds to maintain them. Does that not sound familiar?

Indiana equine recreationalists worked in good faith with the forest service and ended up with many miles of trails taken away that were good trails because the forest service does not have the funds to maintain them. The only work the volunteers can do is on designated trails. The forest service has no money to build and create the trails. The user impact on those few designated trails will be significant, much more than if dispersed. 
It appears that the Allegheny National Forest in Ohio is having the same problems we are facing. Once they go to a designated system of trails it will be very difficult for local land owners to gain entrance into the trail system and, if they do, they will end up paying for the privilege with special permits and will also end up paying to maintain those sections of trails with their own funds.

********************

Carolyn Cushman has sent an update on the Right-to-Ride Bill. She searched around and finally found the bill # S 781 sitting in the Energy and Natural Resource subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Senator Larry Craig (ID) is the chairman of this subcommittee. The official short title of this bill is Pack and Saddle Stock Animals.

 The members of the Subcommittee that this bill is currently in are below. 

Democrats:

Ron Wyden (Oregon) is the Ranking member. 

Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)

Byron Dorgan (N Dakota)

Tim Johnson (S Dakota)

Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)

Dianne Feinstein (California)

Maria Cantwell (Washington)

Republicans:

Larry Craig (chair – Idaho)

Conrad Burns (Montana)

Craig Thomas (Wyoming)

James Talent (Missouri)

Gordon Smith (Oregon)

Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

George Allen (Virginia)

If you have any questions about the Right-to-Ride bill you may, also, contact the AHC.

1616 H Street, NW, 7^th Floor, Washington, DC, 20006, phone 202-296-4031, fax 202-296-1970

*******************

******************

******************

McKinney’s Western Store at Marion have an extremely nice, newly enlarged and remodeled western store located just southeast of Wal-mart at 900Halfway Rd, (618) 997-6974, for your shopping pleasure. In Mc Kinney’s Western Store you will find a large assortment of men’s, women’s, and children’s western wear; name brand boots; hats; Tucker, Circle-Y, Billy Cook, etc. saddles and tack; bridles; bits; saddle blankets; stable sheets; horse health items; ropes; horse shoes and shoeing equipment; western gifts; jewelry; horse feeds; etc. Please consider supporting them with your equine needs.

******************

Recently, I ordered some things from Country Supply. Their prices are excellent with no shipping and handling on orders over $50. The "Care Code" box didn’t come up until the end of the transaction before the order is submitted, so don’t miss typing in "Shawnee Trails" when you see the Care Code box.

********************

*******************

With the release of the Proposed Trails Designation Project, it is very important that we have your continued membership and financial support. So far, we have had to pay over $20,000 in legal fees! Radical preservationalists constantly try to get the forest grounds shut down and they do it through legal maneuverings. Legal processes are on going; we continue to need your support in membership and monetary donations. STC is the only local organization fighting to keep our quality trails in the Shawnee National Forest. Any necessary appeals are costly, so please send in your renewal today if your newsletter has a date prior to 2005/10 above your name on the Newsletter address and a donation if possible. If you know of someone who should be getting the Newsletter and isn’t, please give him or her the renewal form and have them resubmit the information. Please stay informed through the STC Newsletters about the Shawnee. Responses from all users are very important in the direction the FS takes regarding trails, area closures and management policies.

INDIVIDUAL $10 ____, FAMILY $20 _____, ORGANIZATION $30 ____, DONATION $______________________.

DATE RECEIVED BY STC ____/____/____

Make checks payable to: SHAWNEE TRAIL CONSERVANCY.

Send to: SHAWNEE TRAIL CONSERVANCY, PO BOX 44, EDDYVILLE, IL 62928