
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title> appeal process after USFS denial to rebuild?</title>
<link>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1640877</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 07:10:43 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 21:31:01 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2021 National Forest Homeowners</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?id=1640877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title> appeal process after USFS denial to rebuild?</title>
<link>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1640877</link>
<guid>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1640877</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The USFS denied our post-fire plan to rebuild three historic structures: a storage cabin, pit toilet, and wood shed. Has anyone had to go through the appeal process?]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:01:41 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1641031</link>
<guid>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1641031</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It would be helpful to know more about the denial. You are welcome to email me the decision letter, if you wish (sleach@nationalforesthomeowners.org).   Sounds like your cabin was allowed to be rebuilt, but not the outbuildings, is that correct?<br /><br />Even if the outbuildings were historic, after they are destroyed, they are not considered historic any longer.  So, historic significance of a building that is no longer standing won't be a strong basis for appealing the decision.  <br /><br />Typically, the Forest Service is not allowing pit toilets any longer (county regulations), and in some regions, storage sheds are limited in size. Many who had pit toilets are being required to put in either a pumpable container or something else.  Depending on your cabin's rebuilding footprint, you might be able to include a bathroom with a compost or incinerating toilet as part of the rebuilding design to work around the pit toilet being disallowed. They may let you rebuild the shed to the region's size limitation if not the original size.  If it is in California, then it is 40 square feet, not very much but enough for yard implements, and a few things. The Forest Service might be leaning on permit holders to store more things at home rather than at the recreation residence.  I doubt they would say that in their letter, but it is something I've heard.<br /><br />We haven't seen a lot of denials to rebuild cabins except in one very unique situation where an appeal was denied based on particular permit terms regarding a flood zone. I don't know if that applies in your situation, so I would not use that as your model.  Each Forest and case is somewhat different and most rebuild decisions are subject to an appeal.  We encourage cabin rebuilding and appeals even if the outbuildings are disallowed.  <br /><br />Since the initial denial is likely from your District Ranger, the next step would be to go to the Forest Supervisor.  Which National Forest is your cabin in?  Which fire was it?<br /><br />Others may have their experiences to offer additional perspectives.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:35:43 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1641558</link>
<guid>https://www.nationalforesthomeowners.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1641558</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I appreciate your response!  The forest is the Arapahoe-Roosevelt forest, and the fire was the East Troublesome.  It did not destroy the main cabin, but all of the other structures mentioned, along with a bridge.  We rebuilt the bridge, as that is the only access to our cabin.<br />We are in a unique situation, as we are not a recreational residence, but obtained a permit that began as a recreational permit, then we obtained National Historical status later on. The original permit was prior to recreational residences. <br />The denial was actually from the forest supervisor, and we have as yet, not been able to talk with the district ranger. <br />To be continued...]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 22:31:01 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
