PLEASE READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:


In the phone meeting today, Nedlo said that Appendix F on the CD, (MAKE SURE YOU GET ONE!), will list all of the routes and campsites that will be closed forever.

The problem with this, is that you may use a road or campsite and not remember or know the FS route # or even the common name for the trail. You will still have to compare the inventory map (Alternative A) versus the NEW map that the Forest Service will release on the 20th.

The biggest most FAWKED UP thing I heard is that: THE FOREST SERVICE WILL NOT LIST THE REASON THAT ROUTE IS CLOSED!!! How can we argue for a route to be opened if we do not know why they closed it?? They do not just want you to say "Oh, this route has been used for 20 years and I want it open", they want REASONS for it to remain open.


I'll tell you why ELDO is not listing any reasons.....

BECUASE THEY SAT IN A FAWKIN OFFICE AND RANDOMLY JUST CHOPPED OFF ROUTES HAP-HAZZARDLY. THEY HAVE NO FAWKIN REASON. :mad3:

Do you really think they spent hours upon hours going down every single road and spur looking for damage and evaluating trails?

Didn't you ever wonder why Tahoe NF is only losing like 90 miles total yet ELDO could lose as much as 2,500?

Oh yeah....The Forest Supervisor, the big guy who picks the FINAL alternative, as far as I know, HAS NEVER BEEN TO ONE ROUTE DESIGNATION MEETING.... Nor had any input.


Nedlo said that the forest Sup would have to "check his schedule" to see if he could attend any one the ones coming up after the 20th. The way I heard that one, is that he is not coming.

In that the route designation process is going to have the BIGGEST effect on the forest since ELDO started, you would think we would hear from or see the guy. :mad3:

AND LASTLY...even worse news...

let's say for example, Barrett Lake Trail is on the draft released in June. You would think..."COOL! Barrett is saved! I do not have to argue for that route"

But, while you are arguing for routes that were left off, THE OTHER SIDE is writing into the forest service to have Barrett REMOVED. When the final-final draft is released. BLAM! The routes and campsite you thought were safe are now gone FOREVER. We will have no idea what trail/campsites etc. the other side will be writing in to ELDO and trying to close. :mad3:

Ok, Once again, Sorry, Rant off.

I gotta go shoot something......or drink heavily

It seems so lopsided.... very discouraging. I agree seems they randomly threw darts and had a good time one day deciding what to cut. I musta missed it how do i get a cd?

Already drinking, im out of bullets:p
I listened in on the phone meeting, interesting to say the least and I think many good points were brought up by the OHV community(not answered, but brought up).

What bothers me is the Forest supervisor for EDC was born in Mexico and has spent very little time in the EDC Forest. I was born and raised in EDC (5th generation) and now my experience, my children, grandchildren etc. in my backyard is going to be determined by somone from somewere else:mad3: BS!

EDC Forest Supervisor:

RAMIRO VILLALVAZO
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/news/images/ramiro.jpg

Here is some information on him...
From here
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/news/2006/new-supervisor-eldorado.shtml

RAMIRO VILLALVAZO SELECTED FOR TOP LEADERSHIP POST ON ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST
VALLEJO, Calif., May 8, 2006--Ramiro Villalvazo, currently the Chief Landscape Architect in USDA Forest Service's (FS) Washington DC national headquarters, will be the new Supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest (NF), agency officials announced today.

"Ramiro's leadership in maintaining scenic resources and high-quality recreation settings, combined with experience stretching from Puerto Rico and Florida to California, gives him a broad mix of planning, economic development and natural resource management skills," said Pacific Southwest Regional Forester Bernie Weingardt. "Since his career began here in California, he has also completed work details as the Southern Region's Acting Director of Recreation and Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Plumas National Forest in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. I am very happy to have him back with us."

Villalvazo, 47, was born in Tijuana, Mexico, and emigrated at a very young age to San Diego, where he grew up. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Landscape Architecture from California State Polytechnic University in Pomona in 1982. He began his FS career as a co-op student on the Sequoia NF in 1980, moving to the Cleveland NF, also in California, in 1981. He went to the Caribbean NF in Puerto Rico in 1991 as the forest's Landscape Architect.

In 1995, he became Developed Recreation Manager/Landscape Architect on the National Forests in Florida, before returning to California as the Angeles NF's Landscape Architect in 1997. He transferred to his current Washington DC post in 2001. In addition to the work details outlined above since then, he has also worked in Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Nicaragua and Mexico to help develop sustainable tourism and provide other assistance.

"I am looking forward to reconnecting with the people and landscapes of California, and to the beautiful and extensive resources of the Sierra Nevada. With the help of what I understand is a great staff on the Eldorado, I am prepared to share in the responsibility of managing some of the most treasured lands in the nation," Villalvazo said. "I am also looking forward to working with local communities and partners, as their involvement is vital for us to our job well. I'm very thankful for the opportunity, and am excited about returning to my home state."

Villalvazo has been married to Ana for 21 years, and they have two children, Joshua, 20, and Nicole, 17. An active member of the Society of Landscape Architects, he enjoys the outdoors, exercising, playing racquetball and traveling with his family. He replaces John Berry, who retired early this year. Villalvazo will report to his new post in late July.

I might add that I am not in any way prejudice as to where anyone comes from, I feel that ALL Americans should have the right to explore ALL of our great country.:usa:
I am just a bit touchy with outsiders telling me and my family how we are supposed to enjoy our home land.......forever

My mothers side goes back to EDC 5 generations, every generation has served this great country in the military, has been in every war (even still today) and we also have many mine claims in these woods... also I might add, my grandfather died while working in a mine just outside of Georgetown. (accident)
He and my Grandmother moved to Georgetown from Tahoe just so they could be close to the forest and trails(the Rubicon included) he loved so much, away from politics(read TAHOE). My grandfathers ashes are spread on one of our mining claims, and my grandmother (now 83) is too old to hike the 3 miles to visit the site where her one and only true love now rests.
I have vowed to re-build our tote-goat(mini-bike made for hauling) to take her down there before she passes and it would be a shame if we recieved a ticket doing it.:mad3:

Also....why is the OHV comission paying millions of dollars to fund this???

The newly-adopted Forest Service Off-Road Vehicle Route Designation rules have gotten a lot of publicity in recent weeks, but the Route Designation process in California National Forests is well ahead of most other states. In August 2003, the Regional Forester signed a Memorandum of Intent with the State Off Highway Vehicle Commission. The Forest Service agreed to begin the OHV Route Designation process and complete it by 2008, and the OHV Commission agreed to provide the Forest Service $2 million a year to fund the process.

Well I was the one on the call that brought it up if he would be there, and if the Ramiro is not at the meeting I attend, my first question will be:
"What is the process needed to remove a forest supervisor?"

I personally have nothing against him, but he is the one making the decision and he needs to be there to stand up for it.

I have said it before; it makes no sense to have someone in that high a position not to be from or at least worked in the area he is responsible for. It would be like Florida electing the congressmen for California

One MAJOR thing that many people have forgotten:

Route Designation is not just about closing roads and trails to 4x4's.

In the past, if it was a dirt fire trail or numbered Forest Service trail, you could ride a dirt bike, ATV or and green sticked vehicle on it. The route designation process will change all that. MANY roads in ELDO will be redesignated to regular licenced cars and trucks ONLY. In my normal stomping grunds off of Silverfork, many routes (miles and miles worth) will be designated in this way.

This will have a HUGE effect on the MX/ATV community, and on any green stickered rigs.

PLEASE, if anyone belongs to any message boards for green-stickered vehicles PLEASE PASS THIS INFO ON.

Also....why is the OHV comission paying millions of dollars to fund this???
IIRC, because there were three options to respond to the CBD, CSNC, CWC lawsuit:
1.) close the whole forest
2.) leave the forest open, but limit travel to system roads and trails and accelerate Route Dez
3.) open the whole forest
...and every one of these options presumed that the National Route Designation Process would be applied, sooner or later.

Option #3 would never have happened, but they have to provide a 'no change' option. Option #1 was too hard to comprehend (imagine *EVERYTHING* not paved closed?!?!?), so Option #2 was what the OHVMR Commission put their money behind.

BTW, the OHMVR Commission is *far* from perfect, but I think they made the right call picking Option #2.

Randii

BTW, it was great to hear more people in dialogue, and still more beeps on the line, which suggest that even more people were listening! :cool2:

There may be some hope yet, if those beeps represent people who are willing to pick up a pen and write letters defending their trails...

Randii

IIRC, because there were three options to respond to the CBD, CSNC, CWC lawsuit:
1.) close the whole forest
2.) leave the forest open, but limit travel to system roads and trails and accelerate Route Dez
3.) open the whole forest
...and every one of these options presumed that the National Route Designation Process would be applied, sooner or later.

Option #3 would never have happened, but they have to provide a 'no change' option. Option #1 was too hard to comprehend (imagine *EVERYTHING* not paved closed?!?!?), so Option #2 was what the OHVMR Commission put their money behind.

BTW, the OHMVR Commission is *far* from perfect, but I think they made the right call picking Option #2.

Randii

So it was in the lawsuit that we have to use our own money to fund the closure of our own trails?
We neet to hire that lawer:shaking:

BTW, thanks Randii for being so informed and helping the rest of us catch up.:beer:

So it was in the lawsuit that we have to use our own money to fund the closure of our own trails?
I get the irony, but those were the only three choices we had. Without the OHMVR money stepping in to fund a thorough inventory, we'd have even less trails listed (which equates to fewer trail miles at the end of the process).

FOTR, BRC, CORVA, Cal4, United, and more -- we're working the system for the good of the order, but the system is broken. Route Dez is just a example, really, where the system guarantees an outcome of fewer trails. Look at it -- NEPA, CEQA, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and more... all of these are programs with the side effect of reducing motorized recreational opportunity. If we play by the rules, we lose -- just like a casino. Sure, we may win a few, but if you play long enough, the house always wins. In this case, the anti-access closurist lobby OWNS THE HOUSE, through the size of their lobbies, organizations, and budgets combined with the misplaced good intentions of clueless people and the apathy of motorized recreation. Worse yet, if we just cash in our chips and walk away, the system keeps working away even in our absence to continue to limit access.

If we tear up the rule book, we lose, too -- hell, the closurists WANT us to be outlaws and to act out. They WANT us to prove that we're slackjawed yokels, too ignorant to be trusted -- that makes it easier to put up gates to protect nature's oh-so-delicate resources from us.

We fight the closures, and we work the system, but the anti-access folks keep nibbling away at our rights... there's no end in sight, unless we MAKE one. We need another Jarbidge Shovel Brigade: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18045 - we need the perfect storm of newscycle positioning, sympathetic media, conservative judge, and arbitrary land management. We need to search for niches where we can protest and sway not just the apathetic within our hobby, but also the well-intentioned clueless citizens who mistakenly think that closing off a forest is a good idea.

We can't devolve to anarchy, but dammit, we need to be responsible citizens and STAND UP meaningfully... while also working the system from within. It seems like to me there is a chance, but we have to work the broken system AND find ways to protest it.

Randii

Does anyone ever listen to Dr. Bill on KGO? He's on Saturday and Sunday nights and lets everyone on the air who calls in.
He's definately on our side when it comes to the eco-frauds as he calls them.
I just figured it would be a good way to get the word out to alot more people that may not use the internet. It would be great to have some well informed people call in that were on the call today. (Randy, John?)
He's been going nuts lately on the sierra club and forest service about the fire up at Tahoe.
Thoughts?

Bryan

Dr. Bill Wattenburgh? He's the bomb!

What frequency is KGO?

Randii

810 AM

here is his email.....come on RandII, go for it!
I would, but I just piss people off....its a gift I guess

billwattenburg2@yahoo.com

Rick - it sounds like you, Bebe, Kurt, and I are getting together this week. Let's pencil in a discussion outline when we do, and I'm game to make my radio debut. :homer:

Things to discuss:
* how we got where we are (lawsuit)
* route dez current events (nationally and on the Eldorado)
* who all is affected (anyone who uses a dirt road in the forest)
* upcoming meetings, and how people can meaningfully respond

Randii

I note one small technicality in the thread that needs clarification.

Eldorado lawsuit and route designation are different issues. The lawsuit did not force the route designation process that is funded in part by the OHMVR Trust Fund.

Route designation is a national level Forest Service process that will close routes and disbursed camping opportunities.

The Eldorado lawsuit resulted in the Eldorado Forest entering into a route designation process at an accelerated pace and different baseline than the rest of the forests.

I note one small technicality in the thread that needs clarification.

Eldorado lawsuit and route designation are different issues. The lawsuit did not force the route designation process that is funded in part by the OHMVR Trust Fund.

Route designation is a national level Forest Service process that will close routes and disbursed camping opportunities.

The Eldorado lawsuit resulted in the Eldorado Forest entering into a route designation process at an accelerated pace and different baseline than the rest of the forests.


Then what forced the Route Dez process? I thought it was becuase the National Forest got sued for mis-managment?

What do you mean by differnet baseline? can you define that one?

Eldorado lawsuit and route designation are different issues. The lawsuit did not force the route designation process that is funded in part by the OHMVR Trust Fund.
Certainly they started as separate processes, but Karlton's judgement and the dialogue that followed with the Forest Supervisor linked the lawsuit and Route Dez together.

Each would have happened without the other, but the Eldorado National Forest is committed to complete Route Dez on a timetable dictated by Karlton's decision with respect to the lawsuit.

FWIW, I think we're saying essentially the same thing.

Randii

Then what forced the Route Dez process? I thought it was becuase the National Forest got sued for mis-managment?

What do you mean by differnet baseline? can you define that one?

The full travel management effort stemmed from USFS Chief Bosworth's speech outlining threats to the forests.

2004-2005 was the time frame where the "route designation" process was developed and rolled out to all forests.

The CA effort funded by the OHMVR Trust Fund started in 2003 as an effort to create an inventory of routes in the Forests.

The Eldorado lawsuit started a number of years prior to that over Eldorado's failure to complete a route designation process in accordance with its forest plan.

The judge's decision required the Eldorado to complete a route designation process IAW with its forest plan. Hence, the processes are linked in name but the Eldorado did start with a different baseline assumption and an accelerated schedule.

Thankfully, the Eldorado did tap into the travel management process to develop its DEIS.

So can you tell me why Tahoe National only lost 90 miles but we stand to lose as much as 2,500 in ELDO?

Does it have to do with this?

That is the baseline difference.

The Eldorado rolled their inventory back to mid-1990s as per the settlement.

The Tahoe is working off of a new inventory.

Most of the 2500 "lost" routes are single track trails created since the original inventory.

That is the baseline difference.

The Eldorado rolled their inventory back to mid-1990s as per the settlement.

The Tahoe is working off of a new inventory.

Most of the 2500 "lost" routes are single track trails created since the original inventory.

How do they explain the ?? miles of numbered roads taken off since the inventory? I doubt the single track theory. There are many roads that were placed off limits by the court order. Those will be lost during Route Dez PLUS many many more. It is more than 2500.

Most of the roads we are losing in the Eldorado Forest, are NOT single track roads, and were in existance prior to the mid 1990s

That is the baseline difference.

The Eldorado rolled their inventory back to mid-1990s as per the settlement.

The Tahoe is working off of a new inventory.

Most of the 2500 "lost" routes are single track trails created since the original inventory.


No offense, but I do not buy that either. In the Silverfork area, which is my regular stomping grounds, most of the roads that are on the cut list are numbered roads that have been in use for YEARS. Many of them are spur routes that lead to decent campsites. This is not rolling back their inventory at all, these route and roads have been there for DECADES.

This is a SMALL sample of the Silverfork and Iron Mountain area. The first is the inventory, the second map is the same area if Plan D is picked. Look how many NUMBERED forest trails are now gone. FOREVER....

95% of those are NOT single track trails. I know becuase I have been camping in that area for 15+ years.

If this is just a small sample of ELDO, (maybe 2 square miles) Imagine the rest.

ONE MORE IMPORTANT NOTE!!!

Look at the roads on the bottom right, (09N10, 11N40, 09N12) notice how these is NO RED LINE going thru them? That means if this alternative is picked ,they are CLOSED to green stickered vehicles after route dez. We have to be on the lookout for this garbage too. I have traveled ALL of those roads for YEARS. There is NO reason why any of them should be shut down to ATV's, we would also be losing a TON of campsites were these routes to disapear.

http://www.kurtuleas.com/plana.jpg

http://www.kurtuleas.com/pland.jpg

Great example - especially since those routes create loops. Anyone have history on when and why those routes were created?

Also glad to hear discussion of bringing in the other OHV user groups that will be affected by closures. And don't hesitate to think outside the box on who to partner with. ;)

I dont think we know when these roads were created, most were created for the logging of the forest. I have talked to the USGS in Menlo Park and can get the topo maps from the 1950s and 1970s for these areas, this would show if they are more than 30-50 years old. but would this do us any good?

I dont think we know when these roads were created, most were created for the logging of the forest. I have talked to the USGS in Menlo Park and can get the topo maps from the 1950s and 1970s for these areas, this would show if they are more than 30-50 years old. but would this do us any good?
Yes it would. It shows historical use of the roads and that once the roads were no longer used for logging they were opened for motorized use and have been used that way for more than 30 years.
If you have valid information that proves that the trail has historical value to an area you have a stronger argument to why it should be kept open than just saying,"This trail should be kept open because it has been in use for many years.".
Also, the FS is leaning towards loop trails vs. trails that go up and back. Don't hesitate to comment that a trail should be left open because it creates a loop opportunity for a user. Even if the loop does not come back to the origination point but allows for another trail to be used to get back to the access point. And feel free to add that if a trail had an additional connector between point A and point B (indicating they need to create the connection point) then a loop will be created.

As indicated on the call yesterday, spur routes are most likely be slated for closure in most of the Alternatives. If a spur goes to a vista, overlook, or destination, put in your comments that you want that spur left open because it does go to one of those types of aforementioned places and add in the touchy feelly stuff like it creates a great ambiance for the trail to be able to take in the breathtaking views at the end of the spur route.

Any single or combination of the below will apply:

1 -- Spur roads are on the list for closure as according to FS understanding, they are a one-way route with limited recreation opportunity.

2 -- Routes that start on forest land and cross private land are subject to closure. FS CANNOT designate a route of travel across private land without obtaining an easement.

3 -- There are existing routes in many forest lands that were created for a singular purpose - logging. In many cases the logging operator was required to obliterate the route after completion of logging. Frequently, that was not done. Now, the Forest has targeted those routes to be closed as they were not engineered for recreation.

4 -- Some routes encroach on critical habitat for endangered species. Those routes are targeted for closure.

5 -- Some routes encroach on sensitive cultural/heritage/historic sites. Those routes are targeted for closure.

6 -- Some routes encroach on streams/riparian/wetlands areas. Those routes are targeted for closure.

7 -- Some routes are in deteriorated condition where erosion has created a resource issue. Those routes are targeted for closure.

8 -- Some routes provide multiple access to sites where a singular route is more appropriate from a resource protection point of view.

You have identified some routes that are not in the list for inclusion. Now is the time to identify WHY those routes should be left open. You will need to define the recreation opportunity available and why it is important to the public.

If there are some spur routes targeted for closure, provide information as to where they can be connected to make them a loop road and in important part of the recreation opportunity.

Route designation DOES NOT preclude new routes; provided the new routes make sense and provide for resource protection.

Overall, the Eldorado Forest inventory probably does not contain a number of routes that bear USFS numbers. There is a high probability those routes were slated for closure in the forest plan that was never implemented -- the same non-action that brought the lawsuit to begin with.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;7000369]Any single or combination of the below will apply:



Route designation DOES NOT preclude new routes; provided the new routes make sense and provide for resource protection.
QUOTE]


I disagree with this statement, below is from the ENF route website

public comment >"Expand the trail system to reduce impacts."

Forest service reply >"Outside the scope of the purpose and need. Expansion or creation of new routes are not being considered"

The problem is, the forest service has not and will not list the reason why any single route is going to be closed. How can I argue for a route to remain open if I have no idea why it was closed.

Didn't you look at those maps I posted? I see ALL BUT TWO of those roads having a designated number from the FS!! If they were not OK'd by the forest service before (they were ALL orginally logging routes) why were they given a number? I would not consider that non-action.

I do not believe ONE BIT that the FS has gone thru the entire forest in this amount of time, checked EVERY SINGLE ROAD AND SPUR and made a decision on each whether or not they should remain open.

It was just like, if it's a spur......chop it off. :mad3:

MOST if not ALL of those spurs lead to some type of primitive campsite

"Overall, the Eldorado Forest inventory probably does not contain a number of routes that bear USFS numbers. "

Most of the mileage slated to be closed are routes with USFS numbers and names

The problem is, the forest service has not and will not list the reason why any single route is going to be closed. How can I argue for a route to remain open if I have no idea why it was closed.

Didn't you look at those maps I posted? I see ALL BUT TWO of those roads having a designated number from the FS!! If they were not OK'd by the forest service before (they were ALL orginally logging routes) why were they given a number? I would not consider that non-action.

I do not believe ONE BIT that the FS has gone thru the entire forest in this amount of time, checked EVERY SINGLE ROAD AND SPUR and made a decision on each whether or not they should remain open.

It was just like, if it's a spur......chop it off. :mad3:

MOST if not ALL of those spurs lead to some type of primitive campsite

Yes, I did look at the map. Again, the reasons I provided have been gleaned from discussions with forest officials from the ranger district to Chief Bosworth.

I have been involved in formal meetings with 7 National Forests in California and Region 5 officials. I have been in informal meetings with 6 other California forests along with forests in four other states concerning route designation. I have been at two national forest service meetings about route designation. I have been to Washington DC Forest Service headquarters twice to meet with staff (including Chief Bosworth) concerning route designation.

I am telling you that construction of new routes IS NOT precluded within the route designation (travel management) process.

If you re-read what the Eldorado stated (Outside the scope of the purpose and need.), they are correct. BECAUSE, this effort is driven by lawsuit settlement.

That does not preclude YOU, the interested recreationist from including WHAT you want to see.

If you can state that a spur route is important fof recreation, STATE IT.

If you can find where construction of a short segment of trail will join two spurs or otherwise make a "loop" trail, STATE IT.

Remember, the purpose of the NEPA process is to document the reasons why a decision is made. Silence implies consent.

And, the moment you stop including what you want in public comment, you are consenting to the document.

Now is the time to set aside the BS and provide the Forest with rational as to WHY a route is important to recreation. At each opportunity, you need to maintain a consistent message as to why those routes are important.

What you are doing is laying the necessary ground work to show that the final decision does not address your desires; therefore, you have been "harmed" by the decision.

I can guarantee you that the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy has a rational why each natural surface forest road should be closed.

2 -- Routes that start on forest land and cross private land are subject to closure. FS CANNOT designate a route of travel across private land without obtaining an easement.
How should we best maintain future possibility of access to a road that starts on USFS land, crosses private land, and finished on USFS land? Is there some intermediate level of temporary classification that can be done to the USFS ends, when it it possible that the property owner will provide a formal easement or informal permission?

If there are some spur routes targeted for closure, provide information as to where they can be connected to make them a loop road and in important part of the recreation opportunity.
Many spurs take users to good camping. If they can't be connected to a loop are they toast?

Route designation DOES NOT preclude new routes; provided the new routes make sense and provide for resource protection.
ENF Route Dez has spefically discounted any new routes from the process. They've defined all new routes discussions as out-of-scope for the process, and have said that they can be considered later in one of two processes:
* discretion of the forest
* formal, site-specific NEPA
John, is this a unique combination of Route Dez and Karlton's instructions, courtesy of the CBD, CSNC, CWC lawsuit?

Randii

Kurt, I hear you on this -- we're being asked to specifically defend each trail, without any information as to why it is being targeted for closure.

It is the difference between the draft, with a few exceptions available, and the volunteer armed forces that exists today. Sadly, USFS is 'drafting' our roads to closure, as opposed to individually considering which route is fit to serve...

Randii (frustrated)

Kurt, I hear you on this -- we're being asked to specifically defend each trail, without any information as to why it is being targeted for closure.

It is the difference between the draft, with a few exceptions available, and the volunteer armed forces that exists today. Sadly, USFS is 'drafting' our roads to closure, as opposed to individually considering which route is fit to serve...

Randii (frustrated)
The easy way to do this is to think like an anti-access person when writing comments. "What would piss off the ohv group the most?" Then write your comments with that in mind. Also, don't forget about John's list of reasons for closure he posted earlier.

How should we best maintain future possibility of access to a road that starts on USFS land, crosses private land, and finished on USFS land? Is there some intermediate level of temporary classification that can be done to the USFS ends, when it it possible that the property owner will provide a formal easement or informal permission?

In an ideal world, the cooperating landowner would recognize that the route exists and people traveling the route would in turn respect the private property.

In reality, recognize that the route may be important but encumbered. If you can provide a notice the owner is willing to provide an easement, great. If not, justify the hell out of why the forest should pursue an easement.

Speak now or hold your peace later.


Many spurs take users to good camping. If they can't be connected to a loop are they toast?

Speak now for the camping opportunity. Also, is there another use for that spur route? Hunting access? Rockhound site?? Vista point?? other???

If the spur can be connected to provide for improved recreation opportunity, does it also enhance resource protection?



ENF Route Dez has spefically discounted any new routes from the process. They've defined all new routes discussions as out-of-scope for the process, and have said that they can be considered later in one of two processes:
* discretion of the forest
* formal, site-specific NEPA
John, is this a unique combination of Route Dez and Karlton's instructions, courtesy of the CBD, CSNC, CWC lawsuit?

Basically, yes. the scope as defined by the court said to do your travel management in accordance with the existing forest plan. The existing forest plan does not talk about making spur routes into loop routes.

My advice to you is to put in for connecting spurs to make it part of the public/administrative record.