Well ELDO picked the 2nd to worst map they coulda picked


FAWKIN ALTERNATIVE D

Looks like we got LOT LOT OF WORK TO DO PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Here is the link to ELDO'S PAGE:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/deis/index.shtml

ALL SPUR ROUTES ON THE 'CON ARE OFF THE MAP

BARRETT IS STILL THERE.

THOUSANDS OF MILES LOST THROUGHT THE FOREST.

START TYPING....

My stomping grounds in Silverfork got RAPED. :mad3:

Before and after:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j222/kurtuleas/SilverforkA.jpg


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j222/kurtuleas/SilverforkD.jpg

THERE IS NO REASON for 09N10, 09N12 and 10N91 not to be opened to ATV use.

We lost all those spur routes off 09N12...losta good camping in that area

where is it saying that alternative D is a done deal.... I just see that its the "preferred alternative" :confused:

I thought that after the public comment period the forest supervisor would make the call on which alternative they were going to use???? Sorry if I'm way off here. Been concentrating on the Tahoe/Fordyce too much recently :shaking:

Rick picked up the CD from the FAWKIN forest felon service today.

It is definatley ALTERNATIVE FAWKING D

They JUST added the word "perferred" to the map today, meaning that's which one they picked.

Friggin BUMMER. Let the comments begin.

Look at the "protected activity centers" map.
There must be alot of spotted owls and Goshawk around.
Funny I've never seen one that I know of.

So, what do we do now?
Write letters to who? Stating what?
How do I find a log of the trail numbers? I suck at reading maps. I wanna help but I may need a little hand holding through the process :D

AlternitiveD was evidently chosen for the negligible affects of air quality. i.e dust. Negitively affects air quality in wilderness area's

That is apparantly why route D was chosen?!?!?!

So, what do we do now?
Write letters to who? Stating what?
How do I find a log of the trail numbers? I suck at reading maps. I wanna help but I may need a little hand holding through the process :D


We have 45 days after the 20th to comment and argue for indiviual routes. The comments must be in a certain format and they go to the forest service...

I should have a list of the more popular routes and spurs that are gone up in a coupla weeks that a majority of us should fight for.

Call me pessimistic but I don’t have a lot of faith in this comment period making a difference. I’ll do all I can and plan on hitting more than one of the meetings. I’ll send my comments on routes and spurs that should remain open but my gut says it’s not going to matter.
The gold miners in California just lost big time with AB 1032’s senate hearing in Sacramento. We’ve been sending in comments since finding out about the bill. In the hearing on Wednesday, they actually admitted they hadn’t even read the comments, ruled in favor of the envirowacks and off it goes for a vote.
How can I have faith that the forest supervisor will listen to my comments? I still don’t understand how a decision that big gets put in the hands of one person that hasn’t even been in the county that long. Unless I heard wrong on the call, he’s only going to make it to the meetings if his schedule permits?
I’m FRIGGIN PISSED.

:mad3:

More to come later.......

Can someone explain to me what the BLUE line means?

Can someone explain to me what the BLUE line means?

the blue lines on the map? they are water ;)


:usa:

Alt "D" wording.

"This alternative has the second lowest mileage of routes available for public wheeled motor vehicle use of the five alternatives."

All this wording is typical bureaucratic rubbish. Reading thru this stuff can and will give you high blood pressure. It's time to sh*t or get off the pot. After the 20th, we have to send in as many as we can. And as always with any government agency, you have to follow up and make sure that they are doing what they say. Take down names/dates and times of people you talk to.
Emailing works because all emails are time/date stamped.
:mad3:

the blue lines on the map? they are water ;)


:usa:

Not the water lines, the route lines that are hilighted in BLUE. Strawberry is one of them.

If I had thought it was going to be this bad, I would have brought a tub of KY jelly with me when I picked up this DEIS disc.

so what do we do?
comment of every road, route trial, trial we can. I agree we may be beating our head against a wall, but lets play the game the best we can...for now

if you dont know how to comment....get to one of the public meetings, or ask someone how...the only stupid question is the one not asked

get as many of your friends involved, make flyers, pass them out. spread the word. I will get a hold of some newspapers.

anyone know how to get a forest supervisor removed? not a joke, a serious question, do I go to the region 5 foerster? he obviously does not have the best interst of the public in mind

think I am pissed?......watch me

My stomping grounds in Silverfork got RAPED. :mad3:

Before and after:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j222/kurtuleas/SilverforkA.jpg


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j222/kurtuleas/SilverforkD.jpg



WOW!!
Look at the first map and find the absolute shortest road you can find......................then look at the second.............its the only one they kept:mad3:

Kurt you are welcome to re-edit this, but I suggest revising your wording from it's original content.
PSD


I want everyone to remember. Alternative D WAS the worst one, THEN they added ALT E the worst one way later in the game....WLDWUN could give you the exact date. they added one alternative so they could say that they did not pick the worst one.

As for the blue line, look at the ledgend in the top right corner

blue line

non significant forest land and resourse managment plan amendments necessary for this route

If I had thought it was going to be this bad, I would have brought a tub of KY jelly with me when I picked up this DEIS disc.

so what do we do?
comment of every road, route trial, trial we can. I agree we may be beating our head against a wall, but lets play the game the best we can...for now

if you dont know how to comment....get to one of the public meetings, or ask someone how...the only stupid question is the one not asked

get as many of your friends involved, make flyers, pass them out. spread the word. I will get a hold of some newspapers.

anyone know how to get a forest supervisor removed? not a joke, a serious question, do I go to the region 5 foerster? he obviously does not have the best interst of the public in mind

think I am pissed?......watch me

These people are payed with your tax dollars. You can ask to have meeting with any of these people. Again, the email approach works because you can show that you have tried to contact them for meetings. So dont throw away any email's that you get. I might give it a go also.
Something has to be done. I just checked the California Four Wheel Drive website and there is no mention of this. Hopefully someone there is paying attention. Probably not a bad idea to contact them also.

OK, time to decompress.......:shaking:

So, what do we do now?
Write letters to who? Stating what?
How do I find a log of the trail numbers? I suck at reading maps. I wanna help but I may need a little hand holding through the process :D

To Send in Comments for DEIS:

The Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2007. The official comment period is 45 days from that date (to September 4, 2007). Please submit your comments using one of the following methods.

By Mail or Hand Delivery during normal business hours to:

Eldorado National Forest
Forest Supervisor Ramiro Villalvazo
"Eldorado National Forest Travel Management DEIS"
100 Forni Road,
Placerville, CA 95667

Office Hours: Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

By Fax:
(530) 621-5297 at above office hours.

By Email:
comments-pacificsouthwest-eldorado@fs.fed.us

Acceptable formats for electronic comments are plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc).

Note: Names and addresses of those who comment will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action, and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215. Only those who submit timely and substantive comments will have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215. Each individual or representative from each organization submitting substantive comments must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request.

When using electronic mail, please send your name and physical address in addition to your email address

Office Hours: Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Fawkers are lucky they are closed on the weekends, I have an appointment right across the street at 9:00 am tomorrow.:flipoff:

Yeah, we have to give a reason WHY a route should remain open, yet they do not have to give a reason why it should remain closed.


I CALL BS!!

I just checked the California Four Wheel Drive website and there is no mention of this. Hopefully someone there is paying attention.

The way route dez is set up, groups like that do not mean S***.

It is up to INDIVIDUALS to argue for routes to be open

blue line

non significant forest land and resourse managment plan amendments necessary for this route


Ya, I got that, but what does it mean in ENGLISH? What amendments?

Acceptable formats for electronic comments are plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc).

I was told an Excel spreadsheet was ok by Jason Nedlo....we need this ok'd it makes it easier to comment on multiple routes per sheet....20 or so

"I just checked the California Four Wheel Drive website and there is no mention of this"

I am sure don amador will be aware by tomorrow....I have had emails from him last week. he is frustrated too

"non significant forest land and resourse managment plan amendments necessary for this route
Ya, I got that, but what does it mean in ENGLISH? What amendments?"

maybe it means you get a non significant ticket

"non significant forest land and resourse managment plan amendments necessary for this route
Ya, I got that, but what does it mean in ENGLISH? What amendments?"

maybe it means you get a non significant ticket:eek:Ya probably :eek:

"non significant forest land and resourse managment plan amendments necessary for this route
Ya, I got that, but what does it mean in ENGLISH? What amendments?"

maybe it means you get a non significant ticket

This is what I found:

Table 2-7. Route segments in Alternative D requiring non-significant Forest Plan
amendments

It's to long to post, see table 2-7 on the full version

The way route dez is set up, groups like that do not mean S***.

It is up to INDIVIDUALS to argue for routes to be open

I agree. I have been with them (Cal 4wdrive) since 85' and have followed and helped on some of there campaigns. They have gotten alot done. Its also a very slow and labor intense path. But your right, we need to get right up in there face and let them know that this aint right and it needs to be fixed.

Also agree, they dont have to explain, but we do. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to work the 24th, but am trying to get as many people as I can to show up at the El Dorado Fairgrounds.

anyone that wants a CD of the draft, the forest srvice ranger station on Placerville has them to give out. much eaiser than downlaoding the info

Gentlemen (and Ladies):

Please take a breath and collect your thoughts.

First, the Forest has selected Alternative D as the preferred alternative.

However, .....

For starters: http://www.muirnet.net/NoteTaker/ESA-Critical-Habitat.ntweb/?13

That will give you a good introduction to the NEPA process. If you have specific questions, PM me and I will answer as I can. I will answer what is posted to the forum when I can as I am traveling around and to not always have time and /or access for the forums. I do check email...

So, Alternative D has been selected. That DOES NOT mean it will be the final alternative. According to NEPA, the agency is bound to select the alternative that provides for the needs of the public and the needs for protection of resources. In other words, a BALANCE.

Using Alternative D as the baseline, you will need to define and articulate why an alternate solution will balance the public and resource needs.

It should be not a surprise that spur routes and disbursed camping opportunities are on the hit list. It has been known since Nov 20, 2005 when a group of use met in Placerville with Tony to talk about wet weather closure issues.

Other hints have been provided since that supports that conclusion.

So, you (the recreationist that cares about your opportunity) are now in position where you will need to provide reasons why routes should remain open.

At the end of the comment period, the Forest is bound by law (NEPA) to review and consider ALL comments. They can provide two levels of review; depending on the type of comment.

If the comment is generic in nature and provides no substantive (details) information, it is dropped into a "comment received in "support of" or "opposition of" stack. Very little will happen with those comments as they provide on rational for modifying the preferred alternative.

If the comment provides new information or substantive data to support a position, the Forest will analyze the comment and provide a determination if it helps provide for a general pubic need and balances resource protection.

At the end of the day, the agency is bound to review comments and select from substantive comments to build the final alternative for selection.

In other words, the final alternative is not required to be the preferred alternative. Generally, the final alternative starts with the preferred alternative and is modified based on SUBSTANTIVE public comment received.

Note that I have used the word SUBSTANTIVE several times. For comments to be considered, they must provide new or amplifying information. At this point in time, emotional arguments are not considered substantive. Comments must be based in fact.

At this point in time, emotional arguments are not considered substantive. Comments must be based in fact.

OK, do not get me wrong here. I appreciate everything you are doing and I have MUCH repect for you, your site and what you know......

HOWEVER, how can we argue for routes that have been closed when the FS gives us no reason as to WHY they have been closed?

This is all complete BS!!
:mad3:

There is no way the FS went over every route in the forest and made a call on it....

So how can the average Joe help? If they want 'substantive' reasons as to why we think the trails should be left alone or at least minimize the closures, what do we need to tell them?

I don't use the trails in the area so I can't comment as to why they need to be open and how do properly address the reasons for closure. I am not a scientist that has studied the area to know enough to make a good decision on how to word anything against Alternative D (or any closure).

I can say that people use the trails for recreation. All kinds of users, etc, etc. will be impacted and soon overcrowding of the remaining trails will ensue. Then the ecological impact will increase and those trails will likely get closed. I'd rather we not all send them more reasons to close more trails.

Us 'average' folks that don't know need help in what to say. What about the meetings? If asked for comment, how are we supposed to know what to say that will make a difference?

From the abstract on the FS site:

In Alternative D 844.3 miles of roads and 217 miles of trails would allow for the public wheeled motor vehicle use, with cross country travel prohibited. ...

From table 2-10 in the abstract it looks like there are currently 2671.1 miles of trails.

If I'm reading this right it looks like 1800 miles will be closed or 68% of the trails in eldorado NF?

yes you are reading it right. I have been saying for a year now we could lose over half of all our roads....
damn Grim Reeper showed up at our doorstep it looks like

OK, do not get me wrong here. I appreciate everything you are doing and I have MUCH repect for you, your site and what you know......

HOWEVER, how can we argue for routes that have been closed when the FS gives us no reason as to WHY they have been closed?

This is all complete BS!!
:mad3:

There is no way the FS went over every route in the forest and made a call on it....

Do not focus on WHY the FS want them to be closed. Focus on why you want them open.

Substantive comments will focus on the value to recreation (and the general public) for keeping the route open.

Keep in mind, there are many spur routes that are going to be lost with a reduction in disbursed camping options. That does not mean you accept the loss of disbursed camping and spur routes.

It does mean that you focus your comments to places that are important to you and you state why they are important.

In another thread I gave a number of reasons why the FS will want some routes closed. Keep that in mind and frame your comments in terms acknowledge the importance of protecting the resources and your desire to access a spur route for disbursed camping does enhance the recreation opportunity and provide for resource protection.

I have pushed the Eldorado (and Region 5) several times on the disbursed camping issue. I am having a problem accepting their rational.

My underlying issues deal with demographics and visitor use information. I am working on clarifying some visitor use statistics provided by FS. Within that frame, I have some data points I am hoping to have complete by Aug 1.

At this stage, FACTS are important.

Do not focus on WHY the FS want them to be closed. Focus on why you want them open.


Oh gee wizz. Heres a novel , original line of thinking....because it's public land, how about that one?


I apologize, I'm all worked up!!!

John,
so we comment why we want a road, route, trail added to the chosen alternative. my comment alone means nothing to the forest service I am sure. but lets say 20 people comment on the same route, and have good logical reasons for keeping it open, good value, no resourse damage etc.
out comes the finale EIS and of course that route is still not on it...big suprise
does the forest service then have to respond with why the route will not be on the final EIS? what if 500 people commented on that route?
what does it take to get a responce out of them?

John,
so we comment why we want a road, route, trail added to the chosen alternative. my comment alone means nothing to the forest service I am sure. but lets say 20 people comment on the same route, and have good logical reasons for keeping it open, good value, no resourse damage etc.
out comes the finale EIS and of course that route is still not on it...big suprise
does the forest service then have to respond with why the route will not be on the final EIS? what if 500 people commented on that route?
what does it take to get a responce out of them?

Under NEPA, the agency is bound to analyze comments received. Historically, they have aggregated comments and provide a response to the specific aggregated comments.

So, if you provide substantive comments as to why a route is important to you and 20 other also provided such comments, the analysis would look at the comments and group them.

If the comments were all identical and provided no new 'substantive" information, they would be aggregated into a group of comments recreived.

If the comments provided new or substantive supporting information, they would be individually analyzed and appropriate comments provided.

The agency is not bound to provide a response outside the mandated public comment periods.

The agency can be compelled to provide documentation under the Freedom of Information Act if the citizen beleives certain information is unjustly being withheld.

Alternative D WAS the worst one, THEN they added ALT E the worst one way later in the game....WLDWUN could give you the exact date. they added one alternative so they could say that they did not pick the worst one.

You aren't the only one who noticed that. My prediction (along with a few other people) is that the would pick the next-to-worst one. I wasn't happy when I saw them adding E.

And just remember, the route des thing has been going on for a while, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed by people who are pissed off to see the way things are now and yet who never came to the meetings or got involved when this all started - almost 2 years ago in the late Summer of 2005.

HOWEVER, how can we argue for routes that have been closed when the FS gives us no reason as to WHY they have been closed?
I know, it sucks, but we have to move on. Vent all you want --- I will be. Get it out of your system, and come back. Hell, I know from experience that I will be pissed again and again as I prepare my comments, and will have to step away from the keyboard... BUT COME BACK, AND KEEP working, after you have vented your rage.

The system sucks, but we have to work it. Remember that, and next time you are meeting with USFS staff, remember that more than anything, they are bound by the system, and for the most part, it can't be changed in a timeframe that will affect this forest and these trails... so we need to work the system as well as we can, and make specific, substantive comments that they HAVE to respond to on record before the final EIS.

There is no way the FS went over every route in the forest and made a call on it....
Doesn't matter, and yes, I know that sucks. Our responses must be made specifically to the trails in question, and we need to make them in language that USFS can't easily discount or refute. This is our opportunity to MAKE them go over each route individually, with our comments in one hand, and their rulebook in the other.

Randii

NOTE: I am nowhere near so Zen about this in person -- I am pissed off and have already chucked my copy of the DEIS across my office at work, my front room at home, and earlier today, the International House of Pancakes. In each case, I went and picked it up, and came back to it to keep working. YOU MUST DO THE SAME TO BE EFFECTIVE!

Oh gee wizz. Heres a novel , original line of thinking....because it's public land, how about that one?
Too general, Tim.

Pick a route, and remember how you have used it (Hell, imagine how you might use it!)... and list its value.
* destination for dispersed camping, and a start-off point for hiking, and when in-season, hunting and fishing
* speak to the stable well-used route -- detail the good drainage, stable surface, and the often-used campsites, where multiple users practice multiple-use recreation with minimal conflict
* comment on the diversity of flora and fauna that you can see from the campsite and route, and talk about how those critters and plants are visibly unaffected by responsible recreation in their vicinity
* comment on your history of use, bring in how your parents used the same campsite
* talk about how you, your club, and/or your acquaintences regularly use of the resource, with no discernable impact on the resource

Throw in a few of these, because they set us up well for appeal:
* this route provides a diversity of experience, and allows multiple friends to visit the campsite, whether they arrive by car, 4x4, dune buggy, ATV, or motorycle
* expound on its value NOT as a loop -- tell how you like camping a the end of a trail, with less traffic

Round it off by asking the Forest Supervisor and his team to keep this route and other nearby routes open (list a few!), regardless of the Alternative chosen, in keeping with his duty to manage Eldorado National Forest for multiple uses.

Sign the letter with your name, and any affiliations you may have (clubs, friends organizations, associations, and etc.)

...Now take that same letter and substitute in 5-10 neighboring trails with the same content, because you have driven by these trails while exploring, and believe that they will have the same level of recreational opportunity, or have heard report of such from your buddies. Click-and-drag to change it up a bit, and have your family sign these letters with their names and affiliations... surely they will have accompanied you on your adventures.

WORK THE SYSTEM!

Randii

And just remember, the route des thing has been going on for a while, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed by people who are pissed off to see the way things are now and yet who never came to the meetings or got involved when this all started - almost 2 years ago in the late Summer of 2005.
Scott, I hear that frustration, and feel some of it, as well.

Still, as your friend, who has walked around the Forest with you, and wants to be able to 'wheel with you and your son, Jake, in the future, I respectfully challenge you to get over it. I'm working on doing that from this end, as well -- sometimes more successfully than others.

We need to welcome ANYONE who can pick up a pen and write a meaningful letter to try to get routes included, regardless of whether they are new to the game. Not just that, we have to actively go out and provide the pen, paper, and meaningful words to folks who wouldn't normally respond... we need anyone and everyone who will support responsible motorized recreation.

With great respect to one of the more active folks on Rubicon,

Randii

Kk this is kind of a dumb question but havn't seen it addressed directly so here it goes.........

Is it required or in our advantage/disadvantage to supply a comment on particular trails on a trail by trail basis or do we lump all said trails into one large volume type book and make a single submission to the USFS?

OK everyone, I'm reminding everyone ONCE this is a NC17 rated forum so many of us can read it from work (while on our breaks of course ;)) and four letter language, threats, etc will NOT be tolerated. There are plenty of other ways to convey your points/emotions that are work safe.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled government sponsored lubeless butt reaming (presented reach around free by the USFS) already in progress :flipoff2:


:usa:

OK everyone, I'm reminding everyone ONCE this is a NC17 rated forum so many of us can read it from work (while on our breaks of course ;)) and four letter language, threats, etc will NOT be tolerated. There are plenty of other ways to convey your points/emotions that are work safe.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled government sponsored lubeless butt reaming (presented reach around free by the USFS) already in progress :flipoff2:


:usa:


Sorry...my bad.

I am just a little worked up.