In the past few days, you guys and gals seem to have grasp the gravity of the situation and forged ahead with a plan to accomplish the task of keeping routes open.

Great, keep up the good work.

I will impart a couple of new issues to keep in mind as you are moving forward.

Inventoried Roadless Areas - To my knowledge, this should not be much of a problem in Eldorado. I do know it will be an issue with Inyo NF and a couple of others.

The Forest has a list of "Inventoried Roadless Areas". Each Forest plan should identify two types of management. The most restrictive prohibits route construction and re-construction. The second prohibits route construction but allows limited route re-construction. In a tortured technical definition, the Forest is not reviewing routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas to be included in the final designated route system.

Anyone encountering this issue, PLEASE CONTACT ME!!!!!

Cultural/Historic Surveys - The Forest does have a document dealing with how cultural surveys will be addressed in the route designation process. It is on the Region 5 web site. I recommend that you read the document.

I am in the midst of discussion with BLM where an event permit is being held until the cultural surveys are complete. I have a problem in that whether the event is held or not, the agency is required to complete the cultural survey. As such, it should not be on the back of recreation to pay for work the agency is required to accomplish.

Now, WRT the route designation process, cultural surveys are going to be required on routes. At some point in time, the issue will be addressed and the apparent stock answer from the agency is they will keep the route closed until the cultural survey is complete.

Again, if anyone encounters this issue PLEASE CONTACT ME!!!

I am doing some research (yes, I have been in contact with BRC) to clarify the rules involved and working a way to address the issues. I know some specific areas where these are issues. I need more specific examples.

The cultural resource issue is very real in the ENF, many, many recreation projects have been held up as a result, including the installation of bear proof trash receptacles at campgrounds.

There are pretty much no roads on Alt D inside roadless areas. What exactly are you looking for?

There are some:
Rubicon and Barret Lake trail go through roadless areas. Also there is private property inside roadless areas to the north of Desolation.

Thanks.

The access to private property is outside the route designation.

Interesting that Rubicon and Barret Lake go through "roadless".

As the county has claimed Rubicon, it should not be an issue. Barret Lake may receive attention depending on how the Forest Plan defines the roadless area.

If it is in the more restrictive zone, it may be a target for closure (not designating).

If it is in the zone that permits "reconstruction" it MAY be safe unless resource issues can be cited which would mean that the prohibition against "reconstruction" would be used to justify not designating it.

You have pinpointed a high interest route to ensure sufficient comments are generated in support of......

With much less routes (in alt D) it will be soooooo much easier for the enviros to target and focus on individual trails to shut down. Strawberry and Barrett come to mind. They both pass through sensitive areas and it will be easier for the enviros to get them closed after the route des process is over.

Thanks.

The access to private property is outside the route designation.

Interesting that Rubicon and Barret Lake go through "roadless".

As the county has claimed Rubicon, it should not be an issue. Barret Lake may receive attention depending on how the Forest Plan defines the roadless area.

If it is in the more restrictive zone, it may be a target for closure (not designating).

If it is in the zone that permits "reconstruction" it MAY be safe unless resource issues can be cited which would mean that the prohibition against "reconstruction" would be used to justify not designating it.

You have pinpointed a high interest route to ensure sufficient comments are generated in support of......

I hear ya but I asked and will in writing, under what jurisdiction they have to designate private property as roadless without the owners consent.

I need to double check the Barrett and Rubicon, but at 2AM it looked like it.

Back to the day job

OK I found it.

Now you have a few more high interest routes to ensure you provide comments on.....

OK I found it.

Link? Section? anything....please don't make me start thumbimg throught the Document :grinpimp:

it is in Chapter three LOL look under roadless

Should we comment on how icorrect the DEIS is?

Barrett Lake 4WD Trail (12N72A) pg291

Barrett Lake undefined 12N77A 4WD only pg 291

Barrett 4WD trail (11N26F), pg 272

I've haven't done Barrett yet. It took me a while to search it on the map with all the different route numbers the DEIS list's it as:shaking:

Definitely!!!

If you find errors in the DEIS, note them in your comments.

The public comment period is the time to point out errors, omissions, potential violation of law, or any other issue that you believe is wrong.

You can also provide new information that helps define the issues.

Does anyone have a copy of the "project record" referred to in the DEIS? I haven't found it on the cd or webpage. I'm thinking it may help my substative comments.

You might check the Eldorado web site.

Also, look for SOPA - Schedule of Proposed Actions

That is the quarterly document that provide the pending actions the Forest will be working on.