Ok. As some of you know, my name is included in the DEIS, I'm number 1114. If you look through the comments, no where is my number included.

After thinking about it, it made sense. I didn't make any "pleas" or "beg" for trails...I ONLY made comments to DIRECTLY CHANGE the document. Sorry..this is a long email...but indulge me. :)

So, I put both documents...side by side...along with my comments (THANK GOD for 24" Monitors)


I'll just do a few of my 100+ comments...so you can see my point.

Comment 1:
Comment: Page 48. Please name the Forest Trail specialist and recreational specialists that were used in this project. In addition, list their years of expertise, affliations and source of the funding used to pay for their services.

The third data source used for this analysis was collected in the field by the Forest trails specialist and Recreation specialist for this project.


RESULT: They did not list the qualifications for this person or anything about them on this page. I have YET to find it. If anyone has...let me know.

Comment 2:
Page 48. Modify this sentence: Public education and enforcement of regulations will successfully limit public travel to designated routes.

Change to: “may limit”

Result: They did change it. It now says: "Will Generally Limit". Ok...I'm satisfied with that.


Comment 3:
Comment: Page 51. Please add the following sentence after “For these reasons, there are no
known hazardous pollutants emitted in significant amounts in relation to this project.”

Add: Therefore, OHV use has no effect.


Result: They REMOVED THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, instead of placing my comment. Now...Sure...that's great. They removed some voodoo science....but the point of my comment was...to say IN WRITING that OHV use had NO EFFECT.


Commment 4:
Comment: Page 54. Please add after paragraph Vehicle Emissions

Add: Therefore, OHV use has no substantive effect on air quality.


Result: OK...this one is complicated....so bear with me.

The original paragraph here said:
Vehicle emissions in the project area are most concentrated along secondary highways 49, 50, and 88. The Forest does not have jurisdiction on vehicle use levels or emissions in any of these concentrated motorized areas. Recreation motorized use and emissions in the project area are more localized to roads and motorized trails, with generally sufficient wind dispersion to avoid air quality concerns. The EPA has set standards for emissions of nonroad engines and vehicles (snowmobiles, ATVs, boats, etc.). The standards for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO), are to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, and to regulate those emissions that contribute significantly to the formulation of ozone and carbon monoxide. Compliance with these standards requires manufacturers to apply existing
gasoline or diesel engine technologies to varying degrees, depending on the type of engine (USDA 2002).

THE NEW PARAGRAPH SAYS:
California is a diverse state with many sources of air pollution. To estimate the sources and quantities of pollution, the ARB, in cooperation with local air districts and industry, maintains an inventory of California emission sources. Sources are subdivided into four major emission categories: stationary sources, area-wide sources, mobile sources, and natural sources (CARB
2007).
Stationary source emissions are based on estimates made by facility operators and local air districts. Emissions from specific facilities can be identified by name and location. Area-wide emissions are estimated by ARB and local air district staffs. Emissions from areawide sources may be either from small individual sources, such as residential fireplaces, or from widely Eldorado National Forest Final EIS
3-8 Chapter 3
distributed sources that cannot be tied to a single location, such as consumer products and dust from unpaved roads. Mobile source emissions are estimated by ARB staff with assistance from districts and other government agencies. Mobile sources include on-road cars, trucks, and buses and other sources such as boats, off-road recreational vehicles, aircraft, and trains. Natural
sources are also estimated by the ARB staff and the air districts. These sources include biogenic hydrocarbons, geogenic hydrocarbons, natural wind-blown dust, and wildfires.
For the inventoried emission sources, the ARB compiles emission estimates for both the criteria pollutants and TACs. The 2007 California Almanac of Emissions and air Quality focuses on five criteria pollutants: ozone, PM, CO, NO2, and SO2. Emissions related to these criteria pollutants include reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), CO, oxides of sulfur (SOx),
ammonia (NH3), and directly emitted PM10 and PM2.5 (CARB 2007).
While some pollutants, such as CO, are directly emitted, others are formed in the atmosphere from precursor emissions. Such is the case with ozone, which is formed in the atmosphere when ROG and NOx precursor emissions react in the presence of sunlight. PM which includes PM10 and PM2.5, is a complex pollutant that can either be directly emitted or formed in the atmosphere
from precursor emissions. PM precursors include NOx, ROG, SOx, and NH3. Examples of directly emitted PM include dust and soot.
Hydrocarbon is a general term used to describe compounds comprised of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Hydrocarbons are classified as to how photochemically reactive they are: relatively reactive or relatively non-reactive. Emissions of Total Organic Gases (TOG) and Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG) are two classes of hydrocarbons measured for California’s emissions inventory. TOG includes all hydrocarbons, both reactive and non-reactive. In contrast, ROG includes only the reactive hydrocarbons.

Vehicle emissions in the project area are most concentrated along secondary highways 49, 50, and 88. The Forest does not have jurisdiction on vehicle use levels or emissions in any of these concentrated motorized areas. Recreation motorized use and emissions in the project area are more localized to roads and motorized trails, with generally sufficient wind dispersion to avoid
air quality concerns. The EPA has set standards for emissions of nonroad engines and vehicles (snowmobiles, ATVs, boats, etc.). The standards for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO), are to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, and to regulate those emissions that contribute significantly to the formulation of ozone and carbon monoxide. Compliance with these standards requires manufacturers to apply existing gasoline or diesel engine technologies to varying degrees, depending on the type of engine (US EPA 2002).


Anyone seeing a pattern here? They didn't include my comment. Instead, they added 2 more paragraphs to back up the original paragraph! The data now in the document, wasn't in the original document! In fact, I challenge anyone to say what is now included, is fair! They've completely re-written the entire section. It's a new document, in this section as far as I'm concerned. But guess what? We've all let our guard down...we've accepted now, for the most part..what they've written!

It's like here....let 'em comment on this first round....then we'll add A WHOLE BUNCH of new stuff that they won't comment on....and then we'll have more ammo to do new stuff later. I smell rat.


Another new Paragraph.

ANYONE CATCH THIS ONE??

Climate Change
The earth’s climate has been warming for the past century. It is believed that this warming trend
is related to the release of certain gases, commonly referred to as “greenhouse gases”, into the
atmosphere. The greenhouse gases (GHG) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons. Climate research has identified other greenhouse agents
that can drive climate change, particularly tropospheric ozone, atmospheric ozone, and
atmospheric aerosols (particles containing sulfate, black carbon or other carbonaceous
compounds).Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would otherwise be reflected from the
earth. As the infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is heated. An overall
warming trend has been recorded since the late 19th century, with the most rapid warming
occurring over the past two decades. The 10 warmest years of the last century all occurred within
Eldorado National Forest Final EIS
3-10 Chapter 3
the last 15 years, and it appears that the decade of the 1990s was the warmest in human history
(CARB 2007).
Projected future climate change may affect California in a variety of ways. Public health can
suffer due to; an increase in extreme temperatures and severe weather events resulting in,
escalating transmission of infections, disease, and air pollution. Agriculture is especially
vulnerable to altered temperature and rainfall patterns, and new pest problems. Forest ecosystems
would face increased fire hazards and would be more susceptible to pests and diseases. The Sierra
snowpack that functions as the state’s largest reservoir could shrink by one third by 2060, and to
half its historic size by 2090. Runoff that fills reservoirs will start in midwinter, not spring, and
rain falling on snow will trigger more flooding. The California coast is likely to face a rise in sea
level that could threaten its shorelines. Sea level rise and storm surges could lead to
contamination of drinking water, and damage to roads, causeways, and bridges.
California has been studying the impacts of climate change since 1988, when the legislature
approved AB 4420. This legislation directed the California Energy Commission (CEC), in
consultation with the ARB and other agencies, to study the implications of global warming on
California’s environment, economy, and water supply. The CEC was also directed to prepare and
maintain the State’s inventory of GHG emissions. In 2002, recognizing that global warming
would impact California, the legislature approved AB 1493. This bill directed the ARB to adopt
regulations to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from motor vehicles. The ARB’s staff implementation proposal of these regulations
was approved by the ARB in September 2004. These regulations will be reviewed and may be
modified by the California Legislature. AB 1803 was approved in 2006. This bill directed the
ARB to prepare, adopt and update the greenhouse gas emission inventory formerly required to be
adopted and updated by the CEC. Also approved was the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (AB 32). Among the several new responsibilities for ARB is the requirement to
establish the 1990 GHG emissions level as a limit to be achieved by 2020 (CARB 2007).
Greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles that effect climate change include CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
CO2, CH4, N2O emissions resulting directly from operation of the vehicle,
CO2 emissions resulting from operating the air conditioning system,
HFC emissions from the air conditioning system due to either leakage, losses during
recharging, or release from scrappage of the vehicle at end of life, and
Upstream emissions associated with the production of the fuels used by the vehicle.
In California the climate change emission standards incorporate all of these elements. The
standards are expressed in terms of “CO2-equivalent” emissions, which take into account the fact
that different pollutants vary in the severity of their climate change impact. The greenhouse gas
emission standards have been incorporated into the current Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV)
program, along with the other light and medium-duty automotive emission standards. The
standards adopted by the Board begin phasing for the 2009 through 2016 vehicle model years.
When fully phased in, the near term (2009-2012) standards will result in about a 22 percent
reduction as compared to the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013-2016) standards will result in
about a 30 percent reduction.


It's brand new....NOT in the original report!


Comment 6: BEAR!
. Please add after sentence: Black bear are
routinely observed on the forest and Sierra Nevada populations are estimated to be increasing
(CDFG 2004).

Add: Therefore, with increasing populations, OHV use under the current Alternative A, has had absolutely no effect on Black Bear population, in fact the population has grown under the current Alternative A.


Result: This was added:
Forest-scale MIS habitat and population monitoring for black bear is summarized in the project MIS report and Eldorado MIS Report (see the project record).

My comments were not included....in fact, their comments were embellished to try to nullify my comment!

I'm pissed...that's all I have to say.:mad3:

Lawyer...on standby.

Ken,

you put waaay more energy into researching the "cluster" I call the comments section.


I started to do mine and said " Forget it, I have standing, that's all that matters".

It's a mess.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding from the call on Tuesday was that if you have concerns with the FEIS and don't use the administrative appeal, you will loose your standing to address this further.

Correct. I am appealing, and I will send in something regarding the comment cluster.

I'm pissed...that's all I have to say.:mad3:

Lawyer...on standby.

I'm pissed too, Ken. No one here knows me (except you), but as you know, I sent in 200+ carefully researched, substantive comments that also sought to destroy the junk science that the DEIS was based on. I'm not even listed as a commenter, my comments are nowhere to be seen.

My comments were E-mailed to them on time, I have a read receipt message from their system, and a read receipt message from one of their employees (who may have been falling off her chair at that moment, seeing all this "work" I had dumped in her lap). So yup, they received those comments and I can prove it.

Nice guy that I am, I called and spoke to their ID team leader, pointed out their error, he said he'd track those comments down and get back to me. A few weeks later after hearing nothing, I called again, left a polite voice mail reminding him. I still haven't heard back, so no more Mr. nice guy.

By not acknowledging and responding to my comments, the Forest Service has violated federal law 40 CFR 1503.4. Here is that law:

http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1503.htm#1503.4

Think I'm not going to appeal and point out their egregious violation of federal law? Think again.

Why am I going to do that? Because it is OUR forest and they have no credible reasons for restricting any of us on any road or trail that exists in that forest. Had they read your comments and my comments and dealt with them appropriately, they would know that.

So, I want every single known route in that forest opened to us. Sorry, but I'm not taking no for an answer. I'm a law abiding citizen of the USA and people who violate the law (like the Forest Service in this case) just plain tick me off! :mad3:

By not acknowledging and responding to my comments, the Forest Service has violated federal law 40 CFR 1503.4. Here is that law:

http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1503.htm#1503.4



They broke the law...Clear and simple. They've left enough room for a mack truck to drive through for us on a lawsuit.

I think the other thing that we're all guilty of losing sight of....Alternative A, where all trails CURRENTLY in existence and in use by the USFS satisfies the original lawsuit. Everyone was THRILLED at the outcome, because it wasn't D. But the net result is....a LOT of trails that were IDENTIFIED and MARKED AS OFFICIAL TRAILS IN ALTERNATIVE A, were lost. Gone. I don't accept this as satisfactory after I ripped their voodoo science, unlawful document apart!

The decision was made, with a substandard, unlawfully written document. The decision was MADE LONG before this DEIS was released. It just helped them knock a few hundred miles off the map....for good.

Ken,

you put waaay more energy into researching the "cluster" I call the comments section.

That's just it Jacqueline. I'm not IN the comments section. Of course...that makes sense, because I didn't write ANY comments like "Please use Alternative A" like 50 other people did.

I ONLY wrote comments that ADDED, DELETED or MODIFIED comments in the DEIS document.

Go ahead. Take the original PDF and line it up with new PDF...and go through it. You'll be shocked how Chapter 3 is HUGE with LOTS of new stuff that wasn't in the original document.

Talk about your CLASSIC BAIT and SWITCH.

Welcome GrizzlyGuy. I recognize you from the obsession site. I was waiting to hear how the meeting with Jason went but it sounds like you never had it.

I still can't get a substantive answer to why specific routes I commented on don't show they were commented on in the final. *If I go to the office, I can find them and see that they were highlighted though.*

I was begining to feel like I was the only one that had a BIG problem with the FEIS.

Bebe...you ROCK

That's just it Jacqueline. I'm not IN the comments section. Of course...that makes sense, because I didn't write ANY comments like "Please use Alternative A" like 50 other people did.

I ONLY wrote comments that ADDED, DELETED or MODIFIED comments in the DEIS document.

Go ahead. Take the original PDF and line it up with new PDF...and go through it. You'll be shocked how Chapter 3 is HUGE with LOTS of new stuff that wasn't in the original document.

Talk about your CLASSIC BAIT and SWITCH.

Wait....did you check the revised list? YOU ARE NOT ON THE LIST???:mad3:

I have it at home.

Some more of my thoughts from a different thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT4Runner
Anything in particular on which we should do an administrative appeal?

If we appeal, do we only get to comment later on the items we appealed on?
__________________________________________________ ______________

You brought up a good point. My understanding of the conversation was that if you have an issue with the FEIS and don't appeal it at this time, it's a done deal, nada, game over...you should have appealed it while you had the chance.
I'm a little baffled at how active this board was during the DEIS and now not much is being said on the Eldorado FEIS. I don't think it's over. Sure the FS may have listened to our sides comments and made some adjustments but do you think CSNC and the CBD are going to kick back and not appeal because they got some roads closed and there's a winter closure?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=681624

I can't believe that ALL of the alternatives had some guideline for over snow travel 12"-24" and the modified B has NO over snow travel exceprt ML 3,4 & 5 routes and this isn't more of a problem with everyone. They can close the routes earlier and leave them closed later but Ramiro told me it will take a NEPA process to open them during the closed period.

What about the lower elevation routes? On a sunny day in January at 3000' I won't be able to drive down a bone dry ML2 route!

It says they can open new routes as resources are available...resoureses=cash. The glass is half empty from my viewpoint. Maybe I'm off base and not privilaged to the secret forumn were all the talk is. I hope so!

I plan on preserving my valid existing rights....
__________________

You guys all rock! Keep up the fight, because there are literally millions of other Americans who are counting on your devotion to this issue to ensure we don't lose our land!!!
:beer:

Welcome GrizzlyGuy. I recognize you from the obsession site. I was waiting to hear how the meeting with Jason went but it sounds like you never had it.

I still can't get a substantive answer to why specific routes I commented on don't show they were commented on in the final. *If I go to the office, I can find them and see that they were highlighted though.*

I was begining to feel like I was the only one that had a BIG problem with the FEIS.

Bebe...you ROCK

Thanks for the welcome, Bebe! Yes, I was planning on going to their office in person to straighten things out, since the phone calls were getting me nowhere.

Then it occurred to me that this is an administrative process that works (or should work) in accordance with laws. The Record of Decision had already been issued, so while I might personally feel better if I managed to get an apology and a hand shake, *our cause* would be no better off. The decision would stand.

I'm with you, I was wondering why people seemed happy with the outcome. Sure, it wasn't as bad as it could have been, but it was far worse than what it SHOULD have been. The basis for the restrictions they imposed are invalid, simple as that.

And, even if they issue their errata that acknowledges and deals with our comments after the fact... the decision still stands. The only way the decision could have been different is if our comments had been incorporated into the DEIS before the deciding officer used that document as the basis for his decision. Since that didn't happen, appealing as you are doing is the only way to go. :)

So nope, no more trying to be nice for me, I'm going to use our laws to try and get us what we should have received in the first place: all known routes designated for motorized use.

IMHO, it was shameful how they treated some of Ken's comments. Instead of just conceding his valid points and making the changes he requested, they instead introduce new "facts" and information that none of us got an opportunity to review or comment on. Surely that violates the spirit of CEQ and NEPA laws, if not the letter of those laws.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, I'm not a lawyer. Just a geek who can spot junk enviro-wacko science a mile away. :shaking: :grinpimp:

Thanks for the welcome, Bebe!

Oops, sorry about that Bryan. I misread and thought the last line in that text was your signature. Saw you on ATVObsession and now my newbie head has been removed from my nether regions. It gets there more often than I'd like to admit. :emb2: :emb:

i received an email the other day from a guy who is requesting support for a lawsuit:
(see below)

"This is directed at anyone in Eldorado National forest
that has a mining claim, private property or that
prospect in areas that will be affected by the
Eldorado Travel Management Plan ( Road closures).

PLP has retained an attorney to appeal these road
closures in Eldorado and will also be addressing the
road closures in the other forests. If you feel that
you may or are being affected by these road closures,
please contact Jerry Hobbs at 909-889-3039 or
jerhobbs2@verizon.net.

We are looking for a few more names to put on the
lawsuit as affected parties. This will most likeley
turn into a lawsuit to keep the roads open.

Thank You
Jerry"

this was focused toward individuals who have mining claims or other permits to harvest the natural resources of the forest. Someone should follow up and see how serious this guy is and if he would hamper our plans or help them.. just my 2 cents...

i received an email the other day from a guy who is requesting support for a lawsuit:
(see below)

"This is directed at anyone in Eldorado National forest
that has a mining claim, private property or that
prospect in areas that will be affected by the
Eldorado Travel Management Plan ( Road closures).

PLP has retained an attorney to appeal these road
closures in Eldorado and will also be addressing the
road closures in the other forests. If you feel that
you may or are being affected by these road closures,
please contact Jerry Hobbs at 909-889-3039 or
jerhobbs2@verizon.net.

We are looking for a few more names to put on the
lawsuit as affected parties. This will most likeley
turn into a lawsuit to keep the roads open.

Thank You
Jerry"

this was focused toward individuals who have mining claims or other permits to harvest the natural resources of the forest. Someone should follow up and see how serious this guy is and if he would hamper our plans or help them.. just my 2 cents...


If you received that in an email, it was most likely from me to the Motherload Goldhounds group.

I'm not really sue what you mean by the term harvesting the natural resourses of the forest. Minors have valid existing rights and th PLP is going to stand up for them. If you'd like to know more about the PLP, the website is in my sig. You can come to your own conclusions. Give Jerry a call and see what he stands for...you've got nothing to loose and everything to gain.:D

That's just it Jacqueline. I'm not IN the comments section. Of course...that makes sense, because I didn't write ANY comments like "Please use Alternative A" like 50 other people did.

I ONLY wrote comments that ADDED, DELETED or MODIFIED comments in the DEIS document.

Go ahead. Take the original PDF and line it up with new PDF...and go through it. You'll be shocked how Chapter 3 is HUGE with LOTS of new stuff that wasn't in the original document.

Talk about your CLASSIC BAIT and SWITCH.

So as commenter 1114, you are saying that you do not have standing? OR that your comments have been paraphrased and generalized?

Jason mentioned that comments that were similar, were consolidated, and responded to.

Is there any phrase that were in your comments that are responded to? They broke the comments (according to a convo at Jackson) into 3 categories:

Comments that were considered and responded to, comments that were considered non substantive and responded to (these came mostly from comment generators), and comments that were considered and NOT responded to.:eek:

So as commenter 1114, you are saying that you do not have standing? OR that your comments have been paraphrased and generalized?

No. You're not understanding the problem. If you look at the list of people, I'm 1114. There are 2 documents....

Appendix C
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/feis/feis_v2_app_c.pdf

That is the response to public comments. Those comments are NON-SUBSTANTIVE. I didn't make ANY non-substantive comments. None, Zero. So the fact my name isn't listed (You can search that whole document for 1114, and you won't find it anywhere)

What I did, was write ONLY substantive comments: So my comments were either to ADD, DELETE or MODIFY this document (only chapter 3, the Voodoo Enviro stuff)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/documents/route/feis/feis_v1_ch3_no_maps.pdf


I'm going through this document, as so far...ONLY 1 CHANGE has been made. To defend my comments...they either ADDED more stuff to defend their stance or simply deleted the entire paragraph in order to avoid adding my comments.


Jason mentioned that comments that were similar, were consolidated, and responded to.

I can PROVE this didn't happen.

In my comments to the DEIS I wrote:

Please add after sentence: Black bear are routinely observed on the forest and Sierra Nevada populations are estimated to be increasing (CDFG 2004).

Add: Therefore, with increasing populations, OHV use under the current Alternative A, has had absolutely no effect on Black Bear population, in fact the population has grown under the current Alternative A.

They DID NOT do that. What they did was add THIS SENTENCE:

Forest-scale MIS habitat and population monitoring for black bear is summarized in the project MIS report and Eldorado MIS Report (see the project record).





Comments that were considered and responded to, comments that were considered non substantive and responded to (these came mostly from comment generators), and comments that were considered and NOT responded to.:eek:

There are 3 types of comments:

Non-Substantive - Those are responded to in the 1st link I posted.

Non-Responded - Those are comments like...Close this trail, to prevent Global Warming

Substantive - Comments that either ADD, DELETE or MODIFY the existing DEIS

At least 4 of my comments (The Bear included) were direct quotes from the class I took, and were written exactly as instructed in order to get action. They ignored them.

You got it, Ken!

I am PSYCHED. I spent all day yesterday (from 6 AM to 10:30 PM with short lunch/dinner breaks) writing my appeal along the lines of what you are describing. All my comments were *substantive* as well, and different laws/regulations apply (that they didn't follow).

My appeal is 270 pages long, but most of that are the 200+ substantive comments that they failed to process the first time along. The body of my appeal (without exhibits) is around 23 pages. I feel like I may have an A-bomb here

I just E-mailed it to you for review, I'd tell the crowd here more about it, but I want to keep it fairly private until the deadline for appeals expires. Wouldn't want the bad guys to try and counter it. :D

IMPORTANT: For anyone who is appealing, please read 36 CFR Part 215, especially 215.14, as it says exactly how you must appeal, and what your appeal must contain. You wouldn't want to do a bunch of hard work and have your appear rejected on some technicality. ;-)

Here it is, or just google "36 CFR Part 215":

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=f2b8c65f15c8ddfc9c383d0915923d1c;rg n=div5;view=text;node=36%3A2.0.1.1.5;idno=36;cc=ec fr

I'm slogging through my appeal, as well, though with sunny weather, it is DAMN hard to stay on task! I'd rather be out in it than just write about it!

It is frustrating... the Forest Service worked with us generally to improve the offering, but still fell short on answering specifics. I thought the specifics were the whole reason why they filed for an extension to take more time?

An ugly little truth that the Forest Service would just as soon we forgot: there was NOT a no-change alternative -- nor was there a true range of alternatives. Their 'range of alternatives' started after removing a thousand-plus miles of inventoried trails... and they started by recommending Alternative D, the second-most restrictive alternative. Yes, I'm happy that they came back to Alternative B, which was the second-least restrictive alternative, but the whole context is flawed, courtesy of CBD/CSNC/CWC lawsuit.

If you had a car that was worth 4000 dollars, and you were forced to accept offers of less than $2400, you'd be bummed, right? If the first offer was $1800, and you ended up selling the car for $2400, you'd be pleased about the $600 negotiated increase, but still bummed about the $1600 relative to what the car was worth, right? That's where we are... change out dollars for miles and you've got a pretty accurate metaphor for how Eldorado National Forest cheated the offered alternatives and skewed the available range of choices... and then picked the second-most restrictive alternative to position themselves well for later negotiating. Neither indicates that they are negotiating in good faith, nor does their wholesale omission of responses to so many substantive responses.

Randii

Exactly Randy. We got the SHAFT...everyone is happy about it. Wake up people.

I've posted enough proof that we got BAMBOOZLED. Read it....and you'll understand what happened.

WE GOT
http://www.atvobsession.com/pictures/pwned/owned1.jpg

YOU MUST APPEAL BY MAY 16TH

And you MUST FOLLOW these guidelines:

(a) It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official's decision should be reversed (paragraph (b)(6–9)).

(b) The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer §215.8 in writing. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following:

(1) Appellant's name and address (§215.2), with a telephone number, if available;

(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);

(3) When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;

(4) The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;

(5) The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§215.11(d));

(6) Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes;

(7) Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement;

(8) Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official's decision failed to consider the substantive comments; and

(9) How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy.

(c) The Appeal Deciding Officer shall not process an appeal when one or more of the following applies:

(1) An appellant's identity is not provided or cannot be determined from the signature (written or electronically scanned) and a reasonable means of contact is not provided.

(2) The appellant has not provided a reasonable means of contact.

(3) The decision cannot be identified.

(4) The appeal is illegible for any reason, including those submitted electronically in a format different from that specified in the legal notice.

What a bunch of HOGWASH!!!

Indicator Measure 1: Route density within grazing allotments is an indicator of multiple interrelated effects that result from motorized vehicle routes. Associated with increased route density there is an increase in public access and a corresponding increase in a wide range of associated human activities outside developed use areas. Route density increases access to areas for
recreation such as dispersed camping, picnicking and hunting as described in the recreation section.

Where the route density is comprised of concentrated road and trail opportunities, OHV riding and related activities increases.
Increased route density reduces areas for livestock to avoid vehicle and human interactions. Vehicle access and associated human uses sometimes leads to effects on livestock such as inadvertent spooking and livestock running from perceived danger as well as some intentional chasing by motorized vehicle users. These conditions sometimes lead to altered grazing use patterns, livestock stress, weight loss and related health problems.

This WHOLE second paragraph was added to the FEIS.

Check out the HYDROLOGY section...it's TOTALLY been re-written.

Neither indicates that they are negotiating in good faith, nor does their wholesale omission of responses to so many substantive responses.

Keep up the faith, Randii! You're right, we never had an opportunity to get full value for our car, that was denied to us from the very beginning. But I think we have a good shot at getting a lot more dollars for that car on appeal.

As Ken and I (and you I think?) learned in that class we attended, this process isn't about negotiation or being nice. It is an administrative process that must occur in accordance with law and regulations. The law says that when a substantive comment is received, it must be processed in a particular way.

In my case, I made 220 substantive comments similar to Ken's in that I went right after the basis for designating or not designating routes in the forest: the environmental "science" (actually junk science as they had it written). I did things like take the very same study they quoted, then cite some other part of it that said the opposite. Or cited other credible studies that said something else. Or inserted factually correct statements that reversed their arguments. That's all I did, over and over and over.

But NONE of my comments were even considered. So that's 220 counts of federal law violation for each relevant law (many) right there. Whoopsie, the Forest Service blew it, BIG.

That's why I think my appeal has a real good chance of succeeding. Had my comments been properly processed as required by law, much of their junk science would have been destroyed and replaced with accurate science. Mr. V would have (or should have) then decided more favorably for us, since there simply wouldn't have been a basis for the restrictions he did impose. But, I was denied my right as a citizen to participate in the process.

So the Forest Service can either give me what I ask for on appeal (basically a legal alternative A), or they are going to be having a real-REAL bad day in federal court when I prove these violations of federal law using their own records, then go on to prove negligence, and on to prove that my and other comments were treated with prejudice. Real-real-REAL bad day for them at that point. :mad3:

The choice is theirs. We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. Either way, we get lots more routes designated. I'm not taking no for an answer, not being nice, not negotiating. Will have to wait and see which way they want to go.

What a bunch of HOGWASH!!!

Uh-oh Ken, the Range guy strikes again. I spent an entire day just on him, destroying his arguments and assertions with comment after comment. I even quoted and cited a number of credible greenie studies to help me do that. But since I wasn't allowed to take my shots, there he is. :shaking: