I Am Beyond Ticked Off At Evryone!

[Kurtuleas]

Am I the only one saving the freakin forest?

We only have 12 days left to respond to the DEIS people! Now is the time to get to work! Not September 4th! Responding in writing to the DEIS is IMPERITIVE!

If you just send in 4-5 comments a day to the forest service, it MAY save us a few trails.

Prove it to me!

PLEASE post your comments here after you respond:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607421

In this way people can also pull ideas from other comments.

If you do not want everyone to read your comments, post the FS responce here if you have e-mailed it. (you could win a bottle of Jack)

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607294

I know others have responded, and many have done a lot of work, but I am challenging everyone to step it up. Do it or lose it.

E-mail to respond to the DEIS is:

comments-pacificsouthwest-eldorado@fs.fed.us

[Simple Man]

Eldorado National Forest
Route Designation Project
Project Team Leader
Jason Nedlo
100 Forni Road
Placerville, CA 95667
eldoradoroutes@fs.fed.us

August 21, 2007


Jason,

This is a generic letter to request that the bypasses and turnouts on the trails within the Eldordo National Forest be kept open. I was not about to try and read through the more than 700 pages and pick out every example. As usual, the Forest Service has created a document that the general public will not have the ability to completely digest.

The bypasses and turnouts on the local trails allow broken rigs to get out of the way of other users. This prevents another vehicle from possibly encroaching on the edge of the trail as it tries to get around the broken vehicle.

The bypasses also allow different difficulty levels for different users. Not all OHV Users want the same type of trail. Some are new to the sport and require a way around the more difficult obstacles. Some users are in a less equipped rig and do not wish to risk damage to their vehicle. Bypasses provide the answers.

Some of the bypasses and turnouts that are proposed to be closed have been in use for many years, most with the approval from the Forest Service. Please don’t take them away now.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Doug Barr
Lake Tahoe Hi-Lo’s
North Tahoe Trail Dusters








Content of the others with the same header & signature:


Jason,

Closure is not a recognized management practice. It is the avoidance of management.

I am disappointed in my National Forest Service. The forests in this great nation are for the people. You should be finding ways to allow more people to use and enjoy more of the forest, not working toward excluding a certain type of user. I’m reminded of blacks having to ride the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain.

Instead of your line of protecting the forest from the people, you should be protecting the forest for the people. I wonder if can see the difference. There are many different types of users of our public lands. No one type of user should have priority over another.

OHV use is a proper and recognized use of our public lands. That line has been documented coming from the National Forest Service. We, as volunteers, are always there to step up and do the work of the Forest Service to keep our trails healthy. And now you want to take them away from us.

I am asking you to reconsider the proposed alternatives and allow the other alternatives provided by the OHV users.



Jason,

Keep the McKinney Trail open!

The McKinney Trail has been recognized by the Eldorado forest in the past, check your old maps. At one point, government work was performed on this route. There are several cement culverts along the trail. This trail should remain open.

The new re-write of the Forest Service maps putting the trail in a watershed or what ever the new designation says, is a crooked way to shut down the trail. You know that it deserves to be there, but you (the FS) have created a new water area to deny OHV users the use of a trail.

It is not a user created route. It is a historical route. It has been around for decades. It offers an easier way out of the trail is you happen to break something. It would be the choice for emergency vehicles to access the trail.

For several years it has been used to bring in maintenance supplies and equipment for the Rubicon Trail. By eliminating this trail you will make it more difficult to maintain the Rubicon Trail and that seems to go against what the Forest Service is all about.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Jason,

Seasonal closures should not be considered!

The OHV trails within the Eldorado National Forest all offer something different. At different times of the year, each trail changes its personality. We as OHV users like to experience the different personalities of the trails.

Closing the forest during the winter to wheeled OHV users would prevent us from being able to see the forest through all four seasons. Due to the limited use of the forest in winter, a drive in January is nothing like driving the forest in June.

I would think the Forest Service would encourage more OHV Users to travel in the winter. It would lower the demand in the summer if we were able to continue to “get of fix” in the winter. Also, over the snow OHV use is the best for the forest from the environmental point of view.

Trails should be closed if there is a good chance of environmental damage. Predetermined dates on a calendar of the depth of the snow should not be the reason that a trail gets closed seasonally. It shouldn’t matter if the roads are paved or dirt, with a good covering of snow it doesn’t matter.

Please don’t take away our winter enjoyment of the Eldorado National Forest.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Jason,

The rules for over the snow travel need to be re-written.

Unrestricted over the snow travel for wheeled vehicles should remain and a legal way to see the Eldorado National Forest. It is probably the best way environmentally for wheeled access.

Over the snow use should not be restricted to only paved roads. What’s the point? All over the state of California we are allowed to travel on paved roads with snow of any depth. Why not the ENF?

Having a two foot depth requirement does not make any sense either. Somewhere along the road you have to travel over snow one inch deep to get to the two inch deep snow, etc. By creating this arbitrary depth, you actually close the whole forest. Of course that may be your goal.

Roads should be closed if they pose a potential environmental damage. Regular maintenance would prevent that possibility. Roads should not be closed by a date on a calendar or the depth of the snow.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Jason,

I am writing to protest the suggested closure of the original route to the top of Sourdough Hill. The original route should remain open as well as the newer logging road to the communications building.

There has been a lot of talk during this route designation about the “quality of experience”. This suggested closure is a prime example of not retaining that quality. The original trail is a narrow, challenging and beautiful trail that winds its way toward the top of Sourdough Hill. It is the perfect example of what a Jeep trail is all about. The newer logging road is the suggested replacement. This logging road is 20+ feet wide, boring, easy and unsightly. Everything that the OHV user wants in a trail is missing on this road.

Even though the two roads end up in the same place the journey is extremely different. It’s the difference between walking though New York’s Central Park on the paved road versus hiking the Pacific Crest trail.

The original trail has been in place for decades. It is a solid trail that has been well maintained over the years by the local OHV clubs. Please allow this trail to remain as a system road within the Eldorado National Forest.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Jason,

I am writing to protest the closure of the spur roads around Spider Lake and Buck Island Lake. These spur roads should be allowed to remain to provide a quality camping experience to the users of the Rubicon Trail.

These spur roads allow the users to get away from the traffic on the Rubicon Trail and closer to the lakes near by. This makes for a better forest experience. It also reduces the possibility of a one vehicle side swiping another if the vehicles were required to be parked along the trail.

By removing these spur roads and forcing the trail users to park along more forest damage is being done. Although the vehicles will be parked to the side to allow full use of the trail, the old campsite are too far away to use. This will lead to the eventual construction of new camping sites all along the Rubicon Trail.

The current campsites can be improved upon by fixed fire rings and hardening the borders to prevent increasing the size of the camp. These sites have been in use for decades and are already hardened to have minimal effect on the forest.

Hikers are not required to leave their packs and boots by the trail. Where the national rule is to pull over not more than one vehicle length from the trail, there is no ‘one hiker length’ restriction for hikers, don’t ask the OHV users to give up their established camping spots.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



Jason,

I am asking that the Eldorado National Forest back off the current timeline and postpone selecting and alternative.

The timeframe of this process is too short for the forest service to get out in the field and check the conditions of each trail regarding the feedback it is currently getting from the users.

The managers of this forest are running scared due to a lawsuit filed by a single individual. That lawsuit affected thousands of users. The lawsuit forced the FS to follow a 1990 management plan. That plan called for 400+ miles of new trail yet there have been no new trails added to the system since 1990. You should fear a second lawsuit.

Don’t swing from not having an OHV plan to implementing a plan so restrictive that the OHV users have to file a lawsuit. Then, only the lawyers win then.

Another point is the size of the current proposal document. 780+ pages! We are working people. We don’t have the time or speak the “legaleze” needed to fully understand this document. Please add time and steps to this process to make sure that the users can understand and comment on every aspect.

Please choose from within each alternatives and from the suggestions by the users to create a fair plan for all user types.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.



This is going to ba a lot of reading if everybody posts up everything they sent.



Doug

[Kurtuleas]

[Jeepndel]

You want comments? (), here ya go.
I combined mine with Doug's (SimpleMan) and CA4WDC comments:

Dear Jason Nedlo, EIS Team Leader, and Ramiro Villavazo, Forest Supervisor:

I am disappointed with the direction the Eldorado National Forest has taken in this travel management planning process and reject the alternatives presented in the DEIS. To that end, I support and ask you to act in accordance with the August 2, 2007 request of the BlueRibbon Coalition to “withdraw the current DEIS and associated public comment period and conduct supplemental analysis and issue a supplemental EIS (SEIS) and seek input on additional alternatives to those presented in the DEIS” for the reasons cited in the BlueRibbon Coalition letter.

At the same time, I submit these additional comments to ensure my standing in the NEPA process and ask that you include them in the record and keep me informed on any further planning and decisions regarding Travel Management Planning on the Eldorado National Forest.
My additional comments are as follows:

1. It is my observation the current DEIS is not a listing of alternatives, but merely a ranking of the degrees of closure you are attempting to implement. I officially request you to develop Alternative R, as you call it, into a full-fledged, stand-alone Alternative. This is known as the BlueRibbon Coalition Alternative. This option lays the framework for a very workable alternative to your current closure and restrictive alternatives. By dispsering and redistributing the suggestions in Alternative R, you have watered down the entire framework for what could be a viable Alternative. The DEIS is not a fully completed document until you develop Alternative R into a legitimate EIS Alternative.

2. I request that the bypasses and turnouts on the trails within the Eldorado National Forest be kept open. The bypasses and turnouts on the local trails allow broken rigs to get out of the way of other users. This prevents another vehicle from possibly encroaching on the edge of the trail or creating an illegal bypass as it tries to get around the broken vehicle. The bypasses also allow different difficulty levels for different users.
Not all OHV Users want the same type of trail. Some are new to the sport and require a way around the more difficult obstacles. Some users are in a less equipped rig and do not wish to risk damage to their vehicle. Bypasses provide the answers. Some of the bypasses and turnouts that are proposed to be closed have been in use for many years, most with the approval from the Forest Service. Please don’t take them away now.

3. This DEIS is too cumbersome and incomplete for the average forest user to understand or wade through. The USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest has created a document that the general public will not have the ability to completely digest. I request you throw it out, start over, and issue a simpler and more understandable DEIS. In fact, I revert back to my original request that you issue an SEIS.

4. Keep the McKinney Trail open! The McKinney Trail has been recognized by the Eldorado forest in the past, check your old maps. At one point, government work combined with volunteer efforts going back to the 1980’s and possibly earlier was performed on this route. There are several cement culverts along the trail. This trail should remain open.

The new re-write of the Forest Service maps putting the trail in a watershed or whatever the new designation says, is not an acceptable way to shut down the trail. You know that it deserves to be there, but you (the FS) have created a new watershed area to deny OHV users the use of a trail.

McKinney Trail is not a user created route. It is a historical route. It has been around for decades. It offers an easier way out of the trail is you happen to break something. It would be the choice for emergency vehicles to access the trail. For several years it has been used to bring in maintenance supplies and equipment for the Rubicon Trail. By eliminating this trail you will make it more difficult to maintain the Rubicon Trail and that seems to go against what the Forest Service is all about.

5. Seasonal closures should not be considered! The OHV trails within the Eldorado National Forest all offer something different at different times of the year. Each trail changes its personality throughout the seasons and I use the trail all year long, as does my club, several members of Friends of the Rubicon, and other users. We as OHV users like to experience the different personalities of the trails.

Closing the forest during the winter to wheeled OHV users would prevent us from being able to see the forest through all four seasons. Due to the limited use of the forest in winter, a drive in January is nothing like driving the forest in June. I would think the Forest Service would encourage more OHV Users to travel in the winter. Over the snow OHV use is the best for the forest from the environmental point of view, so restricting this seasonal access makes no sense.

Trails should be closed only if there is a good chance of environmental damage that cannot be mitigated. But predetermined dates on a calendar of the depth of the snow should not be the reason that a trail gets closed seasonally. It shouldn’t matter if the roads are paved or dirt, with a good covering of snow it doesn’t matter. I request you revert to an OPEN unless SIGNED CLOSED concept wherein the any restrictions to use are based on conditions and user involvement. No pre-determined (set time frame) closures during winter should be built into this plan. Please don’t take away our winter enjoyment of the Eldorado National Forest.


6. The rules for over the snow travel need to be re-written. Unrestricted over the snow travel for wheeled vehicles should remain and a legal way to see the Eldorado National Forest. It is probably the best way environmentally for wheeled access.

Over the snow use should not be restricted to only paved roads. What’s the point? All over the state of California we are allowed to travel on paved roads with snow of any depth. Why not the ENF?

Having a two foot depth requirement does not make any sense either. Somewhere along the road you have to travel over snow one inch deep to get to the two inch deep snow, etc. By creating this arbitrary depth, you actually close the whole forest. This is unacceptable.

Roads should be closed only if they pose a potential environmental damage that cannot be mitigated. Regular maintenance and volunteer involvement would prevent that possibility. Roads should not be closed by a date on a calendar or the depth of the snow. I request you leave the Forest and all roads and trails open all year, including over the snow travel.


7. I protest the suggested closure of the original route to the top of Sourdough Hill. The original route should remain open as well as the newer logging road to the communications building.

There has been a lot of talk during this route designation about the “quality of experience”. This suggested closure is a prime example of not retaining that quality. The original trail is a narrow, challenging and beautiful trail that winds its way toward the top of Sourdough Hill. It is the perfect example of what a Jeep trail is all about. The newer logging road is the suggested replacement. This logging road is 20+ feet wide, boring, easy and unsightly. Everything that the OHV user wants in a trail is missing on this road.

Even though the two roads end up in the same place the journey is extremely different. It’s the difference between walking though New York’s Central Park on the paved road versus hiking the Pacific Crest trail.

The original trail has been in place for decades. It is a solid trail that has been well maintained over the years by the local OHV clubs. Please allow this trail to remain as a system road within the Eldorado National Forest.

8. I protest the closure of the spur roads around Spider Lake and Buck Island Lake and request you leave open our access to these lakes and camping areas. These spur roads should be allowed to remain to provide a quality camping experience to the users of the Rubicon Trail.

These spur roads allow the users to get away from the traffic on the Rubicon Trail and closer to the lakes nearby. This makes for a better forest experience. It also reduces the possibility of a one vehicle side swiping another if the vehicles were required to be parked along the trail.

By removing these spur roads and forcing the trail users to park along and within the trail, more forest damage is being done. Although the vehicles will be parked to the side to allow full use of the trail, the old campsite are too far away to use. This will lead to the eventual construction of new camping sites all along the Rubicon Trail.

The current campsites can be improved upon by fixed fire rings and hardening the borders to prevent increasing the size of the camp. These sites have been in use for decades and are already hardened to have minimal effect on the forest.

Hikers are not required to leave their packs and boots by the trail. Where the national rule is to pull over not more than one vehicle length from the trail, there is no ‘one hiker length’ restriction for hikers, don’t ask the OHV users to give up their established camping spots. I request this arbitrary and capricious restriction be lifted, dumped and done-away with.

9. I request the Eldorado National Forest back off the current timeline and postpone selecting and alternative. The timeframe of this process is too short for the forest service to get out in the field and check the conditions of each trail regarding the feedback it is currently getting from the users.

10. I request the Rock Creek area be retained and managed for motorized, particularly dirt bike, recreation with a vast network of trails, loop trails, and access points. I support the comments of the American Motorcyclists Association and California Enduro-Riders Association.
11. I request that the Mud Lake, Mormon Emigrant, and Pardoe trail system remain designated, open and useable by motorized recreationists, ATV and street legal, along with all side roads and spurs, and camping areas for dispersed camping. This area has historical significance as well as historic use by ranchers, deer hunters and recreationists. I use this area several times a year, every year, for club runs and events and outings.

12. I have several generic, yet directed questions about this plan I would like answered before any decisions are made. Those questions are:
• a. Why are you not designating dispersed camping sites for Forest users and why close spur and side roads that allow wood-cutting and dispersed camping?

• b. In all of your alternatives except the No Action alternative you have limited the parking of a motorized vehicle to one vehicle length from the edge of the route surface for parking and dispersed camping. This is unrealistic, not to mention a public safety issue. Why would you build in such a plan for disaster and what is your rationale for this measure?

• c. What science did you use to determine that 24 inches of snow would allow wheeled vehicles to use road in the winter? Why not less? And where do you take that measurement?

• d. The seasonal closure is unrealistic and not needed; I request to drop it completely from the plan and explain why you think it necessary to impose such a closure?

• e. There is no definitions of terms in the DEIS to explain several of the terms used. Why did you leave out such critical information?

• f. What are the reasons for closing many of these roads and trails?

• g. Where is the money going to come from to implement these actions?


Let me close by letting you know that I am a member of the following groups and organizations:
BlueRibbon Coalition; California Association of 4Wheel Drive Clubs; Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR); United Four Wheel Drive Associations; California Off Road Vehicle Association; Tread Lightly!; and the Mother Lode Rockcrawlers 4Wheel Drive Club.

Ihave been recreating in your Forest since the 1980’s, and use your National Forest dozens of times a year, camping, fishing, four-wheeling and recreating with my family. I do the Rubicon Trail probably ten times a year, and even more on some sections of the trail. I lead the Friends of the Rubicon and we are the ones investing thousands of hours in volunteer work to keep this particular trail and its side and spur roads open to us for motorized recreation, dispersed camping and other Forest recreational activities.

I have 25 years of land use and access experience spanning 45 years of four-wheeling and motorized recreation experience, and ask that you consider all these comments and provide responses to me while you revamp the entire DEIS and issue a SEIS with more time for all users to comment and digest such a complicated effort.

Respectfully submitted,

Del Albright
Trail Boss, Friends of the Rubicon
Ambassador, BlueRibbon Coalition
State Environmental Affairs Coordinator, CA4WDC (and contact info)

[Rubicrawler]

My latest email:

Dear Jason Nedlo, EIS Team Leader, and Ramiro Villavazo, Forest Supervisor,

As a long time, multi-generational user of the forest, I would like to see road 14N05 added to the inventory list. This section of trail from Mc Kinstry Lake to Ellis Creek is a route that I've used many times over the last 32 years. This route allows easy access (most of which is 2wd) to the Rubicon Trail and I've personally used it to quickly and safely remove ill and injured Users from the area as well as remove disabled OHV's from the trail.

In closing, 14N05 is an important link that needs to included in the final inventory.

Thank you for your consideration!

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Langford
Brentwood, CA
Member Affiliation:
Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers
Friends of the Rubicon
Blue RIbbon Coalition

[Bebe]

NOW WE'RE TALKIN'

YEAH BABY!!!!

[RealJeepMan]

Keep it going everyone, i wrote and faxed in 45 just today!!!!

I emailed another 25

Lets overwhelm them

Ryan

[Bebe]

Ryan, YOU ROCK!!!!!

[BOUNTY1]

Done I combined a littel of Doug's and Del's.

[Rubicrawler]

Sent 4 more this afternoon

[rlwjaw]

Here is my letter both e-mail and snail mail;
From :

Richard Wentworth


Tracy, California 95304

Tel:

In response to your decision to close so many roads in Eldarado National Forest, I am writing to protest , point out at least one error in your maps and make some suggestions.

I protest and oppose any road closures . All of the roads currently in use that you plan to close ,have been in use un restricted for many, many years and I claim the right to use these roads. I claim the publics right of eminent domain. I have been using these roads for over 50 years with out restriction and with aparent abandonment by land owners and the forest service. This is my rightof way to MY national forest. The precident has been set by the courts decision to allow the PUBLIC ACCESS to the coast through routes established over time through public and private land. Now I demand PUBLIC ACCESS to OUR national forest through these established roads through both public and private land.

The error I wish to point out is that you show a break in the road from Ellis Creek where it crosses Wentworth Springs , Rubicon Springs county road to McKrinstry Lake. This break is an obvious error in your maps since it has been on the maps at least since 1955 . I know this because I hav the maps to prove it. Also I have been using this road since the mid 1950"s. This error alone should be enough to terminate the entire road closure process untill accurate maps can be shown to the public. With out proper and accurate documentation I DEMAND that the entire DEIS plan be stopped and re-evaluated.

The suggestions I would like to make are simple;

1. Provide adaquite campng sites such as the Wentworth Springs public camp ground through out the Eldorado forest . One site that is in much need of a facility such as the afore mentioned is Buck Island Lake. A camp ground facility there would eleviate much of the confusion as to where people are allowed to park and camp.

2. Provide the public with accurate maps and up to date information. This should be done through public media such as national television since this is a NATIONAL FOREST.

3. Stop all national forest DEIS activity untill ALL of the PUBLIC can be notified of all of the illegal road closures.

4. Reconect the missing link of the Ellis Creek / McKinstry Lake road .

5. Provide and allow off road parking at attraction sites and locations such as Spider Lake and Buck Island Lake.

6. At sensitive river and stream crossings provide a safe and enviromentaly friendly crossing rather than closeing the road.

7. The closure of roads in the national forest is an arbitrary decision based on predijice against those who wish to enjoy the out doors in a motorized vehicle. Any decision to close roads can only lesd to law suits by the ACLU and others.

8. The time and resources of the forest service could be better utilized by establishing the Back Country Discovery Routes such as those that cross Oregon from California to Washington.



Thank You

Richard L. Wentworth


I left the address and phone on the original

[Jeepndel]

See other topic here but we're extended 'til Oct. 19th. Keep writing as long as you're in the mood -- but now we have time to do more digging and make more substantive comments and single out more trails for FLIPPIN' KEEPIN' 'EM OPEN!

Del