Deer V trail signage

[Krusty Krab]

Was a beautiful day til this crap showed its ugly face. Hiked around a bit and didn't see any frogs or toads. Trail was empty as I was hiking past these signs and beyond. Did notice a big tree across the trail about 1 mile from the pavement. Way around it looked hazardous to most rigs-big rock in the middle and trees on either side.

 

[justintpryor]

That Sucks
At the last meeting there was talk of some kind of "official" statement about its closure, where do i need to go to read this?
I am also interested in writing a letter to the correct "authorities" about this, after gathering the facts.
Do you think getting many letters sent in will help the situation?

 

[Krusty Krab]

Keith will be posting it so we can all write a response to this nonsense. The correct authorities are probably only the enforcers in this situation. The real people causing this type of closure problem are the people who profess to say there is a problem, then they get the judges and the forest service to dance to their tune. For a lack of a better term they are just a bunch of "anti access" people who don't want anyone in the forest or on roads or snow.

 

[surfpig]

They are planning on reopening it. When is the question. Here is some info, and the comment period is now:

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/99938_FSPLT3_2562365.pdf

I don't really like the seasonal closure period (Jan - July).

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/99938_FSPLT3_2376299.pdf

 

[Krusty Krab]

Surfpig! thanks for posting the info. We should all get on this and share our views.

 

[justintpryor]

"On June 26, 2014 a team of Forest Service Specialists visited Deer Valley 4wd trail to assess trail condition with respect to Standard and Guideline (SG) 100 and developed a preliminary proposal for corrective actions at the second crossing with Deer Creek (Meadow 9N83-2). During the site assessment it was determined that the trail was in fact currently meeting SG 100 with respect to hydrologic connectivity, but that some corrective actions could be taken to limit resource impacts within the meadow."

Interesting....The trail was in fact meeting SG 100...

Has this information been posted in the Land Use Forum here on mud?

 

[hj 60]