Bob,
I find it very disingenuous on the part of the BLM to state in 1.7 Constraints that the proposed actions only apply to lands managed by the BLM and then to include in your analysis and alternatives route mileages that you do not control. I also find it disingenuous for the BLM to submit a plan to the public when you have not completed your research. I am again speaking of private property owners. You have had five years to contact private property owners yet you have waited until you have released this plan to the public before you contact them. This is not fair to the public trying to analyze the DEIS and could potentially lead to an appeal (and possibly litigation).
The BLM needs to create a comprehensive plan for OHV recreation that does not rely on private or state lands because, as you state in the DEIS
"owners and managers of other lands may allow, close or restrict the use of segments of routes that cross their lands at any time." If non-BLM controlled properties are open to the public, then all well and good but your plan should not rely on them being open. Please provide me with a revised list of alternatives and related analysis showing only the mileages and impacts of BLM controlled routes on BLM property or in combination with routes where you have already received landowner permission for recreational use.Thank you,
Ed Tobin
Salinas Ramblers