The Recreation Concept is ill-defined in presenting the four conceptional alternatives. The concepts are based of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum that was defined in 1986; almost 30 years ago when recreation pressures and public demand for recreation were different than they are in 2014. The concept includes “minor edits to resolve GIS conflicts” and is consistent through three of the concepts. This begs the question “If 'minor edits to resolve GIS conflicts' is recognized as a need to accomplish, what additional changes would be revealed with a more comprehensive review of the circa-1986 ROS?” Understandably, this is a “conceptional” document. However, with respect to recreation, the “concepts” are vague and lack a foundation to develop the aspirational “guidance framework” envisioned for the forest plan.A briefing paper was provided that addressed the Pacific Crest Trail. While there is a proposal floated to establish a one-mile corridor for the PCT, the briefing paper makes it clear that this pending forest plan revision does not make travel management decisions. Further, the trail corridor will be of sufficient width to address primary uses or users in keeping with the congressional intent is designating the trail.Overall, these are conceptional alternatives and will be adjusted based on feedback received from this round of listening sessions. It is troubling that framework guidance for the future will rely on outdated information from the past.Sequoia and Inyo NFs will be hosting similar public outreach meetings this week.