Skip to Main Content
Menu
Contact Us Search
OHV Title

USFS - Plumas National Forest

 I support in part USFS - Plumas National Forest "Red Legged Frog/Stream Monitoring" grant request G09-02-13-P02.

As outlined in the grant request, it is nearly certain that numerous single-track motorcycle trails will not be added to the NFTS  due to lack of specific CRLF data on these trails.  I am disappointed that the Plumas NF did not take up such monitoring project for CRLF during the initial stages of the Travel Management project, but I applaud the Plumas for making the attempt now. 

I support this grant in part, but would like to see assurance from the Plumas NF, with a change in language within this grant request, that if the surveys result in an absence of Red Legged frogs near and adjacent to such trails, that these trails "will be added to the NFTS" as opposed to "considered for addition...".  Current language in this grant request allows the Plumas NF to use OHV tax dollars to fund a survey yet provides no assurance that OHV will benefit if Red Legged frogs are not found.

The request for funds for closure signs is premature.  If survey results discovered Red Legged frogs near or adjacent to said trails, then such funding request would be appropriate.

The request for funds for interpretive signs and brochures with the intent of specifically targeting CRLF habitat is a waste of funds and will likely be ineffective.  The "Tread Lightly" message is one that should be distributed forest-wide and not just isolated to one small microcosm of the forest.  Such a message and distribution of funds would be much more effective on a larger scale. [Kevin Liles - 4/5/10]



 I support in part the USFS - Plumas National Forest "Ground Operations" grant request G09-02-13-G01.

I support the Plumas National Forest grant request for winter operations in full.

I urge the OHMVR division to take heed when considering funding for the Plumas National Forest summertime operations.  The Plumas NF has yet to release the Final Environmental Impact Statement and sign the ROD for the Travel Management project.  It is yet to be determined how the final document will affect OHV summer opportunities, but if previous RODs in neighboring forests are any indication, it is likely that OHV opportunity will be severely restricted in the Plumas NF.  I feel that the recent events on the Modoc National Forest will likely play out in the Plumas National Forest as well; like the Modoc, the Plumas (at least in the Travel Management DEIS) proposes to add a significant amount of "un-classfied" routes to the NFTS.  Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Region 5's influence upon the Modoc, it is likely that the region will reverse any ROD signed by a Forest Supervisor that adds a significant amount of "un-classified" routes to the NFTS.  Therefore, it is a very real possibility that the OHV opportunity that the Plumas NF believes it will provide to the public and the OHV opportunity that the  Plumas NF actually provides will be two different things.  It is premature and fiscally irresponsible to award major funding considering the nebulous future of summertime OHV opportunity within the Plumas National Forest.  Please refer to the following document http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Modoc-Appeal-Resol-March-11.2010.pdf for more information.

Irregardless of what the future of OHV in the Plumas may look like, there are several requests within the grant that warrants specific attention.  The request for three motorcycles and two ATVs is excessive.  Two vehicles of the Forest Service choice is reasonable along with one trailer.  The request for an electric motorcycle is absurd.  The electric motorcycle is in the infant stages of production, it has not been tested in real world conditions, it doesn't have the capability to operate for six plus at a time, it doesn't have the reliability to be operated in remote locations.  There are more suitable alternatives to the electric motorcycle that are cheaper and more reliable.    Now more than ever, grant money needs to be "put on the ground" and not diverted towards equipment that provides nothing toward the enhancement of OHV opportunity. 

This grant requests funding for toilet pumping, fire rings, and picnic tables, yet it fails to specify the location of such projects and whether or not such projects primarily benefit the OHV user.  I urge the division to withhold funding of general infrastructure in the forest unless it can be determined that such infrastructure primarily benefits those who pay OHV taxes.  [Kevin Liles - 4/5/10]


 G09-02-13-G01 Ground Operations

this is a very vague description for grant funds.  It sounds like the agency requesting the funds are using the green sticker funds as a means of reducing their own spending of their alloted money, from higher up.

It also sounds like the grant is asking for funds for general maintenance, which they should get from federal funding.

I do not support this grant.

G09-02-13-R02 Forest Wide Trail Restoration

As mentioned before, the Plumas National Forest has not shown that it wants to help with present OHV riding, and has restricted rather than expanded their riding areas.

Until the Plumas shows the public it wants to cooperate with the any riders and campers, I do not support the grant above.

G09-02-13-R04 Granite Basin
Again the Plumas is not trying to help the public, it just wants to restrict.  I say, restrict the green sticker funds. [Pat Henderson - 4/2/10]



 G09-02-13-P02 - Red Leged Frog

Green sticker funds, if I have to remind you, are for OHV enhancement and recreation.

Fish & Wildlife, should not depend on green sticker funds to enforce it's environmental habitat.  Any environmental studies should be funded by environmental agencies, interested in their cause.

It has been proven time again that animals and humans can co-exist..... from birds to squirrels the animal species has endured.  And that includes logging and recreation.  Even little towns moving into remote locations have not deterred many animals.  Look at the coyote, fox, lions, birds of prey.  In fact some actually benefit from human.  Look at the bears.

I do not support this grant. [Pat Henderson - 4/2/10]


 
 Comment in support of grant requests G09-02-13-P02 and G09-02-13-R02

I urge the OHMVR Division to fund these grants.  OHMVR dollars need to be spent on making previously existing routes into sustainable public trails.  Limitations in the travel management rule did not provide for analysis of the issues these routes have.  These grants potentially may add 89 miles for public use through proper planning and restoration.  I believe this is a good opportunity and use of OHMVR funds. [Doug Teeter - 4/3/10]



 Comment in partial support of grant request G09-02-13-G01

I urge the OHMVR Division to fund only the winter OSV portion of this grant request.  The Plumas NF has not released their ROD with regards to the Travel Management Rule.  I believe it is not appropriate to spend OHMVR dollars on a ground operation request prior to the Plumas NF releasing a ROD authorizing OHV routes.  Furthermore, funds for operations should only be granted after a ROD has survived the appeal process and is substantially favorable to OHV recreation.  The recent Modoc NF ROD appeal is a warning that OHV recreation on system roads and especially "trails" is in jeopardy on FS managed land.  Therefore, I believe funding the summer OHV portion would not be a responsible use of OHMVR funds, at this time. 

Additionally, OHMVR monies should not fund campground operations until it is determined that OHV enthusiasts are the majority user of a specific campground.  This grant request does not detail which campground or campgrounds would benefit from these funds.  I believe it would be irresponsible to approve this grant without knowing where these funds are to be utilized.

Lastly, requesting an electric motorcycle is premature.  The technology is immature, the companies currently selling them may go bankrupt in this economy, and electric cycles have not been around long enough to determine if they offer the long-term reliability a gas powered motorcycle has.  Therefore, I believe the $10,000 would be better spent elsewhere.

In conclusion, please deny the summer OHV portion of this request.  If you are unable to fund only a portion of the request, then deny this request in whole. [Doug Teeter - 4/3/10]



 Everyone asking for Grant money does it with honorable intentions to manage our public lands , provide sustainable recreation and protect resources.  I agree with all of that and am not one to say "do not fund"  but there are exceptions from my point of view. 
 
In reviewing these grants for 2009/2010  It it is alarming how the % of actual work on the ground changes from one agency to another.  From experience I would like to see no more than 5% of the grant request for staff under Ground Operation go to management.   The key to sustainable recreation on our public lands are for our grant money to be spent on the ground.  
 
Every single grantee should be preaching "Stay on Designated Trail"   regardless what your job is, it is the responsibility of every person involved with OHV that this message has to pushed.
 
Every single grantee should encourage those that are law abiding citizens to put pressure on the "Willfully Ignorant" to change their way so that we can have a "Sustainable OHV recreation"  for future generations. 
 
Lastly I want to thank every single person involved in working on  OHV recreation for your time and dedication . [Ed Waldheim "OHV activist for access to public lands for all" - 3/28/10]


 As a member of the Recreation Outdoors Coalition and the Redding Dirt Riders,  I am writing on behalf of the members on the following grant requests.
 
G09-02-13-G01 Ground Operations - This grant request involves a lot of money from the green sticker fund and while we support a number of items here the request does not provide a sufficient amount of information to determine if it should be supported or not.
 
We support the request for 3 new snowmobiles but it neglects to say which model and size you want to purchase.  If these snowmobiles are 4 cylinders, too small, or non-standard equipment they will not be sufficient for use in the Forest.  We do support the trailers to haul this equipment if it is equipment commensurate with its  use.  ATV's, here again, what size and make and is it sufficient to do the job?  We support both the ATV's and trailers to haul them if they are sufficient for the job they are being bought for.  We do not support the purchase of an electric motorcycle.  While we understand the Forests desire to evaluate equipment that would reduce its carbon footprint, with our economic times and competition for funds for worthwhile projects, we do not feel it is appropriate to purchase this piece of equipment at this time.
 
This grant request shows 4690 miles of OHV summer routes.  Of those, how many are suitable for green sticker vehicles?  OHV signifies ANY off highway vehicle (jeeps, motor homes, etc.  Any vehicle that goes off pavement is considered an OHV).
 
Listed in your program expenses are fund requests for items such as 'Other-Rec Tech" but shows no match.  Is this the total sum for a Rec Tech and if so, are they job specific to green sticker recreation?
 
Under Contracts there is listed an expense for toilet pumping, picnic tables and ADA fire rings with no match.  Are we to assume that only green sticker users use the facilities as there is no match which one would assume would be for non-motorized users such as campers, fishers, etc.  Boat maintenance is also listed.  Is boating covered by green sticker funds?
 
We strongly support the balance of the grant and would possibly support those portions questioned if we had information to evaluate properly.
 
G09-02-13-R02 Forest Wide Trail Restoration - The Plumas NF has not yet come out with its ROD so the public is not sure what will be open and how much access will be open/lost.  This grant appears to be very proactive in wanting to add more opportunity but we are concerned that this projected trail opportunity will be struck from the ROD.  We totally support the concept and would love to see this become a reality.  It is very hard to evaluate its worth without having a completed ROD to guarantee this is feasible.
 
G09-02-13-R04 Granite Basin  -  ROC, in general, supports this grant with a few caveats.  We support the environmental analysis that is being proposed because it should enhance recreation opportunities and improve water quality while protecting resources.  However, ROC dos not support in any way the decommissioning of existing roads and feel this burden should belong to the Plumas National Forest.  Before any route is decommissioned the Forest should include any user in the planning and mitigate closures not sanctioned by the public by relocating trails for a streamline route.  There should be no net loss of opportunity.  We commend the Forest for identifying the need here while working to mitigate the concerns without reducing recreational opportunities.
 
We commend the Plumas National Forest for its support and willingness to work with the public by listening to what the users have to say and responding in such a way that they protect our natural resources while continuing to provide managed opportunities with a range of opportunities.  [Brendan Hathaway - 3/21/10]


 As a member of the Recreation Outdoors Coalition and Redding Dirt Riders,  I am writing on behalf of our members on your grant request G09-02-13-P02.

ROC is adamantly against this grant request as we feel the burden of this environmental review should fall on Fish & Wildlife.  We believe they should do the studies and then if it is found that green sticker vehicle routes need to be relocated a grant request for those funds would be acceptable.  Green sticker vehicles have historical use in the areas where red legged frog habitat is apparent and they have coexisted for years.  However, if direct conflict is found in any given area it is acceptable to relocate that route.
   
The public, who pays the green sticker fees, feel these funds should be used to enhance recreational opportunities by providing managed recreational areas on the public lands that technically belong to them and for which they already pay taxes for its care. [Brendan Hathaway - 3/21/10]



 We are opposed to providing OHV money to the USFS to close the trails!

We have paid to have the trails put in to their inventory. Now they ask for OHV money to have them closed! As we have seen in the "Route Designation" process the USFS is not a good investment for OHV funds.
Give the grants to groups that actually enhance OHV opportunity, like the BLM. [Brendan Hathaway  - 3/17/10]



 As Chair of Recreation Outdoors Coalition I am writing on behalf of the members on the following grant requests.
 
G09-02-13-G01 Ground Operations - This grant request involves a lot of money from the green sticker fund and while we support a number of items here the request does not provide a sufficient amount of information to determine if it should be supported or not.
 
We support the request for 3 new snowmobiles but it neglects to say which model and size you want to purchase.  If these snowmobiles are 4 cylinders, too small, or non-standard equipment they will not be sufficient for use in the Forest.  We do support the trailers to haul this equipment if it is equipment commensurate with its  use.  ATV's, here again, what size and make and is it sufficient to do the job?  We support both the ATV's and trailers to haul them if they are sufficient for the job they are being bought for.  We do not support the purchase of an electric motorcycle.  While we understand the Forests desire to evaluate equipment that would reduce its carbon footprint, with our economic times and competition for funds for worthwhile projects, we do not feel it is appropriate to purchase this piece of equipment at this time.
 
This grant request shows 4690 miles of OHV summer routes.  Of those, how many are suitable for green sticker vehicles?  OHV signifies ANY off highway vehicle (jeeps, motor homes, etc.  Any vehicle that goes off pavement is considered an OHV).
 
Listed in your program expenses are fund requests for items such as 'Other-Rec Tech" but shows no match.  Is this the total sum for a Rec Tech and if so, are they job specific to green sticker recreation? 
 
Under Contracts there is listed an expense for toilet pumping, picnic tables and ADA fire rings with no match.  Are we to assume that only green sticker users use the facilities as there is no match which one would assume would be for non-motorized users such as campers, fishers, etc.  Boat maintenance is also listed.  Is boating covered by green sticker funds?
 
We strongly support the balance of the grant and would possibly support those portions questioned if we had information to evaluate properly.
 
 
G09-02-13-R02 Forest Wide Trail Restoration - The Plumas NF has not yet come out with its ROD so the public is not sure what will be open and how much access will be open/lost.  This grant appears to be very proactive in wanting to add more opportunity but we are concerned that this projected trail opportunity will be struck from the ROD.  We totally support the concept and would love to see this become a reality.  It is very hard to evaluate its worth without having a completed ROD to guarantee this is feasible. 
 
 
G09-02-13-R04 Granite Basin  -  ROC, in general, supports this grant with a few caveats.  We support the environmental analysis that is being proposed because it should enhance recreation opportunities and improve water quality while protecting resources.  However, ROC dos not support in any way the decommissioning of existing roads and feel this burden should belong to the Plumas National Forest.  Before any route is decommissioned the Forest should include any user in the planning and mitigate closures not sanctioned by the public by relocating trails for a streamline route.  There should be no net loss of opportunity.  We commend the Forest for identifying the need here while working to mitigate the concerns without reducing recreational opportunities.
 
We commend the Plumas National Forest for its support and willingness to work with the public by listening to what the users have to say and responding in such a way that they protect our natural resources while continuing to provide managed opportunities with a range of opportunities. [Sylvia Milligan, Chair - ROC - 3/18/10]



 As Chair of Recreation Outdoors Coalition I am writing on behalf of our members on your grant request G09-02-13-P02
 
ROC is adamantly against this grant request as we feel the burden of this environmental review should fall on Fish & Wildlife.  We believe they should do the studies and then if it is found that green sticker vehicle routes need to be relocated a grant request for those funds would be acceptable.  Green sticker vehicles have historical use in the areas where red legged frog habitat is apparent and they have coexisted for years.  However, if direct conflict is found in any given area it is acceptable to relocate that route.
 
The public, who pays the green sticker fees, feel these funds should be used to enhance recreational opportunities by providing managed recreational areas on the public lands that technically belong to them and for which they already pay taxes for its care. [Sylvia Milligan, Chair - ROC - 3/18/10]



 Please do not give any state money to a federal agency to close our public land to us.  I whole heartedly reject what the federal government is doing to our lands.  They are tying to kill local economies and discourage people from living free.  It appears as if they all want us to sit and a desk and enjoy the forest on a screensaver. [Casey Crandall - 3/11/10]