Skip to Main Content
Menu
Contact Us Search
OHV Title

South Yuba River Citizens League

  I am unable to find the map that was supposed to be attached to the application. Does proposal currently overlap the TNF proposals of read closures? Also, what criteria is being used to be enable the applicant to state 'un-needed' roads? This declaration needs to have justification as to WHY it is an in-needed road. Another note that is disturbing is that roads may be re routed but planning for this has not occurred. Thus, the acti of closing and obliterating a section of a road seems premature and should not be accepted unless there is an approved plan to reroute the roads...otherwise the road is actually closed and unaware. When this occurs, there is no language that would require the road to be reroute do, thus it could remind closed indefinitely. That is not acceptable. This application is incomplete for public review and comment and should be removed from the application list deemed as complete. Mark Flatter - 3/5/15


  March 10, 2015 Response to South Yuba River Citizens League application for OHV Funding: The application for restoration is very vague and lacks an attached map as the application states, a map was obtained after contacting OHV. The map is also poorly marked with descriptions and features that are hard to identify. After close scrutiny of the map and application it appears that with the exception of a small amount of already existing roads, the application clearly states that the proposed re-routes are not part of the current operation or work to be accomplished. Many of the trails and roads have historical and cultural value that is well over 75 to 100 years old. The Sisson mine road and the Herkimer mine trail are two of which there is evidence to support their existence for well over a hundred years. The map does not give clear direction on what roads are part of this project. The application states that these roads are no longer needed. The need is very subjective and the general public may have an entirely different response to that statement. There has been no public input according to the application. Public awareness cannot just be the online response through the OHV site. Many individuals do not have the equipment or ability to respond online. Public meetings and clearly stated objectives and alternatives need to be provided through the media and other means to the public land stakeholders. Without taking time to clearly make this project known to the public, it would give the appearance there was something to hide. The response section of the online grant request only factual information be submitted. Many of the narratives within the grant application contain information that is anything but factual. Citing timber harvesting and over use as causing erosion issues. Many of the sites see moderate or little human activity and any erosion is minimal and has significantly been reduced over time. Re-disturbing the soils and surrounding area with equipment would only start the erosion process over again and take many years to stabilize no matter how effective the work was. Multiple use and multiple access should be the right of all users. Descriptions of conceptual ideas on the map state that many of the roads would be replaced with a 2 foot wide single track trail. All the proposed roads for obliteration have one thing in common, close proximity to bicycle trails. It appears all efforts are to eliminate OHV travel while maintaining, or creating bicycle trails. Bicycles’ create significant erosion with their narrow wheels. I can’t see any significant difference in the end result. I feel The decommissioning of roads and trails without any clear opportunity to replace them is not fair to the individuals who have limitations that prevent them from walking or hiking into the area, as well as making our historical and cultural resources harder to access. Clearly everyone has a stake in protecting our resources. This area does not see enough pressure from any one group to eliminate access or prevent use by anyone. Alternatives to denying or restricting access, could potentially include, identify some of the isolated areas of issue and performing some hand work to mitigate these problem areas. I am very sensitive to public land use and management and encourage you to contact me regarding this or any other issues regarding restricting use or access to public lands around Western Sierra County.. Sincerely, Steve Folsom - 3/18/15


  See attached letter. James Beard, Chairman, Sierra County Board of Supervisors - 4/2/15


  Beyond the obscenity of using OHV funds to close OHV roads (under the guise of "restoration"), there is no data to support erosion and/or any impact to watershed due to OHV or any motorized activity in vicinity addressed. Please deny the proposal. IF SYRCL were honest with their intentions, focus would be on curtailing bicycle activity in this area. If there has been any impact to this area it would be from the heavy and increasing use of bicycles through the area and directly parallel to waterways. Yet, SYRCL suggests closing roads to motorized vehicles while further developing bicycle access. I'm not opposed to bicycle traffic I just find it frustrating that this absurd proposal has reached the point of any honest consideration under reasons given and without ant evidence of support. Clearly SYRCL has a selfish agenda and audacity to request OHV funds for use contrary to OHV interests. Please consider status quo or, perhaps, some rudimentary maintenance to these valued roads and trails that my family has enjoyed for generations. I propose a partnership with SYRCL fund opening the south yuba trail to dirt bikes in order to offset the alleged impact of motorized vehicles on north yuba drainage. The logic is similar. Jeff Ponta - 4/6/15