Skip to Main Content
Menu
Contact Us Search
OHV Title

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation

  I am writing in support of the 2014/2015 OHMVR Restoration Grant application by the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation. Damage to sensitive wildlife and plant habitat by illegal ORV use continues to plague our public lands. The proposed project fills a critical need on the Eldorado National Forest to monitor and quickly repair tracks and damage caused by those who refuse to stay on designated routes. The Forest Service simply doesn't have sufficient personnel, vehicles or financial resources to do all the needed monitoring and repairs. CSNS's monitoring and restoration project fills that need. I urge you to fully fund this grant. Thank you for your time and attention, Respectfully, Darby Haines - 3/12/15


  Attached is a letter of support for the 2014/2015 OHMVR Restoration Grant application by the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation. Don Rivenes, Forest Issues Group - 3/13/15


  I feel that this restoration project is a positive way to work with the US Forest Service to accomplish needed restoration in popular OHV areas, and I am encouraged to see the CSNC engaged in this project. One minor suggestion is that it seems that the fuel cost for the Monitoring Team's vehicle is a bit low, based on current fuel costs, particularly since this project won't actually be implemented until some time ned year - need to anticipate cost increases. Brian Ripley - 3/16/15


  Just who is the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, the name implies an environmentalist organization to me. What is an environmentalist organization doing applying for OHV grant money, then I see Karen Schambach is involved and that confirms it? Ms Schambach has been very involved for decades in trying to stop all OHV activity at first in the Georgetown area and now everywhere. I believe this organization has sued the State in the past causing the OHV to use funds ear marked for other projects to defend its self. I along with much of the OHV community support reasonable, responsible OHV use, we all share in our duty to nurture and protect our lands. But, I can’t begin to explain how disgusting it is to me the thought of any environmentalist group applying for and being granted OHV funds to be used for the sole purpose of closing down existing trails under the guise of protecting the environment. Grant monies should only go to those applicants whose goals are in harmony with the intended mission of the OHV and not be used as a means to a stated end of all OHV activity. It’s a very dangerous thing when one group (Any group) becomes so powerful that the voices of reason or compromise are lost. The prices we’ve been paying are experiencing now and will pay in the future because of one groups (Environmentalist movement) power and control over our government, companies and we as individuals is alarming and not in the majority’s best interests. Doug McCaleb and Family - 3/25/15


  To all it may concern, Based on the fact that Karen Schambach has a well documented history of working to close OHV riding areas, both in the El Dorado National forest and California State Parks, through litigation and other means, I strongly urge you to not award this grant. It would be a travesty should grant monies that have been generated from OHV users be awarded to and used by a well know anti-OHV group, the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, that has worked tirelessly to limit and close OHV areas at every turn. As a life member and past president of the California Enduro Riders Association, I most certainly support responsible OHV activity in the Forest. My fellow club members, over the years, have hundreds if not thousands of combined hours of volunteer work doing trail restoration in the Rock Creek area of Georgetown where we primarily ride and host organized enduro meets. Knowing Ms. Schambach’s history of anti-OHV activity there is no doubt in my mind that she is now taking this avenue to further her goal with this Grant application by taking OHV user generated money and using it against the OHV users that have funded the program. OHV user generated funds should only go to groups and organizations that actually support and work toward responsible OHV use and not one that clearly has just the opposite agenda. Thank you for your consideration. William McGibbon - 3/26/15


  The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation is headed up by individuals that have sought to close OHV areas by many means, including lawsuits. I am opposed to giving OHV money to a group with the intended purpose of suing and closing down OHV areas and travel. By providing this grant money, we, the OHV fund payers, are funding a group to go into OHV areas to find reasons to file lawsuits and close them down. These grants should be use to create and improve OHV areas and access, not fund groups that seek to work against those goals. Again, I oppose this grant application! Eric Sartori - 3/26/15


  I am writing to oppose the OHV Grant Application for the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation. This group, and Karen Schambach in particular, has sought to shut down OHV activity not only in the ENF, but elsewhere throughout the state. To issue OHV Grant money to a group that seeks to shut down the area to OHV use, seems like a gross injustice. My family and I live in the area and enjoy riding the trails. The community benefits greatly by the money spent by the OHV community. To use my OHV money to financially support and reward a group that has the stated purpose of stopping OHV use, is wrong. It is my hope that my request is heard. Respectfully, Mary Sartori and Family - 3/26/15


  I am writing in protest of any OHV Grant money being distributed or issued in any fprm to the agency who call themselves "Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation". The mission statement they claim on their application "for funding a program for restoring "pioneered" routes and protection of lava Caps and associated sensitive plant species and monitoring restored areas" redundant. There are many government agency's in place who have already developed proven Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Study's (EIS) that are already in place that that are well documented that address and cover most if not all issues or concerns that may be brought about by the above applicant. The proven and well documented record of the Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Community working with the United Sates Forest Service (USFS) to mitigate trail restoration projects is alive and well and is ongoing. The current system that is in place allows for all interested party's whether it be Equestrians, Mountain Bike Clubs, Hikers, OHV Community and just the general public all have an equal opportunity to review and comment on any trail restoration projects that are currently being worked on. My family and I have been visiting the El Dorado Nation Forest for over 40 years. Our families are concern citizens interested in the preservation of the forest, the trails system in the forest and work hard to preserve the environment not only in the forest but beyond the forest boundaries to homes and businesses. I do not support and strongly oppose any OHV money being granted to and in support of the group who call themselves "The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation" Reference application request. Re: Federal Id: 68-108508. This group of individuals sponsoring this application has demonstrated numerous times to be less that untrustworthy by initiating lawsuits against the OHV division. It absolute does not make any sense to deliberately fund this group with any OHV Grant issued money. Respectfully submitted Thomas E. Guidice and Family Members - 3/26/15


  The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, is using OHV money to CLOSE trails, not restore them. They are placing slash piles on trails to block them. These people are misusing our OHV money to try to get rid of OHVs! Please stop them and do NOT give them any more grant money! Nelson Hallgren - 3/26/15


  This group is a special interest group committed to stopping OHV activity. The person leading this group lives adjacent to the Mace Mill riding area and wants the area shut down to off road use. She is currently using Grant money the build dangerous illegal obstacles and blockages that are dangerous to riders and damaging to the environment. With all of the logging activity in the area, I feel keeping the Mace Mill OHV park open for motorcycles is a great way to save the area from clear cutting...Please stop using our funds to be used against us.. Thank You, Eric Cormier - 3/27/15


  The State and Fed. already have scientists trained and actively monitoring these areas. The fact that Karen Schambach is behind this proposal tells me that after experiencing set-backs in the Court system to close trails, she is now trying this new tack to close trails by diverting funds away from legitimate, honest OHV users. Jay Sparks - 3/27/15


  Under Materials / Supplies, $1500 for a laptop computer is very expensive. Justification for that amount is needed. The $17,694 for Indirect Costs should be spelled out. The inclusion of vehicle insurance and registration, for Restoration Monitoring Team vehicle should be removed as such expenses are typically included in per/mile reimbursements (see item #2 in Equipment Use Expenses). A description of what was accomplished so far with last years grant money would help to show the effectiveness of this project. Thank you Bruce Brazil CORVA - 3/29/15


  Please find our support letter attached. I also uploaded this on the website, but wanted to make sure that you and Karen at CNCS received it. Thank for considering their application and do not hesitate to ask for more information. CNCS has been doing some amazing work and this funding would allow them to continue to make important improvements in the El Dorado National Forest. Gavin Feiger - 3/30/15


  I 100% support issuance of grants for trail restoration to organization with pure intentions to use the funds as indicated. Knowing the history of the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation and its affiliates I am opposed to the issuance of any OHV funds to the organization. This organization has sued the OHV Division many times over the years. I believe their ultimate goal is 100% trail closure which is not the purpose of the OHV Division and its funds. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeff Irwin and Family - 3/30/15


  Dear Grant Review Committee, My family and I urge you to deny this grant application for OHV Funding to the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (CSNC). The applicant is a known opponent to OHV recreation, and therefore is not suited to restore OHV trails in a way that will support sustainable OHV recreation. My family and I do support responsible recreation, including volunteering within the Rock Creek Trails in partnership with the USFS. I am a member of the Sierra Trail Dogs motorcycle club, who has adopted a trail within the Rock Creek Trails as well. Instead of granting funds to anti-OHV groups for trail restoration, we strongly suggest you approve grants to pro-OHV groups who will not use OHV funds against the OHV community. Thank you for your consideration of our feedback. Chris, Kryston, Julianne, and Sydnie Bain - 4/1/15


  This forest area is notorious for cruel and extensive damage to sensitive areas by OHVs. This grant should be funded and ways to stop these incursions explored. Pam Nelson - 4/1/15


  See attached letter. Ruthie Loeffelbein - 4/2/15


  See attached letter. Hugh and Barbara Lewis - 4/2/15


  I am writing in support of the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation's 2014/2015 OHMVR Grant application. Eldorado National Forest has an extensive network of roads and ORV trails; this network in itself is beyond the ability of the Forest Service to maintain. The maintenance burden of this extensive network is compounded by the creation of pioneered routes. These pioneered routes degrade and destroy sensitive habitat, threaten the durability of archaeological landscape features, and undermine the hydrology of our forests. These routes capture storm water and direct it, along with the sediments it entrains, directly into our rivers and streams; devastating fisheries, decreasing soil moisture, decreasing the capacity of our reservoirs through sediment deposition, decreasing groundwater recharge, and vastly diminishing dry season base flows. I believe CSNC's monitoring and restoration program can provide a vital service for the forest. I strongly believe you should fund this grant. Sincerely, Nancy Argo - 4/4/15


  4/5/2015 Offical Comment Version on G14-04-58-R01 To: Department of Parks and Recreation OHV Division Department of Parks and Recreation OHV Commission RE: Comment on Grant, G14-04-58-R01 posted I represent the number of likeminded families and individuals in the greater San Francisco Bay area and northern California which are interested in public lands issues and the preservation of public access and multi-purpose recreation opportunities on public lands. These comments are submitted to help shape future land management and to develop safeguards for the conservation and maintenance of cultural well-being provided in recreation opportunities in our National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. We urge you to immediately go on record opposing any Park and Recreation grant funding to the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (CSNC). The applicant is a known litigant in government management processes costing the agencies millions of tax dollars in defense. This litigious pattern has diverted scarce funds away from proactive agency management and needed facility maintenance. Funding CSNC will help support a known litigious pattern and empower a policing posture that will further burden public agencies. We’re seeing a pattern to engage agencies on management and funding issues, dramatize the OHV effects that cannot be squared with what actually happening on the ground. The pattern is to press management standards and regulations to a complexity that agencies in practice will stumble on procedural technicalities. This gives opportunity to sue on process errors requesting agenda driven remedies, including closing lands to recreation activities until their version of remedies are enacted. Too often a course of action by the agencies is to settle through arbitration, agreeing to the requested remedies, especially when they’re guilty of process infraction. It’s easy for an agency to give away the rights of stakeholders involved when it’s a demonized recreational activity. This is where recreational stakeholders are forced to intervene in legal actions to protect their interest at great expense. The intervention possession is typically in support of the defendant agency decision without cross claims in hopes of not losing any more access opportunity. Sometimes cross claims are essential when the balance of the decision is askew from passionate and skillful claims attempting to further reduce vehicle access. The OHV intervenors attorney’s expertise in federal law regarding recreational management and public access and this has been the essential factor in preserving the intent of the decision; however this comes at a high cost of time and money to the recreational community. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (CSNC) previously known as Friends of Wildlife Needs (FAWN) Founder Karen Schambach. List of some of the action by CSNC/FAWN affecting Eldorado National Forest Management. 1988- FAWN filed petition for a motion for Preliminary Injunction, claiming the Forest Service failed to implement Decision Notice G86-7, an EA which had a closure component. Sept.15, 1987 Forest Service chose to “stay”, the implementation while the decision was under appeal and continue to manage under the existing 1976 ORV Plan. FAWN petition was to lift the “stay” and implement closures of the entire area. District Ranger Raymond E. Laboa’s response to FAWN Petition. “The District has performed trail maintenance; built a puncheon (Boardwalk) over wet area, constructed water-bars, hardened trails, and rerouted to provide resource protection under the 1976 ORV travel plan. Karen Schambach has construed that work as new construction to the news media and elected state officials. Her complaints led to passage of special legislation, which now prevents the district from utilizing OHV grant funds to provide resource protection and perform tail maintenance until the state completes and EIR. “As a result of the continuing conflicts with Mrs. Schambach the District has delayed plans to reroute portions of poorly located trails, relying instead on waterbars, which are difficult to construct and maintain properly on steep slopes.” FAWN succeeded in cutting grant funding of resource protection and at the same time claims that OHV use is causing irreversible effects and demands the project area be closed to that use. The Forest Service manages resources protection with an Environmental Assessments (EA) or the higher level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The USDA Forest Service has make efforts to bring their EIS in line with the state EIR. It is redundant to require federal agencies to acquire conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the use of state OHV funds and burden to the tax payers and another obstructions in getting maintenance on the ground. 1988, Nov.10… Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK FAWN the Plaintiff.

USDA Forest Service Defendants. Plaintiffs in Intervention District 36 & California Enduro Rider Association (CERA). FAWN challenged the decision, seeking judgement, declaring the EA invalid and EIS be required and the FS immediately close the Rock Area to ORV use. District 36 & CERA also challenged the decision, seeking to remove questionable information in the decision contributed by FAWN and Department of Fish & Game (DFG) when Forest Service allowed them to be active participants in the Interdisciplinary Team in the development of the EA. DFG required the closure of the deer winter range to OHV use and Forest Service obliged without question, bound by a directive for the Washington USDA to corporate with DFG. 1989, Sept.27…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK Final Court Order Remedy: Sufficient controversy and questions were raised to require an EIS and manage Rock Creek under the new EA plan until the EIS is complete. The court found FAWN’s expert witness Beauchamp DFG employee had perjured his testimony by saying he represented DFG. After Beauchamp superiors read his testimony they claimed his testimony was his own opinion and not that of the department. Beauchamp and his staff were contributors to the EA regarding deer and the architect of the “Critical Winter Range” name and the seasonal closure recommendation. See Beauchamp’s deposition Wednesday, March 16, 1988. Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK FAWN involvement resulted in the EIS requirement. The EIS process lasted 12 years and cost the tax payers 2 million dollars. Administrative Appeal of The 1989 LRMP Decision The Regional Forester’s decision adopted the 1989 LRMP was administratively appealed by CSNC and OHV District 36 to the Chief of the Forest Service AR 997(Vol.6 (CSNC) Appeal Decisions); AR 919(Vol.6) (OHV User Appeal) The Chief denied the CSNC appeal entirely and OHV Users in part, but granted part of the OHV users appeal. The Chief further directed the Forest Service to act on the relief granted the OHV users and shall be completed in 18 Months. This appeal has cost the OHV users personal time and money. The Forest Service did not act. 1990, May.30…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK FAWN the Plaintiff files for attorney fees, and ask again to have the Rock Creek area closed to OHV use. 1990, June.19…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK Judge Karlton denied requests. 1990, August 27….Civil No. S-90-0595-LKK-EM FAWN the Plaintiff asked the federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent CERA enduro from occurring. Using the technicality of incomplete use permit application. 1991, Feb 19….Civil No. S-90-0595-LKK-EM Judge denied FAWN 2003. Dec. 8, …CASE No. CIV.S – 02-0325 LKK JFM Plaintiff CSNC; Defendants USDA Forest Service; Plaintiffs in Intervention Friends of the Rubicon, California Enduro Rider Association (CERA), Eldorado Equestrian Trails Foundation, California Off Road Vehicle Assn., California Assn. of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs and Blue-Ribbon Coalition. CSNC claimed Rock Creek Recreational Trails Plan EIS failed to analyze cumulative impacts on deer outside the project area. Second: claimed Forest Service failed to disclose environmental consequences of the implementation of the 1990 Off Highway Vehicle and Trail Management Plan, and violated NEPA mandatory statutory dead line. CSNC sued on no-compliance by the Forest Service to act on the relief granted by the Chief to the appellant OHV users, requiring completion in 18 months. The relief requested by CSNC was to close all trails until the site specific evaluation of each route. This relief was denied. Third: Claimed the Forest Service unlawful issuance of a 5 year event use permit to the Polka Dot Motorcycle Club. The Forest Service was required and did The Rock Creek Recreational Trails Plan (RCRT) EIS Analyses Cumulative Impacts. This supplemental amendment to the RCRT EIS did not change anything on the ground or management, the only effect was costing the Forest Service tens of thousands of tax dollars. Travel Management Plan: The 1990 travel plan contained 2,342 miles of system roads and trails and 526 “unauthorized routes” these routes although not system routes were in use because off-road and cross country travel was previously permitted prior to the 1990 Plan. The final decision reduced the system routs to1, 212 miles and roughly 23 miles that were previously so called unauthorized. Forest Service withdrew the Polka Dot M/C 5 year enduro use permit. It cost tens of thousands of dollars to resubmit with most to that fee going to environmental review by biologist. 2011. May. 26, …CASE No. CIV.S – 09-2523 LKK JFM ORDER Plaintiff CSNC; Defendants USDA Forest Service; CSNC Claimed, as summarized by the court; the record indicates that the Travel Management Plan Decision designated 42 routes through meadows, but incorporated LRMP amendments only refer to 20 routes. CSNC request relief; In LRMP programmatic document, routes be disallowed through meadows. This disregards site specific individual route conditions and routes that may be environmentally sound and good candidates for inclusion in the system. This request was denied, however the Forest had to do site specific evaluation of each meadow routes before incorporating as a system routes. This action cost the Forest Service tens of thousands of tax dollars for a technical error. CSNC had a different interpretation than the Forest Service on Subpart A and Subpart B and their application sequence and the degree of minimization. It looks as though roads and trails could never be minimized enough. The court supported the Forest Service interpretation. This action cost the Forest Service tens of thousands of tax dollars for defense. Again CSNC was capitalizing on a Forest Service procedural error to exercise an agenda. The Forest Service isn’t perfect and progress is slow and difficult, however the OHV community has chosen to collaborate with the agencies to find common ground, even though this group is the stakeholder is most harmed by management decision and agenda driven litigation. Over the last 31 years it has cost OHV individuals and the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to preserve responsible OHV recreation. It has cost tax payers millions of dollars defending Forest Service decisions. After all this, we see the Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) OHV division is allowing grant opportunities to CSNC and entertaining granting large sums of OHV money to this organization, regardless of the pretense that money helps sustain that organization to continue is agenda. It is obvious DPR OHV has lost its way and lost track of its mission, which is to sustain OHV recreation opportunity in a positive mater. DPR OHV should be cognizant of the suffering of the OHV community that supports them, not add to is harm. They should safeguard the funds allowed them through OHV taxing and Vehicle licensing. This subject grant will create further heart burn for the Forest Service. The pattern is not to collaborate but to investigate and uncover procedure errors, and then sue. This grant is ill-advised and wasteful of tax payers’ dollars. This is just a few on the action I’m aware of regarding the Eldorado National Forest and the Rock Creek area. Respectfully Submitted Rick Guidice - 4/5/15


  To: Department of Parks and Recreation OHV Division Department of Parks and Recreation OHV Commission RE: Comment on Grant,G14-04-58-R01 I represent the number of likeminded families and individuals in the greater San Francisco Bay area and northern California which are interested in public lands issues and the preservation of public access and multi-purpose recreation opportunities on public lands. These comments are submitted to help shape future land management and to develop safeguards for the conservation and maintenance of cultural well-being provided in recreation opportunities in our National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. We urge you to immediately go on record opposing any Park and Recreation grant funding to the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (CSNC). The applicant is a known litigant and in government management processes costing the agencies millions of tax dollars in defense. This litigious pattern has diverted scarce funds away from proactive agency management and needed facility maintenance. Funding CSNC will help support a known litigious pattern and empower a policing posture that will further burden public agencies. We’re seeing a pattern to engage agencies on management and funding issues, dramatize the OHV effects that cannot be squared with what actually happened on the ground. The pattern is to press management standards and regulations to a complexity that agencies in practice will stumble on procedural technicalities. This gives opportunity to sue on process errors requesting agenda driven remedies, including closing lands to recreation activities until their version of remedies are enacted or closure. Too often a course of action by the agencies is to settle through arbitration, agreeing to the requested remedies, especially when they’re guilty of process infraction. It’s easy for an agency to give away the rights of stakeholders involved when it’s a demonized recreational activity. This is where recreational stakeholders in this activity are forced to intervene in legal actions to protect their interest at great expense. The intervention possession is typically in support of the defendant agency decision without cross claims in hopes of not losing any more access opportunity. Sometimes cross claims are essential when the balance of the decision is askew from passionate and skillful claims attempting to further reduce vehicle access. The intervenors attorney’s expertise in federal law regarding recreational management and public access has been the essential factor in presenting the intent of the decision; however this comes at a high cost of time and money to the recreational community. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation (CSNC) previously known as Friends of Wildlife Needs (FAWN) Founder Karen Schambach. List of action by CSNC/FAWN affecting Eldorado National Forest Management. 1988- FAWN filed petition for a motion for Preliminary Injunction, claiming the Forest Service failed to implement Decision Notice G86-7, an EA which had a closure component. The Forest Service chose to “stay” issued Sept.15, 1987, the implementation while the decision was under appeal and continue to manage under the existing 1976 ORV Plan. FAWN petition was to lift the “stay” and implement closures of the entire area. District Ranger Raymond E. Laboa’s response to FAWN Petition. “The District has performed trail maintenance; built a puncheon (Boardwalk) over wet area, constructed water-bars, hardened trails, and rerouted to provide resource protection under the 1976 ORV travel plan. Karen Schambach has construed that work as new construction to the news media and elected state officials. Her complaints led to passage of special legislation, which now prevents the district from utilizing OHV grant funds to provide resource protection and perform tail maintenance until the state completes and EIR. “As a result of the continuing conflicts with Mrs. Schambach the District has delayed plans to reroute portions of poorly located trails, relying instead on waterbars, which are difficult to construct and maintain properly on steep slopes.” FAWN succeeded in cutting grant funding of resource protection and at the same time claims that OHV use is causing irreversible effects and demands the project area be closed to that use. The Forest Service protects resources by managing Environmental Assessments (EA) and the higher level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is redundant to require federal agencies to acquire conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the use of state OHV funds and burden to the tax payers and another obstructions in getting maintenance on the ground. 1988, Nov.10… Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK FAWN the Plaintiff. USDA Forest Service Defendants. Plaintiffs in Intervention District 36 & California Enduro Rider Association (CERA). FAWN challenged the decision, seeking judgement declaring, the EA invalid and EIS be required and the FS immediately close the Rock Area to ORV use until the adverse effects are eliminated. District 36 & CERA also challenged the decision and that it should be elevated to an EIS, there by seeking to remove questionable information incorporated in the decision contributed by FAWN and Department of Fish & Game (DFG) when Forest Service allowed them to be active participants in the Interdisciplinary Team in the development of the EA. DFG required the closure of the deer winter range to OHV use and Forest Service obliged without question honoring a directive for the Washington USDA to corporate with DFG. 1989, Sept.27…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK Final Court Order Remedy: Sufficient controversy and questions were raised to require an EIS. Further operate under the new EA plan until the EIS is complete. The court found FAWN’s expert witness Beauchamp DFG employee had perjured his testimony by saying he represented DFG. After Beauchamp superiors read his testimony they claimed his testimony was his own opinion. Beauchamp and his staff were contributors to the EA regarding deer and architect of the “Critical Winter Range” and the seasonal closure recommendation.

See Beauchamp’s deposition. FAWN involvement resulted in the EIS requirement. The EIS process lasted 12 years and cost the tax payers 2 million dollars. Administrative Appeal of The 1989 LRMP Decision The Regional Forester’s decision adopted the 1989 LRMP was administratively appealed by CSNC and OHV District 36 to the Chief of the Forest Service AR 997(Vol.6 (CSNC) Appeal Decisions); AR 919(Vol.6) (OHV User Appeal) The Chief denied the CSNC appeal entirely and OHV Users in part, but granted part of the OHV users appeal. The Chief further directed the Forest Service to act on the relief granted the OHV users and shall be completed in 18 Months. This appeal has cost the OHV users personal time and money. The Forest Service did not act. 1990, May.30…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK FAWN the Plaintiff files for attorney fees, and ask again to have the Rock Creek area closed to OHV use. 1990, June.19…Civil No. S-88-0214 LKK Judge Karlton denied requests. 1990, August 27….Civil No. S-90-0595-LKK-EM FAWN the Plaintiff asked the federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent CERA enduro from occurring. Using the technicality of incomplete use permit application. 1991, Feb 19….Civil No. S-90-0595-LKK-EM Judge denied FAWN 2003. Dec. 8, …CASE No. CIV.S – 02-0325 LKK JFM Plaintiff CSNC; Defendants USDA Forest Service; Plaintiffs in Intervention Friends of the Rubicon, California Enduro Rider Association (CERA), Eldorado Equestrian Trails Foundation, California Off Road Vehicle Assn., California Assn. of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs and Blue-Ribbon Coalition. CSNC claimed Rock Creek Recreational Trails Plan EIS failed to analyze cumulative impacts on deer outside the project area. Second: claimed Forest Service failed to disclose environmental consequences of the implementation of the 1990 Off Highway Vehicle and Trail Management Plan, and violated NEPA mandatory statutory dead line. CSNC sued on no-compliance by the Forest Service to act on the relief granted by the Chief to the appellant OHV users, requiring completion in 18 months. The relief requested by CSNC was to close all trails until the site specific evaluation to determine the environmental consequences was understood. This relief was denied. Third: Claimed the Forest Service unlawful issuance of a 5 year event use permit to the Polka Dot Motorcycle Club. The Forest Service was required and did The Rock Creek Recreational Trails Plan (RCRT) EIS Analyses Cumulative Impacts. This supplemental amendment to the RCRT EIS did not change anything on the ground or management, the only effect was costing the Forest Service hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. Travel Management Plan: The 1990 travel plan contained 2,342 miles of system roads and trails and 526 “unauthorized routes” these routes although not system routes were in use because off-road and cross country was previously permitted prior to the 1990 Plan. The final decision reduced the system routs to1,212 miles and roughly 23 miles were previously so called unauthorized. Forest Service withdrew the Polka Dot M/C 5 year enduro use permit. It cost tens of thousands of dollars to resubmit with most to that fee going to environmental review by biologist. 2011. May. 26, …CASE No. CIV.S – 09-2523 LKK JFM ORDER Plaintiff CSNC; Defendants USDA Forest Service; CSNC Claimed, as summarized by the court; the record indicates that the Travel Management Plan Decision designated 42 routes through meadows, but incorporated amendments only refer to 20 routes. CSNC request relief; that routes be disallowed through meadows in LRMP programmatic document. This disregards site specific individual route conditions and routes that may be environmentally sound and good candidates for inclusion in the system. CSNC had a different interpretation than the Forest Service on Subpart A and Subpart B and their application sequence and the degree of minimization. It looks as though roads and trails could never be minimized enough. Again CSNC was capitalizing on a Forest Service procedural error to exercise an agenda. The Forest Service isn’t perfect and progress is slow and difficult, however the OHV community has chosen to collaborate with the agencies to find common ground, even though this group is the stakeholder most harmed by management decision and agenda driven litigation. Over the last 31 years it has cost OHV individuals and the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to preserve responsible OHV recreation. It has cost tax payers millions of dollars defending Forest Service decisions. After all this, we see the Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) OHV division is allowing grant opportunities to CSNC and entertaining granting large sums of OHV money to this organization, regardless of the pretense that money helps sustain that organization to continue is agenda. It is obvious DPR OHV has lost its way and lost track of its mission, which is to sustain OHV recreation opportunity in a positive mater. DPR OHV should be cognizant of the suffering of the OHV community that supports them, not add to it suffering. They should safeguard the funds allowed them through OHV taxing and Vehicle licensing. This subject grant will create further heart burn for the Forest Service. The pattern is not to collaborate but to investigate and uncover procedure errors, and then sue. This is ill-advised and wasteful of tax payers’ dollars. Respectfully Submitted Rick Guidice - 4/5/15


  It would be of my opinion that this grant application (G14-04-58-R01) is a "Cookie Cutter" application of grant G13-04-58-R01 which is currently open, running and funded. It is clear from reading this application that it is very nearly a complete duplicate of G13-04-58-R01 and should not be awarded for that fact alone. Grant funds have already been awarded, issued and are being used under G13-04-58-R01 from April of 2014. Grant funds of this magnitude should be awarded to truly warranted causes and not issued under a duplicate nature where the intent is to take funds away from other needs and or pad ones funding. Thank you in advance for consideration of my comments, Tim Green. - 4/6/15


  I OPPOSE this grant application as the largest request is for salaries with no matching money, for a volunteer organization that directly targeting of OHV’s, when there are thousands of other visitors to the forest that may have caused damage, hikers cutting switchbacks and mountain bikers pioneering trails. I am writing to you today to strongly urge you to decline the Grant Application from The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation which is run by Ms. Karen Schambach. In recent years CSNC and Ms. Schambach have attempted through the use of various grants and the utilization of nefarious 'sciences' to close The Rubicon Trail and other routes in El Dorado County. Weather it be some Reptile or imagined archeological finds, this group is by all means no friend to the OHV community. Albeit, several OHV groups and foundations locally have attempted to garner some cooperation with CSNC, they are adamant in there desire to ban OHV use regardless of communications and facts that prove there theories false. The Rubicon Trail in recent years has gone through a great deal of trials and tribulations which has netted some great results. Unfortunately, these results still do not satisfy groups such as CSNC. Fortifying them with a grant would be a detriment to the OHV community in that the funds would be utilized against us. Many people as of late have become well educated in the maintenance and preservation of their local OHV trails. The State Parks OHV division has been key in this as well. The OHV funds would be better spent with other groups that would further that education and maintenance of our trails not close them. Michael Damaso - 4/6/15


  We OPPOSE this grant application as the largest request is for salaries with no matching money, for a volunteer organization that directly targeting of OHV’s, when there are thousands of other visitors to the forest that may have caused damage, hikers cutting switchbacks and mountain bikers pioneering trails. I am writing to you today on behalf of the Merced Dirt Riders to strongly urge you to decline the Grant Application from The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation which is run by Ms. Karen Schambach. In recent years CSNC and Ms. Schambach have attempted through the use of various grants and the utilization of nefarious 'sciences' plus litigation to close The Rubicon Trail and other routes in El Dorado County. Weather it be some Reptile or imagined archeological finds, this group is by all means no friend to the OHV community. Albeit, several OHV groups and foundations locally have attempted to garner some cooperation with CSNC, they are adamant in there desire to ban OHV use regardless of communications and facts that prove there theories false. The Rubicon Trail in recent years has gone through a great deal of trials and tribulations which has netted some great results. Unfortunately, these results still do not satisfy groups such as CSNC. Fortifying them with a grant would be a detriment to the OHV community in that the funds would be utilized against us. Many people as of late have become well educated in the maintenance and preservation of their local OHV trails. The State Parks OHV division has been key in this as well. The OHV funds would be better spent with other groups that would further that education and maintenance of our trails not close them. Merced Dirt Riders - 4/6/15


  Please do NOT fund this grant. Please review PRIOR and CURRENT Grant applications from the Eldorado National Forest for Restoration Projects that have been completed or are in progress or have a new Restoration Grant in progress........... And compare to last years Grant Application by this applicant, and this current submission. Just how many millions of dollars are going to be spent on the same areas over and over again. Most of this has been identified within the Travel Management Plan implementation. All the trails and roads within the system that are legal, and maintained to allow proper recreation for many families. And again, may I remind you that applicant has lived in the area of proposed restoration projects for year, and again, please take into consideration the vexatious litigant status of the applicant and the legal steps this applicant has taken over the years to completely eradicate legal OHV recreation over decades. Direct Expenses. (1) Really, $300 per day for 156 days to be a project leader? $46,800. Division needs to review other options and compare these costs to an industry standard. $158,748 Grant requested. May I suggest we leave this to the professionals we already pay, and allow the USFS to do restoration projects, and not over priced amateurs. See 6, Primary funding sources. Indicates VOLUNTEERS will work, yet volunteers are listed as being paid. End of Part #1. Dave Pickett / District 36 - 4/6/15


  Part #2 Evaluation Criteria:2 Natural and Cultural Resources - failure to fund the Project will result in adverse impacts to: Stream or other watercourse Comment: Areas near water features as described have been TMP approved by EDNF. Only trails approved remained. Point incorrect. Soils - Site Actively eroding. See above. TMP approved trails. Sensitive Areas - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. See above. TMP approved by EDNF Other Special Status species. See TMP approved by EDNF. No supporting documents to this claim, EG: Red Legged Frogs - No supporting documents of sightings or counts of existing identified ESA species contained to support this action item. Supply historical documents from date of EACH ESA referenced, from date of listing. Include ALL ESA identified species known in the area, location, date of siting, and confirmed proof of endangerment to each. Include all species of concern. Objects of cultural concern, identify. as EDNF will not identify to the public, so clarify if EDNF staff is sharing EXACT locations with Grant recipient. This portion needs to be removed from the Grant application altogether, unless EACH participant employed in this effort SIGNS a verified "Confidentiality Agreement" stating said actions and discovery shall remain unknown, certified by the OHMVRD PRIOR to any funding releases, if any, after certification is documented and related information submitted to the OHMVRD to be held in confidence. This should be identified in Post Audit for the project to satisfy the OHMVRD that such a location truly exists with a cultural resource that is considered cultural in nature and needs safeguarding, hence PROOF and not just a verbal claim. this is asked for to protect OHV Trust Funds and the Taxpayers who fund this grant, if any. Direct Expenses (1) Staff. Restoration Team Leader. No information is supplied as to what qualifications this person has, and a Resume needs to be supplied to the public to verify qualifications, and a comparison to existing RPL position and value of payment for services. $46,000 Justification for this salary must be identified and justified for cost comparison. Example: Is this person certified in training other dealing with tools. Disclose course certification. Has Applicant secured insurance for operation of said tools, similar to certificate EDNF mandates for, say Chain Saw Classes? How is Staff paid? Form 1099 for IRS reporting purposes, or other? Note: NO match dollars from applicant. Identify Private Sector Rate. Restoration Monitoring Team Leader. Same questions as above for this position. $56,000 Note: No match dollars from applicant. Identify Private Sector Rate. Restoration Monitoring Team Member. Same questions as above. $43,296 total - $21,648 each. $11,000 OHV funds. $32,296 Match dollars. $180.40 per hour? Needs clarification as listed as a Junior Member. Clarification is needed. Note: Match dollars identified, but not confirmed per application Identify Private Sector Rate Volunteer Restoration Crew. Same questions as above. Again, $180.40 per DAY $16,236 No OHV Grant Funds use.. But, volunteer is PAID? A volunteer is just that, a volunteer. Identify Private Sector Rate as a "volunteer", unless value donated to EDNF for future Grant notation of Volunteer unpaid hours.? Botanist Same questions as above. $16,800 total for 70 hours. Small match of $2,500. Identify Private Sector Rate I3) 1, 2, 3 Materials and Supplies $850.00 As this is a one time grant, who retains ownership of tools and supplies? Are they returned to OHMVRD for distribution to staff at SVRA units? Personal clothing should be removed and not included. Proper work clothing should be supplied by the worker to fit the job description. NO match is provided, so materials should be returned. (3) Continued. Items # 4,5,6,7, 9. These are expensive items totaling $2,970 and NO match dollars. Laptops, tablets, printers, external hard drives, chainsaws, etc need to be returned to OHMVRD for distribution as needed by OHMVRD. These are NOT one time use items. Again, NO match dollars. Suggest Applicant purchase these, not OHV Trust Funds. (4) vehicle expenses. 1. Costs should be reimbursed AT location for use use AT location, not commuting to job site. Review. Pay should be starting at worksite, NOT commuting time. Modify dollars to reflect this. 2. Costs should be reimbursed AT location for use. Communing to work should not be included. Adjust to actual miles during work only, not commuting miles. Identify if workers wage starts at jobsite, or includes driving time getting to jobsite. Adjust values to reflect this. It is NOT clear as to how this is identified. Personal driving of 100 miles one way explains nothing. Delete the $1,864 from the OHV Grant. Match is $5,085 and should cover this. 3.) Delete this item. It is covered in the .565 IRS mileage rate, which INCLUDES any maintenance costs. Verify with IRS. Indirect costs; Identify EACH by actual cost, not a blanket statement. Insurance needs to be deleted. Every person, by law, is REQIRED to have vehicle insurance. Also, .0.565 IRS rate includes insurance cost. Delete Insurance portion. Explain in detail meaning of OVERSITE in the context used. Clarify Registration. Included in 0.565 rate. Delete from grant. None of these are Indirect Costs, they are DIRECT COSTS applicant is asking for, and $17,694 dollars with ZERO match in unacceptable to the public who is paying this. This is way over inflated, and absolutely needs to be removed. Phone. Who are your trying to fool here. Final: This grant for the work identified, could and should be done by the EDNF, as this is part of there normal practices of operations. We still feel this is not of critical concern, as the areas for funding are under the jurisdiction of the USFS, and should not be funded. The TMP as presented to the OHV community, should have identified any areas of concern. Additional funding by OHV was supplied in a shared manner for QUALITY work in the beginning process of the TMP, and CA was the ONLY state that distributed $14 Million extra dollars to Region 5 to INSURE the entire process was done correctly. If this grant is approved, then it says the USFS did not do its job, and the OHV community lost $14 million dollars in wasted funds. As stated last year, we did not support that grant submission, nor do we support this one. It is duplicative work and a waste of OHV Trust Funds, especially in this forest. Nobody can really think this grant is being used to protect the forest, it just another step to eradicate legal recreation on public land, and worst yet, doing so using our own scarce resource money. Our members deserve better, and so does the public............... Dave Pickett D36 MC sports committee. - 4/6/15


 See attached letterHoward Wilshire - 3/13/15