Being an avid outdoors man and father of three, I brought my family to the Bishop area for over 20 years,before moving to the area 10 years ago. The recreational opportunities and way of life are second to none. It is my belief that that management of the local area should be left up to the local jurisdiction, as they understand the impact and needs of visiting tourists. To accomplish this it takes financial resources that a small community with vast outdoor opportunities simply does not have. A grant of this magnitude would go very far to enable local agencies to ensure proper use of funds for maximum impact on present and future projects. This in turn would enhance the the outdoor experience for visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to express my view on this matter. Jerry Fie - 3/10/17

This grant should be funded so that the requirements needed for the additional Combined Use routes for unlicensed OHVs can be completed and the intent of AB 628 can be achieved. Appropriate implementation of the Combined Use routes will improve the economy of Inyo County, provide expanded recreational opportunities for visitors to the region, and clearly designate appropriate routes for “green sticker” motorized vehicles. John Shepherd - 3/13/17

This is part of a very important pilot project that could be a great benefit for all California greensticker OHV users. The project gives green sticker vehicles the ability to travel on street legal County roads to get access to services such as gas and food. The program has been initiated with a small number of roads and with this grant the program can be expanded to make it a truly viable trail system.Please approve this grant. Mike Johnston - 3/28/17

I am in favor of funding this grant. From what I can determine this will help meet the requirements of AB 628 for unlicensed OHVs. Overall, I believe this will help to improve the economy of Inyo County by providing even more recreational opportunities for visitors to our area. John McVicker - 3/30/17

With four grant proposals from Inyo County requesting funds for increased OHV law enforcement (Inyo County Sheriff, USFS, BLM, NPS) why is Public Works asking for money to potentially expand the Adventure Trails dream? The need for law enforcement comes from the poor behavior exhibited by the OHV use already allowed in Inyo County--riding off trail, damaging cultural and environmental sites, noise pollution, dust, trash... My suggestion is don't spend any more money on expanding this sport until they show a willingness to follow the rules and respect Inyo County. Also, how can Inyo County demand LADWP continue to control dust from Owens Lake, while simultaneously asking for money to expand dust producing OHV usage? Margaret Marshall - 3/31/17

I am a resident of Inyo County opposing this grant application. I think it is improper at this junction for Inyo County to seek funds for EIS related to USFS NEPA process. I believe that it subverts the process of public policy making. The Adventure Trails system is controversial and divisive in Inyo County. As I recall, a couple years ago legal concerns were raised about the adequacy of the CEQA process while at the same time the USFS Forest Supervisor told AT, Inc and Inyo Co that they could not move forward with routes on USFS land without meeting NEPA requirements. Legal action was threatened related to the quality of CEQA process and other issues. As a compromise, the Board of Supervisors approved a limited trails system as a PILOT project. I am not sure when the pilot project period is over, when the next round of public discussion about Adventure Trails is due to occur, but it is inappropriate at this point in time for the county to seek funds for consultants related to NEPA. It presumes the expansion of the AT system and subverts the public process. I don't know if this raises legal issues related to public process but I think that needs to be considered. I acknowledge that I might have some misunderstanding of the process and I have emailed my county supervisor today seeking comment and clarification. But comments are due now and as of now I strongly oppose funding for the Inyo County Dept of Public Works for this purpose. I will add, with regard to the application from Adventure Trails, Inc, a related comment that I view their plan to sign OHV routes in the Buttermilk and other areas as a sneaky backdoor effort to expand the Adventure Trail system, with potential detriment to local homeowners and public land users like me. Signing routes in this area and putting them on OHV maps would represent de facto expansion of the Adventure Trails system, and again, a subversion of the process. In addition, I can't wrap my head around the fact that the County is applying for funds to pursue combined use designation, explicitly recognizing that the NEPA process takes time, while concurrently AT, Inc proposes to sign routes that necessarily include USFS roads. There is some really faulty logic here. Overall, I would be more supportive of efforts to develop OHV recreation in Inyo County if a) we didn't have so many irresponsible and destructive users and b) I believed that AT, Inc and other OHV advocates cared about responsible use. Their separate grant application allocates no resources for education and promotion of legal and responsible recreation. Our local OHV advocates have shown little evidence of concern for damage to public lands or the experience of other users. Tom Boo - 4/1/17

This application does not accurately portray the Inyo County Board of Supervisors' approval of the mentioned CEQA document and the pilot project involving 7 combined-use routes. Although the CEQA document did include 38 combined-use routes the Board of Supervisors gave direction that there would be additional environmental review should any beyond the initial 7 be considered for future use. This was part of a settlement with parties willing to litigate as well as an agreement with the public regarding the project. In other words, the Board made a commitment to the public to revisit the CEQA process for routes beyond those in the pilot project. There will potentially be legal action should the County decide to use the existing CEQA document to open the remaining 31 combined-use routes. Does the California State Parks OHV division really want to expend a large amount of funding for a project that will be contested? As a citizen, property owner and taxpayer of Inyo County I strongly object to this application. As a side note, I observed a red sticker side by side OHV drive up Glacier Lodge Road to the end of the road at roughly 5 p.m. this Sunday, April 2rd. This portion of the paved road extends beyond the potential combined-use route and ends at the trailhead/private residence gate within the Inyo National Forest. While I'm sure that the applicant will note that there is little illegal use and sufficient law enforcement and monitoring, I find that hard to believe. Nick Sprague - 4/2/17

Hello and thanks for providing a comment period. I have concerns about the County of Inyo Department of Public works grant application. It is misleading and I think it should be withdrawn. This grant seems to be requesting funding to hire a consultant to do an EIS /NEPA analysis in order to get approval for new OHV routes on Forest Service land before the current PILOT PROJECT date is up and the data collect from that is analyzed. Adventure Trails is in PILOT PROJECT MODE. During the intense public debate and significant opposition to the original Adventure Trails project plan, where the Center for Biological Diversity raised legal concerns about the quality of the CEQA/ EIS that was completed, and the Inyo National Forest Supervisor specifically stated that Adventure Trails CANNOT use USFS routes without NEPA analysis, the result was a compromise to do a trial “PILOT PROJECT.” I find it interesting for Inyo County to be pursuing funds for an EIS to expand AT system now, in the middle of the "PILOT PROJECT” and also a violation of trust. This application for funds to conduct an EIS/NEPA analysis leads me to believe that the AT system will expand as soon as the PILOT PROJECT ends or even before it ends. The pilot project was set in place to collect data to see if the Adventure Trails would indeed be worthwhile (which so far it has not). Why would the County Public Works Department be seeking money to hire a consultant to do an EIS or NEPA analysis on USFS lands? My guess is that it is to expand AT routes BEFORE the pilot project even ends. It doesn’t make sense to me. I ask that you please not approve this grant. Inyo County seems to be pushing something there was a great amount of opposition to and the PILOT PROJECT has not yet ended. There should be no need for a NEPA analysis until the PILOT PROJECT ends and an analysis of the data that is being collected from that is analyzed first. Thank you, Denise Waterbury - 4/3/17

This comment is to request that the grant request by the Inyo County Public Works Department under the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2016/2017 NOT be approved for two reasons: 1. Inyo County approved 7 of 38 proposed routes as part of a pilot project called Adventure Trails where combined use (OHV and street legal) road segments were authorized. The remaining routes were not approved. Implementing procedures were approved to evaluate the impacts of the combined use segments. That process is still underway. While I recognize that there may be reasons for Inyo County to request this grant which are unrelated to the pilot OHV combined use project, the inclusion of the remaining routes can easily be viewed as a back door way of facilitating and promoting the approval of the remaining Adventure Trails routes. Since there is an agreement that before any of the proposed routes be implemented there would need to be a public hearing, the county should not be proceeding with work, planning or analysis until such a public hearing is held and the county Board of Supervisors authorizes the county to then proceed. If there is a compelling need to complete the NEPA analysis on the non-Adventure Trails related roads, then the use of grant funding should specifically exclude the proposed Adventure Trails routes from the NEPA analysis. 2. Lack of adequate public notice. The USFS and the BLM held a public meeting to allow the public to review their grant proposals. Representatives of the Adventure Trails project also attended and provided information about their grant request. An Inyo County representative also attended to provide information about the county’s grant request. The “public notice” did not mention Adventure Trails which would have generated a greater public response. It was billed as a Forest Service/BLM event. To this day, much of the public is not aware of this grant request. Please do not approve this grant request unless it includes a stipulation that the remaining Adventure Trails routes not be included in the NEPA analysis. William Mitchel - 4/3/17

I'm concerned about using green sticker money to legally clarify road status on Nat'l Forest Land, because it seems to me it then predisposes them to allow dual use. Which I believe is a bad idea, too many negative impacts. I think just adequately funding the NFS to maintain the roads would be clearer and more disinterested, or using regular County money for legal work if that is necessary. Susan Greenleaf - 3/29/17

Hi Marty, my name is Sharon Connor.  I was at the open house a couple of weeks ago 3/16.  First, thanks for hosting the open house, it was helpful.  Since we are in the comment period I thought it would be a good idea to put in my comments to the Forest Service, the BLM and the county, in writing.
My comments to each of the entities was that I think it is a very bad idea to invest in an OHV economy,  the dream of the Adventure Trails project.  A significant influx of OHV's is only going to scare away our tourists who count on the Eastern Sierra for its serenity and a chance to commune with nature.
I understand that the Forest Service has a multi use mission.  But motorized vehicle recreation is the only form of recreation that is absolutely incompatible with any other.  So there needs to be a very significant buffer zone between OHV's and other forms of recreation.  OHV recreation also leaves a far bigger footprint than any other on our landscapes, and this has to be taken into account in the balance.  I am in favor of restoration projects and monitoring and patrol on existing routes.  And signage may be helpful.  But we have all seen signs of damage where dirt bikes go off into the brush, which is clearly not on any route.  The more vehicles we have, the more damage we will have, even it is a small percentage of users who don't follow the rules.
So while I realize we have an enthusiastic local OHV community and some tourists who come from out of town, and that's fine,  I would be against any effort to expand/promote OHV tourism in the Eastern Sierra.  Thank you--Sharon Connor - 3/30/17