MOTORIZED RECREATION

July 10, 2020

I would like to begin with this is a very important opportunity for the OHV Public to work in collaboration with the Sierra National Forest in the planning and/or adding Road and Trails back to the SNF “MVUM” Motorized Vehicle Use Map. The grant that is funding this planning project is supposed to be done to accomplish these seven criteria’s:

1. Recreation opportunities are enhanced by creating loop options and/or connect to motorized trails, roads, and areas/destinations.

2. Route is unique (parallel trail/road that does not go to the same location or overlap with trail/road that already exists).

3. Records/data already exist for the route or area (previously identified in the Forest Service database).

4. Route was not previously closed due to known resource concerns (e.g., critical habitat, meadow) and other NEPA decisions.

5. Areas are large enough in size to be used for motor vehicle riding within perimeter and/or for parking/staging vehicles to go ride outside the perimeter in areas where roads are legal for green-sticker use.

6. Areas and routes located in highly used Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) geographic areas are priority.

7. User conflict is addressed.

This Planning Grant is funded by a State Contract from a G16 grant received back in 2017. This was originally described to us within the OHV Volunteer Group as "TravelManagement II" and is now named "Motorized Recreation Project". This is completely all about the Motorized Recreation experience. In May of 2018, the Sierra National Forest(SNF) has been awarded a grant from the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) programs to develop roads, trails, and other recreational areas.The SNF would like public input in developing the proposed actions, necessary to complete the environmental analysis for this programs possible incorporation into the National Forest transportation system. The motorized recreation project continues the implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, and will analyze motorizedrecreation opportunities recommended by the public that were not reviewed with the 2010 Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement. 

The proposed trails which I submitted in June 2019 should have be taken into careful consideration; especially the trails that allowed for a "loop opportunity".. unfortunately only just  2.11 miles of trails have moved forward as a proposed trails. Many of the trails and trail segment which we asked to be included are currently beingused as part of the legal riding trails. They are being maintained, so for the SNF to say that they cannot maintain any additional trails is just not accurate. There are a fewdifferent ways to maintain newly added trails. SNF Personnel understood and specifically said that if we mentioned the loop opportunities and they would be considered. EVERY trail segment that I submitted for consideration met criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6. I have still not received the rational for not allowing my proposed trails from being brought forward? I have been told they did not meet the "minimization criteria analysis process". As I read through the criteria 1-6, I would like to know how my proposed trails did not meet 3 and 4?

“Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of off­ highway vehicles (OHVs) has increased tremendously. Managed OHV use has resulted in moresustainable trails by addressing: erosion, watershed and habitat degradation and mitigating impacts to cultural resource sites. Additionally it is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with the National Forest recreation role andland capability (FSM 2353.03(2). “

To date, the public has not been given the opportunity to discuss why the trails we proposed did not meet this minimization criteria analysis process. This grant specifically issupposed to develop a proposed action based upon the field work and "significant" issues raised by the public. The grantee is required to develop alternatives to addressidentified "significant issues". We, the public were never given the opportunity to hear what any significant issues are and how they conducted their field work to make thisdetermination. We were not explained anything about the "minimization criteria analysis process"; in fact, some of the public were asked to stand down in the public meeting in June 2019. This is not acceptable and does not stay in compliance with the grant requirements for public input.

The Sierra National Forests are not working with the OHV users in trying to revisit Travel Management. He is totally contradicting the requirements of the grant. Regardless ofwhat he wants to do or what other forest are doing, he and his staff applied and was awarded a $712,000 grant. The grant states "planning grant will complete a draftenvironmental analysis to possibly add these roads, trails and areas to the SNF's designated motorized trail system. The roads, trails, and areas that are added will becomedeveloped and opened to legal OHV opportunities. This would fulfil the commitment from the SNF to the public to review unauthorized routes that were identified during theTravel Management impact Statement (EIS) in 2010.

I am deeply concerned that only a small portion of the High Sierra trails I proposed made it into alternative 2. Some trails if not most are all currently being used as assumed legalOHV Opportunities. In most cases, they were removed from the MVUM and presumed an error. Alternative 3 should include the additional trail segments listed below:

NOT PROPOSED: JH-74: This  is an OSV "Over Snow Vehicle" bridge which is used year round. It's a critical loop opportunity from the Red Mountain trails to the South ForkTamarack OHV system, then also tying into Bald OHV. This bridge connects 09S066 to 08S055C. It had to have gone through NEPA back when it was built. Snowcats,snowmobiles, track SXS vehicles, etc travel over it during the winter. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV  Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

NOT PROPOSED: JH-95: This segment of trail is located within the Bald OHV on 26E328 just prior to the intersection at 25E208 near where the 25E210 joins into the 25E208.There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. In fact, this is considered by the OHV community to be the trail and has always been used assuch. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

NOT PROPOSED: 25E309: This is referred to as the "Waterfall Trail". It is all granite. This trail provides a loop opportunity and connects the 25E208 to the 25E209 just below anarea called "DC Hardway". This trail was worked on with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. We created rock armoring were needed. Widen the trail in tightlocations. Posted trail signs in both directions and was told that we followed everything we needed for this trail to legally connect.  There is no significant issues to allowing thisto be a legal OHV Opportunity. In fact, this is considered by the OHV community to be the trail and has been used as such since 2015. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

PROPOSED: JH-18a /26E325: This is a short trail we named "V Rock Shortcut". We opened this trail back up with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. We createdwaterbars on the step dirt section of trail. We volunteers continue to maintain this trail. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6.

NOT PROPOSED: JH-43/26E323: We refer to this trail as "Lower Hollywood" We opened this trail back up with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. Posted trail signsin both directions and was told that we followed everything we needed for this trail to legally connect.  This is provide for a loop opportunity. It is 100% all granite with no to littlevegetation.  We volunteers continue to maintain this trail. There are no known issues to allowing this to continue as a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

NOT PROPOSED: 26E211 connects to 9801, near KD-06. This is a loop opportunity which is not currently being used; however evidence is seen where OHV have been usingthis as a way to connect over to the camping locations near rock creek. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

PROPOSED: KD-07/9S09C: This is a proposed trail to be added as a legal OHV Opportunity. We volunteers would maintain this trail. If there significant issues to allowing thisto be a legal OHV Opportunity, we would volunteer to address them. This trail has not been used in several years. It would require a significant amount of de-brushing andsignage. This would make for a fantastic loop opportunity and would strongly encourage it to be added to the trail system.

NOT PROPOSED: 9S09: The portion of road from 26E219 and the intersection of 9S10 is recommended to be changed to "combined use". This is a major connection/loopopportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

NOT PROPOSED: PK-39z: This trail connects PK-36U and 088057. This has the potential to be a major connection/loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are nosignificant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets criteria 1-6, but didn’t even make it on your proposed maps. Please explain why this portion of trail currently being used was not proposed?

PROPOSED: JH-71z: This trail connects 098015  and 09803. This has the potential to be a major connection/loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are nosignificant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. Meets all criteria’s.

We are asking for loop opportunities between current OHV Legal Trails. Most of which are already being used. I am asking for us to make these legal OHV opportunities.Please consider these requests and I formally ask for written explanation if any of these proposed area do not meet "minimization criteria analysis process".

Here is the list of proposed trails on the High Sierra in Alternative 2:

PROPOSED:

·         09S09C                        0.10 miles             Loop opportunity. Great addition to MVUM.

·         AE-5                             0.07 miles             Cannot locate on provided maps by SNF.

·         JG-29                           0.38 miles             Cannot locate on provided maps by SNF.

·         JH-138                         0.51 miles             Unknown trail?

·         JH-14                           0.06 miles             Dead end. No Loop. Not used. No addition to MVUM

·         JH-18a                          0.15 miles             Loop opportunity. Great addition to MVUM.

·         JH-47                           0.06 miles             Dead end. No Loop. Not used. No addition to MVUM

·         JH-71z                          0.90 miles             Loop opportunity. Great addition to MVUM.

·         KB-12                           0.15 miles             Cannot locate on provided maps by SNF.

·         KB-13                           0.70 miles             Cannot locate on provided maps by SNF.

·         KD-07                           0.70 miles             Loop opportunity. Great addition to MVUM.            

·         PK-19                           0.49 miles             Dead end. No Loop. Not used. No addition to MVUM

·         TH-7z                           0.29 miles             Loop opportunity. Great addition to MVUM.

The SNF proposed Alternative 2 trails which have loop opportunity and would be a great addition to the High Sierra MVUM total: 2.14 miles. This is such a disappointment. Every proposed trail I submitted includes loop opportunity, connects trails being used together and makes them legal on the MVUM. All would be great additions to the MVUM. They are all currently being used. This is an opportunity to “make things right” on the MVUM. I have personally dedicated a tremendous amount of hours to studying and “ground truthing” the trail system. While most of the SNF personnel don’t utilize these trails or even know what I’m talking about, I know what is happening on the SNF; specifically in the High Sierra District. I’ve been riding these trails for over 12 years now on a very regular basis. I guarantee the SNF that very few SNF employees know the trails as well as I personally do. Thank you for this opportunity to allow me to share my passion, my OHV lifestyle and my advice to the proposed additions to our SNF MVUM.

CLICK HERE for more information and CLICK HERE to send in your own comments. Keep Advocating for our OHV Access!! 

June 26, 2020:

The "SNF" Sierra National Forest is back working on what began as Travel Management II; which transitioned into "Motorized Recreation" due to a OHMVR Grant they obtained back in 2017. The entire purpose of this grant is to re-evaluate the trails that we lost, they were taken off the "MVUM" Motorized Vehicle Use Map. There were in fact, several miles of OHV trails removed. This $800K+ grant has lacked proper public input in my opinion. I along with others have strongly expressed our disappointment in this entire public comment process. So, due to the SNF being in jeopardy of not following the proper steps, they postponed further action last year. During the Covid-19, SNF Staff have been working from home and they have now sent out this current plan to accept more public comments.

CLICK HERE for the information and directions on making a public comment.

Back HISTORY ... 

JUNE 18, 2019:

The Sierra National Forest received a Planning Grant funded by a State Contract from a G16 grant received back in 2017. This was originally described to us within the OHV Volunteer Group as “Travel Management II” and is now named “Motorized Recreation Project”. This is completely all about the Motorized Recreation experience and is intentional about requiring public input.  I would like to begin with disappointment that we yet again missed another opportunity for the OHV Public to be welcomed by the Sierra National Forest in the planning and/or adding Road and Trails back to the SNF. The grant that is funding this planning project is supposed to be done with public input and careful consideration. This process has absolutely fallen very short and here is why.

The first part of this email is just to bring share with you the history behind where we are now with this project. This is important to the entire OHV Community who enjoys and recreates within the Sierra National Forest.

Sierra National Forest will held two public meetings regarding California Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Grant program projects- The first one was last year. We were invited to give the SNF our feedback on which road, trails and/or areas we would like to have back on the MVUM which were taken away back in 2010.

CLOVIS, CA. MAY 15, 2018 - The Sierra National Forest (SNF) has been awarded a grant from the State of California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) programs to develop roads, trails, and other recreational areas. The SNF would like public input in developing the proposed actions, necessary to complete the environmental analysis for this programs possible incorporation into the National Forest transportation system. The motorized recreation project continues the implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, and will analyze motorized recreation opportunities recommended by the public that were not reviewed with the 2010 Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement.

To provide for the locality of our Forest communities and the strong interest in this project. We will be hosting two public meetings, one for the Bass Lake Ranger District at the Town Hall in North Fork, CA and at the Forest Supervisors Office in Clovis, CA. We are holding these meetings to discuss the specific topics of roads, trails, and other motorized recreational areas, to help us facilitate public comments, concerns and shared ideas regarding all areas across the Sierra National Forest.

Once public comments have been compiled along with input from Forest specialists, the proposed action will be developed, and will be open for a 30 day public scoping period.

Meetings Dates: 

• Monday, June 4, 2018 at the Supervisor’s Office 1600 Tollhouse Road in Clovis, CA from 

6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

This is an opportunity for interested parties to engage the SNF about what is important to them regarding motorized recreation. We encourage all members of the public to be engaged in the planning efforts taking place on their public lands.

For more information or to provide comments through other means, please contact the Sierra National Forest, Cesar Sanchez, Project Manager, at 559-297-0706 x 4987 or via email at cesarsanchez@fs.fed.us.

CONCERN: Cesar Sanchez, Project Manager. Where is he now? He made it sound like all our proposed trails would be taken into careful consideration; especially the trails that allowed for a “loop opportunity”.. Only just a few trails have moved forward as a proposed trails. Many of the trails and trail segment which we asked to be included are currently being used as part of the legal riding trails. They are being maintained, so for the SNF to say that they cannot maintain any additional trails is just not accurate. There are a few different ways to maintain newly added trails. Cesar understood and specifically said that if we mentioned the loop opportunity they would be considered? Is Cesar still the Project Manager? What is the documented rational for not allowing our proposed trails from being brought forward?

We, the OHV Community have not heard anything since this Meeting back in June 2018. We WERE NOT invited back to discuss the recommendations that were put forward. We WERE NOT

This is the invitation we received back last month regarding the meeting on Tuesday. This was supposed to be a follow up to the evening we spent with Cesar. In my opinion, this is not how the meeting went.

The Sierra National Forest, Jody Nickerson sent out this email last month: This was supposed to be a follow up to the evening we spent with Cesar. In my opinion, this is not how the meeting went.

We received an invite to attend this last meeting which was held on June 11, 2019. At this meeting I asked if we were going to see all the trails on the Sierra National Forest? I was told no. I asked, then how do we know what trails were not moved forward as proposed vs. what we requested back to Cesar in June 2018? The answer was they are all listed on the back wall. We were told that they did not meet the “minimization criteria analysis process”.

Sierra National Forest seeks public comment, initiates scoping for the Forest’s motorized recreation project

Dear Forest friends and neighbors. Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) has increased tremendously. On National Forest System lands (NFS), managed OHV use results in more sustainable trails by addressing: erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and mitigating impacts to cultural resource sites. Additionally, it is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)).

The Sierra National Forest (SNF) is initiating scoping and requesting public input for the Motorized Recreation Project (Project) Environmental Assessment (EA). The Project area includes identified maintenance level 1 (ML1) roads, trails, and areas across the SNF, outside of the designated Wilderness areas. Based on the purpose and need for action and as a result of the minimization criteria analysis process, the SNF proposes approximately 45 miles of trails and 12 areas (11 acres) to the National Forest Trail System. Of those 45 miles of proposed routes, 3.8 miles are proposed to change from ML1 roads to trail. The Project is bound by the Kings River to the south, Merced River and Yosemite National Park to the north, west of the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness areas, within the confines of the SNF.  A detailed description of the need for the Project and the proposed action is available on the Forest website. Using information gathered during this scoping period, an interdisciplinary team will develop and analyze viable alternatives to the proposed action. You will have an additional opportunity to comment as the Project is developed.

To assist the SNF in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible and explain the reason behind your thoughts.

CONCERN: We, the public were never given the opportunity to discuss why the trails we proposed did not meet this minimization criteria analysis process. This grant specifically is supposed to develop a proposed action based upon the field work and “significant” issues raised by the public. Supposed to develop alternative to address identified “significant issues”. We, the public were never given the opportunity to hear what any significant issues are and how they conducted their field work to make this determination. We were not explained anything about the “minimization criteria analysis process”; in fact, some of the public were asked to stand down in the public meeting. This is not acceptable.

CONCERN:  During this public meeting, Dean told us that he and his staff did not have to do this. He told us that other National Forests are not working with the OHV users in trying to revisit Travel Management. He is totally contradicting the requirements of the grant. Regardless of what he wants to do or what other forest are doing, he and his staff applied and was awarded a $712,000 grant. The grant states “planning grant will complete a draft environmental analysis to possibly add these roads, trails, and areas to the SNF’s designated motorized trail system. The roads, trails, and areas that are added will become developed and opened to legal OHV opportunities. This will fulfil the commitment from the SNF to the public to review unauthorized routes that were identified during the Travel Management impact Statement (EIS) in 2010”. If the SNF didn’t want to take this process seriously, then it potentially wasted OHV funds that could have been better used.

CONCERN: Only a small portion of the trails we asked to bring forward as proposed trails made. Some trails if not most are all currently being used as assumed legal OHV Opportunities. In most cases, they were removed from the MVUM and presumed an error.

PROPOSED TRAILS: I would like a formal response as to why the following trails did not meet this minimized criteria:

• JH-74: This is an OSV “Over Snow Vehicle” bridge which is used year round. It’s a critical loop opportunity from the Red Mountain trails to the South Fork Tamarack OHV system, then also tying into Bald OHV. This bridge connects 09S066 to 08S055C. It had to have gone through NEPA back when it was built. Snowcats, snowmobiles, track SXS vehicles, etc travel over it during the winter. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• JH-95: This segment of trail is located within the Bald OHV on 26E328 just prior to the intersection at 25E208 near where the 25E210 joins into the 25E208. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. In fact, this is considered by the OHV community to be the trail and has always been used as such.

• 25E309: This is referred to as the “Waterfall Trail”. It is 90+% granite. This trail provides a loop opportunity and connects the 25E208 to the 25E209 just below an area called “DC Hardway”. This trail was worked on with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. We created rock armoring were needed. Widen the trail in tight locations. Posted trail signs in both directions and was told that we followed everything we needed for this trail to legally connect.  There is no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity. In fact, this is considered by the OHV community to be the trail and has been used as such since 2015.

• JH-18a / 26E325: This is a short trail we named “V Rock Shortcut”. We opened this trail back up  with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. We created waterbars on the step dirt section of trail. We volunteers continue to maintain this trail. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• JH-43 / 26E323: We refer to this trail as “Lower Hollywood” We opened this trail back up  with Tony Borelli and Dan Gunn back in 2014-2015. Posted trail signs in both directions and was told that we followed everything we needed for this trail to legally connect.  This is provide for a loop opportunity. It is 100% all granite with no to little vegetation.  We volunteers continue to maintain this trail. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• 26E211 connects to 9S01, near KD-06. This is a loop opportunity which is not currently being used; however evidence is seen where OHV have been using this as a way to connect over to the camping locations near rock creek. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• KD-07 / 9S09C: This is a proposed trail to be added as a legal OHV Opportunity. We volunteers would maintain this trail. If there significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity, we would volunteer to address them. This trail has not been used in several years. It would require a significant amount of de-brushing and signage. This would make for a fantastic loop opportunity and would strongly encourage it to be added to the trail system.

• 9S09: The portion of road from 26E219 and the intersection of 9S10 is recommended to be changed to “combined use”. This is a major connection/ loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• 09S069B: This trail connects 9S069D to 9S015. This has the potential to be a major connection/ loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• PK-39z: This trail connects PK-36U and 08S057. This has the potential to be a major connection/ loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

• JH-71z: This trail connects 09S015 and 09S03. This has the potential to be a major connection/ loop opportunity for green sticker vehicles. There are no significant issues to allowing this to be a legal OHV Opportunity.

Dean mentioned a few times during the last meeting that he is concerned that if he adds any more OHV riding opportunities, then how will they maintain them? This should have been thought about before applying to this grant. We volunteers on the other hand do the majority of all the trail maintenance; which is why we wrote letters in favor of this grant application. We are prepared to maintain these proposed trails. We are asking for loop opportunities between current OHV Legal Trails. Most of which are already being used. I am asking for us to make these legal OHV opportunities.

I formally asked for written explanation if any of these proposed area do not meet “minimization criteria analysis process”.

I would encourage you to look over the maps and make your comments specific to the areas you identify with. You should list the roads, trails and/or areas you want back on the MVUM. Here is the link to all the maps: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=55572

CONCERN: Unless you have access to a map which contains ALL TRAILS; you may not know which trails need to be proposed. If you need help or have a specific area, let me know and I will screen shot that area and send it to you.

Please consider sending your comments and feedback to: comments-pacificsouthwest-sierra@fs.fed.us; jnickerson@fs.fed.us;

You can cc: meredith.hollowell@usda.gov; dean.gould@usda.gov; kevin.woods@usda.gov; mknolen@fs.fed.us; jongeorge@fs.fed.us; cesarsanchez@fs.fed.us;

Please find attached a letter drafted by Steve Cowdrey signed by everyone who was able to attend a meeting last night. We brought together a small group to explain what’s going on and asked everyone to report back to their club or group the information shared; including this attached letter. Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for supporting OHV in the SNF!!!