The latest meetings at the USFS Ranger District offices were excellent. They took comments from the public. They have a good plan and it is probably the best in California. But there are a few issues that still need to be worked out.

One is dispersed camping. It appears that the USFS is going to remove dispersed camping from the Route Designation Process (RDP) and allow people to drive to their campsites even if the route isn’t designated. But motorized use will be limited to the routes for camping.

Level 3 roads are the biggest issue right now. Historically, these roads have been open for OHV use. The Regional Office said the California Vehicle Code (CVC) applies to these roads. But the CHP says the CVC does not apply. The Regional Office is choosing to ignore the CHP’s interpretation of the law and is still wanting to apply the CVC to level 3 roads. The Regional office says if there isn’t an Engineering Analysis on the road, no OHV traffic will be allowed. This is a major roadblock. Some level 3 roads could be dropped to level 2, but there are only a few. The biggest comment from SAC members is that they want to continue using level 3 roads to provide loops and day rides on quads and motorcycles.

County roads are an issue that hasn’t been resolved yet. Currently, unpaved county roads are not recognized as OHV legal routes. Rose Comstock and Robert Meacher are supportive of legalizing OHV use on those routes. Work is being done on this issue and we have faith that the Board of Supervisors will deal with this issue. Mike spoke at the Feb. 5 Board of Supervisors meeting and the board was supportive. Plumas County will have some of the premiere OHV routes in California. With strong County backing, the Plumas should end up with a very good plan. The Visitors Bureaus and Chamber of Commerces have not been in contact with SAC, so there is no involvement from them that we are aware of. SAC contacted these organizations at the beginning of the process but have had no response back from them. Since this is the best plan in California, local businesses will see economic benefits. It’s surprising that these organizations have not been vocal through this process, and have not been working with SAC. If we were known as the Premiere Forest for OHV Routes, there wouldn’t be much more traffic but local businesses would see more money spent here. This plan will affect every use in the woods. The County Road Department is working with SAC. Joe Blackwell and Bob Perault have met with SAC and things are going well. They support OHV use on county roads. The only issue with the county is risk management (liability) but that issue is expected to be resolved soon.

Game retrieval is also an issue. SAC feels this is like camping and hunters should be allowed to use motorized vehicles to pack their game out of the hunting areas they have used for generations. Road hunting is not allowed, but game retrieval (one trip in and one trip out) should be allowed. It’s especially hard for older people to pack their game for a long distance without a vehicle.

On the Lassen, woodcutters have unrestricted travel to get firewood. On the Plumas, woodcutters are restricted to driving 100’ off a designated route to get wood.

Ron said that less roads mean slower fire suppression response because of the access problems. SAC agrees that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

The biggest surprise at the workshops was that the USFS is listening to Sierra Access Coalition (SAC) and the public. A caller asked if the USFS is only listening, or are they actually agreeing with what we want? The answer is that what they are changing routes on the maps. We believe this shows a lot of agreement from them.

Another caller said that historically, the USFS usually asks the public what they

think then they just does what they want to do. The answer to this is that it doesn’t appear that’s the case this time. They are responding to what the public is asking for and putting routes on the maps.

Lassen and Plumas both have new Forest Supervisors. Alice Carlton on the Plumas is very involved and concerned with OHV. So is Kathleen Morse on the Lassen. Both are high energy Forest Supervisors and appear to want to work towards having good plans. Mike made a reference during the radio show to one of the Forest Supervisors and called it "her" forest. A caller said that a problem with the USFS is that they think the forest is theirs, the forest belongs to the public. Mike agreed and said it was not his intention to say the forest belonged to them.

We need a working relationship with the USFS or else everybody loses. The SAC Steering Committee level works well with the local USFS. We’re worried about the Regional Office making some decisions that won’t work for us. Blue Ribbon Coalition is working at the Regional Office and Washington Office levels. The biggest headache right now is the Regional Office. The government process is new and interesting

We hope that the Plumas will have an approved plan by the end of the year so we can move on and start mitigation work. Funding may be available now to do NEPA work.

There have been a lot of road closures proposed in QLG projects. SAC doesn’t want to appeal a QLG project due to proposed road closures, so we are encouraging the USFS to take road closures out of their projects and propose them as separate projects.

Ron asked about groups that might be opposing the Plumas plan. Mike responded that the Yani Chapter of the Sierra Club is active. They acknowledge the need to manage routes, but they want to close a lot of them. SAC may work with them in the future, possibly. Some people will say there are too many roads. SAC feels there aren’t too many. There are environmental groups are out there don’t want anything allowed on the ground. An example is the rehabilitation work on the Moonlight Fire that is being challenged by some groups. There will be a lot of opposition from other groups over which routes are approved, but the routes that SAC has taken to the USFS are realistic and we’re lined up to support the routes that members have proposed. The opposition is organized but they’re not as organized as we are. And they’re not focused on SAC yet.

A study of Goshawk nests and the impact of OHV use near the nests was conducted the last couple years. The study concluded that there was no effect to the goshawks from OHV use. Loren Kingdon from Indian Valley wrote a letter about OHVs effecting wildlife. As he said, often the wildlife will not run when they see a car or quad or motorcycle. But if the vehicle stops and the person gets out, the wildlife will run away. We believe the effects to wildlife are minimal.

SAC promotes "Pack it in, Pack it out". We need to take care of our routes so we can keep them. SAC is willing to help and the USFS knows it. "Threading" is a problem. This is when somebody tears up the route because they were stuck, then the next guy drives around that spot and makes the route wider. SAC doesn’t support this practice. We want to repair routes so we don’t lose them. If there are maintenance issues, SAC wants to have the USFS call them to help fix the routes, rather than just close them down because of lack of maintenance. Adopt-a-Trail is working good in the High Lakes area on the Lassen. This will help them keep the routes open for public use Riders need to stay on the roads. We all need to be responsible and think conservation.

We’re getting support from other OHV groups. Quads, jeeps, motorcycles, etc. want their own routes. They are willing to fight for their own routes, but sometimes forget that they need to fight for everyone’s routes and not just the ones that they have personal interest in. SAC wants to see routes for all types of users, including equestrians and hikers. We don’t want use of the forest to be too limited.

The USFS has said that since they are doing less logging, that they would be putting more emphasis on recreation. SAC is encouraged that they are trying to do that. SAC is pushing for an OHV play area outside of Meadow Valley that has historically be used by local OHVers. The USFS has been hesitant to designate this area, thinking it may be a noise issue to residents. Now they are working with SAC on making the play area on the southeast edge of the ridge, so the noise will not be an issue.

The USFS, and especially Pete Hochrein, have been good to meet with SAC to look at routes on the ground. If the public has any photos of routes that might not be in this plan, SAC would like to get copies of the photos to help make a case to keep the routes open.

The Indian Spring Trail out of Belden is an issue. If the public has any information on this route, please send the information to SAC so we can get this route back in the plan. Some routes in "restricted areas" that were designated under the last Forest Plan have legal roads within the areas. SAC wants to see these routes remain in the current plan.

Comments are due to the USFS by March 3. The public is encouraged to submit comments, including positive comments they might have. If we agree but are silent, the environmentalist voices will be heard louder than ours. This time, the USFS gave us 60 days to comment on the plan, which is 30 days more than they had to give us. There will be time to comment after the Draft EIS is done, and again when the EIS is done. But it’s most important to comment now because the USFS can be more flexible in their plan at this point in the process. It will be harder to change things later. The Draft EIS should be done by mid-summer. The USFS is doing a lot of on-the-ground work on the Plumas. Not so much on the Lassen. As the USFS works on the Draft EIS, they will look at every route and do an environmental analysis on them. We may lose some routes due to resource damage. The Final Rule published in the Federal Register said the intent of this process was to stop cross-country travel. The USFS has already done that with the temporary forest order. Now we just need to get the inventoried routes on the maps.

When the Route Designation Process started, the USFS told us that no system roads would be affected so we shouldn’t request them or talk about them. But that’s changed and now it’s a major issue on level 3 roads. The USFS is getting better at looking at routes and how to manage them. SAC wants to be a good partner with the USFS. We want to educate OHV riders in trail etiquette, such as sharing trails with horses and hikers.

Other forests in California aren’t doing very well in this process. Tahoe NF has some issues. Routes were built using OHV grant funding, and now other uses such as mountain bike riders want to restrict motorized vehicles from those routes. We need to look at the big picture. Lassen has some big problems and SAC is trying to help them with that.

SAC has over 850 members now. We want to have 1000 by the time the Draft EIS is out. So we are asking for new members to join and give SAC even more power. We have some expenses. We are a non-profit organization, and we accept donations. As a fundraiser, we also sell note cards on our website and at DuPont Power Tool in Quincy. A lot of SAC members have skills that they are contributing (foresters, engineers, NEPA specialists, and other hard working individuals. We have no paid officers, no paid skills. We are all volunteers.

In Oroville there are a couple groups working with SAC. They are the Paradise Ridge Riders and Cal 4X4. Also Recreation Outdoor Coalition is working with SAC on the Plumas and Lassen.

We hope that the USFS and SAC can continue to work together to present a plan that’s acceptable. A lot of people have commented that they don’t want the USFS to close anything at all. We wish that, too. But it’s not going to happen that way. Local input is valuable. If we don’t speak, non-local people will speak and their voices will be listened to. National groups have a lot of money, but the USFS will work better with local people in this case.

Lassen has problems. Mike met with the new Forest Supervisor, Kathleen Morse, last week and he was encouraged that she wanted to do more work on the Lassen plan to make it better.

The Lassen plan adds only 37 miles to their current road system. They only chose 5 areas on the forest where they designated routes. They want to get rid of routes saying they are "user-created", but many of the routes are actually skid trails, old haul roads and other logging access. We need to keep them in the road system.

The Lassen asked SAC and other user groups to work together to develop an alternative to their plan. SAC asked for an extension until November to do this work. Lassen started with a very poor plan, so it’s going to take time to rework it. The Plumas, on the other hand, started with a descent plan so it’s not as hard to fine tune it.

Information is needed for the Lassen alternative. Working with the new Forest Supervisor on the Lassen is encouraging. We need the public to send comments on Lassen routes to SAC so we can develop a good alternative for the Lassen.