The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlumas National Forest Travel Management Plan - Subpart BmCOPY •°n~BVp~'' o$..»».~ `y. ~~ ~~Q~ BOARD OF SUPER1liS4RS £*~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~y. '~~ N~ `~ 25 COEINTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILI.E, CALIFORNIA 95985 """` TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7224 BILL CONNELLY First District LARRY WAhiL Second District MAl7REEN KIRK Third District STEVE LAMBERT Fourlh District DOUG Tf:ETER Fifth District PLLT~AIS COUNTY' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 530 h1AIV S'1'., r200?+I 304 • QUINCY, CALII'QI2,NIA USSI?I T'r'7 (590) ~88-i3I7(} • i~'At (5:30) ~8:36p88 March 7, 2013 Randy Moore Region S Forester USDA Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 RE: Plumes Nations! Forest Travel Management Plan -Subpart S Dear Mr. Moore: ~~~.5 C~G~ a K n 4~ '~~;F Gi'g~ The Record ofDecision oftheabove-referenced Travel Management Plan was issued on August 30, 2014, by former Plumes National Forest Supervisor Alice Carleton. As you may recall, the County of Butte and the County of Plumes independently f led letters of appeal, dated December 20, 2010 and December 21, 2010, respectively. Both appeals were later denied. Representatives of the County of Butte and the County of Plumes then met with Plumes National Forest Supervisor Alice Carleton and her staff to try and resolve the issues set forth in the appeals. No agreements were reached. The Board of Supervisors of both counties voted to initiate litigation. About this time Alice Carleton was replaced as Plumes National Forest Supervisor by Earl Ford. Based upon this change in Forest Supervisor the County of Butte and the County of Plumes both created negotiation teams of members of their Board of Supervisors and staff in order to jointly Ineet with the new Plumes National Forest Supervisor and his staff: Randy MOare, Region 5 Forester Plumas National Forest-TMP-Subpart B March 7, 203.9 Page 2 Meetings were scheduled and conducted, with general summary of the conclusions being set forth in the January 9, 2013 (sic) letters addressed individually to both Counties by current Plumas National Forest Supervisor Earl Ford. The Boards of Supervisors of both Counties have recently met, individually, to receive reports from their respective negotiation teams. It is with sincere regret that we must inform you of our continuing disappointment in the travel management issues surrounding our respective appeals. Accordingly, with submission of this letter, both Boards of Supervisors have decided to submit this meeting request directly to your attention in order to seek your participation in the next meeting to attempt a settlement agreement, thus avoiding litigation. Please note that the agendas of subjects discussed during the meetings last fall were intentionally limited to those issues thought to be less confrontational and to result in some measure of compromise. The Board of Supervisors for both counties are very concerned That our efforts are not being taken seriously by the Plumas National Forest staff. The Counties are not satisfied with progress an the list of proposed Improvements and/or Ac#ions that was submitted at our first meeting. Accordingly, the Counties would like to meet with you #a discuss our concerns. The Improvements and/or Actions that were proposed to Forest Supervisor Ford include the fallowing: R nest to stud a selected list of Plumas National Forest roads to either allow mixed use or re-class' the maintenance level from ML-3 to ML-2. Approximately 193 miles of existing forest highway segments, presently classified as ML-3, were identified and proposed for further study by Plumas National Forest staff to be reclassified. The segments are important Iinlts for OHV access to the Plumas National Forest. Forest Supervisor Ford's response was to reject the consideration ofreducing the maintenance level from MI,r3 to MLA 2 on any ofthe proposed roads and to only consider studying approximately thirty-eight {38) miles of Mlr3 roads for Mixed Use. We question this response when we compare it to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest response, given a similar request by Shasta County. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest staffresponded reasonably, resulting in the study and eventual reclassifcation ofalmost i DOmiles of ML-3 roadways to ML-2 that will allow QHV use. The decision to consider analyzing motorized Mixed Use on selected ML-3 roads is also a concern to us because of the Acting Forest Engineer's statement during our November I6, 2t1I2 meeting wherein he declared that he would never put his signature on a Mixed Use recommendation and alluded that Region 5 is against designating ML-3 roads as Mixed Use. Randy Moore, Region S Forester Plumas NationaE Forest-TMP-Suhpart 6 March 7, 2013 Page 3 Dis erred Cam in and Parkin At our November 16, 2012 meeting, Forest Supervisor Ford agreed to a process to identify and mark appropriate dispersed camping areas by requiring the Plumas National Forest staffto place carsonite type markers atthese locations. The Flumas National Forest staffwas also to develop abrochurefor the public that would assist them in understanding the one-vehicle-length parking rule off of hardened surface areas and where dispersed camping is allowed. This brochure was to describe in words and photasldrawings, the rules that would allow the public to easily understand and comply with these new requirements, without limiting the parking area to just one vehicle length, To date, the only commitment from Forest Supervisor Fard is to state that a brochure will be developed along with several photos. The Counties conclude that tlis is very little effort and an example of the Plumas National Forest not taking our requests seriously, Woodcuttin and Firewood Gatherin During the meetings, the Counties requested the Flumas National Forest staffto allow woodcutting and firewood retrieval similaz to the rules established i.n neighboring Lassen National Forest which allows the fallowing activity: Wheeled motorized vehicles may not be used off of authorized Forest Service roads ar motorized trails to scout for fuelwaod, but they may be used to retrieve cut woad if they cause r~o harm such as soil disturbance or vegetation damage. Forest Supervisor's Ford's January 9, 2013 letter agrees with this reasonable request to be consistent with other neighboring Forests, but has a target date of fall 2013, almost one year from the date of our request. The Counties again concluded that this is another example of the Forest management not taking our requests seriously. Coordination with Counties Both Plumas County and Butte County have adopted Coordinated Agency Status in accordance with Federal and State laws. Yet, Plumas National Forest is continuing to fail to comply with this requirement. For example, at our November 16, 2012 meeting, Forest Supervisor Ford stated that he had received a directive from your ofFce to commence activities pertaining to Subpart A of the USFS Travel Management Rule. This was the first time either County had heard about this July 13, 2012 directive. Plumas County discussed this further at their December 7, 2(}12 Coordinating Council meeting and f rally received a copy of your November 8, 2012 memo to Forest Supervisors and Directors as well as the September 2012 Briefing Faper an Subpart A, but not until December 31, 2012. Butte County has yet to be notified by the Plumas National Forest on this important component of the Motorized Travel Management Plan. Randy MGOre, Region 5 Forester PlurnasNational Forest-TMA-Subpart 8 March 7, 2013 Page 4 Another example of the PIumas National Forest's failure to coordinate with Butte County involves the French Creek area of the Forest. On July 20, 2012, Butte County met with the Feather River District staff to discuss the process to expand OH~I use in the French Creek area because of the conclusion of a detailed Red Legged Frog study in the area. At this meeting, Butte County was informed of the Plumas National Forest staff s intent to reduce the Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) to more closely coincide with the results of the Red Legged Frog study, and thus allow expanded OHV use in the non-CAR areas as envisioned in the original Alternate S Motorized Travel Management Plan. However, on January 22, 2013, Butte County representatives again met with Feather River District staff. District staff informed Butte representatives that the CAR for the Red Legged Frog and Western Pond Tuttle was not reduced, but instead ex ed. Butte officials questioned how the Plumas National Forest staff could expand the CAR without any notification or discussion with Butte County or the public. Butte has never received an answer. In a last effort to reach an amicable resolution of our issues with the Plumas National Forest Trove! Management Plan both Counties are requesting a joint meeting wi#h you and appropriate staff: Two members of each Board of Supervisors will be at the meeting with staff. Please respond to the Chairs of bath Boazds of Supervisors. Sincerely, Bill Connelly, Chair, Butte Co ty Board of Supervisors Terrell Sw rd, Chair, Plumas County Board of Supervisors cc: Earl Ford, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest Doug LaMalfa, Congressman 1St District