LTBMU doesn’t change grantPosted: May 10, 2015 Filed under: Maintenance | Tags: access, education, grant, LTBMU, maintenance Leave a comment
The Lake Tahoe basin Management unit (LTBMU) wrote a CA State Parks OHV grant for repairing and maintaining a mountain bike trail. There was nothing in the grant for any 4wd trails. The single track mountain bike trail did allow motorcycle use so technically the grant was legal but way off track.
The users commented. In a process where grants usually gets one or two comments, this grant received 16 comments. One was posted under the LEO grant or it would have been 17. All were negative. All wanted more than just the mountain bike trail funded for the 2015 grant cycle.
I just learned that the LTBMU asked CA State parks about adding a “general fund” request to the current mountain bike grant. The LTBMU was told that would not be approved as CA State parks prefers detailed grants for specific projects. The LTBMU did not submit any detailed additions to the mountain bike grant. They did ask for funding to keep the pit toilets open on the shoulder seasons weather permitting.
The LTBMU did not listen to the users. That or they were just lazy and didn’t want to take the time to write out a few specific grant additions. These additions were listed for the LTBMU in the comments of the users: the Sand Pits, Twin Peaks, Rubicon Trail, etc. It can’t take that long to write a request for Twin Peaks: boulders/rock – $5000, equipment to move rock – $10,000; signage – $2000. Or the Rubicon: Hand crew for vegetation along paved road – $2000, signage – $3000, engineering oversight for working with Placer county to maintain rolling dips – $8000.
The LTBMU continues to avoid managing OHV. The LTBMU has a duty to maintain and manage OHV trails regardless if the personal views of the workers there are anti-OHV. The LTBMU continues to claim poverty. They even asked me if any of my clubs would have funds available to purchase signs for the trails! The LTBMU is obligated to properly manage OHV regardless of their funding woes. And when the LTBMU knows the views of the users and the needs of the OHV trails and fails to write a grant to fully fund the proper and professional management of those trails, they have failed as managers.
The problem with the LTBMU failing as managers is that we may lose trails. I continued to point out that the Eldorado National Forest had 42 trails closed as the result of a lawsuit, only because those trails were not regularly maintained. The LTBMU’s management game of “whack-a-mole” is reactionary. We need to become pro-active about OHV management in our forests, not just the LTBMU.
I’m not sure of the direction I think we should take on this issue. I will make an effort to sit down with the head ranger, Jeff Marsolas, to make sure THE boss knows of our OHV concerns. If you have any thoughts on how we can ‘motivate’ the LTBMU to more properly and professionally manage OHV, please let me know.