Forest Service Denies Request to Manage Snowmobile

Forest Service Denies Request to Manage Snowmobiles Under Off-Road Vehicle Guidelines

Petition backed by 90 organizations and filed last year ends with today's decision.

By New West Editor, 3-29-11


www.newwest.net/topic/article/forest_ser..._/C458/L41/#comments


The U.S. Forest Service today denied a request from recreation groups asking that snowmobiles on national forest lands be managed under the same guidelines applied to all other classes of off-road vehicles.

In August 2010, 90 organizations representing 1.3 million members filed a petition with the forest service and the Department of Agriculture formally requesting that the agency amend the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the framework used to designate routes, trails and areas on each national forest unit open to motorized use. Petitioners requested the removal of an exemption making management of over-snow vehicles optional while making designations for all other classes of off-road vehicles mandatory.

“Quiet recreation and responsible stewardship are getting the short end of the stick,” said Mark Menlove, executive director of Winter Wildlands Alliance, the organization leading the petition effort. “Our petition provided the legal and ecological rationale for the agency to restore balance between motorized and non-motorized use in winter and to meet their obligation to protect public lands for future generations. We’re disappointed that the agency continues to duck their responsibility.”

Menlove added that the decision sends mixed signals. “The petition response openly acknowledges that snowmobiles can have adverse impacts on air and water quality, native vegetation, fish and wildlife populations and habitat, and on other recreationists, and yet the agency refuses to include snowmobiles in the framework that has proven successful in managing all other motorized use.”

In denying the request to remove the over-snow vehicle exemption, the Forest Service did agree to develop guidelines or factors for local officials to consider if they choose to implement winter travel planning, but gave no timeline for when those directives might be announced. “We appreciate the offer to establish better guidelines,” said Menlove, “but guidelines are of little use without a directive to actually follow them.”
(end quote)

Here is the link to an article about the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition, one group that supported the Petition- www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/21163

While disappointing to some (and good news to others), I don't think it is necessarily a bad decision.  Over-the-snow motorized traffic does not have all of the same ecological consequences that over-the ground traffic does.  Clearly, the consequence (and greatest contention?) to "quiet recreation" remains.  But the development of guidelines (please remain involved), properly developed, can allow managers at the regional and forest levels to address local issues, perhaps better than a one size fits all approach.

We should keep in mind that customs, cultural values, ecological restraints and local needs may be much different on the Chugach (R-10, Alaska), than on the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie (R-6, PNW).  At the end of the day, population density (recreation density) will drive a reexamination of 'local' regulations and administrative procedure.  Presumably (perhaps a bad choice), watchdogs will monitor environmental concerns ahead of the always slower to follow social issues.

Basically, I'm fine with fixing the rules where they need to be fixed.  Perhaps the Wenatchee is such a place, in which case, let's have competing local interests sort out their differences.  I feel better about doing it that way than having it decided in the other Washington.

Edit to add; It should remain clear to even the casual observer that implementation of such a Federal order would have costs in the many millions of dollars, through structural requirements, challenges, EIS, etc. Timing for proponents could not have been worse.

While disappointing to some (and good news to others), I don't think it is necessarily a bad decision.  Over-the-snow motorized traffic does not have all of the same ecological consequences that over-the ground traffic does.  Clearly, the consequence (and greatest contention?) to "quiet recreation" remains.  But the development of guidelines (please remain involved), properly developed, can allow managers at the regional and forest levels to address local issues, perhaps better than a one size fits all approach.

We should keep in mind that customs, cultural values, ecological restraints and local needs may be much different on the Chugach (R-10, Alaska), than on the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie (R-6, PNW).  At the end of the day, population density (recreation density) will drive a reexamination of 'local' regulations and administrative procedure.  Presumably (perhaps a bad choice), watchdogs will monitor environmental concerns ahead of the always slower to follow social issues.

Basically, I'm fine with fixing the rules where they need to be fixed.  Perhaps the Wenatchee is such a place, in which case, let's have competing local interests sort out their differences.  I feel better about doing it that way than having it decided in the other Washington.

Edit to add;  It should remain clear to even the casual observer that implementation of such a Federal order would have costs in the many millions of dollars, through structural requirements, challenges, EIS, etc.  Timing for proponents could not have been worse.

Thanks davidG. Some followup comments-

The area of the WMC Proposal is central to the state and is heavily used by citizens living outside NCW. The east end of the WMC Proposal is an area close to Wenatchee and Mission Ridge Ski Area. However, the areas near Blewett Pass are heavily used by buses loaded with groups from Puget Sound as well as many individuals or small groups. We meet individuals even from areas such as Ephrata to tri-cities skiing or snowshoeing near Blewett Pass. There are as many and probably more snowmobile riders in these areas from Puget Sound areas. The Teanaway/ Ingalls Crest is the Wenatchee River District Boundary (formerly Leavenworth RD), and that is a main area of the Proposal. That pristine roadless ridge offers world-class high-quality skitouring terrain that becomes popular for human-powered snow recreation after the snowmobiles have backed off in spring. The area borders the ALW and Stuart Range, world-class pristine alpine terrain now ragged at the edges from snowmobile Wilderness trespass that is not reasonably addressed by USFS. We also see skiers going into that area up the Teanaway Road self-powered in order to enter the high country for skitouring. Such a road approach is not uncommon other examples being skitouring to Stuart, Colchuck, or Eightmile from Icicle Road- commonly done.

In regard to the complexity of 'closing' offroad Forest areas to snowmobiles- those areas have never been 'given' to snowmobile riding! Also, check our Proposal- it would allow USFS Enforcement of the Wilderness boundary by using their existing snowmobile enforcement personnel on the NF Teanaway Road, an easy solution that does not add large costs! There has never been an EIS, study, designation, justification, but also not a prohibition of offroad snowmobile riding to our knowledge in researching and asking USFS folks (we would love to see justification for offroad, dispersed riding it if such exists!). It is easier politically and not subject to litigation for USFS to just ignore their mandate to mange the resources, to plan and designate where snowmobiles may be ridden, and just let the current free-for-all exist! Unfortunately, human-powered users lose, and we are the undeniable majority of winter Forest users! Our voices have been drowned-out by the loud power of the well-funded snowmobile lobby that, apparently, USFS fears. The powerful snowmobile lobby and its USFS supporters are denying the reasonable use of winter Forest lands to the rest of us, and are just trying to hide the fact that USFS ignores the effects to nature of widespread offroad snowmobile riding  as well.

The result of the decision is more of the same. More of the same simply means that elite snowmobile riders may soon lawfully invade what you thought was your quiet, pristine skitouring area! I have witnessed for 25 years, as I ride my snowmobile out roads to access skitouring, the advance of technology allowing snowmobile riders to expand continually the Forest terrain used for their recreation to the detriment of non-motorized Forest users.