Comment on snowmobile, snowbike use.

I have no problem finding untracked snow wherever I choose to go, whether I go skiing, or sledding.

We have discussed some points and Aaron is right, the FS has been pressured into creating a new plan.
Where is the link to comment? Or is it the phone # at the top?
The link now seems wrong and the phone # accesses a bulk voice mail.

This should work as a link for comments:

www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FS_FRDOC_0001-1883

And here is more more info regarding Forest Service approach to this issue. Not unexpected, it appears the FS is doing their best to minimize any real change. But, I could be wrong and we'll see how it plays out. Years of lawsuits ahead?

winterwildlands.org/long-awaited-winter-rule/  

Well, that first link doesn't quite work. If you copy and paste the whole thing into your browser it will.   

Here are a few bullet points proving yet again that requiring the Forest to manage a particular activity does not require them to manage it well. Not to be overly cynical but I think it's going to be many years, if ever, before we see any meaningful change in how the Forest Service manages motorized winter recreation.

From the Snowest site:

IMPORTANT NOTICE!
FROM COLORADO SNOWMOBILE ASSN
ACTION ALERT!!!

1. The proposed rule recognizes that off trail snowmobile riding is a valid usage of NFS lands that should be continued, and is highly valued especially in the Western United States;
2. The proposed rule continues existing management decisions regarding over the snow vehicles, which means the riding area boundaries will not change as a result of the new rule and riding opportunities you will have this year are the same areas as you had last year; and
3. The proposed rule recognizes that open riding area boundaries are significantly larger for winter travel than summer travel and open riding areas for winter .

The wood river valley, Ketchum, Id. went through this process years ago and settled on dedicated areas to separate the user groups. Other approaches didn't work so it was decided to define these areas. Our mountains are quite different and we're talking thousands of square miles of terrain. I don't get back there much anymore so can't comment as to the longer term vibe but it was essential that the conflict end. Things like that can feel lose-lose to some and I get that. Riders and sliders can co-exist if some simple common sense and courtesies are extended both ways. I felt bad about one of S.V. Trekking's yurts going up in smoke a couple years ago but blaming sledders as a whole for the act of such a small segment of that community is asinine. If you know the Sawtooth, White Cloud, Smokey area, there's a good amount of the season you don't play, at least on the fun stuff. We're more fortunate, generally speaking and a reasonable, sustainable approach be it some division of terrain may be where this is headed due to the Fed's involvement?? I'd wager that the economics of ski traffic and SnoMo's will be looked at and become a factor. So does the subie with a load of skiers on a day climb spend like folks in trucks, expensive machines, using fuel, paying licensing and sno-park permits do? I hope this isn't just played on the state revenue basis but we'll see.

The opinion from the 10th Mtn Hut Ass'n (just rec'd this email today):

New "Over-Snow Vehicles"
(a.k.a. Snowmobiles) Rule

YOUR COMMENTS ARE NEEDED NOW!

DO YOU PREFER a human-powered, non-motorized winter experience in the backcountry? Most hut visitors do and this is why 10th Mountain and others have worked diligently to help preserve and improve this type of experience.

Consequently, conditions have improved at many of the huts, particularly those located on the White River National Forest because it was one of the first to implement a winter travel management plan that effectively addressed "over-snow vehicles" (a.k.a. "snowmobiles").

The US Forest Service is now gathering public input on a proposed rule requiring forests across the country (those that have snow) to develop and implement winter travel management plans.

This is a great step in the right direction and the US Forest Service is to be commended. Regrettably, the draft rule (issued June 18, 2014) misses the mark on several issues and your direct involvement is needed to improve it.

ISSUE #1

1 | The draft rule allows the US Forest Service to maintain an
"Open unless Designated Closed" approach for snowmobiles which is the status quo on many forests. Instead, the rule should require a "Closed unless Designated Open" approach. This would be more effective because it would be consistent with summer rules (for off-road vehicle use) and easier for users to follow and the agency to enforce. This approach has worked well on the White River National Forest and is worth replicating.

ISSUES #2 and #3

The draft rule also gives the agency 2 huge loopholes:
2 | The US Forest Service can simply grandfather in old outdated winter decisions and avoid updated planning, and...

3 | They can leave huge swaths unregulated under the term "open areas" that can be larger than an entire Ranger District (upwards of a million acres in size).

These 2 loopholes can undermine the entire intent of the new rule.

10th Mountain is working closely with the Colorado Mountain Club's Backcountry Snowsports Initiative (BSI) and Winter Wildlands Alliance, the nation's leading voice for human-powered winter recreation, but we need YOU to personally weigh in.

Together these groups have provided everything you need to comment and ensure human-powered users in Colorado and around the country are represented.

You can find all the information you need online at: www.cmc.org/bsi

This is a rare opportunity to help shape Forest Service policy. But we don't have a lot of time-comments need to be submitted before August 4, 2014-it's critical that the Forest Service hear from the ski, snowboard, snowshoe and mountaineering communities.

A strong rule today means balanced management of winter recreation tomorrow. Please take 10 minutes to weigh-in on this once-in-a-generation opportunity to impact how the backcountry is managed.

The proposed rule is weak and allows the Forest to basically declare that the District is an area, and that area is open to OSV use.   Regardless of how the rule comes out, I hope our local forest managers are deliberate about the use designations.  This would ease conflict between user groups.  Here are the comments I left on the regulations.gov site:


July 22, 2014

Joseph Adamson
Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 1125
Washington, DC 20250- 1125

SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Over-Snow Vehicle Use rule


COMMENTS: Oppose Open unless designated Closed (Section 212.81 (a))
        Oppose modifying the definition of “Area” (Section 212.1)
        Oppose grandfathering previous decisions (Section 212.81 (b))

Dear Mr. Adamson,

I recreate in the Wenatchee National Forest in central Washington State.  My passion is backcountry skiing and I am a year-round skier active in the “Turns-All-Year” community.   I live near the Wenatchee Mountains where there is just one easy access point for non-motorized winter recreationalists to approach the two basins which I visit frequently for backcountry skiing.   The basins are locally known as the Lake Clara Area, and the Stemilt Basin.  Unfortunately both of these areas are also accessed by high powered snowmobiles and snow bikes which destroy the quality of my wintertime forest experience.   When this happens, I have no easy alternate area in which to recreate.  The user conflict between back-country skiers and OSV users in my area is frequent.  For this reason, I am very excited that the Forest Service intends to manage the wintertime forest.   I have read the proposed rule and offer the following comments:

1.  Oppose Open unless designated Closed (Section 212.81 (a))
I am disappointed that the rule does not seem consistent with the summer travel management rule which requires that off road vehicle use is confined to areas that are designated open to their use.  The proposed winter rule allows areas to be open to OSV use unless designated closed.  I am opposed to the idea that a Forest can rule that everything is open to over-snow vehicle travel unless designated closed.  I expect areas open to OSV use to be studied and deliberately marked as acceptable locations for this use.  To declare an area open unless designated closed allows a use without proper study or discussion, and does little to reduce user conflict.   Please rewrite Section 212.81 (a) to read “…shall be prohibited unless designated as allowed…”

2. Oppose modifying the definition of “Area” (Section 212.1)
The proposed rule modifies the definition of “Area”, to include the phrase, “except for over-snow vehicle use”.  I see no excuse to modify a definition in a conditional manner.  Either change the definition of “Area” globally, or do not change it at all.  To have a definition dependent on context creates confusion.  This definition modification is unnecessary.  It gives the appearance that the creation of the rule was influenced not by a desire to manage the wintertime forest, but to please the Snowmobile lobbyist.  Please do not change the definition of “Area”.

3. Oppose grandfathering previous decisions (Section 212.81 (b))
The proposed rule allows previous administrative decisions regarding OSV use to stand without public input.  This portion of the rule prevents the new rule from solving the user group conflict I experience in my favorite local areas.  The previous decision in my local forest has been to look the other way and allow OSV use nearly everywhere outside of Wilderness Areas.  To be effective, management of the winter forest must be deliberate, and grandfathering previous decisions robs the process from proper consideration and planning.  Please delete Section 212.81 (b) which grandfathers previous decisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.  I look forward to active management of our winter Forest.

Sincerely,

Mike Rolfs
Wenatchee, WA