Proposed Forest Plan..... more info... PLEASE READ

[newtrout]

I want to keep things focused, and the other thread is running off in all sorts of different directions. I know a lot of us are angry, myself included. Listen to what Paulharris said. It is definitely not too late....

First, I noticed another unpleasant part of the proposed plan. It includes Scatter Creek as recommended Wilderness! This would be a horrible loss. All the more reason to get ourselves focused here...

On to the positive stuff. I had an excellent conversation today with the recreation lead of the FS Forest Plan Team. I know some of you don't think it matters what we do at this point, but hear me out....

The proposed plan is the first step in a long process. Following this 60-day comment period they will create a draft plan with several alternatives; then another comment period; then one of those alternatives will be selected; then another comment period. We're a long way from the final picture. I'm sure one of those alternatives will be no new Wilderness. And one of those alternatives will be a bunch more Wilderness than what we see in the proposed plan. We probably have to accept that we are looking at some sort of compromise.

We honestly are very early in the game. At this point the FS is still very willing to change boundaries and adjust lines. We need to give them comments, but they need to be specific, constructive comments. It isn't going to do any good to throw out a comment that is threatening and argumentative, at least not if you want them to take it seriously. We need to put together comments about specific closure areas, how often you ride there, why you ride there, how long you've been riding there, what is unique about that area for sledders, etc. I don't mean a general comment about Teanaway or Salmon La Sac, I mean a specific comment about the riding in Stafford Creek, the VE Mine Area, Scatter Creek, wherever; specific routes, how you get in, where you play, etc...

The FS doesn't have hard data about numbers of skiers and snowmobilers in these areas. They are making their decisions based on anecdotal information. We need to give them our side of the story. We need to put some time and thought into this.

Comments can go here:
r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us

 

[paulharris]

Thanks Newtrout for making that call. You are right it is definetly not too late. And it is early in the process but still urgent to get involved now. here is just a small portion of a 40 page appeal submitted by the Colorado Snowmobile Association to the FS. Obviously its not relevant to WA, but just FYI. There was clearly a high level of research put in to this appeal. WSSA may need to do something similar. Sorry to paste so much irrelevant junk here, but the idea is to give a sample of what the FS needs to hear. The FS uses so much flawed information, bad logic, bad science and they need to be refuted on it.


(The illegal designation of the Spraddle Creek area as “capable and available for wilderness” directly conflicts with LRMP area management prescriptions. Pursuant to the LRMP the Spraddle creek area is managed under a 5.4 area designation which provides:

“Visitors can find dispersed recreation opportunities including both motorized and non-motorized, although they may also find that access is restricted, at times, through the use of seasonal or year-long road closures.”

A review of the LRMP’s summary of Category 5 area designations expands upon the decision to utilize these areas for dispersed motorized recreation. This summary explicitly provides in relevant part:

“These lands often display high levels of investment, use, activity, facility density, and vegetation manipulation evidence. Users expect to see other people and evidence of human activities. Facilities supporting the various resources are common. Motorized transportation is common.”

The LRMP also provides clear management requirements for the small portions of the Spraddle Creek area designated as roadless. The LRMP defines management of 5.4 areas also designated as roadless as follows:

“Inventoried Roadless Guideline. Minimize road construction in inventoried roadless areas, emphasizing temporary roads over permanent roads. Roads will only be constructed when necessary to meet management area objectives and only after other options have been examined for feasibility.”

Under the New Colorado roadless rule provisions for upper tier designations, which has been prepared based on the direction of the Forest Plan, no area of the Spraddle Creek area is to be designated as upper tier, with the exception of a small area that is already closed to motorized access pursuant to a 1.2 area designation being applied. Areas to be designated “upper tier” are defined as:

“These areas were selected to become upper tier based on their roadless characteristics, and that they were already designated for higher levels of protection in either draft or final forest plans”

A more thorough review of the analysis of this area in Appendix C reveals that only 874 acres of the 9460 acres reviewed in the Spraddle Creek area was found to be capable and available for wilderness further undermining any claim the area is properly designated as “roadless capable and available for wilderness”. CSA notes that the 874 acre portion of the Spraddle Creek area is already managed pursuant to an area 1.2 area designation and is completely beyond analysis in the TMP.

CSA believes the alteration of the boundary of the open motorized winter area in Spraddle Creek area makes little sense from an “on the ground” management perspective. Currently the legal boundary on the east side is basically the top of Bald Mountain and the associated cliff that runs generally northeast. This is an easily defined geographic boundary, which results in violators of the boundary having concerns far more serious than illegal entry onto a Wilderness area if the boundary is violated. Under the TMP Alternative GM the boundary for open motorized winter usage is moved to the middle of a field that simply will not be easily definable and simply impossible to enforce without a lot of signage. It is CSA’s experience that simply connecting dots on area designations maybe a good resolution for a boundary on paper, such designations often fail to make any sense to the user on the ground. CSA believes that the proposed Spraddle Creek boundary is a boundary that will simply fail when put on the ground.

The arbitrary nature of the new boundary for the western side of the Spraddle Creek area is that summer motorized access remains open on FS 7-719.1 to the top of Bald Mountain and roads 7-786 and 7-720 also remain open in the area for summer access. These access methods completely undermine any assertion Spraddle creek area is accessible for winter recreation by means other than the single roadway nakedly alleged to be the sole means available for access. Cutting off access to the eastern areas will result in an area designation that is simply unenforceable, makes little sense and unnecessary.

CSA is deeply troubled by the Forest Services assertion the area is too thickly wooded to provide good snowmobile terrain. This proposition is clearly disputed by the extensive comments submitted that assert personal usage of the Spraddle Creek area on a frequent basis in the winter. CSA also notes that thickly wooded areas are often preferred riding areas in flat light or snowy conditions as the trees provide contrast to riders to rely on. Riding across areas without trees for reference can result is riders simply not seeing obstacles such as creek before riding into them. CSA believes that analysis of the viability of an area for recreational usage should at least consider the analysis of the persons recreating in the area. This analysis has not occurred in the Spraddle Creek area.

Given the reliance on illegal area designations as the basis for closures of the Spraddle Creek area to winter recreation, these closures must be reversed.)

 

[winter brew]

E-mail sent.

 

[UBRultra]

Thanks Newtrout. Email sent.

 

[blindman]

thanks mr fish

putting together a much more specific e mail.

good info.

 

[modsledr]

FOr those that are not too familiar with all of the affected areas, it would be helpful to see a list of the affected areas that are used by sledders, and their access points, so the comments can be as specific as possible.

 

[newtrout]

FOr those that are not too familiar with all of the affected areas, it would be helpful to see a list of the affected areas that are used by sledders, and their access points, so the comments can be as specific as possible.

Anyone is welcome to PM me, and I can email some very specific info that will help with your comments. I'm sorry that I can't post some of this information publicly.

 

[rmk2112]

Anyone is welcome to PM me, and I can email some very specific info that will help with your comments. I'm sorry that I can't post some of this information publicly.

I totally agree, we can't post a "treasure map" in a public forum.

Are there any plans to put up more signs at the incursion points again this summer? Let me know, I'd love to help if my schedule allows