Forest Service Required to Examine Wildlife Impacts of Snowmobiling in CA

[TahoeBC]

If ya can't find a place to ski without getting impacted by snowmobiles in Tahoe, your a retard.

[kidwoo]

I asked about their position on this plan and was told "If we can't ride an ORV or snowmobile to those summits, we don't care if they get protection." I walked away rather than bitch-slapping a senile old fart. The point is that even if kidwoo is right and Snowlands wants to ban snowmobiles, it is equally true that Blue Ribbon wants to be able to take their snowmobiles literally everywhere. These are advocacy positions which will not carry the day.

Yeah it's kinda nuts. Each group has done enough suspect BS that the other becomes more and more extreme/absurd/bull-headed. I knew the BRC had settled on a 'no net loss' approach and honestly, I understand where that comes from. But that sucks that this guy felt fine as a representative being so dismissive.

But make no mistake, snowlands can pretty much just be summed as little more than snowmobile abolitionists.

The idea that either snowmobiles or skiers should be automatically exempted from forest land management regimes was always absurd. And the current crop of decisions and settlements does nothing more than change that absurdity. Not sure what anyone is worked up about: your activities will now be managed, did you really think it should be otherwise? On public land?

I've been reading an EIR that the state of CA did in 2010 (at Bob's recommendation). I'm actually pretty impressed by what HAS been taken into consideration and mitigated in terms of strictly snowmobiles. Like anything, it's not as black and white as some would like you to believe. I don't know about the other districts but like I said earlier, I've been pretty impressed with the LTBMU in the last few years. Those guys balance and handle shit from all sides and do a pretty damn good job of keeping everybody happy. Some people will never be happy without completely swinging to one extreme though. To say that snowmobiles have been completely exempt from any sort of management plan in the state of CA by these districts is just flat out false though. And it's actually something that I was led to believe reading a lot of snolands' claims. What snowlands has done is nitpicked one little aspect that a lawyer found as a weakness in a document. A judge found it a valid complaint (and I'm sure it was or else it wouldn't have happened) but it's not that snowmobiles are given carte blanche and zero consideration. Like toast said earlier, the real gripe is any and all snowmobile traffic. The means is now an environmental complaint as a methodology. You can't possibly sit in Tahoe on a three day weekend in the winter and think that friggin snowmobiles are the biggest environmental threat to the area though.

[kidwoo]

How funny and ironic would it be if the FS finds that wildlife is more disturbed by quiet, non-motorized use than motorized use, as studies have shown. Therefore, as a result of this suit, they close areas to quiet use while keeping them open to motorized users.

Given that this is a ski website and that's why we're all here, I could only describe a reaction to that theoretical outcome as 'rather apeshit' considering the source and impetus.

Where was that wildlife study done where animals (at least prey ones) were more spooked by people OFF the sleds than people on the sleds? Norway or Sweden somewhere?

[that dude who did that thing]

kidwoo, you're almost certainly oversimplifying. I did a little bit of environmental litigation a while back. Including a case or two where Cener for Biological Diversity was one of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, it's not my field, and I wasn't comfortable working in an area of law where I knew I was in over my head. But in challenging multiple District-level and Forest-wide final actions, most often for NEPA compliance, I learned that even here in the 9th Circuit "one little aspect that a lawyer found as a weakness in a document" does NOT make a successful case. In fact, the courts are providing a lot of room for the USFS to correct its errors without having to redo EIS's, FONSI's or EA's. You need a substantive and significant error to have even a chance of getting relief.

THe Idaho case, for instance, was issued by Magistrate Judge Ron Bush. I've been dealing with Judge Bush for about a decade, he's not liberal. He's an Idahoan through and through, and practiced in a conservative, business oriented firm before becoming a judge. I don't know precisely what happened to lead to a settlement in the California case, but I doubt that your assessment of some kind of minor, technical violation is correct. If that were the case, U.S. Dept of Justice lawyers would not have counseled settling.

[mattyj]

To say that snowmobiles have been completely exempt from any sort of management plan in the state of CA by these districts is just flat out false though.

In an effort to keep this on track, is there actually any possibility of existing OSV closures being revised as part of a new overall management plan? Or is it simply going to be a look at additional management / restrictions in current OSV areas? Edit: Not asking if total OSV coverage would be increased. Just that if closures in certain areas are found to be needed, if opening up or realigning existing non-OSV areas to offset that loss would even be on the table.

And to go right back off track:

we asked that the highly popular family sledding area (e.g. kids on saucers) on the north side of 431 be closed to OSVs, and that OSVs ride in a designated corridor through the highly congested family sledding area to access the Relay ridge (i.e a corridor a few hundreds yards long)

Ignoring the fact that there's plenty of OSV-free sledding terrain right next door, which is the whole point of having a segregated use area to begin with, see here:

about two square miles on the north side have been left open. This portion is too small for serious snowmobilers, but enables and encourages trespass into the adjacent Mount Rose Wilderness and Galena drainage, where snowmobiles are not permitted

Your organization's stated, public position is that the small size of the 431 OSV area - an area you helped craft - is reason in and of itself to shut the area down to motorized use entirely. And you're surprised when OSV groups won't agree to further size reductions, no matter how small?

[bodywhomper]

I've been reading an EIR that the state of CA did in 2010.

my question: why didn't CA and USFS team up and creatively produce a joint NEPA/CEQA document?

[kidwoo]

my question: why didn't CA and USFS team up and creatively produce a joint NEPA/CEQA document?

Check out what has been done. I'm only partially through it myself (it's a biggun). The districts snowlands listed are addressed.

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/25010/...2020101217.pdf

Jamespio: of course I'm oversimplifying in the legal sense. But it doesn't change what snowlands really wants, why they really want it, and how they're going about achieving that end. Read up on the case and tell me what you think if you have the time or interest. "Legal Merit" doesn't always mean "real life merit". That's all I was getting at. It's not like sleds have been given zero environmental consideration. Far from it. Fortunately snowlands is here to tie up more tax money chasing an issue that from what I can tell, has been handled pretty responsibly by some of the agencies involved. "Letter of the Law" is why we're even having the discussion though and obviously somebody screwed up somewhere.

I just think of all this effort and money going into something worthwhile like a badass public rail system or some bike paths. Because as far as environmental impacts to the mountains, sleds aren't exactly all that. They're just occasionally ruining someone's attempted John Muir moment two feet from a highway.

[goldenboy]

Given that this is a ski website and that's why we're all here, I could only describe a reaction to that theoretical outcome as 'rather apeshit' considering the source and impetus.

Where was that wildlife study done where animals (at least prey ones) were more spooked by people OFF the sleds than people on the sleds? Norway or Sweden somewhere?

You can take this webpage with a giant grain of salt, given the source, but it references several studies: LINK

[splitter]

we asked that the highly popular family sledding area (e.g. kids on saucers) on the north side of 431 be closed to OSVs, and that OSVs ride in a designated corridor through the highly congested family sledding area to access the Relay ridge (i.e a corridor a few hundreds yards long). nope, no go, the OSV representatives did not think it was necessary and would not agree to it

As mentioned, there are lots of areas available to families for sledding that aren't at the snowmobile staging area and don't send toddlers and other kids careening directly at the highway at high speed. Ultimately you can't blame the snowmobilers for people inundating their parking area. As someone who's skied the 431 backcountry for 15+ years now, in my observation that is a relatively recent development. A happy one, I'm happy to see folks out enjoying the mountains and playing with their kids. But still, recent-ish.

Mostly, I don't care, I don't ride sleds and I tour both sides of the motorized area quite a lot. I don't see a lot of trespass. Sure some, but not a lot. There's always a few bad apples. There's more worry with the gapers hiking hourglass totally unprepared.

If they were successful at shutting down Relay to sleds, then I'd go ski the hell out of that. It is great terrain. It would hardly ruin my day. It is true that it takes way fewer sleds way less time to effectively "ruin" a slope until the next decent snowfall. We piss and moan all the time about postholing the skintrack and dogs (and their shit) in the skinner because of a certain amount of protocol for traveling through the snowy mountains. Ultimately this does translate to all travelers no matter the means.

But as it's the highest year-round pass in the Sierra, I am concerned about shutting off access to a whole user group. It is easy to find sled-free skiing in Tahoe and it's very easy on 431.

Having said all that, I don't think reviewing winter OHV use is bad. Research and knowledge are always desirable.

[~mikey b]

Research and knowledge are always desirable.

as is civilized, intelligent discussion (read: I'm glad Hugh shut the fuck up for a couple of days at least.)

[Hugh Conway]

as is civilized, intelligent discussion (read: I'm glad Hugh shut the fuck up for a couple of days at least.)

Kisses mike!

[~mikey b]

Cheers lad!

[~mikey b]

http://www.rgj.com/story/life/outdoo...snow/20460885/



<font color="#40E0D0">There's a reason why during winter it can be hard to find a parking place along Mount Rose Highway near the Tahoe Meadows and Chickadee Ridge.



The short stretch of road is the best place to access some of the most scenic backcountry in Nevada, an area that includes snow-covered meadows, alpine peaks and Lake Tahoe views.



It's also the epicenter of a debate over winter access to public land in the Sierra Nevada as U.S. Forest Service units throughout the range are in the process of reworking their winter travel management plans.



Six separate Forest Service units, Lake Tahoe Basin, Tahoe, Eldorado, Lassen and Stanislaus, and Plumas are in varying stages of reworking their plans, some of which haven't been updated for decades.



The result could be new boundaries that limit where people can ride snowmobiles and set aside areas that are restricted to human-powered recreation such as snowshoeing and backcountry skiing.



The Lake Tahoe Basin unit, at the west end of Tahoe Meadows, is doing a slightly different process than the other units because managers there started before lawsuits by groups seeking more restrictions on snowmobiles forced the government to order winter travel plan updates throughout the region.



They've already formed a Mount Rose Highway Winter Collaboration Group made up of snowmobilers and non-motorized recreation users with a goal of forming a consensus over how to divide up the area in advance of the formal process of updating the travel management plan.



&quot;We are basically looking for something that has broad support,&quot; said Cheva Gabor, spokesperson for the Lake Tahoe Basin unit of the Forest Service. &quot;If something has more broad support it is going to be observed or complied with better.&quot;



Snowmobiling is already highly restricted at Tahoe Meadows east of Chickadee Ridge in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. But to the west, in the Lake Tahoe Basin unit, there are more areas open to the sport.



Access boundaries on the basin side have for decades been governed by an annual series of forest orders that are only in place for one year at a time. The new travel management plan will set more permanent boundaries, Gabor said.



Now, with the Forest Service poised to issue longer-term boundaries, the stakes are higher than ever. And it's unclear whether the members of the collaborative user group are willing or able to come up with a compromise.



In the Lake Tahoe Basin unit areas of contention include Chickadee and Relay ridges which are on the west side of Tahoe Meadows and provide lake views. Also, there is debate over whether snowmobile riders should be forced to use sleds with &quot;best available technology&quot; for emission control, which could price out people who can't afford to upgrade. Emission controls, however, are beyond what the Forest Service regulates, Gabor said.



&quot;We are not seeking to end the sport of snowmobiling, we are just seeking to confine it,&quot; said Bob Rowen, vice president for advocacy for Snowlands Network, which bills itself as &quot;the only voice in California and Nevada advocating for quiet, safe and pristine places for non-motorized visitors to our forests to recreate.&quot;



Rowen said snowmobiles create more noise and pollution than many backcountry skiers and snowshoers are willing to tolerate.



&quot;People don't want to recreate with the snowmobile noise and don't want to recreate with the snowmobile emissions,&quot; he said. &quot;You get one snowmobile in there and it ruins the experience for everybody. It is like you are sitting on the beach and a motorcycle rides right by you.&quot;



Not surprisingly, snowmobilers aren't keen on getting pushed out of some of the most scenic and accessible riding terrain in the Sierra Nevada.



Greg McKay, who represents snowmobile users in the collaborative group, said riders want to preserve access to areas they've been riding for decades.



&quot;If you look at the map of where we are allowed to be in the area we are a postage stamp,&quot; he said. &quot;There is a tendency to try to protect those areas and not have them erode any further.&quot;



McKay also disagreed with the notion that snowmobiles can't co-exist peacefully with skiers and snowshoers.



&quot;This is public land, everybody has an equal right to use that property for their recreation experience,&quot; he said. &quot;The people I ride with, if we see some skiers in the same area we try to give them some distance.&quot;



If the collaboration group doesn't offer a compromise the Forest Service will issue it's own proposal for the contested areas which would most likely be similar to the temporary boundaries already in place.



Gabor said the Forest Service could have new regulations in place this winter ordering the units to move forward with their travel updates. She's hopeful the snowmobile and non-motorized groups will have their own compromise before then.



&quot;We are trying to provide a range of outdoor winter recreation experiences,&quot; Gabor said. &quot;What we would like to see is a move away from how much does one side have versus how much does another have.&quot;

[~mikey b]

Funny the last interaction here was La Hugh and me..,

[kidwoo]

why can I only see 2013 posts?

[~mikey b]

Cuz the forum is fucked ip

[Snowlands]

Any person wishing to view Snowlands' position on the winter travel management process on the five forests in California, plus the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, may do so here:
snowlands . org/pages/winter_travel_management/winter_travel_management.htm Remove the spaces.

That page will continue to be updated as the process moves forward.

[~mikey b]

Yeah. Can't afford to continue to have your VP and a Director spouting off here reacting to what they see as personal affronts can you? Unfortunately I'm rather unimpressed with Snowlands as an organization. Not up to speed.

[creaky fossil]

it's a great policy move to find a scapegoat like snow machines
couldn't be development adjacent to or within USFS lands is what bugs the crittters
gotta be day use
blame the sleds
keep building fancy parking lots, trailhead facilities, lodges, concession stands
ban the sleds

[~mikey b]

.

[LightRanger]

Yeah. Can't afford to continue to have your VP and a Director spouting off here reacting to what they see as personal affronts can you? Unfortunately I'm rather unimpressed with Snowlands as an organization. Not up to speed.

I can fend for myself, thanks.

Also, if you want to actually get involved in the process, then feel free. I'm sure the FS would appreciate your expertise. The LTBMU hosted a meeting last winter to try to get a collaboration going for OSV management in the Basin. I was there. I didn't see you there.

[~mikey b]

Unfortunately I can't get too involved in issues NIMBY. And Snowlands isn't going to get involved on Sonora Pass I'm pretty sure. I've offered to help but haven't heard much from you guys. And I don't think I'm a good fit for your organization because I'd bring a balanced, objective view to the issue.

[LightRanger]

Unfortunately I can't get too involved in issues NIMBY. And Snowlands isn't going to get involved on Sonora Pass I'm pretty sure. I've offered to help but haven't heard much from you guys. And I don't think I'm a good fit for your organization because I'd bring a balanced, objective view to the issue.

Don't misrepresent things. You offered help, but wanted to be paid (because Snowlands has tons of money ). And, to do what, exactly? What the Forest Service is already presently doing. And then in the meantime, when this thread was ongoing last year, when Baaahb was asking you polite questions, you were a jerk in reply. Again, fine. But why would anybody want to work with you (especially paid) when you act like that?

In the meantime, you like to stir things up. That's fine. But don't pretend to really care about these issues, but not do anything about them.

Re: BWRA, my (personal) understanding is that the issue there is settled. So what is there to get involved with now? I'm fairly certain Snowlands put in comments on the legislation when it went through, and the subsequent management plan.

[~mikey b]

because I know what I'm talking about that's why

edit

and Colin, it's ok to be a jerk - Bob is a pompous ass, Marcus is a jerk - many people that you might think would support Snowlands do not simply because of the message they send - you have to admit that you have a bit of a public perception problem here - I can help you with that, for a fee