Forest Service Required to Examine Wildlife Impacts of Snowmobiling in CA

[~mikey b]

On the advice of a member of my crack Maggot legal team, I've decided that I should put this information back up here for discussion. This is more important than me. Who knows, I might start taking this one on. I've done a lot of NEPA work for the FS and have spent a lot of time working and playing on the snow at ski areas and in the backcountry.

I don't have much time to be involved in the conversation at the moment, but I will say that I think this is a good thing. Motorized and non-motorized winter recreation has far-reaching environmental, social and economic impacts. Unfortunately, I think much of this is fueled by folks who are annoyed by snow machines and are using the wildlife card to their advantage. They're saying "Snow machines are ruining the environment!" when what they really mean is "A snow machine annoyed me." XCD skippers at Tahoe Meadows should just move on. Don't ski there if you don't like sleds, I also think some of those same folks have not considered that non-motorized impacts could affect when and where they are allowed to be. Bighorn sheep closures in the Sierra and Lynx closures in Vail and Vail Pass are two quick examples.

anyway...

[~mikey b]

http://www.earnyourturns.com/18991/u...nowmobile-use/

Snowlands Network and Winter Wildlands Alliance announced today they have settled litigation with the United States Forest Service on terms that require the U.S. Forest Service to review its snowmobile trail grooming program on five national forests: the Stanislaus, Eldorado, Tahoe, Plumas and Lassen. The Center for Biological Diversity was co-plaintiff in the litigation and is participating in the settlement.

The settlement ends a lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California that challenged the Forest Service practice of exempting snowmobile trail grooming from detailed environmental review, through the issuance of “categorical exclusions” and/or reliance on outdated environmental assessments. The Forest Service agreed to initiate environmental review of its snowmobile trail grooming activities on the five national forests, with the expectation of completing such activities by the end of 2015. The plaintiffs are provided the right to submit an alternative for Forest Service consideration as part of the process of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

According to Libkind, “We have been working towards this goal for many years and now look forward to collaboration with the Forest Service to preserve and protect areas for clean and quiet winter recreation in the central and northern Sierra and southern Cascades.”

“Together with the recent court decision in Idaho overturning the snowmobile exemption in the travel management rule, we are finally getting general recognition that snowmobiles must be managed in the same fashion as all other off-road vehicles in all other seasons,” said Mark Menlove, Executive Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance. “This settlement today will kick start broad winter travel management in California and we look forward to continuing to support our affiliate Snowlands Network in ensuring that skiers and snowshoers have a voice in federal land management in California.”

“This starts the process of environmental review,” said Bob Rowen, Snowlands Network’s Vice President of Advocacy. “We look forward to assisting the Forest Service in fulfilling its mandate to manage public lands for multiple use in an environmentally sustainable manner and to instill greater balance in Forest Service management of winter recreation.”

Laurie Rule of Advocates for the West, a public interest environmental law firm, represented the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The settlement follows a March decision in an unrelated case from the Federal District Court in Boise, Idaho, that requires the Forest Service to amend its travel management rule to include a requirement to address the impacts of snowmobiles on each national forest unit where snowmobiling occurs. That lawsuit was brought by Winter Wildlands Alliance and Advocates for the West is also in that litigation.

There are a couple folks that work for Snowlands here on the forum. One is a Maggot. One is a Registered User.

http://snowlands.org/projects/OSV_plan.htm
http://www.winterwildlands.org/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/n...9-04-2013.html

[Baaahb]

Actually, Snowlands advocacy is primarily based on impact to users and such completely recreational impacts such as "disproportionate consumption of powder snow". Snowlands' push is for balance, and implicit in that is a recognition that balance is based in part on demand...the demand by snowmobilers for lands to snowmobile, on the one hand, and the demand by other users for lands to recreate free from snowmobiles, on the other hand. This is a question of numbers, as well as what is sustainable, considering the growth in demand for winter recreation.

There is big demand for powder snow in the backcountry. It is fact that a single backcountry slope can provide powder turns for dozens of skiers over the course of a day, or can be shredded by one snowmobile in a matter of hours. Given this duality, how does one create fairness and balance in a heavily used recreational area? Hopefully the settlement will cause the Forest Service to consider exactly this issue.

As far as Tahoe Meadows goes, the meadows themselves were closed to snowmobiles about ten years ago, thanks to the effort of Snowlands. But slopes to the north and to the south of the meadows are open to sleds, and sled noise can pervade the 231 corridor on the west side of Rose Pass. Snowmobile noise also pervades the adjoining passes into Tahoe: Brockway and Spooner. So what is fair balance? Bear in mind that there can be, literally, hundreds of skiers and snowshoers enjoying this immediate area on a winter bluebird day, and even the snowmobilers recognize that the area is too small to accommodate a large number (over a dozen?) of snowmobiles.

The question is, what is proper management of this land, with regard to snowmobile use. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. The snowmobile lobby is well-organized and very vocal, but every survey shows there is far greater numbers of skiers and snowshoers.

As far as watching out for what you wish for...in many areas of the Rockies the Forest Service has winter wildlife closures that prohibit ALL entry. I believe there are a few in the Sierra as well. Snowlands does not oppose these closures. If they are necessary to protect wildlife habitat, they are necessary.

[LightRanger]

I'd like to see a lynx in the wild sometime, but I'm pretty stoked that they're not endemic to the Sierra.

[bodywhomper]

below is what i posted yesterday (my late night interpretation of the settlement and procedures). to me, this is not as broad as some seem to think, basically limitted only to groomed snowmobile trails. for instance, for 2012/2013, there were no groomed snowmobile trails in the areas to the north and south of tahoe meadows, thus snowmobile access and use of the area would not be subject to this settlement (unless there's a proposal to groom trails there). Also, what's the deal with wildlife? it's not specifically mentioned in the settlement. i understand the ESA federal nexus, bald eagle golden eagle protection act, and USFS's protection of other species; is that it or am i missing something?

it looks like this settlement is limited to groomed trails program and (I’m reading into it because it’s not crystal clear to me) the plowing and access provided specific to access the groomed trails program. Is that right? Anybody? http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...settlement.pdf

I looked at page 7 of this shitty ass scan, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5402181.pdf for the ltbmu. I see a groomed trail system between tc and Brockway summit, with designated FS access at Brockway summit, and a groomed trail system at from south of spooner summit, with designate FS access, as spooner summit. that’s all I’m seeing for the groomed trail ‘program’ on fs property, is that correct? There are other designated access locations, but those do not seem to be part of the settlement and not part of the future nepa compliance process for the grooming program. under the 2012/2013 grooming program, the creation and maintenance of all other access locations, include the few other fs-designated access locations, are not included as “ancillary activities” related to the “grooming of snow trails for winter recreation”.

Based on the settlement, the fs federal action should the identification of “snow trails for grooming”, and the environmental impact should be focused on the direct effects of grooming those snow trails, and the indirect effects of using those trails, other access provided by those trails, and creating and maintaining access to those trails. The environmental effects should include impacts of changing public access, impacts to changes in recreation by user group, impacts to changes in parking, impacts to changes in socio-economics, impacts to changes to wildlife behavior, impacts to changes in public safety, impacts to changes in on-road traffic patterns, impacts to changes in air quality, etc. the effects should be measured against the existing conditions, which could likely be the 2012/2013 groomed trail program.

FS could limit the purpose and need to something like, “need: continue to provide groomed trails and associated facilities (parking) for osv in the management unit” and “purpose: determine the appropriate density and general locations of osv groomed trails”. The alternatives would likely be the 2012/2013 groomed trail system,

btw, does anybody find it odd that only 5 national forests are named but the settlement mentions 11 national forests? What’s up with that?

[Hugh Conway]

For all of the bitching and whining about restrictions - how many people actually get caught and fined for violating the rules? I can think of several climbers who violated the sheep closure (when it was there) to climb Williamson and publicized said climb with (seemingly) no problems. Have seen people violate MTB closures with no problems as well. So, cynically, if they don't enforce the law, and don't want to - what's the problem?

[GPP33]

There is big demand for powder snow in the backcountry. It is fact that a single backcountry slope can provide powder turns for dozens of skiers over the course of a day, or can be shredded by one snowmobile in a matter of hours. Given this duality, how does one create fairness and balance in a heavily used recreational area? Hopefully the settlement will cause the Forest Service to consider exactly this issue.

As far as Tahoe Meadows goes, the meadows themselves were closed to snowmobiles about ten years ago, thanks to the effort of Snowlands. But slopes to the north and to the south of the meadows are open to sleds, and sled noise can pervade the 231 corridor on the west side of Rose Pass. Snowmobile noise also pervades the adjoining passes into Tahoe: Brockway and Spooner. So what is fair balance? Bear in mind that there can be, literally, hundreds of skiers and snowshoers enjoying this immediate area on a winter bluebird day, and even the snowmobilers recognize that the area is too small to accommodate a large number (over a dozen?) of snowmobiles.

So help me understand. Not only are skiers and snowshoers entitled to a certain amount of powder per day but they are also entitled to a zero artificial dB environment?

If we want to get into entitled pow then shouldn't sleds get more area since they consume it faster? It's only fair......

[GPP33]

For all of the bitching and whining about restrictions - how many people actually get caught and fined for violating the rules? I can think of several climbers who violated the sheep closure (when it was there) to climb Williamson and publicized said climb with (seemingly) no problems. Have seen people violate MTB closures with no problems as well. So, cynically, if they don't enforce the law, and don't want to - what's the problem?

Nice.


Though I can't argue that it's true.

[farmer]

For all of the bitching and whining about restrictions - how many people actually get caught and fined for violating the rules? I can think of several climbers who violated the sheep closure (when it was there) to climb Williamson and publicized said climb with (seemingly) no problems. Have seen people violate MTB closures with no problems as well. So, cynically, if they don't enforce the law, and don't want to - what's the problem?

We have plenty of twig pigs patrolling around here. I hear of about half a dozen people a year in this area (out of about 5,000 total, not all of whom are getting out there) who get caught doing something that worthless, unelected, unaccountable agency has declared illegal in an unconsitutional attempt to keep the public from having use of public land. Typical penalty is ban from hunting / fishing for XX years, large fines, vehicles and firearms impounded / confiscated, community service, etc.

The forest service should exist for the sole purpose of selling timber and providing access for everyone to public land. Instead, they hemorrhage taxpayer money putting gates on roads, burning good timber, and policing these illegal closures that they invent.

[Hugh Conway]

Are you a deep cover agent of the Sierra Club farmer?

Though I can't argue that it's true.

Recently there's a local park (CA State lands, not federal) that "closed" trails in a section of park land that was already closed to access, but decided to leave a bunch of the trails "open" on said land. All of the trails are illegal. As far as I can tell there's not much for oversight or control, and the (almost exclusively mountainbikers) get to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want with either ignorance or a wink-wink from the park officials and not much care what anyone else thinks. They are grossly offended if people walk on these trails, or slow bikers bike. There's been a few 'crackdowns' and ticketings because neighbors have complained about assholes blocking their driveways and speeding through neighborhoods - and the park itself has had to deal with a number of injuries (they don't like that).

But in the grand scheme - the relatively small user group has done whatever the hell they wanted. Without any public input or process. And without much penalty. So who gives a shit? The managers don't. Aside from topical inspections in the national parks, or revenue (NW Forest Pass, Cascade Volcano permit) it's not the feds are much different. Despite the evil cabals like Snowlands.

[LightRanger]

So help me understand. Not only are skiers and snowshoers entitled to a certain amount of powder per day but they are also entitled to a zero artificial dB environment?

If we want to get into entitled pow then shouldn't sleds get more area since they consume it faster? It's only fair......

Huh? What are you talking about?

If anybody wants to read the Idaho ruling that I asked kidwoo if he'd read and disagreed with the legal basis/logic in the pre-nuke version, it's here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03%2013(1).pdf And it answers the (obvious straw-man/misquoted) questions above.

These articles are also worth reading...

LENGTH: 16111 words

SYMPOSIUM: PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT AT THE CROSSROADS: BALANCING INTERESTS IN THE 21st CENTURY: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECREATION WARS FOR OUR NATURAL RESOURCES

NAME: By Jan G. Laitos, *Rachael B. Reiss**

BIO: * © Jan G. Laitos, 2004. John A. Carver, Jr. Professor of Law and Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program, University of Denver College of Law.

** © Rachael B. Reiss, 2004. J.D. 2004, University of Denver College of Law.

HIGHLIGHT:
Natural resources law has progressed through three separate eras - from laws encouraging the exploitation of minerals, timber, and commodities, to laws designed to control the environmental abuses associated with this first era of extraction, to the current era, where preservation and recreation are fast becoming the dominant uses of our natural resources on public lands. In this current era, there are competing preservationist and recreationist interests in conflict. Pure preservationists wish to limit low impact, nonmotorized hikers. Low impact, nonmotorized hikers seek to exclude high impact, nonmotorized mountain bikers and commercial nonmotorized operations. Both low impact and high impact nonmotorized recreationists fight to prevent motorized recreationists from taking over the public lands. Federal government agencies and then courts must sort out these competing and conflicting uses that increasingly dominate the public lands landscape during this third era. This Article considers the kinds of disputes that have arisen among preservationists and recreationists and addresses how courts have attempted to sort out and resolve these conflicts. The Article concludes that a dominant-use model is emerging, which rejects the notion that multiple preservation and recreation uses might be compatible within the same general area. In this model, preservation coupled with low impact, nonmotorized forms of recreation becomes the primary use of natural resources.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...l__l__1091.doc
http://www.pryormountains.org/wp-con...ms-McCool1.pdf

farmer, kindly take your partisan political spewing elsewhere. Adults are talking here.

[HansJob]

policing these illegal closures that they invent.

Anymore, they're all wanna be troopers, busting peeps for bullshit, to justify they're existence.

[~mikey b]

Civics 101


NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/index.htm




since we're in CA and it's been mentioned

CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/


proposed CEQA changes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us...nment.html?hpw

[farmer]

Anymore, they're all wanna be troopers, busting peeps for bullshit, to justify they're existence.

Exactly. Can anyone actually justify why the USFS needs armed law enforcement officers?

[DasBlunt]

This conversation cannot officially begin until Shadam and his shit show gets into this thread.

Oh, and I poach Mt Tam on my Mountain Bike on the regular, and never get caught.

[kidwoo]

Aaaannnd we're back


LR: I did read it. I'd seen the lawsuit several years ago but I read the settlement yesterday after mike's first round.

There's a lot more going on with this suit than just the CA version. Similar suits have been filed all over the country, basically anywhere there are mountains and snow. Most of them were held up until a decision in Idaho this spring that deemed winter wildlands' suit there to have merit. Hence a precedent, and hence a settlement in CA. In CA, the one snowlands filed about two years ago deals specifically with grooming because that's the way they wanted to approach it. In WA there's one that deals with keeping all sleds on road grades, groomed or not. The long term goal of snowlands is pretty transparent. What they want is zero sleds at trailheads and this is their first step/consolation. But it's a response to something that the FS now has to conduct nationwide. In the immediate future it really doesn't mean much. But what got me all fired up yesterday and sent me into one of my snowlands tourettes sydrome blurts was that they now have Winter Wildlands and the Center for Biological Diversity in their court who will now be assisting them and throwing out action alerts and all that other crap. Contrary to what bahh bahhh bob thinks, there's a lot more organization to be had on the non motorized side vs the motorized side.

And like mike alluded to, there's now a fox on sonora pass that pissed of skiers who don't know how to find a wilderness area will be using to try to shut that down. That case in particular is why the Center for Biological Diversity is involved. As far as the Tahoe basin goes....meh.......like BW said, they don't groom here anyway so any real changes here are going to have to come under some other guise. But sonora pass and some of the access points north of here very much depend on groomed access to some really good remote terrain that no one in their right mind would ever be hiking to on skins in the winter. All because they don't like sleds in the parking lot at their favorite snow parks.

It's just annoying, not because I think no informative study should be done, but because I know why this suit was filed years ago in the first place. It's not they're just going to accept whatever decision the FS reaches and just go 'okay, we're done.'

I can say one thing about groomed VS. non groomed approaches though: the groomed ones sure burn a hell of a lot less two stroke mix.

[kidwoo]

For all of the bitching and whining about restrictions - how many people actually get caught and fined for violating the rules? I can think of several climbers who violated the sheep closure (when it was there) to climb Williamson and publicized said climb with (seemingly) no problems. Have seen people violate MTB closures with no problems as well. So, cynically, if they don't enforce the law, and don't want to - what's the problem?

I should show you the forest service employee they have guarding the PCT off sonora pass in the winter after a storm. You can't cross the PCT up there, even though it's winter, not wilderness, WITHIN a designated winter recreation area open to sleds, and covered in 15' of snow. I'll get a pic for you this winter. It's insane. I don't know what the policing situation is around blue lakes but two guys on sleds did get busted for poking into mokolumne wilderness last year. There's a guy on a green FS sled zooming around mt rose the last few years keeping people away from incline lake. I saw him cite a guy on a snowbike from Idaho or wyoming who got a little too close to mt houghton. I ran into another FS employee yelling at people going over barker pass up blackwood last year, even though that's completely legal. They're certainly enforcing it in higher interest areas.

[Hugh Conway]

I should show you the forest service employee they have guarding the PCT off sonora pass in the winter after a storm. You can't cross the PCT up there, even though it's winter, not wilderness, WITHIN a designated winter recreation area open to sleds, and covered in 15' of snow. I'll get a pic for you this winter. It's insane. I don't know what the policing situation is around blue lakes but two guys on sleds did get busted for poking into mokolumne wilderness last year. There's a guy on a green FS sled zooming around mt rose the last few years keeping people away from incline lake. I saw him cite a guy on a snowbike from Idaho or wyoming who got a little too close to mt houghton. I ran into another FS employee yelling at people going over barker pass up blackwood last year, even though that's completely legal. They're certainly enforcing it in higher interest areas.

You and baaahb are a match made in heaven. You deserve your never ending court dates of assholedom together.

And as long as you keep thinking y'all are getting picked on for violating the existing laws you will have never ending court dates. And you'll probably lose. Just like the moutain bikers have time and time again.

[kidwoo]

And as long as you keep thinking y'all are getting picked on for violating the existing laws you will have never ending court dates. And you'll probably lose. Just like the moutain bikers have time and time again.

That's in your head your OCD riddled head. I usually talk to the guys and see how their day is going and ask if they saw any cute animals. I'm completely cool with existing laws. It's the future ones I'm worried about.

This is round two, go away if you can't discuss something and have to just keep filling pages with your proclamations of superiority. You asked a question and I answered it.

[LightRanger]

LR: I did read it. I'd seen the lawsuit several years ago but I read the settlement yesterday after mike's first round.

Cool. Just making sure you had read the original source.

It's just annoying, not because I think no informative study should be done, but because I know why this suit was filed years ago in the first place. It's not they're just going to accept whatever decision the FS reaches and just go 'okay, we're done.'

So... you do think snowmachines should not be exempt from the 2005 rule and their usage should be subject to NEPA/winter travel management plans?

As to your second point, I'd suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it. As you know, NEPA is a consultative statute and the Forest Service is changed with managing land for multiple uses--snowmobiles, skiers, snowshoers, timber, mining, etc. It's not some trump card for an interest group to get its way. The ESA is a lot stronger--but as we discussed in the last thread, and you just mentioned, it can cut both ways.

As other people noted, enforcement is a huge issue. Budget is an obvious issue. In the snowmachine context (e.g. wilderness/closed area trespass) it's not only a budget issue, but an issue of a people often dressed quite alike, with full-face helmets, on a red or yellow sled, doing 60MPH+. Hard to catch/track/ticket people--except at the trailhead, but then where's the proof of trespass if they're parked at an area that accesses legal terrain? Dunno what the solution is there, particularly in the era of belt-tightening. Not that there's ever been much money there to begin with.

[Hugh Conway]

You asked a question and I answered it.

I didn't ask you, and I don't particularly care what you have to say because it's just crib notes from telemike on foxes and your hurt feelings. Some yelling and a couple assholes ticketed is "enforcement"? What a fucking joke. There is little to no enforcement of existing laws. People on this and other forums openly laugh at them.

[kidwoo]

So... you do think snowmachines should not be exempt from the 2005 rule and their usage should be subject to NEPA/winter travel management plans?

Well the exemption and the creation of the OSV (over snow vehicle) designation have some merit to them. A sled crossing a pretty meadow covered in 7' of snow is not in any way shape or form the same thing as a moto doing it in august. So if you're asking if I think sleds should be under the exact same considerations as motos and rockcrawlers, even on dirt roads? God no. But should their impact on a landscape be looked at in the specific context of winter travel (and in this case where groomed roads enhance access)? Sure. But that's not something that can realistically be done very well in two years. Not if they want to collect their own data. And that's not at all why snowlands filed this suit years ago.

I didn't ask you, and I don't particularly care what you have to say because it's just crib notes from telemike on foxes and your hurt feelings. Some yelling and a couple assholes ticketed is "enforcement"? What a fucking joke.

No that's enforcement. Enforcement that you asked about concerning something you know very little about. Go away if this is all you're capable of anymore.

[Hugh Conway]

No that's enforcement. Enforcement that you asked about concerning something you know very little about..

So teach me, and everyone here, sensei. Facts, numbers. Numbers of violations. Numbers of citations.

I ask because I don't know. The only people who ever use "shit down and shut up" on TGR are fucking idiots. Glad you've joined the club. You'll keep losing until you pull your head out of your ass... because apparently baaahb's smarter. ooof, that hurts to type because he's a pompous asshole and I guaranfucking tee I fathom that far more than you do.

[LightRanger]

Well the exemption and the creation of the OSV (over snow vehicle) designation have some merit to them. A sled crossing a pretty meadow covered in 7' of snow is not in any way shape or form the same thing as a moto doing it in august. So if you're asking if I think sleds should be under the exact same considerations as motos and rockcrawlers, even on dirt roads? God no. But should their impact on a landscape be looked at in the specific context of winter travel (and in this case where groomed roads enhance access)? Sure. But that's not something that can realistically be done very well in two years. Not if they want to collect their own data. And that's not at all why snowlands filed this suit years ago.

Now we're getting somewhere. I wasn't suggesting that snowmachines have the same impacts as dirt bikes and rockcrawlers. I don't think they do and I think that's a hard argument to make. However, they do often have significant impacts--which I suspect will be borne out by hard data in the next several years, in addition to the hard data that already exists. A complete exemption was bullshit. And evidently the USFS decided so too, because they're not appealing.

How much time should it take to collect good data, in your estimation?

Again, on your last point, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[farmer]

It's just annoying, not because I think no informative study should be done, but because I know why this suit was filed years ago in the first place. It's not they're just going to accept whatever decision the FS reaches and just go 'okay, we're done.'

This is the point that no one seem to understand. Whether they are suing the gov't over snowmobiles, timber sales, mines, bikes, whatever, they are not out to protect the environment or come to a mutual agreement. They have the one and only goal of stopping whatever is in question. Their method might change from case to case. It is grizzly bears one day, bull trout the next. Maybe red-legged frogs a few weeks later. Their end goal is always the same.