Comments Due December 16 on the Inyo NF (Eastern Sierra) Draft Assessment Report

[Snowlands]

The Inyo National Forest has released a draft assessment of the national forest that will guide its ongoing Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. The assessment includes very little acknowledgement of the importance of the Inyo (including the greater Tioga Pass area) to the backcountry ski community. A few mentions of cross-country skiers and one or two mentions of ski mountaineering, but not what one would expect considering the importance of the area to the backcountry ski/snowboard community. Please tell the Forest Service that backcountry skiing/snowboarding in the Inyo is important to you and that this importance should be acknowledged in the draft assessment. Comments must be submitted for guaranteed review through December 16--a week from today--by email (comments-pacificsouthwest-inyo@fs.fed.us) or by mail (Forest Plan Revision, Inyo National Forest, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514). More info here: Inyo Page

NOTE: This is not a skier vs. snowmachine issue, but a simple call for comments that assert the importance of the Inyo to BC skiers and riders. Feel free to simply comment that you want to make sure the Plan Revision process acknowledges the importance of the area to you as a skier/rider or, if you have something more specific that you want them to address--e.g. increased plowed parking, gate closure issues, etc.--make yourself heard.

[meter-man]

Hope the guiding companies also weigh in.

IIRC, the Inyo extends from Bridgeport (Sawtooths, Matterhorn, the Hulk) to south of Mt. Whitney, and everything in between.

Snowlands: what's at stake here? Might USFS stop plowing Tioga? Will they start plowing somewhere else (Kearsarge)? Will they release nuclear-powered sleds to high-point Bloody Couloir? Why should the average BC shredder give a rats ass about a "Land and Resource Management Plan Revision"?

[Snowlands]

Hope the guiding companies also weigh in.

IIRC, the Inyo extends from Bridgeport (Sawtooths, Matterhorn, the Hulk) to south of Mt. Whitney, and everything in between.

Snowlands: what's at stake here? Might USFS stop plowing Tioga? Will they start plowing somewhere else (Kearsarge)? Will they release nuclear-powered sleds to high-point Bloody Couloir? Why should the average BC shredder give a rats ass about a "Land and Resource Management Plan Revision"?

Good questions. To our knowledge, they are not proposing any major plowing changes. Nor are they likely to allow nuc-powered (carbon free!) snowmachines to high-point Bloody (renaming it "Fissile Like A Missile"?), although they are considering some changes to the Shady Rest area, which may dovetail with the Plan Revision--although this would impact XC/snowshoers more than it would the crowd that usually posts here. Once they finish this assessment, and promulgate the DEIS for the Plan Revision, we'll know more about the specifics. It's likely they'll have a bunch of workshops prior to the DEIS as well, per usual procedure.

The Draft Assessment Report is the first stage in the process. This is the Inyo's information-gathering stage and will be a building-block for the Plan Revision itself. Here's the cover letter for the Draft Assessment: Link

Dear Forest Stakeholder:

I am pleased to announce that the Inyo National Forest has released the Forest's Draft Assessment Report for public review. The assessment is the first phase of the process to revise the 1988 Inyo national Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or plan).

The Draft Assessment Report summarizes the findings of the topic papers including forest resource conditions and trends, social and economic conditions, and recreation opportunities and access. The assessment will frame the Need for Change as the Forest develops a revised plan and evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed plan as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Inyo National Forest is one of three National Forests in California revising its Forest Plan using the 2012 National Forest System Planning Rule. The forests will complete plan revisions through a join Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) starting in 2013.

The Draft Assessment Report is available for review through December 16, 2013 at... [blah, blah, see link above]

They have a webinar on Wednesday afternoon on it. See the info in the link above.

In sum, the assessment is an analysis of current conditions and trends in use of Inyo NF lands and resources. It's really important that people put in comments to emphasize, as skiers and riders, that, "Hey! We're an important user group! You need to address our needs!" If we are not included as part of their baseline analysis, then the Plan Revision may not appropriately address our needs and concerns because the Forest Service either doesn't know about them or, for some reason, chose not to include them. But they are not proposing specific changes because they are still in the info-gathering stage. Does that make sense?

Also, here's the map for the Inyo NF with different ranger districts delineated. Essentially the entirety of the Eastern Sierra to the Crest, and farther in many places, plus the Whites. (It does not include the Sawtooths, which are managed by the Bridgeport Ranger District as part of the Humbodt-Toiyabe):

[Baaahb]

As said, this is very early in the process and forest plans are general documents that guide management decisions that will be made over the next twenty years. Particularly at this stage of the process, the Inyo is reviewing what is important, what works and what doesn't work in the forest. This matters to backcountry skiers,because, for instance, if the Inyo does not fully appreciate the use of the Inyo for backcountry skiing, it may not fully take into account the interests of backcountry skiers when participating with CDOT on future decisions with regard to plowing.

[meter-man]

As said, this is very early in the process and forest plans are general documents that guide management decisions that will be made over the next twenty years. Particularly at this stage of the process, the Inyo is reviewing what is important, what works and what doesn't work in the forest. This matters to backcountry skiers,because, for instance, if the Inyo does not fully appreciate the use of the Inyo for backcountry skiing, it may not fully take into account the interests of backcountry skiers when participating with CDOT on future decisions with regard to plowing.

So what you're saying is: if we don't comment, then Tioga Pass might not get plowed until mid-June and Tioga Pass is cooked. Given the sequester, use of government shutdowns as a bargaining tool, etc., that does not seem far-fetched.

Thanks for the head's up.

[splat]

Or they might not consider allowing a backcountry hut in the future, consider parking spots for skiers, close whole areas to skiers - or a make a multitude of bad decisions that negatively impact anyone wanting to access the snow anywhere in their jurisdiction. It's the guberment, fer chrissakes. Protect ourselves.

[LightRanger]

Or they might not consider allowing a backcountry hut in the future, consider parking spots for skiers, close whole areas to skiers - or a make a multitude of bad decisions that negatively impact anyone wanting to access the snow anywhere in their jurisdiction. It's the guberment, fer chrissakes. Protect ourselves.

Yeah. I'll definitely be commenting in the next few days sometime.

[SchralphMacchio]

Thanks for the PSA.

I sent an email asking for reliable spring access and winter access to high elevation trailheads. I also mentioned that backcountry skiers bring economic benefit to gateway towns outside of the summer seasonal peak. Off-peak uses of the Inyo NF should bring more sustainable economic models to gateay towns.

[SchralphMacchio]

Someone also might want to ping TahoeBC about bike access to Inyo NF trails, I'm sure he could go off for pages and pages

[kidwoo]

Thanks for the PSA.

I sent an email asking for reliable spring access and winter access to high elevation trailheads. I also mentioned that backcountry skiers bring economic benefit to gateway towns outside of the summer seasonal peak. Off-peak uses of the Inyo NF should bring more sustainable economic models to gateay towns.

Might be a good time to bring up some of the (non wilderness expansion related) road closures in the buttermilks. And/or the non maintenance letting that remaining road that heads towards Humphries turn into a shit hole erosion rut. I know the power company in bishop uses it and even offered to do the work themselves. It's cherry stemmed in as a non wilderness corridor but INF is letting it turn into a creek.

And yeah TBC won't be the only one bringing up bike access.

Snowlands: what do you guys see as being your big points of commentary? Specifically I mean (beyond the shady rest spot).

edit:nevermind, old dog, same tricks
http://www.snowlands.org/assets/file...o_Comments.pdf

The only people on the planet who can't find a place to ski without sleds on the eastside. They're everywhere I tell ya!

[Baaahb]

kidwoo, one needs to put up a big fight in order to get small changes. that's the way government works. like many people, you seem to have a great misunderstanding of the specific changes Snowlands wants

at this stage of the process, the Inyo is not considering specific changes (the Shady Rest matter is a separate, specific matter. it's the sort of thing a forest does that needs to be consistent with the plan)

However, I can answer your question as to what I think should be done. I think the Inyo should prohibit snowplay at Minaret Vista. Snowmobile visits, fine, but snowmobiles should not be free-riding on this ridgeline. I also think the Inyo should prohibit OSV usage off the Tioga Pass road once you can drive to Ellery/TPR. this isn't an issue today; I don't want it to be an issue in the future. And I think the Inyo should create a second nonmotorized trailhead off 395 between Mammoth and Lee Vining.

Are those outrageous asks?

I'ld also like to see greater access in terms of plowed roads, but am not sure what specifically to ask for. I think it's impractical to ask for winter plowing of Tioga Road amd the FS/CDOT does a decent job of getting Tioga open in the early spring; this needs to be continued. the other eastside spring trailheads I ski are in the H-T.

if anyone has specific, practical suggestions on improving access for skiers, including plowed roads and trailheads, I'ld like to hear about it

[LightRanger]

Snowlands: what do you guys see as being your big points of commentary? Specifically I mean (beyond the shady rest spot).

edit:nevermind, old dog, same tricks
http://www.snowlands.org/assets/file...o_Comments.pdf

The only people on the planet who can't find a place to ski without sleds on the eastside. They're everywhere I tell ya!

Woo, that's a funny statement. You say, "beyond the Shady Rest spot" and then go and quote the comments on the Shady Rest spot which are not specific to this assessment? That makes sense...

The needs of XC skiers and snowshoers down off the Crest aredifferent than the needs of people looking for steep powder/ski mountaineering/higher touring. Your average snowshoer who tromps around Inyo Craters or wherever isn't (nine times out of ten) the same guy who is up skiing Bloody, Solstice Couloir, Pinner, etc. If your definition of finding a place to ski is limited to alpine touring/splitboarding/etc. in steep powder, chutes, etc., then your point might be valid. But if you were more inclusive with your definition, then you'd realize that having a quiet place to skate/XC ski or snowshoe off the Scenic Loop--particularly if you live in the town of Mammoth Lakes and you're trying to hit something close to town--isn't actually asking for all that much.

At this point though, as stated above, they're not dealing in specifics. They're dealing in generalities and BC skiers of all stripes aren't being counted enough and they're failing to account for how important Inyo land is to skiers. The Draft Assessment speaks for itself, and quite plainly, on that. Including specific issues in comments isn't going to hurt anything, but they're ultimately not looking for that until the DEIS and scoping docs.

[kidwoo]

like many people, you seem to have a great misunderstanding of the specific changes Snowlands wants

Well I know what you guys have out there publicly, like that letter I linked. And I know your over-arcing motivations behind most of what you do but I asked just in case there was something else.
I also know what you put out into the public sphere to get donations can be a little misleading. Take for instance the picture next to your segment in your latest newsletter of the 'displaced' skiers staring at those snowmobilers. If that picture is where I'm pretty sure it is, you know as well as anyone that 180 degrees around and about 40 feet away there's a no snowmobiling sign and designated no snowmobiling area. You'd know this because one of your board members was crucial in getting that established.
But the Inyo....back to specifics

I can answer your question as to what I think should be done. I think the Inyo should prohibit snowplay at Minaret Vista. Snowmobile visits, fine, but snowmobiles should not be free-riding on this ridgeline. I also think the Inyo should prohibit OSV usage off the Tioga Pass road once you can drive to Ellery/TPR. this isn't an issue today; I don't want it to be an issue in the future. And I think the Inyo should create a second nonmotorized trailhead off 395 between Mammoth and Lee Vining.

Are those outrageous asks?

A little. The Tioga pass non-issue seems like exactly that. There's a wilderness boundary within feet on either side of the road past the plowing to the gate and the corridor to saddlebag is a similar setup, the whole area is already off limits. And now sleds have to stop well before the dam all winter, stopping before areas where cars drive all summer long. That is a little outrageous because under the current setup it never will be an issue. All it does is make life difficult for people who work back there in winter. Is there something I'm missing on that one? Seems like you already have that victory.

As far as the Minaret vista goes that ridge and the summer road to the postpile are the only places they're allowed from that point on. That ridge accesses some good (albeit short) skiing and beyond some scenery doesn't really offer a whole lot of snowmobile thrills. The effect would be more, or at least as many skiers kicked off as anyone. And more importantly, it is the ONLY ridge anything like it in the area where sleds are allowed. What are your concerns with that ridge? It really doesn't see that much traffic. And like most places with sleds if it ever does it's because of the millions of acres they can't go somewhere else. I only know about it because I ski off there.

As far as the trail heads go there's a non-motorized one (one of the two) on the summit between June and Mammoth isn't there? The Obsidian one? Anywhere in June lake qualify? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more parking. I just know what you guys usually mean by 'increased access' (DEcreased access for someone else).

I'm sure it's struck you at some point how Mammoth-centric these concerns are. That's probably because the scenic loop and the vista are the ONLY areas on the south/west side of the road in the inyo where they really have anywhere to go. There's nothing of any relevance south or north of there without getting on the east side of the road where it doesn't seem to snow anymore. You should check some of those areas out some time. They're all over the place and sled free. Snowlands seems fixated on the one area in the inyo that isn't. Lundy, Tioga (just watch out for blue slide) June lake, Convict, Rock creek, big pine canyon, the road to south lake and sabrina, glacier lodge and beyond......all pretty quiet. Just one area that has a few snowmobiles. A lot of them carrying skiers.


Lightranger: That letter touches on more than just shady rest.

And yes I'm aware that there's a world of non gravity fueled skiing out there. That's why everything on this page exists with most of the infrastructure there in place for well over a decade.

http://discovermammoth.com/cross-cou...-mammoth-lakes

The majority of what mammoth and inyo call 'bike trails' in the summer are a network of xc skiing loops.
The idea that INF is somehow unaware of the ski and snowshoe or the backcountry community outside of mammoth mountain is a little weird. A good percentage of their employees are part of it. These people do live in the area and have eyes.

Just so we're on the same page so you know what's already in place: http://www.cnsa.net/images/mammoth.pdf

It's not like there are no sled free xc/snowshoe routes. There are more in town that aren't even on that map. And all of that orange network consists of dirt roads that trucks and cars drive on all summer.



If anyone wants tioga plowed any differently, you're going to have to build a different road. That stretch has killed plow drivers before which very much dictates how they handle that stretch.

[Baaahb]

kidwoo, you seemed determined to make a fight out of this and cast Snowlands as the bad guys.

as far as the picture goes, I simply don't know what you refer to. I work on Snowlands's advocacy; I do not manage the web page. There are some aspects of Snowlands's public image that I am trying to change, such as putting a greater emphasis on improving access to existing nonmotorized areas. this is happening but it takes time. I can only speak to Snowlands's specific advocacy positions.

as to Tioga Pass, if it is a nonissue, why does it matter to you? it is clear that my proposal does not impact winter access via OSV for people who work there when they cannot drive up the road, so why do you make that an issue? you seem determined to argue, rather than to find common ground

as to Minaret Vista, again, you seem to be trying to make it an issue. it is a very small area, a square mile perhaps, that I think should be closed. I have not asked for closure of the Devil's Postpile road, though maybe I should. that is the big OSV touring area, and it is a stem road going through extensive Wilderness. what I have asked for will have little impact on OSV use in the area, so why are you exaggerating its significance?

I am well aware of the existing opportunities for clean and quiet recreation in the Inyo. yes, they are there; Rock Creek is possibly my favorite ski destination in the Sierra. but I think some additional tweaking --and that's all my ask is, some tweaking -- is important. I believe the Inyo should (a) be protecting incredible spring skiing areas like Tioga Pass and (b) creating more opportunities for the beginning and/or less adventurous nordic skier. I know the latter means little to you, as well as to most other users of this forum.

I have been in a meeting with the Inyo where one of their recreation managers told me that the snow on the eastside is not suitable for ski touring like the snow in the Sun Valley/Wood River basin. go figure. if you are happy with the Inyo's current draft assessment, then there is no need for you to comment. but if you are unsure about whether the Inyo has adequately acknowledged the importance of the Inyo to the backcountry ski community, then there is no harm in speaking up

[kidwoo]

I don't mean to fight I just want every backcountry skier in CA to know exactly what you guys mean when you say 'increased opportunity'. Because without fail, the history of snowlands equates to excluding people who share an interest in the outdoors, open public space, and snow recreation. Snowlands likes to paint a pretty misleading image of 'displaced human powered recreationalists' as something that's threatened. Far from it. How many places in mammoth or Mono or inyo county sell snowshoes? Pretty much any retail sporting goods establishment. How many sell snowmobiles? None in mammoth/mono and one in bishop that just does it as a side. That speaks for itself. There's not even a market for serving a visiting motorized snow community beyond the rental place on smokey bear flat. And you'd be surprised how many visitors spend one day renting snowshoes and the next thinking it would be fun to cruise around on a snowmobile. Snowlands creates theoretical conflict when there's very little if any actually there. I want people to know that. Even if it means you get a few new members who appreciate that approach by me doing it and keeping up the topic. I'm sorry if that comes off as a fight, but just speaking personally, I've found the way that snowlands presents itself as an ally of the backcountry community, vs. the details in what it actually works to accomplish most of the time to be less than intuitive.

Here's the picture by the way. It appears in your authored piece in the fall newsletter. You should read it if you don't. Seems kinda crazy that you wouldn't even give it a glance.

http://kidwoo.com/displacedabout40ft...edfreezone.JPG

Mt Rose right? You should let those displaced skiers know about the newer trailhead several hundred feet to their right where sleds can't stage. Or even better, the completely sled free zone about 40 feet behind them.

Like I said, the tioga issue I really don't get at this point but, that's the ONLY one of what you listed. I can understand not wanting to make a sled staging area out of the tioga gate. There's nowhere to go but the road but it might (further) keep those meadows clear of theoretical not yet existent snowmobiles. But have you ever stood at olmstead point in late winter taking in that view completely alone with literally no one around except for far below in the valley? I haven't. But I bet it's incredible. At least now I know that I might want to hurry up and do that this spring before it becomes illegal to drive down that road than millions of cars do all summer.

But I never said the minaret issue was a minor one to those who would be affected. I painted it as a minor real estate question in terms of working towards what you propose, not of minor value to the people who do or might take advantage of it. These are people who like you, enjoy the views of an incredible mountain range and often times park their machines to then go get some good old fashioned human powered recreation. Closing it addresses what exactly? You didn't answer my question. I asked what you think cutting off that little 'square mile' accomplishes given that it's completely open to any skier or snowshoer who wants to go up there.

I believe the Inyo should (a) be protecting incredible spring skiing areas like Tioga Pass and (b) creating more opportunities for the beginning and/or less adventurous nordic skier. I know the latter means little to you, as well as to most other users of this forum.

a) Tioga pass as a skiing destination is protected (IE regulated) out the wazoo, and is in no 'danger' from a motorized community. Its biggest threat probably lies somewhere in the inyo curtailing access if someone decides to start suing them over a broken leg or a buried relative. You want to REALLY protect tioga access? Do something that addresses the blue slide area of the road that has literally killed people, both working and recreating. That is a far bigger threat to spring/early season access because it's a real one. See I could help you preserve access (and pay membership dues!) but it's not access you're really after.

b) Then do that. But do that without excluding other users. June Lake seems like an area that would be begging for it, especially in any future years they decide to close the ski area again. That would be 'creating opportunities' which you say you're an advocate of. But don't call it 'protecting access' when what you seek is elimination of access for another group. Especially when the access to the already protected skier/snowshoer infrastructure in place was never in danger of being threatened or lost.

Your guy from the INF sounds like a recent Idaho transplant grumpy about some sticky snow. You want me to send you some names of INF folks in bishop and mammoth who are very avid backcountry skiers making very real policy decisions that you and I both are benefiting from? One of them hates snowmobiles and keeps them out of the postpile roads even though there's no law in place. You guys would get along.

Just so you know, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only goal is to let other skiers know what 9 times out of 10 lies underneath your legal actions done in the name of 'protecting' and 'creating' access. It would awesome if you guys really did that instead of just singularly going after snowmobiles in the specific areas they are allowed. You'd probably get a lot more membership dues too.

[Hugh Conway]

I don't mean to fight

you've fought about this shit for years kidwoo

the continued insistence that Snowlands or Sierra Club or whomever would benefit if they just played nice with snowmobiles/mountainbikes/brobrah cause du jour is just some bullshit pipedream that flies in the face of reality.

but hey, handwave about whatever, it impresses telemike