Montana – Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Winter Travel Planning

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) is taking another look at how it manages motorized winter use under its 2009 Forest Plan and is considering amending the plan. The Forest Service’s decision will determine how the agency manages snowmobiles across the eight mountain ranges, vast backcountry, and world-class wildlife habitat within the 3.3 million-acre forest.

You can read through the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on Forest Service website.  If you were involved in this planning effort back in the early 2000’s the alternatives the Forest Service is comparing may look familiar.  That’s because they haven’t changed.  However, when the BDNF wrote it’s 2009 forest plan it failed to analyze how snowmobile use under each alternative would impact other resources (like wilderness lands, wildlife habitat, and backcountry skiing).  This SEIS compares the impacts from snowmobile use under the current plan versus the impacts under the other alternatives considered when the plan was written.  The agency is required to minimize these impacts and we feel that change is needed.

We are asking the BDNF to amend the Forest Plan to no longer allow snowmobiling on the eastern side of Mt Jefferson.  For over 6 years we have worked with the Forest Service to monitor snowmobile use in this area and this monitoring has clearly shown that the current motorized/non-motorized boundary is ineffective.  Snowmobiles frequently travel throughout the non-motorized area in the upper Hellroaring basin and into the adjacent BLM Wilderness Study Area.  Moving the boundary to the Continental Divide will better protect wild lands and restore opportunities for  backcountry skiing that many feel have been lost on Mt Jefferson in recent years.

We would also like to see the BDNF take the common-sense approach of closing low-elevation or low-snow areas where snowmobiling rarely occurs.  This pre-emptive action would protect big game winter range and allow the Forest Service to better utilize it’s limited resources.

Please take a moment to write to the Forest Service and request that the agency do more to protect Mt. Jefferson and other important winter wild lands on the BDNF.  Comments should be sent to Jan Bowey at jbowey@fs.fed.us.

Comments are due by March 3, 2016.

California – Lassen National Forest Winter Travel Planning

The Lassen National Forest recently published a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of their winter travel management planning process. This document compares different alternatives for how the Forest Service will manage snowmobiles and other “over-snow vehicles” (OSVs) on the Lassen moving forward. The Lassen is the first forest to do winter travel management under the new OSV Rule and things are not off to a good start. The DEIS compares four alternatives yet only one of these alternatives protects opportunities for human-powered winter recreation and none of the Alternatives comply with the OSV Rule.

The four alternatives are as follows: Alternative 1 (the status quo), Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), Alternative 3 (based off of the “Skiers Alternative” submitted by WWA and Snowlands Network), and Alternative 4 (the “motorized emphasis” alternative).

Alternative 3 is the only alternative that the Forest Service has analyzed that brings some level of balance to the Lassen National Forest. This alternative would protect a handful of areas for human-powered recreation, including the McGowan and Lake Almanor Nordic trails, the Colby area, and the area surrounding the Bizz Johnson trail. Alternative 3 also includes a non-motorized area north of Lassen National Park to better protect the Park and the Caribou Wilderness from the impacts of motorized recreation. Even with these protections, however, Alternative 3 does not close a single currently designated OSV route and would still leave 76% of the forest open to cross-country OSV travel. Because Alternative 3 protects important non-motorized recreation areas while also continuing to provide ample opportunities for motorized recreation we ask that you tell the Forest Service to adopt it as the preferred alternative.

However, despite the balance of recreational opportunities we see in Alternative 3, even it fails to meet the requirements of the OSV Rule. In the Environmental Impact Statement the Forest Service is required to show how each specific route and area has been located to minimize damage to natural resources, minimize conflicts with other uses (including non-motorized recreation), and minimize impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This DEIS doesn’t show how the open areas, or designated routes, in each Alternative are located in a manner that minimizes the impacts listed above. Winter travel planning is important and the Forest Service needs to get it right. In addition to telling the Forest Service to adopt Alternative 3 as the Lassen’s preferred alternative, please tell them that they must modify this Alternative so that designated OSV routes and the boundaries of OSV open areas are located to minimize the impacts of motorized recreation.

The Forest Service needs to hear from skiers and snowshoers who recreate on the Lassen. Please click here to comment on the DEIS and help shape the Lassen winter travel plan. Comments are due by March 15.

For more information on the DEIS and the Lassen winter travel planning process please go to http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/fs-usda-pop.php?project=45832