,

Southern Sierra Planning

Protecting the Backcounty

Together, the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests cover nearly 4.6 million acres of public land in the Southern Sierra, including Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the contiguous United States, the Kern River, the Needles climbing area, the Buttermilks, and some of the wildest, most dramatic sections of the world-famous Pacific Crest Trail. These three forests offer some of the best alpine climbing, bouldering, backcountry skiing, whitewater boating, mountain biking, trail running, and backpacking in the world, all within a short drive of the largest and fastest-growing population centers in the West.

The Forest Service is currently in the final stages of planning for how it will manage these areas and activities for the next 20-30 years. At stake are things like recreation access, infrastructure development and maintenance, trails, scenic viewsheds, permitting for guides, outfitters and educational groups, wilderness designations, and the possibility of new scenarios for stewardship and forest partnerships.

Furthermore, as “early-adopters” in this new planning process, these forests will set the tone and framework for upcoming planning on other forests in California and across the country. Winter Wildlands Alliance is working on these forest plans with local partners Friends of the Inyo, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access Foundation (MLTPA), the Eastern Sierra Recreation Collaborative and others, as well as our national coalition partners at Outdoor Alliance.

The Forest Service published draft plans for the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia in May 2016.  We worked throughout the summer of 2016 to help skiers and other outdoor recreationists comment on the plans – providing input on how they could be improved to better address quiet recreation, protect forest resources, and ensure that these forests remain spectacular for generations to come.

 

Public Informational Meeting, Inyo National Forest, Mammoth Lakes

Draft Plan Documents

 

,

Success In Colorado’s High Country: How to protect an area for non-motorized recreation

By Cindy Farny, High Camp Hut, Telluride CO

For nine years, with the help of Winter Wildlands Alliance, Cindy Farny worked to protect this special backcountry skiing area for generations to come.

I have spent the last nine years working to get the area above the High Camp Hut in southwestern Colorado closed to snowmobiles after the Forest Service recommended that the area be designated as a Research Natural Area (RNA). I started writing comments and working with the Forest Service early in the process and continued until the area was finally protected.

You must have a passion for the land you want to see protected. I like to joke that we would not have National Parks if it were not for the people that fought to get them designated. Many state parks, National Monuments, and recreational sites have been protected because someone put in a lot of effort.

Just like me, they joined organizations, talked with scientists, found other like-minded people to help write letters and met with agency decision makers. I ended up giving four site tours of the area to the Forest Service during this nine year process. I made the most of these tours by providing pictures, economic information, and reasons why it would be good for them to make the decision I was advocating for.

I was lucky to become involved with Winter Wildlands Alliance early on in my efforts to protect this area. Winter Wildlands Alliance provided me with lots of good information and support. It is a lonely feeling sometimes trying to make something happen. Many of my friends lost interest in the process. They had written letters and did not feel that there was a need to continue being involved. There are too many things that eat up our time and compete for our attention, making it difficult to remain focused on a multi-year Forest Service decision-making process. It also takes a toll on your personal life!

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are areas that the Forest Service designates for permanent protection to maintain them in a natural condition. To protect the Grizzly Peak RNA I first had to convince the Forest Service to include this designation in the new San Juan Forest Plan. Then, I had to make the Forest Service aware that designating the area as a RNA and then allowing snowmobile use within it was a contradiction. They finally agreed.

highcamphut.summer04However, in order to actually close the RNA to motorized use the Forest Service had to do an Environmental Assessment (EA), which they did not have the capacity to do. In the meantime snowmobiles could continue going into the area. Eventually I found a contractor, Mountain Studies Institute, who could do the EA and the Forest Service hired them. Finally, on January 13, 2016 the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Regional Forester signed off on the completed EA and the Grizzly Peak RNA was officially closed to snowmobiles. It took nine long years and many ups and downs but I am proud to say that I helped protect a special backcountry skiing area for future generations.

I am glad this process is over but more than ever I am committed to winter travel planning. With the inspiration of Mark Menlove from Winter Wildlands Alliance I am trying to bring motorized and non -motorized users together to help the San Juan National Forest create a winter travel plan. I have to admit I have not had much luck so far but I will keep trying. Protecting quiet landscapes inspires me to continue this dialog amongst winter recreationists. We need to learn to work together and plan together. We cannot expect the Forest Service to make the right decisions if we — the user groups — cannot even talk to each other and figure out where we agree or disagree.

I have noticed that quiet users often do not want to get involved in these decision making processes, but we need to! We need to start early in the process and stick with it. In the end there is the reward of knowing that we protected something for future generations to enjoy. Once you get a favorable decision you are inspired to help others.

So, get involved with planning and protecting the places you love to recreate in. The world is changing and you cannot afford to be asleep at the wheel!

,

Emigrant Peak petition

March 16, 2016

Sonny Janda, CEO
Shaun Dykes, VP
Lucky Minerals, Inc.
200 – 8338 120th Street
Surrey, BC, Canada V3W 3N4

Dear Mr. Janda, Mr. Dykes and Board of Directors of Lucky Minerals, Inc.,

Emigrant Peak is a backcountry skiing oasis. On behalf of the Montana backcountry skiing and snowboarding community, we are writing to express our opposition to any mining activity in Emigrant Gulch.

Recently, it has come to our attention that your company is attempting to conduct exploratory drilling in Emigrant Gulch in Paradise Valley. The Lucky Minerals website has hosted documents that detail the hopeful development of over 2,500 acres in Emigrant Gulch and surrounding drainages. We understand that mining is an important part of Montana’s economy and part of our heritage. Still, not all mines are created equal and not all minerals should be mined. There are some places that large-scale mining for minerals like gold, underground or open pit, is not acceptable. Emigrant Gulch is one of those places.

Adjacent to the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and just 16 miles north of Yellowstone National Park, the gulch supports abundant wildlife, holds key surface and underground tributaries of the Yellowstone River, and is one of the most aesthetic backcountry ski tours in the Northern Rockies. We understand that a mining operation will likely result in the destruction of the landscape and exclusion of recreation opportunities that our community of backcountry skiers and riders hold dear.

We invite you personally to come ski Emigrant Peak and meet our community, where we are confident you would find that Paradise Valley is no place for a gold mine.

Our backcountry skiing and riding community stands united against Lucky Minerals, Inc. and your efforts to conduct exploratory drilling and developing the potential for massive mineral extraction.

Today, we are calling upon you to walk away from the Paradise Valley and all of your proposed mining activities in the Emigrant Mining District.

We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

/s/ the backcountry skiers and riders of Montana & the board of the Montana Backcountry Alliance,

(To add your name to the petition please fill out the form below)

[gravityform id=”21″ title=”false” description=”false”]

,

Take Action – Beaverhead Deerlodge Travel Planning

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.

Take Action – California Travel Planning

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