Posts

The public comment period is open until August 29th. Limiting snowmobile use before Memorial Day weekend on the Beartooth Pass is one of many issues in the plan.

Photo Credit: Ming Poon

Since the Forest Service published a Proposed Action in late September that outlines a preliminary winter recreation plan in the Lake Tahoe Basin, we’ve been hearing from all sides that their proposal is far from perfect.

Now, the Forest Service is asking for your input on how to make it better for everyone. Submit your comment directly to the Forest Service. The deadline for public comment on the Proposed Action for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit is December 9th.

At an open house for over-snow vehicle planning in Tahoe last week, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor Jeff Marsolais said this is just the start of the process. Right now, we are consulting with our local partners in Tahoe—Snowlands Network and the Tahoe Backcountry Alliance. And as we write our comments in response to the Forest Service’s proposed action, we encourage you to do the same.

To help you navigate through the document, here’s an outline of the elements we support in the Proposed Action and what we’re concerned about.

What We Support

  • Designation of a minimum snow depth of at least 12 inches in areas open to OSV use — as “a way for the Forest Service to help the public decide when it is appropriate to use an OSV and when they will not cause damage,” to “help reduce uncertainty,” and to provide “a certain level of protection for all resources without being overly restrictive or overly prescriptive for individual resources or different geographic areas”;
  • Designation of a season of use for motorized over-snow recreation — although given historic snowfall/snowpack patterns we feel that a more appropriate and reasonable open season would run from December 15 – April 30 rather than the suggested November 1 – April 15.
  • Application of 5 “minimization criteria” as a basis for decision making and designation, including:
    • To minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;
    • To minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;
    • To minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands;
    • To minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses on NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands;
    • To consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas.
  • Recognition of the lack of winter parking and staging areas in the Basin, the “need to analyze additional winter parking opportunities and allow snow plowing of existing paved surfaces outside of sensitive habitats,” and to “[c]onstruct additional winter parking capacity” and “[d]esignate locations suitable for snow play areas” — HOWEVER, we do not feel that the current proposal goes nearly far enough to address these issues;
  • Proposed closure to OSV use for “the area between Mt. Rose Wilderness and the City of Incline Village”;
  • Proposed closure of an “area near the Granite Chief Wilderness and within 500 feet of the Pacific Crest Trail”;
  • Desire to engage a stakeholder collaborative effort to help find workable compromise and reasonable solutions to on-the-ground issues.

What We’re Concerned About

  • North Quadrant/Mt. Rose Highway: This is currently ground zero for every type of winter recreation, and one of the biggest hotspots in the basin for conflict between different uses. Cars are frequently parked on both sides of the two-lane highway, families are sledding and playing in the snow near the road, snowshoers are walking out amongst the trees to hear the chickadees and squirrels, backcountry skiers are heading off on skin tracks to ski powder-filled bowls, and snowmobilers are firing up and unloading sleds for a run up to Relay Ridge. The Forest Service’s proposal is to alternate motorized use on an every-other-day basis. We think this is a surface-level solution, at best. At worst, it will increase rather than minimize conflict.
  • Lack of coordination between the LTBMU and the neighboring Humboldt-Toiyabe and Tahoe National Forests.
  • Lack of protected public-access family snowplay areas.
  • Proposed opening of OSV terrain at the lowest elevations and near neighborhoods with significant pedestrian and dog-walking activity.
  • Proposed opening to OSV use of popular and accessible non-motorized Gardner Mountain area east of Fallen Leaf Lake.
  • Lack of actual solutions to significant parking/staging issues for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation.

For more context, materials, and information, check out the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit landing page for all things over-snow vehicle planning. We will be updating this page as the process moves forward.

Photo Credit: Ming Poon

The opportunity is here to collaborate with the Forest Service for winter recreation in Lake Tahoe.

To fill out our LTBMU Winter Recreation Survey, see below. To send comments directly to the Forest Service, go here. (Public comment deadline is December 9)

The Forest Service has published a Proposed Action that outlines a preliminary vision for all types of winter recreation in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This is an important opportunity for the public to weigh in on how these public lands should be managed in winter. Click here for more details and context.

The Proposed Action document is a good look at what the Forest Service thinks winter recreation should look like in Tahoe. But it’s just a first draft. There are elements of the plan that we support and other areas where we think the Forest Service may be off the mark. By way of example, one of the biggest hotspots that we see in the Forest Service’s proposal is at the top of Mount Rose, where cars are frequently parked on both sides of the two-lane highway, families take their kids to go sledding, snowshoers walk amongst the trees to hear the song of chickadees, backcountry skiers head off on skin tracks to ski powder-filled bowls, and snowmobilers take off for the ridgeline. It’s a ground zero for every type of recreation in the winter, and right now, the Forest Service’s proposal is to alternate motorized use on an every-other-day basis. We think this is a surface-level solution, at best. At worst, it will increase opportunities for conflict.

But we want to hear what you think. Where do you backcountry ski or splitboard in Lake Tahoe? What’s your favorite place to go snowshoeing or cross-country skiing or to walk the dog in the woods? If you snowmobile, what are the places that are most important to you? What about parking and access points? Have you experienced specific conflicts between different winter uses? Where? What other issues or alternatives should the Forest Service consider as they work toward a final plan?

Now’s the time to weigh in. Give us your thoughts and ideas for solutions via the form below:

It’s been a busy month at Winter Wildlands Alliance. David Page, our advocacy director, has been road-tripping across California, going from Stanislaus travel planning meetings to Sierra-Sequoia forest planning meetings to California outdoor recreation lobbying days in Sacramento and then more travel planning meetings. Meanwhile, I jetted across the country to Washington D.C. to tout our vision for the Custer Gallatin forest plan and talk policy with the Forest Service Washington Office. Actually, I climbed a number of hills this month: after Capitol Hill, I went to the Wind River Range for some backcountry climbing. And throughout it all, we have been planning the 8th Biennial Grassroots Advocacy Conference.

Grassroots Advocacy Conference
October 24-27
Join policy makers, athletes, grassroots activists, scientists, educators, and other recreation and conservation stakeholders and activists from across the country for two full days of engaging workshops and discussions on issues important to public lands, winter and sustainable recreation. Get the latest developments in policy and planning issues, share grassroots successes and strategies, meet with public land managers, gain new advocacy tools and spend quality time with colleagues, partners, new friends and allies. Visit the conference website find out more and to register!

NEPA
This is where you and the rest of our members and community have been instrumental. Together, we rallied 600 letters to send to the U.S. Forest Service about their proposed revisions to their NEPA regulations. The agency received more than 42,000 letters total. Forest Service officials have assured us the proposed revisions are a starting place and they will be taking public comments seriously as they develop the final rule. If you’d like to read the letter we sent the U.S. Forest Service, you can read it here. They have certainly heard an earful about the importance of scoping and concern about many of the proposed new Categorical Exclusions, so hopefully they make some serious changes!

Travel Planning
Earlier this month, the Stanislaus National Forest hosted an objection resolution meeting concerning their winter travel plan. This was the last public step in the winter travel planning process and a chance for anybody who filed an objection to the draft plan to discuss their objections and proposed resolutions. We objected to the Stanislaus amending its forest plan to permit motorized use in highly sensitive Near Natural Areas (critical habitat for the endangered Sierra Nevada Red Fox). We also objected to the Stanislaus designating a few important backcountry ski zones for snowmobile use and not properly managing motorized use adjacent to the Pacific Crest Trail. The objection meeting had many participants with different opinions, and now it’s up to the Forest Service to take everything they heard and decide what, if any, changes they’ll make before finalizing the winter travel plan.

The Plumas National Forest published a draft winter travel plan and final EIS last week. We’re still reviewing it, but our partners at Friends of Plumas Wilderness are tentatively optimistic about the plan. Objections to the Plumas draft plan are due in early October.

Forest Planning
I went to Washington DC earlier this month with two colleagues from our Outdoor Alliance Montana coalition (representing Southwest Montana Mountain Bike Association and the paddling community). We met with the USDA Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment and the Forest Service staff who oversee forest planning and the dispersed recreation, Wilderness, and travel management programs. We discussed the vital importance of forest planning, specific issues facing the Custer Gallatin, and the Outdoor Alliance Montana vision for the revised forest plan.

Meanwhile, David has been working with Outdoor Alliance California to review and comment on the Sierra and Sequoia forest plans. The draft plans were published in June and the comment period wraps up on September 26. The Sierra and Sequoia face the challenge of integrating and managing for outdoor recreation, traditional timber interests, and wildland conservation. We’re working with recreation and conservation partners to create and advocate for vision for the Sierra and Sequoia that meets these challenges.

Public Comment Deadline is March 1, 2019: Comment Now!

With our local partners at Friends of Plumas Wilderness, we support the forest’s preferred Alternative 2 with specific modifications from Alternative 5.

OUR TAKE: We like that Alternative 2 protects terrain east of Bucks Lake Wilderness, the Bucks Creek Loop Trail, the Historic Lost Sierra Ski Traverse Route, and the backcountry ski zone on Thompson Peak by Susanville. We urge that the Forest Service also include specific amendments from Alternative 5 to protect proposed Middle Feather, Bucks Creek, Chips, Grizzly, & Adams Peak Wilderness Areas, Lakes Basin Snowshoe and Ski Trails, Little Jamison Basin and to stop grooming on 24N33 to help prevent OSV trespass into the Bucks Lake Wilderness.