COMMENT PROCESS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR THE CLEARWATER NATIONAL FOREST (GREAT BURN).
|
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision has a total of (5) proposed activities for the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness Area (RWA)
|
|
Suggested comment framework:
Support the "NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE" with the following changes: Hoodoo area will be designated as 'semi-primitive motorized' instead of a RWA. Access would be limited to snowmobiles, snow bikes and Mtn bikes. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows RWA's will be eliminated. The reason for going with the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH CHANGES instead of going with alternative X is many snowmobile groups feel this is a fair designation for both motorized and non-motorized users that allows uses that will not diminish the wildness character of the area. The reason for eliminating the three RWA’s mentioned is they are “bolt on” areas to existing wilderness but do not have the characteristics to qualify for a future wilderness designation.
It is important to note WHY you support the above changes. Personally, I love the Great Burn for SCENERY, CHALLENGE, AND SOLITUDE. It is an area like no other in the lower 48 States. You certainly may have other reasons why you like the area. There are no other users in the high country in the winter season. There is no wildlife disturbance in the winter due to snow depth. When the snow melts, all trace of snowmobiling is erased. The reason for eliminating the North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot RWA‘s is they do not meet the Forest Service criteria for potential inclusion into the Wilderness preservation system. They are areas that had been historically accessed by snowmobilers for many years.
Depending upon the FS map you look at, North Fork Spruce-white Sands includes what we call "Beaver Ridge" area (includes Beaver Lake). Remember The FS designates all the Gt. Burn area as 'Hoodoo', not just the area north of Fish Lake. In the 'no action' alternative the Gt. Burn RWA stays the same size as it is today with none of the additional proposed RWA's that show up in Alt 'W' and 'Z'.
It might be helpful to add to your comments something along the line: we don't support a RWA designation, but do support protection of the Great Burn from any activity(s) that could impair the character of the area. Areas noted for RWA expansion in alternatives 'W' and 'Z' do not meet the criteria for Recommended Wilderness.
When I submit my presentation to the FS I'll go into the reasoning why we don't support a RWA designation. The above comment proposal is a combination of parts of (4) alternatives: No action, Alt X, Y and Z. The FS has encouraged a "mix and match" approach to build a final preferred alternative.
Several large organizations in both Mt. and Id. are aligned with BSP position which puts us in a strong unified position. I am not a spokesperson for those groups so I can't name them.
I would strongly suggest you go to the Clearwater NF Forest Plan Revision website and look at the DEIS maps of the alternatives to follow the rationale for the above comment proposal.
One thing I need to make clear. We are not supporting any RWA designation in our comment/proposal. However, there are some RWA's that are in the "NO ACTION" Alternative that are outside of our interest. You can see them on the maps in the DEIS. DO NOT COMMENT ON THOSE AREAS . Stay silent on them. Doing any comment along the line that states "we can't get there, or don't ride there so it's not an issue", could inadvertently be construed to show support for a future wilderness designation, regardless of location.
I have been thinking that people may not bother to comment on the Clearwater NF plan revision (Gt. Burn) due to the sheer enormity of the DEIS publication. I received a call last night that confirmed my suspicions. There is a means to get a thumbnail sketch of the DEIS. If you read the Executive Summary of the DEIS you can get a feel for the overall content. Keep in mind, alternative Z on page 11 does not mention snowmobiling and mtn bikes are allowed. This was confirmed to me by the forest planner. Hopefully they will publish an amendment.
Adding Comments To DEIS
The email to comment is: fpr_npclw@fs.us This email lets you add your comment to an ‘e-collaborative’ where you can see and respond to other comments. When using this link you need to complete the subject line with the following : Collaborative information. Hoodoo (Great Burn area) .
The comment period has been extended to April 20. Keep your calendar open for the FS meetings in both Id. and Mt.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
You can get to the Forest Plan revision website using the following link: http://bit.ly/NezClearFPR . You can easily access the DEIS Index. If you click onto the 16 page Executive Summary you can get a thumbnail sketch of the alternatives offered and an oversight of the 2000 page DEIS. You can also scroll down the index and click onto the maps specific to the alternatives and see the areas I have suggested to comment on. The comment period closes April 20,2020.
If you don’t comment during this comment period, you are not eligible to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) when it is released in about one year. The FEIS will be the preferred alternative the FS plans on going with.
Next issue: where do you find this information?
Google Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision Click on the header that highlights reviewing the forest plan using the 2012 forest planning rules scroll down to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and click onto it scroll down the index to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. (it is 16 pages and you can probably get through it in about 15 min)
The Index will also allow you to look a certain aspects of the DEIS without reading all 2000 pages.
Getting engaged in the planning process is the only way we are going to regain access to the Great Burn riding area. That means EVERYONE needs to spend a bit of time and energy to make it happen.
The Forest Service public meeting dates are also noted in the above information. Showing up for these meetings in your respective areas is critical. The first Meeting was in Moscow, Id last Sat. The "Friends of the Clearwater", a wilderness advocate group, organized a turnout rally to oppose any potential motorized/mechanized uses in the Gt. Burn. Fortunately we got wind of it and Luke Bledsoe from Team Lochsa and a BSP member, rallied the local snowmobile clubs to show up. I understand they did show up and conducted themselves very professionally.
The same scenario is likely to repeat in all of the Montana meetings. We have to show up and be heard.
These dates and times are set to allow most working folks to attend without missing work. No excuse not to show up. I will post more specific info on the meetings as we get closer to the actual date.
Here is detailed info on the upcoming Forest Service meetings re: Gt Burn:
Feb 21. St. Regis
5:00-7:00
St. Regis Community Center
230 Lobo Loop
Feb 22 Missoula
10:00-12:00
Northern Rockies Training Center
5765 W. Broadway
Feb 22, Hamilton
3:00-5:00
Bitterroot Forest Supervisors Office
1801 N. 1st St.
I can't stress enough, the value of attending these meetings. A small sacrifice of time could pay large long term benefits to the snowmobile community as a whole.
Please share this information with your fellow snowmobilers....only if they are interested in supporting a potential re-opening of the Great Burn, Beaver Ridge, and adjacent areas to snowmobiling.
Stan Spencer
Support the "NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE" with the following changes: Hoodoo area will be designated as 'semi-primitive motorized' instead of a RWA. Access would be limited to snowmobiles, snow bikes and Mtn bikes. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows RWA's will be eliminated. The reason for going with the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH CHANGES instead of going with alternative X is many snowmobile groups feel this is a fair designation for both motorized and non-motorized users that allows uses that will not diminish the wildness character of the area. The reason for eliminating the three RWA’s mentioned is they are “bolt on” areas to existing wilderness but do not have the characteristics to qualify for a future wilderness designation.
It is important to note WHY you support the above changes. Personally, I love the Great Burn for SCENERY, CHALLENGE, AND SOLITUDE. It is an area like no other in the lower 48 States. You certainly may have other reasons why you like the area. There are no other users in the high country in the winter season. There is no wildlife disturbance in the winter due to snow depth. When the snow melts, all trace of snowmobiling is erased. The reason for eliminating the North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot RWA‘s is they do not meet the Forest Service criteria for potential inclusion into the Wilderness preservation system. They are areas that had been historically accessed by snowmobilers for many years.
Depending upon the FS map you look at, North Fork Spruce-white Sands includes what we call "Beaver Ridge" area (includes Beaver Lake). Remember The FS designates all the Gt. Burn area as 'Hoodoo', not just the area north of Fish Lake. In the 'no action' alternative the Gt. Burn RWA stays the same size as it is today with none of the additional proposed RWA's that show up in Alt 'W' and 'Z'.
It might be helpful to add to your comments something along the line: we don't support a RWA designation, but do support protection of the Great Burn from any activity(s) that could impair the character of the area. Areas noted for RWA expansion in alternatives 'W' and 'Z' do not meet the criteria for Recommended Wilderness.
When I submit my presentation to the FS I'll go into the reasoning why we don't support a RWA designation. The above comment proposal is a combination of parts of (4) alternatives: No action, Alt X, Y and Z. The FS has encouraged a "mix and match" approach to build a final preferred alternative.
Several large organizations in both Mt. and Id. are aligned with BSP position which puts us in a strong unified position. I am not a spokesperson for those groups so I can't name them.
I would strongly suggest you go to the Clearwater NF Forest Plan Revision website and look at the DEIS maps of the alternatives to follow the rationale for the above comment proposal.
One thing I need to make clear. We are not supporting any RWA designation in our comment/proposal. However, there are some RWA's that are in the "NO ACTION" Alternative that are outside of our interest. You can see them on the maps in the DEIS. DO NOT COMMENT ON THOSE AREAS . Stay silent on them. Doing any comment along the line that states "we can't get there, or don't ride there so it's not an issue", could inadvertently be construed to show support for a future wilderness designation, regardless of location.
I have been thinking that people may not bother to comment on the Clearwater NF plan revision (Gt. Burn) due to the sheer enormity of the DEIS publication. I received a call last night that confirmed my suspicions. There is a means to get a thumbnail sketch of the DEIS. If you read the Executive Summary of the DEIS you can get a feel for the overall content. Keep in mind, alternative Z on page 11 does not mention snowmobiling and mtn bikes are allowed. This was confirmed to me by the forest planner. Hopefully they will publish an amendment.
Adding Comments To DEIS
The email to comment is: fpr_npclw@fs.us This email lets you add your comment to an ‘e-collaborative’ where you can see and respond to other comments. When using this link you need to complete the subject line with the following : Collaborative information. Hoodoo (Great Burn area) .
The comment period has been extended to April 20. Keep your calendar open for the FS meetings in both Id. and Mt.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
You can get to the Forest Plan revision website using the following link: http://bit.ly/NezClearFPR . You can easily access the DEIS Index. If you click onto the 16 page Executive Summary you can get a thumbnail sketch of the alternatives offered and an oversight of the 2000 page DEIS. You can also scroll down the index and click onto the maps specific to the alternatives and see the areas I have suggested to comment on. The comment period closes April 20,2020.
If you don’t comment during this comment period, you are not eligible to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) when it is released in about one year. The FEIS will be the preferred alternative the FS plans on going with.
Next issue: where do you find this information?
Google Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision Click on the header that highlights reviewing the forest plan using the 2012 forest planning rules scroll down to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and click onto it scroll down the index to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. (it is 16 pages and you can probably get through it in about 15 min)
The Index will also allow you to look a certain aspects of the DEIS without reading all 2000 pages.
Getting engaged in the planning process is the only way we are going to regain access to the Great Burn riding area. That means EVERYONE needs to spend a bit of time and energy to make it happen.
The Forest Service public meeting dates are also noted in the above information. Showing up for these meetings in your respective areas is critical. The first Meeting was in Moscow, Id last Sat. The "Friends of the Clearwater", a wilderness advocate group, organized a turnout rally to oppose any potential motorized/mechanized uses in the Gt. Burn. Fortunately we got wind of it and Luke Bledsoe from Team Lochsa and a BSP member, rallied the local snowmobile clubs to show up. I understand they did show up and conducted themselves very professionally.
The same scenario is likely to repeat in all of the Montana meetings. We have to show up and be heard.
These dates and times are set to allow most working folks to attend without missing work. No excuse not to show up. I will post more specific info on the meetings as we get closer to the actual date.
Here is detailed info on the upcoming Forest Service meetings re: Gt Burn:
Feb 21. St. Regis
5:00-7:00
St. Regis Community Center
230 Lobo Loop
Feb 22 Missoula
10:00-12:00
Northern Rockies Training Center
5765 W. Broadway
Feb 22, Hamilton
3:00-5:00
Bitterroot Forest Supervisors Office
1801 N. 1st St.
I can't stress enough, the value of attending these meetings. A small sacrifice of time could pay large long term benefits to the snowmobile community as a whole.
Please share this information with your fellow snowmobilers....only if they are interested in supporting a potential re-opening of the Great Burn, Beaver Ridge, and adjacent areas to snowmobiling.
Stan Spencer
Comment on Nez-Perc Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision
My name is Stan Spencer. I am commenting on the Nez-Perc Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision. I am the President of Backcountry Sled Patriots (BSP). This comment represents the position of approx. 2000 snowmobiling members and another 2,800 associate members. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) speaks to four alternative approaches to managing the Great Burn and several additional management areas plus a “no-action” alternative. BSP does not consider itself to be qualified to speak authoritatively on suggested RWA areas outside of the current Great Burn (Hoodoo) RWA geographic boundaries and two smaller RWA areas: North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows . The DEIS suggests that components of the draft alternatives may be re-configured to develop a final alternative. BSP is not in favor of any Recommended Wilderness (RWA) designation because all RWA’s in Region one are being managed as Wilderness. BSP does not agree that management prescription follows the intent of the 2012 Forest Planning rules and in fact seems to be an end run around Congressional intent. The Great Burn (Hoodoo) is a special place that should be protected from any activities that would impair the physical characteristics that define it. All users, non-motorized and winter motorized, appreciate the area for the same reasons: CHALLENGE, SCENERY, SOLITUDE. The Great Burn (Hoodoo) is roughly 200,000 acres, depending upon which map is referenced. Approximately 20,000 acres, or 10%, can actually be accessed via snowmobile due to terrain restrictions. See attached map. Some of those restrictions include: too heavily timbered, too steep (rock cliffs) and many drainages get severely wind drifted making access impossible or at the least, impractical. One specific example: Williams Creek has a waterfall near the confluence of Frog Greek and Kelly Creek that makes through passage impossible via snowmobile because the sides of the narrow canyon at that spot are steep and timbered disallowing any bypass. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot meadows are more accessible via snowmobile. I would estimate approximately 50% of that RWA total is accessible.
BSP RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE : the current Hoodoo RWA acreage be reclassified as: SEMI-PRIMITIVE MOTORIZED. Access would be limited to snowmobiles, snow-bikes, and mtn bikes. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows RWA’s would be eliminated. A more appropriate designation might be primitive motorized however the ROS system as designed does not allow that experience (DEIS 3.4.2-22) The above re-classification for the HOODOO RWA will protect and preserve the physical characteristics of the area, yet allow a broader spectrum of uses. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows do not have significant attributes that qualify for RWA designation. When BSP examined the Record of Decision (ROD) for the current Travel Plan for the Clearwater National Forest one thing became apparent. The decision to prohibit all motorized activity in the Hoodoo RWA ultimately was based on SEGREGATION of users, not for any specified or quantified protective measures. In other words, the non-motorized users did not want any motorized users in that area. Not because of environmental impact, but because they simply don’t like them. That form of discrimination is not allowed in the work place. It is not allowed in business establishments serving the public. Yet it is being practiced on publicly owned lands. One consequence of segregating snowmobilers out of the high back country is it forces them into more concentrated user areas. An example would be Lolo Pass. This area has a number of groomed trails and many are shared with cross country skiers. Pushing more snowmobilers into that area can only raise the expectation of more user conflicts. There is a lot of language in the Travel Plan ROD referencing “SOCIAL VALUES”, which can lead to many interpretations, the most favored is “user conflict”. Subsequent to the 2012 Forest Planning rules being implemented a footnote (2) to a 2017 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated in part “we need not address the question of whether on-snow user conflicts are outside the scope of the agency’s required NEPA analysis entirely because they are “citizens’ subjective experiences” (Wild Wilderness V. Allen). in the case of snowmobiling in the HOODOO RWA how can any impact on social values, whatever that might entail, be quantified when the single user activity in the winter is (was) snowmobiling?. The time has come to DESGREGATE back country access. IT IS A TIME TO EMBRACE A TOLERANCE FOR RECREATIONAL PREFERENCES. WILDLIFE MYTH AND FACT IN THE GREAT BURN I snowmobiled in the Great Burn for 35 years (I’m 76 years old) before it was closed to snowmobiling. I am one of a handful of people who pioneered a snowmobile access route into the Williams Lake and Goat Lake areas. Myth: snowmobiles impact the mortality rate of Wolverines. FACT: Wolverines den in areas not accessible by natural predators, and by default, not accessible by snowmobiles. I have seen Wolverines (from a long distance), and Wolverine sign, in the back reaches of the Great Burn. They den in cliff or rugged access areas that are simply not even close to where a snowmobile might be able to access. I am not aware of any Wolverine study done in the winter season in the Great Burn which renders any assumptions about snowmobile impact in that area moot. Even if the proposed listing of the Wolverine as threatened or endangered were to materialize it would not change the FACT that there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence snowmobiles are bothering Wolverines in the Great Burn. Much reference to Wolverine habitat and potential disturbance is based on modeling results, not actual study/finding FACTS. (DEIS 3.2.3.3-63) Myth: snowmobiles invade Goat winter habitat and impact the mortality rate of Mtn Goats. Fact: Mtn Goats winter range will be an area where they can find forage (DEIS 3.2.3.2-77) such as dried grasses and lichen as a food source. This will predicate areas that typically have less than two feet of snow depth. Snowmobiles need about five feet of snow to be able to travel on top of down fall and boulders etc. to access the high terrain back country. Fact: Goat winter ranges in the Great Burn have not been identified except for Land Owner Mt. (which is adjacent to the Great Burn). There is a small herd that winters on Land Owner Mtn. off the Forest Service road going to Hoodoo Pass. They are visible from that road and have readily adapted to snowmobile traffic. I have a picture of one in that area taken from my snowmobile and had to whistle several times to get him to stand up so I could get a better picture!. Fact: I have never seen a Mtn Goat or a Mtn Goat track while snowmobiling in the Great Burn over a 35 year period except on the Land Owner Mtn. winter range. I have never heard of anyone seeing a Mtn Goat while snowmobiling in the Great Burn except as noted above. Fact: Mtn Goat levels continue to decline at a higher rate in the Bitterroot Selway Wilderness than in the Great Burn RWA even though there is ZERO motorized activity allowed in the Bitterroot Selway. (DEIS 3.2.3.4-32). FACT: there is no scientific evidence of correlation between snowmobile activity and Mtn Goat mortality rates.
THE GREAT BURN SNOWMOBILE EXPERIENCE
The Great Burn really is the “last best place” to snowmobile in the lower 48 States (DEIS 3.4.2-22). The access into the three riding areas are all primitive non-groomed trails which in itself limits the number of riders willing to go into the pristine back country. It is not uncommon to enter an area and see no other snowmobile tracks. That is part of the “solitude” experience. Riding with a small group and not seeing any other riders all day is another part of the “solitude” experience. Being able to get into spectacular bowl configurations such as the headwaters of Frog Creek or the headwaters of Silver Creek are sights few snowmobilers (and summer users) get to see. Seeing them in the winter with the pristine snow contrasting with the rock formations is unbelievable. Climbing to the top of a ridge and being able to view wild country for miles in all directions is the “scenery” experience. It gives one the same sensory experience Lewis and Clark probably felt when they viewed this country from a high vantage point. The “challenge” of the area for snowmobilers can be just getting there. Some days the fresh snow depths have you, and your sled, working so hard you might only make a few miles. On good days being able to cut a line through the trees or being able to climb through a bowl to the top, follow a ridge line and then drop into another bowl or drainage on untracked snow is the Holy Grail of snowmobiling. And the residual beauty of this experience is: when the snow melts all trace of activity is gone.
CONCLUSION
At the end of the day it comes down to considering recreational uses to be allowed in the Great Burn that will not impair the WILDNESS of the area. It cannot be about considering user restrictions to satisfy only certain recreational user preferences. It comes down to considering impacts to wildlife based on FACTS and scientific studies, not modeling studies or assumed unproven impacts. IT COMES DOWN TO MANAGING PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.
Stan Spencer
President
Backcountry Sled Patriots
406 544 0144
stanspencer@montana.com
BSP RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE : the current Hoodoo RWA acreage be reclassified as: SEMI-PRIMITIVE MOTORIZED. Access would be limited to snowmobiles, snow-bikes, and mtn bikes. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows RWA’s would be eliminated. A more appropriate designation might be primitive motorized however the ROS system as designed does not allow that experience (DEIS 3.4.2-22) The above re-classification for the HOODOO RWA will protect and preserve the physical characteristics of the area, yet allow a broader spectrum of uses. North Fork Spruce-White Sands and Sneakfoot Meadows do not have significant attributes that qualify for RWA designation. When BSP examined the Record of Decision (ROD) for the current Travel Plan for the Clearwater National Forest one thing became apparent. The decision to prohibit all motorized activity in the Hoodoo RWA ultimately was based on SEGREGATION of users, not for any specified or quantified protective measures. In other words, the non-motorized users did not want any motorized users in that area. Not because of environmental impact, but because they simply don’t like them. That form of discrimination is not allowed in the work place. It is not allowed in business establishments serving the public. Yet it is being practiced on publicly owned lands. One consequence of segregating snowmobilers out of the high back country is it forces them into more concentrated user areas. An example would be Lolo Pass. This area has a number of groomed trails and many are shared with cross country skiers. Pushing more snowmobilers into that area can only raise the expectation of more user conflicts. There is a lot of language in the Travel Plan ROD referencing “SOCIAL VALUES”, which can lead to many interpretations, the most favored is “user conflict”. Subsequent to the 2012 Forest Planning rules being implemented a footnote (2) to a 2017 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated in part “we need not address the question of whether on-snow user conflicts are outside the scope of the agency’s required NEPA analysis entirely because they are “citizens’ subjective experiences” (Wild Wilderness V. Allen). in the case of snowmobiling in the HOODOO RWA how can any impact on social values, whatever that might entail, be quantified when the single user activity in the winter is (was) snowmobiling?. The time has come to DESGREGATE back country access. IT IS A TIME TO EMBRACE A TOLERANCE FOR RECREATIONAL PREFERENCES. WILDLIFE MYTH AND FACT IN THE GREAT BURN I snowmobiled in the Great Burn for 35 years (I’m 76 years old) before it was closed to snowmobiling. I am one of a handful of people who pioneered a snowmobile access route into the Williams Lake and Goat Lake areas. Myth: snowmobiles impact the mortality rate of Wolverines. FACT: Wolverines den in areas not accessible by natural predators, and by default, not accessible by snowmobiles. I have seen Wolverines (from a long distance), and Wolverine sign, in the back reaches of the Great Burn. They den in cliff or rugged access areas that are simply not even close to where a snowmobile might be able to access. I am not aware of any Wolverine study done in the winter season in the Great Burn which renders any assumptions about snowmobile impact in that area moot. Even if the proposed listing of the Wolverine as threatened or endangered were to materialize it would not change the FACT that there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence snowmobiles are bothering Wolverines in the Great Burn. Much reference to Wolverine habitat and potential disturbance is based on modeling results, not actual study/finding FACTS. (DEIS 3.2.3.3-63) Myth: snowmobiles invade Goat winter habitat and impact the mortality rate of Mtn Goats. Fact: Mtn Goats winter range will be an area where they can find forage (DEIS 3.2.3.2-77) such as dried grasses and lichen as a food source. This will predicate areas that typically have less than two feet of snow depth. Snowmobiles need about five feet of snow to be able to travel on top of down fall and boulders etc. to access the high terrain back country. Fact: Goat winter ranges in the Great Burn have not been identified except for Land Owner Mt. (which is adjacent to the Great Burn). There is a small herd that winters on Land Owner Mtn. off the Forest Service road going to Hoodoo Pass. They are visible from that road and have readily adapted to snowmobile traffic. I have a picture of one in that area taken from my snowmobile and had to whistle several times to get him to stand up so I could get a better picture!. Fact: I have never seen a Mtn Goat or a Mtn Goat track while snowmobiling in the Great Burn over a 35 year period except on the Land Owner Mtn. winter range. I have never heard of anyone seeing a Mtn Goat while snowmobiling in the Great Burn except as noted above. Fact: Mtn Goat levels continue to decline at a higher rate in the Bitterroot Selway Wilderness than in the Great Burn RWA even though there is ZERO motorized activity allowed in the Bitterroot Selway. (DEIS 3.2.3.4-32). FACT: there is no scientific evidence of correlation between snowmobile activity and Mtn Goat mortality rates.
THE GREAT BURN SNOWMOBILE EXPERIENCE
The Great Burn really is the “last best place” to snowmobile in the lower 48 States (DEIS 3.4.2-22). The access into the three riding areas are all primitive non-groomed trails which in itself limits the number of riders willing to go into the pristine back country. It is not uncommon to enter an area and see no other snowmobile tracks. That is part of the “solitude” experience. Riding with a small group and not seeing any other riders all day is another part of the “solitude” experience. Being able to get into spectacular bowl configurations such as the headwaters of Frog Creek or the headwaters of Silver Creek are sights few snowmobilers (and summer users) get to see. Seeing them in the winter with the pristine snow contrasting with the rock formations is unbelievable. Climbing to the top of a ridge and being able to view wild country for miles in all directions is the “scenery” experience. It gives one the same sensory experience Lewis and Clark probably felt when they viewed this country from a high vantage point. The “challenge” of the area for snowmobilers can be just getting there. Some days the fresh snow depths have you, and your sled, working so hard you might only make a few miles. On good days being able to cut a line through the trees or being able to climb through a bowl to the top, follow a ridge line and then drop into another bowl or drainage on untracked snow is the Holy Grail of snowmobiling. And the residual beauty of this experience is: when the snow melts all trace of activity is gone.
CONCLUSION
At the end of the day it comes down to considering recreational uses to be allowed in the Great Burn that will not impair the WILDNESS of the area. It cannot be about considering user restrictions to satisfy only certain recreational user preferences. It comes down to considering impacts to wildlife based on FACTS and scientific studies, not modeling studies or assumed unproven impacts. IT COMES DOWN TO MANAGING PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.
Stan Spencer
President
Backcountry Sled Patriots
406 544 0144
stanspencer@montana.com
Should Snowmobiling be Stopped?
A recent Guest Column by Dale Harris (Feb 3, 2020) has prompted me to respond. The headline MAINTAIN WILDNESS OF MT-ID FORESTS (reference to the Great Burn area in the Clearwater National Forest) is absolutely aligned with my thinking. Couldn’t agree more. However, if you read the column carefully you would have no doubt that the unspoken or veiled part of his comments conveyed a message. “Maintain the Wildness only for one specific category of user”. The “wildness” character can be maintained and still support various users that do not diminish the character of the area. Snowmobiling is a good example of what I’m referring to. Virtually zero impact on the land. Once the snow melts all trace is removed. There is no user conflict in the high alpine areas in the winter because the only way to get to the areas is via snowmobile. I have snowmobiled the Great Burn since 1988 and have only seen back country skiers twice. In both cases they accessed the area via snowmobile.
Let’s talk about wildlife impact from snowmobiling. Mr. Harris suggests Goats and Wolverines are vulnerable to motorized disturbance (no factual evidence is provided). Goats need to eat in the winter. Their principal winter diet is grasses and liken. That limits their preference to winter in areas that have less than two feet of snow (the average length of a Goats leg is 22”). Snowmobiles can’t access the Great Burn unless there is about five feet of snow to cover rocks and deadfall. Snowmobiles just are not in Goat winter habitat areas. When the Great Burn was open for snowmobiling I had observed Wolverines, from a fairly long distance, in a couple of places. I do understand they need snow to make a ‘home’ for raising their young. The thing is they don’t do this out in open areas. They generally do this on steep cliff areas that are not accessible by man or machine. They can maneuver up or down on a rock face faster than any Mt. Goat. A snowmobile can’t get anywhere near a Wolverine den.
The Forest Service did a study of Wolverine disturbance in the Payette National Forest and the short version of the findings were: Wolverines are more disturbed by a skier than a snowmobile. The recently released Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) for the Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision compared Goat mortality rates in the Bitterroot-Selway Wilderness (no motorized allowed) with the Great Burn when it was open to snowmobiling and found the mortality rate was much higher in the non-motorized area.
Past Montana studies have arrived at the same results. There is just no correlation between Goat mortality rates and snowmobile activity. I, and most of the snowmobile community, agree that Great Burn area should be protected. Protected from any activity that would diminish the “wildness” character of the area. Not protected from uses that certain groups simply don’t like.
Let’s talk about wildlife impact from snowmobiling. Mr. Harris suggests Goats and Wolverines are vulnerable to motorized disturbance (no factual evidence is provided). Goats need to eat in the winter. Their principal winter diet is grasses and liken. That limits their preference to winter in areas that have less than two feet of snow (the average length of a Goats leg is 22”). Snowmobiles can’t access the Great Burn unless there is about five feet of snow to cover rocks and deadfall. Snowmobiles just are not in Goat winter habitat areas. When the Great Burn was open for snowmobiling I had observed Wolverines, from a fairly long distance, in a couple of places. I do understand they need snow to make a ‘home’ for raising their young. The thing is they don’t do this out in open areas. They generally do this on steep cliff areas that are not accessible by man or machine. They can maneuver up or down on a rock face faster than any Mt. Goat. A snowmobile can’t get anywhere near a Wolverine den.
The Forest Service did a study of Wolverine disturbance in the Payette National Forest and the short version of the findings were: Wolverines are more disturbed by a skier than a snowmobile. The recently released Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) for the Clearwater National Forest Plan Revision compared Goat mortality rates in the Bitterroot-Selway Wilderness (no motorized allowed) with the Great Burn when it was open to snowmobiling and found the mortality rate was much higher in the non-motorized area.
Past Montana studies have arrived at the same results. There is just no correlation between Goat mortality rates and snowmobile activity. I, and most of the snowmobile community, agree that Great Burn area should be protected. Protected from any activity that would diminish the “wildness” character of the area. Not protected from uses that certain groups simply don’t like.