Snowmobile Alliance of Western States, Inc.
P.O. Box 58031
Renton, WA. 98058
October 28, 2007
Meeting: Friday October26, 2007
Attendees: Dave Hurwitz (
Subject:
To address questions/concerns described in Dave Hurwitz (
Abbreviations: Q/C = Question/Concern, A =
Answer, R = Resolution,
Q/C - I must say that I am rather disappointed with the FS planning behind
the DEA for the RTR project…by the blatant bias against motorized recreation
and the favoring of non-motorized recreation found throughout this document.
A – FS agreed that after reading my
letter that they could see how the language used to describe cross-country ski
use was much more positive and colorful than the language used to describe
snowmobile use. The FS said it was not their intent to use biased language, and
in fact they had not even noticed this in their previous reviews of the
document, until my letter provided the exact quotes from various sections in
the document side by side for comparison. The FS stated that they needed to try
and sell the new proposed non-motorized improvements and that is probably what
led to the difference in use of adjectives.
R – The FS agreed to make sure that
the wording in the Final Environmental Assessment fairly describes both forms
of recreation equally.
Q/C - Is this really a “restoration” project or a thinly veiled attempt to
add non-motorized recreational opportunities in this area, while at the same
time reducing motorized access?
A – Rodney said no. He further
explained that there is opportunity for the recreation community (motorized and
non-motorized) to piggyback onto future restoration/stewardship projects. He
specifically mentioned the East Keechelus Restoration Project on the north side
of I-90 that will soon be in the planning stage.
R – Todd agreed to notify Dave of
all future projects where there is the possibility of either a negative affect
to snowmobile use, or an opportunity to expand snowmobile use.
Q/C - 7.34 miles of road would be closed to public motorized
access and either converted or managed as non-motorized trails.
A – Todd stated that this section
of FR #115 is very seldom used by snowmobilers. Dave stated he did not care how
much it was used, it was still used, and it was still a take away from
snowmobilers unless an equal amount of road/area that is currently closed to
snowmobiler use is opened for snowmobile use. Dave then asked how many comments
were received from snowmobilers complaining about losing this section of road.
Patty indicated that a total of 6 letters (including mine) were received with
comments that appeared to be from snowmobilers concerned with this road closure
or snowmobile related concerns similar to those that were brought up in Dave’s
comment letter. The FS also indicated that a meeting with Howard Briggs, Dan
Johnson and Lin Cole would count as 3 additional comments on the project, but
their concerns were more directed at the proposal for winter plowing of groomed
routes on FRs #5400 and #5480, and not the closure of FR #115 to snowmobile
use.
R – I agreed to drop my concern regarding
this road closure in this project due to lack of use and in particular due to
lack of comments and concerns submitted by the snowmobile community.
Q/C - Is the cross-country community footing part of the bill for the funds
required to prepare this Environmental Assessment EA, or for other required
studies to determine if this new non-motorized groomed trail would cause any
negative impact to wildlife and/or the environment? If not, why not?
A – Rodney said no. The dollars
received from the commercial timber harvest will pay for the required studies
and will also pay for non-commercial thinning of the tightly grouped Douglas
fir trees in some of the previously logged areas. This non-commercial thinning
will thin up to 50 percent of the densely packed trees in these areas leaving
spacing between the remaining trees of 10-15 feet, which will possibly allow
enough room for snowmobile passage.
R – The FS answer satisfied my
concern with this issue.
Q/C - Are all of these studies required or not per NEPA? If not, then why
have several requested new shared-use groomed routes within the
A – As previously stated,
snowmobilers can piggyback onto other restoration/stewardship projects which
cover the cost of these required studies. One issue that needs to be kept in
mind is that Cumulative Effects (CE) will need to be studied anytime new
groomed trails systems will connect two trails together from separate drainage
basins. Dave specifically mentioned the North Fork Teanaway groomed trail
extension proposed in 2002 for 3.5 miles additional miles on FR #9737. Rodney
indicated that the proposed Teanaway grooming extension project by itself would
not require a CE study, but that the other proposal for FR#4818-115 on the east
side of Lake Kachess would require one. Patty mentioned that lynx could be an
issue on the Teanaway proposal though. Dave indicated that the entire forest is
split into Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) and that not all LAUs contain lynx and/or
lynx habitat. The type of vegetation and elevation must also be factored into
the equation. Dave indicated that he did not believe that the portion of road
from where grooming currently ends to the proposed new end location 3.5 miles
further up the road to
R – Snowmobilers would not be
required to pay for these types of studies if we could piggyback onto other
projects that were already paying for these studies, except possibly in the case
where CE comes into play. Grooming that does not tie two groomed routes
together would not require a CE study.
Q/C - I was unable to find ANY
proposed benefit to snowmobile recreationists in Alternative 2. Where are the
new shared-use groomed routes, which would not only benefit snowmobilers, but
would also benefit non-motorized users?
A – This question was overlooked
during our meeting. The clear answer is that there are no benefits to snowmobilers
in this project.
R – Unresolved
Q/C - I don’t normally review all of the [(SOPA) listed] documents associated
to timber harvest projects, restoration projects, mineral extraction projects,
etc., just to see if there are any negative consequences to snowmobile use.
Will this now be standard practice to include positive and/or negative changes
to recreation in these type of plans too?
A – FS stated that if the
opportunity presented itself to provide benefit to the recreational community
by adding some project of benefit during these types of projects, they would
certainly look into doing so.
R – The FS agreed to do a better
job describing the projects in the SOPA document that may contain a positive or
negative affect to recreation. They also indicated that projects with titles
such as restoration or stewardship may have potential benefit for recreation
and should be looked at more closely by the recreation community. The FS said
that Todd Stiles will contact Dave on all future projects where negative affects
or positive opportunities to snowmobile use may exist.