To: Snowmobilers

From: Idaho State Snowmobile Association

Date: November 2004

Re: Payette Travel Plan Comments (scoping)

The deadline for comments is December 7, 2004.

Your comments in writing can be sent to: Travel Plan Revision, Forest Supervisor, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, Idaho, 83638 or Faxed to 208.634.0744. If you prefer, they can be emailed to sdixon@fs.fed.us.

Letters should be addressed to: Dear Project Leader:

How to write substantive comments:

It is important that you identify yourself as a snowmobiler and share whenever possible your personal experiences in these areas. Tell them how often you ride the area and why it is important to you and your family. You might also want to include how often you ride in the Payette and perhaps estimate your expenditures on snowmobiling each year.

When discussing the Granite Mountain area please tell them about any experiences you have had with snowcat skiers. If you have had none, let them know that. Forest Service personnel typically only hear from people who are having a negative experience. You have the opportunity to let them know how well things are actually going in the backcountry.

For those areas that we are proposing to be opened that have been closed to snowmobiling for years, first hand knowledge of the area is limited unless you have skied there or flown over it in the winter. If you have done either of these, please share your experiences. What wildlife did you see; even more important, what didn’t you see—lynx, mountain goat, etc.? Can the area be ridden by snowmobilers? What kind of experience will it provide if opened? Why is it important to open up new areas?

It is not necessary to write volumes unless you feel so compelled, but it is important that you give as much specific information as possible. Please feel free to improvise, pick and choose the issues you want to discuss. You don’t have to cover them all.

This is important, so take your time and, if you have any questions or if I can be of any help, please let me know; Sandra F. Mitchell, smitchel@alscott.com, 1.888.342.6976, or 208.424.3870. If you would like this material emailed to you, let me know.

Enclosed is some specific information on the proposed action and some issues that might help guide your comments.

Thank you for caring about the future of snowmobiling in the Payette!\

A. General Comments

Winter vs Summer Motorized Recreation

o Winter and summer motorized recreation are very different and these differences must be recognized in any travel planning effort.

Basis for planning

o Many of the closures in the proposed action and present travel plan appear to be arbitrary, lacking any scientific foundation. There is no evidence of even basic user studies addressing how many people are out there, what they are doing, and what they want from their experience. The Forest has no idea of what kind of experience people are actually having.

Winter Recreation Conflict on the Payette

o I am not prepared to give up our public land access simply to reward shrill cries of “conflict” from other sectors.

o Snowmobilers are already squeezed into too little land area and need to look for opportunities to open more areas, not less.

o Nonmotorized winter users already have access to massive areas where motorized winter recreation is prohibited, including the FCRONR Wilderness. A number of areas have already been set aside for exclusive use by backcountry skiers including: North/North, Squaw Meadow, Jughandle, Ponderosa State Park and on a regional level Tamarack has opened and will provide back-country skiing opportunities.

o Nonmotorized recreationists are free to use all of the traditional snowmobiling areas. No areas are closed to them.

Combinations of Motorized and Nonmotorized Use

o Some skiers are also snowmobilers and utilize their machines to access remote areas. Certainly there is nothing wrong with combining these two activities. However, when a person accesses a remote area by using an over-snow machine they should have no expectation of exclusive use. If they used a snow machine to get to an area they obviously do not find that activity objectionable; they have no basis upon which to claim conflict.

B. Comments on the proposed closures (there are 3)

1. Proposed Snowcat Skiing Proposal

o This closure is unacceptable as proposed.

o Before any exclusive use is granted to Brundage, there should be a cost benefits analysis fully displaying the tradeoffs associated with continuance of this permit beyond the current 5-year term.

o If a cost benefits analysis indicates the snowcat skiing operation meets a real need and requires some exclusive area, snowmobilers will support the allocation provided that:

*Snowmobilers proposal for snowcat skiing*

o Approximately 700 acres in MA 06 must be dropped from the NE portion of the exclusive area, moving its NE boundary to a line starting at the west shore of Goose Lake at the lake’s mid point and extending NW up a ridge to Granite Mountain’s ridge line at a point 1/4^th mile S of Granite Lookout (See figure 1). If this portion of the exclusive area cannot be dropped, the entire area should continue to be shared.

o The following requirements should be attached to the closure:

· if monitoring indicates use of the exclusive area is too low to support a viable operation and warrant the closure for two consecutive years, the exclusive use feature of the permit will be terminated and the land reopened to general motorized use;

· cat trails within the permit area are loops designated for one-way traffic or the trail widened to safely accommodate two way traffic including backcountry skiers;

· trails vital to accessing other important areas and within the exclusive area will be open to shared use (the Goose Lake Boulevard must be an open shared trail);

· cat trails under the permit do not remove mileage from the general public’s trail system under the “no net increase” guideline;

· the permit defines just what is considered to be a snowcat and allow only those machines;

· Brundage repairs damage they cause to shared use trails, including berms and other obstacles;

· Brundage is responsible for all regulatory signing associated with the permit;

· the Forest Service monitors and manages the permit, assuring that snowcats use only designated trails and Brundage complies with permit conditions;

· Brundage shall remove all signs by March 16^th and shall not install any signs until December 31^st.

2. Proposed Bear Basin Closure

o This closure is unacceptable as proposed.

o The closure will encourage skiers and snowshoers to use the West Face parking lot, built for snowmobilers with snowmobile money. This parking facility is already crowded and cannot handle more use without expansion.

o Motorized recreation should not have to carry the burden of expansion and maintenance necessitated by adding nonmotorized opportunities.

o This closure blocks 30 to 40 cabin/home owners from accessing riding areas directly from their homes. This means they will be forced to trailer their machines to already crowded parking facilities. It makes no sense to create this problem with an excessively large closure. Travel routes to riding areas must remain open.

o The closure contains some nice flat meadows that have always served as great riding areas for beginners and seniors. To have this type of riding area readily available is very important to our sport. It becomes more important as we lose riding areas with the sale of Boise Cascade lands.

o The Old Brundage Road to the lookout should remain open.

*Snowmobilers Proposal for Bear Basin*

o

I support this closure area be reduced in size to approximately 265 acres as shown in figure 2.

3. Proposed Lick Creek / Duck Lake-Burnside Lake Closure

This closure is unacceptable proposed.
At the winter recreation forum skiers indicated that they needed opportunities no further than 4 miles from portals. Exclusive use areas beyond the 4 miles serves no purpose. I recognize a reasonable need for ski areas, but see no need to include lands not really accessible, especially in an excellent snowmobile area.
In riding the Lick Creek Road I have seen no evidence of skiing activity.

Snowmobilers Proposal for Lick Creek/Duck –Burnside Lake Closure

That from the proposed portal and parking area as outlined in figure 3 and described as follows: Snowslide drainage to Lick Creek Road, and East Fork of Lake fork Creek to Lick Creek Road; Fall Creek Trail from Lick Creek to Fall Creek Saddle, south to Lick Creek Road. This proposal would drop the Duck Lake-Burnside Lake portion of MA 12 all together.
Nonmotorized users be given 2 years to build the parking lot. If it isn’t built in that time frame the exclusive use should be withdrawn.

That the Forest Service monitor use in the exclusive use area on a continuous basis; if use is inadequate to justify the closure over the next 5 year period, the closure should be withdrawn.

C. Comments on snowmobilers’ proposed openings

General comments you might want to make:

I fully support closures based on real, substantial resource issues, such as protecting important wildlife winter range.
I reluctantly support the allocation of some reasonable amount of public land to meet the desires of other users with demonstrated special needs.
I strongly oppose denial of access to our public land for no clearly demonstrable purpose.
I object in the strongest terms to closures supported only by “feel-good”, politically correct science and vague opinions.
When information becomes available that shows past decisions were in error, those decisions should be expeditiously corrected.

Specific comments about current closures that should be dropped or modified:

MA 7

o The information now available does not support the present closure on the east side of MA 7. It is not key winter range for any species.

o No lynx sightings are recorded and if any lynx did visit the area it would be as they passed through while traveling to another area with suitable habitat.

o It doesn’t winter any mountain goats; none have been seen since 1970.

o This is an unnecessary and unjustified closure and an error that should be corrected in this travel plan revision.

o Opening this area will disperse use and provide significant recreation opportunities with little to no resource impact.

MA 10

This area contains burned areas, old roads and trails, and is bordered in large part by roads.
It has excellent riding opportunities and no resource issues that should limit access.
It contains no lynx habitat and none have been seen there.

MA 11

The winter closure area south of War Eagle Mountain is completely surrounded by roads, includes burned area, contains old roads and trails, and has no lynx habitat.
There is no purpose for the existing closure and I recommend that it be opened.

MA 12

For sake of discussion we have broken this closure area into 4 sections, 12 A, B, C, D (see map Figure 4)

12 A

This area, if opened, would disperse use from the Slab-Granite area.
It can be accessed from the Francie Wallace parking lot, which could easily be enlarged, if necessary, by the snowmobile community.
This would expand opportunities for extreme to moderate riding and even includes some intermediate areas.
It contains no lynx habitat and no wintering goats.

12 B

o It is not key winter range for any species.

o There are no lynx in this area and it is definitely not lynx habitat. No lynx sightings are recorded and if any lynx did visit the area it would be as they passed through while traveling to another area with suitable habitat.

o It doesn’t winter any mountain goats; none have been seen since 1970. If they were present it is unlikely that snowmobiles would have any negative impact upon them.

o This is an unnecessary and unjustified closure.