Comments must be received by
FIND
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=/projects/travel_planning
The Gallatin National Forest (GNF) Travel Plan EIS is complete.
There are 7 Alternatives to look at and the Forest Service (FS) has chosen
Alternative 7 as their Preferred Alternative.
Here is what Alternative 7 does for us…..or rather what it shuts
down to motorized recreation:
1.
356,000 acres closed to snowmobiles. 62% reduction in
OFF-TRAIL riding.
2.
Increased groomed trails-8%. Increased marked trails-48%. But do
not get OFF the trails.
3.
41% reduction in summer use trails.
4.
9% increase of groomed cross-country trails. 16% increase in
marked trails.
5.
43% INCREASE IN HIKING TRAILS!!!!
Other items of concern lie within the Travel Plan Amendment
itself:
1.
The FS will no longer be required to investigate any areas for
expansion of motorized use in the future. No trail maintenance, any new trails
or trail heads and no communication with local clubs to expand areas of over
use. The only option they give themselves is to shut down more area.
2.
The FS will no longer have to do Economic Impact Reviews as part
of their EIS in future Travel Plan planning!
3.
The FS will no longer include Recreational Opportunities in future
EIS studies for Travel Plan Purposes Animals take precedence and the areas will
be managed for animals that don't even exist there yet!
4.
Snowmobiles will be considered the same as WHEELED vehicles for
Travel Restrictions. Right now they are not included in that language.
Your comments should state that you do
not support ANY of the offered Alternatives.
Alternative 1 is being used as a
baseline for the other Alternatives, and we are told it will not be
considered. Alternatives 2-7 remove
snowmobiling from far too many acres. If the FS wants to remove this much
terrain, then they need to provide an equal amount
somewhere else.
The Montana Snowmobile Association,
Gallatin Valley Snowmobile Association and the Great Falls Snowmobile Club are
also supporting this type of comment. We
also recommend that you courtesy copy your comments to your local Congressional
representative's offices to let them know that the motorized community cannot
support any of the alternatives due to losing so much land for our
recreation.
Right now, Citizens for Balanced Use are
working on their own alternative to submit to the Forest Service. This is a full scale alternative which will
include Biological Studies, trail by
trail studies and pertinent pictures of the areas. I have been told that it will recommend NO
LOSSES for the snowmobile community. You
can make your comments on this Action Alert and we urge you to make more than
one comment. A
I attended one of the open houses in
Points that may help in your comments:
1.
In the Travel Management Planning Supervisor's Letter it states
that there is a growth in recreation, but the greatest restrictions have been
placed on motorized activities, especially areas for snowmobiles. A prime
example of why Alternative 7 is unsupportable is the Bridgers
area. Areas have been left open in
Alternative 7 where elk actually winter. What kind of set up do you think this
will lead to down the road?
2.
The 2001 OHV rule that eliminated the use of ATV’s on single-track
trails will be included in Alternative
1, as it is already in effect
3.
Wilderness study areas need to be maintained at uses prior to 1977
in this area. Snowmobiling in the Rock Creek and Hyalite areas has been going
on since 1968. I met people with pictures of riding snowmobiles in this area between 1968-1976.
4.
The Grizzly Bear population has grown significantly under our
current Travel Plan. In fact, the Grizzly Bear is being considered for removal
from the Endangered Species list. So why do we have to create even more
non-motorized areas for Grizzly Bear recovery when their numbers continue to grow?
5.
The Lynx study and Wolverine studies have proven no ill effects on
these two animals at present. These species are migratory and are hard to track
and are very seldom seen in the areas we snowmobile.
6.
The need to fix unacceptable resource damage. The study done by
the FS with photo's and
7.
The FS claims they do not have the funds for trail maintenance and
trail building. At the same time the FS refuses to work with local motorized
groups to do just that for free!!!! Take Rock Creek for instance; a landowner
complained about parking, so the Big Sky Snowriders volunteered to make a new
parking lot with volunteer labor and are told no.
8.
This plan needs a more in-depth Economic Impact Study. The one
that is used at present is one of the weakest we have seen to date in
9.
If there is this much area removed from snowmobiling
opportunities, there should be another like area added to meet the needs of a growing
recreational sport. Alternatives 2 - 7 create de-facto wilderness and set
motorized recreation for more closures in the future due to resource damage
occurring from overuse (the majority of recreationalists recreating on a
minimal amount of
If there are site/trail specific areas that you want to stay open,
use these in your comments as well to show you have historically used these
areas and do not want to lose them.
Send
your comments by
Attn:
Marna Daley
Fax:
(406) 587-6758
Email: Comments-northern-gallatin@fs.fed.us
Craig Osterman
Snowmobile Alliance of Western States
Copyright
© 2005 Snowmobile
Permission is granted
to distribute this information in whole or in part, as long as Snowmobile
Alliance of Western States (