• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Vail Colorado Piney 2012 Project

F
Aug 24, 2009
45
5
8
54
Westminster, CO
Probably most CO riders may already have this but thought I would post and try to encourage more public input by responsible riders. I'm not the most eloquent writer but i'm trying.

CSA Email
The Eagle Holy Cross Ranger District proposes a permanent closure of thinned areas to snowmobiles after beetle kill/fuels remediation work is completed.

As everyone is aware, the mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle have significantly impacted Colorado forests. These impacts have been of great concern to the snowmobile community and we have always been supportive of mitigation efforts of the Forest Service on this issue as it improves the safety and experience of all users of public lands.

CSA is very concerned that the valid concerns have now been used as the basis for a proposal to permanently close riding areas, after the safety concerns have been addressed. The Piney area of the Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River, which was just found suitable for an open riding area by the travel plan signed in 2011, is now proposed for permanent closure to protect young trees that remain after mitigation efforts.

Our concerns are:
1. Permanent closures to recreational usage in replanted mitigation areas is totally unnecessary and unprecedented in any other fuels mitigation areas. Proposed closures extend well beyond areas mitigated, making any cause and effect relationship between alleged management issue and proposed boundaries questionable at best.

2. Permanent closures of these areas are not based on best available science, and makes little sense as the trees will grow to sizes where snowmobiles simply will not be a risk.

3. Proposed closures were not in any portion of prior documents created on this project.

4. Young trees are protected by the heavy snowfall strongly preferred in the riding areas that have been mitigated due to debris that is normally left after mitigation work is completed.

4. Minimal snowfall issues will result in informal closure of the areas as mitigation work usually results in debris and stumps in these areas, which make the area unsafe for riding if sufficient snow is not present.

5. Closure of these areas will set a very bad precedent for all recreational access to areas after mitigation work has occurred and significantly limit support for this critical work going forward.

6. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act cannot be used to make decisions that conflict with current forest planning, which is the proposal with the Piney project.

We need your help to let them know this type of management is not acceptable!

Link to Website with plan and related documents:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=38657

Comment Deadline:
On or before June 23, 2013

Who to contact:
Mail to: Electronically send to:
David Neely, https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=38657
Eagle/Holy Cross District Ranger, (scroll down the page to find the form)
24747 U.S. Highway 24
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, Colorado, 81645

The name and mailing address of the person submitting electronic comments must be included.

My comment
I am very concerned about restricting use of this land to snowmobile access. I feel that permanent closures of this area are poor policy.
Please consider all stake holders to these public lands, including over the snow winter access which has negligible impact to these areas. Snowmobiles make very limited contact with the land and most if not all trace of their presence vanishes with the spring snow melt.
Permanent closures to recreational usage in replanted mitigation areas is totally unnecessary and unprecedented in any other fuels mitigation areas. Proposed closures extend well beyond areas mitigated, making any cause and effect relationship between alleged management issue and proposed boundaries questionable at best.

I feel permanent closures exemplify poor management policy, and that a far better alternatives should involve clearly defined time periods with a stated expiration to said policy.
 
Premium Features