Shonshone National Forest Travel Management Plan (Togwotee and Top of the World areas)

[shelbwyo]

I havent seen anything posted about this since the last round of comments was taken (2020). It is very important that we comment on this so that the best option is chosen for us as motorized users, both winter and summer users.

I went over the 4 proposed alternatives that the environmental assessment has in it. From what I can tell Alternative 1, which is no change from current standing on road classification/dates and over snow areas/dates, is the best option for the motorized crowd. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 would negatively affect access especially for over snow travel. Some of the alternatives would close over a hundred miles of roads/trails forest wide. One of the alternatives takes away nearly 1500 acres of motorized area for use for cross-country skiing. The other alternatives also change dates and allowed used on forest service roads/trails. Currently there are no beginning or end dates for snowmobiling on the Shoshone, just snow depth minimum and no resource damage.

ALTERNATIVE 1 IS WHAT WE WANT TO REMAIN AS THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN!

I have heard that form letters submitted are counted as one, so we need to customize individual letters to have a larger voice.

Comments are due by November 18th.

These are the two websites with the information to read the full EA (474 pages) and to submit comments.

Environmental Assessment page with maps and appendix. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/shoshone/home/?cid=stelprd3846526

Comments need to be submitted here by the 18th. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/shoshone/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD962859

You can also directly email

• send an email to SM.FS.shonfcomment@usda.gov with “Shoshone NF Travel Management Planning Project” in the subject line or
• via regular mail to Mark Foster (Environmental Coordinator), Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow Lane Avenue, Cody, WY 82414

There were some virtual meetings over the last couple days and I missed those. On the EA page you can view the slides that were presented, although they are not very easy to understand.

On the EA page you can view the maps. Subpart C is the over snow travel portion. Subpart B is the summer roads. Alternatives 2 , 3 and 4 will close about 1500 acres SW and North of the brooks lake parking lot! (see subpart c Wind River) This is the area known as the falls/deception and pinnacles ski areas which has been informally a ski area for years. A better area for XC ski trails would be an area lower on the mountain that does no recieve as much snow where snowmobiles would not want to be anyways.

There is a lot involved in these proposals, but I feel that our best result would be for things to stay the way that they are now. I have a form letter from Wyoming State Snowmobile Association and they generally support Alternative 4 and im not sure why because they suggest changes to it. Alternative 4 allows class 2 OSV's which are tracked pickups/suv's on groomed trails which is not something we as snowmobilers want. Alternative 4 also changes the dates and minimum snow depth allowed for off trail travel. The High Lakes Wilderness Study area needs to remain open to over snow travel. The only good thing in alternative 4 is adding two ungroomed trails, one near sublette pass that is used as a trail anyways and one in the beartooths. We should all oppose the closure of the Line Creek Plateau RNA in the beartooths.

Im sure there is something I missed, feel free to add. Getting some of this information out on social media would be a wise idea.

 

[Pickin’ Boogers]

The "no change" alternative is simply there because it's required by the NEPA process to compare the other alternatives to it, not because the USFS actually will consider the "no change" alternative. This process is not a vote anyhow, so it would doubly be a waste for everyone to write a bunch of letters that simply state "I prefer Alternative 1."

You need to tear into the alternatives and give some real feedback. They won't listen (sorry just being honest), but the more people who write substantive comments in favor of motorized access, the more people the USFS has to worry about suing them when they inevitably close a bunch of public land. The large non-profits who want to close land (Winter Wildlands Alliance and friends) already have a great track record of litigation, so that's who the USFS fears the most, and in whose favor their final decision will be.

I hope AMPL has a good plan for this, and that the local community is willing to pony up for the lawsuits. I also wonder how much the sheep closures to skiers is turning their attention to new terrain to close to sleds. Though they'll tell you all they want is to "share" and "compromise," without proposing the sharing or compromising is on the behalf of the skiers.

 

[shelbwyo]

The "no change" alternative is simply there because it's required by the NEPA process to compare the other alternatives to it, not because the USFS actually will consider the "no change" alternative. This process is not a vote anyhow, so it would doubly be a waste for everyone to write a bunch of letters that simply state "I prefer Alternative 1."

You need to tear into the alternatives and give some real feedback. They won't listen (sorry just being honest), but the more people who write substantive comments in favor of motorized access, the more people the USFS has to worry about suing them when they inevitably close a bunch of public land. The large non-profits who want to close land (Winter Wildlands Alliance and friends) already have a great track record of litigation, so that's who the USFS fears the most, and in whose favor their final decision will be.

I hope AMPL has a good plan for this, and that the local community is willing to pony up for the lawsuits. I also wonder how much the sheep closures to skiers is turning their attention to new terrain to close to sleds. Though they'll tell you all they want is to "share" and "compromise," without proposing the sharing or compromising is on the behalf of the skiers.

So what your saying is that the FS won't even consider alternative 1? Why would advocating for things to stay the same be a waste of time? Are they required to pick one of the other alternatives over alternative 1? I agree with saying what you don't like about other alternatives.

If I need to change to alternative 4 I will but there are many parts of it that I do not agree with. I am far from an expert on this stuff, but I'm learning. Just trying to let people know what's at stake and what the bereaucrats are trying to do to our PUBLIC land.

 

[Pickin’ Boogers]

Yes, Alternative 1 is simply procedural, for comparison purposes. It really doesn't matter which alternative you write in favor of. You need to submit something substantive and then maintain standing until the bitter end, when the final, final decision is determined by lawsuit.

BTW speaking of procedures, keep very close tabs on the process itself. Locals should even consider scrounging up some old smelly Patagonia gear and going to meetings held only for the skiers, and see if you can find evidence of backroom deals and favoritism. Document everything.

If the USFS does correctly follow procedures, they can decide almost anything. You need to catch them violating the NEPA process - it really doesn't matter how many people write letters during the first step saying "I prefer this or that." That's only to make the public feel involved (which itself is a vital part of the process), not for actual decision making.

 

[shelbwyo]

Yes, Alternative 1 is simply procedural, for comparison purposes. It really doesn't matter which alternative you write in favor of. You need to submit something substantive and then maintain standing until the bitter end, when the final, final decision is determined by lawsuit.

BTW speaking of procedures, keep very close tabs on the process itself. Locals should even consider scrounging up some old smelly Patagonia gear and going to meetings held only for the skiers, and see if you can find evidence of backroom deals and favoritism. Document everything.

If the USFS does correctly follow procedures, they can decide almost anything. You need to catch them violating the NEPA process - it really doesn't matter how many people write letters during the first step saying "I prefer this or that." That's only to make the public feel involved (which itself is a vital part of the process), not for actual decision making.

I agree writing a comment that is meaningful and thoughtful is the best route. That's why I tried to make my post longer, give folks some idea of what could change. The NEPA process is the hardest thing to understand because it is so full of crap. I hope that our comments will help with the final decision, it's about all we have.

 

[Ox]

Well, I sent a mail stating that I am a tax paying citizen and that I ride in the rockies with some frequency, and am looking for no change.

 

[shelbwyo]

Only 2 more days to comment on this. Sad to see this has only got 200 views. Togwotee is a highly popular area, we dont want to lose riding area.

 

[Ox]

Well, Goober said not to bother.
Is he a Lefty in cognito?

 

[RBalazs]

I commented, even though I don’t ride nor will I probably ever ride this area. I think it’s important that we all know the issues our fellow riders face, close or far to a specific area being targeted. It’s only a matter time that they come after your riding area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shelbwyo]

Well, Goober said not to bother.
Is he a Lefty in cognito?

No I dont think so. We need all the comments we can get. Send multiple, pick a new topic or new rule you don't like and send another.

 

[boondocker97]

For anyone that is putting in a last minute comment...

I just spoke to a friend that called into one of the meetings. He said, "Yeah I actually called in to the virtual meeting they had. Alternatives 1-3 were in the last round of comments and alternative 4 is the resultant and current "preferred" alternative. They are specifically looking for comments on alternative 4 this go around." So that would explain why the support for Alternative 4 with changes suggested. Likely we will get some version of 4 in the end. He said the dates proposed were from November 1st to June 1st or something close to that. Not much riding to be done outside those limits. Although I have ridden Top of the World in early June before.

 

[donbrown]

sorry to declare just fund this Did the Forest service release the new riding boundaries?

 

[boondocker97]

They'll be looking through and incorporating comments for a while now. Probably release the new travel plan next spring. Won't know much until then. Shouldn't really change anything for this sled season.