Important for single trackers, mountain bikers and sleders

[Dirty LJ]

Dear single track, mountain bike and snowmobile leaders,
The deadline to comment on a draft winter and summer Travel Plan for the Clearwater National Forest HAS BEEN EXTENDED!

The Clearwater Travel Plan is the first time a National Forest in Region 1 has attempted site specific implementation of their new (and unlawful) de-facto Wilderness policy. The policy impacts mountain bike, single track motorcycle and snowmobiles most! We need to get the word out to our people -- badly. The greens are engaged and fighting hard. Every comment counts.

Below are some quick cut and paste comments. Please forward this info to your people.

Thanks!
Brian Hawthorne
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext.102
PS for background info see http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=753

SITUATION:
Idaho's Clearwater National Forest has released a "Proposed Action" for the summer and winter motorized and mountain bike Travel Plan. It is the first time a National Forest in Region 1 (in northern Idaho and Montana) has attempted site-specific implementation of their new (and unlawful) de-facto Wilderness policy. The "Proposed Action" proposes removing all motorized and mountain bike uses from "Recommended Wilderness Areas" (RWA).

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
Send a simple email comment to the Clearwater.
Here is a link to Clearwater's Travel Plan webpage:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/Proj ... Travel.htm

The email address is: comments-northern-clearwater@fs.fed.us

IMPORTANT: Put "Comments on Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan" in the subject line and be certain to include your name and address at the end of the comments. A return email address is NOT sufficient! (FS often discards "anonymous" email comments.) Copy the text below and paste into your email.

Lois Foster, Travel Plan Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Lochsa Ranger District, Kamiah Ranger Station
Rt. 2 Box 191
Kamiah, ID 83536

I would like to make the following comments on the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan. The comment is made using the "issues in the form of questions" format. Please consider these questions in the Alternative development and please also include a full discussion of each question in the EIS. I also request the EIS include a discussion and brief analysis of previous Congressional Wilderness designations so the public may understand how the existence of motorized uses actually impacts Congress's ability to designate Wilderness. I also request that the Clearwater provide a true range of management Alternatives, including one "action" alternative that, at the very minimum, does not reduce the current motorized and mountain bike opportunity.

Question 1) In Montana Wilderness Assoc. v. U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. District Court of Montana found that Congress required the Forest Service to strike-and maintain-a balance between wilderness character and motorized use in WSAs established by that Act. Given that Congress envisioned motorized uses in Wilderness Study Areas they established, what is the Forest Service's rationale for excluding motorized uses in Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs)?

Question 2) If the existence of motorized uses does not preclude an area from being designated as an RWA, then what is the Forest Service's rationale for eliminating motorized uses in RWAs?

Question 3) What level of motorized or mountain bike use would disqualify an area from being a RWA?

Question 4) In the Eastern Wilderness Act, Congress designated areas Wilderness that contained motorized uses, structures, maintained roads and even sections of paved roads. Has the Forest Service studied the level of motorized uses that actually precludes Congress from designating an area Wilderness?

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS