Wilderness area proposal would harm regional economy says public Pro-Access group

With the comment period ending Thursday, August 30, the newly formed Sierra Pro-Access Group is asking outdoor enthusiasts to write against a U.S. Forest Service alternative plan that proposes creating new wilderness areas that would shut down some of the locals' most beloved recreation areas on public land around the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The economic effects on the Lake Tahoe Basin could be devastating, the group says, shutting out what clearly has been public access for not only snowmobiles, but mountain bikes, dirt bikes, and 4-wheel ATVs.

The Forest Service is being pressured from the national and statewide anti-access groups like Snow Lands, Sierra Club, Coalition of Conservation, Friends of the River and California Wilderness Coalition, the group says. Their apparent goal is to turn widely used and enjoyed recreation areas in the Basin into wilderness, which would eliminate access for most users except for hikers, snowshoers and cross country skiers.

Not only would this have tremendous financial impacts locally among the diversity of Forest recreationists, but a wilderness designation could be a fire hazard to homes in the basin, said group organizer Hanna Bernard. To get the word out she has established a Facebook page which has generated tens of thousands of views.

The group has spoken with local fire officials as well as their advisors who weren't aware, until now, of the wilderness designation proposal and burn policy impacts in the basin. Locally this would impact neighborhoods in Meyers, right up the valley from Christmas Valley as well as behind Kingsbury/Round Hill areas. As soon as they understood what was going on, Bernard said, fire officials decided to issue a recommendation to the Forest Service where they "strongly oppose" the proposed wilderness areas from a fire-safety standpoint.

Forest Service spokeswoman Cheva Heck said Dardanelles and Freel, the two areas that potentially could be recommended for wilderness designation, are already designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas, so we don’t do much fuels reduction there now. As the draft environmental impact statement indicates, none of the alternatives proposed are expected to have significant impacts on fire and fuels management due to wilderness designation.

A wilderness designation means that there will be no fuels management, pre-existing roads will be demolished, no mechanical devices are allowed (like chain saws or fire-fighting vehicles) and if there is a fire, fire crews are only allowed to fight the fire "by hand" or by helicopter. And the methods of putting out the fire are limited as you aren't allowed to use certain fire retardants in a wilderness area. Heck said fire suppression, including use of fire retardant, minimum impact suppression techniques are the first choice when fighting a fire in a designated wilderness. That said, based on the level of threat to life and property, the Forest Service can request approval for the use of mechanized equipment in wilderness and approve the use of retardant when deemed necessary.

Bernard said this is deeply alarming because the affects would be felt in "our own back yards."

The group has already set up online comment forms that can be used to send personal comments to the Forest Service, as well as an online petition that opposes the the two alternatives that the Forest Service has presented that includes the wilderness. You can find the online forms and additional information including links to the Forest Service's web page for this at www.tahoesierrasnowmobiling.org

The Forest Service is not proposing any new wilderness in their preferred alternative, Alternative B, but because of the pressure from the anti-access groups, they had to work that into their draft for the new forest plan, Bernard said.

"If we don't push back, the massive and very well organized pressure from the anti-access groups will push their favored alternatives through," said Bernard. "The Forest Service's preferred alternative does not include any wilderness and we are suggesting everyone support the Forest Service's Alternative B, and even propose that the Forest Service should increase Fuels Management in these areas instead of decreasing it as they propose."

Forest Service spokeswoman Heck said that because Dardanelles and Freel are designated as inventory roadless areas, the Forest Service is already restricted in what fuels reduction activities it can pursue.

The group has specifically reached out to recreation groups who would be negatively affected if a wilderness dedication was pushed through. The group has also reached out to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors who immediately issued a letter to the Forest Service opposing the proposed wilderness, as well as the Five County Fire Chief Board who also issued a letter to the Forest Service which "strongly opposed" the proposed wilderness. The group has also informed the South Lake Tahoe City Council where some members have now written their own comments to the Forest Service opposing the proposed wilderness areas, she said.

The group urges recreationalists to support the preferred Alternative B and to oppose Alternatives C and D. And the group also suggest that people should urge the Forest Service to increases the Fuels Management plan as suggested in Alternative C.

The Alternatives
The Forest Service has four alternative plans, each includes a "Wild and Scenic" status recommendation for the Upper Truckee River. The alternatives are:

Alternative A:  This would continue current policies.
Alternative B: The Forest Service Preferred Plan that would allow up to a 5 percent increase in developed recreation sites, such as campgrounds, no new wilderness areas and no changes in road or trail systems.
Alternative C: This would provide a more aggressive fuels management, allows up to a 15 percent more in developed recreation sites, recommends Dardanelles as additional wilderness areas, opens more roads to passenger vehicles and OHV's and adds for more parking.
Alternative D: This would halt expansion in developed recreation sites, would not open the door for replacement of areas; would designate Dardanelles and Freel Peak as wilderness areas; would cut down the number of trails open to mechanized use; would decrease the number of roads open to passenger vehicles and OHV's and make access and use more primitive and provides the least parking allowable.

Commenting is critical, Bernard said. "The comment period closes on August 30 — this Thursday so make sure you comment to the Forest Service as soon as possible" (See below for links on how to comment).
The timeline on the table is an environmental analysis of the selected alternative by early 2013, a 60-day objection period for those who have previously commented with a 90-day resolution period and a final decision by the U.S. Forest Supervisor sometime in fall 2013.

So far there have been 17,000 comments and the Forest Service is "expecting many more before the deadline," said Heck.

For those objecting to plans C and D, here are the links the group has outlined:

1. Comment Letter — Click this link to fill out the online comment form with your personal comments how the proposed wilderness would have negative impacts: www.tahoesierrasnowmobiling.org/?p=1160

2. Petition — Click this next link to sign a petition FOR Alternatives A and B but AGAINST C and D to STOP the wilderness proposal: www.tahoesierrasnowmobiling.org/?p=1147

Comments and signed petition will go directly to the Forest Service. If you want to read more before commenting or signing the petition, go here.

For the U.S. Forest Service page go here and see PDF below of the alternatives presented by the Forest Service.