|
Final Draft *Please send any comments on letter to me, ASAP. Please note the impacts of the proposed reg. on motorized and non-motorized activities including active management of our forest lands. If you are a resource, recreation, or powersport business...you may want to pen a short letter (if you don't have the time to ink a long letter) of how this may impact your family's business or recreational opportunity. Thanks, January 31, 2000 CAET-USDA Dear CAET-USDA: Please accept these comments on the Proposed National Forest Management Act Planning Rule (PR) for the U.S. Forest Service. These comments are submitted by Don Amador, the western regional representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition. The contents of this communiqué does not preclude other Coalition representatives or members from submitting their own comments. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a national 501 (c) (3) non-profit advocacy group that champions responsible multiple-use recreation of public lands. It represents over 800 businesses and organizations with 600,000 members. The PR is fatally flawed and I deliberated on the merits of spending the time to comment. Against my better judgment, I am submitting comments with serious reservations about the many legal, ecological, recreational, ethical, and fiscal deficiencies of the PR. Also, the PR does not state how it will be funded. Based on the contents of the PR, it would be my recommendation to Congress that this process not be funded. My comments are as follows: PART 217: Preserve 36CFR217. Although 36CFR217 should be more streamlined and maybe include certain elements of 36CFR215, it gives persons and organizations interested in the management of the National Forest System the ability to administratively appeal decisions to approve, amend, or revise a National Forest land and resource management plan or approve or amend a regional guide prepared pursuant to 36CFR219. The proposed PR deprives the public of the legal right to administratively appeal deficient forest planning efforts. PART 219.1: The proposed PR deviates from Congressionally mandated direction to “provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner” 36CFR219.1(a). The proposed PR uses non-descript, vague and highly subjective terms (i.e. honor, biological diversity, inspiration, sustainability, naturalness, etc.). These will only confuse various publics and detract from forest management for traditional Congressionally-directed multiple-use and sustained yield. PART 219.2: The proposed PR replaces the clearly defined Forest direction in the current 36CFR219.21 to identify and plan for a broad spectrum of forest and rangeland recreational opportunities. The proposed PR does not provide clear direction for management and development of multiple-use recreation on forest lands. The proposed PR continues to use said non-descript, vague, and highly subjective terms to describe long-term goals, guiding principles, and planning. This frustrates the public and deviates from more objective management prescriptions, directions, and guidelines contained in current sections of 36CFR291.1 - .28. Although collaborative efforts with indigenous peoples are important, the federal government should not place rights (PR 219.2 -iv) of American Indian tribes above the rights of the general public. While the Forest Service has a legal obligation to obey federal treaties, statutes, and executive orders relevant to American Indians and Alaskan Natives, it should not discriminate against Americans with other religious views regarding access to, or use of, our National Forest System lands. The proposed PR (219.2-iii) uses the term “social” as a tenet of planning. This term is vague. Delete this term. The Forest Service is not a hospital or academic facility. Leave social planning to these entities. This section PR (219.2-iv) uses complex and vague terms that will frustrate public participation in the planning process. Using terms or phrases such as “spatial and temporal scales” and “Ecological boundaries that also have social meaning” will confuse and frustrate meaningful public participation. The “anchor” concept PR (219.2-v) is highly subjective and is not a Congressionally authorized land management prescription. Delete this concept. The Forest Service should be commended for noting PR (219.2-(d)-(1) that citizens can provide a wide array of services, ranging from volunteer work on trail crews to participating in collaborative efforts. PR (219.2-(e)-(2)(i) bypasses Congressional direction for multiple-use and sustained yield by organizing the planning process around a “collective vision of desired condition.” The Forest Service should refrain from the socialization of the forest planning process. This section of PR (219.2-v) seeks to make Plans dynamic, adaptable, and evolving. This concept is inconsistent with other land-management plans such as County Plans and City Plans. While a certain measure of flexibility should be allowed to address catastrophic events (floods, fires, etc.), a Forest Plan should be a rigid document to reflect the tremendous effort and resources expended by the public, local governments, user organizations, and the agency itself. A plan that ebbs and flows based on vague and non-descript factors is not in the public’s best interest. It will frustrate the public and be detrimental to forest management. PART 219.3: This entire section of the PR is confusing and deviates from the current 36CFR219.3 that addresses definitions and terminology for National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning. This will frustrate various public’s ability to meaningfully participate in the planning process. Delete PR 219.3 and replace with the current 36CFR219.4. Replacing current definitions and terminology in the current 36CFR219.3 with vague, non-descript, and highly subjective terms related to social views on ecology, land-use, and landscape goals is inappropriate for a resource agency. User groups, local governments, recreationists, and outdoorsmen already familiar with existing terms -- including multiple-use management -- in the current 36CFR219.3 will not be able to participate in a meaningful way. The PR 219.3-(b) illegally gives the Chief of the Forest Service the ability to undertake planning and decisions which may amend one or more land and resource management plans. Under the current 36CFR219.4, the Chief is only permitted to develop the Renewable Resources Assessment Program (RPA) that includes “national renewable resource goals and quantified objectives for resource outputs and other benefits...” PART 219.4: This section is maybe the most egregious as it gives the responsible officer the ability PR 219.4-(b) to unilaterally decide what topics will be included in the planning process. This is unacceptable as it empowers a government official to enact a social or land-use agenda that is in conflict with best management practices and the public interest. If an official does not support motorized recreation, mountain bike trails, or timber harvest as issues worthy of inclusion in the planning process, the officer can delete these topics from further consideration. PR 219.4-(vi) also gives the decision officer the ability to unilaterally discount or exclude user groups that may not agree with his/her view of land-use. All publics must be allowed to participate in the public process on an equal basis. Delete 219.4. It is an affront to the American public, local governments, and user groups who may now be excluded from the decision-making process. PART 219.5:This section also illegally empowers a decision officer with the ability to unilaterally pick and choose land-use topics and information based on his/her own discretion. It will allow an officer to enact a social or other agenda without oversight or administrative relief for the public. PR 219.5-2 gives the responsible officer the ability to give contracts to “other” entities for broad-scale assessments without oversight or review. “Other” entities could include individuals or organizations with social or spiritual agendas for management of our natural resources. PART 219.9:PR 219.9-(b)(3) uses the term “unroaded.” Delete this term because it has not been codified in the final road policy nor has it been Congressionally approved. PART 219.11: This section will functionally BAN numerous activities (large Boy/Girl Scout-type group camp trips and outings, Sierra Club-type hiking tours, motorcycle and equestrian enduros, pack trips for hunting and fishing, etc.) because it links the “authorization” of said events with adequate funding for monitoring and evaluation. A decision officer with covert hostile intent towards any activity that he/she does not “approve” of could functionally BAN said activities through the Forest budgeting process. PR 219.11-(e)(1) uses vague and non-descript terms (ecological integrity, critical values, spatial and temporal scales) that will confuse public participation. These terms could be used by a decision officer with a bias against multiple-use recreation and management to functionally eliminate motorized and mechanized recreation on forest lands. Delete this section. PART 219.12: This section PR219.12-(a) wrongly empowers the responsible officer with full discretion to determine how and to what extent to use the collaborative process. An officer with covert objectives could exclude various user groups, local governments, and businesses from meaningful participation in local forest planning efforts. Correct this deficiency. PR 219.12-(2) gives the responsible official too much discretion regarding the inclusion of landscape goals developed by “others” in the planning process. Correct this deficiency. PART 219.14:This section gives vague and highly subjective direction to the responsible official regarding the inclusion of state and local governments in the planning process. Using this section, local governments could find themselves functionally excluded from the planning process. Correct this deficiency. PART 219.19: This section replaces Congressionally approved multiple-use mandate with vague and highly subjective terms. Replace ecological, social, and economic sustainability with multiple-use and sustained yield using best forest management practices. PART 219.20: This section states vague, subjective, and often unattainable goals. For example in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Jeffery Pine forest that existed in the early 1800s has now been replaced by a White Pine forest. One might assume by this section that the entire basin would have to be logged and then replanted with Jeffery Pines. This might not be practical or even ecologically sound. The concept of “active management” is not embraced in this section. Should the public desire that the west-side forests of the Sierra Nevada be restored to pre-1850 conditions (about 20-40 trees/acre), this section does not provide for the active management needed to achieve said condition. Lofty goals are stated, but the tools for obtaining said goals are not articulated in this section of the PR. This section wrongly attempts to take a “snap shot in time” approach to resource management. If this approach is taken why is “pre-European settlement” used as a benchmark? Why not go back to the last Ice Age when there might not have been any trees standing in National Forest System lands? Myopic views of a perceived ideal point in time does not further the current resource debate. Focus on current issues such as recreation, fire, insect infestation, water quality, habitat improvement projects, and other public and resource needs. PR 219.20-(b)(3)(iii) should not solely depend on “natural disturbances” for resource management. Rely on active management for achieving desired conditions. PR 219.20-(b)(10) should empower the Forest Service to use active management principles so that it does not contribute to the need to list species under the Endangered Species Act. PART 219.21:Include “recreation” in PR 219.21-(b) & (c)(3) in any social analyses. PART 219.23:When estimating the risks and uncertainties PR 219.23-(b), the Forest Service should identify and describe how risks associated with plan decisions, including actions and non-actions by the agency, will impact the resource. PART 219.26:Again, the responsible official is given broad discretion regarding the suitability of various uses within the affected plan area. This will give an official with a bias against certain land uses (i.e. motorized recreation, mountain bikers, forest products industry, rural tourism, etc.) unbridled power to enact a social agenda against users he/she is biased against. PART 219.27:This section uses non-codified nor Congressionally approved terms (i.e. classified/unclassified roads, roadless areas less than 5,000 acres, etc.) as described in a yet to be released final road policy. In PR 219.27-(a) the Forest Service states that roadless areas may be evaluated at other times as determined by the responsible official. This is in conflict with various state Wilderness Acts of 1984 including the California Wilderness Act of 1984 that expressly prohibits the Forest Service from undertaking any further roadless reviews or inventories. PART 219.28:In PR 219.28-(a) a third category of timber removal should be identified. Add the concept of “where timber harvest is required.” This would apply to areas of the forest where active management must be used to address various forest health, fire, insect, recreation, or restoration efforts. Add the concept of “where timber harvest is required” in section PR 219.28-(c) & (c)(2). PART 219.30:In section PR 219.30-(b) add the concept of “where timber harvest is required” to accomplish various resource goals. PART 219.32-The public must be allowed to appeal flawed and deficient forest planning efforts. This section appears to covertly replace certain appeal tenets of 36CFR215,217, and 211. Replace the term “objection” with the term “appeal.” This section also attempts to exclude from public appeal any decisions by the Chief. An objection is not a legal term and subverts the public’s right to seek administrative relief via the appeal process as outlined in federal statutes. 36CFR 211.18 gives the public the right to appeal decisions of forest officers including the Chief. Preserve this element of the appeal process. CONCLUSION: This PR is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn. This PR if enacted will deprive the public of the legal right to legally appeal deficient forest planning efforts. It uses vague, non-descript, and highly subjective terms to describe long-term goals, guiding principles, and planning. This will frustrate the public’s right to participate in a meaningful way. This PR illegally gives the Chief of the Forest Service the ability to undertake planning and make decisions which may amend one or more land and resource management plans. Under current law (36CFR219.4), the Chief is only permitted to develop the Renewable Resources Assessment Program. In the PR, any decision by the Chief would not be subject to appeal. This is in conflict with current federal regulations. The PR gives the deciding officer new broad discretionary powers to unilaterally decide what topics will be included in the planning process. It gives the officer the ability to enact a personal social agenda that could be in conflict with best management practices and the public interest. It could functionally exclude legitimate publics and local governments from meaningful participation in the planning process. Active management is excluded in the PR as a legitimate tool for addressing legitimate resource issues. Too much emphasis is placed on passive management (non-management). Reliance on non-management to deal with real resource concerns -- public safety, insect infestations, fuel loading, rural economies, tourism, recreation, habitat protection, wildlife enhancement projects, timber harvesting -- is a recipe for disaster. Sincerely,
Don Amador |