| December 20, 1999
Mike Dombeck, Chief Dear Chief Dombeck: The BlueRibbon Coalition is a nationwide organization representing 500,000 motorized recreationists, equestrians, and resource users. We work with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, preserve resources, and promote cooperation with other public land users. Following are our comments on the Notice Of Intent (NOI) to propose rules protecting roadless and unroaded National Forest lands: NOI Procedural Flaws We have some serious reservations about how this process has begun. The Notice of Intent (NOI), published in the Federal Register, raises important questions: 1. NOI is unclear on whether proper National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures will be followed. It should have stated the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations under which it intends to proceed. We assume that the process will follow NEPA procedures. This needs to be clarified, since the NOI only makes a passing reference to NEPA. The Forest Service failed to follow NEPA when it established the Interim Road Rule (IRR). BlueRibbon and other organizations filed appeals on the IRR (which contained a procedurally flawed Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONZI)). Our appeals were ignored. The Frontiers for Freedom and the United Four Wheel Drive Association filed suit against the IRR. These suits and appeals cited serious NEPA errors. 2. We question the stated purpose and need of a uniform top-down national policy to protect roadless and unroaded areas. The NOI has failed to make a case for uniform federal policy as opposed to addressing this issue at the forest planning level. We feel protection is best addressed by local land managers in individual unit plans. The NOI states that National Forest roadless (and unroaded) areas need protection in the form of a policy that establishes national criteria and procedures. We question this purpose and need, which the NOI has failed to establish. We contend that top-down "criteria and procedures" will shackle local land managers and inhibit them from making decisions that will benefit the resource and provide the goods and services needed from our National Forests. As such, we question whether such a rule can conform to the mandates of the National Forest Management Act and the Sustained Yield Multiple Use Act as well as the other laws under which the Forest Service operates. 3. The NOI has failed to acknowledge the issues and concerns presented by the recreation community during the Interim Roads Rule (IRR) process. The NOI cites the public's comments on the IRR as one rationale for proceeding with this national roadless protection process. It notes the volume of comments. It fails to mention that a significant number of the cited 80,000 comments were received as a result of a national campaign by environmental groups prior to the beginning of the IRR comment process. BlueRibbon and other recreation and resource groups participated vigorously in the IRR process. None of our comments are acknowledged in the NOI such as:
The NOI ignores our comments, while prominently featuring those comments favoring roadless protection of wilderness values. This does not give us confidence that our issues will be sufficiently addressed in the EIS. 4. The NOI suggests an unbalanced range of alternatives at the beginning of the scoping period, as opposed to formulating alternatives in response to issues identified during scoping per NEPA. The NOI suggests possible alternatives to be considered in the draft environmental impact statement. It is highly irregular to "suggest" alternatives prior to the scoping process. The NEPA process mandates that issues are identified during the scoping process, and alternatives are subsequently developed that respond to the issues. The presentation of alternatives at this stage indicates that the agency has hard-wired the draft EIS to assure a specific outcome. We are concerned that NEPA, which is designed to result in a fair and balanced decision, is being short-circuited. The suggested action alternatives all support prohibition of activities to a varying degree. We are extremely concerned about the third suggestion which prohibits the implementation of all activities! This extreme suggestion presented by the agency at this early stage is highly irresponsible! In any case, the suggested alternatives are unbalanced, an insufficient range, and a violation of NEPA. We request addition of other alternatives that respond to active management of these roadless and unroaded lands, for example: We strongly request that at least one alternative defer planning for roadless areas to the individual unit level. The agency is best equipped to address planning and management of these areas at this level. Forest Service manual direction already requires that roadless areas be evaluated during the forest plan revision process for wilderness values and recommendation for Wilderness designation. One alternative must detail this process and recommend that roadless planning continue in this manner However, it should be made clear that NO alternatives will be considered until the end of this scoping period. Scoping Process We have serious concerns about the conduct of the scoping for this rulemaking process. As stated in the December 10, 1999 letter to you from Senators Frank Murkowski and Bob Smith: Scoping is the "early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the process." 40 C.F.R. & 1501.7 (1999). The concept of scoping was one of the most commented upon innovations in the 1978 CEQ regulations. See 43 Fed. Reg. 55978 at 55982 (Nov. 29, 1978). While CEQ regulations do not set forth a required procedure for scoping, the regulations do require that scoping be an "open" process with public notice and may include public hearings when warranted. 40 C.F.R. & 1501.7 (1999). CEQ regulations further note that Federal agencies shall "make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures." 40 C.F.R. & 1506.6 (1999). Critical to a successful scoping process is "appropriate public notice and enough information available on the proposal so that the public and relevant agencies can participate effectively." Forty Most Asked Questions concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations at 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 at 18030 (March 16, 1981). Contrary to direction provided by the CEQ, the NOI scoping process has not provided adequate public notice. For example, the Salt Lake meeting, which I attended, only was announced in the Salt Lake newspapers the day before the meeting. I was surprised to see the large attendance, most favoring wilderness-like management of roadless areas. It was apparent that they had advance notice of the meeting. In fact, I contend that these proponents had notice well in advance of the publishing of the meetings in the Federal Register October 10, the only place the information was available. The meeting format for these first ten meetings, held in urban areas in or near Forest Service regional headquarters, was a public hearing with recorded testimony. Testimony was limited to 2-5 minutes (it varied per location), there was insufficient time for everyone to speak and insufficient opportunity to speak. Speakers were chosen per an informal lottery. Since the preponderance of attendees were environmentalist/wilderness proponents, the "luck of the draw" favored this perspective. This situation was exacerbated at two hearings (Missoula and Sacramento) when stand-ins ceded their allotted speaking time to environmental leaders. Although meetings were scheduled near every National Forest, these were hastily organized and inadequately noticed. Few offered the opportunity for formal testimony. Most featured a general discussion format, with attendees urged to write comments. The preponderance of attendees at these meetings opposed the initiative; but the agency made little attempt to record the sentiment of the crowd. NOI Provided Insufficient Information for Meaningful Comment As stated in the Smith-Murkowski letter: As CEQ has noted, for effective scoping, an agency must provide sufficient information on the proposal, including alternatives, to be examined in the EIS. CEQ directs that Federal agencies: put together a brief information packet consisting of a description of the proposal, an initial list of impacts and alternatives, maps, drawings, and any other material or references that can help the interested public understand what is being proposed . . . the purpose of the information is to enable participants to make an intelligent contribution to scoping in the EIS. CEQ Scoping Memorandum at II.B.2. An information packet is especially needed when an EIS has not been preceded by an Environmental Assessment. Id. This is clearly the case with this rulemaking. There has been conflicting and ephemeral information on just what lands are included in the proposal. The NOI provided no forest-by-forest maps or description of the lands involved. While individual units could have provided maps and listings of current roadless areas as defined by current forest plans, this was not done. Even more mysterious is the location of "unroaded" lands. Even agency professionals were uncertain as to just which lands were included in this category. At the meetings I attended, people on both sides of the question were confused about just which lands and where would be covered by the proposed rule. It is meaningless to comment on how lands should be managed if knowledge of what lands and where are lacking. NOI Comment Request #1 - Road Construction and Reconstruction in Roadless and Unroaded areas We reject the agency's contention that all roads should either be maintained to a passenger vehicle highway standard or closed. This is the essence of the re-definition of roads in the IRR as either classified or unclassified. The agency must acknowledge the importance of the unclassified road, either as inventoried level 1 and 2, or as uninventoried. These roads provide essential access to the backcountry. They provide incomparable recreation opportunity for those who like challenge as well as access. The agency must acknowledge the role that these roads play in providing dispersed, diverse recreation. All roads should not be highly constructed or engineered, but lay lightly on the land and lightly maintained. The agency must acknowledge that roads can be lightly constructed for resource extraction, and then removed when the resource extraction activity is complete. NOI Comment Request #2 - Values Roadless and unroaded lands must be managed according to values that are broad-based, diverse, and accommodate a wide spectrum of the public. Those suggested by the NOI are narrow and focus on wilderness values. It must be remembered that only 2% of the recreating public use Wilderness - and that public has over 100 million acres devoted to that single use. It must also be acknowledge that the preponderance of Wilderness users are white, male, and college educated. This represents a very narrow and elite segment of the population. In order to meet the requirements of civil rights statutes and agency diversity policy, the management policy of the lands under consideration must first be diverse, and second must promote access for the widest possible spectrum of the public. It is essential that such values as: must be an integral part of any policy. Conclusion We request the development of an alternative that features: The BlueRibbon Coalition is committed to participate fully in a fair and equitable process. We must be assured that the process is truly fair. The NOI gives us serious concerns in this regard as does the comment process. We request the agency announce its commitment to serious consideration of all perspectives and disavow allegiance to special interest groups. Sincerely,
Adena Cook, Public Lands Director |