US Forest Service to Rewrite Forest Panning Rule

rollover

Well-Known Member
Location
Holladay
#1
I got this e-mail today from AMA. I felt we all needed our chance for input.
Two dates to reply are listed. the closest is bellow.
Comments will be accepted on this until February 13th.

***************************************************
US Forest Service Launches Effort to Rewrite Forest Panning Rule -- Shifts Focus to 'Restoration'

Opportunity for Public Comment Through February 16, 2010

In December, the USDA Forest Service announced that it would rewrite the national forest system land management-planning rule. The planning rule sets priorities and defines the process for the development and revision of site-specific management plans for every national forest or grassland.

The Forest Service has issued three planning rules since 2000 but two of them have been struck down by legal challenges and the 2000 rule has never been utilized because of its "complexity". In effect most current forest plans have been written under the planning rule of 1982.

The Forest Service raises a number of noteworthy concepts in the scoping document (Federal Register - December 18, 2009). Foremost being the concept of "restoration" which is heavily stressed but never defined. Nor does the document examine how making "restoration" a priority would affect recreation or other land uses. Rather the agency asks the public to provide comment on what "restoration" ought to mean. However, last August, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated publicly, "Restoration means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources, while making our forests more resilient to climate change."

Adaption to climate change and resiliency are frequently referenced in the document but it is left to the public to comment on how those concepts should be applied. Similarly the document suggests that local forest planners should not limit themselves to planning for National Forest Service land but should expand their efforts to include "all-lands" or whole watersheds.

Wrongly applied to local planning processes, many of the concepts raised in the scoping document could be very problematic for maintaining recreational access to public lands for a number of activities - including motorized recreation. The AMA strongly encourages off-highway vehicle enthusiasts to review the proposal and to provide written comment to the agency on the importance of recognizing recreational access in the forest planning process.

The Forest Service's Notice of Intent, background materials and information on how to comment are available at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule . Comments will be accepted until February 13th.

The Forest Service expects to develop a proposed rule and a draft environmental impact statement by late fall 2010. The public will have additional comment opportunities at that time.


*************************************************

Thanks for your time.
 
#2
Holy wow. Read the full list of "questions" the USFS would like the publics input on by reading the complete notice of intent in the federal register. Starts at the bottom of this page:

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5110264.pdf

Rather the agency asks the public to provide comment on what "restoration" ought to mean.

...

Adaption to climate change and resiliency are frequently referenced in the document but it is left to the public to comment on how those concepts should be applied.
Pretty good strategy. The administration doesn't have to define a direction, it's letting "the people" make the decision. Smart. They know which "people" will organize and respond to this request for comment, so they have already established a natural path that will produce the results they wanted.

I'm afraid to think about the overwhelming number of comments which will talk about "restoring" roads to their natural state and how the exclusive use of zero emission transportation within forest boundaries is the only way to assist in "resiliency" and "adaptation to climate change."

Anyone else read the NOI and take away the same impression?
 

rollover

Well-Known Member
Location
Holladay
#3
Holy wow. Read the full list of "questions" the USFS would like the publics input on by reading the complete notice of intent in the federal register. Starts at the bottom of this page:

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5110264.pdf



Pretty good strategy. The administration doesn't have to define a direction, it's letting "the people" make the decision. Smart. They know which "people" will organize and respond to this request for comment, so they have already established a natural path that will produce the results they wanted.
I'm afraid to think about the overwhelming number of comments which will talk about "restoring" roads to their natural state and how the exclusive use of zero emission transportation within forest boundaries is the only way to assist in "resiliency" and "adaptation to climate change."

Anyone else read the NOI and take away the same impression?
Its set up allot like the Wasatch Canyon plan back in November.

http://www.rockymountainextreme.com/showthread.php?t=70656

They wanted a certain result so they set the questions to force the result if you were not careful on your answers.
 
#5
Same old story, if it is closed they don't have to spend money to regulate.
THE fundamental issue! More important than "greenies" or anything else. As we've discussed, this is why the affected users (US!!!) are the ones who must take the responsibility to supplement existing management resources. NO OTHER GROUP OR GOVT AGENCY will do this for us. They don't care. Unfortunately, it appears that we don't care either, based on the results we see.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Premium Member
Location
Riverton, UT
#6
THE fundamental issue! More important than "greenies" or anything else. As we've discussed, this is why the affected users (US!!!) are the ones who must take the responsibility to supplement existing management resources. NO OTHER GROUP OR GOVT AGENCY will do this for us. They don't care. Unfortunately, it appears that we don't care either, based on the results we see.
Maybe NORA, being a business, is the answer. If they don't succeed they go out of business where a group of volunteers will just accept the leftovers. I have always wondered why the manufacturers whose very existence depends on the off roading community and their access to public lands haven't done more? Possible answer - I think they were successful making donations for raffles and did not look far enough ahead in their planning.
 
#7
I have always wondered why the manufacturers whose very existence depends on the off roading community and their access to public lands haven't done more?
I've had the same question. ATV manufacturers have other products. Jeep will be Jeep. It's the small manufacturers and retailers of accessories and add-ons that will go out of business. They don't have an outlet for mounting a sustainable and winnable fight. So there's nothing they can do at the moment. Donating a little at a time to a horde of different groups is worse than doing nothing.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Premium Member
Location
Riverton, UT
#8
I'm afraid to think about the overwhelming number of comments which will talk about "restoring" roads to their natural state and how the exclusive use of zero emission transportation within forest boundaries is the only way to assist in "resiliency" and "adaptation to climate change."
QUOTE]

Just had to say it --- If they want 'zero emissions' they will have to ban all animal life including humans because of methane emissions. Say, maybe we have a legal point to ponder.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Premium Member
Location
Riverton, UT
#10
This is my reply to those that ask about Climate Change. Jack Johnston Kathy Mascarella Paulis Same to you. With all your intelligence you should be able to give me some examples of climate change that are something other than the normal occurrences of climate that have been reported since before biblical times. If the population of a city is 10 only 10 can be affected but if the population is 1 million the affect is multiplied but the event could be the same, flood, hurricane, volcano etc. I am sure you studied cause and affect statistics in your DSM manuals. The weather or climate does not change it just repeats itself. It is the humans that refuse to learn and change. Remember if you build in a flood plane sooner or later you are going to get flooded. If you build a wood house in the historical path of a tornado it will be destroyed. The real culprits are the people that say it is human beings that cause the climate change to further a cause or political view point.
 
Top