|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Recreational Access and Conservation - Alerts and Notices | Short Cuts | ||||
| | Introduction | News | Notices | Activities | | Education | Forums | Columns | Links | Edited by: John Stewart |
|||||
DC Based Group of Retired FS Sends Letter on Road Policy
April 7, 2000
USFS CAET
Attention Roads
P.O. Box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122
Dear Chief Dombeck:
We write in response to the Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 43, proposed rulemaking; and its associated pages 11684-11693, proposed administrative policy.
The FSX Club of Washington D.C. consists of over 160 Forest Service retirees in the Washington D.C. area. We are an organization of highly trained research scientists, forest managers, biologists, engineers and other specialists with, collectively, thousands of years of experience in planning and managing the resources in the National Forests. Our group, thus, has a unique understanding of the art and science of planning and implementing the many facets of land and resource management on the National Forests. Many of us were pioneers in forest management on the National Forests and in the development of the infrastructure necessary properly to protect and improve the various resources therein.
Based on our experience in managing National Forest System lands to meet the statutory objectives of multiple-use and sustained yield, we know that an adequate road system is essential to meeting these objectives. The necessity of an adequate road system is recognized in the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (16 U.S.C. 532-538). We firmly believe that planning for this road system must be accomplished within the context of the congressionally mandated land management planning process.
It is noteworthy that neither the draft land management planning regulation, the roadless area proposal nor the proposed transportation rule and policy contain a coherent explanation of their interaction or integration. The proposals before us seem to envision a separate duplicative process using an undefined "science-based road analysis". We believe this separate process is contrary to the concept of one integrated plan set forth in Sec. 6 of the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA). We also believe you should clarify how doing away with the "Forest Development Transportation Plan" will conform to the requirements of Section 10 of the RPA.
We are concerned by the bias against roads reflected in the overall proposal and in the regulatory impact statement. The bias is evident throughout the proposals but the most egregious example is the statement in the first paragraph of "Supplementary Information", which states " . . . few land impacts are more lasting than those associated with road construction." It doesn't take much of an imagination to visualize the greater impacts associated with urbanization, conversion to intensive agriculture, and natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, wildfire in heavy fuels, global warming, and many others.
We find that the language is often ambiguous and will lead to contention with the public as well as internally. An example is in the definition of an unroaded area concerning its potential size: "The size of the area must be sufficient and in a manageable configuration to protect the inherent values associated with the unroaded condition". Many of our group has experience with past delineation of roadless areas, and we can assure you that this kind of vague, wishy-washy language will generate no end of problems. We urge you to clarify the language throughout the proposal.
The proposal indicates a belief that its adoption would have a positive effect on fire and forest pest management. How did you determine the perceived positive effects of the proposal on fire prevention, fire management, and insect and disease control? To the contrary, review of fire control costs over the last 15 years shows a disproportionate share of the costs, outside of southern California, were associated with suppression of fires in substantially unroaded areas.
The finding in the regulatory impact report that the impacts on recreation are ambiguous - some positive and some negative depending on the type of activity - is disingenuous. Only a small portion of National Forest Recreation use is associated with wilderness type use. The proposal is overwhelmingly negative to the vast majority of recreation users.
As in previous proposals, no quantification is made of the "other unroaded areas". Since many roads are being defined out of existence, the size of this category seems destined to grow. Indeed, proposed FSM 7703.1 a. (3) states: "However, maintenance of unclassified roads in roadless and unroaded areas is inappropriate as such activity would lead to defacto road development." This not only indicates vast ignorance or blatant disregard of the possible off-site effects of precluding action to correct drainage and run-off problems; it also eliminates options for future management decisions. This provision is counter-productive and should be eliminated.
These proposals contain no reasonable quantification of effects. No economic effects are quantified whatsoever. The proposed rule cites the Forest Service Handbook in the contention that documentation by an environmental impact statement is not necessary. We point out that the FSH does not preempt NEPA. There are significant environmental effects probable with this proposal. Just considering the annual timber harvest potential foregone (which we believe is a low estimate) would require an EIS under the intent of NEPA. The proposal requires that road construction and reconstruction in roadless and unroaded areas would require an EIS. Any individual action in these circumstances would be a relatively minor action compared to the proposal. This proposal therefor needs an EIS to document fully its effects, physical and economic, on the environment.
Without adequate road access for fire management, insect and disease control and response to other natural catastrophes, significant adverse impacts on soils, water quality and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species will result. The failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze these direct and substantial consequences violates the national Environmental Policy Act.
We are concerned about the philosophical shift reflected in the proposal to adopt the term "Forest Service roads". These are not Forest Service roads. They are roads financed by public money and managed by the Forest Service for the benefit of the American people. It is important that the leadership of the Agency understand this important distinction. If they did, maybe they would be less cavalier in their approach to denying the public access to these lands.
Finally, the process by which you developed these proposals disturbs us. We take strong exception to the unprecedented actions of the agency in secretly soliciting and relying on the advice of a narrow spectrum of special interest groups in the development of road rules and policies to be submitted for public comment. Regardless of whether the agency is ultimately found to have violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other statutes, the credibility and reputation of the agency has been irreparably damaged. By choosing to solicit only one point of view, the agency has, not surprisingly, produced an unbalanced proposal, demonstrated a predisposition clearly inappropriate to the federal administrative process, and undermined public confidence in the notice and comment procedure.
We urge these proposals be withdrawn and rewritten. They are contrary to congressional intent as set forth in the Roads and Trails Act and in the RPA. Transportation planning should be integrated into the land management planning process as clearly contemplated by the Congress. We also urge the agency to use a broader spectrum of advisors in future rule-making
Sincerely, Robert C. Van Aken
President
cc: Mike Dombeck
| Contacts: | Related Links: |
|
Robert C. Van Aken |
| | 4X4Wire Portal | About 4x4Wire | Search 4x4Wire | TrailTalk Forums | Advertiser's Guide | |
