Forest Rule Challenged

[Grumpy]

Recreation Groups Join Efforts to Challenge New USFS Planning Regulations
August 14, 2012 12:00 PM
Contact
Greg Mumm, BRC Executive Director
Paul Turcke, Esq.

POCATELLO, IDAHO (August 14, 2012) -- Recreation advocates yesterday joined with several other organizations in a legal challenge to new forest planning regulations promulgated by the U.S. Forest Service.

The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) and the California Association of 4Wheel Drive Clubs (Cal 4 Wheel) joined forces with the other forest product and multiple use groups in filing a lawsuit to require the Forest Service to modify its new planning rule to avoid its devastating impacts on the health of National Forests, recreational uses of the forests and communities located nearby.

The U.S. Forest Service formally adopted new National Forest Planning rules on April 9, 2012. The new regulations shift the agency away from a jobs and ecosystem approach. Instead, the planning rule would cement the National Forests into endless litigation over single species management; an approach that even the agency admits has failed repeatedly in the last three decades.

The complaint takes the Forest Service to task for elevating species viability, ecological sustainability, and ecosystem services as mandatory national forest management objectives, above the five statutorily prescribed multiple uses: outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. It also admonishes the Forest Service for requiring recreational opportunities to fit the agency's definition of "sustainable" in order to be allowed on national forest lands.

Greg Mumm, BRC's Executive Director said; "The new planning rules are actually more complex, costly, and procedurally burdensome than the regulations they replace. The agency has utterly failed to meet the guidelines of President Obama's directive calling for regulations to be cost effective, less burdensome, and more flexible. As written, this rule will tie the hands of forest managers and allow preservationists groups to bury any active management in endless litigation."

Mark Cave, President of Cal 4 Wheel expressed concern that the new regulations shift the Forest Service away from multiple use/sustained yield and impose a binding requirement for "ecological sustainability," which the agency doesn't define clearly. "The new rules are a recipe for analysis paralysis. It doesn't take any clairvoyance to predict never ending challenge from the environmental community." Cave said. .

"The wood products industry tried very hard to convince the Forest Service that these new rules work against forest health and jobs, both of which are vital to rural economies. We commented at every stage in the process. These rules ignore the multiple use mandate given to the agency by Congress. Instead, they focus on single species preservation," said Howard Hedstrom, President of Hedstrom Lumber in Grand Marais, Minnesota, and President of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition. "Going to court against the Forest Service was the last thing on our minds when we launched this coalition last year, but with the impact on jobs that will be caused by the planning rules, we had no other choice."

Parties in the lawsuit include: The Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Alaska Forestry Association, American Forest Resource Coalition, American Sheep Industry Association, California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, California Forestry Association, Minnesota Forest Industries, Minnesota Timber Producers Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and Resource Development Council for Alaska.

The Complaint can be found at http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Dkt_1_Complaint.pdf

# # #



General Contacts

Greg Mumm
BRC Executive Director
Phone: 208-244-2112
Fax: 208-237-9424
brgreg@sharetrails.org
Brian Hawthorne
BRC Public Lands Policy Director
Phone: 208-237-1008 ext 102
Fax: 208-237-9424
brbrian@sharetrails.org
Paul Turcke
Esq.
Phone: (208) 331-1800
Fax: (208) 331-1200
pat@msbtlaw.com
Don Amador
BRC Western Representative
Phone: (925) 625-6287
Fax: (925) 625-5309
brdon@sharetrails.org

[Grumpy]

And the Green Machine's take on the above suit:

For Immediate Release, August 14, 2012

Contact: Taylor McKinnon, (928) 310-6713

Industry Lawsuit Attacks Science, Sustainability on National Forests

WASHINGTON— Livestock, timber and off-road industry groups filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday challenging the Obama administration’s 2012 planning rule for U.S. national forests. The industry groups focused their attack on provisions that require ecological sustainability and use of the best available science in the Forest Service’s management of the American public’s 193-million-acre national forest system.

“The timber and livestock industries’ opposition to science and sustainability shows they care about only one thing when it comes to our national forests: their own profits,â€

[Grumpy]

Timber, Ranching and ORV Industries File Forest Planning Rule Lawsuit
Created by Adam Rissien on August 20, 2012

Early this year the Forest Service issued final regulations that direct how each National Forest and Grassland produce Land Management Resource Plans, often called Forest Plans, which guide all management activities for 10 -15 years. The Forest Service has been trying to revise these regulations for over a decade, and the last two attempts under the Bush Presidency were struck down by the courts for violating the National Environmental Policy Act among other reasons. So under President Obama, we have a new set of rules that are certainly not perfect, but much improved compared to the last two versions. You can read more about the new rules and their ongoing saga in our Road RIPorter 2012 Spring Equinox issue.

So far no conservation groups have challenged the new rules, but last week a mishmash of timber, ranching and off road vehicle industry groups filed a lawsuit to stop the Forest Service from using the new regulations. Rather than going through all their ridiculous claims, a recent editorial from the Courthouse News Service sums it up nicely:

I see 5,000 lawsuits a week editing the Courthouse News page - stories of rape, murder, drugs, perversion, official corruption - revolting stuff.

But the most obnoxious lawsuit I saw this week was from the timber and cattle industries, which claimed that scientists exert "improper influence" on the U.S. Forest Service, by seeking ecological sustainability above industry profits in National Forests.

At the heart of the industry backed lawsuit is the notion that National Forests should only be managed to produce timber and provide water as directed by the 1897 Organic Act, which created the public land reserves that later became our national forests and grasslands. Evidently these litigants fail to realize forests must first be in a condition to actually produce the resources required in the Organic Act and the 1960 Multiple Sustained Yield Act before they can be utilized. Attacking the primacy of ecological sustainability is beyond short-sighted; it’s exemplary of the 'extract at all costs' mentality that trashed so much of our public lands and created the need for all those environmental laws decried by these same litigants.

Besides attacking ecological sustainability, the lawsuit also challenges other components of the rule:

that ecosystem services are a legitimate multiple use
that the Forest Service has to maintain viable populations of plants and animals
that the Forest Service uses the best available science; and
that the term ‘sustainable recreation’ potentially precludes off road vehicles use.

These claims would be laughable if not for the chance that a sympathetic D.C. judge could go along with this nonsense and actually further delay the Forest Service from generating new plans; many of which are more than 20 years old.

*From Wildlands Center for the Prevention of Roads*

[Grumpy]

Two responses to the above eco comments:

At last, a coalition of real-world interests has filed a lawsuit against the radical Eco-centric policies being foisted on the American public. For too long, the powerful and well-funded environmental lobby has been dictating land management policy through judicial fiat. Thanks to the environmental lobby's seemingly bottomless deep pockets, they have gone largely unchallenged for decades. It's high time someone challenged them at their own game.

Jim Williams.

______________________________________________________________

Ya think! The USFS has a Congressional mandate to manage for multiple use, and that is slowly being changed to manage for preservation. Multiple use means that the land be managed for the benefit of ALL the public. The exclusionists don't want that! The eco extremists have worked the emotions of the public with their "don't hurt bambi" tirades for much too long. I agree that our PUBLIC lands need to be managed with an eye towards taking care of the over all scope of things, but I do not agree with the elitist view that quiet recreation is the only good recreation. Excluding any group from our forests is wrong.

As for logging, grazing, and OHV recreation, it's about time the powers that be start looking hard at the contributions they make to rural economies, particularly in the west. Big Green has killed the timber industry and the areas it supported are dieing a slow death. OHV has become their hot button in many areas as well. Believe me, without OHV, Moab would go away. Oh, wait, that's what they want! I am tired of the "I know better than you" attitude. I resent being told I can't go on land I pay taxes to support just because of my chosen form of recreation.

I hope this lawsuit forces some common sense into all involved, and in the near future we can get a Forest Plan that that returns the management of our lands to some semblance of reality! Sorry, ecotopians, mankind is here for a while. Get over it...

Dave Walters

[Grumpy]

So I just put all this over on the PNW4WDA site, where it should have been already. Maybe my fault, as Jim did ask me to put info up from time to time. Altho, there seem to be plenty of folks could do it, instead of coming up with "I don't like technology" or some other lame arse excuse Guess we'll see what I get for response...

[Grumpy]

Taking A Closer Look At The Forest Service's New Rule
August 28, 2012 1:36 PM
Op-Ed by Dick Coppock
Author Photo

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson

I have told you many times over the past few years to work with your local agency personnel on your land-use issues. Well, I am not so sure that is an avenue that will bring results today, due to the fact that the local Districts and Administrative officers are no longer free to make any decisions on their own. You may need to go to your elected representative to get your land-use issues resolved. But all hope is not gone, yet. We now have a chance to improve our access to public lands and change the direction of the government agencies with a change in leadership. I feel this is the only chance we will have as multiple-use recreational and resource concerned individuals to correct the problem of environmental endangered species directed resource management. We need to change our leadership on both the Federal and State level to protect our access to our public lands and our public resources judging from the condition of our forests.

With that said, I have--as has the BlueRibbon Coalition--informed you about the changes the Federal Government, namely the USDA Forest Service, wants to make with a new RULE. These changes have the look of simple improvements at first glance, but be wary of changes to simplify processes such as using Categorical Exclusions. The Forest Service believes it is appropriate to establish soil and water restoration categorical exclusions based on NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR § 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k), which identify a Categorical Exclusion as a means to reduce paperwork and delays in project implementation. The fact is that the Rule is being written and changed in the inner circles of government agencies without input from the public, expecting the public then to turn the tide of wrong to right after the fact. The Fact is: Categorical Exclusions have no safeguards built into the process, and to allow dam removal under a CE ("remove, replace or modify water control structures to restore flows into natural channels and floodplains") without extensive study and safeguards is nuts! The same applies to ("restore non-system roads and trails to more natural conditions in order to stabilize habitat") stabilizing the habitat. I thought we were stabilizing the road? They don't do road reclamation with a shovel; they do it with heavy equipment, under contract. Reclaimed roads and trails become Roadless. Brian Hawthorne from BlueRibbon Coalition noted that, "The fact that the agency doesn't want any public involvement means the agency probably doesn't care about any potential recreational uses."

To this point a Chief US. District Judge, Lynn Winmill, has just determined that leaving roads open under the Payette National Forests Travel Management Plan causes erosion and harms fish. This ruling is against Valley County south of McCall, Idaho on the Payette National Forest. The judge said, "The agency review of policy, which effectively closed many roads, adequately considered the history and environmental impact of road usage in the national forest". The Judge went further in saying that, "many roads in the area were user built". Yes they were; with your tax dollars to remove timber. Resource removal roads are built by the timber companies with credits given them on the timber costs. Hence, less dollars for the timber an additional tax on the taxpayer. The intent of leaving these timber haul roads open was for the public to drive and enjoy their national Forests.

Valley County was joined by recreational groups and private citizens in its opposition to the Federal Forest Travel Management Plan, which they contend was implemented without sufficient public process and socioeconomic study. Judge Winmill, however, went on to say that, "given the Forest Service's undisputed findings that designating a limited number of roads would be unrealistically expansive and harm the environment. The agency was not obligated to consider designation of an even greater number of roads. Leaving many roads open was found by the Forest Service to cause erosion, impair the restoration of water quality in streams and adversely affect many fisheries." Now, you know why your forest roads are in such bad shape. Your federal agencies have a legal plan to restrict motorized recreation without public comment. Do you also know that any reclaimed road allows the area to be considered "Roadless?" It then is eligible for Wilderness classification? It makes me very uncomfortable when an agency wins by not doing its job.

As the man said, "are you ready for a change yet?" Changing the present administration and reducing government is the only way to protect your access to public lands. I suggest if you are not in agreement, go trade in your snowmobile, motorcycle, and ATV on a Harley and hit the highway.

"National Forest are for the use of all the people."
-Gifford Pinchot, 1907

###

*From BRC Op-Ed page*

[Grumpy]

I'm really starting to get a hoot out of some of the arguments over USFS methodology. On "our side", the stance is that they're managing for closure, and trying to kick everyone out. This because the "greens" have taken over, or their afraid they'll get sued, or whatever...

On "the dark side", it's all about all the USFS is doing is subterfuge to get more timber cut, they're ignoring science, and any number of crimes against nature.

So, this would almost be humorous, if it didn't impact so many people and so much land. The timber industry is barely on life support because of the strident bleatings of ecohacks like the Center for Biological Diversity, and what can one say about something called the Center for the Prevention of Roads. Really? Prevention?! To the last outfit's "credit", they do have one staffer a guy can at least have a pleasant conversation with. A lady in Eugene named Sarah Peters who, believe it or don't, shares my notion of what the Oregon Dunes need, and is actually working with the local ATV group on finding common ground to restore the Dunes.

Anyway, guess I just needed to get a few things out there where I could look at 'em, instead of letting them, as Lee said yesterday, "make my head hurt".