USFS NEPA process changes

Land issues, laws, restrictions, etc...

Moderator: Grumpy

User avatar
Grumpy
Peak Putters' Land-Use Coordinator
Peak Putters' Land-Use Coordinator
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:38 am
Location: Kennewick, WA

USFS NEPA process changes

Postby Grumpy » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:38 pm

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... compliance

I have sent two tomes in on this,to wit:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subject. NEPA and its interpretation have been a point of contention for decades, and have hamstrung many worthwhile projects with lawsuits on technicalities from environmental NGOs. Any changes must address this by tying them to pertinent sections of laws, such as ESA, CWA, as well as various FS planning rules, which themselves have become landmines of litigation. Balance the input process, both for NEPA itself, and this exercise. Each comment judged on merit, not source, and last minute challenges disallowed if the party didn't get on board in the beginning. I know about the "process", and it's being juked by big money groups,regardless of which side that group is on, but most notably by private grant funded "environmental" groups. Those heavily funded groups are hard to deal with when a group is all volunteer, but has to meet with paid lobbyists and staff. While taking comment, balance priorities of local populations with other factors in a more logical manner. In too many cases local jurisdiction is given short shrift by an agenda seemingly already set. True coordination is required in law, and agency rules, and a growing section of the population is grasping this concept. Time for the agency to reclaim its multiple use mandate, and start being part of a community again, and get a handle on the future. This may be that chance to remember your job, and who you really work for.


The FS needs desperately to get back to its original mandate of multiple use, and properly sustaining and renewing its resources for the long term. Too much economic damage is being done as things have morphed over the years to the eco extreme. Timber is, in fact, a crop in this day and age, and needs to be treated accordingly. As to our part of the issues,we need to get after being given the same credence as any other forest use group, and push the narrative back into balance. OHV is and has been a common use, and needs to be treated as such. Part of that goes back to economic impact. Nationally, we are roughly a 200 billion dollar chunk of outdoor recreation income. Also, this 11th hour, file a lawsuit BS tactic "they" use has got to stop. Rules need to be put in place saying that if a group wasn't in on the process from the beginning, then they have no standing when a decision is made on a given project. Pressure also needs to be put on regarding cooperation/coordination. Coordination is the only thing that gives our local jurisdictions an equal say in FS decisions that affect the social and economic futures of the areas surrounding a forest. As far as trails, I'm sadly becoming convinced we need to go back and reinventory a lot of them. The "loss" of all the mapping Ron and others did is, to me, inexcusable on the part of the FS. This time though, the FS needs to have more skin in the game. Get off their butts and spend time working on the maps as well. That's what they get paid for.
Dave
Have Scout, will wheel...Someday...Maybe


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon80
-By driving a Scout, you my friend have recycled, which is more than those pansy Prius owners can say.
-I love driving a piece of history that was nearly lost.

Return to “Land Matters & Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests