Comments needed by Aug 13th F.S. rules - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Land Use Issues
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2012, 12:28 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Comments needed by Aug 13th F.S. rules

I pulled this from an ATV site, Comments are only being taken until Aug 13th. All I can say is WOW....They are moving fast with this one!!

Here are the phone numbers I found to call.....

Chief's Office Staff

Name

Title

Phone Number
Tom Tidwell Chief (202) 205-8439
Mary Wagner Associate Chief (202) 205-1779
Tim DeCoster Chief of Staff (202) 205-1661
Karla Hawley Executive Assistant to the Chief (202) 205-8439
Diana Kent Exec. Assistant to the Associate Chief (202) 205-1779
Kim Walton Exec. Assistant to the Chief of Staff (202) 205-0998
Sandy Berg Office Manager (202) 205-4977
Vacant Administrative Support (202) 205-1422



http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/al...ertid=61471356

On June 13, 2012, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to allow the Forest Service to use categorical exclusions to more efficiently implement projects to restore lands negatively impacted by water control structures, natural and human caused events, and roads and trails. These categorical exclusions will allow the Forest Service to more efficiently analyze and document the potential environmental effects of soil and water restoration projects that are intended to restore the flow of waters into natural channels and floodplains by removing water control structures, such as dikes, ditches, culverts and pipes; restore lands and habitat to pre-disturbance conditions, to the extent practicable, by removing debris, sediment, and hazardous conditions following natural or human-caused events; and restore lands occupied by roads and trails to natural conditions.
In other words, the three proposed categorical exclusions facilitate the Forest Service to:

Restore the flow of waters into natural channels and floodplains by removing, replacing or modifying water control structures;

Restore lands and habitat to pre-disturbance conditions by removing debris and sediment conditions following natural or human-caused events; and

Restore, rehabilitate or stabilize lands occupied by non-National Forest System roads and trails to a more natural condition.

The American Motorcyclist Association has concerns with the proposed rule for several reasons. Currently, the Forest Service has to comply with an environmental review, such as an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement with regard to restoration projects. The proposed rule will allow a categorical exclusion from the current environmental review to accelerate the pace of road and trail deconstruction.
In other words, these new categorical exclusions will make it much easier for the Forest Service to reduce the number and mileage of trails.
“We are gaining efficiencies that allow us to move more rapidly through the environmental review process while reducing the cost to the taxpayers of unnecessary documentation,” said Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. “These projects are really a win-win for the environment and the public and will result in positive environmental outcomes.”
Furthermore, the AMA has concerns with the timeline of this proposed rule. The rule was published June 13, but Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell signed off on the rule May 11 -- two days after the Forest Service Planning Rule went into effect.
The AMA strongly encourages everyone who enjoys recreating on our nation’s forest and grasslands to provide comments to the proposed rule. All comments must be received by August 13 for full consideration. If you want to help protect the off-highway trails that you, your family and your friends enjoy, this is an opportunity you can't afford to miss.
Electronic comments are preferred and can be submitted by going to http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...RDOC_0001-1311
All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying.
Provide your comments today. Be sure to urge the Forest Service to keep every user of the forest in mind.
__________________

Last edited by 66cummins; 08-11-2012 at 12:30 PM.
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-11-2012, 12:30 PM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Respond here >>> http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...RDOC_0001-1311
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 08-11-2012, 11:22 PM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Be sure and use the link to send comments, phone calls apparently do no good in the fed world but they have to document letters.


I know this next piece is long winded, but what I read is that they based all this on "Professional Staff" and "experts" from every forest service.? Are these the same folks that they relied on with all the "good ideas" that they are aiming to remove now? And who supplied this >> "The Forest Service also studied peer-reviewed scientific analyses, research papers, and monitoring reports about activities identified under these categorical exclusions"???????


"Pursuant to CEQ's implementing regulations at 40 CFR § 1507.3 and the November 23, 2010, CEQ guidance memorandum on “Establishing, Applying, and Revising Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act,” the Forest Service gathered information supporting establishment of these three categorical exclusions using the following four methods:Show citation box
(1) The Forest Service reviewed EAs that implemented actions that were entirely or partially covered under one of the proposed categorical exclusions. This review showed that these projects did not individually or cumulatively result in a significant effect on the human environment.Show citation box
(2) The Forest Service consulted with professional staff and experts who have experience leading interdisciplinary teams and conducting environmental analysis of project proposals, implementing restoration activities, guiding the development and execution of restoration programs, and studying the techniques, effects, and outcomes associated with soil and water restoration activities. The experience of these professional staff included persons from every Forest Service and nearly every geographic region across the United States, including Alaska.Show citation box
(3) The Forest Service also studied peer-reviewed scientific analyses, research papers, and monitoring reports about activities identified under these categorical exclusions.Show citation box
(4) Finally, the Forest Service reviewed categorical exclusions adopted by eight other federal agencies that cover activities that are comparable in size and scope and that are implemented under similar natural resource conditions with similar environmental impacts to those covered under the categories in this proposed rule.Show citation box
Based on this review, the Forest Service finds that the proposed categorical exclusions would not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment. The Agency's finding is predicated on data from implementing comparable past actions; the expert judgment of the responsible officials who made the findings for the projects reviewed for this supporting statement; information from other professional staff and experts, and scientific analyses; a review and comparison of similar categorical exclusions implemented by other federal agencies; and the Forest Service's experience implementing soil and water restoration activities and subsequent monitoring of potential associated impacts. Additional information is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/restorationCE."
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-12-2012, 09:46 AM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
This is HUGE but nobody seemed to care a month ago when the BRC released this information . . . http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...cal+exclusions

I hope this new call-to-arms fares better!!!
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-12-2012, 11:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
Actually this could be a good thing if it streamlines projects needed to keep a route open, stopping short of closure and/on removal or the route. It's OK to restore damage caused by the route after repairs are made, but not to restored or remove the route itself.
__________________
BLACK STAR MEMBER
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-12-2012, 01:13 PM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post
Actually this could be a good thing if it streamlines projects needed to keep a route open, stopping short of closure and/on removal or the route. It's OK to restore damage caused by the route after repairs are made, but not to restored or remove the route itself.
You're kidding right??

"Chief's Biography
Thomas L. Tidwell

Tom Tidwell has spent 33 years in the Forest Service. He has served in a variety of positions at all levels of the agency, including as district ranger, forest supervisor, and legislative affairs specialist in the Washington Office. As deputy regional forester for the Pacific Southwest Region, Tom facilitated collaborative approaches to wildland fire management, roadless area management, and other issues. As regional forester for the Northern Region, Tom strongly supported community-based collaboration in the region, finding solutions based on mutual goals and thereby reducing the number of appeals and lawsuits.

In 2009, after being named Chief, Tom set about implementing the Secretary’s vision for America’s forests. Under his leadership, the Forest Service is restoring healthy, resilient forest and grassland ecosystems—ecosystems that can sustain all the benefits that Americans get from their wildlands, including plentiful supplies of clean water, abundant habitat for wildlife and fish, renewable supplies of wood and energy, and more.

Such benefits are at risk from the effects of climate change, and Tom has led the way in forging a national response. Under Tom’s leadership, the Forest Service has charted a national roadmap for addressing climate change through adaptation and mitigation. The Forest Service is taking steps to help ecosystems adapt to the effects of a changing climate while also taking action to mitigate climate change, partly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Tom has facilitated an all-lands approach to addressing the challenges facing America’s forests and grasslands, including the overarching challenge of climate change. Such challenges cross borders and boundaries; no single entity can meet them alone. Under Tom’s leadership, the Forest Service is working with states, Tribes, private landowners, and other partners for landscape-scale conservation—to restore ecosystems on a landscape scale."

READ that and then think about the last 7 words........
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-12-2012, 02:59 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
OK, Dear Forest Service please delete the last 7 words, NEXT...........
__________________
BLACK STAR MEMBER
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-12-2012, 05:40 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post
OK, Dear Forest Service please delete the last 7 words, NEXT...........

HAHA! Keep dreaming.....
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 09:54 AM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
LAST DAY TO COMMENT FOLKS!!!

Comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...RDOC_0001-1311
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 10:11 AM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
LAST DAY TO COMMENT FOLKS!!!

Comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...RDOC_0001-1311
They allow the green crew to use NEPA to close public roads and trails when there is the slightest possibility of sedimentation yet want to . . .

"allow the agency to bypass normal environmental review . . . exempt road decommissioning efforts . . . blocking the entrance to roads . . . exempt major ground disturbing activities such as completely eliminating the road bed".

As Hawthorne of the BRC said, "If 40 years of NEPA has taught us anything it is that noble intentions don't justify half-baked analysis. A bulldozer moving dirt is a bulldozer moving dirt. Environmental impacts don't magically disappear because the source of sediment is called a restoration project."
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 11:42 AM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
Sounds to me like there's just no trust for the current Forest Service Chief, only way that's going to change is for OHV to actually become a real player in the elections it's that simple............
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 12:13 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post
Sounds to me like there's just no trust for the current Forest Service Chief, only way that's going to change is for OHV to actually become a real player in the elections it's that simple............
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...highlight=tpac
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 12:21 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member # 33464
Location: Santa Maria,Ca
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post
Sounds to me like there's just no trust for the current Forest Service Chief, only way that's going to change is for OHV to actually become a real player in the elections it's that simple............
OK, so get off ur arse and get on that!!!!
66cummins is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 03:52 PM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
USFS Rule Allows Road Obliteration Without Public Involvement

Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,

Two months ago, BRC blasted a nationwide alert concerning a new regulation proposed by the U.S. Forest Service that would waive required environmental analysis and public involvement for a wide range of activities described as "restoration." Among those activities are road and trail obliteration.

Action Item, suggested comments and more here: http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/20...-item-included
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 03:59 PM   #15 (permalink)
Not a Wenzelite
 
MT4Runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44480
Location: MT
Posts: 19,013
commented
MT4Runner is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2012, 04:53 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
The Form

Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,

Two months ago, BRC blasted a nationwide alert concerning a new regulation proposed by the U.S. Forest Service that would waive required environmental analysis and public involvement for a wide range of activities described as "restoration." Among those activities are road and trail obliteration.

Action Item, suggested comments and more here: http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/20...-item-included
When filling out the form please fill in ALL the areas with a "blue globe" and then . . .

When it wants "Government Agency Type" . . . select "Federal"

When it wants "Government Agency" . . . select “USDA - DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE".

When it wants a "Category" . . . type in "USFS"

Paste the comments provided and/or add some of your own and fire away . . . make your voice heard!!!
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2012, 10:53 AM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66cummins View Post
OK, so get off ur arse and get on that!!!!
In this State CLORV is the Organization that is responsible for direction in election matters, get on the paid peoples arses for a change rather than trying to marginallize Volunteers would be a good start......
__________________
BLACK STAR MEMBER
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2012, 11:21 AM   #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
When was the last time we heard from them?
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 02:51 AM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
This State is a moot issue with the Presidential race as far as our Electoral college votes go, but we can be looking into key battle ground States which are finally starting to show movement away from Obama.

Check out the link below and take the fight where it has a change of making a difference.

http://race42012.com/category/2012-e...ge-projection/
__________________
BLACK STAR MEMBER
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 10:00 AM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post

Check out the link below and take the fight where it has a change of making a difference.
www.thetrailpac.com/

Last edited by LYIN' KING; 08-19-2012 at 10:00 AM.
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 10:39 AM   #21 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Member # 187383
Posts: 163
They don't need our help CLORV needs to step up and state who to support, if their going to continue to just do nothing.
__________________
BLACK STAR MEMBER
OrangeCrash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 12:03 PM   #22 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeCrash View Post
They don't need our help CLORV needs to step up and state who to support, if their going to continue to just do nothing.
Here's CLORVs most recent recommendations for the 2012 race . . . http://www.clorv.org/elections/index.php
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 03:27 PM   #23 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
Here's CLORVs most recent recommendations for the 2012 race . . . http://www.clorv.org/elections/index.php
Oh, and here's a little more for ya . . .

www.fppc.ca.gov/enf_letter/03-19-12/ENF011.PDF

https://www.guidestar.org/organizati...ad-voters.aspx

http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/revokeSe...mitName=Search
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 03:49 PM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 8,622
So Bob, we're all clear, you don't like CLORV, and you do like TPAC.
Considering the difference in their functions, it doesn't seem like an either/or proposition.

Bob, have you any *constructive* suggestions beyond advocating for TPAC? There's more than one note in this particular political symphony...

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 04:22 PM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by randii View Post
So Bob, we're all clear, you don't like CLORV, and you do like TPAC.
Considering the difference in their functions, it doesn't seem like an either/or proposition.
Yeah, one functions and the other ceases to exist. BTW, I did like CLORV.
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.