Colorado Illegal Rd Closure Update

[dwagman]

In reference to illegal road closures, and by way of follow-up, I added the laws that were violated by the Forest Service for each road closure.

FSR 300; violations include and are not limited to 36 CFR 215.2, 215.5.b.ii, b.iii, b.iv, b.v, b.vi, b.viii, b.ix, b.x, 215.6.a., 261.50.c., 40 CFR 1503, 1506.10.

FSR 322A; violations include and are not limited to 36 CFR 215.2, 215.5.b.ii, b.iii, b.iv, b.v, b.vi, b.viii, b.ix, b.x, 2, 215.6.a., 261.50.c., 40 CFR 1501.7; 1508.4, 1508.13; FSH 1909.15 Chapters 31, 32, 33.3, 40.

FSR 371; violations include and are not limited to 36 CFR 220.4, 220.6.b.i.; 40 CFR 1501.7, 1507.3.e., 1508.4,1508.13; FSH 1909.15 Chapters 31, 32, 40.

This has been added to the following document as well: http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_service/summary.doc

Specifically in this regard, the following letter has been sent to the Forest Service: http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_service/rescind.doc

Please note that the meeting date with Congressman Lamborn has been changed to Friday, April 17, 2009 at 4pm, 1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd. Suite 110 in Colorado Springs. The Congressman has invited all concerned citizens (except the media) to attend.

[Kurtuleas]

Do you have a link to these actual laws?

I read the letter, did the FS not follow the NEPA process in this instance?

[OTR]

Dan.


Can you please keep all information on this issue in one thread ?



http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=772919

http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=771888


Kurt, can you merge these three threads ?


Dan.
When you have updated info you can just add it to the post. If its something important like a meeting date, time, or location change, you can edit your original post and it all stays in one place.

Thanks for your efforts on this and the updates.

kris.

[dwagman]

I'd be glad to follow your advice. I wasn't sure of what sort of protocol you guys might have and wanted to make sure that people actually see the changes, updates, etc. I also wasn't sure if this fits best on your regional Forum or on the Land Use forum, so I posted on both.

At any rate, sorry about causing some potential problems for ya'll, wasn't my intent.

Dan

[OTR]

Its not a "problem".

I wouldnt want anyone to get the wrong info from an older thread. Also, this is something Id like to keep tabs on and one thread is easier...


k.

[dwagman]

Please recall that the meeting date has changed to Friday, 4/17 at 4pm, 1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd. Suite 110, Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Phone: (719) 520-0055

I would appreciate any help from you guys in letting the rest know of the date change.

THANKS!

Also, after the meeting, dinner at Jack Quinns downtown, on Tejon street, just north of Colorado Ave.

[kf6zpl]

dwagman:

Please provide some clarification....

WHAT has been violated?

a Forest Service Regulation (FSR)??

or a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?

What you are citing makes no sense and reeks of sensationalism.

If you can cite specific instances, please do. With what you have provided, I seen no specific violation of law cited.

Specifically, you "claim" that some law (or regulation) has been violated. And, you offer no specific action by the agency and a relevance to law.

BTW, please do not mix violation of law and regulation in a complaint. Regulations are an interpretation of law. If a violation of regulation is cited, it comes down to an matter of interpretation of the law. The judicial system is the final arbitrator of that type of decision.

And, please provide something other than personal opinions that do not cite specific documented actions by the agency. A "documented action" will cite specific action by the agency which will include a notice of action and why the agency engaged in that action, along with a specific date.

What you are citing as a "violation" is completely with in the management prerogative of the agency if they ar responding to an emergency determination.

Don't know as you do not provide what action the agency engaged,

Keep in mind, (and keeping in line with your sensationalism action), the agency can cut your leg off and be within the letter of the law by telling you it will hurt.

If you have not been involved with the agency prior to them issuing an action, shame on you. You have abdicated your right to complain (in legal terms 'standing') about an action. You MUST be involved prior to an action and you must have articulated to the agency how their action will cause you harm.

Then, it is up to you to take your case to the court to resolve the "harm" the agency action caused you.

That is what NEPA is about. It is a clear concise process where public disclosure of actions is required and opportunities allowed for public to comment.

You are claiming an action has been done outside of NEPA. And, you provide no proof.

The agency will not "close" a route without issuing a Forest Order.

Was a Forest Order issued? Don't know, you seem to ignor that specific point of order.

You state the Forest has closed roads. Please provide the documentation outlining the conditions and rational announcing that closure.

Without that, you have no possibility of arguing that you are being harmed by there action. That assumes you can prove that you have participated in the administrative process leading up to this point.

Set you emotion outside and deal with data and facts.

[chasinternet]

Dan - if you want to share documents I suggest PDF and not DOC because PDF can be viewed inside the web browser.

I looked at your posts and it is difficult to follow what you are attempting, however, please don't take my suggestions too hard - I am glad you are attempting the sharing.

Posting regulation is not effective communication, especially in the absence of background information about the problem. You gave a link to some documents leaving it to the public to figure out what is going on - bad idea. Very few of us will bother.

I think John addresses this and other points. He is correct, facts not opinion is what to start with.

I looked at the USFS letters on your site and here are highlights of their reasoning for closure. Dan's disagreement is already available here and the web links he gives:
Feb 7, 2008 (NFSR 371)
As stated in a Forest Service letter dated October 28, 2004, the intent of the route extending from National Forest System Route (NFSR) 371 on the Pikes Peak Ranger District in the Pike National Forest in Colorado was solely for the purpose of access and construction of a water pipeline under special use permit to Colorado Springs Utility. The road was never designed or intended for public motorized use.
...All points related to why the road and area was closed to public motorized use remain valid:
protection of the road and area from resource damage due to motor vehicle use; protection of a sensitive plant species; and protection of the Colorado Springs Utilities pipeline from vandalism.
...Additionally, a Forest Supervisor's Special Order that authorizes closing of 1.75 miles of the illegal route was sent to you with a letter from the District Ranger October 28, 2004.

July 2, 2008 (NFSR 371)
As explained in the February 7, 2008, letter, the road on the 1984 map showed it extended beyond its current location. The 1990 travel management plan, covered by an Environmental Assessment, restricted public motorized travel to white arrow designated routes. The portion of the road currently closed was not part of the official travel route and did not have white arrows on the section currently behind the gate.
A Forest Supervisor Order is the correct procedure for closing a road in this circumstance.

December 17, 2008 (FDR 320 and FDR 322)
Forest Development Road 322A is a 1.25 mile motorized route connecting Mount Herman Road, FDR 320 and FDR 322. Under Title 16 USC 551; 36 CFR 261.54(a), this route was signed, gated, and closed temporarily due to public safety and resource damage. Approximately 4 years ago a series of major rain events washed out sections of this road and made it unsafe for general vehicle travel. Since a motorized route approximately 2 miles west on Rampart Range Road (FDR 300) also connects to FDR 322, road 322A is low priority for access to national forest lands. Combine this low priority of access with a lack of road funding and the backlog of road repair, and the unfortunate result is FDR 322A has remained closed.

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

dwagman:

Please provide some clarification....

WHAT has been violated?

a Forest Service Regulation (FSR)??

or a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)?

What you are citing makes no sense and reeks of sensationalism.

If you can cite specific instances, please do. With what you have provided, I seen no specific violation of law cited.

Specifically, you "claim" that some law (or regulation) has been violated. And, you offer no specific action by the agency and a relevance to law.

BTW, please do not mix violation of law and regulation in a complaint. Regulations are an interpretation of law. If a violation of regulation is cited, it comes down to an matter of interpretation of the law. The judicial system is the final arbitrator of that type of decision.

And, please provide something other than personal opinions that do not cite specific documented actions by the agency. A "documented action" will cite specific action by the agency which will include a notice of action and why the agency engaged in that action, along with a specific date.

What you are citing as a "violation" is completely with in the management prerogative of the agency if they ar responding to an emergency determination.

Don't know as you do not provide what action the agency engaged,

Keep in mind, (and keeping in line with your sensationalism action), the agency can cut your leg off and be within the letter of the law by telling you it will hurt.

If you have not been involved with the agency prior to them issuing an action, shame on you. You have abdicated your right to complain (in legal terms 'standing') about an action. You MUST be involved prior to an action and you must have articulated to the agency how their action will cause you harm.

Then, it is up to you to take your case to the court to resolve the "harm" the agency action caused you.

That is what NEPA is about. It is a clear concise process where public disclosure of actions is required and opportunities allowed for public to comment.

You are claiming an action has been done outside of NEPA. And, you provide no proof.

The agency will not "close" a route without issuing a Forest Order.

Was a Forest Order issued? Don't know, you seem to ignor that specific point of order.

You state the Forest has closed roads. Please provide the documentation outlining the conditions and rational announcing that closure.

Without that, you have no possibility of arguing that you are being harmed by there action. That assumes you can prove that you have participated in the administrative process leading up to this point.

Set you emotion outside and deal with data and facts.

First, there is nothing sensationalistic nor emotional about my claims, nor is anything based soley on my opinion. Rather, it is all based on Forest Service documentation provided via FOIA requests. I have about a foot worth of documentation regarding these illegal closures. They are illegal because the Code of Federal Regulations was violated. My link provides only the highlights as it isn't practical to list all of the correspondence between me and the Forest Service.

So in a nutshell, there are certain actions that are exempt from documentation and NEPA. The road closures here do not fall into the Categorically Exempt category, hence NEPA procedures apply, and since they were not implemented, none of us were part of the Forest Service decision-making because there was no public comment period observed. Therefore there is no legal standing by the public in fighting this decision in court (though the FS could be sued anyway). In the case of FSR 300, the legally mandated public comment period was cut in half, violating a long list of CFR regulations (listed in my link). In the case of FSR 322A there is no documentation of any kind, violating not only NEPA but 36 CFR 220. And in the case of FSR 371, early writing obtained by the FS indicates that they would need to adhere to NEPA, but in the end they didn't.

Bottom line, black on white, the FS violated many Federal Laws in closing these roads and all of it is documented. The link I provided includes only the highlights.

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by chasinternet

Feb 7, 2008 (NFSR 371)
As stated in a Forest Service letter dated October 28, 2004, the intent of the route extending from National Forest System Route (NFSR) 371 on the Pikes Peak Ranger District in the Pike National Forest in Colorado was solely for the purpose of access and construction of a water pipeline under special use permit to Colorado Springs Utility. The road was never designed or intended for public motorized use.

That's actually a bunch of bull. This road existed and was signed as FSR 371 for decades and to this date remains so in the travel plan management map of 1984. The removal of this road from the 1990 map was done illegally and the FS has not provided documentation of any sort regarding an appeal of the 1984 map.

Originally Posted by chasinternet

...All points related to why the road and area was closed to public motorized use remain valid:
protection of the road and area from resource damage due to motor vehicle use; protection of a sensitive plant species; and protection of the Colorado Springs Utilities pipeline from vandalism.

All of the above, especially the sensitive plant species issue, requires NEPA, which was not observed. Interestingly, the sensitive plant species is a bogus claim as the Forest Service commissioned a study of this plant (the Yellow Ladyslipper Orchid) by Colorado College and the results of the study show that the plant is flourishing in that area and on that road. As to the Colorado Springs Utilities argument, the permit they hold with the FS specifically outlines that they may not close the road to the public. Also a bogus claim. As to resource damage, that does not mean NEPA need not be observed.

Originally Posted by chasinternet

...Additionally, a Forest Supervisor's Special Order that authorizes closing of 1.75 miles of the illegal route was sent to you with a letter from the District Ranger October 28, 2004.

That documentation is insufficient for the action taken, as per 36 CFR 220.

Originally Posted by chasinternet

July 2, 2008 (NFSR 371)
As explained in the February 7, 2008, letter, the road on the 1984 map showed it extended beyond its current location. The 1990 travel management plan, covered by an Environmental Assessment, restricted public motorized travel to white arrow designated routes. The portion of the road currently closed was not part of the official travel route and did not have white arrows on the section currently behind the gate.
A Forest Supervisor Order is the correct procedure for closing a road in this circumstance.

Actually, to this day, the signs on the ground identify the road as FSR 371. It always extended the way it does, the maps indicate so, and the Order is not sufficient as NEPA is required to close this road. Moreover, what's ridiculous to the point of funny, is that not only do the signs on the road to this day indicate that it is FSR 371, past the location of the gate, but about 1.5 miles of the road that the FS claims not to be the road is actually still open to the public, camping, etc.

In short, you have signs on the ground indicating that the road is FSR 371. About 2 miles down, there's a Y in the road. To the left is a ranch, to the right FSR 371 continues for about 3 miles. That 3 mile section was simply left off one of the maps with the claim that it's not 371. Yet the gate was erected about 1.5 miles PAST the Y, and the signs on the road STILL indicate that it's FSR 371.

Originally Posted by chasinternet

December 17, 2008 (FDR 320 and FDR 322)
Forest Development Road 322A is a 1.25 mile motorized route connecting Mount Herman Road, FDR 320 and FDR 322. Under Title 16 USC 551; 36 CFR 261.54(a), this route was signed, gated, and closed temporarily due to public safety and resource damage. Approximately 4 years ago a series of major rain events washed out sections of this road and made it unsafe for general vehicle travel. Since a motorized route approximately 2 miles west on Rampart Range Road (FDR 300) also connects to FDR 322, road 322A is low priority for access to national forest lands. Combine this low priority of access with a lack of road funding and the backlog of road repair, and the unfortunate result is FDR 322A has remained closed.

What you forgot to mention is that the letter indicates that there is "no documentation" regarding the closure of this road. That violates both Federal Law and Forest Service Regulations (now combined under 36 CFR 220). Also, according to the law, a temporary closure lasts up to one year, not 4. Again, NEPA was violated, along with a long list of other laws.

I appreciate your note and I appreciate what you say about the links I provided. This posting thread I started was specifically for those interested in attending the meeting with Congressman Lamborn about the Forest Services illegal actions. It is not possible for me to post ALL of the documentation that the FS provided. That's what the meeting is about and that's where whoever shows up will get properly debriefed.

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

Do you have a link to these actual laws?

I read the letter, did the FS not follow the NEPA process in this instance?

The FS did not follow NEPA in any of these road closures and the actions by the FS are NOT Categorically Excluded from NEPA or documentation.

In short, they just closed down roads and didn't get the public involved in the process.

[chasinternet]

Originally Posted by dwagman

I appreciate your note and I appreciate what you say about the links I provided. This posting thread I started was specifically for those interested in attending the meeting with Congressman Lamborn about the Forest Services illegal actions. It is not possible for me to post ALL of the documentation that the FS provided. That's what the meeting is about and that's where whoever shows up will get properly debriefed.

Wasn't remotely suggesting posting all the info. My suggestion is make an organized website and people can read it for themselves - you already have done some of that.

Sorry, was just giving a summary of that the FS positon was, not promoting their views.

The regulations you list as violated appear as your personal opinion unless you are an attorney or worked in the regulatory for many years - nothing to do with the meeting. I think you will find that people wish to read the information independently, ask questions, and make their own decisions. In my personal opinion it is a bad idea to try to control that.

The congressman has taken this on and is going to do the debriefing or you are? If not the congressman - then why do you want people there, a show of support for you? Would we be just a bump on a log in the room?

You are close to this issue and obviously passionate about it. However, the regulatory is not going to do much without meeting basic evidence standards otherwise they are going to continue to give answers that you will translate as "that's actually a bunch of bull". I think John is pointing that out. To my knowledge, John and I have never talked or met - but I have read enough of his years of work to know if he gave me suggestions on land use issues - I'm using all the listening skills I got. But anyone or any organization that asked me to show up to a congressman office - I'm going to have questions.

I have a difficulty with my own passion toward various issues - passion may generate interest but it can't persuade. Passion needs focus. I have found it must be combined with effective communication of my point of view and I have to become a good listener. I fail often and my passionate ideas fail with me.

Has an attorney reviewed your assertions? What did they say? Is the attorney going with you or written a letter? I see UFWDA attorney Carla Boucher mentioned in a letter awhile back - what happened there?

I'm just part of the great unwashed masses and not a person of acomplishment like you and others here are. I observe land use as those suited to running "Marathon Man" and not for sprinters.

Perhaps your style will accomplish your purposes - beware the legal/regulatory though - it may be written in English but you'll find it is another language entirely and you'll get cut off at the knees.

[kf6zpl]

I will state in different terms:

Step back from emotion and deal with facts.

Post the exact Forest Order stating the routes in question are closed.

Do not dissect any of the documents to arrive at a conclusion.

If the Forest has not posted a Forest Order, how do you know the routes have been closed?

Again, forget about your assumption of Categorical Exclusion and lack of NEPA. Do you not realize that the Forest can close ANY route at any time by citing resource damage???

If a route was created for "administrative" purposes, it is NOT a public route. It is a route burdened with a caveat that is was constructed for a specific purpose. Any other use of that route is outside the scope of its construction an not relevant to the legal argument.

The mere fact the a Categorical Exclusion has been mentioned indicates that NEPA process has been followed.

chasinternet is more patient in dealing with allegations than I am. He is willing to dig through a lot of superfluous opinion statements to arrive at the same conclusions I have.

Basically, show me the FACTS and complete documentation to support the facts. Without those, you are grandstanding with noise and no substance.

You personal opinion is important in that it shows you are passionate about a subject. Your personal opinion does not carry weight in an administrative decision. Nor does your personal opinion carry weight in a court of law.

Again, if the routes are closed, there will be a Forest Order stating that fact.

Show me the Forest Order that is clear and unadulterated.

I really do appreciate your passion for the topic. However, you need to set aside the passion and deal with reality.

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

I will state in different terms…

John, your posts have been anything but helpful, in reality they have been simplistic and condescending. You would be well-served to educate yourself first, before you post; I created links for people to review this issue.

Had you educated yourself in this matter, you’d know that there are no Orders or Decision Documents for some of these roads. In fact, 322A has no documentation whatsoever, as stated by the District Ranger in his answer to my FOIA.

Not dissecting a Decision Document, or any other FS documents, is ridiculous advice. It MUST be dissected in an effort to ascertain whether it abides by the law or not. And again, there is no such thing as an “assumption” regarding Categorical Exclusions, the law spells it out clearly what Action(s) falls under that category. You’d be well advised to read the law closely; it is readily available Online for anyone to read. In doing so, you’d also be aware that the FS could only close any route citing resource damage via an Emergency Closure, which in turn holds time limits and would then have to adhere to NEPA.

And how do I know the roads have been closed? Because they’re gated. In fact FSR 371 has such an enormous gate, that is so wide, that NOBODY can access the road behind it, unless you climb down to the creek, partially cross it, etc. Yet in response to the Congressman’s inquiry about that, and the inclusion of pictures, the FS still claims that it is only closed to motorized vehicles and all others can access it. What a crock!

Similarly, the claim that FSR 371 was built for “administrative purposes” is a crock if not an outright lie. After months and months of changing rationale for closing that road, and tons of letters from the FS, denied FOIA’s, accepted FOIA’s on appeal, they come up with the notion that it was closed for “administrative purposes.” Complete nonsense based on their own earlier writings.

In short, and again, there’s no personal opinion involved here, simply an analysis of what the law requires and what was actually done. One need not be a lawyer to understand that, as an example,

- when FSR 300 was seasonally closed, and the law calls for a 30-90 day public comment period, and the public was only presented with less than 2 wks, the law was violated;
- when FSR 371 was closed and the FS claims it was done due to the preservation of a Forester Sensitive Species, and the law calls for NEPA for specifically such a reason, and NEPA was not followed, the law was violated;
- or when for the “temporary” closure of FSR 322A, for which NO documentation at all exists, and the law defines “temporary” as less than a year, and the road has remained closed for more than 4 years, the law was violated.

Last year, in an effort to consolidate federal law and FS regulations, 36 CFR 220 was published. It outlines everything anyone needs to know about how and when NEPA must be applied, what is excluded from documentation and/or NEPA, etc. And here’s the best part, none of you need to be lawyers to understand this. In fact, a lawyer in CA sent me a judges ruling on the plaintiffs suit against the FS, who was not following the law governing the plaintiffs FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act). Of course the FS lost the suit and as I read the judge's ruling, so much of it sounded familiar to me, and I couldn’t quite figure out why. But once I went to the law governing FOIA for the FS, it all made sense to me – I had read it there before and the judge was quoting the law verbatim. The obvious question is: why does one have to sue the FS to abide by the law, that's written black on white, in simple terms, just to have a judge repeat what the law states? Utterly ridiculous.

The bottom line is that all any of you need to do is read the law and then ask the FS for documentation on the closure you’re interested in. Then, you do the opposite of what John suggests; you analyze the documentation (if it exists) closely and see to what extent it may or may not follow the law. And if it doesn’t, then you take the FS to task, just as we are doing out here.

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by chasinternet

Wasn't remotely suggesting posting all the info. My suggestion is make an organized website and people can read it for themselves - you already have done some of that.

That's a pretty darn good idea. But it would require me to scan and upload tons of documentation that nobody would read through. Hence the abridged version.

Sorry, was just giving a summary of that the FS positon was, not promoting their views.

The regulations you list as violated appear as your personal opinion unless you are an attorney or worked in the regulatory for many years - nothing to do with the meeting. I think you will find that people wish to read the information independently, ask questions, and make their own decisions. In my personal opinion it is a bad idea to try to control that.

No personal opinion here, just reading the law and comparing it to what was actually done. See my reply to John for more.

The congressman has taken this on and is going to do the debriefing or you are? If not the congressman - then why do you want people there, a show of support for you? Would we be just a bump on a log in the room?

Actually, I will be doing the debriefing based on the law and the documentation provided by the FS. The reason I want as many people there as possible, is to show the Congressman that this is of deep interest to the public, because he's been weak in his efforts to date, and because he ignored FS statements that prove how they violated the law. I have been the spokesperson for several core people about this, but only I have met with the Congressman about 4 times on this issue. It is time for him to step up his efforts and it is time for those interested in having the FS follow the law in closing roads to show up and stand up to this pathetic way of doing business.

[quote]You are close to this issue and obviously passionate about it. However, the regulatory is not going to do much without meeting basic evidence standards otherwise they are going to continue to give answers that you will translate as "that's actually a bunch of bull". I think John is pointing that out. To my knowledge, John and I have never talked or met - but I have read enough of his years of work to know if he gave me suggestions on land use issues - I'm using all the listening skills I got. But anyone or any organization that asked me to show up to a congressman office - I'm going to have questions.

I have a difficulty with my own passion toward various issues - passion may generate interest but it can't persuade. Passion needs focus. I have found it must be combined with effective communication of my point of view and I have to become a good listener. I fail often and my passionate ideas fail with me.[quote]

You're absolutely correct. That's why my passion is only guided by the law and evidence, and not emotion. This constitutes the proverbial no-brainer to me and others in the community. It started with one illegal road closure, the FS came up with a bunch of changing tactics to justify it, yet none of them followed the law, and now we're at 3 illegally closed roads. We're not standing for it as it's black on white, the violations of the law.

Has an attorney reviewed your assertions? What did they say? Is the attorney going with you or written a letter? I see UFWDA attorney Carla Boucher mentioned in a letter awhile back - what happened there?

Oh, of course we had an attorney involved. And of course the attorney agreed that the law was violated. Like I said, it's black on white. However, the FS gave the attorney changing and ridiculous rationale on the closure of the initial road we were working on, and the attorney who was doing this sort of pro bono concluded that this didn't have a significant impact on the nation and that it therefore couldn't be pursued further. Since, however, we learned that two other roads were simply closed in similar fashion and what has happened here is that a dangerous precedent has been set. Basically, the local District Ranger has closed FSR's to the public without following the law. And nobody has challenged him on this, so it's basically been going on under the radar. This sort of action cannot be tolerated because, unfortunately, it is an effective tactic because the public tends to be ignorant about what's going on under their noses, they simply take the FS explanation without further analysis and scrutiny of how the action does or does not correspond with the requirements of the law, and the FS therefore has no reason TO adhere to the law. That's why the efforts are being stepped up by our core group and why we want others to join in the effort.

I'm just part of the great unwashed masses and not a person of acomplishment like you and others here are. I observe land use as those suited to running "Marathon Man" and not for sprinters.

Perhaps your style will accomplish your purposes - beware the legal/regulatory though - it may be written in English but you'll find it is another language entirely and you'll get cut off at the knees.

You shouldn't downplay your role. Your views have been insightful and expressed politely. I agree with your Marathon Man analogy. No doubt about that. And we're indeed playing close attention to the law. Thanks for your feedback.

[chasinternet]

I think you have clarified the situation - thank you.

What I meant by "person of accomplishment" is I read you have a PhD but you also applied it successfully in your field of interest. An army ranger/paratrooper with national/world weight lifting and a PhD - I think that puts you firmly in the "type A" personality camp. Focus and determination open doors. Squeaky wheels get oiled.

The style doesn't bother me much because as a consultant I have for 16 years sat in rooms of patent litigation attorneys and PhDs with competing interests. I'm a smart guy in rooms full of smarter guys and gals. Litigation, however, is not an intellectual puzzle. I have watched many an ivy league attorney burn out in 6 months because they discover it is not about the study of law.

The PhD experts hired can easily grasp what the law reads. Some even take it the essential step - realizing knowing the law is worth little without knowing the case law. But most often they fail miserably pretending to be attorneys. It is a different discipline.

I'll always remember standing at a copy machine with a 3rd year attorney distinguished Stanford Law graduate at his first trail swearing up a storm about how over $300K and 8 years of education and this is what it comes to - throwing away 18 months of hard work and staying up for two days to draw funny cartoons of a complex patent to show to nodding off jurors that barely know where a computer power button is.

Even if we agreed you have read the law correctly - that does not mean you have a case even if the law indicates a violation. And even if you have a case - rarely is a "win" straight forward and not partly a win and partly something everyone is scratching their heads about trying to figure out what it means. Sometimes it is better not to bring a case. As they say, bad cases make bad law.

The litigation war is won in the trenches doing a lot of dry, tedious, boring work before a select few get to rush the field for glory. I'm just an ammunition supplier - too old to be on the front lines and I already have more stitches than I can count.

"Capella: D'you ever watch wresting Ray?
Ray: Errr. Sure. I mean you know, now and then.
Capella: Cuz this is just like wrestling.
Ray: How?
Capella: Well it's reality, mixed with illusion, mixed with bullshit, mixed with... big scary guys from parts unknown, in dire need of psychiatric care." - from "The Art of War" (2000)

I do sincerely wish you luck in accomplishing re-opening roads. If you find it all goes down the crapper on you - then I'm sure John's posts will be here down the road to consider in a different light.

[dwagman]

What you state about your experiences with the law, lawyers, and PhD's is so true - and sadly so. But for what it's worth, to give you a sense of where I'm coming from, it need not and shouldn't be that way.

You see, a great deal of the LSAT and the law in general is based on principles of logic, rational thought, and evidence. Sadly, that tends to get lost as once people get their law degree, they end up arguing on emotion instead of what they learned in law school.

So what does this have to do with the FS and what we're fighting for out here? That's simple: if you go 66 miles/hour in a 65 mile/hour speed zone, you broke the law and you may be cited. If you go 64 in a 65 and you get cited, the police broke the law. It's a no-brainer and you'll win in court.

Similarly, if the law calls for NEPA when a road is closed for the protection of a Forester Sensitive Species, and the FS claims that was one of the reasons for closing the road, and NEPA was not followed - then they broke the law, plain and simple.

THAT'S what we're fighting for.

[navy-jeepster]

You mention Carla from UFWDA.
She is well respected in the Land use circles. Have you talked to her, or had your local attorney talk to her?

I am sure she would talk to you or your group about how to proceed on this issue.
I will also send her a quick email on some of this.
if you need her number, please let me know.

Todd

[dwagman]

Originally Posted by navy-jeepster

You mention Carla from UFWDA.
She is well respected in the Land use circles. Have you talked to her, or had your local attorney talk to her?

I am sure she would talk to you or your group about how to proceed on this issue.
I will also send her a quick email on some of this.
if you need her number, please let me know.

Todd

Actually, I did not mention Carla. I have, however, been in contact with her about this in the past.

[dwagman]

A summary of the issue at hand to be discussed with Congressman Lamborn on Friday, along with references to the violations of federal law, can be found here:

http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_service/FS_NEPA.pdf

This is brief and to the point and well worth your time to review.

The main law that applies here, including text of references to other sections of federal law, can be accessed here, but is extensive: http://www.bodyintellect.com/forest_..._220(NEPA).pdf

Hope to see you at the meeting with Lamborn on Friday, 4pm, 1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110, in Colo. Spgs.

[dwagman]

I just received the following from the Congressman’s office. I shall inform you about the new date once it is set.

Dan

<<Mr. Wagman,

This is just to follow-up on my phone message I left earlier. I wanted to confirm that our office needs to cancel the meeting this afternoon due to the weather. We still would like to have the meeting take place to discuss these issues and will reschedule at a later date and time. Please give me a call at 202-225-4422 and we can get something on the schedule.

I apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause but I am sure you would agree that it may be unsafe for members of your group and our staff members to drive to the district office for the meeting today.

Thank you,

Abby Gunderson
Office of Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
437 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202.225.4422 (phone)
202.226.2638 (fax)
abby.gunderson@mail.house.gov >>