Post by: huntrights on January 13, 2012, 05:42:59 PM
This is the Notice of Decision that describes the appeal opportunity:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/61747_FSPLT2_069935.pdf
“An appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer, Forest Supervisor, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Attn: 1570 Appeals, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington, 98201. Appeals may be faxed to (425) 783-0214, sent electronically to appeals-pacificnorthwest-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us, or hand delivered to the above address 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Mon-Fri except holidays. Appeals, including attachments, must be postmarked or delivered within 45 days after the publication date of this notice.” The Notice of Decision was published on December 27, 2011, so you must submit your appeal within the 45 day limit.
Jon Vanderheyden, the District Ranger, sent me the following message that should help guide your appeals to keep the road open:
“Appeal process can be nothing more than a letter to the address indicated in the decision notice (Which sounds like you have) stating your reasons why you think the decision should be changed. It's a good idea to have read the environmental assessment and decision notice carefully and base your appeal on what is contained therein - Where did the analysis go wrong for example.
Full copy of the Appeal regulations can be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/36cfr215.htm”
Main link to the Illabot Road decommissioning project:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=29892
Link to the Environmental Assessment for the Illabot road Project:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/61747_FSPLT2_069984.pdf
Also see the related forum post:\
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,84994.0.html
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 12, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens for Balanced Use
Forest Planning Rule
Dear Jim,
CBU is very concerned with the new Forest Planning Rule just released from the Forest Service. Environmental concerns in the new rule have been elevated above economic and social needs of the people. Recreation, active forest management and responsible resource development will suffer along with the economies of local community's dependant on these resources.
The first FAQ below from the new rule is clear that there is NO APPEAL to this new rule.
FAQ from Forest Service website:
Does the preferred alternative include an appeal process or a pre-decisional objection process? Will the public be able to appeal a final forest plan decision?
The preferred alternative does not include an appeal process. Instead, the public will be able to use the objection process to work with a reviewing officer before a decision to approve a plan, revision, or amendment is made. This process has worked well in other areas such as Healthy Forest Restoration Act projects. The preferred alternative encourages people to participate early in the planning process when input can have the greatest impact and value. By considering public concerns before a final decision has been made, the likelihood of resolving concerns early in the process is increased. In response to comments on the proposed rule, the preferred alternative extends the time available to file an objection.
Does the preferred alternative weaken the role of multiple uses and their active management in plans? SEE: 219.10 below "Excerpts from final planning rule".
The preferred alternative does not weaken the role of multiple uses and active management in land management plans. Section 219.10 of the preferred alternative requires providing for integrated, sustainable multiple uses on the planning unit as mandated by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act. Under the preferred alternative, recreation, timber production, grazing, energy development, and mineral exploration, along with other uses and benefits, will continue to provide jobs, income, and ways of life for many Americans. Land management plans under the preferred alternative would emphasize the importance of the continued delivery of sustainable multiple uses of National Forest System lands.
What does "sustainable recreation" mean?
When we use the term sustainable recreation, we mean that planning should identify, evaluate, and provide a range of recreational settings, opportunities, and access that can be sustained over time. On National Forest System lands, recreational opportunities include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water, and in the air.
Excerpts from:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis
Forest Planning Rule
§ 219.10 MULTIPLE USE.
While meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, the plan must provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish, within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area as follows:...........................
§ 219.11 TIMBER REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE NFMA.
While meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.10, the plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, and other plan content regarding timber management within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows:....................................
CBU comment:
Multiple use recreation and timber production is allowed in the new rule but emphasis is placed on ecological sustainability. Any allowed timber production or recreation must comply with 219.8 and 219.9 (below) before they will be allowed. This is in direct violation of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and is of great concern to CBU..
Excerpts from:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis
Forest Planning Rule
§ 219.8 SUSTAINABILITY.
The plan must provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows:
(a) Ecological sustainability.
1. (1) Ecosystem Integrity.
2. (2) Air, soil, and water.
3. (3) Riparian areas.
4. (4) Best management practices for water quality.
219.9 DIVERSITY OF PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES.
This section adopts a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach to maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. Compliance with the ecosystem requirements of paragraph (a) is intended to provide the ecological conditions to both maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and support the persistence of most native species in the plan area. Compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) is intended to provide for additional ecological conditions not otherwise provided by compliance with paragraph (a) for individual species as set forth in paragraph (b). The plan must provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities, within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows:
(a) Ecosystem plan components.
1. (1) Ecosystem integrity.
2. (2) Ecosystem diversity.
(b) Additional, species-specific plan components.
(c) Species of conservation concern.
CBU will submit comments on the new rule and attempt to appeal many parts of this rule. There is no information provided for appeal of this rule. Read the final rule at the following link:
Forest Planning Rule
There is also ARRA....
http://www.arra-access.com/site/PageServer
Post by: huntrights on February 13, 2012, 07:09:36 PM
http://balanceduse.org/
Post by: huntrights on April 03, 2012, 04:02:18 PM
Good news! The Forest Service not closing Illabot Road: decision withdrawn.
Beware though; it appears the reversal of their decision may be more of a temporary reprieve. However, now there is time for those that want this road to remain open to work with the Forest Service to find out how the public and affected Tribes can help to keep it open. I am very serious when I say this. It looks like five individuals and one tribe appealed. It would be helpful if those people and the Tribe formed a coalition of sorts to ensure the road will remain open. There are obviously needs for road and drainage upgrades, and repairs. It can be a worthy project if this type of coalition can be formed; the influence of a coalition can grow when people believe in what they are doing. The Forest Service is planning on revising the analysis and documentation and will issue a new decision next year. Take advantage of this opportunity of time and work together with the Forest Service to ensure closure is not threatened again. Find out what you can do.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbs/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5361686
"Forest Service not closing Illabot Road: decision withdrawn
Release Date: Apr 2, 2012
US Forest Service
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
Contact:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service not closing Illabot Road
Decision withdrawn
Everett, Wash., April 2, 2012—Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest won’t be closing the Illabot Road anytime soon. A decision to dismantle the road and remove culverts and bridges was withdrawn March 27 in response to public appeals. Illabot Road is two miles south of Rockport, Wash., off of State Route 530.
Mt. Baker District Ranger Jon Vanderheyden proposed last December to close about 14.5 miles of the crumbling road to reduce road maintenance costs and save fish habitat. The Illabot is an old timber access road built in the 1960s at slope breaks with an aging road drainage system. “Slop failures, erosion and sediment are reducing water quality, affecting spawning gravels and fish habitat for endangered Puget Sound Chinook, Steelhead and bull trout,” Vanderheyden said. He also hoped to reduce the ecological impact from concentrated recreation use going to high mountain lakes in designated Wilderness.
Five individuals appealed the decision, saying they wanted the road open so they could get to trails leading to a series of high lakes in northern Glacier Peak Wilderness. One tribe appealed, saying the closure would block access to areas important for the exercise of their treaty rights.
The decision was withdrawn based on the recommendations of a Forest Service appeal review team that studied the appeals, environmental analysis and project record.
Vanderheyden said the forest will revise the analysis and documentation and issue a new decision next year if funds can be obtained to complete the work. "Road maintenance funds fall far short of maintaining or current road system. Without cuts in the road network, environmental damage is inevitable," he said."
Post by: D-Rock425 on April 03, 2012, 05:33:53 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 04, 2012, 07:47:55 PM
:tup::tup:
Post by: seth30 on April 04, 2012, 07:57:06 PM
Post by: hirshey on April 05, 2012, 10:42:44 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 05, 2012, 07:30:29 PM
Gosh, Illibot Creek was probably one of my least favorite places I hiked in the past 3 years.... if people want access to that area I say let them torture themselves! :dunno: In all seriousness... It is unfortunate to see access become continually restricted.. :(
Sure is! But that',s what rthese folks want. And how long will the respet (sp?)be for?
They WILL be back.