J
J.R.Cabral
Guest
THE NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS REPORT
by Brian Hawthorne,
BRC Public Lands Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to give BRC supporters a quick update on a couple of national land use issues on our radar.
It's likely this issue of the BRC Magazine arrived in your mailbox early in February of 2005. By this date, the Forest Service (FS) may be very close to releasing the final version of the "OHV Rule", which directs all National Forests to manage OHV recreation on designated roads, trails and areas. At this writing, the FS is wrangling over whether or not to impose a hard and fast time frame for all route designation, and how they are going to find the budget for implementation.
BRC and our partners, the American Motorcyclist Association and the United Four Wheel Drive Associations, are watching this issue closely (Hint: stay up to date by subscribing to BRC's Action Alert Email List via our website at sharetrails.org).
In December of 2004, the FS released the final version of their new regulations governing how the FS goes about the land use planning process. Planning regulations directly affect America's recreating public. But how the new regulations will affect BRC members and supporters is not yet clear.
I'll try to cut to the chase on this issue. During the Clinton/Gore administration, new planning regulations were formulated that had the effect of tilting the balance of resource use and resource protection, decidedly toward increased restrictions. BRC members should know the Bush administration deserves credit for moderating that tilt, but BRC members also need to understand the tilt away from human use and management of national forest resources still remains.
The stuff you read in the media about the Bush administration giving the timber and mining industries a "Christmas present" or changing the rules to eliminate public involvement is pure spin. Don't believe a word of it. The major issue surrounding the new regulations is regarding how the FS can prepare Forest Plans. Under the new rules, the agency is attempting to deal with what Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has described as "analysis paralysis" by exempting Forest Plans from environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The agency wants the ability to prepare Forest Plans and "categorically exclude" them from NEPA analysis because Plans will be broad goal oriented documents, not site specific "actions" requiring the preparation of NEPA documents. This is a highly controversial proposal, one that even some multiple-use activists oppose
The objective here is to streamline the planning process and consolidate appeal and protest opportunities so that management actions may actually occur, instead of miring in endless appeal and protests.
Through never-ending legal challenge, the anti-access crowd has usurped a large amount of control of the day-to-day management of the National Forest system. Bosworth's intent is to get the agency's hands back on the steering wheel. Time will tell if he is successful.
We're not confident about predicting any change in the landscape of the motorized/mechanized recreational playing field. There are quite a lot of forests that are undergoing land use plan revisions. Legal challenges to the new plans are inevitable, and it's safe to bet that the "analysis paralysis" situation will remain a problem in the immediate future.
However, I think there is reason to be optimistic. Recent large and destructive wildfires, insect epidemics, and arbitrary closures of recreational opportunities are having an impact with the general public. The so-called "environmentalists" so-called "credibility" is diminishing with each "no compromise" lawsuit. Their insatiable desire for ever-increasing Wilderness designations, and philosophical opposition to any human management is bleeding through their rhetoric.The public is becoming much savvier about this crowd's true intentions.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLM?
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also updating and revising their land use plans. If you recreate in BLM lands, it's a safe bet that some sort of recreation management plans are underway near your favorite road or trail.
BLM released very general guidance on OHV route designation early in 2003. In a nutshell, the Washington Office wants individual OHV route designations done soon. They encourage incorporating route designations into the Resource Management Plan (RMP) itself, but allow a District Office to delay designation for up to five years after a plan revision is complete.
Other than this general guidance, BLM state offices are free to further refine the planning directives. Utah's State Director, for example has issued an Instruction Memo that directs District Offices to complete a route by route designation process within the RMP.
Other states haven't been as specific, but most District Offices doing planning are trying to do the route designation via the RMP. That's not necessarily bad, but in some areas it has resulted in much controversy.
The Price District Office in Utah is a great example. No budget was allocated for any route inventory. Even worse, many in the Utah BLM didn't seem to believe it was a problem! As a result, BLM issued inaccurate OHV designation maps in their draft plan. Reports from local OHV enthusiasts indicated different OHV trail maps were used at different public meetings. It was a mess.
This situation is equally incredible and intolerable; especially because OHV groups, like the Utah Shared Access Alliance, specifically requested the BLM address this issue early on in the planning process.
You know, you agency folks give me a bad time whenever I refer to "agenda driven bureaucrats" bleeding their personal bias into their jobs... but sheesh!
You know, I understand how BRC members feel when they email me saying they're sick of me telling them to GPS the trails.... but sheesh!
BRC's message to our supporters is this: the same threats to your favorite road or trail still exist, regardless of the manner in which plans are formulated and implemented. Old or new regulations aside, recreationists must get personally involved in the management of their trails. The best way to keep up to date on the FS planning is to get the SOPA.
No, a SOPA is not a delightful Mexican aperitif. SOPA stands for Schedule of Proposed Actions, and is a list of all the planning projects going on in a particular forest. They come out every quarter, and you can get yours by calling a forest office near you and simply asking them to send you a copy. Some BLM offices have something similar to SOPA's, but not all. It's best to contact your local BLM office and ask how best to keep informed of planning projects.
by Brian Hawthorne,
BRC Public Lands Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to give BRC supporters a quick update on a couple of national land use issues on our radar.
It's likely this issue of the BRC Magazine arrived in your mailbox early in February of 2005. By this date, the Forest Service (FS) may be very close to releasing the final version of the "OHV Rule", which directs all National Forests to manage OHV recreation on designated roads, trails and areas. At this writing, the FS is wrangling over whether or not to impose a hard and fast time frame for all route designation, and how they are going to find the budget for implementation.
BRC and our partners, the American Motorcyclist Association and the United Four Wheel Drive Associations, are watching this issue closely (Hint: stay up to date by subscribing to BRC's Action Alert Email List via our website at sharetrails.org).
In December of 2004, the FS released the final version of their new regulations governing how the FS goes about the land use planning process. Planning regulations directly affect America's recreating public. But how the new regulations will affect BRC members and supporters is not yet clear.
I'll try to cut to the chase on this issue. During the Clinton/Gore administration, new planning regulations were formulated that had the effect of tilting the balance of resource use and resource protection, decidedly toward increased restrictions. BRC members should know the Bush administration deserves credit for moderating that tilt, but BRC members also need to understand the tilt away from human use and management of national forest resources still remains.
The stuff you read in the media about the Bush administration giving the timber and mining industries a "Christmas present" or changing the rules to eliminate public involvement is pure spin. Don't believe a word of it. The major issue surrounding the new regulations is regarding how the FS can prepare Forest Plans. Under the new rules, the agency is attempting to deal with what Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has described as "analysis paralysis" by exempting Forest Plans from environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The agency wants the ability to prepare Forest Plans and "categorically exclude" them from NEPA analysis because Plans will be broad goal oriented documents, not site specific "actions" requiring the preparation of NEPA documents. This is a highly controversial proposal, one that even some multiple-use activists oppose
The objective here is to streamline the planning process and consolidate appeal and protest opportunities so that management actions may actually occur, instead of miring in endless appeal and protests.
Through never-ending legal challenge, the anti-access crowd has usurped a large amount of control of the day-to-day management of the National Forest system. Bosworth's intent is to get the agency's hands back on the steering wheel. Time will tell if he is successful.
We're not confident about predicting any change in the landscape of the motorized/mechanized recreational playing field. There are quite a lot of forests that are undergoing land use plan revisions. Legal challenges to the new plans are inevitable, and it's safe to bet that the "analysis paralysis" situation will remain a problem in the immediate future.
However, I think there is reason to be optimistic. Recent large and destructive wildfires, insect epidemics, and arbitrary closures of recreational opportunities are having an impact with the general public. The so-called "environmentalists" so-called "credibility" is diminishing with each "no compromise" lawsuit. Their insatiable desire for ever-increasing Wilderness designations, and philosophical opposition to any human management is bleeding through their rhetoric.The public is becoming much savvier about this crowd's true intentions.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLM?
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also updating and revising their land use plans. If you recreate in BLM lands, it's a safe bet that some sort of recreation management plans are underway near your favorite road or trail.
BLM released very general guidance on OHV route designation early in 2003. In a nutshell, the Washington Office wants individual OHV route designations done soon. They encourage incorporating route designations into the Resource Management Plan (RMP) itself, but allow a District Office to delay designation for up to five years after a plan revision is complete.
Other than this general guidance, BLM state offices are free to further refine the planning directives. Utah's State Director, for example has issued an Instruction Memo that directs District Offices to complete a route by route designation process within the RMP.
Other states haven't been as specific, but most District Offices doing planning are trying to do the route designation via the RMP. That's not necessarily bad, but in some areas it has resulted in much controversy.
The Price District Office in Utah is a great example. No budget was allocated for any route inventory. Even worse, many in the Utah BLM didn't seem to believe it was a problem! As a result, BLM issued inaccurate OHV designation maps in their draft plan. Reports from local OHV enthusiasts indicated different OHV trail maps were used at different public meetings. It was a mess.
This situation is equally incredible and intolerable; especially because OHV groups, like the Utah Shared Access Alliance, specifically requested the BLM address this issue early on in the planning process.
You know, you agency folks give me a bad time whenever I refer to "agenda driven bureaucrats" bleeding their personal bias into their jobs... but sheesh!
You know, I understand how BRC members feel when they email me saying they're sick of me telling them to GPS the trails.... but sheesh!
BRC's message to our supporters is this: the same threats to your favorite road or trail still exist, regardless of the manner in which plans are formulated and implemented. Old or new regulations aside, recreationists must get personally involved in the management of their trails. The best way to keep up to date on the FS planning is to get the SOPA.
No, a SOPA is not a delightful Mexican aperitif. SOPA stands for Schedule of Proposed Actions, and is a list of all the planning projects going on in a particular forest. They come out every quarter, and you can get yours by calling a forest office near you and simply asking them to send you a copy. Some BLM offices have something similar to SOPA's, but not all. It's best to contact your local BLM office and ask how best to keep informed of planning projects.
