BDNF Final EIS - this one snowmobilers will need to fight in the courts
- Thread starter CleElum Sledhead
- Start date
THey shut us out, meanwhile the beetles are killing our forests. Lots of dead trees compared to last year.
The beetles are natrual its ok for them to kill the trees.
Does anybady know if theyll let em log all these trees. There already dead just as well get a crew in there and let us use them if there still good.modjunkie
you are correct, the natural cycle is for the beatle to kill the trees. lightning to burn the trees and start the process all over. the problem is this is a 1000 year cycle and human on both sides don't have the patience for this cycle.
tim
you are correct, the natural cycle is for the beatle to kill the trees. lightning to burn the trees and start the process all over. the problem is this is a 1000 year cycle and human on both sides don't have the patience for this cycle.
tim
We need to hit them where it hurts.
We need to CLOSE at least ONE ACRE to Non-Motorized.
Skiers, Hikers, etc.. Need to Have Stickers on each pair of skis, boots or whatever.
We need to CLOSE at least ONE ACRE to Non-Motorized.
Skiers, Hikers, etc.. Need to Have Stickers on each pair of skis, boots or whatever.
They have been trying to log all the deab beetle killed trees around Butte, But enviro wacko's have sued a few times to stop it. Gonna be one damm hott fire when shes goes.
One acre--no,no,no
Close at least one acre?
Non-motorized, non-mechanized, I'm thinkin the whole circumference of the recommended wilderness, established wilderness, national park trails, nationtional historic site, national preservation site, national wild protected area, national scenic area, etc. etc. The CDNST-
If you really look at what is closed to mechanized and motorized, there's millions upon millions of acres. If they don't close it one way, they find another "designation".
Close at least one acre?
Non-motorized, non-mechanized, I'm thinkin the whole circumference of the recommended wilderness, established wilderness, national park trails, nationtional historic site, national preservation site, national wild protected area, national scenic area, etc. etc. The CDNST-
If you really look at what is closed to mechanized and motorized, there's millions upon millions of acres. If they don't close it one way, they find another "designation".
Last edited:
How to file an appeal on the BDNF Record of Decision
First, you must have made a comment in order to appeal the decision.
I will not discourage anyone from contacting the FS regarding the BDNF Record of Decision if you did not comment, just be aware your correspondence will likely not be recognized as an appeal. You certainly can express your views of the situation.
Basic info with regard to filing an appeal from the bdnf website. Appeals need to be filed by May 21, 2009.
Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9 and include at a minimum:
A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217.
The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant.
Identification of the decision to which the objection is being made.
Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer.
Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which objection is made.
The reasons for appeal, including issue of fact, law, regulation, or policy, and if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.
Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision the appellant seeks.
Appendix B: shows the Dispostion of Highly Rated Areas Evaluated for Wilderness Potential.
http://http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052838.pdf
and segments from the ROD documents in Tom Tidwell's summary:
Project Consistency and Transition to the Revised Forest Plan
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires ". . . permits, contracts, and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System lands be ‘consistent' with the forest plan," (15 U.S.C. 1604(i)). In the context of a revised plan, NFMA specifically conditions this requirement in three ways:
1. These documents be revised only when necessary;
2. These documents must be revised as soon as practicable;
3. Any revisions are subject to valid existing rights.
As the decision maker, I have the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify pre-existing authorizations to bring them into compliance with the Revised Forest Plan standards and guidelines. I will use the statutory criteria of "as soon as practicable" and excepting "valid existing rights" in exercising that discretion. I have decided not to modify any existing timber sale contracts solely due to my decision to adopt this Revised Forest Plan. These contracts will be executed according to their terms, and the potential effects of these actions have been analyzed and disclosed appropriately under the NEPA. Existing timber contracts, in most cases, will be completed within three years. The BDNF will undertake, prior to on-the-ground implementation, analysis of existing vegetation management decisions currently not under contract to ensure they are consistent with the Revised Forest Plan. We will identify those actions, if any, that are inconsistent with the Revised Forest Plan and make appropriate adjustments as per NFMA Section 1604(i).
Key Considerations in Plan Implementation
By tiering to the FEIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 1508.28), we will make appropriate use of the programmatic FEIS to streamline and focus our environmental analysis for site-specific project decisions. At the site-specific level of analysis, we will not revisit landscape or Forestwide scale issues and effects because those effects have already been considered and disclosed in the FEIS. This has applicability to a wide range of findings that are appropriately done at the Forestwide level. Analysis and findings related to threatened or endangered species should be greatly simplified when projects are within the parameters of the Revised Forest Plan and the FEIS. Development of future site-specific projects and actions consistent with the Revised Forest Plan is a dynamic process that depends on many factors. The Revised Forest Plan contains information concerning proposed management techniques and projected outputs. The projected outputs shown in the FEIS and Revised Forest Plan are a forecast of what may occur over the lifetime of this plan. However, actual project development will depend on demand for products and uses, available funding, natural events such as fire or windstorm, and other factors. There is no certainty that the projected outputs will actually occur at the estimated levels.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is designed to answer questions regarding implementation of the Revised Forest Plan. Monitoring and evaluation will focus on accomplishment of the desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the Revised Forest Plan and whether there is a need for change in the plan.
Evaluation reports will document progress toward accomplishment of goals and objectives, how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing desired outcomes, and what we have learned along the way. This evaluation will allow a check and review of the validity of the assumptions upon which this decision is based.
Amending the Forest Plan and Adaptive Management
This revision of the forest plan is shaped by a central idea: how we manage the forest should adapt to changes in how we understand the ecological, social, and economic environments. The Revised Forest Plan is well structured for adaptive management because it does a good job of describing the desired conditions toward which we will strive as we implement the Revised Forest Plan. In fact, those desired conditions will be the very basis for the projects we will accomplish during the life of the plan.
In making the decision on the Revised Forest Plan, I am also deciding that this plan will be adaptive and subject to change as we monitor, learn, and gain new information. The revision process has incorporated much that has been learned since the 1986 and 1987 Plans. However, the Revised Forest Plan can still be improved as we learn more about ecosystem functions and processes. Neither is it cast in stone to be unquestioningly adhered to for the next 15 years. We will track progress toward reaching the desired conditions identified in the Revised Forest Plan, and modify or reformulate management actions in response to that progress.
If a particular management strategy, technique, or practice is applied, its results will be monitored to see if the desired effect is occurring, and if not, a modified or new strategy will be developed and implemented. That new strategy will also be subject to monitoring, evaluation, and, if needed, change.
Changes to the Revised Forest Plan will generally take the form of plan amendments or corrections and will follow the appropriate procedures specified in the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations.
Administrative Review Opportunities
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 217.3. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service within 90 days of the date the legal notice of this decision appears in the Montana Standard newspaper.
Appeals must be sent to:
Regular Mail:
Federal Express
USDA Forest Service
Attn: EMC Appeals
Mailstop Code 1104
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-1104
USDA Forest Service
Attn: EMC Appeals
Yates Building., 3CEN
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to (202) 205-1012; or by email to appeals-chief@fs.fed.us.
A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the deciding officer:
Region One Regional Forester
USDA Forest Service
P.O Box 7669
200 E. Broadway
Missoula, MT, 59807
First, you must have made a comment in order to appeal the decision.
I will not discourage anyone from contacting the FS regarding the BDNF Record of Decision if you did not comment, just be aware your correspondence will likely not be recognized as an appeal. You certainly can express your views of the situation.
Basic info with regard to filing an appeal from the bdnf website. Appeals need to be filed by May 21, 2009.
Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9 and include at a minimum:
A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217.
The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant.
Identification of the decision to which the objection is being made.
Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer.
Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which objection is made.
The reasons for appeal, including issue of fact, law, regulation, or policy, and if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.
Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision the appellant seeks.
Appendix B: shows the Dispostion of Highly Rated Areas Evaluated for Wilderness Potential.
http://http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052838.pdf
and segments from the ROD documents in Tom Tidwell's summary:
Project Consistency and Transition to the Revised Forest Plan
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires ". . . permits, contracts, and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System lands be ‘consistent' with the forest plan," (15 U.S.C. 1604(i)). In the context of a revised plan, NFMA specifically conditions this requirement in three ways:
1. These documents be revised only when necessary;
2. These documents must be revised as soon as practicable;
3. Any revisions are subject to valid existing rights.
As the decision maker, I have the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify pre-existing authorizations to bring them into compliance with the Revised Forest Plan standards and guidelines. I will use the statutory criteria of "as soon as practicable" and excepting "valid existing rights" in exercising that discretion. I have decided not to modify any existing timber sale contracts solely due to my decision to adopt this Revised Forest Plan. These contracts will be executed according to their terms, and the potential effects of these actions have been analyzed and disclosed appropriately under the NEPA. Existing timber contracts, in most cases, will be completed within three years. The BDNF will undertake, prior to on-the-ground implementation, analysis of existing vegetation management decisions currently not under contract to ensure they are consistent with the Revised Forest Plan. We will identify those actions, if any, that are inconsistent with the Revised Forest Plan and make appropriate adjustments as per NFMA Section 1604(i).
Key Considerations in Plan Implementation
By tiering to the FEIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 1508.28), we will make appropriate use of the programmatic FEIS to streamline and focus our environmental analysis for site-specific project decisions. At the site-specific level of analysis, we will not revisit landscape or Forestwide scale issues and effects because those effects have already been considered and disclosed in the FEIS. This has applicability to a wide range of findings that are appropriately done at the Forestwide level. Analysis and findings related to threatened or endangered species should be greatly simplified when projects are within the parameters of the Revised Forest Plan and the FEIS. Development of future site-specific projects and actions consistent with the Revised Forest Plan is a dynamic process that depends on many factors. The Revised Forest Plan contains information concerning proposed management techniques and projected outputs. The projected outputs shown in the FEIS and Revised Forest Plan are a forecast of what may occur over the lifetime of this plan. However, actual project development will depend on demand for products and uses, available funding, natural events such as fire or windstorm, and other factors. There is no certainty that the projected outputs will actually occur at the estimated levels.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is designed to answer questions regarding implementation of the Revised Forest Plan. Monitoring and evaluation will focus on accomplishment of the desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the Revised Forest Plan and whether there is a need for change in the plan.
Evaluation reports will document progress toward accomplishment of goals and objectives, how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing desired outcomes, and what we have learned along the way. This evaluation will allow a check and review of the validity of the assumptions upon which this decision is based.
Amending the Forest Plan and Adaptive Management
This revision of the forest plan is shaped by a central idea: how we manage the forest should adapt to changes in how we understand the ecological, social, and economic environments. The Revised Forest Plan is well structured for adaptive management because it does a good job of describing the desired conditions toward which we will strive as we implement the Revised Forest Plan. In fact, those desired conditions will be the very basis for the projects we will accomplish during the life of the plan.
In making the decision on the Revised Forest Plan, I am also deciding that this plan will be adaptive and subject to change as we monitor, learn, and gain new information. The revision process has incorporated much that has been learned since the 1986 and 1987 Plans. However, the Revised Forest Plan can still be improved as we learn more about ecosystem functions and processes. Neither is it cast in stone to be unquestioningly adhered to for the next 15 years. We will track progress toward reaching the desired conditions identified in the Revised Forest Plan, and modify or reformulate management actions in response to that progress.
If a particular management strategy, technique, or practice is applied, its results will be monitored to see if the desired effect is occurring, and if not, a modified or new strategy will be developed and implemented. That new strategy will also be subject to monitoring, evaluation, and, if needed, change.
Changes to the Revised Forest Plan will generally take the form of plan amendments or corrections and will follow the appropriate procedures specified in the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations.
Administrative Review Opportunities
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 217.3. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service within 90 days of the date the legal notice of this decision appears in the Montana Standard newspaper.
Appeals must be sent to:
Regular Mail:
Federal Express
USDA Forest Service
Attn: EMC Appeals
Mailstop Code 1104
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-1104
USDA Forest Service
Attn: EMC Appeals
Yates Building., 3CEN
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to (202) 205-1012; or by email to appeals-chief@fs.fed.us.
A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the deciding officer:
Region One Regional Forester
USDA Forest Service
P.O Box 7669
200 E. Broadway
Missoula, MT, 59807
Similar threads
