Laserfiche WebLink
Update Page 1 of 2 <br /> Bassi, Linda <br /> From: Janice Sheftel [jsheftel @mbssllp.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday,April 18, 2007 3:09 PM <br /> To: Steve Harris; eastpinesranch @yahoo.com; bsmart @cityofcortez.com;Whitehead, Bruce; <br /> clawler @southern-ute.nsn.us; dysch @frontier.net; kopp_g_c @yahoo.com; <br /> jtaylor034 @centurytel.net; Bassi, Linda; Mark Braly; Robin Shiro;fearneng @rmi.net <br /> Cc: dmerriman @dishmail.net <br /> Subject: Update <br /> We have not yet heard back from the USFS/BLM with regard to another Governmental Water <br /> Roundtable meeting, nor have we received any response to our comments on the Wild and Scenic Rivers <br /> (WSR)process. <br /> Forest Management Plans <br /> We probably haven't heard back regarding the draft San Juan National Forest Plan/BLM because of <br /> what's happening with the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, Gunnison (GMUG) Plan. The long-delayed <br /> GMUG management plan, updating the 1983 management plan, was released. The released GMUG <br /> plan is far different from previous plans. It is just one inch thick, 346 pages compared to the eight <br /> inches of plan and associated documents that constituted the White River National Forest's 1999 draft <br /> management plan. The plan is online at www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/plan_rev. The new GMUG Plan <br /> is in limbo, however, because on March 30, 2007, the Northern California US District Court ruled that <br /> the 2005 Forest planning rule violates federal law. The USFS was enjoined from implementing the <br /> 2005 rule, requiring the USDA to revise the rule so it complies with the Endangered Species, <br /> Administrative Procedures and National Environmental Policy Acts. The USFS is reviewing the <br /> decision. <br /> When the Bush administration updated its forest management planning rule, it required the management <br /> plans to be "aspirational" rather than "prescriptive," meaning the Forest Service would be unable to <br /> outline specific projects on national forests and define what their environmental effects would be. The <br /> 2005 Forest plan rule requires that all forest plans set general goals for each forest and not prescribe <br /> specific conditions to be created on the forest or projects to be completed. Critics say that the plan is too <br /> vague, setting general guidelines but few specific management restrictions. Others say the new rule <br /> allows the forest to keep its management plan more current with less process than before. <br /> The Federal District Court said the USDA created the 2005 rule without any public comment or <br /> environmental analysis, violating the Administrative Procedures Act and the USDA's failure to prepare <br /> a biological analysis for the 2005 rule's effect on endangered species was arbitrary and capricious. <br /> Depending on the USFS review of the court decision, the GMUG Plan will not become official until <br /> forest officials consider public comments after a 90 day public comment period. The plan recommends <br /> that Congress declare about 125,000 acres as wilderness,which environmentalists do not think is <br /> enough; opens 45,350 acres to coal leasing; and increases the land available for timber production from <br /> 550,000 to 660,500 acres. Environmentalists do not think there is enough protection for other lands <br /> either. An additional 1.2 million acres may be available for timber harvesting. Of the GMUG's 850,000 <br /> acres of roadless areas, about 71%would be protected as such. 22,000 acres are to be removed from <br /> roadless protection for mineral leasing. Despite increasing demand for developed recreation sites,the <br /> plan calls for the GMUG to cut the number of campgrounds it operates, instead opting for fewer but <br /> 4/18/2007 <br />