Great Burn on Montana/Idaho border--STILL TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS!!!

technically speaking designation 1a is wilderness 1b is recommended wilderness and 1c is wilderness study. there are different rules for each. I know i have the definitions of each somewhere and i will try and find them.

ironically i get to go the forest service office tonight for an open house. The idaho panhandle national forest is redoing there forest plan.


I personally like the idaho panhandle national forest desigantion of 1e. Which keeps the wildness of an area but still allows mechanicalized summer and motorized winter. But that is me.

TIM said:

I hate to say it, but this has nothing to do with congress or the president.
about 5-6 years ago, Abigal Kimball was the acting forest supervisor of region 1 of the forest service. She went on to be the main forest service supervisor accross the country. before she left for washington dc, she wrote a directive letter to her region. Basically in the directive letter, she stated that all region 1 recommended wilderness be treated as wilderness. And this is what region 1 has been doing. Montana was quick on that, and northern idaho is slowly coming around to that directive. The forest supervisors of region 1 want wilderness and they are doing everything they can. And yes it is legal. Montana never opened up after all the lawsuits, in the early 2000's.

The lolo national forest has been closed to rwas since about 2000. They have been asking the clearwater to close there side. well the lolo is getting there wish. The great burn battle has been going since 1998 and looks to be wrapping up. It sure has been a long painful battle.

I also mountain bike in there, and that is a no no now, also.

focken greenies

Click to expand...

go back to the beginning. How did / who was responsible for Kimball getting that position? It does matter who is President and who is in Congress. Even the type of judges that hear our arguments - who put theose people in place? Who sents the tone/is responsible ultimately for appointments/etc - President and Congress members through their circles in DC. Oh it very much matters.

RNR1085 said:

Well, I received the travel plan documents yesterday (three volumes, 200 -300 pages each and a map), the great burn area is closed to anything motorized or mechanized, (bicyles), except for F.S.Rd 419 into fish lake during the summer months. Rick Brazell is very clear that he is all for "preserving" wilderness status on areas that congress has hesitated to act upon instead of leaving them open for use "as is" until there is a decision on the status. So as long as the lands are in "wilderness study status" we have no say on the matter as a user group or individuals. We all need to write, call, and/or email our congressmen and women and insist that they remove the widerness review status of these public lands and restore them to multi-use status. Even then we have to get past the bias travel planning process which is apparent when reading memorandum of decision in the travel plan. Our kid's future use of public lands depends on it. The US Forest Service has too many environmentalists on the payroll to ever get a common sense decision out the Adminitration.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Too many Forest Service are on the greenie payroll. The Dept of Ag / Forest Service culture is greenie because who controls the job of getting their people in positions to set goals / agenda?

Greenie influence, via efforts in DC and indirectly through people in Congress and your President. Notice - check out additional Wildnerness designations by Tester (Montana Democrat - Senate) and Baucus (Montana Democrat - Senate). Not from Rehberg. Just one reason Rehberg must defeat Tester.

Don't kid yourself, all those little local efforts / fund raising raffles we try are p#%&ng in the Hurricane. Useless. We are given "public comment" sessions sometimes but the result is always the same - reduced access / more closures.

Challenge - name one forest anywhere, where there has been a net increase in multiple use designation? This loss to multiple access is happening all over the country. Read of other groups in other states. Everywhere across the country and especially the west.

This is happening because of efforts at the Dept of Ag / Forest Service managment, at the level of Wash DC. And your/my Senators/Rep's and our President do have influence on this. Even the judges in place that hear arguments from both sides in access isues have enormous power - who is responsible for getting those particular judges there? Yes always go back to Congress, the President, and the lobby efforts in DC.

Come on manufacturers - get your checkbook out at help. We stop buying your products when we are all locked out, and if you look at what has happened in the last 10 years what is it going to be like in 10 more?

So these discussions are great, thanks to all who read, listen, and speak. There is plenty of Wilderness in Idaho and we don't need anymore! in my humble opinion.
The bottom line is pretty simple, now I might not have all the semantics correct about wilderness study and wilderness preservation but that isn't the point. They're locking us out.

If you buy an off-road sticker for a motorized peice of equipment so you can legally operate that equipment on public land whether it's a snowmobile or a motorcycle, is really insignicant, they all count. But, if you do purchase a sticker, you should ask two questions. 1. What does that sticker allow me for access and where? 2. Where are the dollars that are generated from the sale of these off road stickers used? I know I buy several stckers every year,,, look in your own shop and start counting em' up. Anyway, if you buy just one, then please call your congressmen, it takes five minutes. Then please tell anyone you know that buys an off-road sticker and ask them to call D.C. Tell them you want mulitple use of public lands. Tell them you want your off road sticker dollars used to keep public land open to all...be polite, and tell them that you are a supporter of multiple use of plublic lands by everyone under a managed system that is developed under a consensus of all users. There is a big voice out there.

Dear Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Participant:

Thank you for your earlier comments on and interest in the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning effort. I have prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Travel Planning project. The FEIS and ROD are now available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=17992 . Paper copies of the FEIS and ROD are available at Clearwater National Forest offices and many local libraries, including those at Orofino, Deary, Elk River, Grangeville, Kamiah, Kooskia, Lewiston, Moscow, Pierce, Potlatch, and Weippe in Idaho, as well as Superior and Missoula, Montana. An Executive Summary of the FEIS is included with this message.

The Clearwater National Forest is making every effort to minimize our use of paper, as well as the consumption of other resources that are needed to produce, transport, and store paper documents. Your willingness to access environmental documents online is greatly appreciated, and will allow us to significantly reduce costs.

The ROD was signed November 10, 2011. The project area boundary is the Clearwater National Forest boundary. The analysis area includes portions of Idaho, Clearwater, Latah, Benewah, and Shoshone counties in the state of Idaho. The primary purpose of the Forest’s Travel Planning project is to meet the requirements of the 2005 Travel Planning Rule. The Rule requires each National Forest to complete a local analysis designating those roads, trails, and areas where motorized travel will be permitted, and to display them on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Once the MVUM is published, public summer motor vehicle use on the Clearwater National Forest will be allowed only on the designated routes displayed on the map. The responsible official has elected to include mechanized travel and over-snow vehicles in this analysis so that suitable areas, routes, and seasons for their operation can be provided as envisioned in the 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan.

The Forest Supervisor has made the decision to implement Alternative C Modified. Alternative C Modified was added to the alternative array for the FEIS in response to comments received for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Alternative C Modified was based on Alternative C, so many features of the two alternatives are the same. However, Alternative C Modified would respond to issues and concerns about opportunities for motorcycle loop trips to a greater degree than Alternative C.

Under Alternative C Modified, 0 acres will be open to cross-country motorized travel off of designated routes; 2,961 miles of motorized road routes will be open either year-round or seasonally; 496 miles of motorized trail routes will be open either year-round or seasonally; 253 miles of motorized trail routes in Inventoried Roadless Areas will be open either year-round or seasonally; 4,354 road miles will be open to bicycles and mechanized vehicles either year-round or seasonally; 988 trail miles will be open to bicycles and mechanized vehicles either year-round or seasonally; 1,319,623 acres will be open to over-snow motorized vehicle travel; and 0 trail miles will be open to bicycle travel in Recommended Wilderness Areas. Motorized travel to dispersed campsites within 300 feet of a designated motorized route will be permitted as long as conditions for that travel are met. Some route-based restrictions for over-snow motorized vehicles will be simplified, compared to the existing condition, to make the restrictions and the Winter Use Map clearer. These changes will have an insignificant effect on motorized over-snow recreational opportunities. Over-snow motorized vehicle use will be restricted yearlong in Recommended Wilderness Areas and on Fish Lake Trail 419.

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. A legal notice advertising the start of the appeal period for this decision will appear in the Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho on January 10, 2012. A written Notice of Appeal must be postmarked or received within 45 days following the publication date of this legal notice in the Lewiston Tribune. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that their appeal is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal notice for the decision in the Lewiston Tribune is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or time information provided by any other source.

Paper appeals must be submitted to:

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region

Federal Building, 200 Broadway

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

FAX: (406) 329-3411

Business Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Mountain Time)

In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed (Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning). An automated response will confirm that your electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals must be submitted in MS Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text format (RTF).

The appellant must have submitted comments during the 45-day comment period for the DEIS, and it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.

If an appeal is received for this project, informal resolution meetings and/or conference calls may be scheduled between the Responsible Official and the appellant. These discussions would take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal. All such meetings are open to the public. If you are interested in attending any informal resolution discussions, please contact the Responsible Official or monitor the following website for postings about current appeals in the Northern Region of the Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/projects/appeal_index.shtml .

If no appeal is received, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeal disposition.

For further information or to request a copy of the FEIS and ROD, contact Lois Hill, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at the Kamiah Ranger Station, 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536, telephone (208) 935-4258. Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PST. The FEIS and ROD are also available on CD’s or in hard copy format.



Sincerely,





/s/ Rick Brazell








RICK BRAZELL

Forest Supervisor




Sent by:



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lois Hill

NEPA Coordinator/IDT Leader

Kamiah Ranger Station

208-935-4258

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I think everyone of us that sent a comment should appeal the decision. I know I plan on it. I dont plan on letting this go without a fight. I will also let my Federal Representatives know I am not happy about RWA's and how the Forest Circus is operating.

It may be legal but it aint right.

Is the appeal something we have to do through a lawyer or do we just send letters?

Lawyers/money needed to do it right. IS why manufacturers need o help fund the efforts. But I quess they won't. Eventually who will buy their products when we are locked out?

Unless SAWS, BRC, or the Snowmobile Association tell me otherwise I plan on doing some research and writing my own appeal. I also would like to have an Informal Dispute Resolution in person - with the public present.

A phone conference is too easily dismissed.

I would get ahold of the idaho state snowmobile association.
Sandra mitchell is very aware of what is going on here.

there needs to somehow be a public meeting set up. where we can talk tobhe decision makers face to face. i was among a group of people that fought windmills going in ellensburg for years. we stood up to big dogs with money face to face. i stopped getting involved (they tried to put them in many times) and recently they came in. i stopped spending time over there cause of life happenigs, but if there is some way to publically (very publically and legally) fight this, with these decision makers face toface we need to do it.

The appeal process is as follows:

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. Only individuals or organizations that submitted substantive comments during the comment period may appeal under this rule. A written appeal must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Morning Tribune. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that their appeal is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other source.
Paper appeals must be submitted to:
• USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807; or
• USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802.
Office hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., MST; Fax (406)-329-3411.
Electronic appeals must be submitted to appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us. For electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. An automated response will confirm that your electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals must be submitted in Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text Format (RTF).
It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity- specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of c6 CFR 215.14, and include the following information:
• The appellant’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available;
• A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature
for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal):
• When multiple names are on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;
• The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;
• The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C;
ROD - 60
Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Record of Decision
• Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes;
• Any portion of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement;
• Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive comments; and
• How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy.
If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeal disposition.
Offer to meet: When an appeal is received under the rule, the Responsible Official (me), or my designee, must contact the appellant and offer to meet and discuss resolution of the issues raised in the appeal (36 CFR 215.17). If the appellant accepts the offer, the meeting must take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal (i.e., 45 to 60 days from the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Morning Tribune). These meetings, if they take place, will be open to the public. For information about if, when, and where such a meeting is scheduled, please visit the following web site:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r1/appeal-meetings
My decision to amend the Clearwater Forest Plan is also appealable under 36 CFR 217. Written appeals under this rule must also be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Morning Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho, and should be sent to the same addresses indicated above for appeals under 36 CFR 215. Under the 36 CFR 217 rule there is no requirement that I make an offer to meet with the appellant. Appeals cannot be filed under both 36 CFR 215 and 36 CFR 217.
CONTACT PERSON
For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact
• Kathy Rodriguez, North Fork District Ranger, Clearwater National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, Idaho 83544; 208-476-8223; or
• Lois Hill, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Kamiah Ranger Station, 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536; 208-935-4258.


so what do we do

so what do we do as a group to be heard, not have our riding areas taken away and standup to the tree huggers? If this goes through there is going to be nowhere to ride within 100 miles of missoula and everywhere else is going to be that much more crowded!!! What do we do?

I hate to say this folks, but the Appeal period is not the time to launch an all out fight against a closure. The decision has been made, signed, and opened up for appeal. The only option we have now is to write an appeal, and the only people that are allowed to write an appeal are those that commented during the comment period that took place back in July of 2009.
Information about the Travel Planning process has been provided on the forest website since 2006. The Travel Planning EIS has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (also available on the web) since April 2007. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2007, and a Notice of Availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2009. The formal scoping and DEIS comment periods were both extended significantly in response to public requests.
As you can see this has been going on for years now. SAWS, BRC, and others have been sending the info out to there respective members since the beginning of the process asking that you be involved since 2006.

we still fight

You are correct. Those of us that did comment, some commented often, are currently working on an appeal.

However,,,, that should not stop anyone from voicing their opinion on these bogus closures. Let every official know how you feel, and let them know OFTEN. Our public land is for public use, not to be CLOSED, or set aside to satisfy some political agenda or environazi's greed...

I didn't start riding till spring of 2010......So I get no comment on this! I would think we should still have a say and fight! let me know where and when I will show up!

I think it is a good idea to get your local County Comissioners involved from here on out and evoke the federally required "coordination" process. I type too slow to explain it but you can read about it HERE.

It would also be a good idea to have this group and spokesman Fred Kelley Grant come speak to you community and elected officials. We got the local cattlemans assoc. to pay the fee and it was a great learning opportunity. There are many user groups impacted by these designations, time to pull them together and use all tools available to fight the loss of use.

EW

Coordination process is a good stall process. At the end of the day however they do not have to listen to anything the user groups suggest. They ARE required to let the process happen - but that is it. As they told us "this is not a vote" (we outnumbered greenie 10 to 1 at these meetings at that did not seem to matter)
The Dept of Ag / Forest Service, at the top, have a culture that is not a mirror of the community but of the greenie/environmentalist.
So as we go through the process remember - over time we need to change the upper crust - that requires an effort to get to defeat and replace the Testers/Baucus types. Then all the western states, with elected Senators/Representatives, need coordinated efforts to educate other members in Congress and between all of them will influence who is going to run Dept of Ag / Forest Service. And don't forget who gets to influence who will become the next judge to hear your case - do you want one of these greenie approved lefty/enviro-wacko judges?