Re: Roadless areas input requested

[Bruce]

Second Draft "Roadless AreaComment" revised

Bruce

[Gordon]

Ron, yes I stand corrected. The lastly statement I made. -----
-----"Lastly it appears to me that the private sector does a much better job of management than the feds."

That was a much to generalized statement to make. Sometimes peoples hands are tied on different matters. I see this at work a lot myself on the state level. But I agree that working on a local level is best.

The issue of highgrading is a whole different matter. Alot of times I do believe it's the loggers more so than the landowners doing the highgrading. Also it's the lack of knowledge of the landowner, that contributes to this as well. Doesn't realize it's happened until it's too late.

Part of the property I own was highgraded a few years before I bought it. The really sad thing was is the previous owner never contacted a forester of any sort just called a couple of logging companies for the quick buck.---That should answer your question on the private sector Ron---. But was even worse when I mentioned to him that it had been highgraded, his reply was yea the timber was real thick back here and they even left a lot standing.

Three things on that come to mind for a private landowner,  research, education, and contracts are the key.

Bruce, your getting closer with that letter but you need more paragraph breaks and to shorten it as well. It's best to slam home a point in one page if possible. Short and sweet. If the reader gets dazzled with to much info too quick, you have as good as lost him or her. I realize this means a lot to you and you've got some good content but could leave some content out as well. Not trying to put you down, just trying to help.

[Bruce]

Gordon

I will take your advice and reduce my letter further.  

[Bruce]

5th Draft "Roadless Area Comment" REPLACED BY 6th Draft.  Thank you for the hints on format Tom:

Evaluation, protection, and management of inventoried roadless areas should be determined through the local forest planning process for each proclaimed National Forest as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).  

The best way for the USDA-Forest Service to work with the variety of States, tribes, local communities, other organizations, and individuals in a collaborative manner to ensure that concerns about roadless values are heard and addressed through a fair and open process is to disclose "all areas of the total public land area" being managed under Roadless Management Direction, i.e. Wilderness Area, Special Management Areas, Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas, Wild & Scenic River Corridors, Research Natural Areas etc.  

What is the composite acreage of all such Roadless Areas and their impacts on public resource use?

Forests in the Northeast are not the same as forests in the Northwest or South.  Each forest has its dominant species of trees.

In ecosystems of the West, timber and cattle interests favor selective logging and grazing as the prime means of reducing fuel buildup.    

In some cases, mechanical removal of trees through thinning and logging is commercially viable.
 
In other cases, thinning and logging is less desirable than prescribed burning, since logging firms would have to be paid to remove trees or unwanted vegetation which can be used for Biomass energy.

Management decisions may require that some forests be clear-cut while others be left alone or selectively harvested.  

The National Forest within the roadless area should be managed for multiple values and forest health.  

There is wide agreement that something must be done to reduce accumulating fuels and to encourage reinstatement of a natural fire regime.  Allowing naturally occurring fires to burn wherever possible has become the subject of debate.

Despite determined efforts over the years to suppress naturally ignited fires, wildfires have become more numerous, severe and difficult to control.  

Although natural fires are an essential component of many ecosystems, large fires encompassing millions of acres preserves neither habitat nor timber.  

The USDA Forest Service roadless area national fire plan should disclose those forests more likely to burn due to fuel buildup, while implementing procedures to reduce fuel buildup.

Habitat and timber preservation through fire prevention by decreasing fuel buildup must become Forest Policy on a national level.  Allowing the forest to burn out of control is not an effective policy.

When forest fires are fought by Americans willing to lay down their lives in the roadless area, will they be denied water from helicopters because the river is the home of the shortnose sucker fish?

New road and or trail construction within the national forest that would adversely affect endangered species or the watershed, supported by scientific facts, should not be allowed, unless an area critically needs thinning or vegetation removed in order to prevent loss of habitat due to a large-scale fire, disease or insect infestation.

The USDA Forest Service should complete a Transportation Analysis with public input in order to determine which interior roads will be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?

What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard?  What will the permitted road density be?

Currently, Forest Service inventories have identified at least 60,000 miles of unclassified roads including temporary roads and roads that were never planned, built, or maintained to safety, service, and environmental standards.  It is anticipated that future inventories will verify the existence of substantially more miles of unclassified roads.

In 1998, new construction of Forest Service roads was 215 miles or .06 percent of the total Forest Service road system. New construction has trended downward annually from 2,310 miles in 1988.

The Roadless Rule could prevent the construction of up to 232 miles of new road construction or reconstruction each year in inventoried roadless areas.  

Incentives must be created in order to fairly compensate private land owners often penalized by Laws, Policies and Lawsuits sponsored by environmentalist due to ESA interpretation, which often limits intensive timber harvest for the private sector.

Adopting old methods for timber removal should be considered as a viable method to thin the national forest.  Current law prohibiting heavy equipment in wilderness areas cripples any attempt to aggressively thin the national forest.

Teams of horses or oxen could easily pull logs from the forest using trails rather then roads.  Logs can also be transported up or down steep grades or across canyons using a cable system.  Once forest in various areas was thinned, trails would not require maintenance and could be abandoned.

We must ask are selves what is the cost of loosing 60 year old trees due to fire on millions of acres? Considering that, are these older harvesting methods cost prohibitive?

In closing, I believe the backlog of deferred road maintenance and reconstruction needs on Forest Service roads, an estimated $8.4 billion should be allocated prior to new forest purchase.  This backlog is due to the age of the arterial and collector roads (three-fourths are over 50-years old), heavy use, and the lack of regular maintenance.

[Ron Scott]

Before National Forests designate Roadless Areas, they need to know where their roads are by completing a Transportation Analysis with public input. What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard? What will the permitted road density be?

National Forests such as the Huron-Manistee have been directed for years to complete a Transportation Analysis. This is required part of Forest Planning. They say they are always going to do this, but never do.

So how can Roadless Areas be designated when the number of interior roads are not known and which roads are to be closed or how many? Will interior roads be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?

[Bruce]

Ron:

If I added this to my letter do think it would be too much?  I like supporting evidence yet it sure is hard to make a one-page comment, especially when others, like you, introduce effective and logical comments.  

In reality, I think the solutions will one day become a book and a two-page letter if effective may be read.  I might have to remove stated facts and although in my mind I can visualize a powered cable roller system attached to large trees, it may not be cost effective but surely it would be cheaper then new road construction.  

This information might distract the reader and lead them to think I'm unrealistic.  Yet the animals feed bill would be reduced if they were eating forest vegetation.  Water and gain might need hauled in some areas.

I guess I'm searching for solutions more then anything.  Your input and the input of others have helped me a lot.  Thank you very much.


              Transportation Analysis

The USDA Forest Service should complete a Transportation Analysis with public input in order to determine which interior roads will be permanently closed or temporally closed to allow continued resource management and protection against fire, insect & disease, flood, etc?

What roads are to be retained, for what purpose, and at what standard? What will the permitted road density be?

Currently, Forest Service inventories have identified at least 60,000 miles of unclassified roads including temporary roads and roads that were never planned, built, or maintained to safety, service, and environmental standards.  It is anticipated that future inventories will verify the existence of substantially more miles of unclassified roads.

In 1998, new construction of Forest Service roads was 215 miles or .06 percent of the total Forest Service road system. New construction has trended downward annually from 2,310 miles in 1988.
 
The Roadless Rule could prevent the construction of up to 232 miles of new road construction or reconstruction each year in inventoried roadless areas.  

Transportation Analysis should take into consideration the necessity for access to privately owned forest within the roadless area and areas of the national forest that need thinning, vegetation removed or old growth that may need removed because of disease or insect infestation.

New road and or trail construction within the national forest that would adversely affect endangered species or the watershed, supported by scientific facts, should not be allowed, unless an area critically needs thinning or vegetation removed in order to prevent loss of habitat due to a large-scale fire, disease or insect infestation.
 

[Ron Scott]

It's hard to keep it short when the USDA-Forest Service has asked for comments on at least the 10 questions they provided for comment. Comment to each question can be a page.

Just lay your response out well and stay on the subject with some key facts.

[Bruce]

Ron

Thank you.  Input from you and others as helped me a great deal.

[Bruce]

Ron

When forest fires are fought by Americans in the roadless area, willing to lay down their lives, will they be denied water from helicopters because the river is the home of the shortnose sucker fish?

Four firemen perished because they were denied water from a river in the northwest because a dispatcher chose shortnose suckerfish over human life, i. e. central Washington.

Two former USFS firefighters familiar with the Thirty Mile Fire said getting permission to dip into the Chewuch caused the delays that led to the death of their colleagues.

This makes me sick at my stomach and I will write letters until someone calls me and ask me to stop.

If you don't bring a fireman water, fighting your fire, then let it burn, but don't hire a fireman and tell him to fight the fire.

Timber waste due to forest policies that restrict access to the forest, resulting in millions of acres lost due to fire, is a miss use of U. S. Natural Resources.  

The USDA Forest Service should issue regional transportation analysis disclosing how access to every forest will benifit preservation of U. S. timber.

Which forest is more likely to burn due to fuel buildup?

Chapter 9, Section One of Energy Quest addresses Forest Fires and key players in the debate over "allowed to burn" forest policies and is the bases for my belief we need access to the natonal forest.  Many reports are referenced.  

FOREST FIRES OF 2000 IMPACT TO WESTERN STATES AND
USDA FOREST SERVICE ROAD LESS WILDERNEES/TIMBER POLICIES,RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXPERTS ON HOW TO BEST MANAGE U. S. FOREST, FOREST REPORTS AND WEB SITES http://www.energyquestsearch.com/navigator9/sec1


The former Department of Interior Bruce Babbitt, interior secretary, advocated expanded prescribed burning and thinning to reduce fuel loading in the dry ponderosa pine forests.

"Mike Dombeck, the fisheries biologist and former chief of the U.S. Forest Service, shifted the Forest Service's priorities from cutting timber to protecting watersheds and promoting recreation.


Mitigation

An estimated 65% of all forest fires are man-made, either intentionally or accidentally.  Therefore, public education and care in preventing forest fires is of major importance, as well as effective prosecution of arsonists.  The remaining 35% of forest fires are ignited by lightning and beyond the control of man. Spotting and warning program in effect when forest fire danger is high will enable evacuation and firefighting efforts to begin as soon as possible.  Mutual aid agreements between municipal fire departments and including regional industry must be developed and maintained.

 

[Ron Scott]

I'm hearing the debate on the National News as to the T&E Act (fish in this case) vs. the 4 firefighter's lives. Really a shame if that is truly what happened.

Lack of experience and common sense seem to be more prevalent lately in regards to fire suppression and firefighter safety.

If the firefighters called for water, they should have gotten water, T&E fish in the bucket or not. Any such water restrictions should have been well known in advance by all.

However, the emergency plan should have made the water available for emergency drops. Those in command of the fire should have been in control with the resource available when needed, and not controlled by some off site ecologist or fish biologist probably not even familiar with fire suppression needs.

[Bruce]

Ron

Thank you for your response.  You are 150% correct.

[Tom]

Good Show Ron,

If I were the pilot,  I'm afraid they would have had to fire me.  

If the advertised scenario is true, somebody(s) should have their can kicked at the very least.

[Gordon]

Ditto that Tom those firefighters would have gotten water until my flying machine was out of fuel.

If that is the truth it's past sad that could even happen in this day and age. Just for the sake of kicking something around---do you think if the president of the U.S. was out there fighting that fire the end result would have been the same? Still no water dropped.

A person is a person and must all be treated equal.
Man just thinking about that scenario has me more than mad.
Gordon

[Tom]

Might depend on which President, Gordon.

I say that in jest, but it does seem that "employees" of our governments (plural) appear to lean toward "the people exist for the government" rather than the Government for the people.  

I become more Jaded as I get older.  I have been accused of being totally cynical and once even of being an Anarchist, not by anyone in my generation nor by my elders.  

It is increasingly difficult to find citizens of the generations following me who exhibit much patriotism or who value their freedoms.  More personal freedoms have been offered up for the taking in the last 30 years than in any other time in the history of our country.  That's my opinion and not backed up by documents that I have researched, even though those documents probably exist.

It seems to me that the general population of the United States wanders aimlessly through life like a herd of sheep.  Many are, perhaps, led by a goat with a bell representing the "News" media.  The majority stand dazed while the world turns about them, hoping for someone who will recognize their existence and tell them what to do next.

Free thinking, individualism and concern over the rights and freedoms provided to us by our forefathers is a thing of the past.

I hope I'm wrong but I feel that we are a society ripe for the picking and are headed down a road that leads to our being usurped by another society or at the very least becoming an equal blend in the "New World Order" of which so many think we are destined.

I'm getting on my soapbox and didn't mean to. There are strong folks coming up, I'm sure, but they seem to be in the minority and trampled by an increasingly overbearing bureaucracy.

Those kids should have had every available human who knew they were there trying to get them out rather than having to ask for water. Their effort to obtain water should have been considered a command, not a request and never should anyone have considered escalating it to a battery of "Desk Jockeys".

Sorry for the tirade, but it makes me angry.

[swampwhiteoak]

Amen to all that, Tom.