Abraham Lincoln once pointed out why folks shouldn’t believe everything they hear. It’s good advice.

 ”If you call his tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Because calling a tail a leg does not make it one,” he explained.

I like that. In a world where spin-doctors tell us what we heard before it’s out of a person’s mouth, we’d all benefit from a dose of Lincoln’s common sense now and then.

So in honor of my favorite president, when I see tails stumping around like legs I’m going to point them out.

Back to cows and toads.

According to the article (not yet posted online), the five-year scholarly study by Tate and other University of California scientists concluded cattle grazing is not responsible for the decline of the Yosemite toad (a candidate species for listing under the US Endangered Species Act). The toad lives in high Sierra meadows ranging from Alpine to Fresno County.

In 2001, Forest administrators pulled back a number of grazing allotments that had been utilized by foothill ranching families for over 150 years due to suspicion that cattle were responsible for the species’ decline. Though Tate’s study determined further research will be necessary to identify exactly what factors are causing the decline, cows are not  the culprits. In addition to grazing, potential stressors identified were ”reduced moisture resulting in heavy conifer encroachment on meadows, fire management regimes, climate change, and  hydrologic conditions.”

Elisa Noble, Natural Resources and Public Lands Director for California Farm Bureau believes it’s time to let the cows back into those areas of the Forest.

“Many of our ranching members depend on public lands grazing to economically sustain their operations,” she says. “Grazing allotments on public lands are critical to maintaining the ecological health of the land and the economic viability of ranchers and rural communities… The current best available science clearly indicates that managed grazing should be allowed to continue unhindered.”

Elisa’s right. USFS should reactivate without delay any permits that were withdrawn ten years ago on the basis that cattle grazing might harm the toads.

This dog’s got four legs and a tail, folks.

If the lawsuit is successful, those miles we managed to hold onto could be lost. Not only that, but the next phase of the Travel Management Rule Plan (Subpart A) could be even more devastating to access and our local economy. 

Read on… and please go to the website and donate.

Stanislaus National Forest & Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe

From the  Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center website:

“On August 12, 2010, preservationist groups Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, The Wilderness Society and PEER [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - www.PEER.org says: "As a service organization assisting federal & state public employees, PEER allows public servants to work as "anonymous activists" so that agencies must confront the message, rather than the messenger."] filed suit challenging the Stanislaus NF travel plan adopted Nov. 12, 2009. The suit alleges claims under NEPA, NFMA and related law. Of particular note are claims that the Forest failed to properly define alternatives under NEPA, failed to properly analyze effects, failed to “minimize” OHV impacts, failed to properly designate a “minimum road system” and failed to comply with applicable forest plan direction. Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) indicating only those routes that are on the map are legal for travel.”

 The concept of  ‘minimizing OHV impacts can be particularly problematic due to the question of whose definition of ‘minimize’ would be adopted. The suit also targets the decision of the Forest Service regarding Subpart A, the analysis of the minimum, necessary road system needed in each forest. The question of how to define ‘need’ has never been answered. The CA4WDC and partners have filed for Defendant/Intervenor status to ensure that our members needs, and the needs of all forest visitors who enjoy motorized access, are being represented in this lawsuit. We have formed a coalition, and need everyone’s support on this critical issue.

A “copycat” lawsuit has been filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the Bridgeport Ranger District of the Humboldt –Toiyabe National Forest  CA4WDC has now entered with our partners into this lawsuit, and are proud to be standing p for the rights of motorized recreation enthusiasts in California and Nevada. We have to quash these lawsuits as strongly as we can, and defend our right to motorized access.

What can you do? For a start, please donate to the Stanislaus Legal Defense Fund, go to www.cal4wheel.comfor a link to PayPal. Then email or call your county supervisor and inform him or her. Ask your elected representatives (local, state, and federal) to stand up for public access of all kinds because it’s your forest too.

The US Forest Service (USFS) has announced a series of Roundtable public meetings next week to explain and answer questions about the Draft 2011 Planning Rule (click here to see it) and comment process. Technically, no public comment will be permitted at the Roundtables, but creative public speakers could ask questions to highlight the need to tweak the Draft Rule before the final is issued. See the talking points below. :)

First of all, a little context. Planning rules are issued by the Chief Forester in Washington, DC. They guide every forest on how to interpret and implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). You’d think that rules would only need to be issued once, but changing agency values lead to changing interpretations and implementation practices. Some of them (like the last few iterations) have been struck down in federal court. This one will likely be no exception. The Planning Rule in effect currently dates back to 1982.

Here’s the info for the three California meetings. A nationwide schedule of public meetings can be found at: Meetings.

USFS Roundtable Meetings, March 21, 2011, 9 am to 12 pm

1. Wildland Fire Training & Conference Center, 3237 Peacekeeper Way, McClellan, CA 95652, for more info contact Deb Whitall at 707‐562‐8823;
2. Angeles National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 701 North Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006; and 
3. Shasta‐Trinity National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Point ONE: Coordination Missing From Draft Rule

At the top of the list of my most important talking points is - no surprise - retaining local governments’ ability to coordinate government to government, as provided for in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and with great clarity in the 1982 Planning Rule’s Section 219.7.

The 1982 Rule’s Section 219.7 went missing from the Draft 2011 Planning Rule. Not good.

Quite a few Western counties sent in letters last year commenting that Section 219.7  (in its entirety) must be added to the new Rule. Some noted that the agency is actually out of compliance with the 1982 Planning Rule for not coordinating with them in development of the new Rule. The counties, Tuolumne included, got nowhere – though we were polite and respectful – following the USFS preferred method of “collaboration” (public comment).

For those new to this topic and my insistence on it, let me explain why coordination so important. USFS management decisions and actions impact access and multiple uses of public lands. Rural communities depend on resource management for public safety and economic wellbeing, residents have long-cherished traditions involving the lands, wildlife, and resources, and visitors spend money when they come to experience them. Restricted access and uses are serious threats to rural communities already facing assaults on many fronts to our existence, if not to our ability to thrive and provide living wage jobs for future generations.

Coordination doesn’t ensure that rural communities won’t be impacted, but it does ensure that all the potentially negative impacts to rural communities can be evaluated and mitigated if possible. It ensures a place for counties at the decision making table to negotiate better outcomes. Coordination is about process, not the substance or philosophies of the negotiations.

Counties weren’t alone. States were blown off too before California’s Governor (and former attorney general)  Jerry Brown sued the USFS for failure to coordinate on a roadless area decision. By the time the case settled last December, the USFS agreed to go back to the negotiating table, this time working with the state instead of dictating to it. 

While I’m no fan of designating more roadless areas, I’m a huge fan of the process of coordination. Brown’s case opened a door that hinged on the very same statute that requires the USFS to coordinate with counties. Sweet!

Yet despite my hopeful blog post last week, counties’ respectful requests to coordinate are still rebuffed.

Well folks, Jerry Brown wasn’t confused and neither am I. He didn’t back down and neither will I, nor others like Jerry and me. Sounds strange for this Republican to be grateful to our Democrat Governor, but I am. Now if he’d just require HIS state agencies to coordinate with counties!

So back to the USFS, if clear heads, public comments, pleasant conversations, and meetings with USFS brass haven’t gotten us anywhere, what’s the next step?

Continued publicity for sure, and reaching out to Congress. I’m working on both of them. But ultimately it may come down to litigation by counties fed up with scofflaw agencies and bureaucrats – nice though they may be. 

Radical organizations use the courts to get what they want while the rest of us stand outside the circle and watch in dismay and frustration. The same courts that have ruled in the interest of radical organizations’ interests have validated the process of coordination for the State of California and against the USFS. They can do no less for counties.

So now if counties are to best represent rural community interests, they must pony up for a lawsuit and – as my friend says, “Get some guts!” They must be willing to engage in respectful confrontation – both conversational and legal, if necessary. They must assert their legal authority to level a playing field that’s skewed toward those who have beaten the USFS in the courts.

The good news? There are counties readying lawsuits now. The bad news? It may take a lawsuit to move things forward.

But I digress.  I’m blogging about Roundtable meetings, talking points, and questions you can ask to make points to the USFS.

First and foremost, don’t forget to ask what they did with Section 219.7 of the 1982 Planning Rule and how the Draft 2011 Rule satisfies the mandates to coordinate with states, local governments, and Indian tribes in NFMA. When they answer, smile politely, but take notes. Then go tell your county supervisor.

Here’s a list of some other important talking points (for your question-asking-comment letter-drafting pleasure) that I received from the good folks at the Public Lands Council in Washington, DC. They’re in the trenches with us – please support them generously.

Public Lands Council 2011 Planning Rule Roundtable and Comment Talking Points

• The “viable population” requirement should not be included in the planning rules: The draft rule would require the Forest Service to “maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within the planning area.” The term “maintain viable populations” does not occur in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). There is no scientific consensus on what level of population is “viable” or how it is to be “maintained”, so using these words will continue and likely increase the amount of lawsuits filed against the Forest Service. The planning rule expands the purview of the rule over all species, not just vertebrates (i.e. fungus, moss and plants).
• The rule is unduly cumbersome and focuses too much on process and procedure: Much of what is being put into the “rule” would be better placed in the Forest Service Manual or Handbook where it can more easily be adjusted if it is not workable. One of the objectives of the new rule is supposed to be that it is workable, affordable and will withstand court challenges so the agency doesn’t have to do it over again. Under a January 11, 2011 Executive Order signed by President Obama, rules are supposed to be made more cost effective, less burdensome and more flexible. The draft does just the opposite.
• The regulation effectively makes Forest Plan “guidelines” legally enforceable standards: The rule states that all projects “must comply” with the guidelines. This change throws away management flexibility and the Forest Service’s hard fought victories establishing that guidelines are discretionary—not mandatory.
• The draft rule ignores the appropriate role of multiple-use: Like many of the agency’s recent efforts, the draft rule fails to build on the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and follow the requirements of National Forest Management Act. These are where the Forest Service’s authority comes from. Instead of launching off into areas like carbon sequestration and “spiritual sustenance”, the planning rule should focus on active land management uses such as timber, grazing and recreation.
• The requirement to maintain “the diversity of plant and animal communities” is the wrong approach: The rule should require that the Forest Service plan maintains existing habitat diversity, rather than focusing on measuring species populations. There should also be a focus on multiple-use objectives, as required under the NFMA; habitat diversity is one part of multiple-use objectives which should be in the rule.
• Requiring the use of the “best available scientific information” rather than agency expertise and available, relevant science will make decision making time consuming and vulnerable to litigation: The rule repeatedly requires the agency to rely on “best available scientific information” in planning. Sound science has an important role in Forest Service planning and management. Proving what science is “best” is likely to be time consuming and of little value, but will undoubtedly lead to lawsuits that will halt all progress. This wording seems to give away much that the agency gained in the 2008 Ninth Circuit en banc decision (Lands Council v. McNair) which says the agency’s expertise deserves deference.
• The “public engagement” requirement distances the decision-making process from the local area and renders the agency vulnerable to more litigation: The language requiring that the agency “shall encourage” public input creates an obligation to affirmatively gather public comment—and a legal question as to the legal threshold of encouragement. And even as the rule calls for greater “public input”, it weakens the existing requirement to coordinate forest planning with local government and their plans.
• The use of the pre-decisional objections process is good: Requiring those who don’t like a draft plan to object before the final plan is released allows the agency to take issues into account and make appropriate changes. Under the current appeals system, those who just want to stop a project don’t have to participate in trying to resolve the issue before the decision is made.

What we heard was disappointing, though Moore ultimately conceded the USFS would engage in coordination under Section 219.7 of the 1982 Planning Rule if counties insist. 

Counties must accept nothing less. Here’s why. Coordination is based on law and is: 

“… a formal collaborative process established by Congress to require federal land and resource agencies to give … local governments… a meaningful role in the decision making process… The ultimate goal… is consistency (marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity: free from variation or contradiction, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) between federal… and local plans, policies and actions…  Congress mandated coordination to protect local interests… and gives local elected officials meaningful input into federal agency management decisions to limit adverse impacts on their revenues and local economies… [it] requires agencies to work government-to-government with local officials and involves close communication, relationship-building, and sometimes—dispute resolution…”  Shepherd’s Crook’s Coordination Report 10/10/2010 

Moore’s idea of “working together” he admitted Wednesday in Sacramento, is actually cooperation under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed with California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) staff. This despite opposition among county supervisors to such an agreement.  

Cooperating agency status was defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as one way of fulfilling statutory requirements for cooperation between agencies.

I like Moore – he seems like a nice enough guy – and I’m not looking to pick a fight with CSAC and RCRC, both of which work hard to represent rural counties. But what’s right is right.

Rural counties and the people in our communities have already lost a lot and there is much more at stake. Refusing to coordinate and/or attempting to divert counties from coordinating with a federal agency when it’s clearly written into statute and the agency’s own rules is just wrong. It’s an affront to the counties and to the public that depends on county supervisors’ representation.

Moore has said he wants all his forests to look again at Travel Management Rule decisions relative to which roads should stay open and which should be closed. He has said that decisions are best made at the forest level by forest supervisors and counties working together.

A week ago Moore announced he’d been up to Redding to initiate that process with two Shasta County Supervisors. Shasta, coincidentally or not, is the county whose Board voted 5/0 to sue the USFS because it consistently refused to coordinate on the Shasta Trinity National Forest’s Travel Management Rule Plan. While I wasn’t there, I suspect what he did in Shasta County falls short of meeting his obligations under the 1982 Planning Rule (see below).

When pushed further, Moore admitted that rather than reopen Subpart B (which closed MANY miles of roads in the forest by decreeing them unauthorized and therefore closed), he plans to begin work on the second phase of the process – Subpart A – identification of the minimum necessary road system in each forest.  

A letter from the Wilderness Society and other environmental groups (including Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center - CSERC) last year gave Moore instructions on how Subpart A can and should be used to close more roads than were closed in Subpart B. 

Wilderness Society Letter 

The letter was leaked by an alarmed USFS employee whose supervisor laid it on his desk and said, “This is what we have to do now.”

A subsequent memo from Moore to his forests described the “top priority” process they would follow to finish Subpart A in 2012. Contrary to what was announced on Wednesday about local decision making, Moore’s memo stated: 

“… it is important for all of us to understand that Subpart A is an analytical process, and not a decision making process…” and “the Regional Office will describe the process framework to ensure a consistent approach…” 

Subpart A Update 

He must have changed his mind. 

Supervisors at our meeting on Wednesday pressed Moore for details and it paid off. We wrung a public admission from him that if counties request coordination under the 1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.7, he will allow forest supervisors to engage in that process. He had no choice. It’s the USFS’ own rule about how to conduct the coordination process. 

Though Moore has stated he doesn’t agree with the interpretation counties are using of coordination, it’s not clear what differences of interpretation could possibly exist. Here’s what the USFS has said it must do with counties (beyond what it states it must do to facilitate public participation with the general public and interest groups in Section 219.6): 

(a) The responsible line officer shall coordinate regional and forest planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of … local governments…

(b) The responsible line officer shall give notice of the preparation of a land and resource management plan, along with a general schedule of anticipated planning actions, to the official or agency so designated by the affected State (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). The same notice shall be mailed to all Tribal or Alaska Native leaders whose tribal lands or treaty rights are expected to be impacted and to the heads of units of government for the counties involved. These notices shall be issued simultaneously with the publication of the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement required by NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1501.7). 

(c) The responsible line officer shall review the planning and land use policies of … local governments… The results of this review shall be displayed in the environmental impact statement for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2). The review shall include–

(1) Consideration of the objectives of … local governments… as expressed in their plans and policies;
(2) An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies;
(3) A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and,
(4) Where conflicts with Forest Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their resolution.

(d) In developing land and resource management plans, the responsible line officer shall meet with the designated… representatives of … local governments,… at the beginning of the planning process to develop procedures for coordination. As a minimum, such conferences shall also be held after public issues and management concerns have been identified and prior to recommending the preferred alternative. Such conferences may be held in conjunction with other public participation activities, if the opportunity for government officials to participate in the planning process is not thereby reduced. 

(e) In developing the forest plan, the responsible line officer shall seek input from other… local governments… to help resolve management concerns in the planning process and to identify areas where additional research is needed. This input should be included in the discussion of the research needs of the designated forest planning area. 

(f) A program of monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted that includes consideration of the effects of National Forest management on land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near the National Forest being planned and the effects upon National Forest management of activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or other government agencies or under the jurisdiction of local governments. 

[47 FR 43037, Sept. 30, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 29122, June 24, 1983] 

Seems pretty clear to me.

Counties, if you settle for anything less you do not have the role Congress and the USFS’ own Planning Rule intended you to have, nor the influence your constituents deserve.

Sean Curtis, long-time coordinator from Modoc County, plans to conduct a training on coordination for county supervisors (so they will not unknowingly be diverted into cooperating agency status and are prepared to coordinate effectively) and one for the grassroots public, as well.

Stay tuned for further details.

A California State Association of Counties workshop on coordination put on by Idaho attorney Fred Kelly Grant was the catalyst for my insistence that Tuolumne County’s Board of Supervisors (and other California counties) is entitled to a seat at the USFS’ decision making table.

It’s been more than a little contentious, but over the last four years the coordination effort gained considerable support in Tuolumne County and elsewhere in the nation. Ten California counties have initiated similiar efforts and more are considering it. Today, our combined efforts, several trips to California and Washington DC by Grant, and the controversy we engendered appear to have paid off.

Though we stopped short of describing the process Moore wants to initiate as formal coordination, what he said he hopes will happen sounds like coordination. He said he wants to see outcomes that work for rural communities and the environment. He also said that discussions should take place early in the process – but that what the process looks and performs like are best defined at the local level.

Most significantly, Moore’s announcement means that the relationship building and conflict resolution that counties have been asking the USFS for have received the green light. So for now, counties and communities should give the USFS and their forest supervisors a chance to make good on Moore’s word.

Apparently they’ve already begun. Moore said he and Shasta Trinity Forest Supervisor Sharon Heywood met with Shasta County last week to discuss issues the county raised on the Record of Decision for the Forest Travel Management Rule Plan. Other counties should soon hear from their forest supervisors. 

The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter what we call it – coordination, collaboration, whatever – it matters that county officials (who are elected and  directly accountable to the people) will be involved up front, representing the interests of their constituents, before decisions are made. It appears that will be the case.

I’ll blog more details within the next few days, but suffice to say our meeting today went well. I am cautiously optimistic.

Let me once more for the record reiterate that the goal must be developing positive relationships to move beyond conflict. No one and nothing is well-served by blood-sport. But respectful confrontation with valid arguments and a level playing field are the first order of business. I’m not a huge football fan, but here’s a metaphor that works. Game on!

Imagine a football team thinking it could win a game without the entire team showing up to play. That’s what we do. Conservation biology adherents are moving down the field to “save the earth” like Oakland Raiders playing a five-man high school team. Our team is just trying to reach balance. They’re in a no-holds-barred fight to the finish. They’ve got money, political and spin control, and they’ve got the home team advantage.

And us? Those that show up don’t wear uniforms and have no coaches, cheerleaders, or protective gear. We mostly play defense – and not very well. The rest of our team – mainstream America – isn’t even watching the game.

Care to guess how this one ends?

Last week, a few folks did show up. Congressmen Herger and McClintock and a dozen frustrated and angry county supervisors met with USFS Regional Forester Randy Moore in Sacramento on a wide variety of forest issues. As you read in my last post, Congressman McClintock was particularly unhappy. Conservationists biology folks, while not officially present, were not unrepresented.

We’d been invited by Congressman Herger to discuss forest timber harvest yield targets, fire and fuels management, litigation and planning, the federal budget, the Forest Plan process, and the pending revision of the Planning Rule.

Congressman McClintock and Congressman Herger expressed well what county supervisors and our constituents have been hearing and saying for the last few years.  While it helped to vent – Moore listened intently and politely – we need more than that. We need action and  sooner rather than never.

Moore knows we’re in trouble. We’re losing jobs and young families: communities are hurting. He gets it, but can’t or won’t help us. He’s got his own ball game to play. Moore knows we’re playing zero-sum games – we lose more than win. So does the Forest Service.

So while the congressmen and supervisors made a good case for economically depressed communities and asked for continued access and common-sense stewardship of our national forests, it didn’t get us anywhere. The radical conservation organizations –groups that generally litigate almost every plan and action proposed  – have ensured there’s a shrinking market for good stewardship.

The science driving the conservation biology movement has dismissed good stewardship as inadequate now to address the magnitude of the earth’s crisis. They’re demanding more drastic changes to the use and enjoyment of public and private lands and resources. A variety of crises from global warming to drought  are used to justify and advance their goals. They’re well on their way to reestablishing a natural system that hasn’t existed for generations and that’s incompatible with life as we know it.

The goal line has shifted. Human interests are not a priority.

Why you should care Right about now, you may be asking, “What’s the big deal about conservationists saving the earth? The earth they’re saving is the rainforest or Montana or something, isn’t it?” Well, yes and no.

While most conservationist activists think and work globally, they really think and work locally. Policies and regulations that impact public and private lands and resources may be enacted elsewhere are generally applied here. Most of them, when applied, in some way negatively impact our communities.

Over the last thirty-plus years, we’ve seen new environmental laws enacted and experienced shifts in public values, particularly in urban areas where the majority of voters live. As a result, we’ve seen rural economies change as mills close, cattle and sheep producers quit ranching, and tourism is suggested to replace them.

We live where we live for a reason. In California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains, many of us are here because of the awesome beauty – the forests, lakes, and wildlife – and because we love the rural lifestyle and values. We’ve built families, businesses, and futures. But we need to make a living to stay here. And the land and forests do need management.

Radical conservation has a big picture and plan that seeks to reset our future way beyond what has already occurred.  Yet many of you still aren’t paying attention.

We’re in a critical phase in their plan to control America’s lands and resources. Local government is uniquely capable of defending communities’ socioeconomic interests (more about that later), but many of us are just watching from the bleachers, when we show at all.

So I hope you keep reading this series and seriously consider getting down on the field with us. You can’t win if you don’t play.

Come on. Get in the game!

For Immediate Release:

August 26, 2010
Media Contacts: Jennifer Cressy | 202-225-2511
Bill George | 916-786-5560

Congressman Tom McClintock made the following statement to the Regional U.S. Forest Service Management Roundtable hosted by Congressman Wally Herger in Sacramento on Wednesday, August 25th:

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Herger, for organizing this meeting and for his invitation to participate in it.

There are four general subjects that my constituents have brought to my attention that I feel are important to raise in this forum.

First, some of the most disturbing stories I have heard locally involve the abuse of cost recovery fees by the Forest Service. This has been a source of great frustration and evinces an attitude within the Service that I believe requires immediate correction.

For example, the California Endurance Riders Association had been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. This time, when they sought a simple 5-year 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they have been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees.

They paid these fees, but the El Dorado National Forest management nevertheless pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds. It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy. In 2010 this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the “Fool’s Gold Endurance Run” that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years.

The Polka Dots Motorcycle Club tells a similar story of excessive Forest Service fees that forced them to cancel a ride they have sponsored for four decades. Likewise, the Gold Country Endurance Riders, an equestrian group, had to cancel an event they had been holding since 1993 because of a prohibitive increase in the permit fees.

I seriously question the authority of the Forest Service to exact these fees at all, since federal guidelines do not require them if the surveys or research are done in the “public good.” Moreover, it is clear the Forest Service was not dealing in good faith with these groups and that it should refund these fees in full and restore to them the full access to our public lands that they have been accorded for many years.

Second, the Forest Service is charging exorbitant Cabin User Fees to families that have had long-term possession of mountain cabins, based on peak market prices from 2007 and 2008. These inflated prices are many times the actual market price in this distressed economy, forcing many of these families to abandon cabins that they have had for decades and even generations.

Third, my office has been approached by several families that have had long-established grazing permits dating as far back as 1931, who are now seeing conditions placed on their use that are simply ludicrous.

For example, the Leavell Family has grazed cattle in the Tahoe National Forrest since 1931 and by all accounts has been an excellent and responsible steward of the land. The incidents of harassment that they have encountered from the Forest Service have been unconscionable.

With absolutely no warning, the Forest Service presented them with a letter declaring that they were in non-compliance because of cattle that occasionally stray off the land. Yet in the past, federal regulations have prohibited them from building fences to prevent that very problem. The Forest Service recently charged that the cattle were damaging Aspen stands – allegations that further inspection proved to be groundless. Having failed to make its case on these grounds, the Forest Service then ordered the Leavells to remove cabins they have maintained and paid property taxes on for 79 years.

Also without warning, the Forest Service told the Coughlin family that it was cancelling their long-standing grazing permit because of a lack of sufficient feed as determined by a Forest Service biologist. A subsequent field trip utterly disproved the biologist’s opinion – so the Forest Service next informed them that their permit is still in jeopardy because of the same wandering cows that it used as pretense in the Leavell’s case.

Finally – and most importantly, since this affects the safety of entire communities in my district – I remain concerned over the demonstrated disinterest that the Forest Service has recently demonstrated in supporting sustainable timber harvests. The expensive and labor-intensive process of twig removal cannot achieve fuel reductions that reduce the risk and intensity of forest fires. We must restore responsible and sustainable thinning of over populated forests called for in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Restoration Act of 1998, and which the U.S. Forest Service is now thwarting in our region.

For generations, the U.S. Forest Service maintained a balanced approach to the management of our forests that assured both healthy forests and a healthy economy. Now, it seems to be following a very different policy of exclusion, expulsion and benign neglect of our forests.

My office has brought these concerns and complaints of arbitrary and capricious conduct to the Forest Service’s attention without a satisfactory resolution.

Practiced in the marketplace, we would renounce these tactics as predatory and abusive. In the public service sector, they are intolerable.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public’s use of the public’s land – and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

If the Forest Service fails to reverse these policies – and the attitude that has produced them – I intend to use my position on the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee to press for extensive hearings during the next session of Congress into the economic damage these actions have caused.

Sonora, Calif., (May 26, 2010)…The Forest Service today announced that 28 Stanislaus National Forest campgrounds and picnic areas will be open to accommodate visitors and campers for this Memorial Day weekend. Due to the heavy snow pack at higher elevations this year, a number of campgrounds will open later as the snow melts. All of the Forest’s 52 developed campgrounds, offering 1,391 campsites, are scheduled to be open and available by mid-summer this year.

For more info, visit the USFS website.

Sonora, Calif., (November 16, 2009)… The Forest Service today announced dates, times, and locations for five public meetings that will provide information on the upcoming Stanislaus National Forest (NF) Motorized Travel Management (MTM) Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. The release of the decision and legal notice is expected within the next three weeks.

Current MTM information is available on the Forest website at:

http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv

The meetings are scheduled as follows:

• 3, 2009, 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Sonora Best Western, Oak Glenn room, located at 19551 Hess Road, in Sonora.
• December 5, 2009, 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the Harvest Hall located at 3800 Cornucopia Way, in Modesto.
• December 9, 2009, a hosted Webinar from 7:00 to 8.30 p.m., check the Stanislaus NF website for additional information http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv (before December 1, 2009).
• January 6, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.
• January 7, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.

Interested individuals and groups are invited to attend one of the above meeting dates, times and locations. For more information see www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv, or call Sue Warren at (209) 532-3671, extension 321.

###

It’s but the first step of many that must be taken before the Stewardship Council makes a final recommendation to the California Public Utilities Commission, ultimately the decider of the future of the popular Sierra resort and backcountry gateway. Final approval is subject to mutual agreement and acceptance of terms and conditions determined through a thorough due diligence process and legal review by the county, the Stewardship Council, and Mother Lode Land Trust.

The Stewardship Council has received approximately 800 letters regarding the future of Kennedy Meadows and has heard many public comments about keeping ownership and management of Kennedy Meadows locally accountable. Today we moved one step closer to seeing that happen!

Over the last year, the Stewardship Council has worked with a core group of four pre-qualified organizations (the county, the Tuolumne County RCD, the Mother Lode Land Trust, and the Stanislaus National Forest) to determine which is best suited to own and hold a conservation easement on Kennedy Meadows. Last December, the county submitted a joint proposal with the Tuolumne County RCD and the Mother Lode Land Trust. The Stanislaus National Forest prepared a separate proposal for ownership as it is unable to jointly own and manage its properties.

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors has approved the negotiation and will consider accepting ownership if a mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. The county will work with PG&E and Stewardship Council staff to determine the terms and conditions of the agreement. After negotiations are completed, the Stewardship Council will review the draft agreement and make a final recommendation to the CPUC. The process is expected to take at least six months to complete and possibly more.

Tonight’s recommendation was endorsed by the county, the RCD, Mother Lode Land Trust, Senator Dave Cogdill, Congressman George Radanovich, Matt Bloom (operator of the Kennedy Meadows Resort), and others. All Stewardship Council members ulitimately agreed to the recommendation, although some expressed a desire to proceed cautiously to ensure that any agreement with the county (and Mother Lode Land Trust) is enforceable, collaborative with the RCD and USFS, and in the best interest of all the beneficial public values.

As described on the Stewardship Council’s website, Kennedy Meadows is 244 acres of scenic high sierra meadow, forest, and native cottonwood habitat in Tuolumne County and home to many special status species. For hundreds of years, the Mi-Wuk Tribe traveled, traded, hunted and fished the area. Currently, it’s a popular recreation spot for horseback riding, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and backpacking. Since 1917, the Kennedy Meadows Pack Station has provided visitors an opportunity to spend time in the adjacent wilderness.