Human Uses and National Forest System Land Management
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Summary of Public Comment on Roadless Area Conservation Chapter 6 Human Uses and National Forest System Land Management This chapter presents the range of public comment discussing human uses of the national forests, and roadless areas in particular. Given that the Notice of Intent proposed possible restrictions on “all activities . that do not contribute to maintaining or enhancing the ecological values of roadless areas,” and that the set of action alternatives analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are prohibitionary in nature, almost every response to the Draft EIS addresses human uses of national forests in some way. A great many people who generally favor a roadless conservation rule feel that the Preferred Alternative does not meet the mandate of the president or the purpose described in the Notice of Intent. These respondents request a wide array of further restrictions, especially in regards to timber harvest, mining activities, and motorized recreation. They feel that both ecosystem health and roadless values are unacceptably compromised because the proposed rule does not directly address commodity and recreational activities. Opponents to the proposed rule feel that broad multiple use management should be practiced in roadless areas and does not harm the environment. Current management of the national forests provides ample opportunity for addressing management of roadless areas and threats to the ecological health of roadless areas are greatly exaggerated, many say. A wide variety of recreationists and commercial users feel their use of the forests will be unreasonably restricted by the proposed rule or by the likely restrictions they believe will follow thereafter. These concerns are elaborated in the following sections of this chapter: 6.1 General Management Considerations, 6.2 Travelway Infrastructure Management, 6.3 Commodity, Extractive and Commercial Activities, 6.4 Wildlife-Dependent Activities, 6.5 Non-Timber Forest Products, 6.6 Cultural and Heritage Resources, 6.7 Recreation and Travel Management, and 6.8 Land Ownership. Related concerns specifically addressing the alternatives are found in Chapter 4; concerns that focus on specific environmental impacts of various human uses are found in Chapter 5. 6.1 General Management Considerations Many individuals express the strong sentiment that as taxpaying citizens, they have a right to enjoy the national forests as they see fit without excessive government interference. “The people own the land, not the Forest Service. We have the right to use it, all of it, for our living needs,” contends one individual. Conversely, another respondent points out that individuals by law cannot simply do anything they wish with federal property. “I cannot, as a citizen of this country, go into any federal office and begin commandeering people’s staplers, copy paper, and desk chairs just because ‘It’s my money.’” This principal applies equally to National Forest System lands, this respondent reasons. 6-1 Chapter 6 Human Uses and National Forest System Land Management While some writers express resentment toward any use restrictions, most people do support the idea that the Forest Service should focus management on achievement of a fair balance of uses while minimizing damage to the environment. However, there is clearly little consensus on what level and mix of uses is appropriate. This issue lies at the heart of conflicts over appropriate multiple uses of National Forest System lands: determination of which uses of forest resources “best meet the needs of the American people . without impairment of the productivity of the land” (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960). Opponents feel that forest management has already moved too far toward environmental protection, and that the Forest Service should return to full multiple use management and increased timber harvest levels. Most proponents of a roadless rule feel that the Forest Service should adhere to the president’s mandate by restricting all commercial, non-commercial, and recreational activities that threaten the health and integrity of roadless ecosystems. Limiting prohibitions to road building and reconstruction may hamper some uses, they conclude, but given human ingenuity and rapid technological advances, all detrimental uses should be directly prohibited. One individual feels that the Forest Service should increase restrictions on companies that extract natural resources from roadless areas to encourage greater efficiency. “I believe there are two options,” this writer postulates: “A) we can allow companies to expand into wilderness areas. B) we can protect the resources we have, thereby making companies work smarter . It is my opinion that Option ‘B’ is in the best interest of everyone, including the companies who want to use our nation’s resources. We save our resources and compel companies to become more efficient. In the end, we all win.” One individual states that since commodity production does occur on national forests, the best management practices for timber harvest, road construction, and mining should be consistently implemented and evaluated for effectiveness. Finally, most proponents of a roadless rule assert that the Forest Service should include the Tongass National Forest in logging and road building restrictions to prevent irremediable damage to soils, wildlife, and the tourism and subsistence economies that depend upon them. Chapter 1 also contains concerns about the purpose and need for the proposed rule, and a diversity of opinions on the proper use of National Forest System lands. Most concerns regarding exemption of the Tongass are found in Chapters 4 and 5. Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify whether citizens have the right to treat federal lands as their private property. You are trying to “lead” the public with false statements. The people own the land not the Forest Service. We have the right to use it, all of it, for our living needs. (Individual, Goleta, CA - #7088.91700) I cannot, as a citizen of this country, go into any federal office and begin commandeering people’s staplers, copy paper, and desk chairs just because “It’s my money.” Nor can I go onto federal land and clear it for growing flowers for profit. AND even if I could, with the right permit, do these things, I would hope that I and those who issue the permit would keep a close eye on the condition I leave the land in, and whether or not my activities enhance the land for our society in the long run. (Individual, No Address - #1769.90000) 6-2 Summary of Public Comment on Roadless Area Conservation There is a more fundamental issue un-addressed in the DEIS which is at play here. The issue concerns the American public’s property rights with respect to Public Lands. First, let me state that public lands is a private property right held collectively by the public. All the public. Not the government, nor the UN via their “Biospheres” or their “World Heritage Sites.” (Individual, No Address - #52489.90000) Ranchers who lock off tracts of land for their private use, bird watchers who think it’s their forest only, and other special interest groups have no right to deny the general public use of our public forests. (Individual, Tucson, AZ - #2753.91500) Public Concern: The Forest Service should focus management on achievement of a fair balance of uses while minimizing damage to the environment. As a lifelong Oregon resident, I live in the mountains and use the national forests for many recreational activities. From hiking, to fishing, to motorcycle riding. The number one cause of damage to the forests that I see here, is mismanagement of the forest. There are people in every category that abuse it, from off-road vehicles, to hikers cutting trails, and burning, and leaving trash. Adding this much MORE roadless area will not solve the problem. (Business/Business Association, No Address - #8.71220) The USFS has to demonstrate that they can manage lands in a cost effective manner. Manage them so that wildlife and fish can survive. Manage the national forests so that recreation, beauty, watershed viability, diversity and so on are compatible with resource extraction. Failure to do so will almost surely result in the success of those environmental organizations calling for a complete halt to commercial logging and grazing on federal lands. (Individual, No Address - #5254.83000) How can we expect emerging nations to protect their land, when we display the exact opposite in behavior? Our natural resources should be managed better than this. (Individual, Venice, CA - #1720.71230) The highest and best public use of remaining roadless public lands within Lewis and Clark County is to manage for their traditional backcountry uses and values of clean water, fish and wildlife habitats, grazing and outdoor recreation. The proposed policy should encourage local forest officials to do so, in collaboration with county residents, elected officials and area businesses. (County Agency, Helena, MT - #10109.83000) Public Concern: The Forest Service should restrict all commercial and recreational activities that threaten the health and integrity of the ecosystem. The public is legitimately concerned about road-building, logging, mining, and other destructive practices in our last undeveloped national forest tracts. (Individual, Charlottesville, VA - #1672.80000) [One] person commented that “Mining, timber and logging were conducted for generations successfully without significant degradation to the environment.” One must wonder what the person was speaking of when he or she said that there has not been significant degradation to the environment. They must be ignoring the fact that countless plant and animal species have become extinct or endangered because of extractive industries that have decimated our forests. They must be turning a blind eye to the siltation of streams from logging, and the pollution of streams from mining operations with heavy metals and toxins too numerous to mention. They must not have heard that 95-97% of our original forests have been destroyed, and that many forests that we have now are monocultures, that do not hold a candle to the biologically diverse places they need replaced.