Important message from Brian at BRC

[chevit]

THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY ACTION ALERT

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

Important message from Brian at BRC:

On July 21, 2006, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski announced in a press release he would petition the Secretary of Agriculture regarding how inventoried "roadless" areas in Oregon should be managed.

As BRC members know, Kulongoski was one of three governors that joined California's Attorney General in a legal challenge of the Bush Administration's Roadless policy, which created the petition process. BRC and several other pro-access groups are party to that lawsuit. Please support our legal efforts. The best method to help is with our Pledge Method. The way it works is you pledge an amount that is automatically charged to your credit card. A small amount on a monthly basis is easy to afford and it helps us to budget expensive legal efforts that often last for years. Click here and select "Start an Automatic Contribution!"

This is really important because the anti-access crowd will try to use this process to lock up Oregon's forests ultimately paving the way for Wilderness designation. They have already posted their agenda, and they plan do everything they can to keep motorized travel out of all Roadless areas. They make no bones about it: Roadless Areas should be "protected" by Wilderness designation.

We'll need your help to ensure we get a lot of public comments into Gov. Kulongoski. Be sure to forward our ACTION ALERT below.

For added motivation...
I want to call your attention to Governor Kulongoski's July 21 press release.

Get this:
In his news release, Kulongoski pointedly noted that in a public comment period on the Clinton/Gore Roadless Rule, an astounding 92% of the 79,000 Oregonians supported the "complete protection of all roadless areas." I'll be that's the first time 92% of Oregonians agreed on anything!

Yea? Well, that's because the Heritage Forest Campaign, funded by millions of dollars from the Pew Charitable Trusts, (read more, more) and flooded the agency will hundreds of thousands of spam email comments and postcards.

It gets better:
Kulongoski's July 21 press release also says:
In addition to the public comment period on the petition, the Governor's office will assess the public input received for the 2001 roadless rule.

BRC thinks that's a very good idea, and we really should hold the Governor to his word on this. I want him to assess how many of those 79,000 comments were email generated spam or postcards. I want him to find out who generated that unbelievable amount of public comment, too.

I don't know if any of you remember the Heritage Forest Campaign's public relations push, but I do. I understand Pew put nearly 10 million dollars into the thing. Using data obtained from extensive public opinion polling, HFC managed a coordinated public relations and marketing campaign. Remember? "We have to protect the last remaining pristine roadless areas from wholesale commercial development."

Speaking as someone who was involved in the Clinton/Gore 2001 Rule, I am very interested in what the Governor learns, aren't you?

Kulongoski's press release has motivated BRC to offer a little contest for our Action Alert subscribers. If you send us a copy of your written comments to Governor Kulongoski, 160 State Capitol, 900 Court Street, Salem, Oregon 97301-4047, we will review the comments and send the best a FREE copy of Ron Arnolds excellent and informative book: Undue Influence.

We only have ten copies here at the office so only the best letters will win!

Thanks for letting me ramble a bit before the Action Alert. As always, if you have any questions or need any assistance just give us a call or email.

Brian Hawthorne
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 102
[e-mail]



OREGON ROADLESS PETITION ACTION ALERT
COMMENT DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 8, 2006
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED:

SITUATION:
On July 21, 2006, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski announced he would petition the Secretary of Agriculture regarding how nearly 2 million acres of inventoried "roadless" areas in thirteen national forests in Oregon should be managed. Kulongoski has given until September 8, 2006 for public comment.

In addition to members of his staff, Kulongoski will utilize the Oregon Department of Forestry and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop the petition and the public comment

Kulongoski has scheduled a grant total of three public meetings in order to "review maps and characteristics of forested areas and discuss their concerns with staff."

The first meeting is tonight, by the way. At the Blue Mountain Conference Center, 404 Twelfth Street in La Grande, 6:00 - 8:00 pm.

The other meetings are: August 14, 2006 at the Portland State University, University Place - Columbia Falls Ballroom, 310 SW Lincoln Street in Portland, and August 16, 2006, at the Medford City Hall, 411 W 8th Street in Medford. The meetings are from 6:00 - 8:00 pm.

As you know, powerful special interest groups are trying to use this process to lock up Oregon's forests, ultimately paving the way for Wilderness designation. The anti-access groups have already posted their agenda, and they plan do everything they can to keep motorized travel out of all Roadless areas. They make no bones about it: Roadless Areas should be "protected" by Wilderness designation.

Public comment from Oregonians who enjoy any type of mechanized use of National Forests is critically important. We need your help to keep our Roadless areas accessible for recreational use. Please respond now!

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
Submit comment to the Governor via the State of Oregon online web comment form and/or a written comment letter directly to the Governor (yes, it's worth the effort).

Use our comment suggestions below to help you with your letter.

Mail to:
Roadless Comments
Governor's Natural Resources Office
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301

Email to:
Jo Bell at [e-mail], make sure to put Roadless Comments in the subject line.

SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER:

Dear Governor Kulongoski

We recommend a brief paragraph stating how much you enjoy OHV recreation, and how much you value roads and trails within Oregon's Roadless Areas.

Each Roadless area should be managed under the provisions contained in each Forest Plan. Each and every Roadless area is unique with its own varied resources and uses. The forest planning process is the best way to take into consideration the unique values of each Roadless area.

Each Forest Plan provides sufficient legal mandated protection for the Roadless parts of the forest. Thus, no new rulemaking is needed in Oregon to protect the undeveloped character of these areas. Roadless areas are already protected by Forest Plans reached through the agency's public planning process.

It is important o identify the recreational infrastructure in each Inventoried Roadless Area and include a complete report to the Governor. Such inventory should include, but is not limited to; roads, trails, trailheads, winter trail grooming, toilets, yurts, interpretative sites and even water developments.

It should be noted that Oregon's OHV community has, through various fees and gasoline tax funds, contributed to the maintenance of many of the recreational sites and infrastructure in many Roadless areas.

It is important to point out that a "Roadless Area" was never meant to be a "stand-alone" management designation. Inventoried Roadless Areas are, in fact, the first step in a Wilderness inventory. Their boundaries are determined solely on the presence or absence of major, maintained roads. No consideration to geologic boundaries, management considerations, low grade roads and recreational trails, or other resource uses are made when a National Forest determines Roadless area boundaries. Thus, these areas are not logical management boundaries.

I support the protection of undeveloped character of Oregon's Roadless areas under the provisions of the Forest Planning process which allows for management of recreational uses such as Off-Highway Vehicle and mountain bike use.

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

Note: Be sure to sign and address your letter. Anonymous comments are often discarded!


COMMENT SUGGESTIONS FOR STATE OF OREGON COMMENT WEB FORM:

The State of Oregon has an interesting comment webform. In addition to the some pretty straight forward questions about values and management of "roadless" areas, the comment form asks three very interesting questions:

Do you believe that the management requirements outlined in the 2001Roadless Rule should be used to manage Oregon's IRAs?

Are there sections or concepts in the 2001 Rule that you would delete or add? Please explain.

Are there specific adjustments that you think need to be made to the IRA boundaries?

These questions bring to light the fundamental flaw in the Clinton/Gore 2001 Rule: "Roadless Areas" were never meant to be a stand-alone management designation.

Note the term; Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). These inventory areas are what the U.S.F.S. use as a "baseline-inventory" for Wilderness recommendation.

The U.S.F.S. never conducted the required public involvement process to formally establish "Roadless Areas" as a stand alone management designation. Even under the Clinton/Gore 2001 Rule, except for the specific issue of road construction and re-construction, management of "Roadless Areas" was supposed to follow the Forest Plan.

Because the boundaries of IRA's are specifically bases on the presence or absence of only a certain type of Forest Service System Roads, these areas do not have logical management boundaries or objective management criteria.

The bottom line on Roadless Areas is this: each individual IRA is different. Each has its own unique character and uses. The best way to manage these areas is via a Forest Plan.

We've put some important comment suggestions below and recommend you make these points in the additional comment suggestion of the webform.

Regarding the question:

Do you believe that the management requirements outlined in the 2001 Roadless Rule should be used to manage Oregon's IRAs?

We believe IRA's should be managed via the Forest Plan. Each Forest has its own niche and each IRA is equally unique, possessing its own set of resources and values. Public opinion on how these areas should be managed varies widely.

Thus, the best way to formulate management plans is pursuant to the agency's lawful planning process. These processes are well established, require detailed analysis, involve environmental assessments, public input, administrative reviews and provide for appeals if errors are made. The agency's planning process provides a host of management prescriptions which can provide proper uses of these lands for the benefit of the American public.

Regarding the question:

Are there sections or concepts in the 2001 Rule that you would delete or add? Please explain.

By far, the biggest problem with the 2001 Rule is that it prohibited road re-construction. The State of Oregon should not prevent the maintenance of roads as well as prevent the agency's ability to construct or reconstruct connector routes and/or reroute segments of routes that are closed due to legitimate resource or safety concerns.

Regarding the question:

Are there specific adjustments that you think need to be made to the IRA boundaries?

The boundaries of IRA's should only be adjusted during the Forest Planning process. IRA's should not be used as a stand-alone management designation. Because IRA's are an inventory, they do not have logical management boundaries or objective management criteria. IRA boundaries are not determined by a survey of current resources and values. Instead, modern IRA boundaries are essentially a relic of past output-based timber management combined with a hodge-podge of past management decisions. Agency regulation requires determination of IRA boundaries based primarily on the presence or absence of a certain type of maintained roads. IRA boundaries have been determined by road developments along with adjustments for everything from timber sales, Forest Plan amendments and even Wilderness designations.