By royal decree, the Forest Service says that it no longer has to accept public comments about items it feels are "categorically exempt" from public scrutiny.
Forest Service Violated "Categorically Excluded " guidelines:
Contact Anthony Botello. Tell him that you disagree with him closing roads by royal decree.
Email: abbotello@fs.fed.us
Phone number:
Or, as District Ranger Anthony Botello writes:
" Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities. As a result of these two statutes, the Forest Service no longer offers notice, comment and appeal opportunities pursuant to 36 CFR 215 for categorically excluded projects. "
Apparently, that would include all activities that the Forest Service wishes to conduct along Sugar Creek Road?
Or any other major undertakings the Forest Service doesn't feel the public needs to know about or be given opportunity to comment on?
Anthony Botello, USFS Krassel District Ranger writes "
Subject: USDA Forest Service Sugar Creek Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation Update
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:01:24 -0500
On July 12, 2016, I signed the Decision Memo for the Sugar Creek Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation on the Krassel Ranger District of the Payette National Forest in Valley County, Idaho. The Decision Memo is available on the projects webpage athttp://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48822.
Forest Service Violated "Categorically Excluded " guidelines:
Email: abbotello@fs.fed.us
Phone number:
Office: 208.634.0601
Cellphone: 208-634-9286
Forest Office: 208.634.0700
Or, as District Ranger Anthony Botello writes:
" Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities. As a result of these two statutes, the Forest Service no longer offers notice, comment and appeal opportunities pursuant to 36 CFR 215 for categorically excluded projects. "
Apparently, that would include all activities that the Forest Service wishes to conduct along Sugar Creek Road?
Or any other major undertakings the Forest Service doesn't feel the public needs to know about or be given opportunity to comment on?
Anthony Botello, USFS Krassel District Ranger writes "
Subject: USDA Forest Service Sugar Creek Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation Update
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:01:24 -0500
You are subscribed to Sugar Creek Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation for USDA Forest Service. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Dear Interested Party,
On July 12, 2016, I signed the Decision Memo for the Sugar Creek Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation on the Krassel Ranger District of the Payette National Forest in Valley County, Idaho. The Decision Memo is available on the projects webpage athttp://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48822.
I determined that this action falls within categorical exclusion 36 CFR 220.6(e)(18) -Restoring wetlands, streams, riparian areas or other water bodies by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures such as, but not limited to, dams, levees, dikes, ditches, culverts, pipes, drainage tiles, valves, gates, and fencing, to allow waters to flow into natural channels and floodplains and restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable where valid existing rights or special use authorizations are not unilaterally altered or canceled.
This project was reviewed in accordance with the categorical exclusion guidelines at FSH 1909.15(30), as updated on May 28, 2014. Following review of the resource conditions identified at 36 CFR 220.6(b), I determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist. In addition, the Interdisciplinary Team's analysis did not identify any other unusual circumstances or uncertainties about environmental effects associated with the action that would preclude use of a categorical exclusion.
On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-76). Section 431 of that Act directs that the 1992 and 2012 legislation establishing the 36 CFR 215 (post-decisional appeals) and 36 CFR 218 (pre-decisional objections) processes shall not apply to any project or activity implementing a land and resource management plan that is categorically excluded .under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA].
On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 113-79). Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) (Pub. L. No. 102-381).
The ARAs implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the pre-decisional objection process established in the
On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 113-79). Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) (Pub. L. No. 102-381).
The ARAs implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the pre-decisional objection process established in the
Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities. As a result of these two statutes, the Forest Service no longer offers notice, comment and appeal opportunities pursuant to 36 CFR 215 for categorically excluded projects.
I have consulted with Valley County Commissioners, the local mining company, private landowners in the area and interested and affected public and Tribal governments. This decision does not change the current status of the route nor will this decision prevent future change in designation or additional restoration opportunities.
Implementation of this decision is scheduled to begin in July 2016.
For further information on this project, please contact John Dixon, Hydrologist, at 208-634-0639, or via email at jdixon@fs.fed.us.
Sincerely,
Anthony B. Botello
that doesn't apply to me because iam a fissionable weapon they wouldn't want to start problems
ReplyDelete5 US Code Administrative Procedural Act say otherwise. The Forest Service needs to go back and sharpen their crayons and think it over
ReplyDeleteUnconstitutional agency violating the law. What else is new...
ReplyDeletewhen does the government have the right to override the public it is supposed to serve? It is like make more "wilderness" and restricting the right of the people to use public land. I have a brother that is handicapped and can not walk or ride an atv or horse...so he can only drive to places and now the fs is taking that away from him. I think it is time the people take back our government!
ReplyDeleteI once worked in a group home with disabled Americans. You are right that these rulings unlawfully target Americans with disabilities more than any other group.
DeleteI agree with Sgt. Gary Thompson. It is time.
ReplyDeleteWhat an A Hole, their public image continues to fall, where I hunt its run by a bunch of young just out of college women that don't know squat about the country or how to treat people. I have e mailed the Mackay and Salmon office and they wont even return the e mail. Yes its time to start something
ReplyDeleteAlso note that the 2nd paragraph also gives them the authority to destroy without permission or notification what has been been built or installed by a land user, even though it might benefit the area. Next thing we will see EPA confiscating personal vehicles they deem is "polluting" the air. BLM is already doing that to farmers and ranchers. We were warned by the Founding Fathers, but who believes them in this enlightened age of ignorance?
ReplyDeleteJust go up with a little heavy equipment and change it, all you need is a tractor to move the rocks
ReplyDeleteI'll talk to Donald about this, seems to me he might be interested. The USFS has too long considered public lands their private property
ReplyDeleteInteresting that in the enacting legislation for the Frank church Wilderness, there is a paragraph that states (Sec 5(a),(5) "The management plan SHALL, among other things, address the need for, and alternative means of, access to the wilderness." So now they believe they can close any forest access, just because they want too, after Congress specifically stated they had to address access, specifically alternative means of access?
ReplyDeleteWhen ID casted a vote to purchase more land, ID voted against it. We had our chance. But only 30% of ID go to the local poles. This is where your voice is heard. Reseach what will be on each ballot and what it means to you. Because voting to not increase taxes by 3% often creates an ID we didn't plan for our future.
ReplyDeleteHi there, I enjoy reading through your article. I like to write a little comment to support you.
ReplyDeleteThanks and I have a keen offer you: What Do House Renovations Cost house renovation for sale
ReplyDelete