In 2014, under the Farm Bill, Congress gave the Forest Service what it is now using for unchecked power and authority.
It gave the Forest Service the use of "Categorically Excluded Projects". Projects that the Forest Service gets to determine if and when they are needed. Power to bulldoze over the top of local communities without at least first soliciting input from the affected public.
Power and authority the Payette National Forest has wasted no time in abusing and misusing.
Forest Service unilaterally closed Sugar Creek Road with zero public input, a violation of NEPA and public scoping provisions outlined in the 36 CFR.
Forest Service misuses "categorically excluded projects" provisions of FSH 1909.15.
It gave the Forest Service the use of "Categorically Excluded Projects". Projects that the Forest Service gets to determine if and when they are needed. Power to bulldoze over the top of local communities without at least first soliciting input from the affected public.
Power and authority the Payette National Forest has wasted no time in abusing and misusing.
Forest Service unilaterally closed Sugar Creek Road with zero public input, a violation of NEPA and public scoping provisions outlined in the 36 CFR.
Forest Service misuses "categorically excluded projects" provisions of FSH 1909.15.
In 1998, Sugar Creek Road was listed on the Payette National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVU) as "open to all vehicles, 4x4 recommended".
Between 1998 and 2008, and during the Big Creek and Yellow Pine Travel Plan, the Forest Service unilaterally declared Sugar Creek Road an "unauthorized route".
This violates provisions of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and authority given to the Forest Service by Congress as outlined in the 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
The Forest Service has been made aware of the fact that they closed Sugar Creek Road in violation of Federal laws in that they did not, and refuse to hold proper public comment periods and consulting with affected state, county and local governments in addition to affected indian tribes and the affected public (Yellow Pine) as required under the socioeconomic provisions of NEPA.
Moreover, the Forest Service did knowingly and willfully use incorrect socioeconomic data during scoping for the 2008 Big Creek and Yellow Pine Travel Plan which states there to be "one job" in the greater Yellow Pine area.
In fact, there are 16 businesses in the Yellow Pine community directly negatively affected by the Payette National Forest's unilateral decision to close Sugar Creek Road.
Therefore, Sugar Creek Road is not eligible for "categorically excluded projects" since it was never lawfully taken out of the public domain by the Forest Service through any lawful channels.
Anthony Botello and Keith Lannom have abused their power and authority by closing Sugar Creek Road to the public, and unlawfully denying a private landowner the use of his land via a roadway Valley County has declared an RS-2477 roadway.
The section of the Forest Service Handbook states:
"Cite this category as 36 CFR 220.6(e)(19) (20) Activities that restore, rehabilitate, or stabilize lands occupied by roads and trails, excluding National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails to a more natural condition that may include removing, replacing, or modifying drainage structures and ditches, reestablishing vegetation, reshaping natural contours and slopes, reestablishing drainage-ways, or other activities that would restore site productivity and reduce environmental impacts.
"Examples include but are not limited to: (i) Decommissioning a road that is no longer a National Forest System"(Sugar Creek Road was not removed from public use through any legal process)
road to a more natural state by restoring natural contours and removing construction fills, loosening compacted soils, revegetating the roadbed and removing ditches and culverts to reestablish natural drainage patterns (ii) Restoring an unauthorized trail to a natural state by reestablishing natural drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, reestablishing vegetation, and installing water bars; and (iii) Installing boulders, logs, and berms on an unauthorized road segment to promote naturally regenerated grass, shrub, and tree growth."
Scott Amos
208.297.0634
Sugar Creek Road does not fall into the "categorically excluded projects" clause.....because the Payette National Forest unilaterally declared it removed from the public domain....authority Congress never gave or intended the Payette National Forest to have.
Therefore, the Payette National Forest should cease and desist from further destruction of the Sugar Creek Road, including unlawful barriers and barricades and signs it has placed to impede public entry and travel. And further desist from harassing, blocking, impeding, slowing or otherwise altering public access to the entirety of Sugar Creek Road.
Scott Amos
208.297.0634
No comments:
Post a Comment