Sign and gate Payette National Forest blocked Sugar Creek Road with. Keith Lannom, PNF Supervisor, failed to show this image to Senator Mike Crapo in his official response.
*Click photo for larger image*
Forest Service placed sign on South Fork of the Salmon River claiming millions of tons of sediment and debris from forest fires "helps" fish and wildlife. While trying to make the argument that "12 tons" of sediment from the Sugar Creek Road "hurts" fish. Proof that sediment, which is a vital part of fish nesting grounds, is more of a political weapon the Forest Service uses, than a concern to them.
Mud flowing into Profile Creek (tributary of the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River, downstream from Sugar Creek Road). This mudflow was caused by fires in 2007. More than a million tons of sediment from this one mudflow have entered the river downstream from Sugar Creek. Thousands more wildfire induced mudflows dot the moonscape left behind by the 850,000 acre Cascade Complex fire the Forest Service refused to fight in its initial stages.
The Forest Service has made ZERO EFFORTS to stop this mudflow, contaminated with arsenic and mercury. But has created a public relations nightmare for itself by destroying access to Sugar Creek Road, for the stated purpose of stopping "12 tons, annually".
Pure and simple politics. The Payette National Forest doesn't really care about keeping our rivers clean, unless it provides an opportunity for locking the public out of the forests.
In his official response to an inquiry from Senator Mike Crapo, into the closure of Sugar Creek Road, Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom either deliberately omitted several facts, or simply doesn't care enough to find them. Which seems to be increasingly common among an agency where his high level staff, such as Sue Dixon, openly state that "NEPA isn't a democracy".
In fact, the Payette National Forest skipped NEPA altogether when closing Sugar Creek Road and hundreds of miles of public access to public owned lands....which is a clear violation of NEPA and other federal laws.
Sugar Creek Road is a perfect example of the Payette National Forest overstepping, abusing and misusing the power and authority granted to it by Congress, as I will explain in the paragraphs below.
This is an open response to the written response Keith Lannom sent to Senator Mike Crapo. You can download that flawed and inaccurate response here:
http://tinyurl.com/CRAPO-SUGAR-CREEK
Complaint #1. The Forest Service violated section 212 of the 36 CFR and held ZERO public comment periods before unilaterally declaring Sugar Creek Road closed to the public some time in 1996-1997.
As stated in the Forest response “36 CFR 261.50 ( c) (5) requires orders to “Be posted in accordance with 36 CFR 261.51”. The posting requirements in 36 CFR 261.51 are summarized as posting a copy of the order in offices of Line Officers who have jurisdiction and displaying the prohibition in such locations and manner as to bring the prohibition to the attention of the public.” The Forest letter also states: “Between 1996 and 1998 the road was closed.”
During the 1996-1998 time period I was a resident of Yellow Pine, which is the closest permanent community to the Sugar Creek Road. I can submit under oath no such posting as described in 36 CFR 261.51 was done and I was a frequent visitor to Cinnabar. Furthermore, I have discussed this with other residents during this period and they are willing to sign a similar oath.
I find the following statement in the FS response as a very very disturbing answer to Complaint #1. “We have been unable to find the records related to the decision to change the management of the Sugar Creek Road sometime between 1996-1998”.
During the 1996-1998 time period the Forest Service had accepted that the National Environmental Policy Act and subsequent CEQ rules applied to actions such as closing federal roads. Thus any closures should have been accomplished under NEPA rules in effect at that time. NEPA has always mandated extensive public involvement and a structured process that is well documented. Losing all evidence of a NEPA process does not seem possible.
In addition, I cannot accept the answer provided of no records because in the past the Forest Service has referred to a Special Order signed by David Alexander in September 1997.
This document is part of the official record of the 2007/2008 TMP Lawsuit (FS017350). The order was to establish road status Forest-wide, and replaced six existing Special Orders. This non conventional use of CFR 261.50 to establish road status Forest-wide clearly identifies all Roads on the Krassel RD as being those on the McCall and Krassel Districts Map, 1995 Edition.
This reference, I believe, is to the 1995 Visitor Map, although it may have referred to a different McCall/Krassel District Map that I have in my possession, that is undated, but does reflect the same status as the 1995 Visitor Map, namely that Sugar Creek Road is open.
Complaint #2 has a typo error (alluding to the MVUM) but was intended to address the general problem of misleading and confusing direction provided to the public relative to road closures on the Krassel Ranger District of the Payette National Forest with focus on the Sugar Creek Road.
The following is a list of various actions and publications available to the public regarding the Sugar Creek Road.
Backroads Guide not shown on map
in the early 2000 years.
This guide was not intended to
reflect road status as established
through CFR & NEPA process.
The Guide states: ‘…this publication is
Only a general guide. The 1995 Forest
Visitor/Travel Map show more information
Such as closed roads”. Why Keith Lannom chose to use it for reference in showing the legality of closing Sugar Creek Road is confusing, at best.
During the 2003-2007 period the
legal status of Sugar Creek was
frequently questioned and the
Backroads Guide was the justification.
No CFR or NEPA analysis was
ever produced for the BC\YP area
even though Forest Officials stated an
underlying action had been accomplished.
During the Lawsuit over the 2007-2008
TMP the Backroads Guide was never
mentioned by the Forest Service
as a basis of establishing road status.
2000 BNF Visitor Map Unimproved Road
2007 PNF Travel Management Plan Not a designated
(This plan was found invalid Road
in District Court on 2/11/2014)
2010 BC/YP Travel Management Plan Not a designated
(This plan was found invalid Road
in District Court on 1/5/2015)
2007 PNF Visitor Map Unimproved Road
(This map states, “This map depicts
the present day open road and trail
system”
2012 BNF Visitor Map Road not maintained
for Passenger Cars
2013 PNF Visitor Map Dirt Road Suitable
for Passenger Cars
2017 The remedy for resolving the Closed as of 7/8/17
lawsuit mandated an all new NEPA
analysis & re-evaluation of all
road status, but allowed the
current MVUM to be implemented
to avoid chaos.
Complaint #4. The real purpose of the Storm Treatment and Ford Rehabilitation was to illegally and physically close the Sugar Creek Road.
As documented in the Forest Service response immediately prior to this work the public was using the road even with installation of gates and barricades, but no citations were issued, probably because in 2016 the road had never been legally closed.
The Forest Service used(or MIS-used) the categorical exclusion intended for projects that don’t substantially alter existing road use (such as replacing a culvert or other minor maintenance).
It was obvious from the start the real objective was to make the ford totally impassible by all but a military tank.
I was not aware of the project prior to the construction, but members of the Senator Crapo initiated BC/YP collaboration were briefed on the project and some of those briefed did comment.
At my request, Chris and Lois Schwarzhoff shared their comments. The following was part of the written comments by Chris and Lois Schwarzhoff supplied to the Forest Service prior to the project being accomplished:
No comments:
Post a Comment