Jump to content

  • Join Today, It's Simple and FREE!

    As a member, you can post in our forums, upload your photos and videos, use and contribute to our downloads, create your own member page, add your ATV events, and even start your own ATV club to host your own club forum and gallery.  Registration is fast and you can even login with social network accounts to sync your profiles and content.

Recommended Posts




Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is beginning the process of revising their regulations that govern how the agency prepares Forest Plans. Known as the "Planning Rule," these regulations will be the driving force behind how the agency develops, amends and revises their Land Use Plans.

This is a big deal.

The FS is proposing a planning rule that will shift what is left of any emphasis toward multiple use/sustained yield to such things as global warming, ecosystem management and their new buzz word - restoration. Our action alert below gives a brief analysis and explains why BRC is concerned, and why we are encouraging our entire membership to respond.

For those of you who don't want to know the details, or are busy with work and family, you can use our letter generator. For those of you who wish to send your own email to the USFS, we put together another one of our INSANELY EASY 3- step action items below.

Please send your comment email today. The comment deadline is February 16, 2010!

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact BRC.

Thanks in advance for your support,

Brian Hawthorne Ric Foster

Public Lands Policy Director Public Lands Department Manager

208-237-1008 ext 102 208-237-1008 ext 107




SITUATION: The U.S. Forest Service is beginning the process of revising their regulations that govern how the agency prepares Forest Plans. Known as the "Planning Rule," these regulations will be the driving force behind how the agency prepares Land Use Plans and will guide land managers in developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the 155 national forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest System (NFS).

The USFS has released a proposed action that includes several so-called "Principles" that will be used to formulate the new regulations. The agency is asking for comments on these principles, and is asking the public to identify important issues and alternatives. (Read the Notice of Intent HERE)


Land management planning is one way the USFS complies with requirements under such laws as the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) as well as laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Sadly, planning regulations can also be used to dilute the requirements under NFMA and MUSYA and expand the requirements of other laws, such as the ESA and the Wilderness Act.

By including such nebulous guidance as, "restoration and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of threats" and "proactively address climate change through monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information," the proposed emphasis will further shift the agency away from multiple use management.

If that's not bad enough, the agency's proposal does virtually nothing to address the analysis paralysis problem. Current regulations provide multiple levels of seemingly never-ending environmental analysis. The result is a series of one-way procedural gates for litigious environmental groups. We often describe the situation by saying the environmental groups have executed a corporate takeover of the US Forest Service.

The agency has several problems with its planning. But the key problem is that the agency assumes it has the authority to change the policy that was established in Congress. The agency is attempting this via their planning regulations, which are supposed to be all about the procedures for revising land management plans, not the policy those plans will implement. As a result, the planning rules are unworkable. Plans take years to complete, are unbelievably expensive, totally unresponsive to public input and often include conflicting management guidance. By the time all the levels of environmental analysis are completed on a project, it's time for a new land use plan. Sadly, this new proposal will likely make things worse.

More info on the web:

The FS has a website with all the information and links to other background documents.

We have reformatted the Notice of Intent for easy reading. Take a good look.



NOTE: Please be polite and, if possible, make your comment letter as personal as you can.

STEP 1: Open your email program and start a draft email. Address the email to

[email protected].

Put "New Planning Rule" in the Subject Line.

STEP 2: Use the comments below as a guideline for comments in your email.

Cut and paste is okay, but try to make your comment letter as personal as possible.

STEP 3: Take just a minute to add a bit about where you live, where you like to ride

and how much trail-based recreation means to you. Be certain to include your

name and address. A return email address is NOT sufficient! ("anonymous" emails

are often discarded).


Forest Service Planning NOI

C/O Bear West Company

172 E 500 S

Bountiful, UT 84010

RE: New Planning Rule

To whom it may concern,

1. The Importance of Recreation to the American Public should be emphasized in the planning regulations.

A diverse range of recreational activities should be identified as one of the key "Ecosystem Services" that Land Use Plans should address. According to the National National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, the popularity and importance to USFS visitors of off-highway vehicle and snowmobile recreation has drastically increased in recent years. Ditto for mountain bike and equestrian use. Conversely, the amount of USFS lands available for motorized, mountain bike and, on some Forests, even equestrian trails, have been reduced via legislation, implementation of Forest Plans and site- specific recreation plans. Therefore, there is a need to emphasize a diverse range of recreation in the planning regulations.

Please identify the need to emphasize a diverse range of trail- based recreation as a formal planning issue and develop at least one alternative where the planning regulations identify motorized and non- motorized recreation as a key ecosystem services and provides direction to enhance and expand opportunities for these popular activities.

2. Planning regulations should focus on procedures for developing, amending and revising land management plans.

The Notice of Intent (NOI) states that this new rule will "consist of procedures for developing, amending, and revising land management plans" and it lists several "principles" that could be used in the development of a new planning rule. Note that none of the "Substantive Principles" have anything to do with procedures for developing land management plans. And only one of the "Process Principles" directly addresses the planning process.

The agency says its existing planning regulations are costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. I believe this is because the previous regulations attempted to address policy instead of planning procedures. Congress sets the policies for management of federal lands, and administrative agencies must act within those legislative limits. The new planning regulations should focus exclusively on planning procedures, not policy direction.

3. The concern over the trend away from Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Management should be identified as a planning issue.

Each year more and more USFS lands are removed from multiple use management. Past planning activities and litigation have significantly expanded preservation- oriented management and significantly reduced areas available for multiple use. The reduction of multiple- use, sustained- yield management has been identified as a key problem affecting the health and economic well-being of States and local communities.

The issue of "cumulative loss of multiple use sustained yield management" should be identified as a formal planning issue and brought forward for analysis. At least one alternative should include planning direction to enhance multiple- use, sustained- yield management. All Alternatives should include a complete analysis of the history of the MUSY Act and its sociopolitical importance to states with large areas of federally- managed lands.

4. There is a need to streamline the planning and appeal process.

I agree with the agency's assessment that current regulations are costly, complex, and procedurally burdensome. However, incorporating many of the "Substantive Principles" are likely to exacerbate this problem.

The issue of cost and complexity of planning should be brought forward for analysis and incorporated as a formal planning issue. At least one alternative should be formulated to streamline the planning process. The agency may also wish to ask Congress to clarify its intent on both policy and requirements for environmental analysis.

5. There is a need to clarify the distinction between programmatic and site- specific planning, as well as what level of environmental analysis is required for both.

The proper relationship between Forest Planning and project planning is a topic of frequent discussion. In the past, the agency asserted the "programmatic" or "general" nature of Forest Plans. However, recently completed Forest Plans blur the line, viewing subsequent site-specific processes as mere reiteration or "implementation" of the Forest Plan decisions. In addition, the agency seems to suffer from a multiple and often redundant requirements for environmental analysis.

All alternatives should clarify the distinction between programmatic and site- specific planning and at least attempt to describe what level of environmental analysis is required in each.

6. It is unwise to "proactively address climate change" in the planning regulations.

The agency's own "Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis" (January 13, 2009) states that the effects of climate change are unknown, will vary regionally and will range the gamut from increased droughts to increased flooding. The document states: "It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of those projects or project alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale." The only thing that is certain is the climate will change from its current and/or its historical condition.

Effects of climate change are unknown. Impacts to the climate from human activities occurring on the forest, as well as the impacts of climate change on the forest, cannot be made at any scale. Please remove this issue from consideration as a "Substantive Principle."

In addition, incorporating "climate change" into planning will be redundant. For example, the NOI says

"Responsible officials will also need flexibility to be able to adjust plan objectives and requirements where there are circumstances outside of agency control: For example, where increasing water temperatures resulting from climate change make it impossible to maintain a sensitive fish species in its native habitat." However, such "flexibility" is already embedded in land use planning, and specific management prescriptions, standards and guidelines already address important issues such as "increasing water temperature." Indeed, existing Forest Plans contain very specific guidance regarding the monitoring of and management for sensitive fish habitat.

7. I strongly oppose the "alllands" approach. Please remove this from consideration as a "Substantive Principle."

The agency has this exactly 180 degrees backward. Instead of trying to force adjacent landowners to abide by the agency's wishes, it should be mindful not to let the deteriorating condition of its own forest to result in damage to adjacent lands.

8. Generally, recreationists like green forests.

No one can deny that a very large percent of the agency's forests are unhealthy. There is agreement that moving to a historic range of variability, at least in as much as we understand it, is probably wise. However, the only tool available to manipulate those variables in designated Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is prescribed fire.

This will be a big problem for the new focus on Restoration. Unlike what the general public believes, IRA's include lands that are highly modified, and not just by decades of fire suppression. Many have been commercially logged in the past and these "plantations" are susceptible to unnatural wildfire, insect and disease. The agency's current Roadless area management severely restricts any attempt to restore these lands to the historic range of variability.

Therefore, it is logical to develop an alternative that emphasizes a more aggressive approach to achieving the historic range of variability outside Roadless areas and Wilderness. This should include commercial logging where appropriate, which achieves the agency's mandates for community health and prosperity, and also protects against so-called "fatal fires," and insect and disease outbreak.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By oxidized_black
      these are what i have in my collection ... always looking for more
      1985 - 1990 Suzuki LT230 & LT250 Service Manual
      1987 - 1998 Suzuki Quad Runner 250 & King Quad 280 Service Manual
      1987 - 2006 Suzuki LT80 Service Manual
      1987 Suzuki LT500R Quadzilla Service Manual
      1988 - 1992 Suzuki LT250R Porting Instruction
      1988 - 1992 Suzuki LT250R Quadracer Service Manual
      1988 - 1992 Suzuki LT250R Tuning Guide Instruction
      1999 - 2004 Suzuki King Quad 300 Service Manual
      2002 - 2007 Suzuki 500LTA Service Manual
      2002 - 2009 Suzuki LTF250 Ozark Service Manual
      2003 Suzuki LTZ400 Service Manual
      2006 Suzuki 50LTZ Quad Sport Service Manual
      2004 Suzuki 250LTZ Quad Sport Service Manual
      2005 Suzuki LTA700 King Quad Service Manual
      2007 Suzuki 90LTZ Quad Sport Service Manual
      2008 Suzuki 400FLTF King Quad Service Manual
      2008 Suzuki 750 King Quad Service Manual
      2009 Suzuki 400LTZ Quad Sport Service Manual
    • By JCH
      Hi there
      I am in need of a manual for my KLF 300 Bayou 4x2 . I've found others on here for the 4x4 model, but was wondering if I need a separate 4x2 manual. Does anyone know?
    • By colin james
      View File 2005 Polaris Predator 50/90 Sportsman 90 Service Manual
      This is the factory service manual for the 2005 predator 50cc and 90cc, Sportsman 90cc. Download all the chapters for the complete manual or just the sections you need.
      Submitter colin james Submitted 04/06/2019 Category Polaris ATV  
    • By oxidized_black
      View File 1988-2002 Kawasaki Bayou 220 Service Manual
      1988-2002 Kawasaki Bayou 220 Service Manual
      Submitter oxidized_black Submitted 12/14/2016 Category Kawasaki ATV  
    • By Admin
      View File Linhai ATV Service Manual
      Linhai ATV Service Manual
      Submitter Admin Submitted 07/01/2019 Category Other ATV  
  • Similar Tagged Content

    • By OutlawGade
      [/ame]This is where I broke the axle on the renegade.
    • By rocky450
      i have a 05 yfz with a brand new battery. There is an issue with it not starting now. You can hear the cliking noise but no turn over.Battery is charged fully but no start.HELP!!!!!!!!!!! What is the problem or anyadvice to fix and not go broke in the process
    • By ATVsToday
      > IDAHO, Call your Senators on CIEDRA before they return to Washington * 
> DC
      > Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber in Idaho,
      > What was your reaction to the news that Idaho Senators Mike Crapo * 
> and Jim Risch recently introduced Congressman Mike Simpson's Central * 
> Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) in the Senate?
      > Were you shocked? You should have been. Idaho has 5 million acres of * 
> Wilderness already. More than any other state except Alaska. * 
> Wilderness bans all mountain bike and motorized recreation. Yet, * 
> Idaho's entire congressional delegation is now supporting a bill * 
> that designates 332,775 new acres of wilderness in the Boulder White * 
> Clouds (BWC).
      > I hate to say this, but the story on this CIEDRA bill is getting * 
> worse. A comparison between the 2009 House version and the 2010 * 
> Senate version will turn your shock into outrage.
      > The Idaho Recreation Council recently put the two bills side-by-side * 
> and found the new 2010 version considerably worse than its * 
> predecessor. See: Comparison of the 2009 House CIEDRA VS 2010 Senate * 
      > First of all, the new bill has more Wilderness. A lot more. Over * 
> 20,000 acres of "new" Wilderness has been added to the White Clouds * 
> Wilderness. The new bill also throws out language that gave * 
> permanent protection to the motorized routes in the Sawtooth * 
> National Recreation Area but outside the proposed Wilderness. Rep. * 
> Simpson started out with a basic premise of wanting to settle the * 
> issue once and for all and that is no longer being accomplished.
      > The new bill also eliminates language that secures motorized access * 
> to the very popular and scenic Germania Creek-East Fork/Grand Prize * 
> trail. The new bill not only takes away the East Fork/Grand Prize * 
> section, it also allows closure of the entire route "for non- 
> motorized recreation purposes."
      > Similarly, the new bill paves the way for the closure of the Frog * 
> Lake loop. In the "old" bill, Simpson included language that secured * 
> motorized access but the new bill says it will remain open only "if * 
> the Secretary allows motorized use."
      > There's more. The OHV park near Boise was stripped out, as was * 
> authorization for $1 million to the Idaho Parks and Recreation to * 
> develop and manage it. And the trail between Redfish Lake and * 
> Stanley for non-motorized use in summer and snowmobiles in the * 
> winter, including parking areas at each end was stripped out.
      > The only thing this bill protects the land from is YOU. Simply * 
> because you ride a mountain bike, enjoy snowmobiling or ride off- 
> highway vehicles, you don't have a right to view these lands.
      > That's not Idaho. We can do better.
      > Senator Risch and Crapo have scheduled June 16, 2010, for a Senate * 
> Subcommittee hearing on the new bill. Congress is in recess until * 
> June 4 for local district work sessions. That means the next few * 
> days is the best opportunity to contact the Senators with your * 
> concerns prior to the June 16 hearing.
      > Please make your call today. We've put together some talking points * 
> you can use below. And tell you friends and family to make their * 
> calls by the end of the week.
      > As always, thanks in advance for your action on this important * 
> issue. Please call or email if you have any comments or suggestions.
      > Brian Hawthorne 
> Public Lands Policy Director 
> BlueRibbon Coalition 
> 208-237-1008 ext 102
> Idaho Senators on board with a "new" Boulder White Clouds Wilderness * 
> Bill - that's even worse than previous versions. 
> Please call the senators during Memorial Day recess and express your * 
> concern.
      > Situation: 
> Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch recently introduced Congressman * 
> Mike Simpson's Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act * 
> (CIEDRA) in the Senate. Idaho's entire congressional delegation is * 
> now supporting this bill that designates 332,775 new acres of * 
> wilderness in the Boulder White Clouds (BWC). 
> See: Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill to be reintroduced today 
> IDAHO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS: Updated and breaking news 
> Simpson's wilderness bill gets Senate introduction 
> Simpson's wilderness bill gets Senate introduction - KHQ Right Now - News and Weather for Spokane and North Idaho |
      > What you need to do: 
> The Memorial Day recess (May 31 - June 4) gives Idaho's * 
> recreationists a golden opportunity to express concerns about the * 
> new bill.
      > Sen. Mike Crapo 
> * * *Boise Office: (208) 334-1776 
> * * *Pocatello Office: (208) 236-6775 
> * * *Idaho Falls Office: (208) 522-9779 
> * * *Coeur d'Alene Office: (208) 664-5490 
> * * *Lewiston Office: (208) 743-1492 
> * * *Caldwell Office: (208) 455-0360 
> * * *Twin Falls Office: (208) 734-2515
      > Sen. Jim Risch 
> * * *Boise Office: (208) 342-7985 
> * * *Coeur d'Alene Office: (208) 667-6130 
> * * *Idaho Falls Office: (208) 523-5541 
> * * *Lewiston Office: (208) 743-0792 
> * * *Pocatello Office: (208) 236-6817 
> * * *Twin Falls Office: (208) 734-6780
      > Please be polite.
      > With 5 million acres already set aside, Idaho has enough Wilderness. * 
> I oppose CIEDRA and I am calling to ask the Senator to reconsider * 
> his decision to promote this bill.
      > There is no threat to these lands. No massive clear cutting project * 
> is in the works. No giant mining operation proposed. Mountain bikes, * 
> off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles are not harming these lands.
      > CIEDRA will kick out motorized and mountain bike recreationists who * 
> will take their dollars with them, having a negative impact on the * 
> local economy.
      > The Sawtooth National Recreation Areas provides protection and * 
> balanced management while still allowing recreational uses.
      > I am opposed use of the Omnibus package to pass CIEDRA or any public * 
> lands bill. 
> The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national (non-profit) trail-saving * 
> group that represents over 600,000 recreationists nationwide The * 
> Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) season is beginning. Federal * 
> employees, please mark BlueRibbon Coalition and Check #11402 on your * 
> CFC pledge form to support our efforts to protect your access. Join * 
> us at 1-800-258-3742 BlueRibbon Coalition: Protecting your recreational access to public lands. 
> _______________________________________________________
      > As a non-profit, grassroots organization funded primarily by * 
> membership dues and donations, we greatly appreciate your support. * 
> Visit Make a Difference Now - BlueRibbon Coalition to help fund * 
> our efforts to protect your trails!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...