Forest service heads up Rim Trail controversy
By Bill Tibbetts CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The US Forest Service won't let public opinion sway their decisions.

Now that I have your attention, let me explain.

Recently, the USFS closed the public comment phase on the 50 acre private tract of land that includes part of the Rim Trail in the Fires Creek area of Clay County. Knowing that the USFS was inundated with letters from the public regarding the proposed development of this private in-holding within the national forest, I wanted to learn more about the decision making process that will ultimately determine the impact on this area of the Fires Creek watershed.

I had the opportunity to talk to Steve Lohr, the District Ranger for the Tusquitee/Cheoah Ranger Districts of the Nantahala National Forest and I asked him what effect that volume of public comment has on the decision making process. What he said makes perfect sense, but is hardly what I'd call common knowledge.

Lohr: "In a nutshell, any comment that raises a significant issue is substantive. A significant issue is one that can drive alternatives that will be included in the Environmental Assessment. I have some information on the topic, but basically it is up to the discretion of the deciding official and the NEPA team to determine what comments are substantive. These comments are generally those that have backing in some sort of law or FS directive. For example, let's say the FS was proposing a mountain biking trail. During the scoping period, the public identified that a portion of the trail would have to go through a designated wilderness. That would raise a significant issue since the Wilderness Act prohibits mechanized equipment. Another comment might state that they disagreed with the use of mountain bikes on NF land. This is not substantive since it is vague and largely personal opinion."

Lohr referred me to Rick Semingson NEPA {National Environmental Policy Act} coordinator for further clarification.

Semingson: "When we consider the broad range of issues that the public raises to a proposed action, an issue becomes "significant" or "substantive" when it is relevant to the effects of a proposed action. An issue that someone might have with the proposed activity itself would not be considered significant or substantive. Issues are considered as they relate to the effects on the human environment, that being the physical, biological, social and economic environment.

Four questions that we attempt to answer when considering whether an comments are substantive, or relevant are:

1) Is the comment within the scope of the proposed action? We see many comments that have nothing to do with the proposed action. For example someone may comment that there should be no roads of any kind on National Forest lands. This is probably clearly beyond the scope of the proposed action.

2) Is the comment specific to the proposed action? (see # 1 above).

Another example would be, developers are ruining our mountains. This is beyond the scope and probably not specific to the proposed action.

3) Does the comment have a direct relationship to the proposed action? An example would be, ATV's will cause additional erosion and sedimentation.

It does not follow that the proposed action will lead to ATV use.

4) Does the commenter include supporting reasons to be considered?

Five reasons we would not consider an issue to be significant are:

1) The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action. (see # 1 & 2 above). An issue we see often is that the proposed action will lead to global warming. Global warming is an issue way outside of the scope of any actions we may propose.

2) The issue is already decided by law, regulations, or the Forest Plan.

3) The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made. For example, a decision to approve the proposed activity will send a terrible message.

4) The issue is not supported by scientific evidence. For example an issue might be raised stating that wildlife will be displaced. There may be no scientific evidence that wildlife would be displaced by a proposed action.

5) The issue is limited in extent (geographic range), duration ( length of time), or intensity (level of interest or conflict generated by the issue).

One point to keep in mind is, that given that an issue is as it relates to the effects of an action, we may include in our design or implementation of the action mitigating measures that reduce or eliminate the effects. For example the design of a road may be such that it does not have an effect on water quality. Or we might avoid known archeology sites or endangered plant species. This would, in effect, make the issue non-significant.

When we receive hundreds of comments concerning a proposal, as we did recently, we as a team try to group and streamline the comments as much as possible into a manageable number of truly significant issues."

Question: One question I'm asked repeatedly in the course of this research is the impact of numerous "same" letters {composed by an organization} and the individual just signs on vs. an original letter the individual composes.

Obviously, both letters would have to be substantive in nature to be considered but there is a suspicion that "form" letters lose effectiveness.

The question becomes, "do shear numbers of substantive letters add anything to the equation?" The USFS position and your thoughts on that would be appreciated.

Semingson: "Numbers don't count. If I look at 100 letters or a thousand letters and they all raise the same substantive issue in one form or another, it's just one issue. Our analysis are based on the substance of the issue, not the number of individuals who raise the issue. As I mentioned in a previous email, we group issues with similar themes into one issue that captures the common theme of the many."

Reader Comments

No comments have been posted. Be the first!

Other Stories With Comments:
Article	Comments
Land transfer tax-- let the voters decide	1