Objections Rule and Press Release

by

Forest Service rule governing predecisional objection process published
Provides for public input prior to decision-making for many projects and activities

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2013 – The U.S. Forest Service today announced the final rule governing the objection process for projects and activities implementing land-management plans. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on March 27.

“This rule gives the public more effective involvement, supports our collaborative processes and will result in better decision-making,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.

The predecisional administrative review, or objection process, will be applied under federal regulation to all projects and activities that implement land-management plans and that are documented in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

The Forest Service has successfully used this objection process since 2004 for hazardous-fuel reduction projects authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Congress directed the Forest Service to also establish a predecisional objection process for other projects in lieu of the post-decisional appeal procedures that had been in use with those projects since 1993.

The new regulations respond to the statute by creating an objection process that applies to all authorized project proposals.

This final rule follows after a review of public comments submitted in response to the publication of the proposed rule last year. The rule is effective immediately but transition provisions will apply to projects already in the planning stage.

Here’s a link to the Federal Register notice.

Now let’s watch (and compare) the media coverage!
Extra points to journalists who ask local knowledgeable people from both sides.

A couple of comments:

We might want to start an ” adopt-a-project” effort where interested parties can follow the discussions more closely, and possibly report on them (here or elsewhere) to see how the objection process is working (transparency). Since non-local people have equal value, in some people’s thinking, I’ll be adopting projects in Montana ;).

Nothing in the rule prevents interested parties from (1) participating in project planning in such a way that they are eligible to object and therefore are notified directly when an objection filing period begins; (2) requesting copies of objections from the reviewing officer; (3) asking about a schedule of any objection resolution meetings; (4) attending objection resolution meetings
and participating at the discretion of the reviewing officer; and (5) obtaining a copy of objection
responses

Another thing I found interesting was:

Response:
The Department appreciates all of the input provided on this important subject. Since the
proposed rule was published, little has changed with the judicial or legislative
environment associated with this question. The Government’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit in the
Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell case remains pending. The Forest Service continues to comply with the nationwide injunction subjecting certain CE projects from the notice, comment, and appeal provisions of the Appeal Reform Act, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March legislation regarding this question have been introduced in Congress, nothing has been enacted. Therefore, the Department is not yet prepared to make any regulatory changes through this or any other rulemaking. The public responses received in comment on the proposed rule that pertain to this
question will be retained for consideration at an appropriate time in the future.

I wonder if the comments, or a summary, are posted somewhere…?

Forest Service Win in Bison Hazing Case

by

Here’s a link with a bit of interpretation. Other interpretations are welcome!

Bison Order

Attached is the Court’s decision, issued today, in AWR v. Weldon. The Court granted US motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion.

ESA Claims

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the ESA claims for lack of a 60-day NOI and lack of standing. The court found that Plaintiff violated the 60-day notice requirement by failing to actually give the required 60 days prior to amending their complaint. The court also notes that the NOI is defective because it fails to name APHIS and FWS. Notwithstanding the NOI issue, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing as to the Section 7 claims for lack of a showing of causality and redressability between the Federal Defendants’ alleged violations, the alleged harms and the relief sought. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Section 7 claim as to the Federal Defendants is moot because the agencies reinitiated consultation. (The court noted that Plaintiff’s challenge to Montana’s helicopter hazing program is not moot because the State stands ready to recommence helicopter hazing if it acquires funding, thus it falls under an the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine.) As to the Section 9 claim, the court looked to the declarations of USG experts and the 2012 BE in responding to evidence that plaintiffs submitted to support their take claim and agreed with USG argument that there was no evidence in the record that helicopter hazing of bison constitutes a “take” of grizzly bear within the meaning of Section 9.

NEPA Claim

As to the NEPA claim, the court found that Plaintiff lacks standing, yet went on to analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s NEPA claim. The Court noted that the FEIS notes that a majority of management activities will take place while bears are in their dens, while still acknowledging the possibility of overlap into the fall and spring when bears are out of their dens. The FEIS contemplated that hazing would be conducted on a flexible schedule. “The FEIS clearly demonstrates a consideration of hazing when bears are present because the FEIS notes the policy that ‘hazing operations would cease if there was evidence of grizzlies being active in the area.’” The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that new circumstances or information required supplementation of the FEIS.

NFMA Claim

Finally, noting that Plaintiff lack standing, the Court went on to reject Plaintiff’s NFMA claim stating that it is Plaintiff’s burden to show a NFMA violation and they had failed to do so.

Congrats to the Gallatin, Region, OGC and DOJ and anyone else!

Side note… I find that footnotes are sometimes interesting.

Neither NPS nor USFS considers itself to have in any way permitted or authorized the State of Montana’s hazing activities in Montana (whether in airspace over the Gallatin National Forest or in the airspace over Yellowstone National Park). Montana’s authority to conduct helicopter hazing is not given to
Montana by the IBMP (which provides no legal or governmental authority to any IBMP partner but rather draws its legal authority from the powers of the government signatories themselves). Rather, Montana’s authority to conduct helicopter hazing arises from the legal authority of the State of Montana to
manage its own wildlife: “Montana has the right under its own police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants by removing possibly infected YNP bison that migrate into Montana.” Intertribal Bison Co-op. v. Babbitt, 25 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1137 (D. Mont. 1998) (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 794 F.Supp. 1015 (D. Mont. 1991)), aff’d sub nom. Greater Yellowstone
Coalition v. Babbitt, 175 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). The fact that hazing–in general–is discussed in the 2000 Record of Decision (as cited by Plaintiff) merely underscores the fact that hazing has been addressed in prior NEPA analysis. (See FS AR Doc 1 at 11.) As to AWR’s attempt to use the testimony of a witness (Mr. Mackay) to support its argument that helicopter hazing is a federally authorized
program, the Court merely comments that legal conclusions are for the Court, not
lay or expert witnesses. See Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local #10, 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992) (excluding legal expert’s opinion as to legal matters because the opinion offered is an inappropriate subject for expert testimony).

Also

This thread of lack of standing winds its way through all of the claims filed by AWR: the ESA claims are weakened because no federal action underlies the complained-of activity; 4 the claim for additional NEPA supplementation is weakened because no new federal action has occurred since the original NEPA
analysis was prepared; and the NFMA claim is weakened because the Forest This thread of lack of standing winds its way through all of the claims filed by AWR: the ESA claims are weakened because no federal action underlies the complained-of activity; 4 the claim for additional NEPA supplementation is
weakened because no new federal action has occurred since the original NEPA analysis was prepared; and the NFMA claim is weakened because the Forest Service issues no permit and takes no action to allow the State of Montana’s helicopter hazing in the airspace over the Gallatin National Forest.5
AWR attempts to call federal agencies to task for allegedly violating federal environmental statutes, but the actual conduct complained of is the conduct of the State of Montana. The Court concludes that AWR’s standing to assert claims against the Federal Defendants is lacking in both causality and redressability.

pp. 12-13.

UPDATE FROM MATTHEW:  I was curious about this case, so I took the step of actually contacting the attorney for Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Here is the information she sent me about the case:

We wanted federal agencies to do ESA consultation on the IBMP (Interagency Bison Management Plan) for helicopter hazing impact on grizzlies.  They fought and fought.  After we finished briefing, they did the consultation.  So judge ruled yesterday that our ESA consultation claim was moot because they had finally done consultation.  There were other minor issues, but the main issue was forcing them to do consultation, which we accomplished.  And the lawsuit was against all the federal IBMP partners, not just Forest Service.  So the agencies didn’t really “win” since they were finally forced to do consultation.

Fire Resilient Communities: Waldo Fire Report

by
From Inciweb Waldo Canyon Fire - June 26thCredit: Adam Drake
From Inciweb Waldo Canyon Fire – June 26th
Credit: Adam Drake

Imagining a positive mutual future for wildland urban interface areas…check out this video about how Colorado Springs worked to create a Fire Resilient community, and their experience with the Waldo Canyon Fire. If you haven’t been around a western more or less urban community experiencing fire, listening to some of the interviews may give you a look at what it feels like to folks who live there.

Also, at about 4:30 in the video, Brett Lacy, the Fire Marshall of the Colorado Springs Fire Department, says “we expected the fire to go to those mitigation areas and lay down, but in most instances it hit those areas and went out,” and shows a couple of areas. Looks like those areas are beyond the home ignition zone. We have discussed these kinds of things on the blog before, but I think this video is helpful in seeing the areas treated and how that affected fire behavior.

You might also want to check out other information on the Fire Adapted Communities website here.

Oregonian Editorial Board on Forest Roads

by

While we’re waiting for the objections rule, thought I’d post a few miscellaneous items..

Here’s a link and below are some excerpts.

Forest owners, logging companies and those who value gainful employment won a significant victory Wednesday in the U.S. Supreme Court, which opined that logging roads are not point sources of pollution requiring discharge permits under the Clean Water Act. The lopsided, 7-1 decision reversed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose wisdom promised, warned Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in 2011, to “bury private, state and tribal forest lands in a wave of litigation.”

Party time, right?

Not quite. As important as the decision is for forest owners, some of them are keeping the bubbly on ice until Congress makes the long-standing policy challenged by environmental groups a matter of law. Can you blame them, given the determination of litigants to keep right on litigating and prodding?

and

Meanwhile, environmental lawyer Paul Kampmeier told The Oregonian’s Scott Learn last week, his organization, the Washington Forest Law Center, will keep right on “pushing EPA to do something …” And why not? As Kampmeier pointed out, “The court generally ruled that the ball’s in the EPA’s court.”

The most effective way to provide long-term security for forest owners is to change the law, as legislation sponsored during the last Congress by Wyden and others would do. Unfortunately, the legislation died despite gathering a bipartisan collection of sponsors. It deserves another shot.

This seems to be another of those “Congress should act” kinds of things…perhaps we need a grassroots movement for “Congress stepping up” in some of these areas? Perhaps a “sustainable forests and national forest communities” Manifesto?

Alaska Roadless Upheld

by

Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

SEATTLE — A court in Washington, D.C., has rejected the last legal challenge to prohibitions on logging and road building in backcountry roadless areas, ending more than 12 years of fighting over one of the nation’s signature wilderness protection policies.

The state of Alaska had challenged the rule adopted in 2001 by President Clinton to preserve the last large tracts of untouched forest in states including Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Alaska — along with about 1.7 million acres in California — that still have not been opened to logging and other development.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled Monday that Alaska’s challenge in 2011 came too late under the statute of limitations to invalidate a policy that already has survived multiple lawsuits in courts across the country.

You gotta wonder whether by the time something’s “too late under the statute of limitations” (10 years), the NEPA has to be “stale”.. Does that mean you can start another case based on that? Aargh.. maybe Congress should have done this in the first place.

More Info Dribbling Out From Lewiston About Objections Rule

by

objection

AP story here.

My favorite part of this story was…

But critics worry the changes will force them to predict the future. Instead of filing an appeal based on a specific decision, they will have to anticipate a wide range of possible final decisions the agency might make.

“Whether you are a timber industry advocate or a strict preservationist, you are going to need to break out your crystal ball to determine what the Forest Service is going to do before they do it,” said Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League.

That has the possibility of spawning more objections and taking more time than the current system, said Gary Macfarlane of the Moscow-based Friends of the Clearwater.

“Right now appeals are done after a decision is made so both parties know what the decision is; objections and concerns can be more pointed, more boiled down,” he said. “It’s going to force people who object to do the kitchen-sink model, to throw as many concerns out there as possible.”

Those who do not participate in the public involvement and objection process won’t have standing to file lawsuits, raising the stakes and incentive for filing a broad range of objections, environmentalists say.

where Mr. Oppenheimer predicts what timber industry advocates think.

However, further down in the article, we actually hear from a real live industry advocate.

For Tom Partin, executive director of the American Forest Resource Council in Portland, Ore., the new process is welcome and long overdue. He believes the new process will compel people who oppose things like timber sales to come forward with their objections rather than holding back and saving rhetorical ammo for court.

“They have to put their dislikes in up front and try to work it out in the resolution process,” he said.

But it’s interesting that “the critics” predict future bad things, but we have actually been using objections since HFRA, so the territory is, in reality, well known or, perhaps, trammeled ;).

It’s interesting that Earthjustice attorney said about the track record (real, past, as opposed to hypothesized future) objections..

“That concept of pre-final decision comes from the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (of 2003), and it works fairly well,” said Earthjustice attorney Kirsten Boyles, whose law firm frequently challenges Forest Service policy. “It requires people be involved earlier in the process, and it seems to have worked fine.”

If the press release is tomorrow and it’s coming out in the Federal Register Wednesday, we might want to review our previous posts and comments on it..

But check out Rob Chaney’s Missoulian piece from January and our discussion and links here. And here (45 comments!) is another extensive discussion we had..plus the tacky diagram above (public opp. is opportunity to give comments) that we can use to parse out some of the discussion, or at least until the news release and background material tomorrow.

Barry Wynsma: U.S. Forest Service Collaboration Process: Solution or Sham?

by

This is pretty interesting because Mr. Wynsma was able to obtain a great deal of information, (should that information be available more generally?) and also his observations as employee and collaborator. I’m starting a page on ideas for solving “the Problem” and will put his ideas, as well as the ideas found (buried?) in comments here, on that page. Here’s the link, and below is an excerpt.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Truth about Collaboration

Even though I don’t believe the current process for collaboration will solve these problems, that doesn’t mean there aren’t good things about the collaborative process or that the process can’t be improved upon to help solve the problems.

Here’s what I and other current and retired Forest Service acquaintances I contacted think are good things about the collaborative process:

Involving a diverse group of people (I hate the term “stakeholders”) during the project planning process is a good thing. I believe it helps the Forest Service design projects that better meet the desires of the public, even though it’s impossible to meet everybody’s personal opinions on how to best manage the public forests.
With collaboration comes group ownership in projects and support from start to finish.
Joint solutions and commitment means no backing out.
The collaborative program provides assistance with funding to accomplish needed treatments.
Collaboration can help lay people better understand the complexity of forest management.
Collaboration may build community relationships that encourage continuing positive working relationships between Forest Service people and the community.
Collaborative groups police themselves and force extremists on both sides of the spectrum to consider what they are really saying philosophically vs. practically on any given issue.

On the other hand, there are things about collaboration that are not so good, if not bad. Here’s what I and other current and retired Forest Service acquaintances I contacted think are bad things about the collaborative process:

The collaborative process is time consuming and more costly than the traditional process of public scoping and comment gathering for projects. The more people involved in a project, the harder it is to schedule meeting dates and field trips that will maximize the largest group involvement. The results of my inquiry clearly show that projects aren’t moving through the NEPA and appeals process any faster than normal and possibly even taking longer.
The time consuming nature of collaboration can be a major deterrent to people that are not paid to attend meetings during working hours, people who have limited free time or travel. Forest Service people can become weary of after hour meetings, paid or not paid.
Meetings can go on for months, if not years. This consumption of time makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many people to take part.
Poorly managed meetings generate negative emotions and can ruin the entire process.
For individuals or groups with an agenda to limit or eliminate forest management, collaboration can provide an opportunity to wear others down by dragging meetings on and on, then appeal and/or litigate after an extended collaboration process. Collaboration can also usurp the agency’s authority.
The Forest Service may or may not be aware of hidden agendas or games being played by some members in a collaborative group.
Forest Service specialists may feel like they get “cut-out” of project development.
Also considering project specialists: the more days they have to spend in meetings, the less time they have to conduct field work and write reports, which extend the timeline for implementing projects.

The ugly truth is that collaboration won’t reduce analysis paralysis, appeals and litigation. Collaboration also won’t increase the rate at which the Forest Service can reduce fuels and restore unhealthy forests until the appeals process and our current myriad of conflicting environmental laws are reformed.

So what are some possible ways to improve the collaborative process?

Here’s a few:

After all the time and effort put into project development by collaborative groups and the Forest Service, it simply isn’t fair to the collaborative or to the taxpayers of this country to allow an inexpensive process for individuals and groups, whether they were members of the group or not, to stop or delay project implementation through appeals and litigation.

Congress should pass a new law that will exempt collaborative projects from the appeal or objection process. They should also include bonding requirements for any individual or group that file suits to stall or stop collaborative projects.

Congress should also reform or eliminate the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows litigants to recuperate court costs from the tax paying public.

The Forest Service should develop a new Categorical Exclusion to replace the Healthy Forests Restoration Act version (CE #10) that allowed for fuels reduction timber harvests less than 1,000 acres in size. The CE #10 was rescinded following a lawsuit filed by environmental groups because in my opinion this CE allowed for expedited implementation of fuels reduction projects.

To get a broader spectrum of public involvement, make more use of the internet to gather input from people who want to participate in collaboration but don’t have the time or money to show up for meetings and field trips. The Forest Service could maintain email mailing lists for projects that people want to be engaged in and could be kept up to date on the progression of projects without having to show up for meetings. For example, with the smart phone technology I could imagine a logger sitting in the woods during a lunch break or a hiker up on a mountain top being able to participate in a collaborative project.

Note from Sharon: I was somewhat involved in the development of CE#10, not sure that would help at the end of the day. I really like his last point in terms of the criticism I hear from both sides.

Timber Industry Returns.. to Colorado?

by
Beetle-kill, or blue-stained, pine can be milled into dimension lumber. (Colorado State Forest Service)
Beetle-kill, or blue-stained, pine can be milled into dimension lumber. (Colorado State Forest Service)

One of the interesting things about this blog is that we get to compare conditions that aren’t usually compared across our areas, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, California, the SW, Wyoming and South Dakota and Colorado. We could probably use more contributors from the Midwest, East and South.

This interesting piece is from the Aspen Business Journal, of Aspen, Colorado. (I was thinking the same information might be written differently if it were written, in say, Boulder…;))

Here’s the link and below are excerpts.

While Colorado’s forests continue to suffer from beetle epidemics at high altitude and the hangover from a century’s fire suppression at lower altitude, there’s some good news out there for those who believe in active forest management.

Timber prices, which were bottomed out during much of Colorado beetle kill epidemic, are set to skyrocket, and the state’s timber industry may be rising in time to take advantage, industry experts said. And while there are millions of acres of standing dead timber that may never be harvested, there’s also some good news out there for at salvaging at least some of the beetle-kill pine, as well.

“In general, we’re still suffering the impacts of a century of fire suppression, so at this point active management makes a lot of sense,” said Mike Eckhoff, a PhD Candidate in forest science at Colorado State University.

“We’ve lost 80 percent of our (timber) productivity since the 1980s,” Eckhoff said. “This could be a boon for Colorado’s timber industry provided that timber is actually made available for the industry to use.”

Timber prices hit an eight-year high in March, largely due to the rising U.S. housing market. Research by the International Wood Markets indicates the U.S. and Canada probably will not be able to fulfill that timber demand in two to three years, creating even higher prices and perhaps prompting imports from Europe.

Canadian timber production was hurt by the pine beetle epidemic, the report said, but also by permanent mill closings during the recession and the loss of two large mills due to fire.

The past failure of the Colorado timber industry is usually blamed on the U.S. Forest Service making fewer trees available in light of environmental resistance to logging. While the beetle-kill epidemic and catastrophic wildfires may have taken some of the edge off the latter concern, forest industry experts are now more worried that cuts to the Forest Service’s budget may hinder making wood available through forest management.

and

In addition, things have also been looking up for Colorado’s two large pellet mills, and rising timber prices will also help them, Fishering said.

“Our industry is pretty diverse, and we’re a lot more competitive than we were in the ’70s,” she said. “We are extremely optimistic.”

Colorado may also be able to salvage much more of the standing dead lodgepole pine, than previously thought, Eckoff said. While most industry experts thought that after three or four years the beetle-kill trees were not sturdy enough to create dimension timber, he said, new studies indicate that doesn’t appear to be the case for trees that have not fallen.

The upland spruce trees that are now being killed by the spruce bark beetle are highly prized in the industry, though not all the acreage will be available to loggers. In fact, about two-thirds of the state’s 4.5 million acres of spruce-fir forests are off limits to management because of wilderness or roadless designation, according to a study by the Colorado State Forest Service.

Still, Eckhoff thought there are plenty of acres in need of management that could be producing forest products.

“Colorado produces an annual net forest growth of 1.5 billion board feet, but we only harvest 6 percent of that, or 87 million board feet,” he said. “In other words the removals do not significantly reduce the interest nor do they touch the principal.”

Objections Rule to Be Released (?) and a Recap on “Contacting Your Representatives”

by

This came across me email from the LM Tribune online here.

The U.S. Forest Service is changing the process by which citizens can challenge timber sales and other actions.

Under the new guidelines, which are expected to be unveiled this week, people who want to challenge agency actions will be required to fully participate in the public review process and file formal objections prior to forest supervisors making final decisions.

Some of you may remember that I wrote my Senators asking why this had been requested by Congress last year and still hadn’t been completed. That was part of the post here Paid Gladiators and Unpaid Peacemakers: There Must Be a Better Way.”

Here is what happened:

Senator Udall’s office first wrote back and said they received my email. In about six weeks they sent a copy of a letter they sent to the Chief asking about it and for the Forest Service to write me back (I expect this became “controlled correspondence”). I never heard from the Forest Service, but if the objections rule is coming out, that’s what I wanted. As I noted before, they had a place for natural resources in their drop down menu.

Senator Bennett’s office never wrote back to say they received my email. About a month and a half in they sent a form letter saying that they noted my concerns and would take them into consideration (which actually wasn’t the point). This office’s dropdown didn’t have a place for natural resources so I had to select “environment.” For the State of Colorado. Really.

They are both in the same party, so it appears that it’s not a partisan issue.
Ed had mentioned in a previous comment here

In response to your great suggestion about working with (talking to) our fed reps, I have to share from an Idaho perspective. As you likely know, Idaho has gone totally to the right, with extreme GOP control at all levels, county, school boards, House and Senate. OK, I accept that we of the other persuasion are vastly outnumbered.
But I have, on a few occasions, emailed my federal reps in DC. Their electronic sites are a real test of how determined you are to finish. Layer after layer of background and categories before you can insert your message. And you go through this again and again, each time you want to confer. Can’t help but wonder if all this preliminary junk is really intended to screen us out so we won’t “bother them”.
And knowing that I and “them” are so politically separated, my efforts are half-hearted. Tried the phone a few times, but again how many comments to some intern answering the phone are really passed accurately to the congressmen or senators. Doubtful.
A real challenge to be an environmental Democrat in Idaho.

I know some of the rural economic groups have training in working with elected officials and even trips to DC, I wonder if some information is written down that could be shared here about how to work with Congressional folk? The retired feds may have some pent-up desire for this… but in some cases it has to be them who will have to find solutions to the problems we’ve identified.

Courtroom Backroom Collaboration: Southern California Forests

by

Backroom-Deals-300x202
Here’s the link.

Here’s an idea. If the FS has to analyze an alternative proposed by a litigo-collaborative group, wouldn’t it have been more cost effective to analyze it right away as part of the rest of the NEPA rather than draw this out.. how many years have these poor folks been planning? Which would be an argument for analyzing both a collaborative group’s alternative and the “likely litigator’s” alternative upfront. Then we’d just have to think up a “more intrusive” alternative, and call it good.

The process seems to be:
Government tries really hard to write a perfect document
Groups who want control find flaws
Sit down with DOJ and make a deal

Leaving out the FS (well they are talking to DOJ but..), the public, Congress and other elected officials other than the ones influencing DOJ (current administration) Wish the political science folks were still here on this blog to talk about the “separation of powers” but as I recall, when things get out of balance with courts and executive, it is time for Congress to step in.

And back to our collaboration topic, by the same logic as Macfarlane suggested, then developing a proposal with groups as part of a settlement would also “violate NEPA..” But could that be, since it’s apparently ordered by a court? The non-legal mind boggles.

U.S. Forest Service officials could add 80,000 acres of wilderness areas in the four Southern California national forests — which would prohibit road building, commercial development and mountain biking — and ban motorized vehicles from another 300,000 acres.

The proposal is part of a settlement between the Forest Service and seven environmental groups that sued in 2008 over the agency’s decision to allow road building and off-highway vehicles in remote roadless areas.

The San Bernardino, Cleveland, Angeles and Los Padres national forests, which total 3.5 million acres, would be affected. Those forests, all near urban areas, are among the most popular in the country for recreation, drawing more than seven million visitors a year.

The proposal is outlined in a draft of the Forest Service’s management plan. An environmental analysis of the plan is open to public comment through May 16. The Forest Service will hold a public meeting on the topic March 28 at the San Bernardino National Forest headquarters.

Three alternatives are proposed:

Alternative 1 would make no changes.

Alternative 2, preferred by the Forest Service, would establish backcountry areas where no motorized vehicles would be allowed. The zoning would allow bicycling and makes an exception for road construction for tasks such as forest fuels management. It would not remove vehicle access where it is already allowed, however. The largest portion — 300,000 acres — would be in the Los Padres National Forest, headquartered near Santa Barbara.

Alternative 3, the most restrictive, recommends additional wilderness, a designation ultimately made by Congress. This would ban off-road vehicles, mountain bikes and construction of new roads and prohibit installation of cellphone towers, radio repeaters and microwave reflectors. This is the proposal favored by environmentalists.

Hmm. I guess it you have no timber, grazing, or oil and gas, you have to go after mountain bikes, fuel treatments and cellphone towers. Maybe we can see the ultimate endgame for some, as proposed for Southern California.