Vi+
10-13-2006, 17:14
The following is my reduction of an article in “New West, Travel & Outdoors,” dated 10-1-06. I apologize in advance for its length. The article citation seems to occasionally “go away.” I saved the article and if anyone requests by Personal Message, I will forward it. The citation appears at the end of this post.
**
“Retired Forest Planner Blasts Secret Forest Service Project
Dick Artley retired from the Forest Service (FS) ... For the last 12 years of his career, he worked as a forest planner ...
Artley sharply criticizes the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP) project currently underway within the FS. ... claim(ing) it will result in the closing or privatizing of thousands of recreation sites.
‘This policy (RSFMP) was cooked up in secret by the Forest Service in 2002 with absolutely no public involvement or congressional review. By law, every RSFMP project must go through the National Environmental Policy Act process and have a public input period, but the Forest Service has chosen to ignore NEPA.’
(He) contact(ed) the FS Washington D.C. office to express concerns over the RSFMP process. He provided factual information about how certain sites in on four Colorado national forests were already being illegally bulldozed as a result of the process, despite severe local opposition. ... (H)e concluded that his efforts to contact the agency ... were a "waste of time." So, he went public.
... RSFMP orders every national forest to inventory all developed recreation sites and rank them compared to a national standard. Sites not measuring up will be closed or decommissioned (a.k.a. obliterated).
‘This inventory is being taken on every national forest in America ... The closures will affect mainly simple, remote facilities favored by local residents, hunters, fishermen, and others who prefer dispersed and minimally developed recreation sites. ... These simple, remote facilities have very few improvements and are easy to maintain and are maintained at minimal cost.’
(T)he FS will analyze more developed sites such as campgrounds and determine how much it costs to maintain each site. ... The FS will compare these costs to ‘the drastically reduced funding’ each national forest receives for recreation. ‘If there isn't enough money in the budget to operate the developed recreation site to standards, then it will either be converted to a fee site and still be managed by the Forest Service, be obliterated, or be turned over to a private concessionaire who will also charge a fee.’
(No) ... national forest ever publicly released their RSFMP Plan.
(T)he FS actually has a lot more appropriated money for recreation management than it admits. ‘The Forest Service Washington D.C. Office withholds 85% of the recreation budget appropriated by Congress and does not tell the national forest supervisors ...’
(E)ach national forest should have around $1 million for maintenance of recreation facilities. ... (T)he Deschutes National Forest’s RSFMP 5-Year Plan claims to only have $149,000 in Congressionally appropriated funds to manage its 212 developed recreation sites. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest's RSFMP 5-Year Plan claims to only have $138,000 to manage its 138 developed recreation sites. ... These are the same national forests ... in the process of bulldozing recreation sites.
‘There are two things that the Forest Service is sure of ... President Bush personally ordered RSFMP, so it must be done, and the only way to pull off RSFMP is to maintain its secrecy.’
... He encourages people to contact the FS and ask about RSTMP so the agency understands that "the cat is out of the bag ... Once the secrecy is gone, the Forest Service will finally realize that they cannot continue to lie to the public about the motivation and specifics of RSFMP.’
... RSFMP represents ‘the next big step in the ongoing effort to privatize and commercialize recreational opportunities on America's public lands.’ ... it involves closing down and decommissioning of perhaps thousands of recreation sites, conversion of free recreation sites into pay sites, ‘concessioning-out’ recreation facilities and eventually ‘transferring management control of public recreation area to special interest groups’ in the name of sustainability.”
The citation: http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/retired_forest_planner_blasts_secret_forest_servic e_project/C41/L41/
**
“Retired Forest Planner Blasts Secret Forest Service Project
Dick Artley retired from the Forest Service (FS) ... For the last 12 years of his career, he worked as a forest planner ...
Artley sharply criticizes the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP) project currently underway within the FS. ... claim(ing) it will result in the closing or privatizing of thousands of recreation sites.
‘This policy (RSFMP) was cooked up in secret by the Forest Service in 2002 with absolutely no public involvement or congressional review. By law, every RSFMP project must go through the National Environmental Policy Act process and have a public input period, but the Forest Service has chosen to ignore NEPA.’
(He) contact(ed) the FS Washington D.C. office to express concerns over the RSFMP process. He provided factual information about how certain sites in on four Colorado national forests were already being illegally bulldozed as a result of the process, despite severe local opposition. ... (H)e concluded that his efforts to contact the agency ... were a "waste of time." So, he went public.
... RSFMP orders every national forest to inventory all developed recreation sites and rank them compared to a national standard. Sites not measuring up will be closed or decommissioned (a.k.a. obliterated).
‘This inventory is being taken on every national forest in America ... The closures will affect mainly simple, remote facilities favored by local residents, hunters, fishermen, and others who prefer dispersed and minimally developed recreation sites. ... These simple, remote facilities have very few improvements and are easy to maintain and are maintained at minimal cost.’
(T)he FS will analyze more developed sites such as campgrounds and determine how much it costs to maintain each site. ... The FS will compare these costs to ‘the drastically reduced funding’ each national forest receives for recreation. ‘If there isn't enough money in the budget to operate the developed recreation site to standards, then it will either be converted to a fee site and still be managed by the Forest Service, be obliterated, or be turned over to a private concessionaire who will also charge a fee.’
(No) ... national forest ever publicly released their RSFMP Plan.
(T)he FS actually has a lot more appropriated money for recreation management than it admits. ‘The Forest Service Washington D.C. Office withholds 85% of the recreation budget appropriated by Congress and does not tell the national forest supervisors ...’
(E)ach national forest should have around $1 million for maintenance of recreation facilities. ... (T)he Deschutes National Forest’s RSFMP 5-Year Plan claims to only have $149,000 in Congressionally appropriated funds to manage its 212 developed recreation sites. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest's RSFMP 5-Year Plan claims to only have $138,000 to manage its 138 developed recreation sites. ... These are the same national forests ... in the process of bulldozing recreation sites.
‘There are two things that the Forest Service is sure of ... President Bush personally ordered RSFMP, so it must be done, and the only way to pull off RSFMP is to maintain its secrecy.’
... He encourages people to contact the FS and ask about RSTMP so the agency understands that "the cat is out of the bag ... Once the secrecy is gone, the Forest Service will finally realize that they cannot continue to lie to the public about the motivation and specifics of RSFMP.’
... RSFMP represents ‘the next big step in the ongoing effort to privatize and commercialize recreational opportunities on America's public lands.’ ... it involves closing down and decommissioning of perhaps thousands of recreation sites, conversion of free recreation sites into pay sites, ‘concessioning-out’ recreation facilities and eventually ‘transferring management control of public recreation area to special interest groups’ in the name of sustainability.”
The citation: http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/retired_forest_planner_blasts_secret_forest_servic e_project/C41/L41/