Graham, Ken, Steve C.
Ken's post regarding trailhead quotas is only a portion of the entire story.
A lawsuit was originally brought by several parties in response to the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) Wilderness Management Plan for the Ansel Adams, John Muir and Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses issued by the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. The suing parties principally objected to the great attention given to commercial pack operations within these wilderness areas. If memory serves me right, one of their chief complaints was that the Forest Service was proposing to issue more permits to commercial packers and reduce the number of foot permits. Sometime between 2001 and 2004, the case was heard and a ruling was issued that found the USDA failed to adequately address many issues within the 2001 EIS. An injunction was issued preventing implementation of the 2001 plan and the USDA was ordered to complete another EIS.
The document Ken referenced, issued in December 2004, is the opinion rendered by the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT which upheld an earlier ruling requiring the USDA to complete another EIS and upholding an injunction preventing the Forest Service from implementing the management plans.
At some point in 2005 (maybe late 2004), the USDA modified their approach and dropped the Dinkey Lakes portion of the EIS and incorporated the Trail Management Plan for the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses. The reasons for this change:
“A revised notice of intent is being issued for several reasons. A Trail Management Plan for the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses, previously under analysis in a separate environmental document, has been combined into this project. The Dinkey Lakes portion of the Trail Management Plan will be conducted in a future analysis. To incorporate the Trail Management Plan, the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action for the project have been revised only to reflect the combination of the two proposals into one.”
Ref. [Federal Register: January 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3508-3509]
The full text of this change is:
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2005/January/Day-25/i1295.htm">Revised Notice</a>
In December 2005, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision for the Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses was released. Two errata have been issued, the latest as recently as May 2006. You can find these documents on the Inyo National Forest website at:
<a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/wildplan2004.shtml">2005 EIS and ROD</a>
The original 2001 EIS and ROD can be found here.
<a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/wildplan.shtml">2001 EIS and ROD</a>
I have responded to this thread and topic to demonstrate the series of events which have consumed significant public resources. However, the new EIS and a more detailed study of the impacts of commercial stock in wilderness areas has not resulted in any appreciable difference between the 2001 plan and the new one.
I have often read Ken’s complaint of the lack of resources and budgets for the USDA and USFS so I thought laying out this series of events could shed light on where some of those resources are being spent. I represent no point of view with respect to these matters but will point out that the principal complainant in the original lawsuit has adopted a position opposing commercial interests in the Sierra Nevada.
The following is quoted from their website:
“We feel that the management agencies in the High Sierra are heavily biased in favor of commercial interests such as horse & mule packers, cattle & sheep grazers, and mining companies. These interests exploit, debase, and pollute our cherished national lands for private gain—to the detriment of those of us on foot, and at great cost to the public.
While the Sierra Club and other conservation groups have moved on to national and global issues, the wilderness of the Sierra Nevada continues to suffer at the hands of these commercial interests and under the hooves of horses, mules, cattle, and sheep. Commercial mule packers, livestock grazers, and mining companies are well organized, have high-priced legal help, and essentially have had things their own way for decades. “
I apologize for rambling on here but I frequently get a sense from reading the WPSMB that most of the posters/readers have no clue what efforts are being expended toward public lands from all sides of the spectrum. This is just one isolated case in the many that are on-going.
Last and certainly not least, the implementation of this plan will have some consequences on permits issued to everyone.
