I'm sure any/all help is greatly appreciated.

To all MPA members and friends,

Your action is needed immediately on this issue.

Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) has come out with the Talking Points for your use to address the U. S. Forest Services land management planning process. Please read the letter below and and make a comment as suggested. It will only take a few minutes and will help insure the continued use of lands and waters administered by the Forest Service.



Respectfully,

Your MPA Board of Directors



Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) call to action



To all pilots who want continued access to National Forest lands and waters:



The United States Forest Service is in the process of revising its entire land management planning process. This has not been done since 1982. The USFS has held round table meetings throughout the country to gain public input. RAF representatives have attended most of these sessions. Following extensive public input, a draft plan (RULE) was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2011, Vol. 76, No. 30, page 8480. Following a long preamble, the actual draft RULE begins on page 8514. To read the entire document and to learn more on the process, go to: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/planningrule



Following this publication of the draft RULE, a series of public meetings were again held throughout the country to answer questions from the public and provide information on how to comment on this draft plan. Specific "for the record" comments were not accepted at this second series of meetings. However, the USFS is now accepting public comments on the draft RULE and they must be received by May 16, 2011.



What can you do? Read over the draft RULE to get an idea of what is going on. Take particular note of page 8519, paragraph 219.10 Multiple uses. Recreation gets the short end compared to timber in paragraph 219.11 Recreation is being combined with numerous other uses, even including utility corridors. Also, look at the definitions on page 8525, where the closest thing to recreation is "sustainable recreation". That is why the RAF is suggesting more definitions. At least we got "dispersed recreation on land, water and air" inserted as this was the major message from the RAF at the initial public meetings.



Talking points you may consider are:

1) Recreation on USFS lands is a growth "industry" while timber harvest is declining. Over the next twenty years the USFS will experience increased demands from the public for a variety of recreational opportunities and must have a rule making process in place that can rapidly respond to these demands. Therefore, recreation must be specifically addressed as a stand alone component of the plan.



2) The RULE should address in more detail all the various multiple use categories as each has unique characteristics and potential for growth. Recreation should be one of these broad categories.



3) It is the intent of Congress that recreational aviation and backcountry airstrips on public lands be given specific consideration as evidenced by U.S. House Resolution 1473, passed on September 20, 2010.



4) Recreation access methods should be enumerated and include aircraft landing sites on land and water in order to facilitate dispersed recreation with internal trailheads.



5) Recreation facilities should not be included with general transportation systems (which would include railroads and interstate highways) and utility corridors. They are generally unrelated to each other and require different management strategies.



6) In order to gain national uniformity in Forest Service plans, language in the RULE should give specific direction and not use words such as "may" and "could". The use of these types of verbs in the RULE will lead to excess flexibility between various line officers, where planners may easily interject their own personal biases.



7) "Social" and "Economic" issues should receive the same consideration as "Ecological" issues.



7) The Planning Rule should state that people writing Travel Management Plans shall adhere to the Planning Rule.



Suggest that this re-write of the RULE give the individual citizen the freedom to recreate on USFS lands unless specifically denied that freedom in specific areas for good cause as determined periodically by the Forest Service. The USFS is thus not granting permission in this re-write as much as it is withholding this liberty for a good specific reason in specific areas. It puts the responsibility on the USFS to make a good case in each instance of limiting access.



Comments can be submitted electronically to: http://www.govcomments.com or more directly at the Public Participation Portal

Or snail mail to:

Forest Service Planning DEI

c/o Bear West Company

132 East 500 South

Bountiful, UT 84010

FAX: 801-397-1605

Be sure to put the words "planning rule" on the first page or on the cover sheet.

The Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) has been attending these planning meetings, beginning with the first ones in Washington, D.C. Upon review of the draft RULE, the RAF has determined that the draft has significant short comings in regard to recreation and access for recreation purposes. The RAF has developed a detailed comment that includes suggested specific wording changes and additions to the draft text. However, it is important that individual pilots and other aviation organizations send in comments that are original (in your own words) and help the planners make a decision. All form letters will be considered as one comment. Do not just vent your frustrations.



Chuck Jarecki, Director, RAF and MPA

Phone 406-883-2248

[email protected]

Hi, Newbie Bush Boy Here, I posted this comment on the comments page for the USFS ruling at the link below. I got some of the verbage from RAF and added some of my
own flavor. Feel free to copy, edit and post in your own name to get as many pilots comments in on the subject as possible.

http://www.govcomments.com/ProjectInfor ... 5&b=20800& (comments submittal portal)

To Whom it May Concern,

My comments are in regard to backcountry airplane operations on USFS & BLM land for recreational, emergency, and land management operations. I believe all existing airstrips should remain open to use as described in the following statement.

Many airstrips are closed by federal land management agencies without a public process. We have heard from our fellow members and state aviation officials they often discover an airstrip has been closed only when they attempt to use it. This action represents a grave danger to pilots who have not been made aware of an airstrip's closure prior to an attempt to land there.

Backcountry airstrips serve an essential purpose in firefighting, search and rescue, forest and ecological management, research, aerial mapping, and disaster relief. Use of the airstrips can significantly reduce the time to and from destination as well as cost by using fixed wing aircraft instead of rotor wing helicopter, horseback or foot operations.

Remote dirt and grass airstrips also play an important safety role as emergency landing areas. If a single engine piston aircraft loses its engine, an immediate landing is required. In mountainous terrain, an airstrip could be the difference between life and death for a pilot and passengers.

Backcountry airstrips will never be popular destination spots because the average recreational pilot does not have the training or skills needed to fly into wilderness strips. Those who use remote airstrips are highly experienced backcountry pilots who own aircraft that are properly designed to fly into and out of rough terrain. For this reason, many airstrips likely see, on average, no more than 3-6 landings and takeoffs in one year.

The cost of maintaining backcountry airstrips is minimal. In many states, pilots themselves regularly trim vegetation, remove rocks from the landing site, and fill in potholes. If repairs are needed, local pilots and state aviation officials are more than willing to work with land managers to make the repairs. Furthermore, since these airstrips are already in place, no additional environmental impact will be realized.

Thank you for your consideration of the afore mentioned details from a back country airplane pilots stand point.

Good job on your letter but I think I read that form letters with different names signed will, as a group, be considered as just one letter to discouraged loaded mass mailings. Just trying to make sure every letter counts.

dirt

National Forest System Land Management Planning; Proposed Rule


"Additionally, it is important to note
that the proposed rule is not limited to
‘‘vertebrate’’ species as required under
the 1982 provisions. The proposed rule
would include native plants and native
invertebrates (fungi, aquatic
invertebrates, insects, plants, and
others) for which the Agency currently
has very minimal biological information
on their life histories, status, abundance,
and distribution. However, maintaining
or restoring ecosystem diversity within
the plan area is the best opportunity to
conserve these little-known species."

More federal manager, tree hugger, peta, nature conservancy, etc, etc. BS