SANDY: The following article kind of goes with the article that I sent to you in January, It seems like we get a little to much interference from the Government and especially the court system, We had a pretty good working relationship with the Forest Service, as there was quite a few different groups of us that were having meetings  and trying to work out solutions to the various issues involved.  The Forest Service has been real good about keeping everyone informed as to what is going on as to meetings, and policy changes.  I just hope we can get things going again , before everyone  looses tract of where we were.
Tim Austin  Colorado public lands advisor

News Release

USDA Forest Service                                     

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests

          2250 Highway 50

Delta, CO  81416-2485



CONTACT:  Lee Ann Loupe, Public Affairs Specialist, 970-263-5829 or 970-596-0246 



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

GMUG Proposed Fforest Plan Suspended



DELTA, Colorado., May 7, 2007 ­ Public comment on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) proposed Forest Plan is suspended indefinitely.  The GMUG proposed Forest Plan was developed under the 2005 Planning Rule and was released for public review on March 16, 2007.  On March 30, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of California U.S. District Court ruled that the Forest Service¹s adoption of new planning regulations (2005 Planning Rule) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Until the Agency complies with the court¹s order, the Court has enjoined the Forest Service from implementing and utilizing the 2005 Planning Rule.



GMUG Forest Supervisor Charlie Richmond said, ³We don¹t know for sure where we will head with Forest Plan revision in response to the injunction; however, we are evaluating our options for when and how to proceed.²  He went on to note, ³whatever approach, we decide to use, the public collaboration and recommendations we have received to date will be integral in our continuing planning activities. Our stakeholders have helped us develop a vision for the Forest for the next 15-20 years, and we need to prepare effective plans to guide and support that vision.²



Some of the options under consideration include: ³re-initiating² forest plan revision under the 1982 planning regulations, continuing management under the 1983 Forest Plan and addressing any necessary changes through amendment, waiting for the Agency to make the necessary changes to the 2005 Planning Rule to comply with the Court, and continuing with National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning activities that are independent of the 2005 Planning Rule (e.g. monitoring, public involvement, scientific analysis, etc).



The work that went into developing the proposed Forest Plan, (e.g. the Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) and Comprehensive Assessment) provides information about current conditions, trends, and key findings for the social, economic and ecological components of the Forest. Planning Staff Officer Carmine Lakewood stated, ³Regardless of which option(S) we choose, these planning documents, and all the work by our stakeholders, provide valuable information that will be useful in future strategic planning activities, as well as project-level planning efforts.²

Additional information on the Court¹s ruling and Forest Service activities please visit the GMUG National Forest web-site:  www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug.

The Enviros normall have someone draw up a set of comments on these plans and then hundreds send in the same comments, fortunately for us they are all counted as one comment when they are  duplicated.

I tis imperative to get out different comments from as many people as possible and one mor thing, if they are not legal comments there is no standing to sue. one way is to get a list of legal comments for a guide so that otheres can use them and their own to submit but different from one another.

Jerry