| OCR Text |
Show wmr HECPITY AtJP Tit UA FREAT dUVJCL Tilt WAR. 0t 5CPtRY AVeH (AH LPPATE. EY AEVERAMCE.) In the last issue, I discussed the Forest Service's disregard for scenic values on the MonticelloMoab Ranger District The Environmental Assessment for the Abajo Peak Communications Site proposed the addition of numerous communications towers that would violate the Forest Plan's Visual Quality Objectives. To get around the Forest Plan's restrictions. Forest Supervisor Janette Kaiser proposed amending the Forest Plan to lower the Visual Quality Objective for Abajo Peak. The Decision Notice to designate the Abajo Peak Communications site was signed on March 4, 1997. It is the most egregious decision document I have seen from any Federal Agency - and that is saying a lot As expected, Janette's Decision Notice would allow additional eyesore communications towers on Abajo Peak. However, the Decision Notice and Response to public comments reached a new level of idiotic rationalization. The Decision authorizes 5 new towers one can be 150' tall and the four others 60' tall. However, according to Janette, they will not violate the Forest Plan's Visual Quality Objective (VQO) for Abajo Peak. repudiated the Forest Service's Visual Management System that has been used to protect visual resources on National Forests for over 20 years. If this Decision holds up, the Forest Service can ignore visual resource protection in all future decisions. (A new visual management system that places even more emphasis on protecting visual resources has recently been finalized. I wonder how Janette is planning to void it when it becomes National Forest) operational on the Manti-LaSIncluded with the Decision Notice was the "Response to Comments" on the EA which becomes Appendix C of the Environmental Assessment This document starts off by tying about my position on the Abajo Communications Site. The Forest Service is claiming that I want all communications facilities removed from Abajo Peak. That is not true. I have never said that all communications facilities must be removed from Abajo Peak. Instead, I have repeatedly stated that the Abajo Peak Communications Site can and should meet the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective The way they are now planning to get around the Forest Plan's restrictions is by voiding the Forest Service's Visual Management System! They are doing this by redefining the word "should." The Manti-LaSForest Plan states: "Forest resource uses or activities should meet the adopted VQO as defined on the Visual Management Map." In an otherwise poorly written Forest Plan that allows for almost any use on any area of the Forest regardless of the consequences, this single statement stands out as an actual commitment to protect one of the Forest's resources. towers on Abajo Peak, Janette claims that Now, to justify putting more the words "should meet" "are not specific or binding thresholds with regard to VQO." Janette is using this new definition of "should" to claim that these new towers will not violate the Forest Plan, therefore no Forest Plan amendment to lower the Visual Quality Objective of Abajo Peak is necessary. Incredible! My American Heritage Dictionaiy disagrees with Janette. It states that the word "should" is "used to express obligation or duty." By redefining this word, Janette has that was mandated by the Forest Plan. This is a reasonable request since other National Forests have managed to put communications sites in visually sensitive areas without creating eyesores; however, Janette has refused to even consider this option. Her response to my request was an unwarranted attack on my position that portrayed me as an extremist Obviously this travesty of a Decision was appealed to the Regional Forester. Fait of the appeal is a request for a written apology from Janette for her slanderous comments about my position on the Abajo Peak Communications Site. I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting for it. The first step after an appeal is filed with the Regional Forester is a meeting between the appellants and the Forest Supervisor who made the Decision. Stiles and I met with Janette Kaiser and other Forest Service bureaucrats for two hours on May 2. (Stiles appealed the Decision with me his version of the meeting appears in his column.) According to the al ng CALL TOLL-FRE- E: 800-748-48- 87 t I d.t al |
