|
|
|
 |
| Michael Ward intends to run for the Sedona City Council in 2010. |
Congress should implement the National Scenic Area Designation
by Michael Ward, Candidate for Sedona City Council
MARK YOUR CALENDAR: NSA PANEL DISCUSSION ON
MAY 6, 2009 in SEDONA
SEDONA, AZ - April 21, 2009 -
In 1998, the Forest Service, with the input of the
community, created Amendment 12, amending the
current Coconino National Forest Plan for the
management of 160,000 acres of Red Rock lands in the
greater Sedona area. Of the various provisions of
Amendment 12, a restriction on land trades in the
Sedona area has been the primary benefit as
perceived by the public.
In 2007, the Coconino National Forest was mandated
to revise their forest plan. The Forest Service
staff has since been working on evaluating
components of the forest plan that should be
changed. They are still in the early stages of
developing a template and draft language for the
revised plan with which to begin soliciting public
input.
Land Trades - 1983 Small Tract Act (Public Law
97-465)
Under the 1983 Small Tract Act (Public Law 97-465),
the National Forest Service (NFS) has the authority
to sell or trade a scattered and isolated tracts of
national forest system land, provided it is valued
at under $150,000 and in parcels of less than 40
acres. The authority to sell or trade land under the
Small Tracts Act has been delegated to the Forest
Supervisor.
Land trades are an important management tool used by
the NFS to acquire private lands within the national
forests. The process involves trading national
forest lands along the periphery of the national
forests for private lands, often termed in-holdings,
located within the national forests. These
in-holdings were homesteaded before the creation of
the national forest. The consolidation of the
in-holdings into the national forests enhances the
NFS’s ability to manage national forest lands.
Amendment 12
Amendment 12 was deliberately written to serve as a
management plan when and if a National Scenic Area (NSA)
designation were enacted for the Sedona area (click for pop-up map). An
important provision of Amendment 12 restricts land
trades between state-owned or privately-owned lands,
and Forest Service lands, within a designated
160,000- acre area in and around Sedona. For the
protection of private land holders within the
designated area, Amendment 12 does allow the
exchange of forest land within the designated area
for existing privately-owned land also within the
designated area.
The restrictions outlined in Amendment 12 do not
affect rights by governmental agencies to use the
forest lands within the designated area for such
public purposes as water supply tanks, road
building, and communications. Amendment 12 also does
not restrict the rights of governmental agencies to
purchase or exchange lands less than or equal to 10
acres within the designated area for for such public
purposes as schools or municipal uses.
Coconino National Forest Plan
The current Coconino National Forest Plan is being
revised following U.S. Forest Service regulations.
The new revised plan is expected to be completed and
implemented by the spring of 2011. Because of the
intense community interest in maintaining the
protections afforded by Amendment 12, the intention
of the Coconino National Forest is to incorporate
provisions of Amendment 12 into the proposed revised
Forest Plan. The proposed revised plan has not yet
been developed but as the plan evolves, the public
will be encouraged to provide comments. The
following link provides a progress diagram and
status of the plan:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/projects/plan-revision-2006/timeline.shtml
National Scenic Area Designation
Forest Plans are scheduled for revision every 15
years and although amendments are possible, both
proposed plan revisions and plan amendments would
require National Environment Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis and associated public input. Consideration
for a NSA designation for the area in and around
Sedona predates the formulation of Amendment 12. The
NSA designation bill (see link below), as currently
written with the aid of Senator McCain’s and former
Representative Renzi’s offices, does not require any
funding authorization, does not add an additional
layer of government, and does not relinquish any
local control by either the NFS or local governing
bodies. NSA designation, as with Amendment 12, does
not affect rights by governmental agencies to use
the forest lands within the designated area for such
public purposes as water supply tanks, road
building, and communications.
Because of uncertainties about the development of
the Coconino National Forest Plan, its review,
potential future amendments, and its 15-year
revision cycle, Keep Sedona Beautiful has lead a
community effort for a NSA designation by Congress
to help to ensure that the land trade restrictions
of Amendment 12 would be more durable. The
provisions of the proposed NSA designation include
only those provisions that relate to the control of
land trades.
My Position
It is in the best interests of Sedona that the
National Scenic Area designation be implemented to
insure that the protections against land trades of
the national forest lands in and around Sedona be
independent of future forest plan revisions and
amendments.
Sources of information:
Yewah Lau, Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s
Office in Flagstaff
Coconino National Forest Website
Stephen DeVol, President, Keep Sedona Beautiful
Keep Sedona Beautiful Website - http://keepsedonabeautiful.org
The NSA Bill wording -
http://keepsedonabeautiful.org/SRRNSA_ReadBill.pdf
Readers' comments
# 1 Anyone who has lived here in the Village of Oak Creek for more than a few years should realize that we need an alternate route to Sedona. The NSA Designation is an attempt to block any construction of a bridge over Oak Creek. If the Keep Sedona Beautiful coalition were so adamant about their opposition to a bridge, where were they last year when a private concern installed one over Oak Creek near Catherdral Rock? Yes, there already is a bridge although you and I are not privy to it. I will not support any candidate who opposes an alternate route.
#2 And I won't vote for any city council
candidate who continues to push for a bridge at
Red Rock Crossing.
How sad that this issue continues to polarize
us.
Red Rock Crossing is outside city limits. Our
county supervisor has said it's a dead issue as
far as he's concerned. And yet CFAR continues to
buy themselves council members, who continue to
vote for study after study after study until
they can get the result they want. Let's STOP
wasting tax payer money to try to build a bridge
most citizens of Sedona DON'T want.
A National Scenic Area designation is a good
idea. Clearly, we can't trust local politicians
to protect Sedona's landscapes.
#3 Has anybody given any consideration to the extra traffic that an NSA designation would add to Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon? Has anybody researched what has happened to other areas with an NSA designation? Was the Forest Service in favor of the NSA designation in their plan? At what cost to the community will an NSA designation bring?
#4 The facts is this: National Scenic Area is a
Trojan Horse. Amendment 12 of the Coconino
Forest Plan is being adopted completely into the
new plan--it is no longer just an "amendment"
adopted eleven years ago. Land trades within
fifteen miles of Sedona were prohibited by
Amendment 12, as it's called, when it was agreed
to in 1998 by every interest group
around--environmentalists, ranchers, hikers,
hunters, and REALTORS(yes, even the REALTORS).
It's working beautifully just as it was
intended.
The proposed National Scenic Area would
effectively take local control away and hand it
over to the U.S. Congress. Yes, those 535
members who recently told us all that they
didn't know what was in the bank bailout bill,
that they didn't know about allowing million
dollar bonuses, that they didn't know that . . .
HA! You get it. Once we hand local control over
to Washington D.C. lobbyists you can kiss it all
goodbye. You won't get an alternate route, you
won't get athletic fields or solar power out at
the Sedona wastewater plant. Why? Because it's
now all "scenic area" and attorneys for the nay
saying obstructionists are ready to roll. We
don't need more Federal anything right now.
#5 Knowing first-hand how Washington DC decision
making process works with the high risk of the
end results getting distorted and shaped into
something much different than the original idea,
I am very much against turning this issue over
to Washington DC to handle and determine what's
best for us locals. There are dozens of special
interest groups in Washington who have an agenda
and stands ready to add their special interest
provisions to any bill that passes through
Congress remotely related to their interest. The
National Environmental Groups would likely
pounce on any Congressional NSA bill with their
special interest provisions. And, they have many
Members of Congress, who stand ready to do their
work for them.
To me, people who support this legislation are,
in effect, saying I don't trust the judgment of
local people in the future under the FS very
open planning process. Afterall, we've done
pretty good job of it for the past 15 years. Why
try to trump our good work up to now and assume
that future generations can't be trusted to
maintain the beauty of the Sedona area.
Personally, I opt for community involvement on
this issue under the very open FS planning
process over the many hazards associated with
the Congressional decision making process that
would result in a permanent decision, short of
another law by Congress.
|
|
|
