Readers' comments

#1 The fact is that, according to the draft legislation itself, land trades within the proposed NSA, basically the same as the land that is under Amendment 12, will codify in Federal law that land can be traded within the NSA, so long as it is for other land within the NSA. It does not, in fact, "prohibit land trades within the Amendment 12 area permanently". That statement is simply wrong. Please see Section J, paragraph f. That section says "The Secretary may exchange National Forest System land in the Scenic Area only if 1) The exchange results in the acquisition of National Forest System land in the Scenic Area from a willing seller, and 2) An environmental analysis (including an opportunity for public comment) is completed in accordance with the Resource plan before the exchange."

So, for instance, the private parcel out by the Coxcombs, sometimes referred to as the Tupper Tree parcel, which is within the scenic area, could be traded by the owner for a parcel which backs up to private property which is currently developed, as say, a residential subdivision. The Tupper Tree parcel would then become a part of the National Forest System, and the former owner would then own a parcel adjacent to developed land, which parcel could then perhaps be more feasibly developed.

The initial impetus for developing the NSA proposal was to put a stop to such trades, and the residents whose properties abut the newly traded parcel will be no happier than they would be if the trade had been for land outside the Scenic Area. They will lose the advantage of being adjacent to Forest land. If the goal of the NSA is to prevent trades, it simply does not truly accomplish that goal. When I asked about what was meant by Paragraph f at a presentation about the NSA, the answer was that the hypothetical situation described above could, indeed, happen. Except with the NSA, it would be Federal law, rather than part of a Forest plan.

My other concern is what might get attached to the actual bill as it goes through the House and the Senate. When this concern was raised, someone said, it will be Kirkpatrick's bill, she will decide what will be in it. Naïve, to say the least. Once a bill is accepted on the floor of the House or the Senate, it belongs to the body as a whole, not just to the person who introduced it. Who knows what pet projects might be attached.

Amendment Twelve has worked just fine for many years, and my understanding is that it is going to be incorporated into the current revision of the Forest Plan, and will no longer be an amendment, but part of the plan itself. It would not be changed easily, and if a change was proposed, there would be plenty of opportunity for public input. If that failed, that would be the time to consider an NSA proposal. Until then, I see no reason to do so.

Sandy Moriarty

#2 This argument reminds me of all the scare stories I am seeing on TV concerning the public health care option?.In this instance I guess this #1 comment writer missed the recent court decision throwing out a Bush era attempt to change forest service rules to weaken them in favor of development. In this case the rules change would have violated both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. This is the problem with relying on the Forest service rules (our amendment 12 for example being written into the ules?now), they can be changed more easily by simple rules changes in Washington ?not even votes in Congress or discussion with locals! Fortunately national environmental groups spent money and took the issue to court and finally got the issue stopped. See (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/01/01greenwire-judge-tosses-bush-era-forest-management-regula-91701.html).

Further the Sedona NSA prevents corporate land trades (outsiders with designs/investments in our town). Any "edge" of forest service land can only be traded by local municipalities (Sedona!) for "infrastructure?uses and must only be for a land parcel within the designated NSA, which the forest sevice would like to have as part of the NSA. The NSA size must remain constant. The forest service (Heather P) has said (at Big Park NSA meeting) that they already have those desired parcel within the NSA designated area.

I suppose if writer lived backed up to the forest service where City of Sedona wanted a water tower, then she might have a problem. However, this is a local infrastructure issue right now where community cooperation can be of service. Other local groups would try to help you assure that this location desired by the City is the best location and may even support you fight such a move.

Meanwhile when Amendment 12 is folded into the Forest Service Rules (2010?), a simple rules change requested by a powerful outside corporation or political interest could allow them to get that land behind you?. With the NSA designation that land trade would be prevented period.

Marlene Rayner
Chair, Sedona-Verde Valley Sierra Club