Colorado Wild * Conservation Congress * Sheep Mountain Alliance* San Juan
Citizens Alliance * Great Old Broads For Wilderness * Planeto Azul Hydrology *
High Country Citizens Alliance * Western Watersheds Project * San Luis Valley
Ecosystem Council * Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition * Biodiversity
Conservation Alliance * Western Colorado Congress * Quiet Use Coalition *
NFRIA-WSERC * Wild Connections * Colorado Mountain Club * Ridgway-Ouray
Community Council * Prairie Hills Audubon Society
Forest Service Planning DEIS
c/o Bear West Company
132 E 500 S
Bountiful, UT 84010
via e-mail: http://www.govcomments.com/
May 13, 2011
Dear Forest Service,
The following are the comments of the groups described below on the proposed planning
rule, as described at 76 Fed Reg 8480 et seq., February 14, 2011, and its accompanying
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). References and citations to 219.xx refer to
the proposed rule unless otherwise indicated. References to the Preamble are to the
official Federal Register notice for the draft rule, cited above.
Colorado Wild is a non-profit organization formed in 1998 to protect, preserve, and
restore the native plant and animals of the Southern Rocky Mountains, focusing its efforts
on habitat protection in the forested high country. We have approximately 650 members
throughout Colorado and in other states. We regularly and systematically review
proposed projects and plans for Colorado’s national forests and some regulations
proposed for the national forest system.
The Conservation Congress is a nonprofit formed in 2004 that works to protect and
preserve National Forest lands, native wildlife species and their habitat in northern
California and the Rocky Mountain region. Our Congress is a membership organization
that provides a voice for the natural world of trees, wildlife, water and plants that cannot
speak for itself. Our Forest Monitoring Program consists of scrutinizing projects on
National Forest lands and providing comments to make them less environmentally
damaging. Our main goal is protect wildlife species and their habitat, and preserve
remaining roadless areas on National Forest lands.
Sheep Mountain Alliance is a grassroots citizen organization dedicated to the
preservation of the natural environment in the Telluride Region and southwest Colorado.
To this end, Sheep Mountain Alliance will provide education for and protection of
regional ecosystems, wildlife habitats and watersheds on both private and public lands.
1
The San Juan Citizens Alliance, founded in 1986, is a grassroots organization of more
than 500 members dedicated to social, economic and environmental justice. We organize
San Juan Basin residents to protect our water and air, our public lands, our rural
character, and our unique quality of life while embracing the diversity of our region's
people, economy and ecology.
Great Old Broads for Wilderness is a 3,500-member national grassroots nonprofit
organization dedicated to preserving and protecting America's roadless public lands.
Today there are Broads of all ages and both genders in every state in the union making
their voices heard to protect America's last wild places.
Planeto Azul Hydrology is a small business providing affordable expertise in wildland
hydrology throughout the West to those interested in conserving aquatic resources.
Planeto Azul is located in Portland, Oregon but works on watershed conservation issues
throughout the Western U.S.
The mission of High Country Citizens' Alliance (HCCA) is to champion the protection,
conservation and preservation of the natural ecosystems within the Upper Gunnison
River Basin. HCCA is a grassroots organization whose goals focus on the health and
biodiversity of the local environment - land, water, air and wildlife. Formed in 1977, and
with over 600 members from diverse backgrounds across Colorado and the nation,
HCCA is the environmental watchdog for Gunnison County and the Upper Gunnison
River Basin.
Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”) is a non-profit membership organization
dedicated to protecting and conserving the public lands and natural resources of
watersheds in the American West. WWP has over 1,200 members throughout the United
States. WWP, as an organization and on behalf of its members, is active in seeking to
protect and improve the riparian areas, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural
resources and ecological values of Forest Service lands throughout its area of operation,
which includes national forests in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana,
Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California.
Center for Native Ecosystems is a Colorado-based conservation organization
advocating on behalf of endangered species and ecosystems across the Greater Southern
Rockies region. We value the clean water, fresh air, sources of food and medicine, and
recreational opportunities provided by native biological diversity. We also passionately
believe that all species and their natural communities have the right to exist and thrive.
We use the best available science to forward our mission through participation in policy,
administrative processes, public outreach and organizing, legal action, and education. We
have approximately 300 members in Colorado and surrounding states.
The mission of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council is to protect and restore the
biological diversity, ecosystems, and natural resources of the Upper Rio Grande region,
balancing ecological values and human needs.
2
The Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition is a volunteer wild lands advocacy group
with more than 200 members founded in 2002. CCWC’s mission is to preserve the
ecological integrity of wild public lands in central Colorado and promote permanent
protection of these areas through wilderness designation.
The mission of Biodiversity Conservation Alliance is to protect wildlife and wild places
in Wyoming and surrounding states, particularly on public lands. We concentrate our
efforts on the forests, prairies, and rivers of Wyoming, western South Dakota, and
northern Colorado. Our focus is on entire ecosystems and on individual species,
particularly those which are in need of immediate conservation help but lack a
constituency and do not have a high public profile. We use outreach and education to
foster public support for biodiversity and wild areas. And we use science and the law to
hold public managers and decision-makers accountable for protecting the nation's natural
heritage and upholding the public trust.
Western Colorado Congress, established in 1980, is an alliance for community action
empowering people to protect and enhance their quality of life in western Colorado.
The Quiet Use Coalition works to preserve, promote and create quiet use areas and
opportunities on our public lands and waters in Colorado.
The North Fork Riparian Improvement Alliance-Western Slope Environmental
Resource Conservation Center (NFRIA-WSERC or NWCC) is a grassroots nonprofit
organization that works to build an aware and active community that protects, preserves
and enhances our natural, human and economic resources in and adjacent to Delta
County, Colorado. We have approximately 600 members. The Conservation Center takes
a solution-focused approach to protecting public lands and wildlife, watershed
restoration, river rehabilitation, and stewardship of our natural environment.
Wild Connections, a science-based advocacy organization, works to identify, protect and
restore lands of the Upper Arkansas and South Platte watersheds to ensure the survival of
native species and ecological richness. We focus on designing, implementing and
defending the Wild Connections Conservation Plan - a vision for the future of this region
that embodies the results of many years of roadless area mapping, citizen input and
conservation science.
The Colorado Mountain Club is the premiere outdoor recreation and conservation
organization in Colorado. Founded in 1912, the CMC is organized to unite those who
cherish, study, and explore the Rocky Mountains to stimulate public interest in the
mountains; collect and disseminate information about the mountains on behalf of
literature, art, recreation, and science; and protect the ecosystems and landscapes of the
Rocky Mountains. The CMC’s mission is based on the philosophy that outdoor
enthusiasts are driven by the desire to protect the places they cherish. Through 14
chapters, the CMC serves a membership of over 8,000.
3
The Ridgway-Ouray Community Council (ROCC) is a nonprofit organization whose
primary mission is to maintain and improve the quality of life in Ouray County through
the creation of a healthy, sustainable and well-planned community and the restoration and
protection of its natural environment, taking into consideration the needs, interests, and
concerns of the community at large. ROCC has nearly 300 members in Ouray County.
Prairie Hills Audubon Society is a South Dakota non-profit corporation, whose mission
is "to educate about, protect and restore our environment and natural heritage". We are a
chapter of the National Audubon Society. Our members use the national forests and
grasslands for hiking, camping, wildlife watching, nature study, scenic viewing, spiritual
renewal and other recreational purposes. We care deeply about the management of our
Forests and Grasslands. We especially want the biodiversity and wild values of our
public lands to be protected. We comment on and sometimes appeal various Forest
Service projects and Plan amendments and revisions.
I. INTRODUCTION. The purpose and need for the new rule states, in part:
A new planning rule is needed to ensure that all plans will be responsive to
issues such as the challenges of climate change; the need for forest
restoration and conservation, watershed protection, and wildlife conservation;
and the sustainable use of public lands to support vibrant communities.
DEIS at 7; see also 76 Fed Reg 8480.
We agree that the new rule needs to address all of these issues. But though we are pleased
with some features of the proposed rule (see section II below), we believe strongly that it
does not provide sufficient assurance that important national forest resources will receive
the protection they need and deserve. The importance of resources such as intact
watersheds and wildlife habitat on the national forests and grasslands cannot be
overstated. The new planning rule must ensure that plans for all units ensure a level of
protection for these and other resources that are commensurate with their importance.
While we agree that responsible officials need some flexibility to prepare plans for their
respective units, the proposed rule gives them far too much discretion. This would lead to
inconsistent and inadequate protection of wildlife and watersheds across the national
forest system. Too much important detail that should be in the rule would instead be left
to the Forest Service Directives System, which can be changed at will by the agency and
is not enforceable.
While we respect the agency’s desire for a planning process with reasonable costs, we
note that the proposed rule is expected to save only $1.5 million (or less than 1.5 percent)
out of a total cost of $104 million compared to the current process. The cost of
implementing a far better rule, Alternative D (see section III A 4 below) would only be
an additional $11.9 million or 11.4 percent.
4
We further believe that a few provisions of the proposed rule would violate the National
Forest Management Act.
Our specific problems with the rule and recommendations for improving it are detailed
throughout the remainder of these comments.
II. FAVORABLE FEATURES OF THE NEW RULE. While overall we believe the
proposed rule is, as stated above and below, deficient in many areas, there are some
provisions we like. These should be retained in the final rule and include:
--direction to develop plan components to address the potential effects of climate change
(219.8(a)(1)(ii), 219.10(a)(9));
--the requirement for broad-scale monitoring (219.12(b));
--standards, or mandatory constraints on activities, are required plan components
(219.7(d)(iii));
--all new plans and revisions must be prepared with an EIS (219.7(c), 219.5(a)(2)(i));
--development of plan components must consider “[w]ildland fire and opportunities to
restore fire adapted ecosystems” (219.8(a)(1)(iv));
--a requirement to identify potential wilderness areas and consider whether to
recommend any such areas for designation (219.7(c)(2)(iv)); and
--a requirement to identify the eligibility of river segments for inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System (219.7(c)(2)(v))1, and to protect those segments found
eligible until suitability is determined.
III. THE PROPOSED RULE NEEDS SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN MANY
AREAS.
A. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD NOT REQUIRE PLANS TO
ADEQUATELY PROTECT WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES.
1. The rule must recognize the high importance of protecting wildlife on national
forest lands. There is no question that national forest lands are critically important for
wildlife. See, e. g., DEIS at 100, 101. Without national forest lands and its large areas of
fairly intact habitat, some species, such as grizzly bear and lynx, could not be expected to
survive. More common species like elk and various species of trout would have
insufficient quantity, and probably also quality, of habitat
2. The coarse filter approach, while needed, is over-emphasized and improperly
touted as the desirable approach in the proposed rule. The agency claims that the
proposed rule (alternative A in the DEIS) provides both a coarse filter and fine filter
1
This would help ensure that the Forest Service complies with section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1276(d)(1).
5
approach. DEIS at 109. See also Preamble at 8492. That is true, but the emphasis seems
strongly on the former:
The best opportunity for maintaining species and ecological productivity is to
maintain or restore the composition, structure, and ecological functions
characteristic of the ecosystem.
DEIS at 106.
Concomitantly, the proposed rule language basically mandates a coarse filter approach
for protecting species:
The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore the structure,
function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area, consistent with §
219.8(a), to maintain the diversity of native species.
219.9(a). (Nearly identical language also appears at 219.8(a)). Even 219.9(b), which
addresses “species conservation”, i. e., more of a fine filter approach requires only
“maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions”. See further discussion in
subsection III A 3 below.
Coarse filters would operate like a long-term, 30,000 foot overview of national forest
lands:
…coarse-filters are considered to function at large spatial (hundreds of square
miles) and temporal scales (generations to centuries).
DEIS at 105.
The coarse filter approach is needed for this large overview, i. e., to see the big picture
and ensure that all the ecosystem parts are maintained and function properly on a large
scale, and to assess, and take action to maintain or restore, connectivity across the
landscape. Applying mainly coarse filters might be somewhat effective for generalist
species which can use various types of habitat. However, we do not believe applying
coarse filters would sufficiently provide for species which are now, or could in the future
be, at-risk of low or declining populations and/or inadequate distribution, from which
recovery would be difficult. The coarse filter approach would not work well at all for
maintaining species with specialized habitat needs.
The DEIS states (p. 110) that the coarse filter approach
is predicated upon an understanding of the historic range of variability and of
historical system dynamics and resilience.
Does the agency possess, or can it soon obtain, adequate knowledge of these features of
all or most ecosystems found on the national forests and grasslands? We think not. In the
6
words of a former Forest Service Chief: “Ecosystems are not only more complex than
we think they are, they are more complex than we can think”.2 Also, The Committee of
Scientists’ Report notes that there is always
scientific uncertainty that arises from incomplete understanding of how
ecological systems work or insufficient information to determine the
relationships between processes.
COS Report, 1999, at 25.
The agency complains repeatedly that it does not posses the knowledge to manage the
myriad of wildlife and plant species occurring on national forest lands (see, e. g., DEIS at
106), but at the same time it implies that it does have or soon will have an understanding
of ecosystems sufficient to be able to maintain habitat for resident species. But even
defining ecosystems is arbitrary. And nowhere in the proposed rule or supporting
documentation does the agency state how it would obtain such knowledge, nor how field
offices or other parts of the agency would determine what constitutes the structure,
composition, function, and connectivity of ecosystems necessary to support wildlife and
plant species. Also, there is no direction on how to determine what constitutes a healthy
and resilient ecosystem.
Even with a thorough understanding of historical ecosystem structure, composition,
functioning and connectivity, it is hard to imagine that the Forest Service, via
implementation of projects authorized through management plans, could truly restore or
maintain ecosystems to a point where all or most species could be expected to have
sufficient habitat and connectivity, and all other factors needed for survival and long-term
persistence, such as effective habitat.. Some ecosystems, such as old growth forests in the
Pacific Northwest, have been severely damaged by human actions such as intensive
logging, and will take perhaps centuries to recover their full functioning, i. e., restoring
the full structure, composition, function, and connectivity of old-growth ecosystems, if
they even can be fully recovered. Other ecosystems may also not be recoverable, or
recovery can only occur over timelines far greater than the life of forest plans. For
example, to restore goshawk habitat in areas that have no old forest structure may take
centuries. See Reynolds et al, undated, at 308.
And, as the agency admits, some factors that may have considerable effects on
ecosystems, such as climate change and wildfire, are beyond the agency’s control. DEIS
at 103.3 Maintaining ecosystems, let alone restoring them, would require in some
instances a long-term commitment of a high level of money and resources over a large
area. However, budgets will be restricted in the short term and are uncertain in the longer
term (see id.), which could make actions necessary for longer-term ecosystem
2
This statement is attributed to Jack Ward Thomas, who was Chief of the Forest Service for part of the
1990s.
3
The Forest Service admits that climate change “could affect many species” and may make it impossible to
maintain even current ecological conditions. Preamble at 8492. By implication, restoring historic conditions
would be even more difficult.
7
maintenance and/or recovery difficult or impossible to implement. Also, ecosystems, as
with wildlife populations, occur in areas off national forest lands, meaning the agency has
little if any opportunity to affect ecological conditions in those areas.
In short, contrary to what is stated at DEIS p. 112, maintaining ecological conditions is
likely not any more under the Forest Service’s control or authority than maintaining
populations of species.
Because “ [c]oarse-filters generally do not rely on direct measurement of wildlife
species” (DEIS at 105), they cannot be expected to protect the finer-scale parts of the
landscape, i. e., those specialized habitats needed to support some species4. Obviously, a
fine-filter approach is also needed to ensure that all the parts of ecosystems, especially
rare plant and animal species, are retained. However, the proposed rule’s fine filter is
grossly inadequate, as is discussed in the next section.
3. The proposed rule would not sufficiently protect at-risk species. As discussed
above in subsection 2, emphasizing a coarse filter approach is not likely to ensure
protection for all parts of ecosystems, especially rare species. Clearly, a fine filter
approach is also needed. However, the fine filter provided in the proposed rule is weak.
The rule would require that plans
provide for the maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions in the plan
area to: …
(3) Maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within
the plan area. Where it is beyond the authority of the Forest Service or the
inherent capability of the plan area to do so, the plan components must
provide for the maintenance or restoration of ecological conditions to
contribute to the extent practicable to maintaining a viable population of a
species within its range. …
219.9(b).
“Species of conservation concern” is defined as:
Species other than federally listed threatened or endangered species or
candidate species, for which the responsible official has determined that there
is evidence demonstrating significant concern about its capability to persist
over the long-term in the plan area.
219.19.
4
Specialized habitat includes the entire habitat for some small animals and most rare plants species. It may
also include habitat for certain life stages for some species, such as nesting, feeding, or young-rearing.
8
In other words, the responsible official would have the discretion to determine whether
any species deserved the designation “of conservation concern”. S/he could decide to not
designate deserving species as being of conservation concern even if there was strong
evidence that such species needed protection to ensure their continued persistence. In
fact, to avoid having to develop additional plan components, we believe it is likely that
many forest supervisors or other responsible officials would simply not designate many
species of conservation concern. Thus many species at risk of declining and eventually
disappearing from the plan area could receive no attention or protection in plans.
If the final rule requires identification of species of conservation concern, selection of
such species for each unit must not be left to the responsible official. Rather, the rule
must require consultation with qualified scientists and interested members of the public to
determine what species deserve special focus. Existing regional lists of sensitive species
should be considered for designation.
There is no guidance for how the responsible official would determine that it was beyond
the authority of the Forest Service or the capability of the land to maintain viable
populations. This would provide another easy out for responsible officials to avoid
having to design their plans to protect rare or declining species.
The proposed rule does not require populations of species of conservation concern to be
monitored. Thus even if all deserving species were designated, the responsible official
would not have to monitor their populations, and thus the agency and the public would
thus have no way of knowing whether management was maintaining viability or not.
The proposed rule would only protect habitat, i.e. “maintenance or restoration of
ecological conditions”, for rare, non-listed species. 219.9(b). But the presence of
potentially suitable habitat alone does not ensure that rare wildlife species will be present,
let alone that they will be able to recover to full viable populations. Note the following
from the COS Report:
Habitat alone cannot be used to predict wildlife populations…The presence
of suitable habitat does not ensure that any particular species will be present
or will reproduce. Therefore, populations of species must also be assessed
and continually monitored.
COS Report, 1999, at 19-20; emphasis added.
Even with adequate habitat, species may not thrive. For example, if habitat is rendered
ineffective by road and motorized trail use or by the presence of people and domestic
dogs, wildlife would not be able to use it or it would be of only marginal quality. Also, if
areas of habitat are separated by sizable areas of non-habitat, wildlife populations might
be poorly distributed and decline due to genetic, demographic and environmental
stochasticity (e.g. genetic inbreeding, lack of re-colonization of habitat following
catastrophic weather events, etc.), even if enough habitat theoretically existed to support
such species. Finally, rare and imperiled species may be decline in response to threats
9
like disease, collection (e.g. collection of rare plants and insects), over-harvest (e.g.
harvest of plants for medicinal uses, hunting etc.), regardless of the presence of an
adequate amount of high quality habitat.
While populations of all species could not be monitored by a unit, some species must be
monitored. We believe this must include, but not be limited to, most or all species of
conservation concern, as well as focal species. (See discussion below.)
The rule would require at least one monitoring question to be developed for addressing
focal species (219.12(a)(5)(iii)), which are defined as:
A small number of species selected for monitoring whose status is likely to
be responsive to changes in ecological conditions and effects of management.
Monitoring the status of focal species is one of many ways to gauge progress
toward achieving desired conditions in the plan.
219.19.
It is possible that some species of conservation concern would also be focal species, but
there is no requirement for this, and the definitions are certainly not synonymous. In fact,
more common species would be more likely to be selected as focal species because they
would be easier to monitor. Even candidate species (for Endangered Species Act listing)
do not have to be focal species. Preamble at 8493.
Also, the population trends of focal species would specifically not have to be determined.
DEIS at 113. This greatly reduces the value of having focal species. Such species, per the
definition quoted above, are supposed to be “responsive to changes in ecological
conditions and effects of management”. If so, how would such responsiveness, and the
concomitant status of ecological conditions, ever be determined if the population trend
was not sought? In fact, if population trends of focal species don’t have to be monitored,
what would be monitored? How would “the status of focal species”, which would be
required to be monitored (219.12(a)(5)(iii)), ever be determined?
The COS Report noted the need for monitoring of focal species:
Available knowledge of species’ ecologies and their functional roles in
ecological systems is so limited that it is not always possible, a priori, to
unambiguously identify focal species. Therefore, the selection of focal
species, based on existing information and the criteria for inclusion, should
be treated as a hypothesis rather than a fact. Given this uncertainty, the
assumption that a specific species serves a focal role must be validated by
monitoring and research.
COS Report at 39; emphasis added. The COS Report further stated that “perhaps the
single best metric of sustainable use of land is the persistence of species over time”. Id. at
40. The need for monitoring of species could hardly be more clear.
10
It may be true that determining the population trend of some species would be difficult
over the life of a plan. DEIS at 115-116, Preamble at 8499.5 But that is no excuse for not
requiring efforts to determine the populations trends of at least some species. Efforts to
do this can be ongoing and can build on data already gathered by Forest Service
personnel, as well as others, such as state wildlife and fish agencies, natural heritage
programs, and university research projects. Indeed, for species known or believed to be
rare and/or declining, such efforts should be mandatory. Without them, there would be no
way to determine whether required plan components are effective in: maintaining,
protecting, or restoring rare aquatic and terrestrial species (219.8(a)(2)(iii)); conserving
candidate species (219.9(b)(2)); or maintaining the viability of species of conservation
concern (219.9(b)(3)).
Rather than monitoring the populations and trends of focal species,
the Agency expects to take advantage of recent technological advancements
in monitoring the status of focal species, such as genetic sampling to estimate
area occupied by species.
Preamble at 8499.
Genetic sampling could involve some capture and testing of animals or searching for
their remains (like hair) for testing to determine genetics. At a minimum, testing any
animals or their remains (like scat or fur) would be expensive. For some rare species,
such as birds, it might be difficult to get enough samples without an intensive effort to
locate the species or their remains. Thus genetic sampling might be as daunting a task and
as expensive to implement as the agency claims population trend determination would be.
Genetic sampling could help determine what area was or was not occupied by some
species, but it could not likely be used for all species on any given unit whose
populations might need to be tracked.
In any case, if the agency intends to use genetic sampling or other “technologically
advanced” methods for monitoring, it must describe such methods in detail and show
how their use would provide sufficient, accurate information to managers for
maintaining, protecting, and where necessary, restoring, populations of rare species and
others of high interest. We believe that some population monitoring and trend
determinations will still have to be done to ensure this information is available.
We believe that numerous focal species should be designated by each unit. At least one
should be designated for each major ecosystem on the respective unit. Collectively, a
unit’s focal species should include, as appropriate: large and small mammals,
amphibians, retiles, fish and other aquatic life, avian species, plants, and invertebrates.
The rule should allow, but not require, designation of non-native (invasive) plants as
focal species because the presence, magnitude, and distribution of populations of these
5
The discussions on this subject in the DEIS and Preamble occur in the context of management indicator
species under the 1982 rule.
11
plants can be an indicator of ecosystem health and aid in efforts to eradicate or reduce the
coverage of invasive plants.
To adequately monitor changes in ecological conditions and the effects of management,
much more than a “small number” of focal species will be needed for each unit. This
phrase must be removed from the focal species definition.
4. The rule must protect the viability of all native species to the greatest extent
possible. As demonstrated above, emphasizing the coarse-filter, or ecosystem, approach
will not ensure protection of rare or declining species or those needing specialized
habitat. To ensure protection of ecosystems, all of the parts must be maintained. Thus it is
necessary to ensure the viability of all native species.
That can be accomplished in part by requiring plans to maintain or restore viability of all
native species. In this regard, we like the language of section 219.9(a) in Alternative D.6
It would require the agency to “develop plans for and manage plan areas to provide
viable populations of native and desired non-native species within the planning area”.
Alt. D 219.9(a); DEIS at F-13.
For populations which reside on more than one unit, this alternative would require
coordination among units, and it would also require coordination with other
governmental and non-governmental agencies, and with local governments and tribes, for
protecting viability. Alt. D 219.4(c), DEIS at F-5, F-6.
We also like the addition in Alt. D of language to section 219.12(a)(5)(ii), requiring
population monitoring for focal species. Even better in this regard is Alternative E, which
would require monitoring the “status of key ecological conditions affecting species of
conservation concern and ecosystem diversity within each plan area” (Alt E
219.12(a)(5)(ii)); and “the status and trend of a small set of focal species” (id. at iii).
To address the difficulty of maintaining viable populations on national forest land when
various factors beyond the jurisdiction or control of the Forest Service affect such
species, Alternative D provides an exception for “extrinsic conditions”. Under this
provision (Alt D, 219.9(b), DEIS at F-13), the Secretary could determine, after at least 60
days’ public comment, that the agency could not meet section 219.19(a) “with respect to
any species’ population”. Id. But even then, the Forest Service would be required to
provide for viability of any species for which this determination is made “to the
maximum extent practicable” and ensure that any management activities would not
increase the likelihood of extirpation of the species in the planning area. Alt D
219.19(b)(1) and (2).
Efforts under Alternative D would be aided by language in that alternative’s version of 219.6(b), which
would require assessing the “current and likely future viability of focal species”, among other things. See
DEIS at F-9. (This should really be a new section 219.6(c). See DEIS at F-7 through F-9.)
6
12
Alternative D’s definition of “viable population” is better than that of the proposed rule,
as it specifies a time period for well-distributed persistence of species throughout its
range (“at least 50 years”)7 and requires the use of “best available scientific information”.
Alt D 219.19, DEIS at F-29. This alternative would require population surveys of focal
species for determining how well ecological conditions within the planning area are
supporting biological diversity. Alt D 219.12(a)(5)(iii), DEIS at F-15, F-16. The DEIS
states the desirability of this approach:
The additional required plan monitoring elements under [] alternative [D] are
more likely to assess the overall effectiveness of plan components toward
maintaining biological diversity within the plan area in a more accurate and
timely manner than under the other alternatives.
DEIS at 170, 171.
Alternative E would require more specific monitoring, including the development of one
or more monitoring questions or indicators addressing
(ii) status of key ecological conditions affecting species of conservation
concern and ecosystem diversity within each plan area focusing on threats
and stressors that may affect ecological sustainability such as management
activities, invasive species, or climate change…
Alt E 219.12(a)(5), DEIS at F-14.
We believe that requiring plans to provide for viability of all native species on national
forest lands and grasslands, with a partial exception for species whose viability is
considerably influenced by factors beyond the Forest Service’s control or authority, is
quite reasonable. Failure to provide for native species’ viability could doom many plant
and animal species to further declines in population and distribution, and eventually,
listing under the Endangered Species Act, or even extirpation. It would also not fulfill the
agency’s multiple use mandate, specifically the legal requirement to provide for wildlife
and fish. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, 16 U.S.C. 528.
If the Forest Service wishes to focus on protecting ecosystems and ecological conditions,
it should, first and foremost, require plans to have components that require retention of all
the native parts of ecosystems. And that would best be accomplished with the viability
language of alternative D and the monitoring language of alternative E.
5. Candidate species need and deserve a high level of protection. We commend the
Forest Service for specifically requiring protection for species that are candidates for
Note that the COS Report at 38 states that determination of viability: “should explicitly incorporate
probability and time, that is, the likelihood that a species will be viable under a management strategy is
measured along a continuum, in terms of some projected likelihood of persistence over a specified time
period”.
7
13
listing under the Endangered Species Act. 219.9(b)(2). For candidate species, there is, by
definition, a high level of concern about their continued existence over their range. And
with some species remaining on candidate lists for many years prior to ESA listing,
protection is especially important to ensure that irreversible declines do not occur prior to
listing. Thus candidate species need and deserve a higher level of protection on national
forest system lands than other species, even if doing so might contradict other
management objectives. See Preamble at 8493.
In fact, all plan components should be developed to help meet, or at least not interfere
with, the needs of candidate species for recovery to full, viable populations. No
components should be developed that would conflict with recovery of candidate species.
B. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD NOT ENSURE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION
OF WATERSHEDS.
1. Watersheds are a vitally important resource on national forest lands that need and
deserve reliable protection. According to draft planning rule documents, there are
400,000 miles of streams on national forest land and three million acres of lakes. DEIS at
79, Preamble at 8491. The documents note that 18 percent of the total water supply for
the nation originates on national forest land, with more than half of the water for the
western U. S. provided by these lands. Id.
It is no secret that past activities have caused many watersheds to fall into, or remain in,
poor or less than robust condition. Of more than 12,000 sixth-code watersheds with
significant national forest land, 25 percent are rated in poor condition, and only 30
percent are rated in good condition. DEIS at 81.
Clean water and intact watersheds are necessary for survival of aquatic life, and
especially for recovery of threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species such
as greenback cutthroat trout, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and Rio Grande Cutthroat
trout.
2. Plans would not require adequate protection for watersheds and riparian areas. The
proposed rule requires plans to have components to maintain, protect, or restore aquatic
elements (219.8(a)(2)(i)), public water supplies and water quality (219.8(a)(2)(iv)), and
riparian areas (219.8(a)(3)). This is all good as far as it goes, but it simply does not go far
enough to ensure that watersheds will receive adequate protection. Plans would only be
required to establish a “default width” for riparian areas. Id. It would be much better to
require a minimum buffer or at least protection of the area dominated by riparian
vegetation plus an additional buffer. There also needs to be direction to minimize road
construction in riparian areas and focus decommissioning of unneeded or damaging roads
and trails in such areas.
14
Protection is needed for riparian areas because of their very high importance in
maintaining watershed integrity, water quality, wildlife habitat, etc. Also, the DEIS states
that well less than 100 percent of riparian areas on national forest lands are in good
condition. For example, in the west, the percentage in good condition is “from more than
50 percent in more humid sections to less than 30 percent in semiarid and arid areas”.
DEIS at 155-156.
The DEIS tries to make the case for management of riparian areas, noting that fires often
hit such areas. DEIS at 87. This may be true in some ecosystems, but even then, most
lower- and moderate-intensity fires likely stop or burn much less severely when they hit
the moist vegetation in riparian areas. And in some ecosystems, such as Englemann
spruce-subalpine fir in Colorado and other western states, fire is so rare that riparian
areas, as with other areas of this ecosystem, burned never or only very rarely, probably
not more than once every 1000 years or so. See Resolve, 2011, at 38. We believe that any
management in riparian areas should be mainly limited to restoration activity, and that the
rule should be written to reflect this.
Notably, plans would be required to “[i]dentify watershed(s) that are a priority for
maintenance or restoration” (219.7(e)(1)(i))8, but the proposed rule contains no further
direction for protecting, maintaining, or restoring these watersheds. The rule should
require that identified key watersheds are high priorities for protection, maintenance, or
restoration, as applicable. The proposed rule would allow a great deal of variance in how
these watersheds would be protected, leading to inconsistent protection across the
national forest system.
Indeed, a review of plans recently revised found that guidance on watershed condition
varies widely. DEIS at 82. Similarly, recent plans provide widely variable guidance in
protection of riparian areas (id. at 88) and water quality (id. at 89). Thus more specific
direction is needed to ensure watersheds receive adequate protection, and that restoration
is initiated where possible.
The COS Report, 1999, noted that “[r]estoration of watersheds and their ecosystems often
represent a major scientific and management challenge”. COS at 155. To understand how
watershed ecosystems function in relation to the local landscape, the COS Report stated
that
…local “reference sites” or demonstration areas of functionally intact plant
communities need to be identified, protected, and used to gain local
understanding and experience of related functions and processes.
COS Report, id.
The planning rule should require that plans identify reference watersheds which can be
used in determining how to best protect and restore other watersheds on each respective
This requirement is under “other content in the plan”, which can be changed at will, without amendment
or revision. Preamble at 8490.
8
15
unit. Language should be added to 219.6(b) to require assessments to identify potential
reference watersheds, those with the least human impact.
3. Alternative D would ensure much better watershed protection. Generally, we like
the language of alternative D. It would require:
--a network of key watersheds for maintaining broad-scale processes and aiding in
species recovery (Alt D 219.8(a)(1)(v));
--spatial connectivity within and between watersheds (id. at vi);
--establishment of riparian conservation areas, with generally no less than a 100 foot
buffer (Alt D 219.8(a)(3)(i));
--that management in riparian conservation areas be geared toward restoration, or when
not, to be designed with best available science to minimize impacts (Alt D
219.8(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B));
--that plans have standards and guidelines for protection of water bodies, wetlands, the
natural sediment regime, and soil productivity, and that road removal and remediation be
a top restoration priority in key watersheds and riparian conservation areas (Alt D
219.8(a)(4);
--standards and guidelines for road densities in key watersheds9 (Alt D 219.8(a)(4)(ii)).
We do not believe the language in the alternative D version of the proposed rule sets up
“rigid management prescriptions at the watershed scale”, as implied at DEIS p. 97.
Rather, the requirements of this rule language would ensure that proper focus was applied
to the elements of watershed and riparian areas that are most in need of protection and/or
restoration. It would still leave some room for flexibility for responsible officials to
determine how to meet these requirements. We agree that
Plans designed to meet the requirements of Alternative D would be expected
to lead to projects designed to protect or more proactively maintain or restore
watershed condition rather than simply to mitigate the effects of other
activities.
DEIS, id. This protection is exactly what is needed to ensure that watersheds and the
general aquatic environment on national forest lands are able to continue to provide their
very valuable benefits to the nation, and that degraded areas will be restored.
Slightly more detailed monitoring of watershed condition is also needed. The language of
Alternative E at 219.12(a)(5)(i) (DEIS at G-14), requiring monitoring questions or
9
For the utility of road density as a metric for watershed health, see Carnefix and Frissell, 2009.
16
indicators to address all the watershed conditions and elements listed in section 219.8, is
desirable.
C. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ARE TOO WEAK TO PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF RESOURCES AND FOR
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires
that planning regulations
insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in
the field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that
it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity
of the land.
16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C).
Monitoring is critically important for assessing the results of management, especially to
see if plan components are effective in meeting desired conditions, goals, and objectives,
and to ensure that the productivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is not being
impaired. A good monitoring strategy is critical for adaptive management, as the
Preamble clearly states:
Monitoring is a critical part of the proposed planning framework that
provides a feedback loop for adaptive management and is intended to test
assumptions underpinning management decisions, track conditions relevant
to management of resources on the unit, and measure management
effectiveness and progress toward achieving desired conditions and
objectives.
Preamble at 8497.
Some of the elements of monitoring under the proposed rule are good, such as the
requirement for development of a broader scale (beyond the planning unit) monitoring
strategy. 219.12(b). Some of the requirements for unit monitoring plans are good as far as
they go: the carbon stored in above-ground vegetation, the status of focal species, and
the status of select watershed conditions.
However, as noted above in previous sections of these comments, the value of the latter
two are very limited because the rule language is unspecific at best. Since the population
trends of focal species would not have to be determined, it is questionable at best whether
monitoring of focal species, whatever that might entail, would produce any useful
information. And for watersheds, the monitoring information produced might go for
naught, as there is no requirement in the proposed rule to take specific actions to protect
watersheds identified as needing maintenance or restoration.
17
Overall, the monitoring section of the proposed rule is weak because it would not require
any action to occur as a result of monitoring. Section 219.12(d) would require a biennial
evaluation which
must indicate whether a change to the plan, management activities, or
monitoring program may be warranted based on the new information.
However, there is no guidance for determining what information might trigger the need
for a change in management.
The proposed monitoring programs on units would further be weakened because the rule
specifically states that projects would not have to be monitored. 219.12(a)(7). Much
information could be attained from monitoring the results of projects, e. g., the response
of various wildlife species to logging, and the change in invasive species coverage and
species in areas grazed with livestock, could help inform management decisions.
The rule must require that data from projects be part (but not all) of the information
gathered as part of a unit’s monitoring program. While not every project can be
monitored, not having a requirement for the use of some data gathered from projects
unduly limits the information that would be used in a unit monitoring program.
Overall, Alternative E would direct units to have much stronger monitoring programs. It
would require determination of status and trend for various resources, including focal
species (Alt E 219.12(a)(5)(iii)); various indicators of biological diversity (id. at ix); and
invasive species (id. at x). It would also specifically require evaluation of the
environmental impacts of a unit’s road and trail system (id. at xiii).
But most importantly. Alt. E would require that unit monitoring plans state what would
trigger the need for further action on each item being monitored:
Each monitoring question and its associated indicator will also be
accompanied by a description of one or more signal points which are to be
used by the responsible official to determine the need to take action(s)
appropriate to the situation.
Alt E 219.12(a)(9).
Finally, Alternative E would require a review at least once every 10 years of a monitoring
program’s efficiency and effectiveness. Alt E 219.12(e).
We believe all of these features are desirable and needed for units to each have a
monitoring plan to sufficiently assess problems and inform needed and desired
management changes before effects become too strongly adverse.
18
D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES MIGHT NOT BE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED. The proposed rule requires that plans have components to protect cultural
and historic resources. 219.10(b)(ii). However, the following very troubling statement
appears in the Preamble:
Our intent in using the word ‘‘protection’’ is to ensure that the responsible
official takes into account the effect a plan may have on cultural and historic
values and provides for these resources and uses, within the context of
managing for multiple uses. The intent is not to create a preservation
mandate; rather, where actions might impair the resources or
use, the responsible official would seek to avoid or minimize potential harm
to the extent practicable. In some cases, damage may occur if necessary to
achieve a different multiple use objective.
76 Fed Reg 8496; emphasis added.
Allowing cultural and historic resources to be damaged would likely violate various laws,
including, though not necessarily limited to: the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.
S.C. 3001); The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq); The
Preservation of American Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 432, 433), and the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act (P. L. 111-011, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009, sec. 6301 et seq.).
Allowing damage or destruction of cultural and historic resources would also violate
Forest Service direction:
It is the policy of the Forest Service to…
2. Fully integrate opportunities for preservation, protection, and utilization of
cultural resources into land use planning and decisions.
3. Manage cultural resources through a process of identification, evaluation,
and allocation to appropriate management categories that protect cultural
resource values and benefit the public.
FSM 2630.3
Aside from legal and administrative prohibitions against damage of cultural and historic
resources, what multiple use objective could possibly justify such damage? These
resources are unique and incalculably valuable indicators of past cultures and ways of
life. The Forest Service must do everything it can to protect them, as required by law,
regulation, and policy. The offending statement must be removed from the Preamble, and
replaced with a statement that reaffirms the agency’s legal and moral commitment to
protect cultural and historic resources.
19
E. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD NOT FULLY REQUIRE PROJECTS AND
ACTIVITIES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PLANS
1. Activities and projects not conforming to a plan could be allowed to occur. Proposed
section 219.15(a) states that any document approving a plan, plan revision, or plan
amendment
must state whether the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision allows any
prior approval of occupancy and use. If a plan approval document does not
expressly allow such occupancy and use, the permit, contract, and other
authorizing instrument for the use and occupancy must be made consistent
with the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision as soon as practicable, as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section, subject to valid existing rights.
Id. In other words, the approval document could allow previously authorized activities to
continue without having to comply with requirements of the recently approved plan,
revision, or amendment. This interpretation is confirmed in the Preamble, which states
that projects or activities allowed to continue would be deemed consistent with the plan
(76 Fed Reg 8502), even though they would not have to follow it. Notably, such projects
and activities could be exempted from plan compliance even if they did not involve valid
existing rights.
This clearly violates NFMA:
Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and
occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the
management plans. Those resource plans and permits, contracts, and other
such instruments currently in existence shall be revised as soon as practicable
to be made consistent with such plans. When land management plans are
revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments when
necessary shall be revised as soon as practicable.
16 U.S.C. 1604(i).
Section 219.15(a) must be rewritten to clearly state that all projects and activities
authorized prior to plan or amendment approval shall be brought into compliance with
the most recent plan or amendment as soon as practicable, subject to valid existing rights.
2. The rule makes guidelines too weak. Under the proposed rule, guidelines would be
a required plan component. 219.7(d)(1)(iv). However, the definition of guideline renders
it useless:
A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows
for departure from its terms, so long as the intent of the guideline is met.
20
Id.
Section 215(d)(3) further elaborates by saying that a project or activity is consistent with
a plan guideline if it
(i) Is designed to comply with applicable guidelines as set out in the plan; or
(ii) Is as effective in carrying out the intent of the applicable guidelines in
contributing to the maintenance or attainment of relevant desired conditions
and objectives, avoiding or mitigating undesirable effects, or meeting
applicable legal requirements.
Id.
Yet the Preamble states the following:
The proposed rule would require guidelines that, like standards, are
requirements. Guidelines are not intended to allow an ‘‘opt-out,’’ but they
would allow the responsible official some flexibility in how to meet the intent
of the guideline, recognizing that different conditions may necessitate a
different approach.
76 Fed Reg 8489.
In other words, guidelines are required to be in plans, but don’t have to be followed when
implementing a plan if the project or activity, in the opinion of the responsible official,
meets some vague “intent” of the guideline. How would this intent be determined? This
leaves a large amount of discretion to the responsible official on whether or not to apply
guidelines, and does indeed allow an “opt-out”.
F. THE RULE SHOULD REQUIRE DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT
EMPHASIS AREAS. In order to be most useful to users of national forest lands, unit
plans should have management areas that show what activities will be emphasized and
allowed, and what plan direction will be applied, to all of the land in each unit. In other
words, each unit should be “zoned” with various management areas having an
appropriate management emphasis. This will give potential users a good idea of what
types of activities will be allowed in each area of a unit.
The rule as currently written appears to allow designation of management areas, but does
not require it:
The plan must indicate where in the plan areas specific plan components
apply. Plan components may apply to the entire plan area, to specific
management or geographic areas, or to other areas as identified in the plan.
21
219.7(d).
The direction provided by management areas could be fairly flexible in some cases. Some
management areas might allow a wide variety of activities to occur, even if only a few of
them were emphasized. Other management areas, such as those where there was a high
need for protection of resources, like research natural areas and roadless areas, would
allow only a much more limited range of activities to occur.
Additional, site-specific standards and guidelines can be written for each management
area as needed, if forest-wide standards and guidelines and other plan components do not
sufficiently address needs for protection and management of specific resources or
situations likely to occur in the management area.
Via designation of management areas or in some other fashion, plans should be required
to show what areas in the respective unit are appropriate for various forms of recreation.
This must include motorized over-snow use, and compliance with the relevant executive
orders must be required.10
Plans need not determine allowed uses on every road and trail; that would make plans
difficult to complete because of the controversial nature of travel management. However,
plans need to determine the areas where motorized use will be allowed, restricted, or
prohibited, both over snow and over bare ground, to provide guidance for travel
management, which can then be done some time after plan completion.
G. THE RULE SHOULD ENCOURAGE DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS.
Given the special, and often unique, resources found on national forests and grasslands,
units should be encouraged to designate special areas in their plans and provide
protection of the special values therein. These areas could include, but not be limited to:
research natural areas, special recreation areas, and areas for ecological, paleontological,
botanical, archaeological, zoological, geological, scenic and historical resources.
While it is possible that regular plan components might sufficiently protect such area, the
undersigned believe that special or unique areas should have their own designations to
ensure recognition of their value and encourage their proper management and protection.
For areas where human use and interpretation can be safely done without harming the
resources, designation of special areas would highlight their value and provide direction
for such interpretation and use. For other areas, such as research natural areas, where
little or no human use might be desirable, designation would help clearly define what
human activities would be allowed.
10
Over-snow vehicle use was specifically excluded from requirements to designate areas, trails and roads
for motor vehicle use. See 36 CFR 212.51(a)(3). Under 212.81, the agency may, but is not required to,
designate roads, trails, and areas where over-snow vehicle use is allowed, restricted, or prohibited. Such
designations must be made mandatory, as conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users in the
winter backcountry are high and increasing.
22
A paragraph should be added to section 219.7(d)(1) or (2) requiring or encouraging,
respectively, the designation of special areas in forest planning.
H. LAND WHERE TIMBER IS CUT IN NON-EVEN-AGED STANDS SHOULD
STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CULMINATION REQUIREMENT. NFMA requires
that “prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the national forest system shall generally
have reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth…”. 16 U.S.C.
1604(m). The proposed rule would limit application of this requirement to
final regeneration harvest of even-aged stands on lands identified as suitable
for timber production and where timber production is the primary purpose for
the harvest.
219.11(d)(5).
Except when trees are cut for thinning, salvage, or sanitation, they should have first
reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth (CMAI), or the period when
they reach their peak growth rate. Otherwise, economic and ecological value is lost
because trees will have been cut before they have achieved their largest size and before
growth begins to slow down. It should not matter if an even-aged or uneven-aged stand is
the result of cutting if the primary reason for the cut is timber production.
Limiting application of the CMAI requirement to even-aged stands violates at least the
spirit, if not the letter, of NFMA. Paragraph (d)(5) in section 219.11 must be modified in
the final rule.
I (eye). THE RULE SHOULD REQUIRE SUITABILITY OF LANDS FOR MORE
THAN JUST TIMBER PRODUCTION.
1. Legal Requirement for suitability. NFMA requires that regulations
specify[] guidelines which—
(A) require the identification of the suitability of lands for resource
management…
16 U. S. C. 1604(g)(2).
However, the proposed rule would require each plan to determine the suitability of lands
only for timber production, and allow, but not require, determination of suitability for
other uses. 219.7(d)(1)(v); see also 76 Fed Reg 8489. This violates at least the spirit of
NFMA quoted above. The undersigned believe that, at a minimum, suitability of lands for
livestock grazing and mineral leasing, as applicable, should be required, for the reasons
discussed below.
23
2. Plans should determine suitability of lands for livestock grazing. Livestock grazing
is a pervasive activity on at least the western national forests, in that it is difficult to find
land having any edible forage on it that has not been grazed by domestic stock. Such
grazing has adverse impact to at least the following: habitat for native ungulates, water
quality, introduction and spread of invasive plant species, streambank stability, and
watershed integrity. Grazing in certain vegetation types also removes vegetation that
fuels low-intensity fires, leading to increased tree density and the risk of fires of
unnaturally high severity.
Thus like timber, it is a use of national forest lands that can have widespread, and
sometimes intense, adverse impacts on a number of resources. It therefore should be a use
for which suitability must be determined. We do not believe this would add much of a
burden to planning at the unit level. However, it would aid the goals of ecosystem
restoration and watershed protection, both of which are part of the purpose and need of
preparing a new planning rule. See DEIS at 7 and the Preamble at 8480.
To determine suitability of lands for livestock grazing, plans should be required to
identify allotments in poor or declining condition. The proposed rule would not
specifically require this. Rather, the agency believes that this would occur under 219.6(b)
(1). DEIS at 151. That section of the proposed rule reads as follows:
(b) Content of assessments for plan development or revision. In the
assessment(s) for plan development or revision, the responsible official shall:
(1) Identify and evaluate information needed to understand and assess
existing and potential future conditions and stressors in order to inform and
develop required plan components and other content in the plan (§ 219.7),
including plan components for sustainability (§ 219.8), diversity of plant and
animal communities (§ 219.9), multiple uses (§ 219.10), and timber
requirements based on NFMA (§ 219.11).
219.6(b)(1). We do not believe there is direction here sufficient to require units to
identify rangelands in poor or declining condition, in order to help assess whether such
lands are suitable for livestock grazing. A requirement to include this information in the
assessment needs to be added to 219.6(b). Similarly, monitoring of rangeland conditions
for areas rated in poor or declining condition should be required under section 219.12.
This requirement could be added to paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) of that section. And
finally, text should be added to section 219.8(a)(2) requiring plans to have components to
restore all rangelands identified as either being in poor condition or in fair condition with
a declining trend.
In discussing alternative C, the DEIS makes the following statement:
As in Alternative A, this alternative would allow identification of areas suitable
for various multiple uses (§ 219.7(d)(1)(v)). Where livestock grazing is
currently authorized, lands would be expected to be identified as suitable for
this use.
24
DEIS at 154. While this refers to Alternative C, the implication is that it would also apply
to proposed action alternative A, since the cited passage, 219.7(d)(i)(v), is identical in
both alternatives. In any case, however, lands currently grazed by livestock should not
automatically be considered suitable for this activity. Some lands have been badly
damaged by excessive and/or poorly managed grazing and may need to be removed from
grazing over the life of the respective plan so that the affected ecosystems can recover.
3. Plans should determine suitability of lands for mineral leasing. Mineral leasing of
national forest lands is a major, controversial issue on many national forests. Exploration
and development of mineral leases will affect many forest resources, including, but not
limited to: air quality, wildlife habitat, water quality, scenery, travel management, and
recreational opportunity. Regulations require that
The leasing analysis shall be conducted by the authorized Forest officer in
accordance with the requirements of [] Forest land and resource management
planning and/or, as appropriate through preparation of NEPA documents.
36 CFR 228.102(c).
It makes sense to analyze the suitability of lands for mineral leasing during preparation,
revision, or, as applicable, amendment of plans because mineral lease exploration and
development affect many resources on and off national forest lands. Some of these
resources are also affected by other management activities. Therefore, to address all the
activities that may occur under a forest plan, the EIS accompanying the plan must address
mineral leasing. Determination of suitability for mineral leasing and disclosure of
potential impacts in the accompanying EIS is necessary to ensure disclosure of all the
impacts that may occur from implementation of a plan, including cumulative impacts.
Language must be added to section 219.7(d)(1)(v) requiring plans to address, at a
minimum, the suitability of lands for livestock grazing and mineral leasing. An exception
is appropriate for units that have already conducted either one or both of these analyses if
they are still current.
J. THE PROPOSED OBJECTION PROCESS NEEDS MODIFICATION. The agency
makes much out of improved collaborative requirements, which it believes will lead to a
more harmonious planning process. See, e. g., 76 Fed Reg 8486 and DEIS at 162. We
think this is unlikely. It is possible that early and frequent meetings with a wide variety of
stakeholders, as encouraged under 219.4, would lead to consensus building on some
issues regarding management on individual units, and we encourage such efforts. But we
think the Forest Service should expect plan development and revision, and in some cases
amendments, to be just as contentious as ever. We note that for plans done under the
current rule, the trend has been to “increasingly engage collaborative groups in the
planning process”. DEIS at 204. Yet plans still generate great controversy.
25
In order to have a more efficient planning process and in keeping with the purported
spirit of collaboration in the proposed rule, the Forest Service proposes to have a predecisional administrative review process. Overall, a pre-decisional review is probably
better for plans because a plan could not go into effect before objections are resolved
(219.58(a)). Thus there is, at least in theory, a real opportunity to change a plan via
objections. With a post-decisional appeal (as in previous planning rules), it was more
difficult to change a plan once approved, especially with all the time, money, and effort
the agency had invested in preparing it.
That said, improvements are needed to the objection process set in the proposed rule, as
follows:
1. The allotted time for submission of objections is too short. Thirty days for submitting
an objection to a proposed plan (219.56(a)) is inadequate. Plans done under the proposed
rule will be complex documents, with many associated technical reports. Thirty days is
simply not enough time to review a plan and its final EIS11 and prepare a cogent
objection, even for people who are able to spend a good deal of time during the 30-day
period preparing an objection.
This too-short period for filing objections contrasts mightily with the time allowed for
responding to objections – 90 days, which the reviewing officer has the discretion to
extend. 219.56(g), 219.57(b)(1).
We believe 90 days should be allowed for filing objections to new plans, revisions, and
major amendments. For less complex amendments, 45 days might be sufficient for filing
objections.
2. Allow full participation by interested parties. Proposed section 219.57(a) would
allow interested parties to participate in meetings between objectors and the reviewing
officer. This is appropriate, but we also believe that interested parties should be able to
file their own written statements before, during, or for a brief period after, such meetings.
Given that the reviewing officer would have 90 days or more to decide an objection
(219.56(g); 219.57(b)(1)), we don’t believe that written participation by interested parties
would add appreciably to the burden of resolving objections.
Interested parties could be affected by the outcome of objections, in that a proposed plan
could be changed before being approved, in response to a decision on one or more
objections, or even as a result of objections that are settled without formal decisions
having to be issued. The concerns of interested parties could be adversely affected
without their full participation. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary that interested
parties be allowed to fully participate in the objection process.
11
We believe the final EIS for a proposed plan must be available for review no later than, and preferably
before, the start of the objection period. See further discussion below in this section.
26
At a minimum, the rule must require that interested parties be notified of decisions on
objections. The current wording of the rule does not specifically require this, as
notification is only required to the objectors. See 219.57(b)(1).
3. Objection decisions must address all valid points raised. Proposed section
219.57(b)(1) specifically does not require a reviewing officer to make a “point-by-point
response”. This provision would allow the reviewing officer to dodge difficult issues
raised by objectors by simply refusing to rule on them. In some cases, e. g., if the
responsible official did not rule on the most important issues or a sizable number of
issues raised in an objection, it would deny objectors a meaningful review. This language
must be removed from the final rule.
4. The rule should state clearly that the final EIS should be available no later than the
start of the objection period. The rule does not say when the final EIS must be available,
but the Preamble states that the plan decision document would be “accompanied by a
final EIS”. 76 Fed Reg 8501. We believe the EIS should be available earlier. If a plan has
reached the stage where it is proposed for approval, as it would have by the start of the
objection period, it should be accompanied by a final EIS to fully disclose the potential
impacts of implementing the almost approved plan and alternatives to it. Having a final
EIS available would allow people reviewing the proposed plan to see how the Forest
Service has responded to public comment on the proposed plan and DEIS concerning the
potential impacts of implementation of the proposed plan and its alternatives.
Availability of the FEIS no later than the start of the objection period would be necessary
to meet the “timing of agency action” requirements of the CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR
1506.10(b)(2).
IV. MISCELLANEOUS CONCERNS.
A. CHANGE NEEDED IN LANGUAGE IN AGENCY NEPA PROCEDURES. With
regard to documentation of plan approval, the current wording of the rule states:
The responsible official shall record approval of a new plan, plan revision, or
amendment in a decision document prepared according to Forest Service
NEPA procedures (36 CFR 220).
219.14(a).
The current version of 36 CFR 220 allows categorical exclusions and decision memos for
forest plans. See 220.6(e)(16). But since the proposed rule requires an EIS for plans
(219.7(c)), 36 CFR 220 will have to be changed.
27
B. ASSESSMENTS FOR PLAN REVISIONS MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE. The
language of the first paragraph of proposed section 219.6 should be modified to state that
assessments for all new plans and revisions should be comprehensive. The existing
wording leaves discretion on the scope of assessments to the responsible official.
The responsible official would thus be able to dodge important issues in development or
revision of a forest plan by not assessing these issues. A forest plan sets the stage for all
projects and activities that could occur on a unit over the life of the plan. The
implementation of these projects and activities during this time period will have a myriad
of impacts on various natural and human resources. Thus it is important that the state of
these resources be thoroughly assessed so that plan components can be developed as
needed to ensure protection of resources and progress toward attaining desired conditions
and objectives.
CONCLUSION. The proposed rule does have some good features which should be
retained. But as currently written, it is not acceptable because it allows too much
discretion to the responsible official, and thus does not ensure that plans will require
needed protection for various resources. The rule thus needs major improvements,
especially for protecting wildlife and watersheds, and for more specific direction on
monitoring. More detail must be provided on how plans must be written to ensure
adequate protection and for monitoring to help determine the effectiveness of plan
components in providing such protection.
Determination of suitability must be required for more than just timber production. The
rule should require designation of management areas and special areas. The rule must
require that all projects and activities be consistent with the respective plan, subject to
valid existing rights. The rule must affirm the need for plans to fully protect cultural and
historic resources. The objection process must be modified to ensure a fair process for
those who wish to object to a proposed plan.
Sincerely,
Rocky Smith, ForestWatch Coordinator
Colorado Wild
1030 Pearl #9
Denver, CO 80203
303 839-5900
rocky@coloradowild.org
Denise Boggs, Executive Director
Conservation Congress
PO Box 2076
Livingston, MT 59047
406-222-2723
28
conservation@q.com
Hilary White, Director
Sheep Mountain Alliance
PO Box 389
Telluride, CO 81435
970-728-3729
hilary@sheepmountainalliance.org
Dan Randolph, Interim Executive Director
San Juan Citizens Alliance
Box 2461
Durango, CO 81302
970 259-3583
dan@sanjuancitizens.org
Veronica Egan, Executive Director
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
P O Box 2924
Durango, CO 81302
970-385-9577
www.greatoldbroads.org
Jonathan J. Rhodes, Hydrologist
Planeto Azul Hydrology
PO Box 15286
PDX, OR 97293
jjraqua@spiritone.org
Matt Reed, Public Lands Director
High Country Citizens' Alliance
PO Box 1066
Crested Butte, CO 81224
(970) 349-7104
matt@hccaonline.org
Jonathan B. Ratner, Director, Wyoming Office
Western Watersheds Project
PO Box 1160
Pinedale, WY 82941
877-746-3628
jonathan@westernwatersheds.org
Megan Mueller, Senior Biologist
Center For Native Ecosystems
1536 Wynkoop #303
29
Denver, CO 80202
303 546-0214
megan@nativeecosystems.org
Christine Canaly, Director
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council
P.O. Box 223
Alamosa, CO 81101
(719) 589-1518
slvwater@fairpoint.net
John Stansfield, Director
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition
PO Box 588
Monument, CO 80132
303-660-5849
jorcstan@juno.com
Duane Short, Wild Species Program Director
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
P.O. Box 1512
Laramie, Wyoming 82073
Phone: 307.742.7978
duane@voiceforthewild.org
Gretchen Nicholoff, Board President
Western Colorado Congress
PO Box 1931
Grand Junction, CO 81502
970 256-7650
info@wccongress.org
Tom Sobal, Executive Director
Quiet Use Coalition
PO Box 1452
Salida, CO 81201
719-207-4130
info@quietuse.org
Rob Peters, Executive Director
NFRIA-WSERC Conservation Center (NWCC)
P. O. Box 1612
Paonia, CO 81428
970-527-5307
rob@wserc.org
30
Jean C. Smith, Associate Director
Wild Connections
1420 Pinewood Rd.
Florissant CO 80816
719-686-5905
www.wildconnections.org
Bryan Martin, Director of Conservation
Colorado Mountain Club
710 10th Street, Suite 200
Golden, CO 80401
303.996.2768
BryanMartin@cmc.org
Jim Stephenson, Chairman
Ridgway-Ouray Community Council
PO Box 272
Ridgway, CO 81432
970 626-5594
jimphoto@montrose.net
Nancy Hilding, President
Prairie Hills Audubon Society
P.O. Box 788
Black Hawk, SD 57718
605-787-6779
nhilshat@rapidnet.com
REFERENCES
Carnefix, Gary, and Chris Frissell, 2009. Aquatic and Other Environmental Impacts of
Roads: The Case for Road Density as Indicator of Human Disturbance and RoadDensity Reduction as Restoration Target, A Concise Review. Pacific Rivers Council
Science Publication 09-001
COS Report, 1999. Sustaining the People’s Lands. Recommendations for Stewardship
of the National Forest and Grasslands into the Next Century. Committee of Scientists,
March 15, 1999. Report developed for use in preparing what became the 2000 Planning
Rule.
Resolve, 2011. Science Review Of The United States Forest Service Draft
Environmental Impact Statement For National Forest System Land Management
Summary Report.
31
Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, and Douglas A. Boyce, Jr., undated. An
Ecosystem-Based Conservation Strategy For the Northern Goshawk. Studies in Avian
Biology 31: 299-311.
32