Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan

; The Stilt Volume 30, Is* October 2001 I Newsletter of the Bridgerland Audubon Society Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan comments Comments on the proposed areas for winter non-motorized everywhere are being pushed Forest Plan and DEIS for the use and adopt an implementa• into smaller and smaller Wasatch-Cache National Forest tion plan for the eventuality that habitats. are due November 1. This latest they won't have adequate round of the Plan is much resources to monitor and patrol In 1999, the Forest Service improved from the preliminary to stop damaging uses. Motor• released the first pass at a new versions put forth in 1999 and ized recreationists have sent forest plan, the Preliminary 2000, but it still needs improve• hundreds of postcards, but Assessment of the Management ments — improvements that altogether, they're not worth one Situation, or PAMS. (Yes, this won't happen unless our voices well written letter. And it doesn't whole process overflows with are heard. The Forest Service is have to be Shakespearean jargon and acronyms, but it IS under great pressure from poetry, either. They want simple possible for the layperson to motorized recreationists and statements—dot points—that make sense of it.) BAS submit• livestock grazers to weaken spell out what you've seen, what ted comments summarized in environmental protections, but you want, and why it's important. the December 1999 issue of the our letters can offset many of Read on, then write that letter Stilt. In 2000, the USFS re• these pro-development TONIGHT! leased some draft alternatives, "postcard" responses. All of our which subsequently led to the members can't be expected to study the Plan, so we've pro• vided here a summary of the key points and our responses to the write now, right now! DEIS with respect to the Logan district. We need you to review Background proposed Plan and Draft these comments and write your In the years since the last Forest Environmental Impact State• own letter. Emphasize those Plan in 1985, ORV and snowmo• ment (DEIS) released in May, Inside tliis issue: areas that you know. Talk about bile use have swelled to epi• 2001. with comments due problems you've seen. Ask that demic proportions, ranchers November 1. Wasatch-Cache 1 the Forest Service increase continue to strip the land of National Forest Plan wilderness designations, drasti• vegetation and pepper it with The Forest Service recognizes a Comments cally reduce grazing, piles of cattle feces, and timber need for change in their ap• provide ^Jt^^ more sales have taken many acres of proach. Accordingly, for the next -Bryan Dixon trees. Meanwhile, the demand century they have adopted a for quiet recreation, peace, and new agenda which focuses on Detailed Comments 4 ecological awareness have only watershed restoration and increased, and maintenance, sustainable forest Map 6 & 9 species ecosystems, forest roads Green Calendar • .r ^ - 7 (Continued on page 2) Local Notes 13 / Page 2 The Stilt (Continued from page 1) (including preserving roadless areas and decommissioning old roads), and recreation. From a habitat perspective, Management Prescription Categories for they've certainly put the most important first. For, if we the Wasatch-Caclie Forest Pian maintain healthy and clean watersheds, most of the rest will follow. Summary of Management Prescription Categories The Plan gets kind of mired in planning jargon-goals, 1.0 Wilderness subgoals, objectives, standards, guidelines, etc. But the 1.1 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class I Forest Service has introduced a new concept that makes it 1.2 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class II easier to envision what the management practices will mean 1.3 Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class III on the ground. This concept is the Management Prescription 1.4 Existing Wilderness - No Class Category (MPC). The entire forest is divided into "zones," 1.5 Recommended Wilderness much like a land use plan, but following watershed bounda• ries. Each zone is given a MPC designation. The categories 2.0 Special Management Areas are detailed in the accompanying box. 2.1-2.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (not used on revision maps) The FS presents specific alternatives, five of which seem like 2.4 Research Natural Areas straw men, there only to articulate some pure visions of the 2.5 Scenic Byways world. The sixth is put forth as a synthesis of the other five 2.6 Undeveloped Areas and is, in fact, the Forest Service's preferred alternative. We 2.7 Special Interest Areas and Special Areas think of these as: 3.0 Protection, Maintenance or Restoration of Aquatic/ Watershed or Terrestrial Integrity Alt 1: Maximize Wilderness - let Nature take its course Alt 2: Actively manage for biodiversity and ecosystem 3.1 Aquatic Habitat/Watershed Emphasis sustainability 3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis Alt 3: Original 1999 "Preferred Alternative" but modified for more winter motorized access 4.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Recreation Needs and Alt 4: "No Action" Alternative Opportunities Alt 5: Emphasize "production" and motorized recreation 4.1 Emphasis on Backcountry non-motorized recreation opportunities, restrained protection of species settings. Alt 6: "Preferred" - more emphasis on biodiversity, mimicking 4.2 Emphasis on Dispersed non-motorized recreation natural forces, protecting large roadless areas, settings. I terrestrial and aquatic habitat, more separation of 4.3 Emphasis on Backcountry Motorized recreation " motorized and non-motorized settings 4.4 Emphasis on Dispersed Motorized recreation settings Motorized recrea• 4.5 Emphasis on Developed Recreation Areas After much study we believe Alternative 6 is a tionists have sent pretty good start. But we believe it needs some 5.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Forested Vegetation hundreds of post• tuning, specifically to include: Management Needs and Opportunities cards, but altogether, 1. More wilderness 5.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring forested ecosys• - they 're not worth 2. Less grazing tem integrity while meeting multiple resource objec• one well written 3. More restrictions on winter motorized tives. 4. More enforcement of restrictions on 5.2 Emphasis on managing timber for growth and yield letter. And it doesn't while maintaining or restoring forested ecosystem have to be Shake• summer motorized recreation 5. Better and more far-sighted plan for integrity. spearean poetry, implementation either. They want 6.0 Multiple Resource Uses With Rangeland Vegetation Management Needs and Opportunities With regard to wilderness, the Plan proposes to simple statements- 6.1 Emphasis on maintaining or restoring non-forested add several thousand acres of wilderness on dot points—that spell the south facing slopes north of Highway 89 ecosystem integrity while meeting multiple resource out what you've between the mouth of Logan Canyon and objectives. seen, what you want, Wood Camp Hollow. That's great, but they also 6.2 Emphasis on managing for livestock forage production while maintaining or restoring non-forested ecosystem and why it's impor• need to add the strip north of the Naomi Peak Wilderness along the Idaho border, to dovetail Integrity. tant. Read on, then with wilderness proposals for the Caribou write that letter National Forest. Further, Water Canyon (off• 7.0 Intermingled Public/Private l^nds (This prescription accompanied one of the other prescriptions in earlier TONIGHT! shoot of Green Canyon near the end of the road) should be wilderness. It would further versions. It has been eliminated because it made maps ^ protect North Logan City's water supply and difficult to read and because private lands are already there are no real conflicts in this small canyon. shown clearly on the maps.) The biggest addition we propose is the 19,000 acres along the west and northern flanks of Logan Peak, beginning at 8.0 Concentrated Development Areas M Providence Canyon, encompassing Dry Canyon, and includ- 8.1 Mineral Development Emphasis ^ (Continued on page 3) The Stilt Page 3 (Continued from page 2) |ing the north-facing slopes south of ridgeline to Franklin Basin Road, and from this means closing the entire forest to Highway 89 from the mouth of Logan the north side of Steep Hollow south to ATVs, snowmobiles, cattle, sheep and Canyon to Right Hand Fork. Tony Grove. These areas include begin• logging, then so be it. The forest won't ner, intermediate, and advanced terrain; mind. Grazing continues to cause untold dam• are accessible on day trips; and are age to our forests. Despite the many relatively safe. Moreover, these are the So, there you have the simplest overview myths used to justify grazing on public areas traditionally used by non-motorized we could produce. Now. it's time to write lands, grazing does not improve the land recreationists. Quite simply, we've been that letter—tonight, this weekend. Keep it or its vegetative mix, does not help pushed out of these areas by intrusive, simple, talk about areas you know, use wildlife, is a drain on, not a boost to, the and sometimes abusive, snowmobilers. dot-points. Send your comments to: local and national economy, doesn't really We want them back. preserve any particular lifestyle (and when Wasatch-Cache was the last time the government offered If one takes the 1985 Travel Plan at face to help preserve your lifestyle?), produces value, one would conclude that the Planning Team insignificant amounts of food, leads to summer recreation plan is really reason• habitat fragmentation, damages riparian able (except for the wastage of non• 8226 Federal Building areas, strips arid lands of topsoil, disturbs renewable energy and air pollution). The 125 South State St natural springs and seeps, and generally old plan said that summer motorized makes walking unpleasant through piles recreation was prohibited everywhere Salt Lake City, UT 84138 of fecal matter scattered hither and yon.

Load more