1 Comments on the Draft Revised Plan and Draft

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REVISED PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION 3 III. PROPOSED SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS AND RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS 27 IV. ENSURE PROTECTION OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS 50 V. PROTECT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN AND OTHER AT-RISK SPECIES 53 VI. THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN THE DRAFT REVISED PLAN IS UNACCEPTABLY WEAK 92 VII. THE TIMBER SUITABILITY AND SALE QUANTITY ANALYSES NEED CORRECTION 116 VIII. SUITABILITY FOR OIL AND GAS LEASING SHOULD BE DETERMINED FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES, AND LEASE STIPULATIONS MUST BE STATED FOR MANAGEMENT AREAS WHERE LEASING WOULD BE ALLOWED 123 IX. PROBLEMS WITH THE ANALYSIS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING 127 X. MONITORING 129 XI. THE PLAN AND DEIS MUST COMPREHENSIVELY ANALYZE THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND PROVIDE PLAN COMPONENTS FOR MITIGATING THESE EFFECTS. 130 XII. PROHIBIT OFF-ROAD MOTORIZED GAME RETRIEVAL 143 XIII. THE PLAN MUST PROVIDE FOR SUSTAINABLE RECREATION 148 1 XIV. AN ADDITIONAL RIVER SEGMENT NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED FOR ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 168 XV. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES 173 XVI. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 176 CONCLUSION 177 LIST OF EXHIBITS 178 REFERENCES 179 APPENDIX 1 SNAGS AND DOWN WOOD 190 2 I. INTRODUCTION We are pleased to see the following in the draft revised Plan and DEIS: --inclusion of alternative D, which is similar to the alternative we submitted as part of our scoping comments; --the proposed addition of a standard to the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment, acknowledging that lynx are still using stands with substantial spruce mortality; and --the recommendation of some areas for wilderness designation. However, there are many weaknesses in the plan that will need substantial correction before finalization. Overall, the plan provides very weak, and in some cases non-existent, direction for protection of important resources and on limitation of activities that could adversely affect these resources. The proposed Plan is much weaker than the existing plan in this regard. Considerable changes must be made to strengthen the draft plan. There are also problems with the determination of lands suitable for timber production and the accompanying calculation of long-term sustained yield of timber, and with the analysis of rangeland suitability for livestock grazing. More areas should be recommended for wilderness and special interest area designations, as applicable. II. RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION The opportunity to inventory and evaluate wilderness-quality lands is an integral component of the forest planning process and presents a rare opportunity to provide administrative protection to some of the most spectacular and ecologically important undeveloped lands on our national forests. These areas provide our drinking water; habitat for imperiled wildlife; physical, mental, and spiritual renewal for millions of Americans; and a buffer to the impacts of climate change. That is, wilderness areas are a crucial management strategy for assuring that the planning rule’s goal of ecological sustainability and its requirements for diversity and ecosystem integrity are achieved. Alternative B recommends 59,000 acres for wilderness.1 The proposed areas are well-conceived recommendations in that they would provide protection for ecosystems that are currently under- represented in the wilderness system on the forest and federally. However, there are many more areas on the Rio Grande National Forest that deserve to be recommended for wilderness on the forest because of their outstanding scenery, recreation, ecosystem services, and ecological 1 The DEIS has a discrepancy in the acres recommended for wilderness. On page 29, the DEIS says Alternative B recommends 59,000 acres while page 303 says that Alternative B recommends 52,860 acres. 3 values. Alternative D, in contrast to Alternative B, recommends 284,870 acres for wilderness (about 29% of lands in the final wilderness inventory), including many of the most deserving areas. The areas recommended for wilderness in Alternative D contribute significantly to landscape scale connectivity of wildlands, protection of under-represented ecosystems, conservation of at-risk species’ habitat, and opportunities for non-motorized backcountry recreation. We described these values at length in our submissions during scoping.2 For these reasons, the Record of Decision for the final plan should adopt the wilderness recommendations in Alternative D. A. BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The 2012 Planning Rule requires forests undergoing a plan revision to “[i]dentify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System [NWPS] and determine whether to recommend any such lands for wilderness designation.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(c)(2)(v). Chapter 70 of the Forest Service Land Management Planning Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 prescribes a four-step process for doing so: (1) inventory all lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the NWPS based on their size, roadless nature, and lack of improvements that are substantially noticeable in the area as a whole; (2) evaluate the wilderness characteristics of each inventoried area pursuant to the criteria in the Wilderness Act of 1964; (3) analyze a range of alternatives for recommended wilderness in the plan EIS; and (4) decide which areas or portions of areas to recommend for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Chapter 70 requires opportunities for public participation “early and during each step of the process.” FSH 1909.12, ch. 70, § 70.61. Given the myriad ecological and social benefits of wilderness and other highly protected lands, the wilderness recommendation process is a key component of satisfying the substantive requirements of the 2012 planning rule. The overarching purpose of the rule is to provide for the development of plans that: will guide management of [National Forest System] lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability; consist of ecosystems and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse plant and animal communities; and have the capacity to provide people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future. 36 C.F.R. § 219.1(c). To accomplish these ecological integrity and sustainability goals, the rule imposes substantive mandates to establish plan components – including standards and guidelines – that maintain or restore healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, watersheds, and riparian areas; air, water, and soil quality; and the diversity of plant and animal communities, ecosystems, and habitat types. Id. §§ 219.8(a)(1)-(3), 219.9. Plans also must provide for sustainable recreation. Id. §§ 219.8(b)(2), 219.10(b)(1)(i). The Forest Service must use the best available scientific information to comply with these substantive mandates, id. § 219.3, and include in the decision document “[a]n explanation of how the plan components meet [those] requirements, id. § 219.14(a)(2). 2 The Wilderness Society submitted a scoping letter dated October 28, 2016. A number of other signatories to this letter submitted a joint scoping letter with the same date. 4 For areas recommended for wilderness designations, plans must include plan components, including standards and guidelines, “to protect and maintain the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(b)(1)(iv). “Any area recommended for wilderness or wilderness study designation is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the wilderness potential of an area.” Forest Service Manual 1923.03(3). B. THE DEIS FAILS TO ANALYZE A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. The analysis of alternatives under NEPA is the “heart” of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. An agency must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to a proposed action. Id. § 1502.14(a); see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E) (agencies must “study, develop and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources”). Consistent with NEPA’s basic policy objective to protect the environment, this includes more environmentally protective alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(e) (agencies must “[u]se the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment”); see also, e.g., Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing cases), abrogated on other grounds by The Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1178- 80 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). “The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an [EIS] inadequate.” Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell, 725 F.3d 988, 1004 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted). The “touchstone” of the inquiry is “whether an EIS’s selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation.” Id. at 1005 (quotations and citation omitted). The alternatives as crafted include a range for recommended wilderness from 0 acres (Alternatives A and C) to 284,870 (Alternative D).

Load more