Appendix a Letter Submitted by the Wilderness Society Et Al On

Appendix A Letter submitted by The Wilderness Society et al on September 6, 2016 on the Preliminary Wilderness Evaluation (without appendices) San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council * The Wilderness Society Defenders of Wildlife * Quiet Use Coalition * Rocky Mountain Wild * Colorado Mountain Club * Rocky Smith * Western Environmental Law Center Ms. Erin Minks, Forest Planner Rio Grande National Forest 1803 W. Highway 160 Monte Vista, CO 81144 September 6, 2016 Via electronic mail followed by a hard copy in the US Post Re: Preliminary Wilderness Evaluation Dear Ms. Minks: The undersigned organizations appreciate the opportunity to provide input in response to your request for comments on the preliminary wilderness evaluation as part of the Rio Grande National Forest Land Management Plan revision. We thank you for the attention and effort that you are devoting to the wilderness inventory and evaluation process, and commend you and your colleagues for thoughtfully navigating the process as detailed in FSH 1909.12, chapter 70. In particular, we are pleased that you are adhering closely to the evaluation criteria presented in section 72 of the handbook. We also liked your approach of ranking the inventoried polygons by the degree to which they have wilderness character, presenting the associated information in a spreadsheet, and displaying the areas by rank on a map. Presenting the information this way made it quite easy to understand and digest. General comments on preliminary evaluation I. Missing information a. Rationale needed to explain rankings is missing for numerous polygons While we recognize that the evaluation outputs are preliminary, we are concerned that the information in the spreadsheet is skeletal and in many places simply missing. For example, for numerous polygons the spreadsheet stated “No” in response to whether specific wilderness criteria exist without any additional information. In other cases, the spreadsheet stated “Some” without benefit of additional explanation. The paucity of information makes it extremely difficult to understand why some areas might have lower wilderness character and provide helpful feedback. Without additional information and a reasoned explanation, the downgrading of an area’s wilderness quality is arbitrary and capricious. For example, for polygons #1b, 30a-c, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36a, 36b, 39, 45b, 49, 50, 56, 58a-c, 62, 65, and 66 the spreadsheet lists “No” without additional information for the ‘naturalness’ criterion. Similarly, 1 the spreadsheet for polygon #15 lists “Some” without additional information for the ‘naturalness’ criterion. For polygons #1b, 3h, 3i, 3g, 5, 7, 13, 18, 20b, 23, 27, 30a-c, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36a, 36b, 37b, 39, 40, 44, 45a, 45b, 46, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58a-c, 60, 65, and 66 the spreadsheet says “No” without additional information for the ‘solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation’ criterion. Similarly, for polygons #51, 52, 63a, 63b, 63c, and 64 the spreadsheet says “Some” without additional information for the ‘solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation’ criterion. In rating polygons for manageability, the spreadsheet often just says, “Would be difficult to manage for wilderness characteristics” and does not provide any information on why this is the case. This situation occurs in polygons #1b, 3h, 3i, 3g, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20b, 22, 23, 27, 30a-c, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36b, 39, 40, 41, 43a, 45a, 45b, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58a-c, 59, 60, 63b, 63c64, 65, and 66. For polygon #5 the spreadsheet just says “No” for the ‘manageability’ criterion without providing additional information. Recommendation: In the final evaluation documents, for polygons with less than high rating, provide a clear rationale supported by best available information for why a polygon does not meet a specific evaluative criterion. b. Rationale for naturalness ranking for specific polygons is insufficient For a number of polygons, the spreadsheet provides a pithy and insufficient explanation for why the area may have diminished naturalness. For example, for polygon #4 (Elkhorn Peak Colorado Roadless Area) which is 25,664 acres, the spreadsheet states the following for the ‘naturalness’ criterion: “Grazing, mining impacts naturalness – imprint of man is noticeable.” From the information provided, we cannot discern where within the 25,664 acres are physical signs of mining and grazing activities, if the physical signs are substantially unnoticeable to the area as a whole, or if the physical signs are confined to one portion of this large area or spread throughout. If the physical impacts are confined to one portion of the area, can the polygon be divided into multiple parts each greater than 5000 acres in size such that one or more polygons rank high? As an initial matter, FSH 1909.12, chapter 70, section 72.1(1) directs the Forest Service to “Evaluate the degree to which the area generally appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprints of man’s work substantially unnoticeable (apparent naturalness). Consider such factors as…(c) The extent to which improvements included in the area (sec. 71.22 of this Handbook) represent a departure from apparent naturalness.” A key factor in evaluating naturalness is whether the area (as a whole) “looks natural” to a reasonable person.1 1 See “Q&As Relating to Wilderness Planning under Chapter 70 of 2015 Planning Rule Directives, Version 1.1” published by the Forest Service Washington Office, Page 1 (“At the evaluation stage, the Interdisciplinary Team should be guided by the definition of wilderness and the overall evaluation of the degree to which, as a whole, the evidence of man’s influence in the past has detracted from the apparent naturalness of the area such that it may preclude a recommendation for inclusion in the NWPS.”). Also see page 2 (“In making this evaluation, the Interdisciplinary Team must, at a minimum, consider the criteria in Section 72.1(1)…In carrying out the evaluation, 2 Polygons #32d-I, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20b, 22, 23, 25a, 27, 40, 43a,44, 45a, 46, and 52 need more information about where and how impacts are substantially noticeable to the area as a whole, and why the area generally would not appear natural to an average person.2 In providing more information in the final evaluation, it may be helpful to provide photographs, google earth imagery, and/or maps to depict visual impacts. Recommendation: For polygons with a ‘naturalness” rating less than high (or yes), clearly explain the rationale, describing where and why the imprints of man are not substantially unnoticeable to the area as a whole. Where naturalness is diminished due to improvements, consider changing polygon boundaries to excise acres with diminished naturalness and then re-evaluate this criterion for the modified boundary. c. Rationale needed for why adjacent areas are too small to manage for preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. For some polygons that are adjacent to existing wilderness, the spreadsheet under the ‘size’ criterion states that the area is “Adjacent to designated wilderness but too small to manage it for its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” The spreadsheet provides no further information as to why an adjacent parcel would not be manageable as wilderness. FSH 1909.12, chapter 70, section 72.1(3) directs the Forest Service to “Evaluate how an area less than 5,000 acres is of sufficient size to make its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition practicable” (emphasis added). Simply stating that an area is not of sufficient size without an explanation is not adequate. Polygons #1b, 3h, 3i, 3g, 30a-c, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36a, 36b, 43a, 54, and 58a-c do not have adequate explanations. For example, mysteriously, unit 36a, the Ruby Lake Colorado Roadless Area (CRA) (6800 acres) is an upper tier roadless area adjacent to the Weminuche Wilderness but it is somehow “too small to manage [] for preservation and use in an unimpaired condition”. Clearly, there are errors in the evaluation. Recommendation: Make sure to provide a rationale for why adjacent areas are not of sufficient size to make their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition practicable. If, after further consideration, visibility to users will likely be a big part of the analysis. It is also important to keep in mind that the idea of substantially unnoticeable should be analyzed with an eye toward an average user. With enough specialized knowledge anyone could identify imprints of human influence on the landscape… The evaluation of substantially unnoticeable is not necessarily reducible to an objective set of criteria that can be applied uniformly, but is a subjective determination left to the Responsible Official’s discretion and broad judgment. The conclusion may change and even be different within different habitat types within an area. For example, in an area near or above the tree line, even a relatively small structure may be visible from long distances, and therefore may not be “substantially unnoticeable.” On the other hand, a much larger structure that is in a dense forest area, may not be considered substantially noticeable, as it is not visible except when a user is very near the structure itself.” 2 Ibid, Page 2. (“[I]t is critical that the Interdisciplinary Team and the Responsible Official: 1) clearly document and explain the rationale for the ultimate conclusion….; 2) explain why certain criteria weighed for or against a conclusion that something was substantially unnoticeable, and why areas were considered but not selected for inclusion in the analysis; 3) clearly respond to public comments that question the process and the criteria selected by the official, and explain the rationale for the process used; and 4) ensure that the administrative record contains the documentary evidence that explains the process and the ultimate evaluation.”) 3 you decide that they are manageable, you should amend the findings for this criterion in the final documentation.

Load more