Appendix A Public Involvement 100 Legal and Administrative Framework (violations, lack of disclosure, decisionmaking, laws, regulations, policy) Concern Statement 100.01 The Forest Service must comply with section 1501.6 regarding cooperating agency involvement throughout the NEPA process. Response to Concern 100.01 The Forests have worked closely with numerous Federal, State, and local governmental agencies throughout the process. Appendix A of the Final Environmental Impact Statement provides a listing of coordination meetings that have occurred since the beginning of the revision process. Concern Statement 100.02 The Forest Service should explain what statute gives it authority to manage by ecosystems. The Forests have a mandate to manage as close to the ground as possible. The authorizing language for ecosystem management comes from the Endangered Species Act, in which land use regulations are authorized only to protect members of listed species from harm. Ecosystem management would greatly expand federal land use regulation at the discretion of federal agencies; the primary problem being the loss of private property without compensation, an even worse situation than under the current species-by-species approach. Response to Concern 100.02 There is not a specific statute the Forest Service uses as an authority to manage by ecosystems. An ecosystems approach was adopted by the agency in 1992 as it provides for a more complete approach to considering the components of the environment (biological, physical, economic and social), how the components interact, and the effects of management actions on those components. Ecosystem management does not expand federal land use regulation nor does it infer any claim to private property. It is simply a way to better provide a context for integrating the biological, physical, economic and social components of the environment with the intention of maintaining or restoring the integrity and sustainability of these components on National Forest System lands over space and time. Concern Statement 100.03 The LMPs violate 16 U.S.C. 475 because locking up areas from both logging and natural fires converts the forest to artificially high levels of old growth which reduces stream flows below historic levels while, at the same time, not meeting timber needs. (16 U.S.C 475 states: “…No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the A-37 Appendix A Public Involvement forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States….”) Response to Concern 100.03 Through the Revision process, alternative management approaches to protecting and improving the Forests were analyzed. These approaches included potential management practices ranging from passive management where natural processes are allowed to dominate, to active management including the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. To best address biophysical as well as social/economic issues, a mixture of management practices are included in the Forest Plans. This is consistent with the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 475. Concern Statement 100.04 The Forest Service violates 43 U.S.C. 1712(C)(2) because no loggers were on the interdisciplinary teams. (43 U.S.C. 1712(C) sets the criteria for development and revision of land use plans and (2) states “…use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences…”) Response to Concern 100.04 In accordance with FSH 1909.15 – Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook WO Amendment 1909.15-92-1, 12.1 Interdisciplinary Team selection, “The team will consist of whatever combination of Forest Service and other Federal Government personnel is necessary to provide the necessary analytical skills.” The provision does not allow for loggers on the interdisciplinary team, however, the team selected for the revision effort did include a forester. Concern Statement 100.05 The Forest Service violates NFMA, NEPA, APA, and MUSY by utilizing information about specific milling facilities in Alternatives 3 and 6. None of the alternatives, except 1B and 5, meet the needs of the mills supplied by these forests. A goal of the LMPs should be to provide sustainable levels of products from the forests to assure economic sustainability of communities. Response to Concern 100.05 Any information collected and utilized in the economic analysis was taken into account during assessment of all of the alternatives analyzed in detail. Utilization of this information was deemed necessary by the line officers to assist them in making an informed decision. Without use of such information in an economic analysis, decisions can be determined to be arbitrary and capricious. Arbitrary and capricious A-38 Appendix A Public Involvement decisions are in violation of the laws guiding environmental analyses and resulting decisions. This analysis had an overriding purpose to contribute to the economic stability of communities within the ecogoup. The Forest Service does not have direction to ensure economic stability but instead contribute to economic stability. Concern Statement 100.06 The Forest Service attempts to identify, analyze, and disclose the proposed action, alternatives, and impacts of revisions of the three Forest Plans in a single DEIS, which results in a document that is a cluttered analysis and impossible for the public to consider the specific context of the proposed revisions on each Plan. Because of this deficiency, the DEIS fails to comply with NEPA and APA and violates NFMA, MUSY, CWA, ESA, and the Organic Act. The range of alternatives and analysis should address each Forest Plan separately (particularly the Sawtooth National Forest), as each alternative has such differing elements. Individual alternatives should be developed for each Forest based on public input. Therefore, the Forest Service should revise the DEIS, or prepare a supplemental EIS, and provide another opportunity for public review and comment. Other commenters felt that analyzing the three forests together as an Ecogroup was a good approach to planning, because the forests have much in common in terms of use and land characteristics. A schedule for completing the Plan revision process should be developed and available for public review. Response to Concern 100.06 Alternatives were developed individually for each Forest to address specific management needs of each Forest. While most of the forest-wide direction is the same for all three forests, management area direction varies significantly not only between the three forests, but also between management areas depending on specific management needs. Likewise, the effects analysis in the FEIS is displayed both at the Ecogroup and individual forest levels. Concern Statement 100.07 The LMPs must disclose the Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ exceptions and exclusions to the Clean Water Act for mining, logging, agriculture, home construction, and a variety of other provisions. A-39 Appendix A Public Involvement Response to Concern 100.07 The Forest Plans include direction that applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations will be followed. Due to the sheer number of applicable laws and regulations, the Forest Plans cannot and do not include exceptions and exclusions to these laws and regulations. Readers must refer to the specific laws and regulations to get that information. Concern Statement 100.08 The proposed LMPs cannot rely on the incomplete ICBEMP for development of forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines and direction for project-specific analysis and implementation. The Forest Service should explain how the proposed ICBEMP decisions would influence the Ecogroup LMPs. Any new information from the ICBEMP “Terrestrial Science Assessment” should be incorporated into the final LMPs. Response to Concern 100.08 Information from the ICBEMP science reports was used to validate basin-wide and regional scale current condition data. ICBEMP management direction was reviewed for applicability. Only that direction applicable to specific Ecogroup issues and needs for change was considered in development of forest- wide goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Concern Statement 100.09 (Letters 274, 1753) To the extent possible, the EIS should discuss all new policies and guidance and locate the discussions in one specific area in the DEIS, explain how they will be implemented, and show their relationship to current policy. Include discussion of the policies that (1) propose standards for evaluating lands between 1,000 and 5,000 acres that are roadless; (2) revise standards and definitions for roads/trails management and proposed instant Forest Plan revisions with a variety of objectives, standards, and guidelines, primarily in certain soil, water, and aquatic areas; and (3) implement the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Response to Concern 100.09 A brief discussion of policies and guidance affecting resource management was included in the DEIS and has been updated for the FEIS to include new or changed direction. A-40 Appendix A Public Involvement Concern Statement 100.10 The minimum stocking standards shown on Table III-8 of the Forest LMPs violate the minimum stocking standards outlined in the Idaho Forest Practices Act. The tables and standards should be revised. Response to Concern 100.10 The final minimum