Friends of the Clearwater Nonprofit Organization

P.O. Box 9241 U.S. POSTAGE PAID FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER

Moscow, Idaho 83843 Permit #470

Moscow, ID PO Box 9241 Moscow, ID 83843

Phone (208) 882-­‐9755 FAX call first A Call to Action:www.friendsoftheclearwater.org Plan Revisions for the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests

The New threatened and en- Proposed Forest dangered species, Plan Falls Short including bull At long trout, Chinook last, the Forest salmon, west- Service has re- slope cutthroat leased its second trout, lynx, fisher, proposed action in grizzly bear (ex- the last ten years tremely rare), and for the forest plan others. It is also revisions for the famous for its elk Nez Perce and herds and numer- Clearwater Na- ous other species, such as wolves, tional Forests. For- Weitas Creek roadless area needs your voice, FOC File Photo est plans are intended wolverines, black to guide national forest management for a decade, with fifteen bear, big horn sheep, mountain goats, mule deer, bald years as an upper limit. The recent administrative combination eagles and harlequin ducks. The new plan would signifi- of the two forests has led to the Forest Service decision to com- cantly threaten these species and the producitve habitat bine the two plans into one. Dissapointingly, the proposal does they depend on. a disservice to the wildlands of the Clearwater region and the These forests contain nationally known wild and citizens of this country by proposing a plan short on account- scenic rivers such as the Salmon, Selway, Lochsa and ability and long on vague platitudes. Currently, both forests Clearwater, as well as 1.1-million acres of existing wil- have individual plans that far better protect water quality, fish derness, including the Selway-Bitterroot, Frank Church- habitat and wildlife habitat than would the proposal, in spite of River of No Return, Hells Canyon and Gospel-Hump the fact those plans are outdated (1987). This is the first stage Wildernesses. There are also 1.5-million acres of unde- of public involvement. A second stage will occur when the For- veloped roadless lands, which is a main area of conserva- est Service releases a draft environmental impact statement ex- tion concern associated with the proposed plan. pected sometime in 2015. The controversial Idaho Roadless Rule offers inadequate protection for these roadless areas. For ex- A Special Place ample, the Forest Service is planning to log the Eldorado At nearly 4-million acres, the Clearwater and Nez Roadless Area in its proposed Lolo Insects and Disease Perce National Forests are the northern half of the Big Wild, timber sale. the largest intact ecosystem in the continental United States. The past century has seen the front country heav- This area has tremendous diversity, from low-elevation habitat ily roaded, logged and degraded and so it needs to be with coastal disjunct species in wet cedar forests, to wind swept allowed to recover, not logged further and disguised as ridges with mountain hemlocks on mountain peaks. According restoration. to two World Wildlife Fund studies done in 2001 by Carlos Carroll, et. al., the Clearwater River drainage is the most impor- Our Proposal tant area in the U.S. Northern-Canadian Southern Rockies for Friends of the Clearwater has created an outline large forest carnivores, even more important than iconic plac- of a citizen proposal, which is informed by sound scien- es, such as Yellowstone and Jasper National Parks. This area tific principles and sets a positive future for the Nez Perce contains some of the least developed and ecologically signifi- and Clearwater National Forests that emphasizes the out- cant landscapes in the lower 48 states and is home to numerous standing wild, natural and appropriate recreational values Printed on recycled paper for this remarkable place (see the FOC webpage at friendsoftheclearwater.org/the-place/). It also takes advan- However, this propos- ability concerns for those species. tage of the opportunity to create economic benefits through al contains loopholes Likewise, the SCC list omits the Threatened grizzly bear, genuine restoration work such as road decommissioning. that allow develop- Issue FOC’s Proposal Existing Plans* New FS Proposal of which occasional recent occurrences have been noted on the Several organizations have already supported this effort. ment, even if upper Roadless and Fully protects all Theoretically fully Option One: Fully Clearwater National Forest, and which historically inhabited both The adjacent chart to the right provides a quick sediment limits are Recommended roadless areas 1.5 protects 37% (0.56 protects 16% (0.27 these two Forests. The grizzly bear is a flagship species, defining comparison of some key resources. exceeded. The cur- Wilderness million acres (ma.). ma.) ma.) the very essence of “the Big Wild.” Please ask the Forest Service rent plan has stream- Recommends Moderately protects Option Two: Fully toinclude the grizzly bear on its SCC list. Some Important Issues side buffers, which See the map on the additions to the another 19% (0.23 protects 22% (0.33 The Proposed Action does not even suggest a list of Fo- are rarely violated, last page. Gospel-Hump ma.) ma.) Moderately cal Species, which the regulations define as “species whose status and upper limits on Wilderness which the protects another 14%. and trends provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecological Wilderness Recommendations and Wildlands agency failed to study. (0.21 ma.) The Forest Service does not recommend any of sediment in streams to system to which it belongs.” Instead, it requests public input on fo- protect fish and water Wilderness Provides specific and Current direction has Vague language and cal species. Please ask that the Forest Service adopt a robust list of Weitas Creek, Pot Mountain, Fish and Hungery Creeks, accountable direction extra loopholes for proposed conditions the Upper North Fork Clearwater, additions to the Frank quality. focal species and thorough population monitoring program, in ac- We propose administrative use of could conflict with cordance with the best science found in the Committee of Scientists Church-River of No Return (Cove-Mallard), or Hells Can- motorized equipment wild, untrammeled yon (Rapid River) Wildernesses. Proposed additions to the that standards always and structures. wilderness. (1999) report. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness are small and leave out the be met, both before Keeping National Forests Public and after logging, or Climate Change Reduces carbon None Wrong-headed There is no direction for land exchanges. FOC proposes vast majority of acreage, including key portions of Meadow emissions and proposal to log forests Creek and all of Gedney Creek, Warm Springs Creek along other development. promotes climate under the ruse of that the agency work with Congress or private conservation inter- the Lochsa Slope and most of the wildlands near Elk Sum- Current direction does stability climate change. ests to purchase inholdings. National Forests must never be given mit. The proposed plan does not even recognize most ad- not fully protect sen- to the state to manage, either. ditions to the Gospel-Hump Wilderness as roadless, even sitive soils and steep Fisheries and Measurable and Measurable and some Loopholes that weaken Allowing Natural Processes though site-specific inventories by the Forest Service show slopes. Neither does Watershed Protection mandatory standards mandatory standards. existing direction. The proposed plan has desired future conditions that would those areas are roadless. Inadequate proposals exist for Mal- the proposed plan. We result in massive manipulation. Where there are trees, the agency lard-Larkins (Elizabeth Lakes) and in one of the options, propose those steep wants different trees. Where there are openings, the agency wants Kelly Creek (unmanageable snowmobile corridors). and sensitive areas be Wildlife Habitat Measurable and Some measurable Loopholes that further more trees. This is wrong-headed and scientifically suspect. Natu- Furthermore, the agency does not propose to pro- off-limits to develop- mandatory standards and limited mandatory weaken existing ral processes have a far better record in creating diverse forests tect any roadless area as a non-motorized, non-mechanized ment for watershed to protect all habitat. standards for some protection. Limited than does the agency. To the degree possible, natural processes like backcountry. The second option (see chart) allows motor- integrity and safety species. additional protection fire, rain and wind should determine future conditions. ized use in the special management areas. Ironically, the reasons. The proposed for other species. What You Can Do Forest Service has long boasted it could protect primitive plan allows logging Logging Limited to roaded Some roadless Loopholes allow in ancient forests set areas that meet water acreage protected, as logging just about non-motorized recreation opportunities in a non-developed 1- Write the Forest Service by September 15, 2014 backcountry setting without formal wilderness designation. aside for sensitive spe- quality and wildlife is some old growth. everywhere including standards. most roadless areas. Forest Plan Revision, 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536 The existing, albeit small, Mallard-Larkins Pioneer Area, is cies (old growth). The * Includes direction as per the 1993 Clearwater National Forest lawsuit settlement agreement or via email at [email protected] one example. However, no such proposal exists in this plan current plan allows no such logging and nei- 2- Attend a Public Meeting: to afford any real protection to any roadless area. Though • July 28, 6-8 PM Lewiston, Idaho, Idaho Fish and Game Office ther would our proposal. In addition, we propose a higher tists recommendations. permitted, the proposal does not suggest amending the inad- 3316 16th Street percentage of old forests, based upon scientific research, for The Proposed Action includes a list of 13 ter- equate Idaho Roadless Rule. • July 30, 6-8 PM Moscow, Idaho 1912 Center 412 E. Third the different kinds of forest habitat. The current plan pro- restrial wildlife “Species of Conservation Concern” Wilderness Administration Street tects only 10% of the forests as old growth for wildlife, even (SCC), which are defined as “Any species, other than The Forest Service proposal barely addresses exist- • August 4, 6-8 PM Lolo, Montana, Lolo Middle School 11395 though research suggests more should be protected. We also federally-recognized threatened, endangered, pro- ing wilderness and omits any mention of improving old wil- HWY 93 suggest that road density and motor vehicles be limited to posed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in derness plans. 3- Points to consider in your comments: protect elk habitat. Current plans have some protections. the plan area and for which the Regional Forester has Wild Rivers • Support FOC’s citizen alternative. The new proposed plan has no standards, merely guidelines. determined that the best available scientific informa- The Forest Service does a fairly good job in making • Ask the Forest Service to recommend as wilderness and/or pro- The Proposed Action lacks a sound scientific basis tion indicates a substantial concern about the species recommendations, but still omits Weitas Creek. tect all roadless areas including the additions to the Gospel- for conserving wildlife species. The Committee of Scientists capability to persist over the long-term in the plan Research Natural Areas Hump identified by FOC (http://www.friendsoftheclearwater. report (commissioned by the agency when it first proposed area.” Unfortunately, the SCC list omits ten other The Bimerick Creek Meadows are omitted. org/gospel-hump-additions-2/). If you know specific areas, revising its forest planning regulations) recommends a pro- species the Regional Office currently believes there Old Growth Forests please mention them in your comments. cess that includes (1) scientific involvement in the selection is a substantial concern about their long-term viabil- The proposal does not fully protect old growth for- • Demand that water quality, wildlife habitat and fish habitat of focal species, in the development of measures of species ity. These are the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, black- ests. The existing plans do protect a small amount. Our pro- standards be enforceable and non-discretionary, without loop- viability and ecological integrity, and in the definition of key backed woodpecker, black swift, common loon, Har- posal would completely protect old growth forests from log- holes. elements of conservation strategies; (2) independent scien- lequin duck, wolverine, bog lemming, western toad, ging. • Tell the Forest Service that natural processes have a better re- tific review of proposed conservation strategies before plans and ringneck snake. Ask the Forest Service to include Watersheds, Soils, Fish and Wildlife cord than does the agency in creating diverse forests. The de- are published; and (3) scientific involvement in designing those 10 species on the Forest Plan SCC list, or else The Forest Service proposed plan has loopholes sired future condition should be process rather than end-point monitoring protocols and adaptive management. Please ask disclose the best scientific information available that for all protection measures, including streamside buffers. oriented. the Forest Service to adopt those three Committee of Scien- unequivocally demonstrates there are no longer vi-