2009-12-03_REVISION - M1998022 ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: M1998022
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 12/3/2009
• Doc Name: Adequacy review
• From: Tetra Tech
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: CN1
• Email Name: GRM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Comments
on
Environmental Assessment
Conger Rock Harvesting Area
Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest
Gunnison County, Colorado Legal Description: T11S, R88W,_
Sections 21 and 22, 6th P.M.
My name is Gary T. Osier and I reside at 825 cedar Dr., Rifle, CO 81650. First I want to
say that I am in favor of this type of activity on National Forest Systems Lands, and that I
am fully aware that it is a legitimate use and is authorized by law. Having said that, no
matter what the use is and how legitimate it seems, that does not give the deciding
official the discretion to usurp the White River National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (L&P). I wanted to let you know that any quotes shown in my
comments are either from the EA mentioned above(EA), the L&P mentioned above or
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the L&P. The formate of my comments
will be to take the quote from the EA and then comment using the L&P and EIS for
reference. My comments are as follows regarding this project:
1. My first comment is designed to set the stage for further comments, and
involves a quote from the L&P as follows:
"Project-level decisions
There are two objectives in project planning. In agency-initiated actions, the
objective is to move toward or achieve the integrated direction in the 2002 Forest
Plan through the proposed action. For proposals made by others, the objective is
to decide if the proposal is or could be made consistent with forest wide and
management area standards. Also to be decided is whether the project is in the
public's interest in terms of forest wide goals and objectives. The following
principles apply:
• Forest-wide goals and objectives guide the identification and selection
of potential agency projects.
• Determining whether a project is consistent with the forest plan is
based on whether it follows forest wide and management area standards.
• Projects that do not comply with standards must be found to be
inconsistent with forest plan management direction, unless standards are
modified through forest plan amendment. In the latter case, project
approval and forest plan amendment may be accomplished
simultaneously.
• Forest plan objectives, forest wide and management area guidelines,
project specific outputs, and activity schedules should not be used in the
determination of what is consistent. Under those circumstances in which
a guideline is modified or not applied as described in the forest plan, the
responsible official should recognize the purpose(s) for which the
guideline was developed, and provide assurance that any subsequently
approved actions do not conflict with the objective the guideline was