2009-12-03_REVISION - M1998022 (4)

Home Browse Search

intended to achieve. This must be documented during project analysis according to NEPA procedures. • Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments issued for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands must be consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan, unless specifically exempted from applicability in an amendment or revision decision document. Determinations of consistency of permits, contracts, and other instruments for occupancy and use of National Forest System lands are based on whether they follow forest wide and management area standards. • Generally, forest plan implementation-when project decisions are made-is when the irretrievable commitment of resources also is made. Therefore, before making decisions, additional environmental analysis and site-specific disclosure of environmental effects are required according to NEPA procedures." (L&P Preface P-4 & P-5) This outlines how a project will be evaluated. So lets start with a quote from the first paragraph of the one above and see how it stacks up with the proposal. "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." (L&P Preface P-4) So the first sentence mentions Standards & Guidelines, so our first task is to evaluate Forest Wide Standards and Management Area Standards to determine whether the project is in conflict with the L&P. Only one standard appears to be in conflict: "4.4 Recreation Rivers - Designated and Eligible MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES Standard 1. These areas are withdrawn from mineral entry." (L&P Page 3-48) Being with drawn from mineral entry would also indicate that salable mineral development would also be prohibited, because salable minerals are a totally discretionary decision were as locatable (under mineral entry) are protected by statute and must be officially withdrawn. It is logical that if you were going to prohibit locatable minerals then salable minerals would also be prohibited. From the EA: "According to FS Land Status Records and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Master Title Plat Records, the project area in TI IS, R88W, Sections 21 and 22 is not located on any lands withdrawn from mineral entry (FS 2008)." (EA Page 5) The EA says that The White River National Forest is presently in violation of the L&P standard for this management prescription. Therefore, this points out that the withdrawal should be carried out as quickly as possible so as to bring the Management Area