2009-12-03_REVISION - M1998022 (4)

Home Browse Search

Discussion: The issue of the project contravening the Forest Plan Standard was addressed in the record in the form of a Preliminary Project Proposal. Mineral and Energy Resources Standard 1 for Management Area 4.4 states: "These areas are withdrawn from mineral entry" (2002 LRMP White River National Forest, page 3-48). In the record at #4, Page 2, the District Ranger addresses this standard as follows: "Mineral entry refers to the traditional extraction and processing of locatable and leasable minerals. The proposed rock harvesting activity is considered to be gathering forest products and therefore not a mineral entry". Talus is not a forest product (minerals are exempt from special use permits); however, sale of common mineral materials can be permitted under a different permit process (mineral sale permit). In this case, the District determined rock harvesting to be analogous to gathering forest products, although permitted under a mineral sale. According to the record, the BLM Master Title Plat has no record of the area as being withdrawn from mineral entry (Record #41, page 3). In addition, the Forest Service does not have the authority to withdraw an area from mineral entry for leasable or locatable minerals. This process can be initiated by the Forest Service, but the actual withdrawal is the responsibility of the Secretary of the interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and for cases over 5,000 acres or for more than 20 years, Congress. The Forest Service can, however, withdraw an area from collection of common mineral materials. The same issue was raised later, during the scoping period, and was documented in the record as a conversation between Skye Sieber and Dennis Webb. In her answer to the allegation that the project conflicted with the Forest Plan, Skye Sieber referenced a different standard in the same section of the Forest Plan that said "proposed new uses, management actions, or facilities on National Forest System lands are not allowed if they alter the recreational characteristics of the land and physical resources, or affect the eligibility, potential classification, or potential suitability of the area" (2002 LRMP White River National Forest, page 3-48). She stated that the standard would not apply because the "new use would not alter the recreational values for which the river was designated, i.e. it would not impair or limit recreational use or access to the river or general area" (Record #31, page 2). Recommendation: Affirm the District Ranger's decision on this issue. issue 2• No determination that the project is in the public's interest (violates FSM and Forest Plan 2 b" ???q