The U.S. Forest Service’s proposed Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest Plan is Irresponsible & Alarming
The Clearwater River along Highway 12 in Idaho. Photo credit: IRU
On November 28th, the Nez-Perce Clearwater National Forest (NPCNF) released its long-anticipated Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (FEIS/ROD) for their updated Land Management Plan.
While there is still plenty for our team to review and digest, we are incredibly concerned and frankly outraged about how the Forest Service decided to handle Wild and Scenic suitability during its review.
One of the core components of Forest Plan revision is to review rivers for their eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System. In this case, the Forest took it one step further and conducted additional analysis to determine the suitability of rivers that were found eligible for inclusion.
While eligibility is well defined in the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WRSA), suitability is rather vague. Factors such as public support, administrative agendas, and even local politics all play into these determinations that are ultimately subjective and likely to change over time.
What is particularly alarming in this case, the Forest Service has determined that sections of river found not to be suitable will no longer be afforded the interim protections that are typically provided under the WSRA.
By choosing to conduct this arbitrary suitability analysis and take the incredibly irresponsible step to release protections, the Forest Service has essentially taken a snap-shot in time of the current political climate, which is heavily against any additional Wild and Scenic designation, and decided that the rivers and streams not found suitable will likely never be or be considered again and vulnerable to impacts that would otherwise be protected under the WSRA.
Of the 88 sections of river found to be eligible, only 11 were found to be suitable, leaving 77 river sections to be released from interim protections. Among those slated to lose protections are the South Fork and North Fork of the Clearwater River, rivers that received the most attention from stakeholders and possess some of the best fisheries habitat and recreational opportunities within the National Forest.
The Forest Service attests that they can release these rivers of interim protection because the outstanding remarkable values and free-flowing will inherently be protected by the standards and guidelines that generally manage the aquatic and riparian environments within the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. However, this plan calls for intense logging and a myriad of other uses that are counter to these protections.
More alarming still, when looking at their impact analysis of aquatic species that are covered under the Endangered Species Act, we are not convinced. It is stated within the plan that the proposed framework and action will “Adversely Affect Bull Trout and their Critical Habitat; Snake River Steelhead and their Critical Habitat; Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and their Critical Habitat; and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon and their Critical Habitat.”
Considering how important the Nez Perce-Clearwater watershed is for regional recovery efforts, it is alarming that a plan that is purported to exceed or meet the protections outlined in the WSRA will result in the degradation of these vulnerable species. It is worth noting that fisheries resources are the most common ORV throughout the Forest that will clearly be impacted by this plan.
Despite the major problems with the proposed plan that we’ve already identified, IRU is supportive of updating Land Management Plans. They are essential and establish the guiding principles and desired conditions that a specific National Forest aims to achieve throughout the lands under its purview.
Forest Plan revisions are generally required to occur every 10 to 15 years, however, given the complexity and time that it takes to complete the process, they rarely meet this timeline. The existing Forest Plans for the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests were completed in 1987 when each National Forest was managed individually. The two National Forests were administratively combined in 2013 and have been managed as one National Forest since. While the ‘87 plans have been amended numerous times to account for changing conditions, it is clear that this revision process was well overdue.
IRU is still diligently working to review and comb through the several thousand pages included in this plan, we have already begun to craft our formal objection.
While only individuals who have commented on the draft can formally object, we will also be publishing a template letter for individuals to let their representatives and the Forest Service know that this plan must not move forward as presented.
