Sustainable Multiple Use Alternatives At Work
The Forest Service plans subordinate most native species and each Forest’s ecosystems to commercial and recreational uses. The Sustainable Multiple Use Alternatives, by contrast, provide for valid commercial and recreational uses within the needs of the native species and ecosystems. See a visual comparison of these differing visions.
The Three Forest Coalition has developed and submitted a Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative for each of the Forest's current Forest Plan revisions, and for a number of specific plans, e.g., the Fishlake ORV EIS, a 31-allotment sheep term grazing plan, and an 8-allotment cattle grazing plan.
Each Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- Proposes management that the Forest's native plants and animals need to survive and thrive
- Provides Forest managers with the opportunity and responsibility to manage human uses in a manner that honors their Forest's natural heritage
- Reminds Forest users of how well and wisely their Forest could be managed.
See:
- Guiding Principles of each Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- How the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternatives differ from most Forest proposals
Three Forests Coalition has provided an Alternative for the following Forest plans:
MANTI-LA SAL NF ( Forest map, Forest website)
REVISING FOREST PLANS: MANTI-LA SAL NF
The Manti-La Sal National Forest announced in late 2003 that they would be jointly preparing a Forest Plan Revisions of their 1986 Forest Plan.
In 2005, the Forest announced it would be using the 2005 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, which propose that Forest Plans will include no standards, and no site-specific commitments --- and thus no significant environmental impacts. As a result of this supposed lack of significant environmental impacts, the Manti-La Sal NF proposes to prepare its plan revision as a "Categorical Exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some of the implications of this are:
- No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared
- Alternatives to what the Forest proposes do not need to be considered (although the Forests are supposedly allowed to consider "options" if they want to)
- Environmental impacts do not need to be considered (because the Forests contend there will be none)
- Conclusions do not need to be documented
- Public comment does not need to be specifically responded to
The regulations proposing Categorical Exclusions have not yet been made final. The Three Forest Coalition believes the 2005 NFMA regulations are illegal and agrees with national citizen litigation on this.
The Manti-La Sal NF has released a Draft Vision, Objectives, and Monitoring Questions. The Three Forests Coalition has provided an alternative plan, which show that the two management approaches will have differing, significant environmental impacts. We believe an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared to fully analyze the comparative significant environmental impacts of the Manti-La Sal NF’s alternative(s) and the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
Cover Letter for Draft Plan Comments, 29 April 2006 (46-kB Word document)
Draft Plan Comments, 29 April 2006 (280-kB Word document)
- Appendix A: Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative (1.8-MB Word document)
- Appendix B: Grazing Effects on the Manti-La Sal NF (45 photos)
- Appendix C: Comparisons of M-LS and SMU Options
- Appendix C-1: Fire (85-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-2: Global warming (36-kb Word document)
- Appendix C-3: Invasive species (98-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-4: Livestock grazing (95-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-5: Oil and gas (74-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-6: Recreation (78-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-7: Reference areas (48-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-8: Soil and water (159-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-9: Surrogate species (79-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-10: Tree-cutting (57-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-11: Vegetation (269-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-12: Wildlife (143-kB Word document)
- Appendix C-13: Wilderness and roadless areas (85-kB Word document)
- Appendix D: A User’s Guide for the Rapid Assessment of the Functional Condition of Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the American Southwest. 2006. Stacey, P.B., Jones, A.L, Catlin, J.C., Duff, D.A., Stevens, L.E. and C. Gourley. Special Publication, Wild Utah Project. Salt Lake City, UT.
- Appendix E: Documents relating to goshawk and monitoring direction
SMU Alternative 31 March 2006
- Cover Letter transmitting SMU Alternative to Forest Service 31 March 2006 (46-kB Word document)
- SMU Alternative Management Plan for the Manti-La Sal National Forest 31 March 2006 (2-MB Word document)
Wasatch Plateau 31-Allotment Sheep Term Grazing Permit EIS
- News Note
- EIS Chronology February 2004 - December 2005
- Summary of Appeal Resolution Process
- Appeal of Final EIS and Record of Decision, Nov 14, 2005
- Appendix A: Disturbed, Eroding, and/or Bare Soils: Field Notes With Linked Photos, Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments
- Appendix B: Aspen Stands: Field Notes With Linked Photos, Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments
- Appendix C: Other Field Notes With Linked Photos, Wasatch Plateau Sheep Grazing Allotments
- Comments: Wasatch Final EIS, Sept 6, 2005
- Three Altenatives - Wasatch Sheep Allotments, Jan 30, 2005
Two Cattle Grazing "Categorical Exclusions"
- Comments: Dorry and Twin Springs Proposed Categorical Exclusion, Nov 21, 2005
- Appendix A: Field Notes with Photos, Twin Springs Allotment
- Appendix B: Field Notes with Photos, Dorry Allotment
Monticello Ranger District Travel Route Analysis
- The Moab/Monticello district of the Manti-La Sal National Forest is proposing changes in their travel plan that include two dozen new ATV trail and primitive road additions to the system, mostly in ecologically damaging places. We seek to reduce the overall impacts of the transportation system and properly map, sign and delineate that system. See our comments (1.8-MB Word document) on the proposal.
FISHLAKE NF (Forest map , Forest website)
REVISING FOREST PLANS: DIXIE AND FISHLAKE NFs
The Fishlake and Dixie National Forests announced in late 2003 that they would be jointly preparing Forest Plan Revisions of their 1986 Forest Plans. The Dixie and Fishlake NFs plan to issue two documents so as to address geographic areas, species, and other differences between the two Forests.
In 2005, the Forests announced they would be using the 2005 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, which propose that Forest Plans will include no standards, and no site-specific commitments --- and thus no significant environmental impacts. As a result of this supposed lack of significant environmental impacts, the Forests propose to prepare the plans as "Categorical Exclusions" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some of the implications of this are:
- No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared
- Alternatives to what the Forest plans do not need to be considered (although the Forests are supposedly allowed to consider "options" if they want to)
- Environmental impacts do not need to be considered (because the Forests contend there will be none)
- Conclusions do not need to be documented
- Public comment does not need to be specifically responded to
The regulations proposing Categorical Exclusions have not yet been made final, because the Council of Environmental Quality has resisted them. The Three Forest Coalition believes the 2005 NFMA regulations are illegal and agree with national citizen litigation on this.
The Dixie and Fishlake Forests released their Proposed Plans on June 28, 2006. The Three Forests Coalition has provided an alternative plan, which shows that the two options will have differing environmental impacts. We believe an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared to fully analyze the comparative significant environmental impacts of the Forest Service’s alternative(s) and the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.
Brief Summaries: Key Aspects of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- Forest Plan Implementation (25-kB Word Document)
- Community and the Forests (30-kB Word Document)
- Wildlife (42-kB Word Document)
- Watersheds (24-kB Word Document)
- Vegetation (25-kB Word Document)
- Recreation (38-kB Word Document)
Quick guide to locating particular elements of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
Complete Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- Physical Components (179-kB Word Document)
- Management Challenges (83-kB Word Document)
- Biological Components (639-kB Word Document)
- Social and Economic Components (406-kB Word Document)
- Special Designated Areas (380-kB Word Document)
- Public Use and Participation (87-kB Word Document)
- References (56-kB Word Document)
- Appendix A: Guidance from Recovery Plans and Conservation Agreements (482-kB Word Document)
- Appendix B: Cedar Breaks National Monument as a Potential Reference Area (1-MB JPEG)
- Appendix C: Fishlake Undeveloped Area additions (Numbering for SMU Alternative text) (844-kB PDF)
- SMU Subset Alternative - Fishlake ORV EIS
- SMU Subset Alternative Map
- SMU Comprehensive Alternative - Fishlake ORV EIS
- SMU Alternative Comprehensive Map
- Comments: Fishlake ORV Route DEIS
Tushar Range 8-Allotment Cattle Grazing EIS
- Appeal Resolution (April 18, 2007)
- Appeal of Final EIS and Record of Decision (March 2007) (5-MB Word File)
- Appendix B: Dr. Thomas Power's rebuttal of FEIS economics claims
- Final EIS Comments, September 2006 (2-MB Word file)
- Two Alternatives, February 2005
- DEIS Comments, October 18, 2004 (400-kB Word file)
DIXIE NF ( Forest map, Forest website)
REVISING FOREST PLANS: DIXIE AND FISHLAKE NFs
The Fishlake and Dixie National Forests announced in late 2003 that they would be jointly preparing Forest Plan Revisions of their 1986 Forest Plans. The Dixie and Fishlake NFs plan to issue two documents so as to address geographic areas, species, and other differences between the two Forests.
In 2005, the Forests announced they would be using the 2005 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, which propose that Forest Plans will include no standards, and no site-specific commitments --- and thus no significant environmental impacts. As a result of this supposed lack of significant environmental impacts, the Forests propose to prepare the plans as "Categorical Exclusions" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some of the implications of this are:
- No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared
- Alternatives to what the Forest plans do not need to be considered (although the Forests are supposedly allowed to consider "options" if they want to)
- Environmental impacts do not need to be considered (because the Forests contend there will be none)
- Conclusions do not need to be documented
- Public comment does not need to be specifically responded to
The regulations proposing Categorical Exclusions have not yet been made final, because the Council of Environmental Quality has resisted them. The Three Forest Coalition believes the 2005 NFMA regulations are illegal and agree with national citizen litigation on this.
The Dixie and Fishlake Forests released their Proposed Plans on June 28, 2006. The Three Forests Coalition has provided an alternative plan, which shows that the two options will have differing environmental impacts. We believe an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared to fully analyze the comparative significant environmental impacts of the Forest Service’s alternative(s) and the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative.
Brief Summaries: Key Aspects of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- Forest Plan Implementation (25-kB Word Document)
- Community and the Forests (30-kB Word Document)
- Wildlife (42-kB Word Document)
- Watersheds (24-kB Word Document)
- Vegetation (25-kB Word Document)
- Recreation (38-kB Word Document)
Quick guide to locating particular elements of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
Complete Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative
- Physical Components (179-kB Word Document)
- Management Challenges (83-kB Word Document)
- Biological Components (639-kB Word Document)
- Social and Economic Components (406-kB Word Document)
- Special Designated Areas (380-kB Word Document)
- Public Use and Participation (87-kB Word Document)
- References (56-kB Word Document)
- Appendix A: Guidance from Recovery Plans and Conservation Agreements (482-kB Word Document)
- Appendix B: Cedar Breaks National Monument as a Potential Reference Area (1-MB JPEG)
- Appendix C: Fishlake Undeveloped Area additions (Numbering for SMU Alternative text) (844-kB PDF)
Pockets Resource Management Plan (timber sale)
- Comments
- Attachment A: List of Photos
- Attachment B: Lindenmayer, DB, and RF Noss. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20(4):949-958]
- Attachment C: Kay, Charles. 2001. The condition and trend of aspen communities on BLM administered lands in central Nevada - - with recommendations for management. Final report to Battle Mountain Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, NV.
- Attachment D: Kauffman, Boone, Andrea Thorpe, and Jack Brookshire. [In press 2004]. Livestock exclusion and belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications.
- Attachment E: Chong, Geneva, Sara Simonson, Thomas Stohlgren, and Mohammed Kalkhan. 2001. Biodiversity: Aspen stands have the lead, but will nonnative species take over? Pp. 261-266 in Shepperd, Wayne, Dan Binkley, Dale Bartos, Thomas Stohlgren, and Lane Eskey, compilers. 2001. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 pp.
- Attachment F: Brookshire, Jack; Boone Kauffman, Danna Lytjen and Nick Otting. 2002. Cumulative effects of wild ungulate and livestock herbivory on riparian willows. Oecologia 132:559-566.
- Attachment G: Belsky, Joy, and Dana Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the interior West. Conservation Biology 11(2):315-327.
- Attachment H: Belsky, AJ, A Matzke, and S Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431.
- Attachment I: Annotated logging and soils bibliography
- Attachment J: The Seen and Unseen World of the Fallen Tree, GTR PNM-164, 1984
- Attachment K: Raymond, Crystal L., The Effects of Fuel Treatments on Fire Severity in a Mixed-Evergreen Forest of Southwestern Oregon. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, University of Washington. 2004
- Attachment L: Black, S.H. 2005. Logging to Control Insects: The Science and Myths behind Managing Forest Insect ‘Pests.’ A Synthesis of Independently Reviewed Research. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
- [Request is in to Tim Peterson on this]