Action Alerts

January 05, 2009

Tom Reilly
Clearwater National Forest Supervisor
c/o Teresa Trulock
903 3rd Street
Kamiah, ID 83536

Sent via Email and US Mail

Dear Supervisor Reilly,

Enclosed are scoping comments from Friends of the Clearwater, Western Lands Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and the Lands Council on the proposed Lochsa Land Exchange. There are several issues we believe you must address before proceeding with this project.

Background

While consolidating the upper Lochsa parcels into public ownership would be a very positive conservation step, the history of the railroad land grants needs to be understood and explained in the DEIS. Specifically, the railroads never met the conditions under which the land was granted them. This is documented in the book “Railroads and Clearcuts” and can also be found on the internet at www.landgrant.org. Simply put, the land grants in the upper Lochsa are many miles from any railroad and were presumably granted for a rail route over Lolo Pass, which was and is impractical. The DEIS should explore any measures of recourse the citizens have of retaking the land that was fraudulently obtained.

Purpose and Need

There are three interrelated issues that affect the purpose and need that should be addressed in the DEIS. The first is what alternative best meets the purpose and need. The second is whether the assumptions in the purpose and need are indeed valid. The third is whether the public interest is served by an exchange, as assumed in the purpose and need.

First, the purpose and need in the scoping letter suggests benefits from land consolidation. It should be quite obvious, and an honest evaluation in the DEIS will bear this out, that the purpose and need can best be met by one alternative, purchase. Creating other inholdings on public land—which would occur if all the selected public parcels are traded--does not meet the purpose and need. Rather, it is the equivalent of a Ponzi scheme, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Any purpose and need statement that is so narrowly defined that it allows the shifting of the problem of scattered land ownership patterns to other areas of the Clearwater or Nez Perce national forests or other public land is unacceptable.

Second, the assumptions behind the purpose and need must be assessed. While it seems logical that land ownership consolidation would make sense, the specific benefits must be detailed and explained in the DEIS.

Third, the trade-off in any land exchange must be clearly explained. An exchange may not be in the public interest even if it provides benefits of consolidating the upper Lochsa lands. The cost of exchanging public land—including current public uses and other values--must be weighed against the benefit of obtaining land. The DEIS must carefully evaluate whether the purpose and need really meets the public interest.

Alternatives

The proposed inclusion of a purchase alternative is very positive. It is important that this alternative receive full consideration and analysis, rather than the typical brief discussion of why the alternative will not receive actual analysis, as is so often the case with land exchange environmental documents. The feasibility analysis report for this proposal notes that “Mr. Blixseth indicated he purchased the checkerboard lands from Plum Creek Timber Co. for the primary purpose of exchange and/or sale to the FS.” At first glance, purchase appears to be the best option, if not the only one, that would meet the purpose and need and the public interest. This could take many forms, including purchase by a land trust for gradual conveyance to or purchase by the US Forest Service. Options that call for partial purchase and partial exchange could also be explored. Other options ought to be considered as well.

Purchase of conservation easements on the upper Lochsa to prevent development ought to be considered. Also, the placing of deed restrictions on the selected lands should be evaluated. The pubic has been led to believe that the proponent, Western Pacific Timber, LLC, is a timber company and not a real estate development firm. Some of the proposed selected parcels suggest otherwise. As such, easements and deeds that keep the land in a forested condition should be analyzed.

Another option to consider is the donation of land or conservation easements. The upper Lochsa lands have been heavily logged and would appear to be of little value to a timber company in their current condition. A donation or easement donation could provide a tax break to the company.

Another option would be a joint management plan worked out between the private land owner and the US Forest Service. This option could help alleviate problems associated with the land ownership pattern and would give time to allow for a gradual purchase by or conveyance to the US Forest Service.

Policy and Appraisal

The DEIS document needs to also consider the logic of the boundaries after exchange. It would make little sense to acquire some lands through exchange to solve management problems but create other problems in areas where public land is given away. We address this issue further in the discussion of site specific parcels. Regulations found at 36 CFR 254.3 (a)(1) (iv) state “The Forest Service will exchange only lands that are suitable for elimination from the NFS and will reserve rights or retain the interests that are needed for the public interest.”

An appraisal needs to be done that accurately reflects the values of the parcels being traded. Given the current condition of the Upper Lochsa parcels—indeed they are currently a liability from a watershed perspective—they do not have much value as timber land since they are relatively high in elevation and completely cut over. Although established logging roads often increase the value of forested property, the costs of restoration, including decommissioning roads, must also be factored into the equation for this proposal. On the other hand, the parcels that would be traded away include some that is lower elevation, very productive, with large and old trees.

As you are aware, the appraisal process for land exchanges has become the subject of considerable controversy. Past audits found serious problems. In land exchanges throughout the West, citizens have questioned the high values placed on private lands and the low values given public lands.

In the interests of full disclosure and open government, we ask that the DEIS include: (1) a detailed appraisal methodology, including the assumptions used in the valuation of all lands involved, timber value, and discount rates, (2) the identity of contract appraisers and by whom they were selected, and (3) qualifications and experience of Forest Service staff participating in the appraisal process. Further, we request that the Forest Service make the full appraisal reports available for public scrutiny once a preferred alternative is identified.

Environmental Impacts

The loss of old growth habitat or other rare habitats on the land to be exchanged into private ownership need to be evaluated. The Clearwater National Forest officials have admitted that there is currently not enough old growth on the forest to meet forest plan standards. The DEIS should include information that would indicate whether there are any stands of old growth on the National Forest land selected by Western Pacific Timber.

The analysis should also indicate whether the proposed exchange would improve fish and wildlife values. The analysis is required to show whether the exchange would comply with all laws and regulations, including federal and state laws that concern protection of water quality. Specifically, many intact PACFISH/INFISH buffers would be traded for logged over areas. While consolidation of public ownership of land in the Upper Lochsa watershed may provide potential benefits for resident and anadromous fish populations, Forest Service budget concerns call into question whether those potential benefits would be achieved. The DEIS should identify the miles of road that would need to be decommissioned should this exchange take place. The DEIS also need to assess whether any TES species habitat would be exchanged and where it is located.

The DEIS needs to evaluate whether there are any heritage resources on the lands to be conveyed. These are important issues.

Watershed issues need to be addressed. Are any important water courses being conveyed? What about water rights?

Many of the parcels selected for conveyance are very popular recreation areas. The DEIS needs to analyze the recreation loss and gain from any exchange.

Other rights, such as treaty rights, rights-of-way, and the like, need to be evaluated. Land exchanges can negatively affect current uses.

In other words, the DEIS needs to assess the current conditions and values on the various parcels scheduled for exchange. Without such an evaluation, the equity and public value of any exchange will be impossible to quantify.

The impacts, positive and negative, of an exchange must be considered. The DEIS must disclose what kind of development (roads, logging or other development) is likely to occur once the selected National Forest land comes into private ownership. This analysis must not only meet NEPA mandates, but the requirements in FLPMA and NFMA for exchanges to be in the public interest. Specifically, 36 CFR 254) (a) (1) (ii) requires that a land exchange must be in the public interest and also requires that the Forest Service give full consideration to better Federal land management and the needs of fish and wildlife. The following language in found in 254.3(1)(ii). “There must be a finding that the exchange will not result in a decrease in public values or the ability to meet NFS management objectives.”

Public Land Parcels

Before evaluating specific parcels, a few key points should be addressed. The first is the forest plans. The Nez Perce National Forest Plan does not deal with land exchanges. This is because the Forest Plan FEIS admits the “National Forest ownership is nearly solid” and suggests an exchange program is not “justified” except under rare circumstances.

The Clearwater Forest Plan did anticipate the acquisition of crucial in-holdings through purchase or exchange because of the mixed pattern of ownership, mainly in the Palouse District, but also to acquire checkerboard lands in other areas. Some of the parcels, however, do not meet the intent of the forest plan such as areas that were recently obtained in land exchanges.

The Idaho Panhandle National Forest Plan has criteria for consolidation and exchange. However, an analysis of the parcels needs to be done to ensure that they meet the criteria (see the plan’s Appendix E).

Many of the public parcels selected for exchange have serious problems or do not meet criteria for exchange. As such, the pool of public land to facilitate this exchange is too small. If the agency is serious about proceeding with this project, a larger pool of land should be selected as the existing pool is fraught with problems.

Exchanging private cut-over land for forested public land is of concern. There are liabilities (reforestation, needed reclamation) on the private lands and considerable assets and investment on the public lands. There is also the problem of revolving-door exchanges, where land previously blocked-up in public ownership is now proposed for exchange. This seems to be a situation where cut-over lands are exchanged to the public, massive reinvestment takes place, and once the area is forested it is traded out of public ownership for other cut-over parcels. This is contrary to the intent of the agency’s land exchange program.

Site Specific Parcels

Elk City Area

This is probably the most contentious and worst selection as an area to be traded away into private ownership. There are several problems with these parcels noted below:

1- The Forest Service recently agreed not to log in certain areas and complete watershed restoration work to avoid potential litigation on the American-Crooked River timber sale. Trading out of any of the parcels involved in that FEIS and ROD would prove the Forest Service acted in bad faith . Even proposing those parcels suggests the agency intends to renege on its agreements. Those parcels include Elk City, North Elk City and East Elk City.

2- These parcels would be trading one inholding for another. These parcels are surrounded by BLM-managed public land and the Nez Perce National Forest. Exchanging out of this part of the national forest would result 'in an inability to use fuel and topographic to engage in fires on a cost effective basis." it would greatly expand the so-called WUI in the area.

3- Even the BLM-managed public land in the Elk City township, most of which would make far more sense from an inholding and management perspective to exchange than the parcels selected in the scoping letter as they are adjacent to private land--has not been identified in the new BLM RMP for disposal. Indeed, the Nez Perce National Forest Management plan did not identify areas for exchange, unlike the Clearwater or Idaho Panhandle national forest plans.

4- Some of the Elk City parcels are within the Elk City municipal water supply area. Specifically, the Northwest and West Elk City parcels include acreage within the water supply. It is not in the public interest to trade away those areas.

5- Some of the Elk City parcels are within part of the Meadow Creek roadless area identified in the Idaho Roadless Rule. Specifically, the parcels between and including Box Sing Creek to and including Kirks Fork in section 30 (East Elk City) and the parcels in the upper East Fork of the American (Elk City and North Elk City ). Trading out of these areas (as opposed to consolidating roadless areas) is just the opposite of the regional direction for land exchanges. Exchanging these parcels is also inconsistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule and the 2001 Roadless Rule.

6- Some of the parcels are within the defacto Meadow Creek roadless area. The Forest Service's South Fork Landscape Assessment correctly identifies the roadless area, unlike the 1987 or draft 2006 inventories (the latter was the one mysteriously used by the agency in the Idaho Roadless Rule). These parcels were identified as roadless in the recent American-Crooked River timber sale FEIS completed by the Forest Service. These parcels include Elk City, East Elk City and North Elk City.

7- West Elk City includes crucial moose winter range (Pacfiic yew communities) identified in the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

8- These parcels were not selected based upon the purpose and need in the scoping letter. Rather, they were selected for perceived political reasons--to appease certain Idaho County commissioners-- as opposed to management, conservation, or other legitimate purposes.

In summary, these parcels should have never been considered for exchange. They are not suited for disposal and have too many resource conflicts. Proceeding with them would be in bad faith given the agreements, which occurred on the American-Crooked timber sale.

Palouse Ranger District

This ranger district has a unique history. Unlike other Western national forests, this district has a significant portion of land that was acquired. It also has a patchwork quilt (as opposed to a checkerboard) land ownership pattern. As a consequence, there have been two conflicting and consolidations themes, which have been pursued by the Forest Service.

The first has been the official policy to block up the Palouse Ranger District in more manageable units. This has been on ongoing effort for many years and is discussed in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The second theme, and unofficial one, has been to use the Palouse Ranger District as the disposable trading chips for land exchanges. The Boise foothills land exchange is only one example. While the exchanges that have used the Palouse Ranger District as trading chips have been cynically portrayed as part of the official policy to block up the District for better management, the results prove otherwise. The Forest Service, in past consolidation efforts, obtained some parcels that are now proposed to be traded away in this exchange. This also happened in Boise Foothill exchange.

It should also be recognized the Palouse District is the most heavily visited district (aside from traffic on Highway 12) in the entire Clearwater National Forest. It is closer to the population centers in Moscow and Lewiston than the rest of the Forest and receives considerable recreation use. The DEIS needs to determine whether the parcels selected for exchange are really in the public interest given the high amount of recreation use. We address some of the specific blocks below:

1- The Little Boulder Creek Block, Deary area is near the popular campground. It consists of the lowest elevation of the Potlatch River canyon in public ownership. It is also anadromous fish habitat. While trees grow in the area, the steep slopes make logging a risky proposition in an already compromised river system. Real estate development is a real threat, if exchanged. Ironically, most of this block was obtained in a recent exchange.

2- The Elk River Blocks are locally poplar for dispersed recreation. The Rinky-Dink Block is also an area where watershed restoration is taking place along Partridge Creek to meet water quality standards in the lower North Fork Clearwater. One of the parcels was obtained in a recent land exchange.

3- The North Bovill Block is in an area that has had road closures for watershed purposes. What will be the effect on the Potlatch River if those parcels are exchanged?

4- The Skyline parcels are intermingled with the McCroskey State Park. This is a locally important recreation area.

Other Parcels

1- Exchanging the Lolo Creek parcel would break up public land along Lolo Creek, a crucially important anadromous fish stream. Rather than creating another problem, the BLM and Forest Service should suggest to congress transferring jurisdiction of specific parcels. One possibility would be for the Lolo Creek parcel to be transferred to BLM jurisdiction and the Elk City Township to the US Forest Service.

2- The Silvers parcel on the Nez Perce National Forest is classified in the forest plan as wildlife winter range.

3- One of the North Fork parcels (Number 2) is located in wildlife winter range, according to the forest plan.

4-- Some of the Dworshak parcels may be crucial winter range for wildlife.



Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the scope of the environmental analysis for this proposed project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding these comments.

Sincerely,



Gary Macfarlane
Friends of the Clearwater
PO Box 9241
Moscow, ID 83843
and for
Alliance for the Wild Rockies

*
Christopher J. Krupp
Western Lands Project
PO Box 95545
Seattle, WA 98145


Jeff Juel
The Lands Council
25 West Main Suite 222
Spokane, WA 99201