AMIGOS BRAVOS & WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER DECEMBER 2015 ...

35 Pages·2015·1.92 MB·English

December
 10,
 2015

Forest
 Plan
 Revision
 Team

Santa
 Fe
 National
 Forest

11
 Forest
 Lane

Santa
 Fe,
 New
 Mexico

Submitted
 via
 email
 to:
 [email protected]

Re:

  COMMENTS
 REGARDING
 OCTOBER
 2015
 FINDINGS
 FROM
 THE
 DRAFT
 ASSESSMENT:

TWELVE
 FOCUS
 AREAS
 AND
 PRELIMINARY
 NEED
 FOR
 CHANGE
 STATEMENTS

Dear
 Forest
 Plan
 Revision
 Team:

We
 appreciate
 the
 opportunity
 to
 comment
 on
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 National
 Forest’s
 (“Santa
 Fe
 NF’s”)

Plan
 Revision.
 Revision
 of
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 Forest
 Plan
 provides
 an
 invaluable
 opportunity
 to
 foster

landscape-­‐scale
 ecological
 and
 community
 resiliency
 across
 northern
 New
 Mexico.
 We
 offer
 the

following
 constructive
 comments
 in
 this
 context
 and
 with
 the
 intent
 of
 ensuring
 the
 strongest

possible
 Forest
 Plan
 revision
 and,
 specifically,
 the
 strongest
 possible
 Need
 for
 Change

Statements.
 Our
 comments
 are
 structured
 as
 follows:

§ Section
 I:
 Recommends
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 foster
 landscape-­‐scale
 ecological
 and

community
 resiliency
 as
 a
 central
 organizing
 principle
 for
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 revision,
 providing

four
 core
 recommendations
 in
 furtherance
 of
 that
 principle.

§ Section
 II:
 Details
 and
 substantiates
 our
 recommendation
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 consider
 and

create
 “Wetland
 Gem”
 designated
 areas.

§ Section
 III:
 Recommends
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 account
 for
 the
 full
 value
 of
 ecological
 and

community
 services
 provided
 by
 the
 forest
 in
 its
 socioeconomic
 analysis
 through
 use
 of
 a

Total
 Economic
 Valuation
 framework,
 inclusive
 of
 the
 use
 of
 the
 Social
 Cost
 of
 Carbon.

§ Section
 IV:
 Recommends
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 effectively
 protect
 Canada
 lynx,
 including

through
 action
 to
 protect
 and
 restore
 the
 necessary
 physical
 and
 biological
 features

necessary
 to
 sustain
 a
 resident
 lynx
 population
 settling
 the
 area
 from
 Colorado.

In
 each
 section,
 we
 have
 provided
 specific
 recommended
 changes
 to
 the
 October
 2015
 Draft

Needs
 for
 Change
 Statements
 appropriate
 to
 this
 stage
 of
 the
 planning
 process.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 1
 of
 35
I.
  THE
 SANTA
 FE
 FOREST
 PLAN
 SHOULD
 FOSTER
 LANDSCAPE-­‐SCALE
 ECOLOGICAL
 AND

COMMUNITY
 RESILIENCY

A.
  Resiliency
 Overview

We
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 Forest
 Plan
 foster
 landscape-­‐scale
 ecological
 and
 community

resiliency
 and
 use
 resiliency
 as
 a
 central
 organizing
 principle.
 This
 is
 particularly
 critical
 given

that
 the
 existing
 Santa
 Fe
 Forest
 Plan
 was
 originally
 crafted
 in
 1987
 and
 is
 showing
 its
 age.

While
 the
 Preliminary
 Need
 for
 Change
 Statements
 does
 emphasize
 resiliency,
 our
 comments

are
 designed
 to
 strengthen
 and
 further
 this
 direction
 and
 ensure
 that
 resiliency
 permeates
 all

plan
 components
 and,
 specifically,
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 underlying
 Needs
 for
 Change
 Statements.

Resiliency
 provides
 a
 positive,
 constructive
 frame
 to
 optimize
 and
 balance
 interconnected
 social,

economic,
 and
 ecological
 systems
 and
 to
 thereby
 satisfy
 the
 agency’s
 duty
 to
 “provide
 for
 social,

economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability”
 in
 light
 of
 the
 challenges
 and
 opportunities
 presented

by
 the
 reasonably
 foreseeable
 impacts
 of
 climate
 change
 to
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 and
 the
 broader

landscape
 within
 which
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 rests.
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.

Resiliency,
 for
 us,
 consists
 of
 two
 parts.
 First,
 resiliency
 is
 the
 capacity
 of
 an
 ecological
 or

community
 system
 to
 maintain
 its
 function
 in
 the
 face
 of
 stress.
 A
 system
 with
 high
 resiliency

withstands
 and
 bounces
 back
 from
 stress
 better
 than
 a
 system
 with
 low
 resiliency.
 Second,

resiliency
 is
 the
 capacity
 of
 an
 ecological
 or
 community
 system
 to
 adapt
 to
 changing

circumstances
 and
 conditions.
 Accordingly,
 a
 system
 with
 high
 adaptive
 capacity
 adjusts
 to

changing
 circumstances
 and
 conditions
 better
 than
 a
 system
 with
 low
 adaptive
 capacity.
 These

themes—and
 acknowledging
 the
 interconnected
 nature
 of
 ecological
 and
 community

systems—are
 echoed
 in
 Aldo
 Leopold’s
 1949
 classic,
 A
 Sand
 County
 Almanac,
 where
 Leopold

eloquently
 states,
 “[t]hat
 land
 is
 a
 community
 is
 the
 basic
 concept
 of
 ecology,
 but
 that
 land
 is
 to

be
 loved
 and
 respected
 is
 an
 extension
 of
 ethics.
 That
 land
 yields
 a
 cultural
 harvest
 is
 a
 fact
 long

known,
 but
 latterly
 often
 forgotten.”

Resiliency
 can
 help
 account
 for
 the
 interconnected
 nature
 of
 natural
 and
 human-­‐built

infrastructure
 and
 provide
 a
 basis
 for
 effectively
 identifying
 management
 challenges
 and

opportunities
 in
 world
 suffering
 from
 climate
 change.
 For
 example,
 water
 falls
 as
 rain
 in
 the

Sangre
 de
 Cristo
 Mountains
 to
 nurture
 forests
 and
 wet
 meadows
 and
 then
 collects
 into
 rivers

and
 streams
 that
 provide
 habitat
 for
 Rio
 Grande
 cutthroat
 trout
 and—with
 acequias—clean

water
 for
 New
 Mexican
 farms,
 ranches,
 and
 communities.
 Yet,
 with
 climate
 change,
 the
 quality

and
 quantity
 of
 water
 resources,
 because
 of
 drought
 and
 other
 stressors,
 will
 change
 for
 the

worse
 over
 in
 the
 coming
 decades.
 The
 Santa
 Fe
 Forest
 Plan
 can
 help
 optimize
 and
 balance
 how

resources,
 such
 as
 water,
 are
 used
 across
 this
 interconnected
 landscape-­‐scale
 mosaic
 of
 natural

and
 human-­‐built
 infrastructure
 given
 the
 impacts
 of
 climate
 change.
 In
 so
 doing,
 the
 Santa
 Fe

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 2
 of
 35
Forest
 Plan
 can
 create
 opportunities
 to
 protect
 and
 restore
 ecological
 and
 community

resiliency.

Climate
 change,
 as
 we
 note
 above,
 elevates
 the
 importance
 of
 resiliency
 and
 understanding
 the

interconnected
 nature
 of
 ecological
 and
 community
 systems.
 Indeed,
 this
 is
 at
 the
 root
 of
 the

Forest
 Service’s
 2012
 Planning
 Rules,
 which
 direct
 the
 Forest
 Service
 to
 “provide
 for
 social,

economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability.”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.
 Climate
 change
 exacerbates
 impacts

caused
 by
 existing
 ecological
 and
 community
 stressors,
 such
 as
 poorly
 managed
 road
 systems

and
 livestock
 grazing.
 Climate
 change
 is
 also
 a
 persistent,
 intensifying,
 and
 non-­‐linear
 stressor,

changing
 precipitation
 and
 snowmelt
 patterns.
 Actions
 adequate
 to
 guard
 against
 a
 particular

impact
 in
 a
 world
 that
 has
 warmed
 by
 2°C
 may
 therefore
 be
 completely
 inadequate
 in
 a
 world

that
 has
 warmed
 by
 3°C.
 Thus,
 in
 the
 absence
 of
 robust
 action
 by
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 to
 build

resiliency,
 climate
 change
 may
 unravel
 and
 catastrophically
 degrade
 existing
 ecological
 and

community
 systems
 in
 the
 broader
 landscape.

We
 emphasize
 this
 reality
 because
 the
 Intended
 Nationally
 Determined
 Contributions
 (“INDCs”)

provided
 in
 advance
 of
 the
 upcoming
 U.N.
 Framework
 Convention
 on
 Climate
 Change

Conference
 of
 the
 Parties
 in
 Paris
 in
 December
 2015
 are
 presently
 insufficient
 to
 constrain

warming
 below
 the
 internationally
 agreed
 upon
 target
 to
 constrain
 warming
 to
 2°C
 above
 pre-­‐
industrial
 levels.1
 The
 2°C
 target
 is
 generally
 viewed
 as
 a
 threshold—if
 imperfect—to
 ameliorate

the
 risk
 of
 catastrophic
 climate
 impacts.
 Notably,
 there
 are
 intense
 efforts
 underway
 in
 Paris,

this
 very
 moment,
 to
 lower
 the
 threshold
 to
 1.5°C
 to
 improve
 climate
 security
 and
 to
 protect

the
 most
 vulnerable—efforts
 we
 support.2
 While
 projections
 vary,
 the
 INDCs,
 even
 if

implemented
 successfully
 (a
 very
 big
 if),
 would
 still
 put
 the
 world
 for
 warming
 greater
 than

2°C.3
 This
 should
 provide
 a
 sobering
 reality
 check
 to
 us
 all
 and
 underscore
 the
 importance
 of
 a

meaningful,
 impactful
 Forest
 Plan
 revision.

B.
  Recommended
 Resiliency
 Actions

We
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 take
 the
 following
 four
 core
 actions
 through
 its
 Forest

Plan
 revision
 and
 reflect
 these
 actions
 in
 its
 Needs
 for
 Change
 Statements.

First,
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 should
 forthrightly
 acknowledge
 and
 assess
 the
 predicted
 and
 reasonably

foreseeable
 impacts
 of
 climate
 change
 and
 consider
 alternatives
 to
 ameliorate
 those
 impacts

through
 the
 National
 Environmental
 Policy
 Act
 (“NEPA”)
 review
 for
 the
 Plan
 Revision.
 These

alternatives
 should
 assess
 different
 means
 of
 fostering
 resiliency
 to
 satisfy
 the
 2012
 Planning

Rule’s
 directive
 to
 “provide
 for
 social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.

1
 See
 http://www.wri.org/indc-­‐definition
 (explaining
 INDCs).

2
 http://www.thenation.com/article/with-­‐1-­‐5-­‐degrees-­‐celsius-­‐target-­‐climate-­‐justice-­‐movement-­‐poised-­‐to-­‐score-­‐
surprise-­‐win/

3
 http://climateactiontracker.org/global.html
 (last
 visited
 Dec.
 8,
 2015).

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 3
 of
 35
Each
 alternative
 should
 detail
 the
 specific
 plan
 components,
 i.e.,
 desired
 conditions,
 objectives,

standards,
 guidelines,
 and
 determinations
 regarding
 the
 suitability
 of
 lands
 for
 various
 multiple

uses
 and
 how
 those
 plan
 components
 will
 or
 will
 not
 foster
 resiliency
 to
 provide
 for
 social,

economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability.
 This
 is
 particularly
 critical
 in
 the
 context
 of
 wildfire

management,
 where
 ecological
 and
 community
 resiliency
 should
 drive
 wildlife
 risk

management.
 Put
 differently
 wildlife
 risk
 management
 should
 maximize
 resiliency
 benefits.

Without
 considering
 broad-­‐scale
 resiliency
 benefits,
 we
 are
 concerned
 that
 too
 much
 emphasis

will
 be
 placed
 on
 logging
 to
 the
 exclusion
 of
 other
 activities
 and
 the
 broader
 need
 to
 manage

for
 landscape-­‐scale
 forest
 resiliency
 that
 holistically
 addresses
 interconnected
 ecological
 and

community
 systems.

Climate
 change
 must
 be
 directly
 and
 consciously
 infused
 into
 all
 plan
 components,
 whether

desired
 conditions,
 objectives,
 standards,
 guidelines,
 or
 determinations
 regarding
 the
 suitability

of
 lands
 for
 various
 multiple
 uses.
 This
 is
 particularly
 important
 in
 terms
 of
 plan
 components

that
 ensure
 proactive
 (rather
 than
 reactive
 adaptive)
 planning,
 management,
 and
 decision-­‐
making
 to
 account
 for
 and
 ameliorate
 climate
 change
 impacts
 before
 those
 impacts
 occur
 or

decisions
 are
 made.
 The
 Forest
 Plan
 revision
 should
 thus
 ensure
 that
 climate
 change
 is
 directly

and
 consciously
 incorporated
 into
 the
 overarching
 Forest
 Plan
 revision
 and
 the
 prioritization

and
 design
 of
 project-­‐level
 action
 that
 implements
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 revision.
 See
 36
 C.F.R.
 §

219.15
 (mandating
 “consistency”
 between
 Forest
 Plan
 and
 project-­‐level
 action).

Proactive
 action
 at
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 level
 sets
 the
 stage
 for
 effective,
 meaningful
 project-­‐level

action.
 Isolating
 climate
 change
 action
 within
 reactive
 adaptive
 management
 schemes
 would,

conversely,
 undermine
 the
 ability
 of
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 to
 effectively
 prioritize
 and
 design
 project-­‐
level
 action
 and,
 moreover,
 reduce
 the
 efficacy
 of
 any
 agency
 action
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 decides
 to

take.
 This,
 in
 turn,
 would
 also
 raise
 the
 risk
 that
 the
 agency
 action
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 decides
 to

take
 is
 arbitrary
 and
 capricious
 for
 omitting
 a
 factor—i.e.,
 climate
 change—essential
 to

reasoned
 and
 informed
 agency
 action.
 5
 U.S.C.
 §
 706(2)(A).
 Climate
 change
 is,
 fundamentally,
 a

factor
 for
 consideration
 in
 all
 plan
 elements,
 not
 just
 adaptive
 management.

Second,
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 should
 place
 special
 emphasis
 on
 the
 protection
 and
 restoration
 of

water
 resource
 resiliency.
 Rivers,
 streams,
 wetlands
 and
 other
 waters
 originating
 on
 the
 Santa

Fe
 NF
 function
 as
 core,
 essential
 ecological
 elements
 of
 the
 broader
 Rio
 Grande
 watershed.

Emphasizing
 protection
 and
 restoration
 of
 these
 water
 resources
 can
 improve
 resiliency
 and

thereby
 have
 significant,
 positive
 impacts
 on
 social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability

across
 the
 watershed
 and
 broader
 landscape.

To
 provide
 this
 emphasis,
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 should:

§ Protect
 certain
 “Wetland
 Gems”
 as
 “designated
 areas.”
 See
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.19
 and
 detailed

in
 Section
 III,
 below.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 4
 of
 35
§ Take
 broad-­‐scale
 action
 to
 identify
 and
 mitigate
 the
 causes
 contributing
 to
 non-­‐attainment

of
 Clean
 Water
 Act
 surface
 water
 quality
 standards.
 Given
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 October
 2015

Need
 for
 Change
 Statements
 notes
 that
 approximately
 24%
 of
 the
 perennial
 stream
 miles

on
 the
 forest
 are
 impaired
 and
 that
 87%
 of
 the
 forest’s
 sub-­‐watersheds
 are
 either
 impaired

or
 functioning
 at
 risk,
 and
 given
 the
 intensified
 stress
 predicted
 and
 reasonably
 foreseeable

from
 climate
 change,
 action
 to
 protect
 and
 restore
 water
 quality
 is
 an
 imperative.
 See
 33

U.S.C.
 §
 1323(a)
 (requiring
 that
 federal
 agencies
 comply
 with
 the
 Clean
 Water
 Act,
 which

includes
 compliance
 with
 water
 quality
 standards).
 The
 Santa
 Fe
 should
 specifically
 identify

these
 stream
 segments
 and
 sub-­‐watersheds
 and
 identify
 with
 precision
 how
 and
 by
 when

the
 Forest
 Plan
 will
 achieve
 compliance
 with
 water
 quality
 standards
 and
 ensure
 sub-­‐
watershed
 functionality
 given
 predicted
 and
 reasonably
 foreseeable
 changes
 to
 reference

conditions
 caused,
 e.g.,
 by
 climate
 change.

§ Evaluate
 and
 significantly
 improve
 the
 efficacy
 of
 plan
 components—in
 particular
 standards,

guidelines,
 adaptive
 management
 systems,
 and
 best
 management
 practices—intended
 to

mitigate
 pollution
 caused
 by
 system
 and
 non-­‐system
 roads
 and
 commercial
 activities
 such

as
 livestock
 grazing.
 This
 is
 particularly
 important
 given
 the
 current
 level
 of
 impairment
 in

the
 context
 of
 the
 added
 stress
 caused
 by
 climate
 change.

Third,
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 should
 better
 conserve
 wildlife
 by
 protecting
 and
 restoring
 intact
 wildlife

habitat,
 improving
 the
 connectivity
 and
 permeability
 of
 wildlife
 habitat
 between
 wildlife
 habitat

core
 areas,
 and
 maximizing
 the
 widest
 possible
 altitudinal
 range
 within
 protected
 areas.
 Each
 of

these
 three
 elements
 works
 together
 to
 maximize
 the
 resiliency
 of
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF’s
 diverse

wildlife
 species
 in
 the
 face
 of
 a
 warming
 climate,
 providing,
 as
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 is
 required
 to
 do,

an
 “ecosystem
 and
 species-­‐specific
 approach”
 to
 protect
 wildlife
 (and
 plants).
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.9.

This
 entails
 consideration
 to
 new,
 administrative-­‐level
 designated
 areas
 that
 protect
 wildlife

populations
 and
 the
 connectivity
 and
 permeability
 of
 their
 habitats
 across
 the
 landscape
 and
 in

core,
 resilient
 refugia.
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.19.
 In
 this
 context,
 we
 note
 that
 protection
 and

restoration
 of
 Wetland
 Gems
 as
 Special
 Designated
 Areas
 in
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 operates
 to
 also

protect
 and
 restore
 intact
 wildlife
 habitat,
 the
 connectivity
 and
 permeability
 of
 that
 habitat,

and,
 potentially,
 altitudinal
 range.

Fourth,
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 should
 optimize
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 carbon
 sequestration
 capacity,
 ensuring,

as
 much
 as
 possible,
 that
 the
 forest
 functions
 as
 a
 carbon
 sink.
 Unexploited
 federal
 lands
 can

and
 should
 function
 as
 a
 carbon
 sink
 to
 help
 reduce
 net
 greenhouse
 gas
 emissions
 and
 thereby

mitigate
 climate
 change.
 We
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 achieve
 this
 objective
 by

prohibiting
 activities,
 like
 fossil
 fuels
 exploitation,
 that
 release
 greenhouse
 gas
 emissions.

Specifically,
 we
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF:

§ Impose
 a
 moratorium
 on
 any
 future
 fossil
 fuel
 leasing
 and
 development
 pending
 completion

of
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 revision;

§ Forbid
 all
 future
 fossil
 fuel
 leasing
 and
 development
 through
 the
 Forest
 Plan
 revision
 by

designating
 all
 un-­‐leased
 lands
 as
 unsuitable
 for
 fossil
 fuels
 leasing
 and
 development;

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 5
 of
 35
§ Prevent
 the
 extension
 of
 any
 non-­‐producing
 leases
 existing
 on
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF.

§ Subject
 any
 valid
 existing
 fossil
 fuel
 leases
 or
 development
 projects
 to
 stringent

management
 protections
 to
 minimize
 the
 release
 of
 climate
 pollution
 to
 the
 atmosphere

and
 the
 impact
 of
 any
 development
 on
 ecological
 and
 community
 resiliency.

§ Adopt
 plan
 elements
 to
 protect
 ecological
 resources
 with
 high
 carbon
 sequestration

capacity;

§ Incorporate
 carbon
 sequestration
 capacity
 as
 a
 criterion
 in
 the
 design
 and
 prioritization
 of

project-­‐level
 action
 with
 the
 express
 intent
 to
 protect
 and
 optimize
 the
 forest’s
 carbon

sequestration
 capacity.

To
 help
 inform
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 actions
 to
 mandate
 and
 optimize
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 carbon

sequestration
 capacity,
 we
 refer
 you
 to
 and
 ask
 you
 to
 assess
 the
 recommendations
 crafted
 by

the
 Federal
 Forest
 Carbon
 Coalition.4

We
 also
 emphasize
 here
 our
 deep
 concern
 regarding
 the
 potential
 for
 oil
 and
 gas
 leasing
 and

development.
 We
 were
 particularly
 disturbed
 by
 the
 BLM
 Farmington
 Field
 Office’s
 decision

to
 reject
 an
 administrative
 protest
 to
 the
 sale
 of
 20,000-­‐acres
 of
 new
 federal
 oil
 and
 gas

leases
 on
 the
 western
 edge
 of
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 National
 Forest
 in
 the
 Cuba
 Ranger
 District.
 Sadly,

this
 is
 not
 an
 isolated
 problem.
 Across
 the
 entire
 San
 Juan
 Basin,
 nearly
 90%
 of
 all
 federal

minerals
 have
 been
 leased
 for
 oil
 and
 gas
 drilling
 and
 fracking
 by
 BLM’s
 Farmington
 Field

Office
 and
 horizontal,
 multi-­‐stage
 drilling
 and
 fracking
 is
 ongoing,
 despite
 concessions
 by
 BLM

that
 it
 has
 never
 properly
 planned
 for
 this
 sort
 of
 development
 in
 the
 southern
 reaches
 of
 the

basin,
 in
 particular
 around
 Chaco
 Canyon,
 and
 must
 therefore
 complete
 a
 Resource

Management
 Plan
 Amendment.
 In
 our
 candid
 view,
 this
 raises
 a
 legitimate
 question
 whether

the
 BLM
 Farmington
 Field
 Office
 has
 the
 to
 balance
 multiple
 uses,
 to
 promote
 sustainability,

and
 to
 respect
 local
 communities.
 Indeed,
 and
 we
 do
 not
 say
 this
 lightly,
 the
 BLM
 Farmington

Field
 Office
 appears
 to
 have
 been
 effectively
 co-­‐opted
 by
 oil
 and
 gas
 industry
 interests.
 To

prevent
 the
 resultant
 ills
 that
 this
 has
 created
 to
 the
 San
 Juan
 Basin
 from
 threatening
 the

resiliency
 of
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 National
 Forest,
 Forest
 Plan-­‐level
 action
 is
 necessary.

Finally,
 we
 note
 that
 while
 the
 Santa
 Fe’s
 carbon
 sequestration
 capacity
 may
 appear
 small

relative
 to
 the
 entire
 world,
 individual
 actions,
 cumulatively,
 can
 prove
 quite
 positive
 and,

indeed,
 are
 essential.
 As
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 teaches:

Agencies,
 like
 legislatures,
 do
 not
 generally
 resolve
 massive
 problems
 in
 one
 fell

swoop,
 see
 Williamson
 v.
 Lee
 Optical
 of
 Okla.,
 Inc.,
 348
 U.S.
 483,
 489,
 75
 S.Ct.

461,
 99
 L.Ed.
 563,
 but
 instead
 whittle
 away
 over
 time,
 refining
 their
 approach
 as

circumstances
 change
 and
 they
 develop
 a
 more
 nuanced
 understanding
 of
 how

best
 to
 proceed,
 cf.
 SEC
 v.
 Chenery
 Corp.,
 332
 U.S.
 194,
 202–203,
 67
 S.Ct.
 1575,

91
 L.Ed.
 1995.

4
 See
 http://www.forestcc.org/recs
 (link
 to
 PDF
 of
 recommendations
 on
 this
 page).

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 6
 of
 35
Mass.
 v.
 EPA,
 549
 U.S.
 497,
 499
 (2007).

In
 Section
 I.C,
 immediately
 below,
 we
 summarize
 key
 elements
 of
 the
 policy
 and
 legal

framework
 underpinning
 these
 four
 recommendations.

C.
  Resiliency
 Policy
 and
 Legal
 Framework

Resiliency—and
 carbon
 sequestration—is
 expressly
 called
 for
 by
 Executive
 Order
 13,653,

“Preparing
 the
 United
 States
 for
 the
 Impacts
 of
 Climate
 Change.”
 Section
 1
 of
 the
 order
 explains

that:

The
 impacts
 of
 climate
 change—including
 an
 increase
 in
 prolonged
 periods
 of

excessively
 high
 temperatures,
 more
 heavy
 downpours,
 an
 increase
 in
 wildfires,

more
 severe
 droughts,
 permafrost
 thawing,
 ocean
 acidification,
 and
 sea-­‐level

rise—are
 already
 affecting
 communities,
 natural
 resources,
 ecosystems,

economies,
 and
 public
 health
 across
 the
 Nation.
 These
 impacts
 are
 often
 most

significant
 for
 communities
 that
 already
 face
 economic
 or
 health-­‐related

challenges,
 and
 for
 species
 and
 habitats
 that
 are
 already
 facing
 other
 pressures.

Managing
 these
 risks
 requires
 deliberate
 preparation,
 close
 cooperation,
 and

coordinated
 planning
 by
 the
 Federal
 Government,
 as
 well
 as
 by
 stakeholders,
 to

facilitate
 Federal,
 State,
 local,
 tribal,
 private-­‐sector,
 and
 nonprofit-­‐sector
 efforts
 to

improve
 climate
 preparedness
 and
 resilience;
 help
 safeguard
 our
 economy,

infrastructure,
 environment,
 and
 natural
 resources;
 and
 provide
 for
 the
 continuity

of
 executive
 department
 and
 agency
 (agency)
 operations,
 services,
 and
 programs.

Section
 3
 of
 the
 Order
 reinforces
 this
 policy
 direction,
 mandating
 that
 agencies
 take
 action
 to

make
 “watersheds,
 natural
 resources,
 and
 ecosystems,
 and
 the
 communities
 and
 economies

that
 depend
 on
 them,
 more
 resilient
 in
 the
 face
 of
 a
 changing
 climate.”
 Section
 3
 further
 states

that,
 “recognizing
 the
 many
 benefits
 the
 Nation’s
 natural
 infrastructure
 provides,
 agencies

shall,
 where
 possible,
 focus
 on
 program
 and
 policy
 adjustments
 that
 promote
 the
 dual
 goals
 of

greater
 climate
 resilience
 and
 carbon
 sequestration.”

Executive
 Order
 13,653
 should
 be
 understood
 in
 the
 context
 of
 two
 new
 White
 House

memoranda,
 which
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 should
 review
 to
 inform
 its
 Forest
 Plan
 revision.
 In
 October

2015,
 the
 White
 House
 directed
 federal
 agencies
 to
 account
 for
 ecosystem
 services
 in
 federal

planning
 and
 decision-­‐making.5
 In
 November
 2015,
 the
 White
 House
 strengthened
 federal

ecological
 resource
 protection
 and
 restoration
 efforts.6
 These
 memoranda
 complement
 the

5
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/07/incorporating-­‐natural-­‐infrastructure-­‐and-­‐ecosystem-­‐services-­‐
federal-­‐decision-­‐making.

6
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-­‐press-­‐office/2015/11/03/mitigating-­‐impacts-­‐natural-­‐resources-­‐development-­‐
and-­‐encouraging-­‐related.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 7
 of
 35
Council
 on
 Environmental
 Quality’s
 work
 to
 develop
 guidance
 for
 federal
 agencies
 as
 they
 strive

to
 account
 for
 climate
 change
 through
 National
 Environmental
 Policy
 Act
 (“NEPA”)
 reviews.7

While
 that
 guidance
 remains
 in
 draft
 form,
 it
 is
 nonetheless
 helpful
 to
 inform
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF

Forest
 Plan
 revision’s
 NEPA
 process
 and
 how
 that
 process
 can
 properly
 account
 for
 climate

pollution
 and
 climate
 change.

This
 policy
 direction
 from
 the
 White
 House
 and
 CEQ
 overlays
 the
 2012
 Planning
 Rule’s
 purpose

“to
 guide
 the
 collaborative
 and
 science-­‐based
 development,
 amendment,
 and
 revision
 of
 land

management
 plans
 that
 promote
 the
 ecological
 integrity
 of
 national
 forests
 and
 grasslands
 and

other
 administrative
 units
 of
 the
 NFS.
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.1.
 More
 specifically,
 the
 2012
 Planning

Rule
 states
 that
 Forest
 Plans
 “must
 provide
 for
 social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological

sustainability….”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.

Social
 sustainability
 is
 defined
 as
 “the
 capability
 of
 society
 to
 support
 the
 network
 of

relationships,
 traditions,
 culture,
 and
 activities
 that
 connect
 people
 to
 the
 land
 and
 to
 one

another,
 and
 support
 vibrant
 communities.”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.19.
 Economic
 sustainability
 is

defined
 as
 “the
 capability
 of
 society
 to
 produce
 and
 consume
 or
 otherwise
 benefit
 from
 goods

and
 services
 including
 contributions
 to
 jobs
 and
 market
 and
 nonmarket
 benefits.”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §

219.19.
 We
 emphasize,
 in
 particular,
 that
 these
 social
 and
 economic
 benefits
 include

“ecosystem
 services,”
 or
 the
 “[b]enefits
 people
 obtain
 from
 ecosystems,”
 which
 include
 “clean

air
 and
 fresh
 water,”
 “long
 term
 storage
 of
 carbon,”
 “pollination,
 seed
 dispersal,
 soil
 formation,

and
 nutrient
 cycling,”
 and
 “educational,
 aesthetic,
 spiritual
 and
 cultural
 heritage
 values….”
 36

C.F.R.
 §
 219.19.

Ecological
 sustainability
 is
 defined
 as
 “the
 capability
 of
 ecosystems
 to
 maintain
 ecological

integrity.”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.19.
 Ecological
 integrity
 is
 an
 underlying
 driver
 of
 planning,
 as
 the

Forest
 Plan
 must
 include
 “plan
 components,
 including
 standards
 or
 guidelines,
 to
 maintain
 or

restore
 the
 ecological
 integrity
 of
 terrestrial
 and
 aquatic
 ecosystems
 and
 watersheds
 in
 the
 plan

area,
 including
 plan
 components
 to
 maintain
 or
 restore
 structure,
 function,
 composition,
 and

connectivity….”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.
 Ecological
 integrity
 is
 achieved
 when
 specific
 ecological

characteristics—“structure,
 function,
 composition,
 and
 connectivity,”
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219—fall

within
 a
 natural
 range
 of
 variation
 that
 allows
 these
 characteristics
 to
 withstand
 and
 to
 bounce

back
 from
 stress
 and,
 moreover,
 have
 the
 capacity
 to
 adapt
 to
 changing
 circumstances
 and

conditions,
 such
 as
 those
 caused
 by
 climate
 change.

Landscape-­‐scale
 thinking,
 management,
 and
 analysis
 is
 crucial
 to
 resiliency
 in
 the
 face
 of

climate
 change
 risks,
 impacts,
 and
 vulnerabilities.
 By
 taking
 a
 landscape-­‐scale
 approach,
 the

Santa
 Fe
 can
 best
 identify
 and
 prioritize
 opportunities
 to
 take
 Forest
 Plan
 and
 project
 level

action
 to
 ameliorate
 climate
 change
 and
 to
 complement
 non-­‐federal
 resource
 protection
 and

restoration
 efforts.
 See
 36
 CF.R.
 §
 219.10(a)(1),
 (4),
 (6)
 (providing
 for
 coordination
 with

neighboring
 landowners
 and
 consideration
 of
 land
 status
 and
 ownership
 relevant
 to
 plan
 area);

7
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-­‐guidance.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 8
 of
 35
FSH
 1909.12,
 §
 23.23m
 (same).

D.
  Recommended
 Changes
 to
 the
 Preliminary
 Need
 for
 Change
 Statements
 to

Foster
 Ecological
 and
 Community
 Resiliency

Reflecting
 our
 above
 recommended
 focus
 on
 resiliency,
 we
 strongly
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa

Fe
 NF
 elevate
 the
 “Restoration
 of
 Ecosystem
 Resiliency”
 component
 of
 the
 Need
 for
 Change

Statements
 on
 page
 8
 of
 the
 draft
 to
 encompass
 not
 just
 vegetation,
 but
 all
 plan
 Focus
 Areas.

We
 further
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 revise
 this
 component
 to
 encompass
 community,

not
 just
 ecological,
 resiliency
 to
 emphasize
 the
 critical
 role
 that
 communities
 play
 as
 part
 of
 the

broader
 landscape
 within
 which
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 rests.

Specifically,
 we
 recommend
 the
 inclusion
 of
 the
 following
 italicized
 Need
 for
 Change
 statement

in
 the
 section
 currently
 entitled
 “Overall
 Resources”
 on
 pages
 4-­‐5
 of
 the
 draft:

Ecological
 and
 Community
 Resiliency

Resiliency
 provides
 a
 positive,
 constructive
 frame
 to
 optimize
 and
 balance

interconnected
 ecological,
 social,
 and
 economic
 systems
 and
 to
 thereby
 satisfy

the
 agency’s
 duty
 to
 “provide
 for
 social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability”

in
 light
 of
 the
 challenges
 and
 opportunities
 presented
 by
 the
 reasonably

foreseeable
 impacts
 of
 climate
 change
 to
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 and
 the
 broader
 landscape

within
 which
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 rests.
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.8.

Resiliency
 consists
 of
 two
 parts.
 First,
 resiliency
 is
 the
 capacity
 of
 an
 ecological
 or

community
 system
 to
 maintain
 its
 function
 in
 the
 face
 of
 stress.
 A
 system
 with

high
 resiliency
 withstands
 and
 bounces
 back
 from
 stress
 better
 than
 a
 system

with
 low
 resiliency.
 Second,
 resiliency
 is
 the
 capacity
 of
 an
 ecological
 or

community
 system
 to
 adapt
 to
 changing
 circumstances
 and
 conditions.

Accordingly,
 a
 system
 with
 high
 adaptive
 capacity
 adjusts
 to
 changing

circumstances
 and
 conditions
 better
 than
 a
 system
 with
 low
 adaptive
 capacity.

Resiliency
 can
 help
 account
 for
 the
 interconnected
 nature
 of
 natural
 and
 human-­‐
built
 infrastructure
 and
 provide
 a
 basis
 for
 effectively
 identifying
 management

challenges
 and
 opportunities
 in
 world
 suffering
 from
 climate
 change.

Plan
 Need
 for
 Change

1.

  There
 is
 a
 need
 to
 include
 management
 approaches
 that
 protect
 and
 restore

resiliency
 across
 focus
 areas
 given
 existing
 stressors
 and
 the
 intensifying
 role

that
 climate
 change
 will
 play
 over
 the
 projected
 life-­‐time
 of
 the
 forest
 plan

revision
 and
 beyond.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 9
 of
 35
2.

  There
 is
 a
 need
 to
 include
 management
 approaches
 that
 better
 reflect
 the

interconnected
 nature
 of
 natural
 and
 human-­‐built
 infrastructure
 to
 foster

social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability.

We
 further
 recommend
 the
 addition
 of
 the
 following
 italicized
 Need
 for
 Change
 statement
 in

the
 section
 currently
 entitled
 “Other
 Need
 for
 Change
 Resources,”
 specifically,
 the
 “Changes

throughout
 the
 Plan”
 section,
 on
 page
 14
 of
 the
 draft:

4.

  There
 is
 a
 need
 to
 foster
 social,
 economic,
 and
 ecological
 sustainability

through
 the
 development
 of
 plan
 components
 for
 all
 resources
 that
 provide

increased
 certainty
 that
 resiliency
 will
 be
 protected
 and
 restored
 to
 account

for
 existing
 stressors
 and
 the
 intensifying
 stress
 caused
 by
 climate
 change.

Finally,
 we
 recommend
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 modify
 the
 “Minerals”
 Need
 for
 Change
 section
 on

page
 16
 of
 the
 draft
 to
 read
 “Energy
 and
 Minerals”
 and
 add
 the
 following
 Need
 for
 Change

Statement:

3.

  There
 is
 a
 need
 to
 assess
 the
 need
 for
 and
 impacts
 of
 energy
 and
 minerals

leasing
 and
 development
 on
 forest
 resources
 and
 to
 consider
 options
 to
 avoid

the
 impacts
 of
 energy
 and
 minerals
 leasing
 and
 development,
 including

through
 an
 assessment
 to
 gauge
 whether
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 National
 Forest
 is

unsuitable
 for
 further
 energy
 and
 minerals
 leasing
 and
 development.

II.

  THE
 FOREST
 PLAN
 REVISION
 SHOULD
 CREATE
 ADMINISTRATIVE-­‐LEVEL
 “WETLAND

GEM”
 DESIGNATED
 AREAS
 TO
 FOSTER
 ECOLOGICAL
 AND
 COMMUNITY
 RESILIENCY

A.

  Overview
 of
 Wetland
 Gem
 Designated
 Area
 Recommendations

We
 respectfully
 ask
 that
 the
 Santa
 Fe
 create
 new
 administrative-­‐level
 “Wetland
 Gem”
 special

designated
 areas
 and
 include
 this
 possibility
 in
 its
 Need
 for
 Change
 Statements.
 The
 2012

Planning
 Rules
 define
 a
 “designated
 area”
 as
 “[a]n
 area
 or
 feature
 identified
 and
 managed
 to

maintain
 its
 unique
 special
 character
 or
 purpose.
 36
 C.F.R.
 §
 219.19.

The
 Santa
 Fe
 NF
 should
 identify
 and
 designate
 wetlands
 to
 protect
 and
 restore
 water
 resource

resiliency
 in
 a
 changing
 climate.
 More
 broadly,
 we
 recommend
 identify
 and
 designate
 areas
 to

protect
 and
 restore
 resiliency
 for
 forest
 resources
 in
 a
 changing
 climate
 including,
 as
 noted

above,
 areas
 that
 foster
 protection
 of
 wildlife
 core
 areas
 and,
 more
 broadly,
 the
 connectivity

and
 permeability
 of
 wildlife
 habitat.
 These
 actions
 should
 be
 considered
 as
 components
 of

reasonable
 alternatives
 and
 assessed
 through
 the
 NEPA
 process.
 40
 C.F.R.
 §
 1502.14.

AAMMIIGGOOSS

 BBRRAAVVOOSS

 &&

 WWEESSTTEERRNN

 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL

 LLAAWW

 CCEENNTTEERR

DECEMBER
 2015
 COMMENTS

Page
 10
 of
 35