Gila National Forest is changing its management plan after 34 years—Sierra County Commission submits comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

by Kathleen Sloan | March 20, 2020
7 min read
The Sierra County Commission approved 11 pages of comments on the Gila National Forest’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the March 17 meeting without discussion and without making them available to the public. 

Individuals may still comment on the DEIS, which can be found on the Gila National Forest’s website. The 90-day comment period started Jan. 17 and ends April 16. 

The Gila National Forest has “amended” its 1986 forest management plan 11 times in the intervening years. It is late in putting together a new plan. The National Forest Management Act required the Forest Service submit one by 2012. The proposed plan is supposed to “be good for 10 to 15 years,” according to the DEIS. 

There are 3.3 million acres in the Gila National Forest, first formed in 1905, with the first “Wilderness” designated area in the country in 1924.

About 55-percent of the forest is woodland, with multi-branching woody plants that don’t attract commercial extractive companies. About 33 percent of the forest is timberland that attracts commercial enterprise. The remaining 12 percent is non-forest or water. 

The County Commission did not discuss their comments, therefore holding the meeting at the Truth or Consequences City Commission Chambers to allow constituents to attend via radio broadcast did not enlarge understanding of the board action. 

The comments were not included in the March 17 meeting packet, making it impossible for constituents to weigh in on the matter, or to know what the County Commission was putting forth on their behalf. The comments are only available if an Inspection-of-Public-Records-Act request is made and paid for. 

There are five alternative plans in the DEIS. The Forest Service is proposing Alternative 2 and that is also the County Commission’s preference, with major revisions. 

Alternative 1, as required by law for all DEIS, proposes no change.

The main differences in the other four alternatives revolve around the use of fire, herbicides, setting aside wilderness and botanical areas, controlling livestock movement and allotment grazing, protecting riparian areas and limiting group size of people and pack and saddle stock in wilderness areas. 

Alternative 2 is the broadest plan. It would let wildfires burn and use prescribed fire and mechanical means to improve grasslands, open woodlands and forests. Herbicides would be allowed. 

It would set aside riparian management zones. Related to this is 224 miles of river habitat designated as “Scenic River,” disallowing any dams or other structures to be built.  

About 130,000 additional acres would be set aside as “Wilderness.” Currently nearly 560,000 acres are Wilderness. The designation disallows timber or other extraction, vehicles, buzz saws or other equipment and limits groups to 15 people and 25 pack and saddle stock. As before, camping is limited to 14 days. 

The timberland for extraction would be nearly 353,000 acres. 

The estimate of forage for cows is expressed in “animal unit months,” or a 1,000-pound cow eating 780 pounds of dried grass (90 percent of water removed). In Alternative 2, the estimate is 250,611 animal unit months. 

There are empty grazing allotments, although the DEIS does not state how many there are. What to do with them is debated among the alternatives. Alternative 2 would allow empty allotments to be used by grazing-permit holders when their range is impacted by drought, before or after a wild or prescribed fire, or mechanical removal of woody vegetation.

New restructured range improvements would be required to be designed to prevent wildlife entrapment. For example, escape ramps in water troughs and cattle guards would be part of the design. 

Before returning cows to grazing allotments after a wildfire or mechanical vegetation treatment or other disturbance, an “interdisciplinary team” of environmental and other experts “should,” but would not be required, to evaluate the land. The grazing-permit holder “should” also be consulted for the land’s “readiness” to sustain cattle. 

Alternative 3 is the cattleman’s choice. It would allow the use of herbicides, limit the use of fire, and use mechanical means to restore grassland and open woodland. The point would be to increase livestock grazing forage. 

Vacant allotments should be “restocked” with cattle. Riparian zones damaged by cattle will be “managed and maintained,” making it unclear if cattle would be allowed. No grasslands or open woodlands should be designated “Wilderness” to maximize grazing. The animal unit months are 243,240. 

There should be no limits on group sizes in the Wilderness. About 130,000 acres of additional Wilderness should be designated. 

In general, access for recreation, cultural and historic uses should be improved. In addition, the Forest Service should not reduce the private-land ratio within the national forest in making land deals. 

Alternative 4 is the logger’s choice. It would limit fire, emphasizing mechanical means to restore forested areas and to maximize forest products, providing “economic stability” for the area. 

Livestock and grazing should not be held to standards, but to looser guidelines and vacant allotments should be stocked. Riparian areas damaged by cows should be “managed and maintained.” The animal unit months are 248,154 in this plan. 

No area that needs restoration should be designated “Wilderness,” or where timber production is possible. 

The Wilderness area in this alternative is the smallest among the alternatives at just shy of 73,000 acres.  

The DEIS acknowledges public comments requested more timberland be designated than the 354,205 acres included in the plan. 

This alternative also wants increased access for recreation, cultural and historical uses, with no group-size limits in the Wilderness areas. Land deals should not reduce the private-land ratio. 

Alternative 5 is the most ecological. No herbicides would be allowed. More natural wildland fires should be allowed and mechanical removal of woody plants should be limited to urban interfaces. 

Riparian areas should be increased, creating a greater buffer zone between them and new construction and the planned realignment of roads. This will help the native trout and Mexican spotted owl recover. 

Cows should be concentrated by corrals and water provisions and kept away from riparian areas as well as at-risk species sites. Standards, not guidelines should be enforced. Vacant allotments will not be used by grazing-permit holders and won’t be restocked until they are environmentally evaluated and restored.  If “wildlife conflicts” are an issue, such as with the Mexican gray wolf, no cows. Surprisingly, the animal unit months are the greatest among the alternatives, at 255,525 AUMs. 

The Wilderness designation is the largest among the alternatives, at 745,286 acres, with group-size limited to 15 people and 25 pack and riding stock. 

Timberland, at nearly 30,000 acres, is the least acreage designated for extraction among the alternatives. 

Sierra County Commission Comments:
Most of the Commission’s comments were geared toward protecting grazing-permit holders, which was summarized in the general statement, “It is recommended that any and all projects or decisions be in full consultation with the permittee of the allotments the project/decision might impact.” 

Water rights of ranchers and private land owners were given “no consideration” in any of the alternatives, the Commission said, and should be added to the final impact statement.

“The Commission is unanimously opposed to any recommendation of lands for wilderness inclusion in Sierra County and we have made that known in earlier public comments, letters and resolutions.” 

The Commission points out that Wilderness designations are
​“a congressional prerogative,” and not within the Forest Service’s authority. 

The Commission recognizes that seven areas were removed from Wilderness consideration, but seven still remain in Alternative 2. The Commission asks that nearly 50,000 acres be removed of the 110,402 acres designated, nearly halving the Wilderness area. 

Areas designated Wilderness to protect the Mexican spotted owl, “can be managed without wilderness recommendation.” 

The Commission is against designating “botanical areas” in grazing areas.

Grazing permittees have improvement plans for much of the 50,000 acres designated Wilderness, the Commission states. The areas have already been disturbed by human encroachment, and since Wilderness is defined as a pristine, nearly undisturbed area, the designation is inapplicable. 

The Commission also asks that 683,090 acres be evaluated as timberland in addition to the 352,922 acres designated. If the land is less than a “40 percent slope,” it should be included. 

Trails and accessibility is another focus. “We have a serious concern that not enough budget or manpower is being dedicated to trails maintenance and/or reconstruction.” The plan contemplates one mile per year of trail destroyed by fire be restored, which is deemed “unacceptable.” 

The Commission “strongly supports the use of herbicides to control noxious weeds but also juniper and salt cedar invasions in riparian and areas where appropriate.”  

TAGS: | |
author
Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
Share this:
HAVE YOU SEEN?

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

H.E.L.P.

This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.

Scroll to Top