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