The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org December 17, 1997 Cynthia Lane, District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Route 1, Box 398 Kooskia, ID 83539 Dear Ranger Lane: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the East Bridge Savage Project (your November 18 letter). These comments are on behalf of The Ecology Center, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, and Friends of the Clearwater. When initially reading through the ³administrative project record² I was a little concerned that you may try to implement this project with a categorical exclusion. Because of the estimated volume, and the existing regeneration units in the project area - I believe that a detailed environmental analysis in the e form of an EA is in order. I talked to Steve Bess, who is the team leader for this project, and he reassured me that an environmental assessment would be completed for this project. If, by chance, a choice is made to categorically exclude this project, we need absolute assurance that the volume of this sale is under a million board feet. Please send me a copy of the silvicultural reports from which you derived your initial volume. Water Quality and Fisheries: The scope specifically states that the project area has no WQLS streams. What are the current conditions of the fisheries in the project area? How have past silvicultural activities affected the Middle Fork of the Clearwater and the tributary streams draining into the Middle Fork ? Are there bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, steelhead and/or salmon? We request a careful analysis of the impacts to fisheries and water quality, including considerations of sedimentation, increases in peak flow, channel stability, risk of rain-on-snow events, and increases in stream water temperature. Please disclose the locations of seeps, springs, bogs and other sensitive wet areas, and the effects on these areas of the project activities. If livestock are permitted to graze in the area, we ask that you assess the present condition and continue to monitor the impacts of grazing activities upon vegetation diversity, soil compaction, streambank stability and subsequent sedimentation. Please disclose in the NEPA document the results of up-to-date monitoring of fish habitat and watershed conditions, as required by the Forest Plan. The NEPA analysis should show that the proposed alternatives would comply with the Clean Water Act and all state water quality laws and regulations. Please note that designating BMPs is not sufficient for compliance with CWA and NFMA. Discuss the actual effectiveness of proposed BMPs in preventing sediment from reaching water courses in or near the analysis area. What BMP failures have been noted for past projects with similar landtypes? We would like to see a thorough discussion of the BMPs and mitigation measures you would propose. This discussion must go beyond a mere listing, and include the following: their relative effectiveness in achieving their intended goal(s), based upon experience in the District; how dependent they are on outside sources of funding (e.g. K-V funds); the likely consequences should those funding sources not be realized. Naturally, any mitigation costs (e.g. K-V funds) should be disclosed in the economic analyses. Timber Resource and Forest Ecosystem ³Health²: We are opposed to the creation of clearcuts. In fact, we are opposed to even-aged management due to the resultant damage to wildlife habitat and fisheries. Soils: A serious evaluation should also be made of the cumulative impact to the soil¹s A-horizon in the analysis area including how long it will take before those soils will sustain the life and processes that existed before they endured logging activities. This needs to be fully disclosed in your decision document for this proposed sale. Disclose the areas of unstable and highly erosive soils which would result in mass movement and erosion. Include maps that show all land and soil types in the NEPA document. Analyze how much soil compaction, surface erosion, and other detirimental soils conditions have occurred in the proposal area because of past actions and what the likely increases will be for the alternatives proposed. Old growth: Has your district done analysis to determine the amount of old growth in the project area? You must complete a thorough analysis and include the results in the environmental assessment. You cannot assume that other areas of the Clearwater NF can support the forest plan requirements of old growth. The East bridge project area needs to be looked at for possible violations in old growth standards and potential old growth replacement if it is found that the project area is lacking in mature trees. In the identification process of old growth habitat, we would like to see the analysis team perform on-the-ground verification of areas chosen from photo-interpretation and database examination. This is especially important in identifying areas appropriate for old-growth designation to make up for any deficits, to meet forest plan standards and to meet future old growth habitat needs. Disclose the precise criteria used to designate old growth. Who made the decisions regarding old growth designations and what are that person¹s qualifications? Measure and disclose the sizes of old growth stands in the area. Tell how much habitat each block provides for interior old growth dependent species, considering the edge effect from natural and manmade openings including roads. Snags: When was the last detailed snag analysis completed at a forest wide level on the Clearwater. We believe that it is necessary to perform field surveys to determine the level of available snag and downed woody material in the proposal area and in the cumulative effects area also, since it is quite possible that excess snags in this proposal area are needed to offset the lack of such habitat in areas previously logged or otherwise low in these important habitat components. We believe that it is necessary to perform field surveys to determine the level of available snag and downed woody material in the proposal area and in the cumulative effects area also, since it is quite possible that excess snags in this proposal area are needed to offset the lack of such habitat in areas previously logged or otherwise low in these important habitat components. Each proposal requires careful consideration of what Management Indicator Species are pertinent to each proposal area. The biologist(s) should assure that the indicator species identified in the forest plan are in fact appropriate indicators of environmental changes in these areas for this type of project. We request that you ³Consider for selection (as MIS) all Sensitive species in the . . . project area² [FSM 2621.1(2)]. It is not appropriate to take for granted that those listed in the Forest Plan are the only appropriate MIS, or that even using TES species will encompass the habitat needs of all wildlife and fish. Migratory birds: Please consider the cumulative impacts on migratory song birds due to further fragmentation of the interior forest canopy. Noxious Weeds: Please include in your analysis the possible effects of noxious weed introduction on Sensitive plant populations and other components of biodiversity. Please include in the analysis the results of monitoring of noxious weed infestation from past management actions in the District. Cumulative Effects: We believe that if you take a good hard look at the significance of impacts of all past, presently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable proposed and future activities, including those on nearby land of all ownership within and near the project areas, additional impacts from the proposed project may be too adverse on some resources. Cumulative effects are defined by NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1508.7 as: . . . the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (emphasis added). The proposal should be analyzed as if the effects are additive with the impacts from past actions, because, indeed, they are. The proposed action would be implemented in areas that have been impacted from past logging and road building. In deliberating on whether you should decide to further log these areas, NEPA requires that you must consider cumulative effects. This means that the significance of the impacts of those past actions (impacts on wildlife, watersheds, fisheries, Sensitive plants, soils, regeneration potential of forest stands, etc.) must be an integral part of the analyses, and must be documented in your decisions. In each resource area, NEPA requires that the Forest Service (FS) must analyze in terms of the cumulative impacts of past actions. Please disclose the effects of past activities, including those on nearby land of any and all ownerships within and near the analysis area. Please include in the analysis of effects any and all reasonably foreseeable management activities for the future in the general area. This means more than just mentioning them; NEPA requires that the effects of those actions be discussed. We request that your cumulative effects analysis include in detail the suppression of wildfire, its past effects on the health of the forest in the area, and its expected effects into the future. For example, analyze how past fire suppression in the area has led to tree diseases and insect infestation, and has affected biological diversity and forest succession. Please disclose in the NEPA document what the historic natural, pre-management fire regime was in the analysis area. Please disclose the cumulative effects analysis area to be utilized to analyze each resource or issue considered in this environmental analysis. This is usually different than the analysis area boundary shown on the maps included with the scoping notice. For example, elk are often analyzed in Elk Habitat Units, and other species of concern would have other areas within which population viability is addressed. Take your cumulative effects analysis to the regional level. That is, take a good look at the fragmentation of wildlife habitat that continues to accumulate in the Northern Rockies with such actions. Please provide maps and other documentation on past harvest activities, including such information as year and regeneration success level for each past activity in the analysis area. Roads: We are happy to see that no road construction or re-construction is planned for this project. Although I did notice that of the ³reconditioning² work involves cleaning the culverts and ditches. How much debris has built up in the culverts? Is there a problem with sediment in the culverts? Is it possible that this blockage could be causing a barrier to fish migration in these streams? Project analyses generally far underestimate the impacts of roads upon the affected watersheds. In a letter from Steven R. Johnson, Forest Hydrologist to the Kootenai National Forest, referenced as Reply to: 2500 dated February 6, 1995, Subject: Factors Supporting Road Removal and/or Obliteration, within this letter he states, ³Impacts from roads basically fall into three areas: introduced sediment into streams; snowmelt re-direction and concentration; and surface flow production.² Johnson adds, ³For the roads we no longer actively use, our dwindling road maintenance budget will make it difficult to maintain the culvert crossings. When these fail during storm and runoff events, tremendous amounts of sediment can be delivered directly to the channel and from there down to lower streams with significant beneficial uses such as sensitive fish habitat.² Unfortunately project analyses fail to disclose the significance of this lack of maintenance and its direct, indirect and cumulative effects it has on water quality. Monitoring: For every project proposal, it is important that the results of past monitoring be incorporated into planning. All Interdisciplinary Team Members should be familiar with the results of all past monitoring pertinent to the project area, and any deficiencies of monitoring that have been previously committed to. For that reason, we expect that the following be included in the NEPA document or project file: € A list of all past projects (completed or ongoing) implemented in the project area. € The results of all monitoring done in the Project area as committed to in the NEPA documents of those past projects in the area. € The results of all monitoring done in the Project area as a part of the Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation effort. € A description of any monitoring, specified in those past projects or the Forest Plan, which has yet to be gathered and/or reported. If the results of past monitoring are uncertain to the degree that your latest proposal would constitute unwarranted risks, the proposal should be shelved until the monitoring results are conclusive Wildlife: USDA Regulation 9500-4 requires that: Habitats for all existing native an desired non-native plants, fish and wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species. In achieving this objective, habitat must be provided for the number and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of a species throughout its geographic range. In response to USDA Regulation 9500-4 and NFMA¹s viability provisions, the Forest Service Manual outlines the need to design and implement conservation strategies for Sensitive and other species for which viability is a concern. Without having fulfilled these responsibilities, the Forest Service cannot be implementing sound ³ecosystem management² since the risk of extirpation of these species is ongoing. To adequately analyze population viability, you must explicitly consider population dynamics. Population dynamics refers to persistence of a population over time‹which is key to making predictions about population viability. The Forest Service should be fully analyzing population growth rate, population size, linkages to other populations, and the dynamics of other populations in examining population dynamics. In other words, you should affirmatively establish that the species which presently or historically are believed to have habitat in the analysis area are still part of viable populations in the surrounding landscape following the impacts from past development actions on lands of all ownership. Finally, we point out that court interpretations of NEPA have necessitated the Forest Service consider biological corridors, the standard for such a review being the same ³hard look² NEPA requires of other environmental effects. Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Please mail each organization a copy of the Environmental Analysis when it is ready. Sincerely, Blaine Davey Ecosystem Defense on behalf of The Alliance for the Wild Rockies Friends of the Clearwater P.O. Box 8731 P.O. Box 9241 Missoula, MT 59801 Moscow, ID 83843 Inland Empire Public Lands Council 517 South Division Spokane, WA 99202 The Ecology Center, Inc. 1519 Cooper Street Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org March 27, 1997 Art Bourassa North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest 1225 Ahsahka Road Orofino, ID 83544 Re: Appeal #97-01-00-0037. Art, This letter is to confirm in writing the agreement reached today regarding the resolution of the appeal of the Deadly Moose Timber Sale Decision Notice. This appeal was filed by the Ecology Center and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The appellants hereby agree to withdraw their appeal upon receipt of written notice that the Deadly Moose Timber Sale Decision Notice has been modified to stipulate that standard Inland Native Fish Strategy no-cut buffers (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas) will be instituted on all timber cutting units for the Deadly Moose Timber Sale. Further, that timber volumes lost as a result of institution of these buffers will not be made up by expansion of planned cutting units or inclusion of additional cutting units. These no-cut buffers are as follows: Category 1 - Fish bearing streams: Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. Category 2 - Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year flood plain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: Interim RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetaion, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides and landslide prone areas: This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include: a. the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas b. the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge. c. the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation d. for Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest e. for watersheds not identified as Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one-half site potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest Sincerely, William Haskins BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL FORESTER U.S. FOREST SERVICE NORTHERN REGION The Ecology Center ) Alliance for the Wild Rockies ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellants ) NOTICE OF APPEAL ) v. ) RELIEF REQUEST ) James Caswell, Supervisor ) STATEMENT OF REASONS Clearwater National Forest ) ) Respondent ) DATED THIS SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, 1997 TO: Appeals Deciding Officer (RFO), USDA U.S. Forest Service Northern Region, PO Box 7669, Missoula, MT, 59807. DECISION APPEALED: The decision appealed is the Decision Notice to approve a Alternative 2 from the Deadly Moose Environmental Assessment, signed January 31, 1997 by James Caswell, Supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest. This notice of appeal is filed in accordance with 36 CFR § 215. Appellants names and addresses are as follows: €The Ecology Center, 1519 Cooper Street, Missoula, Montana 59802 (406-728-5733). €Alliance for the Wild Rockies, P.O. Box 8731, Missoula, Montana 59807 (406-721-5420). Members of these conservation groups use the Clearwater National Forest, including the project area, for recreation, wildlife viewing, work, sightseeing, photography, spiritual renewal, solitude, primitive recreation and education. They are concerned with the sustained use of natural resources in the National Forest System, including timber, water, wildlife, recreation, roadless resources, wilderness and old growth forests. Appellants, as joint owners with the American public of the Clearwater National Forest and the project area, will be significantly affected by the decision and Forest Service plans to further develop the Deadly Moose analysis area. Appellants represent a diverse groups of individuals that are concerned with the maintenance of soil productivity, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat on the Clearwater Forest. Appellants are greatly concerned that the Forest Service fully conform to its obligations under the law in protection of the soil, air, water and wildlife resources of the Clearwater National Forest. STATEMENT OF REASONS The Deadly Moose proposal will not ensure viable populations of bull trout within the Moose Creek drainage Bull trout are a Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the species warrants listed status. Within this context, the Forest Service must demonstrate that its actions do not impact bull trout populations or habitat. Bull trout have been found within the Deadly Moose project area, near the confluence of Moose Creek and Deadwood Creek. That being the case, appellants find ample justification for application of INFISH type buffers within the project area for those streams in the greater Moose Creek watershed. This buffer, although perhaps not in and of themselves adequate to provide protection for and recovery of bull trout, offers a minimum amount of protection from sediment and temperature related detrimental effects to bull trout habitat. Justification for this point of view can be found in documentation for the Forest Service Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice. The Forest Plan for the Clearwater National Forest was amended by the signing of the INFISH Decision Notice on July 28, 1995. Standard widths defining Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), as defined by the Forest Plan (INFISH DN at A-5 & 6) are 300 feet for fish-bearing streams such as Deadwood Creek For perennial tributaries of Moose Creek within the project area, the Standard RHCA width is 150 feet. According to INFISH, intermittent tributaries require no-cut buffers of 100 feet. For the Deadly Moose project, the Clearwater National Forest decided to disregard Forest Plan/INFISH Standard widths for RHCAs and use narrower buffers instead. Deadly Moose minimum stream buffers range from 75 feet on fish-bearing streams to 25 feet on non fish-bearing perennials and intermittents. There is no rationale given in the EA for reducing the Forest Plan Standard widths of the RHCAs. The Forest Plan states: Interim RHCA widths would apply where watershed analysis has not been completed. Site-specific widths may be increased where necessary to achieve riparian management goals and objectives, or decreased where interim widths are not needed to attain RMOs or avoid adverse effects. Establishment of RHCAs would require completion of watershed analysis to provide the ecological basis for the change. However, interim RHCAs may be modified by amendment in the absence of watershed analysis where stream reach or site-specific data support the change. In all cases, the rationale supporting RHCA widths and their effects would be documented. (INFISH DN at A-5, emphasis added.) With a January 13, 1997 cover letter (Subject: FY 1996 PACFISH Field Reviews), the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the results of field reviews on six National Forests and two BLM Districts. Included was a report on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests, dated October 1-4, 1996. The Review stated at page 5: While Clearwater NF demonstrated a commitment to monitor projects and to correct identified deficiencies, as the Musselshell Allotment, it regularly narrowed RHCA widths without adequate scientifically credible data or scientific literature. With insufficient analysis in the Deadly Moose EA and project file to substantiate the reductions of the stream buffers, narrowed RHCA widths ³without adequate scientifically credible data or scientific literature² still persist on the Clearwater National Forest. The DN violates the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH, and is thus a NFMA violation. The Forest Plan and INFISH are clear in their requirements for completing a Watershed Analysis before amending Standard INFISH RHCAs. In regards to the idea of modifying RHCAs ³by amendment in the absence of watershed analysis where stream reach or site-specific data support the change² (INFISH DN at A-5), we refer again to the PACFISH review: The (Nez Perce) Forest has completed several project oriented watershed analyses. The analyses have ranged in content and size from two page document addressing one small timber sale to a large document addressing several projects and a more ecosystem-based area. Although the Team feels that the scaled-back watershed analyses for individual timber sales do not meet the definition or goals of a PACFISH analysis, they are excellent examples of well documented site-specific analyses enhanced through the use of the 6 step logic process in the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. PACFISH does allow the components and intensity of a Watershed Analysis may vary dependent on the level of activity and significance of issues involved. However, the primary deficiencies of these scaled-back, project driven analyses is that they do not integrate water and fisheries conditions and the needs with the overall ecological setting. (PACFISH review, page 4, emphasis added.) Obviously, the analysis fails to ³provide detailed site-specific data to support the change² the Forest Plan/INFISH requires. There certainly was no ³6 step logic process² followed, as laid out in the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. In any case, as the Review Team pointed out, such a scaled-back analysis ³fails to meet the definition and goals² of INFISH Watershed Analysis‹as the process is described in the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. The Forest Plan and INFISH state that a Forest Plan amendment is required when the Standard RHCA widths are modified: (I)nterim RHCAs may be modified by amendment in the absence of watershed analysis where stream reach or site-specific data support the change. (INFISH DN at A-5, emphasis added.) The requirement for going through the process of a Forest Plan Amendment is not lost on the Forest Service entirely. The Okanogan National Forest recognized this fact, as a document from the Long Draw EIS project file indicates. The Clearwater National Forest has not completed a Watershed Analysis for Moose Creek, nor for the tributaries in the project area. Again, without such a Watershed Analysis the actions approved by the ROD are a Forest Plan/INFISH/NFMA violation. The Selected Alternative approves of logging within 100 feet of steams that likely contain bull trout. Standard widths for INFISH Priority Watersheds are 300 feet. Without completion of a Watershed Analysis (as detailed in the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis) for the greater Kelly Creek/Moose Creek area, amending the RHCA and/or logging within the RHCA clearly violates the Forest Plan/INFISH and therefore NFMA. Another INFISH Roads Management Standard not mentioned in the Deadly Moose DN or EA is RF-4; ... improve existing culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood, including associated bedload and debris, where those improvements would/do pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions. We see nothing in the EA nor DN that addresses this Forest Plan/INFISH Standard. The flood event of 1995 -1996 has been described as a 25 year event. This flood event washed away .06% of the entire land mass of the Clearwater National Forest, including many culverts within the analysis area. This Forest Plan/INFISH Standard requires that (at least) these culverts that washed away in a 25-year flood event to be replaced by culverts able to withstand a 100-year flood event. There is no mention of this type of replacement of culverts. Indeed, to replace a given culvert on a stream crossing so it would be able to withstand a 100-year flood event, one would have to know the amount of water, including associated bedload and debris that would be generated by the stream in the 100-year flood event. This information was not shown in the DN or EA. The Deadly Moose EA fails to comply with Forest Plan/INFISH Standard RF-4. Another INFISH Roads Management Standard that has been ignored is the RF-3(a): avoid adverse effects on inland native fish by: a.) Reconstructing road and drainage features that do not meet design criteria or operation and maintenance standards, or that have been shown to be less effective than the designed for controlling sediment delivery, ... (Emphasis added.) REQUEST FOR RELIEF Within the Statement of Reasons, the Appellants have identified deficiencies of the EA, and violations of law, regulation, and Forest Service Policy. We request a full remand of the Deadly Moose DN. If the Clearwater contemplates further action in this area, we request that they write a new EA that corrects the identified deficiencies and violations of law, regulation, and Forest Service Policy. Respectfully submitted for the Appellants, William Haskins The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org September 22, 1997 Arthur Bourassa, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Bourassa: The following are comments on the Dworshak Blowdown Salvage EA, on behalf of the Ecology Center, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Clearwater Biodiversity Project, Idaho Conservation League, Friends of the Clearwater, and Inland Empire Public Lands Council. There isn¹t much in the EA that suggests you have responded to the June 24, 1997 scoping comments from Ecology Center, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Inland Empire Public Lands Council. The EA often refers to ³the analysis area² yet the maps following page II-1 of the EA show three distinct and geographically separate areas. It is thus ambiguous what the EA is referring to in discussion of ³the analysis area² and the lack of clear delineation means that the impacts of the proposed activities on various resources was not genuinely analyzed in the EA. An analysis is meaningless if it is not in the context of a clearly defined area. The EA should be rewritten with descriptions and maps of the analysis area(s) for the various resources, and so that the public and other agencies may be able to comment. Northern Region guidance states that for each planned project a logical cumulative effects analysis area must be chosen for each resource, whether it be water quality, elk habitat, lynx viability, etc. We refer you to ³Our Approach to Effects Analysis, Region One Desk Reference,² where it presents the concepts of the Logical Resource Unit and the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area. Therein also is the suggestion that, for many (but not all) resources, watershed boundaries often are the most appropriate boundaries for projects¹ geographic analyses. The EA does not use a watershed perspective for its analysis, and no rationale is provided which justifies the approach used in the EA. The refusal of the Forest Service to take a close look at the transportation system and the severe problems it is causing for the watersheds (as you admit) is an acknowledgment on your part that producing timber is far more important than stewardship of the land. It¹s something we¹ve been keenly aware of for a long time, but we wonder if the ID Team members have become so blinded in their bureaucratic niches that they can¹t see what they are doing to our national forests. As John Osborn wrote in his guest editorial in the Spokesman-Review recently: Follow the money: Congress funds the Forest Service... the Forest Service delivers taxpayer-subsidized federal timber to the corporations... the corporations "donate" to the re-election campaigns of the politicians who fund the Forest Service. Get the picture? We really do believe that Forest Service employees DO ³get the picture² well enough to realize that what they are doing is for the profit of timber corporations, not for the health of the ecosystems. Such an extreme timber production bias is quite evident in this, the Dworshak Blowdown Salvage EA: Taxpayer¹s money will be used to deliver logs to some private timber mill. The really pressing problems in the watersheds, such as the road washout at Salmon Creek, will continue to be ignored. (³That¹s okay, we¹ll just run a rubber tired skidder on top of the debris jam in the creek to bunch logs for the helicopter²-EA at III-5) By ³just doing your jobs² you are refusing to act on your principles and are taking the position that you are too weak collectively to do the right thing. Are your jobs really more important than the forests and the web of life they will continue to sustain only if ecosystems are put first and profits are not a priority? We strongly object to the EA¹s brusque dismissal of other many important issues relevant to the area in question. For example, impacts to elk security and habitat‹elk are supposedly an indicator species representing many others, remember? And this is partially in MA C4 (Elk Winter Range). You are completely avoiding cumulative effects discussions of this and the other issues ³dismissed.² Another of those issues is the Roadless Area. Impacts would occur, both with this, past, and future proposals. Yet no cumulative effects analysis, as required by NEPA and committed to in the past by the Forest Service, would be completed. And not analyzing an alternative that would stay out of the roadless area, other than the no action alternative, illegally restricts your range of alternatives. For other issues dismissed, the EA merely assumes that there would be no impacts without any basis, no analysis to back up that assumption. The callous disregard for the values supposedly to be protected by adoption of INFISH into the Forest Plan is quite evident from the proposal to invade RHCAs in priority watersheds. Nor are values for RMOs given, thus we can only assume that you don¹t know. You are also violating the settlement agreement in going ahead with these actions before full development of a rehabilitation plan for Isabella Creek. You state that trees affected by disease or insects along the roads‹where they could soon likely be removed by firewood cutters‹are to be left because they ³would provide habitat for snag-dependent species in the future² (EA at II-4). Yet somehow the ³other associated dying trees² in the blowdown areas wouldn¹t provide such habitat? ³There is presently very little sign of disease or insect damage² (EA at III-1) so where¹s the justification? There is no basis for stating that ³Snag habitat in the analysis area is well within the natural range of variability² (EA at III-6). If you are aware of all the past clearcutting, and the blowdown of the reserved trees in old cutting units, you know that such a statement is outrageous. The extreme bias toward timber extraction is very evident in your dire predictions of fire, etc. that would result from choice of the no action alternative. Such obnoxious propaganda‹you don¹t even believe it. It is quite obvious that the decision has already been made. Did you already commit to the trading of these blowdown units to substitute for Lower Salmon units (EA at III-2)? Or perhaps you altered that timber sale without the required NEPA process? The claim that there would be no impacts to Sensitive plant species is not logical, nor is there any basis in the EA for that statement. In your Soil Stability analysis, you infer that any kind of logging will exacerbate slumping in an active slump site, yet deny that the helicopter logging will end up causing a new slump. This is without a rational basis, unless you can prove that whatever caused existing slumps does not or would not exist in areas to be logged. You haven¹t done that. Paraphrasing from our Fish Bate appeal: After having cut heavily in the area over the past three decades, the Clearwater National Forest is left with an area of highly fragmented forest cover and old-growth, an area of unstable slopes prone to slides and failures, and an area of streams out of compliance with Forest Plan standards; in short, an area pushed to and beyond the limit of its ability to support viable populations of plants and animals. Nonetheless, the Dworshak Blowdown project area contains remarkable coastal disjunct and endemic plants that are found no where else in the Rocky Mountains, these remnant communities offer tantalizing possibilities for preservation and restoration of an ecosystem hit hard by past timber cutting and road building. Instead of recognizing these unique, valuable, and vital components of what could be made whole, the North Fork District has set upon a course of action that would significantly decrease the biological diversity within the area. Many of the issues discussed in the Fish Bate appeal (i.e., steep, landslide-prone slopes, roadless, old growth, impacts to the North Fork Clearwater River and its tributaries, coastal disjunct habitat, Sensitive plants, etc.) directly pertain to the Dworshak Blowdown Salvage area. Thus, we incorporate our Fish Bate appeal in its entirety in our comments on the Dworshak Blowdown Salvage EA. Please keep each organization on the NEPA list for all future mailings on these projects. Sincerely, Jeff Juel The Ecology Center (and on behalf of) Katherine Deuel, Ecosystem Defense Sara Folger, Forest Watch Coordinator Alliance for the Wild Rockies Inland Empire Public Lands Council P.O. Box 8731 517 South Division Street Missoula, Montana 59807 Spokane, Washington 99202 (406) 542-0050 (509) 838-4912 Chuck Pezeshki Steve Paulson Clearwater Biodiversity Project Friends of the Clearwater 1031 Springfield Road P.O. Box 9241 Troy, Idaho 83871 Moscow, Idaho 83843 (208-835-2999) (208-882-9755) John McCarthy Idaho Conservation League P.O. Box 844 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208-345-6933) BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL FORESTER U.S. FOREST SERVICE NORTHERN REGION The Ecology Center ) Inland Empire Public Lands Council ) Clearwater Biodiversity Project ) Idaho Conservation League ) Friends of the Clearwater ) Alliance for the Wild Rockies ) ) Appellants ) NOTICE OF APPEAL ) v. ) RELIEF REQUEST ) James Caswell, Supervisor ) STATEMENT OF REASONS Clearwater National Forest ) ) Respondent ) DATED THIS SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 TO: Appeals Deciding Officer (RFO), USDA U.S. Forest Service Northern Region, PO Box 7669, Missoula, MT, 59807. DECISION APPEALED: The decision appealed is the Decision Notice (DN) to approve a modified Alternative 2 from the Dworshak Blowdown Salvage Timber Sale EA, signed October 3, 1997 by James Caswell, Supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest. This notice of appeal is filed in accordance with 36 CFR § 215. Appellants names and addresses are as follows: € Jeff Juel, The Ecology Center, 801 Sherwood Street Suite B, Missoula, Montana 59802 (406-728-5733). € Sara Folger, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, 517 South Division Street, Spokane, Washington, 99202 (509-838-4912). € Chuck Pezeshki, Clearwater Biodiversity Project, 1031 Springfield Road, Troy, Idaho 83871 (208-835-2999). € Larry McLaud, Idaho Conservation League, P.O. Box 9783, Moscow, Idaho 83843 (208-882-1010). € Gary Macfarlane, Friends of the Clearwater, PO Box 9241, Moscow, ID 83843 (208-4882-9755). € Katherine Deuel, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, P.O. Box 8731, Missoula, Montana 59807 (406-542-0050). Members of these conservation groups use the Clearwater National Forest, including the project area, for recreation, wildlife viewing, work, sightseeing, photography, spiritual renewal, solitude, primitive recreation and education. Appellants, as joint owners with the American public of the Clearwater National Forest and the project area, will be significantly affected by the decision and Forest Service plans to further develop the Dworshak Blowdown analysis area. Appellants represent a diverse groups of individuals that are concerned with the maintenance of soil productivity, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat on the Clearwater Forest. Appellants have expressed these concerns extensively and specifically. Starting with an appeal of the Clearwater Land and Resource Management Plan and continuing through the eventual Stipulation of Dismissal for The Wilderness Society, et. al., v. Robertson, et. al. (1993) regarding that appeal. Through many direct discussions and field trips, appellants have kept Clearwater National Forest intimately informed of their intentions, desires, and expectations under the law for the Clearwater National Forest in general, and the Dworshak Blowdown area in particular. Appellants are greatly concerned that the Forest Service fully conform to its obligations under the law in protection of the soil, air, water and wildlife resources of the Clearwater National Forest. STATEMENT OF REASONS NEPA VIOLATIONS 1- Cumulative Impacts The Forest Service has failed to consider the cumulative impacts to roadless resources, big game, water quality, fisheries, soils, wildlife and biodiversity which may result from this and other planned projects in the vicinity. Cumulative effects are the direct and indirect effects of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions taken together. Cumulative effects are defined at 40 CFR 1508.7, the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 15), and elsewhere. Environmental Assessments are to analyze cumulative impacts. This fundamental requirement under the NEPA and it's implementing regulations has been substantiated by the courts ( See, Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F. 2d. 714 (9th Cir., 1985)). The NEPA is quite specific in requiring agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of each alternative under consideration (40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.8, 1508.25(a)(2) and (c)). This direction is further specified in the Forest Service Handbook. The DN directly contradicts NEPA requirements for a cumulative affects analysis. The DN states because of the limited scope and intensity of the project, a lack of cumulative impacts analysis is justified and: "limiting the analysis to those areas with the potential to be directly affected by harvest. If analysis shows there is little or no impact where the harvest is actually occurring, then one can assume the surrounding areas could not be more seriously affected." The directly contradicts the language found in the code of Federal Regulations concerning cumulative impacts analysis. 40 CFR 1508.7 states: "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." The purpose of a FONSI is to justify the decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1508.13). However, in deciding whether to prepare an EIS, the Forest Service must determine: "Whether the actions related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts." (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)). Thus, in the case present, the DN/FONSI is completely unwarranted and unjustified based solely on the fact that the Forest Service limited the scope of this analysis or failed to address the potential impacts of the Dworshak Blowdown with other projects like Fish Bate. Appellants clearly noted the need for an adequate cumulative impacts analysis. Given the myriad of concerns in this area and the recognized value this area has for wildlife, watersheds, and unique plant populations, an EIS and a look at cumulative impacts should have been done (see EA and Project Files). 2- Range of Alternatives The EA fails to meet any test for a range of alternatives. The DN clearly states that only two alternatives received detailed analysis. Other alternatives were rejected (DN page 6). The DN and EA narrowly define the purpose and need in such a way as to preclude any meaningful analysis under NEPA. This violates both the intent, spirit and letter of the law. NEPA requires that alternatives be "rigorously" explored and "objectively" evaluated. (40 CFR 1502.14). There can be no real range of alternatives when the only other alternative that is analyzed in the EA, no action, is rejected because it does "not comply with Forest Plan direction for this area." (DN, page 5). Furthermore, this rejection of the no-action alternative based upon the Forest Plan is contrary to existing law. Forest plans are not decisions that decide the fate of specific parcels of land. In the court decision on the Panhandle Forest Plan appeal, the judge concurred with the Forest Service's own argument that EISs would be prepared on development activities in roadless areas, ". . . any future development which might take place (in roadless areas) will again be determined by the Forest Service and will be subject to the requirements of NEPA." (Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 21 E.L.R. 20666, 206668 (D.Mont. 1990) upheld on appeal). There is only one conclusion that can be reached: the Clearwater National Forest has violated the law. No array of alternatives was considered. The no-action alternative was rejected as not being consistent with the Forest Plan. This proves that the decision was predetermined and the decision-maker could reach only one conclusion--the preferred alternative. That also violates the very foundation of NEPA of having an unbiased review of viable alternatives. (see 40 CFR 1500.1). 3- Roadless Area An EIS is required. The courts are clear on this issue. A decision to log a roadless area is "environmentally significant" (Smith v. US Forest Service, No. 93-36187 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994)) and "the decision to harvest timber on a previously undeveloped tract of land is "an irreversible and irretrievable decision' which could have 'serious environmental consequences.'" (In National Audubon Society et al. v. US Forest Service, 4 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1993)). Even the agency's own regulations note that both road building and "harvesting timber" in a roadless area trigger the necessity to prepare an EIS, even if it is "in only one part of the roadless area." (Federal Register Vol. 57 No. 152, September 18, 1992, page 43200). Roadbuilding and logging significantly affect the undeveloped nature of a roadless area. The development of undeveloped areas, even where those undeveloped areas were not pristine, still requires an EIS (see Wyoming Outdoor Council v. Bergland). In the above noted case, the area included low-standard roads. The Forest Service policy is to prepare an EIS for development of roadless areas. This is the result of agency appeal decisions and court decisions on the Idaho Panhandle and Flathead National Forests. In the court decision on the Panhandle Forest Plan appeal, the judge concurred with the agency's argument that EISs would be prepared on development activities in roadless areas, ". . . any future development which might take place (in roadless areas) will again be determined by the Forest Service and will be subject to the requirements of NEPA." (Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 21 E.L.R. 20666, 206668 (D.Mont. 1990) upheld on appeal). The DN and EA (including the response to public input) claim that the area was previously roaded in the Lower Salmon timber sale. This does not preclude analysis of the cumulative impacts of this project. Appeal decisions in adjacent Region IV, on the Salmon National Forest in Idaho, are instructive. In the Black Pepper Timber Sale FONSI, the agency claimed: Issue 2 - Roadless Character: Based on past activities in the South Deep Creek Roadless Area and the scope of this project, the roadless area will not be significantly altered from its present condition. (emphasis added) Approximately 580 acres of timber have been harvested and 19 miles of road constructed in the roadless area. These activities have occurred primarily in the central portion of the area. These intrusions have split the roadless area into a western portion 3000 acres in size and an eastern portion 5000 acres in size. The proposed Black Pepper Timber Sale is located in the western portion. Logical and manageable boundaries could not be developed for the smaller western portion of the roadless area because the 3000 acre size is considerably less than the 5000 acres required for wilderness designation. (emphasis added) The District Ranger was reversed by the Regional Office on the issues of roadless area analysis, the need for an EIS, cumulative impacts of past, present and future activities. The Baldy timber sale, also on the Salmon National Forest, was similar in that it proposed to go into a roadless area. Appeals were filed and the decision was reversed. It is instructive to note that in the Baldy Timber Sale DN, the District Ranger claimed there would be little impact from the sale in the roadless area: Issue 12 - RARE II Roadless Areas: No roads would be constructed in any RARE II area under alternative B, and the roadless areas will not be significantly altered from their present size or suitability for possible future wilderness designation. (emphasis added). As in the case of Black Pepper, Baldy was overturned by the Region IV Office on the same grounds--lack of an EIS for development of a roadless area. It must be noted that even though the Ranger claimed: 1) the Baldy Sale did not propose to build roads into the roadless area; 2) the impacts on the size of the roadless area would not be significant; and 3) the suitability of these roadless areas for possible future wilderness designation would not be affected , the Region IV office in Ogden, Utah correctly overturned that decision. One point that must be made is that cumulative impacts of roadless area development--past, present, and future--must be considered. This is the crux of NEPA and the court cases defining the necessity to prepare EISs for specific projects on roadless area development. It is also what the agency has maintained in every instance a forest plan has been challenged on the lack of site-specific NEPA documentation for roadless area development. (see Flathead and Idaho Panhandle National Forests' decisions from the USFS Chief). While the above noted examples are in the adjacent Region IV, one would expect that roadless area policy is consistent across the agency. In fact regulations have been promulgated to that effect as has been previously noted. (Federal Register Vol. 57 No. 152, September 18, 1992, page 43200). Recent case law is clear: A decision to log and road a roadless area is "environmentally significant," regardless of the current wilderness designation. (National Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 4 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1993)). The court further held, "The decision to develop a previously undeveloped area is an irreversible and irretrievable decision, the impacts of which must be analyzed in an EIS." In Smith v. U.S. Forest Service, no. 93-36187 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994), the court maintained the undisputed "environmental significance" of roadless areas and the need to prepare a project EIS. The map in the DN indicates that cutting units R and Q are not located along road 4800 or its spurs. Thus, they are within the roadless area. Furthermore, other cutting units are within the roadless area which begins at the edge of the road. Thus, the conclusion that the area has already been developed is wrong, at least for many of the cutting units. Furthermore, the agency engages in a bizarre, illogical differentiation between the inventoried roadless and the actual roadless area, which is larger due to the faulty inventory found in the Forest Plan. For example, the response to public comments notes that the units located in the Isabella drainage are, "considered by some to be within a currently unroaded area contiguous to the Mallard-Larkins Roadless Area." Treating the Inventoried Roadless Area and the larger undeveloped/unroaded area separately violates NEPA's requirements for cumulative impact analysis. It also violates case law. In National Audubon Society et al. v. US Forest Service, 4 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1993) the court held that agency allocations and inventories of roadless lands are not the critical issue in determining what is roadless. Rather, the court held, "it is the on-the-ground situation which determines whether an area is roadless and undeveloped for purposes of assessing compliance with NEPA." Thus, the impact of development on the roadless area as a whole must be considered as one. The EA and DN did no such thing. The maps do not reflect all of this project area has been developed and show that some may be within roadless land that was erroneously excluded from the inventoried Mallard-Larkins roadless area. Roadless areas have far more values than simply potential wilderness areas. The court recognized this fact in National Audubon Society v. US Forest Service cited above. (see also Noss, R. F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Biodiversity, Bioscience 33(11): 700-706; and Hudson, E. E. 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, Cal., 195 pp. Dr. Noss was the expert the court relied upon in the case noted above). The EA and DN/FONSI utterly fail in this regard. WATER QUANTITY/QUALITY & FISH The DN notes that no measurable increase in sediment would be allowed (page 8). This statement is suspect on four critical factors. First, the washed out culvert over Salmon Creek (NOTE: this creek received that name for a reason) will not be replaced (EA page III-5). Rather, a rubber-tired skidder will move over the creek. There will be sediment delivered from this failure to repair the culvert and the movement of vehicles over the debris. Calling this amount of sediment "unmeasurable" is based upon no actual evidence. Neither the project file (obtained through a FOIA by appellant Ecology Center) nor the EA prove this to be the case. It is simply ludicrous to claim a road, which crosses a creek with a washed out culvert, will not produce more sediment while being used by skidders. Second, the soil report clearly states unit O is unstable and, "the no action alternative has the lowest probability of aggravating the soil stability situation." The map in the DN clearly shows unit O as being in the timber sale. Third, the DN notes that RHCAs would be lessened in a three areas: along Salmon Creek (100 feet), along the road near Isabella Creek, and along the North Fork of the Clearwater River (removal of downed trees within 200 feet of the river). All of these are class I streams. Fourth, the rehabilitation of Isabella and Salmon Creeks is not assured. No money from the Dworshak Blowdown will be used for this purpose, according to the watershed rehabilitation plan. The watershed rehabilitation plan also notes that funding is available only to complete road obliteration on roads 4800 and 4801 and those decision will come via a separate NEPA analysis. Other projects including stream habitat surveys are as yet unfunded. Thus, the finding in the DN that the complies with the stipulated agreement is specious. In fact, the information that is available indicates that sediment will be increased as a result of this project. There must be no measurable increase in sediment for streams currently not meeting Forest Plan Standards in order for the FS to comply with the provisions in the Stipulation of Dismissal for The Wilderness Society, et al., v Robertson, et al. (1993). Neither the EA nor the agreement define ³measurable². The EA does not commit to post-sale measurement of sediment. In fact, the measurements, as the watershed project notes, are as yet unfunded. Since the streams in question do not meet forest plan standards, any projects done in these areas should rehabilitate the streams. This project would clearly affect stream sedimentation without providing any funds for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the inadequacies of WATBAL in estimating sediment and the current status of the flood report (in particular, the failure to consider Quartz Creek as other than a natural event and the fact the report is still in draft stage), raises more questions about the adequacy of the EA. The analysis does not meet NEPA requirements for sound, up-to date scientific information (40 CFR 1502.24) and it does not meet the stipulated agreement. WILD AND SCENIC Harvest in the North Fork Clearwater River riparian corridor will affect Outstanding Remarkable Values that caused the Forest Service to find the North Fork Clearwater River and corridor ³suitable² under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Legislative EIS. The intention of the Wild and Scenic Rivers act is that no management activity deleterious to visual objectives be enjoined in the 1/4 mile buffer strip along the river. The Act is very clear on this. Cutting within the 1/4 mile strip is a direct abrogation of the Clearwater National Forest¹s management requirements. Furthermore, the cutting within 200 feet of the river, as approved, is ludicrous In Wilderness Society vs. Tyrrel 918 F 2d 813 (9th Circuit 1990) the Forest Service was enjoined from cutting outside the 1/4 mile corridor because of reduction of visual quality. Surely refraining from logging inside the corridor should be even a higher agency priority. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Within the Statement of Reasons, the Appellants have identified numerous deficiencies of the DN and EA, and violations of law, regulation, and Forest Service Policy. We request a full remand of the Dworshak Blowdown Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. If the Clearwater contemplates further action in this area,, we request that they write an EIS that corrects the identified deficiencies and violations of law, regulation, and Forest Service Policy. Respectfully submitted for the Appellants, Gary Macfarlane Friends of the Clearwater Appellants request that copies of all correspondence from the Clearwater National Forest to the Region One office concerning this appeal be mailed to each of the appellants. This should include documentation of discussions with appellants after this date, documentation of any informal appeal resolution discussions, and the letter of transmittal. Appellants also request that all the appellants be mailed a copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer recommendations and Appeal Deciding Officer decision, as well as other correspondences from the Regional One office. The Ecology Center 101 East Broadway, Suite 602 Missoula, Montana 59802 (406) 728-5733 Forest Supervisor Clearwater National Forest 12730 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 To whom it may concern: The following comments concern the Mid-Skull Upper Bear Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These comments are filed on behalf of the Ecology Center and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. These comments are provided as addenda to previous comments and appeals filed regarding this project by the Ecology Center, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Lolo-Clearwater Forest Defense. In addition to the points raised in those documents, we request that the following issues be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement: 1) Regeneration. This area contains extensive brush fields created by inadequate site preparation and planting procedures and cutting of timber on lands not suited for timber production. Despite these monuments to past screw-ups, the Forest Service is claiming that it can assure regeneration of units within the required time. We believe that potential problems are not being adequately addressed. Instead of the quasi-analysis presented in the DEIS, the Forest Service needs to analyze its success in certification (not just assignment of ³progressing² status) for stands of similar habitat type, slope, aspect and elevation harvested in areas near the proposed cutting units. Please state the parameters used in this analysis (i.e., what are ³similar² habitat types?). Please note that certification must be assured within five years. 2) Snag densities. Many of the stands targeted for cutting are relatively small patches of older trees and standing snags within massive seas of seedlings and nonstocked stands cut in the days before the 40 acre clearcut limit. These young and nonstocked stands have virtually no standing snags and little or no down woody material, and are therefore useless for the many species dependent upon dead woody material for there existence. The Forest Service appears to be proposing to liquidate these few remaining refugia, and evidently desires to drive the few remaining snag and woody debris-dependent wildlife from the area. We question the legality of doing so, and would like to see an analysis of the effects of removing much of the last old stands from the Willow Mountain area of the Skull Creek area. 3) Corridors. The map of so-called existing timbered travel corridors presented in Appendix D is fictitious. We cannot comprehend what criteria were used in the delineating these corridors, since most of them contain extensive areas of nearly vertical, unforested breaklands, active timber sale units, roads, helicopter landings, and parking lots. Perhaps another crack at this map is warranted, this time using some logical parameters for what constitute a ³timbered travel corridor.² 4) Old growth. This analysis cannot be considered adequate until all of the potential old growth stands for the old growth units within and surrounding the analysis area have been field verified. R1 edit queries and photointerpretation will not do. We would also like to see an analysis of the distribution of different habitat types within the designated and potential old growth. We do not consider a mere analysis of old growth (using whatever definition) to be adequate to ensure the continued survival of old-growth associated species (such as goshawk). 5) Threatened, endangered and sensitive species. We will reserve judgment on the adequacy of Forest Service treatment of these species for this project until the completion of the final biological evaluation. At this point, we would like to remind the Forest Service of the requirements of Forest Service manual chapters 2670 and 2620. We expect to see surveys of populations and habitat for the TES and management indicator species likely to be present in the analysis area, quantitative analyses of significance of effects, project-level (and larger scale, when appropriate) conservation strategies for the species present. We hope that we will not find obfuscation and confusion of the issues of determinations of effect (wherein the Forest Service must choose Œno effect,¹ Œmay affect,¹ and Œbeneficial effect,¹) and analysis of significance (where the agency must deduce the quantitative effects to populations and habitat acreages). We hope that the Forest Service does not believe that it can do an adequate job of protecting TES and management indicator species without conducting the many analyses, surveys, and conservation strategies that the DEIS indicates ³should² or ³could² be done. 6) Roadless issue. We question whether you have forgotten to address the roadless issue. It appears to us that Alternative 2 contains units that further infringe upon the boundaries of the Mallard Larkins roadless area. Please include an analysis of the effects of the proposed alternatives on roadless areas. This requirement applies even if there has been some development of the area in the past, if such development has not been accompanied by an analysis of effects on the roadless resource. 7) Water quality and fisheries. We remind the Forest Service of the imminent listing of the bull trout as a threatened or endangered species. We hope that agency biologist will do the analyses necessary to ensure that bull trout are not extirpated from the tributaries within the analysis area, since mere conformance to the Forest Plan is not adequate to ensure the continued survival of this species. We hope that the Forest Service will include modeling and analyses of water quality, sediment yields and water quantity in the context of the bull trout¹s specific requirements. It is our contention that extensively cut over areas like lower Skull Creek will not necessarily continue to support bull trout populations under the pressures of additional habitat degradation. In general, we hope that the agency will fill in some of the considerable gaps in surveys and Desired Future Condition parameters for fish species. Respectfully submitted, William Haskins The Ecology Center 1519 Cooper St. Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org March 27, 1996 Carmine Lockwood Palouse Ranger District Route 2, Box 4 Potlatch, ID 83855 re: Crane Point Salvage Sale Dear Carmine Lockwood: Thank you for allowing The Ecology Center to submit scoping comments on the proposed Crane Point salvage sale. Here are our concerns. Philosophy The Forest Service is supposedly operating under an "ecosystem management philosophy." However, its actions in harvesting as much timber as it has indicate otherwise. The greatest problems and threats to ³forest health² are too many roads, clearcuts and damaged watersheds, not too many trees (excessive fuel loading). These problems are a result of logging and road building, not the suppression of wildfire. Watersheds Any watersheds which would endure timber harvest from this project which are below standards for water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat and wildlife security must be brought up to all standards before further timber sales are contemplated. Roads Road obliteration and reclamation are the primary and most cost-effective ways to accomplish watershed restoration, protect fish and wildlife habitat and reestablish wildlife security. There are roads in the study area that could be removed. Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem restoration is a goal and process worthy of public investment. It provides many returns through improved ecosystem health, including meaningful and good-paying jobs. Funding Timber sales have and continue to be an unreliable source of funds (K-V) for restoration and road closure work. They shall not be promoted for such purposes. Forest Stewardship Forest stewardship must be viewed and practiced as more than a kinder and gentler form of tree farming. In already damaged areas, it must begin with ecosystem restoration. Analysis The scoping notice indicated that an EA would not be required for this project. However, even though the Salvage Rider has freed the Forest Service from any constraints upon producing wood, it does require a full-blown EA. According to the salvage rider, For each salvage timber sale conducted under subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall prepare a document that combines an environmental assessment under section 102 (2) of the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) (including regulations implementing such section) and a biological evaluation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and other applicable Federal law and implementing regulations. (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(1)(A)). That means that members of the public on the mailing list for these projects should receive one document. In that document they should find an EA and a BE. The EA should comply with NEPA and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. The BE should comply with the ESA and with both any other federal laws which apply to endangered species and federal regulations for implementing laws which apply to endangered species. In some cases, projects may meet the Forest Service Handbook¹s criteria for being categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. That determination is usually made after the scoping process has been completed. Then the decision is issued in a Decision Memo which explains the why the project has been categorically excluded. An environmental analysis is still conducted. For projects that merit an Environmental Assessment, the decision is usually issued in a Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. For projects merit an Environmental Impact Statement, the decision is issued in a Record Of Decision. The salvage rider is very clear that every timber sale offered under it must merit an EA. Therefore, it is illegal to categorically exclude salvage sales from NEPA documentation. This may seem like a nitpicky point as both CEs and salvage sales are not subject to administrative appeal. However, judicially, it is significant because the salvage rider severely limits the process of judicial review (possible unconstitutionally), yet CEs do not suffer such constraints. If these sales are to be categorically excluded, then they cannot be offered under the salvage rider. TES Species This project should not inhibit any threatened, endangered or sensitive species of plants or animals from peacefully inhabiting the forest. The project should not remove or degrade any habitat for these species. The BE for the project should supply enough evidence for each species that this will not occur. Chemicals The analyses should address the role of chemicals in the ecosystem. We are concerned about fuel and oil and grease, etc. leaking from equipment. We are also concerned about related actions which might involve chemicals like noxious weeds. Often, the weeds that logging brings with it receive subsequent herbicide treatments. The future application of herbicides is a related action and should be incorporated into the analysis. Economics Even though the salvage rider permits financial irresponsibility, we feel that only those sales which will at least break even should be offered. The federal treasury should get back every penny it spent to offer this sale. Because various counties receive money from these sales (25%), that money does not go back to the federal treasury. Therefore, we think that it should not figured into the amount that goes to the government. Soil This projects should damage the soil at all. No compaction should occur. The soil should not be disturbed. Root Disease The scoping notice indicated that one of the stands is suffering from a root disease and that this stand is proposed for harvest to eradicate that disease. However, we feel that there is some need to be cautious here: Salvage logging is seen by many as a current panacea to the problem [of forest health], but the harvesting of living but root-diseased trees has contributed to the forest¹s poor health (Filip and Goheen 1982, Hoyle and Goheen 1988)....Recent efforts to accelerate salvage programs in areas experiencing poor forest health, such as those in northeastern Oregon, may only accentuate long-term forest decline by increasing existing root disease areas and creating new infection centers. (Filip 1994) Thank You Once again, thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Bert Kraft Citation Filip, G. M. 1994. ³Forest Health in Decline in Central Oregon: A 13-year Case Study.² Northwest Science 68(4):233-240. The Ecology Center 1519 Cooper St. Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org March 27, 1996 Carmine Lockwood Palouse Ranger District Route 2, Box 4 Potlatch, ID 83855 re: Headlong Salvage Sale Dear Carmine Lockwood: Thank you for allowing The Ecology Center to submit scoping comments on the proposed Headlong salvage sale. Here are our concerns. Philosophy The Forest Service is supposedly operating under an "ecosystem management philosophy." However, its actions in harvesting as much timber as it has indicate otherwise. The greatest problems and threats to ³forest health² are too many roads, clearcuts and damaged watersheds, not too many trees (excessive fuel loading). These problems are a result of logging and road building, not the suppression of wildfire. Watersheds Any watersheds which would endure timber harvest from this project which are below standards for water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat and wildlife security must be brought up to all standards before further timber sales are contemplated. Roads Road obliteration and reclamation are the primary and most cost-effective ways to accomplish watershed restoration, protect fish and wildlife habitat and reestablish wildlife security. There are roads in the study area that could be removed. Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem restoration is a goal and process worthy of public investment. It provides many returns through improved ecosystem health, including meaningful and good-paying jobs. Funding Timber sales have and continue to be an unreliable source of funds (K-V) for restoration and road closure work. They shall not be promoted for such purposes. Forest Stewardship Forest stewardship must be viewed and practiced as more than a kinder and gentler form of tree farming. In already damaged areas, it must begin with ecosystem restoration. Analysis The scoping notice indicated that an EA would not be required for this project. However, even though the Salvage Rider has freed the Forest Service from any constraints upon producing wood, it does require a full-blown EA. According to the salvage rider, For each salvage timber sale conducted under subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall prepare a document that combines an environmental assessment under section 102 (2) of the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) (including regulations implementing such section) and a biological evaluation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and other applicable Federal law and implementing regulations. (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(1)(A)). That means that members of the public on the mailing list for these projects should receive one document. In that document they should find an EA and a BE. The EA should comply with NEPA and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. The BE should comply with the ESA and with both any other federal laws which apply to endangered species and federal regulations for implementing laws which apply to endangered species. In some cases, projects may meet the Forest Service Handbook¹s criteria for being categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. That determination is usually made after the scoping process has been completed. Then the decision is issued in a Decision Memo which explains the why the project has been categorically excluded. An environmental analysis is still conducted. For projects that merit an Environmental Assessment, the decision is usually issued in a Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. For projects merit an Environmental Impact Statement, the decision is issued in a Record Of Decision. The salvage rider is very clear that every timber sale offered under it must merit an EA. Therefore, it is illegal to categorically exclude salvage sales from NEPA documentation. This may seem like a nitpicky point as both CEs and salvage sales are not subject to administrative appeal. However, judicially, it is significant because the salvage rider severely limits the process of judicial review (possible unconstitutionally), yet CEs do not suffer such constraints. If these sales are to be categorically excluded, then they cannot be offered under the salvage rider. TES Species This project should not inhibit any threatened, endangered or sensitive species of plants or animals from peacefully inhabiting the forest. The project should not remove or degrade any habitat for these species. The BE for the project should supply enough evidence for each species that this will not occur. Chemicals The analyses should address the role of chemicals in the ecosystem. We are concerned about fuel and oil and grease, etc. leaking from equipment. We are also concerned about related actions which might involve chemicals like noxious weeds. Often, the weeds that logging brings with it receive subsequent herbicide treatments. The future application of herbicides is a related action and should be incorporated into the analysis. Economics Even though the salvage rider permits financial irresponsibility, we feel that only those sales which will at least break even should be offered. The federal treasury should get back every penny it spent to offer this sale. Because various counties receive money from these sales (25%), that money does not go back to the federal treasury. Therefore, we think that it should not figured into the amount that goes to the government. Soil This projects should damage the soil at all. No compaction should occur. The soil should not be disturbed. Thank You Once again, thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Bert Kraft June 3, 1997 Carmine Lockwood, District Ranger Palouse Ranger District 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, Idaho 83855 Ranger Lockwood: We are taking the opportunity to respond to the Laird Park Blowdown timber sale proposal (5/5/97 letter). The following comments are on behalf of Inland Empire Public Lands Council, The Ecology Center, Inc., and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The targeting of trees downed by weather events reflects that the Potlatch District sees these trees only in terms of their value as timber and nothing else. Mortality, disease, insect infestations, etc. all have their roles ecologically. What you are failing to see in your limited focus on lumber is the web of life connected to the trees, regardless of whether they are standing or fallen. Downed trees provide habitat for small mammals and other organisms, hold water in dry seasons, and later add organic matter for building soil. When the ecology is left out of your thinking, bad decisions are inevitable. We are against artificial manipulation of habitat conditions of old growth stands. Old growth, by definition, includes down trees and as we pointed out above, these trees provide habitat for species needing old growth. That trees fall in old growth is a normal, natural occurrence. Furthermore, stating that these down trees pose a fire risk, well‹this is a forest! Wood can burn. Logging operations increase the risk of fire more than a few down trees. We know this is a fire scare tactic, that even you don¹t really believe what you are saying about fire risk here. Your claim that the actions proposed are consistent with ICBEMP in that logging understory trees, you will alleviate etc. However, the proposal says nothing about logging understory, it speaks only of removing blowdown. Please keep each organization on the NEPA list for all future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Jeff Juel IEPLC Forest Watch Alliance for the Wild Rockies The Ecology Center, Inc. P.O. Box 8731 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, Montana 59807 Missoula, Montana 59802 (406) 542-0050 (406) 728-5733 The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org October 29, 1997 Carmine Lockwood, District Ranger Palouse Ranger District 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855 Dear District Ranger: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Yellow Pine Restoration Project (August 17 letter). These comments are on behalf The Ecology Center, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, and Friends of the Clearwater. I must first remind you of the condition of Little Sands Creek; it has been decimated by Potlatch Corporation logging. The state has been hammering away at their land at the head of the drainage on the Sand Mountain/Mica Mountain divide. There simply is no room for any additional ground disturbing activity that may produce further watershed damage and sediment in the stream(s). Within the Stipulation of Dismissal of the Wilderness Society involving Forest Service Plan (1993), the Clearwater National Forest agreed to revise four aspects of the Plan. One of those revisions involved the commitment ³to the goal of improving and maintaining water quality on stream segments of concern and all forest watersheds.² The Forest Service agreed to allow no projects that would produce a measurable increase in sediment production. Yet with the Yellow Pine Restoration project, you are proposing to log, reconstruct roads, and obliterate roads. Will the proposed road reconstruction and road obliteration cause increased flows in sedimentation from the watershed? If you claim that those activities will not increase flows, where is the research to support those claims? Your photos of desired conditions are a little misleading. The photos portray sites that have been ³lightly² thinned. You are proposing shelterwood, irregular shelterwood, and seed tree prescriptions. The prescriptions you are proposing can leave as few as 1 tree per acre! Within the proposal, you state that past cutting has not developed the desired conditions. How can you be sure that a different approach will not fail for the same reasons as past activities. What research has been done, or will be done, to analyze the cumulative effects on soils, water quality, wildlife habitat and security, etc.? The project area directly borders Potlatch Corporation land; have the potential cumulative effects of different ownership been analyzed? You MUST analyze, in detail, the cumulative effects which could potentially come out of this project. What effects is this project going to have on old-growth? Do you plan on taking any large diameter trees? We would like a complete review of the fire history in the area. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Blaine Davey Ecosystem Representative The Alliance for the Wild Rockies Friends of the Clearwater P.O. Box 8731 P.O. Box 9241 Missoula, MT 59801 Moscow, ID 83843 Inland Empire Public Lands Council 517 South Division Spokane, WA 99202 The Ecology Center 1519 Cooper St. Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@igc.apc.org January 23, 1996 Tom Suk Forest Supervisor¹s Office Clearwater National Forest 12730 Hwy. 12 Orofino, ID 83544 re: Fan/Lunch Salvage Timber Sale, French Mountain Salvage Timber Sale, Middle Creek Salvage Timber Sale, Relaskop Salvage Timber Sale, Sylvan Creek/Orogrande Face Salvage Timber Sale. Dear Tom Suk: Thank you for allowing The Ecology Center to submit scoping comments on these salvage timber sales. Here are our concerns. Project Files Rather than send several copies of essentially the same comments, we are sending this letter, which can be duplicated and added to the project file for each of the sales. Purpose and Need The EAs should explain the purpose and need for each project. The need for the project should explain the reasons for the project. The purpose for the project should explain exactly what it is that the project proposes to accomplish. Alternatives There should be a few alternatives which have been designed to accomplish the purpose in alternative ways. Briefly, there should be the no-action alternative to provide baseline data, a status-quo alternative to appease the industrialists, an alternative that caters to non-human resources to appease the deep ecologists, and an environmentally-friendly alternative which strikes a balance between the two extremes. P.L. 104-19 & the Forest Service Furlough The Forest Service could take a lessen in cumulative effects from Congress. Congress has spent more money than is in the government purse and done so over the years in relatively little increments--an insignificant amount of pork here, a bloated department there. Yet here is a recent example of Congress¹s attempt to curb that habit (and its atrocious writing): ³Salvage timber sales undertaken pursuant to this section shall not be precluded because the costs of such activities are likely to exceed the revenues derived from such activities² (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(6)). The consequences of such cumulative impacts were felt locally as Congress shut down the federal government, twice, as it foundered in spasms about a balanced budget. The Ecology Center feels that it is both fiscally irresponsible and publicly unethical for the Forest Service to offer any services for which it does not recover its expenditures. The mangers of the Pierce Ranger District can, if they so choose, conduct a thorough analysis for these projects and determine exactly how much money the federal government will shell out, and exactly how much money it will get back. The authority to do this has been explicitly granted by the ³salvage rider:² ³The scope and content of the documentation and information prepared, considered, and relied on under this paragraph is at the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned² (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(1)(C). Debits and Credits We ask that the EAs for these sales explain how much the projects will cost--item by item (e.g., road reconstruction, marking trees, planting seeds, noxious weed control, etc.). The EAs should also explain how much money the federal treasury will receive from each project. 25% Funds Twenty-five percent of all timber receipts gets paid to the counties in which the sales occur. That money, then, never returns to the federal treasury. It should not be counted as money being returned to the government, but should be listed as a debit in the EAs. We suggest that the fees charged for these sales should be inflated to offset this loss of twenty-five percent of the sales¹ revenues. P.L. 104-19 and Forest Health The purpose of this insidious piece of industry-spawned legislation is, not fixing forest health, but furnishing ³a salvage timber volume level above the program level² (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(4). That is it pure and simple. We would like to believe that the high ethical purpose behind the ³salvage rider² is a genuine concern for the ability of ecosystems to remain in a balance on the National Forests. However, were that the case, the Forest Service could have addressed ecosystems under the existing Forest Plans. There would have been no need for a few white male politicians to assume the Forest Service¹s responsibility. In addition, the Forest Service contains enough biologists to realize that the causes of the ³forest health² crisis are complex. These same biologists should have realized that, if the causes are complex, then the solutions will not be simple. Congress--being totally bereft of biologists--didn¹t realize this. It prescribed one great big dollop of snake oil to fix everything, salvage logging. Root Diseases This mistake was not unforeseen: ³Salvage logging is seen by many as a current panacea to the problem, but the harvesting of living but root-diseased trees has contributed to the forest¹s poor health.... Recent efforts to accelerate salvage programs in areas experiencing poor forest health, such as those in northeastern Oregon, may only accentuate long-term forest decline by increasing existing root disease areas and creating new infection centers² (Filip 1994). Since there seems to be some evidence that salvage logging possesses no curative properties for trees infected by root diseases, then we feel that any of these projects which proposes to so treat root-diseased trees should be either dropped or re-analyzed. The EAs for the projects should disclose which individual stands are inflicted with root diseases. Then, for those stands the EA should disclose the proposed treatment. If a salvage sale is proposed, then the EA must explain why logging will cure the problem when it seems likely that it will only exacerbate it. P.L. 104-19 and Reforestation The ³salvage rider² demands that ³The Secretary concerned shall plan and implement reforestation of each parcel of land harvested under a salvage timber sale conducted under subsection (b) as expeditiously as possible after completion of the harvest on the parcel, but in no case later than any applicable restocking period required by law or regulation² (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(8). Before this happens, the EAs need to explain whether or not root diseases can hang around in the soil and infect the new trees. It would seem that for stands that were thinned because they were too thick to be healthy, that regeneration should not take place at all. Of course, the esteemed legislators who wrote this rider should have at least wondered about re-thickening and stand that had just been thinned. You would think that they would see that there seems to have been some little inconsistency in their idea. Unless some PAC had its hands over their eyes. The EAs should explain. stand-by-stand, which ones will receive regeneration and why. Cumulative Effects All of these projects will be active at the same time and on the same Ranger District. The Pierce Ranger District is not so big that the cumulative effects of all these timber sales will not be felt. When we ask for a cumulative effects analysis, what we want to know as a result of it is this: a discussion of the status and trend of a particular issue; an identification of the agents that influence the trend and the extent to which they do so; an assessment of the project in question as to its potential to be an agent--however incrementally--that influences the trend of a particular issue; and a similar assessment for projects that the Pierce Ranger District knows or suspects will be in a position to influence the trend in a particular issue. TES None of these projects should affect any individual or population of threatened, endangered or sensitive species of plants or animals, either individually or cumulatively. The IDT should consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish & Game to get lists of TES species for which habitat may exist on the Ranger District. When analyzing the effects, the IDT should keep in mind that the sales will be occurring more or less simultaneously. Such mundane things as the length of the working day of the loggers, the amount of vehicular traffic associated with logging, and the amount of noise produced by logging should be factored into the analysis because of the simultaneous implementation and operation of these sales. Gray Wolf The effects to Gray Wolves should be analyzed with a great deal of care--if not for the wolves themselves, then at least for Congress which is spending money to introduce wolves into the United States. There¹s no need for the Department of Agriculture to be frustrating the efforts of the Department of Interior. And the alternatives should cater to the wolves, which are more endangered than timber. Grizzly Bear This is another species that is considerably more endangered than the nation¹s timber supply, and one that is infinitely more gentle than the boards of directors for timber companies who persistently pretend (and resemble) to be leeches on the federal government. Because the grizzlies are, as a species, in such a precarious predicament concerning their survival, and greed has been prolific since Genesis, the alternatives should be designed around grizzly bear habitat. Chemicals An often-overlooked effect of those timber sales which involve heavy equipment and automobiles is the dripping, leaking, and spilling of petroleum chemicals. The EAs should explain how the project will create problems cause buy chemicals or which might have to be dealt with later by chemicals (e.g., noxious weeds which might require herbicides). Fire The EAs should explain how each individual cutting unit is going to contribute to a reduction, if any, of the risk of wildfire. And, the EAs should explain how the cutting units will interact with each other and the surrounding forest when the area does burn. Other things being equal (drought, wind, etc.), will the end result be a burn of less intensity? Insects and Diseases We have already noted that salvage logging is likely to be ineffective at treating root diseases. However, other diseases can inflict trees. The EAs should delineate the diseases which are infecting particular stands and explain precisely how timber harvest ³cures² the disease. The EAs should also explain the role of that particular disease in the ecosystem and how the proposed actions will affect the disease. We are similarly concerned about insects. The EAs should list each species of insect that is bugging the trees, explain the roles of each insect species in the ecosystem, and assess the effects of the proposed actions on each species of insect. In addition, the EAs should explain precisely how timber harvest will ³cure² the insect infestation. Logging Practices Different methods of harvesting trees vary in the extravagance with which they damage the environment. Features which The Ecology center feels must be incorporated into the design of the alternatives which involve timber harvest are: all logging must be done when the soil is dry or frozen; rubber-tired equipment must be used for skidding and decking; extensive permanent road system must not be built; temporary roads with frequent log decks might be used (if they can constructed without effect and reclaimed immediately after use); log butts must be raised off the ground for skidding; work must be temporarily suspended whenever temperatures allow the soil surface to thaw (Currie and Gary 1978). Helicopters The EAs for those projects that involve helicopter logging should disclose the density of helicopter landings in the area and should analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the noise helicopters create. Soil The EAs must analyze the effects of the project on the soils in the area. The cumulative effects analysis should address this winter¹s heavy rain fall and flooding on the Clearwater National Forest. The cumulative effects analysis should also address the condition of whole watersheds because of the extensive sedimentation caused from the rain and floods. Water Quality The EAs should contain a detailed assessment of the existing conditions of water quality in the watersheds which could feel any of the effects of these projects. Because of the large area these projects cover, we feel that modeling should be done to predict the level of sediment which the various alternatives from these projects might produce. Fisheries None of these project should affect Bull Trout or West Slope Cutthroat Trout. However, it is perfectly fine for them to kill off Brook Trout. The EAs should provide an accurate assessment of the existing conditions since the floods and rain. Noxious Weeds The EAs should specify how the projects will deal with the spread of noxious weeds. No Roads None of the projects should require any new road construction or reconstruction of roads that might be nearly reclaimed naturally. Alliance for the Wild Rockies The Alliance for the Wild Rockies also submitted comments on this project, and The Ecology Center concurs with and supports their concerns. Thank You Once again, thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Bert Kraft Citations Currie, P. O., and H. L. Gary. 1978. ³Grazing and Logging Effects on Soil Surface Changes in Central Colorado¹s Ponderosa Pine Type.² Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33(4):176-178 Filip, G. M. 1994. ³Forest Health in Decline in Central Oregon: A 13-year Case Study.² Northwest Science 68(4):233-240. The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org September 19, 1997 Douglas Gober, District Ranger Pierce Ranger District Route 2, Box 191 Kamiah, ID 83536 Dr. Mr. Gober: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the salvage sales in the Molly and Mud creek drainages. These comments are on behalf of The Ecology Center and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. To avoid watershed impacts, you MUST follow PACFISH stream buffers. It sounds to us that you may have already decided a violation to stream buffers is possible. What good is a set of guidelines if it can be changed at any time with a site specific amendment? How steep of a slope are we dealing with in these drainages? You scoping notice displays a bit of hidden concern for the possibility of catastrophic landslides on the watershed, by mentioning the fact that ³waterbarring, seeding, and fertilizing would be utilized to accomplish erosion control.² Is it really that important to you that those watersheds be logged, especially when a 15 acre clearcut is planned? What is the fishery status in the Molly/Mud drainages? Has a thorough analysis been done concerning effects on fish habitat and down stream water quality? Because you are logging a steep watershed and may even be violating PACFISH buffers, how do you plan to extract the ³commodity output?² You mention that no road construction is planned (I am assuming that this means no road reconstruction is planned), do you plan on helicopter logging the sale or is there a road within close enough proximity that you could skyline/drag the trees out? What is the condition and logging history of the surrounding forest within these drainages? What kind of wildlife is present? Does the area provide necessary habitat for any wildlife. Is there any Old Growth present? Please answer my concerns and keep us on informed of all future decisions on this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Blaine Davey Ecosystem Representative The Ecology Center 1519 Cooper St. Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org March 27, 1996 Douglas Gober Pierce Ranger District Route 2, Box 191 Kamiah, ID 83536 re: Mex/Mud Salvage Sale Dear Douglas Gober: Thank you for allowing The Ecology Center to submit scoping comments on the proposed Mex/Mud salvage sale. Here are our concerns. Purpose and Need The scoping notice makes it clear that the only reason this sale is being contemplated is to provide easy money for the timber industry. There is absolutely no ecologically valid necessity to remove the structural components of the ecosystem as this sale proposes to do. This could be partially due to the prevalent view in the Forest Service (ecosystem management philosophy notwithstanding) of trees as potential wood products rather than structural components of the ecosystem that perform a variety of ecological functions in addition to standing or laying around and losing commercial value. The trees that have been blow down are already beginning to decay--which is a perfectly natural thing for them to do. In the process, they will provide nutrients, habitat, and litter. The scoping notice indicates that an alternative had been considered that would harvest only the timber that had been blown down, and that it had been dropped from analysis because it the timber industry didn't consider it worth their time. It is highly deceptive to try to purport that the Pierce Ranger District is at all concerned about water quality and wildlife when it so blatantly bends over backwards for the timber industry in a PACFISH watershed near a RNA. The greatest problems and threats to ³forest health² are too many roads, clearcuts and damaged watersheds, not too many trees (excessive fuel loading). These problems are a result of logging and road building, not the suppression of wildfire. Watersheds which are below standards for water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat and wildlife security must be brought up to all standards before further timber sales are contemplated. Road obliteration and reclamation are the primary and most cost-effective ways to accomplish watershed restoration, protect fish and wildlife habitat and reestablish wildlife security. Ecosystem restoration is a goal and process worthy o public investment. It provides many returns through improved ecosystem health, including meaningful and good-paying jobs. Timber sales have and continue to be an unreliable source of funds (K-V) for restoration and road closure work. They shall not be promoted for such purposes. All remaining unroaded and unlogged areas must be preserved. The continued march into increasingly scarce native forest does not promote sustainable forestry. Forest stewardship must be viewed and practiced as more than a kinder and gentler form of tree farming. In already damaged areas, it must begin with ecosystem restoration. Analysis The scoping notice indicates that the environmental analysis for this project will be fast and dirty in order not to waste a dime of that precious wood. However, even though the Salvage Rider has freed the Forest Service from any constraints upon humping out wood, it does require a full-blown EA. According to the salvage rider, For each salvage timber sale conducted under subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall prepare a document that combines an environmental assessment under section 102 (2) of the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) (including regulations implementing such section) and a biological evaluation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) and other applicable Federal law and implementing regulations. (P.L. 104-19 Sec. 2001(c)(1)(A)). That means that members of the public on the mailing list for these projects should receive one document. In that document they should find an EA and a BE. The EA should comply with NEPA and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. The BE should comply with the ESA and with both any other federal laws which apply to endangered species and federal regulations for implementing laws which apply to endangered species. In some cases, projects may meet the Forest Service Handbook¹s criteria for being categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. That determination is usually made after the scoping process has been completed. Then the decision is issued in a Decision Memo which explains the why the project has been categorically excluded. An environmental analysis is still conducted. For projects that merit an Environmental Assessment, the decision is usually issued in a Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. For projects merit an Environmental Impact Statement, the decision is issued in a Record Of Decision. The salvage rider is very clear that every timber sale offered under it must merit an EA. Therefore, it is illegal to categorically exclude salvage sales from NEPA documentation. This may seem like a nitpicky point as both CEs and salvage sales are not subject to administrative appeal. However, judicially, it is significant because the salvage rider severely limits the process of judicial review (possible unconstitutionally), yet CEs do not suffer such constraints. If these sales are to be categorically excluded, then they cannot be offered under the salvage rider. Watershed: PACFISH/Riparian Areas/fish/water quality The scoping notice indicated that timber harvest will occur in riparian areas and that the stream buffers may be of variable width. PACFISH requires buffers on intermittent fish-bearing streams of 150 feet, 300 feet for fish-bearing streams, and 50 feet for intermittent non-fish-bearing streams. For the intermittent non-fish-bearing streams, we would like to see the buffer be one tree-length wide because it seems to give the benefit of the doubt to the watershed--not to the timber industry. If the existing conditions are already jeopardizing fish habitat because of flooding and road failures, then this project should be postponed until conditions become more normal. TES Species This project should not inhibit any threatened, endangered or sensitive species of plants or animals from peacefully inhabiting the forest. The project should not remove or degrade any habitat for these species. The BE for the project should supply enough evidence for each species that this will not occur. Chemicals The analyses should address the role of chemicals in the ecosystem. We are concerned about fuel and oil and grease, etc. leaking from equipment. We are also concerned about related actions which might involve chemicals like noxious weeds. Often, the weeds that logging brings with it receive subsequent herbicide treatments. The future application of herbicides is a related action and should be incorporated into the analysis. Economics Even though the salvage rider permits financial irresponsibility, we feel that only those sales which will at least break even should be offered. The federal treasury should get back every penny it spent to offer this sale. Because various counties receive money from these sales (25%), that money does not go back to the federal treasury. Therefore, we think that it should not figured into the amount that goes to the government. Soil This projects should damage the soil at all. No compaction should occur. The soil should not be disturbed. Thank You Once again, thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Bert Kraft The Ecology Center 1519 Cooper Street Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org December 18,1996 Margaret Gorski Powell Ranger District Lolo, MT 59847 Margaret, This letter is in regards to several recent proposals from the Powell District in the Spruce Creek drainage. It is clear from these proposals that it is the intent of the Forest Service to concentrate significant cutting activity over the next several years in this area. Given the extensive continuing impacts on intermingled Plum Creek lands in this drainage, I am particularly concerned that cumulative impacts to fisheries and terrestrial habitat need to be addressed in a comprehensive analysis of the area. Instead, the Forest Service has chosen to undertake at least five separate analyses with interlocking, overlapping analyses areas for the Shoot Creek, Brushy Elk, Beetle Spruce, and Spruce Moose projects, and an as yet unnamed whitebark pine project mentioned within the Shoot Creek scoping document. These projects will apparently take place at the same approximate time at essentially the same location. Given the value of the remaining (if fragmentary) old growth stands within this area (rather unique for the relatively high frequency of Engelmann spruce), and the importance of maintaining quality salmonid habitat, I suggest that instead of the piecemeal approach you are taking, that a more comprehensive approach would be more cost-effective and would more accurately disclose the cumulative impacts to the area. I invite you, for example, to review the Shoot Creek, Spruce Moose, and Beetle Spruce projects, each of which proposes cutting units for Section 22, T38N, R16E. Between these three project, the effects of logging on this section will be dramatic. It even seems that the Brushy Elk and Spruce Moose sales propose to cut the same trees twice along road 5961: I hope this is just the result of rather approximate maps, and not the result of lack of communication amongst you timber planners. Although you have indicated in the Shoot Creek scoping notice that no large old-growth patches will be affected, the triple whammy of these three projects will clearly take a big bite out of the large tentatively identified old-growth patch in the southern half of section 22. For that matter, all of these proposed sales taken together appear to have a significant impact on large old-growth patches in the Spruce Creek drainage in the following sections: T38N, R16E, sections 22, 24, and 36; and T38N, R17E, sections 18, 20, and 30. I oppose degradation of old-growth in an area that already suffers from significant fragmentation. These examples illustrate some of the difficulties inherent in piecemeal NEPA analysis of projects that occur in essentially the same point in space and time. Do I believe that this, taken with other Powell District NEPA transgressions I have mentioned to you recently, is part of a great sinister plan? No, but if it is not sinister it is certainly sloppy from a NEPA point of view. I suggest that in order to fulfill you obligations under NEPA for a full and adequate disclosure of cumulative effects, a more integrated, comprehensive planning strategy is in order. Sincerely, Bill Haskins The Ecology Center, Inc. 101 E. Broadway, Suite 602 Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 729-9432 fax ecocenter@igc.apc.org January 17, 1995 James Caswell Clearwater National Forest 12730 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 Supervisor Caswell: It has come to my attention that many road beds and drainage structures on the Powell District were damaged late this last summer through ill-conceived and badly carried out heavy equipment work. The damaged roads include the following: 109, 5650, 5652, 5645, 5647, 5601 and 5963. The unfortunate "repair" of these roads left culverts plugged, culvert outlets too high, inslopes undercut, outslopes oversteepened, and a host of other problems. The problems were not fixed before the snows came. This means that significant parts of the Powell road system cannot be expected to drain as designed during breakup next spring, and it is likely that water quality and fish habitat will be degraded as a result. I am particularly concerned about road segments that are adjacent to or upstream of stream segments containing anadromous and resident fish habitat. For example, 109 and 5650 run along Shotgun Creek and Crooked Fork, and I'm sure you know that these stream segments are critical to the survival of naturally spawning chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations in the upper Lochsa. 5645 and 5647 both lie in the Parachute/Papoose Creek drainage, which is also important to steelhead, chinook salmon, and bull trout. Since the Crooked Fork and Papoose drainages have been heavily impacted by past logging and road building, they contain many stream segments that do not meet Forest Plan standards. Unfortunately, further degradation to these streams seems inevitable given the scope of damage done to the road beds by the recent "repair" job. The extent of the damage appears to be unknown at this point, and until such damage can be assessed, it would be an unacceptable risk to proceed with more activities in these areas. If further assessment of the damage suggests that significant impacts may result, you would be required under NEPA to supplement the environmental analysis (allowing for public input) for proposed projects to reflect this new information. Because of the imminent danger that these steams face due to inappropriate Forest Service actions, I am requesting that you take three extremely conservative and prudent courses of action: 1) Place whatever resources are available at the disposal of the Powell personnel that will be responsible for fixing up the mess as early as possible. 2) Suspend implementation of activities that are planned to occur in the areas affected, or are planned to make use of the damaged roads. This includes, for example, the Winchester timber sale in the Crooked Fork drainage (which has not yet been offered for sale) and the West Fork Papoose timber sale (for which a decision is scheduled this spring). Before these areas are opened for further activities, it is up to you to ensure that the damage to the roads has been repaired and the damage to the habitat has been allowed to heal. 3) Assign an interdisciplinary team to oversee the NEPA process for corrective measures, including an analysis of the current condition caused by the road "repairs," a revised cumulative effects analysis for affected drainages, and a range of alternatives for repair activities. In addition, I suggest that you may wish to take a close look into the failings in communication, accountability, and organization at the Powell District that produced this regrettable situation in the first place. It has also come to my attention that the Forest Service has recently acquired significant new information addressing bull trout habitat and populations in the upper Lochsa. I remind you of the importance of incorporating information on this soon-to-be listed species into project analyses. This new information regarding bull trout should be addressed before further steps are taken in the NEPA process for projects in the upper Lochsa. For projects such as the Winchester timber sale which are beyond the NEPA process, this new information addresses many questions regarding bull trout that were not addressed in the original analyses, and it appears that supplementation of the analyses (as prescribed by NEPA) must be undertaken. On another subject, I have considered your letter of some months ago regarding old growth on the Clearwater. From a scientific point of view, many of your arguments are gibberish: you chastise me for indefensible inference while you engage in wild speculation. I stand by the arguments I have present (found most recently in the West Fork Papoose appeal). I might add that while you objected to my challenge of old growth analysis in the White Pine Creek sale, the Region this analysis of old growth was indeed flawed. I have seen nothing from the Clearwater Forest to indicate that there is any validity to the assumption that acreage subtracted from the 1992 inventory after field verification can be "made up" elsewhere. The hypothesis to that effect that you have forwarded is on particularly unsound ground in the Palouse District. I expect and hope that someday the Clearwater Forest will acknowledge that many of the assumptions in its 1992 old growth survey are flawed, and that subsequent field verification has suggested only one thing: one cannot come to a defensible conclusion that the Clearwater Forest is currently meeting forest-wide old-growth standards. I look forward to that day, because I hope that it will mean that the Clearwater Forest will finally embark upon an adequate investigation of the adequacy of habitat for old-growth associated species. Sincerely, William Haskins