Friends of the Clearwater PO Box 9241 Moscow, ID 83843 Cynthia Lane, District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Rt. 1 Box 398 Kooskia, ID 83539 July 13, 1998 RE: €DUTCHMAN "SALVAGE" TIMBER SALE €FOIA REQUEST Ranger Lane: The following comments concerning the Dutchman "Salvage" Timber Sale are submitted on behalf of Friends of the Clearwater, American Wildlands, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho Conservation League, The Ecology Center, and The Lands Council. This comment also includes a FOIA request. USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The Dutchman "Salvage" TS will "salvage" 900 MBF of "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees." The categorical exclusion guidelines (FSM 1909.15.30) state that timber harvest which removes 250 MBF or less of merchantable wood products or salvage which removes 1 MMBF or less of merchantable wood products may be CE'd. I was told by Steve Petro on July 9, 1998 that the Dutchman sale was 35-40 percent green. That means that the sale will remove 315-360 MBF of green trees. This is clearly above the range of what is permitted by the CE guidelines and therefore may not by excluded from appeal. It is unethical for you to describe this sale as "salvage" when a significant portion of it is actually green, even according to your timber sale planner. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Lost Hat Timber Sale (North Fork Ranger District) and the Dutchman "Salvage" Timber Sale, both of which you are attempting to CE, came to us on the same day. The sales are appx. a mile and a half from each other. Cumulative effects must be considered since the projects are connected actions. Furthermore, this is in the same area as projects such as the Musselshell timber sale and other past and proposed projects. The EA or EIS you prepare should analyze the impacts of all of these projects. DOCUMENTATION Under FSM 1909.15.30, section 31.2(2), both projects must have a project or case file. At a minimum, the project or case file must include any records prepared, including "the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist." We hereby request, pursuant to the FOIA, all documents that led to the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist for both the Dutchman "Salvage" TS. This includes the following: 1. Evidence that no steep slopes or highly erosive soils are present, documented by a person with appropriate credentials to make the determination i.e. a soils scientist. This should include but not be limited to slope calculations over a representative portion of the project area, including the steepest part of the project area, soil type and erodability analysis conducted by a soils scientist, and comparison of the results of these analyses to the landslide factors identified in the Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides, affectionately known as Flood and Mud. 2. Evidence that there are no threatened or endangered species present, and evidence that there is no critical habitat for threatened or endangered species within the project area. This should include, but not be limited to, surveys for all threatened and endangered species known to occur on the CNF conducted by qualified botanists and wildlife professionals, in the project areas, or testimony from a qualified botanist or wildlife professional that the project area is clearly unsuitable for specific threatened or endangered species. 3. All evidence that there are no wetlands or floodplains present in the project areas. The CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Your determination should include, but not be limited to, soil sample cores, soil analysis determining if the soil is considered "hydric" through standard color tests, soil analysis for water saturation or aerobic conditions, soil surveys for the presence of oxidized metals, wetland vegetation surveys, and historical documentation of flood events showing that the project area is not within the historical range of floodplain areas. In effect, we are requesting all documents which prove that all areas of the both project area are nonwetlands. PLANTS, FISH AND WILDLIFE There has not been adequate analysis in the sale areas to fully understand the consequences of resource extraction to plant life, wildlife and water quality. Your scoping letter indicates that "there are no listed threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species in the proposed project area." However, there is no mention of any effort on the part of the North Fork Ranger District to determine which fish and wildlife species exist in the project area. More monitoring needs to be completed before the District can fully understand the potential damage to the ecosystem. Please answer the following questions, if not in the decision, then in a separate letter. Will field surveys for sensitive plants be done before the decision is made? Who will be conducting the field surveys? What action will be conducted once sensitive plants are identified, to protect them? Will there be a no-cut buffer zone? Is there evidence that such a size of buffer zone is sufficient to protect the species from stress by the logging? What size patch or number of plants of the sensitive plant will be required to gain this protection? The sale area is within 12 miles of the Weitas Creek roadless area, where endangered gray wolves have been documented. Ten miles is well within the home range of a wolf. It is very possible that lynx live in the Weitas Creek area as well. Lynx have been proposed as listed under the ESA and potential impacts must be studied. Bull trout, listed under the ESA, live in the North Fork. The methods of cutting require significantly more environmental analysis. SALVAGE We categorically oppose timber "salvage" sales due to the inherent degree of misconception about forest health issues. The fact remains throughout the "forest health" controversy that the forests have existed for thousands of years without the dubious benefits of human "management." It is arrogant of the US Forest Service to advocate salvage logging as a means of restoring health to the forest. Use of the term "salvage" somehow implies that dead and dying trees are worthless and/or detrimental to the forest ecosystem, which, as anyone who has taken introductory forest ecology can tell you, is offensively false. The Forest Service would do well to remember that insects and disease are natural components of a healthy forest. We would also like to remind you that the Clearwater National Forest has admitted itself that it has neither a forest health crisis nor a backlog of salvage timber, as evidenced by the FOIA we received in May 1996 (file code 6270). Also, the way the scoping letter for this document defines the trees that will be logged is extremely vague. It defines the trees as "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees which are infected with root rot and being killed by White Pine blister rust, Douglas-fir bark beetles, and fir engraver beetles." All trees are "dying." All trees could be identified as "high risk." A tree can be occupied by a fungus or insect and live for decades, however you would label that tree "being killed" and in need of "salvage." We feel that salvage is merely an excuse used to log. SOIL COMPACTION There has been absolutely no analysis concerning soil compaction. That is totally unacceptable, as it is a very serious issue-- the granitic soils of this region are extremely susceptible to compaction. The methods of logging planned will significantly compact the topsoil in the sale areas and thereby inhibit natural regeneration, as well as causing significant silting of streams. Soil does not decompact without heavy machinery for decades. It is, therefore, an effectively irreversible step to compact the soil. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS It is not the duty of the National Forest system to supply provide an endless supply of logs to local mills, even as the forests are turning into tree farms and wastelands lacking many of the native species. It is a commonly known fact that the Clearwater National Forest is exhausted far beyond sustainable capacity. PURPOSE & NEED; ALTERNATIVES You define the purpose and need so narrowly that the only possible alternative which satisfies your purpose and need are the desired timber sales. There are only single proposed actions for each sale. No alternatives are given. NEPA exists to ensure a process and that the public is included in the decision making process. The Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment." The use of only one alternative, the fact that the sales are CE'd, and the narrow purpose and need is evidence of biased decision-making on the your part, to get the cut out without public involvement or consideration for other natural resources. WATER QUALITY Lolo and Musselshell Creeks are a water quality limited streams. That means you cannot further degrade them. Clearcutting, aka regeneration harvest, increases downstream sedimentation. Consideration must be given to the listed bull trout. We ask that you cancel this project . Sincerely, Kristin Ruether Katherine Deuel Friends of the Clearwater Alliance For the Wild Rockies PO Box 9241 PO Box 8731 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel Judi Brawer, Esq. Larry McLaud The Ecology Center & American Wildlands Idaho Conservation League The Lands Council 40 East Main Street, Suite 2 PO Box 9783 801 Sherwood, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59802 fee waiver request We hereby request a fee waiver for all search and duplication fees under the FOIA regulations [5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(4)(A) and 36 CFR 2.19(c)(1)]. Friends of the Clearwater is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization and will derive no commercial benefit from this FOIA. The information requested will benefit the citizens of the United States and is for the purpose of public education and to encourage public debate on important policy issues. The requested information will be made available to the public through the office of Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, ID. Our office is utilized by university students, grassroots conservationists, journalists, scientists, and the general public. Information available through the Friends of the Clearwater is used in press conferences and releases, media interviews, publications including our newsletter, and reaches a significant number of individuals nationwide. The language of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress intended fees not to be a barrier to private individuals or public interest organizations seeking access to government records. In addition, the legislative history of the FOIA fee waiver language indicates that Congress intended a liberal interpretation of the phrase "Primarily benefiting the public." This suggests that all fees are to be waived whenever the release of information contributes to public debate on important policy issues. This has recently been affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Better Government Association v. Department of State, 780 F. 2d 86 (D.C. Cir., 1986). In that case, the Court found that under the FOIA, Congress had explicitly recognized the need for non-profit organizations to have free access to government documents and that government agencies cannot impair this free access by charging duplication or search for FOIA information requests (Id. at 89). We anticipate no additional delay in granting this fee waiver request. We expect to hear from you within 20 working days or less. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to contact our office. July 8, 1998 Cynthia Lane, District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Powell Ranger Station Lolo, Montana 59847 Ranger Lane: The following are comments by Friends of the Clearwater on the Lolo Pass Redevelopment Environmental Assessment. The purpose and need for this project must be carefully assessed. Use does not define need. Alternatives including off-site facilities should have been assessed. The EA discusses the impacts of increased human use but does not predict the percentage of increase. No quantitative assessment is made in the EA. Nonetheless, this area receives considerable recreation and visitor use. Better management of that use is needed. Furthermore, the action alternatives would help mitigate wetland damage from current road locations. This project with the present and planned visitor education facilitates presents a fine opportunity for the Forest Service to allow the story of the Lolo Pass and the upper Lochsa to be told. That story is one of modern human impacts, extirpated or near extirpated species (grizzly, wolf, lynx, wolverine, steelhead, bull trout, and salmon), development in a high elevation, sensitive area, and the severing of a crucial corridor. The 200th anniversary of the beginning of industrial society's exploitation of the area (Lewis and Clark) is rapdily approaching and this is an important historical location in that context. The project also presents an opportunity for the Forest Service to allow a diversity of voices be heard about this area. The views of the Nez Perce and other indigenous people should be presented. Citizen organizations like Friends of the Clearwater are concerned about this area and should have a voice in the story. Please keep us updated on this project. Sincerely, Gary Macfarlane Friends of the Clearwater PO Box 9241 Moscow, ID 83843 The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org July 8, 1998 Cynthia Lane, District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Powell Ranger Station Lolo, Montana 59847 Ms. Lane: The following are comments on the Lolo Pass Redevelopment Environmental Assessment, on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc., (TECI) the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and The Lands Council (TLC). As the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition approaches, the interest in the Lolo Pass area, with its proximity to the old Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail and the Nee Me Poo National Historic Trail, increases. We feel that the alternatives should include better opportunities for educating travelers about the history of the area. The area has seen extensive changes as a result of the Euroamerican cultural takeover. Unfortunately, much of the change reflects poorly on the ability of that culture to find a ³sense of place² and live within the limits of the land. Lolo Pass provides a unique opportunity to explore the damages done as a result, and to propose a different path. To that end, we suggest the alternatives include public displays, including slide shows, videos, all-weather outdoor displays, etc. that explain the reasons behind the decline of the native fisheries of the region, the extirpation of the grizzly bear, and the decline of several other wildlife species needing forest lands free from industrial development. Indeed, it has largely been industrial forestry, featuring road construction and clearcutting, that has caused most of the threats to these ecosystems. Motorized recreation is also an increasing threat to wildlife habitat and ecosystem integrity in the area. The Native American tribes of the region should have plenty of space and opportunity to display their cultural traditions at Lolo Pass. More than a museum, such a display could be an educational opportunity to educate the public about traditional ways of living with the land that don¹t involve destroying the very fabric of life that sustains everything. The vision for the future should be away from the destructive extractive industries towards creating public appreciation of the natural values the area provides with nonconsumptive, nonmotorized recreation and education. To that end, I have enclosed a brochure entitled ³Wild Clearwater Country² distributed by the Wild Clearwater Coalition, of which TLC and TECI are members. This is but a small sample of the kind of information that should be made available under each of your alternatives. The Lolo Pass area, publicly owned, should provide an outlet for information of interest to the public. Opportunities for educating the public about the conflicts between industrial development and sustainable traditional lifestyles in the Lolo Pass area do not appear in any of the alternatives. Such educational and informational opportunities are fully within the Purpose and Need. The EA reflects the ongoing bias of the Clearwater National Forest that everything is just fine with the ecosystem, despite increasing signs to the contrary. Please keep each organization on the NEPA list for all future mailings on this project. Sincerely, AWR¹s address: P.O. Box 8731 Missoula, Montana 59807 (406-542-0050) Jeff Juel TECI & TLC The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org August 14, 1998 Cynthia Lane, District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Rt. 1, Box 398 Kooskia, Idaho 83539 Ms. Lane: These are comments concerning the Road 5028 Salvage timber sale proposal (your 7/6/98 letter), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc., The Lands Council, and Friends of the Clearwater. Please refer to our June 30, 1998 letter to Forest Supervisor James Caswell, of which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on the Road 5028 Salvage timber sale proposal. In addition, we will herein emphasize some of the issues from that letter. For one, the analysis should include a Transportation Plan (as required by the Forest Plan) that examines the projected future uses of the roads in the area. Some slated for spending money may not be useful for the foreseeable future, meaning they should be obliterated. Others not needing immediate maintenance may also be identified for obliteration. In any case, you should list the maintenance needs of all roads in the drainages of the analysis area, so that rehabilitation priorities can be set correctly. The map shows that the area is heavily roaded, and we supremely doubt that it is in the best interests of the watershed, the wildlife, and the taxpayers wallets to have so many roads in the area. The scoping notice fail to mention possible extraordinary circumstances. We believe that it would be best to analyze cumulative effects on all resources in an EA or EIS anyway. Please disclose all past, ongoing, and other reasonably foreseeable future activities in the drainages of the analysis area. Additionally, it would be very helpful if you provide the public with a map showing past actions along with the present proposal. The scoping notice mentions that some salvage is to occur for reasons of blowdown and tree diseases. We wonder how much of this was brought on by even-aged or other logging next to the areas now proposed for salvage. Your comparative economic analysis definitely omits the costs of maintaining the roads on the landscape, as well as other hidden costs of the timber program. Please do a thorough cumulative effects analysis of the soils resource, too. Please keep each organization on the list to receive future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Jeff Juel October 4, 1998 Deputy District Ranger Powell Ranger Station Lolo, MT 59847 RE: SPRUCE MOOSE TIMBER SALE Deputy District Ranger: The following comments on the Spruce Moose Timber Sale are submitted on behalf of the Friends of the Clearwater, The Ecology Center, The Lands Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and American Wildlands. We oppose the implementation of this timber sale. It will come as no surprise to you that we do not buy the classic "carrot-on-a-stick" mentality of this timber sale and associated road sediment reduction. You essentially propose, "we'll fix some sediment-producing sites, faster, if you allow us to create more sediment-producing roads and clearcuts in this damaged watershed." Our response, in a nutshell, is that the only sensible action for this damaged watershed is for you to put the restoration and sediment reduction on the front burner. Accomplish the restoration without the timber sale. You should have in your possession a general comment letter from Jeff Juel of the Lands Council, Bill Haskins of The Ecology Center, and Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater dated June 30, 1998, hereafter referred to as "the reference letter." Please include the reference letter as part of our official comments for this timber sale. Purpose and Need; Alternatives and Roadless The Purpose and Need statements are insufficient. They violate NEPA in that they are too narrowly defined, thus the only possible way to satisfy all the "needs" is through the desired roadbuilding and timber harvest. NEPA exists to ensure that the range of alternatives considered includes ones that do not damage the land. There is no such alternative in this sale. The DEIS fails to analyze a land exchange alternative. There are at least three good reasons for such an analysis. First, the area in question is, in actuality, part of the North Fork Spruce-White Sand Roadless Area (01309) though erroneously omitted from the inventory because of the land ownership pattern. Unlike other areas on the Clearwater National Forest with similar ownership patterns, this area was excluded. The DEIS omits any meaningful analysis of the roadless area (inventoried and/or uninventoried). Second, the area is critical habitat for TES species including salmon, bull trout, grizzly bear, lynx, wolf, wolverine, and others. Third, the importance of treaty rights with the Nez Perce Tribe (fishing and hunting) cannot be overlooked. Plum Creek Road Sharing You repeatedly state that Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) gives you, the Forest Service, very few options concerning granting Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC) access to their land. However, you go above and beyond what is required by ANILCA. The road you have planned into the PCTC section 29, T38N, R17E, is approximately double what is necessary to grant PCTC access to its land. There is absolutely no reason why the Clearwater National Forest should pay for more road length than necessary. In all three action alternatives, proposed road 73Z hairpins after entering PCTC land and continues west for more than half a mile in section 29. The excess road length must be eliminated. Furthermore, ANILCA does not mandate that roads be built. It simply requires reasonable access. For lands that are unroaded, reasonable access may not mean roads but trail or air access (helicopter). The DEIS fails to include an analysis of the legitimacy of Plum Creek holdings. The book published by the Lands Council (formerly Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Railroads and Clearcuts) on the history of railroad grants and timber companies is irrefutable in showing the historical fraud that plagued these lands These lands should rightfully be deeded back to the public. Roads, Water Quality, and Fisheries You have allowed PCTC to do the sediment modeling with their WSFPB model. You claim you compared it with your WEPP model and "it was determined that the results were similar enough to allow acceptance of the values generated by Plum Creek resource specialists." You then go on to list the insufficiencies of your WEPP model: no accounting for sheet erosion, gully erosion, or other mass soil movements occurring from unvegetated cut slopes. First, it is inappropriate to have a private timber company do the sediment analysis for a roadbuilding and timber sale project. An inherent conflict of interest exists. PCTC has profits to gain from underestimating sediment production of their roads into WQL streams, therefore it is inappropriate to rely on their calculations. Furthermore, NEPA requires corroboration where outside material is used. Where in the DEIS is it clearly stated this has been done? Second, since your model does not include several important types of erosion and mass wasting in its calculation, it is clearly inadequate. This renders the calculations, or in this case the comparisons, inadequate. You admit your model is inadequate and say that its result was "similar enough" to PCTC's, therefore PCTC's is probably inadequate also. The WSFPB model is inadequately explained in the appendix (App. B, p.4) . What annual precipitation is assumed? Does it consider the nature of Idaho's soils? What expected traffic use rate was assumed? The Reference Road assumptions for traffic (pick-ups and sedans) are inadequate. Plum Creek will be driving its logging trucks on these roads! Does it take into account all forms of erosion including mass wasting? (see also reference letter). This in turn nullifies all your statements of how the roads and logging will add an insignificant, non-measurable amount of sediment to the creeks. These activities will almost certainly add measurable sediment to the creeks, therefore breaking the Clean Water Act and State Antidegradation Policy. You will be violating this for every single WQL creek in the planning area when you build new roads and log in the watersheds. You used WATBAL to calculate changes in peak flows and ECAs. You admit that the WATBAL sediment model is woefully inadequate (p. IV-2), as it assumes that sediment delivered moves through the system. Thus, you choose not to use it for the road sediment prediction data. However, you do use it to calculate changes in peak flows and ECAs. The WATBAL model is also inadequate for these calculations, which must be redone. WATBAL does not account for mass wasting, and assumes average precipitation levels. The fact that the model cannot be used as a predictive tool is written all over the forest since the''95-'96 and''96-'97 landslides and the NEPA documents that assumed no significant impacts in those same areas. Your assumption that "PACFISH RHCA's should prevent sediment generated from harvest units on federal land from reaching water and impacting fish habitat" (p. IV-1) is inadequate. PACFISH regulations are often broken on the ground. What monitoring is planned to ensure PACFISH implementation? Your description of the studies cited says they assumed all the sediment was traveling overland (non-channelized). What if there is a channel from the clearcut to the nearest stream? The sediment will travel farther and reach the stream. What if the clearcut is adjacent to a road, so that the sediment from the cuts can flow onto the road and into the creek? What about areas with steep slopes? You must consider the sediment impacts of your clearcuts and thinning projects on the streams. How does the DEIS meet the requirements in the settlement agreement for water quality given the above noted concerns? Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts section is two paragraphs long. The analysis is not realistic. You state that the additive effects of roadbuilding and reconstruction would be the least in Alternative 4. Your statement, "Proposed timber harvest will not likely add to the cumulative effects upon aquatic habitat within the watershed under any of the action alternatives" (p. IV-15) is completely unsubstantiated and unsupported by fact. Under your reasoning, the ECA of a watershed could be 99%, yet still there would be no effect on the aquatic habitat if the PACFISH buffer strip was left intact. The only "evidence" of this to be found is your reference of some studies, which contain multiple exceptions, saying that sediment generally won't travel more than 300 ft over the surface (non-channelized). This does not account for several possible situations, some of which are mentioned above. This also does not account for alteration of the water table via loss of tree evapotranspiration, increased runoff, and change in nutrient absorption of the watershed. Nitrate concentrations in streams may skyrocket when their watersheds are clearcut. The DEIS is unclear on cumulative impacts to watersheds from the land ownership pattern. Is it assumed that every acre of private land will be cut? If not, why not? Elk Security Once again, you assume that small reductions in security size are unimportant. In this case, the reductions are not very small. The reduction in size for one of the security areas, from 2272 acres to 1754 acres, represents a removal of 22.8% of the original size. You refer to this as "minor" and say that the reductions in the areas "would not affect the function they provide..." That conclusion is debatable at best. Combined with your estimated construction disturbance of 5-10 years, these factors are not minor. TES Species You consider the lynx a sensitive species in this DEIS. This is incorrect, as the lynx is currently proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA. Your (lack of) lynx analysis is woefully inadequate. You state that the risk of accidental trapping mortality would be slight, as the road construction "would not substantially increase trapping access." This is incorrect, as the roads will be open for snowmobile access in the winter, substantially increasing trapping access. This will harm the viability of lynx in the area. Lynx trapping mortality is entirely additive, not compensatory. According the USFWS, in its memo proposing the lynx as listed: "Legal trapping activities for bobcat, coyotes, and other furbearing species create a potential for incidental capture of lynx...as bobcats and coyotes expand their ranges because of forest alteration and other factors, the amount of overlap will likely increase...Hunting seasons for bobcats may be a potential threat because of the difficulty in hunters distinguishing between bobcat and lynx." Roads also increase the winter travel range for other forest carnivores which compete with the lynx for food. The USFWS memo states: "Historically, bobcat and coyotes have not been able to compete with lynx in areas that receive deep snow cover. However, snowmobile trails and roads that are maintained for winter recreations and forest management activities are now enabling coyotes and bobcats to access lynx winter habitat (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Competition during late winter, a time when lynx are already nutritionally stressed, may be especially detrimental to lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994)." The DEIS claims that the effects of the proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect the recovery of grizzly bears. This is incorrect, as grizzly bears are averse to roads and this project involves building new roads. For six TES animal species, you state that the finding is that the "direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed activities may affect individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability." What do you think causes a loss of viability, if it is not adverse effects on individuals? No evidence is given to support your conclusions for any of the TES animals mentioned. What information was used to come to these conclusions? What studies have been done by wildlife biologists? For sensitive plants, once again, the conclusion is that despite a minor reduction in overall habitat quality, the area still would provide ample habitat to support populations. There is little evidence given to support this conclusion. You say that "Timber harvest and site preparation does not appear to be detrimental to populations when site hydrology is not disrupted" (p. IV-22, emphasis added). How was this conclusion reached? This conclusion is not valid because roadbuilding and logging does certainly affect the site hydrology. Groundwater will percolate out of a cut slope if the cut slope intersects the water table, thus lowering the table. As mentioned above, clearcutting alters the water and nutrient absorption of the watershed. Have all plant surveys for TES species been completed? What about private land surveys? Old Growth How does this project meet the requirements in the settlement agreement and forest plan? In particular, how non-federal lands considered in the analysis of old growth? How is connectivity affected by the land ownership pattern into the future? Summary Your rhetoric on the minimal effects of your timber sale on the myriad of forest "resources" has a scientific analogy that refutes your conclusions. In chemistry, there are certain theoretical compression/ expansion reactions known as reversible reactions, for which it is instructive to imagine taking place as the sum of infinitesimally small changes, so the system is always in the equilibrium state. Though any one infinitesimal change cannot be measured, the sum of them is always finite, equaling the end change in volume. Your EIS also claims to deal in infinitesimal changes. The roads will cause an increase in sediment, but not a measurable one. The logging will affect individual wolverines, but will not contribute to a loss of population viability. Minor reductions in elk security areas will not significantly affect the function they provide. You have grasped the first principle of the reversible expansion/compression reaction, but not the second. You fail to understand, or admit, that the sum of all the "infinitesimal" changes add up to something finite. In your case, the sum of your harming all those individual wolverines (but not their population viability) adds up to their population becoming extirpated from regions of the forest. The sum of all those non-measurable increases in sediment creates the situation you have now-- stream after stream being higher in cobble embeddedness than desired. Under your logic, wolverines could become extinct, but you will have done nothing wrong, since you never did anything more than an infinitesimal change. Streams could become completely smothered in fine sediment, but you will have done nothing wrong, since each timber sale in the watershed only contributed an infinitesimal portion of that sediment. Sincerely, Kristin Ruether Katherine Deuel Friends of the Clearwater Alliance For the WildRockies PO Box 9241 PO Box 8731 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel Judi Brawer, Esq. The Ecology Center & American Wildlands The Lands Council 40 East Main Street, Suite 2 801 Sherwood, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Missoula, MT 59802 Friends of the Clearwater PO Box 9241 Moscow, ID 83843 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Hwy 12 Orofino, ID 83544 July 13, 1998 RE: €5201 "SALVAGE" TIMBER SALE €BUCK "SALVAGE" TIMBER SALE €FOIA REQUEST Ranger Gober: The following comments are submitted on behalf of Friends of the Clearwater, American Wildlands, Idaho Conservation League, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, The Ecology Center, and The Lands Council. The comments are for both the 5201 "Salvage" Timber Sale and the Buck "Salvage" Timber Sale, as the sales are essentially one timber sale. This comment also includes a FOIA request. USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The 5201 "Salvage" TS will "salvage" 900 MBF of "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees." The categorical exclusion guidelines (FSM 1909.15.30) state that timber harvest which removes 250 MBF or less of merchantable wood products or salvage which removes 1 MMBF or less of merchantable wood products may be CE'd. I was told by Steve Petro on July 9, 1998 that the 5201 sale was 35-40 percent green. That means that the sale will remove 315-360 MBF of green trees. This is clearly above the range of what is permitted by the CE guidelines and therefore may not by excluded from appeal. It is unethical for you to describe this sale as "salvage" when a significant portion of it is actually green, even according to your timber sale planner. Furthermore, if the sales are considered one action, which they essentially are (see below), the violation of the CE regulations is even more apparent. The Buck "Salvage" TS will "salvage" 600 MBF. I was also told by Steve Petro that this sale was 35-40 percent green. Therefore the Buck sale will remove 210-240 MBF of green trees. Taken together, these two sales remove 525-600 MBF of green trees--- over twice the limit of what may be CE'd. The two sales together are 1.5 MMBF. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS It did not escape our notice that the 5201 TS and Buck TS scoping letters, both of which you are attempting to CE, came to us on the same day. The sales are in the same watershed! The project areas are directly adjacent to each other, separated only by road 5216! It is clear that the two sales are, in effect, one sale. Cumulative effects must be considered since the projects are connected actions. The EA or EIS you prepare should consider the two projects together. DOCUMENTATION Under FSM 1909.15.30, section 31.2(2), both projects must have a project or case file. At a minimum, the project or case file must include any records prepared, including "the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist." We hereby request, pursuant to the FOIA, all documents that led to the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist for both the 5201 and Buck sales. This includes the following: 1. Evidence that no steep slopes or highly erosive soils are present, documented by a person with appropriate credentials to make the determination i.e. a soils scientist. This should include but not be limited to slope calculations over a representative portion of the project area, including the steepest part of both project areas, soil type and erodability analysis conducted by a soils scientist, and comparison of the results of these analyses to the landslide factors identified in the Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides, affectionately known as Flood and Mud. 2. Evidence that there are no threatened or endangered species present, and evidence that there is no critical habitat for threatened or endangered species within both project areas. This should include, but not be limited to, surveys for all threatened and endangered species known to occur on the CNF conducted by qualified botanists and wildlife professionals, in the project areas, or testimony from a qualified botanist or wildlife professional that both project areas are clearly unsuitable for specific threatened or endangered species. 3. All evidence that there are no wetlands or floodplains present in the project areas. The CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Your determination should include, but not be limited to, soil sample cores, soil analysis determining if the soil is considered "hydric" through standard color tests, soil analysis for water saturation or aerobic conditions, soil surveys for the presence of oxidized metals, wetland vegetation surveys, and historical documentation of flood events showing that the project area is not within the historical range of floodplain areas. In effect, we are requesting all documents which prove that all areas of both project areas are nonwetlands. FISH AND WILDLIFE There has not been adequate analysis in the sale areas to fully understand the consequences of resource extraction to plant life, wildlife and water quality. Your scoping letter indicates that "there are no listed threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species in the proposed project area." However, there is no mention of any effort on the part of the North Fork Ranger District to determine which fish and wildlife species exist in the project area. More monitoring needs to be completed before the District can fully understand the potential damage to the ecosystem. Please answer the following questions, if not in the decision, then in a separate letter. Will field surveys for sensitive plants be done before the decision is made? Who will be conducting the field surveys? What action will be conducted once sensitive plants are identified, to protect them? Will there be a no-cut buffer zone? Is there evidence that such a size of buffer zone is sufficient to protect the species from stress by the logging? What size patch or number of plants of the sensitive plant will be required to gain this protection? The sale area is within 10 miles of the Weitas Creek roadless area, where endangered gray wolves have been documented. Ten miles is well within the home range of a wolf. It is very possible that lynx live in the Weitas Creek area as well. Lynx have been proposed as listed under the ESA and potential impacts must be studied. Bull trout, listed under the ESA, live in the North Fork. The methods of cutting require significantly more environmental analysis. SALVAGE We categorically oppose timber "salvage" sales due to the inherent degree of misconception about forest health issues. The fact remains throughout the "forest health" controversy that the forests have existed for thousands of years without the dubious benefits of human "management." It is arrogant of the US Forest Service to advocate salvage logging as a means of restoring health to the forest. Use of the term "salvage" somehow implies that dead and dying trees are worthless and/or detrimental to the forest ecosystem, which, as anyone who has taken introductory forest ecology can tell you, is offensively false. The Forest Service would do well to remember that insects and disease are natural components of a healthy forest. We would also like to remind you that the Clearwater National Forest has admitted itself that it has neither a forest health crisis nor a backlog of salvage timber, as evidenced by the FOIA we received in May 1996 (file code 6270). Also, the way the scoping letter for this document defines the trees that will be logged is extremely vague. It defines the trees as "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees which are infected with root rot and being killed by White Pine blister rust, Douglas-fir bark beetles, and fir engraver beetles." All trees are "dying." All trees could be identified as "high risk." A tree can be occupied by a fungus or insect and live for decades, however you would label that tree "being killed" and in need of "salvage." We feel that salvage is merely an excuse used to log. SOIL COMPACTION There has been absolutely no analysis concerning soil compaction. That is totally unacceptable, as it is a very serious issue-- the granitic soils of this region are extremely susceptible to compaction. The methods of logging planned will significantly compact the topsoil in the sale areas and thereby inhibit natural regeneration, as well as causing significant silting of streams. Soil does not decompact without heavy machinery for decades. It is, therefore, an effectively irreversible step to compact the soil. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS It is not the duty of the National Forest system to supply provide an endless supply of logs to local mills, even as the forests are turning into tree farms and wastelands lacking many of the native species. It is a commonly known fact that the Clearwater National Forest is exhausted far beyond sustainable capacity. PURPOSE & NEED; ALTERNATIVES You define the purpose and need so narrowly that the only possible alternative which satisfies your purpose and need are the desired timber sales. There are only single proposed actions for each sale. No alternatives are given. NEPA exists to ensure a process and that the public is included in the decision making process. The Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment." The use of only one alternative, the fact that the sales are CE'd, and the narrow purpose and need is evidence of biased decision-making on the your part, to get the cut out without public involvement or consideration for other natural resources. WATER QUALITY Orogrande Creek is a water quality limited stream. That means you cannot further degrade it. Clearcutting, aka regeneration harvest, increases downstream sedimentation. The North Fork Clearwater River Basin Bull Trout Problem Assessment (May 18) states "Adult bull trout have been documented migrating into Orogrande..." Mass failures have occured in the Orogrande Creek sub-watershed. Sylvan Creek is a tributary to Orogrande Creek, thus consideration must be given to the listed bull trout. We ask that you cancel this project . Sincerely, Kristin Ruether Katherine Deuel Friends of the Clearwater Alliance For the Wild Rockies PO Box 9241 PO Box 8731 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel Judi Brawer, Esq. Larry McLaud The Ecology Center & American Wildlands Idaho Conservation League The Lands Council 40 East Main Street, Suite 2 PO Box 9783 801 Sherwood, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59802 Attached: fee waiver request We hereby request a fee waiver for all search and duplication fees under the FOIA regulations [5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(4)(A) and 36 CFR 2.19(c)(1)]. Friends of the Clearwater is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization and will derive no commercial benefit from this FOIA. The information requested will benefit the citizens of the United States and is for the purpose of public education and to encourage public debate on important policy issues. The requested information will be made available to the public through the office of Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, ID. Our office is utilized by university students, grassroots conservationists, journalists, scientists, and the general public. Information available through the Friends of the Clearwater is used in press conferences and releases, media interviews, publications including our newsletter, and reaches a significant number of individuals nationwide. The language of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress intended fees not to be a barrier to private individuals or public interest organizations seeking access to government records. In addition, the legislative history of the FOIA fee waiver language indicates that Congress intended a liberal interpretation of the phrase "Primarily benefiting the public." This suggests that all fees are to be waived whenever the release of information contributes to public debate on important policy issues. This has recently been affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Better Government Association v. Department of State, 780 F. 2d 86 (D.C. Cir., 1986). In that case, the Court found that under the FOIA, Congress had explicitly recognized the need for non-profit organizations to have free access to government documents and that government agencies cannot impair this free access by charging duplication or search for FOIA information requests (Id. at 89). We anticipate no additional delay in granting this fee waiver request. We expect to hear from you within 20 working days or less. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to contact our office. The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org July 14, 1998 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Gober: These are comments concerning the Buck and 5201 Salvage Timber sale proposals (two of your 6/10/98 letters), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc. and The Lands Council. Please refer to the June 30, 1998 letter from the Friends of the Clearwater, the Lands Council, and the Ecology Center, of which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on both the Buck and 5201 Salvage Timber sale proposals. The scoping notices fail to mention that the watersheds are home for the Threatened bull trout. The presence of a species listed under ESA disqualifies the proposal from being categorically excluded. Your letter on Buck Salvage basically says that you are not happy with the results of you logging in 1985, 1992, and 1997, so that now you feel it¹s necessary to obliterate nature¹s regenerative work so that ³these areas would be programmed for site preparation and artificial regeneration with the goal of establishing a healthy, fully stocked stand of seral species.² You¹ve erred before‹even as recently as last year‹and now we are supposed to believe you are going to set things right! Based upon our past experience, we don¹t believe you have the expertise (nor desire) to distinguish between truly dead trees and those with naturally-occurring diseases that will live for decades with the diseases. For both Buck and 5201, ³salvage² is merely a ruse to log big green trees. Even if you simply logged the dead ones, once again you are forgetting their vital contribution to the ecosystem. We are tired of dealing with narrow minded people that fear wild, naturally functioning forest ecosystems to the point they compulsively must ³clean up² what they see as nature¹s imperfect and untidy housekeeping. Why do you view the forest as mainly a tree farming experiment even though such experiments have repeatedly failed? How can we expect good results from people who refuse to learn? Furthermore, your proposal is to break what is essentially one action into two proposals so that there is the veil of appearance that you can categorically exclude the two actions. They¹re adjacent, and in the same watershed! This is just too obvious to believe otherwise‹when you are so blatantly proposing to violate environmental laws, it is clear that you feel you are above the law. You wouldn¹t be doing this if it involved risking criminal penalties instead of merely a remand from the regional office. Sincerely, Jeff Juel The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org October 2, 1998 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Gober, I am commenting on the Deadhorse Salvage timber sale proposal (your 9/4/98 letter), on behalf of the Ecology Center, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and The Lands Council. Please refer to conservationists¹ June 30, 1998 letter to Forest Supervisor James Caswell, of which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on the Deadhorse Salvage timber sale proposal. That letter explains a better management plan for areas such as Deadhorse, and the analysis methodology to prove it. Please do a close reading of that letter and supporting references before thinking any more about the Deadhorse Salvage proposal your scoping letter outlines. Once again, the Forest Service reacts compulsively to natural processes of tree mortality with an overzealous control-of-nature proposal. It¹s time the forest service stop imagining ³problems² of ³forest health² whose solutions are the chainsaw. We are completely confident that the ³forest health problems² described in the scoping notice are vastly exaggerated, that it¹s merely a case of your wanting to replace more native forest with plantations (tree farming). Such ³management² has no place on public lands. The scoping notice¹s economics analysis is extremely flawed in underestimating the expenses the taxpayers would incur with this project. This is a money loser, as is the entire timber program on the Clearwater N.F. It transcends the ridiculous to claim to manage for cavity nesting habitat and large woody debris by ³managing for snags in clumps outside the proposed harvest area.² While you¹re at it, why don¹t you manage for the northern goshawks in the Deadhorse project area by putting up signs directing the goshawks to old growth and mature forest somewhere in the next drainage. The Chief said earlier this year that managing for healthy watersheds has become the #1 priority for the forest service. The bogusness of that statement is revealed in the fact that your scoping notice fails to even mention cumulative watershed concerns, despite the fact that the area has been hammered by clearcutting and road building in the past. Please keep our groups on the mailing list for the Deadhorse Salvage, if you can¹t do the sensible thing and reconsider the project altogether. Sincerely, Jeff Juel The Lands Council and The Ecology Center, Inc. Alliance for the Wild Rockies¹ address is: P.O. Box 8731 Missoula, Montana 59807 The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org July 14, 1998 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Gober: These are comments concerning the Dutchman and Lost Hat Salvage Timber sale proposals (two of your 6/10/98 letters), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc. and The Lands Council. Please refer to the June 30, 1998 letter from the Friends of the Clearwater, the Lands Council, and the Ecology Center, of which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on both the Dutchman and Lost Hat Salvage Timber sale proposals. The scoping notices fail to mention that the watersheds are home for the Threatened bull trout. The presence of a species listed under ESA disqualifies the proposal from being categorically excluded. Based upon our past experience, we don¹t believe you have the expertise (nor desire) to distinguish between truly dead trees and those with naturally-occurring diseases that will live for decades with the diseases. For both proposals ³salvage² is merely a ruse to log big green trees. Even if you simply logged the dead ones, once again you are forgetting their vital contribution to the ecosystem. Why do you fear wild, naturally functioning forest ecosystems to the point you think you must compulsively ³clean up² what you see as nature¹s imperfect and untidy housekeeping? Why do you view the forest as mainly a tree farming experiment even though such experiments have repeatedly failed? How can we expect good results from people who refuse to learn? Furthermore, both proposals would occur within the Lolo Creek watershed, which has been heavily impacted by logging and road building in the past. So you propose to break one action into two proposals so that there is the veil of appearance that you can categorically exclude the two actions instead of preparing an EA or EIS. For either one alone, the cumulative impacts on Lolo Creek are a concern. Therefore you should be including both in a single EA or EIS, as NEPA requires. Sincerely, Jeff Juel September 25, 1998 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Gober, I am commenting on the Lookyhere Salvage timber sale proposal (your 8/12/98 letter), on behalf of the Ecology Center, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and The Lands Council. Here we go again. The Forest Service proposes to throw away taxpayer dollars on another round of corporate welfare. Instead of going along with nonsensical budgetary allocations and clearcutting another 40 acres of native forest, please take a leadership role in the restoration of the Clearwater. Indeed, with the recent landslides, the resulting fisheries and watershed damage, and the accumulated destruction of the Forest from decades of ill-conceived logging and road building, what other priority can even come close to that of restoration? We are glad that the District has been carrying out road removal this year, although there is still so very, very much to be done. Spending any more public dollars to subsidize private profits is completely unwise. Mr. Gober, I know why you see fit to waste our money and destroy 40 more acres of our native forest. It¹s mainly because Congress told you to do so. The budget priorities set by Congress also reflect the overwhelming imbalance in job positions on the North Fork District, with so much expertise committed to outmoded ³management² by designing logging projects. In order to sustain your employees, you see fit to maintain their timber extraction jobs first, and look to sustain the ecosystems only after logging is sustained. Never mind that Congress has little on-the-ground knowledge of conditions in the North Fork, and that managers like yourself claim to be the ³experts² who should be the ones setting the priorities. Your claim to virtue is overshadowed by your stronger desire to do what¹s your told by arbitrary, authoritarian ³leaders² who are merely following along with the desires of vested interests, heedless of the real needs of the forest--watershed restoration, road obliteration, and other rehabilitation. When you finally cease imagining ³problems² of ³forest health² whose solutions are the chainsaw, you will begin earning the trust of those of us who are the biggest supporters of carrying out the most important work you can do--restoration. Not only will you do what¹s best to ³care for the land,² you will also be able to maintain jobs (both in your office and in nearby communities) over the long haul, and look members of the public in the eye and honestly tell them that this is the best way to ³serve the people.² In the mean time, I am forced to incorporate in these comments the letter some of us sent to Forest Supervisor James Caswell (dated June 30, 1998), of which you received a copy. That letter explains a better management plan for areas such as Lookyhere, and the analysis methodology to prove it. Please do a close reading of that letter and supporting references before thinking any more about the Lookyhere Salvage proposal your August 12 letter outlines. And keep our groups on the mailing list for the Lookyhere Salvage. Sincerely, Jeff Juel The Lands Council and The Ecology Center, Inc. Alliance for the Wild Rockies¹ address is: P.O. Box Missoula, Montana 5980 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Hwy 12 Orofino, ID 83544 July 13, 1998 RE: €LOST HAT TIMBER SALE €FOIA REQUEST Ranger Gober: The following comments concerning the Lost Hat Timber Sale are submitted on behalf of Friends of the Clearwater, American Wildlands, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho Conservation League, The Ecology Center, and The Lands Council. This comment also includes a FOIA request. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Lost Hat Timber Sale and the Dutchman "Salvage" Timber Sale (Lochsa Ranger District), both of which you are attempting to CE, came to us on the same day. The sales are appx. a mile and a half from each other. Cumulative effects must be considered since the projects are connected actions. The EA or EIS you prepare should consider the two projects together. DOCUMENTATION Under FSM 1909.15.30, section 31.2(2), both projects must have a project or case file. At a minimum, the project or case file must include any records prepared, including "the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist." We hereby request, pursuant to the FOIA, all documents that led to the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist for the Lost Hat TS. This includes the following: 1. Evidence that no steep slopes or highly erosive soils are present, documented by a person with appropriate credentials to make the determination i.e. a soils scientist. This should include but not be limited to slope calculations over a representative portion of the project area, including the steepest part of the project area, soil type and erodability analysis conducted by a soils scientist, and comparison of the results of these analyses to the landslide factors identified in the Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides, affectionately known as Flood and Mud. 2. Evidence that there are no threatened or endangered species present, and evidence that there is no critical habitat for threatened or endangered species within the project area. This should include, but not be limited to, surveys for all threatened and endangered species known to occur on the CNF conducted by qualified botanists and wildlife professionals, in the project area, or testimony from a qualified botanist or wildlife professional that the project area is clearly unsuitable for specific threatened or endangered species. 3. All evidence that there are no wetlands or floodplains present in the project area. The CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Your determination should include, but not be limited to, soil sample cores, soil analysis determining if the soil is considered "hydric" through standard color tests, soil analysis for water saturation or aerobic conditions, soil surveys for the presence of oxidized metals, wetland vegetation surveys, and historical documentation of flood events showing that the project area is not within the historical range of floodplain areas. In effect, we are requesting all documents which prove that all areas of the project area are nonwetlands. FISH AND WILDLIFE There has not been adequate analysis in the sale areas to fully understand the consequences of resource extraction to plant life, wildlife and water quality. Your scoping letter indicates that "there are no listed threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species in the proposed project area." However, there is no mention of any effort on the part of the North Fork Ranger District to determine which fish and wildlife species exist in the project area. More monitoring needs to be completed before the District can fully understand the potential damage to the ecosystem. Please answer the following questions, if not in the decision, then in a separate letter. Will field surveys for sensitive plants be done before the decision is made? Who will be conducting the field surveys? What action will be conducted once sensitive plants are identified, to protect them? Will there be a no-cut buffer zone? Is there evidence that such a size of buffer zone is sufficient to protect the species from stress by the logging? What size patch or number of plants of the sensitive plant will be required to gain this protection? The sale area is within 12 miles of the Weitas Creek roadless area, where endangered gray wolves have been documented. Ten miles is well within the home range of a wolf. It is very possible that lynx live in the Weitas Creek area as well. Lynx have been proposed as listed under the ESA and potential impacts must be studied. Bull trout, listed under the ESA, live in the North Fork. The methods of cutting require significantly more environmental analysis. SALVAGE We categorically oppose timber "salvage" sales due to the inherent degree of misconception about forest health issues. The fact remains throughout the "forest health" controversy that the forests have existed for thousands of years without the dubious benefits of human "management." It is arrogant of the US Forest Service to advocate salvage logging as a means of restoring health to the forest. Use of the term "salvage" somehow implies that dead and dying trees are worthless and/or detrimental to the forest ecosystem, which, as anyone who has taken introductory forest ecology can tell you, is offensively false. The Forest Service would do well to remember that insects and disease are natural components of a healthy forest. We would also like to remind you that the Clearwater National Forest has admitted itself that it has neither a forest health crisis nor a backlog of salvage timber, as evidenced by the FOIA we received in May 1996 (file code 6270). Also, the way the scoping letter for this document defines the trees that will be logged is extremely vague. It defines the trees as "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees which are infected with root rot and being killed by White Pine blister rust, Douglas-fir bark beetles, and fir engraver beetles." All trees are "dying." All trees could be identified as "high risk." A tree can be occupied by a fungus or insect and live for decades, however you would label that tree "being killed" and in need of "salvage." We feel that salvage is merely an excuse used to log. SOIL COMPACTION There has been absolutely no analysis concerning soil compaction. That is totally unacceptable, as it is a very serious issue-- the granitic soils of this region are extremely susceptible to compaction. The methods of logging planned will significantly compact the topsoil in the sale areas and thereby inhibit natural regeneration, as well as causing significant silting of streams. Soil does not decompact without heavy machinery for decades. It is, therefore, an effectively irreversible step to compact the soil. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS It is not the duty of the National Forest system to supply provide an endless supply of logs to local mills, even as the forests are turning into tree farms and wastelands lacking many of the native species. It is a commonly known fact that the Clearwater National Forest is exhausted far beyond sustainable capacity. PURPOSE & NEED; ALTERNATIVES You define the purpose and need so narrowly that the only possible alternative which satisfies your purpose and need are the desired timber sales. There are only single proposed actions for each sale. No alternatives are given. NEPA exists to ensure a process and that the public is included in the decision making process. The Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment." The use of only one alternative, the fact that the sales are CE'd, and the narrow purpose and need is evidence of biased decision-making on the your part, to get the cut out without public involvement or consideration for other natural resources. WATER QUALITY Lolo and Musselshell Creeks are a water quality limited streams. That means you cannot further degrade them. Clearcutting, aka regeneration harvest, increases downstream sedimentation. Consideration must be given to the listed bull trout. We ask that you cancel this project . Sincerely, Kristin Ruether Katherine Deuel Friends of the Clearwater Alliance For the Wild Rockies PO Box 9241 PO Box 8731 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel Judi Brawer, Esq. Larry McLaud The Ecology Center & American Wildlands Idaho Conservation League The Lands Council 40 East Main Street, Suite 2 PO Box 9783 801 Sherwood, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59802 Fee waiver request We hereby request a fee waiver for all search and duplication fees under the FOIA regulations [5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(4)(A) and 36 CFR 2.19(c)(1)]. Friends of the Clearwater is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization and will derive no commercial benefit from this FOIA. The information requested will benefit the citizens of the United States and is for the purpose of public education and to encourage public debate on important policy issues. The requested information will be made available to the public through the office of Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, ID. Our office is utilized by university students, grassroots conservationists, journalists, scientists, and the general public. Information available through the Friends of the Clearwater is used in press conferences and releases, media interviews, publications including our newsletter, and reaches a significant number of individuals nationwide. The language of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress intended fees not to be a barrier to private individuals or public interest organizations seeking access to government records. In addition, the legislative history of the FOIA fee waiver language indicates that Congress intended a liberal interpretation of the phrase "Primarily benefiting the public." This suggests that all fees are to be waived whenever the release of information contributes to public debate on important policy issues. This has recently been affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Better Government Association v. Department of State, 780 F. 2d 86 (D.C. Cir., 1986). In that case, the Court found that under the FOIA, Congress had explicitly recognized the need for non-profit organizations to have free access to government documents and that government agencies cannot impair this free access by charging duplication or search for FOIA information requests (Id. at 89). We anticipate no additional delay in granting this fee waiver request. We expect to hear from you within 20 working days or less. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to contact our office. September 3, 1998 Jennifer L. Sundborg North Fork Ranger District 12730-B U.S. Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 Dear Ms. Sundborg: The following comments are being submitted by Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, American Wildlands, the Ecology Center, Lands Council, and the Northern Rockies Preservation Project/Idaho Sporting Congress in regards to three prescribed burning proposals on the North Fork Ranger District: Flat Mountain, Lightning Creek, and Bear-Skull. We have a number of questions and concerns regarding this proposal. Purpose and Need/Fire Ecology The basis of this proposal is weak and indeterminate. Human-ignited prescribed fire (HIPF) cannot come close to meeting the burn frequencies that would have naturally occurred without suppression efforts. We encourage you to expand your allowance of natural fire ignitions to be included at greater length for a meaningful policy to be ecologically sound. It simply does not make sense to have HIPFs in an area where active suppression continues. This does not simulate natural events, and the evolutionary process will not recognize your unfounded efforts in this realm. Within this proposal, you attempt to provide for the safety of merchantable timber and for seed trees. Are these legitimate concerns within critical roadless areas, where management under natural conditions should prevail? What quantifiable data exists that the seral species, such as ponderosa pine, would have remained the major tree cover in these areas? According to recent studies there is more variability in ponderosa pine fire regimes than the agency previously recognized. Stephen Arno, a Forest Service biologist, found that nearly adjacent plots with nearly identical fire histories differed in composition (1995). This would suggest that despite similar climate and seedcrops in adjacent stands on similar sites, it is spatial variation in tree establishment, fire-caused mortality, and other factors that perpetuated a structural mosaic. Considering this variability may lead to a need to treat adjacent ponderosa pine stands differently. Obviously, this project has been proposed with the prevailing² equilibrium" view of a ponderosa pine stand in mind. This view holds that frequent, low-intensity surface fires maintained park-like forests of large, old, and in your case² merchantable" trees. A contrasting "nonequilibrium" view suggests that some forest ecosystems are subject to unpredictable catastrophic disturbances that dramatically alter these ecosystems. There is evidence of such events before EuroAmerican influence. Each of these burns has a proposal for a spring season contingency. What evidence do you have that there have been springtime fire events in this region? Additionally, what evidence do you have that natural fire would not accomplish the very goals you have set forth in this proposal? Surely you know that there has not been a natural fire that burned out or the "range of variation" even after nearly 70 years of serious fire suppression activities. Finally, climatic research suggests recent changes in forest structure could be the result of climatic change and not fire suppression. Has the Forest Service considered this information in drafting this proposal? Summary This proposal is narrow in its scope and woefully inadequate in its consideration of the role of natural fire. Until naturally ignited fires are allowed to play their role on Forest Service lands of special use designation, human ignited prescribed fire will fail to approach any standards of ecological soundness. When the forest service allows natural fires to burn, a most ecological and economical decision, then the feasibility of HIPF could be further analyzed. Please keep us updated on this project. Sincerely, Russ Schnitzer Friends of the Clearwater P.O. Box 9241 Moscow, ID 83843 Katherine Deuel Alliance for the Wild ROckies PO Box 8731 Missoula, MT 59807 Judi Brawer, Esq. American Wildlands 40 East main Street Suite 2 Bozeman, MT 59715 Jeff Juel The Ecology Center, Inc. & The Lands Council 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 Natalie Shapiro ISC and NRPP PO Box 625 Boise, ID 83701 The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org August 14, 1998 Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Highway 12 Orofino, Idaho 83544 Mr. Gober: These are comments concerning the Salt Lick Timber sale proposal (your 7/9/98 letter), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc., The Lands Council, and Friends of the Clearwater. Please refer to our June 30, 1998 letter to Forest Supervisor James Caswell, of which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on the Salt Lick timber sale proposal. In addition, we will herein emphasize some of the issues from that letter. For one, the scoping notice mentions some road problems that would be financed via the timber sale contract, and this will result in reduced stumpage value of the timber sale and thus less money returned to the government. The analysis should include a Transportation Plan (as required by the Forest Plan) that examines the projected future uses of the roads in the area. Some slated for spending money may not be useful for the foreseeable future, meaning they should be obliterated. Others not needing immediate maintenance may also be identified for obliteration. In any case, you should list the maintenance needs of all roads in the drainages of the analysis area, so that rehabilitation priorities can be set correctly. The map shows that the area is heavily roaded, and we supremely doubt that it is in the best interests of the watershed, the wildlife, and the taxpayers wallets to have so many roads in the area. The scoping notice fail to mention possible extraordinary circumstances. We believe that it would be best to analyze cumulative effects on all resources in an EA or EIS anyway. Please disclose all past, ongoing, and other reasonably foreseeable future activities in the drainages of the analysis area. Additionally, it would be very helpful if you provide the public with a map showing past actions along with the present proposal. The description of the proposed action sounds like another form of highgrading: ³remove the mature trees leaving a stocked younger stand intact.² This would also seem to ignore the best science on maintaining snag and green tree replacements. The scoping notice mentions that some salvage is to occur for reasons of blowdown and tree diseases. We wonder how much of this was brought on by even-aged or other logging next to the areas now proposed for salvage. We are opposed to the idea of enlarging openings anyway, so the idea of exceeding the 40 acre limit is an especially bad idea. Such a proposal would violate the Forest Plan and Regional Guide. We are opposed to logging in old growth. It is highly likely that past logging has caused the blowdown, and ³regeneration treatment² will only lead to more impacts to the remaining adjacent stands. It doesn¹t seem that you have evaluated these old growth areas in terms of their contributions to biodiversity, even in their impacted status. Your comparative economic analysis definitely omits the costs of maintaining the roads on the landscape, as well as other hidden costs of the timber program. Please do a thorough cumulative effects analysis of the soils resource, too. Please keep each organization on the list to receive future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Jeff Juel Douglas Gober, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 B Hwy 12 Orofino, ID 83544 July 13, 1998 RE: *5201 "SALVAGE" TIMBER SALE *BUCK "SALVAGE" TIMBER SALE *FOIA REQUEST Ranger Gober: The following comments are submitted on behalf of Friends of the Clearwater, American Wildlands, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, The Ecology Center, and The Lands Council. The comments are for both the 5201 "Salvage" Timber Sale and the Buck "Salvage" Timber Sale, as the sales are essentially one timber sale. This comment also includes a FOIA request. USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The 5201 "Salvage" TS will "salvage" 900 MBF of "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees." The categorical exclusion guidelines (FSM 1909.15.30) state that timber harvest which removes 250 MBF or less of merchantable wood products or salvage which removes 1 MMBF or less of merchantable wood products may be CE'd. I was told by Steve Petro on July 9, 1998 that the 5201 sale was 35-40 percent green. That means that the sale will remove 315-360 MBF of green trees. This is clearly above the range of what is permitted by the CE guidelines and therefore may not by excluded from appeal. It is unethical for you to describe this sale as "salvage" when a significant portion of it is actually green, even according to your timber sale planner. Furthermore, if the sales are considered one action, which they essentially are (see below), the violation of the CE regulations is even more apparent. The Buck "Salvage" TS will "salvage" 600 MBF. I was also told by Steve Petro that this sale was 35-40 percent green. Therefore the Buck sale will remove 210-240 MBF of green trees. Taken together, these two sales remove 525-600 MBF of green trees--- over twice the limit of what may be CE'd. The two sales together are 1.5 MMBF. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS It did not escape our notice that the 5201 TS and Buck TS scoping letters, both of which you are attempting to CE, came to us on the same day. The sales are in the same watershed! The project areas are directly adjacent to each other, separated only by road 5216! It is clear that the two sales are, in effect, one sale. Cumulative effects must be considered since the projects are connected actions. The EA or EIS you prepare should consider the two projects together. DOCUMENTATION Under FSM 1909.15.30, section 31.2(2), both projects must have a project or case file. At a minimum, the project or case file must include any records prepared, including "the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist." We hereby request, pursuant to the FOIA, all documents that led to the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist for both the 5201 and Buck sales. This includes the following: 1. Evidence that no steep slopes or highly erosive soils are present, documented by a person with appropriate credentials to make the determination i.e. a soils scientist. This should include but not be limited to slope calculations over a representative portion of the project area, including the steepest part of the project area, soil type and erodability analysis conducted by a soils scientist, and comparison of the results of these analyses to the landslide factors identified in the Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides, affectionately known as Flood and Mud. 2. Evidence that there are no threatened or endangered species present, and evidence that there is no critical habitat for threatened or endangered species within the project area. This should include, but not be limited to, surveys for all threatened and endangered species known to occur on the CNF conducted by qualified botanists and wildlife professionals, in the project area, or testimony from a qualified botanist or wildlife professional that the project area is clearly unsuitable for specific threatened or endangered species. 3. All evidence that there are no wetlands or floodplains present in the project area. The CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Your determination should include, but not be limited to, soil sample cores, soil analysis determining if the soil is considered "hydric" through standard color tests, soil analysis for water saturation or aerobic conditions, soil surveys for the presence of oxidized metals, wetland vegetation surveys, and historical documentation of flood events showing that the project area is not within the historical range of floodplain areas. In effect, we are requesting all documents which prove that all areas of the project areas are nonwetlands. ----- There has not been adequate analysis in the sale areas to fully understand the consequences of resource extraction to plant life, wildlife and water quality. Your scoping letter indicates that "there are no listed threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species in the proposed project area." However, there is no mention of any effort on the part of the North Fork Ranger District to determine which fish and wildlife species exist in the project area. More monitoring needs to be completed before the District can fully understand the potential damage to the ecosystem. Please answer the following questions, if not in the decision, then in a separate letter. Will field surveys for sensitive plants be done before the decision is made? Who will be conducting the field surveys? What action will be conducted once sensitive plants are identified, to protect them? Will there be a no-cut buffer zone? Is there evidence that such a size of buffer zone is sufficient to protect the species from stress by the logging? What size patch or number of plants of the sensitive plant will be required to gain this protection? The sale area is within 10 miles of the Weitas Creek roadless area, where endangered gray wolves have been documented. Ten miles is well within the home range of a wolf. It is very possible that lynx live in the Weitas Creek area as well. Lynx have been proposed as listed under the ESA and potential impacts must be studied. Bull trout, listed under the ESA, live in the North Fork. The methods of cutting require significantly more environmental analysis. 2) We categorically oppose timber "salvage" sales due to the inherent degree of misconception about forest health issues. The fact remains throughout the "forest health" controversy that the forests have existed for thousands of years without the dubious benefits of human "management." It is arrogant of the US Forest Service to advocate salvage logging as a means of restoring health to the forest. Use of the term "salvage" somehow implies that dead and dying trees are worthless and/or detrimental to the forest ecosystem, which, as anyone who has taken introductory forest ecology can tell you, is offensively false. The Forest Service would do well to remember that insects and disease are natural components of a healthy forest. Also, the way the scoping letter for this document defines the trees that will be logged is extremely vague. It defines the trees as "dead, dying, blowdown and high risk trees which are infected with root rot and being killed by White Pine blister rust, Douglas-fir bark beetles, and fir engraver beetles." All trees are "dying." All trees could be identified as "high risk." A tree can be occupied by a fungus or insect and live for decades, however you would label that tree "being killed" and in need of "salvage." We feel that salvage is merely an excuse used to log. 3) There has been absolutely no analysis concerning soil compaction. That is totally unacceptable, as it is a very serious issue-- the granitic soils of this region are extremely susceptible to compaction. The methods of logging planned will significantly compact the topsoil in the sale areas and thereby inhibit natural regeneration, as well as causing significant silting of streams. Soil does not decompact without heavy machinery for decades. It is, therefore, an irretrevable step to compact the soil.** 4) Social and economic benefits. It is not the duty of the National Forest system to supply provide an endless supply of logs to local mills, even as the forests are turning into tree farms and wastelands lacking many of the native species. It is a commonly known fact that the Clearwater National Forest is exhausted far beyond sustainable capacity. 5. Purpose & need; alternatives. You define the purpose and need so narrowly that the only possible alternative which satisfies your purpose and need are the desired timber sales. There are only single proposed actions for each sale. No alternatives are given. NEPA exists to ensure a process and that the public is included in the decision making process. The Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment." The use of only one alternative, the fact that the sales are CE'd, and the narrow purpose and need is evidence of biased decision-making on the your part, to get the cut out without public involvement or consideration for other natural resources. 6. Water quality. Orogrande Creek is a water quality limited stream. That means you cannot further degrade it. The North Fork Clearwater River Basin Bull Trout Problem Assessment (May 18) states "Adult bull trout have been documented migrating into Orogrande..." Mass failures have occured in the Orogrande Creek sub-watershed. Sylvan Creek is a tributary to Orogrande Creek, thus consideration must be given to the listed bull trout. MORE LAWS? We ask that you cancel this project . Sincerely, Kristin Ruether Friends of the Clearwater Attached: fee waiver request The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org July 15, 1998 Carmine Lockwood, District Ranger Palouse Ranger District 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855 Ranger Lockwood: These comments are concerning the Brush Creek ATV Trail Reconstruction and Elk Creek Falls Non-motorized link trail proposals (your 7/1/98 letter), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc., and The Lands Council. For the Brush Creek trail, the scoping notice indirectly suggests that the current designation for the trail is nonmotorized which ATV riders have not respected. Such actions by the Forest Service make legal what is illegal, instead of enforcing existing laws. What will you do next to accommodate insensitive public land trashers? Our belief is that the Forest Service could go a long way towards eliminating unauthorized ATV use by spending the Brush Creek money instead for enforcement of current closures. It is unfair to taxpayers to have to foot the bill for those who would illegally grab public lands for their own uses, spoiling the area for other people and wildlife. You really should do a better job of showing some ³need² for more ATV trails. There exists thousands of miles of unnecessary roads on the Clearwater already, many of which are available for legal use by ATV users. We wonder how, if you are unable to enforce the current restriction on Brush Creek, you would be able to enforce the motorized restriction of the proposed Elk Creek Falls link trail?. Please tell us how much you have spent Districtwide in paying personnel for enforcement of restricted roads and trails. Please keep us on the list to receive all future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Jeff Juel The Ecology Center, Inc. 801 Sherwood, Suite B Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 728-5733 (406) 728-9432 fax ecocenter@wildrockies.org July 15, 1998 Carmine Lockwood, District Ranger Palouse Ranger District 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855 Ranger Lockwood: These comments are concerning the Mountain Gulch prospecting permit proposal (your 7/1/98 letter), on behalf of The Ecology Center, Inc., and The Lands Council. Although we are concerned about all aspects of the described proposal on water, fish, wildlife, and other components of biodiversity, we are especially concerned about the suction dredging component. Suction dredging in the creek channel cannot go on without creating pollution. The Forest Service has an unequivocal duty under both the CWA and the NFMA to comply with water quality standards in managing National Forest System lands. 33 U.S.C. § 1323(a) ("Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive [branch] . . . shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution"); 36 C.F.R. § 219.23(d) ("Forest Planning shall provide for ‹ Compliance with requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all substantive and procedural requirements of Federal, State and local governmental bodies"). This non-discretionary obligation has been recognized repeatedly in the Ninth Circuit and requires the Forest Service to demonstrate compliance with relevant water quality standards before project approval. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Marble Mountain Audubon Soc'y v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179, 182 (9th Cir. 1990); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 834 F.2d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the Forest Service has an overarching obligation under the NFMA to maintain viable populations of native fish and wildlife species (36 C.F.R. §§ 219.19 and 219.27) and to avoid actions that will result in the trend toward listing of species under the Endangered Species Act. The suction dredging proposal has the potential to threaten clean water, fish and other aquatic organisms. We wonder how the proposed action is consistent with Idaho's Antidegradation Policy, as well applicable state water quality standards. See IDAPA 16.01.02051,01 ("[t]he existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected") and IDAPA 16.01.02200,08 ("[s]ediment shall not exceed . . . quantities which impair designated beneficial uses"). The Forest Service has a legal mandate to comply with water quality standards and protect native fish populations. Please keep us on the list to receive all future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Jeff Juel August 16, 1998 Carmine Lockwood, District Ranger Paloue District Ranger 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855 SENT VIA FAX Mr. Lockwood: Enclosed are comments on the scoping document for the Wagner Gulch timber sale proposal on behalf of Friends of the Clearwater, The Ecology Center, Inc., The Lands Council, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and American Wildlands. Please refer to the June 30, 1998 letter to Forest Supervisor James Caswell, from The Ecology Center, Inc., The Lands Council, and Friends of the Clearwater, which your office received a copy. We incorporate that letter in its entirety as comments on the Wagner Gulch timber sale proposal. It should be noted that an alternative should be analyzed to consider the watershed restoration component of this project in absence of logging. Watershed restoration is not dependent upon logging. Rather, watershed restoration is needed because of logging. Funding mechanisms that skew biological reality create unreal incentives. Does the District intend to issue a categorical exclusion (CE) for this project? The scoping letter expresses the proposed logging in terms of CCF, not MBF, so it is difficult to tell if a CE will be issued for this project. Cumulative impacts need to be considered because the area is adjacent to heavily cut private land. Cumulative effects and extraordinary circumstances (see FSH 1909.15.30) would preclude the use of a CE. The scoping letter fails to mention possible extraordinary circumstances. In any case, we believe that it would be best to analyze cumulative effects on all resources in an EA or EIS. Please keep each organization on the list to receive future mailings on this proposal. Sincerely, Gary Macfarlane Katherine Deuel Friends of the Clearwater Alliance For the Wild Rockies PO Box 9241 PO Box 8731 Moscow, ID 83843 Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel Judi Brawer, Esq. The Ecology Center & American Wildlands The Lands Council 40 East Main Street, Suite 2 801 Sherwood, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 Missoula, MT 59802 Steve Petro, Wepah-Pup Team Leader Clearwater National Forest 12730 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 Sept. 11, 1998 Re: Comments o the Wepah-Pup Timber Sale Environmental Assessment Dear Steve: American Wildlands, the Ecology Center, the Lands Council, the Idaho Conservation League and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wepah-Pup Timber Sale EA. The proposed project will harvest about 3.5 million board feet of timber from approximately 439 acres of forest land. The majority of the harvest activity is in the Wepah drainage which is part of the Palouse River. It appears in the EA that the Forest Service is attempting to implement the proposed alternative of the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB) effort before a final decision is made. It is well known that the conservation community opposes the ICBEMP proposed alternative because it calls for increased development and management, which is directly opposed to the science provided by the study. The project area is already severely impacted from developed agricultural land and rangeland, and has experienced road building, timber harvesting, grazing and mining activities (EA I-1,2). The supposed purpose and need of the project is to restore and protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is well known that the demise of our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is due to the decades of active management activities such as timber harvesting and road building. Additional management activities will not restore and protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Fire: An EIS is Required. This project requires preparation of an EIS because it may have a significant affect on the environment. An EA is prepared to determine whether further environmental analysis is needed and whether an EIS should be prepared. According to the Forest Service Handbook Section 1909.15, Chapter 30.3(3), "if scoping indicates that the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS". A recent 9th Circuit opinion recognized that NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS if "substantial questions are raised whether a project...may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor." Idaho Sporting Congress v. United States Forest Service, No. 97-35339 (9th Cir. 1998); citing Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); Sierra Club v. United States Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988). "To trigger this requirement a "plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur," raising "substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect" is sufficient. Id. A management project of this magnitude meets this requirement of "may have a significant effect". A large project such as this within an area already significantly degraded by past management activities "may" have a significant effect. Accordingly, and EIS is required. Range of alternatives: The range of alternatives is inadequate. The two action alternatives are practically the same and prescribe the same, even-aged management activities. This does not provide for a "range" of reasonable alternatives. There are numerous other options for harvesting, burning, restoration and rehabilitation dictated by the purpose and need, the current condition of the project area, and the historic fire regime under which the project area evolved. NEPA requires an agency to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). "[A]n agency must examine every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed action' to permit a reasoned choice'." Friends of the Bitterroot v. USFS, NO. CV-92-047-BU (D. Mont. April 14, 1998) (citations omitted). "NEPA requires an agency to consider a reasonably full range of alternatives to a proposed action". Id. (Citations omitted). The agency, in this case, has completely failed to consider a reasonably full range of alternatives, and must do so in an EIS. We suggest the agency give serious consideration to alternatives with different levels types (i.e. unevenaged) of harvesting, burning and rehabilitation, one that looks at only burning and rehabilitation, and one that looks at only rehabilitation. While we recognize and appreciate the Forest Services development of one alternative that only considers rehabilitation in the form of road obliteration, the minimal rehabilitation offered in Alternative D is not adequate given the poor condition of the project area and the significant amount of roads contributing sediment to the waterbodies. Please see the fire discussion below. Fire: While the Forest Service has identified the problem - fire suppression - it has misidentified the solution: log and road in an area already degraded from past management activities including logging, roadbuilding, fire suppression, agriculture, grazing and mining. One of the purposes of the project is to prevent the possibility of stand replacing fires - this doesn't make sense given the history of stand replacing fire in the project area. The EA determined what intensity range the project area evolved under. The project area evolved under a regime of lethal stand replacement wildfires that occurred on infrequent intervals and some mixed intensity fire regimes which included low and high intensity fires. The Forest Service makes it appear that stand replacing fire is bad for the project area. This ignores the historic fire regime and the abundant scientific evidence that shows the importance of fire for the long-term health of the ecosystem. In addition, the Forest Service wishes to prevent the onset of disease and insects. The view that forest health declines due to disease and insects is outdated. Historically, most, if not all of these sites were probably impacted by dwarf mistletoe, disease and insect infestations. These are natural processes that are important to the long term health and sustainability of our forests, and should not be treated by the Forest Service as though they are unnatural and need to be suppressed. With the proposed action the Forest Service is attempting to suppress these natural processes, which will only serve to harm our forests and continue to keep them out of balance. The Forest Service is going to continue fire suppression activities that will result in the same conditions persisting over time and the need to log further in these areas. It is well known that these fire suppression activities are proving disastrous for our National Forests. Yet the Service has not developed any form of fire management system to replace the existing one of suppression. Fire is a natural phenomena essential to the healthy survival of the forest. It is essential to bring it back into the management policy of the Forest Service. The Service is logging in order to bring the forest into conditions that are closer to the desired future conditions, and that are able to withstand fire, disease, and insect infestations. Accordingly, it would be in the best interest of ecosystem management and the long-term health of the Clearwater National Forest that fire be re-introduced into the ecosystem instead of fire suppression. Unfortunately, despite the knowledge concerning the harmful effects of fire suppression management, the forest is continuing along this path. Simply logging and burning the area is only a single event solution that fails to address the lack of fire for the long-term health of the ecosystems in the area. The continuous shaping of the landscape, vegetation, and fauna that fire provides is not acknowledged in the EA. We ask that the Forest develop a fire prescription for the project area allowing natural prescribed fire in all management areas. Otherwise, the problem of fire suppression's effects on the plant and animal communities will continue to plague the project area. It is impossible for the Forest Service management to expect taxpayers to pay for fire suppression, then, if it has been effective, to pay again for the Forest Service to implement prescribed burns, logging and road construction. Much of this area may not be at risk outside an intensity range that it evolved under, since it evolved under a regime of stand replacing fire. Nor is a fire management policy to replace suppression outside the scope of this project. Fire suppression is no longer the answer, and this is the perfect opportunity to implement a better fire policy. Water Quality: The Forest Service has a duty to protect water quality on National Forest system lands (See, Marble Mountain Audubon Society v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179, 182 (9th Cir. 1990); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 834 F.2d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 1987); Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Clean Water Act imposes two key requirements on National Forest activities. First, the Act directs the Forest Service to comply with state water quality standards. "The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires each state to implement its own water quality standards with which federal agencies must comply." Northwest Indian Cemetery, at 697. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313, 1323. Second, Federal antidegradation regulations issued under the Clean Water Act also require full protection of existing beneficial uses from both point and non-point sources of pollution. 40 C.F.R. §131.12 (1987). Currently, the Forest Service is not meeting state or federal water quality standards in the project area, and the proposed action will not bring the project area into compliance. The project area is not being afforded the full protection of existing beneficial uses from non-point pollution. The East Fork of Meadow Creek and the Wepah Creek are currently listed as Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLS) by the State of Idaho, and in need of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. In the most recent 305(b) report, from 1998, these waterbodies are proposed for de-listing. It is very suspicious that these, as well as numerous other WQLSs within timber sale project areas are proposed for de-listing. Were these streams proposed for delisting by someone other than the Forest Service? However, these streams are not yet de-listed and are still considered water quality impaired. Accordingly, they must be treated as such. The EA claims that the reasons for listing as impaired no longer apply to these streams. However, there is no scientific data to back this up. Given the exceptionally high road density in the watershed (3.2 miles per square mile), the high percentage of the watershed that has been harvested (45.6%), and the moderate to high surface erosion/sediment delivery potential to streams in the project area, it is difficult to believe the reasons for listing no longer apply. We request the Forest Service provide the public with the required scientific documentation to support their claims of stream recovery. The only activities that should be occurring in this drainage is the implementation of restoration projects, road obliteration, and development of a TMDL to bring the drainage into compliance with state and federal water quality standards. This requires working in conjunction with the State in developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for any WQLSs, as required by the recently lawsuit. The timeline necessary to develop this proposal provides adequate time for the State of Idaho to develop TMDLs. Until TMDLs are completed for each WQLS in the project area, the Forest Service is not allowed to increase additions of pollution, even temporarily. In the absence of TMDLs, we ask that all action alternatives be developed so not to increase pollution delivery to any WQLSs in the project area. It is clear that this drainage is already degraded from management practices such as logging, road building, grazing and agriculture, and that this degradation is affecting the water quality. To be in compliance with state and Federal water quality laws, there should be no further management actions that add sediment (the pollutant in the 305(b) report) to the streams in this drainage until it has been rehabilitated and restored. (Please see attached document from the EPA). Furthermore, the EA provided inadequate analysis and disclosure of potential adverse impacts to wetlands and water quality. Additional information is needed to fully assess and mitigate all potential environmental impacts of the management actions. Under the water quality analysis we would like the Forest Service to indicate the sources of pollution and the quantities. The agency must indicate activities within an alternative and their effects - NEPA's direct effects. This is required instead of, or in addition to, a net overall improvement/degradation determination by alternative. This is so the public can discern which activity is increasing or decreasing sedimentation. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the analysis of the effects of logging, roading and burning, from the benefits of any mitigation or restoration measures. Please refer to the enclosed article "Wildfire and Native Fish: Issues of Forest Helath and Conservation of Sensitive Species" for additional issues in the project area regarding the significant amount of development already present. Wildlife: Please include an analysis of the effects of the proposed activities on all forest management indicator species (MIS). Such an analysis is required by law and was not provided in the EA. The biologist should insure that indicator species identified are in fact appropriate indicators of environmental health in the area for this type of project. The EIS should include information from monitoring the effects of previous similar logging and road construction activities on MIS. It is also necessary to include the effect(s) of such projects on all aspects of habitat for all wildlife species in the project areas. The Forest Service should offer viable specific mitigation measures which compensate for any possible adverse impacts to all wildlife in the project area. The relative effectiveness rating should accompany each mitigation measure. The Forest Service is required to protect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species. According to the EA, there are no T & E species on the entire district! This issue must be addressed! It is clear degradation and fragmentation from management practices and development are the reasons for this lack of wildlife diversity. The answer is not to increasingly develop and fragment the area, but to work hard to restore the areas historic wildlife divesity. We request a cumulative effects analysis that examines this issue - the lack of wildlife species in the project area. Lack of Analysis of Numerous Issues: The EA failed to analyze numerous important issues such as TES species, Aesthetics/Scenery, Elk, old growth, fragmenation, corridors and linkages, biological diversity, and riparian areas. The lack of analysis is inexcusible. The purpose of NEPA is to provide the public with accurrate scientific information for informed decisionmaking and to enable the public to participate in a usefull, informed manner. This EA fails to comply with NEPA in this sense. The lack of diversity and wildlife in the project area requires an analysis of such issues to provide information of why this is so and the potential for future restoration of the areas native species. It is obviously important to the Forest Service to restore native tree species, it should be just as important to restore native wildlife and fish species. Linkages and corridors are important components of such an analysis. Elk are in the project area and must be given due consideration including hiding cover and winter range. Given that a portion of the project area is a Visual corridor, the impacts of the project on this visual corridor must be analyzed, including a cumulative effects analysis. None of these issues were examined in detail in the EA. We request that they be analyzed. Snag Management: We request an analysis of snag management. A snag management plan should assure that an adequate amount of cavities - both hard and soft snags - as well as down large woody debris are available over the full timber rotation in the managed stands. Accordingly, wind firm green trees should be left unharvested. The deleterious effects of the removal of large quantities of standing dead on cavity nesting/snag dependent species must be evaluated. An MIS for this resource should be selected and the consequences evaluated and discussed. Fisheries: The project area historically contained native fish populations that were most likely westslope cutthroat trout. WCT were recently petitioned to be protected as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It is well known these native fish are in serious decline and have disappeared throughout much of their historic range. The WCT in the project area have been replaced by introduced brook trout, a fish more adapted to poorer water quality. The EA did not identify or analyze the area as a possible site for the re-establishment of native WCT populations. We request the Forest Service give this serious consideration. It is essential for the long-term survival of the WCT that they be reestablished to provide interconnected populations. This should include an analysis of the water quality required to successfully support a WCT population compared to the current water quality of the project area. Old Growth: According to the EA and ICBEMP, primary opportunities to address risks to ecological integrity include restoration of late/old forest structure in managed areas. We appreciate your not harvesting within old growth stands. We would like to see a map of the old growth stands in relation to the proposed harvesting. It is also necessary to provide a cumulative effects analysis for old growth and old growth dependent species. Please discuss the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that have, will, or may, impact old growth. Cumulative Effects: The EA completely fails to provide a cumulative effects analysis. Such an anslysis is required by law and is nowhere to be found in the EA. Given the amount of past management activities in the project area, the cumulative effects analysis should be quite substantial. We request the Forest Service provide the public with a cumulative effects analysis of the reasonably foreseeable, ongoing, and past management practices in the project area. Again, we thank you for the oppportunity to comment. We hope our comments are helpful and look forward to future participation in the NEPA process. Sincerely, Judith M. Brawer Legal Resource Specialist Writing for: Gary McFarlane, Friends of the Clearwater, PO Box 9241, Moscow, ID 83843 Katherine Deuel, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, PO Box 8731, Missoula, MT 59807 Jeff Juel, The Ecology Center & The Lands Council, 801 Sherwood, Suite B, Missoula, MT 59802 Larry McLaud, Idaho Conservation League PO Box 9783 Moscow, ID 83843 BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL FORESTER, U.S. FOREST SERVICE NORTHERN REGION ) The Ecology Center, Inc. ) American Wildlands ) Alliance for the Wild Rockies ) Northern Rockies Preservation Project ) Friends of the Clearwater ) Idaho Sporting Congress ) ) APPELLANTS ) ) v. ) ) James Caswell ) Clearwater National Forest ) ) RESPONDENT ) DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997. TO: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, PO Box 7669, Missoula, MT, 59807. DECISION APPEALED The decision appealed is the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Shoot Creek Environmental Assessment on the Powell Ranger District of the Clearwater National Forest. The decision was dated 9/2/97 and signed by Supervisor James Caswell. This appeal is filed pursuant to the requirements of 36 CFR § 215. Appellants are 501(c)(3) non-profit conservation organizations which have as their primary objectives improved management of public lands and the increased involvement of citizens in public land management decisions. The Ecology Center's address is 801-B Sherwood Street, Missoula, MT, 59802, phone (406) 728-5733. American Wildland¹s address is 40 E. Main St., Suite 2, Bozeman, MT, 59715, phone (406) 586-8175. Alliance for the Wild Rockies address is PO Box 8721, Missoula, MT, 59807, phone (406)542-0050. Friends of the Clearwater address is PO Box 9242, Moscow, ID, 83843, phone (208) 882-9755. Idaho Sporting Congress address is PO Box 1136, Boise, ID, phone (208)336-7222. Northern Rockies Preservation Project address is PO Box 625, Boise, ID, 83701, phone (208) 345-8077. Appellants have spent many hours at the site of the proposed sale, have submitted comments regarding the proposed action, and remain committed to ensuring that any plans for the area meet the legal requirements of environmental standards, and that the Forest Service has followed the letter and intent of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in assessing, documenting and disclosing the likely effects of the proposed action. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Appellants request that the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact be withdrawn, and that the environmental analyses must be modified and expanded to address the legal and factual deficiencies noted in this appeal. Appellants contend that the Shoot Creek timber sale cannot proceed as proposed until adjacent timber stands have regrown to a stage where they are no longer defined by the NFMA, the Clearwater Forest Plan and the Regional Guide as ³openings.² Appellants request the withdrawal of the Shoot Creek EA until such time that it can be integrated into a comprehensive planning document for the numerous concurrent, contiguous, and connected actions in the Shoot, Spruce, and Brushy Creek area. Appellants request that the Shoot Creek EA be withdrawn until such time as the Forest Service has prepared an adequate analysis of effects to habitat and populations of management indicator species. STATEMENT OF REASONS Appellants sent a letter to the Powell Ranger District on December 18, 1996. In that letter, Appellants discusses their concerns with the patterns of proposed cutting units on Section 22, Township 38N, Range 16E. It seems that several past, ongoing and proposed timber sales have concentrated cutting on this section. These timber sales include the following: Shoot Creek, Spruce Moose, and Brushy Elk, as well as a timber sale that clearcut several units on this section in 1993. Appellants objected to the apparent lack of comprehensive planning of timber cutting units in this area, and suggested that rather than a piecemeal approach, a more integrated planning process and analysis of effects was in order. In her eventual reply to this letter, Powell District Ranger Margaret Gorski declined to change the planning process for timber sales in this area. Appellants find that the refusal of the Forest Service to take a closer, more integrated look at the past and proposed timber cutting units in the Shoot Creek, Spruce Creek and Brushy Creek area has resulted a Shoot Creek decision document that violates the Clearwater Forest Plan (FP), the Region One Regional Guide, the NFMA, and the NEPA. The following discussion demonstrates that violation: 1. The Legal Context, and Relevant Standards and Guidelines for Opening Size. The NFMA provides the guidance for the forest planning process, and includes the requirement and authority for the Forest Service to provide standards and guidelines for timber cutting using the type of even-aged management techniques that are proposed for the portion of the Shoot Creek timber sale that is under contention within this appeal. a) Clearwater FP timber standards (p. II-25) state that the Forest Service must ³(m)anage tree openings created by even-aged timber harvest as follows: (d)ispersal - the objective is to disperse openings so that adjacent stands will represent at lest three size classes, see Regional Guide.² FP standards on p. II-26 state that ³the dispersal of timber size objectives in the Regional Guide must be met.² The referenced Regional Guide (Timber, p.2-6) objective is as follows: ³The objective is to disperse openings so that adjacent stands will represent at least three size classes.² The Regional Guide lists those size classes as follows: Nonstocked-seedling (0-0.9² diameter) Sapling (1-4.9² diameter) Pole (5-8.9² diameter) Sawtimber (9.0² or larger) b) FP standards describe that openings are defined as follows: ³Duration of openings - consider an opening no longer an opening when the density and height of the vegetation ... meet the resource management objectives of the area .² Proposed cutting units in the Shoot Creek timber sale would be located within Management Area E1. Clearwater FP timber standards (FP p. II-25) for Management Area E1 state that ³(n)ew openings (regeneration cuts) can be planned adjacent to former openings as long as the former opening is certified as stocked.² c) Clearwater FP timber standards (p. II-25) state that the Forest Service must ³(m)anage tree openings created by even-aged timber harvest as follows: Size of openings - openings created will normally be 40 acres or less, see Regional Guide for exceptions.² The Regional Guide (Timber, p.2-5A) specifies that ³creation of larger openings will require 60-day review and Regional Forester approval.² d) FP standards describe that openings are defined as follows: ³Duration of openings - consider an opening no longer an opening when the ... watershed conditions meet the resource management objectives of the area .² The following definition of an opening applies when watershed conditions are being considered (FP II-26): ³To prevent significant onsite surface erosion, the watershed definition for an Œopening¹ is when the soil surface is exposed to the extent that overland flow occurs, gullies or rills can develop, or intense rainfall (raindrop splash) can cause downslope movement of soil. The criteria for an opening in this case is generally that vegetative cover is 80 percent or less.² 2. How the Shoot Creek Timber Sale Will Violate Standards and Guidelines for Opening Size. a) Proposed cutting unit 4 in Alternative 2 for the Shoot Creek project will be placed along Road 5961 in the southeast part of Section 22, Township 38N, Range 16E (Appeal Attachment 1). Cutting unit 4 will be an even-aged, shelterwood cut that corresponds with timber stand number 603-01-027, plus parts of other timber stands (Appeal Attachment 2). This proposed cutting unit is adjacent to stand number 603-01-015, which was clearcut in 1993 (Forest Service TSMRS database), and to the roadside cutting units that are part of the Brushy Elk timber sale (Appeal Attachment 3). Stand 603-01-015 is listed in the Shoot Creek project file 7/11/96 stand data printout as a ³seedling² stand (see project file, Appeal Attachment 4: appellants regret that they cannot provide page numbers from the Shoot Cr. project file, but the project file was not indexed as of two days before the expiration of the administrative appeal period). This stand adjacent to proposed even-aged unit 4 is therefore still in the nonstocked-seedling age class described by Regional standards. The Forest Service has acknowledged that there will be no leave strips between proposed unit 4 and existing seedling stands (DN p. B-14). The cutting of unit 4 would therefore violate the FP and Regional Guide standards for size-class dispersal shown in section 1.a. above. b) Stand 603-01-015 is an opening that is currently not certified as restocked (Clearwater TSMRS database). The Forest Service proposes to cut stand 603-01-027 (cutting unit 4) even though this proposed cut is even-aged (DN p. 21) and is contiguous with stand 603-01-015. This is in clear violation of the standards and guidelines described in 1.b. above. c) The Clearwater National Forest is obligated to provide the public with a 60-day notice prior to adopting a plan to use an even-aged management logging system on an area larger than 40 acres. The Clearwater provided a 60-day notice that it was proposing to make an even-aged opening of 77 acres in size for the Shoot Cr. project as a result of cutting unit 4. In fact, the Clearwater Forest will be creating a contiguous opening that is at least 116 acres in size (77 acres from unit 4 plus 39 acres from the existing clearcut stand 603-01-015). This is actually a very conservative estimate of the total size of the contiguous opening, since the cutting unit that includes stand 603-01-015 actually extends over the ridge and into timber compartment 601, and the Brushy Elk timber sale has additional roadside cutting units that run throughout Shoot Cr. unit 4 and its adjacent openings. Appellants also note that the Spruce Moose project contains a proposal for another large cutting unit in Section 22 that will be contiguous with Shoot Cr. unit 4 (Appeal Attachment 5). Appellants conclude that the Forest Service has not given the public the required 60-day notice of a proposal to create an opening of larger than 116 acres, nor has it obtained approval from the Regional Forester for such an opening. This failure violates FP and Regional Guide standards as described in 1.c. above. d) Stand 603-01-015 was clearcut using tractor yarding in 1993. The Forest Service has provided no information in the Shoot Cr. project file to indicate the how much of the stand currently has vegetative cover on it, although it appears from aerial photos that 20% of the stand could easily be without cover (bare skid roads cover nearly this much of the unit all by themselves, Appeal Attachment 6). Given the definition of ³opening² from a watershed point of view provided by the Clearwater FP (see 1.d. above), the Forest Service must assure that stand 603-01-015 is no longer considered an opening before proceeding with a new cutting unit that will remove 66% of the cover on adjacent stand 603-01-027. The Forest Service has made no provision to assure that this will be the case. 3. Additional Violations of the NEPA and the NFMA. Management Indicator Species. The NFMA requires the Forest Service to establish Management Indicator Species (MIS) as a means of ensuring that viable populations of native species are maintained across the planning area (NFMA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 219.19). The Forest Service must address in the forest planning process, both at the Forest Plan level and in subsequent documents tiered to the FP, both habitat and population trends for MIS (36 CFR 219.13). For plans such as the Shoot Cr. timber sale, ³ planning alternative must be stated and evaluated in terms of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends of the management indicator species² (36 CFR 219.19). Appellants find that the Forest Service has summarily excused itself from complying with these requirements, and has chosen instead not to include any mention of the following Clearwater National Forest MIS (FP p. II-24): moose, pileated woodpecker, pine marten and belted kingfisher. Goshawk are mentioned as an MIS species only in passing in reply to a comment by appellants that there was no analysis of goshawk habitat (DN p. B-10). Appellants note that a Court in Arizona has recently determined that there valid scientific evidence exists to support the listing of goshawk as a threatened or endangered species in the western U.S.. With goshawk in this precarious position, it is time for the Forest Service to expand its analysis of this species, not delete it. The Shoot Cr. can muster only a vague assertion that goshawk will be protected by the Clearwater National Forest¹s stab at designating tentative old growth to a certain percentage level through examination of stand data; an approximate process that has not been field verified in the vast majority of stands on the Powell District. This situation clearly does not assure that goshawk are in anything other than a downward population trend on the Clearwater National Forest in general and in the Spruce and Shoot Creek drainages in particular, and does nothing to assure that the Shoot Cr. timber sale will do anything other than excacerbate that downward trend. Here is clearly a situation where the Forest Service can step in now to stave off listing of another species, or it can wait until later until the listing quagmire sucks it down. The specific means by which the agency could assure that the Shoot Cr. timber sale would not add to the quagmire would be an analysis of quantity and quality of both nesting and foraging habitat, and an analysis of population trends in the Shoot Cr., Spruce Cr. and Brushy Cr. area. This is clearly not beyond the scope of the Shoot Cr. analysis. If it is, then the analysis must be expanded to contain all of the connected and concurrent activities in this area. Connected, Concurrent Actions. Appellants have noted that the Forest Service is carrying out actions in the Spruce, Shoot and Brushy Creek drainages that overlap extensively in time and space. These actions include the Shoot Cr. timber sale (Appeal Attachment 1), the Spruce Moose and Moose Lake Right of Way (Appeal Attachment 5) , the Brushy Elk salvage timber sale (Appeal Attachment 3), the Beetle Spruce timber sale (Appeal Attachment 7), the Whitebark Pine restoration project (Appeal Attachment 8), and the tail end of the Brushy Creek timber sales. The NEPA requires that such connected and concurrent projects be analyzed as part of a cohesive analysis. Appellants find that for cutting unit patch size, and for goshawk populations and foraging habitat, for example (see above) the Forest Service has not provided such an analysis. 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 June 16, 1998 Dennis Elliott, Acting Deputy District Ranger Lochsa Ranger District Lolo, Montana 59847 Mr. Elliott: These are comments on the Shoot Creek EA, on behalf of The Ecology Center, American Wildlands, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, Idaho Sporting Congress, The Lands Council (formerly Inland Empire Public Lands Council), and Northern Rockies Preservation Project. In reviewing the EA, it is clear that the proposal has not been changed much since our comments on the first EA and subsequent appeal. At this time we don¹t believe that our previous comments and appeal have been responded to as NEPA and NFMA implementing regulations require. Therefore, we fully incorporate all the issues expressed in our April 23, 1997 comments and subsequent appeal within these comments. As much as the scope of the project is limited based upon Forest Plan direction or Shoot Creek Integrated Resource Analysis objectives or desired future conditions, we remind you that only in project decisions are final decisions made. Information from the IRA reveals much damage attributable to previous logging and road construction. Consequently, the range of action alternatives, limited to the logging alternative previously appealed and one including even more logging, is far too narrow. It is difficult to understand how ³The cumulative effects of Spruce Moose and Twin Basin are included in this analysis to the extent that they are foreseeable² (EA at I-14) since their cumulative impacts are not well documented in the discussion of all resources in the EA. Even though the EA states that private land logging occurred in 1997 in Shoot Creek, no monitoring is presented to support the assumption that they had little effect on sediment production. Likewise, the cumulative impacts assessment of private and Forest Service logging on these watersheds does not support your conclusions that sediment inputs would not be measurable. We wonder how much of your ³not measurable² assumption is based upon the currently degraded condition of these creeks, as evidenced by cobble embeddedness and other measures. Pipp, et. al. (1997) reported that ³roads are strongly related (or are) the primary causative factor(s) associated with mass failures in managed basins² on the CNF. In a public speech on March 2 of this year, Forest Service Chief Dombeck stated the Forest Service¹s commitment to ³Make maintenance and restoration of watershed health an overriding priority ...² In a Jan. 22, 1998 Washington Office press release accompanying the road policy change, the Washington Office noted that ³Only about 40% of forest roads are maintained to the safety and environmental standards to which they were designed.² The Clearwater has more than its share of the road maintenance backlog as noted in the press release. Furthermore, the roads on the Clearwater are central to the controversy surrounding the landslides which took place in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Even the agency¹s own report on the landslides, which has been properly criticized by scientists outside of the agency, noted that 58% of the slides were associated with roads. That is an extremely high percentage. With over 440,000 miles of roads, a $400 million backlog in road maintenance projects and an estimated $10 billion needed to get the road system in order nationally, the political impacts of roads are now on the front burner. The actions of the Clearwater must not allow the ecological impacts of roads to continue to simmer on the back burner. This is important because the Clearwater's record at following through on road closures is not good. Last year only 10 miles of road were obliterated. At that rate, it will be 3200 AD by the time the Forest completes it¹s backlog of road obliteration projects. The impacts on watersheds of ³pulse² events created by wildfire and naturally occurring erosion are very limited in duration and are the very conditions with which aquatic organisms evolved. The existing road network on the Clearwater, in contrast, is a chronic source of sediment pollution to the watersheds. It also causes, along with all the forest canopy openings created by logging, high peak flow events from spring runoff and rain-on-snow events that destabilize the streambeds and streambanks, fill pool habitat with bedload sediment, and increase fine sediment input‹all further damaging the aquatic environment. Road maintenance on the CNF is chronically underfunded. As a result, the existing road network causes problems not anticipated in the Forest Plan EIS. The degree and impacts of sediment problems, slumps, poaching, and timber theft are inadequately understood and poorly documented. The Clearwater has not been able to monitor and mitigate the hydrological and biological changes that roads have caused. The money has not been available to maintain roads, whether closed or not. The Forest Service identified three expected outcomes of its recently announced change in the road policy, one being that ³roads that are no longer needed or that cause significant environmental damage will be removed² (1/22/98 press release). It¹s now time to get down to the business of prioritizing road obliteration on the Clearwater. The Shoot Creek proposal falls far short of that worthy goal. Declaring a new road closed merely because the entrance is disguised or blocked ignores the impacts to hydrology, soils, and vegetation that persist for years‹indefinitely in some cases. The CNF assumes that the WATBAL model accounts for mass wasting. Such an assumption is not correct, since the model assumes only the average precipitation levels. That the model cannot be used as a predictive tool is written all over the forest since the Œ95-¹96 and Œ96-¹97 landslides and the NEPA documents that assumed no significant impacts in those same areas. It is a mistake to consider a ³decommissioned² road to have ³neutral² hydrological impacts. For example, even with decommissioning the road prism, cutslopes, and fillslopes may remain intact‹the integrity of the slope is compromised and is susceptible to mass failure, especially on sensitive landtypes. Please estimate the quantitative increase in risk of road failure during all phases of such roads¹ existence as compared to the same slopes without roads. This information is essential in order to make an informed judgment, especially given the extraordinary amount of road failures that have taken place in recent years. You should also indicate the degree of the various modes of travel such ³decommissioned² roads will experience. This, of course, has implications for cumulative impacts on wildlife. If not totally recontoured, ³decommissioned² roads still alter the natural runoff regime by intercepting subsurface water flow and by not allowing water to infiltrate on the compacted surfaces. Intercepted subsurface flow is run down ditches and through culverts. This sediment-laden runoff from the roadbed and cut banks quite often end up in streams. Hence, subsurface water which would have once welled up from below a stream to clean bull trout spawning gravels now carries sediment from the road and land surface and deposits it onto the spawning gravels, smothering the eggs and fry. The CNF Landslide Assessment recognizes many of these concerns. However, the Landslide Assessment for the CNF (McClelland, et. al. 1997) is unclear as to the predictability of success of road decommissioning. The assessment notes: The authors reviewed in the field six miles of obliterated roads. The treatments ranged from closing the road to traffic to full recontouring (pulling up fillslopes onto the road surface to restore the slope to the original contours). At the time of the 1995-96 events, the obliteration program had successfully treated 37 miles of historically unstable roads. Using road related landslides in similar parent materials, the authors would have expected up to 10 landslides from these roads. Slides did occur on adjacent untreated roads in the same areas. Based on these observations the road obliteration program has reduced road related landslides. Nowhere in the document is ³closing the road to traffic² defined nor is there an analysis of the percentage of obliterated roads receiving minimal treatment versus full recontouring. Furthermore, the same study recommends that ³any road permanently closed to vehicle use, culverts should be removed and other provisions made to ensure control of surface water.² Obviously, closing a road to traffic would have to involve more than merely gating it . The assessment further recommends all existing roads be inventoried and ³treated² if necessary to reduce landslide potential. Jones and Grant (1996) describe the relationship of roads and clearcutting: The addition of roads to clear-cutting in small basins produced a quite different hydrologic response than clear-cutting alone, leading to significant increases in all sizes of peak discharges in all seasons, and especially prolonged increases in peak discharges of winter events. These results support the hypothesis that roads interact positively with clear-cutting to modify water flow paths and speed the delivery of water to channels during storm events, producing much greater changes in peak discharges than either clear-cutting or roads alone. Roads alone appear to advance the time of peak discharges and increase them slightly. Road surfaces, cutbanks, and ditches, and culverts all can convert subsurface flow paths to surface flow paths (Harret al., 1975; King and Tennyson, 1984; Wemple, 1994; Wright et al., 1990). Reid (1991) and Reid and Dunne (1984) estimated discharges from culvert outfalls in western Washington and associated them with runoff from road surfaces. ³Decommissioned² roads could be at increased risk of mass failure because of difficulties in inspecting and maintaining them due to the closure methods employed. Recontouring the first 200 feet of each decommissioned road for example, while good to reduce use and thus the impacts of users, will make maintenance almost impossible. There is a great economic case for not building roads and for obliterating roads which have outlived their usefulness. In addition to the enormous costs of road construction and the maintenance of open roads, maintenance of gated roads costs an average of $65 per mile per year (Garrity 1994). On the subject of roads, the Forest Service Manual requires: FSM 7703.1 - Designate as forest development transportation facilities all existing and proposed roads, trails, airfields, or other facilities that provide access and mobility, and that are wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and that serve lands administered by the Forest Service. Document each forest development transportation facility in the forest development transportation plan. Reestablish vegetative cover on any unnecessary road-way or area disturbed by road construction on National Forest System lands within 10 years after the termination of the activity that required its use and construction. FSM 7711.2 - Retain a short-term (not to include temporary) facility in the forest development transportation system and record it in the plan until all functions as a transportation facility cease or until it reaches its planned limited life and the occupied area is returned to resource production. The intent of the Manual is that any roads not on the Forest inventory must either be closed and revegetated, or added to the inventory. We expect during the NEPA process for proposed projects, nonsystem roads must be targeted for even more substantial action. For all proposed projects, any roads that are not on the Forest inventory within a properly defined cumulative effects analysis area should be obliterated if the Clearwater does not propose to immediately make them a part of the inventory. The reasons are obvious: the undeniable impacts these roads continue to cause on wildlife, water quality and fisheries, and maintenance budgets. Motorized trails also fall into this category. The CNF maintains wide, motorized trails‹like those up Weitas Creek and Fish Lake‹which function, from a hydrological and wildlife standpoint, as roads. Ignoring the impact of these ³routes² in any road effects analysis is misleading. Project NEPA documentation should include the watershed analysis methodology as outlined in Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis) as referred to in the INFISH Decision Notice. NEPA analyses should show that the proposed alternatives would comply with the Clean Water Act and all state water quality laws and regulations. Merely designating Best Management Practices (BMPs) is not sufficient for compliance with the Clean Water Act and NFMA. For BMPs to work, their actual effectiveness in preventing water quality degradation must be considered. This means completing the feedback loop by considering all available applicable monitoring information before selection of BMPs. For example, what BMP failures have been noted for past projects with similar landtypes or other circumstances? Within this region, rain-on-snow (ROS) during the winter and spring months has been found to be the dominant mechanism causing peak flows (MacDonald and Hoffman, 1995). Please keep in mind that the use of the ROS model estimates the risk of occurrence of a ROS event, not the quantified increase in peak flows expected. Verification of accuracy based upon quantitative monitoring data for the ROS model has not been performed on this Forest. Espinosa (1997) identifies the inadequacies of the McClelland et al., 1997 report completed by the Forest Service after the thousands of landslides that occurred during the Fall and Winter of 1995-96 and 1996-97. Espinosa states that McClelland report underestimated the percentage of landslide events caused by road and cutting units and underestimated the amount of sediment delivered to streams as a result of the landslide events, and failed to utilize sufficient ground truthing of assumptions made from aerial surveys. Espinosa¹ study (1997) revealed that full INFISH/PACFISH buffers were not effective in protecting fish habitat from the impacts of cutting units in the Squaw Creek and Papoose Creek watersheds he surveyed. He states: The impacts were severe. Similar failures plugged culverts, blew-out fills, and generated debris torrents that traveled downslope well over 300 meters. Full PACFISH/INFISH buffer strips would not have stopped the impacts from reaching the channels. In Squaw and Papoose Creeks, these torrents resulted in blasting out several stream crossings and large fills before depositing their debris and bedload in mainstem channels. This places into severe doubt the efficacy of the Forest Plan¹s protection for native fisheries via the INFISH and PACFISH amendments. The recent listing of the steelhead and bull trout, together with the importance of Shoot Creek EA watersheds for anadromous and inland native fish, should tell you that more logging and road building here is extremely unwise. The major question that was left unanswered or unaddressed in the McClelland et al. (1997) and Pipp et al. (1997) reports was: Given that major storm events are going to occur, to what extent does extensive and intensive timber harvesting and road construction exacerbate the impacts to the landscape over that level experienced by unroaded/unharvested landscapes? The Forest Service attempts to address the issue lacked a spatial and ecosystem perspective‹and were severely limited by questionable comparisons and statistical analyses, small sample sizes, and dubious selection of sample units. Espinosa (1997) calculated exacerbation factors using Forest Service data. He concluded that roaded and harvested areas will experience impacts exacerbated by a factor of 3.5 times over the Forest landscape. And in areas of intensive E-1 timber management, he estimates the exacerbation factor to be 10 to ll.5 times over the Forest landscape. Espinosa (1997) summarized his observations of changed fish habitat conditions following the landslide events: Cobble embeddedness was significantly increased, pool quality was degraded, habitat diversity was decreased, and the channel was de-stabilized by braiding, bar formation, and bank erosion. The rearing function and quality of pools was severely reduced by fine and coarse sedimentation. From a temporal perspective, channel instability is probably the most significant attribute that was adversely effected by the landslides. This condition is not easily changed and will persist. Recovery will be protracted because of the extensive bank erosion, bar formation, floodplain sediment sources, and channel braiding. We ask that the Clearwater immediately adopt the recommendations made in Espinosa (1997) and Espinosa, et. al. (1997). One of those recommendations is to apply and establish in the revised Forest Plan the Coarse Screening Process developed by Rhodes et al. (1994) to protect sensitive fish species and those species listed under the Endangered Species Act such as steelhead trout, bull trout, and chinook salmon. Ten years into Forest Plan implementation, the Clearwater has still not completed meaningful monitoring for many of the items required in the Forest Plan. As a result, the impacts of large-scale industrial timber practices are not sufficiently understood. The following is a list of Forest Plan monitoring items relevant to roads and logging, for which the Clearwater is lacking valid monitoring results: Item 7. Provision for Plant and Animal Diversity. The 1993 CNF Monitoring Report (5 year reporting period) only discusses old-growth and coastal disjunct habitat. Other items are dismissed by the phrase, "A wide variety of plant and animal habitats exist and are well represented on the Clearwater national Forest." There is no quantifiable data presented in the report to document this claim. . Item 29 Pileated and Goshawk. No quantifiable information in the 1993 report on goshawks or pileated woodpeckers. Woodpeckers were considered "commonly located" on the CNF. No nests were located by the goshawk transect (400 miles of roads) through two were located by stand exam field crews in nearby areas. No quantifiable data given or expression of how goshawks were faring is given. In the 1996 report (the latest available, to date) it says a "stable population" of "goshawks were commonly observed across the Forest" with no justification or data to document the statement. 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. € 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 for the project area, which has yet to be gathered and/or reported. If the results of past monitoring are uncertain to the degree that the latest proposal would constitute unwarranted risks, new proposals should be shelved until monitoring results are conclusive. USDA Regulation 9500-4 requires that: Habitats for all existing native and 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, population dynamics must be explicitly considered. 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, the Forest Service should firmly establish that the species which presently or historically are believed to have had habitat in the analysis area are still part of viable populations on the landscape following the impacts from past development actions on lands of all ownership. If this is not forthcoming from Forest Plan monitoring efforts, it should be a priority for project analyses. Identification of viable populations is something that must be done at some specific geographic scale. The analysis must cover a large enough area to include a cumulative effects analysis area that would include truly viable populations. If the analysis cannot identify viable populations of MIS and TES species of which the individuals in the analysis area are members, the analysis fails to assure the maintenance of viable populations, violates NFMA, and falls far short of meeting the requirements of a scientifically sound ³ecosystem² analysis. That the lynx is now proposed for listing reveals that Forest Service management has failed to protect sufficient habitat for that Sensitive species. The Shoot Creek EA does not reveal enlightened management for lynx. The grizzly bear is recognized as a major indicator of the health of the ecosystems in their ability to provide for all wide-ranging forest carnivores and other species dependent on large remote, unfragmented blocks of land. Allendorf, et al (1991) showed that the CNF, being within historical range for the grizzly bear, is important to the survival of a viable population. Their research reveals that a minimum viable population of grizzly bears is between 1,670-2,000. Based on even the most conservative approach (e.g. extrapolating the highest known densities across all habitat types), the land area required to support this number of bears is over 15 million acres of undisturbed habitat‹more than in all the identified recovery zones for grizzly bears. A more realistic figure is somewhere around 25 million acres (ibid.). This means that all currently suitable habitat must be protected, and corridors linking the subpopulation areas must also be protected. This issue, that of providing for the larger landscape needs of far-ranging forest carnivores (including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, fisher, pine marten, lynx, goshawk, etc.), reveals the need to utilize the principles of Conservation Biology on a landscape level. Core areas of relatively undisturbed habitats need to be maintained. Linkages with other core areas need to be established, providing sufficient habitat components so the linkages, or corridors, are functional for genetic interchange purposes. Both core areas and linkages should be the focus of the watershed rehabilitation and recovery discussed above (such as road removal). Buffer zones around core areas should also be recognized in their contribution to habitat needs for these wildlife species. Finally, we remind you 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. Each proposal requires careful consideration of what Management Indicator Species are pertinent to each proposal area. Biologists should assure that the indicator species identified in the Forest Plan are appropriate indicators of environmental changes in the project area. 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. The continued fragmentation of the Forest also needs to be a major issue in all analyses. That is, the size of blocks of interior forest that existed historically before management (including fire suppression) was initiated needs to be compared to the present condition. Again, this should be a landscape ecology analysis which looks at the larger picture of the fragmentation of habitat in surrounding concentric circles. Will the proposed logging tend to further fragment the habitat for wildlife and plants? Within the context of Sensitive endemic and disjunct species, the Forest Service Manual provide direction for how the agency is to proceed in order to ensure that it maintains viable populations distributed across the Forest, and ensures no trends toward federal listing as Threatened or Endangered. Appellants have examined the relevant FSM direction, and present it here for review: €There must be no impacts to Sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of the adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and on the viability of the species as a whole. It is essential to establish population viability objectives when making decisions that would significantly reduce Sensitive species numbers (FSM 2672.1). €Establish objectives in cooperation with the States when projects on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on Sensitive species population numbers or distributions (FSM 2760.32 [5]). €Biological Evaluations shall include the following: Recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for any adverse effects (FSM 2672.42) €Determination of Conservation Strategies. To preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing, units must develop conservation strategies for those Sensitive species whose continued existence may be negatively affected by the forest plan or a proposed project. To devise conservation strategies, first conduct biological assessments of identified Sensitive species. In each assessment, meet these requirement: ... 2) Identify and consider, as appropriate for the species and area, factors that may affect the continued downward trend of the population, including such factors as: distribution of habitat, genetics, demographics, habitat fragmentation, and risk associated with catastrophic events. 3) Display findings under the various management alternatives considered in the plan or project (including the no-action alternative) (FSM 2621.2). Despite the clear direction provided by the Forest Service Manual, the CNF has failed in its Biological Evaluations to provide and adopt recommendations for removing, avoiding or compensating for adverse effects to Sensitive plants. The agency has not entered into any cooperative efforts with the state to establish objectives for Sensitive species. In general, the Forest Service has completely failed to set required habitat or population viability objectives, even when proposing significant adverse impacts to Sensitive plant species. This constitutes a complete failure to divulge the degree of significance of its proposed actions, placing the Forest Service in violation of its own Manual regulations, of the NEPA requirements that the significance of all actions be disclosed, and of the National Forest Management Act and Endangered Species Act requirements that Forest Service actions shall not move species toward Federal listing. The Clearwater National Forest generally fails to adhere to the Forest Plan guideline that ³old-growth stands should be distributed across the major habitat types found in the Forest in proportion to their occurrence.² Forest Plan standards require that 5% of each old growth analysis unit be maintained as old growth, and that the total Forest-wide old growth amount to 10%. In order to determine whether it is complying with the standards the Clearwater must have done two things: first, it must have completed a valid Forest-wide inventory of old growth, and second, it must have totaled up and verified old growth within each Analysis Unit where old growth is scheduled to be logged. Forest-wide inventories of old growth have not proceeded beyond the most wild speculations, except to the extent that actual field verifications of tentatively identified stands have shown that a significant percentage‹perhaps even a majority of acres tentatively identified‹have not proven to be actual old growth. Jageman (1997), citing the results of field verification on the Palouse District, only 1% has been field verified as old growth, and that the District only expects to have ³about 2 or 3% of the district acreage will ultimately be identified as existing old growth.² This is in contrast to the 9.4 % claimed in the latest Forest Plan monitoring information. Given that the 1992 and 1995 inventories showed that the Forest is barely meeting the 10% standard even when it uses the most speculative of unverified stands, and subtracting off the acres the Palouse District found out it didn¹t really have, it is obvious that the Forest is failing to meet the 10% standard. Any logging of actual old growth will further place the Clearwater National Forest under its 10% forest wide standard. A big reason why the CNF has such a problem field verifying actual old growth to match the amounts assumed in previous monitoring efforts is the data used for the latter relies so heavily upon database information. Using such dubious methodology, the assumption that stands 160 years old (120 for lodgepole pine) are old growth is not holding up after field verification. The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (hereafter, Scientific Assessment) recognizes the importance of maintaining large, old trees and the loss of big trees in Columbia Basin from logging. From the Scientific Assessment: There has been a 27 percent decline in multi-layer and 60 percent decline in single-layer old-forest structures, predominantly in forest types used commercially. (P. 181.) Emerging Science Issues: We had not anticipated the data indicating the extensive loss of large trees in the landscapes over much of the Basin. The harvest legacy has been more extensive than we thought. (P. 180.) Management outside the reserve boundaries includes an emphasis on conserving remaining old forest stands and roadless areas larger than 1000 acres. (P. 140.) Throughout most forested Ecological Reporting Areas (ERUs), native herblands, shrublands, and old multi-layered and single-layered forests have declined substantially in area and connectivity since the Basin was first settled by European-Americans. (P. 60.) (S)alvage emphasizes the extraction of specified volumes of dead and green trees at risk of dying. As such, harvest will emphasize larger trees, both green and recent dead, of desirable species ... Our findings suggest that this type of harvesting is not compatible with contemporary ecosystem-based management. (P. 178.) Logging and other human influences have reduced the level of old growth well below historical levels. Therefore, no more logging can be allowed in old growth forest if we are to sustain old growth and the species that depend upon it. Thomas, et. al. (1988) stated that ³(T)he best probability of success is to preserve all remaining old growth and, if possible, produce more.² Promoting logging in old-growth in order to ³restore² is not supported by science. Old Growth does not solely consist of big or old trees. Old growth includes downed woody material that serves as shelter for old growth dependent species‹it is not "excessive fire fuel" that needs removal. It also provides irreplaceable nutrients to the forest soil, and dead trees (snags) providing nesting habitat for many birds and cavity dwelling animals. Old growth forest also has important hydrological functions for the forest ecosystem. These things‹features of the old growth forest itself‹maintain the health of the forest ecosystem. In that context, old growth forests should be thought of as essential parts of whole self-sustaining forest ecosystems. Targeting mortality for logging within old growth, or logging to encourage growth of larger trees is a part of a failed management paradigm that fails to realize that natural, intact ecosystems are self-sustaining. Removing trees by logging has nothing to contribute to old growth forests. The CNF also resists designation of reserve blocks to support old-growth associated species of wildlife, including boreal owl, pine marten, black-backed woodpecker, lynx, pileated woodpecker, fisher, and several species of migratory birds. Habitat quality is a key component of the analysis of old growth MIS reserve blocks, as is indicated in the direction given in Warren (1990), upon which the Region One old growth Standard Effects Analysis is based. The obvious implication is that simply designating old growth is not enough to maintain viable populations of old growth dependent species. Disclose the sizes of old growth stands in project areas. Please consider the edge effect from natural and manmade openings including roads, in order to evaluate quality of reserve blocks. In the process of identifying of old growth habitat, the Forest Service should ground truth areas chosen from photo-interpretation and database examination. This is also important for identifying recruitment old growth, and to meet future old growth habitat needs. Beyond the reserve blocks, the CNF should be utilizing conservation biology-based linkages, or connecting corridors, between these cores, or reserve blocks. A big problem with Forest Plan implementation is that valid, scientifically-based monitoring of old-growth Management Indicator Species (MIS) populations has not been accomplished. It is now approximately 10 years into Forest Plan implementation, and the CNF has only a faint idea of what its management has left for old growth dependent species. The Forest Service should be implementing an effective feedback mechanism to show how old-growth MIS populations have responded to habitat ³management.² Research reveals that the Forest Plan¹s target level of old growth to be scientifically unjustified. A recent study by Lesica (1996), suggests that old growth occupied 20-50% of many presettlement forest ecosystems in the Northern Rockies. The Forest Plan of the Kootenai National Forest also admits: A review of applicable literature on wildlife species and their habitat needs indicated that a minimum of 8-10 percent of available wildlife habitat should provide old growth conditions (McClelland, 1978; Juday, 1978) at any given time. (A 17-9, emphasis in the original.) Please examine past logging activities, including such information as year and regeneration success level for each past activity in the analysis area and in the cumulative effects area. Please disclose the sizes and condition of manmade openings already existing in the area, and exactly where the proposed cutting units are in relation to the old logged areas so that it can be assured that Regional and Forest Plan standards for dispersal can be met. Please do studies that consider landtypes, habitat types, slopes, aspect, etc. for this project, so that there would be assurance of successful regeneration. Please disclose (by providing maps, tables, and other documentation) the regeneration success level from past even-aged logging in the immediate and surrounding compartments, explaining the dates of logging, the problems encountered and duration needed before certification of restocking. Evaluate the potential for regeneration efforts in some cutting units to fail due to pocket gophers. If it is possible that pocket gophers will be a problem for regeneration, leading to the ³need² to ³control² gophers, then the area¹s suitability for timber is an issue. Where planting is anticipated necessary to achieve full stocking, the Forest Service should consider that planted trees are known to have poorly developed root structures, which has implication for the long-term development of the stands. We urge that scientifically sound snag retention Standards be employed within all project areas. The amount of snags to be designated for retention in cutting units in the Forest Plan Appendix H guidelines are too discretionary in nature. Furthermore, they are largely based upon a study by J.W. Thomas in the Blue Mountains in Oregon. Thus they are not sufficiently site-specific to the ecosystems of North Idaho. Even the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, location of the Blue Mountains upon which Thomas¹ and the CNF snag guidelines are based, has even updated their snag recommendations based upon their finding that inadequate snag replacements would be supplied over the entire rotation. We refer to the ³Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Green Tree Snag Replacement Guidelines, Revised Final 4/93.² Therein, Tables 1 - 3 show that a mixed conifer stand must contain anywhere from 17.6 to 29.7 green tree replacement snags, depending on the size of the available green tree replacements and the logging method proposed. Those numbers of snags are only for meeting the minimum viability 40% habitat level (not shown to be sufficient in such a large area as the CNF). That document also mentions the need for assuring funding is available: ³Induced mortality will require detailed tracking and a solid commitment from management to continually fund induced mortality throughout the rotation.² (p. 5.) The ICBEMP preferred alternative also designates more snags for retention as Standards than the CNF Forest Plan designates as mere guidelines. We believe that it is necessary to perform field surveys to determine the level of available snag and downed woody material in the cumulative effects area, since it is quite possible that excess snags in the proposed project area are needed to offset the lack of snags in areas previously logged. Project analyses must acknowledge that OSHA regulations require that soft snags anywhere near loggers must be felled for safety. This means vast portion of all cutting units will be depleted of standing soft snags. Such differences between Forest Plan standards and guidelines and this OSHA regulation is usually not acknowledged. Due to habitat modification and fragmentation caused by logging and roading, populations of some migratory bird species have no doubt declined in the CNF. Project analyses should consider all the latest information from the Northern Region¹s Landbird studies and information from National Bird Surveys. Project impacts on migratory bird species should be included in the NEPA documentation. ICBEMP¹s Scientific Assessment identifies exotic invading species as one of the leading causes of the loss of biodiversity in our region. Project analyses should discuss the potential of spreading noxious weeds into areas not currently infested. When this occurs, the impacts can be enormous on many components of biodiversity, including species of special concern. You should be considering the cumulative effects of subsequent herbicide use and other intensive treatments of noxious weeds at the project level. Such cumulative impacts extend into the realm of economic impacts, since the public will be paying for the later ³treatment² of noxious weeds that projects almost invariably spread. We are opposed to the creation of clearcuts (by any name) due to the resulting damage to wildlife habitat, water quality and fisheries. Evaluate the likelihood of consequential blow-down of remaining trees in the cutting units or trees bordering the cutting units, based upon past logging in similar areas. What is the likelihood of later salvage actions in the same area as a result of blowdown caused by this proposed logging? Analysis of the ³no action² alternative should disclose natural forest succession. Based upon monitoring of results of previous logging in the area, discuss how the action will affect insect infestations and other disease outbreaks and how likely is it that the effect will be to stress other trees near the cutting units, causing them to be more susceptible to attack by insects or diseases. Please assess the hazard of human-caused wildfire, given that slash left after cutting and slash burning are a fire risk to adjacent forested areas. The Forest Service Handbook sections 2509.18 have been incorporated by the Northern Regional Guide as Standards for the Forests in the Region. FSH 2509.18-91-1 at 2.2 states, under ³Soil Quality Standards²: Management activities cause varying degrees of soil disturbances, which may or may not cause a significant change in productivity. Establish threshold values where soil disturbances become detrimental, that is, result in significant change. ... Soil quality standards are intended for areas where management prescriptions are being applied, such as timber harvest areas and range allotments. ... Soil quality standards should be established in the Forest Plan, supplement to the Forest Service Manual, project plan or in supplements to this handbook. Soil quality standards involve setting: (a) threshold values of soil properties or conditions and, (b) allowable areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance. FSH 2509.18-94-1, under ³Soil Quality Standards² (2.2) states: Soils can be impacted by compaction, puddling, displacement, burning, erosion, and mass movement during or following management activities. Impacts and above-ground organic matter losses that adversely affect hydrologic function or cause losses in site productivity are detrimental. The Standards are further refined in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.18 2.2 - Soil Quality Standards, where it states: Guidelines used as indicators of soil quality, and as measures of conformance to soil quality standards, are presented below. 1. Soil Disturbance. If system roads are evaluated as part of an activity area, at least 80% of the area must have soil that is in satisfactory condition; that is, no more than 20% of the area may have detrimentally disturbed soil. If system roads are evaluated separately and are discounted as part of the activity area, at least 85% of the area must have soil that is in satisfactory condition. The point is, a soils scientist must actually go out on the ground and check a representative sample of areas that have been impacted by the various previous management activities. The soils scientist should measure the degree of disturbance in past cutting units in project area, examining all the variables such as yarding and site preparation methods that have led to detrimental soil conditions. Without considering such information, an informed decision allowing more soil disturbance cannot be made. Merely utilizing existing skid trails will not guarantee that soils standards for detrimental impacts would not be exceeded. The Forest Service Handbook at FSH 2509.18-94-1 states, under ³Soil Quality Standards² (2.2): Compaction, puddling, and displacement are effects of management activities and may be cumulative over time. If a guideline or combination of guidelines are exceeded in an initial entry, then future entries must have no additional effect unless natural recovery has taken place or mitigative measures have been applied between entries. At FSH 2509.18 (2.05) Definitions ³Activity Area² is defined as follows: A land area impacted by a management activity to which soil quality standards are applied. Activity areas include harvest units, within timber sale areas, prescribed burn areas, and grazing areas or pastures within range allotments. Inclusion of system roads within the activity area is dependent on analysis objectives. System roads are often evaluated separately, however, temporary roads, landings, and skid trails are included within an activity area. Disclose areas of unstable and highly erosive soils which could result in mass movement. Create maps which show all soil disturbing actions overlaid with landtypes for project files. Relating to nutrient cycling as well as leaving sufficient snags and downed woody material, we refer you to the Forest Service publication, ³Recommendations For Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains² (Russell T. Graham, et. al., June 1994). Cutting unit conditions after logging should be consistent with the recommendations, and there should be monitoring to assure that what is retained meets those recommendations. Invoking fire risk is a common technique of those grasping for excuses to log. Any statement that logging an area will reduce fire risk is an unsubstantiated, simplistic view of fire ecology. Roading, logging and burning often cause or contribute to the spread of wildfire. Recently, Huff, et. al (1995) stated: (I)ntensive forest management annually produces high fuel loadings associated with logging residues. As a by-product of clearcutting, thinning, and other tree-removal activities, activity fuels create both short- and long-term fire hazards to ecosystems. The potential rate of spread and intensity of fires associated with recently cut logging residues is high (see for example, Anderson 1982, Maxwell and Ward 1976), especially the first year or two as the material decays. High fire-behavior hazards associated with the residues can extend, however, for many years depending on the tree species (Olson and Fahnestock 1955). Even though these hazards diminish, their influence on fire behavior can linger for up to 30 years in the dry forest ecosystems of eastern Washington and Oregon. Disposal of logging residue using prescribed fires, the most common approach, also has an associated high risk of an escaped wildfire (Deeming 1990). The link between slash fires and escaped wildfires has a history of large conflagrations for Washington and Oregon (Agee 1989, Deeming 1990). Regeneration and seral development patterns can have a profound effect on potential fire behavior within landscapes by enhancing or diminishing its spread (Agee and Huff 1987, Saveland 1987). Spatially continuous fuels associated with thick regeneration in plantations can create high surface-fire potential during early successional stages. This was evident in most of the roughly 275 hectares of 1- to 25-year-old plantations burned in the 3500-hectare 1991 Warner Creek Fire in the Willamette National Forest (USDA 1993). The fire moved swiftly through the openings created by past harvests, killing nearly all the regeneration but usually missing adjacent stands >80 years old." They also state: Logged areas generally showed a strong association with increased rate of spread and flame length, thereby suggesting that tree harvesting could affect the potential fire behavior within landscapes. In general, rate of spread and flame length were positively correlated with the proportion of area logged in the sample watersheds. Increased rate of spread means that the perimeter of the fire will grow much faster. Generally, a faster perimeter growth makes a wildfire harder to contain. Other scientists have doubts about the efficacy of intensive fuels reductions as fire-proofing methods. DellaSala, et al. (1995) state: Scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that intensive salvage, thinning, and other logging activities reduce the risk of catastrophic fires if applied at landscape scales ... At very local scales, the removal of fuels through salvage and thinning may hinder some fires. However, applying such measures at landscape scales removes natural fire breaks such as moist pockets of late-seral and riparian forests that dampen the spread and intensity of fire and has little effect on controlling fire spread, particularly during regional droughts. ... Bessie and Johnson (1995) found that surface fire intensity and crown fire initiation were strongly related to weather conditions and only weakly related to fuel loads in subalpine forest in the southern Canadian Rockies. . . . Observations of large forest fires during regional droughts such as the Yellowstone fires in 1988 (Turner, et al. 1994) and the inland northwest fires of 1994 . . . raise serious doubts about the effectiveness of intensive fuel reductions as ³fire-proofing² measures. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) is an ecosystem assessment project similar to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. A scientific assessment released by SNEP states, "More than any other human activity, logging has increased the risk and severity of fires by removing the cooling shade of trees and leaving flammable debris." And, "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity. ... Although silvicultural treatments can mimic the effects of fire on structural patterns of woody vegetation, virtually no data exist on the ability to mimic ecological functions of natural fire." (p. 62, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress) The Forest Service insists that the economic system as it presently exists be a part of the equation for performing ³ecosystem management.² Although we disagree the way this is interpreted to mean that present economic interests must be served first, the Forest Service should follow thorough and tell the full economic story of just what projects¹ impacts would be to taxpayers, not just to local economic interests. For the CNF to continue to carry out its management activities, it needs a steady flow of dollars from the federal treasury. The amounts aren¹t trivial. Most economic analyses in NEPA documents focus far too narrowly on local economic issues. If you cannot extend the discussion to the bigger picture, you are placing yourselves in a position where you are telling the ³stockholders² (the taxpayers) that live in Hawaii, Florida, Wisconsin, etc. that their concerns don¹t matter at all. Along with the costs of the specific project activities, the costs of road maintenance proportionately attributable to projects should be analyzed. Also, the costs of carrying out both the current fire suppression policy and later projects proposed to ³restore² the land because of fire suppression should be considered. In this era of increased responsibility to the taxpayer for providing the highest benefits in return for public investments, we request that you document how your decisions and the selected alternatives maximize the net public benefit. In other words, you should give consideration to, and adequately document, who benefits from each project and what source of funding pays for each expense incurred. Please provide an itemized list of monetary costs and benefits for all alternatives (including the no-action alternative). Your usual economic analyses generally omit a thorough consideration of the wealth of value provided to society of a standing forest‹its nontimber values. Your analyses should consider the external costs of timber sales and the CNF¹s entire timber sale program; such costs as those incurred from downstream users of the waters which the timber sales and logging roads pollute, the adverse impacts logging creates for those whose livelihood is recreation, etc. Opportunity costs should be a part of project analyses. These are the economic values/ uses forgone by using a particular forested area for logging (as opposed to preservation) plus the economic benefits that could be realized by using the funds spent in other ways. Opportunity costs associated with timber sales include the economic value of a wide range of ³ecosystem services² such as filtration of water that will be destroyed by logging, the value of recreation that will be displaced, as well as the forgone economic benefits associated with using the timber sale funds for watershed and fisheries restoration, cooperative forestry projects on nearby state or private lands, or other alternative uses. Economics is another reason why we strongly desire to see at least one alternative that would only involve rehabilitation and recovery. The long-term benefits of not having to spend money for doing road maintenance or other management activities and administration in the project area should be compared to the expenses incurred from both the action alternative(s) and the no-action alternative. Because of the increasing scarcity of roadless land in the Northern Rockies, and the ever-increasing awareness of the importance that these areas have for the conservation of biological diversity, any management actions within a roadless area are unwise. ICBEMP¹s Scientific Assessment recognizes that roadless, undeveloped areas are the very places where ecosystem integrity is the highest. Chief Dombeck¹s interim direction on roads and roadless areas also recognizes the damage inevitable from road building and the unique values inherent in roadless areas. From this context it makes no sense to be proposing logging or within the roadless area, as does Alternative 3. The road construction also would violate the Chief¹s interim direction. A bioregional and ecosystem approach to wilderness protection reflecting the best science available‹conservation biology‹shows that further degradation of roadless areas is scientifically, ethically, biologically, and socially unacceptable. All roadless areas in the CNF are being considered by Congress for Wilderness protection, being included in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, which has been before Congress in each session since 1993. Roadless area boundaries should be fairly validated in the NEPA process. Often only arbitrary Forest Service designation, outside of any appeal opportunity, has set roadless boundaries. This is addressed clearly by the California v. Block decision and others. In his response to an appeal of the roadless evaluation of the Idaho Panhandle Forest Plan the Chief noted that forest plans do not mandate development of roadless areas, they merely permit it. The decision stated that the tradeoffs between preservation of roadless values and development will be thoroughly evaluated at the project level and the benefits of non-development vs. development weighed. In addition, the Chief stated that ³(D)ecisions of the Forest Plan represent a dynamic management system ... that can be modified. ... The Forest Plan will be monitored continually and adjusted as needed² (Decision at pp. 8-9). In the recent court decision on the Panhandle case the judge, supporting this contention stated, ³(A)ny 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 NEPA² [Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 21 E.L.R. 20666, 20668 (D. Mont. 1990)]. On the issue of whether the roadless area and undeveloped quality of project areas require the preparation of an EIS, NEPA mandates the preparation of an EIS for any ³major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment² [42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)]. Projects that irreversibly damage the recreational value and resources associated with roadless areas and undeveloped lands constitute a ³major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.² ³Roadless areas provide a sanctuary to animal and plant species most sensitive to human disturbances. These animal and plant species may not be able to adapt to new habitat created by fragmentation. Further timber sale activities may significantly impact recreational opportunities in these unroaded areas. ... It is undisputed that once a roadless area is developed through logging and road construction, it is irrevocably and irreversibly changed² [National Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 21 E.L.R. 20828, 20830 (D. Ore. 1990)]. ³The decision to develop a previously undeveloped area is an irreversible and irretrievable decision, the impacts of which must be analyzed in an EIS² [National Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 21 E.L.R. 20828, 20830 (D. Ore. 1990)]. Scientists, both inside and outside the Forest Service, recognize that unroaded, undisturbed areas provide critical habitat for the maintenance of biological diversity. Please recognize and consider the unique ecological values associated with designated and de facto roadless areas within what is otherwise a heavily logged and fragmented national forest system. The courts also have recognized the unique ecological values associated with roadless areas and the need for the Forest Service to consider the undisputed ³environmental significance² of these areas in a project EIS. See Smith v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 93-36187 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994) (decision to log a roadless area is ³environmentally significant,² regardless of current wilderness designation status); National Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 4 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir. 1993) (³the decision to log in a previously undeveloped tract of land is Œan irreversible and irretrievable decision¹ which could have Œserious environmental consequences¹²). For instance, the establishment of a regional network of interconnected reserves and appropriate linkages is considered, by many scientists, to be critical to managing for genetic, species, and landscape diversity on our public lands (Noss, 1983; Hudson, 1991). NEPA requires that the Forest Service consider the best available scientific and technical information in making its decisions. See, e.g., Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F. 2d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 1980). The scientific literature on biological diversity makes it clear that logging project assessments should consider, among other things, size distribution and connectivity for various types of habitat patches, amount and distribution of important types of such patches (such as roadless areas) which have been reduced by prior human activity, disturbed and historic vegetative mosaic patterns across the forest, cumulative effects of past activity from a watershed or regional ecosystem level, and edge effects of further forest fragmentation (Noss, 1990). The best science states that a major focus of analyses such as this should be to find ways to connect and buffer roadless areas with other undeveloped land to assure species viability and ecosystem functioning is perpetuated. In short, take a ³hard look² at the cumulative impacts of allowing logging and road building in unroaded areas and in roaded areas providing corridors or linkages between core roadless areas. See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976); Save the Yaak, supra, 840 F. 2d at 718-719. State-of-the-art conservation biology and the principles that underlie the agency¹s policy of ³ecosystem management² dictate an increasing focus on the landscape-scale concept and design of large biological reserves accompanied by buffer zones and habitat connectors as the most effective (and perhaps only) way to preserve wildlife diversity and viability (Noss, 1993). The analysis should include an alternative which recommends wilderness designation for all or part of the roadless areas which will be developed under the alternatives. In reviewing the court ruling on the Tenakee Springs v. Block (1986) case, the Region One office stated the following: The concurrent opinion also states that after promulgation of the Forest Plan, NEPA documents for projects proposed for roadless areas assigned to a nonwilderness management prescription must examine the issue of whether to develop, not just how develop such areas (Our Approach: Desk Reference). As two recent court rulings have shown, the no action alternative does not necessarily answer the question of whether the roadless areas will or will not be developed. [See National Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 21 E.L.R. 20828, 20830 (D. Ore. 1990).] In the recent court case regarding the development of the Trail Creek Roadless Area, Judge Hatfield ruled that the Forest Service was incorrect in arguing that by offering a no-action alternative within the Trail Creek EIS NEPA would be satisfied in terms of providing an alternative which would not develop the roadless area. Page 82 of the Scientific Assessment states: People hold both existence values and use values for ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions. Of the value provided society by the FS- and BLM-administered lands in the Basin now and by 2045, the existence of unroaded areas provides 47 and 41 percent; recreation provides 41 and 53 percent; timber provides 11 and 5 percent; and range provides less than 1 percent at both times. Project analyses must therefore fully discuss the adverse economic impacts of developing roadless areas. You must address projects¹ full potential impacts on critical ecosystem features by closely examining land beyond the immediate analysis area and considering the cumulative landscape-scale effects of continued habitat alteration within and adjacent to unroaded forest land. NEPA demands such. See e.g., City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F. 2d 1308, 1312-1313 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding Forest Service¹s cumulative impact analysis inadequate under NEPA and citing LaFlamme v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 852 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1988) for the proposition that remand to the agency for further consideration of cumulative impacts is appropriate where the agency examined single projects in isolation without considering net impacts of all past, present and future projects in the area); Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F. 2d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 1988). We expect that project interdisciplinary teams will be aware of these issues as they develop specific project proposals, and inquire if they are uncertain about how those issues might relate to the projects. For the Forests, Jeff Juel Please keep each organization on the list to receive future mailings on this action. Addresses are listed in earlier comments or the appeal. For the Forests, Jeff Juel cited research Allendorf, F.W., R.B. Harris, & L.H. Metzgar, 1991. Estimation of effective population size of grizzly bears by computer simulation. Proceedings, Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. DellaSala, Dominick A., D. M. Olson, S. E. Barth, S. L. Crane, and S. A. Primm, 1995. Forest health: moving beyond rhetoric to restore healthy landscapes in the inland Northwest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1995, 23(3): 346-356. Garrity, M., 1994. Economist, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City. Personal communication. Huff, Mark H., Roger D. Ottmar, Ernesto Alvarado, Robert E. Vihnanek, John F. Lehmkuhl, Paul F. Hessburg, and Richard L. Everett, 1995. Historical and Current Forest Landscapes in Eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking Vegetation Characteristics to Potential Fire Behavior and Related Smoke Production. General Technical Report (PNW-GTR-355). Hudson, E.E. 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, Cal., 195pp. Jageman, H. Old Growth - Late Successional Forest Inventory, Palouse Ranger District, November 5, 1997. Jones, A.J., and Gordon E. Grant; Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon . Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pages 95-974, April 1996. Lesica, Peter, 1996. Using Fire History Models to Estimate Proportions of Old Growth Forest In Northwest Montana, USA. Biological Conservation 77, p. 33-39. MacDonald, L.H., and J.A. Hoffman, 1995. Causes of Peak Flows in Northwestern Montana and Northeastern Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. 31(1): 79-95. Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. Bioscience 33(11): 700-706; Noss, Reed F., 1990. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology 4(4): pp. 355-364. Noss, Reed F.,1993. The Wildlands Project Land Conservation Strategy. Wild Earth Journal, Special Issue: 10-26 Thomas, Jack Ward, Leonard F. Ruggiero, R. William Mannan, John W. Schoen, and Richard A. Lancia, 1988. Management and Conservation of Old-Growth Forests in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 16, pp. 252-262. Warren, Nancy M. (ed.) Old-Growth Habitat and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern Rocky Mountains. 1990. USDA Northern Region. Espinosa, F. A., Jr., 1997. Upper Lochsa River Watershed, Squaw and Papoose Creeks Flood Assessment Study, 1995/96. Final Report submitted to the Clearwater Biodiversity Project and Ecology Center. [http://206.230.42.178/clearwater/floodrep.htm] Espinosa, F. A., Jr., J. Rhodes, and D. McCullough. 1997. The Failure of Existing Plans to Protect Salmon Habitat in the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. Journal of Environmental Management 49, 205-230p. McClelland, D. G. and 8 other Co-Authors. 1997. Assessment of the Effects of the 1996 & 1996 Flood on the Clearwater National Forest. Draft report to the Regional Forester, Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. September 25, 1997. Pipp, M. J. and three other Co-Authors. 1997. Watershed Response to an Extreme Precipitation and High Streamflow Event in Managed Basins. Draft report to the Powell Ranger District, Clearwater N. F., USDA Forest Service. Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, & F.A. Espinosa, 1994. A Coarse Screening Process for Evaluation of the Effects of Land Management Activities on Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA Consultations. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 729 N.E. Oregon St., Portland, OR 97232 (503-238-0667). BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONALFORESTER U.S. FOREST SERVICE NORTHERN REGION FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER ) THE ECOLOGY CENTER ) ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES ) THE LANDS COUNCIL ) ) Appellants ) NOTICE OF APPEAL ) v. ) RELIEF REQUEST ) Dennis Elliot ) STATEMENT OF REASONS Deputy District Ranger ) Powell Ranger District ) Clearwater National Forest ) ) Respondent DATED THIS 13th DAY OF August,1998 TO: Appeals DecidingOfficer (RFO), USDA U.S. Forest Service Northern Region, PO Box 7669,Missoula, MT, 59807. DECISION APPEALED: The decision appealed is theDecision Memo (DM) to approve commercial thinning in the Cliff Creek Drainage, which iswithin the Lochsa Face Roadless Area. The decision, known as Tom BealPost and Pole Thinning, was signed on 6/19/1998 by Deputy Ranger Elliotwith a transmittal letter dated 6/29/98. It appeared in the Lewiston Morning Tribune on 6/29/98. A clarificationletter sending omitted pages was sent later in July. This notice ofappeal is filed in accordance with 36 CFR § 215. Appellant contacts are: Gary Macfarlane,Friends of the Clearwater, PO Box 9241, Moscow, ID 83843, (208-882-9755); Jeff Juel, TheEcology Center & The Lands Council, 801 Sherwood Street, Suite B,Missoula, MT. 59802, (406-728-5733); Katherine Deuel, Alliance for the WildRockies, PO Box 8371, Missoula, MT. 59807, (406-542-0050). The Appellants use the Clearwater National Forest, including the projectarea, for recreation, wildlife viewing, work, sightseeing, photography,spiritual renewal, solitude, primitive recreation and education. They areconcerned 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 theAmerican public of the Clearwater NationalForest and the project area, will be significantly affected by thedecision. STATEMENT OF REASONS The Decision Memo for the Tom Beal Post and PoleThinning was signed by Deputy Ranger Elliot on June 19, 1998. DeputyRanger Elliot's decision implemented a commercial timber sale within the Lochsa Face Roadless Area. Theappellants feel that a categorical exclusion does not adequately addressthe possible effects of logging within an inventoried roadless area. Theissuance of a CE also clearly violates the Forest Service Handbook, NEPA, and case law. The following is taken verbatim from theForest Service Handbook at 1909.15, section 30.3(2)(e). "1. A proposed action may becategorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impactstatement (EIS) of Environmental Assessment (EA) if the proposed action: a. Is within on of the categories inthe Department of Agriculture (USDA) NEPA policies and procedures in 7 CFRpart 1b. b. Is within a category listed in sec. 31.1b or 31.2; and there areno extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action. 2. Extraordinary circumstances include, but are not limited to,the presence of the following: a. Steep slopes or highlyerosive soils. b. Threatened and endangered species or their criticalhabitat. c. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. d. Congressionallydesignated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or NationalRecreation Areas. e. Inventoried RoadlessAreas. f. Research Natural Areas. g. Native Americanreligious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or historic propertiesor areas. 3. Scoping is required on allproposed actions, including those that would be categorically excluded. Ifscoping indicate thatextraordinary circumstances are present and it is uncertain that theproposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, preparean EA; If scoping indicated that the proposed action may have asignificant environmental effect, prepare an EIS." The FSH is very clear on the what actions warrant an EA or EIS. Thisproposed action is one of those absolutes. The CE does not provideadequate analysis and documentation for the proposed action. AnEnvironmental Assessment must be produced forthis project, with an EIS to follow if it is found that activities warrantthat type of analysis. Furthermore, it must be restated that thisproject is a commercial timber sale that develops a roadless area. It isnot one, like minor trail maintenance, which arguably may be excluded fromdocumentation. The agency's own regulations note that"harvesting timber" in a roadless area triggers the necessity to prepare anEIS, even if it is "in only one part of the roadless area." (FederalRegister Vol. 57 No. 152, September 18, 1992, page 43200, FSH 1909.15 Chapter 20.6 (3)).Logging significantly affects the undeveloped nature of a roadless area. It is the Forest Service itself that set up the policy of site-specificEISs on development of roadless area in the agency appeal decisions andsubsequent court decisions on the Idaho Panhandle and Flathead NationalForests. In the court decision on the IPNF Forest Plan appeal, the judge concurred with the agency's argument thatEISs would be prepared on development activities in roadless areas: ". . . any future development whichmight take place (in roadless areas) will again be determined by the ForestService 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]. FSH 1909.15 Chapter 20 is instructive inthat only two types of site-specific actions, other than those for whichlaw or regulations require preparation of EISs (for example, revisingLRMPs) are aerial spraying of chemicals and altering the character of roadless areas. Thus,roadless area development is in a category that normally requires and EIS. The courts are clear on this issue, evenwhen the agency erroneously equivocates. A decision to log a roadless areais "environmentally significant" [Smith v. US ForestService, No. 93-36187 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994)] and "the decision to harvesttimber on a previously undeveloped tract of land is "an irreversible andirretrievable decision' which could have 'serious environmentalconsequences.'" [In National Audubon Society et al. v. US Forest Service, 4 F. 3d 832(9th Cir. 1993)]. Agency excuses of insignificance, as presented in thiscase, have been resoundingly rejected by the courts. The courts have further held, "Thedecision to develop a previously undeveloped area is an irreversible andirretrievable 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" ofroadless areas and the need to prepare a project EIS. Cumulative impacts of roadless area development past, present, andreasonably foreseeable future must be considered. This is the crux ofcourt cases defining the necessity to prepare EISs for specific projects onroadless area development. It is also what the agency has maintained in every instance a forest plan has beenchallenged on the lack of site-specific NEPA documentation for roadlessarea development (see Flathead and Idaho Panhandle National Forests'decisions from the Chief). The applicability to the current case is obvious: The agency cannot do anumber (or even one) small timber sales inside a roadless area without acumulative effects analysis. The CEQ regulations are also clear on thispoint that CEs cannot be prepared for actions that "cumulatively have a significant effect on the humanenvironment" even if individual projects may be insignificant. (40 CFR1508.4). Several small sales around the periphery of a roadless area would have a significant effecton that area. The agency would exclude that acreage affected by that(those) sale(s) from the roadless area if the development had occurredprior to the inventory. Even if we were to accept the fallaciousassumption that this project may be or is insignificant, as the DecisionMemo argues, the preparation of a CE was clearly the wrong document to makethat determination. As noted above, development of a roadlessarea is a category for which EIS preparation is normal and mandatory. Unlike any of theother extraordinary circumstances found in FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30.3(2), itis the only one mentioned earlier in the regulations FSH (1909.15 Chapter20.6 (3)) as requiring the preparation of an EIS. This is a super-extraordinary circumstance and the twoinstructional memos cited as justification in the decision memo to(November 9, 1992, Application of Extraordinary Circumstances; and April26, 1993, Use of Categorical Exclusions When Threatened or Endangered Species May Be Present) are inapplicable in thisinstance. Regardless of the determination of significance in this decision memo, adecision memo is the inappropriate document by which to make such adetermination in the first place. When there is a question of thesignificance, that determination must come fromthe preparation of an EIS or, at a minimum, an EA. FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30.3(3) indicateswhere there are "uncertain" circumstances, an EA should be prepared. Certainly, a super-extraordinary circumstance, coupled with case law should makethe agency question the appropriateness of a CE to allow the development ofa roadless area. NEPA is clear that EAs are to be prepared when questions of significancearise whether an EIS is needed. (see 40 CFR 1501.3 and 1501.4) EAs areused for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statementor a finding of no significant impact. (40 CFR 1508.9). It is clear the District in this instance is confusing the requirements for EAs with those of CEs. Neither CEs nor EAs should havesignificant environmental effects, but EAs are supported by documentationincluding a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Finally, this project is in an area where TES species are found (bulltrout, steelhead, lynx (proposed)), on a steep slope, near a wild andscenic river corridor. The cumulative effects of all of these factorsalong with the-more-than-extraordinary circumstance reach a significance that can't be excused through a CE. Request for Relief The laws are clear on the fact that logging in Inventoried Roadless Areasrepresents a "significant environmental effect", and therefore requires ananalysis in an EIS, or at minimum, a justification as to why thisdevelopment is not significant in a FONSI. This is the second appeal filed on this veryproject for the very same reasons (the project was withdrawn the firsttime). Thus, appellants respectfully request the Regional Office of theForest Service: 1. Withdraw the Tom Beal Post and Pole Thinning Decision Memo. 2. Order the Forest to complete anEnvironmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement thatanalyzes cumulative impacts of activities in the area if a decision is madeto go forth. For the appellants, Gary Macfarlane