Cindy Estrom
Cascade Resources Area
Re: FY 2006 Timber
Dear Cindy,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FY 2006
Thinning Projects. Bark normally focuses on the
This is the last EA that I will respond to on behalf of
Bark, as I am moving to
THE EA FAILS TO
ADEQUATELY ASSESS CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative Effects
and Surrounding Private Lands
The regulations implementing NEPA state that cumulative
effects result “from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future [federal and non-federal]
actions.” 40 C.F.R. §
1508.7. “Significance exists if
it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the
environment. Significance cannot be
avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small
component parts.”
The fifth stipulation highlighted in the Environmental Assessment/Finding
of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) to evaluate project areas “in context of
past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions” has not been properly
met. In order to correctly assess the
cumulative effects of a logging project, it must be analyzed in light of a much
wider spatiotemporal context. The
current and future conditions of adjacent lands must be factored into the
assessment, whether or not the surrounding area comprises public or private
land. The EA/FONSI fails to acknowledge
how the proposed thinning project will affect the environment in combination with surrounding land
management activities. Instead, the
proposed action is erroneously analyzed as an isolated project, irregardless of
surrounding management activities. The
EA/FONSI factors in the effects of nearby development in only the No Action Alternative, commenting, “Effects to the
watershed would continue to occur from the development of private and other
agency lands (primarily timber harvesting and road building)” (EA/FONSI, page
34). These effects are not accounted
for, or even mentioned, in the cumulative effects determination for the
proposed action. Looking past the
project boundaries, one understands that the forests proposed for thinning
serve as a much-needed habitat reserve and erosion break amidst a devastation
of clear cuts and highly developed land.
From the project area, facing east, it’s easy to see large scale
clearcuts across the
Cumulative Effects
and “Harvest Cycle”
Failure to include management effects on adjacent land in the cumulative impact analysis is not the only flaw in the EA/FONSI significant impact determination. Additionally, the EA/FONSI neglects to account for future management activities on project land. The EA/FONSI makes it abundantly clear that the project area comprises forest whose future harvest is inevitable. Future thinning projects on this land are anticipated, as indicated by the renovation of 67.5 miles of road and the plan to stabilize road beds for future utilization during “the next harvest cycle” (EA/FONSI, page 38). If this land is designated to undergo cyclic disturbance, an accurate and complete cumulative impact analysis must include adverse effects anticipated as a result of future thinning. The exact time of future harvest is not stated in the EA/FONSI; however, canopy closure is predicted to occur within 10-20 years after the proposed action opens it up (EA/FONSI, page 43). The 2006 thinning sets a precedent for thinning forests as a result of an anticipated less than optimal increase in average tree size due to “generally closed” forest crowns (EA/FONSI, page 26). If this precedent is followed, future thinning projects may occur as soon as 10-20 years after the proposed action.
Most of the adverse effects discussed in the EA/FONSI were excused on account of their temporary nature. There might be short term impacts but they would be negligible in the longterm. However, if future harvest may occur as early as 10-20 years after this current thinning proposal, the forest will only be in the early stages of recovery before it is faced with another onslaught of thinning with subsequent impacts. This is illustrated through old skid trails in the project area. The EA/FONSI assures us that skid trails will begin recovery, and erosion and sedimentation will drop back to current levels in 3-5 years. However, in subsequent pages, old skid trails occupying the units since the 1950s are admitted to just recently have “begun to recover productive capability as roots and animal activity have started to break up compaction and organic material has begun to accumulate” (EA/FONSI, page 36). These skid trails, at the inception of a recovery that took up to 50 years to reach, will be re-compacted under the proposed action. Expectation for a 3-5 year recovery is absurd; instead, it is much more realistic to assume minimal recovery will occur prior to the next thinning project in the “harvest cycle.”
The EA/FONSI justifies the near depletion of already minimal snag densities with the assumption that “by accelerating the growth of live trees, larger material would be available sooner (than without thinning) to contribute additional large snags to the future stand” (EA/FONSI, page 42). However, what will the impact be on snags from future logging activities? It is highly likely that future logging will destroy any snags that have had time to develop. Regeneration (ie/clearcutting) was even optimistically posed as an acceptable possibility, with a large tree (“created” from the previous thinning efforts) serving as a nest tree in an isolated clearing. Please provide information about bird species common to the area that would choose to build their nests in an isolated tree in the center of a clearing.
Microhabitat drying is a huge problem that is largely overlooked, underestimated and misunderstood. The EA/FONSI predicts this condition will persist unabated for 10-20 years after thinning, at which time it would only begin to decrease. However, as explained in the EA, future harvest activities may restart as soon at the canopy closes, in which case, the microhabitat would have no interim to re-moisturize. The effects resulting from a desiccated microhabitat are largely unknown and may result in repercussions for years. The impact as it relates to fire hazards is obvious.
Spotted owl habitat will also be adversely affected under the proposed action. In the Snakehouse units alone, 804 acres of dispersal habitat for the Northern spotted owl would be altered (downgraded or degraded), and would take 10-50 years to once again become suitable habitat (EA/FONSI, page 89). The EA/FONSI avers that “over the long term (>20 years), as stands respond to thinning, northern spotted owl habitat conditions are expected to improve” (EA/FONSI, page 42). At that time the next thinning cycle and the re-degradation of spotted owl habitat will be imminent. Also at that time, the territory may no longer be spotted owl habitat, considering the barred owl’s current and anticipated expansion. Federally listed species such as the northern spotted owl cannot afford 20 years of habitat degradation, especially in light of territory competition with more populated barred owl populations. This should be obvious to the agency given the plethora of information available describing the northern spotted owl’s fast decline.
In order for the finding of no significant impact to meet the fifth stipulation listed in the EA/FONSI, future anticipated thinning projects must be factored in the cumulative effects determination. The temporal justification of adverse effects must be reevaluated in light of future management. As indicated by the above examples, this re-evaluation may drastically change the significance of adverse effects. Please revise your document in the form of an EIS that incorporates planned future logging in the cumulative effects analysis, in order to meet the fifth stipulation listed in the EA/FONSI.
Cumulative Effects
and the Watershed & Aquatic Species
Threatened
Anadromous Fish
The six watersheds encompassed in the 2006 thinning project
comprise prime anadromous fish habitat.
Many threatened anadromous species depend on the quality of these
watersheds for survival. UWR Chinook
salmon and steelhead trout, both federally listed threatened species, inhabit
channels downstream from project areas that will be affected by increased
sedimentation. Increased sedimentation
due to management activities has been a likely contributor to categorizing
these fish as Threatened and must be severely limited under future management
activities. According
to the
The EA/FONSI assures no cumulative adverse effects through the following logic: “the limited magnitude…and duration…of this effect [of sedimentation] would likely be insignificant for water quality on the watershed scale (i.e., cumulatively)” (EA/FONSI, page 5, italics added). We would like to note that the watersheds encompassing the four projects occupy an area of 530,283 acres, while the project area spans only 1,882 acres – 0.003% of the watershed areas. If the EA/FONSI is looking for effects on a watershed scale, then it absolutely must analyze project activities in combination with management activities in the rest of the watershed. This, however, was not done.
Further, we understand that the agency took advantage of its
new authority to reach an effects determination
without consulting the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We take issue with this new procedural
development and would like to note that this authority is highly controversial
and currently being litigated. There is
a conflict of interest inherent in an agency’s proposal to conduct a logging
project and its ability to simultaneously determine if significant effects will
ensue. Additionally, the expertise to
make such conclusions is not within the Salem District of the BLM. The
exclusion of a second, more disinterested party calls
into question the validity of the entire effects determination.
THE EA FAILS TO
ADEQUATELY ASSESS IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN RESERVES
The EA/FONSI lists two goals to be attained by logging in
riparian reserves: (1) develop future large CWD, snag habitat, in-stream large
wood, and other elements of late-successional forest habitat and (2) develop
structural and spatial diversity of the forest ecosystem on a landscape level
in the long term. In reality, snags and
CWD densities will be diminished for years after logging activity with only a
hope – not scientifically supported – that they will eventually be replaced
(this also assumes no future logging activity would disturb the process). Both goals may or may not be reached, while
the adverse effects of sedimentation and habitat disruption are certain to
occurr.
The proposed action – a reduction of canopy closure in the riparian reserves to 50%--is excessive and completely unacceptable. Riparian areas are especially susceptible to sedimentation and mass wasting. They provide necessary habitat for an array of species, including Special Status Species, that will be adversely affected by such a severe logging regime. The impacts of this were not fully disclosed. Several riparian areas marked for treatment are very steep. In the Annie’s Cabin project, there are also riparian areas that are dense with hardwoods but not dense with conifers—a natural evolution of an area that has been logged and heading toward recovery naturally. Some of these areas are also already very open due to blow down. We are concerned that logging will increase sedimentation and disrupt habitat; it is a risk not worth taking when this area is healing well on its own time.
MITIGATION MEASURES DO NOT OBVIATE THE NEED
TO PREPARE AN EIS.
The EA recognizes there will likely be impacts: “The action alternatives could contribute to the risk of short-term increases in stream sediment as a result of road repair (including any culvert replacement), hauling, thinning and yarding in the Riparian Reserve LUA, which would likely contribute to a direct increase in turbidity levels directly below road/stream intersections” (EA, page 4.) However, the EA claims that impacts would be mitigated to “undetectable” levels across the landscape due to project design features and mitigation measures. Despite this great claim, there is absolutely no evidence that the EA will fulfill the claims listed out on page 3 including:
- protect and enhance wildlife habitat components
- protect against expansion of invasive and non-native plants
- protect BLM Special Status plant and animal species (now to include C3 species)
- minimize disturbance to federal T&E Species (plus there is a greater duty on the part of the federal government than to “minimize disturbance to” for T&E species!)
We would like to note that while the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) is to be encouraged in timber projects, the use of these measures are
not themselves sufficient to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n v. Peterson 795 F.2d
688, 697 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that compliance with BMPs does not
equate to compliance with the CWA). The agency cannot assume that the
implementation of BMPs will sufficiently mitigate any p
The EA downplays any potential adverse impacts from harvesting activities. The foundation of such generalized and optimistic assessment of impacts is Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are automatically assumed to negate negative impacts. While we support the use of BMPs, they should not facilitate approval of projects that degrade habitat. The aim of BMPs is that they can “control or prevent,” adverse impacts. However, the only sure method of preventing adverse impacts is by not conducting activities that cause harm and destruction. BEST measures of control do not provide assurance that valuable habitat will not be degraded. Despite the lengthy praise given to BMPs in the EA, there is no proof of “demonstrated ability” of BMPs to be successful in diminishing harm.
Where
an environmental assessment relies on mitigation measures to reach a finding of
no significant impact, that mitigation must be assured to occur and must
“completely compensate for any possible adverse environmental impacts.”
In an
explanation of its regulations, the CEQ has stated that mitigation-based FONSIs
are inappropriate in most situations:
Mitigation measures may be relied upon to make a finding
of no significant impact only if they are imposed by statute or regulation, or
submitted by an applicant or agency as part of the original proposal. As a general rule, the regulations contemplate
that agencies should use a broad approach in defining significance and should
not rely on the possibility of mitigation as an excuse to avoid the EIS
requirement.
46 Fed. Reg. 18,038. If a proposal appears to have adverse effects
that could be significant, and certain mitigation measures are then developed
during the scoping or PA stages, the existence of such possible mitigation does
not obviate the need for an EIS.
Therefore, if scoping or the EA identifies certain mitigation
opportunities without altering the nature of the proposal itself, the agency
should continue the EIS process and submit the proposal, and the potential
mitigation, for public and agency review and comment. This is essential to ensure that the final
decision is based on all the relevant factors and that the full NEPA process
will result in enforceable mitigation measures through the Record of
Decision.
The
courts have held that even though the procedural requirements of an EIS are
more strict than those required for an EA, an EA requires more substantial
proof that the mitigation will in fact result in no more significant impact
than an EIS. The Ninth Circuit has held
that if the plaintiff “raises substantial questions whether a project may have
a significant effect, an EIS must be prepared.”
Steamboaters v. FERC, 777 F.2d 1384 (9th
Cir. 1985). The court will not
accept conclusory statements that mitigation measures are effective: the agency
must be able to support its conclusions with information in the administrative
record. Sierra Club
v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
The
test for whether mitigation is adequate is not whether it will avoid listing of
a species, but rather whether it will completely avoid impacts to the species
or reduce those impacts to the level of insignificance. Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness/Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d at 682. There is no assurance that planned mitigation
measures for the proposed logging will completely compensate for environmental
impacts.
A
recent USDA Office of the Inspector General Report concluded that reliance on
speculative mitigation measures in order to reach a FONSI significantly
compromised environmental quality. Office of
Applicable mitigation measures contained in 10 of 12
decision notices and referenced environmental assessments reviewed,
were not always implemented. In
addition, mitigation measures were either omitted or incorrectly incorporated
into 4 of 12 accompanying timber sale contracts. These mitigation measures are designed to
reduce the adverse impacts of timber sale activities on the environment. Generally, mitigation measures were not
implemented due to district personnel (a) not being familiar with the
mitigation measure contained in the environmental documents, (b) not adequately
monitoring actual implementation of the mitigation measures, (c) not comparing
timber sale contract clauses with the applicable environmental documents and,
(d) oversight. As a result, streams,
wildlife habitat, heritage resources, water quality, and visual quality were or
could be adversely affected. In addition,
“Findings of No Significant Impact” conclusions (i.e. that there was no
significant affect on the quality of the human environment) were questionable .
. . Timber sale field visits disclosed that mitigation measures designed to
protect key resource areas were not adequately implemented. The measures involved mitigation of riparian
areas and stream management zones, wildlife habitat, heritage resource sites,
visual quality, and soils.
The
same rules should apply to the BLM. Until the BLM is able to substantiate its
proposed mitigation measures – i.e., that they are appropriate, will be
implemented, and will be effective – the agency must withdraw the proposed
project.
THE ANALYSIS
INAPPROPRIATELY COVERS FOUR ACTIONS IN ONE EA. SEPARATE EAS OR EISS ARE REQUIRED.
Stunningly, the agency ignores a host of activities
happening in the same drainage in its FY 2006 Thinning cumulative effects
analysis, yet claims to effectively determine the environmental impacts of 4
different projects spanning 6 watersheds with a distance of 30 miles in between,
in one single analysis document.
Although the proposed actions may be similar for each of the 4 projects,
their geographic range precludes the likelihood of similar environmental
impacts. Taking the agency rational to its logical conclusion, a thinning
project in
ROADS
One of our main concerns involves the significant amount of road building and reconstruction involved in logging the area. Roads, even if “temporary” by description, have significant affects on the environment. There is abundant science dealing with the adverse affects of roads on wildlife and watersheds. This comes in the form of habitat fragmentation, soil compaction, sedimentation, introduction of invasive weed species, increased likelihood of off road vehicle abuse, and increased risk of fire, to name a few impacts. In addition to the already high road density in the planning area, the BLM plans to construct 3 miles of new roads, renovate a remarkable 67.5 miles of old roads, and create 2.8 miles of new temporary natural surface spur roads. There is also already a high risk of sedimentation due to ongoing winter use of trails from stock and mountain bikes. In early November, there were muddy pools on many of the trails, and several were closed due to poor conditions. A high priority of the BLM should be to reduce impacts from roads through decommissioning ripping and restoration, turning more road miles to trail miles, not building new roads.
Annie’s Cabin
Drainage problem on existing trail
Due to problems with
existing roads, and serious potential for erosion, the EA should eliminate northern
& southern units from the project
Constructing Roads in
Unstable Areas
This area has experienced a landslide, which has washed out a stretch of road. Despite instability of this slope, the BLM is proposing to construct a new section of road to extract timber in the southern unit north of Aqua vista area. This landslide area is re-stabilizing itself naturally through re-vegetation; new road building would disturb the recovery process and potentially have long term hydrological impacts. Building new roads in unstable terrain is not based on good restoration principles. Moreoever, the area that would be opened up to logging from a new road is not dramatically dense, and not in desperate need of restoration. If thinning needs to take place here, trees should be felled and left in place to provide needed nutrients to the forest floor. The southern units should be eliminated from the Annie’s Cabin project completely.
Additionally, the road to the north of the landslide area
has re-vegetated and taken on characteristics of a trail rarely used. We
suggest it be left that way. Does the
EA/FONSI classify this decommissioned road as a road or a trail? Also, are trails included in the calculation
for total compacted area? Due to the
high density of trails and their frequent use by hikers, motor bikes and
horses, especially in recreation areas such as Annie’s Cabin, we want assurances
that trails are included to the compacted area calculation.
Road Construction
Crossing Streams, Washed Out Road and Non
functioning Culvert (T6S-R3E, Section 31).
The below section of road would also require dramatic and costly road reconstruction, again, for short-term use. Reconstructing this road would likely have adverse hydrological impact on the area. To invest significant funds to rebuild this road and replace the culvert for a road that has become a trail and would not need to be used again as road is irresponsible and a waste of resources. All of this for how many board feet of lumber?
Accessing the Northern units near Leap Frog Loop (mismarked on
map provided by BLM) would also require road reconstruction over a stream
labeled Trout Creek. Again, this is not good restoration practice.
This northern section has fairly healthy sized trees that are
not densely stocked. The cost to the environment and recreation are not worth
any benefit in terms of reduced density. Significant road reconstruction would
be needed in an area that has re-vegetated into a nice trail accessing
MacBeth’s Loop Trail. As with the southern units, this area should be dropped
entirely from the scope of the EA. An additional problem with this area is
invasive weed infestation. There is an existing problem with Scot’s Broom,
which will be exacerbated by logging and hauling.
Snakehouse
The Snakehouse project involves a total of 91 acres of soil compaction or10.9% of the project area. This is greater than the designated 10% and must be reduced. Soil compaction greatly reduces productivity, contributing to a smaller and less diverse forest, the opposite qualities of what the project aims to cultivate. The EA/FONSI admits that “as trees age and become established, the negative effect on growth from soil compaction and displacement would become less pronounced and growth rates may approach that of trees on similar undisturbed sites” (EA/FONSI, page 36). Increased growth rates, one of the main goals of the project, will not be achieved. In fact, only after an indeterminate amount of time, growth rates “may approach” those of trees on similar, undisturbed sites. This project must be reevaluated in light of its true goals, and its procedures must be readjusted accordingly.
In addition to general problems with soil compaction, we further take issue with the following specific units:
The BLM road 9-3E-31 “is in need of closure and restoration to eliminate the existing sedimentation problem and prevent further degradation of the area” (EA/FONSI, page 85). Renovating the road to access unit 1B will be a huge cost to taxpayers and pollute fish habitat with sediment; we ask that you drop unit 1B altogether.
Five streams adjacent or very near 6 of the thinning units are fish-bearing (7A, 13B, 1C, 1B, 5B, 5F) (EA/FONSI, page 86). Erosion and sedimentation from road building and logging is a concern of ours. We urge you to cancel these 6 units in efforts to maintain and enhance fish populations. Units 1B and 1C must be dropped because they are along Snake Creek, and “…chronic sedimentation [is] currently occurring in Snake Creek” (EA/FONSI, page 87). A more appropriate action would be to repair road 9-3E-31, deemed culprit of the sedimentation. Unit 7A also must be dropped because fish populate the stream along the harvesting unit.
THE EA HAS NOT
ADEQUATELY EVALUATED IMPACTS TO RECREATION & SCENIC QUALITIES
Annie’s Cabin
Most of the project would take place in the Molalla
River/Table Rock SRMA. This has been designated, per the Salem District RMP,
for recreation activity and experience opportunities. One of the prized
features of this SRMA is the Shared-Use Non-Motorized Trail System. As your
scoping document states, many partners and volunteers have played a critical
role in developing and managing recreation opportunities in the area. There is
no doubt that the quality of recreation will be negatively impacted by logging.
On a basic level, recreationists will be inconvenienced by the logging operations,
and affected by visual impacts, and noise. The photos provided in the EA (page
28) are useless in providing an idea of the visual impacts, because the before
and after shots were not taken from the same vantage point. It’s clear,
however, that the quality of recreation will diminished for years to come. This
area, which is surrounded by private lands, provides a rare recreational
opportunity for local community members. It also is an attraction for people
from surrounding communities. There is great potential for the City of
THE EA HAS NOT
ADEQUATELY EVALUATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Survey and Manage
Species
The EA claims to
protect BLM Special Status plant and animal species and relies upon statutes
and regulations listed on page 3, including the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove
or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
(“2004 SEIS”) However, this EIS is
no longer valid in face of a recent ruling by Judge Pechman given in federal
court on August 1, 2005, NWEA
vs. Mark Rey, No. C04-844P.
The ruling determined that the EIS violates NEPA. As a result, the BLM needs to
follow all survey protocol for all previously listed C3 species and provide the
results of those surveys in revised EISs.
Excerpts From: NWEA vs. Mark Rey, No. C04-844P, Judge Marsha Pechmann,
Defendants failed to
comply with the National Environmental Procedure Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321
et seq., in preparing the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure
Standards and Guidelines (“2004 SEIS”). Defendants failed to analyze potential
impacts to Survey and Manage species if they are not
added to or are removed from the Forest Service’s and BLM’s respective programs
for special status species. Defendants failed to provide a thorough analysis of
their assumption that the late-successional reserves would adequately protect
species that the Survey and Manage standard was introduced to protect,
particularly in light of their previous positions in earlier environmental
impact statements. Lastly, the Survey and Manage standard was deemed a
hindrance to hazardous fuel treatments, which served as part of the
justification for eliminating the standard. However, Defendants failed to
disclose and analyze flaws in their methodology for calculating the acreage in
need of hazardous fuel treatments. Part of the cost analysis was similarly
flawed because it relied on the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments in
calculating the cost of the Survey and Manage standard. The Court does not
reach Plaintiffs’ claims under the National Forest Management Act.
The 2004 SEIS
explicitly assumed that 152 species will be added to the SSS Programs, but
acknowledged that the Forest Service and BLM regional officers “have not
exercised their authority to add species to the [SSS] Program[s] ....” (04 SEIS 25). … The 2004 SEIS fails to analyze what would
happen if the Regional Foresters and State Directors exercised their discretion
and chose not to include some otherwise eligible species in the SSS Programs or
to remove species that have been included. … Agencies should have informed the
public and the decision makers of the environmental effects on these species if
they were not included or were removed from these Programs.
Northern Spotted Owl
The EA as proposed, will degrade Northern spotted owl
Critical Habitat, contributing to the regression, not recovery, of the
Threatened Northern spotted owl. The
project will result in 1,882 acres of Dispersal Habitat downgraded, including
the loss of 171 acres of NRF suitable habitat, which will no longer support
nesting, roosting, and/or foraging behavior. The Biological Assessment
determined that these projects may affect the northern spotted owl due to the
modification of dispersal and suitable habitat, but that it would not
jeopardize the continued survival of the spotted owl. (EA,
page 14). Again, optimistic assumption completely divorced from
reality.
Habitat degradation as proposed in this project is precisely what has led to the Threatened status of the northern spotted owl. The EA argues that this short term decrease in habitat quantity and quality is acceptable because “habitat conditions are expected improve as thinned stands mature (>20 years). In otherwords, in the long term the habitat may be more suitable for spotted owls. “treatments can have long-term benefits to spotted owls by encouraging late-successional characteristics to occur more rapidly. In the short-term, disturbance associated with accomplishing thinning (logging, road-building, etc) may have a temporary negative effect on presence or movement of adults between blocks of suitable habitat, or movement of juveniles to disperse from natal territories.” (EA, page 42.) For a species listed as Threatened, this is a risky and unacceptable conservation strategy.
As recognized by the spotted owl status review, all existing
suitable habitat could be critical to the survival of the spotted owl. Will
there still be a local spotted owl population to repopulate the area in twenty
years? Destroying NRF habitat and
degrading dispersal habitat will only exacerbate the trend toward decline. No
thinning project claiming to use ecological restoration as a motivation can adversely
impact habitat of local populations of a threatened species. The Proposed
Action fails to adhere to conservation stipulations enacted for the protection
of the northern spotted owl and therefore should be withdrawn.
Barred owl territorial expansion as a result of harvesting
may further displace spotted owl populations.
Reduction in habitat quality post-harvesting could cause an increase in
both inter- and intra-species competition.
In the case of the Threatened northern spotted owl and its common
competitor, the barred owl, this competitive escalation could very easily
result in spotted owl displacement and loss of habitat.
Furthermore, this project very poorly
adheres to BMPs concerning spotted owl protection. During the critical nesting period for
spotted owls, noise generating activities are allegedly prohibited unless there
is no nesting activity detected. While
there might not be a nest located at the time of the survey, allowing logging
and hauling could assure that there would not be nests there in the near future
due to disturbance. Additionally, the thinning prescription involves large
openings around large trees which are not the protected settting that northern
spotted owl require for their nests.
If in the context of the local and watershed scale, the project would adversely affect the spotted owl and its habitat, how does the project contribute to spotted owl recovery? As required by law, the FWS must physically protect and restore habitat to achieve “recovery” not just maintain the species in bare survival mode. The agency must follow the recent holding of the 9th Circuit: “… the ESA was enacted not merely to forestall the extinction of species (i.e., promote a species survival), but to allow a species to recover to the point where it may be delisted. See 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3) (defining conservation as all methods that can be employed to “bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this [Act] are no longer necessary”); Sierra Club, 245 F.3d at 438. In order to ensure that any action taken will lead to the recovery of the northern spotted owl, we request a thorough research and report addressing the northern spotted owl habitat in an EIS.
SOIL
Healthy soil is the foundation of a healthy forest ecosystem
(Coleman, et al. 1992; Klopatek, et al. 1993).
We are concerned that the BLM has not analyzed this factor sufficiently
in relation to soil’s ecological importance nor in relation to the standards
prescribed by law.
There are specific p
Mycorrhizae
The EA/FONSI does not recognize the importance of
mycorrhizal fungi on forest growth and productivity, and fails to discuss how
mycorrhizae will be impacted by the proposed timber project. In fact, this resource’s important function
in forest ecology was completely overlooked.
The EA/FONSI fails to address how past logging has affected
mycorrhizae in areas within the analysis area.
Scientific evidence suggests that mycorrhizae and other soil organisms
and processes are extremely important and are easily destroyed by ground-based
logging. Attachment 9, Fungi and Insects; Attachment 12, Soils and Logging in
Machine piling of fuels and pile burning can have serious
adverse impacts on soils. Please limit the extent of these treatments and do
not conduct such treatment on slopes where they can become the initiation point
for surface erosion. In order to
mitigate potential fire hazards, the EA/FONSI requires that pile burning take
place during the wet season only. This
stipulation is in direct opposition to BMPs insisting that any sediment-causing
activities occur during dry months only.
How do you plan to uphold both stipulations simultaneously?
THE EA HAS NOT ADEQUATELY EVALUATED IMPACTS TO INVASIVE WEEDS
Invasive weeds have the potential of being a serious p
Fields of Scot’s Broom result from their seeds having been transported deep within the subwatershed on logging trucks. The problems posed by the introduction of non-native invasive weeds are well documented. How is it possible that this project will not further spread noxious weeds throughout the planning area? This EA provides very little in the way of mitigation, requiring only “Ground disturbing equipment would be cleaned as needed to be free of off-site soil, plant parts and seed (e.g. noxious weeds) prior to entering the project area” (EA, 19). At a minimum, the EA should require an actual inspection of logging equipment by an authorized and qualified agency official. What is the success rate of the very limited proposed mitigation measure? Do you have any data? What are the risks of this measure failing? How would you monitor success of this measure during implementation of the project? How will building more roads and bringing in heavy machinery and other vehicles that carry noxious weed seeds assist with prevention? Why is the spread of noxious diseases omitted from your cumulative effects analysis? While we feel the agency should be seriously concerned about the spread of noxious weeds, and measures should be taken to prevent their spread, Bark cannot support the use of herbicides on false brome given the known adverse affects of pesticides to wildlife and humans. (EA, 17) The agency is advised to use manual techniques as opposed to herbicide application. Either way, the FY 2006 Thinning analysis should have included information about impacts to wildlife, particularly T&E fish populations, from its use.
SNAGS AND
PRE-COMMERCIAL THINNING
Due to past management involving clear-cutting, this area has
few large downed logs and little downed woody debris on the forest floor.
However, there are signs that the forest structure is beginning to change as
trees in denser stands are falling over and creating openings in the canopy. If
left alone, this process of natural selection will result in downed woody
debris and increased growth rate for nearby trees no longer competing for
resources. I explored the northern section of the planning area, and saw a few
stands which were extremely dense and devoid of undergrowth. These areas could
benefit from some pre-commercial thinning to increase the rate of down woody
debris on the forest floor and decrease competition. However, the majority of
the stands I visited had a lush and diverse array of undergrowth species, with
a healthy amount of space between trees. Bar
There is much science on the value of snags that has become available since the NFP and RMP were finalized. The BLM must use the best available science to guide planned mitigation measures and design features. The best available science indicates that retaining snags “at levels to support species of cavity nesting birds at 40 percent of potential population levels” (RMP, p. 46) is not adequate to keep snag dependent populations viable.
Bats, martens, woodpeckers,
bears, and many other species are dependent upon snags. Current direction for
protecting and providing snags does not meet the needs of the many species
associated with this unique and valuable habitat component. See Rose, et
al., Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for Habitat
Management, Chapter 24 in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in
Intensive forest management activities that have
decreased the density of large snags in early forest successional stages
(sapling/pole and small tree stages) may have had adverse impacts on the 61
associated wildlife species (Figure 12). Similarly, the lesser amount of large
down wood in early forest successional stages may not provide as well for the
24 associated wildlife species. Such results suggest the continuing need for
specific management guidelines to provide large standing and down dead wood in
all successional stages. (pg. 600)
Several major lessons have been learned in the period 1979-1999 that have
tested critical assumptions of these earlier management advisory models:
Calculations of numbers of snags required by woodpeckers based on assessing
their biological potential, (that is, summing numbers of snags used per pair,
accounting for unused snags, and extrapolating snag numbers based on population
density) is a flawed technique. Empirical studies are suggesting that snag
numbers in areas used and selected by some wildlife species are far higher than
those calculated by this technique. (pg. 226)
Numbers and sizes (dbh) of snags used and selected by secondary cavity-nesters
often exceed those of primary cavity excavators.
Clumping of snags and down wood may be a natural pattern, and clumps may be selected by some species, so that providing only even distributions may be insufficient to meet all species needs. Other forms of decaying wood, including hollow trees, natural tree cavities, peeling bark, and dead parts of live trees, as well as fungi and mistletoe associated with wood decay, all provide resources for wildlife, and should be considered along with snags and down wood in management guidelines.
The ecological roles played by wildlife associated with
decaying wood extend well beyond those structures per se, and can be
significant factors influencing community diversity and ecosystem processes. We
have also learned that managing forests with decay processes should be done as
part of a broader management approach to stand development, with attention paid
to retaining legacies of large trees and decaying wood from original or prior stands.
(p 602-603)
The bottom line is that current management at both the plan and project level
does not reflect this new information about the value of abundant snags and
down wood. The agency must avoid any reduction of existing or future snags and
logs (including as part of this project) until the applicable management plans
are rewritten to update the snag retention standards. See also PNW Research
Station, “Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest,” Science
Findings, Nov. 1999 (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi20.pdf)
(“Management implications: Current direction for providing wildlife habitat on
public forest lands does not reflect findings from research since 1979; more
snags and dead wood structures are required for foraging, denning, nesting, and
roosting than previously thought.”)
The fact is that while large snags are hard to come by, there are smaller snags dotting the planning area, some that are under the height requirements that determine protection. Given the lack of large snags, all existing snags, no matter the size should be given priority for protection. Entering stands with heavy machinery automatically increases the potential for destruction of snags and large down woody debris. This planning area simply cannot afford to lose more of those features, particularly given the private land adjacent which has been recently logged and industrial land that is planned for largescale clearcutting in the near future.
Current science
shows that 4 snags/acre minimum is required for 100% population potential for
woodpecker species associated with snag cavities. Wolf Vegetation Management
EA,
Snags should be carefully inventoried by species, size, decay status, quality,
and location during project planning, and they should be treated as “special
habitats” and given special protection during project planning and
implementation (i.e. keep workers out of the vicinity of snags so that OSHA
doesn’t order them cut). For instance, the May 2001 Wolf Vegetation Management
Project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest includes a mitigation measure
protecting trees from being harvested if they are near hazardous snags >15
inches dbh. The EA does not adequately address the need to protect and provide
snag habitat.
The snag retention requirements in the EA fail to retain enough snags to
provide habitat for viable populations of cavity dependent species. Since snags
have a patchy spatial distribution, surveys to determine snag abundance require
very large sample sizes relative to other general vegetation surveys. This was
not recognized until relatively recently, so most past surveys conducted to
determine natural snag abundance have therefore grossly underestimated the true
abundance of snags. This has led the agency to underestimate the number of
snags necessary to protect species. This new information must be disclosed and
documented in an EIS and it requires a forest plan amendment.
The agency must do away with the caveat that they will protect snags where
feasible. This is based on a false
choice between snags and safety. The agency can buffer snags from activities
that involve workers, then all ecologically important snags can be protected.
The agency must consider this as an alternative to their proposed “management
by caveat.” An example of this was the
THE
EA INADEQUATELY ANALYZES IMPACTS OF FIRE & FUELS
The EA
proposes fuel treatments in the aftermath of logging, claiming that this would
reduce both the intensity and severity of potential wildfires in the long term
(EA, page 16). However, this is totally unsubstantiated, and frankly absurd.
There is no viable explanation given to how this would take place. One time
removal of logging-created brush will not counter the increase in fire prone
conditions created by the logging project itself, which is well known to
elevate the potential of a fire’s severity and spread. The fact is that the proposal will reduce the
canopy closure to 40% or 50%, opening up the area to sun and wind, and drying
out ground fuel that was previously shaded and moist. Hot, dry conditions will
likely be exacerbated by global climate change, which is estimated by
scientists to result in a decrease in the Cascade’s snowpack by 56% by 2050.
This will have a serious impact on moisture levels during the hot, dry fire
season, which was not included in the analysis. Paired with intense
recreational use, increased likelihood of unauthorized access to roads, and
human presence--the most common source of fire starts-- and this project will
result in a more hazardous, not less hazardous, fire situation across the
landscape. This would take place at a time when the government is pouring money
into efforts to reduce the severity of wildland fires. The EA claims that
maintenance of the desired future condition (which is not explained) would be
accomplished by ongoing prescribed fire, piling and burning of fuels, or other
mechanized treatments (EA, page 17). Where will the money come from to
regularly treat 2000 acres for fuel reduction? The project area would likely
need to be treated once a decade in order for this to legitimately work, given
the rate of growth of vegetative ground cover as described in the EA:
“Understory and ground cover would remain sparse in unthinned patches, and
vigorous dense shrub patches would develop in heavily-thinned patches of up to
an acre in size, resulting in an enhanced layer effect to the canopy and
understory” (EA, 27). Claims of reducing fire severity is additionally absurd
given the fact that it would involve a dramatic and totally inappropriate transition
of this landscape from one in large part has a fire return interval of 200
years to one with a fire return interval of 10-20 years. By the way, where are the environmental
impacts assessed for this repeated reentry in this EA on wildlife, particularly
on Special Status terrestrial species?
OLD GROWTH
Both Annie’s Cabin (100 year old timber stands) and the Snakehouse Project (115 year old timber stands) include logging in Late Successional forest. The value of Late Successional forest in a watershed almost devoid of older forest is obvious from a wildlife habitat and water quality standpoint. The EA claims that “Generally, the largest trees will be left” (EA, page 15). However, it allows for taking co-dominant and dominant trees. This is unacceptable. All stands that are late Successional old growth; in other words 80 years or older, should be excluded entirely from this project. In the Annie’s Cabin project area north of the intersection of the Huckleberry Trail and the Rim Tie Trail, there are numerous large trees. A few measure 10.6 feet in circumference. Many are 6 feet in circumference. These older trees are very rare in the watershed. Tree growth is achieved most successfully through thinning early seral stands, not the mid seral and late seral stands that comprise the vast majority of the planning areas.
In addition to staying completely out of LSOG stands, there
needs to be an explicit diameter limit in the EA/FONSI about the size of the
trees that would be removed in the case that a remnant trees are found in
younger stands. Instead, the EA/FONSI generalizes that “suppressed, co-dominant
and occasional dominant trees” will be removed (EA/FONSI, page 15). Such lax restrictions are dangerous and tend
to provide loopholes for removing bigger, more financially lucrative trees. Explicit, quantitative restrictions must be
set in order to properly proceed with the logging project. A large tree in the northern-most unit is
pictured above. Will it stay?
THE EA WOULD RESULT IN
DESTRUCTION OF KEY HARDWOOD HABITAT
There are also hardwoods present in the planning area that
are proposed for logging in this EA. “Vine maple and California hazel would be
cut in selected areas to enhance or initiate understory conifer regeneration”
(EA, page 15). Any and all hardwood needs to be protected. It is well known
that hardwoods (and alders in particular with their nitrogen fixing) play a
vital role in forest ecosystem diversity.
The USGS Biological Science Report USGS\BRD\BSR – 2002-0006 “Managing for Biodiversity in Young
Douglas-Fir Forests of Western Oregon” (MB 2002) repeatedly highlights the
role played by hardwoods and shrubs in promoting diverse and healthy forest
ecosystems. Hardwoods are mentioned over
70 times in this report, each time in conjunction with the important ecosystem
role they play within Douglas-fir plantations.
The “Project Objectives” section contained the following quote:
“Do the diversity and abundance of
selected forest organisms appear to be related to specific stand features, such
as shrubs, hardwood trees, remnant
old trees, and snags?” (page 11, bold is from
original)
Hardwoods were found to play an important role in nearly
every ecosystem aspect studied in this overview; specifically, they were found
to be important to maintaining healthy populations of epiphytic lichens and
bryophytes, moths, and birds. Tall established shrubs were the main factor when
examining macrolichens and bryophytes.
Epiphytic lichens and bryophytes play a vital role in forest
nutrient cycling. As discussed (MB 2002, page 17), these epiphytes “…are
important components of these ecosystems. They serve as nitrogen-fixers (e.g.,
Lobaria oregano), providing important inputs of plant-available nitrogen to
ecosystems; as hydrological buffers, absorbing, storing, and releasing water
(e.g., moss mats); as part of food webs (e.g., in the diet of arthropods,
flying squirrels, deer, and elk); as nesting material for marbled murrelets,
flying squirrels, and other birds and mammals; and as habitat for insects and
other arthropods…Communities of lichens and bryophytes develop slowly…Because
of their importance in forest ecosystems, and the association of many species
with old-growth forests, epiphytic lichens and bryophytes are increasingly
being considered in the practice of forest-ecosystem management (FEMAT 1993,
USDA and USDI 1994).” With that in mind, the results of the study were
unequivocal and resulted in the following conclusion and recommendation for
management:
·
“Hotspots [i.e., hardwoods] supported more rare
or unusual macrolichens, and a higher diversity and abundance of cyanolichens,
than did other stand types.”
·
“Retain a legacy of hardwoods and shrubs, and
favor the old shrubs on a site. Hardwoods provide important habitat for macrolichens,
possibly because macrolichens grow during the wet season, when hardwood leavers
are not present. In particular, many nitrogen-fixing species are
hardwood-associated, for reasons that are not yet well understood.” (page 28)
Similar results were found for the role hardwoods played in
moth populations. As noted, “The
biodiversity of moths is linked to the ecosystem through their influences on
nutrient cycling, plant population dynamics, and food-web dynamics (Miller,
1993)…If the plant species is lost from the forest, then the moth and the
function that it provides are lost as well. Thus, patterns in the biodiversity
(i.e., species richness and relative abundance) of moths are related to the
biodiversity of host plants in the forests” (MB 2002, page 18). With their importance in mind, the study was
once again unequivocal:
“Hardwoods were responsible for most
of the species richness in every stand type. In fact, 46 percent of the species
collected across all stand types were associated with hardwoods.” (MB, page 34)
The study had a very similar result when they examined the
relation of hardwoods to forest birds:
“Bird species richness was positively
associated with hardwood components of stand structure, which indicates the
important contribution of hardwoods to stand-level diversity.” (MB, page 39)
It is not surprising then that a portion of the project
conclusions and “proposed thinning guidelines” were focused on retention of
existing hardwoods within Douglas-fir plantations:
·
“Hardwoods are important for many species,
whether through providing habitat substrate (e.g., for epiphytes), food sources
(e.g., for moth larvae), or foraging substrate (e.g., for birds) – other
habitat conditions…”
·
“Favor
hardwood trees across a range of size classes, including large trees that
occupy midcanopy and higher positions.” (MB 2002, page 41-42)
“Favor hardwood and shrubs” is at the top of the list of
general thinning prescriptions for biodiversity enhancement within Douglas-fir
plantations (MB 2002, p.46). Similar
finding/conclusions/recommendations were documented for shrubs, especially tall
shrubs (MB 2002, pages 20, 24-25, 28-32, 38- 42, etc.).
The following scientific studies report that a high density
of hardwoods is key in promoting healthy populations
of a diverse array of species:
Hagar and McComb, 1993. Bird Communities in Commercially Thinned and
Unthinned Douglas-fir Stands of Western Oregon. COPE Report, October
1993, p. 6-9, found that the number of bird species in a stand was positively
correlated with hardwoods >12" dbh, conifers >22" dbh and snags
>20.5" dbh.
Science Findings,
January 2004, issue 60, “Tree squirrels in the
The Forest Ecosystem Study: Background,
Rationale, Implementation, Baseline Conditions, and Silvicultural Assessment
(Andrew B. Carey, David R. Thysell, and Angus W. Brodie), May 1999, PNW-GTR-457
notes that, “the coniferous overstory species and other ectomycorrhizal
understory species are hypothesized to “preserve ectomycorrhizal fungi during
periods of rapidly changing above ground community structure and that
mycorrhizal links between hardwoods and conifers facilitate conifer
establishment by providing a ready source of inoculum, nutrients, and water”
(page 68).
The
aforementioned scientific findings make it clear that preserving as many
hardwoods as possible is key to preserving and
enhancing biodiversity. The proposed
action would involve the commercial harvest of hardwoods, contributing to an
overall reduction of hardwood density.
This is unacceptable and does not comply with the project’s stated goal
to “To protect and enhance stand diversit and wildlife habitat components” (EA,
page 3). If this projects aims at the
enhancement and restoration of biodiversity, all hardwoods standing must remain
undisturbed. While there are certainly
large patches of forest that have a high density of hardwoods; they are still
much more rare in the planning areas relative to the
conifers present.
ABUSE OF TAX PAYER
DOLLARS
When user groups asked to build a trail over the above landslide area, they were told by the BLM that the area was too unstable for a trail, and that any trails should be re-directed around the landslide area. However, the BLM is now proposing to punch a road right through it. Double standard? Volunteers clearly took great pains to install this environmentally sound trail circumventing the slide. Under the Annie’s Cabin proposal, all of this effort and goodwill will go to waste.
CONCLUSION: THE EA
SHOULD ANALYZE A
Many of the forests in the planning area are well on their
way toward healing themselves from past management activities. The areas Bark
visited showed strong signs of a natural recovery process and healthy
understory increasing in diversity as natural disease and disturbance processes
are beginning to take place. Many were not overly dense. As previously stated,
blow down is happening naturally in many units.
We
would like you to reevaluate your plan for the FY 2006 Thinning Projects and
create instead a true Restoration Alternative. This could involve some thinning
any unnaturally dense stands, leaving the trunks for down woody debris, and
chipping the limbs for soil fertilization. In the Annie’s Cabin project
specifically, there are many areas that could benefit from pre-commercial
thinning. For example, the area north of 9B West/10 and the area east of 9B.
The part of Unit 2 (422) on the west side of the road is composed of very young
(15-30 yr old) Douglas-fir and western hemlock with lots of rhododendrons, and it
is somewhat impenetrable. This area in
particular, given the age class of the stand and the fact that it is so steep,
is more suited for pre-commercial thinning than a commercial thin.
Road obliteration is desperately needed and
would also be part of this alternative, as would invasive plant removal. Such a project could truly address the forest
health issues, without the damage caused by an intensive commercial harvest
operation. It could also serve to
provide a sustainable source of employment for timber workers. Non-commercial thinning projects create jobs and the
maintenance of truly healthy forests that provide an array of recreational
opportunities that contribute to stable economies now and in the future.
Although we
appreciated the inclusion of helicopter logging alternative in the Annie’s
Cabin proposal, we still feel the impacts to the area would be greater than the
habitat and wildlife can reasonably handle and again urge you to separate out
your analysis into separate EAs for each project.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Executive Director