June 12, 2007
Cindy Enstrom
Bureau of Land
Management
Salem District
Office
1717 Fabry Road S.E
Salem, OR 97306
E-mailed to Cindy
Enstrom at [email protected]
Mailed via USPS overnight
tracking # ___________________
RE: Protest of Final Decision Documentation and
Decision Rationale for the Annie’s Cabin Thinning (Environmental
Assessment Number OR080-04-20)
Dear Cindy,
Pursuant to 43
CFR 5003, please consider the following protest of the Final Decision
Documentation and Decision Rationale for the Annie’s Cabin Thinning that you
signed on May 30, 2007.
Decision
Title: Final Decision and Decision Rationale for Annie’s
Cabin Thinning.
Project
Description: The project will log 571 acres of 50-100 year
old forest in matrix, riparian reserve, and the Molalla River Shared Use trail
system.
Project Location: Township 6
South, Range 3 East, Sections 7, 18, 19, 30, 31 and
Township 7 South, Range 3 East, Sections 5 and 6, Willamette
Meridian. Clackamas County, Oregon.
Date of
Decision: May 30, 2007
Name of
Deciding Officer: Cindy Enstrom,
Field Manager, Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM.
Introduction:
Bark’s mission is to bring about a transformation of Mt. Hood National
Forest (and surrounding BLM forests) into a place where natural processes
prevail, where wildlife thrives and where local communities have a social,
cultural, and economic investment in its restoration and preservation. Bark believes that the Annie’s Cabin Thinning
(Annie’s Cabin) will cause unnecessary damage to the Molalla River Shared Use
trail system. In addressing this
critical resource, the BLM excluded any analysis on the impacts that logging
would have on the visual quality of the trails.
It also did not analyze the increased staff and volunteer resources that
will be needed to handle the additional trail maintenance needed from windthrown trees over the trail. Bark also believes that numerous terrestrial
and aquatic resources are threatened by the selected action. This protest is timely because the legal notice advertising the
sale was published in Molalla Pioneer on
May 30, 2007. Bark commented on the 2006 Thinning EA in a timely and
substantive manner.
ANNIE’S
CABIN PROTEST
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
NEPA requires the BLM to analyze a range of
alternatives and disclose the results of that analysis. 42
USC § 4332, 40 C.F.R § 1508.9 Bark and
Oregon Wild (formerly ONRC) both raised concerns of using one EA to cover four
different, and publicly contentious actions.
The EA
covered Annie’s Cabin, Missouri Ridge, Snakehouse
and Round Mountain timber sales. In the
Decision, the BLM states,
All stands proposed for thinning that
are “older” have been previously thinned
or originated as plantations, pastures, or natural regeneration after harvest.
All aspects of the proposal are consistent with an existing EIS (RMP). Though
the EA analysis covers four project areas scattered over a large area, any
decision for individual project areas is independent of the others. DR 43, 44
emphasis added
Based on the
three-sentence response to the concerns raised about this method of analysis,
the BLM highlighted “older” stands that have been manipulated in the past as
the common thread for analysis. Bark has
documented what appears to be native (un-thinned and not otherwise manipulated
by logging) stands in at least one unit of the Annie’s Cabin Timber Sale
(southeast corner of Unit 25). There are
no stumps, and there are large legacy trees (conifers and hardwoods). This leads Bark to be even more resigned to
our concerns over district-wide analysis of what is easily the most impactful
activity that the district undertakes (logging). Even though the acreage of the undocumented
native forest is small (2-8? acres), the impacts are significant.
In addition, as
the population of species found in the project area continue to decline (Oregon
slender salamander and northern spotted owls), it
would seem that the BLM would put a higher priority on thorough analysis, not necessarily just more efficient analysis. Bark is
supportive of the federal government saving money, but not at the expense of
the landscape. Of course another option
would be to not proceed with extractive activities that require analysis at
all.
In general Bark is
pleased to see more than one action alternative presented in the EA. Too often the public is given a choice
between no-action and action. This
rarely results in no-action, making the “choice” seem like less of one. In the EA the public is presented with a
helicopter alternative to address concerns over impacts to recreation (for more
detail on Bark’s concerns about recreation see below). In response, at least four parties asked the
BLM to drop either all or some of the proposed logging to address recreation
concerns. For anyone who has been
hiking, impacts to the experience is not restricted to hiking through an active
logging operation or the physical damage done to the trail. The impact is primarily the visual experience
off the trail. Thus it would have been
expected that the alternatives included an action that actually buffered the
trails, instead of simply changing the yarding system
from ground-based to helicopter. It is
likely that this alternative would have resulted in much more support from
those who use these trails regularly.
BLM and Bark do
not have a long history of working together to achieve similar interests, it seems that the Molalla CPO and Molalla River
Watch do. That is why it seems strange
that the concession that the BLM made in response to those groups’ concerns was
to switch from ground-based yarding to helicopter and
increase the size of the units overlapping the trail system. In Bark’s history these kind of concerns have
been dealt with through the creation of no-cut buffers (Eightmile
Meadow Timber Sale, Mt. Hood National Forest), albeit narrow buffers. Instead, the BLM has made no changes to what
is clearly its primary goal: timber volume.
In fact, the number of acres in the selected action is more than the
total of the proposed action in the EA.
Bark did not understand why the BLM was so resistant to make concessions
to strong community partners by creating trail buffers, yet so quick to forward
helicopter logging as the solution to the problem. After reviewing the Decision Rationale, the
reason is quite evident. If the BLM were
to have moved forward with its proposed action, it would have had to consult
with NOAA Fisheries because of the culvert replacements associated with road
building activities. This additional
step would have taken extra time. It
would also probably improve fish habitat through decreased sedimentation and
reduction of risk to habitat from road blowouts caused by failing
culverts. Instead, the BLM realized that
it could utilize public concerns over trail impacts to promote a helicopter
alternative, avoiding any culvert repairs and ESA consultation. Bark is disappointed in this approach to
public lands management, and believe that it is another example of giving
recreation interests the short end of the stick when it comes to the selected
action.
THE SELECTED ACTION IS
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
As
an agency of the federal government, the BLM shall not act in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). While this
somewhat vague statute seems lost on a single decision such as a 500+ acre
timber sale, in reality the individual actions of the federal government can
not be separated from their cumulative impact.
District Managers (BLM and Forest Service) are responsible for large areas
that could be considered some of the most sensitive socio-political, and
ecological, landscapes in the United States.
Decisions made by District Managers impact the quality of American’s
drinking water, their home’s safety with regard to forest fire, and their
quality of life by providing recreational opportunities (like hiking). Rarely will the mayor of a city have as grave
a responsibility in their day to day management. Furthermore, the management of federally
owned land (BLM and Forest Service) costs taxpayers $5.87 billion in 2007. (Whitehouse)
Most Americans would agree that decisions made by those with such
significant responsibilities should be scrutinized. This should begin with a review of the
Purpose and Need provided for Annie’s Cabin.
From
the 2006 Thinning EA, the purpose and need provided for Annie’s Cabin, and the
three other timber sales (Missouri Ridge, Snakehouse,
and Round Mountain) is:
· Matrix
Land Use Allocation (LUA) (RMP p. 20-22): To manage developing timber stands in the Matrix
LUA in order to:
o Maintain the health and growth
of developing stands;
o Achieve a desirable balance
between wood volume production, quality of wood, and timber value at harvest
(RMP p. D-3);
o Providing a sustainable supply
of timber as described in the RMP (p. 1, 46, 47);
o Develop timber sales that can
be successfully offered to the market place;
o Retain elements that provide
ecosystem diversity (snags, old growth trees, etc.) so that a healthy forest
ecosystem can be maintained with habitat to support plant and animal populations
(RMP p.1, 20)
o Increase
protection for the public, facilities and high-value resources from large
intense wildfires in rural/urban interface and high-use recreation areas in
accordance with the National Fire Plan’s Healthy Forest Initiative and
Restoration Act.
· Riparian
Reserve, Late Seral Reserve (LSR) and
Matrix/Connectivity LUA (RMP p. 9-15): To apply silvicultural
practices in some dense conifer-dominated sites within the stands of the
Riparian Reserve LUA in order to:
o Develop future large coarse
woody debris, snag habitat, in-stream large wood and other elements of late-successional forest habitat. (RMP p.1);
o Develop structural and spatial
diversity of the forest ecosystem on a landscape level in the long term.
· Roads:
To maintain
and develop a safe, efficient and environmentally sound road system (RMP p.
62)] in order to:
o Provide appropriate access for
timber harvest, silvicultural practices, and fire
protection vehicles needed to meet the objectives above;
o Reduce potential human sources
of wildfire ignition by controlling access;
o Reduce environmental effects
associated with identified existing roads within the project areas (RMP p. 11).
Bark
believes that it is a serious flaw in the purpose and need to not even mention
the role of the BLM in providing for recreation demands in the Molalla River
Shared Use trail system. The area experiences high use for hiking, biking,
horse riding, and water sports. Given
that recreation is the dominant public use of this area (far more individuals
recreate in the area than receive direct or indirect benefit from logging, see
recreation section below), it would be a suitable purpose and need. Furthermore, given the significant impact the
selected action will have on the human environment, it is one of the reasons
that Bark believes an EIS is justified (see below).
The
vast majority of purposes provided for the four projects, of which we can only
assume all apply to Annie’s Cabin, are geared specifically toward providing
wood products. Bark does not argue that
the selected action meets this purpose.
However, one of the purposes is to “retain elements that provide
ecosystem diversity.” This is also a
requirement of the Salem BLM RMP, and must be taken seriously when proposing
such a large action. Bark is
appreciative of the BLM’s slow move away from logging native old-growth. It is a move that makes sense now that there is such a large number of acres of forest in a young
plantation stage. But we cannot support
a ‘transitional’ phase in which projects are purported to be plantation thins,
but include the logging of native and key habitat features. In the Butte Creek Timber Sale, it was the
logging of two of the remaining 4 (50%) of the legacy old-growth Douglas firs. In Clear Dodger, it was the heavy markings
for western red cedar. And in Annie’s
Cabin it is the logging of large, and infrequently
found (in the project area), big leaf maples and red alders. Bark addresses this issue in more detail
below, but it is raised here because it clearly violates the purpose and needs
stated in which diversity is to be retained.
Lastly,
the BLM has a responsibility to maintain and mitigate the harm caused by the
network of logging roads it has built.
The final purpose stated in the EA specifically calls for the BLM to, “Reduce
environmental effects associated with identified existing roads within the
project areas.” It is unclear how this
is happening as a part of the selected action.
The BLM outlines in the EA the clear need for road repairs, in
particular stream culverts. But upon
choosing the helicopter alternative, it seems to assume that the environmental
damage associated with failing culverts is no longer. This is a false assumption, and one that we
believe is contrary to the purpose and need and the RMP.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Bark has two primary concerns about cumulative
impacts from the Annie’s Cabin decision.
First, our concerns regarding the project exceeding the 10% watershed
threshold for impervious area of a watershed were not addressed in the Decision
Rationale. Bark suggested that the BLM
was focusing inappropriately on the 10% threshold in the project area, and not
in the rest of the severely altered Mollala River
watershed. The
response in the Decision Rationale, “The
main impervious surface areas in the vicinity of the Annie’s Cabin units,
outside of the project units are the roads.
Since timber hauling is limited to periods of dry road conditions, road related
sediment inputs to streams are expected to be negligible." Decision 36 The fifth field
watershed in which Annie's Cabin has significantly more impervious surfaces
than those roads proposed for log haul: other roads, trails, bridges, private
land and roads, parking lots, etc. The
response in the decision does not address the concern mentioned.
In order to
provide an opportunity for the BLM to address the original concern, it is
rewritten below.
The six watersheds encompassed in the 2006 Thin
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 Lower
Molalla River and Milk Creek Watershed Assessment (LMRMCWA), the "total
impervious surface area of a watershed exceeding 10% can result in an altered
hydrologic regime and degradation of physical habitat" (LMRMCWA, page 51). The proposed action includes developments
that increase total impervious surface area up to 10% of the units, without
taking into consideration impervious surface areas outside of the units, which
could amount to more than 10% of the watershed.
The effects determination for Threatened anadromous
fish populations must consider the impervious surface areas outside of project
units and factor in sedimentation from this surrounding land. However, the EA/FONSI fails to do this and
instead assumes the sedimentation occurring as a result of the project
activities will be the only contributors in the watershed. This is clearly not the case, a prime
counter-example being Weyerhauser plantations on the
adjacent slope of Annie’s Cabin units whose sediment-loaded runoff flows into
some of the same threatened fish-inhabited channels. Sedimentation from surrounding development must be factored into the effects
determination. Until this is accounted
for, project activities cannot proceed.
Many channels in the Molalla River Watershed are also “highly sensitive
to disturbance,” indicating a small amount of sedimentation may have a much
higher effect than would be predicted otherwise (LMRMCWA, page 31). The LMRMCWA classifies 41% (105.6 miles) of
the stream reaches within the watershed as “highly sensitive to disturbance,”
and “more than half of the total watershed channel length classified as highly
sensitive to disturbance was classified as FP1 or FP2, indicating that large
floodplain channels occurring in the lowland areas of the watershed represent a
large proportion of the most sensitive channels occurring in the
watershed" (LMRMCWA, page 31). The
LMRMCWA admits the lack of knowledge concerning the health of streams,
recommending that “more intensive field-based surveys be performed to examine
stream channel conditions to both produce baseline information and to better
quantify channel conditions in various areas of the watershed for restoration
prioritization" (LMRMCWA, page 33).
Nowhere does the EA/FONSI quantify channel conditions in order to reach a truly accurate effects determination.
HARDWOOD LOGGING
IS THREATENING BIODIVERSITY
“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 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 Pacific Northwest are part of a keystone complex that
includes ectomycorrhizal fungi, Douglas-fir, and
spotted owls…” This study had as a “Key Finding” that “the flying and Douglas’
squirrels and the Townsend’s chipmunk consume truffles as a major part of their
diet. They also consume a variety of mushrooms, lichens, maple seeds, poplar
catkins, and salal fruit, many of which are more
nutritious than truffles. Thus retention of diverse hardwoods is important for
biodiversity.”
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.
The Molalla River WA states that only about 2% of
the watershed is populated with hardwood species. This makes the presence of
hardwoods in this area an important and unique feature to consider.
Red
Alders
Red
alders are marked as “take” trees in Unit #9. We question the assumption
implicit in this project that alders are bad and must be replaced. It may in
fact be good to get some more conifers going in those alder stands to take over
when the alder drops out, but the NEPA analysis fails to consider alternatives
to clearcutting the alder stands in riparian
reserves. Certainly there are more creative and less destructive ways to
introduce some conifer diversity into these alder stands.
Alder
also provide valuable habitat in riparian areas. Compared to conifer stands,
alder provides more nutrient input to streams and boosts the aquatic food chain.
Alder also supports more variety and abundance of insects that provide food for
fish. See CFER 2002 Annual Report.: Contributions
Of The Riparian Community To Forested Coast Range Streams: A Focus On
Terrestrial Invertebrates And Leaf Litter, Alyssa M. Doolittle and Edward
E. Starkey; Influences Of Riparian
Vegetation On Food Availability And Diet Of Cutthroat Trout, Nicolas Romero
and Robert E. Gresswell; The Influence Of Aquatic Emergent Prey On Riparian Predatory Spiders In
Alder- And Conifer-Dominated Riparian Areas, Sharmila
Premdas and Judith L. Li.
BLM's
2005 Analysis of the Management Situation for the Western Oregon Plan
Revision
says, "Research in the past decade has detailed the importance of riparian
hardwoods in aquatic and riparian food webs. Alders, for instance, are an
important part of the food web for a healthy fish and wildlife population."
(AMS p 27). "Hardwoods provide critical
biological function (food) to streams, whereas conifer species provide more
physical function (habitat)." (AMS p 94).
A
mosaic of alder and conifer within a watershed provides a beneficial balance
between nutrient inputs (from alder) and long-lasting woody debris (from large
conifers).
Streams
with prominent riparian alder populations have increased amounts of both
dissolved and particulate nutrients when compared to old-growth coniferous
forested streams. This trend has been observed in surface and groundwater and
has included higher levels of nitrate, phosphate, total nitrogen and
phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and iron. Specifically, we observe a strong
relationship between the percent of alder within the watershed and the surface
water nitrate concentration. These alder-derived nutrients are often available
for uptake by microbial communities and algae, both of which are important food
resources for a variety of aquatic organisms.
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ABOUT
BUREAU SENSITIVE SPECIES
Oregon
Slender Salamander
The Oregon slender salamander is a listed Bureau
Sensitive Species. Their rare presence is dependent on moist, closed canopy
forests with a large quantity of downed woody debris. The proposed project puts
important habitat at a direct risk for this species. Our initial concern for
the habitat was greatly increased by the agency’s negligent treatment for
analyzing the detrimental impacts of logging through prime habitat.
The
RMP instructs to “retain coarse woody debris already on the ground and protect
it to the greatest extent possible from disturbance during treatment (e.g.,
slash burning and yarding) which might otherwise
destroy the integrity of the substrate.” (RMP, 21) However, the EA hardly
referenced efforts to protect existing forest floor integrity.
The
EA states that Oregon slender salamander is expected to occur in the some of
the planning areas (EA, 40), but then specific to Annie’s Cabin there is acknowledgement
of habitat presence in Unit 30B, “though material of adequate size for future
habitat is not present” in the other sections (6E, 
6C, and 7C) that show a presence of downed woody
debris (EA, 61). When protesters found flagging near substantial downed woody
debris in Unit 9, it peaked our concern, as this area
was not noted in the EA. As well, protestors had a
glance at an Oregon slender salamander in March 2007 amongst the debris.
Although it was too quick to fully determine, we requested more information
about the survey stand exams from the BLM the following week. We also notified
Oregon Fish and Wildlife to include the sighting in their database.
After
repeated efforts to get more information about the Oregon slender salamander,
we asked an expert to assist in cursory examination. In April 2007 we found six
more Oregon slender salamanders in Units 9 and 13, neither listed as even
possible habitat. Again, we contacted the BLM and received little response
other than to say the sightings had been added to the database. It was not
until the Decision Rationale, on the last page (DR, 50) and in response to
public comments on the EA, where we learn that in the survey stand exam “Oregon slender
salamanders were found in units 6, 16, 17 and 18.” The BLM attempts to mitigate
their responsibility to the public by reminding us that “surveys and buffers
are not required” (EA, 50).
“Conduct
field surveys according to protocols and other established procedures.” (RMP,
29)
“Modify,
relocate, or abandon a proposed action to avoid contributing to the need to
list federal candidate species, state-listed species, bureau sensitive species,
or their habitats.” (RMP, 29)
“Field
Office Managers are responsible for implementing the special status species
program within their area of jurisdiction by: 1. Conducting and maintaining
current inventories for special status species on public lands.” (Bureau Manual
6840, .04, F)
“Identify
impacts of proposed actions, if any, to bureau sensitive and assessment species
and clearly describe impacts in environmental analyses.” (RMP, 29)
“Pursue
opportunities for public education about conservation of species.” (RMP, 30)
We
respectfully, yet strongly disagree that the District is not responsible for
ensuring surveys have been completed and taken into consideration at the
planning stage. By avoiding to disclose important
information to the public about sensitive species population, a culture of
distrust will be reinforced.
The
Annie’s Cabin logging project will have a direct and negligent effect on the
Oregon slender salamander. By opening up the canopy in areas with presence and
potential habitat, integral levels of moisture are lost. The survival of
amphibians is dependent on wet soil and moist downed woody debris. Increased
sunlight and wind has drying effect on downed wood. As well, any CWD left from
logging and intended to replace a loss of habitat is generally smaller in
diameter and is much less effective at retaining moisture and, thus, providing
habitat.
Of
course, these considerations might be sufficient where there is only a
potential for future populations. However, protestors have identified a current
presence of Oregon slender salamander, confirmed by the BLM. The BLM is
treading in murky waters by only revealing a known finding in the Decision
Rationale. Did the agency have greater hesitancy in making this discovery
available to the public than just solipsism? Was there, in fact, some internal
effort to avoid an obstruction to this project?
Mitochondrial
DNA analysis showed that there is evidence of two major lineages of Oregon
Slender Salamanders, a northern and southern population, and random amplified
polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis showed a pattern of isolation by distance. The
northern population appears to include sites east of the crest and western
sites from the Columbia River south to near Estacada, Oregon, in Multnomah,
Clackamas, Hood River, and Wasco Counties. The southern population appears to
include sites west of the Cascade crest, north to near Silver Creek Falls, in
Marion and Linn Counties. Sampling was not conducted between Silver Creek Falls
and Estacada to refine delineation of the boundary. The BLM has not identified whether the Oregon
Slender Salamanders found belong to one of these lineages and stated if either
of these lineages are rare. If the
Oregon Slender Salamanders belong to a rare lineage, they should be protected.
Please
reference this Conservation Assessment for more information:
David
R. Clayton and Deanna H. Olson, Conservation Assessment for the Oregon
Slender Salamander.
Tall
Bugbane
Add
to this frustrating lack of survey data, the Tall Bugbane (Cimicifuga eleta). Populations of this Bureau
Sensitive Species were identified in the Annie’s Cabin project area in Section
30 and Section 5 (EA, 26). Although this species was identified in other parts
of the planning area, this higher number of population seems warranted of
elucidation in the Annie’s Cabin Project Area section. But no reference of this
species or any other botanical impacts on the area are presented.
Our
own data collection efforts revealed in Unit 5, a considerable take of
Broadleaf Maple. The Molalla River WA states that deciduous trees are “nearly always
present in the local overstory” (Molalla River WA,
94). This conifer transition is in
direct conflict with the recommended conditions for promoting this sensitive
species. We question any concern for the importance of diversity, when
management practices so directly and detrimentally impact the recovery and
natural discovery of such habitat.
Golden Eagle
Protestors
thought they saw two birds circling overhead on Looney's Trail in the Molalla
Recreation Corridor just south of the Amanda's Trail junction. They looked to be golden eagle. While we do
not have an image of the birds, we are aware of a pair of golden eagles in the
project area. (EA 61) The Golden Eagle is a Bureau Sensitive Species and we
have concerns that the agency avoided surveys, despite sightings in the area.
We
have been assured that a survey addendum to this EA was not made available. We
request that this decision not be finalized before the agency prepares an EA
that discloses the survey information to the public.
ANNIE’S
CABIN EA IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE SURVEY
AND MANAGE OBLIGATIONS OR THE RESULTS OF SURVEY AND MANAGE SURVEYS
NEPA requires federal agencies to involve the
public, consider alternatives, and disclose the impacts of a proposed action
and its alternatives before making a decision. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The agency
may do this analysis through an EA or an EIS.
[CITE] Agencies are required to
prepare supplements to an EIS if there are "significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c). Ninth Circuit case law holds that
supplementation of an EA is required when, just like with an EIS,
there have been significant changes in the proposed action. See,
e.g.,
The BLM conducted surveys for S&M species
2 months before completing the EA. This S&M information was not included in
the EA, and it should have been. The
S&M surveys obviously informed the agency’s final decision, as they should
have, considering the BLM had duties to comply with the S&M Program. Since the BLM did not discuss the S&M
Program in Annie’s Cabin EA, it should have completed a supplemental NEPA
document to inform the public of the BLM’s obligations under and compliance
with S&M and the results of the S&M surveys completed in April and May
of 2006. Without a discussion of
S&M, the public had no idea how the surveys affected the BLM’s decision. The BLM simply did not follow NEPA’s
requirements to fully disclose the impacts of a proposed action and its
alternatives before a final decision when it left out a discussion of S&M
in the Annie’s Cabin EA.
In fact the BLM
did not mention the S&M Program until it published the Final Decision and
Decision Rationale for Annie’s Cabin (the DR).
At this point, the public had no chance to evaluate the impacts of the
S&M surveys and comment on them. The
DR discusses the S&M surveys that were completed and reports a finding of 3
active Red Tree Vole (RTV) nests. Before
the Final Decision became publicly available, volunteers for Bark repeatedly
asked the BLM if it had conducted Red Tree Vole and other S&M species
surveys. The volunteers had observed
flagging in units 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, which indicated such
surveys. In response to requests for
information by these volunteers, the BLM refused to acknowledge any
surveys. The EA (or a supplemental EA)
should have included a discussion of the BLM’s duties under the S&M Program
and a disclosure of the S&M survey results.
Because this information is missing from the EA, the public had no
chance to evaluate the BLM’s management decisions regarding S&M
species.
Without any
supplemental NEPA document disclosing S&M information, the EA does not
follow the requirements of NEPA, as it fails to “properly frame [the BLM’s]
survey and manage duties, analyze a range of alternatives based upon these
duties, evaluate completed surveys, demonstrate that the agency had all of the
proper information before allowing logging, and provide for public influence
over the decisions,” all requirements based on NEPA. ONRC v.
The
Salem District BLM had Legal Requirements to comply with the 2001 Survey and
Manage Protocols at the time it prepared the Annie’s Cabin EA.
At the time the
BLM prepared the 2006 EA for Annie’s Cabin, the RTV was labeled a Class C
species under the S&M Program protocols.
Because of the RTV’s classification, the Salem District BLM was required
to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and protect all known RTV sites. [CITE]
It appears from the DR that the Salem District BLM did do
pre-disturbance surveys for RTVs and other S&M species, but the BLM didn’t
discuss the need for these surveys or disclose the results of the surveys before
making its final decision.
The EA should
have analyzed and followed the S&M Program protocols, as these protocols
were in full-effect at the time the EA was prepared. The BLM knew (or should have known) of its duties
under the S&M Program, because the S&M Program had been reinstated by a
Western Washington District Court in January 2006. Northwest Ecosystem
The Salem
District BLM has demonstrated that it knew of its obligations to survey for
RTVs, because it completed pre-disturbance surveys. The agency should have further demonstrated
that it relied on these surveys in planning the project, and it should have
informed the public about the surveys by including S&M information in the
EA.
The
BLM incorrectly relied on the 2004 “ROD to Remove S&M" in its 2006 EA
In March 2004,
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior attempted to
eliminate the S&M Program with its “Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the
Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.” (2004 ROD). In April
of 2004, environmental groups filed a lawsuit to challenge the 2004 ROD and the
court found in favor of the environmental groups in August of 2005. Northwest Ecosystem
However, in the
Annie’s Cabin EA, the BLM claims that it relied on the 2004 ROD. (EA p. 13)
Because of its reliance on this document, the BLM does not analyze its
requirements to protect Survey and Manage species, nor
does it show that it fully considered the survey results in before its final
decision. The DR does mention that the
BLM complied with S&M Program protocols, but leaving this analysis to the
final decision document completely leaves the public out of the decision-making
process.
The Annie’s Cabin
EA did not include survey information for S&M species. BLM knew or should have known that it was
required to include survey requirements and results of surveys at the time of
their EA. Instead, the BLM included the
S&M information in their Final Decision Rationale. The public has had no chance to comment on
the S&M obligations, because the BLM did not create a supplemental NEPA
document. Annie’s Cabin EA, then,
certainly does not “involve the public, consider alternatives, and disclose the
impacts of a proposed action and alternatives to it before making a decision”
regarding S&M surveys.
The
BLM did not include its S&M information “early enough” for proper
consideration in the decision-making process for Annie’s Cabin.
The proper timing
of environmental review is one of NEPA's central themes. Environmental review documents must be
prepared as early as possible in the decision-making process because NEPA
procedures are meant to "ensure informed decision making to the end that
the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision
after it is too late to correct."
The BLM has
clearly not included the S&M information for Annie’s Cabin at the “earliest
possible time.”
The
Salem District BLM should have surveyed for the the
Great Grey Owl, Evening Field Slug, and the Crater Lake Tightcoil,
all Survey and Manage Species.
In the Annie’s
Cabin DR, the BLM states that the project area is within the range of the Great
Grey Owl, the Evening Field Slug and the Crater Lake Tightcoil. However, the BLM did not conduct surveys for
these species, because it claimed that the project area did not contain
suitable habitat. The BLM is incorrect
in its assessment. Annie’s Cabin Project
area does include habitat for all three species.
The Great Grey
Owl
According to the
“Survey Protocol of the Great Grey Owl,” Great Grey Owls live in forests where
they are opportunities to nest in a perch relatively near openings with plenty
of forage. Great Grey Owls seem to have
little preference as to what types of trees they nest in. In the Western Cascade area, researchers have
found Great Grey Owls nesting in trees with a 38-42 inch dbh
range. However, birds have been known to
nest in both smaller and larger nest trees.
(Nest Tree Table, Survey Protocol p. 13) So, Great Grey Owls seem to
prefer nesting in mature or older stands with a fairly open understory and
dense overstory.
However, Great Grey Owls will nest in a variety of habitats that exhibit
these required characteristics: 1. large
diameter nest trees, 2. forest for roosting cover, and 3. proximity to foraging
areas (which includes areas up to 2 miles from the nest). Annie’s Cabin project area definitely
includes suitable habitat for the Great Grey Owl.
Many of Annie’s
Cabin units include older or mature trees.
The canopy cover is quite dense for many units, as well. Great Grey Owls do have places to forage
within 2 miles from the Annie’s Cabin Project. A natural meadow does exist in the Molalla River
Recreation Corridor, but its on the east side of the
river approximately across the river from Unit #15. A wetland area created by a
Beaver Dam exists at Aquila Vista just south of Unit #17 which has a huge opening. Bark volunteers have heard the distinct call
of the Great Grey Owl in units 2, 23, and 29.
Any ground-disturbing activities in this area would negatively affect
the Great Grey Owl habitat and have a significant negative effect on the species. Pre-disturbance surveys should be done before
going through with the project.
The Evening Field
Slug and the Crater Lake Tightcoil
The “Survey
Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species” describes
terrestrial mollusk habitat as varied.
The Evening Field
Slug has been found in wet meadows in forested areas, using a variety of
plants, litter, and debris for cover.
Surveys should be conducted in moist surface vegetation and cover
objects within 30 meters of a perennial wetlands, seeps, and springs and
riparian areas. Annie’s Cabin has many
perennially wet areas and riparian areas within the project area. Because the project area is within the range
of the Evening Field Slug and there is suitable habitat for the species, the
BLM should have conducted pre-disturbance surveys.
Surveys for the
Crater Lake Tightcoil should be done within 10 meters
of perennial wet areas within mature forests and riparian areas. This species is often found in this habitat
among rushes, mosses, and other vegetation or under rocks or other debris. The BLM should have done surveys for the
Crater Lake Tightcoil, as Annie’s Cabin project area
contains many areas of perennial wetness and riparian areas.
Furthermore,
while a surveyor searches for one mollusk species, she should also survey for
other species with similar habitat requirements. (Survey Protocol for
Mollusks p. 8). Both of these
terrestrial mollusks have similar habitat requirements, and the BLM should have
conducted surveys for them both at the same time. The surveys should have happened before the
Annie’s
The
BLM claims it has only surveyed for RTVs in trees over 80 years old, but it
should have conducted all RTV surveys in accordance with the 2001 Survey and
Manage ROD.
The BLM
apparently relies on the October 2006 amendment to the January 2006 Northwest Ecosystem Alliance case. (Annie’s
The
BLM’s should have used an EIS to plan Annie’s Cabin and the 3 other
projects.
Under NEPA, a
federal agency may analyze the effects of a proposed federal action affecting the
environment using an EA or an EIS.
Federal agencies must prepare an EIS for proposed "major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42
U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency does not need to prepare an EIS for
every project; it may prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is necessary. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a)-(c).
When the impact
of a project is uncertain, an agency should prepare an EIS. Under NEPA case
law, when an agency is not sure whether or not an action will have a
significant impact on the environment, the agency must err on the side of
caution and prepare an EIS. National Audubon Society v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 18 (2d Cir. 1997). Or
if a proposed action is likely to
have a significant effect, the agency should prepare an EIS. National
Audubon Society, 132 F.3d at 18;
A “major action”
has been defined as one “that requires substantial planning, time, resources,
or expenditure.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v. Grant, 341 F. Supp. 356, 366 (E.D.N.C. 1972). The
phrase “‘significantly affecting the quality of the human environment’ can be
construed as having an important or meaningful effect, direct or indirect, upon
a broad range of aspects of the human environment.” Grant, 341 F.Supp. at
367.
In considering “significance” under NEPA, courts have looked at the
effects on popular uses, public health and safety, endangered animals,
important geological sites, potentiality of controversy, and possibility of
unknown risks. Foundation
on Economic Trends v. Weinberger, 610 F. Supp. 829, 837-38 (D.D.C. 1985). Courts also look at the severity of the
impact.
An agency must
also look at the cumulative adverse effects of an action to decide whether it
is a “major action significantly affecting the human environment.” A project
must make an assessment “with a view to the overall, cumulative impact of the
action proposed, related federal action and projects in the area and further
actions contemplated.” Sierra Club
v. Bergland, 451 F. Supp. 120, 129 (N.D. Miss. W.D. 1978) (cumulative impacts speaks
to “significance” of an action).
The 2006 EA, which analyzes the environmental impacts not only of the
Annie’s Cabin project, but also the impacts on 3 other projects in the
immediate vicinity, is certainly a “major federal action significantly
affecting the human environment.” The project covers an area larger than 1,800
acres and requires major planning time and money. The project area has extraordinary
recreational values and is used by many recreational groups. Reducing the landscape in Annie’s Cabin to a
post-industrial logging eye-sore is certain to be controversial to these
groups. One good example of a
controversy is the fact that Annie’s Cabin project highly impacts a memorial
trail dedicated to an environmentalist named Amanda who has passed on. Amanda’s family will surely be distraught to
learn that the forest dedicated to Amanda has been destroyed. Finally, this project area has serious
cumulative impacts issues, due to the logging that happened in the past in this
area and the public/private checkerboard nature of the landscape. The BLM should have prepared an EIS to fully
analyze the impacts of Annie’s Cabin project and the 3 other concurrently
planned projects.
ACS COMPLIANCE
As
you know, logging in riparian reserve LUAs is prohibited unless necessary to
attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. NWFP
TM-1/Salem District RMP at 11.
The EA alleges that the purpose and need of logging riparian reserves
under the Annie's Cabin timber sale is to:
l Develop future large coarse
woody debris, snag habitat, in-stream large wood and other
elements of
late-successional forest habitat. (RMP p.1);
l Develop structural and spatial
diversity of the forest ecosystem on a landscape level in
the long
term. EA at 14.
While
both these goals theoretically support attainment of ACS objectives, the
evidence and analysis presented in the EA does not support a finding that these
objectives will in fact be attained. To
the contrary, the EA and Final Decision/Decision Rationale (DR) call for
activities that are likely to adversely affect ACS objectives at the project
level. For instance, the EA calls for
creating significant gaps (up to 50%) in the canopy cover without presenting
sufficient scientific data or analysis to support the contention that removing
canopy and creating “gaps” in riparian reserves will develop the aforementioned
goals and in turn help attain ACS objectives.
Bark
has also pointed out several other concerns that have yet to be adequately
addressed. We have previously mentioned
in our comments that several areas marked for treatment are very steep.
Further, the Molalla River Watershed Analysis acknowledges that many channels
in this watershed are also “highly sensitive to disturbance,” indicating a
small amount of sedimentation may have a much higher effect than would be
predicted otherwise (LMRMCWA, page 31).
Again, as we previously pointed out, the LMRMCWA classifies 41% (105.6
miles) of the stream reaches within the watershed as “highly sensitive to
disturbance,” and “more than half of the total watershed channel length
classified as highly sensitive to disturbance was classified as FP1 or FP2,
indicating that large floodplain channels occurring in the lowland areas of the
watershed represent a large proportion of the most sensitive channels occurring
in the watershed" (LMRMCWA, page 31). Moreover, the LMRMCWA admits the
lack of knowledge concerning the health of streams, recommending that “more
intensive field-based surveys be performed to examine stream channel conditions
to both produce baseline information and to better quantify channel conditions
in various areas of the watershed for restoration prioritization" (LMRMCWA,
page 33).
The
EA provides virtually no baseline data on current watershed conditions. Without this information the entire analysis
is legally insufficient. The lack of
adequate site-specific information and of impacts analysis will not support a
FONSI. As such, the EA's conclusion that
the Annie's Cabin project complies with ACS Standards and Guidelines is
unsupported by the record and thus arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance
with NEPA, and without observance of procedures required by law, within the
meaning of the APA.
Second,
the DR illegally authorizes increased thinning operations on an additional 15
acres of riparian reserve and expanded helicopter landings within the reserves
without conducting supplemental NEPA analysis and providing an opportunity for
public notice and comment with respect to those post-analysis changes. NEPA's implementing regulations state:
“NEPA
procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public
officials and citizens before
decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency
comments, and public scrutiny are essential
to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)(emphasis added).
Furthermore,
the EA and DR heavily rely on the assertion that logging in the riparian
reserves will not result in significant long-term effects or significant
effects at the watershed level. For
example, the EA attempts to downplay the immediate project-level impacts to ACS
objectives with statements such as:
Typically, sediment yields from forest
harvest decrease over time as a negative
exponential (Dissmeyer, 2000) rate. The quantity of surface erosion with
delivery of
sediment
during large storm events would likely drop back to current levels (0.10
tons/acre) within three to five
years...The limited magnitude (<5% of total sixth- field watershed sediment supply) and duration(primarily
in the first year following disturbance, limited to major storm events) of this effect would likely
be insignificant for water quality on the watershed scale (i.e., cumulatively). (EA at 4).
l Long-term measurable effects
(five years or more) to watershed hydrology...are unlikely. These
actions are
unlikely to permanently alter the aquatic systems of affected
watersheds...Effects to
hydrology
were analyzed on a watershed basis... Over the long-term (beyond three to five years), current conditions and trends
in turbidity and sediment yield would likely be maintained under the Proposed Action.(EA at 30).
l The projects would result in a
slight increase in road density due to the construction
of several
natural surface haul roads but this element would not be affected at the
fifth field
scale. (EA at 127).
Ninth
Circuit precedent has clearly established that it is arbitrary and capricious
for an agency to measure ACS compliance only at the watershed level, rather
than also ensuring compliance at the project or site level, and by failing to
fully evaluate the short term impacts. See Pacific Coast Fed. Of Fishermen's Assn.
v. Natl. Marine Fisheries Service, 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2001)
(PCFFA II); See also Pacific Coast Fed. Of
Fishermen's Assn. v. Natl. Marine Fisheries Service, 71 F. Supp.2d 1063 (W.D. Wa. 1999) (PCFFA
I). Although the BLM
acknowledges this authority in the DR, it has failed to follow the Ninth
Circuits mandate in the EA. (DR at 12).
The
EA also fails to adequately address cumulative impacts. The EA states that Proposed
road work at stream crossings, timber haul on roads adjacent to streams and
thinning and yarding in the Riparian Reserve LUA may
contribute to cumulative effects to...Water Quality (sediment) and Fisheries. (EA at 24). However,
the EA then proceeds to merely identify by name in a Table other BLM timber sales
that call for logging in the riparian reserve LUA adjacent to or near the
Annie's Cabin timber sale area, without reference to the scope of
those projects and without any actual consideration of the incremental impact
on water quality and fisheries from Annie's cabin when added to these other
sales. (Table 10, EA at 25).
The
CEQ regulations define “Cumulative Impact” as: “the impact on the environment
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,
and reasonably forseeeable future actions regardless
of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.
Further,
only 33% of the watershed is managed by BLM.
The EA provides absolutely no cumulative impacts analysis with respect
to past, present, or reasonably forseeable future
non-BLM actions. Given the fact that 62%
of the watershed is in private ownership and of that 53% is in the hands of
several major forest industrial landowners makes this omission fatal to the
EA's legality. A FONSI cannot be issued
without an analysis of cumulative effects.
STREAMS
AND FISHERIES
The project
is expected to have no effect on Upper Willamette River (UWR) steelhead trout
or UWR chinook salmon that
are present in the Molalla River downstream of project units. The determination
of “no effect” is based on project design features that include 1/ minimum 60’
stream protection zones on perennial streams, which are expected to prevent any
decrease in stream shade that could result in an increase in stream
temperature; 2/ very little road construction or decommissioning, none within
Riparian Reserves; and 3/ no live stream culvert repair or replacement. DR 37
We are concerned about the lack of information
about existing streams in the project area. There is no determination of
intermittent streams. Did the BLM survey for all seeps, streams and wetlands?
BLM
DID NOT CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF THE SHARED-USE TRAIL
SYSTEM IN THE MOLALLA RIVER RECREATION CORRIDOR
The Shared-Use
Trail System in the Molalla River Recreation Corridor was created in the 1990s
when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) closed 13 miles of logging roads and
converted these roads into trails for hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian
uses. In 1994, the BLM approved the
development of 12 miles of additional single-track trails in the Molalla River
Recreation Corridor in partnership with volunteer organizations. Since the creation of these trails,
visitation along the Molalla River is estimated to be 7,600 people per year and
3,750 people per year using the Molalla River Shared-Use Trail System. Most of
the visitation occurs during the peak use season between the end of May and
beginning of September.
Molalla River
Watch in partnership with the BLM organizes monthly maintenance of this
Shared-Use Trail System. Many
organizations who use the trails also volunteer in maintaining the trails. These organizations stem from the Portland
Metropolitan Area to Salem having interest in recreation uses such as hiking
(e.g. Mazamas, Chemeketan
Outdoor Club), mountain biking (e.g. Merry Cranksters,
Portland United Mountain Pedelars), and horseback
riding (e.g. Oregon Equestrian Trails, Back Country Horsemen).
Trails and
designation names of the Shared-Use Trail System in the Molalla River
Recreation Corridor come from the history of the area to the volunteers...
Huckleberry Trail
Between the early
1800s to the 1920s, the Huckleberry Trail was used by Native Americans from the
Warm Springs Indian Reservation to reach huckleberry-picking grounds near Table
Rock. This trail might have also been
used by the Molalla Native Americans and others in use of trade between the
Willamette Valley and Eastern Oregon.
The Huckleberry Trail cuts through Units #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #13,
#15 & #17. If the intention for using helicopter logging to mitigate impacts
on popular recreation trails, why did the BLM not consider helicopter logging
for Units 13 and 15?
Annie’s Cabin
The timber sale
name, Annie's Cabin, comes from a cabin that sits just north of Squirrel Creek
on the east side of the Huckleberry Trail. Jim Williams, Annie Miller, and her
daughter, Squirrel, used this cabin as their living room (a small trailer was
next door) from June 1992 until December 1993.
They were BLM volunteers who worked to improve the condition of the
Molalla River Corridor. Jim's presence
made a big difference in the Molalla River Recreation Corridor. He loved this area and worked hard to improve
and protect it. Jim spent his last days
there and died in October 1993. Annie
and Squirrel left two months later. The
cabin sits just 250 feet south of Unit #6 of the timber sale.
Aquila Vista
A campground and
recreational facility called Aquila Vista is used by local area public schools
for education of outdoors and by other organizations. This area is named after Golden Eagles
discovered in the nearby vicinity. Unit
#17 is north of Aquila Vista.
Taylor’s Spur
The EA and
Decision Rationale does not recognize the unmarked trail (nicknamed Taylor’s
Spur) built by Molalla RiverWatch that connects the
southeastern corner of Unit #17 to the Huckleberry Trail near the northern boundary
line. This trail is used for hiking,
mountain biking, and horseback riding especially for people who use Aquila
Vista. The EA and Decision Rationale
needs to consider the impacts to this trail.
The documents shall also add the mileage of this trail to the total
mileage of trails affected by the proposed action.
Other trails
A couple of the
trails traveling through proposed logging in Unit 2, Amanda and Mark's Trail,
are named after people who volunteered in the Molalla Recreation Corridor.
A cursory
snapshot at the popularity of this area for recreation could be found in a
Google search fpr “Molalla River recreation” with a
returned 44,800 matches. To say users “with no tolerance for any visual
changes” of this trail system should go to Table Rock Wilderness is a narrow
interpretation of the importance of recreation in this area and is completely
unacceptable. (EA 67) Not only does the wilderness appropriately limit various
uses that the Molalla River recreation area provides for, finding a tolerance
for visual change is not comparable to losing the experience of hiking through
a natural, diverse forest.
As well, a recent
study revealed that recreation in Clackamas County has risen to become an
almost $400 million dollar industry. Campground income alone was over $12
million in 2005. (see Dean Runyan
study in Appendix B) Comparing this to the dwindling ability for timber to
bring in money to Oregon communities (down to 3% of the state’s personal income
from 8.9% in the 1970s, see US Dept of Commerce data in Appendix A) and
protecting areas like the Molalla River recreation from continued extractive
management practices begins to make economic sense for the surrounding
communities.
BLM
CANNOT ONLY FIX ROADS WHEN IT SUITS LOGGING NEEDS
"New roads
have been minimized to less than one mile of temporary natural surface roads.
Current roads will be renovated to accommodate the project (EA Section 2.2.1).
No new permanent roads have been proposed. Old roads will be stabilized or
decommissioned." DR 41
Bark provided
comments to the EA identifying multiple areas of concern regarding roads. We are pleased that the BLM has chosen to
limit its roadbuilding. Bark is disturbed that the complete response
to the concerns raised are discounted based on the fact that less than one mile
of road is being built. The entire road
system was built one-mile at a time, so how can this be the reason given for
the superficial response to our concerns?
Especially since the BLM is not able to maintain the existing road network
in such a way as to avoid significant sedimentation to the Molalla River
watershed.
The other portion
of the DR response that Bark is interested in is, “Old roads will be stabilized
or 
decommissioned.”
We could not find any reference to those activities in the EA or
selected action. Bark is fully
supportive of these actions and would suggest that those roads left out of the
selected actions be assessed for hydrological function, and then be removed
from the system roads network (decommissioned) and hydrologically
recovered through active culvert removal, replacement, or recontouring.
The Huckleberry
Trail road has a more than twenty year old landslide crossing it. The forest
has begun to recover this road to natural qualities. Recreation users have
requested help restoring this slide for years with responses from the BLM
always negative. It is discouraging to see the BLM’s proposed action include
fixing the road for harvest access and the selected action of helicopter
logging, leaving the road untouched and in a continued state of extreme
instability.
NOXIOUS
WEEDS
Holly is found in
Unit #1. Tons of scotch broom sits along
the old logging / skid trail on the eastern side of the unit. It seems thinning this forest would introduce
more scotch broom, holly, and other invasive species in the forest. Scotch broom is also found along Amanda’s
Trail in Unit #2 and along the northern boundary line of Unit #4 on the
Huckleberry Trail.
A recent study
released, reveals new information about handling noxious and invasive plant
species:
Merriam, K.E., Keeley, J.E., and Beyers, J.L.,
2007, The role of fuel breaks in the invasion of
nonnative plants: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2006-5185, 69 p.
SLOPES AND SOIL
Map
C of the Molalla River WA shows unstable soil in Unit 14, 15, 16 and 17.
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.
Unit
#15 has a history of landslides with trees curving up in the unit and the
15-foot high landslide that covers the Huckleberry Trail. Ground-based yarding
will likely further increase the amount of landslides in this area. The BLM should either helicopter log this
area or not log it at all.
CONCLUSION
We
request that the following actions take place before moving forward with the
Annie’s Cabin Timber Sale:
1. Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Annie’s Cabin Timber Sale;
2. Provide survey information to
the public;
3. Reflect survey information in
an environmental analysis of the project;
4. Create 100 foot buffer on
either side of all trails in the project area;
5. Remove hardwood cutting from
the prescription;
6. Drop all of Unit #9 and Unit
#11 south of the unnamed road;
7. Drop all of Unit #2 west of
Amanda’s Trail;
8. Drop all of Unit #12 south of
Red Vole Road;
9. Drop all Unit #17;
10. Place protective measures
around the Oregon Slender Salamanders discovered in Unit #13;
11. Helicopter log Unit #15;
Thank you,
Amy Harwood
Program Director
Bark