po box 12065 
portland, or 97212 

503-331-0374 
www.bark-out.org 

 


 

 

APPEAL TO THE REGIONAL FORESTER OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOREST SERVICE REGION 6 

 

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, REQUESTED RELIEF, AND 

STATEMENT OF REASONS 


 

Dated this October 18, 2012 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

To: Regional Forester 

Appeal Deciding Officer 

USDA Forest Service 

PO Box 3623 

Portland, OR 97208 

Email: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us 

 

RE: Jazz Timber Sale Appeal 

 

In accordance with 36 CFR 215, Bark hereby appeals the Environmental Assessment 
(“EA”) and Decision Notice (“DN” or “Decision”) for the Jazz Timber Sale. 

Decision Document: Jazz Thinning Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 
Impact 

Date Decision published: Sept. 6, 2012 

Responsible Official: Chris Worth, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest 
(“MHNF”) 

Appeal Period End Date: October 22, 2012 

Description of the Project: This project would log approximately 2,000 acres of 
recovering forests, including re-construction of 12 miles of decommissioned roads, and 
building .4 miles of new road. 

Location: Collawash Watershed, Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National 
Forest 

 

 


Appellant’s Interests: 

Bark has a specific interest in this decision, which we have expressed through 
providing comments during scoping, and on the Preliminary Assessment, as well as 
leading public hikes, clocking well over 600 hours in the timber sale area, and 
engaging extensively in public education about the timber sale. 

 

Bark is a non-profit organization based in Portland, Oregon and has worked to protect 
the MHNF since 1999. Staff, members, volunteers, supporters, and board members of 
Bark live in the communities surrounding the MHNF and use and enjoy the Forest 
extensively for recreation, drinking water, hunting, fishing, general aesthetic 
enjoyment, family gatherings, viewing flora and fauna, gathering forest products, and 
other purposes. 

 

Specifically, Bark members regularly visit many of the affected area for hiking, 
camping, relaxing, bird watching, mushroom harvesting, photography, and family 
gatherings. The value of the activities engaged in by Bark members and staff will be 
damaged by the implementation of this project. 

 

Request for Stay 

Although an automatic stay is in effect for this decision as per 36 CFR §215.10(b), we 
formally request a stay of all action on this project, and that the Forest Service not 
enter into any contractual agreements with private companies to implement any 
portion of this sale. 

Requested Relief 

In recognition that this project has not followed the prescribed agency process, fails to 
meet the Northwest Forest Plan and Mt. Hood Forest Plan, and faces overwhelming 
public opposition, Bark requests that the Forest Service withdraw the decision and 
prepare adequate NEPA documentation for a project that will actually lead to the short 
and long term restoration of the Collawash Watershed. 

 

 

Bark submits this appeal for the following reasons: 

1) Forest Service made an “irreparable and irretrievable commitment of 
resources” prior to a final decision 

CEQ regulations require that “until an agency issues a [R]ecord of [D]ecision . . . no 
action concerning the proposal shall be taken which would: (1) [h]ave an adverse 
environmental impact; or (2) [l]imit the choice of reasonable alternatives.” 40 CFR. § 
1506.1(a). In addition, the regulations clearly prohibit such predeterminative action, 
stating that “[a]gencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives 
before making a final decision.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(f). 

 

Courts have generally agreed on the “trigger point” for predetermination, holding that 
an agency has violated NEPA when it made an irreversible and irretrievable 
commitment of resources to an outcome prior to making its final decision. See Forest 
Guardians v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 714 (10th Cir. 2010), 
Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (1988). This irreversible commitment of 
resources “seriously imped[es] the degree to which [an agency’s] planning and 


decisions could reflect environmental values.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143 
(9th Cir. Wash. 2000) 

 

While most NEPA pre-determination cases involve the agency entering into agreements 
for contracts before the completion of NEPA documents and final decision, when 
evaluating irreversible, or irreparable, harm in the context of granting injunctions, 
many courts have found that logging itself generally constitutes irreparable harm. 
Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2003). 
The “cutting of trees alone often constitutes irreparable injury.” Friends of the Earth v. 
United States Forest Service, 95 F. Supp. 2d 206, 208 (D. Vt. 2000). Indeed, “once 
trees are removed from the landscape, they cannot be replaced.” Sierra Club v. 
Eubanks, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1083 (E. D. Ca. 2004). 

 

In light of such a clear prohibition on pre-emptive action, Bark is astonished that not 
only has the Forest Service made an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 
resources prior to making its final decision, it tried to cover this up in the EA. I’m 
referring, of course, to the Forest Service prematurely logging Forest Service Road 
6311.130. 

 

FSR 6311.130 had been naturally recovering for years, and was included for 
decommissioning in the 2007 Clackamas Restoration Projects EA. On a site visit in 
July, Bark staff found that the gate to the road had already been removed, and all of 
the vegetation that has regrown in the past 20-30 years was logged. See Attachment 
B, Photos 4 & 5. We immediately brought this to the attention of the Clackamas 
Stewardship Partners and Forest Service. When the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) 
was released, a month and a half later, it failed to acknowledge this action. Rather, it 
stated that “the current proposal is to open the existing alignment as a temporary 
road. It would be opened by performing brushing and blading and would be used to 
haul logs . . .” EA at 24. Note the future tense used, despite the Forest Service 
knowing the action had already occurred. 

 

This dishonesty casts a pallor on the entire rest of the EA and project, and is a clear 
instance of the Forest Service making an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 
resources prior to making its final decision. Not only are years of recovery lost, this 
action bars the Forest Service from selecting an alternative – such as No Action, or 
Bark’s suggested alternatives – that would not reopen decommissioned roads. This is 
a clear violation of NEPA, and demands that the Forest Service work with the public to 
craft an adequate remedy to both restore the damaged area, and the broken trust that 
such illegal actions inevitably cause. 

2) Best Management Practices 

Use of Best Management Practices traces its origins to the Clean Water Act as an 
approach to minimize impacts from nonpoint sources of water pollution. As defined 
by the CWA: Best Management Practices (BMPs), are methods, measures or practices 
selected by an agency to help minimize its nonpoint source control needs. BMPs 
include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and 
maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during and after pollution-
producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving 
waters. 40 CFR §130.2(m). 


 

It appears that the Forest Service has gradually expanded the use of “Best 
Management Practices” beyond limiting nonpoint water pollution, and now uses the 
term to refer generally to mitigation measures and/or project design that minimizes 
environmental impact. While expanding the definition of BMPs, the Forest Service has 
also lost focus of the very explicit Forest Plan guidelines for describing, implementing 
and monitoring BMPs. The Jazz EA fails to follow these guidelines, and Bark requests 
that the EA be withdrawn and reconfigured to meet the BMP requirements. 

a. Failure to Follow MHFP direction on BMPs 

In Bark’s comments on the Preliminary Assessment (“PA”), we acknowledged that 
there have been systematic failures in the Forest Service that result in Best 
Management Practices (“BMPs”) and other mitigation measures not being 
implemented, and/or monitored. Bark requested that the Forest Service create a more 
robust approach to tracking implementation of BMPs and monitoring for their 
effectiveness. Not only has the Forest Service failed to do so, it appears that it 
continues to ignore its own Forest Plan in regards the description, implementation and 
monitoring of BMPs. 

 

Appendix H of the Mt. Hood Forest Plan discusses the reason for, and format of, BMPs 
in detail. It notes that, “BMPs are incorporated into the design of the alternatives to 
avoid or minimize potential adverse water quality problems. . . Appropriate BMPS are 
selected for each project by the interdisciplinary team . . .The selected BMPs, an 
estimate of their effectiveness, and a plan for monitoring them is included in the 
project EA or EIS.” RMP at H-3. 

 

The Forest Plan further instructs that each BMP should consist of Title, Objectives, 
Explanations, Implementation and Responsibility, Ability to Implement, Effectiveness 
and Monitoring. RMP at App. H-5. Instead of following the very specific direction of the 
Forest Plan for describing the BMPs, and including such necessary information as 
implementation & responsibility, ability to implement, and effectiveness, the Jazz EA 
merely lists BMPs very generally. 

 

Of special note is the Forest Plan’s commitment to monitoring the implementation and 
effectiveness of the BMPs. “When the resource activity begins, timber sale 
administrators, engineering representatives, resource specialists, and others, ensure 
that the BMPs are implemented according to plan. . . BMP monitoring is done before, 
during and after resource activity implementation. This monitoring answers the 
question: Did we do what we said we were going to do?” RMP at App. H-3. 

 

This sets up the Forest Service to “Evaluate and Adjust” the BMPs – validation 
monitoring. The section concerning Implementation of the Forest Plan makes very 
clear that monitoring and evaluation is an important part of implementing the Forest 
Plan and adaptive management. The Forest Plan instructs the Forest Service to an 
Annual BMP Report that tracks implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. See LRMP 
at Five-11, 12. To the best of Bark’s knowledge, this does not occur. 

 

Bark understands that the Forest Service operates with a different budget now than it 
did in 1990, and that this affects its management choices. However, this does not 
mean that the Forest Service can pick and choose the parts of the Forest Plan that it 


wishes to comply with. Too often, Mt. Hood Forest staff has continued to plan timber 
sale after timber sale, without doing the evaluation or monitoring required to answer 
the basic question “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” 

 

b. Monitoring shows BMPs are not consistently implemented or effective 

Moreover, when compliance with the BMP was monitored, either by the Forest Service 
or Bark, the results demonstrate that, in fact, the answer to the question above is far 
too often, “No”. 

 

Time and again in the Jazz EA and Decision Notice (DN) the Forest Service lists the 
adverse environmental impacts of the timber sale, but concludes that they will not 
harm the environment “because of the BMPs”. 

 

For example, in the Jazz EA, the Forest Service acknowledges the highly erosive 
nature of the soils, the overcompacted pre-existing condition, and the likelihood this 
this sale would contribute to more degraded soils. It then goes on to conclude that 
“Best Management Practices and the design criteria would result in little effect to 
erosion . . . because sufficient ground cover would be applied or retained.” EA at 109. 
As noted above, the Forest Service currently lacks a rigorous monitoring program to 
ensure that BMPs are implemented and effective. However, the limited monitoring 
done by the FS soils scientist in January 2012 found that BMPs to protect soil and 
limit erosion were not always implemented as anticipated.1 

1 These BMP survey sheets are attached, to become part of the Decision Record. 

2 See, eg. “Implementation will incorporate BMPs, which will protect and maintain water quality 
conditions” DN at 13. 

 

 

She surveyed four timber sale units, and found that in three of them, BMPs that limit 
soil disturbance and erosion were incompletely implemented: 

Rotor, unit 5: Landing not fully seeded and mulched, closure to area not effective 
resulting in area being used for target shooting and garbage dumping; 

Swag, unit 24: Detrimental soil conditions existed before this entry and this entry 
added to it; bare ground on skid trails with slopes over 20% was not mulched; sheet 
erosion noted; 

Swag unit 23: Processor operating on slopes greater than 40% and not on a mat of 
slash as prescribed in the EA; detrimental soil conditions existed before this entry; 
greater number of skid trails created than needed. 

 

It is important to note the Forest Service only surveyed two units (Swag 23 & 24) for 
compliance with ground-based yarding BMPs, and in both of these found that the 
BMPs were not followed, and that detrimental soil impacts occurred. This information 
does not provide strong support for the Forest Service’s current contention that the 
BMPs will mitigate all adverse soil impacts on these highly compacted and erosive 
earthflow soils. 

 

The Jazz EA and DN make similar claims regarding the projects impacts on water, 
wildlife, soil productivity, invasive species, etc.2 All boil down to the assertion that the 
project will not have significant environmental impacts because of the BMPs. Yet, the 


Forest Service offers no assurance that these BMPs will be implemented, or will be 
effective at minimizing or mitigating the known environmental impacts. 

 

In addition to the Forest Service’s own monitoring, this summer Bark volunteers did 
extensive surveys of thirteen units of recently thinned timber sales in the Clackamas 
River Ranger District.3 While Bark is still analyzing the statistical data gathered, our 
initial review of the information gathered points to numerous instances where the 
BMPs were not implemented, were not effective at preventing environmental damage, 
and/or the timber company violated the terms of its contract. 

3 Sale units include: Boya units 5, 6; Day unit 46; Roman units 32, 35; Slip units 1, 3; Swag units 6, 23, 24, 28; Wolf 
units 21, 27. 

 

 

For example, 53% of units surveyed had non-decommissioned landings with signs of 
erosion; 69% of units had incorrect or incomplete leave tree markings that did not 
comply with the contract requirements; 23% of units had marked leave trees that had 
been cut; and 85% of units had invasive species present. 

 

These findings point to both the inability of the Forest Service timber sale 
administrators to ensure BMPs and timber contract specifications are fully complied 
with, and the insufficiencies of BMPs in preventing environmental harm. 

c. Cannot base a FONSI on unreliable BMPs 

In instances such as this, where the Jazz DN relies on “Best Management Practices 
and design criteria” to make its Finding of No Significant Impact (see DN at 12), the 
mitigation measures must be assured to occur and must “completely compensate for 
any possible adverse environmental impacts.” Cabinet Mountains 
Wilderness/Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 682 (D.C. Cir. 
1982). If the effectiveness of such mitigation is not assured, then the Forest Service 
cannot sign a FONSI and must prepare an EIS. Foundation for North American Wild 
Sheep v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 681 F.2d 1172, 1178 (1982). In Northwest Indian 
Cemetery Protective Assn. v. Peterson, the court determined that NEPA requires 
agencies to “analyze the mitigation measures in detail [and] explain how effective the 
measures would be . . . A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify 
as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.” 764 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 

The courts have held that the USFS is obligated to detail in an EA the mitigation 
measures that it relied on to obtain a FONSI. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizen’s 
Council, 490 U.S. 332, 353 (1989); Carmel-By-the-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 
123 F.3d 1142, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “mitigation must be discussed in 
sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly 
evaluated”). The Ninth Circuit has explained that “a mere listing of mitigation 
measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.” 
Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n. v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir. 
1986), rev’d on other grounds, 485 U.S. 439 (1988); see also Neighbors of Cuddy 
Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998). 

 

The "mitigated FONSI" is only upheld when the mitigation measures significantly 
compensate for a proposed action's adverse environmental impacts. Friends of 


Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 987 (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). In particular, the agency must 
also “disclose the history of success and failure of similar projects.” Sierra Club v. 
Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 824 (5th Cir. 1975). 

 

Not only is the Forest Service unable to assure that the BMPs will, in fact, be followed 
and/or mitigate the adverse impacts, many recent studies point to a contrary finding. 
In the context of road construction BMPs, there is reliable data indicating that BMPs 
do not consistently reduce the adverse effects of roads on aquatic resources to 
ecologically negligible levels, especially within the context of currently pervasive 
watershed and aquatic degradation (Ziemer and Lisle, 1993; Espinosa et al., 1997; 
USFS and USBLM, 1997; Beschta et al., 2004; GLEC, 2008). The nationwide 
assessment of BMP effectiveness commissioned by the USEPA performed by the Great 
Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) specifically noted that BMPs aimed at reducing 
road impacts are not 100% effective, and, in particular, that efforts to prevent road 
drainage to streams have considerable potential for failure, especially in the Pacific 
Northwest (GLEC, 2008). 

 

However, the EA does not provide any discussion of the known limited effectiveness of 
road BMPs. In its report, GLEC found that in the Pacific Northwest, “conventional 
BMPs for road construction may not be sufficient to prevent adverse effects on stream 
channels and fish habitat.” (GLEC, 2008). Activities implemented with somewhat 
effective BMPs still often contribute to negative cumulative effects on aquatic systems 
(Ziemer et al., 1993; Rhodes et al., 1994; Espinosa et al. 1997; Beschta et al., 2004; 
GLEC, 2008). Espinosa et al. (1997) documented that aquatic habitats were severely 
damaged by roads and logging in several watersheds despite BMP application, and 
that blind reliance on BMPs in lieu of limiting or avoiding activities that cause aquatic 
damage serves to increase aquatic damage. 

 

Not only is the effectiveness of the included BMPs unsupported, the Rhodes Comment4 
details how the Jazz Timber Sale fails to include the most effective BMPs, which are: 

4 Bark herein incorporates the attached comments of expert hydrologist Jon Rhodes, who offers his comments to 
explain how the EA failed to reasonably assess the Jazz Timber Sale’s effects consistency with the NFP ACS and 
ACSOs the many ways that EA failed to properly analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of the Jazz Sale. 
This Comment is referred to as the “Rhodes Comment” and “Attachment A”. 

. avoidance of implementing damaging logging, landing, and road activities 
in high hazard, sensitive, or degraded areas, such as stream crossings, 
RR, and unstable terrain, such as earthflows; and 
. full protection of an adequate width of riparian areas to prevent or 
reduce the transmission of upslope impacts to streams. Att. A at 40. 


 

The management practice of avoiding high impact activities in sensitive terrain has 
long been recognized to be far more effective than attempting to reduce such impacts 
via other BMPs with limited effectiveness. Avoidance of sensitive areas is critical, 
because as GLEC (2008) noted with respect to road impacts, “in some cases, however, 
control of the problem may not be feasible: location ‘trumps’ management practice.” 
It has long been recognized that full protection of the area of vegetation within 200 to 


>300 ft of the edge of all stream types is one of the most important and effective ways 
to limit the impacts from upslope logging-related disturbances, as numerous 
independent scientific assessments have repeatedly concluded. However, despite this 
information, the EA fails to incorporate these effective BMPs or design an alternative 
that would avoid such adverse environmental impacts. Att. A at 40. 

3) Inadequate Range of Alternatives 

Of the 2,052 acres in the Jazz Timber Sale area, there are several overlapping land 
allocations: 734 acres are in Riparian Reserves; 726 ac. in Late Successional Reserves; 
1,068 ac. in Earthflow; 74 ac. in Wild & Scenic Rivers, 1,800 ac. in Special Emphasis 
Watershed; and only 9 ac. in Timber Emphasis. EA at 12. 

 

These land allocations have the following management directions: 

 

Riparian Reserve: Management must maintain or restore the existing condition, and 
not prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives. NFP ROD 
at B-10. Timber harvest can occur only if needed to attain ACS objectives. Id. at C-32. 

 

Late Successional Reserve: Management objective is to “protect and enhance 
conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems.” NFP ROD at C-9. 

 

Special Emphasis Watershed: Primary goal is to “maintain or improve watershed, 
riparian and aquatic habitat conditions and water quality.” Secondary goal is to 
“maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of timber management 
practices.” LRMP at 4-246. 

 

Earthflow: Maintain hydrologic and physical balances to prevent reactivation or 
acceleration of large, slow moving earthflows. LRMP at 4-261. 

 

Timber Emphasis: Provide lumber, wood fiber and other forest products on a fully 
regulated basis, based on the capability and suitability of the land. LRMP at 4-289. 

 

Given that these land allocations focus almost exclusively on protecting and improving 
the conditions of water, soil stability and late-successional habitat, it was 
unreasonable for the Forest Service not to consider alternative actions that have fewer 
adverse impacts on these resource values. 

 

Exploring alternative actions is not simply a trivial NEPA process requirement – 
indeed, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgated the 
regulations implementing NEPA, characterizes the discussion of alternatives as “the 
heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The purpose of 
NEPA.s alternatives requirement is to “sharply defin[e] the issues and provid[e] a clear 
basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.” Id. All 
reasonable alternatives must receive a “rigorous exploration and objective 
evaluation…, particularly those that might enhance environmental quality or avoid 
some or all of the adverse environmental effects.” Id. § 1500.8(a)(4). 

 

Recent CEQ regulations have clarified that for projects with no unresolved conflicts 
concerning alternative uses of available resources, the EA need only analyze the 


proposed action and no action and proceed without consideration of additional 
alternatives. 36 CFR § 220.7(b)(2)(i). However, the Forest Service cannot simply will 
this condition to be true, by dismissing concerns raised about the project as not being 
“substantive unresolved resource impacts,” as it appears they have done in the Jazz 
EA. EA at 44. 

 

Following the CEQ clarification, the Ninth Circuit thoroughly addressed the question 
of quantity of alternatives in Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 
1233 (9th Cir. 2005). The court found that NEPA and its implementing regulations 
require the following with respect to the number of alternatives that must be 
considered by an agency: 1) the agency must consider “appropriate” alternatives to 
recommended courses of action; 2) a NEPA document must “rigorously explore and 
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” and must explain why it has 
eliminated an alternative from detailed study; 3) the agency must consider a “no 
action” alternative; and 4) the agency must designate a “preferred” alternative. NEC at 
1246. 

 
So long as “all reasonable alternatives” have been considered and an appropriate 
explanation is provided as to why an alternative was eliminated, the regulatory 
requirement is satisfied. In short, the regulation does not impose a numerical floor on 
alternatives to be considered. NEC at 1245-1246. NEC boils down alternatives 
analysis to the question: is there a reasonable alternative that exists and was not 
adequately dealt with? 

 

A recent case very similar to the Jazz Timber Sale applied this question and found that 
the Forest Service had indeed failed to consider a “reasonable alternative.” See Envtl. 
Prot. Info. Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 234 Fed. Appx. 440, 442-443 (9th Cir. 
2007) (“EPIC”). 

 

In this case, which involved a commercial thinning project in the Shasta-Trinity 
National Forest, EPIC proposed an action alternative during the public comment 
period that would not remove trees greater than twelve inches in diameter, would not 
involve a commercial timber sale, and would not result in any road construction or 
reconstruction. The Forest Service rejected EPIC's proposal at this preliminary stage of 
the decision-making process, stating briefly that EPIC's proposal was “not consistent 
with Purpose & Need.” 

 

The Ninth Circuit found Forest Service’s response unpersuasive. It held that the 
Forest Service did not adequately consider reasonable alternative courses of action 
because it defined the objectives of the project so narrowly that the proposed project 
was the only alternative that would serve those objectives. 

 

The Court found that the Forest Service improperly narrowed the range of possible 
agency action to commercial logging projects, which precluded the agency from 
considering alternatives that might better serve the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan 
by striking a closer balance between timber and environmental interests. The Court 
concluded that the Forest Service violated NEPA by defining the goals of its project so 
narrowly that only a commercial timber sale would serve those goals. EPIC, 234 Fed. 
Appx. at 444. 

 


Similarly, in Bark’s scoping comments, and again in comments on the PA, we made 
clear that there are several unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 
resources in the Collawash Watershed. In the PA comments, we raised the question of 
scientific uncertainty surrounding the impacts of commercial thinning, noting that a 
team of six scientists recently considered large scale thinning and identified many 
concerns about the practice. They found that even when confined to previously 
harvested stands, thinning treatments must be evaluated carefully and implemented 
in such a way as to avoid negative impacts. (Carroll, 2009). Ground based methods 
and associated machine piling, burning of activity fuels, construction and increased 
use of roads and landings can increase soil erosion, compact soils, and elevate surface 
runoff. (Carroll, 2009). 

 

Concluding that no evidence exists to support the contention that an extensive 
thinning program will hasten restoration of historic patterns of forest 
heterogeneity on a landscape scale, they recommended that thinning treatments be 
applied cautiously and only where ecologically warranted, not be considered a cure-
all for forests degraded by fire exclusion or other human activities. (Carroll, 
2009). This directly contravenes the Forest Service’s assertions that commercial 
thinning is needed for forest restoration, and points to a very clear disagreement 
concerning the use of resources in the project area. 

 

Because of these unresolved conflicts, in its comments, Bark proposed specific 
alternative actions, including a project(s) that had one or all of the following changes: 
no commercial logging in Riparian Reserves and Late Successional Reserves; no 
ground-based yarding in High-risk Earthflow areas; and/or no timber sale units that 
require rebuilding previously decommissioned roads. 

 

Rather than substantively engaging with Bark’s request to fully analyze these 
alternatives, the Forest Service summarily dismissed them as “not meeting the 
purpose and need for the project” because they would decrease the amount of acreage 
available for commercial logging. See EA at 46-47. 

 

However, Bark’s proposed alternatives decrease the amount of commercial logging by 
protecting the most ecologically sensitive areas of the forest and avoiding adverse 
impacts. In the context of land allocations that specifically focus on protecting water 
quality, soil stability and wildlife habitat, these are reasonable alternatives that would 
have allowed the Forest Service to move forward with some commercial logging to 
meet the purpose and need without having to exempt itself from multiple Forest Plan 
standards and compromising resource values. 

 

Instead, like the Forest Service in EPIC, the Mt. Hood Forest Service insists that the 
only way to meet the purpose and need is to have a 2,000 commercial timber sale, 
with all the accompanying adverse environmental impacts – that are primarily caused 
by the infrastructure (roads, skid trails, skyline yarding corridors, etc) needed to 
remove commercial products from the forest. There are two major flaws with this 
argument. 

 

The first is that it is not at all clear that the no-action alternative, or a smaller action 
alternative, would not also meet the first two facets of the purpose and need: 1) to 
increase health and growth of stands; and 2) create greater variability of vertical and 


horizontal stand structure. EA at 17-18. The Forest Service does a strange thing in 
its comparisons of the action and no action alternative which obscures this point: it 
analyzes the action alternative as if time exists, but the no action alternative as if time 
doesn’t. For example, the EA finds that “the no-action alternative would maintain the 
current conditions and would result in plantations that are overstocked with relatively 
uniform trees with low levels of diversity.” EA at 79. This fails to recognize that the 
forest changes over time, even without human interference, and the “no action” forest 
would experience increased tree mortality, which would open gaps, create more 
structural diversity, lead to the introduction of other species, etc, all of which achieve 
the purpose and need. Indeed, the EA forgot what the PA acknowledged: “[w]ith no 
action, at 200 years of age these stands would function in a similar fashion to a 
treated stand but may have a larger amount of snags and down wood.” PA at 104. 

 

The second major flaw is that it is reasonable to believe that a timber sale with a 
smaller environmental footprint could still meet all three aspects of the purpose and 
need, without compromising the resource values in this Special Emphasis watershed. 
Yet, the Forest Service never explains why an 1160 acre project (the amount of acreage 
remaining if the Forest Service did not re-open decommissioned roads) is too small to 
meet the purpose and need. It simply dismisses Bark’s proposed alternative with no 
reasoned analysis. By failing to consider all reasonable alternatives, and/or providing 
an appropriate explanation as to why an alternative was eliminated, the Forest Service 
fails to meet its requirements under NEPA. 

4) Failure to Take a Hard Look at Environmental Consequences 

 

NEPA creates procedural requirements for federal actions "(1) to ensure the agency will 
have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes its 
decisions; and (2) to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger 
audience." Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th 
Cir. 1996). The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that 
are based on understanding the environmental consequences, and take actions that 
protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(c). Additionally, 
the purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of relevant environmental considerations 
that were given a 'hard look' by the agency, and thereby to permit informed public 
comment on proposed action and any choices or alternatives that might be pursued 
with less environmental harm. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 
2005). 

 

In order to ensure this level of detailed analysis, an Environmental Assessment must 
provide sufficient information for determining whether to prepare an environmental 
impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a). The 
information presented in the EA must be of "high quality," and include "accurate 
scientific analysis." 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b). The agency must adequately explain its 
decision not to prepare an EIS by supplying a "convincing statement of reasons why 
potential effects are insignificant." Steamboaters v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Com, 759 
F.2d 1382, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985). The statement of reasons is crucial to determining 
whether the agency took a hard look at the potential environmental impacts of the 
project. Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Singleton, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir. 
1998). 


 

To comply with NEPA's "hard look" mandate, courts have held that agencies are 
obligated to maintain a current inventory of resources so that an adequate baseline 
exists to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed action. Ctr. for Biol. 
Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 422 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see 
also Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F.Supp.2d. 1202, 1212-13 (D. Or. 
2006). The environmental baseline is an integral part of an EA, because it is against 
this information that environmental impacts are measured and evaluated; therefore, it 
is critical that the baseline be accurate and complete. Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy 
Regulatory Comm'n, 201 F.3d 1186, 1195 & n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000); Ctr. for Biol. 
Diversity, 422 F.Supp.2d at 1163. 

 

As detailed below, and supported by the Rhodes Comment, the Jazz EA failed to take a 
“hard look” at several relevant environmental factors, by either failing to provide 
complete (or unsupportable) information and conclusions and/or by failing to 
evaluate the impacts altogether. Additionally the EA did not provide accurate baseline 
information for a number of affected resources, which inhibits the Forest Service, and 
public, from determining the extent of environmental impact from the Jazz Timber 
Sale. 

a. Soil Productivity 

Soil conditions strongly influence long-term forest productivity, the composition and 
condition of vegetation, rates of vegetative recovery after disturbance, sediment flux, 
and the quantity, timing, and quality of water produced by watersheds, which, in turn, 
affect aquatic populations and habitats (Beschta et al., 2004). Because soil conditions 
strongly influence future forest vegetation conditions, soils profoundly affect the 
functionality of forest vegetation with respect to ecosystem processes. 

 

The Decision Notice approves exceptions to the Forest Plan’s soil protection standards, 
stating that the project is consistent with Forest Plan objectives for long-term soil 
productivity and earthflow stability. DN at 15. For a variety of reasons detailed below, 
this is an unsupportable conclusion based on both the information provided in the EA, 
and available information that the Forest Service should have considered in its 
analysis. 

i) Soil Compaction 

A. Ground Based Yarding 

The majority of observable ground disturbances in the Jazz sale area are heavily 
compacted old skid trails, landings and temporary roads from the logging 40-60 years 
ago. PA at 95. All ground based units still show signs of skid trail compaction, 
without substantial recovery – even on gentle slopes. Id. The soil remains 
detrimentally compacted far in excess of Forest Plan standards. Yet, despite the heavy 
compaction already present on these unstable and degraded soils, the Jazz timber sale 
would increase compaction across the landscape in excess of Forest Plan standards. 

 

In particular, in B-8 Earthflows the Forest Plan states that soil compaction should not 
exceed 8%, and that ground-based yarding should not occur. (LRMP B8-40, B8-36). 
In the Jazz sale area, detrimental soil conditions already exceeds the allowable range, 
with compaction from 9-30%. The Jazz sale as planned – assuming every BMP were 


followed – would still increase compaction by 2-6% because of ground-based yarding, 
which is not supposed to occur in earthflow areas! 

 

The Forest Service proposes to exempt the Jazz Timber Sale from these Forest Plan 
standards. 

 

The Forest Plan identifies “should” standards as required, though it allows for case by 
case exceptions to the standard. LRMP at 4-45. In the current instance, the Forest 
Service seems to be making a practice of exempting all sales in the area from these 
important standards. For example, other recent timber sales in the area have been 
similarly exempted from the standards, including 2007 Thin, Rethin, and Collawash. 
The 2007 Thin EA and the Rethin EA use the exact same boilerplate language for the 
exemptions. See Jazz EA at 115; 2007 Thin EA at 131; Rethin EA at 88. This clearly 
shows that the Forest Service is not making a thorough site-specific determination for 
each project that exempting the timber sale from the standards will sufficiently protect 
the soil stability and productivity in Earthflow areas. Bark is very concerned that the 
Forest Service will continue to exempt itself from Forest Plan standards in each and 
every timber sale, which leads to cumulative impacts across the watershed which the 
Forest Service has not adequately disclosed or analyzed. 

 

Especially concerning is that the “cumulative effects” analysis for soil productivity has 
as its boundaries “the plantation units that are proposed for thinning”. EA at 105. 
There is no way that this small of an analysis area can capture the impact of 
increasing soil compaction, in excess of Forest Plan standards, in project after project 
in the Collawash watershed. It also improperly characterized the intent of cumulative 
effects analysis – suggesting that decreased soil productivity in Jazz would have little 
to no affect to soil productivity elsewhere. EA at 106. A proper cumulative effects 
analysis would have asked “in the context of the other past, present and reasonably 
foreseeable projects in the Collawash watershed, what are the impacts of decreasing 
soil productivity at the Jazz Timber sale?” 

 

Despite all these known direct and cumulative impacts, the EA and DN rely on 
application of BMPs to mitigate the impact of ground-based yarding on Earthflows. EA 
at 115. However, the Forest Service has never conclusively shown that the BMPs are 
sufficient to protect the soil resources, nor that they will – in fact – be followed. 

 

A thorough review of the Jazz BMPs, in comparison to other recent sales in the area, 
shows that many of the Jazz BMPs are even less protective of the soil resources. In 
particular, the limitations on slope for ground based logging are much more 
permissive. Jazz BMP C4 says that the use of ground based yarding and felling 
equipment is prohibited on slopes exceeding 35%, within riparian reserves. EA at 35. 
Outside of Riparian Reserves, however, the BMPs state that “some ground-based 
logging is proposed for slopes greater than 35%”. EA at 36. This is actually 
backsliding from previous BMPs, such as Rethin BMP 6.1: Ground based tractors, 
skidders, or mechanical harvesters would not be used on slopes greater than 35% 
[throughout the entire sale]”. Rethin EA at 16. 

 

Why are the Jazz BMPs less restrictive, especially in an area that is more geologically 
unstable than any of the previous timber sale areas? 

 


In addition, as detailed in the above section on BMPs, the Forest Service currently 
lacks a rigorous monitoring program to ensure that BMPs are implemented and 
effective. Of the few sales that have been monitored, of specific interest is the Forest 
Service’s findings for the Swag Timber Sale. In Swag unit 24, like many units of Jazz, 
detrimental soil conditions existed before the commercial thin. The Forest Service 
BMP monitoring found that ground-based logging was done on slopes greater than 
40% and not on a mat of slash as prescribed by the BMPs, and that the timber 
company created a greater number of skid trails than needed. 

 

Bark raised these concerns in the PA comments, and the Forest Service did not 
adequately respond to show how the direct and cumulative impacts to soil resources 
would not be significant. A “cut & paste” exemption from Forest Plan standards, on a 
baseline of already heavily compacted soils, in an area of high risk earthflows, with 
less protective BMPs, that may not be followed . . . does not give Bark much 
confidence that the impacts to soil productivity will indeed be insignificant. 

 

B. Landings 

Another source of increased soil compaction, with a corresponding decrease in 
productivity comes from timber landings. The EA’s failure to assess and divulge the 
total number, area, and location of landings that will be re-used, reconstructed, and 
constructed under the Jazz Timber Sale is a significant defect for many reasons, as 
discussed extensively in the Rhodes Comment. See Att. A at 9-10. 

 

Landings have impacts on vegetation, soils, and erosion similar to roads in their 
persistence and severity (Karr et al., 2004), as USFS cumulative effects models also 
indicate (Menning et al., 1996). Landings essentially “zero-out” soil productivity in an 
irretrievable manner, although this is not disclosed in the EA. As noted in Karr et al. 
(2004), “[c]onstruction and reconstruction of roads and landings damage soils, destroy 
or alter vegetation, and accelerate the runoff and erosion harmful to aquatic systems.” 

 

The failure to assess and divulge the magnitude of the loss of soil productivity due to 
landings is a significant defect because of the amount of landings needed for the Jazz 
Timber Sale. Although the EA does not make known the number and area of landings 
needed for the Jazz Timber Sale, it is likely to be significant. Typically at least one 
landing is needed per logging unit and there are 154 logging units under the Jazz 
Timber Sale (EA, App. A). Therefore, it is likely that at least 154 landings will be re-
used, reconstructed, or constructed under the Jazz Timber Sale.5 Att. A at 10. 
Analyses of numerous thinning projects indicate that area of landings typically 
comprises 1-2% of the area logged. Using the median value in this range (1.5%), it is 
likely that the area of landings in the Jazz Timber Sale will be about 30.8 acres, much 
of which will be either constructed or significantly reconstructed. Therefore, is likely 
that this level of landings will have soil impacts that are akin to the reconstruction 
and construction of about 12.7 miles of road with mean width of 20 feet, which has 
extremely significant impacts to soil and water, yet was undisclosed in the EA. Att. A 
at 11. 

5 While not disclosed in the EA, the NMFS Letter of Concurrence notes that there will be approximately 20 new 
landings built for the Jazz sale. 

 


This negates the Decision Notice’s assertion that soil productivity will maintained 
because landings will be decommissioned. DN at 15. First, even if actively 
decommissioned, the long term adverse impact to soil productivity is unavoidable, and 
irretrievable, and second, it is not at all certain that such decommissioning will, in 
fact, occur. In Bark’s recent survey of similar timber sales, we found that 53% of sale 
units had landings that were not decommissioned, and displayed signs of erosion. 
Thus, the EA and DN fail to take a hard look at the total adverse impacts of landings 
on long term soil productivity in the Jazz Timber Sale area. 

ii) Large Woody Debris 

The EA provides no reasonable estimate of the amount of large woody debris (LWD) 
that will be lost due to the Jazz Timber Sale, although the Jazz Timber Sale will clearly 
remove large amounts of trees on 2,053 acres within the Collawash watershed. While 
not disclosed in the EA, the National Marine Fisheries Service Letter of Concurrence 
(“LOC”) indicates that the Jazz Timber Sale will remove about 182 trees per acre 
logged. LOC at 4. This equates to the removal of 373,646 trees from the ecosystem. 
As detailed extensively in the Rhodes Comment, the loss of large woody debris (“LWD”) 
from the ecosystem is significant due to the persistence and magnitude of the LWD 
removed, and the importance of LWD to a variety of critical ecosystem functions, 
including soil productivity, aquatic conditions and the functionality of Riparian 
Reserves (“RR”) and Late Successional Reserves (“LSR”). App. A at 4-6. 

 

LWD provides important sources of organic matter and nutrients in soils, which are 
vital to the long-term maintenance and protection of soil productivity (USFS and 
USBLM, 1997a; Beschta et al., 2004; Karr et al., 2004). But, despite these 
acknowledgements of the well-known importance of LWD, associated nutrients and 
organic matter to soil productivity and the persistent impacts of its loss within the 
Jazz Timber Sale area due to past logging, the EA fails to assess the magnitude and 
effect of the loss of LWD and organic matter and this effect soils because of the Jazz 
Timber Sale. Instead, it only assesses the Jazz Timber Sale effects on organic matter 
by assessing the amount of area where the soil organic layer is removed under the 
Jazz Timber Sale (EA at 112), which in no way addresses the effects of tree removal 
and reduced tree mortality on LWD and resulting effects on soil functions and 
productivity. Therefore, the EA’s assessment does not assess the well-known 
persistent effects of tree-removal and reduced tree mortality on long-term soil 
productivity under the Jazz Timber Sale. 

 

The EA’s failure to properly analyze and disclose the Jazz Timber Sale’s effects on LWD 
and organic matter is a severe defect because soil and soil productivity are 
fundamental aspects of forested ecosystems that influence the composition and 
condition of vegetation, rates of vegetative recovery after disturbance, sediment flux, 
and the quantity, timing, and quality of water produced by watersheds, which, in turn, 
affect aquatic populations and habitats (Beschta et al., 2004). Loss of these present 
and future sources of soil productivity retard the Forest Service’s ability to meet the 
LSR and ACS objectives. See Att. A at 4. The EA fails to disclose these impacts, and 
therefore fails to take a hard look at a relevant factor influencing the long term 
environmental impact of the sale. 


iii) Mycorrhizal Fungi 

While some of the adverse impacts of soil compaction were disclosed in the EA, the 
Forest Service completely failed to analyze an extremely important environmental 
impact of the sale – namely the effect of increased compaction on mycorrhizal fungi. 

 

As discussed extensively in Bark’s comments (see PA comments at 29-30), soil 
compaction reduces long-term soil productivity by adversely affecting mycorrhizal 
fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi are essential for tree survival and productivity. These fungi 
mainly reside in surface layers of soil and organic matter and provide numerous 
benefits to their host plants, including: enhancing the uptake of essential nutrients 
and water; protecting against pathogens; binding soil particles to create favorable soil 
structure; and facilitating below-ground nutrient transfer among plants. (Wiensczyk, 
2002). These miniscule fungi can determine the structure and dynamics of plant 
communities, and are major players of below ground plant interactions. 

 

Logging and yarding impact the forest floor on a variety of levels. They decrease 
available organic matter, such as fallen trees, that can be colonized by mycorrhizae 
and utilized for their water-retention properties. Logging-related activities also 
compact soils, especially in places like the Collawash, with easily compacted volcanic 
ash soils. Soil compaction degrades soil structure and restricts movement of oxygen 
and water through the soil, which prevent plants from forming feeder roots most 
closely associated with mycorrhizae colonization. Ground-based timber harvesting 
equipment compacts the soil limiting the movement of oxygen and water through the 
soil and destroying soil structure. 

 

Removal of LWD adds to the adverse impacts of soil compaction. In heavily compacted 
areas, the number of ectomycorrhizal root tips was greatest in areas of highly 
decomposed woody debris. Id. Additionally, wood debris from current or future fallen 
snags act as an inoculum for mycorrhizal species and also as a water retention site in 
the soil (Amaranthus et al 1996). In fact, exporting organic matter out of the forest 
only limits the ability of mycorrhizae to respond to soil compaction as woody soil 
debris act as a refuge for certain species. 

 

A relevant study found that ectomycorrhizal root tips were reduced over 60% in areas 
of high compaction by tractor yarding, coupled with organic material removal, and 
that effects of soil compaction on forest ectomycorrhizal networks can last up to 45 
years. (Amaranthus, et. al 1996). This means that the soil in the Jazz Timber Sale area 
might be just on the cusp of recovery, and that this action will set it back for another 
40 years. 

 

The Forest Service completely failed to disclose and analyze these impacts when it 
discussed soil productivity and exempted itself from the soil compaction regulations. 
In fact, rather than addressing Bark’s comments and adding analysis of impacts to 
mycorrhizal networks into the EA, the Forest Service simply dismissed this concern – 
stating in the Response to Comments that “Design criteria minimize impact to 
micorrhizal fungi”, citing EA sections 1.4.9, 3.6.2, and 3.14.1. RC at 26. 

 

Upon review of these cited sections, none of them address the impact of soil 
compaction in excess of Forest Plan standards to the mychorrizal fungi that may be 
finally re-establishing in the Jazz project area. Section 1.4.9 is the list of BMPs. 


Section 3.6.2 is a list of the three measures used to assess impact to soil: erosion, soil 
disturbance and organic matter. Section 3.14.1 is the introduction to the section on 
invasive plants. Bark does not believe that the Forest Service either fully responded to 
our comment, or took a hard look at the impacts of the sale to mycorrhizal fungi, 
which may significantly influence future soil productivity. 

b. Erosion 

In the EA, the Forest Service acknowledges the highly erosive nature of the soils, the 
overcompacted pre-existing condition, and the likelihood this this sale would 
contribute to more degraded soils. It then goes on to conclude that “Best Management 
Practices and the design criteria would result in little effect to erosion . . . because 
sufficient ground cover would be applied or retained.” EA at 109. However, based on 
all the information in the EA, and the relevant factors that the Forest Service failed to 
consider, it is clear that the Forest Service cannot support this conclusion. 

 

The EA acknowledges that soil erosion would increase with the proposed action 
because bare soil would be exposed during implementation. EA at 108. It continues 
to share that: “Ground based yarding systems result in greater amount of ground 
exposure than skyline or helicopter systems, and as the slopes approach 40% the 
potential for erosion increases”; “A total of 111 acres would have potential increased 
erosion as a result of thinning activities”; and “Disturbed areas, especially where 
slopes are greater than 25%, would be potential chronic sources of sediment until 
they are revegetated successfully.” EA at 109. As Bark noted in our PA comments, 
these are all very disturbing (if unquantified) acknowledgements of impact, and lead to 
many more questions: How long will it take to revegetate successfully? What amount 
of erosion will occur during the time lag? What is the impact of this erosion on an 
unstable landscape? The EA did not answer any of these questions. By not 
accounting for the inevitable time lag between project implementation and soil 
revegetation when it concludes that there will be “little effect to erosion” from the 
project, the EA does not capture the true impacts from soil erosion. 

 

The EA also admits that skyline yarding on steep slopes with highly erosive soils (units 
30, 34, 44, 80 and 82) have the potential to become “chronic sources of erosion and 
sediment” unless water is diverted to the side. EA at 109. What is the Forest Service 
doing to ensure that such waterbarring not only occurs but is successful at diverting 
water over the revegetation period? 

 

The Forest Service cannot simply rely on untested BMPs to mitigate all adverse 
environmental impacts from increased erosion. This is especially true when, as noted 
above, the BMPs controlling soil and slope often use the word “generally” and “may”, 
as in “downhill skidding would generally be on slopes less than 35%” (EA at 35), 
“mechanical harvesting would generally operate on slopes less than 40%” (EA at 36), 
“mulch may be used on slopes greater than 20%” (EA at 36). The inclusion of these 
wiggle words (which do not appear in the BMPs of similar previous sales) make the 
BMPs even less reliable and enforceable.6 It is clear that the Jazz Timber Sale is going 
to result in increased erosion in the unstable and erosive Collawash Watershed. The 
Forest Service must make a more realistic analysis of the extent and impact of this 

6 In fact, the insertion of “generally” and “may” essentially negate the “Best” part of the BMPs, and turn them into 
SMPs, or “Suggested Management Practices”. 


Large Bull Thistle infestation, in 
landings and skid trails of the Slip 
Timber sale, one year after logging 

erosion, rather than dismissing all concerns by relying on unapplied, or 
unenforceable, BMPs. 

 

c. Invasive Species 

 

Both the Jazz PA and EA acknowledge generally that: “invasive plants can reduce 
biological diversity, displace native plant communities, decrease and degrade wildlife 
habitat, alter fire regimes, change hydrology, disrupt mycorrhizal associations, alter 
nutrient dynamics, and increase soil erosion” but fail to apply any of these adverse 
impacts to the Jazz sale area. EA at 161. 

 

The EA tacitly acknowledges the problem by stating that the risk for spread of invasive 
plants and noxious weeds is high. EA at 161. Rather than explaining why the risk is 
“high” and what this means for the affected environment, for assessing both the direct 
and cumulative effects the EA simply relies on the design criteria proven to be 
ineffective in other similar sales: “design criteria would minimize likelihood that 
invasive plants would spread.” EA at 163. This is echoed in the DN: “Design criteria 
are included to prevent spread and establishment of invasive plants.” DN at 14. 

 

However, in its comments Bark noted that similar deign criteria has been applied to 
many other thinning projects in the Clackamas watershed and they have not been 
successful at curbing the spread of invasive species. PA comments at 24. As noted 
above, Bark volunteers have recently monitored post-logging units for compliance with 
BMPs. All the sales monitored have similar, if not more restrictive, BMPs as the 
proposed Jazz Timber sale in regards to invasive species management. Of the units 
surveyed – within two years of logging, 85% had presence of invasive species, 
especially prevalent in the landings and skid trails. Clearly, the BMPs did not work in 
similar projects to curb the spread of invasive species, and the Forest Service has 


given no assurance that this instance would be any different. This does not meet the 
“hard look” standard. 

 

Despite our requests, neither the EA nor the Response to Comments explained why 
BMPs that have been unsuccessful in other sales would be successful in Jazz at 
preventing the known negative impacts of increased invasive species presence. The 
Forest Service cannot rely on mitigation measures known not to work to support a 
finding of no significant impact in regards to the spread of invasive species. 

 

d. Water Quality 

i) Lack of Baseline Conditions 

The EA clearly notes that disclosing existing conditions are key to assessing 
cumulative effects analysis: 

“In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the 
cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis 
relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 
past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate 
impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected 
the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.” EA at 52. 

 

However, the EA completely fails to divulge the existing condition of a host of 
watershed attributes that will affected by the Jazz Timber Sale and affect compliance 
with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSO). For instance, NMFS (1996) 
notes that all of the following affect ACSO compliance: 

. Water Quality / Temperature 
. Water Quality/Sediment./Turbidity. 
. Water Quality/Chemical Concentration/Nutrients 
. Physical Barriers 
. Substrate 
. Large Woody Debris 
. Pool Frequency 
. Pool Quality 
. Off-Channel Habitat 
. Refugia 
. Width/Depth Ratio 
. Streambank Condition 
. Floodplain Connectivity. 
. Change in Peak/Base Flow 
. Increase in Drainage Network 
. Road Density & Location 
. Watershed Conditions/Riparian Reserves 


 

As discussed extensively below, the Jazz Timber Sale is likely to affect almost all of 
these conditions via affects on flows, sediment delivery, water temperature, RR, and 
LWD. However, the EA does not divulge the existing condition of any of these 
attributes except water temperature. This does not provide enough information to 


either make a supportable determination of impact, or determine compliance with the 
ACSOs. Att. A at 17-18. 

ii) Temperature 

The EA’s assertions that the increased water temperatures caused by stream shade 
removal under the Jazz Timber Sale would not be significant is specious and without a 
sound basis. As described in the Rhodes comment, a sound determination of the 
significance of water temperature effects requires all the following steps: 1) Determine 
a scientifically-sound threshold of significance for the change in water temperature; 2) 
Develop a thorough quantitative estimate of the level of change in water temperature 
caused by the loss of stream shade under the Jazz Timber Sale; 3) Compare the sound 
estimate of total change in water temperature to the threshold of significance. 
Notably, the EA’s assessment of water temperature impacts from the Jazz Timber 
Sale’s removal of stream shade lacks all three of these steps, and is, therefore, 
unsound. Att. A at 20. 

 

There will be approximately 70 fifteen-foot wide skyline corridors logged for the Jazz 
Timber Sale – 48 over perennial and 22 over intermittent streams. The Jazz sale will 
also construct 12 stream crossings for haul roads within the Jazz Timber Sale area. 
The EA failed to make any useful examination of the short and long term impacts to 
water temperature from the removal of riparian shade from these actions. 

 

Although undisclosed in the EA, road runoff that is delivered to streams at stream 
crossings and other points that are hydrologically connected to streams elevates 
stream temperatures during summer runoff events (National Research Council (NRC), 
2008). This is because runoff occurs in response to even small precipitation events 
and this runoff is heated by warm road surfaces during summer. Notably, this 
thermal pollution from roads occurs when streams are already warm due to seasonal 
effects, elevating the adverse impacts on salmonids (Meehan, 1991; Rhodes et al., 
1994; McCullough, 1999). Although undisclosed in the EA, examinations of the 
effects of road density and density of stream crossings in multiple watersheds have 
verified that stream temperatures tend to increase with increasing density of roads 
and stream crossings (Nelitz et al., 2005). This is likely due to the combined impacts 
of roads and road crossings on water temperatures, including shade loss, subsurface 
flow disruption, channel widening, and warmed runoff contributions. 

 

Additionally, the negative effects on water temperature from vegetation removal are 
persistent. In the absence of soil damage, about 25-40 years are needed for the full 
recovery of stream shade after vegetation removal (Rhodes et al., 1994). However, the 
soil damage caused by roads and landings significantly retards the regrowth of 
vegetation due to their severe reductions in soil productivity, increasing the 
persistence of impacts on water temperatures and associated ACSOs. Att. A at 21. By 
completely ignoring these long-term sources of water temperature elevation, the EA 
fails to take a hard look at the impacts of the Jazz Timber Sale on water temperatures. 

 

iii) Sediment 

The EA also does not include any quantitative assessment of the Jazz Timber Sale’s 
effects on erosion from road (re)construction compared to leaving roads in their 
current recovering state. Therefore, the EA provides no rational basis for its 


assertions that the Jazz Timber Sale will have insignificant and transient impacts on 
erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Available information on these impacts 
strongly countermands the EA’s assertions in this regard. Road construction is by far 
the greatest contributor of sediment to aquatic habitats of any management activity 
(Meehan 1991, Robichaud et al. 2010). Even temporary road construction can cause 
resource damage including erosion and sedimentation, exotic species spread and 
disruption of wildlife (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Unpaved roads and stream 
crossings are the major source of erosion from forest lands contributing up to 90% of 
the total sediment production from forestry operations. 

 

The Rhodes Comment undertakes a thorough analysis, estimating erosion and 
sediment delivery due to road reconstruction in Jazz that shows corresponding 
increases in sediment delivery to streams will be significant and easily detectable.7 
This is consistent with available scientific information that strongly indicates that 
construction and reconstruction of temporary roads will greatly and persistently 
elevate sediment delivery to the stream system within the Jazz Timber Sale area. Att. A 
at 29. 

7 Numerous studies have detected far smaller increases in erosion and sediment delivery due to logging and road 
activities. 

 

Although it is not adequately disclosed in the EA, in addition to construction and 
reconstruction impacts, elevated road use for log haul will also greatly elevate erosion 
and sediment delivery on unpaved roads. Research on logging roads has consistently 
documented that roads used by more than four logging trucks per day generated more 
than seven times the sediment generated from roads with less use and more than 100 
times the sediment from abandoned roads (Reid et al., 1981). The USFS’s own 
summary of scientific information on roads (Gucinski et al., 2001) concluded that 
“rates of sediment delivery from unpaved roads are . . . closely correlated to traffic 
volume.” Even with a road surface of crushed rock aggregate, which is often used with 
the intent to reduce sediment production on road surfaces, Foltz (1996) documented 
that elevated truck traffic increased sediment production by 2 to 25 times that on 
unused roads in western Oregon. Foltz (1996) noted that since the processes are the 
same across regions, a similar range of increases was likely. Primary mechanisms for 
increased erosion and sediment production from road use are the production of highly 
mobile fine sediment on road surfaces, road prism damage, disruption of gravel or 
aggregate surfaces, and rutting. Att. A at 29. 

 

As with constructed and reconstructed roads, the highly elevated sediment production 
from roads used for haul is delivered to streams at stream crossings and other points 
of connectivity between streams and roads, such as gullies and relief drainage features 
that dump elevated road runoff laden with sediment to areas in relatively close 
proximity (e.g., less than 300 feet) to streams. Notably, the EA fails to disclose the 
total miles of unpaved roads that will be used by haul, the number of stream 
crossings, and the level of hydrologic connectivity between these roads. However, the 
LOC indicates that at least 61 miles of unpaved roads will be used for haul under the 
Jazz Timber Sale. LOC at 6. The Jazz Timber Sale maps (EA, App A), indicate that 
about 90 stream crossings will be affected by elevated road erosion and subsequent 
sediment delivery to the stream systems at these crossings caused by log haul. Using 
the MHNF’s (2011, p. 57) estimate that about 500 feet of graveled roads act as 


extensions of the stream network at crossings, delivering elevated runoff laden with 
sediment at these junctures, the 90 crossings by haul roads will deliver sediment 
elevated by log haul directly to streams from about 8.5 miles of road. This impact of 
log hauling at stream crossings, alone, will greatly elevate sediment delivery to the 
stream system, contrary to the EA’s baseless assertions that sediment delivery from 
the Jazz Timber Sale will not be significant. Att. A at 30. 

 

The EA states that there no native surface roads that have hydrologic connections to 
streams. However, paved and rocked roads also contribute to sediment from hauling 
and in its comments, Bark identified several places on the landscape where there is a 
hydrologic connection between roads and streams that contribute to elevated sediment 
levels. Specifically: 

a) On 6310, between units 48 and 44 an inboard ditch dumps right into the 
headwaters of Paste Creek; 

b) An inboard ditch along 6340 dumps into a small seasonal stream about 100 yards 
up 6340 from the 63 juncture only a ¼ mile from the Collawash; 

c) On 6310 just south of unit 52 there is an inboard ditch running north and dumping 
into headwaters of Peat Creek; 

d) On 6380, just north of the 6380-120 juncture, an inboard ditch dumps directly into 
a creek. 

 

The EA also fails to provide any estimate of the additional sediment generated by the 
construction and reconstruction of landings, particularly those near streams. 
Although not divulged in the EA, the LOC indicates that at least 20 new landings will 
be constructed. As previously discussed, many more landings will need to be 
reconstructed. The EA’s failure to estimate erosion from landing activities is 
significant because on a per unit basis, landings typically generate as much sediment 
as roads (Menning et al., 1997; Beschta et al., 2004). Landings also have considerable 
potential to deliver sediment to streams. In their study of sediment travel distance 
from forest management activities, Ketcheson and Megahan (1996) found that the 
longest travel distance of sediment originated from a landing. Furthermore, the 
assumption that future decommissioning will offset the negative impacts of road and 
landing construction and use is unsound since road construction has immediate 
negative impacts and benefits of obliteration accrue slowly. (Beschta, 2004). 
Therefore, the EA’s failure to properly assess and make known erosion and sediment 
delivery impacts from landing & road activities is highly significant and renders the 
EA’s assessment of sediment impacts inadequate. Att. A at 32. 

iv) Cumulative Impacts 

The EA’s failure to properly assess these impacts of landings and road activities is 
exacerbated by the EA’s failure to assess the cumulative magnitude of all of the 
impacts of the Jazz Timber Sale on sediment delivery, especially in the context of all 
the other federal and private timber sales being logged in the area. Instead, the EA 
only provides qualitative and unsupported judgments about the effects of individual 
activities, such as road construction and log haul, without ever assessing the overall, 
combined magnitude of all of the impacts of the Jazz Timber Sale on sediment delivery 
to streams, including all logging and yarding, landing, and road activities. This is a 
major defect, because it has long been known that streams, water quality, and fish 
habitats are cumulatively affected by the total magnitude of sediment generated by all 


actions that generate additional sediment to stream systems (USFS et al., 1993; USFS 
and USBLM, 1997a; b; GLEC, 2008). 

 

These cumulative impacts of road re-opening and log haul on sediment delivery are 
extremely significant. USFS et al. (1993) notes that the impacts of roads can change 

“ . . .streamflow regimes, sediment transport and storage, channel bank and bed 
configurations, substrate composition” in ways that “can have significant biological 
consequences that affect virtually all components of stream ecosystems . . .” and can 
have unavoidable effects on streams, “…no matter how well they are located, designed 
or maintained.” It is well-documented that increases in sediment delivery increase 
fine sediment levels in streams, reducing the survival and production of salmonids 
(Meehan, 1991; USFS et al., 1993). Elevated sediment delivery also degrades pool 
volume and quality (Lisle and Hilton, 1992; McIntosh et al., 2000). USFS et al. (1993) 
noted that elevated sediment delivery has been one of the primary causes of the loss of 
pool volume and frequency in streams within the aegis of the NFP. Att. A at 32-33. 

 

Available information, including that from the USFS, amply indicates that upstream 
impacts of the Jazz Timber Sale on sediment delivery have cumulatively significant 
impacts on downstream fish habitats. This, in turn, indicates that the EA has failed 
to properly assess the total sediment impacts on water quality, occupied fish habitats, 
and related ACSOs because the EA failed to properly assess the cumulative impacts of 
sediment throughout the stream network. For these reasons, the EA’s dismissal of the 
cumulative impacts of the Jazz Timber Sale on smaller streams that are well upstream 
of occupied fish habitats renders the EA’s conclusory assessment of the Jazz Timber 
Sales impacts on LFH, water quality, and sediment-related ACSOs as unsound and 
misleading. Att. A at 36. 

 

The EA also fails to properly describe the duration of the elevated erosion and 
sediment delivery under Project and incorporate it into an adequate analysis of the 
cumulative impacts on erosion and sediment delivery. Road reconstruction and 
construction increases erosion and sediment delivery for many years, even if some of 
the constructed roads are decommissioned and/or subsoiled subsequent to 
construction (Potyondy et al., 1991; Menning et al., 1996; Beschta et al., 2004; Foltz et 
al., 2007). However, the EA fails to divulge or account for these persistent increases in 
erosion and sediment delivery.8 As noted above, road decommissioning’s beneficial 
effects on erosion and runoff accrue slowly (Beschta et al., 2004) and 
decommissioning can even cause additional increases in erosion and sediment delivery 
in the shorter term. Landings also erode at greatly elevated levels for more than a 
decade, even if landings are decommissioned subsequent to use, as the USFS’s own 
models of cumulative effects indicate (Menning et al., 1996). However, the EA fails to 
properly assess, divulge, and incorporate the duration of elevated erosion from 
reconstructed and constructed landings and roads into estimates of the total impact of 
the Jazz Timber Sale on erosion and sediment delivery. Att. A at 35. 

8 The primary causes of elevated erosion on landings and roads are the severe reductions in infiltration rates and 
cover by vegetation. Studies have repeatedly documented that the subsoiling proposed under the Jazz Timber Sale 
does not rapidly or completely restore infiltration rates or forest floor vegetation, even many years after roads 
have been subsoiled or “ripped,” as documented by USFS research (Foltz et al., 2007), although the EA fails to 
consider this or incorporate it into its analysis. 


e. Impacts of Road Building, not adequately analyzed because masked as “re-
building” 

Wildland roads can significantly impact the hydrology, geomorphology, and ecology of 
many national forests. Roads alter hillslope hydrology by reducing soil infiltration, 
concentrating water through road drainage structures, and converting subsurface flow 
to surface flow (Gucinski et al. 2001; Luce 2002). Overland flow can cause geomorphic 
changes including chronic erosion (Swift 1988), development of gullies connecting 
road drainage features directly to the stream network and increased risk of landslides 
(Montgomery 1994; Wemple et al. 1996), all of which degrade aquatic habitat. 

 

Terrestrial wildlife is also greatly influenced by road density. Roads impact wildlife in a 
variety of ways including direct mortality from vehicle collisions; increased poaching, 
over-hunting, and over-trapping facilitated by access; reduced numbers of snags and 
down logs; increased negative edge effects; facilitated or hindered movement 
depending on species; and chronic negative interactions with humans (Wisdom et al. 
2000). 

 

The Forest Service recognized the importance of removing roads from the Collawash 
Watershed in its recent Increment 2 Road-decommissioning project. The Increment 2 
Preliminary Assessment acknowledged that “until a road is removed and natural 
drainage patterns are restored, the road will likely continue to affect the routing of 
water through watersheds. Inc. 2 PA at 33. And that, [t]he sediment contribution to 
streams from roads is often much greater than that from all other road management 
activities combined, including log skidding and yarding.” Inc. 2 PA at 34. 

 

Now, rather than continuing to restore the watershed by decommissioning roads, the 
Jazz Timber Sale will re-build 12 miles of decommissioned roads at a cost of over 
$250,000. In no way can rebuilding these roads be construed as restoration, as it will 
have the double effect of both loosing the recovery that has already begun to occur on 
these roads, and creating new sources of sediment, increased temperature, and 
habitat fragmentation for years to come. 

 

i) Re-opening roads retards recovery of the Collawash watershed 

One of Bark’s biggest concerns about the Jazz Timber Sale is that the re-construction 
of 12 miles of roads will set back the recovery of the Collawash watershed by at least a 
decade. As regards wildlife, after ten years of non-use and vegetation recovery, an 
area begins to assume roadless like qualities and character. This, of course, builds 
slowly, and as it does, the "decay" of behavioral and ecological avoidance also begins 
slowly. This can occur at an individual level, at a generation level, and at a population 
level. After 50 years, an area may be close to pre-impact habitat effectiveness even 
though there may well be some behavioral phenotypes that may have suffered 
depletion or alteration during the initial period of high impact. 

 

As regards water quality, it is extremely well-documented that road construction vastly 
elevates erosion for many years (Potyondy et al., 1991; USFS, 1993; Rhodes et al., 
1994; USFS and USBLM, 1997a; b; Beschta et al., 2004), particularly in the first two 
years when the construction causes more than a 200 fold increase in erosion relative 
to areas in a natural condition. Att. A at 24. Specifically, major reconstruction of 


unused roads can increase erosion for several years and potentially reverse reductions 
in sediment yields that occurred with non-use. (Potyondy et al. 1991). 

 

The Forest Service acts as though rebuilding these roads has no significant impact 
because the roads once existed on the landscape. Although in different stages of 
recovery, every single road segment will be degraded in hydrologic function, and will 
lose the years of the recovery it has had. For some roads, like the road into Unit 70, 
decommissioning – which included being ripped significantly at 3 separate stream 
crossings – was done just two years ago. It would be immensely wasteful to reopen 
this road because almost none of the habitat benefit from the investment has been 
realized. Other decommissioned roads are already starting to recontour to the 
landscape and would have to be cut though to use – with impacts akin to building a 
new road bed. These include the road segments into units 64, 66, 74, 58, and 118. 

 

Of particular note is the “existing alignment” into Section 18, which the EA says was 
“never decommissioned” but which, in fact, has fully recovered as Bark has told the 
Forest Service many times. See Att. B, Pictures 1-3. Due to the level of full recovery on 
the alignment proposed as Road U18PR, reopening the alignment will entail the same 
impacts as construction of a new road, which are not disclosed in the EA. See Att. A at 
23-24. This construction will cause immediate, large, and enduring increases in 
erosion and sediment delivery to streams, although this is not made known in the EA. 
Not only does the EA fail to capture the true impacts of building the road in Unit 18, it 
misleadingly acts as if the forest will be left in better condition after the Jazz Timber 
Sale, by stating that it was “never actually actively decommissioned” but after the 
project, it would be decommissioned after use. EA at 22. While this may seem like an 
improved condition on paper, in reality, the Forest Service will be building a new road 
through a lovely stand of remnant old-growth, which will leave a scar on the landscape 
for the next 30 years to come. This is not restoration, or even mitigation. This is 
simply an undisclosed, long-term, adverse impact. 

 

ii) Long timelag before roads are again hydrologically recovered 

For the purposes of the Jazz Timber Sale, the term “decommission” is used to describe 
the type of closure that is standard practice not for temporary roads. After use, roads 
are bermed at the entrance, water barred, decompacted and roughened as needed and 
debris placed at the entrance. EA at 22. 

 

This is very different than the commonly accepted definition of road decommissioning 
in scientific literature, where it is defined as the physical treatment of a roadbed with 
a variety of methods to restore the integrity of associated hillslopes and flood plains 
and their related processes and properties. (Switalski et al. 2004). The most common 
forms of road decommissioning include ripping the roadbed, restoring stream 
crossings, and fully recontouring the hillside. It is important to differentiate between 
the scientific studies evaluating the effectiveness of road decommissioning in restoring 
hydrologic functions, and the Forest Service’s more minimal treatments, which are 
more akin to road closure, than decommissioning. 

 

As noted above, after the roads are reconstructed, it will take years to decades to 
reach the same degree of recovery as they are currently, provided that roads are 
effectively closed or decommissioned after the Jazz Timber Sale which is not assured. 


When NMFS assessed the Jazz Timber Sale, it estimated that “…approximately 21% of 
the roads may not be decommissioned after project completion” based on the MHNF’s 
decommissioning track record within the Jazz Timber Sale area. LOC at 25. This does 
not provide much assurance that the Forest Service will, in fact, follow-through with 
the minimal decommissioning it plans for. 

 

Even if the “temporary” are decommissioned, the reconstruction will irretrievably 
eliminate existing recovery on unused roads and vastly setback future recovery on 
these alignments, resulting in long-term elevation of sediment delivery to streams 
under the Jazz Timber Sale. Att. A at 26. The damage to soil productivity on 
reconstructed and re-opened roads will persistently retard the re-establishment and 
regrowth vegetation and trees on road alignments, as can be seen on many of unused 
roads in the Jazz Timber Sale area, even after years of non-use. The EA itself 
recognizes that after the project, “road recovery would take approximately 30 years”. 
EA at 102. 

 

Available scientific information indicates that the Jazz Timber Sale’s road activities, 
including reconstruction of closed and abandoned roads, will persistently elevate 
erosion and sediment delivery, for in several ways. Reconstructed roads cause 
elevated erosion and sediment for many years after decommissioning (Beschta et al., 
2004). The USFS Region 5 method for estimating cumulative watershed effects 
indicates that even 10 years after road decommissioning, a mile of decommissioned 
road is equivalent to 0.2 miles of new road in terms of adverse cumulative effects 
(Menning et al., 1996). After 50 years, a mile of obliterated road has still has impacts 
equivalent to 0.1 mile of new road (Menning et al., 1996). Thus, it is apparent that 
decommissioning does not instantaneously eliminate the persistent impacts of roads 
on erosion and sediment delivery. 

 

The recovery of soils and vegetation that has occurred on many abandoned roads and 
currently closed roads has accrued in the absence of use over many years to, in some 
cases, several decades. Reconstruction of these roads will eliminate this recovery. Att. 
A at 25. 

5) Failure to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

The conclusion of the Decision Notice that “Key indicators for water quality, habitat, 
flow, channel condition, and watershed condition will be maintained or enhanced” (DN 
at 14) is not supported by the scant information presented in the EA, nor does it take 
into consideration a number of relevant factors that, in fact, show that the Jazz 
Timber sale will retard attainment of several key Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
Objectives. Taking into account both the information presented in the EA, and the 
expert opinion presented in the Rhodes Comment, it is clear that the Jazz Timber sale 
will degrade water quality and is out of compliance with the ACSOs. 

 

Complying with the AS objectives means that an agency must manage the riparian-
dependent resources to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to 
restore the conditions. NFP at B-10. Commercial logging in Riparian Reserves is 
allowed only when necessary to “acquire the desired vegetation characteristics needed 
to attain ACS objectives.” NFP at C-33. 

 


The Forest Service has failed to establish the need for commercial thinning to attain 
ACSOs – aside from stating that the riparian vegetation is “overstocked” with relatively 
uniform trees with low levels of diversity. Bark’s extensive experience on the ground 
in the project area leads us to believe that this is a drastic oversimplification of the 
riparian areas, which include many spacious, diverse, well-functioning stands. Even if 
the Forest Service’s generalization were true, this still doesn’t support the need to log 
in Riparian Reserves, as the Forest Service never shows why the logging and road 
building of the Jazz sale is needed to attain ACSOs. Instead, as detailed below, there 
are several ACSOs that the project area currently does not meet that would be 
exacerbated by the Jazz Timber Sale, such as the Collawash’s tendency for flash 
flooding, elevated sediment production and summer low flows. 

 

Similar to its reliance on the BMPs, the Forest Service relies on the “no-cut” buffers to 
mitigate project impacts to water quality. This is misplaced. Although not disclosed 
in the EA, the Rhodes Comment details several scientific assessments including those 
of the USFS, have noted the need for far wider stream protection widths than those 
afforded under the Jazz Timber Sale are necessary to protect streams from the adverse 
impacts of logging, landings, and roads. USFS et al. (1993), USFS and USBLM 
(1995a; b) indicate that a protected area with a width of at least about 300 feet from 
each side of a stream is needed to protect aquatic resources from the impacts of 
upslope disturbance, although this is not disclosed in the EA. Att A. at 36. Because of 
their importance and sensitivity, smaller non-perennial and headwater streams need 
to receive as much or more protection than larger streams if aquatic resources are to 
be protected. Scientific information amply indicates that there is a high degree of 
certainty that the lack of adequate riparian protection under the Jazz Timber Sale and 
its logging, landing, and road activities in RR will appreciably degrade RR functionality 
and several ACSOs in conflict with the direction in the NFP, contrary to the cursory 
statements in the EA regarding the adequacy of the Jazz Timber Sale’s no cut buffers. 
Att. A at 37. 

 

In addition, the Jazz Timber Sale’s no-cut buffers are inadequate to eliminate the 
impacts of road activities within Riparian Reserves because roads and skyline yarding 
corridors pierce these buffers. A no-cut buffer does not exist between roads and 
streams at stream crossings. Therefore, a no-cut buffer has no significant effect on 
mitigating the persistent impacts caused by roads activities at and near stream 
crossings, including the impacts on sediment delivery, runoff, LWD, stream shading, 
and water temperatures. Att. A at 38. 

 

As detailed below, the Jazz Timber Sale is not only not needed to attain ACSOs, it will 
actually prevent maintaining and enhancing the following ACSOs. 

 

ACSO #3: Physical Integrity. Jazz EA states that this ACSO is met “through design 
criteria and the protection provided by Riparian Reserves”. It asserts that Design 
criteria would minimize erosion, that density thinning would restore diverse healthy 
riparian areas, that new roads would not cross streams and that the project would 
provide a sufficient quantity of shade and large woody debris. EA at 81. This is not 
supported by the information in the EA and the other relevant factors that Bark has 
raised through comments and this appeal. 

 


In addition to all the information presented in section 3.d. above, the removal of LWD 
prevents attainment of this ACSO. Although undisclosed in the EA, the LOC states 
that the logging in RR would reduce LWD recruitment to streams by 15% to 75%. LOC 
at 22. The removal of LWD and reductions in tree mortality due to logging in RR 
causes significant and irretrievable losses in soil productivity in RR areas logged under 
the Jazz Timber Sale. Although this is not adequately assessed and discussed in the 
EA, this persistent loss of soil productivity degrades RR functionality and typically 
results in retarded plant growth. This is a significant impact because attaining this 
ACSO is affected by vegetation conditions within RR. Att. A at 8. This downed wood is 
important to the RR function of detaining sediment from both natural and 
management-induced upslope disturbances and thereby limiting increases in 
sediment supply to streams from such disturbances (Rhodes et al., 1994), as the 
USFS has acknowledged (USFS et al., 1993; USFS and USBLM, 1997a; b). Therefore, 
the EA fails to reasonably assess and divulge the impact of LWD loss on this important 
RR function which strongly affects attainment of ACSOs #3. 

 

ACSO #4: Water Quality. EA acknowledges that temperature and sediment are 
affected by construction of roads and riparian logging, but asserts that the watershed 
condition is gradually improving as roads are decommissioned and riparian vegetation 
grows and provides shade. It also asserts that stream protection buffers will maintain 
stream temperature and filter out sediment. EA at 81. Again, this is an unsupportable 
conclusion. 

 

The Jazz Timber Sale will plainly elevate water temperatures in affected streams by 
removing shade over streams. The EA indicates that stream shade will be removed in 
70 skyline corridors across streams. These corridors will be up to 15 feet wide, and 
will reduce shade on both sides of streams within the corridors. Because the EA is 
devoid of any required limit on the amount of stream shade removed for these 
corridors, stream shade may be completely eliminated within the corridors over a total 
stream length of up to 720 feet. This will inexorably elevate summer water 
temperatures because it is extremely well-established that the removal of shade over 
streams elevates summer water temperatures. Att. A at 19. 

 

While the EA asserts there would be insignificant impacts on stream temperatures 
from shade removal, it does so in the absence of assessing the impact of actual shade 
loss on water temperatures. Such an assessment has long been eminently tractable 
(Theurer et al., 1984; 1985; Rhodes et al., 1994; Bartholow, 2000). Therefore, the EA 
cannot support its contention that it will meet ACSO #4. Att. A at 19. 

 

ACSO #5: Sediment. 

As noted extensively above, road construction and use contribute more sediment to a 
watershed than any other activity, and BMPs do not sufficiently mitigate these impacts 
which extend over time. See Rhodes Comment, noting that re-use and reconstruction 
elevate soil impacts, irretrievably reverse all soil recovery that has accrued during the 
period of non-use, and persistently degrade all soil functions, new landing 
construction causes immediate, persistent, and especially severe losses of soil 
productivity and losses of soil functions. Att. A at 11. 

 

While the EA recognizes that road construction has increased the amount of sediment 
in the watershed, it asserts that the project design criteria, including wet weather haul 


restrictions, equipment slope restrictions, and erosion control methods would ensure 
that the Jazz sale met ACSO #5, and that no new roads would cross streams. EA at 
81. It does not, however, discuss or acknowledge the sediment created by the re-
opened stream crossings. 

 

The enduring increases in erosion and runoff from road activities will contribute to 
persistent, significant increases in delivery of sediments to streams. At least nine 
stream crossings will be reconstructed and subject to the re-opening of roads. 
Hydrological connectivity is typically high at stream crossings, where little can be done 
to effectively reduce runoff and sediment delivery from roads to streams (Kattlemann, 
1996), as the USFS has repeatedly conceded. For instance, the Plumas National 
Forest Travel Management FEIS (2010) noted: “Road/stream crossings are significant 
sources of sedimentation on [Forest Service] lands. Even well-drained roads and trails 
will likely deliver some amount of surface-generated sediment to stream channels at 
crossings.” Therefore, it is clear that the re-opening of roads under the Jazz Timber 
Sale will vastly elevate sediment delivery to streams these nine crossings, contrary to 
the statements in the EA and DN. 

 

Because the EA did not provide adequate and supportable analysis of the project’s 
impacts to sediment, the Rhodes Comment includes a table analyzing the amount of 
sediment generated from the sale, in comparison to the no action alternative. See Att. 
A at 28. This indicates that, on average, over five years, the Jazz Timber Sale is likely 
to cause erosion and sediment delivery four times greater than that likely to accrue 
from leaving these 12 miles of abandoned, decommissioned or closed roads in their 
existing state. It also indicates that the elevation in erosion and sediment delivery 
from the construction and re-opening of these roads is even greater over the first three 
years after these road activities. The erosion from the roads and consequent sediment 
delivery over the first three years after the Jazz Timber Sale would be almost six times 
that from the roads in their current partially recovered and vegetated state. Att. A at 
28. 

 

Again, despite Forest Service assertions to the contrary, BMPs do not eliminate the 
adverse impacts of roads on sediment delivery. For instance, BMPs cannot eliminate 
sediment delivery from roads to streams at stream crossings (Kattlemann et al., 1996; 
Beschta et al., 2004; Rhodes and Baker, 2008). Megahan et al. (1992) and USFS and 
USBLM (1997c) noted that it is not possible to log areas without increasing erosion 
and sediment delivery, regardless of BMPs involved or care in implementation, 
especially when roads are involved. Based on review of available data, MacDonald and 
Ritland (1989) concluded that roads typically double suspended sediment yield even 
with state-of-the-art construction and erosion control and that suspended sediment 
contributions from surface erosion, alone, from roads in the absence of mass failure, 
are typically in the range of 5 to 20 percent above background and remain at elevated 
levels for as long as roads are in use. Notably, this would, in many cases including 
the Jazz Timber Sale, prevent attainment of ACSO #5. Att. A at 39. 

 

ACSO #6: In-stream flows. This ACSO requires the Forest Service to “Maintain and 
restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland 
habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, 
magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be 
protected.” 


 

The Jazz EA recognizes that the project area is prone to rain on snow events, and that 
road construction and regeneration harvest have caused some drainages to exceed 
recovery standards. It suggests that the trend is toward full recovery as plantations 
continue to grow, and that the instream flow regime – including magnitude of peak 
flows – would be maintained. EA at 82. 

 

Although undisclosed in the EA, watersheds in the temporary snow zone (TSZ) that 
have had 15 to 19% of the area logged have detectable peakflow increases. Att. A at 41. 
The Jazz EA indicates that several smaller watersheds within the Jazz Timber Sale 
area have more than 15% of their watershed area in a logged over condition that has 
not completely hydrologically recovered from previous logging, including the 
watersheds of Dutch, Lower Nohorn, Farm, and Skin. EA at 89. Therefore, the EA fails 
to disclose that the USFS’s own assessment indicates peakflows will already been 
elevated in these watersheds. Thus, existing conditions within the Jazz Timber Sale in 
these watersheds already do not comply with ACSO #6. 

 

This is a critical defect because the Jazz Timber Sale will incrementally exacerbate 
existing conditions in these drainages by significantly removing forest canopy via 
logging, landing, and road activities, all which contribute to additional elevation of 
peakflows. Att. A at 41. Instead of continuing that “trend toward full recovery”, this 
sale will actually sent the recovery back many years by decreasing canopy cover 
across the landscape. 

 

The EA also fails to reasonably support compliance with ACSO # 6 in other ways. The 
EA includes no assessment of the existing hydrologic connectivity between roads and 
the stream system. This is a key defect. As Grant et al. (2008, p. 39) noted regarding 
peakflow impact assessment: “Determining where the proposed treatment falls within 
this range requires an assessment of the intrinsic basin condition and intensity of 
proposed management action…For example, the existing and proposed road 
network should be evaluated with respect to its degree of connectivity with the 
stream network…” (emphasis added) 

 

The EA also completely ignored available scientific information which indicates that 
logging, landing, and road activities also alter the timing (frequency) of peakflows (Alila 
et al., 2009). This is a significant defect because this alteration in peakflow timing 
affects compliance with ACSO #6. 

 

These defects have ecological significance. Although it is not made known in the EA, 
peakflow elevation by logging and roads is an important concern because even minor 
changes in peakflow magnitude and frequency can have major effects on salmonids by 
triggering significant changes in channel erosion and sediment transport (Dunne et 
al., 2001). Att. A at 42. 

6) Failure to meet LSR objectives 

Because the objective of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance 
conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, NFP C-9, the Jazz 
Timber Sale must be looked at through that lens: is this logging and road building 
needed to protect and enhance the forest? Bark feels that the only supportable 
answer to this question is “no”. 


 

In Bark’s PA comments, we noted that one of the most unique features about the LSR 
units is the diverse understory, which speaks against the need to thin –especially for 
restoration goals. In many of the units, particularly those that are in, adjacent to or 
near to mature stands of native forest, the trees have maintained considerable 
distance and have facilitated new growth without choking out other plant species. 
There are Douglas fir and cedar saplings growing amongst Oregon grape, vine maple, 
rhododendron, willow and red alder. For example, in Unit 2, a very small unit, there is 
a rapid transition of plant communities. At its highest point we found chinquapin and 
rhododendron and at its base, the community changes to skunk cabbage and 
Veratrum. This particular unit contains many of the common plants associated with 
low elevations and displays no need for active management. 

 

In its Response to Comments, the Forest Service did not substantively engage with 
this site specific information – merely repeated that LSR units do not meet the desired 
forest condition. RC at 20. 

 

The RC did acknowledge that it had made a mistake in the PA as to amount of Late 
Successional Habitat in the Collowash LSR – the current amount is 67%. RC at 19. 
While appreciating this clarification, the Forest Service did not address the second 
aspect of Bark’s comment: that there is only 4% of the LSR in mid-seral condition, so 
why is it necessary to actively manage that 4% and incur the negative environmental 
tradeoffs, from logging, road & landing building, increased edge effect to the adjacent 
old growth and decreased snags & down woody debris? 

 

This question is even more import, as all of the LSR units in Jazz are adjacent to rare 
remaining old growth forests, many of which are newly designated wilderness. Units 
70, 74, 76, 82 and 78 are all next to the Bull of the Woods Wilderness expansion. 
Even when edge is conservatively defined based on a 60 m zone, a high 
proportion of existing old-growth stands are largely edge habitat and would be 
subject to indirect effects of thinning of adjacent stands. (Carroll, et.al., 2009). 

 

In addition, the Rhodes Comment estimates that it is likely that logging in about 726 
acres of LSR would result in the reconstruction or construction of about 10.9 acres of 
landings in LSR, which would have an area and impacts equivalent to the 
reconstruction or construction of more than 4.5 miles of road with a mean width of 20 
feet in LSR. This is a highly significant level of landing area in LSR due to severe and 
irretrievable impacts of landings on soil productivity, soil hydrology, vegetation, and 
their conflicts with LSR objectives. Att. A at 11. The Forest Service has not actively 
shown how this action will protect and enhance late-successional and old-growth 
forest ecosystems, and Bark again strongly suggests that the Forest Service develop an 
alternative that does not include commercial logging and road building in the Late 
Successional Reserves. 

 

 

 

In conclusion, Bark believes that the Jazz Timber Sale is a commercially-driven timber 
sale, thinly masquerading as forest restoration, which fails to follow several important 
substantive and procedural environmental laws and mistakenly relies on unreliable 
BMPs. This is the wrong direction for the Forest Service to be going in the 


management of the public’s lands and water. This decision is in error, both legally 
and practically, and should be withdrawn until such time as the Forest Service can 
comply with all necessary regulations, take into account the will and interest of the 
public, and make a decision that truly will support meaningful restoration on Mt. 
Hood National Forest. 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

Brenna Bell, Esq. 

Staff Attorney & NEPA Coordinator 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 

 

Amaranthus, MP, Page-Dumroese D, Harvey A, Cazares E, Bednar LF. 1996. Soil 
Compaction and Organic Matter Affect Conifer Seedling Nonmycorrhizal and 
Ectomycorrhizal Root Tip Abundance and Diversity. US Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Research Paper 
PNW-RP-494. 

Alila, Y., P. K. Kuras, M. Schnorbus, and R. Hudson, 2009. Forests and floods: A new 
paradigm sheds light on age-old controversies. Water Resour. Res., 45, W08416, 
doi:10.1029/2008WR007207. 

Bartholow, J.M., 2000, Estimating cumulative effects of clearcutting on stream 
temperatures, Rivers, 7: 284-297. 

Beschta R.L., Rhodes, J.J., Kauffman, J.B., Gresswell, R.E., Minshall, G.W., Karr, 
J.R., Perry, D.A., Hauer, F.R., Frissell, C.A., 2004. Postfire management on forested 
public lands of the Western USA. Conservation Biology, 18: 957-967. 

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 1998. Model Selection and Multimodal Inference: 
A Practical Information Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York. Conservation Biology. 
2000. Special Section: Ecological Effects of Roads. February issue. 

 

Dunne, T. and Leopold, L., 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman 
and Co., NY. 

 

Endicott, D. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to 
Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices. Final report to U.S. 


Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. EP-C-05-066, Task Order 002. Great 
Lakes Environmental Ctr.: Traverse City, MI. December. 259 pp. 

 

Espinosa, F.A., Rhodes, J.J. and McCullough, D.A. 1997. The failure of existing plans 
to protect salmon habitat on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. J. Env. 
Management 49(2):205-230. 

 

Foltz, R.B. and Burroughs, E.R., Jr. 1990. Sediment production from forest roads with 
wheel ruts. In: Proceedings from Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action. 
Symposium Proceedings of IR Conference, Watershed Mgt, IR Div, American Society of 
Civil Engineers, Durango, CO, July 9-11, 1990. pp. 266-275. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 
Pp. 297-323 in: W.R. Meehan (ed.). Influences of forest and rangeland management on 
salmonid fishes and their habitats. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD. 

(GLEC) Great Lakes Environmental Center, 2008. National Level Assessment of Water 
Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best 
Management Practices. Final Report. Report prepared for US Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Water, Contract No. EP-C-05-066, Task Order 002, 250 p. 

 

Gotelli, N.J. and G.G. Graves. 1996. Null models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institution 
Press, Washington. 

 

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a 
synthesis of scientific information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. Portland, 
OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 
Station. 103p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/science.pdf 

 

Karr, J.R., Rhodes, J.J., Minshall, G.W., Hauer, F.R., Beschta, R.L., Frissell,C.A., and 
Perry, D.A, 2004. Postfire salvage logging's effects on aquatic ecosystems in the 
American West. BioScience, 54: 1029-1033. 

 

Kattelmann, R., 1996. Hydrology and water resources. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 
Project Final Report to Congress, Vol. II: pp. 855-920. 

 

Luce, C.H. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by forest roads: what 
do we still need to learn? Hydrological Processes 16: 2901-2904. 

 

(MHNF) Mt. Hood National Forest, 2011. Timberline Ski Area Mountain Bike Trails and 
Skills Park Preliminary Assessment (PA), Mt. Hood National Forest, Clackamas 
County, OR. 

 

Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. 
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 175-190. Available online at: 
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/redwood/esplroads.pdf 

 

McCullough, D.A., 1999. A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water 
Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference 
to Chinook Salmon. USEPA Technical Report EPA 910-R-99-010, USEPA, Seattle, Wa. 


 

Meehan, W.R. (ed.), 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on 
Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Am. Fish. Soc. Special Publication 19. 

 

Menning, K.M., Erman, D.C., Johnson, K.N., and Sessions, J., 1997. Modeling aquatic 
and riparian systems, assessing cumulative watershed effects, and limiting watershed 
disturbance. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report, Summary and Final Report to 
Congess, Addendum pp. 33-52. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 38, University of 
California, Davis. 

 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope 
instability. Water Resources Research 30(6): 1925-1932. 

 

Nelitz, M.A, MacIsaac, E.A., Peterman, R.M., 2007. A science-based approach for 
identifying temperature-sensitive streams for rainbow trout. N. Amer. J. of Fish. 
Manage., 27: 405–424. 

 

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald.1991.Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic 

ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82. 

 

(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service, 1996. Making ESA determinations of the 
effect of individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. NOAA Fisheries ETS 
Division, Portland, OR. 

 

(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012, Endangered Species Act Section 
Concurrence Letter and Magnuson-Stevens Essential Fish Habitat Response for the 
Jazz Thin Timber Sale, Collawash River. 

 

(NRC) National Research Council, 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the 
United States, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

 

Reid, L.M., Dunne, T., and C.J. Cederholm, 1981. Application of sediment budget 
studies to the evaluation of logging road impact. J. Hydrol (NZ), 29: 49-62. 

 

Rhodes, J.J., McCullough, D.A., and Espinosa Jr., F.A., 1994. A Coarse Screening 
Process for Evaluation of the Effects of Land Management Activities on Salmon 
Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA Consultations. CRITFC Tech. Rept. 94-4, 
Portland, Or. 

 

Rhodes, J.J. and Baker, W.L., 2008. Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and 
ecological tradeoffs in western U.S. public forests. Open Forest Science Journal, 1: 1-
7. http://www.bentham.org/open/tofscij/openaccess2.htm 

 

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. 
Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(1): 
21-28. 
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/rremresources/Switalski%20et%20al.%
202004.pdf 

 


Potyondy, J.P., Cole, G.F., Megahan, W.F., 1991. A procedure for estimating sediment 
yields from forested watersheds. Proceedings: Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation 
Conf., pp. 12-46 to 12-54, Federal Energy Regulatory Comm., Washington, D.C. 

 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on 
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. 

 

Theurer, F.D., Voos, K.A., and Miller, W.J., 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. 
Instream Flow Information Paper No. 16, FS/OBS-84-15, USFWS, Washington, D.C. 

 

USFS, NMFS, USBLM, USFWS, USNPS, USEPA, 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: 
An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. USFS PNW Region, Portland, Or. 

 

USFS and USBLM, 1997a. The Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior 
Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Volumes I-IV. PNW-
GTR-405, USFS, Walla Walla Washington. 

 

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by 
logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 
32:1195-1207. 

 

Wienscyz AM, Gamiet S, Durall DM, Jones MD, Simard SW. 2002. Ectomycorrhizae 
and Forestry in British Columbia: A Summary of Current Research and Conservation 
Strategies. B.C. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 2:1. 

 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. 
Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source 
habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale 
trends and management implications. Volume 1 . Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-
GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 
Northwest Research Station. 

 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on 
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

 

Ziemer, R.R., and Lisle, T.E., 1993. Evaluating sediment production by activities related 
to forest uses--A Northwest Perspective. Proceedings: Technical Workshop on 
Sediments, Feb., 1992, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 71-74. Terrene Inst., Washington, D.C. 

 

 

 


ich in no way addresses the effects of tree removal 
and reduced tree mortality on LWD and resulting effects on soil functions and 
productivity. Therefore, the EA’s assessment does not assess the well-known 
persistent effects of tree-removal and reduced tree mortality on long-term soil 
productivity under the Jazz Timber Sale. 

 

The EA’s failure to properly analyze and disclose the Jazz Timber Sale’s effects on LWD 
and organic matter is a severe defect because soil and soil productivity are 
fundamental aspects of forested ecosystems that influence the composition and 
condition of vegetation, rates of vegetative recovery after disturbance, sediment flux, 
and the quantity, timing, and quality of water produced by watersheds, which, in turn, 
affect aquatic populations and habitats (Beschta et al., 2004). Loss of these present 
and future sources of soil productivity retard the Forest Service’s ability to meet the 
LSR and ACS objectives. See Att. A at 4. The EA fails to disclose these impacts, and 
therefore fails to take a hard look at a relevant factor influencing the long term 
environmental i