Comments On The Proposed Timber Harvest Plan

Cumulative Impacts Section

SCRAPS (2-03-191-SIE (3)

Applied For By

Sierra Pacific Industries

Submitted July 29^th, 2004 by the Forest Issues Group

Cumulative Environmental Impacts:

We have reviewed Section IV, titled Cumulative Impacts of the Scraps THP. On behalf of the Forest Issues Group (FIG) we submit the following report of that review.

This report includes two parts: I) A critical assessment of the science utilized in the

Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed harvest plan, and II) a brief assessment of the potential for the proposed project, when considered in connection with past and foreseeable future nearby actions, to result in irreversible region-wide ecological disruption that will lead to a trend toward listing of at least one dependant species in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem.

I. Critical assessment of the cumulative impacts analysis section of the Scraps THP.

A. The cumulative impacts analysis (CEA) section of this THP demonstrates an inclination by SPI to preferentially utilize evidence on ecological resource status and potential impacts that supports its proposed actions, rather than relying on objective analysis and the peer-review process required by CEQA and accepted as standard procedures by public agencies, the science community, and society in general. Examples follow:

i. At THP page 64 SPI states that its information is “more probative” when assessing results of its actions than the work done by public agencies peer-reviewed literature, and the science community to assess these results. No support is provided for this assertion.

ii. At THP page 65 SPI appears to interpret language in planning documents (i.e. “assumes”, “assumed”) to indicate a lack of hard information upon which to assess resource status. This appears to be a misinterpretation of the quoted passages. The intent of the language in these quotes, we submit, is instead to acknowledge the inadequacy of protective management on private lands, by assuming that they do not contribute to habitat maintenance or generation. Rather than providing useful information, SPI has chosen here to promote its corporate version of ecological reality, and thereby spoil the credibility of the entire Plan.

iii. At THP page 65 SPI quotes from USDI 2001 (US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion on the Framework, USFWS Reference to 1-1-01-F-0033.) : “According to the FEIS, it is assumed that spotted owl habitat on private lands will continue to decline under current Forest Practices rules.” This statement directly conflicts with SPI’s assurance, repeated throughout the cumulative impacts section of the Scraps THP, that SPI’s activities are actually improving owl and other habitat for old growth dependant species (THP pages 84, 93, 96, 100, 104, 105, 109).

The SPI statements referred to here are either unsupported, or rely on the assumption that SPI actions create increased “edge”, leading to improved prey base, and hence to the creation of owl (and other) habitat.

No time-scale is provided to evaluate the effectiveness of this process over time. No evidence that this process actually occurs is offered. The THP provides no indication of which of the proposed treatments would lead to increased edge. There is no indication that edge creation was even a planning consideration. This sort of self-serving hyperbole, especially when taken together with the contrary evidence listed below, has no place in a document submitted as part of an informational environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Contradictory evidence (i.e. evidence that refutes the notion that logging “improves” habitat) may be found as follows: Wilcove, D.S., 1987; Schaffer, M.L. 1987; Bart, 1994; Hoskit, D.G., et. al. 2003; Blakesley, J.A. et. al. 2001; Pearson, R.R. 2003; “FEMAT” 1993; “CASPO” 1997; “SNEP” 1996; “SNFCC” 1998; Center for Biological Diversity et. al. 2000; USFWS 2004; Center for Biological Diversity et. al. 2003.

This disparity between the industry (SPI) and all other accounts of the impacts of logging on habitat is vast. Its implications for management are accordingly serious and must be addressed in any proposal to alter habitat on SPI lands.

iv. At THP page 84 SPI appears to argue that “the government” overstates the dependence of spotted owls on large diameter trees as suitable nesting habitat, and thus overestimates the need to conserve this element of stand structure. No support is offered for this contention except SPI’s observation that “2/3 of known nest trees on SPI’s lands have(ing) the diameter range from 22 inches to 46 inches with average diameters of 34”. Clearly trees in this range do not qualify as small, leaving SPI with no support for its argument.

v. At THP page 84, and elsewhere, SPI attempts to discount the applicability of the Endangered Species Act to the declining population of the California spotted owl by claiming that it is “indistinguishable” from the northern spotted owl. This is either the result of confusion between a finding of undistinguished and one of indistinguishable or a deliberate attempt to misinform. The work by Barrowclough and Guitierrez (1990) cited in support of this SPI argument only failed at showing distinction. It did not show indistinguishability. Other more recent work (Haig, et al, 2004) has strengthened the case for distinction of the two separate subspecies of the spotted owl. SPI cannot claim inability to distinguish this species from the northern spotted owl.

vi. The Scraps project is within an Area of Concern (AOC #3) for spotted owls as determined by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. This designation reflects the difficulty of managing owl habitat in an area of interlocking ownership. The Scraps THP acknowledges this status (Scraps THP page 100), but rather than providing credible mitigation, it presents self-serving arguments attempting to diminish the severity of the impacts of its proposed action. This transparent tweaking of the facts violates the letter and intent of CEQA.

Failure to address this indication of added stress indicated by AOC status on the owls in the Scraps THP violates the requirement under the CEQA for the environmental review to disclose and assess significant adverse environmental impacts.

The Scraps THP is a classic example of a fatally weakened link in a regulatory process. RPF’s are responsible, under the CEQA, for providing an informative, science-based accounting of how the proposed action will impact the environment. Instead this THP, at least in the all-important section on cumulative impacts, has abused the CEQA review process by hyping the “virtues” of the proponent company, deliberately underestimating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, and selecting issues and facts that support its proponent’s goals while deliberately omitting inconvenient data, at the expense of forest system integrity. The result is a self-disqualifying THP.

B. The CEA (pages 69 and 70) lists several past THP-driven actions in the vicinity of the proposed action but, curiously, makes no assessment of how they, when combined with the present proposed action, might impact the environment. There are problems with this evasive response to a standard Board of Forestry request for information.

Applicant SPI’s response indicates that either it does not understand the nature of cumulative impacts, or that it is deliberately evading the question. The question requires 1) an indication of the presence and extent of other disturbances that might, in combination with the proposed action, have a significant negative effect on the environment and 2) if so, what are the affected resources? SPI responds to the first part of this question with a list of 20 or 30 projects, but fails to adequately respond to the second part of this question which requests information on the affected resources. Language in the itemized “effect-on resources” section treats impacts only from the proposed action without, as required by the Board Of Forestry question, responding with an assessment of cumulative impacts from the proposed action when combined with the 14 cited previous actions and foreseeable future actions.

This deficiency in information fatally flaws the THP. Reference to a mapping of just recent (< 10year) disturbance by SPI in the upper Little Truckee-Upper Perazzo watersheds shows a pattern of disturbance on a broad landscape scale. Up to 20 sections (about 12,000 SPI acres) have been disturbed, but because of the interlocking pattern of ownership that characterizes this area this disturbance has been destructive of habitat far beyond the acres actually impacted by SPI. It must be acknowledged in this THP, with reference to the checkerboard ownership pattern, that every disturbance on private lands reduces management options on the adjoining public forest (see SNEP Addendum pages 45 and 191). This effect becomes more serious when SPI treatments degrade spotted owl habitat. See SNEP addendum (1996) page 191 for a description of the dependence of managers of federal lands upon the activities on adjacent private lands.

C. Recent surveys (Pearson, 2003, Dunbar et al. 1991, Dark, et. al. 1998, Kelly, 2001) have reported a significant incursion of barred owls into the present and historic ranges of the northern and California spotted owls. Interspecific competition for space (Leskiw and Guitierrez 1998) and prey (Hamer et al. 2001) has been suggested as a factor leading to the observed displacement of Cso by barred owls. At least one barred owl has been observed within the Tahoe National Forest (pers. comm. Marilyn Tierney).

The cumulative impacts section of the Scraps THP does not account for the potential for this major stressor, when combined with other cumulative impacts, including the proposed action, to negatively impact the local and range-wide populations of the Cso. Information about this contributor to cumulative impacts must be included in the cumulative impacts section of this and other THPs.

D. Two additional THPs have been applied for by SPI in the same vicinity of the Sierraville Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest as the Scraps project. These are Jackson (THP # 2-03-197-NEV (3), and Caveman (THP # 2-03-190-SIE (3). These 2 additional projects, though not in the same watershed as Scraps do, in combination with other recent nearby SPI disturbances, represent an accumulation of impacts that severely degrades habitat for dependant species through fragmentation and removal of quality habitat. A more serious result of these projects is their potential to reduce the options for management of the National Forest parcels interlocked with these degraded SPI parcels.

As the Scraps CEA (page 66) points out, choice of “assessment area” is important in evaluating cumulative impacts. However, by limiting assessment area to “planning watersheds”, as in the Scraps project, more global, system-wide impacts slip through the cracks, and are not exposed as potential impacts during environmental review. An overview of recent SPI actions in the upper watersheds of the Yuba River on the west, and the Little Truckee River on the East side of the Sierra Crest show a pattern of habitat degradation that, when considered in relation to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem may represent a serious obstacle to demographic distribution and gene flow of dependent, wide-ranging predators throughout the system. (See item II below) We submit that the proper reference scale (i.e. watershed, District, Forest, etc.) for cumulative impacts analysis is species specific and should be designed to capture system-wide, as well as local impacts.

E. At Scraps CEA page 72 SPI states that response to a letter from SPI to the Forest Service requesting information on past and proposed future FS projects in the “assessment area” was not received.

i. We do not believe that this lack of response exhausts the responsibility of SPI to account for disturbance on public lands when assessing cumulative impacts. We assume that SPI is responsible for obtaining this information. Lack of a disturbance layer for the public lands interlocked with SPI parcels in the affected area renders the cumulative impacts analysis relatively useless. No action should occur on this or any similar proposal until a serious assessment of cumulative impacts is made.

ii. Communication between SPI (the RPF) and the Forest Service appears to be problematic. For example at CEA page 72 SPI refers to “recent press releases”, “past discussions with SPI mill workers”, and “some recent flagging” in lieu of actual communications with the Forest Service concerning future projects in the “assessment area” for Scraps. This indicates at best a cavalier attitude toward the assessment of cumulative impacts for the Scraps project. This does not meet CEQA standards.

F. Science Based Criticism of the CDF Forest Practices Rules Themselves:

i. In the addendum to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP Addendum page 7) Menning et. al. (1996) state that “These (CDF) rules may result in fragmentation of areas that have large, contiguous blocks of LS/OG (late-successional/old growth) forest stands. Such fragmentation may occur in areas where private lands exist in a checkerboard arrangement. The private owners can contend that the adjacent federal lands provide sufficient habitat for species needs and that the remaining areas are large enough to prevent the negative effects of habitat fragmentation… The net result is that significant fragmentation may occur in contiguous blocks of LS/OG forest while smaller, more isolated blocks remain more protected.”

ii. “A recent report to the Board of Forestry states that” (SNEP Addendum page 8) “the local ‘culture’ (i.e. professional norms and modes of behavior) of agency field personnel and private interests may have a greater influence on the future condition on wildlife habitat than do Forest Practices Rules, and different resource management practices are applied in different parts of the State.” (Wildlife/Science Committee Report, 1994). The Scraps THP exhibits this tendency for “local culture” to override objective implementation of Board of Forestry Rules.

iii. Another report, by the Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board (1987) found several notable deficiencies in the Rules and their implementation. (See SNEP Addendum, 1996, pages 8 and 9)

iv. Dr. Leslie M. Reid, at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Redwood Sciences Laboratory (1999), in response to a request by California State Assemblyman Fred Keeley for input on the effectiveness of CDF Forest Practice Rules, submitted a letter making suggestions for improvements in the Rules. Dr Reid pointed out several cases in which the Rules failed to protect against sedimentation and other hydrology-related instabilities. She also found major structural deficiencies in the review process that echo our comments on Scraps. For example, at page 10 of her letter Reid says that “there appears to be little linkage between nearby THPs; there is no provision to ensure that measures found necessary for one plan be applied to later, adjacent plans.” And “sources of information from outside CDF are discounted in the THP approval process”, and “there seems to be a general sense that information contributed concerning likely impacts is to be argued against rather than to be learned from. This problem may well arise from ‘cultures’ of the agencies involved, wherein some CDF staff members perceive their mission to be to facilitate production of maximum sustained yield of high-quality forest products, Water Quality Control Board staff perceive their mission to be protection of water quality” and so forth. Reid advises shifting underlying responsibility of lead agency from CDF to the California Resources Agency as a means of mitigating a pro-industry influence on the character and implementation of the Rules.

These concerns from professional experts about the ability of the Forest Practice Rules in general to prevent significant cumulative environmental impacts on private lands reinforce our concerns about the potential for degraded habitat represented by the Scraps THP. Together these concerns strongly recommend a re-examination of the Scraps proposal.

We understand that the CDF Forest Practice Rules undergo review, and that significant changes to improve their effectiveness in protecting resources have been made since some of the above professional criticisms were submitted. Our review of the Scraps (and other) THP(s), however, indicates that major problems with the review process persist that would likely result in significant environmental degradation on local and system-wide scales if the Scraps project, and/or other similar nearby actions on SPI parcels, were allowed to proceed.

II. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem is the Proper Framework Within Which to Tally Cumulative Impacts on At Least Two Species of Wildlife Dependent on the System and At Least Historically Present in the Scraps Assessment Area (California spotted owl and Pacific fisher).

A. The Sierra Nevada Range has been widely recognized as a bioregion or ecosystem. (Bailey, 1996; “FEMAT” 1993; “CASPO” 1997; “SNEP” 1996; “SNFCC” 1998; Center for Biological Diversity et. al. 2000; USFWS 2004; Center for Biological Diversity et. al. 2003.

i. Verner, 2003, and Verner, 2004 concluded that the proper spatial extent in which to frame cumulative impacts for the Cso would be the Sierra Nevada Range. Verner (2004) supports this conclusion, by noting that no FS District or Forest, nor any other smaller land extent, has a population sufficient to ensure long-term viability of the species.

ii. Pacific fisher are now considered to be extinct in the Central and Northern Sierra, with two remnant populations: one in the southern Sierra Nevada and one in the northwestern part of California (Lyon, J.L. et al. 1994; Zielinski, W.J. et al 1995; Center for Biological Diversity et. al. 2003). It appears that management for fishers must necessarily be defined by an area including at least the Sierra Nevada Range.

B. Cumulative Impacts From the Scraps and Related Projects May Degrade The Integrity of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem and Lead to Reduced Viability for a Set of Dependent Species

Anthropogenic actions including habitat degradation by logging have the potential to fragment an ecosystem, isolating populations of some species on either side of the affected area. The affected area of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem referred to here is that portion of the Tahoe National Forest including the upper watersheds of the Yuba and Little Truckee Rivers in which the private and public parcels are interlocked in a section-wide checkerboard pattern. This is roughly the extent of Beck and Gould (USFS Gen. Tech. Rep.) Area of Concern 3. Potentially affected species include the Cso and the Pacific fisher.

Once a population is split, genetic diversity in the remnant populations is drastically reduced, reducing fitness and the ability of the population to respond to stochastic environmental stressors. (Soule 1980; Schaffer 1981; Gilpin 1986; Lande 1993; Gotelli 1998).

In addition, because of the checkerboard ownership pattern, successful management by the Forest Service on public lands, as mandated by laws designed to protect public resources, is closely dependant on the condition of the interlocked private lands. Any action by SPI, therefore, that tends to degrade resources (i.e. habitat for affected species), will necessarily limit the options of the Forest Service to perform its legal mandate. A map of recent SPI projects in the affected area (map mailed separately as exhibit 1) shows that these actions have impacted almost every other section of the affected landscape. (We are currently submitting comments on three of these projects (Scraps, Jackson, and Caveman) that are under review, and not yet approved by the CDF.)

The presence of the Interstate Highway 80 corridor in the southern portion of the affected (checkerboard) area represents a serious additional disturbance that contributes to cumulative impacts on dependant species.

SPI’s proposed Scraps project, in combination with other projects in the vicinity on both private and public lands, has the potential to significantly degrade the integrity of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem.

We conclude that the environmental impacts of this project, when combined with the impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future disturbance in the affected area, including habitat removal and fragmentation and the I-80 corridor, may lead to a splitting of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem into two parts, with a significant reduction in the north-south flow of genetic material for some species (e.g. mustelids, and other wide-ranging predators) and the consequent loss of fitness and reduced ability for the species to survive stochastic environmental change.

Sincerely,

Jerry Bloom for the Forest Issues Group,

Box 191, Sierraville,

CA. 96126

Literature Cited

Barrowclough, G.F., and R.J. Guitierrez 1990. Genetic variation and differentiation in the spotted owl. The Auk, 107, 737-744.

Bart, J. 1994. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9:4 934-946.

Blakesley, J.A. Noon, B.R., and Shaw, D.W.H. 2001 Demography of the California spotted owl. The Condor. 103:667-677.

“CASPO” 1997. Final Report of the California spotted owl Federal Advisory Committee: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as an endangered species in its West Coast Range.

Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign 2003. Petition to list the California Spotted Owl.

Dark, S.J., R.J. Guitierrez, and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1998. The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion in California. Auk. 115:50-56.

Dunbar, D.L., B.P. Booth, E.D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington, and D.J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and the barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern Brithis Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105:464-468.

Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team. 1987 Final Report of the Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board, April 24,1987, Sacramento, California.

“FEMAT” 1993. Report of the Forest Ecosystems Management Assessment Team, USDA Forest Service et. al.

Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction. In Conservation Biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M.E. Soule, 19-34. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Assoc.

Gotelli, N.J. 1998. A primer of ecology. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Assoc.

Haig, S.M., T.D Mullins, and Eric D. Forsman. 2004. Subspecific relationships and genetic structure in the spotted owl. In Press.

Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Res. 35:241-252.

Hoskit, D.G. and Branch, L.C. 2003. Assciations between patch area and vital rates: consequences for local and regional populations. Ecological Applications. 13:4 1060-1068.

Kelly, E.G. 2001. Range expansion of the northern barred owl: an evaluation of the impact on northern spotted owls. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR USA.

Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. American Naturalist. 142:911-927.

Leskiw, T., and R.J. Guitierrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds, 29, 225-226.

Lyon, L.J., K.B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, S.W. Buskirk, and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: Considerations for Management. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyons, & W.J. Zielinski (Eds.), The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivore--American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine--in the United States (pp. 128-137. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Menning, K., N.K. Johnson, and L. Ruth. 1997. A review of current non-federal policies on non-federal lands in the Sierra Nevada that affects aquatic, riparian, and late succesional biological diversity. Davis, California: Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis.

Pearson, R.R. and Livezy, K.B. 2003 Distribution, numbers, and and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. The Journal of Raptor Reaserch. 37(4):256-276.

Soule, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: Maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In Conservation Biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspective, ed. M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, 151-69. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Assoc.

“SNEP” 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada, vol 1, Assessment summaries and management strategies, Wildlife Resources Center Report No. 36, University of California, Daves.

“SNFCC” 1998. Summary of existing management direction. USFS PSW.

Schaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134.

USFWS 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12 month Finding for a Petition To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.

Verner, J.G. 2003. Comments on the Revision to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Ammendment.

Verner, J.G. 2004 Comments on the Meadow Valley Project, USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.

Wilcove, D.S. 1987. Public lands management and the fate of the spotted owl. American Birds. 41:03 361-367.

Zielinski, W.J., T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current Distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game. 81(3), 104-112.