Comments on the EA for the
Montez Project
On the Sierraville District of the
Tahoe National Forest

Submitted on December 14th, 2007 by the
Forest Issues Group

To Sam Wilbanks, District Ranger, Sierraville District, Tahoe National Forest:

The Forest Issues Group finds this EA inadequate and in violation of the NEPA and the NFMA as follows…

• The EA fails to address relevant issues. In our scoping comments we emphasized the need to address cumulative impacts from Montez, in combination with impacts from projects in the immediate area. These include the Scraps project and the Lodge project, both proposed by SPI for implementation in the Perazzo watershed, and the nearby Forest Service Phoenix project. These combined projects have, absent further complications, potential for increased downstream sedimentation and degradation of the fishery and riparian habitat.

However, further complications exist. Public funds (several million dollars as we understand) are being spent in a major effort to improve the trout fishery in downstream waters of Perazzo Creek. The combined impacts of the Montez and the other proposed actions mentioned above will presumably have the following effects on downstream condition of the fishery and other habitat values:

• Increased surface runoff onto the meadow and into Perazzo Creek
• Potentially increased erosion
• Increased sediment load of the waters of the creek
• Raised soil temperatures on the treated slope
• Decreased capacity of the slope to hold snow into early summer
• Alteration of the habitat values of the treated areas.

In a separate document, not included in the EA, the District characterizes the Forest Issues Group’s assessment of the Montez proposal relative to these impacts as “speculative” and unsupported by “evidence” (EA at page 3). We must point out that the burden of uncertainty we obviously (and admittedly) bear in making these comments must be borne as well by the District when, for example, it “asserts” that “the BE finds that CWHR habitat types will be unchanged after implementation of the Proposed Action”, or “…the Proposed Action would not significantly impact the existing wilderness character of the Montez Project Area”. What “evidence” can the BE produce that supports these claims? The District here is trying to place a higher standard of “proof” on the Forest Issues Group than it places on itself. This is unacceptable rhetoric in a supposedly informational document, and must be corrected or eliminated from the revised EA.

We submit that these concerns are both relevant and significant. Their dismissal as insignificant in this EA violates the NEPA. PUT CITATION HERE A revised EA should revisit and adequately address the concerns the Forest Issues Group raised in response to scoping.

• We commented on the unique quality of the habitat in the area of the proposed action, and its’ ability to support high biodiversity. This sort of judgment is often difficult to support, and subject to the complaint of bias, as is the case in the Forest Service rejection of our comment based on “insignificance”. However, our comments include a quantified assessment of the biodiversity of the immediate area as follows:

Ten percent of all the WHR habitat types for the State are represented in a transect from Perazzo Meadow to the Sierra Crest.

Section 36 adjacent and east of the section 35 that is part of the proposed Scraps SPI action has never been entered for treatment. This may be the only full section on the Tahoe National Forest with that distinction. A mid-90’s mustelid (fisher, marten, badger, skunk, weasel) survey, including section 36, and the area around Lacey Peak was conducted by Sandra Martin and David Pratt. Without reporting and analyzing these data the present EA remains deficit. These data and their analysis must be included in a revised EA. Also, section 36 should be recognized for its utility as a model for residual stand attributes for Montez and other proposed District actions.

Our comments on Montez scoping included a request for analysis of the impacts this action will have on maintaining options for north-south wildlife corridors to preserve the integrity of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem. This more comprehensive  analysis is required to address range-wide concerns about habitat fragmentation and system-wide viability of dependant species. This is clearly a significant concern. Its omission represents a violation of the NFMA.

An appropriate response to FIG comments should be included in a revised EA that acknowledges the importance, as we have demonstrated, of the exceptional value of the habitat proposed for disturbance by this and the above-referenced actions, and clearly explains why this area has been prioritized for treatment over other less sensitive and more fuel-loaded areas.

The revised EA should re-visit this issue, and reveal potential impacts including loss of corridor and other protective options.

• MODIFY IF POSSIBLE We have not yet visited the Montez site. We have reviewed aerial photography that we assume allows an approximation of the density of the existing stands. So far these data do not support the District’s claim of over-stocking or over-dense stands, but we will reserve judgment on this metric until we have visited the site.

Design of silvilcultural prescription for Montez should not rely on traditional versions of the Reineke Stand Density Index (SDI) (EA at pages 3 and 22-23), because it does not represent the latest information on a measurement of density, and is not authorized for use in un-even aged stands. A revised EA should acknowledge the availability of updated modeling for use in determining stand health, and justify the use of outdated methods. PROVIDE CITATION

Reliance on the outdated Reineke index appears to be in part based on the characterization of the stands proposed for treatment as even-aged. We refer you to the photographs (figures 1 through 6) in the Montez EA. Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 clearly demonstrate uneven-aged conditions in the photographed stands. The revised EA should resolve this discrepancy between claim and evidence concerning stand structure demonstrated by the photographs. The even aged structure argument cannot be used in support of the use of the old index as a measure of density for the photographed stands.

• More information is needed for us to evaluate the impacts of this proposed action.

• What stem spacing is proposed for the residual stands treated by mechanical thinning? Will an attempt be made to produce residual structure that emulates natural stands, and therefore continues to provide quality habitat? Will this include the creation of distributed clusters of trees that approximates the “shifting mosaic steady state described by Borman and Liken? The revised EA should address these issues.

• The corrected EA should explain why, since the fuels modeling predicts only moderate fire behavior (EA page 19), fuel overload treatment cannot be limited to reduction of ground and ladder fuels, without resorting to the ecological degradation resulting from reducing canopy cover to 40%. For an acknowledgement of the uncertainty among experts about the effectiveness of reducing crown cover toward reducing stand-wide fire see the Montez EA at page 19.

•  The corrected EA should balance its portrayal of the impacted area as “unsuited for wilderness” with an accounting of the habitat quality and recreational opportunities that would be protected by wilderness status. The NEPA process is intended to inform the public of the merits of alternative actions. It is not intended to provide advocacy by a proponent agency.

• The Lodge timber action is proposed by SPI on the upper reaches of Perazzo Creek. This project will contribute to the impacts listed here for other projects in the Perazzo watershed as described earlier in these comments. Although the THP for Lodge was received on October 12th by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, about 1 month prior to distribution of the Montez EA, the Montez EA fails to acknowledge Lodge and its contribution to cumulative impacts. This failure to fully account for the added impact potential by Lodge should disqualify the Montez EA. This failure should be corrected in a revised EA.

• Additional Wildlife Issues

• Willow Flycatcher. Although the EA at page 41 claims that “no willow flycatchers (WIFL) were detected adjacent to the project areas”, a willow flycatcher habitat polygon is mapped by the Forest Service that is contiguous with the treatment boundary for Montez.  The haul route for moving much of the timber from Montez will pass within 10 meters of this WIFL polygon for a length of about 0.5 miles. In addition, Willow flycatchers may use this area for foraging. The revised EA should address this potential impact.

• Northern goshawk. The Montez BE at page 69 recites that “Because all unknown or suspected northern goshawk nest sites are buffered…and all suitable habitat within and adjacent to proposed vegetation treatment areas have been surveyed to R-5 protocol, there are no direct effects expected to occur from the proposed action”. This broken logic appears to assume that if the area was surveyed, then no “direct effects” should be expected, never mind the outcome of the survey. This is clearly an attempt to minimize the environmental impacts of a proposed action.

In fact, most of the Montez project is within a goshawk protected area; 4 goshawk sightings are reported within the proposed treatment area, and a total of 13 goshawk sightings are record within 0.25 miles of the treatment boundary. The revised EA should resolve this discrepancy between fact and claim. More generally, this analysis degrades the credibility of the entire review process.

In the BE at page 69 we find that the action “may effect but is not likely to lead toward a federal listing of for northern goshawks”. The Forest Issues Group has consistently criticized this dismissal of potential environmental impacts to a sensitive species based on its failure to proceed to the next logical step in impacts analysis: an accounting of the sum total of these trivialized local cases on an ecosystem-wide basis in the Sierra Nevada. Obviously at some point the accumulated local impacts will amount to significant range-wide impacts. The revised EA should make this accounting.

• California spotted owl. 99% of the area proposed for treatment in Montez is within a California spotted owl (Cso) HRCA. There have been 5 Cso sitings within 0.75 miles of the boundary of the Montez treatment area. These are 10 year old sightings, but they indicate suitable Cso habitat, which the Forest Service is responsible for maintaining. In fact, the Montez EA at page 57 acknowledges that the Montez action “may effect individuals but is not likely to lead toward a federal listing or to a loss in viability for the California spotted owl”. As above in the case of the goshawk, we criticize this dismissal of potential environmental impacts to the Cso based on its failure to proceed to the next logical step in impacts analysis: an accounting of the sum total impact of these trivialized local cases on an ecosystem-wide basis in the Sierra Nevada. Obviously at some point the accumulated local impacts will amount to significant range-wide impacts. The revised EA should make this accounting.

The Montez project is proposed in an especially productive and diverse forested area. We have pointed out the failure of the present EA to conform to the NEPA by ignoring our initial scoping comments about the potential for Montez to disrupt ecological function in this sensitive habitat, and for other NEPA and NFMA violations. At the same time, we continue to support genuine efforts by the District to develop stand structure by thinning from below the stands at Montez, and elsewhere on the District, and to reduce the risk of fire. We look forward to reviewing a revised design for this project that utilizes modern forest methods to generate residual stands that are structured to emulate pre-human-disturbed conditions (i.e. good habitat).

Stephen Benner for the Forest Issues Group
Box 191, Sierraville, CA, 96126
530.994.3535
stephenbenner@gotsky.com