Comments on the Montez Project are filed on behalf of:

Forest Issues Group (FIG)

Sierra Forest Legacy (formerly Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign)

California Wilderness Coalition

Sierra Foothills Audubon Society

Friends of the River

Sierra Club

Susan Britting, PH. D.

December 14, 2007

Tahoe National Forest

Sam Wilbanks

Sierraville Ranger Station

PO Box 95

Sierraville, CA 96126

cc: Teri Banka

DELIVERED VIA EMAIL TO: comments-pacificsouthwest-tahoe-sierraville@fs.fed.us

Re:  Comments on the Montez Project

To Whom it may Concern:

Upon review, we found that the EA fails adequately to address relevant issues.

First, the Forest Service failed to provide a sufficient range of alternatives. Alternatives other than the proposed project and No Action were either not proposed or rejected with inadequate analysis.  

Second, the Forest Service failed to adequately address the Montez project impacts on the character of the 2007 proposed Castle Peak wilderness, which overlaps completely with the project boundary. We believe that proposed road construction, group selection and defensible fuel profile zone (DFPZ) treatments will significantly alter the forest attributes in this remote area and degrade the unique qualities that contribute to the area’s eligibility as wilderness area. 

Third, the Forest Service failed to adequately address the impacts of the proposed project on the suitability of Perazzo Creek for Wild and Scenic status (see Appeal by Friends of the River and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign 1999 Record of Decision for the Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and FEIS April 1999). 

Fourth, the project impacts to old growth forest associated wildlife were not fully disclosed in the EA.

Fifth, we found that the Forest Service did not complete monitoring and analysis for Management Indicator Species as required by the Tahoe Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA).

Sixth, the cumulative effects of the Montez project were not fully disclosed to the public or decision maker.  In 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 to decrease habitat quality and quantity of old forest associated wildlife, contribute to downstream sedimentation and degradation of the fishery and riparian habitat. The EA did not adequately address these projects in light of the proposed action.

Finally, Public comments on the scoping notice were not adequately addressed. 

For these reasons we ask the Forest Service to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. The Forest Service must prepare an EIS when the proposed action has the potential to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” We will show that this indeed is the case here.

I.       THE FOREST SERVICE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.

The EA fails to consider a sufficient range of alternatives. CEQ regulations require a reasonable range of alternatives to be presented and analyzed in the NEPA process so that issues are “sharply defined” and the environmental analysis provides “a clear basis for choice among options . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. CEQ regulations and court decisions make clear that the discussion of alternatives is "the heart" of the NEPA process. Environmental analyses must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives."

The EA cites the Purpose and Need for the Project as follows:

·        to implement the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act,

·        to reduce negative effects from catastrophic wildfire on National Forest, private and state lands, and local communities,

·        to create a safer, more effective fire suppression environment and provide connecting links to existing fuelbreaks in and around the Montez Project area,

·        to create the pre-conditions necessary for reintroduction of low intensity fire to the ecosystem, thereby beginning the process of restoring fire to its natural role in the Montez Project area,

·        to improve conifer stand health, vigor, and resistance to fire, insects, and disease in DFPZs and ITS units and initiate stand structure diversity in group selection units,

·        to implement riparian management to restore the health and vigor of aspen stands, and improve the sustainability of Riparain Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs),

·        to protect habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive species (TE&S), and for Management Indicator Species (MIS), both plant and animal,

·        to generate economic activity, income and employment in support of rural community stability,

·        to enhance commercial options to achieve forest health and fuels treatment objectives to offset a portion of the Forest Service’s costs of project implementation, i.e. remove some trees between 20 and 30 inches to improve the viability of timber sales, and

·        to improve watershed condition by reducing current or potential sources of sediment, 

Though these are laudable goals for a project, the Preferred Alternative does not take into adequate consideration the location, size, and importance of this project area. The location within a proposed wilderness area, containing an eligible wild and scenic river in an RHCA, an HRCA for California spotted owl, adjacent to Willow flycatcher habitat, Northern goshawk habitat, and connectivity to a meadow that was deemed important enough to recently complete a river restoration project all indicate a poor choice for the project as proposed. In addition it is at least seven miles from the nearest urban area (Sierraville) and contains features (Perazzo creek, Perazzo meadow, and an adjacent ridge that make it highly unlikely that a DFPZ will reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic fire. The project would also require construction of a temporary road and stream crossing that could lead to erosion and wildlife impacts.

Surely the Forest Service could make better use of these funds closer to a real WUI. The EA even states “Although the Montez Project area is characterized by a forest type, which historically had a relatively long fire return interval and low risk of a large fire, current hazardous fuel conditions of dense vegetation and high levels of ground fuels could result in a large catastrophic fire even in this high elevation area under extreme hot and dry fire weather conditions.” The Cottonwood fire was cited as a case in point, but its ecosystem is completely different from this one. Actually under those conditions the whole Tahoe National Forest is subject to catastrophic fire, but other places pose a greater risk to communities. But these goals can be met by another alternative that was not adequately presented for this project. 

The Forest Service rejected proposing to alter the project boundary such that the Montez Project does not encroach upon the proposed Castle Peak Wilderness Area stating that it “would effectively eliminate the entire project area from treatment. This alternative is eliminated from consideration as a separate alternative, because it would be identical to Alternative 2, No Action.” The EA goes on to say that “the potential effect of project implementation on the proposed Castle Peak Wilderness Area was identified by the ID Team as a significant issue.” Yet, the EA fails to sufficiently analyze impacts to the proposed wilderness or propose an alternative that does not disturb the potential wilderness.

It is not true that a project cannot be done without encroaching on the proposed wilderness boundary. For example, work could be done within the area under wilderness rules (no mechanized or commercial treatment) which would meet all of the project’s stated purposes and needs except "to enhance commercial options to achieve forest health and fuels treatment objectives to offset a portion of the Forest Service’s costs of project implementation, i.e. remove some trees between 20 and 30 inches to improve the viability of timber sales.” It even could meet a  HFQLG goal by “accomplishment of actions that improve watershed conditions.”

The EA should have addressed an alternative project to reduce surface fuels and hand-thin ladder fuels to reduce fire danger, prepare for prescribed fire, and also help restore the mosaic structure of the forest. Work around aspens could also help meet the goals of the project without the commercial logging of large trees. These activities would not add to the past damage due to logging, but they certainly could include removal of past stacked culled logs in the north part of the project that were never cleared from the area, possibly generating revenues. Such an alternative could include decommissioning and removal of the 4 wheel drive route that is beyond the portion of the road that leads to section 35. We doubt that this route was ever approved via a NEPA process and believe that it could be left as a hiking trail if decommissioning is not appropriate.

II.        FOREST SERVICE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE MONTEZ PROJECT’S EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE 2007 PROPOSED CASTLE PEAK WILDERNESS.

We were alarmed to see that the Montez EA proposes mechanical fuel treatments and road building within the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness.  The U.S. Senate is currently considering wilderness protection for the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness in Senator Barbara Boxer’s California Wild Heritage Act (S. 493) and the U.S. House is considering legislation (HR860 by Boxer and Solis) to designate the Castle Peak Wilderness. It is inappropriate for the Forest Service to approve road building and mechanical fuel treatments in the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness before congress has an opportunity to permanently protect this area as wilderness.

The 16,000 acre Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness in the Tahoe National Forest provides Californians with spectacular outdoor recreation opportunities and is home to several important watersheds that supply drinking water to Nevada County and wildlife habitat for endangered species.  These spectacular wild lands provide habitat for the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout, willow flycatcher, northern goshawk and the California spotted owl.  The area is also home to old growth red-fir forests.

The proposed road building and mechanical fuel treatments in the Montez EA would degrade wilderness values and jeopardize Congress’ ability to permanently protect the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness.  Unfortunately, the EA failed to adequately analyze impacts to the potential wilderness and did not consider an alternative that avoids road building and mechanical treatments within the proposed wilderness.

In the EA under Environmental Consequences it is stated there is evidence of past management activities that dominate the project area and include roads, landings, cull decks, skid trails, stumps and modifications in the forest canopy. Most if not all of this activity is on the west side of the creek. Just because the Forest Service logged incorrectly in or near this important riparian and potential wilderness habitat in the past is no reason to conclude that they should continue to degrade this habitat.

It is also stated that since this is such a small area compared to the whole wilderness proposal, it does not need to be included. However, if you eliminate this area from the proposed wilderness there is no way to tie the lower part of Perazzo Meadow to wilderness, and also it would eliminate section 36 from the proposal. It also would eliminate Perazzo Canyon creek. Since the Forest Service did not mention Perazzo creek in connection to wilderness, we must stress its importance. Sounds of trucks and other logging in the area may affect the experience as you enter the wilderness, but this is a needed gateway into wonderful habitat for wildlife and passive recreation. The EA fails to fully assess the above-mentioned impacts to the potential wilderness.

It is true that the road is needed to access section 35 by SPI. The road to section 35 can be left alone as long as Section 35 has no other way of being accessed. However, the Scraps project is still on hold, and there is no guarantee that it will be done. A corner of private section 1 touches section 35, and perhaps could provide access.

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to fully analyze the impacts on the proposed Castle Peak Wilderness and the project should be modified to avoid logging and other activities in the proposed wilderness.

III.       THE FOREST SERVICE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE SUITABILITY OF PERAZZO CREEK FOR WILD AND SCENIC STATUS

The Montez Project EA fails to mention that Perazzo Creek was identified by the Forest Service in 1998 as a stream eligible for National Wild & Scenic River protection. Perazzo Creek was considered eligible due to its outstanding botanical/ecological associations and broad diversity of wildlife habitat, including habitat for the willow flycatcher. Below is the Forest Service's description of Perazzo Creek:

The meadow complex and its associated wildlife habitat is the most outstanding feature associated with Perazzo Creek…The area supports a number of fens ranging in size from 12 square feet to about one acre separated by dry meadows and forest. All are located between the slightly sloped land between the meadows and the ridges. The fens along with bogs, dry meadows, wet meadows, aspen, and a wide range of wild flowers and forbs provide a very diverse and unique plant community. This diversity of plant species provides an extensive riparian community supporting many riparian dependent species including habitat for the willow flycatcher. This canyon and the Little Truckee River support the second largest willow flycatcher population in California. Old-growth timber stands add to the diversity and provide valuable habitat for old-growth dependent species. (Pg. IV.26, Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tahoe National Forest, July 1998)

In addition to its failure in mentioning the Wild & Scenic eligibility of Perazzo Creek, the Montez Project EA also fails to even mention the fens that make up an important component of Perazzo Creek's outstandingly remarkable botanical/ecological associations and broad diversity of wildlife habitat.

In its 1999 Record of Decision for the Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and FEIS, the Forest Service chose not to recommend designation of Perazzo Creek as a National Wild & Scenic River, noting that the outstanding value of the creek was "…protected under existing management direction. In the case of fens and their associated rare plants, existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines require protective buffers." (Pg. 11, Feb. 1999 ROD)

Friends of the River and the forbearer of Sierra Forest Legacy, the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, appealed the 1999 ROD for the Eastside Rivers Study in April 1999. In November 2001, the Regional Forester denied the appeal and specifically in response to our concerns about the ROD not fully protecting Perazzo Creek's outstandingly remarkable botanical/ecological associations and broad diversity of wildlife habitat, the Regional Forester stated:

The ROD provides rationale for not selecting rivers for recommendation to NWSRS designation. The outstanding botany of both systems (Perazzo Creek and the Little Truckee River) is the "fens and their associated rare plants" (ROD, p. 11). The OR values (including ecological) for these stream will be protected under existing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Exhibit A of the ROD describes direction in the Tahoe Forest Plan, and subsequent amendments, that addresses the management of these streams and protection measures.(Pg. 3, Appeal 99-05-00-0063-A217)

Since 1999, the Tahoe Forest's Standards and Guidelines have been modified three times by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group FEIS (1999), Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Supplement (2004). Through this transition, the Forest Service has apparently forgotten about Perazzo Creek's outstandingly remarkable botanical/ecological associations and broad diversity of wildlife habitat and the promise to specifically protect these values through forest standards and guidelines, since all mention of these values and the need for their protection have been left out of the project-level EA for the Montez Project.

The original 1990 Tahoe Forest Plan standards and guidelines established streamside management zones ranging from 100 to 300 feet in width on each of side of a stream, depending on stream class and slope stability, and required effective ground cover uniformly maintained over 75% of the streamside zone (TNF LRMP App. Pg. F-4). The Plan also required retention of all vegetation needed to maintain a minimum of 80% of the maximum July shade potential (TNF LRMP App. Pg. F-3). As amended by subsequent documents, the current standards and guidelines apparently allow for removal of 50% of the canopy closure within 75 feet of Perazzo Creek and apparently do not require retention of effective ground cover (Montez EA pg. 10).

Absent a specific analysis of the project's impacts on the creek's outstanding values in the EA, we must conclude that the current standards and guidelines fail to specifically protect the creek's outstandingly remarkable botanical/ecological associations and broad diversity of wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to include a full analysis of the potential impacts of the project on Perazzo Creek's outstanding values, including the meadows, fens, and diverse wildlife habitat, and specifically propose measures and/or modify the proposed project if needed to ensure protection of these values.

IV.       THE PROJECT IMPACTS TO OLD FOREST ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE WERE NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE EA.

A.        CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL

1.          The Existing Condition of the PACs and HRCAs should be Disclosed.   

The risk analysis completed indicated a degree to which habitat within the home range core area (HRCA) would be altered, but there is no information presented on the existing quality of the PAC and HRCA.  The persistence of owls in PACs and HRCAs where the existing habitat condition is less than optimal may be disproportionately affected by harvest activities that present a high risk.  This potential for additional risk due to habitat fragmentation and degradation is supported by a number of recent studies. The EA fails to sufficiently analyze the current condition or the potential impacts to the PAC and HRCA.

Research on habitat characteristics of areas similar in size to HRCAs supports the critical importance of retaining high quality habitat with large trees and high canopy cover.   Seamans (2005) found that “forests comprised of medium and large trees and having high canopy cover [i.e., CWHR 5D and 4D] were correlated with higher territory occupancy and higher individual survival rates.” (Ibid., p. 91).  Further, Seamans found that forests with medium (12 to 24 inch) to large (> 24 inch) trees and >70% canopy cover were positively associated with survival of and probability of site occupancy by adult (>1 year old) California spotted owls at the 400-ha (988-ac) scale, and amount of hardwood forest, brush-sapling, or pole coniferous forest was negatively associated with these parameters.  Contrary to other studies of the northern spotted owl (e.g., Franklin et al. 2000), Seamans found that increasing habitat heterogeneity did not positively impact survival and reproduction.  Amount of interior forest within an owl territory was important in explaining spatial variation in population vital rates, and habitat fragmentation was either “neutral or negative” for population growth rate, survival, and reproduction.  Seamans (2005) concluded that “maintaining existing contiguous blocks of forest dominated by medium and large trees with high canopy cover in owl territories, and allowing forests in earlier seral stages to mature, would benefit California spotted owls.  This should increase not only survival, but also encourage occupancy of these sites by owls.”  Seamans (2005) also states that “intensive thinning of forest patches within owl territories that results in a lowering of canopy cover may have negative impacts on survival, and may impact occupancy of territories.”  In addition, Chatfield (2005) examined habitat within circular territories of about 1,135 acres around each nest stand.  She found that the relative probability of spotted owl territory occupancy increased with increasing amounts of mid- to late-seral forests having high canopy cover [i.e., 70 percent or greater].” (Ibid., p. 40). 

Due to the nature of adult survival and reproductive rates and their influence on population trend for California spotted owl, Blakelsey et al (2001, p. 675) found that “high adult survival in Spotted Owls may allow population persistence through long periods of low reproductive success.”  Based on their research, they concluded:

Given the current trend in California Spotted Owl populations, the most positive step that can be taken to reverse the apparent decline is to improve adult survival probabilities.

(Ibid.).  Thus, actions that affect occupancy and adult survivorship are more likely to have long term effects on spotted owl persistence.  For these reasons, a habitat analysis of the existing condition and condition following harvest activities is critical to the evaluation of project level effects on spotted owl.  The risk analysis presented in the BE should be combined with an evaluation of the existing condition of each PAC and HRCA to further identify the potential for abandonment of nest sites by spotted owl as a result of project activities. 

The Montez project area is comprised of 99% spotted owl HRCA. There have been 5 spotted owl sightings within 0.75 miles of the boundary of the Montez treatment area. These are 10 year old sightings, but they indicate suitable spotted owl habitat, which the Forest Service is responsible for maintaining. In fact, the Montez EA at page 57 acknowledges that the Montez action “may effect (affect) individuals but is not likely to lead toward a federal listing or to a loss in viability for the California spotted owl”. As below in the case of the goshawk, we criticize this dismissal of potential environmental impacts to the spotted owl 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 failure of the EA to provide this analysis underscores the need for the Forest Service to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to make this accounting.

2.         Impacts to Nest Areas are Not Evaluated.

Recent findings by Blakesley et al. (2005) emphasize the importance of evaluating the effects of habitat quality on spotted owl persistence.  This study examined habitat quality around nest stands at several scales including what was termed “nest area” (500 acres) and “core area” (about 2,010 acres).  At both scales, “site occupancy was positively associated with the amount of nest area dominated by large trees with high canopy cover within the nest area.”  (Ibid., p. 1554).  Further, in a review of the Creeks Project (Lassen National Forest), Blakesley (2005) indicated that “my data show that the average from 67 spotted owl territories in the Lassen National Forest (including territories in the Creeks project area) was 83% suitable habitat within the 500 acre nest area, with a standard deviation of 12% (Blakesley 2003).  Therefore, 83% suitable habitat within nest areas is a reasonable minimum target, whereas 50% is not.  Anything less than 71% (the average minus 1 standard deviation) should be unacceptable as a management target.”  Thus, Blakesley et al. (2005) and Blakesley (2005) provide guidance on an evaluation of existing condition and the alternatives that can indicate those owl sites at greatest risk from project activities.  This methodology was endorsed by the district court in the Creeks decision.  Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Tippin, 2006 WL 2583036 (E.D. Cal. 2006).  Such an evaluation should be included in the project analysis. The Forest Service failed to conduct such an analysis in the EA and should do so as part of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement.

3.         The EA Does Not Ensure That Minimum Thresholds in the HRCAs and Home Ranges for Owls are Being Maintained

The 2004 Framework states that desired conditions for California spotted owl 1,000-acre HRCAs are to achieve at least 50-70 % canopy cover, at least 24 inch diameter trees dominating the overstory, and a higher-than-average level of snags and downed woody debris.  Treatments must be designed to avoid the highest quality habitat and existing suitable habitat must be retained (although some habitat may be modified to meet fuels objectives). (USDA Forest Service 2004a, p. 46, Table 1)

The Montez project Environmental Assessment fails to explain how this desired condition is being met.  All the studies on HRCAs suggest that the HRCA area of 1,000 acres is critical habitat within an owl’s home range that must be protected to insure viability. See Blakesley et al. (2005, p. 1563) (“Within owl core areas (814 ha), increased amounts of habitat used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting and foraging should increase owl survival”).  Further, as discussed below, it may be that in some PACs, the current nest core habitat is already degraded such that the HRCA habitat is critical to avoid an isolated “island” surrounded by unsuitable habitat.  See Verner et al. 1992, p. 15 (“We expect that owl pairs in SOHAs would disappear at a relatively high rate, leaving the SOHAs unoccupied and at least temporarily nonfunctional.”)

The EA also fails to adequately disclose impacts to owls at the broader home range scale. The Forest Service has not examined the number of owl home ranges that would have less than 50 percent suitable habitat after project implementation.  Therefore, the EA lacks any assessment of likely indirect negative impacts on the owl population, breeding or territory occupancy that this reduction in habitat may lead to. (USDA Forest Service 1999a, pp. 76-82).  Indirect effects to home range in combination also need to be weighed with other past present and future actions in the analysis area. 

The protection of PACs alone is inadequate to ensure owl survival and thus the Forest Service’s failure to consider the existing condition and the impacts of the project impacts on nest core areas, HRCAs, and home ranges does not constitute the hard look analysis required under NEPA.  As noted by the Sierra Nevada Framework, “[p]rotecting occupied, as well as suitable but unoccupied habitat, over the long term is important to insure species viability. (USDA Forest Service, 2001, Chap. 3, part 4.4, p. 82.)  According to the Framework:

[C]onservation efforts should therefore consider not only occupied habitat, but also suitable unoccupied habitats, in developing conservation strategies for species for which dispersal may function as a primary limiting factor.

(Ibid.)  Indeed, Framework scientists specifically found that timber harvesting poses serious short term risks to the owl due to habitat fragmentation:

[R]etaining existing suitable habitat and improving habitat conditions over the next couple of decades may be particularly important for stabilizing owl populations. Research into population dynamics at larger scales has suggested the possible existence of habitat thresholds, below which populations may go extinct in the presence of suitable habitat due to constraints on successful dispersal. With current population declines, vegetation treatment impacts over a short time period may involve risks to the spotted owl population that are not evident by considering longer-term habitat projections alone.

(See e.g., USDA Forest Service, 2001, Chap. 3, part 4.4, p. 95.  See also ibid.,  p. 96 ("[W]here a greater proportion of owl home ranges have less than desired amounts of habitat to begin with, reducing the amount of habitat within the few home ranges that exceed the habitat threshold, prior to increasing amounts of habitat in other owl home ranges, could increase the risk of worsening conditions and increasing nearest neighbor distances for owl sites within these areas.")

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS that includes an evaluation of desired conditions in HRCAs and an assessment of home ranges.  Further, given the critical importance of high quality habitat occurring outside of PACs within the project area, the Forest Service should avoid treatments that reduce the amount or degrade the condition of high quality habitat.

B.        AMERICAN MARTEN

American martens are associated with late-seral coniferous forests with abundant large structure, including live trees, snags, and logs, and relatively closed canopy cover.  Medium and large trees with diameters 20" and greater have been identified as an important structural element of marten habitat (Kucera 2006).    (Ibid.)  Vegetation treatments such as mastication, burning, and tree removal may eliminate snags and trees for future snag recruitment, and downed woody materials.  The EA fails to address marten’s need for multi-layered stands with a developed Understory.  (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, USDA Forest Service 2001, Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4, p. 19).  DFPZ treatments eliminate understory altogether, thereby eliminating habitat for prey species such as tree squirrels and small rodents needing cover and downed woody material as well.  The EA fails to take a hard look at these likely impacts on the viability of marten in and adjacent to the project area.

Bull et al. (2005) found in northeastern Oregon that “martens showed a strong preference for old-structure, unlogged stands in subalpine fir and spruce forests with canopy closures >= 50%, a high density of dead trees and logs, and in close proximity to water. Martens avoided harvested stands, dry forest types, early structural classes, and areas with low densities of dead trees.”  Bull and Heater (2001) found that canopy cover around rest sites averaged about 90% and mean diameter of rest tree was about 20” dbh.  In the southern Sierra Nevada, Zielinski et al. (1997) found that canopy cover in the vicinity of track plates where marten were detected averaged 85.8% with conifer basal area that averaged 190.5 ft2/acre.  This study determined that “martens most frequently rested in size class 4, 5, and 6 Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC) stands with >60% cover.” 

The EA fails to adequately recognize the ecological significance of the project area in ensuring a viable and well distributed population of marten.  In combination with the adjacent Phoenix project and the Lodge and Scraps THPs on SPI, the Montez project is likely to further degrade habitat in the area and to further reduce habitat connectivity, contrary to legal requirements that connectivity be maintained and viability be insured.  For example, 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 deficient. These data and their analysis must be included in an EIS. Also, section 36 should be recognized for its utility as a model for residual stand attributes for Montez and other proposed District actions.   The EA fails adequately to disclose these impacts, contrary to NEPA.

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. The EA underestimates the adverse project impacts to marten.  This is clearly a significant concern. Its omission represents a violation of the NFMA.

Finally, cumulative impacts to marten habitat have not been analyzed in the EA.  When combined with past projects, the implementation of the Montez Project could result in significant reductions in habitat quality and quantity in 100% of the project area.  Given the marten’s sensitivity to forest fragmentation and habitat degradation, the implementation of the proposed action could threaten marten’s viability and restrict its distribution. The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to evaluate the amount and distribution of openings and open canopy habitat existing on private and public lands and to evaluate the site specific and cumulative effect of placing group selection openings near areas that currently support open habitat conditions.  

C.        WILLOW FLYCATCHER

The EA fails to provide an adequate basis for the determination that the Montez Project will have no affect on willow flycatcher.  The willow flycatcher is a Forest Sensitive Species and has been located near the project site.  Important willow flycatcher habitat includes wet meadows and riparian vegetation.  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.  According to project maps, logging trucks will be hauling logs within approximately 10 meters of Perazzo meadow for about 0.5 miles, which offers high quality breeding habitat for willow flycatcher.  The log hauling with heavy logging trucks will most certainly be loud and dusty, and assuming a timber sale requires approximately two tuck loads of logs per acre, the proposed timber sale will involve over 600 passes back and forth along the Perazzo Meadow haul route for the proposed timber sale.  Expected impacts of trucking activity related to willow flycatcher disturbance include changes in nesting and foraging habitat quality, as well as their ability to defend territories and find mates during the breeding season. In addition, Willow flycatchers may use this area for foraging.  The potential to disturb willow flycatchers and alter habitat as a result of the logging and log hauling proposed in the Montez Project has not been addressed in the effects analysis whatsoever.  The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to address the site specific and cumulative impacts to the willow flycatcher.

D.        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 Forest Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to 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 (affect) 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 Forest Service should prepare an EIS to make this accounting.

V.        FAILURE TO CONDUCT REQUIRED WILDLIFE MONITORING

The Forest Service is required by its own regulations and management plans to monitor the populations of management indicator species (MIS) and other wildlife.  For instance, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 requires that the population trends of MIS be monitored.  These regulations require “that the Forest Service identify [MIS], monitor their population trends, and evaluate each project alternative in terms of the impact on both [MIS] habitat and [MIS] populations."  The Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2004).  Because the Tahoe Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was adopted and amended pursuant to these regulations, they continue to govern management and apply to the Montez project.  Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Tippin at *15.  In addition, the 2004 Framework, which amended the Tahoe LRMP, requires annual monitoring of population trends for many MIS, Forest Sensitive Species (FSS), and Species At Risk (SAR).  The Forest Service failed to comply with the monitoring requirements for some of the FS, MIS and SAR species affected by the Montez Project.  As a result, the project documents also failed adequately to assess the project’s environmental impacts to these species and their habitat.

The Annual Monitoring Required By The Forest Plan As Adopted In 1990 And Amended In 2004 Has Not Been Completed.  

The Tahoe LRMP, as first adopted in 1990, requires that population trend be assessed annually for a number of species that are potentially affected by the Montez project.  Appendix E of the 2001 ROD (USDA Forest Service 2001, Volume 4, Appendix E) was adopted by the 2004 ROD (USDA Forest Service 2004a, p. 70).  This appendix outlines the monitoring requirements for a variety of species including FSS, MIS, SAR, and other species of lesser vulnerability.  Ten species were identified in Appendix E as being of particular concern and their monitoring requirements were addressed individually in the narrative.  The monitoring requirements for the remaining species are summarized in a series of tables.  The appendix also states that “Population and/or habitat monitoring will be conducted for all MIS and species at risk.”  (USDA Forest Service 2001, Volume 4, Appendix E, pp. 62, 75, 96).  Further, Appendix E makes clear that such monitoring is to occur annually. ^[1] Thus, annual monitoring of “population[s] and/or habitat” for MIS and SAR is required by Appendix E, as the courts have held.  See Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Tippin at *20; Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Service, 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The forest plan monitoring requirements for each species discussed in the project documents was reviewed.  Those species for which the monitoring requirements were not met are listed in the table below.   

Table 1.  Species considered in the Montez project for which the monitoring requirements in the Tahoe Land Management Plan (1990 and as amended 2004) for which the monitoring requirements in the forest plan have not been addressed.

The BE and MIS reports do not present the information required by the forest plan on population monitoring or population trend for these species or the type of information presented is not adequate. 

For several species covered in the project documents, the monitoring data provided was not adequate to access trend.  These species are addressed below.

The forest plan directs that “population trends” of California spotted owl will be determined annually for the forest.  (USDA Forest Service 1990, p. VI-8).  The project documents report on survey results for owl demographic studies on the Lassen, Eldorado and Sierra National Forests but do not provide data for trend on the Tahoe National Forest. 

A summary of goshawk sightings is provided in the EA, but these project driven observations are variable in time and place and can not be used to monitor the population.  Data collected from the Christmas bird count is referenced, but this information pertains to California as a whole and is not bioregional as required by the forest plan.  Data on the number of PACs is also provided, but as such are not adequate to evaluate trend as required by the forest plan.

Breeding bird survey data were used to assess trends for mountain quail and sooty (formerly blue) grouse.  For a number of reasons, the use of breeding bird surveys is unacceptable to meet population monitoring requirements in a forest plan.  First, breeding bird surveys are located on roads and span both national forest and private land.  The purpose of monitoring population trend is to determine the effect of Forest Service management on the selected species.  Data from routes that traverse private land are confounded by the effects of private land management and are limited in their use for assessing national forest land.  Thus, it is arbitrary to suggest that the data is representative of population trends on lands governed by the forest plan.

Second, the BBS Program itself identifies that there are limitations to the dataset related to the geographic area covered.  The BBS Program notes that:

“Trends are always specific to the areas surveyed.

Roadside biases-The BBS is a roadside survey, and a major criticism of the survey has been that habitat changes along roadsides may not be representative of regional habitat changes. Trends from the BBS may therefore reflect only populations along roads rather than regional bird population changes.

Habitat biases-Within the range of the BBS, many habitats are not well covered, and species that specialize in those habitats are poorly sampled. Wetland birds and species occupying alpine tundra habitats are examples of groups thought to be poorly represented in the survey.”

(Sauer et al. 2005).  Even if the routes occurred entirely on the national forest, they would still be limited to assessing trend near to the road and not across the forest.  

Lastly, the courts have also found fault with the use of BBS data to estimate population trend.  In Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Service, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal found that “the BBS alone cannot satisfy the population monitoring requirement, and the USFS has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the NFMA in relying upon it.”  

There are additional SAR that may occur in the project area, based on their geographic range and the association of habitat types affected, for which the monitoring required by Appendix E has not been reported.  These species are listed in Table 2 below.  These species and their monitoring results also were not discussed in the Montez project analysis. 

Table 2.  Species at risk (SAR) from Appendix E (USDA Forest Service 2001) that require population monitoring and that may be affected by the Montez project.  These species were not addressed in the environmental analysis.

¹ Extracted from "California's Wildlife" edited by Zeiner, D.C. et al 1988-1990.

In sum, the type of monitoring and frequency required by the LRMP, as originally adopted in 1990 and as amended in 2004, has not been disclosed for these Forest Sensitive species, MIS or SAR. The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to address this issue.

VI.       THE ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IS NOT ADEQUATE

Environmental Analyses are required to consider cumulative impacts, which are the impacts on the environment from the proposed action “when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency … or person undertakes such other actions.”  40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.  The Ninth Circuit has recently clarified NEPA’s cumulative impacts requirement in two decisions, both of which overturned Forest Service timber sales for failing adequately to consider cumulative impacts.  See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989 (9^th Cir. 2004); The Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738 (9^th Cir. 2004).  In addition, the Ninth Circuit has recently confirmed that timber sale EISs must analyze the cumulative impacts of logging on private lands within the project analysis area.  Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797, 814-16 (9^th Cir. 2005).    

To comply with NEPA, an EA must discuss the environmental impacts of past, present, and proposed logging; a mere listing of projects and acreage, in the absence of specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the projects, is inadequate.  “[T]he general rule under NEPA is that, in assessing cumulative effects, the EIS must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between the projects, are thought to have impacted the environment.”  The Lands Council, 379 F.3d at 745.  In particular, the NEPA document must include “discussion of the connection between individual harvests and the prior environmental harms from those harvests.”  Id. at 744.  The NEPA document also needs to provide “adequate data of the time, type, place, and scale of past timber harvests.”  Id. at 745.

It is essential that the cumulative effects analysis provide “quantified or detailed information; … [g]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look.”  Klamath-Siskiyou, 387 F.3d at 993.  Thus, for example, EAs need to include “quantified assessment” of the “combined environmental impacts” of the various projects considered, id. at 994.  Not only does the cumulative effects analysis need to provide quantified data with respect to factors such as the amount of spotted owl habitat that will be affected, id. at 994 n.1, but “the effect (affect) of this loss on the spotted owl” and other species throughout the planning area also needs to be analyzed.  Id. at 997.

A.                               Impact of logging projects in the area

The EA fails  to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the Montez project together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area.  In particular, the EA fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the adjacent Forest Service Phoenix Project, together with two timber harvest plans adjacent to the Montez project area- Sierra Pacific Industries’ (SPI) Scraps and Lodge THPs. These projects represent a total estimated area of 1600 acres (about one tenth of the proposed Castle Peak wilderness area), all within a three-mile reach of Perazzo creek. They would contribute significant cumulative impacts of several kinds to this diverse, productive, and sensitive wildlife habitat.

The EA has ignored our concerns for these impacts, and has failed to address the issue. For example the reduction of canopy cover (from an existing estimated average of 65% to a residual  40%) proposed for these projects would open these stands to increased insolation and significantly reduce their eco-function to retain early summer snowpack. This would result in accelerated spring runoff from these slopes, increased sedimentation, and unpredictable changes in spatial and temporal distribution of water to downstream habitats. Failure to address these probable impacts fatally flaws the EA.

The Lodge THP is proposed by SPI on the upper reaches of Perazzo Creek. This project would 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 12^th 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 by the Forest Service preparing an EIS.

As the courts have held, merely listing the project name and acreage does not constitute an adequate cumulative effects analysis.  Moreover, most of the projects are not even listed.  The BE and EA, do not consider the site specific effect of the proposed harvest in relation to these private lands projects and in combination with past and future logging on national forest land. . The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to complete an analysis of fragmentation of the affected area that considers landscape level effects as well as the localized, site specific effects of the proposed and adjacent actions and alternatives.

B.        The Assessment Area Is Undersized For the Species Affected

It is critical for a cumulative impacts analysis to address species migration or dispersal into and out of the assessment area.  The size of the assessment area must be large enough to evaluate the effects of project units at the edges of the project boundary on potentially affected wildlife.  The cumulative effects assessment area for the Montez project is 1.5 miles from the project boundary treatment unit boundary (BE page 16). As will be discussed below, the home range sizes and movement patterns of spotted owl, northern goshawk and marten are extensive.  As a result, the cumulative effects of habitat alteration on individuals outside of the assessment boundary but still affected by past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are not considered.

Breeding dispersal [2] distances for spotted owl averaged 4.3 miles and ranged from 0.6 miles to 20 miles.  (Blakesley et al. 2006, p. 71).  The probability of breeding dispersal was found to be “higher for younger owls, single owls, paired owls that lost their mates, owls at lower quality sites, and owls that failed to reproduce in the year preceding dispersal.”   Further, such dispersal “resulted in improved territory quality in 72% of cases.”  Thus, owls that disperse as a result of project induced effects could range many miles from their nest site in an attempt to find improved nesting habitat.   These newly sought territories could be impacted by additional projects outside the Montez analysis area and in turn have a cumulative impact on the subpopulation.  It is likely that logging adjacent to the Montez  project area will exacerbate existing habitat fragmentation.  However, the BE does not include the information that would be necessary to assess this issue.

The Montez cumulative effects analysis also does not take into consideration the home range size for marten and goshawk.  The average marten range in California is 1,500 acres, or approximately 2.3 square miles.  Marten dispersal distances range from 24-60 miles (USDA Forest Service 2001, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Part 4,, p. 22).  Goshawks range over 10 square miles during breeding, and non-breeding goshawk home ranges average over 31 square miles (Ibid., p. 117).   Conclusions about indirect and cumulative impacts or species viability made using an analysis area limited to 1.5 miles from the unit boundaries (BE page 16) underestimates the project’s adverse impacts on the marten or goshawk and the habitat that is potentially affected by the project.

Table 3 lists Forest Service actions (only) that would contribute to a need to adjust AOC allocation. For a comprehensive accounting of all such contributing actions on the Tahoe Forest we refer the District to The disturbance GIS layer" developed by Tim Biddinger at the Tahoe SO. This layer incorporates all recent (last 10-20 years) Forest Service and most PI (last 10 years) citrons, and is likely the most useful measure of habitat fragmentation available for use in assessing the adequacy of AOC allocation the Tahoe Forest.

Table 3.  Summary information for ten timber projects on the Tahoe and Plumas National Forests that individually cover more than 1,000 acres and that have decision documents signed or for which scoping has been initiated since the 2004 Record of Decision of the SNFPA.  (From Britting 2007, Table 3)

Consideration of these projects in the cumulative effects analysis is important for at least two reasons.  First, Areas of Concern (AOCs) for spotted owl have been identified on the Tahoe National Forest (Verner et al. 1992).  Concern for these areas includes known low densities of CSO, fragmented habitat, and impediments to north-south travel for owls.  (Verner et al. 1992, pp. 45, 48).  The timing and scale of habitat degradation proposed in the projects listed in Table 3 could lead to an expansion of existing AOC 2 to the south or AOC 3 to the north, or to the creation of a new AOC.  This potential cumulative effect is not considered in the EA. 

By tiering to the 1999 QLG FEIS and 2004 Framework FEIS, the EA Project planning documents avoid assessing the habitat quality, and activities affecting such habitat quality, outside the assessment area.  However, such avoidance is not supported by these analyses.  In fact, both environmental documents expect that cumulative effects analyses will be conducted at the appropriate scale for each project undertaken.  By its own admission, the analysis in the 2004 Framework is incomplete and uncertain, and, moreover, cites the need for further cumulative impact assessment at the project level.  (USDA Forest Service 2004b, Response to Comments).  Furthermore, the Administrative Study, designed to assess impacts of the QLG Pilot Project, acknowledges the necessity of assessing impacts from forest management at the landscape level.

Landscape fuels treatment strategies are implemented at large spatial scales and will be the dominant management activity affecting CSOs and the forest landscape.  Resulting changes in vegetation structure and composition from treatments may affect [California spotted owls] and their habitat at multiple spatial and temporal scales.  Key uncertainties regarding the effects of landscape-scale fuels treatments strategies that thin large areas of forest on CSO density, population trends, and habitat suitability at the landscape scale and how thinning affects habitat quality at the core area/home range scale. It is necessary that research address management effects on CSOs at the appropriate scales at which management is being conducted.  Proposed landscape treatments may have effects at either, or both, the individual territory or owl site scale as expressed through change in occupancy, diet, use of vegetation patches, survival or reproduction, or at the population level as expressed through change in the density or spatial distribution of territorial breeding pairs at the landscape-scale.  The individual site scale and population level perspectives are complementary in that the population level provides context for interpreting change at the site scale.  Most importantly, both perspectives are required by managers concerned with managing for high habitat quality sites, as well as, well-distributed, viable populations across landscapes while implementing management strategies to deal with large-scale fire and fuels issues.

(USDA Forest Service 2003b.)   The QLG EIS also acknowledges the potential for cumulative impacts from implementation of logging projects under the QLG plan, stating that “[f]urther cumulative effects analysis on wildlife habitat will be conducted at the project level.  (USDA Forest Service 1999b, Appendix AA, pp. 12-13). 

The cumulative effects analysis for spotted owl, marten and northern goshawk should be revised by the Forest Service preparing an EIS to address the effects of projects occurring on the Tahoe National Forest and the intervening private land.

C.             Impacts on water quality and aquatic wildlife habitat

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 California NPS Program’s annual progress report for federal clean water act section 319 program July 2006 through June 2007 prepared November 2007 by State Water Resources Control Board, California Regional Water Quality Control Boards California Coastal Commission listed targeting funding towards impaired waterbodies. Perazzo Meadows was targeted for Acquisition and Restoration of 982 acres of severely degraded yet highly valued ecosystem land inside the Tahoe Nat’l Forest.

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.

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to analyze these impacts.

VII.     RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SCOPING NOTICE INADEQUATE

The Forest Service has an obligation under NEPA to respond to comments both individually and collectively.  40 C.F.R. § 1503.4.  The Forest Service must respond in one or more of the following manners: (1) by modifying alternatives, including the proposed action; (2) by developing and evaluating alternatives not previously considered by the agency; (3) supplement, improve, or modify its analysis; or (4) make factual corrections.  If the agency feels that no further response is necessary, it must "explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the agency's position . . . ."  40 C.F.R. § 1503.4 (a)(1-5). [3]

Here, as described above, and below, the Forest Service took no action in response to Forest Issues Group comments submitted during the administrative process, nor did it  provide adequate explanation as to why such comments did not warrant further analysis or information.  The Forest Service’s failure to provide adequate responses is contrary to NEPA, see Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 349 F.3d at 1166; Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1993); Friends of the Earth v. Hall, 693 F. Supp. 904, 934 (W.D. Wash. 1988).

 In response to the scoping letter, the Forest Issues Group provided specific, environmentally important comments in its comment letter -- detailing site-specific information about the project and asking for mitigation from harmful effects to wildlife or alternative means of effects analysis.  Instead of adopting those measures or identifying superior mitigation measures, the Forest either discounted any need for change from the original proposed action or Forest officials simply ignored the comment.  Below are examples of NEPA violations where the Forest failed to respond to or to apparently even consider legitimate public comments relative to the proposed action.

1. FIG commented in response to scoping dated April 11, 2007 “that the project is in an especially sensitive and ecologically productive area. Ten percent of all the WHR habitat types for the State are represented in a transect from Perazzo Meadow to the Sierra Crest. We see no reason to disturb this habitat. The EA should account for this circumstance, clearly make a case for the action, explain why the “community stability” purpose of the action cannot be implemented in less sensitive and productive stands elsewhere on the District, and describe mitigation in the case that no alternative area is found.”

No response in the EA.

2. FIG commented in response to scoping “that the cumulative impacts from this project, when combined with past disturbance in this area on both private and public lands, will result in un-mitigatable environmental impacts, including but not limited to increased sediment loading of the Perazzo drainage system. More specifically the proposed action has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the work proposed by the Sierraville Ranger District on restoration of Upper Perazzo Creek. In addition, section 35, part of a THP adjacent to the project will add to this potential problem. The proposed Phoenix Project will add to cumulative impacts. The EA must estimate these impacts, and propose alternatives, or appropriate mitigations.”

No response in the EA (see previous section on cumulative impacts).

3. FIG commented in response to scoping that “The EA should explain how the Montez Action will, when combined with the Forest Service Phoenix project, SPI THP # 191 (SIE) and other past and foreseeable future projects in the area will affect the problem of North-South habitat connectivity caused by the checkerboard ownership pattern that characterizes this area. Effects on dependant MIS should be addressed in the EA.”

No response in the EA.

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 an EIS prepared by the Forest Service.

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”.

We submit that these concerns are both relevant and significant. The Forest Service’s dismissal of this issue as insignificant in this EA violates the NEPA. This response does not comply with NEPA direction to take a hard look at potential impacts from this project on cumulative effects issues, wilderness, wild and scenic and wildlife resources.  In sum, the EA failed to fully acknowledge the loss of habitat that will result from this project in combination with other adjacent projects on public and private land.  The EA failed to provide alternatives to reduce that loss, or to provide mitigation measures to protect these resources in the proposed/selected action.  The EA failed to respond to numerous specific points raised by the public concerning impacts to wildlife as well as aquatic and terrestrial habitat loss. 

In these and many other similar situations, the EA authors and Response to Comments collectively failed to note the comment or discuss the merits of the suggested mitigation.  Accordingly, the EA failed to comply with NEPA requirements to consider public input and available information. 

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS to adequately address the concerns the Forest Issues Group raised in response to scoping.

VIII. SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 1

• 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.

• Design of the silvicultural 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 (See “REFERENCES TO UPDATED MEASUREMENT OF SDI AND STAND STRUCTURE” below)  . The EA should have acknowledged the availability of updated modeling for use in determining stand health, and justify the use of outdated methods. An analysis may be rejected by the court if the data used is not the best available, a model was based upon unsupported as- sumptions, the terms used were inadequately defined, and/or the EIS does not adequately explain how a model was applied.  (City of Romulus v. County of Wayne (1975) 392 F.Supp. 578.).

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

• The EA should have explained 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 EA did not 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 a pulpit for advocacy by a proponent agency.

The Forest Service should prepare an EIS that will address and resolve all of these issues.

IX.            CONCLUSION

The Forest Service must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when the proposed action has the potential to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” Significance is determined by considering the context and intensity of the action. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27. Consideration of context requires analyzing the proposed action in the affected region, affected interests, and locality. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a). Consideration of intensity requires analyzing the proposed action in terms of its severity of impact, including but not limited to “unique characteristics of the geographic area”, the “degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial,” “the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects,” and “the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species.” As established above, this project requires preparation of an EIS, at a minimum, because it may cause a significant impact on the environment, certain of its effects are poorly understood, and it threatens to impact threatened wildlife species and proposed wilderness.

In light of the comments submitted on behalf of FIG and other groups, an additional alternative should be developed and analyzed in an EIS.  An appropriate response to FIG comments should be included in an EIS 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 EIS should re-visit this issue, and reveal potential impacts including loss of corridor and other protective options.

The Montez project is proposed in an especially productive and diverse forested area that is currently being considered for wilderness protection by the U.S. Congress. 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, in proposed wilderness, and in eligible Wild and Scenic areas. For the foregoing reasons, the Montez EA and the proposed action fail to comply with the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other federal laws. 

An EIS should be required to comply with NEPA.

We continue to support genuine efforts by the District to develop stand structure by thinning from below and to reduce the risk of fire in Wildland Urban Interface areas.

Thank you for considering our comments.  Please contact Don Rivenes at the contact listed below if you would like to discuss our concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Darca Morgan, Conservation Biologist                    Don Rivenes, Conservation Chair

Sierra Forest Legacy                                              Sierra Foothills Audubon Society

PO Box 668                                                           12826 Newtown Rd

Soulsbyville, CA 95372                                          Nevada City, CA 95959

(209) 532-0929                                                     (530) 477-7502

darca@sierraforestlegacy.org

Stephen Benner M.S.                                             Brent Schoradt

Tahoe Forest Issues Group                         California Wilderness Coalition

Box 191                                                                 1212 Broadway, Suite 1700

Sierraville, CA 96126                                             Oakland, CA 94612

                                                                              bschoradt@calwild.org

Steve Evans, Director                                             Craig Thomas, Director

Friends of the River                                                Sierra Forest Legacy

915-20^th Street                                                       915-20^th Street

Sacramento, CA 95811                                        Sacramento, CA 95811

Barbara Rivenes, Board Chair                                 Pat Gallagher, Director

Forest Issues Group                                               Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

P.O. Box 1334                                                       85 Second Street, Second Floor

Nevada City, CA 95959                                        San Francisco, CA 94105

Susan Britting, Ph. D.

P.O. Box 377

Coloma, CA  95613

(530) 295-8210

britting@earthlink.net

REFERENCES

Blakesley, J. A. and Noon, B.R.  2003.  Response to Demography synopsis for Cal Owl 12-month finding.  Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology.  Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523.

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

Blakesley, J.A., B.R. Noon, and D.R. Anderson. 2005. Site Occupancy, Apparent Survival, and Reproduction of California Spotted Owls in Relation to Forest Stand Characteristics, Journal of Wildlife Management: Vol. 69, No. 4 pp. 1554–1564.

Blakesley, J.A., Anderson, D.R., and Noon, B.R. 2006.  Breeding dispersal in the California spotted owl.  The Condor 108:71-81.

Bond, M. 2003.  Comments on the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.  September 10, 2003.

Bull, E. L., Heater, T. W., and Shepherd, J. F. 2005.  Habitat selection by the American marten in northeastern Oregon.  Northwest Science, Vol. 79(1): 36-42.

Buskirk, S. and Ruggiero, L. 1994. American marten. In: L.F. Ruggiero, et al., tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. 184 pages.

Chatfield, Andrea H.  2005.  Habitat selection by a California spotted owl population:  A landscape scale analysis using resource selection functions.  M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, December 2005.

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of fisher and marten in California.

Unpubl. Document, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 22 pages.

Hargis, C. D. and McCullough, D. R. 1984.  Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park.  J. Wildl. Manage. 48(1): 140-146.

Johannson, W. 2006.  Comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Watdog Project.  October 13, 2006. 

Kucera, T.E.  2004. Comments on the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment final supplemental environmental impact statement.  April 24, 2004.

Noon, B.R.  2004.  Letter to Jack Blackwell.  April 25, 2004.

Omi, P.N., and Martinson, E.J. 2002. Effects of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final report. Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Peery, Z.  2004.  Declaration of Zach Peery, M.S.  April 25, 2004.

Perry, D.A., et al. 2004. Forest structure and fire susceptibility in volcanic landscapes of the eastern High Cascades, Oregon. Conservation Biology 18: 913-926

Potvin, F., Belanger, L., and Lowell, K.  2000.  Marten habitat selection in a clearcut boreal landscape.  Conservation Biology 14:844-857.

Seamans, Mark B. 2005.  Population biology of the California spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada.  Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, October 2005.

Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007.  Plumas Lassen Study Report.  Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign et al. 2004.  Notice of Appeal of the Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.  April 29, 2004. 

Stephens, S. L. 1998.  Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests.  Forest Ecology and Management 105(1998): 21-35.

Stephens, S.L. and Moghaddas, J.J.  2005a. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest.  Forest Ecology and Management. 215:21-36.

Stephens, S.L. and Moghaddas, J.J.  2005b.  Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire behavior and forest conservation: Twenty-five years of experience from Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests.  Biological Conservation 125:369-379.

U.S. General Accounting Office 1999.  Western national forests:  A cohesive strategy is needed to address catastrophic wildfire threats.  GAO/RCED-99-65.  Report to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, April 1999.

USDA Forest Service 1999a.  Biological assessment and evaluation of Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act.  Prepared by Gary W. Rotta, Wildlife Biologist, Plumas National Forest.  August 14, 1999.

USDA Forest Service 1999b.  Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, Final Environmental Impact Statement.  Pacific Southwest Region.  August 1999.

USDA Forest Service 2001.  Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement.  Pacific Southwest Region.  January 2001.

USDA Forest Service 2003.  Fire and Fuels Management, Landscape Dynamics, and Fish and Wildlife Resources:  Study Design for Integrated Research on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests.  August 11, 2003

USDA Forest Service 2004a.  Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.  January 2004.

USDA Forest Service 2004b.  Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.  January 2004.

USDA Forest Service 2005.  Status Report to Congress 2004. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Project-Pacific Southwest Region.  February 2005.

USDA Forest Service 2006a.  Status Report to Congress 2005. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Project-Pacific Southwest Region.  February 2006.

USDA Forest Service 2006b.  Draft – MIS analysis and documentation in project-level NEPA.  R5 Environmental Coordination.  Pacific Southwest Region.  May 23, 2006.

USDA Forest Service 2007.  Status Report to Congress 2006. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Project-Pacific Southwest Region.  Draft.  February 2007.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a.  Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis).  Federal Register 68(31): 7580-7608 (February 14, 2003).

USDI Fish Wildlife Service 2003b.  Comments on the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.  Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.  September 12, 2003.

van Wagtendonk, J. W. 1996.  Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments.  Pages 1155-1166 In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:  Final report to Congress, Volume II, chapter 41.  University of California, Davis.

Verner, J. 2003.  Letter to Regional Forester Jack Blackwell.  August 31, 2003.

Verner, J., McKelvey, K.S., Noon, B.R., Gutierrez, R.J., Gould, G.I., and Beck, T.W. 1992.  The California spotted owl:  A technical assessment of its current status.  USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133.

Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Mayer, K. E., and White, M. 1988-1990.  California’s wildlife.  Volumes I, II, and III.  Department of Fish and Game, State of California.

Zielinski, W. J, Barrett, R. H., and Truex, R. L. 1997.  Southern Sierra Nevada fisher and marten study: Progress report IV.  USDA Forest Service, Region 5.  

Zielinski, W.J. 2004.  The status and conservation of mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada.  In Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium.  USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193.  December 2004.

Zielinski, W. J., Truex, R.L., Schlexer1, F.V., Campbell, L.A., and Carroll, C. 2005a.  Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407REFERENCES

Zielinski, W., Werren, J. and Kirk, T. 2005b.  Selecting Candidate Areas for Fisher (Martes pennanti) Conservation that Minimize Potential Effects on Martens (M. americana).  Unpublished report.  USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA 95521.  June 27, 2005.

REFERENCES TO UPDATED MEASUREMENT OF SDI AND STAND STRUCTURE

Bechtold, W.A., Patterson, P.L. (Eds.), 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory

and Analysis National Sample Design and Estimation Procedures. SRS-80..

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Asheville, NC.

Keane, R.E., Rollins, M.G., McNicoll, C.H., Parsons, R.A., 2002. Integrating

ecosystem sampling, gradient modeling, remote sensing, and ecosystem

simulation to create spatially explicit landscape inventories. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMRS-92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service/Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Woodall, C.W., Fiedler, C.E. 2003. Stand density index in uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. Can. J. For. Res. 33:96-100.

Woodall, C.W., Miles, P.D., Vissage, J.S. 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. Forest Ecology and Management. 216 (2005) 367-377.

Shepperd, W.D., 2007. SDI-Flex: A new technique of allocating growing stock for developing treatment prescriptions in uneven-aged forest stands. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. 2007.

Franklin, J.F., Spies, T.A., Van Pelt, R., Carey, A.B., Thornburgh, D.A., Berg, D.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Harmon, M.E., Keeton, W.E., Shaw, D.C., Bible, K., and Chen, J. 2002. Disturbance and structural development of natural forest ecosystems wityh silvilcultural implications using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 155, Issues 1-3, 1 January 2002, Pages 399-423.

Zeide, B. 2004. How to measure stand density. Springer-Verlag. Published online.