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.