P.O. Box 903

Blairsden, CA 96103-0903

December 13, 1999

Bradley Powell, Regional Forester (Acting)

USDA Forest Service, PWS Region 5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

David Peters, Project Manager

USDA Forest Service

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project

P.O. Box 11500

Quincy, CA 95971

Following are Plumas Forest Project’s comments on the "correct version" of Appendix J of the HFQLG EIS. The correct version of Appendix J was posted to some interested parties on November 22, 1999, more than a month after the close of the appeal period for the HFQLG Record of Decision (ROD) and "Final" EIS.

On or about November 24, 1999, PFP for the first time received a copy of the "correct version" of Appendix J, more than a month after the close of the appeal period for the HFQLG ROD and EIS. The appendix was included in a correspondence from the Forest Service notifying us of the acceptance of certain intervenors in our October 18, 1999, appeal. There is no indication that PFP would have ever received a copy of the correct version of Appendix J had it not been for the requirement that we be notified of intervenors in our appeal. Consequently, it appears that except for intervenors and certain appellants, many interested parties may still be unaware that a new, correct version of the appendix exists.

Considering the foregoing, it is clear that the Forest Service has violated 36 CFR Part 217 and NEPA by failing to provide interested parties complete and necessary information with which to evaluate the EIS in its entirety and during the statutory appeal period. In this instance, the Forest Service made substantive changes from the original Appendix J found in the "Final EIS" that was released to the public along with the ROD on August 20, 1999. Consequently, PFP hereby requests that the Forest Service abide by 36 CFR Part 217, and provide all original recipients of the ROD and EIS with the correct version of Appendix J and then reopen the 45-day appeal administrative appeal period. Only in this way can interested parties evaluate and potentially challenge what is entirely new information not contained in the original EIS.

The failure of the Forest Service to provide the "correct version" of Appendix J within the statutory appeal period has compromised PFP’s right to challenge conclusions made within the document. PFP has some serious objections to Table 1, DFPZ Design Criteria that appears on page 6, and the narrative description of the DFPZ cutting prescription that appears on page 5, both of which deviate significantly from the "original Appendix J" that appeared in the Final EIS. Neither the table nor the narrative description appeared in the "original Appendix J" or in the Draft EIS, but then suddenly appeared after the end of the HFQLG appeal period.

PFP provided extensive comments in response to the Notice of Intent for the HFQLG EIS and advocated strongly that the Forest Service adopt what we term the "Alternative Cutting Prescription" (ACP) on all treatment areas, including DFPZs. The ACP calls for a focus on the removal of fire ladders, and the retention of dominant and co-dominant trees emphasizing the natural "clumping" found in undisturbed, fire-resistant forests. Between the NOI and release of the Draft EIS, PFP met on several occasions with HFQLG EIS team members and received what we deemed to be positive feedback on the ACP.

We were pleased to note that when the HFQLG Draft EIS was released, Appendix J reflected much in the way of our recommendations to adopt the ACP. The appendix stated that spacing of crowns in residual stands "should be achieved by leaving clumps of the largest fire-tolerant trees with a network of intermingled openings between the clumps, not uniform spacing between the residual trees. In order to achieve the most fire-resilient condition, thinning of the smallest diameter trees should be the primary objective" (page J – 2 of 7).

While PFP provided extensive comments on how the foregoing Draft Appendix J language could be improved, the Final EIS Appendix J (the "original Appendix J") appeared without any change from the draft. We were disappointed that more of our NOI-stage and Draft EIS-stage concerns regarding cutting prescriptions and fire resistance were not incorporated into the original Final EIS Appendix J, yet we felt that it nevertheless captured the essence of PFP’s Alternative Cutting Prescription. Consequently, our appeal of the HFQLG ROD and EIS did not include matters related to specific cutting prescriptions as outline in the original Appendix J.

More than a month after the end of the HFQLG ROD and EIS appeal period, PFP received what the Forest Service has issued as the "correct version" of Appendix J. This new Appendix J contains Table 1 that fails entirely to reflect the thrust of our ACP, which is to leave within DFPZs "clumps of the largest fire-tolerant trees with a network of intermingled openings between the clumps, not uniform spacing between the residual trees. In order to achieve the most fire-resilient condition, thinning of the smallest diameter trees should be the primary objective," (as noted in the original Appendix J). Similarly, the brief narrative in the new Appendix J fails to adequately describe in DFPZs the vitally important difference between uniform tree spacing and spacing between clumps of trees, as was noted in the original Appendix J.

The net result is that PFP is terribly dissatisfied with the analysis contained in the new Appendix J, yet is apparently prohibited at this time from appealing under 36 CFR Part 217.

Distribute the new Appendix J and X to all original recipients of the HFQLG ROD and EIS, and then reopen the 45-day appeal period pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217.

Revise the "new" Appendix J to include the essence of PFP’s Alternative Cutting Prescription. The revision should include in any and all cutting prescription tables or narratives the following language contained in the "original" Appendix J,

Respectfully submitted this 13^th day of December, 1999,

Neil G. Dion John Preschutti