October 18, 1999

Plumas Forest Project (PFP)

A Project of the Tides Foundation

P.O. Box 903

Blairsden, CA 96103-0903

Tel.: 530-

Bradley Powell, Regional Forester (Acting)

USDA Forest Service, PWS Region 5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217, this is to appeal the Decision Notice and Environmental Impact Statement on the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement (HFQLG FEIS) that was issued by Kathryn J. Silverman, Acting Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest; Mark J. Madrid, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest; and Steven T. Eubanks, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest and signed on August 20, 1999.

The HFQLG FEIS fails to provide for a reasonable range of viable alternatives from which to make a reasoned choice. The HFQLG FEIS created as "straw" alternatives all action alternatives except Alternative 2, the chosen alternative. The HFQLG FEIS process failed to engage the public in meaningful discourse as to discussion and analysis of viable action alternatives. The HFQLG FEIS fails to provide adequate analysis of the effects of timber cutting operations on unsuitable westside owl habitat. The HFQLG FEIS fails to provide high quality analysis of the effects of proposed timber cutting on eastside forest types. The HFQLG FEIS fails to adequately analyze whether certain proposed timber cutting practices are an appropriate management tool.

The Forest Service has created 4 action alternatives and one "no-action" alternative. According to the Record of Decision (ROD), among the four action alternatives only Alternative 2 was formulated to meet all objectives of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (Act). The remaining three action alternatives were specifically formulated to meet only some objectives of the Act, all three of them implementing either lesser numbers of treatment acres, alternative treatment on equivalent acres, or a combination of both.

The Forest Service was aware from the beginning of the EIS process that they were mandated by Congress to implement a plan that met the requirements of the Act. That is, they were aware that the Act required the establishment of some 40,000 to 60,000 acres of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) and some 8,700 acres of group selection treatments each year. Nevertheless, the Forest Service proceeded to create and analyze three action alternatives that would not treat those numbers of acres (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) and only one action alternative that would treat those acres (Alternative 2).

This clearly violates NEPA by failing to provide for a reasonable range of viable alternatives that would implement the direction provided by Congress. Indeed, the Record of Decision (ROD) itself clearly delineates this issue. Under "Reasons for Our Decision" on page 11, the ROD states, "Alternative 2 was selected because is will implement the direction provided by Congress in the Act. Alternative 2, therefore, best meets the purpose and need for action." In contrast, under each of the remaining action alternatives, the ROD states that the alternative "was not selected because it fails to implement the resource management direction provided by Congress."(Italics added) Alternative 3 was not selected specifically because it annually treats only 14,000 to 20,000 acres of DFPZs and 26,000 to 40,000 acres of "area fuel treatments, which are not proposed in the Act." Alternative 4 was not chosen because it annually treats only 25, 000 acres of DFPZs and area fuel treatments. And, Alternative 5 was not chosen because it "proposed neither a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, nor significant amounts of group selection treatments."

A reasonable range of alternatives, in this case, would be one in which the acres treated in DFPZs and groups selections would remain a constant among alternatives, as required by the Act, but uses different methods to achieve objectives. For example, the Forest Service could (should) have designed four action alternatives which analyzed the effects of establishing DFPZs that utilize a wide range of treatments, from underburning only to the thinning of trees to the maximum diameter allowed by the CASPO Interim Guidelines. Similarly, the Forest Service could (should) have designed four action alternatives which analyzed the effects of a wide range of group selection cutting treatments, from that which strictly adheres to the natural range of vegetative variability, to the maximum upper diameter cut limit allowed by the CASPO Interim Guidelines.

By failing to create action alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need of the project, in this case as determined by the Act, the Forest Service has set up straw action alternatives aforethought. There is only one action alternative that the Forest Service believes meets the purpose and need (as defined by the Act), and that is Alternative 2. Consequently, the Forest Service clearly violated the spirit, intent and letter of NEPA when it established a series of "straw" action alternatives knowing in advance that only one would meet specific project objectives, that being Alternative 2.

At the Draft EIS (DEIS) stage of analysis, the Forest Service stated that there were two "preferred alternatives," Alternatives 2 and 4. Both alternatives remained largely unchanged from the DEIS to the FEIS. At that time, is was clearly the opinion of the Forest Service that either Alternative 2 or Alternative 4 were likely to be chosen in the FEIS as the alternative to be implemented.

In the cover letter to the DEIS, Project Manager Dave Peters states that Alternative 2 would "implement the pilot project," and that Alternative 4 "is also based on the goals and strategies described in the act and its legislative history, though it proposes a lower treatment acreage than Alternative 2, provides additional acreage of late successional forest, emphasizes area fuel treatments, and reduces impact on suitable habitat of the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher, both Forest Service sensitive species."

Also in that letter, Peters solicits public responses to the DEIS with the question, "Do the alternatives reflect the purpose and need outlined in Chapter 1?" When reviewing the DEIS Chapter 1 section titled "1.5 Purpose and Need," there is no indication that there are requirements to meet specific acres of treatments under specific treatment strategies. Indeed, there is only general reference to the kinds of treatment strategies to be undertaken to meet the project's purpose and need.

The only reasonable conclusion to take from the cover letter and the definition under Section 1.5, Purpose and Need, is that specific acreage targets implementing specific cutting strategies are not required to meet the objectives of the Act. This conclusion is further supported by the fact the Forest Service specifically cites Alternative 4 as one of its two preferred alternatives in the DEIS. The public, then, could reasonably assume that treatment strategies were not directly tied to specific numbers of acres, but rather to general objectives. Further, the public could also reasonably assume that all the action alternatives met the minimum requirements defined under purpose and need outlined in DEIS Chapter 1; that all the action alternatives represented viable options.

The consequence of all this becomes painfully apparent in the FEIS ROD, where, contrary to the direction of the analysis itself, the Forest Service specifically did not select Alternatives 3 through 5 due to their failing to meet certain specific acreage/treatments defined in the Act. The ROD finding, then, begs the questions: 1.) what was the purpose of creating alternatives that would necessarily fail the test of meeting the Act’s requirement, and 2.) why was the public misled into reasonably assuming that treatment strategies were not directly tied to specific numbers of acres?

Our conclusion is that the Forest Service failed, 1.) to create a range of reasonable, viable action alternatives that meet the requirements of the Act, and 2.) to alert the public that only one action alternative could possibly be chosen in the FEIS. Consequently, there was no reasonable opportunity for the public to understand that the Forest Service itself was failing to meet its NEPA obligations to provide a range of viable alternatives, thus rendering the entire analysis and public participation process meaningless.

The HFQLG FEIS fails to provide credible, science-based analysis of the effects of the Mitigation measure described in the ROD (page 6, Mitigation). The Mitigation specifically excludes from westside suitable owl habitat the application of DFPZs, group selection and individual tree selection cutting prescriptions. Consequently, all timber cutting treatments within westside forests will necessarily be concentrated in unsuitable owl habitat.

There is no adequate analysis in the FEIS of the environmental consequences of undertaking the proposed cutting prescriptions in those areas. Rather, it is apparent from the FEIS that analysis is based largely on the assumption that throughout the westside forests, the creation of DFPZs, groups selection and individual tree cutting would occur mostly or substantially within suitable spotted owl habitat.

The HFQLG FEIS fails to provide credible, science-based analysis of the effects of the application of DFPZs, group selection and individual tree selection cutting prescriptions on east-side forest types, as required by NEPA. Further, the FEIS fails to employ the latest, best science in the analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed cutting prescriptions on east-side forests.

Specific to the latest, best science, the FEIS fails to adequately take into account the conclusions found in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report regarding east side forests. For example, SNEP clearly notes that east-side pine forests are one of two forest types "most deficient in high quality late successional forests relative to their potential" (page 56, Addendum). And that "The best way to ensure that late successional forest conditions are available and maintained in the Sierra Nevada is to have this goal stated and explicitly addressed as part of any management strategy," (Vol. I, page 111).

SNEP further notes that, "the current level of high-quality LS/OG forests is far below levels that existed in the presettlement landscape and as well as the natural range of variability. Hence, restoration of LS/OG conditions in structurally simplified stands is likely to be an important part of achieving desired amounts of LS/OG forests...particularly where levels are currently very low, such as in much of the Eastside Pine type," (Vol. II, page 652).

In contrast to SNEP, the FEIS ignores the significant lack of high quality LS/OG eastside forest types and in fact targets for timber cutting precisely those lower ranking LS/OG forest types that represent the only short- and long-term recruitment for LS/OG 4s and 5s. For example, as proposed in the FEIS, DFPZs will generally convert eastside pine LS/OG 3 forests into "structurally simplified" stands. This is in direct contrast to the finding and recommendations found in SNEP. Similarly, the FEIS specifically targets as "priorities" for group selection cutting strata size 3 and 4 stands (roughly equivalent to LS/OG 3 stands) (App E-11). Again, such a cutting prescription would tend to set back the short- and long-term recruitment of LS/OG 4 and 5 stands.

Issues of adverse impacts to the recruitment of LS/OG or late successional forests is also pointed out within the FEIS, but apparently ignored in the decision to proceed with Alternative 2. On page 3-59, for example, it is noted that "defensible fuel profile zone desired conditions such as open and discontinuous crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, and the forest litter standards as proposed...are below the historic range of variability for these attributes...thus the creation of defensible fuel profile zones is likely to impact mid-seral and late-seral attributes in all forest types." Also, on page 3-58, it is noted that, "Due to the existing condition of the eastside forest, it is probable that stands having mid-seral size class and density attributes...would be adversely impacted by group selection because these areas would be targeted for treatment."

It is clear, then, that both SNEP and the FEIS each point to the serious, negative environmental consequences of targeting mid-seral stage eastside forest types for treatment. Yet Alternative 2 proposes to move forward without credible, science-based analysis of effects on eastside forests.

Desirability of Group Selection (NEPA 1500.1(b)(d), 1502.16, 1502.24)

The HFQLG FEIS fails to adequately explore and analyze whether the group selection cutting prescription called for in the Act is an appropriate, credible, science-based management tool. PFP raised this issue in its comments on the DEIS and therein quoted the following excerpt in a letter from Dennis Clemens (Silviculturalist, Mt. Hough District, PNF), to Tom Simonson (Silviculturalist, HFQLG EIS Team) (see letter attached):

Nowhere in the FEIS is there any indication that this matter was analyzed in any credible manner, as required by NEPA. Indeed, Mr. Clemens’ letter was written at a relatively early stage of the analysis process and raised "significant environmental issues deserving of study," (NEPA 1501.1(d).

Plumas Forest Project hereby requests that the Regional Forester remand the HFQLG FEIS back to the Forest Supervisors and order them to:

1. Reopen the EIS process to the scoping stage in order to allow the public and decision makers to evaluate and establish viable action alternatives that meet the purpose and need as defined by the Act. Reopening the analysis process in this way will allow for the creation of a reasonable range of viable alternatives from which a reasoned choice can be made. It will also eliminate straw alternatives from the final EIS.

 

2. Reopen the EIS process to the scoping stage in order to allow the public and decision makers to meaningfully participate in the discussion of whether specific timber cutting practices or specific acreages are an appropriate tool in management activities.

 

3. Reopen the EIS process to the scoping stage in order to allow the public and decision makers the opportunity to review the environmental consequences of conducting timber cutting operations on mid-seral stage eastside forests.

Respectfully submitted this 18^th day of October, 1999.

John Preschutti Neil G. Dion