June 26, 2000

Plumas Forest Project (PFP)

P.O. Box 903

Blairsden, CA 96103-0903

Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

1017 University Ave., #206

Berkeley, CA 94710

Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign (SNFPC)

6221 Shoo Fly Road

Kelsey, CA 95776

Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, PSW Region 5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, this is to appeal the Decision Notice(s) and Environmental Assessment(s) on the Horton II Fire Salvage and Recovery Project(s) that was issued by Plumas National Forest District Ranger Kathryn Axton and signed on May 3, 2000. Public notice appeared on May 10, 2000. The Horton II Project(s) is located on the Beckwourth Ranger District.

The District Ranger has issued two separate Decision Notices (DNs) and Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) to cover two aspects of one project. The Ranger separated the decision to salvage dead and dying timber from the decision to conduct fire recovery efforts, "in order to make it clear that salvage efforts may occur separately from recovery efforts" (Horton Salvage DN). The Ranger made the determination to separate the decision only at the "final" EA stage and concluded that "contour felling, site prep and reforestation" was covered under the Horton II Fire Recovery DN. Separating the decisions violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the following ways:

1.) NEPA at 1500.1(b) and 1501.7, and other areas, and NFMA at 219.6, require that information be available to the public prior to a decision being made and there be an early and open public scoping and participation process whereby stakeholders have an opportunity to provide meaningful input. In this case it was never represented that the fire salvage and fire recovery portions of the Horton II project would potentially be undertaken at different times. Had the Ranger noted early in the planning process, or even at the "draft" EA stage, that the Horton II project would be carried out as two distinct projects potentially at two different times, Appellants would have raised objections. For example, Appellants would have raised issues related to entering the devastated project area with personnel and equipment twice rather than with one entry. Also, Appellants would have raised concerns about assuring that the "recovery" portions of the project would in fact be carried out; that funding is earmarked.

Further, Appellants would have insisted that the specialists' reports analyze the negative impacts associated with entering the project area twice and the potential negative impacts of failing to carry out the recovery project. Such analyses would evaluate, for example, to what extent salvage efforts should be undertaken, if at all.

2.) NEPA at 1500.1(b) requires that analyses be of high quality and accurate. In this case, the specialists' reports, and indeed all the analysis found throughout the planning documents (including the EA itself), never analyze whether or to what extent having the Horton II project carried out in two distinct stages may result in negative environmental impacts. Indeed, all analyses were conducted with the understanding that the entirety of the Horton II project would be undertaken as one cohesive project. For example, the Hydrologic Input notes that, "Woody material would be felled to provide soil cover and trap sediments originating upslope. This technique is a common tool used in burn area rehabilitation work to reduce soil erosion and trap sediments before they reach the stream system." Also, the hydro report notes that, "soil protection measures (pole felling) would reduce ERA values by 11 percent and 4 percent, respectively, over the "No Action" Alternative." Further, had the salvage portion of the project been analyzed under a separate EA, all action alternatives would result in the same negative impacts associated with the current "No Action" alternative. That is, a salvage only project would not have the benefits associated with the restoration portions of the Horton II project.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests the Regional Forester to: reverse the two Decision Notices and FONSIs and require that the District Ranger issue one DN and FONSI covering all aspects of the Horton II Fire Salvage and Recovery Project; to require the District Ranger to assure that all aspects of the Project be undertaken as one project, as analyzed and presented in the EA and supporting specialist reports; to require that the appeal period be opened again at the time the new DN and FONSI is issued; and that should the District Ranger choose to undertake two separate EAs to cover the salvage and recovery portions of the Horton II project, that the Ranger require that all specialist reports and other analysis consider whether and to what extent salvage operations should be undertaken if recovery efforts are not implemented, as well as the impacts of two entries into the project area conducted at different times.

As noted in the DNs of the Horton II project, SAT guidelines for RHCA management must be applied to the analysis for the project. Specifically, SAT standard TM-2 requires that "Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic eruptions, severe winds, or insect or disease infestation damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow unscheduled timber harvest (salvage and fuelwood cutting) to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Remove trees only when site-specific analysis by an interdisciplinary team determines that present and future woody debris needs are met and other Riparian Management Objectives are not adversely affected." (Emphasis added)

In this case, there is no indication that an interdisciplinary team (ID Team) made such a determination in regards to proposed timber cutting and restoration activities proposed in the Horton II project. While individual team members provided input in the various specialist reports, there is no indication that the ID Team as a whole evaluated and analyzed whether or to what extent timber cutting would "attain" Riparian Management Objectives (RMO), nor is there any indication that the ID Team as a whole evaluated and analyzed to what extent timber cutting would not adversely affect RMOs.

In contrast, it appears that the District Ranger, not the ID Team, unilaterally determined that entering RHCAs for salvage logging was the appropriate course of action, thereby violating SAT TM-2 guidelines.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require that the Ranger convene the ID Team so that the Team can determine as a decision-making body whether and to what extent timber cutting should be allowed in the RHCAs, as required by SAT TM-2 guidelines. Any subsequent DN and FONSI should be subject to the standard appeal procedures under 36 CFR.

Note: Appendix F (enclosed) is a series of photographs (Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5) presented to support Appellants' concerns noted under this appeal point.

As noted above, SAT TM-2 guidelines require that an ID Team analyze whether and to what extent entering RHCAs for timber cutting should be allowed in a salvage operation. In the case of Horton II, the substantial weight of analyses indicates that salvage logging in RHCAs should not occur. This is in contrast to the DN wherein the Ranger states, "By reducing large woody debris, the salvage alternatives may slow the recovery of the biological components of the RHCAs (EA at 20-22). However, by taking no salvage action, the physical components (channel stability) of the RHCAs may be at greater risk (EA at 18-19). Because the physical components of the environment typically take longer to recover than the biological components, I have decided to emphasize the recovery of the physical component."

The basis for the Ranger's determination is found in the Hydrologic Report wherein the District Hydrologist states, "...debris frequently maintains the stability of the channel, and provides excellent habitat for aquatic life in perennial channels. However, too much debris in given locations can destabilize sections of channels and accelerate lateral cutting, especially in degraded channels." While the Hydro input notes the possibility of accelerated cutting, it also notes that, "however, this should not be considered as a critical problem," (Alternative 1 and 4 RMOs analysis)(emphasis added). Additionally, the Botany Report states, "Alt. 4 may provide for a LWD loading in some stream channels that may cause bank scouring and widening, potentially increasing habitat for riparian vegetative communities" (emphasis added).

The Botany Report also notes that, "The threshold for 'adverse vs. no adverse effect' on RMOs 5-9 as dictated by TM-2 (Appendix l-12) in the case of fire salvage harvest and endlining in the RHCAs is not definitively know at this time," and that, "From a plant recovery, and biodiversity viewpoint, it is estimated that implementation of Alternative 3 may not be likely to meet the intent of RHCAs, specifically Riparian Management Objectives 5-9..." (emphasis added).

In contrast, the Botany analysis of Alternative 4 (which leaves the bulk of large woody debris (LWD) within RHCAs) states, "In terms of vegetative and biodiversity recovery of RHCAs...Alternative 4 provides for the largest retention of LWD for the recovery period of 80-100 years. The retention of the current existing material may have the greatest benefit during the recover period..." and that "This material will have beneficial effects for at least 5 decades and perhaps as long as 10 decades." The Botany report concludes, "it is estimated that Alt. 4, overall, is least likely to have the chance of adverse impact...to Riparian Management Objects 5-9, of the action alternatives."

In its analysis of Alternative 4 RMOs, the Hydro input states that, "This alternative maintains all large woody debris greater than 20 inches DBH...felling trees along the contour...should promote more rapid decomposition of these snags, improving the availability of nutrients to the riparian [area] and, in turn, insuring more rapid recruitment of future LWD."

Further, the Wildlife Species and Habitat portion of the EA, at 23, states, "Snags and logs, particularly large ones, are very important to the long-term structure, habitat diversity and productivity of regenerating riparian areas. Alternative 1 [no-action] would retain the most large snags and logs, thereby maintaining the highest riparian habitat values." Also, at EA 24 it states, "Of the action alternatives, alternative 4 best maintains long-term habitat value for riparian dependent species and forest carnivores because it should leave the most, and largest, snags within RHCAs." In contrast, the same input notes that Alternative 2 would "decrease long-term (10 to 100 years) habitat values within RHCAs for amphibians and forest carnivores compared to the no action alternative," and that "Alternative 3 reduces long-term habitat value for riparian dependent species and forest carnivores compared to all other alternatives because it harvests the most snags in RHCAs."

It is clear from the record that the Ranger's determination to proceed with extensive salvage logging within RHCAs substantially violates the RMOs and ignores the expert advice of District scientists. Therefore, the DN is arbitrary and capricious by proposing an action that runs counter to evidence in the record, and consequently violates NEPA and NFMA.

Relief Requested: Notwithstanding the appeal Relief under B above, Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the District Ranger's decisions and require that any Decision on the Horton II project be supported by evidence in the record. Any such new decision should be subject to the standard appeals procedures under 36 CFR.

The Horton II Fire project(s) has a large component of watershed restoration activity associated with it. Project objective 3 states, "...restore watershed condition through reforestation of under-stocked areas, maintenance of roadways, and contour felling of dead trees in areas of sensitive soils and Riparian Habitat Conservation areas." Because of this restoration component, the SAT guidelines regarding watershed and habitat restoration must be followed. Of particular importance is guideline WR-1 which states:

The Level I analysis should be site-specific and should determine, among other things, whether or not the planned restoration is being initiated in a "critical area." If restoration is being initiated in a "critical area," then a Level II analysis is required. None of this has been determined for the Horton II Project.

Additionally, and notwithstanding the HF-QLG FEIS ROD and the Regional response to the appeals of those documents, the Level I watershed analysis done for the HF-QLG FEIS at the inappropriately scaled programmatic stage is inadequate for the Horton II project. As part and parcel of this appeal, Appellants are submitting, as Appendix A and Appendix B respectively, the watershed analysis portion of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign appeal of the HF-QLG FEIS and recent Plumas Forest Project (PFP) scoping comments regarding watershed analysis on the Red Clover project.

Our main point (more fully expressed in Appendix B, PFP Red Clover scoping comments) is that the amount of work entailed in the watershed analysis done for the HF-QLG FEIS is wholly incommensurate with the amount of work required of a SAT Level I watershed analysis set forth in the SAT guidelines. This point was not addressed in the Region's response to the HF_QLG FEIS appeals, therefore it needs to be addressed at the Horton II project level.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to prepare site-specific SAT Level I watershed analysis.

From the earliest stages of project planning, PFP's main concern has been the retention of snags, and the retention/recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). PFP provided comment in this regard at three different stages, and they are attached as part and parcel of this appeal as Appendices C, D and E. PFP's primary concern is that sufficient snags and LWD is not being retained to meet wildlife and other general ecological needs. As a result of PFP's comments and concerns, this issue is analyzed in the EA. Subsequently, the EA clearly shows that snag retention and LWD levels proposed in Alternative 2 would be insufficient based on current scientific standards and would therefore be environmentally damaging. Alternative 3 proves to be even worse in this regard.

Amazingly, in response to this issue and the damaging environmental effects displayed in the EA, the Ranger chose to move away from the already deficient snag retention and LWD levels of the original proposed action alternative (Alt. 2) and toward an alternative that removes even more snags and further reduces the short- and long-term potential for LWD (Alt. 3).

In the Response to Public Comments, the Ranger responds to PFP's DEA comments that raised this very issue. The Ranger states, "The effects report does not show the preferred alternative as being environmentally damaging. The effects report displays the effects of each alternative. Each alternative is within all laws and regulations. Therefore the preferred alternative is reasonable and is a viable alternative." The Ranger's contention that the effects report does not show the preferred alternative as environmentally damaging is contrary to fact.

The "effects report" section of the EA addresses the LWD issue under two sub headings, "Vegetation and Biodiversity Recovery" and "Wildlife Species and Habitat." In the first instance, two standards for LWD retention, based on current Forest Service direction and science, are set forth. The first standard of 10 tons per acre of LWD retention is derived from Appendix J, (Fire and Fuels) of the HF-QLG FEIS. Regarding the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 related to this standard, the effects report states, "If 10 tons per acre of the largest logs were to be used as a management objective, the average acre would be deficient by half" (emphasis added).

The second standard under "Vegetation and Biodiversity Recovery" is based on a natural range of variability (NRV) model developed by Harrod, et al (PNW GTR 428, 1998 p.8). Environmental impacts with regards to this standard are expressed in the effects report as follows: "When using the second reference, the NRV recruitment model for these forest types, most acres across the upland sites would have far less woody debris remaining than would be predicted for a five decade period" (emphasis added). In addition, with regard to the DFPZ prescription applied to Alternative 2, the following is stated, "If all 'larger' snags are removed, leaving three, these stands would be exceptionally deficient in 'larger' woody debris compared to both the Appendix J allowable quantity and to the NRV model examples" (emphasis added). The analysis further shows that Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, to be even further deficient than Alternative 2 where it states, "Using the same calculations shown in Alternative 2, it is apparent that less LWD would be retained in General Areas when compared with Alternative 2."

The analysis included under the second subheading, "Wildlife Species and Habitat" of the effects report regarding LWD retention in DFPZs and General Areas does not support Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, or Alternative 3, the preferred alternative. The negative effects of Alternative 2 presented in this analysis is captured in the final few sentences as follows: "This alternative reduces habitat suitability compared to the no action alternative by reducing the density of snags below that used by cavity nesters and eliminating snags in the middle size classes. Woodpeckers and small mammals that use LWD are prey for sensitive species such as goshawks and forest carnivores. Reducing habitat suitability for woodpeckers would reduce foraging habitat value for predators as well."

The analysis considers Alternative 3 more environmentally damaging than Alternative 2 because, "Alternative 3 reduces habitat suitability for cavity nesting species and their predators more than any other alternative because it would remove the greatest number of large snags and total snags over the largest area." Further, "Alternative 3 reduces long term habitat value for forest carnivores compared to all other alternatives because fewer snags would result in fewer logs, which would provide desired structural attributes, into the future."

Both of the analyses outlined above point to Alternative 1 (no action) as the best for LWD and associated wildlife and general ecological needs. However, of the action alternatives, Alternative 4, while not wholly benign, is rated as far better for LWD than Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. This conclusion is summed up in "Vegetation and Biodiversity Recovery" section thusly: "Of the action alternatives, it is estimated that Alternative 4 would have the least impact on large woody debris retention across the burned landscape." Similarly, the "Wildlife Species and Habitat" section states, "This alternative maintains habitat suitability better than alternatives 2 and 3 by leaving a higher number of large snags (5/acre compared to 3/acre in alternative 3) and harvesting fewer acres (456 acres in alternative 4 compared to 1507 acres in alternative 3 and 1630 acres in alternative 2). This would retain long-term habitat suitability in the regenerating stands."

The information presented above clearly shows that the "effects report" displays severe ecological deficiencies in Alternative 2 and 3 and that those two alternatives are environmentally damaging with regard to LWD. Therefore, the Ranger's assertion that "The effects report does not show the preferred alternative as being environmentally damaging" is without merit. It also shows that the Ranger was presented with Alternative 4 which was far less "environmentally damaging" yet still largely met the project purpose and need. In light of all this, the Ranger's decision to choose a modified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative was arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to consider relevant factors, and made a clear error of judgement, and thus violates NEPA standards.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require that the Ranger consider all relevant factors affecting the decisions to be made and make a decision based on the record. At such time a new DN and FONSI should be issued and the appeal procedures started anew.

F.) Dotta Creek RHCA

Note: Appendix F (enclosed) is a series of photographs (Sections 1, 2 4 and 5) presented to support Appellants' concerns noted under this appeal point.

Dotta Creek, and its branches which run through units 6 and 7, is a "perennial stream without fish," not an "intermittent stream" as it is identified in the EA. Because of generally difficult access conditions, Appellants were not able to fully assure themselves of this point until after the close of the EA comment period.

Late last summer and early fall, after the fire and before the first rains, water flowed in certain reaches of Dotta Creek and was found in pools along other reaches. This condition does not fit Appellants' interpretation of an intermittent stream, that is, one that may flow regularly in three seasons, but is completely absent during the summer months. Regardless of possible nuances of interpretation, given the extremely dry nature of the surrounding rocky eastside landscape and the importance of flowing and standing water to wildlife in such a landscape, the benefit of the doubt should be given to identifying Dotta Creek as a perennial stream without fish. With regard to this point, please note the photographic evidence presented in Appendix F.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby request that the Regional Forester reverse the Ranger's decisions and require that EA analyses be completed to reflect that Dotta Creek is a perennial stream and not an intermittent one. Subsequently, a new DN and FONSI should be issued and the appeal procedures started anew.

G.) Debris Flow Analysis

The EA and Hydrologic Report cite concerns over the potential for debris flow causing substantial damage to fisheries. The Hydro Report states that Alternative 1 (no-action) and Alternative 4 pose a danger of large debris flows in Watershed Four as a result of not removing snags adjacent to water courses. The report states, "an over-abundance of woody material could intensify damage to the stream channel as large woody material adds substantial bulk as the flow progresses downstream." There is no analysis, however, that shows to what extent removal of snags will substantially reduce or prevent the risk of such a debris flow. There is not indication, for example, that removing a certain number of snags or a certain volume of LWD adjacent to water courses would in fact reduce or eliminate the risk of a damaging debris flow. The EA violates NEPA in this regard by failing to provide credible, science-based analysis, and instead relying on conjecture.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require that the District complete a hydrologic report that adequately analyzes the potential for such damaging debris flows under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4. Such an analysis should be based on the latest credible science. A new DN and FONSI should then be issues and the appeal period started anew.

The Fire Salvage FONSI at DN page 5, #4, states:

This statement is in error. While there may be some debate over the appropriate level of snag and LWD retention in recent scientific studies, all of the studies Appellants are aware of recommend levels of LWD retention far above those recommended in the LRMP and adopted in the preferred alternative. Some of those studies are cited in the BE/BA, Appendix 1., and in the EA on page 15. Also, as noted above in the section on LWD, the only two areas of scientific expertise that addressed the LWD issue in the effects section of the EA found that LWD retention levels of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 were woefully inadequate. No other disciplines represented in the EA cited new science to the contrary. Therefore, the Ranger's statement that there is "no compelling evidence" to retain more than "5 snags per acre of various sizes" is arbitrary and capricious in that it fails to consider relevant factors and makes a clear error in judgement, and thus violates NEPA.

Further, the Ranger states that by leaving 5 snags per acre of various sizes, "the effects, either positive or negative, will be limited." There is no indication or justification within the FONSI or EA for limiting "positive" effects associated with the project. Determining to undertake an action that specifically limits positive effects runs counter to the spirit and intent of NFMA.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require that the Ranger conduct a thorough analysis of the relevant factors that should drive the decision making process, as required by NEPA (as noted above), and to require the Ranger to complete a thorough analysis of whether and to what extent limiting positive effects of the project is justified under NFMA.

The substantial portion of the District Ranger's Response to Comments covering PFP's DEA comments either incorrectly identify PFP's issues or fails to adequately explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, thus violating NEPA requirements at 1503.4. Outlined below is a case-by-case explanation.

1.) PFP noted in its DEA comments that the best method of dealing with the potential of damaging debris flow while maintaining maximum LWD within RHCAs would be to fell away from streams those large snags that may become part of a debris flow, but otherwise leaving them on-site. PFP noted that such snags could be "dragged out of the high water area if their presence there were perceived as a potential problem." The Forest Service response was to erroneously state that, "Essentially we are doing this very thing." In point of fact, the District is proposing to entirely remove such large snags from the RHCAs and send them to the mill, thereby eliminating the proven benefits associated with having LWD remain within RHCAs, and stands in stark contrast to PFP's recommendation.

2.) PFP noted in its DEA comments that the RHCAs would not have enough LWD to meet RMOs, specifically siting EA determinations. In response, the Ranger suggested that it was increasing the amount of LWD within RHCAs. This is patently false. In fact, the District reduced the amount of LWD within RHCAs when it altered what was originally the proposed action to maintain 5 snags per acre greater than 20 inches DBH. The preferred Alternative 3 proposes only 3 snags >20 inches dbh and 2 snags <20 inches dbh, thereby reducing the LWD component. Further, the Ranger states that it added another unit under "subject to agreement" and that somehow this addresses PFP's concerns. PFP sees no way in which adding a unit as "subject to agreement" addresses its concerns, as such a qualifier has no bearing on the general retention of LWD in RHCAs. Finally, the Ranger suggested that modifications to Alternative 3 "improve the effects" and which "make it the preferred alternative." The only modification that may "improve the effects" of Alternative 3 is the 25-foot no-cut buffer zone along stream channels. However, such a buffer zone is not analyzed in the EA or supporting documents. Thus, the District cannot conclude to what extent the buffer may or may not "improve the effects" of Alternative 3.

3.) In the comments on the DEA, PFP provided a page-long litany of reasons why logging within RHCAs should not be allowed, including issues related to long-term recovery of the fire-damaged area as well as failure of the proposed action to meet Riparian Management Objectives. PFP supported it's argument entirely from the EA and supporting documents wherein it is evident that substantially more large diameter snags should be retained within RHCAs. The Ranger's only response states, "The decision maker does not have to select the alternative that retains the most of something or the least of something, as long as she meets all objectives and ensure (sic) the actions are within all applicable laws and regulations that govern us as a Forest Service." The Ranger's response violates the letter, spirit and intent of NEPA by failing to provide reasoned fact-based explanation as to why PFP's concerns are not valid or why they do not merit further consideration.

4.) In the comments on the DEA, PFP made substantive comments on the inadequacy of the proposed retention of 5 snags per acre across the cutting area. PFP supported its argument for substantially more snags for long-term recruitment of LWD from the EA and supporting documents. Both the BE/BA and Botany report for the Horton II project are unequivocal that future LWD need would not be met under the proposal. The Ranger's response to PFP's concerns is merely, "The 5 snags/acre plus the 3,400 acres not being harvested makes this a viable and reasoned preferred alternative." This response flies in the face of reason in that the District does not magically create snags in the cut area by not logging 3,400 acres adjacent to the cutting units. This is especially the case since it is clear from analysis that there is an overall deficiency of large snags, and a deficiency in the potential for long-term recruitment of LWD, throughout eastside forests including within the project area. Consequently, the removal of any large snags from the project area will necessarily negatively impact short- and long-term recruitment of LWD. Further, the Ranger ignores the District's own scientific findings that removing all but 5 snags per acre will have long-term negative impacts.

Furthermore, the condition of the 3,400 acres left unlogged was not analyzed in the EA with regard to LWD. However, the following statement from the "Response to Public Comments" indicates that a significant contribution to LWD needs would not be met in that area, "The condition of the remaining 3,400 acres is rocky and low productivity" (page 5).

5.) The Ranger responded to PFP's concerns about inadequate LWD recruitment and failure to comply with the Plumas LRMP by stating that the proposal calls for different snag retention levels for different areas of the project. Nowhere does the Ranger consider or discuss PFP's central point that in all treatment areas, the proposed project will result in a failure to meet LRMP large woody debris standards into the future.

6.) At the scoping stage of planning, PFP submitted substantive, thoughtful comments on why a DFPZ cutting prescription should not be completed on this project. Subsequently, PFP noted that the DEA failed to provide adequate analysis or discussion of PFP's concerns and requested at the DEA stage that the District address those concerns. In response, the Ranger states that the DFPZ portion of the project would not be called a DFPZ per se, but that the cutting "prescription for the area would remain the same," and that, "The area was identified for a more intense fuel reduction area." The Ranger has failed to provide a reasoned response to PFP's concerns.

7.) PFP's DEA comments on the DFPZ portion of the project noted that the fire specialist input lacks a meaningful analysis of effects, it lacks a sufficient comparison of alternatives and it lacks site-specific information. The Ranger's response: "There has been no decision made and no actions taken. The effects of fire, related to DFPZs are captured on the Effects Report and on page 13 of the EA." The first sentence of the Ranger's response in no way addresses PFP's concerns: it is a non sequitur. The second sentence fails to provide a reasoned response, but rather merely point back to the analysis that PFP noted is inadequate.

8.) PFP raised substantive and thoughtful concerns about the DEA and the preferred Alternative 3 in relation to balancing economic needs with environmental ones. The Ranger's response was to erroneously state that "the effects report does not show the preferred alternative as being environmentally damaging," and that, "Therefore, the preferred alternative is reasonable and is a viable alternative." In fact, throughout the EA and the specialist reports there is ample indication that the preferred alternative will have substantial short- and long-term negative environmental effects, as PFP has noted throughout the planning process for this project. Again, the Ranger has failed to provide a reasoned response to PFP's concerns.

9.) Finally, PFP recommended and requested that a no-commercial-cut, "restoration only," alternative be analyzed for this fire-damaged project area. PFP requested such an alternative at both the scoping and DEA stages of the project. PFP also requested such an alternative in its December 16, 1999, pre-NEPA comments to the District on how to proceed with any post-fire projects in the Horton area. At no time did the District undertake such an analysis. Further, the Ranger's response to PFP's concerns state only that, "The project decision will be made in two separate decisions. A decision to implement restoration only and a decision to implement salvage harvesting." It is self-evident from PFP's comments, from the earliest possible stages of planning, that it would be a reasonable and viable alternative to conduct restoration only and to allow no commercial cutting for the Horton II project. Yet, the Ranger has consistently and systematically ignored PFP's thoughtful and substantive comments and concerns regarding this issue, and has failed to provide a reasoned response as to why those concerns have been ignored from the pre-NEPA stage to the final EA.

Relief Requested: Appellants hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decisions of the District Ranger and require that the Ranger provide reasoned, science-based responses to PFP's concerns as outlined immediately above. The responses should show how the Final EA has been changed to address those concerns or why those concerns do not merit further discussion.

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, 2000.

John Preschutti, for: PFP, PRC and SNFPC