P. O. Box 102 RECEIPT REQUESTED Ashland, OR 97520

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: 1570 Appeal No.: A215 Date: September 12, 2011 George Sexton Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center CERTIFIED - RETURN P. O. Box 102 RECEIPT REQUESTED Ashland, OR Dear Mr. Sexton: On July 18, 2011, you filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) on behalf of Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, and EPIC pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor J. Sharon Heywood signed the Record of Decision (ROD) approving Alternative 2 of the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on June 7, I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including your written Notice of Appeal (NOA), the ROD, FEIS, DEIS, and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer's recommendation is enclosed. This letter constitutes my decision on the appeal and on the specific relief requested. FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED The decision will treat approximately 2,957 acres. Thinning will occur in 1,626 acres of overstocked mixed-conifer forest and 121 acres to establish a shaded fuelbreak along the border of the Shasta-Mudflow Research Natural Area. Additional treatments will thin 594 acres of older plantation, remove encroaching conifers from 189 acres to restore the historic size and function of meadows, and thin 45 acres of California black oak forest. Treatments to address areas infected with black stain and annosus root disease include sanitation of 185 acres and regeneration of 197 acres of ponderosa pine forest. Follow-up treatment includes broadcast burning of 177 acres to maintain wet meadow habitat after conifer removal, and machine piling and hand piling and burning to decrease excess ground fuels after treatment. Connected actions include road reconstruction, construction and decommissioning of temporary roads, closing access to six miles of National Forest Transportation System road, and restoring passage for aquatic organisms and hydrologic connectivity. The Mudflow Vegetation Management Project is intended to aid in restoring natural ecosystem function in the project area by implementing integrated silvicultural and fuels reduction treatments. These treatments are needed to improve forest health, tree growth, and stand America s Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

2 Appeal # A215, Mudflow, Shasta-Trinity, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands 2 resiliency where trees are infected with root disease, and where overstocked conditions exist or where there is inadequate stocking; reduce ground and ladder fuels to reduce the potential for catastrophic fire while meeting other resource needs; and, to restore the size, continuity, and function of historic wet meadow ecosystems. In response to informal disposition discussions, the Forest Supervisor made the following changes to the project: Reduce disturbance from new temporary spur road construction on 2.1 miles by using existing old roads or skid trails that would need to be brushed or bladed. Although the temporary road segments were included to provide opportunities to reduce skidding distances during implementation, adjustments will be made so that only existing old roads or skid trials will be utilized (Informal Disposition letter, August 25, 2011). APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Documentation demonstrated compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies in light of the appeal issues raised by appellant. Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) Michael A. Valdes, Acting Forest Supervisor Eldorado National Forest, found that the project is an appropriate and reasonable response to direction in the Shasta-Trinity Forest Land and Resource Managment Plan and is in compliance with the plan. The purpose and need for the project were clear. The Forest Supervisor s logic and rationale were clear and well documented. The Forest Supervisor was responsive to public concerns. ARO Valdes recommended affirming the Forest Supervisor s decision on all issues and denial of all requested relief. DECISION I agree with the ARO s analysis as presented in the recommendation letter. The issues are similar to the comments made during the comment period. All appeal issues raised have been considered. I affirm the Forest Supervisor s decision to implement Alternative 2. I deny all requested relief.

3 Appeal # A215, Mudflow, Shasta-Trinity, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands 3 The project may be implemented on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of this letter (36 CFR 215.9(b)). My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR (c)]. Sincerely, /s/ Ronald G. Ketter RONALD G. KETTER Deputy Regional Forester Appeal Deciding Officer Enclosure

4 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: Date: September 7, 2011 Subject: To: Mudflow Vegetation Management Project Appeal No A215 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Appeal Deciding Officer I am the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer for this appeal. This is my recommendation on disposition of the appeal filed by George Sexton for Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Klamath Forest Alliance and Environmental Protection Information Center appealing the Shasta- Trinity National Forest Supervisor, J. Sharon Heywood's, Record of Decision (ROD) for the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS). The decision was signed on June 7, 2011, and the legal notice of the decision was published on June 14, DECISION BEING APPEALED The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) proposes silvicultural and fuel treatments within the Shasta-McCloud Management Unit within the Upper McCloud River and Squaw Valley Creek Watersheds northeast of the rural community of McCloud, California. The project area is within the McCloud Flats, a large expanse of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest on mostly flat terrain east of Mount Shasta and north of State Highway 89. The project area encompasses 13,830 acres and consists of 10,430 acres of National Forest System lands and 3,400 acres of private, rural residential and industrial timber lands. The Forest has been monitoring the incidence of both black stain and annosus root disease on the McCloud Flats for several decades through establishment of plots, field surveys, and aerial surveys. As individual tree vigor, health, and resilience are weakened from disease and spread, insect activity and mortality increase within forest stands with a subsequent accumulation of dead trees and down fuels. Fuels reduction projects have reduced some of the resulting fuel accumulations in the project area; however, the underlying forest health problems of root disease, reduction in individual tree health and stand vigor due to overstocking and the high levels of conifer mortality in historic wet meadows, have not been addressed. The project was developed to aid in restoring natural ecosystem function in the project area by implementing integrated silvicultural and fuels reduction treatments that: Improve forest health, tree growth, and stand resiliency where trees are infected with root disease, where overstocked conditions exist, or where there is inadequate stocking. Reduce ground and ladder fuel levels to reduce the potential for catastrophic fire while meeting other resource needs. Restore the size, continuity, and function of historic wet meadow ecosystems. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

5 2 This project was designed to meet and implement Forest Plan objectives and direction for Late- Successional Reserve (LSR), Special Area, Matrix and Riperian Reserve land allocations, and is almost wholly within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) surrounding the rural community of McCloud. There are several rural subdivisions within the project area that are directly adjacent to National Forest lands proposed for treatment. Additional management direction, objectives, and recommendations for the project area are found in the forest-wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA, 1999), the Shasta Mudflow Research Natural Area Management Plan, the McCloud Flats Ecosystem Analysis (September 1995; February 2007) and the Mudflow Project Roads Analysis (November 2010). The project is consistent with the National Fire Plan s focus for federal agencies to conduct fuels reduction in and around WUI to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to people, communities, and natural resources while restoring forest ecosystems to more closely match their historical characteristics. The project is also compatible with four recovery actions from the 2008 Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl that are specifically applicable to the project area. The need for this action was determined by comparing existing conditions of the project area with the desired future conditions as described in the Forest Plan for the McCloud Flats and Mt. Shasta Management Areas and land allocations within these Management Areas. The discrepancies between desired and existing conditions (purpose and need) enumerated below, provided the basis for developing the proposed action. 1. Reduce tree densities to levels that restore and maintain individual tree vigor, forest health, and resiliency to natural disturbance. 2. Break the cycle of re-infection in areas heavily infected with black stain and annosus root disease. 3. Prevent the spread of annosus root disease to freshly cut stumps. 4. Protect and enhance the conditions of the McCloud MLSA and Mt. Shasta LSR within the project area by reducing the risk of large-scale disturbance, including insect and disease impacts, including stand-replacing fire. 5. Reduce existing concentrations of woody ground fuels on approximately 760 acres and to avoid additional accumulation of ground fuels resulting from project activities; reduce fuel ladders of understory vegetation; reduce the overstory crown density in overstocked forest conditions. 6. Reduce the potential for fire in the RNA consistent with its objectives and management direction. 7. Restore the size and spatial connectivity of wet meadow ecosystems in the project area; restore riparian vegetation and hardwood habitat in wet meadows; restore natural ecosystem functions in wet meadows; improve fish and other aquatic organism passage and restore hydrologic connectivity at two existing stream crossings. The Shasta-Trinity Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 2, as analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, for implementation. Alternative 2 treats a total of 2,957 acres and includes the following activities: Thinning 1,626 acres of overstocked mixed-conifer forest.

6 3 Thinning 594 acres of older plantations, including biomass removal. Thinning 121 acres of mixed-conifer forest to establish a shaded fuel break along the eastern border of the Shasta-Mudflow Research Natural Area. Sanitation of 185 acres of acres of ponderosa pine forest infected with black stain and annosus root disease. Regeneration of 197 acres of ponderosa pine forest heavily infected with black stain and annosus root disease; 63 acres at 15% retention and 134 acres <15% retention. Removing encroaching conifer from 189 acres to restore historic size and function of meadows. Thinning 45 acres of California black oak forest. Broadcast burning 177 acres to maintain wet meadow habitat after conifer removal. Machine piling and burning and hand piling and burning excess ground fuels on 708 and 52 acres, respectively, upon completion of thinning, sanitation, and regeneration treatments. Connected road actions include reconstructing 1.1 miles of existing National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) road, closing access to six miles of NFTS roads, constructing and decommissioning approximately 4 miles of temporary road, decommissioning an additional 7.5 miles of NFTS roads and existing non-nftrs routes and restoring passage for aquatic organisms and hydrologic connectivity at two stream crossings. There will be no new system road construction. APPEAL SUMMARY The Mudflow Vegetation Management Project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions since May The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 24, The scoping letter was mailed to approximately 26 local tribal organizations, other agencies, individuals, and groups potentially interested in or affected by the Proposed Action. The project was developed in collaboration with the McCloud Fire Safe Council and was presented at monthly Council meetings. The proposed project was presented to property owners in the Mount Shasta Forest subdivision at their annual meeting on July 27, The Forest Service has meet with both the Winnemem Wintu and Pit River Tribes on the proposed action. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published on March 2, The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on March 4, Copies of the DEIS were sent to over 47 individuals, organizations, tribes, and government agencies. The DEIS was also placed on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest web page. There were 15 comments received by the close of the comment period on April 18, Mr. Sexton submitted timely comments and is eligible to appeal this decision. The legal notice of decision was published June 14, 2011; the deadline for filing appeals was July 29, The current appeal was filed on July 18, 2011, and is timely. On July 19, 2011, the appellant was sent an offering a meeting or conference call. A conference call to discuss the appeal was scheduled for August 9, There were 16 participants on the conference call: two representing the appellants; four interested parties; two

7 4 participating responsible officials; eight Forest Service personnel. In response to the appellants concerns, the Forest Supervisor agreed to the following changes: Reduce disturbance from new temporary spur road construction on 2.1 miles by using existing old roads or skid trails that would need to be brushed or bladed. Although the temporary road segments were included to provide opportunities to reduce skidding distances during implementation, adjustments will be made so that only existing old roads or skid trials will be utilized (Informal Disposition, August 25, 2011). As relief, the appellants request: 1. That the ROD be altered to implement manual rather than machine piling of project activity slash; 2. That the ROD be altered to achieve the project s purpose and need utlizing the existing transporation system without construction of new logging roads; 3. That the ROD be altered to forgo regeneration and sanitation harvest prescriptions. ISSUES AND RESPONSES Issue 1 - The Forest has not addressed the appellants contentions that machine piling is outdated and harmful to forests (appeal, pp. 5, 8-10). (a) The appellant raised concerns about machine piling, and cited multiple scientific studies, but these concerns were never addressed. Response: Soil compaction and machine piling in general were fully addressed in Appendix Q FEIS Public Comment on the DEIS, pages 31 through 34, response to comments #57 through #61. In this detailed discussion of machine piling, in response to comment #60, the Forest states that slash piling as practiced prior to the mid-1990 s no longer occurs. This is to suggest that the Geppert et al. (1984) study is not applicable to current practices. A review of other references mentioned by the appellant show that the references are not relevant to the Mudflow project. The BLM (2001) publication indicates that the research was conducted in arid and semi-arid regions. Machine piling, tractor use, or other heavy equipment used in timber harvesting is not specifically addressed. Section discusses mechanical disturbance, but is not applicable to the Mudflow area. Effects of mechanical disturbance are especially noticeable at sites with highly erodible soils and large topographic relief. Other general statements are made regarding soil properties, such as acknowledging that the damage from compression forces is worse in wet conditions. The Appendix L Soils Report (pg. L-6) indicates a design criteria that harvest activities will only be conducted on dry or frozen soils. Bull et al. (1977) focuses on the benefits of dead and downed woody material for wildlife. There is no discussion in this research study on the effects of machine piling, tractor use, or other heavy equipment in timber harvesting.

8 5 Potentially significant beneficial and adverse impacts (40 CFR (b)) were analyzed for all impacts on soil resources, including those of machine piling. The Forest considered and analyzed the impacts of machine piling (ROD, pp and 15-16; FEIS, pp ). Soil types in the project area were characterized as having a high resistance to compaction and resilience to the effects of compaction (FEIS, pg , Appendix L, pg. 3). The areas that have been reported as being near or over threshold include the landings and skid trail areas of units. These areas will be tilled/sub-soiled upon completion of project activities to alleviate compaction of past management activities and any additional compaction that is expected to occur at landings and primary skid trails as a result of the project (See FEIS, pp. 32, 64, 127, , 154, 174, Appendix L Soil Report pg L-3). (b) The Forest has not offered rationale for why hand-piling is not a preferable means of treating activity slash generated by its logging activities. Response: Manual thinning and piling were discussed and compared to conventional harvest methods (FEIS, pp ; Chp. 2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, Alternative 10; FEIS, Appendix Q, pg. 8, response to comment #25; and ROD, pp ). Analysis indicated that manual thinning and piling could result in unreasonable environmental harm as compared to conventional harvest methods. Units 5-47 and 7-33 were evaluated for manual thinning and piling, but the units were dropped because that method could generate higher levels of smoke and particulate matter. (c) The Forest has stated that manual piling will take place where mechanical piling is inappropriate, but the Forest never discusses when mechanical piling is inappropriate. Response: The project is utilizing both hand and machine piling (FEIS, Appendix B, pp. B-1 to B-8). Interdisciplinary team notes show that the appropriate use of hand piling and machine piling were discussed in the field and at meetings (Mudflow Vegetation Management Project ID Team Meeting Notes, pp. 5, 15, 17, 18, and 20). The appropriate use (and non-use) of machine piling is discussed. These discussions include for visual quality objectives (FEIS, pg. 34) and for botanical diversity (FEIS, pg. 35). Both mechanical and hand piling will be avoided in meadow units for protection of sensitive species (FEIS, pg. 119). I find that the Forest determined that machine piling is an appropriate treatment method for the Mudflow project and that the effects of this treatment were sufficiently analyzed. Issue 2 - Machine piling is inconsistent with NFMA because the practice was chosen based on the dollar-value that the practice would produce rather than the environmental concerns that should inform the process (appeal, pp ). Response: The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) [16 USC 1604] requires consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management (See also 36 CFR 219). NFMA also requires an interdisciplinary review, and the potential environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on

9 6 each advertised sale area be assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area. Prescriptions for this project were developed to meet multiple resource objectives. Harvest systems were selected based on variety of factors, including cost, efficiency, and environmental effects (ROD, pg. 19). Tables 2-2 through 2-9 summarize the environment impacts and consideration of concerns for all alternatives analyzed, including economics (FEIS, pp ). I find that the Forest did not violate any law, regulation, or policy in their consideration of machine piling, and that the Forest appropriately used multiple factors when considering treatment options. Issue 3 - The regeneration and sanitation prescription for the Forest does not suit the purpose and need of the project, and violates NEPA because of inadequate response to public comments (appeal, pp. 6, 12-15). (a) The appellant brought up these concerns, citing multiple scientific studies, but these concerns were not fully addressed. Response: The specific references cited in scoping comments were reviewed by the Forest to determine if the literature is applicable to the project (FEIS, pp. C-36 through C-37; See also Response to Comments 29 and 30, pg. Q-17). References to literature supporting thinning as an effective deterrent to bark beetle outbreaks were provided as part of the response to scoping comments (FEIS, pg. C-37 through C-38). (b) There is little evidence that sanitation, and regeneration logging will actually increase long-term forest health in the STNF. Response: The Purpose and Need for Action describes the desired forest condition including the maintenance of stands at stocking levels which increase individual tree vigor, sustain yield, and improve and protect forest health and resiliency overall (FEIS, pg. 10). The project is designed to provide conditions known to increase tree growth and the actions designed to address each need are included (FEIS, pp ; See also FEIS, Appendix Q, Response to Comments 16, 18-24, 33-34, 52, 54, and 114). The treatments are proposed to remove trees that may contribute to the spread of disease to residual trees (ROD, pg. 7), meeting the purpose and need to protect forest health (FEIS, pg. 11). These treatments are intended to decrease the potential for future accumulations of surface fuels (FEIS, pg. C-36) reducing the potential for fire (FEIS, pg. 14). (c) The Forest does not plan to comply with the green tree retention guidelines set forth for the area. Response: The Forest acknowledges that it is not able to comply with the green tree retention guidelines in specific stands due to the existing conditions within these stands; there are insufficient healthy green trees to meet the current 15 percent green tree retention guidelines. A

10 7 non-significant, site-specific Forest Plan Amendment was developed for the project (ROD, pg. 7; FEIS pp ). Development of the amendment considered significance in relation to timing (the treatment duration of these cutting units); location and size (less than 0.1 percent of commercial forestlands in the watershed); goals, objectives and outputs; and management prescription (limited to specific cutting units) (FEIS, pp ; RIEC submittal GTR Amendment (G8)). The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) had no comments on the proposed amendment to the forest plan (RIEC Review GTR Amendment , document G9). As discussed in response to comment #117, the long-term result of this amendment should be a healthier more sustainable Forest that is preferable to taking no action (FEIS, Appendix Q, Q-65 through Q-66). I find that the regeneration and sanitation prescriptions meet the purpose and need of the project, and will comply with the green tree retention guidelines as modified by the site-specific Forest Plan Amendment. These prescriptions do not violate NEPA as the effects were fully disclosed within the analysis and response to public comments. Issue 4 - Temporary road construction will have adverse effects on the ecosystem, including soil compaction; these adverse effects were not adequately considered in the FEIS (appeal, pp ). Response: The interdisciplinary team recognized and mitigated the effects of roads in the context of soil compaction. The extent and alleviation of compaction impacts from temporary roads are identified (FEIS, pg ). Effects were also considered in the Hydrology (FEIS, pg. 144) and Transportation System (FEIS, pg ) analyses. Resource protection measures are identified (FEIS, pg 32; Appendix F, pg. F-5; Appendix L, pg. L-13). This concern should also be addressed by the changes that the Forest Supervisor made to the project on August 25, 2011 (discussed above in the appeal summary). I find that the Forest appropriately analyzed the effects of road construction, and that the Forest Supervisor has attempted to further address these concerns through informal disposition. Issue 5 - The Forest does not sufficiently address whether take may occur as an effect of the Mudflow Project (northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, and willow flycatcher) (appeal, pp ). Response: The appellant asserts that take of individual animals is not addressed in the Mudflow project. Under the Endangered Species Act, take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (ESA Section 3-19). However, when not listed under ESA, take is not applicable to Forest Service Sensitive species (northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, and willow flycatcher). The Biological Evaluation reached determinations of may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for northern goshawk and Pacific fisher and a beneficial effect for willow flycatcher (FEIS, pg. J-2). Direct effects (similar to take ) for each species are described in the Biological Evaluation and FEIS (FEIS, pp ,

11 8 pp. J-5 through J-6 for willow flycatcher, pg. J-6 through J-7 for northern goshawk, and pg. J-16 for Pacific fisher). Assessment of take is appropriate for the federally-listed northern spotted owl. The Biological Assessment addresses this issue in the discussion of direct effects (FEIS, pp , I-11). No direct effects, or take, of northern spotted owls was anticipated. USFWS concurred with the determination of not likely to adversely affect and did not require Formal Consultation and consideration of an incidental take statement (USFWS 05/01/2008). In 2011, the STNF re-considered their previous determinations to determine if new information would trigger re-initiation of the informal consultation or a new formal consultation (5/3/2011 Consultation Re-initiation Criteria Assessment, pg. 1). They found that The Forest Service determined and FWS concurred that the Mudflow Project might affect threatened and endangered species but was unlikely to adversely affect those species. As such, no adverse take is necessary or issued. No changes have affected this determination and the amount and extent of take has not been exceeded or modified. I find that the Forest appropriately addressed the issue of take in the Mudflow analyses. Issue 6 - The EIS has not adequately considered all alternatives, as no alternative considered includes a plan that minimizes degradation of spotted owl habitat (appeal, pp ). Response: As required by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, section 102(e); See also 40 CFR ), the FEIS considered a range of alternatives, including Alternatives 2 and 3 that were specifically developed in order to reduce effects in northern spotted owl habitat (FEIS, pp , 28-30, Q- 9-10). Additionally, Alternative 4, the No Action Alternative, provides an alternative that completely avoids changes in spotted owl habitat (FEIS, pg. 28). The FEIS analyzes the potential effects to northern spotted owl habitat for each alternative (FEIS, pp ). I find that the Forest Service is in compliance with NEPA in considering an adequate range of alternatives. Issue 7 - The FEIS has not adequately addressed new information related to the conservation of the spotted owl, and should be amended to reflect these concerns (appeal, pp ). Response: The appellant asserts that the analysis of effects to the northern spotted owl did not adequately address new data on the conservation of spotted owl. The Record of Decision (ROD, pp. 2, 6, 19-20) describes the project s consistency with Recovery Actions from the 2008 Recovery Plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, and assessment of the four consultation re-initiation criteria from pg of the Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook and compliance with Endangered Species Act (See also FEIS, pg. 177). USFWS concurred with the STNF determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect in 2008.

12 9 Several memos in the Project File provide evidence that new information and conditions (e.g., new survey results, change in the Recovery Plan, changes in Critical Habitat, 2.5 years passing since BA was prepared) were considered. Updated analyses were documented in those memos (4/21/2011 Memo on 2008 Spotted Owl Recovery Plan; 5/3/2011 Consultation Re-initiation Assessment; 5/3/2011 Biological Assessment Update). I find that the FEIS has adequately addressed all relevant information for the conservation of the spotted owl as it relates to the Mudflow project. Issue 8 - The project does not demonstrate it is complying with the LRMP to actually recover threatened species (i.e., northern spotted owl) and not just maintain the status quo or worse (appeal, pp ). Response: The STNF LRMP states that Forest Service programs are intended to assist in the recovery of Threatened/Endangered species (LRMP, pg. 3-26). Under Management Opportunities, the STNF LRMP states that Threatened/Endangered species will continue to be managed under existing recovery goals identified in individual species Recovery Plans (LRMP, pp ). The applicable Recovery Actions from the 2008 Recovery Plan (Recovery Actions 6, 7, 8 and 32) were addressed in the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project 2008 Recovery Plan memorandum (April 21, 2011) to demonstrate compatibility of the project with the overall intent of the Recovery Plan. The Mudflow project is compatible with all of the applicable Recovery Actions (FEIS, pp. Q72-Q73, 4/21/2011 Recovery Plan memo, pp. 1-3). The 2008 Recovery Plan was remanded but not vacated so it remained in effect during the analysis for the Mudflow project (Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Memo, 4/21/2011). The Record of Decision describes consistency with Recovery Actions from the 2008 Recovery Plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, re-initiation criteria, LSRA, and the Endangered Species Act (ROD, pp. 6, 19-20), documenting that the Line Officer made an informed decision on the Mudflow project. I find that the Mudflow project is in compliance with the LRMP and the Endangered Species Act in efforts to recover northern spotted owls. Issue 9 - There are sensitive species that are arbitrarily and capriciously absent from the analysis in the FEIS, but the impact of the decision on these species must be taken into account (i.e., goshawk, willow flycatcher, Sierra Nevada red fox, Pacific fisher, American marten, and California wolverine) (appeal, pg. 20). Response: The appellant states that the analysis of potential effects to Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species was missing from the FEIS. Sierra Nevada red fox was not addressed in detail because it is not a sensitive species on the STNF and there are no known occurrences on the STNF or the Mudflow project area (FEIS, Comment #95 pp. Q-50-51; Comments #99-100, pp. Q-54-Q56). Effects to northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Pacific fisher, American marten, and California wolverine, all Forest Service Sensitive species, were addressed in the Biological Evaluation

13 10 (FEIS, pp. J-5through J-24). It was determined that the Mudflow project would have no effect on willow flycatcher (FEIS, pg. J-30) and may affect, but is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, American marten, and wolverine (FEIS, pp. J-30 through J-31). I find that effects to the STNF s Sensitive species were properly assessed in the FEIS. FINDINGS Clarity of the Decision and Rationale -- The Forest Supervisor s decision and supporting rationale are clearly presented in the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project Record of Decision. Her reasons for selecting Alternative 2 are logical and responsive and consistent with direction contained in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Comprehension of the Benefits and Purpose of the Proposal -- The purpose of the proposal is clear and the benefits are displayed. Consistency of the Decision with Policy, Direction, and Supporting Information -- The decision is consistent with direction contained in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Effectiveness of Public Participation Activities and Use of Comments -- Public participation was adequate and well documented. A Notice of Intent and Notice of Availability of the DEIS were published in the Federal Register. The project was added to the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. The Forest mailed scoping letters, hosted public meetings, and distributed draft and final EISs to interested groups and individuals. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest has maintained current information on planning and activities on its web page. Responses to the comments received are detailed and included as part of the EIS. The decision of the Forest Supervisor indicates she considered and responded to public input. RECOMMENDATION My review was conducted pursuant to and in accordance with 36 CFR to ensure the analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I reviewed the appeal record, including the comments received during the comment period and how the Forest Supervisor used this information, the appellant's objections and recommended changes. Based on my review of the record, I recommend that the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed on all issues. I recommend that the appellants' requested relief be denied on all issues. /s/ Michael A. Valdes Michael A.Valdes Appeal Reviewing Officer Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest