Pacific Southwest Region

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: Appeal No.: A215 Date: July 22, 2008 David B. Edelson Attorney for Appellants Sierra Forest Legacy 840 Grizzly Peak Blvd. Berkeley, CA CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Edelson: On June 9, 2008, you filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) on behalf of the Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Club, and Plumas Forest Project pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Plumas National Forest Forest Supervisor Alice B. Carlton signed the Record of Decision (ROD) approving Alternative B of the Watdog Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on April 11, I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including your written NOA, the ROD, FSEIS, DSEIS and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the ARO'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: Promote fire resilient forest ecosystems to improve firefighter safety and wildfire suppression efficiency by adding to the Feather River District s Defensible Fuel Profile Zone s (DFPZ s) network, in support of the 300,000-acre fuel break strategy per the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. This proposal is designed to construct DFPZ s to accomplish an additional estimated 20 percent of the District s program, of which 40 percent has been either previously authorized or is in the final stages of the environmental analysis process. Alter existing conditions to achieve uneven-aged, multistory, fire-resilient forest ecosystem conditions, while contributing to community stability through the application of Group Selection (GS) provisions of the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

2 2 Reduce transportation system generated resource impacts by accomplishing infrastructure upgrades/re-location and decommissioning/closing unessential roads to lower overall road densities, while improving road access to aid proposed Watdog Project activities. Promote a species diverse forest ecosystem, particularly where hardwoods such as black oak are present to stimulate natural regeneration, tree health and growth using vegetation management practices. Provide for healthy aquatic and riparian (meadow) ecosystems by improving fish passage at migration barriers, along with streambank stabilization and meadows enhancement using watershed restoration practices.. APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Documentation demonstrated compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in light of the nine appeal issues raised by appellants. Relief Requested: Discuss with the Forest Service ways that the Watdog Project can be modified to reduce its adverse environmental impacts, such as the extent to which canopy cover will be reduced, particularly within habitat for old forest species, and with the locations of groups within high quality old forest habitat. The Appeal Review Officer (ARO), Edward Cole, found that the project is an appropriate and reasonable response to direction in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and is in compliance with the direction therein. The purpose and need for the project was clear. The Forest Supervisor s decision logic and rationale were clear and well documented. The Forest Supervisor was responsive to public concerns. ARO, Ed Cole recommended affirmation of 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 by your organization during the comment period. All appeal issues raised have been considered. I affirm the Forest Supervisor s decision to implement selected alternative.

3 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/ George C. Iverson GEORGE C. IVERSON Acting 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: July 14, 2008 Subject: To: Watdog Project Appeal No A215 Plumas 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 David B. Edelson on the behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Club, and the Plumas Forest Project. Appellants appealed Plumas National Forest Supervisor Alice B. Carlton s Record of Decision (ROD) for the Watdog Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) signed April 11, The current appeal was filed on June 9, 2008 and is thus timely. Appellants request specific relief to the effect that the Watdog Project FSEIS and ROD be overturned and reconsidered in light of applicable laws and issues raised by appellants. DECISION BEING APPEALED Sierra Forest Legacy et. al. appealed the ROD and FSEIS approving the Watdog Project signed by Forest Supervisor Alice B. Carlton April 11, The purpose and need for the Watdog Project, Proposed Action responds to several resource and social elements, as follows: Promote fire resilient forest ecosystems to improve firefighter safety and wildfire suppression efficiency by adding to the Feather River District s Defensible Fuel Profile Zone s (DFPZ s) network, in support of the 300,000-acre fuel break strategy per the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. This proposal is designed to construct DFPZ s to accomplish an additional estimated 20 percent of the District s program, of which 40 percent has been either previously authorized or is in the final stages of the environmental analysis process. Alter existing conditions to achieve uneven-aged, multistory, fire-resilient forest ecosystem conditions, while contributing to community stability through the application of Group Selection (GS) provisions of the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. Reduce transportation system generated resource impacts by accomplishing infrastructure upgrades/re-location and decommissioning/closing unessential roads to lower overall road densities, while improving road access to aid proposed Watdog Project activities. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

5 2 Promote a species diverse forest ecosystem, particularly where hardwoods such as black oak are present to stimulate natural regeneration, tree health and growth using vegetation management practices. Provide for healthy aquatic and riparian (meadow) ecosystems by improving fish passage at migration barriers, along with streambank stabilization and meadows enhancement using watershed restoration practices. The Forest Supervisor selected Alternative B. ISSUES AND RESPONSES Issue 1: The project implements the 2004 Framework and is inconsistent with the 2001 Framework. (Appeal, pp. 1-2) Response: Appellants rely on the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey for the proposition that the Watdog Project is contrary to law. That ruling, however, was decided in the context of a preliminary injunction motion on the Basin, Empire and Slapjack projects only. The decision does not constitute a final ruling on the merits of the 2004 Framework ROD. No final ruling on the merits of the 2004 Framework ROD, nor any injunction against other projects implementing that decision, has been issued. The Forest Service believes that the Ninth Circuit erred in its ruling on the preliminary injunctions in Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, and the government is still considering whether to seek rehearing of that decision. Even if rehearing is not sought or granted, the district court could reach a different conclusion in its consideration of the merits of the 2004 Framework ROD in light of the full record, or could fashion a remedy which allows implementation of projects under that decision to continue. Until and unless an injunction is issued which would encompass the Watdog Project, the Project may properly be implemented under the 2004 Framework ROD, and is not required to conform to the requirements of the 2001 Framework. Issue 2: The Watdog Project threatens the viability and distribution of the American marten, and the FSEIS fails adequately to consider the project s impact to this species, particularly issues relating to habitat connectivity and the present gap in the marten s distribution. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-10 through I-15). Response: The effects of the project on American marten were addressed in the FSEIS (pp. 1-15, 1-20, 2-33, through178, through186, through 200, through 230, 3-240, through 43, Appendix E, pg. 7, and Appendix I, pg. 10 through 31), the Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 8, 17, 29, 30, 41 through 44, 52 through 53, 79 through 80, 105 through 116, and 121) and the Watdog Project Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report (pp. 5 through 8, 10, and 23 through 29). The Watdog FSEIS used the habitat attributes outlined in the SNFPA 2001 and HFQLG FEIS BA/BE (FSEIS, pg ). HFQLG FEIS BA/BE identifies denning/nesting habitat at greater

6 3 than 60% canopy cover and forage/travel habitat at greater than 40% canopy cover (BA/BE, pp ; FSEIS, pg ). The Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 43, 107, and 109) discussed how the PNF has mapped a draft forest carnivore network across the Forest that consists of scattered known sightings, large habitat management areas, and wide dispersal or connecting corridors that is used to evaluate habitat connectivity across the forest. This network was designed to maintain habitat connectivity across the Plumas in order to maintain options for linking habitat between corridors linking the Tahoe NF with the Lassen NF. The Pumas network is comprised of four components: 1) the riparian zone, 2) old-forest habitat, 3) connectors, and 4) known sightings. Much of the forest carnivore network is in areas reserved from harvest for other reasons (e.g., California spotted owl PACs and northern goshawk PACs, or designated wilderness). The determination for the American marten is May Affect, but not likely to lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability (FSEIS, pp and and Watdog Project BA/BE pp. 114 and 120). This determination is based on the following: No treatments are proposed within the draft forest carnivore network. Therefore habitat quality and habitat connectivity within the draft forest carnivore network will not be affected by the Watdog Project. There are no known den sites of American marten in the analysis area. There were no detections of these species during protocol surveys. California spotted owl PACs and SOHA, Northern goshawk PACs, Middle Fork Wild and Scenic Area of the Feather River, and Feather Falls Scenic Areas will protect large blocks of old/mature forest as well as travel corridor habitat. Any entries into Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) are to enhance riparian habitat and only hand treatments would be conducted. Effects to old forest habitat considered marten denning and resting habitat (CWHR Classes 5M, 5D and 6) have been tracked across the HFQLG Pilot Project, which includes the Plumas. Reductions are documented and a cumulative total is tracked to make sure no greater than a 10% reduction occurs over the life of the Pilot Project (Watdog MIS Report pg. 27). The project would reduce canopy cover on the 2,020 acres, which will affect 711 acres of potentially suitable denning/resting habitat and 1,309 acres of potentially suitable forage/travel habitat (Watdog BA/BE pg. 110). There are approximately 758,431 acres of suitable denning and foraging habitat identified in the Pilot project area (HFQLG FEIS, pg ). Of this, there are currently 186,394 acres of CWHR 5M, 5D and 6. To date habitat suitability on 3,282 acres has or will have been reduced (includes the projected acres of reduction for the Watdog Project, based on projects with a signed decision). These acres total approximately 1.7% of the acres of potential denning/nesting habitat and 0.2% of potential foraging habitat within the Pilot Project (Watdog MIS Report pg. 28).

7 4 Based on the small acre percentage of marten habitat affected by the Watdog project and other projects across the HFQLG Pilot Project, individual marten may be affected, but it is not likely to lead to a trend towards federal listing (HFQLG FEIS, Appendix AA, pg. 65). I find that the FSEIS, BA/BE, and MIS Report adequately address the impacts for the American marten. Issue 3: The Watdog Project threatens the viability of the California spotted owl and the FSEIS fails adequately to consider the project s impacts on the owl. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-16 through I-20). Response: The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2004) provide direction for the National Forests within the HFQLGFRA Pilot Project area to implement the Pilot Project, consistent with the HFQLGFRA and Alternative B of the HFQLGFRA FEIS. The current California spotted owl strategy for National Forests in the Sierra Nevada is within the SNFPA FSEIS and ROD. On pages 268 and 269 of the SNFPA FSEIS the following information is presented: For the HFQLG Area, as per the HFQLG Act, the California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines (CASPO Guidelines) were used to develop the standards for mechanical treatments analyzed in the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act FEIS. As reported in the biological evaluation for that FEIS, constructing DFPZs and implementing group selection and individual tree harvests in the HFQLG Pilot Project Area would result in a 7% decrease in nesting habitat (CWHR types 5M, 5D, and 6) by 2007 and an 8.5% decrease in suitable habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6) by Viability On May 23, 2006 the USFWS provided a news release stating Listing of California spotted owl found not warranted - Service finds most owl populations stable or increasing in the Sierra Nevada (Federal Register, May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 100). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that most owl populations in the Sierra Nevada are stable or increasing and is denying a petition to list the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Watdog BA/BE, pp ). In responding to a second petition to list the species in three years, the Service conducted a comprehensive study of the California spotted owl populations. It assessed the best scientific and commercial information available. The agency has concluded that the California spotted owl should not be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. Among the Service s conclusions: The best available data indicate most California spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada are stable or increasing and adult survival rates show an increasing trend. Forest fuels reduction activities, notably those provided for in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment of 2004 may have a short-term impact on owl populations. But fuels

8 5 reduction will have a long-term benefit to California spotted owls by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires that pose a major threat to California spotted owl habitat. Impacts of the Project The effects of the project on California spotted owl were addressed in the FEIS (pp. 1-4, 1-15, 1-15, 1-19, 2-5, 2-14, 2-30 through 32, 3-50, 3-117, 3-169, through 179, through 184, through 203, through 230, 3-240, through 243) Appendix E pg. 7) and Appendix I (pp. 10 through 31) the Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 28 through 29, 30, 37 through 41, 48 through 49, 51 through 55, 75 through 78, 79, 84 through 100, and 121) and the Watdog MIS Report (pp. 7 through 9 and 11 through 18). All or portions of 15 PACs, 2,812 acres, are within the Watdog analysis area. There are 5,794 acres of Home Range Core Area (HRCA) within the analysis area which are associated with these 15 PACs. Portions of four Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs) take up 763 acres of the analysis area. All proposed treatment units are outside of PACs and SOHAs. Within the analysis area, outside Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and SOHAs, there are an additional 2,031 acres of potentially suitable spotted owl nesting habitat and approximately 4,613 acres of potentially suitable spotted owl foraging habitat (FEIS, pp through 216 and Watdog BA/BE, pp. 41 and 92 through 93). Approximately 85 percent of the existing foraging habitat and 98 percent of the existing nesting habitat within the Watdog analysis area for the California spotted owl will remain after treatment (FEIS, pg ). The HFQLGFRA FEIS/ROD states as a requirement that habitat connectivity, including hydrologic connectivity, would be maintained to allow movement of old forest or aquatic/riparian-dependent species between areas of suitable habitat. An additional requirement is that over the course of the pilot project, suitable habitat for old forest-dependent species and aquatic/riparian-dependent species (including amphibians) shall not be reduced by more than 10% below 1999 levels. To date approximately 1.6% of the 1999 levels have been reduced (Watdog BA/BE, pp. 8 and 60). I find that the FSEIS, BA/BA and Project MIS Report adequately disclosed the anticipated effects of the project on California spotted owls. Issue 4: The Watdog FSEIS fails adequately to assess the project s potential impacts to the northern goshawk and Pacific fisher. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-21 through I-24 and I- 28 through I-29). Response: Northern Goshawk

9 6 The effects of the project on northern goshawk (NOGO) were addressed in the FEIS (pp. 2-4, 2-31, through 180, 3-184, through 200, through 212, through 242, Appendix E, pg. 7, and Appendix I, pp. 10 through 31), Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 17, 28, 41 through 42, 48 through 49, 51, 70 through 78, 87, 92, 100 through 105, and 121) and the Watdog Project MIS Report (pp. 8 through 10 and 18 through 23). Following Region 5 NOGO survey protocol, all potentially suitable habitat was surveyed in Protected Activity Centers (PACs) were delineated for active nest sites, including two newly discovered pairs. No project activities will occur in NOGO PACs. The effects to potentially suitable nesting habitat outside of established PACs were considered. Based on CWHR forest strata types identified as nesting and foraging habitat in the HFQLGFRA FEIS (pg ), there are 5,518 acres of potentially suitable goshawk nesting habitat and 8,114 acres of potentially suitable goshawk foraging habitat outside of NOGO PACs, and California spotted owl PACs and SOHAs. In the HFQLGFRA FEIS (pp through 3-107) figures are presented for the entire Pilot Project Area showing the projected change in potential suitable nesting and foraging habitat. That analysis concluded that a loss of 8.5% of nesting habitat combined with a loss of 9% of foraging habitat in the Pilot Project may affect individual goshawks but not lead to a trend toward listing (HFQLG FEIS pg ). Alternative B would reduce suitability of 686 acres (12%) of potentially suitable nesting habitat (including acres within NOGO PACs, and CSO PACs and SOHAs) and 245 acres (3%) of potentially suitable foraging habitat within the analysis area. However, the 1,233 acres is only 0.2% of potential suitable foraging habitat entered under the Pilot Project (HFQLG FEIS, pg ). Pacific Fisher Habitat The effects of the project on Pacific fisher habitat were addressed in the FEIS (pp. 1-10, 1-14, 3-178, 3-182, through 186, through 200, through 230, 3-240, through 43, Appendix E, pg. 7, and Appendix I, pp. 10 through 31) and the Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 2, 17, 29 through 30, 41 through 44, 52 through 53, 79 through 80, 105 through 116, and 121). The Watdog FSEIS used the habitat attributes outlined in the SNFPA 2001 and HFQLG FEIS BA/BE (FSEIS, pg ). HFQLG FEIS BA/BE identifies denning/nesting habitat at greater than 60% canopy cover and forage/travel habitat at greater than 40% canopy cover (BA/BE, pp. 95 through 96; FSEIS, 3-224). The Watdog Project BA/BE (pp. 43, 107, and 109) discussed how the PNF has mapped a draft forest carnivore network across the Forest that consists of large habitat management areas, and wide dispersal or connecting corridors that is used to evaluate habitat connectivity across the forest. The determination for the Pacific fisher for the project and all other HFQLG projects is may affect individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability (HFQLG FEIS, Appendix AA, pg. 65; FSEIS, pp and 3-229; and Watdog Project BA/BE, pp. 114 and 120). This determination is based on the following: 1) No treatments are proposed within the

10 7 draft forest carnivore network; 2) There are no known den sites of Pacific fisher in the analysis area; 3) There were no detections of these species during protocol surveys; 4) California spotted owl PACs and SOHA, Northern goshawk PACs, Middle Fork Wild and Scenic Area of the Feather River, and Feather Falls Scenic Areas will protect large blocks of old/mature forest as well as travel corridor habitat; and 5) Any entries into Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) are to enhance riparian habitat and only hand treatments would be conducted. Effects to old forest habitat considered fisher denning and resting habitat (CHWR Classes 5M, 5D and 6) have been tracked across the HFQLG Pilot Project, which includes the Plumas. Reductions are documented and a cumulative total is tracked to make sure no greater than a 10% reduction occurs over the life of the Pilot Project (Watdog MIS Report pg. 27) The project would reduce canopy cover on the 2,020 acres, which will affect 711 acres of potentially suitable denning/resting habitat and 1,309 acres of potentially suitable forage/travel habitat (Watdog BA/BE pg. 110). There are approximately 758,431 acres of suitable denning and foraging habitat identified in the Pilot project area (HFQLG FEIS, pg ). Of this, there are currently 186,394 acres of 5M, 5D and 6. To date habitat suitability on 3,282 acres has or will have been reduced (includes the projected acres of reduction for the Watdog Project, based on projects with a signed decision). These acres total approximately 1.7% of the acres of potential denning/nesting habitat and 0.2% of potential foraging habitat within the Pilot Project. I find that the FSEIS, BA/BE, and MIS Report adequately addresses the impacts of the project on the northern goshawk and the Pacific fisher. Issue 5: Surveys for federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species have not been conducted as required by law and policy. (Appeal, pg. 2) This comment was raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issue was addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-25 through I-28 and I-31 through I-32). Response: The HFQLGFRA FEIS/ROD guidelines specify that surveys for TEPS species will be conducted in areas of suitable habitat prior to project implementation (Watdog Wildlife BA/BE pg. 7). All TES whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Watdog Project had surveys conducted (FSEIS, pp through 180; Watdog Wildlife BA/BE, pp. 16 through 18, 20 through 25, 30 through 37, and 41 through 44; and the Watdog Botany BE, pg. 2). In addition, effects of the project on TES species were addressed as if the potentially suitable habitats were occupied. I find that TES species surveys were conducted as required. Issue 6: Population monitoring for management indicator species and species at risk has not occurred as required by law. (Appeal, pg. 2)

11 8 This comment was raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issue was addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-29 through I-30). Response: All MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Watdog Project were carried forward in the analysis (FSEIS, pp through 3-180; and Watdog MIS Report, pp. 6 through 8). Monitoring requirements are discussed on pages 8 through 11of the Watdog MIS Report, where it states that all monitoring requirements have been met and also refer back to Issue 5 for the response to required monitoring of sensitive species. The Forest s MIS Report adequately analyzes the population attributes and/or trends for each of the MIS species that occur on the Project area. There is no legal requirement for population monitoring species at risk. The Watdog project has been exempted from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Indicator Species Plan Amendment (USDA 2007). Forest or bioregional scale monitoring requirements for the Plumas NF s MIS are found in the Monitoring Plan of the LRMP (USDA 1988, Chapter 5, pages 5-1 to 5-21) and in Appendix E of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2001), as adopted by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2004). I find that the FSEIS and MIS Report present the required analysis and monitoring for the Plumas National Forest MIS species. Issue 7: (a) The project s impact on fire and fuels has not been adequately analyzed. The analysis does not support the need to reduce canopy cover below 50 percent, or below 40 percent, to meet fuels objectives. (b) In predicting tree mortality, the analysis in the FSEIS only addresses mortality from fire, and fails to address cumulative mortality from logging and fire. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-38 through I-50). Response: Contention (a) SNFNP Record of Decision, 2004 Table 2. S & G applicable to the HFQLG Pilot Project area, specific to DFPZs, requires maintaining a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover for CWHR 5 class size. There is no minimum percent canopy cover requirement for the CWHR 4 class size, other than 5 percent of the total post-treatment canopy cover retained is to be comprised of trees 6-24 inches dbh (FSEIS, pg. 68). Post treatment canopy cover for the CWHR 5 class size units does not drop below 40 percent (within a range from 40.0 to 50.1 percent) for any of the action alternatives. The analysis supports the need to reduce canopy cover below 50 percent to create an effective defensible fuel profile zone (DFPZ). Stand structure tables by diameter class were developed to display the fuel ladder potential of specific stands. Thinning stands to only 50 percent or more canopy cover would compromise the effectiveness of the DFPZs due to the amount of ladder fuels remaining (Watdog Project Silviculture Report, Appendix G, pg. 1-4, Attachments A D, and Appendix A, Tables A-15 through A-19).

12 9 Alternatives B and C both meet the purpose and need for the project and, the desired conditions for fire and fuels (including canopy cover reduced to an average of approximately 40 percent). Canopy cover for Alternative C does not fall below 40 percent. Alternative B takes canopy cover as low as 25.6 percent (Watdog Project Silviculture Report Tables A-15 through A-19). The decision maker selected Alternative B (for Fire and Fuels) because the increased crown separation in treated areas would cause the fire to drop out of the forest canopy, it substantially alters fire behavior, it allows firefighters to have safe locations from which suppression resources can establish control points to protect adjacent private property and wildlife habitat, and improve the likelihood of tree survival if a wildfire occurs (FSEIS, Record of Decision, 2008, pg. 4). Contention (b) The Silviculture Report addressed the number of trees that would be removed as a result of timber harvest. The tree mortality following a fire was analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the DFPZ. The analysis to determine the projected post-treatment mortality is based on the trees that would be remaining after wildfire (FSEIS, pg. 3-63, Table 3-18). Alternative B had the lowest mortality resulting from fire (ROD, pg. 4). I find that the FSEIS and Vegetation Report adequately support the need to reduce canopy cover below 50 percent to meet fuels objectives on the DFPZs and fully analyzed the effects of tree removal and potential fire. Issue 8: Impacts on soil quality have not been adequately analyzed. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-32 and I-33). Response: The Forest disclosed existing soil condition and the risks/impacts to soil productivity (Chapter 3, pp ) in regard to soil cover, soil porosity, organic matter (fine and large), soil hydrologic function, and soil buffering capacity. The level of large woody material is deficient in some areas. The soils analysis explains that the reason treatment units do not meet the large woody debris (LWD) threshold is because the units are either plantations, have small tree sizes (12-24 dbh) or are within areas where the ecological type does not sustain LWD at the recommended threshold level of 5 logs/acre (Chapter 2, pg. 128; and Watdog Soils Report, Table S-1, pg. 23). A mitigation measure for down logs is contained in the Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures (FSEIS, Appendix E, Table E-1, pg. E-5) for the retention of cull logs. In addition, tons per acre of large down wood >12 inches dbh will be retained and where existing, 5 well-distributed logs, 20 inches dbh and 10 feet long will be maintained (ROD, page 3). This will increase the amount of large woody material in deficient areas and maintain an adequate level in other areas. Another project design measure to ensure soil productivity is maintained is a Limited Operation Period applied to the entire Watdog Project Area. The LOP would allow ground-based harvest equipment to operate only when soils are considered dry. I find that impacts to soil quality have been adequately analyzed.

13 10 Issue 9: Cumulative impacts of other past, present, and proposed projects have not been analyzed and disclosed, contrary to NEPA. (Appeal, pg. 2) These comments were raised by the appellants during the comment period for the project. The issues were addressed in the Response to Comments in Appendix I (pp. I-8 and I -9). Response: The 2008 Watdog FSEIS shows a table (Table 3-1) of past, present, future, and foreseeable future projects in and near the Watdog Project area. There are 39 listed projects listing activities such as prescribed burning, commercial and precommercial thinning, stream restoration, grazing, road related treatments, and other activities covering a time span from 1965 to an unknown time in the future. A map showing the relative connectivity of these projects to the Watdog Project can be found in Appendix C, Map C-14. This table and associated map satisfies requirements outlined in section of NEPA. Cumulative impact analyses for specific resources are listed in the FSEIS and related specialists reports (except see FSEIS pg. 3-3, No recreation projects, Notices of Intent (NOIs), Plans of Operations, or Special Use Authorizations are known from the project area for the recent past or foreseeable future. ): General Cumulative Effects, starting at FSEIS page 3-3; Air Quality, starting at FSEIS page 3-16; Botany and Noxious Weeds, starting at FSEIS page 3-20, EIS Botany Report pages 10 to18, FEIS Botany Report pages 10 to16; Economics, starting at FSEIS page 3-41; Fire and Fuels, starting at FSEIS page 3-67; Heritage Resources, starting at FSEIS page 3-75; Hydrology, starting at FSEIS page 3-97, Hydrology Report in its entirety; Rangeland, starting at FSEIS page 3-101; Recreation, Visuals, Lands and Minerals, starting at FSEIS page 3-108; Soils, starting at FSEIS page 3-133, Soils Report in its entirety ; Transportation, starting at FSEIS page 3-141; Vegetation, starting at FSEIS page 3-172, Silviculture Report pp. III-1, IV-4 to IV-27, Appendix A, pages 30 and 31, Cumulative Effects Supplement to the Watdog Project Silviculture Report in its entirety, Watdog Hazard Tree Cumulative Effects Analysis Hazard Tree Cumulative Effects Supplement to the Watdog Project Silviculture Report in its entirety, Appendix H Supplement to the Watdog Project Silviculture Report in its entirety, Errata and Supplement to the Hazard Tree Cumulative Effects Supplement; Wildlife and Fish, starting at FSEIS page 3-241, MIS Report pages 11 to 58, Watdog Project BA/BE pages 9 to 11, 20 to 22, 51 to 66, 71 to 121. These combined reports of cumulative impacts are adequately analyzed and disclosed and in alignment with NEPA law [Section 102(2)(C)] and CEQ Regulations [40 CFR , , , , ]. RECOMMENDATION I have considered all the appeal issues raised, and determined that the issues have been adequately addressed by the Responsible Official in the FSEIS, ROD, and in the record.

14 11 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 affirming of the Forest Supervisor's decision to implement Alternative B. /s/ Edward C. Cole EDWARD C. COLE Appeal Reviewing Officer Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest