San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor's Office

Transcription

1 United States USDA Department of ~ Agriculture Forest Service San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor's Office 602 South Tippecanoe Ave. San Bernardino, CA Phone: Fax: TTD: File Code: 1570 Date: August 5, 2010 Chad Hanson, Ph.D. Director John Muir Project P.o. Box 697 Cedar Ridge, CA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NUMBER: Dear Dr. Hanson, I am the designated Reviewing Officer for this objection. This is my response to the objection filed on behalf of the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, objection to the South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Environmental Assessment (EA). The legal notice of the objection period was published on June 9,2010. Your objection was received within the 30- day objection period and you have standing to file the objection. In your objection letter, dated July 8, 2010, you detailed the following five objections to the South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project. I am responding to your objection points with the following clarifications after each of your objection points. ~) The description of the Proposed Action (EA, pp ) is incomprehensible, in violation of NEP A, for four reasons. First, the description of the proposed action mentions the number of "snags" per acre that would be retained, but fails to divulge whether these would be "large snags" that are important to wildlife species, or snags of any size. The Biological Evaluation discusses the importance of snags over 15 inches in diameter to spotted owls, for example. The vague description of the alternative in the EA raises the question as to whether the snags that would be retained would be over 15 inches in diameter, and would be the largest snags available over 15 inches in diameter, or whether the snags retained might include sapling-sized snags of relatively little use to wildlife, or simply would not be the largest snags available. Response: The Treatment Descriptions on pages of the EA specifically state that the snags to be retained should be the largest snags available. In addition, Design Feature SL-l (page 64) states: Retain a minimum of 10 to 15 hard snags per 5 acres (minimum of 16 inches dbh and 40 feet tall or next largest available). No snags should be removed in riparian conservation areas. Exceptions will be allowed in level 1 and 2 treatments, and where they pose a safety hazard (S- 14, LMP Part 3, p. 6). A wildlife biologist will help guide selection of leave trees in areas outside of riparian conservation areas. Many treatment areas will retain more than the minimum 15 snags per 5 acres as a result of slope, accessibility, potential for wildlife use, or other reasons - this is expected as part of project implementation where the retention of additional snags does not pose an unacceptable safety orfuels risk. Caring for the Land and Serving People ~ Printed on Recyded Paper,

2 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection Also, Design Feature O-VT-3, O-VT-6, and O-VT-7 (pages 67-68) identify specific criteria for California spotted owls (A minimum of the largest, soundest 40 snags per 5 acres). The baseline diameter discussed in Design Feature SL-1 is part of the Proposed Action as stated on page 20 of the EA under Project Design Featuresfor Proposed Action. In summary, the snags that would be retained would have a minimum of 16" dbh (unless the site does not currently support any snags of that size; in that case, the largest available would be retained). In spotted owl habitat, the snag retention would include the largest, soundest snags on the site (all above 16" dbh). Second, the EA (p. 17, footnote 1) vaguely mentions that "dying" trees would be removed, but no specific definitions of "dying" trees is included in the description of the proposed action. Instead, wholly qualitative descriptions are used, including presence of reddish-brown pitch tubes, boring dust, yellow needles, and woodpecker foraging evidence, without actually describing the level or extent of these factors that would allow the Forest Service to remove the tree in question. Moreover, no scientific studies are cited to provide any basis for the level/extent of these factors that indicates a tree is likely to die as a result. The only document cited is a "leaflet" from 1982, which does not indicate the level of these factors at which a tree is likely to die, and which, on p. 6, specifically states that "healthy" trees may also have pitch tubes. Therefore, it is clear that the presence of these factors does not necessarily indicate that a tree is likely to die, depending upon the level/extent. For example, in the summer and fall especially, all pines have some yellow and brown needles, as the trees naturally shed older foliage or some lower unproductive branches; and healthy white firs commonly shed lower branches or the topmost foliage in the upper several meters ofthe tree's crown. With the hopelessly vague definition used in the EA, nearly every healthy tree in the forest could be marked as "dying" and removed. Response: The section referred to in the EA identifies how trees would be identified for removal to meet the desired stand densities and structures defined in the Treatment Level descriptions on pages in the EA. During implementation, trees to be removed would be identified in a hierarchal methodology, first trees that are dead, then those that are obviously not healthy and obviously dying out (poor crown ratios, thin crowns, obvious insect attacks) that can be easily identified in the field. The marking crews are trained to identify these characteristics. These trees would not contribute towards the purpose and need for a healthy, vigorous growing forest. Trees in the understory that are intermediate and suppressed would then be identified for removal. Third, the EA's description of the proposed action does not indicate whether these unspecified criteria for "dying" would be used ostensibly to meet the minimum snag retention standards identified for the proposed action. This is a critical issue because, if many or most of the trees marked as "dying" do not die, and are, in reality, not likely to die any time soon; then the project could lead to a substantial deficit oflarge snags relative to minimum habitat needs of spotted owls and many other wildlife species-a factor not analyzed in the EA.

3 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection Response: There are specific design features to ensure that snags are retained (See response to first bullet, comment 1). In addition, the residual stand characteristics will retain sufficient large trees to provide for future snag recruitment as the majority of the live green overstory component would be retained to meet the canopy cover requirements, as well as the design features in Treatment Levels 2, 3 and 4. The treatment descriptions are identified as a low thinning, which removes trees in the smaller diameter classes, in the subordinate crown classes. Fourth, the EA's description of the proposed action fails to identify the probability that a "dying" tree will actually die (within the next year or so). Is it 100%, 80%, 40%, 10%? Response: There is no analysis of probabilities of actually dying, however trees that exhibit the characteristics identified in the EA are much more likely to die than a tree that has a healthy, vigorous crown that is not as vulnerable to insect infestations or attacks. 2) The EA and BE fail to adequately analyze impacts to the California spotted owl, fail to ensure scientific accuracy and integrity of environmental analysis, and fail to directly and explicitly respond to dissenting scientific opinion, due to the fact that the EA and BE utterly fail to acknowledge that Bond et al. (2009) found that California spotted owls preferentially select unlogged high-intensity fire areas for foraging, and do not preferentially select unburned forest for foraging. The EA repeatedly suggests that patches of high-intensity fire (wherein most or all trees are killed by fire) are a threat to the spotted owl and eliminate suitable spotted owl habitat, and nowhere divulges that this new scientific data shows that the owls actually benefit from patches of high-intensity fire, which this Project seeks to eliminate. This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that we specifically brought this information to the attention of the Forest Service in our scoping comments on this project. Response: The objective of the South Big Bear Project is to increase community protection from wildfires. Another anticipated outcome is to break up fuel continuity and change fire behavior with the idea that if/when fire comes into the area, the result would be more acres in the low/moderate severity levels and fewer acres in high severity (EA, Purpose and Need, pg. 10). We acknowledge Bond et al. 's study. And, in fact, the SBNF's Mountaintop Ranger District has embarked on a similar radio-telemetry effort to assess post-fire habitat utilization following Bond's methodology. While we agree that post-fire habitat may continue to be used for foraging, currently there are no data to indicate that high severity areas are suitable for nesting/roosting. Based on the current understanding of habitat needs of spotted owls, it is reasonable to conclude that high severity areas would not be suitable for nesting. Until further information is known, treatments planned in spotted owl habitat, burned or unburned, will be designed conservatively. On the SBNF, we are extremely concerned about factors that have changed stand characteristics in nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats for spotted owls. We do not disagree that some amount of fire is not a bad thing for this species. However, we believe, as the current data show, that high severity fire in nesting/roosting habitat would make those areas unsuitable for nesting/roosting and that the spotted owls cannot afford to lose much more suitable nesting habitat in this mountain range without significantly impacting this species.

4 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection We suspect that foraging habitat may not be a limiting factor in the San Bernardino Mountains, but are concerned that nesting/roosting habitat may be and changes to the quality and quantity of that habitat may be causing problems to this population. We are focusing our conservation efforts on nesting/roosting habitat while not losing sight of the importance of foraging habitat. Between 1999 and 2009, about % of the spotted owl territories on the SBNF have been affected by wildfire. In a recent analysis of our occupancy and reproduction data, Dr. Mark Borchert has been looking at "active" versus "abandoned" territories (abandoned territories are those that have not been occupied for at least three years) and a number of variables, including vegetation burn severity. Borchert has found a relationship between territory abandonment and the amount ofhigh severity burn within a 0-acre circle around nest sites. That is, those territories that had a higher percentage of the 0-acres in high severity were more likely to have become "abandoned". Borchert's analysis has been done since the analysis for this project and was not included in the project record. His analysis is preliminary and still ongoing. While our analysis is preliminary and we are still gathering data about post-fire habitat utilization in the SBNF, we have every reason to believe that high severity burns in spotted owl habitat, particularly nest stands, is not a good thing for this population as our numbers of breeding pairs continues to dwindle and as more and more spotted owl habitat has been altered through fire and drought. 3) The EA and BE consistently assert that spotted owls continue to decline (according to the several reported variables of interest, e.g., number ofterritories with pairs, productivity, etc.), especially since the significant beetle mortality and wildland fire events since However, the figures presented in the BE are inconsistent with these assertions. The figures in the BE show that, on the San Bernardino N.F. since the beetle and fire events that have caused significant tree mortality (or, stated differently, which have created important new snag habitat structures that were lacking in this ecosystem previously), the number of pair occupied spotted owl territories finally stopped declining for the first time since the 1980s. Response: The data indicate that there has been a decline since the early 1990s in the number of breeding pairs of spotted owls on the SBNF. The relationship of the last few years of data to the overall trend will not be known for a few years. We simply do not know if the population is at a low, will increase, will continue to decrease, or is at a stable size after a population boom in the 1990s. With low numbers, low reproductive rates, low survival of fledglings through the first winter, increasing distances between active territories, and large-scale habitat changes through fire and drought, we do not believe that we overstated the concern, and we are not convinced that the spotted owl occupancy has "finally stopped declining for the first time since the 1980s ". We hope that you are correct. However, the data are not present to support that conclusion at this time.

5 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection ' l.l l.l S II III III : ) The EA fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the Proposed Action, and fails to fully consider a reasonable range of alternatives, because: a) it does not fully analyze an alternative with an 8-inch or 12-inch diameter limit; and b) the Diameter Limit Analysis report misleadingly rates the Proposed Action more favorably than the 8-inch or 12-inch options, and dismisses these lighter touch options, by excluding mortality from the proposed logging itself from the tree mortality projections/estimates. The Diameter Limit Analysis and the EA fail to divulge the fact that, under the 8-inch and 12-inch diameter limit options, there would be approximately the same number, or more, live trees over 8 or 12 inches in diameter (per acre) remaining after thinning and wildland fire than there would be after thinning and wildland fire under the Proposed Action. Response.; The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) provides that: "For areas inside the wildland-urban interface and within 1VJmiles of the boundary of an at-risk community, the USDA Forest Service and DOl BLM are not required to analyze any alternative to the proposed

6 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection action." The EA disclosed the reasons why the diameter limits of 8 and 12 inches did not meet the purpose and need and were not analyzed in detail (EA, pp~ 12-13). The analysis comparing the different levels of diameter limit retention did indicate that should a wildfire occur, there is a higher probability and amount of area that would experience crown fire, which usually results in near complete mortality. Under the Proposed Action, the overall condition of the residual forest will be more resilient to disturbance as a result of less competition for moisture and less dense such that a wildfire will not result in complete stand mortality. The analysis of effects includes the incorporation of Design Features 0-VT-3, 0-VT-6, and 0- VT7, and these essentially result in a diameter limit for much of the project area - all spotted owl nest stands and PAC habitat will have a 9" dbh limit while HRCs and spotted owl Suitable habitat will have a 16" dbh limit. The acreages are asfollows: 9" dbh - 443; 16" dbh HRC suitable =261 0 acres. Out of the entire 47 acres in a treatment level, 9% will have a 9" dbh; 55% will have a 16" dbh. The balance of the project treatment area is nonspotted owl habitat, all Treatment Level 3, which is smaller trees and montane chaparral and does not support larger trees. 5) The EA and the specialist reports imply that, with no action or with an 8-inch or 12-inch diameter limit option, the forest stands will have "limited ability to survive disturbance" from insects or fire, relative to the Proposed Action (see, e.g., Diameter Limit Analysis), but: a) fail to include tree mortality from logging itself in these comparisons; and b) fail to quantify the level of future beetle mortality that would occur with no action or the 8-inch or 12-inch options and do not provide citations to any scientific studies that support the hyperbolic assertions made in the EA and specialist reports. Response: It is well established in the literature (Weatherspoon et.al. 1992; Minnich et.ai1995; Young, 2005) that conditions that have occurred in the San Bernardino Mountains (drought, insect attacks, high levels of tree mortality) are due in part to the overstocked conditions resultingfrom decades of fire suppression (Vegetation and Fuels sections, Project Record). Increased densities of understory shrubs and trees have provided continuous vertical fuels that promote crown fires under moderate to severe fire conditions. Beetle activity, or wildfire disturbance is more likely in stand conditions that have dense understories, many trees competing for limited moisture, and high densities of trees. In response to your objection and given the response to each of your objection points above I am giving the following instructions to the Responsible Official for the South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Environmental Assessment. 1. Forest Health training will be completed by all timber marking crew members to ensure that proper selection of dead or dying trees are marked for removal, outside of the prescribed snag retention requirements within each treatment level. 2. Ifthe minimum number of snags are not present in a unit, then sufficient 'dying trees' will be retained as recruitment trees.

7 Response Letter - South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Objection The Proposed Action, treatment levels, and design criteria for South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project Environmental Assessment were designed in a collaborative manner. Information from past fuels reduction projects planned on the Forest under HFRA that have benefited from your participation, such as the Butler II-Slide Post-Fire Fuels Reduction project and Deep Creek and Green Valley Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project, were instrumental in contributing Standards for California Spotted Owl areas, snag retention, and selection of dead and dying trees in the current Proposed Action. I believe that all of the points in your objection have been addressed. Thank you for your participation in this process, and I encourage you to continue your participation pre and post implementation. Sincerely, /XA.~~ ~~E WADE EVANS Forest Supervisor