Lassen 15 Restoration Project Public Scoping Issue Analysis & Alternative Development

Transcription

1 Lassen 15 Restoration Project Public Scoping Issue Analysis & Alternative Development This document analyzes public comments received from scoping of the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment (Lassen 15 Draft EA). The Lassen 15 Restoration Project was originally scoped on March 24, A re-scoping was conducted on September 24, 2015 in order to disclose changes to the proposed action that occurred as a result of additional field reconnaissance and information. The first 30-day comment period for the Lassen 15 Draft EA opened on March 31, The Legal Notice for the objection period for the Final EA opened November 17, 2016 and an objection letter was mailed to the objectors on May 18, A second 30-day comment period for the EA opened August 24, This summary analyzes the comments received during the second 30-day comment period. This summary outlines the process that was used to analyze comments, potential issues, and alternatives that were suggested by the public for the Lassen 15 Restoration Project. Table 1 lists of those who responded during the opportunity to provide public comments on the Lassen 15 EA during the second 30-day comment period. Two individuals and/or organizations provided comments. Table 1. Respondents to 30-day Comment Period for the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Draft EA. Letter # Agency, Organization, Business, or Individual Date 1 Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress September 24, Scott Stawiarski, American Forest Resource Council September 25, 2017 Table 2 (on the following pages) identifies and documents specific statements from each of the letters received from the public in response to the 30-day comment period for the Lassen 15 EA. The Lassen 15 Restoration Responsible Official identified statements as comments, questions and requests for information, alternative suggestions, potential issues, and literature citations. The Responsible Official then provided rationale for determining the status of the comment, with identified issues and/or suggested alternatives carried forward into Tables 3 and 4 for further analysis. Copies of the scoping letters received are in the Lassen 15 Restoration Project planning record located at the Devils Garden Ranger District Office. For literature citations a comment is provided by the Responsible Official on how the literature will be addressed. Table 3 contains a summary list of potential issues identified. For each issue, the cause and effect for the issue topic as put forth by the respondent was noted. The Responsible Official then made a determination of the status of each issue by identifying them as either being significant or non-significant. No significant issues where identified from scoping comments. Table 4 provides a description of alternatives suggested by the respondents. The Responsible Official then determined if these proposed alternatives should be studied in detail using the following criteria: Alternatives not considered in detail may include, but are not limited to those that fail to meet the purpose and need, are technologically infeasible or illegal, or would result in unreasonable environmental harm. No proposed alternatives from scoping were determined to warrant further detailed study. 1

2 Table 2. Summary of Letters and Comments Received during the day Comment Period Respondent #1: Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress, letter (with previous comment letter April 2016 and objection letter December 2016) ed September 24, 2017 Comment # Identification Summary of Comment Responsible Official s Disposition 1-1 Comment Grazing The EA fails to comply with Deputy Regional Forester (DRF) Gyant s instructions. Three areas identified; Comments #1-2 through Comment Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Cattle Grazing The 2017 EA fails to adequately disclose or consider the past, present, and future effects of cattle grazing. Fails to adequately disclose or consider the impacts of cattle grazing on riparian areas, aquatic habitat, aquatic species, and the Western bumblebee. Fails to adequately disclose or consider the ongoing impacts of cattle grazing and fails to provide a site-specific analysis of those impacts. Conservation Congress and the Western Watershed Project have provided extensive comments on the issue of grazing, its impacts, and cumulative effects. Conservation Congress has adopted Western Watershed Project s comments as its own. The analysis in the 2017 EA does not adequately address the issues raised by those earlier comments. Comment identifies the three following comments. The Lassen 15 Project is not a grazing allotment analysis; the effects of existing allotment management were considered when they contribute to cumulative effects with the Lassen 15 project. Effects from cattle grazing will be analyzed thoroughly under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project. Cattle grazing effects of this project were considered and discussed in the Indirect/Direct Effects and Cumulative Impacts sections in the Lassen 15 Range Report (pp ). 2 Cumulative effects of cattle grazing were considered in other specialist reports, e.g.,: Hydrology Report under Environmental Consequences (pp ) and in Appendix 2, Cumulative Watershed Effects (pp ). The Lassen 15 Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation (pp. 7-8, Table 7 and Grazing section) discusses the potential contribution of grazing to cumulative effects for the western bumble bee. See also the Lassen 15 EA, pp Comment Mitigation Measures to Limit the Effects of Cattle Grazing Current cattle grazing was considered in cumulative effects analyses for this project;

3 the Forest Service stated that mitigation measures and the effects of grazing will be analyzed under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project. (Objection Ltr at 26)..The 2016 EA also stated that details and analysis of [the grazing mitigation] strategies would be incorporated into the Lassen Creek Grazing Project EA. DRF Gyant s instructions appear to require the Forest Service to disclose and consider those mitigation measures under this project, and not under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project. the 2017 EA fails to update the 2016 analysis or provide adequate details of its plans to mitigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of cattle grazing. The 2017 EA fails to adequately disclose or consider measures to mitigate the effects of cattle grazing or the effectiveness of such measures. The EA admits that thinning will allow cattle greater access to the thinned stands within the project area. Thinning will cause an increase in transitory forage, for cattle, and would cause grazing distribution patterns [to] improve in the uplands EA at The EA also states that cattle access to riparian areas potentially would increase slightly because of hand treatment in areas with riparian-dependent vegetation EA at 138. The EA does not disclose the extent of the expected impacts from cattle grazing due to thinning and the removal of riparian vegetation, nor does the EA attempt to quantify those impacts. Without knowing the extent of thinning in upland and riparian areas, the public cannot begin to understand the extent of the potential impacts from cattle grazing caused by the chosen alternative action. The Forest Service does not demonstrate that the impacts caused by cattle in these newly exposed areas are consistent with the MNF plan or the SNFPA. The EA fails to adequately disclose what mitigation measures will be used to minimize the impacts of cattle grazing within the project area. The EA fails to disclose or consider the effectiveness of current measures used to mitigate the effects of cattle grazing on riparian areas, aquatic habitat, aquatic species, wetlands, MIS, and sensitive or candidate species. For that reason, the EA fails to demonstrate consistency with the Riparian Conservation Objectives, the MNF plan, or the SNFPA ROD. however, the Lassen Creek Grazing Project, which currently is being analyzed, will have more detailed information considering cattle grazing. Adaptive management strategies to protect aspen regeneration are discussed in the Lassen 15 EA under Mitigation and Monitoring, Aspen and Livestock (p. 17) and under the Range section, Direct/Indirect Effects, Aspen Treatment (p. 141), and in the Range Report under Aspen Treatment, Direct/Indirect Effects (p. 20). Cattle grazing management will continue to follow Forest Service monitoring criteria and best management practices in order to uphold riparian standards throughout the allotment. (See Lassen 15 EA, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Section, paragraphs 2 & 4.) Grazing is covered under cumulative effects within the MIS Report and Wildlife BA/BE. There are no acres of fresh water emergent or lacustrine habitats ( wetlands ) within the project area [see Wildlife BA/BE, Table 3 (pp )]. Page numbers for the discussions concerning potential cumulative effects of grazing on MIS, sensitive, or candidate species are found below. BA/BE: Marten p. 27 Bald eagle pp Fringed myotis p. 42 Great gray owl p. 46 Northern goshawk p. 56 3

4 Pallid bat p. 61 MIS Report: Riparian (Yellow warbler) p. 15 Wet meadow (Tree frog) pp under cumulative effects to habitat Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) p. 22 Lassen 15 EA: Wet meadow (Tree frog) p. 85 under cumulative effects. Marten p. 56 Bald eagle pp Fringed myotis p. 65 Northern goshawk p. 72 Pallid bat p Comment Effects of Grazing on Aspen The EA fails to provide adequate information about mitigation measures or the proposed aspen monitoring plan. The EA states the following: [S]alt blocks fencing would be utilized to obstruct access EA at 140. Besides adding the last sentence that fencing would be utilized if browsing of aspen is greater than 20%, the Forest Service did not change the description from the 2016 EA. The statements in the EA fall short of the details required to describe mitigation measures or their effectiveness. General statements that the Forest Service intends to monitor grazing or adjust[t] intensity, timing, and duration of use fail to provide the details needed to evaluate whether the monitoring or adjustments are adequate to mitigate the foreseeable impacts of grazing. The 2017 EA also fails to adequately disclose or consider the ongoing effects of cattle grazing on aspen stands within the project area. The EA simply fails to provide sufficient information for the public to determine whether the current and proposed mitigation practices are effective. That failure prevents the public from understanding the past, present, and future impacts of cattle grazing on aspen stands within the project area. For the aspen treatments proposed under the Lassen 15 project, the 2017 EA describes the quantifiable browse standard measurement to be monitored and the actions to be taken if the standard is not met [Lassen 15 EA under Mitigation and Monitoring, Aspen and Livestock (p. 17) and under the Range section, Direct/Indirect Effects, Aspen Treatment (p. 140), and in the Range Report under Aspen Treatment, Direct/Indirect Effects (p. 20)]. Modoc LRMP direction relies on use monitoring to determine the level of livestock browsing on aspen (Migratory Bird Report, p. 5, section titled Aspen ). 4

5 1-5 Comment American (Pine) Marten The 2017 EA fails to demonstrate compliance or consistency with the SNFPA ROD s requirements for marten habitat and den sites. The EA fails provide a reason for why the Forest Service believes the project will maintain or achieve Desired Conditions for marten den sites. The Forest Service does not show that for marten den sites, the project will maintain at least two conifers per acre greater than 24 inches dbh with suitable denning cavities. SNFPA ROD at 39. The EA also fails to demonstrate that the project will achieve (2) canopy closures exceeding 60 percent, (3) more than 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2, and (4) an average of 6 snags per acre on the westside and 3 per acre on the eastside. Id. The SNFPA requires the Forest Service to retain [t]rees 30 inches dbh and larger in all thinning projects. SNFPA ROD thinning standard #6 (Objection Ltr. at 55). Conservation Congress has commented that the variable retention thinning for the Lassen 15 project violates the 30 inch dbh retention standard for thinning required by the SNFPA ROD (Objection Ltr. at 55). The other mechanical treatments listed in the 2017 EA also appear to violate and/or ignore the 30 inch dbh retention standard (2017 EA at 7-8). The project does not maintain retain 30 inch dbh trees and therefore fails to comply with the SNFPA ROD. In his May 18, 2017 objection review letter, DRF Gyant instructed the Forest Service to provide adequate analysis of the project s impacts to marten and disclose survey protocol for marten surveys. The analysis in the 2017 EA remains substantively unchanged from the 2016 EA. The 2017 EA fails to disclose the survey protocol for marten surveys. The Forest Service has failed to provide the information and analysis required by DRF Gyant. Because the analysis of martens remains unchanged from the 2016 EA, Conservation Congress hereby incorporates its prior comments related to martens (Objection Ltr. at 54-55). Clarifying language regarding retention of trees of 30-inch dbh and larger was added to the Lassen 15 EA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). No trees over 29.9 inches were identified for removal. Track plate surveys and camera stations have identified no American marten within the project area (Lassen 15 EA, Pacific Marten, Existing Condition, pp ) and the project area lacks adequate habitat (Lassen 15 EA, p. 54). Were an active den site discovered, the Limited Operating Period Design Feature on page 14 of the Lassen 15 EA would be implemented. The Wildlife BA/BE (p. 22) discusses the compliance of the Lassen 15 project with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD for marten den sites. No CWHR size 5 stands that are typed as potential marten habitat would be treated (Wildlife BA/BE, pp ; Lassen 15 EA, p. 54); therefore, the project would maintain the potential habitat currently existing within the Lassen 15 project area. The protocol used to survey for marten is found on page 20 of the Wildlife BA/BE and in the reference section on page 69 (Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera., technical editors American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 5

6 Department of Agriculture; 163 pp.). The timing of the surveys is discussed on pages of the Wildlife BA/BE. Questions found in the objection letter from Conservation Congress (pp. 54 and 55) were addressed as follows: Fragmentation Fragmentation is discussed in the Wildlife BA/BE, section titled Old Forest Fragmentation Analysis, pp Den sites There are no den sites within the Lassen 15 project area or on the Warner Mountain Ranger District (Wildlife BA/BE, under V. Effects of the Proposed Project, Pacific Marten, Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area); therefore, there would be no disturbance, no LOP instituted, and no 100-acre buffer with habitat features as detailed in the SNFPA ROD. Harvest of large trees The statement that 30-inch dbh trees would be retained occurs in the Wildlife report, golden eagle section, p. 8 and in the Wildlife BA/BE, Action Alternative Section for bald eagle, p. 30. Habitat surveys Habitat was delineated for the Lassen 15 project utilizing the CWHR data found in the 2004 Modoc National Forest electronic vegetation dataset (Wildlife BA/BE, Existing Environment, p. 14). This is the same dataset used by the SNFPA for categorizing marten habitat on page 39 of the SNFPA ROD. The SNFPA utilized the best 6

7 available science for developing its direction for marten. Following the direction in the SNFPA would provide for viable populations of marten. The Lassen 15 project is consistent in its implementation of marten direction from the SNFPA ROD (Wildlife BA/BE, p. 21). 1-6 Comment Great Gray Owl The Forest Service did not revise its discussion of the Great Gray Owl in the 2017 EA. Conservation Congress hereby incorporates its comments on previous versions of the EA (Objection Ltr. at 65-67). Deputy Regional Forester Gyant instructed the Forest Service to disclose its survey protocol for the Great Gray Owl. The 2017 EA fails to disclose the survey protocol. Without disclosing or considering the survey protocol, the EA fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the project s consistency with the SNFPA. The great gray owl section within the Wildlife BA/BE was amended in response to comments provided by the Conservation Congress. There is no direction for great gray owl in the 1991 Modoc NF LRMP. Since there have been no detections of great gray adults, young, sign, or nests within the Lassen 15 project area, no Protected Activity Centers have been established (Wildlife BA/BE, p. 44). This action is consistent with the SNFPA. Great gray owl surveys were completed per the current protocol (Wildlife BA/BE. p. 43). See the protocol (Beck and Winter 2000) for specifics as to timing and duration of these surveys. The Forest surveyed areas recommended by California Department of Fish and Wildlife staff, which included the best potential habitat in the Lassen Creek watershed. Modelling potential habitat was conducted per Conservation Congress comments on page 66 (see Wildlife BA/BE, pp ). For the cumulative effects analysis, see the Wildlife BA/BE, pp Comment Yellow Warbler The 2017 EA fails to demonstrate compliance with Modoc Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the Fandango Management Area (Objection Ltr. at 56-57). The 2017 Weir maintenance proposed in the Lassen 15 project is consistent with the Fandango Management Area (USDA 1991, p ). 7

8 EA fails to provide information on the timing, extent, duration, frequency, intensity, and scale of the surveys for Yellow warbler or its habitat to demonstrate that surveys are in accordance with the forest plan direction and the best available science. The EA fails to disclose the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the Yellow warbler. The EA fails to provide a scientifically sound explanation of the Forest Service s methodology for measuring Yellow warbler habitat. The second bullet states, Maintain structural improvements along Lassen and Cold Creek. Aspen management is consistent with the LRMP, as discussed in the last bullet in the Conservation Congress letter on page 57. The Lassen 15 project complies with the Modoc National Forest LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007). The 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS (MIS report, p. 2). Population surveys to support trend analyses are conducted at the bioregional level, not at the project level (See the Lassen 15 MIS report, p. 2, point number 2; p. 3, 1.b.; pp. 3-4). The Lassen 15 MIS analysis meets this Regional Direction. Per Regional direction, the analysis for yellow warbler at the project level is conducted based on changes in habitat. This direction is found in the MIS report, pp The types of vegetation considered as yellow warbler habitat are identified in Table 1 and detailed on pp of the MIS report. The amount or quantity of this type of habitat is displayed in Table 2 and in Table 3 in the Montane Riparian rows. Per Table 3, there would be no change in 8

9 the amount of Montane Riparian Habitat. The quantity is also discussed under the section titled Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area (p. 14). The changes in the quality of montane riparian habitat are discussed in the MIS report under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) (pp ). The method for measuring yellow warbler habitat comes directly from the Regional Template, which is considered LRMP direction and would include the best available science in its development. 1-8 Comment Pacific tree (chorus) frog The 2017 EA makes contradictory statements regarding whether the project s thinning and burning will affect the wet meadow habitat of the Pacific tree frog. The 2017 EA concludes that there will be [n]o direct and indirect effects to wet meadow habitat from thinning and burning due to the protections for hydrologic resources afforded by the use of Best Management Practices (see Hydrology section) EA at 84. This conclusion differs from that in the 2016 EA, which concluded that thinning and prescribed burning would potentially impact wet meadows[.] 2016 EA at 82. The Forest Service fails to explain why it reached a different conclusion in the 2017 EA. A mention of BMPs does not provide the reasoned decisionmaking required by the APA and NEPA. The Forest Service s rationale is arbitrary and capricious. For that reason, the 2017 EA violates the APA, NEPA, and NFMA. The 2017 EA acknowledges that past burning and thinning have affected about 1,988 acres on a variety of habitats, and that [p]ast, present, and future actions that might affect wet meadow habitat include thinning, prescribed burning, and livestock grazing EA at 85. The Hydrology section does not explain why or how best management practices for the Lassen 15 project will avoid impacts to wet meadows and Pacific tree frog habitat. The 2017 EA also fails to adequately disclose and consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of grazing and wildfire suppression on the Pacific tree frog and wet meadows. The EA s discussion of the impacts to wet By adhering to Design Features and BMPs, there should be no adverse impacts to wet meadows from thinning or prescribed burning. The original input noted that thinning upslope coniferous trees could benefit wet meadow (WTM) habitat. Based on best available science, there are no anticipated direct and indirect effects to WTM habitat from thinning and burning, due to the protections for hydrologic resources afforded by the use of BMPs (see Lassen 15 Hydrology Report). Wet meadows are not affected by thinning and burning because treatments are located in upland terrestrial habitat (MIS report, Wet Meadow Habitat, Alternative 1, Cumulative Effects to Habitat, p. 19). Grazing is discussed in that same section. 9

10 meadows fails to explain specifically why or how the Lassen 15 project will avoid impacts when it concludes that other past, present, and future projects have failed and will fail to avoid those same impacts. If other projects that employ thinning and prescribed burning have impacted and will impact wet meadow habitat, the EA fails to explain why the Lassen 15 project or its BMPs will achieve a different outcome. 1-9 Comment Northern Flying Squirrel The 2017 EA fails to adequately consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project on the northern flying squirrel. The Forest Service fails to support its conclusion that prescribed burning will not have a net effect on the number of snags and logs available for the northern flying squirrel. The EA does not support the conclusion that newly recruited logs [from prescribed burning] are expected to be sufficient to replace any losses of down logs to prescribed burning and hazard removal EA at 89. The conclusion that the project would result in a discountable change in the amount of logs per acre after implementation of prescribe fire, fails to adequately quantify the effect of the proposed action alternative. The EA discusses the effect of thinning over the long term, but fails to address short term impacts to habitat. Without support, the Forest Service concludes that [t]hinning may help increase late seral closed canopy coniferous forest by retaining large size class tree in other CWFR conifer seral classes over the long term EA at 89. This analysis fails to disclose or consider short-term impacts to flying squirrel habitat. The discussion in the EA of the direct and indirect effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat fails to support the Forest Service s conclusion that implementation of the proposed action alternative would have not effect on the amount of acres or condition of the canopy. Id. The EA does not disclose or consider short-term impacts. The EA also fails to provide the public with sufficient information to evaluate the extent to which thinning may or may not increase the amount of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest. The Forest Service admits that past timber harvest has resulted in reduced acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest, within the project area EA at 90. The EA links these changes to pre-commercial thinning and selective cutting, and the EA links a decrease in the current density of down logs to previous prescribed burns. Id. However, the EA fails to explain why the thinning and burning activities in the proposed action will not cause the same result. Statements that [c]hanges in tree canopy closure may have resulted from or that changes in densities of down logs There is no Modoc NF LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA, direction to protect northern flying squirrel habitat. The direction in the Modoc NF LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007), is to document changes in trends of habitat, which was done in the Lassen 15 MIS report, Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat section, pp There would be no changes in the amount of logs within late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat since there are no treatments planned in this habitat type. The discussion of factor 3 (MIS report, Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat section, Alternative 1, Direct/Indirect Effects) was amended to clarify this point on page 26 of the MIS report. The short-term impacts to habitat are discussed in the MIS report, Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat section, Alternative 1, Direct/Indirect Effects, factor 1 and factor 2 (p. 26); see also Table 3. The long term impact is that other CWHR habitats might become late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat as canopy covers and tree diameters 10

11 may have resulted from fail to provide an adequate description of the baseline condition or its cause. Id. For that reason, the Forest Service lacks support for its conclusion that the Lassen 15 project activities would not contribute to cumulative effects of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat. Id. From the information provided in the EA, it appears that the amount of closed canopy forest is decreasing within the project area, and that the cause of that decrease has been thinning and prescribed burns. The EA discloses the amount of habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada, but fails to discuss the more relevant metric for the project, the habitat trend on the Modoc National Forest EA at 90. The EA fails to demonstrate that the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project are consistent with the MNF forest plan. Conservation Congress hereby incorporates its prior comments on the northern flying squirrel and flying squirrel habitat. Conservation Congress Dec. 23, 2016 Objection Ltr. at 59. The EA fails to comply with NEPA and NFMA. increase (MIS report, Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat section, Alternative 1, Direct/Indirect Effects). The wording concerning past timber harvest has been revised (MIS report, Northern Flying Squirrel, Cumulative Effects Conclusion for Alternative 1, p. 26). The Lassen 15 project does not propose treating any late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat (MIS report, Table 8). Large trees were removed from the project area in the past, but the Lassen 15 project does not treat late seral closed canopy coniferous forest stands and, therefore, does not contribute to a decrease in this habitat type. Population surveys to support trend analyses are to be conducted at the bioregional level, not at the project level (Lassen 15 MIS report, pp. 2-3). Habitat surveys There is no requirement for habitat surveys at the project level (MIS report, pp. 2-3). Electronic CWHR data was used to assess changes in habitat trends at the project level Comment Osprey The 2017 EA did not add any analysis to that provided by the Forest Service on osprey in the 2016 EA EA at The EA and the Wildlife Report continue to provide conflicting information about the effect of the project on osprey. The 2017 Wildlife Report states that prescribed fire will occur on 11 acres within osprey territory Wildlife Report at 6. The EA is uncertain whether timber harvest will occur within osprey territory, stating that [t]here are 5.6 acres of timber harvest that potentially would occur within osprey territory EA at 92. The Forest Service fails to provide accurate or consistent information regarding the extent and location of Thank you. The osprey section in the Lassen 15 EA was revised to reflect changes in the analysis as represented in the Wildlife Report. The effects to osprey were re-analyzed and the management to occur within the territory was clarified. The results of this analysis are in the Wildlife Report. 11

12 osprey territory within the project area and whether thinning, timber harvest, or prescribed burning will occur within that territory. The 2017 EA fails to comply with Deputy Regional Forester Gyant s instructions to disclose whether treatments will occur in osprey territory. Because the Forest Service appears to have failed to update the 2016 EA and accompanying documents, Conservation Congress hereby incorporates its December 23, 2016 comments related to osprey by reference. Dec. 23, 2016 Objection Ltr. at There is no specific management direction for osprey within the SNFPA ROD. A territory was designated per Modoc LRMP direction (Wildlife Report, pp. 5-6). All trees would remain on site when activities have been completed (Wildlife Report, p. 5) so there would be no change in the number of trees in the territory. Per Modoc LRMP direction, Limited Operating Periods would be placed around active nests. Stand searches would occur prior to management activities (Wildlife Report, p. 5). There are no requirements for monitoring osprey [Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007); MIS report, Table 1] Comment Golden Eagle The 2017 EA did not add any new analysis to that provided by the Forest Service on the golden eagle in the 2016 EA EA at 93. Golden Eagles are covered by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, so it is illegal to "take" them. In order to avoid that, the Forest Service needs to survey properly, according to current science-backed accepted protocol. The EA fails to provide sufficient information on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effect of the project on the golden eagle. In response to comments that pointed out deficiencies in the 2016 EA, Deputy Regional Forester Gyant instructed the Forest Service to disclose survey records and to disclose intent to continue golden eagle surveys. The 2017 EA and accompanying documents fail to provide that information. Conservation Congress hereby incorporates its December 23, 2016 comments related to the golden eagle by reference. Dec. 23, 2016 Objection Ltr. at Survey information was included in the Wildlife Report, Table 2; eagle nest tree information is found in Appendix A. There are no requirements for monitoring golden eagle (MIS report, Table 1, current list of MIS) since these were changed under the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007). Direction per the SNF MIS Amendment is to ensure compliance with the standards and guidelines (Wildlife Report, pp. 6-9, particularly under Private Land/Planter s Camp. Surveys prior to management activities, including timber harvest, would be part of the Lassen 15 implementation package. Per 12

13 Modoc LRMP direction, Limited Operating Periods would be placed around active nests Comment Pileated Woodpecker The EA fails to explain how the chosen alternative complies with the MNF plan requirements for pileated woodpecker. The EA and the wildlife report present conflicting information. The EA states that [p]ileated woodpeckers or their diagnostic cavities have been detected in late seral habitats throughout the Lassen 15 Project area EA at 93. Despite the fact that pileated woodpeckers occur throughout, the EA only discusses two stands in its analysis. The EA implies that thinning would occur in the stands mentioned in the EA, which notes that thinning would decrease canopy cover, but would provide habitat for pileated woodpecker post-harvest. The EA fails to discuss the habitat needs of the pileated woodpecker, and the EA does not explain how or why thinning would not reduce the amount of habitat available. With regard to thinning, the wildlife report states the opposite, that [t]here is no thinning proposed in the pileated woodpecker territory Wildlife Report at 14. To further compound matters, the FS got the seral stage requirements wrong. It is a minimum 5% old growth, 5% large/med tree (>24" dbh), 20% total smaller classes. This significant error makes it difficult if not impossible to understand which seral stage habitat is being impacted. In contrast to the description in the EA, the wildlife report discloses that there are 1,710 acres within the Buck Mountain pileated woodpecker territory. The wildlife report fails to disclose or consider whether there are other areas of pileated woodpecker territory within the project area. The wildlife report does not mention the stands described in the EA. In its analysis of the 1,710 acres, the wildlife report fails to describe the acreage in a manner that allows the public to understand what portion of the 1,710 acres if any complies with the MNF standards and guidelines LRMP 4-28 to The 1,710 acres of territory do not appear to be contiguous. The EA is not in accord with the best available science, and does not disclose the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the pileated woodpecker, or an explanation of the FS s methodology for measuring this habitat. Both the EA and the wildlife report fail to disclose whether the project area currently complies with the standards and guidelines for pileated woodpecker in the MNF LRMP. Neither the EA nor the wildlife report explain whether the chosen alternative is consistent with the requirement to [m]anage for pileated woodpecker territories that are at least 600 acres, or the requirement to manage for a territory distribution of one Thank you for your comment. The pileated woodpecker section in the Lassen 15 EA was revised to reflect changes in the analysis as represented in the Wildlife Report. The Wildlife Report (Table 3) lists the acreages by various vegetation classes. As the commenter noted, the amount of old growth is 5% and the total percentages for seral stages from grass/forb/seedling to small tree is 20%. The amount of vegetation types including old growth in the foraging habitat is found in the far right column in Table 3 of the Wildlife Report. It is 46.4%, which exceeds the amount designated in the Modoc LRMP. That only one territory is found in the Lassen 15 project area and a map, as the commenter recommended, have been added to the revised Wildlife Report (pp. 12 and 19). There are no requirements for monitoring pileated woodpecker since these were changed under the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007). Table 1 in the MIS report lists the current MIS species to be monitored. 13

14 every 13,000 acres, within suitable habitat. Wildlife Report at 12. The EA and wildlife report also fail to consider the standards and guidelines that address requirements for reproductive territory. Without information on population monitoring or a better explanation of existing pileated woodpecker territories and their connection to or overlap with the project area and the areas that the Forest Service intends to thin or burn, the EA fails to adequately disclose the impacts the pileated woodpecker and its habitat. Because the EA and the wildlife report fail to provide sufficient information on surveys and survey protocol for the pileated woodpecker, the EA fails to demonstrate that the chosen alternative is consistent with the MNF plan. Moreover, because the EA fails to disclose or consider the spatial relationship between the areas the Forest Service will cut, the Forest Service deprives the public of the ability to understand the project and its potential impacts to the pileated woodpecker and its habitat. In situations like these, it is difficult to escape the cliché that a picture is worth a thousand words. The explanation of extant pileated woodpecker territory in wildlife report is hyper-technical and suffuse with argot that makes the analysis nearly impossible for the public to interpret. In this situation, the EA fails to fulfill its role of explaining the information contained in the wildlife report in a manner that would make sense to an educated layperson. The explanation in the EA and wildlife report are inadequate, and a map showing the areas to be thinned and pileated woodpecker habitat would go a long way in demonstrating how the chosen alternative will or will not affect the pileated woodpecker Comment Black-backed woodpecker The EA fails to disclose or consider the direct, indirect, or cumulative effect of the chosen alternative on the black-backed woodpecker. DRF Gyant instructed the Forest Service to analyze the project and its impacts on the black-backed woodpecker. The 2017 EA failed to include any analysis on the MIS. For that reason, Conservation Congress incorporates its prior comments on the black-backed woodpecker and fire suppression herein by reference. Dec. 23, 2016 Objection Ltr. at 44-48, Comment Willow Flycatcher The EA fails to disclose or consider the cumulative impacts of grazing on the willow flycatcher and its habitat. The EA fails to disclose or consider the extent to which the current grazing activities comply with the standards and guidelines to preserve and Black-backed woodpecker is discussed under Selection of Project level MIS (MIS report, Table 1 and p. 6). Since the Lassen 15 proposed action does not include fire salvage, the project would not affect the trend of Snags in Burned Forest habitat or black-backed woodpecker as an MIS of this vegetation type. Willow flycatcher is discussed in the Wildlife BA/BE under the willow flycatcher section (p. 4) and in the Migratory Landbird Report (p. 3). Since 14

15 maintain riparian habitat. The Forest Service fails to consider multiple sighting of the willow flycatcher within the project area, and the agency fails to disclose or consider whether its surveys for the willow flycatcher have been sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the MNF plan. Because the Forest Service did not update its analysis of the willow flycatcher in the 2017 EA, Conservation Congress incorporates its prior comments on the willow flycatcher herein by reference. Dec. 23, 2016 Objection Ltr. at Comment Hairy Woodpecker The EA states the hairy woodpecker has been surveyed since 2009 by PRBO Conservation Science on ten forests in the Sierras. They were found on all ten forests and therefore it is assumed they will continue to be found. Snag data from 1999 to 2010 was used to estimate the number of snags that might be left after Lassen 15 is implemented. Regarding the impacts of Lassen 15 to hairy woodpecker habitat the Wildlife Report states: Possible changes in medium and large-sized snags per acre on about 8,000 acres in the Lassen 15 project area will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. This conclusion still does not state what those possible changes might be to woodpecker habitat and the remaining conclusion is not based on any empirical data. Without information on population monitoring or a better explanation of existing woodpecker territories and their connection to or overlap with the project area and the areas that the Forest Service intends to thin or burn, the EA fails to adequately disclose the impacts to the hairy woodpecker and its habitat. Because the EA and the wildlife report fail to provide sufficient information on surveys and survey protocol for the hairy woodpecker in the 8,000 acre project area, the EA fails to demonstrate that the chosen alternative is consistent with the MNF plan Comment Northern Goshawk While a bit of new, information is included in the revised EA it is still not in compliance with the regional direction issued by Mr. Gyant. Table 21. Pre- and post-harvest potential goshawk habitat within the Lassen 15 area. Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Northern Goshawk 12,393 7,273 willow flycatchers have not been detected in the project area [(Migratory Landbird Report, under willow flycatcher, Table 1 (p. 3), and on page 5), there were no effects discussed for this species. The effects analysis for hairy woodpecker is covered in the MIS report. Population surveys to support trend analyses are conducted at the bioregional level, not at the project level (Lassen 15 MIS report, pp. 2-4). The MIS report includes information concerning snag levels in the project area up to year 2016 (Table 4 and pp ). There is no requirement to manage for hairy woodpecker territories, but the Modoc NF LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA, does require the maintenance of snag habitat (SNFPA ROD, p. 51). A discussion of the potential effects of removing only hazard trees is located on pages in the MIS Report. Consistency with the Modoc LRMP, as amended, is found on page 30. The discussion concerning the short term impacts to the goshawk by thinning has been augmented in the Wildlife BA/BE (pp ). Surveys were conducted in suitable habitat within the project area (Wildlife BA/BE, pp ), which is consistent with the SNFPA (p. 54). The preimplementation surveys provide a safety net. If an alternate nest site is found outside of an area already protected by a PAC, the 15

16 This is a loss of 5,120 acres. The EA is silent on how this loss of habitat will impact goshawks in the project area and the analysis area. The BE sounds as if goshawk are expected to stay in contained areas of PACs and not go outside of them for life needs. It is silent on why this expectation is realistic. The BE also states it is anticipated that thinned stands would exhibit some late seral characteristics (e.g. denser canopy cover, larger trees) on average 10 to 15 years post-treatment. How will the loss of late seral characteristics affect habitat used by goshawks in the short term? This is important because Limited Operating Periods would be established on nest sites, if they are known. There may be nest sites outside of PACs. The BE finally states: To summarize, management activities proposed in the Lassen 15 EA would be consistent with Modoc NF LRMP, as amended yet again fails to state how the project would be in compliance considering the lack of information. bird would be protected from disturbance and a contract adjustment would be completed to protect the nest site. Per Modoc NF LRMP direction, as amended by the SNFPA, two hundred-acre PACs have been placed around all active nests within the Lassen 15 project area (Wildlife BA/BE, Tables 19 and 20 for the breakdown of vegetation types within each PAC and number years PACs have had active nests). The Forest Service still has not said when, how much or exactly where in relation to the known nests, the goshawk territories are consistent with the LRMP. It also has not shown that the forest s data can back up potential compliance because it has not shown compliance Comment Whitebark Pine Neither the EA nor the 2017 Biological Evaluation Addendum provide information about the extent, duration, intensity, and scale of the surveys for whitebark pine. These documents fail to demonstrate that the surveys are in accordance with forest plan direction and the best available science. In response to Conservation Congress s earlier comments Deputy Regional Forester Gyant instructed the Forest Service to disclose the survey protocols for whitebark pine. The Forest Service failed to comply with that instruction. This is particularly egregious since the Forest Service has conducted surveys for WBP on the Modoc NF in the Warner Mountains. The EA is not in accord with the best available science, and does not disclose the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the whitebark pine, or an explanation of the FS s methodology for measuring this habitat. This violates NEPA and NFMA. The USFWS found whitebark pine warranted but precluded for listing under the ESA due to other higher priorities. The Forest Service is charged with insuring that this species does not become further threatened even though it is not currently listed Comment Other Deficiencies in the 2017 EA DRF Gyant instructed the Forest Service to address a number of deficiencies in the 2016 EA. For the most part, the 2017 EA fails to provide the information required by Please see the Biological Evaluation Addendum for Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Botanical Species for Lassen 15 Restoration Project, particularly sections 4.1 Analysis Process, 5.1 Habitat Determination and Survey Results, and 6 Effects, Analysis, and Determination for Whitebark Pine. Information can be found in the following locations in the MIS report: MIS species habitats: 16

17 Deputy Regional Forester s Gyant s review. The EA fails to provide an adequate discussion of the cumulative impacts to MIS habitat and fails to provide well-reasoned conclusions regarding those impacts. Next, the EA fails to provide information about the extent of old growth in the Fandango Management Area. The EA fails to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of culvert and weir repair and replacement on riparian habitat within the project area. Although the EA does provide some discussion of impacts from individual replacements and repairs, the EA fails to provide information about the impacts of all of these individual actions on the riparian habitat overall. Finally, the EA fails to provide adequate detailed analysis of the cumulative effects on macroinvertebrates within the project area EA at 82. The analysis is cursory and fails to provide sufficient information about past, present, and future activities or their impacts to determine whether the proposed action complies with the SNFPA ROD. Riparian (Yellow warbler) pp Wet meadow (Tree frog) pp Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) pp Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (Pacific marten (formerly American marten) and northern flying squirrel) p Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) pp Information concerning old growth in the Fandango Management area is found in the Wildlife BA/BE, section entitled Old Growth. The direct and indirect effects to riparian habitat of culvert placement and weir repair are discussed in the MIS Report (p. 13, riparian section; pp , wet meadow section). Direct and Indirect effects from culvert replacement and weir repair were considered (Hydrology Report, p. 16). These effects would have a nominal contribution to hydrologic cumulative effects, partly due to the small footprint and very short duration of limited effects Comment Limited Operating Period The EA states that the chosen alternative will comply with the Limited Operating Period (LOPs) for various species that require LOPs EA at 13. However, the EA fails to disclose, consider, or analyze the duration of the LOPs, when they occur, and The IDT can approximate when and where an LOP may be needed but these areas may change based on the animals use of an alternate area (like the raptors) or 17

18 where they occur throughout the project area. Without this information, the EA fails to consider the effect of LOPs on the economic viability of the project or the extent to which the LOPs are sufficient to prevent impacts to the species that require them. establishing new occurrences (like marten). In addition, LOPs occur only when animals are actively nesting or denning. This is why it is important to conduct preimplementation surveys as well as work closely with the timber sale administrators to determine the areas affected. The durations of the LOPs are detailed in the following sections: Wildlife BA/BE on p. 10 (marten), p. 11 (great gray owl), and p. 13 (northern goshawk). Wildlife Report on p. 4 (prairie falcon) and p. 5 (golden eagle, osprey). 1-20a Comment Soil and Hydrology In response to comments that detailed deficiencies in the 2016 EA, Deputy Regional Forester s Gyant instructed the Forest Service to disclose field data for soils analysis and to provide effects analysis for soil compaction. The 2017 EA and the soils report fail to provide this information. Deputy Regional Forester Gyant also instructed the Forest Service to provide information on fens within the project area. The 2017 EA fails to provide the location of fens throughout the project area or their potential for exposure to impacts from grazing and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the chosen action alternative. Without this information, the EA fails to provide sufficient information to determine whether the project complies with the MNF plan. See the Soils Report, pp. 6-7, for soil compaction. See the Hydrology Report, p. 8, for condition of the fen. The Lassen 15 project would have no effect to fens. Effects to fens from grazing and mitigations will be considered under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project analysis. 1-20b Comment Soil and Hydrology (cont.) The 2017 EA states that BMPs and Design Features would avoid or minimize potential increases in sediment load to streams during project implementation, but the EA fails to provide specific information about what BMPs the Forest Service will employ, where, and how the BMPs will avoid impacts EA at The EA also fails to explain what limitations the Riparian Conservation Areas and Streamside Management Zones impose on the project, and the Forest Service fails to explain how it BMPs: See Hydrology Report Appendix 1 and USDA Forest Service, 2000, Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices, Part 3. Culvert: See Hydrology Report, p. 8. The channel is intermittent and therefore flow 18