Dairy Project Comment Analysisa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Dear Ranger Jones, I ... Please review Attachment #1 and Attachment #13. Comment:

Dairy Project Comment Analysis

Dairy Project Comment Analysis Page 1 of 39

Comment Analysis

for the

Dairy Project Environmental Assessment

The 30-day comment period for the Dairy Project Environmental Assessment was initiated on

October 26, 2011 and concluded on November 25, 2011. A total of 3 comment letters or e-mails

were received.

Comments Received

1. E-Mailed Letter, dated November 16, 2011, Dick Artley

2. E-Mailed Letter, dated November 22, 2011, Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild

3. E-Mailed Letter, dated November 25, 2011, Irene K. Jerome, American Forest Resource

Council

Comment Analysis



Comment Letter #1

November 16, 2011

Are Attachments Attached?

Dear Ranger Jones,

I have reviewed the Predecisional EA for the Dairy Project.

I am concerned that commercial timber removal and road construction will harm to the countless

natural resources within the cutting units and miles downstream from the cutting units.

I will show that based on best science, commercial logging is not the action that should be taken

to restore the natural resources in the Dairy project area.

The attachments to these comments will include the views of over 300 independent, unbiased

Ph.D. biological scientists who describe the resource damage inflicted by commercial timber sale

activities taken in any location. Indeed, there is no location where a commercial timber sale

could be implemented that‘s exempt from the resource damage they describe.

After reading the quotes in the attachments the Responsible Official should understand that the

scientists intend for their professional views to apply to all commercial timber sales. One cannot

find scientific conclusion literature that is site specific, yet the science should drive individual

projects.

-----------------------------

---------------

The Predecisional EA for the Dairy Project Indicates that

1,296 Acres of National Forest Land will be Commercially

Logged

The majority of the American public does not want any timber harvest to occur in their national

forests. Less than 5% of the wood fiber used in America comes from national forests. There is

not a softwood shortage in America. Currently there is a surplus of raw material which drives



the lumber market down. The decades-old claim by the Forest Service that a timber famine is

eminent has not materialized.

It‘s clear that the Organic Act that allowed Tree farms on private land generate more than

enough wood fiber raw material to supply the domestic demand.

The MULTIPLE-USE SUSTAINED-YIELD ACT OF 1960 (Public Law 86–517; Approved

June 12, 1960) clearly directs the Forest Service to consider the health of all resources when

designing projects:

―SEC. 4. ¿16 U.S.C. 531À As used in this Act, the following

terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) ‗‗Multiple use‘‘ means: The management of all the various renewable surface

resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best

meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for

some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide

sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and

conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious

and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without

impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative

values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give

the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.‖

Comment: Given the damage to the natural resources caused by the timber sale clearly

described in Attachment #1 this project does not reflect and is not consistent with ―harmonious

and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment

of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the

various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar

return or the greatest unit output.‖

Please review Attachment #1 and Attachment #13.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will remove dead

and dying material from the site and inhibit the recruitment of downed woody material as time

progresses.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will increase the

edge effect and increase sunlight into stands, resulting from reduced canopy cover associated

with timber harvest. This will directly promote the population abundance, productivity and

persistence of insects which cause mortality to trees of (Roland, 1993; Rothman and Roland,

1998; Kouki, McCullough and Marshall, 1997; Bellinger, Ravlin and McManus, 1989). This

ecological damage cannot be mitigated nor can the damage be ignored by claiming it will not

occur.

1-1

1-2

1-3



Comment: The log landings, temporary roads, skid trails and skyline chutes created for the

Dairy project logging activities will be a source of sediment during precipitation events. The

only way to prevent erosion from bare soil created by logging activities is to place sediment traps

between all bare soil created and live water.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will reduce the

organic parent material (duff and woody residues) available for soil-formation processes. This


occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will damage

recreational opportunities and harms visual quality in the vicinity. This ecological damage

cannot be mitigated nor can the damage be ignored by claiming it will not occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will adversely

affect hydrologic processes by reducing canopy interception and evapotranspiration. This


occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will decrease

hydraulic conductivity and increases bulk density in forest soils after harvest. This ecological

damage cannot be mitigated nor can the damage be ignored by claiming it will not occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will collapse

some of the subsurface pipes, increasing local pore water pressure which increases the chance of

landslides. (Sidle, 1986) This ecological damage cannot be mitigated nor can the damage be

ignored by claiming it will not occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will remove

material that harbors a myriad of organisms, from bacteria and actinomycetes to higher fungi.

These organisms play an important role in the forest. This ecological damage cannot be

mitigated nor can the damage be ignored by claiming it will not occur.

Comment: The log extraction activities that will occur on the Dairy project will remove dead

and dying trees. This will eliminate the habitat required by bird species that feed on insects that

attack living trees resulting in more frequent and larger insect outbreaks (Torgersen et al. 1990)

Comment: ―However, the forest is worth much more living than dead. To believe that you

must only recognize that money is not the only valuable thing on the planet. Forests make

immeasurably valuable contributions to our well being, from water filtration to clean air, from

biodiversity to aesthetic delight.‖

1-4

1-5

1-8

1-7

1-6

1-9

1-10

1-12

1-11



Source: The Timber Scam by Keith Wright 6/25/2000 http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/misspolitics/timberscam.html

-----------------------------

---------------

The Pre-Decisional EA Indicates there will be 2.1 Miles of

Temporary Road Construction Associated with this Timber

Sale

In spite of the clearly established long-term aquatic resource damage caused by forest road

construction on slopes greater than 20%, the Responsible Official proposes to build roads to

make log extraction possible for this timber sale.

Comment: The map of the sale area shows a road density that‘s so high it‘s obscene. The

bare earth exposed by all newly constructed road will be the source of sediment during

precipitation events.

Comment: The argument that the aquatic damage is acceptable because it will be short term

is precluded by the other existing roads in the area that have been pumping sediment for decades.

Comment: At the present time there is enough system road in the national forests of America

to stretch to the moon and halfway back. No more should be constructed. Constructing

temporary road is not the answer!

Comment: Most Forest Service engineers know how temporary roads are located and

constructed. Those who wish to keep the forest ecosystem functioning properly and are not

afraid to speak the truth will argue against all road construction. This includes temporary roads.

Comment: Sometimes temporary roads create more sediment per mile during precipitation

events than system roads. This is because:

1) Temp roads are "designed" by a logger on a cat with no knowledge of hydrology and

the logger is under pressure to work quickly.

2) Most temp roads are outsloped, thus, the water on the road drains off the road at

random places.

3) Temp roads have no surfacing to slow the water velocity. High water velocity picks

up more sediment particles.

4) Temp roads have no ditch. Ditches adjacent to system roads control the water until the

road designer calls for an appropriate outlet culvert location.

1-13

1-14

1-15

1-16

1-17

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/misspolitics/timberscam.html



Comment: The forest service claims that temporary roads are ecosystem benign because

these roads will be obliterated after use. Best science contained in the attachments indicates

otherwise.

Attachment #4 contains 54 statements by independent scientists that discuss the natural

resources that are harmed (and some destroyed) by road-related work in the forest. These

opposing views should drive the project design to eliminate or significantly reduce the predicted

harm to the ecosystem created by forest road construction.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will have

compacted road surfaces which will generate overland flow during precipitation events. Much of

this flow often enters the channel system, locally increasing peak flows.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will fragment

wildlife habitat. Forest road avoidance leads to underutilization of habitats that are otherwise

high quality.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will alter

animal behavior by causing changes in home ranges, movement, reproductive success, and

escape response.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will divide

large landscapes into smaller patches and convert interior habitat into edge habitat.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will increase

the isolation of populations or species which causes adverse wildlife genetic effects (i.e.

inbreeding, depressed fertility/fecundity, and increased natal mortality) and decreased genetic

diversity from genetic drift and bottlenecks.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will increase

the likelihood of poaching, overhunting, overfishing, excessive trapping and passive harassment

of animals.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will adversely

alter the subsurface hydrology of the area. They road‘s slope-cuts and ditching is likely to

intersect the water table and interrupt natural subsurface water movement.

Comment: The new temporary road construction planned for the Dairy Project will change

the microclimate by altering temperature and moisture regimes. This adversely affects wildlife.

1-18

1-19

1-20

1-21

1-22

1-23

1-24

1-25

1-26



Comment: The description of how the new temporary roads will be ―closed and restored‖

after use at pages 2-8 and 2-9 clearly indicates that the so-called temporary roads that will be

build for the dairy project are not temporary. The temporary roads will be rendered un-driveable

but can be put back in use with little effort.

Real temporary roads are obliterated by pulling the fill material back into the cuts so the soil

resembles the preconstruction angle of repose.

Final Road Construction Comment: Chief Dombeck recognized the long-term

ecological damage caused by forest road construction. To date, Responsible Officials have

ignored Dr. Dombeck‘s prophetic wisdom.

"Roads often cause serious ecological impacts. There are few more irreparable marks we

can leave on the land than to build a road."

Dr. Mike Dombeck, US Forest Service Chief

Remarks to Forest Service employees

and retirees at the University of Montana

February 1998

Source: https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gem/Dombeck/MDSpeeches/CD%20COPY/Chief%20Mike%20Dom

beck%27s%20Remarks%20to%20Forest%20Service%20Employees%20and%20.htm

Thank you for responding honestly to these comments and not denying that ecosystem harm will

could occur as a result of road construction sanctioned by the Responsible Official that will

occur with the Dairy project. These honest responses will assist the public to understand the

tradeoffs of timber harvest activities with the maintenance of ecological integrity.

-----------------------------

---------------

Justifying natural resource harm caused by logging because

it is short-term is an unjustified reason to propose to log the

public land. Comment: The ecological harm inflicted by the Dairy project that the Responsible Official

justifies because the damage will be short term is not supported by science. Neither is there any

mitigation and/or BMP effectiveness data.

The justification for inflicting short term harm is located at the following pages:

1-27

1-28

1-29

https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gem/Dombeck/MDSpeeches/CD%20COPY/Chief%20Mike%20Dombeck%27s%20Remarks%20to%20Forest%20Service%20Employees%20and%20.htm

https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gem/Dombeck/MDSpeeches/CD%20COPY/Chief%20Mike%20Dombeck%27s%20Remarks%20to%20Forest%20Service%20Employees%20and%20.htm



sediment generation caused by biomass removal -- page 3-79

adverse effects to soils, watershed, range, fisheries, wildlife, and recreation from the

action alternatives – page 3-107

Short term harm to resources accumulates over time. The pre-decisional EA dies not analyze the

cumulative effects of the short term harm deemed acceptable by the Responsible Official.

-----------------------------

---------------

Reasonable Alternatives Suggested by the Public Owners of

the Malheur National Forest must Never be Rejected and

not Analyzed in Detail because they do not Respond to the

Purpose & Need

This pre-decisional EA indicates that alternatives suggested by the public owners of the Malheur

National Forest will not be analyzed in detail. Developing a reasonable range of alternatives is

essential to NEPA compliance.

The pre-decisional EA at page 2-2 describes the following alternative suggested by a member of

the public in their scoping comments:

“Alternative B

An alternative that proposed additional road closures to

enlarge the unroaded area was brought forward in response

to scoping. This proposal was considered but eliminated

from detailed analysis because it would not meet the

purpose and need for the project.‖

Comment: Not analyzing the citizen generated alternatives in detail because ―it would not

meet the purpose and need for the project‖ indicates that the P & N was written so narrow as to

exclude other reasonable alternatives. Indeed the only action alternative analyzed in detail is the

Proposed Action described in the scoping package. This indicates that the Proposed Action for

this pre-decisional EA was determined prior to the scoping process before the NEPA process had

begun.

1-30



-----------------------------

---------------

If the Responsible Official is interested in Stabilizing the Local Community Economy and Providing Jobs Proposing a Timber Sale is not the Way

Comment: Logging areas that are used by the public for recreation will harm the stability of

local communities. The stability of local businesses actually suffers when recreationists choose

to go elsewhere for their forest experiences.

The P&N for the pre-decisional EA at page 1-1 states:

―3. Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other

resource needs on lands identified in the Ochoco Forest Plan as suitable for

harvest (Forest Plan, 4-27, 4-28).‖

Comment: Once again, this is not a project goal but an action. This reflects a narrow P&N

constructed after the Responsible Official had selected the alternative. It excludes actions to

bolster the tourism dollars in the area.

Comment: Even the Forest Service discloses that private profits from national forest recreation

create jobs and economic community stability.

“Recreation Contribution to Gross Domestic Product Recreation on national forestlands also results in a boost to local economies and the creation of jobs. The 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring Report found that spending by recreation visitors in areas surrounding national forests amounts to nearly $13 billion each year. As visitor spending ripples through the U.S. economy, it contributes over $14 billion to GDP, and sustains a more than 224,000 full and part time jobs. Recreation is also one of the easiest and most natural ways to connect people to the outdoors. In FY 2012, the Forest Service will directly create jobs in by accelerating work to maintain, create, and repair recreational infrastructure including trails and campgrounds. This work aligns with the goals of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative.” (Pg. 12)

Source: “Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Overview” USDA Forest Service Link to document: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2012/justification/FY2012-USDA-

Forest-Service-overview.pdf

1-31

1-32

1-33

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2012/justification/FY2012-USDA-Forest-Service-overview.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2012/justification/FY2012-USDA-Forest-Service-overview.pdf



Comment: Seldom does logging affect local employment.

―Long-term trends in commodity-based industries are a factor in the changing conditions

in rural areas, including increased efficiency in resource use, increased labor efficiency,

and reduced labor requirements for resource-processing manufacturing. For example, as

wood products manufacturing has grown more capital intensive, capital has been

substituted for labor and jobs have been lost (Young and Newton 1980). Idaho sawmills

produced the same amount of lumber (two billion board feet) in 1977 and 1999 (Western

Wood Products Association, annual). However there were 25% fewer mill workers in

1999 (13,410) than in 1977 (17,830). West-wide, the number of sawmills

has declined since 1970, but the output per mill has increased (Figure 4-1).‖ (Pgs. 21-22)

Source: Harris. Charles Ph.D. May 2003 ―Forest Resource-Based Economic Development in Idaho: Analysis of Concepts, Resource Management Policies, and Community Effects‖ Report No. 22, Policy Analysis Group, U of I College of Natural Resources Link to document:

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/PAG%20Commun%20Report22.pdf?pid=104240&d

oc=1

Comment: Nationally the profits made by private individuals involved in timber harvest are a

small fraction of the $13 billion in private profits from recreational use of the national forest. All national surveys indicate that the recreating public dislikes logging in their national

forests.

Comment: Logging does not contribute to the economic stability of local communities and

industries. It would return those communities to the boom and bust cycle of the timber industry.

And it focuses on only one local industry—the timber industry—while ignoring the many other

local industries. And it is unable to control the stability of the timber industry, as that industry is

dependent upon national and global economic factors.

The Dairy project will harm tourism, the recreational industry, fishing and a long list of other

industries. It will harm the economic stability of local communities: those whose municipal

drinking water systems will be impacted by increased sediment from logging; those whose real

estate prices will drop due to nearby logged areas; and those whose ability to attract and keep

local residents who want a high quality of life will be diminished.

Please examine Attachment #13.

-----------------------------

---------------

1-34

1-35

1-36

1-37

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/PAG%20Commun%20Report22.pdf?pid=104240&doc=1

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/PAG%20Commun%20Report22.pdf?pid=104240&doc=1



The Responsible Official should not Propose a Timber Sale

to Eliminate or Reduce a Natural Disturbance Event that

Benefits the Forest’s Natural Resources

The P&N at page 1-1 states:

―2. Improve the health, vigor, and resiliency of vegetation to insects, disease,

wildfire, and other disturbances, to more closely resemble historical

conditions in order to promote long-term forest sustainability and wildlife

species diversity; and meet requirements of the Ochoco National Forest Plan

(Recommendation from Silver Creek WA, pp.62),‖

Comment: Attachment #8 describes how Fire benefits the countless natural resources in the

forest besides conifer tree species. The Responsible Official does not recognize this ecological

fact.

Comment: As Attachment #5 shows, insect activity is a beneficial natural disturbance event

in the forest. Of course insects kill trees. A forest has countless other natural resources in

addition to conifer trees. The Responsible Official does not recognize this ecological fact.

Comment: The Responsible Official should not attempt to take action that negates the proper

functioning of the forest‘s natural resources to generate corporate profit.

-----------------------------

---------------

Legal Precedent Requires the Forest Service

to Base their Proposed Projects on Best

Science

A Federal Register notice and an opinion handed down in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

indicate that the Forest Service must base their projects on best science. Please see below.

―The purpose of this interpretative rule is to clarify that, both for projects implementing

plans and plan amendments, paragraph (a)‘s mandate to use the best available science

applies.‖

Source: Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188, page 58056 Wednesday, September 29, 2004

1-38

1-39

1-40



Rules and Regulations http://www.fs.fed.us/r1//projects/plan_rule/intrpretative-rule.pdf

―The 1982 forest planning regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 219 were superseded in

November 2000, when new regulations were promulgated. 65 Fed. Reg. 67,568 (Nov. 9,

2000). Under the transition provision of the 2000 regulations, the Forest Service was

required to consider the "best available science" when implementing site-specific projects

within a forest plan. 36 C.F.R. 219.35(a) (2001).‖

Source: The Ecology Center, Inc., v. United States Forest Service United States Court of

Appeals, Tenth Circuit, June 29, 2006 An Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:03-CV-589-TS) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/0

54101.html

Clearly the attachments to this comment letter constitute ―best science.‖

Comment: For decades Forest Service leaders have told the public that agency projects are

based on and are consistent with best science. This is clearly indicated in the words of Forest

Service leaders shown in Attachment #15.

Comment: The Responsible Official must not require the literature containing the opposing

views or the opposing views themselves to be site-specific because the citations and references

contained in the References section of the pre-decisional EA on pages 4-20 to 4-28 used to build

the pre-decisional EA are not site-specific to the Dairy project.

-----------------------------

---------------

Please Take Appropriate Action if any of the New

Species Proposed for listing May Exist or have

Habitat … in, Near or Downstream from the Sale

Area.

On September 11, 2011 a federal judge today approved a legal agreement between the Center for

Biological Diversity and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requiring the agency to make initial

or final decisions on whether to add 757 imperiled plants and animals to the federal endangered

species list by 2018.

The following are proposed for listing: 26 birds, 31 mammals, 67 fish, 22 reptiles, 33

amphibians, 197 plants and 381 invertebrates.

1-41

1-42

1-43

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/projects/plan_rule/intrpretative-rule.pdf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/054101.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/054101.html



The 757 species are listed in alphabetical order at:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/species_list.html

The species listed by occurrence by state are at:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/species.html#Mont

ana

Please provide links to survey information showing the basis for the Responsible Official‘s

decision.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/39728.htm

-----------------------------

---------------

Conclusion

Comment: Clearly, this member of the public has established that the Dairy commercial

timber sale will inflict long-term harm the forest‘s natural resources more than they improve the

conifer vegetation. Indeed, on public land conifer tree species must never be manipulated to

resemble fast-growing vigorous trees that are the goal of employees to tend private industrial tree

farms.

Comment: At page 3-17 the Responsible Official claims that the project will ―restore‖ vigor

and sustainability of the conifer vegetation in the Dairy project area. Trees in a tree-farm are

managed to provide profitable logs as soon as possible, thus they are manipulated to increase

vigor.. Tree farms are the antithesis of a real biodiverse forest that is able to sustain the natural

resources we all love.

Comment: Because the agency is dominated by a timber-extraction culture, Forest Service

employees are taught to believe that if the merchantable conifer trees are manipulated (usually

logged) the health of the countless other natural resources in the forest will also be improved.

This is sad.

Comment: It is highly likely that the resource damage caused by logging that‘s discussed in

the attachments to these comments will result from implementing this timber sale. NEPA

requires the Responsible Official to analyze cumulative effects. The final EA must describe the

condition of the many natural resources in and downstream from the sale area before and after it

is logged and the roads have been built.

1-44

1-45

1-46

1-47

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/species_list.html

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/species.html#Montana

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/species.html#Montana

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/39728.htm



For the natural resources that the Responsible Official determines might or could be degraded by

the tree removal activities please describe the future restoration projects that will be necessary

and how these projects will be funded.

Comment: This timber sale is being prepared in spite of the fact that over 70% of the adults

in the United States don‘t want their national forests logged.

Comment: Even with the low interest rates, the recession has caused the new housing starts

are down. There is no need for the raw material to be forced on the lumber market. The mill-

yards are full of logs. They are not being cut until the market improves. There is no place to put

the logs.

Comment: Those members of the public who are familiar with the Forest Service timber-

centered culture know market conditions are irrelevant when a USFS Responsible Official

decides to sell timber. They are motivated to damage the natural resources in the forest because:

1) they strive to meet the volume production expectations of their supervisors, and

2) they know that if they don‘t spend their timber dollars allocated to their forest their

budget could be reduced the following year.

Comment: In the Forest Service decisions to remove merchantable conifer tree species are

not based on the science of forest ecology, they are based on politics.

Final Comment: In order to take action that is consistent with Mr. Pinchot‘s ideals instilled

the Forest Service a century ago the Responsible Official can only provide “The greatest good

for the greatest number of people‖ by implementing everything in the Dairy Proposed Action

except commercial timber harvest and ―temporary‖ road construction.

Sincerely,

Dick Artley’s scanned signature is contained in the

“signature” attachment.

Dick Artley (retired forest planner, NEPA legal compliance reviewer, 1900-1 NEPA instructor,

forest NEPA coordinator, and forest appeals/litigation coordinator --- Nez Perce National Forest,

Idaho)

415 NE 2nd

Street

Grangeville, Idaho 83530

[email protected]

(208)-983-0181

Note: If you wish to verify my past USFS employment, I invite you to call the Nez Perce

National Forest SO at (208)-983-1950

Hardcopy CC to: USDA Secretary Vilsack

1-48

1-49

1-52

1-50

1-51

mailto:[email protected]



U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20250



Responses to Comment Letter #1

Comment 1-1: The EA, Chapter 3, discloses the effects of the alternatives. Please also refer to

responses to attachments 1 and 13.

Comment 1-2: The EA, page 2-4 states ―Thinning and biomass activities would manage live

trees less than 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), with an emphasis on stocking level

controls, removing mistletoe-infected trees, and reducing stocking of grand fir.‖ ―Biomass

removal/reduction does not include removal of downed logs or dead trees over 12‖ DBH.‖

Comment 1-3: The EA, page 3-12 describes the existing condition of forest pests. Effects to

forest pests are described in the EA pages 3-17 to 3-19.

Comment 1-4: The EA, page 3-77 describes the existing condition of detrimental soil

conditions. Effects to watershed and soil are described in the EA pages 3-78 to 3-81.

Comment 1-5: The EA, pages 3-78 to 3-81 describes the effects to watershed and soil.

Comment 1-6: The EA, pages 3-90 and 3-92 to 3-93 describes the effects to scenery

management and recreation.

Comment 1-7: The EA, pages 3-78 to 3-81 describes the effects to watershed.



Comment 1-10: The EA, page 1-9 to 1-12 describes the issues identified during scoping.

Organisms like bacteria and actinomycetes were not identified as an issue during the scoping

process. Sensitive plants suspected to occur on the district are derived from the 2008 Region 6

Sensitive Plant List (EA page 3-85). The 2008 Sensitive Species List does not contain any

sensitive fungi for the Malheur National Forest, therefore none are addressed. Sensitive mosses,

liverworts and lichens documented or suspected to occur on the Malheur National Forest are

addressed in the EA, pages 3-85 to 3-89.

Comment 1-11: The EA, page 2-4 states ―Thinning and biomass activities would manage live

trees less than 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), with an emphasis on stocking level

controls, removing mistletoe-infected trees, and reducing stocking of grand fir.‖ ―Biomass

removal/reduction does not include removal of downed logs or dead trees over 12‖ DBH.‖

Additionally, the EA, page 3-12 describes the existing condition of forest pests. Effects to forest

pests are described in the EA pages 3-17 to 3-19.

Comment 1-12: The EA, page 1-1 describes the purpose and need for action.

Comment 1-13: The EA, page 3-36 states ―The Forest Plan requires minimum road densities at

1.0 mi/mi2 in winter range and 3.0 mi/mi

2 in summer range. Current road densities are 2.2 mi/mi

2



in winter range and 2.4 mi/mi2 in summer range which meet Forest Plan standards with the

exception of winter range.‖ The EA, page 2-4 states ―No new permanent road construction is

proposed. Temporary roads are roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written

authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the forest transportation system

and not necessary for long-term resource management.‖ The EA, page 3-72 also states

―Proposed temp roads would be used to remove trees on several units. Since these roads are not

located in RHCAs, are on relatively flat ground, and would be closed, seeded and slashed with

vegetation when the project is completed there are no expected negative effects to aquatic

species or their habitat.‖ The EA, page 3-72 also states ―Direct beneficial effects from road

closures and decommissioning would be a decrease in chronic sediment input to streams and

improved spawning and rearing habitat for redband trout, Columbia spotted frogs and other

aquatic species. Indirect long term beneficial effects would be an increase in large woody

material recruitment and an increase canopy closure (shade) along streams as closed and

decommissioned road segments re-vegetate with native conifers and hardwoods.‖

Comment 1-14: Please refer to the response to comment 1-13.

Comment 1-15: The EA, page 2-4 states ―No new permanent road construction is proposed.

Temporary roads are roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization,

or emergency operation not intended to be part of the forest transportation system and not

necessary for long-term resource management.‖

Comment 1-16: The EA, page 2-5 discusses temporary roads. See also the Design Criteria in the

EA, pages 2-7 to 2-10

Comment 1-17: The EA, page 3-72 also states ―Proposed temp roads would be used to remove

trees on several units. Since these roads are not located in RHCAs, are on relatively flat ground,

and would be closed, seeded and slashed with vegetation when the project is completed there are

no expected negative effects to aquatic species or their habitat.‖

Comment 1-18: Please refer to responses to attachment 4.


Comment 1-20: A map in the EA, page 2-13 demonstrates that rarely does a proposed

temporary road exceed ¼ mile in length. Additionally, effects to terrestrial wildlife species is

described in the EA on pages 3-45 to 3-60. See also the response to comment 1-15.

Comment 1-21: Please refer to the response to comments 1-15 and 1-20.






Comment 1-25: The EA, pages 3-79 to 3-81 describes the effects to watershed and soils.


Comment 1-27: The EA, page 2-5 states ―Temporary roads are not intended to be included as

part of the forest road atlas, as they are managed by the projects or activities under which they

are authorized and decommissioned at the conclusion of the authorized activity.‖ The EA pages

2-8 and 2-9 describes the activities needed to close and restore temporary roads.

Comment 1-28: The EA, page 2-5 states ―No new permanent road construction is proposed.‖

Comment 1-29: The EA, page 3-106 describes the relationship between short-term uses and

long-term productivity. The EA, page 3-107 describes unavoidable adverse effects. Additionally,

chapter 3 of the EA describes the effects of the alternatives. The EA, page 3-79 states ―During

road decommissioning, culverts would be removed. Removing culverts may result in short-term

(< 1 year) sediment increases to stream channels; however, design features and BMPs would

minimize these impacts. Long-term effects would include improvements to water quality and the

reestablishment of natural stream channel morphology and riparian vegetation.‖

Comment 1-30: One aspect of the purpose and need for the project is to ―improve soil and

watershed conditions by reducing road related impacts to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife

habitat; and meet requirements for the Ochoco National Forest Plan‖ (EA page 1-1). Therefore

closing additional roads to enlarge an ―unroaded area‖ does not meet the purpose and need.

Comment 1-31: The EA, page 1-1 states that the purpose and need for the project is to ―Capture

the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs on lands identified in

the Ochoco Forest Plan as suitable for harvest (Forest Plan, 4-27, 4-28).‖ Refer also to the

response to comment 1-6.


Comment 1-33: The EA, page 3-84 describes the effects to socio-economics.

Comment 1-34: The EA, page 3-84 states ―The Proposed Action would support the highest level

of contract-related jobs and timber harvesting related jobs. The alternative with the highest jobs

would support the highest potential incomes.‖



Comment 1-37: The EA, discloses the effects to recreation (pages 3-92 to 3-93), aquatics (pages

3-70 to 3-75), watershed and soils (pages 3-78 to 3-81) and socio-economics (page 3-84). Please

also refer to the responses to attachment 13.



Comment 1-38: The EA discloses the effects to fire, fuels and air quality on pages 3-24 to 3-25.

Please also refer to the responses to attachment 8.

Comment 1-39: Forest pests are discussed in the EA, pages 3-12 to 3-13. Additionally the

effects to forest pests are disclosed in the EA, pages 3-17 to 3-19. Please also refer to the

responses to attachment 5.


Comment 1-41: The EA, page 3-1 describes the use of best science. Please also refer to the

responses to attachment 15.


Comment 1-43: The EA, page 1-9 states ―Forest Service Manual 2672.4 requires the Forest

Service to review all its planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities for

possible effects on proposed, endangered, threatened or sensitive species. On January 31, 2008,

Regional Forester Linda Goodman released an updated Sensitive Species List which includes

federally listed, federally proposed and sensitive species lists. In the cover letter for the updated

species list (Regional Forester Linda Goodman, January 31, 2008) the Regional Forester states

that projects initiated prior to the date of this letter may use the updated sensitive species list or

the list that was in effect when the project was initiated. The Responsible Official for the project

has authority to decide which list to use. The Responsible Official has decided to use the 2008

Regional Forester Sensitive Species list as documented in the EA.‖

Comment 1-44: The EA, pages 2-14 to 2-16 discloses a summary of the effects of the

alternatives. See also chapter 3 for more detailed effects.

Comment 1-45: The EA, page 3-17 to 3-18 states ―In stands that were harvested and

precommercially thinned prior to about 1980, proposed treatments would restore vigor and

sustainability, and the stands would move toward HRV sooner than untreated stands.‖

Comment 1-46: This is outside the scope of this project.

Comment 1-47: The EA discloses the cumulative effects of the alternatives for each resource on

the following pages, Access and Travel Management page 3-6, Vegetation page 3-18 to 3-19,

Fire, Fuels and Air Quality page 3-25, Range Resources pages 3-26 to 3-28, Invasive Plant

Species page 3-30 to 3-31, Terrestrial Wildlife page 3-55 to 3-60, Fisheries page 3-72 to 3-75,

Watershed and Soils page 3-80 to 3-81, Socio-Economics page 3-84, Sensitive Plants page 3-86

and 3-88, Scenery Management page 3-90, Recreation page 3-92 to 3-93, Heritage Resources

page 3-94 to 3-95, Inventoried Roadless, Potential Wilderness, Areas with Undeveloped

Character, and Research Natural Areas pages 3-98 to 3-99.

Comment 1-48: The EA, page 2-2 to 2-3 describes the No Action Alternative. Under the no

action alternative, no vegetation restoration activities would occur; no additional roads would be

closed or decommissioned. Road densities would remain at the current levels.



Comment 1-49: The EA, page 3-82 to 3-84 describes the socio-economics and effects of the

alternatives.

Comment 1-50: This is outside the scope of this project.

Comment 1-51: The EA, pages 4-20 to 4-28 lists the literature cited to support the analysis.




Comment Letter #2

FROM: Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild | PO Box 11648, Eugene, OR 97440 | 541-344-0675 |

[email protected]

TO: [email protected]

ATTN: Doug Jones, Emigrant District Ranger

DATE: 22 November 2011

RE: Dairy EA comments

Please accept the following comments from Oregon Wild regarding the proposed Dairy EA

dated October 2011 involving:

1296 acres of commercial harvest

15 miles of road closure

4.9 miles of road decommissioning

In the Silver Creek watershed, on the Ochoco NF, located NW of Riley

one big unit (#15) located within an unroaded area <1,000 acres.

We encourage valid and necessary restoration actions such as:

culturing large and old trees;

reducing encroachment of small/young conifers around old growth trees and under-

represented species like aspen;

forests highly altered by past management may require careful variable thinning of small

trees, favoring fire resilient species like ponderosa pine;

retaining generous untreated "skips" scattered both within and between treatment units

(e.g. the unroaded area);

retain all large and all old trees regardless of species (including juniper and white fir);

decommissioning roads;

limit grazing to restore healthy and diverse understory vegetation and watershed

conditions;

removing weeds;

reintroducing fire;

managing for ongoing recruitment of appropriate levels of snags and dead wood in

different forest types.

While we encourage these restoration treatments, we also perceive risks and trade-offs associated

with logging that must be recognized and weighed. We do not dismiss the capacity of natural

systems to self-organize and self-correct many of the adverse changes that have been caused by

past fire suppression, grazing, logging and roading, if we allow natural processes to operate.

We noted the presence of an unroaded area in our scoping comments but now we see that unit

15, in section 3, appears to be located in an unroaded area >1,000 acres known as Lower Buck

Mountain (shown in semi-transparent green on the map below). There are also three adjacent

unroaded areas to the south which together comprise an low-road-density areas over 4,000 acres

(as shown by the map in our scoping comments). Such areas harbor remnants of historic

2-1





conditions that are now rare on the landscape, and they should be carefully conserved. Adverse

effects from past management are less prevalent in unroaded ares, so the need for intervention in

the form of commercial logging is less clear. Using non-commercial restoration methods such as

pre-commercial thinning and prescribed fire would be preferred in this area, so as to avoid

adverse impacts from heavy equipment required to cut, process, and remove commercial sized

logs.

The summary of effects of the action and no action alternative oversimplifies the effects of

logging, by overstating the benefits of logging, and understating the risks of logging. NEPA

requires balanced analysis that honestly confronts adverse impacts and trade-offs.

The summary claims that no action will cause harm to aquatic systems via wildfire. This is

highly speculative. Wildfire is not always uncharacteristic. No action is not very likely to cause

adverse aquatic impacts because the actual likelihood of high-severity wildfire is low; the effects

of treatments are complex and could make fire effects worse or better; treatments have only

a temporarily effect; and fire is a natural feature of this landscape so the aquatic effects of fire

may not be uncharacteristic. The FS should use a probabilistic analysis to properly evaluate the

effects of events like fire that are unlikely to influence these stands during the relatively brief

time that the treatments are effective. On the other hand, commercial logging does not really

have a natural analog, so it is more likely to cause uncharacteristic effects on habitat, soil, and

water.

The summary of effects also asserts that logging will result in beneficial effects to large snags.

This is implausible because logging will remove trees that would otherwise continue to grow and

someday be recruited as large snags. This unavoidable effect means that logging will result in

fewer large snags, not more large snags. A proper analysis must account for both the quality of

snags which might increase slightly versus the quantity of snags which will decline significantly

as a result of logging.

2-4

2-2

2-3



The EA relies on the outdated potential population methodology for determining how many

snags are needed to meet the needs of primary cavity excavators. This methodology is outdated.

Science now tells us that snag associated species need far more snags and far more green trees to

ensure that those snags are recruited and available over time. See below, "New information on

snags." The EA needs to provide a more explicit description of the effects of logging in terms of

reducing snag recruitment. BLM should prepare an EIS before relying on DecAID and carefully

consider all of its caveats and cautions. Once this is done, BLM will find they need to be

managing for at least 5-80% DecAID tolerance levels after logging and over time.

P 3-46 says that large tree habitat would be jeopardized under the no action alternative. This is

not substantiated. Previous studies show that unlogged forests will generally recruit more large

snags over time. See Heiken, D. 2010. Dead Wood Response to Thinning: Some Examples from

Modeling Work. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/dead_wood_slides_2.pdf. If BLM this this

forest is different then they should provide clearly quantitative analysis to support their assertion.

The nearby Egley Fire is not a reason to be complacent but rather a reason to provide for greater

snag recruitment. This is because the most significant effect of a stand replacing fire is to create a

"snag gap" in the future, after most of the snags from the fire have fallen and before the new

stands begin to recruit large trees and snags. This means that nearby green stands need to retain

more trees that can serve as potential snag recruitment. The unroaded area in Unit 15 is a perfect

place to recruit snags because there is less risk that snags will be poached for fire wood or face

other threats. Korol et al (2002) pointed out the significant value of unroaded areas in this regard.

They estimated that even if we apply enlightened forest management on federal lands in the

Interior Columbia Basin for the next 100 years, we will still reach only 75% of the historic large

snag abundance, and most of the increase in large snags will occur in roadless and wilderness

areas. Jerome J. Korol, Miles A. Hemstrom, Wendel J. Hann, and Rebecca A. Gravenmier. 2002.

Snags and Down Wood in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. PNW-

GTR-181. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/049_Korol.pdf Page 3-56

of the EA recognizes the importance of the Dairy Project area for snag recruitment to mitigate

for the snag gap likely to be caused by the Egley fire. However, the EA erroneously assumes that

logging is good for snags when the opposite is more likely true. See Heiken, D. 2010. Dead

Wood Response to Thinning: Some Examples from Modeling Work.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/dead_wood_slides_2.pdf We are not aware of

any quantitative studies showing that commercial logging in forests like these will increase the

number of large snags over a long series of future decades.

In conclusion, we want to see this project move forward, especially the road work and careful

thinning of mall trees outside of the unroaded area. We encourage the FS to consider some

adjustments to make this project better.

Sincerely,

/s/

_____________________________________

Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild

2-6

2-8

2-7

2-5

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/dead_wood_slides_2.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/049_Korol.pdf




PO Box 11648, Eugene OR 97440

[email protected], 541.344.0675

New Information on Snags

The federal forest agencies now recognize that current methods and assumptions concerning

snag habitat standards are outdated, and the old snag standards do not ensure enough snags to

meet the intent of the standard, yet the agencies have not adjusted their management plans to

account for this new information nor have they developed new standards that are consistent with

the latest scientific information.

A few of the problems with the old standards are:

They failed to account for the fact that the number of snags needed for roosting, escape,

and foraging can exceed the number of snags needed for nesting;

They failed to recognize that the number of snags needed to support viable populations of

secondary cavity users may exceed the needs of primary cavity excavators;

The old standard failed to account for the size height of snags favored by some species;

In applying the old standards the agencies often fail to account for rates of snag fall and

recruitment;

The old standards fail to recognize non-equilibrium conditions in our forests, i.e . some

species rely on the natural large pulses of snags associated with large disturbances;

The old standards fail to account for the differential use of space and population density

of different species;

The old standards ignore other important habitat features of dead wood, e.g. loose bark,

hollow trees, broken tops, etc.

Forest Plan standards were based on a model that did not account for snags required for

foraging (EA p. 68 and Appendix K p. 45). There is general consensus in the scientific and

professional community that using the biological potential model (which was used in

developing the Forest Plan standard) is flawed and does not provide adequate nesting,

roosting, or foraging structure for cavity excavating birds …

North Fork John Day RD, Umatilla NF. 2011. Mirage Vegetation Management Project DN.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/53012_FSPLT2_055455.pdf

Bull et al. (1997) states current direction for providing wildlife habitat on public forest lands

does not reflect the new information available, which suggests that to fully meet the needs of

wildlife, additional snags and habitat are required for foraging, denning, nesting, and roosting.

Rose et al. (2001) suggests that calculation of numbers of snags required by woodpeckers based

on assessing their ―biological (population) potential‖ is a flawed technique (Rose et al. 2001) due

to the fact that empirical studies are suggesting that snag numbers in areas used and selected by

2-9

2-10

2-11

2-12


http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/53012_FSPLT2_055455.pdf




some wildlife species are far higher than those calculated by this technique. There is general

consensus that the biological potential model does not provide adequate nesting, roosting, or

foraging structure for cavity excavating birds (Bull et al. 1997, Johnson and O‘Neil 2001). This

suggests the current direction of managing for 100 percent population levels of primary

excavators may not represent the most current knowledge of managing for cavity nesters.

North Fork John Day RD, Umatilla NF. 2011. Mirage Vegetation Management Project EA,

Appendix K – Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report. p K-45.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/53012_FSPLT2_055426.pdf

The agencies need to prepare a EIS to consider a replacement methodology for maintaining

species and other values associated with dead wood. This is especially critical because adequate

dead wood is recognized as an essential feature of healthy forests and the Forest Service has

identified lots of ―management indicator species‖ associated with dead wood habitat.

Back in the early 1990s the Forest Service recognized the their forest plans were not adequate to

maintain populations of spotted owls and they tried to develop plans to conserve spotted owl

without following NEPA and NFMA procedures. The courts said they had to stop cutting owl

habitat until they had complied with environmental laws. This is the same situation we find

ourselves in today with dead-wood associated species. The agencies should stop harming dead

wood habitat until they have a legal plan to conserve associated species over the long-term.

Seattle Audoban Society v. Epsy, 998 F.2d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1998) (an agency must re-examine

its decision when the EIS "rests on stale scientific evidence and false assumptions").

Bull et al. states that the current direction for providing wildlife habitat on public forest lands

does not reflect the new information that is available which suggests that to fully meet the

needs of wildlife, additional snags and habitat are required for foraging, denning, nesting,

and roosting (1997). Johnson and O‘Neil (2001) and Rose et al. (2001) also state that several

major lessons have been learned in the period 1979 to 1999 that have tested critical

assumptions of earlier management advisory models (2001), including some of the

assumptions used to develop the current recommendations in the LRMP Standards and

Guidelines, as amended by the Regional Forester‘s Amendment #2. Some assumptions

include:

• calculation of numbers of snags required by woodpeckers based on assessing their

―biological (population) potential‖ is a flawed technique (Johnson and O‘Neil 2001).

Empirical studies are suggesting that snag numbers in areas used and selected by

some wildlife species are far higher that those calculated by this technique (Johnson

and O‘Neil 2001).

• numbers and sizes (dbh) of snags used and selected by secondary cavity nesters

often exceed those of primary excavators (Johnson and O‘Neil 2001).

This suggests the current direction of managing for 100 percent population potential levels of

primary excavators may not represent the most meaningful measure of managing for cavity-

2-13

2-14





nesters and that these snag levels, under certain conditions, may not be adequate for some

species.

Fremont-Winema NF. Barnes Valley-Long Branch Restoration and Enhancement Project EA

Appendix B – DecAID Information.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/analyses/barneslong/ea/appb.pdf

Lessons Learned During the Last Fifteen Years

…

Several major lessons have been learned in the period 1979-1999 that have tested critical

assumptions of these earlier management advisory models:

. Calculations of numbers of snags required by woodpeckers based on assessing their

‗biological potential‘ (that is, summing numbers of snags used per pair, accounting

for unused snags, and extrapolating snag numbers based on population density) is a

flawed technique. Empirical studies are suggesting that snag numbers in areas used

and selected by some wildlife species are far higher than those calculated by this

technique.226

. Setting a goal of 40% of habitat capability for primary excavators, mainly

woodpeckers,369

is likely to be insufficient for maintaining viable populations.

. Numbers and sizes (dbh) of snags used and selected by secondary cavity-nesters

often exceed those of primary cavity excavators.

. Clumping of snags and down wood may be a natural pattern, and clumps may be

selected by some species, so that providing only even distributions may be

insufficient to meet all species needs.

. Other forms of decaying wood, including hollow trees, natural tree cavities, peeling

bark, and dead parts of live trees, as well as fungi and mistletoe associated with wood

decay, all provide resources for wildlife, and should be considered along with snags

and down wood in management guidelines.

. The ecological roles played by wildlife associated with decaying wood extend well

beyond those structures per se, and can be significant factors influencing community

diversity and ecosystem processes.

Rose, C.L., Marcot, B.G., Mellen, T.K., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K.L., Lindely, D.L., and B.

Schrieber. 2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for Habitat

Management, Chapter 24 in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington

(Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O'Neil. OSU Press. 2001)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060708035905/http://www.nwhi.org/inc/data/GISdata/docs/chapte

r24.pdf

2-15

2-16

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/analyses/barneslong/ea/appb.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20060708035905/http:/www.nwhi.org/inc/data/GISdata/docs/chapter24.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20060708035905/http:/www.nwhi.org/inc/data/GISdata/docs/chapter24.pdf



The potential population models are based on the number of trees needed for nesting cavity-

excavator birds, however, ―[t]he high value of large, thick-barked snags in severely burned

forests has as much to do with feeding opportunities as it does with nesting opportunities they

provide birds.‖ (Hutto. ConBio 20(4). 2006.

http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/documents/hutto_conbio_2006.pdf ). The number of snags

needed to support bird feeding, escape from predators, and other life functions, is different than,

and likely higher than, the number of snags needed to support nesting, so the agencies‘ existing

―potential population‖ snag standards are arbitrary and capricious.

There is evidence that retaining more than the minimum number of snags has significant benefits

for cavity dependent species. Comparing two sites in Northern California, Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest (BMEF) with little past logging and lots of snags, and Goosenest Adaptive

Management Area (GAMA) with lots of logging and fewer snags, the author‘s found ―… three

times as many snags (6.38/acre vs. 2.04/acre, respectively) … The use of snags by cavity-nesting

bird species was dramatically different between the sites. Thirty-one cavity-nesting pairs from 10

species were detected at BMEF, while only one pair each of two species were detected at

GAMA…. This fifteenfold difference is much greater than any measure of snags or cavities

reported. …‖

We feel that forest managers may well be asking a misleading question. ―Snags per acre‖

requirements implicitly assume an equilibrium condition and reflect only one ecological

requirement for a given cavity-nesting species. … [C]onsideration of foraging habitat and

other ecological requirements must be part of the ―snags per acre‖ management

considerations. This is an important, but somewhat daunting proposition, as potential

cavity-nesting species are diverse, and each species likely has very different foraging

ecologies, as well as other differences in habitat requirements. … [C]avity nesters at

BMEF used larger snags on average … [T]he loss of large trees due to logging in eastside

pine and other forests, over the past century has major implications for cavity-nesting

birds. … [F]orest managers must have a sense of snag recruitment in relationship to snag

fall, and the patterns and processes that underlie them, when addressing wildlife needs.

… We view the understanding of these complexities to be of primary importance in forest

management for wildlife.

Steve Zack, T. Luke George, and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 2002. Are There Snags in the

System? Comparing Cavity Use among Nesting Birds in ―Snag-rich‖ and ―Snag-poor‖ Eastside

Pine Forests. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/017_Zack.pdf

Another recent science publication asked that the agencies salvage polices be brought up to date

with current science.

Inadequacy of Current Snag Guidelines

Current snag-retention guidelines for most North American plant community types fall

between 1 and 8 snags/ha. These guidelines emerged primarily from a consideration of

the nesting requirements of cavity-nesting vertebrate species in the now classic Blue

2-17

2-18

http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/documents/hutto_conbio_2006.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/017_Zack.pdf



Mountains book (Thomas 1979). The retention of 8 snags/ha was judged to support 100%

of the maximum population density of any of the woodpecker species that occur in the

Blue Mountains area (Thomas 1979: Appendix 22). Bull et al. (1997) concluded that

about 10 snags/ha in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests should support viable

populations of cavity-nesting birds. Thus, most current U.S. National Forest guidelines

generally converge on the recommendation to retain 6–10 trees/ha, as do guidelines for

Washington State, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and many other land management agencies.

It has been acknowledged that snag guidelines should be sensitive to forest type and

forest age because ―the wildlife species that use snags are influenced by the stage of

forest succession in which the snag occurs‖ and by the breakdown stage of the snag

(Thomas et al. 1979). Moreover, snag types, sizes, and densities vary significantly with

vegetation type (Harris 1999; Harmon 2002; White et al. 2002). Therefore, it follows

necessarily that the desired snag types and densities will differ with both plant

community type and successional stage and that we need as great a variety of guidelines

as there are community types and successional stages (Bull et al. 1997; Everett et al.

1999; Rose et al. 2001; Kotliar et al. 2002; Lehmkuhl et al. 2003). Unfortunately, we

have generally failed to adjust snag-retention recommendations to specific forest age, and

nowhere is that failure more serious than for those special plant community types that

were ignored in the development of the generic guidelines—recently burned conifer

forests. Such forests are characterized by uniquely high densities of snags (Angelstam &

Mikusinski 1994; Hutto 1995; Agee 2002; Drapeau et al. 2002), and snag use by most

woodpeckers in burned forests requires high snag densities because they nest in and feed

from burned snags.

These facts have been overlooked in the development and implementation of meaningful

snag-management guidelines. Indeed, these guidelines have generally converged toward

an average of 6–7 trees/ha because that number was deemed more than adequate to meet

the nesting requirements of cavity-nesting wildlife species (Thomas et al. 1979:69). Snag

guidelines were not originally developed with an eye toward non-nesting uses of snags or

from an attempt to mirror snag densities that typically occur on unmanaged reference

stands. Snag guidelines are still much narrower than numerous authors have suggested

they ought to be, and we currently run the risk of managing coarse woody debris with

uniform standards across historically variable landscapes, which is entirely inappropriate.

Instead, we should be managing for levels of coarse woody debris that more accurately

mirror levels characteristic of the natural disturbance regime (Agee 2002). Clearly, we

need more data on what might constitute meaningful snag targets for all forest types and

successional stages, and those targets should be set on the basis of reference conditions

from natural post disturbance forests, not from managed forest stands and certainly not

from consideration of only a single aspect of an organism‘s life history.

Newer guidelines that are appropriate for snag dependent species that occupy standing

dead forests at the earliest stage of succession are beginning to trickle in (Saab & Dudley

1998; Haggard & Gaines 2001; Saab et al. 2002; Kotliar et al. 2002), and authors suggest

that 200–300 snags/ha may better address the needs of wildlife in burned forests. The



issue has yet to receive the serious management attention it deserves, but the

comprehensive review of habitat needs of vertebrates in the Columbia River Basin

(Wisdom et al. 2000) and the recently developed DecAID modeling effort in Washington

and Oregon represent important efforts toward providing that kind of management

guidance (Marcot et al. 2002).

Hutto, R.L., 2006. Toward Meaningful Snag-Management Guidelines for Postfire Salvage

Logging in North American Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 984–993.


―In general, wildlife species that use dead wood for nesting, roosting, or foraging prefer

larger diameter logs and snags (>20 inches). Although we tallied dead wood in this size

class throughout Oregon, the estimated density may not be sufficient for some wildlife

species. For example, inventory results show a mean of almost 3 snags per acre in this

size class in western Oregon and 1 per acre in eastern Oregon. This may indicate that

large-diameter snags are currently uncommon in Oregon habitat and that management

may be necessary to produce a greater density of large snags.‖

Donnegan, Joseph; Campbell, Sally; Azuma, Dave, tech. eds. 2008. Oregon‘s forest resources,

2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-765.

Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 186 p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr765/pnw-gtr765b.pdf

The bottom line is that current management at both the plan and project level does not reflect all

this new information about the value of abundant snags and down wood. The agency must avoid

any reduction of existing or future large snags and logs (including as part of this project) until the

applicable management plans are rewritten to update the snag retention standards. See also PNW

Research Station, ―Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest,‖ Science Findings,

Nov. 1999 (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi20.pdf) (―Management implications: Current

direction for providing wildlife habitat on public forest lands does not reflect findings from

research since 1979; more snags and dead wood structures are required for foraging, denning,

nesting, and roosting than previously thought.‖) and Jennifer M. Weikel and John P. Hayes,

HABITAT USE BY SNAG-ASSOCIATED SPECIES: A BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SPECIES

OCCURRING IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON, Research Contribution 33 April 2001,

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/cfer/snags/bibliography.pdf.

Most managers have a skewed conception of how many snags a healthy forest is supposed to

have. For instance, the old-growth Douglas-fir/western hemlock forest at the site of the Wind

River Canopy Crane has 59.5 snags/hectare larger than 51 cm dbh. Shaw, David C.; Franklin,

Jerry F.; Bible, Ken; Klopatek, Jeffrey; Freeman, Elizabeth; Greene, Sarah; Parker, Geoffrey G.

2004. Ecological setting of the Wind River old-growth forest. Ecosystems. 7: 427-439.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2004_shaw001.pdf

Another important ecological function provided by mortality is that it promotes evolutionary

adaptation which is critical right now in the face of climate change.

2-19

2-20

2-21

2-22

2-23


http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr765/pnw-gtr765b.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi20.pdf

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/cfer/snags/bibliography.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2004_shaw001.pdf



[R]esearchers were surprised to find that the mortality of established trees considerably promotes

the adaptation of forests to the changing environment. … Evolution is promoted by the mortality

of established trees. The researchers assumed that demographic characteristics of the trees would

have a notable impact on their adaptability. Tree species differ for example so that birch matures

at a considerably younger age than pine, and birch seeds spread more effectively than pine seeds.

However, the results showed that these differences had only minor impacts. Instead, the

mortality of established trees played a large role in the evolutionary adaptation.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-nfd011210.php

Importantly, for natural selection to occur, mortality must be caused by natural events like

drought, insects, and fire, rather than through human choices about which trees will live and

which will die.

2-24

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-nfd011210.php




Comment 2-1: The EA, Chapter 3, page 3-98 states that ―During scoping for the Dairy Project,

Oregon Wild mentioned four blocks of land within the Dairy Project Area they identified as

potential wilderness. Only the northern most block is (for the most part) completely within

National Forest System lands. The majority of the southern three blocks are on BLM

administered land. Oregon Wild‘s areas all fall within areas that have had previous harvest that is

still evident or fall within the areas with undeveloped character discussed next.‖

In the analysis file it shows only 21.73 acres of other undeveloped character in Unit 15. The EA,

Chapter 3, page 3-99 states that ―Biomass removal and associated activities would occur on

approximately 141 acres of other undeveloped lands. In areas where proposed project activity

would occur on other undeveloped lands, the impacts to soil, water quality, air quality; plant and

animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation;

noxious weeds; and cultural resources, etc. are the same as disclosed for areas of proposed

project activity in previous resource sections of this chapter and are not reiterated here.

Environmental effects to resources in other undeveloped lands due to the implementation of

proposed project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan

management area standards and guidelines.‖

Comment 2-2: The EA, Chapter 3 discloses the effects of proposed activities and the no action

alternative. See also the EA, Chapter 2, pages 2-14 to 2-16 for a summary of effects.

Comment 2-3: The EA, Chapter 3, page 3-70 states that ―A stand-replacement wildfire could

have negative effects on soils and hydrology of the watershed, depending upon the intensity and

severity of the fire and result in a loss of stream shade and increased sediment input to streams.

Wildfires can have short-term (1-5 years) adverse affects on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates

by heating streams to lethal temperatures, changing water chemistry, removing riparian cover,

increasing fine and coarse sediment, and changing LWD (Brown 1990). High intensity wildfires

can cause extirpation of fish at the reach scale (Rieman et al. 1997) and may result in the

complete extirpation of fish in a stream (Rinne 1996). However, fire is a natural process in the

Pacific Northwest and post-wildfire studies have shown that salmonids often survive high

intensity wildfires and rapidly repopulate stream reaches where they were eliminated during fires

(Novak and White 1990, Rieman et al. 1997).‖

Comment 2-4: The EA, Chapter 3, page 3-49 states ―The proposed prescription for vegetation

treatment would promote growth and allow for future large snag development. At least 80% of

the trees harvested would be less than 16 inches dbh and no trees over 21 inch dbh would be

harvested allowing for future snag recruitment (pers. comm., Schwenke).‖

Comment 2-5: The EA, Chapter 3, page 3-39 states ―The HRV (historic range of variability)

derived from DecAid (Mellen et al. , 2003-11) is considered reference conditions based on snag

data collected on un-managed stands. However, due to decades of fire suppression, the un-

managed stands may not be representative of historic stand snag densities. The current estimate

of snags on the landscape indicates snags are more distributed on the landscape and higher

concentrations of snags are above reference conditions. The high concentration of snags provides



the highest quality of nesting and roosting habitat for most of the primary cavity excavators

(PCE) occurring in the Silver Creek watershed. The high mortality from past wildfires and recent

mortality from insects has contributed to high snag pulses in the Silver Creek watershed.‖

Comment 2-6: The EA, page 3-46 states ―The No Action Alternative would enhance

recruitment of snags in the short to mid-term due to overstocking of pole size trees, but long term

recruitment of larger snags would be jeopardized.‖

In response to your ―Some Examples from Modeling Work.‖

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/dead_wood_slides_2.pdf. Taken out of context. These are

examples specific to certain projects, many of them appear to be even aged plantations or

managed stands. There is little to no information given on the type of stands, prescriptions, etc…

Therefore this does not apply to the Dairy project.

Garman, Steven L.; Cissel, John H.; Mayo, James H. 2003. Taken out of context, paper refers to

a 40-year old managed Douglas-fir stand. Not relevant to the Dairy project.

Comment 2-7: The EA, page 3-50 states ―Several recent uncharacteristic fires have created an

abundance of PCE habitat for Picoides and other woodpeckers in the Silver Creek watershed

(Silver Fire, 2007) and on the Emigrant Creek Ranger District (Egley Complex, 2007). Because

snag habitat for most PCE‘s is above HRV in about one-half of the different snag classes and

snags are better distributed on the landscape, only incidental snags would be removed and all

trees over 21 inches would be recruited for future snag habitat, the Proposed Action would

reduce mortality in the treatment units in Dairy, the proposed vegetation treatments would not

contribute to a negative trend in PCE habitat and viability would be maintained for PCE‘s in the

Silver Creek watershed.‖

Jerome J. Korol, Miles A. Hemstrom, Wendel J. Hann, and Rebecca A. Gravenmier. 2002 is

taken out of context. Although no definition of unroaded areas is given, this document refers to

unroaded areas and wilderness areas as unmanaged areas. The Dairy EA, page 3-97 clearly states

that ―There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Dairy Project area‖ and no areas within

the Dairy project area meet potential wilderness criteria. Dairy EA, page 3-100 clearly states that

―about 1% (141 acres) of other undeveloped lands would be impacted by the proposed action‖.

Comment 2-8: Please refer to the response to comments 2-4, 2-5, 2-6 and 2-7.

In response to Heiken, D. 2010 ―Some Examples from Modeling Work.‖

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/dead_wood_slides_2.pdf. Taken out of context. These are

examples specific to certain projects, many of them appear to be even aged plantations or

managed stands. There is little to no information given on the type of stands, prescriptions, etc…

Therefore this does not apply to the Dairy project.

Comment 2-9: The EA, page 3-33 and 3-34 states ―While Ochoco Forest Plan recommends a

forest-wide objective of 47 percent population objectives based on Thomas et. al 1979, the

current snag levels were amended to the 100 percent population levels or 2.25 snags per acre in

the dry ponderosa pine sites.‖ ―Evaluation of snag habitat was used in lieu of PCE surveys.

Based on snag inventories, compared to data in DecAid for cavity nest birds, the snag levels are

between the 30 and 50 percent tolerance levels (See DecAid, Mellen-McLean et. al, 2002 for





information on tolerance levels and snag densities for ponderosa pine forest)‖. DecAid is the

most up to date information on snags.

Comment 2-10: Not applicable to the Dairy Project. There is no EA p. 68 or Appendix K in the

Dairy Project Analysis.

Comment 2-11: Not applicable to the Dairy Project, effects stated are specific to the Mirage

Vegetation Management Project.

Comment 2-12: Please refer to response to comment 2-9.

Comment 2-13: Please refer to response to comment 2-11. These are existing conditions for the

Mirage Vegetation Management Project, not applicable to the Dairy Project area.

Comment 2-14: Please refer to response to comment 2-9.

Comment 2-15: Link does not work, could not find document. Document is most likely specific

to the Barnes Valley-Long Branch Restoration and Enhancement Project and not applicable to

the Dairy project.

Comment 2-16: Relevant. The EA, page 3-38 states ―In 1994 the Regional Foresters

Amendment was adopted to raise management level of snags to the 100 percent PPL (potential

population level). In dry ponderosa pine sites 100% PPL equates to 2.25 snags per acre from the

largest trees available in the stand.‖ See also the EA Design Criteria, pages 2-6 to 2-11. The EA,

page 3-56 also states that ―Prescribed fire would create some large snags, but primarily kill

smaller diameter trees, increasing a food pulse for species like hairy woodpecker.‖

Comment 2-17: Link does not work, could not find document. Please refer to the response to

comment 2-16.

Comment 2-18: Agree. The EA, page 3-49 states ―The proposed prescription for vegetation

treatment would promote growth and allow for future large snag development. At least 80% of

the trees harvested would be less than 16 inches dbh and no trees over 21 inch dbh would be

harvested allowing for future snag recruitment (pers. comm., Schwenke). Snag recruitment

would not affect PCE reproduction due to the untreated areas including approximately 1,000

acres of allocated old growth including associated woodpecker feeding areas.‖

Comment 2-19: Link does not work, could not find document. Not applicable to the Dairy

project because it is not a postfire salvage project.

Comment 2-20: Agree. However this is forest inventory and analysis report. The EA, page 3-32

to 3-44 describes the existing conditions of terrestrial wildlife habitat in the Dairy Project.

Comment 2-21: 1999 publication, outdated. Please also refer to comment 2-9.



Comment 2-22: This publication is a comprehensive bibliography of published literature on

ecology of species of wildlife closely associated with snags presented in a user-friendly format.

Comment 2-23: Not applicable to the Dairy project. This publication is specific to cool, moist,

500-year old Douglas fir/western hemlock forests. The Dairy project is dry ponderosa pine sites.

Comment 2-24: Not applicable to the Dairy project. This publication is specific to southern to

northern Finland areas that are stunted and verging on the edge of survival. The Dairy project is

dry ponderosa pine sites.



Comment Letter #3

November 25, 2011

Doug Jones, District Ranger

Emigrant Creek District

Malheur National Forest

265 Hwy 20 South

Hines, OR 97738

VIA Email: [email protected]

Re: Dairy EA Comments

Dear Doug,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Dairy Environmental Assessment (EA). These

comments are on behalf of the members of the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC).

AFRC represents nearly 60 forest product businesses and forest landowners in five states. Our

mission is to create a favorable operating environment for the forest products industry, ensure a

reliable timber supply from public and private lands, and promote sustainable management of

forests by improving federal laws, regulations, policies and decisions that determine or influence

the management of all lands.

While AFRC strongly supports the Purpose and Need of the project, I have concerns that these

are adequately addressed through the Proposed Action. Directly from the Dairy EA, the purposes

of this project are to:

1. Improve soil and watershed conditions by reducing road related impacts to water quality, fish

habitat, and wildlife habitat; and meet requirements for the Ochoco National Forest Plan

(Recommendation from Silver Creek WA, pp.58 61, and 63),

2. Improve the health, vigor, and resiliency of vegetation to insects, disease, wildfire, and other

disturbances, to more closely resemble historical conditions in order to promote long-term

forest sustainability and wildlife species diversity; and meet requirements of the Ochoco

National Forest Plan (Recommendation from Silver Creek WA, pp.62),

3. Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs on lands

identified in the Ochoco Forest Plan as suitable for harvest (Forest Plan, 4-27, 4-28).

The need for action is based on the current conditions of resources within the project area,

specifically vegetation condition needs, watershed condition needs, economic value needs.

(Dairy EA pages 1-1 through 1-4).




The Dairy Project Area consists of 18,242 acres in various subwatersheds in the Buck Creek and

Headwaters Silver Creek Watersheds. The actual acres of forested stands treated to move them

toward historic ecosystem conditions is 1296 or about 7 percent of the analysis area even though

the EA states that approximately 6980 acres are in MA F22 General Forest and 4174 acres are in

MA F21 General Forest Winter Range. I question whether treating such a small acreage meets

the purpose and need for restoring the undesirable vegetative conditions described in the project

area. Further, although there are no specifics in the EA surrounding the size, species and volume

of the commercial material to be removed I question the viability of ―capturing economic value‖

when treating this small acreage given the remote location of the project area. The EA makes

numerous references to ―removing biomass‖. While this is certainly a desirable outcome, the

stark reality is no markets for biomass are located within a feasible distance of this project area

unless the Forest Service is planning on subsidizing that activity which is not a viable alternative

in these difficult economic times.

The Proposed Action calls for seasonally closing, closing or decommissioning 20.17 miles of

road, which is acceptable to AFRC as long as the long term transportation needs of the area have

been carefully analyzed. Do these road closures still allow strategic access in the event of

wildfire? Are plantations or other areas that might require treatment or road access in the future

accessible without reconstructing roads that have been decommissioned?

Page 2-9 of the EA lists operational design criteria designed to protect wildlife habitat. Have

these criteria been carefully analyzed to determine their actual feasibility for implementation?

Design criteria to protect botanical resources requires a ―50 foot area to protect (ATP) around

documented/mapped sensitive plant sites‖. Directional felling is required around these areas.

Design criteria to protect range resources requires gates be closed May through October. Slash

pull back from roads, fences, and other improvements must be ongoing with vegetation activities

regardless of eventual slash treatment.

Road closure and decommission activities are listed on page 2-11 of the EA. Will this be

included as part of the commercial vegetative treatment activities? Following road

decommissioning are standards required as part of the forest weed prevention plan. Included in

these standards are the following requirements:

All heavy equipment would be cleaned prior to entering National Forest System Lands.

Seed, straw, and other materials used for road decommission and erosion control would

be certified to be free of noxious weed seed.

Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by District weed

specialists if needed for the project.

Does the public clean their vehicles before entering National Forest System Lands? Do Forest

Service personnel clean their vehicles each time they enter National Forest System Lands? Does

the Forest Service have ―on Forest‖ sites for obtaining gravel, fill, sand and rock that are weed

free?

Fire Regime Condition Class is discussed on page 3-22 of the EA. Although specific acreage is

not identified the EA says that ―a high proportion of the Dairy project area is in Fire Regime

Condition Class 3‖. The Proposed Action treats 1296 acres in the project area and moves those

acres from Condition Classes 2 and 3 to Condition Class 1. The concern is the remaining 16,946

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5

3-6



or 93% of the project area. Once again the concern is that enough acres are being treated under

this Proposed Action to meet the ―long term sustainability‖ criterion identified in the Purpose

and Need and to warrant the time and expense that the government has invested.

On page 3-1 of the EA the following statement is made ―The best available science is considered

in preparation of this EA.‖ Although a caveat follows that, no one can lay claim to the best

science, especially when science about natural resource management is continually and rapidly

evolving. The NFMA does not use or require use of the term "best available science" or "best

available scientific information.‖ Neither does NEPA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

affirmed that these statutes do not require a determination of whether a project-level NEPA

document is based on "best" available science or methodology, that disagreements among

scientists are routine, and that requiring the Forest Service to resolve or present every such

disagreement could impose an unworkable burden that would prevent the needed or beneficial

management. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2008)(en banc); Salmon

River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1359 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit in

the Mission Brush involving a restoration project in Idaho the Ninth Circuit emphasized that,

"[t]o require the Forest Service to affirmatively present every uncertainty in its EIS would be an

onerous requirement, given that experts in every scientific field routinely disagree; such a

requirement might inadvertently prevent the Forest Service from acting due to the burden it

would impose.‖ McNair, 537 F.3d at 1001. The Forest Service should recognize as the Ninth

Circuit finally has, that there is no holy grail of the "best" or ―most accurate‖ science. Even

NEPA does not require such impossible divining of the ―best‖ science. The Ninth Circuit

emphasized that ―NEPA does not require [that we] decide whether an [environmental impact

statement] is based on the best scientific methodology available, nor does NEPA require us to

resolve disagreements among various scientists as to methodology.‖ Salmon River Concerned

Citizens, 32 F.3d at 1359.

In summary, AFRC fully supports the Purpose and Need for Action in the Dairy Project Area.

However, because of the small number of actual acres being treated comprising only 7 percent of

the analysis area, I do not believe that the Purpose and Need is being met. The acres moved

toward HRV are minimal and the reduction in Fire Regime Condition Class 3 acres is minimal,

indeed the EA states that the potential for stand replacing fire remains a significant factor in the

area after potential implementation of the Dairy project. Of further significant concern is the

ability to ―capture economic value‖ in the project area. The remote location of the Dairy Project

Area requires that the commercial volume removed be of a suitable species and average diameter

for economic feasibility. From the junction at Riley on Highway 20 it approximately 100 miles

to Collins Pine in Lakeview, to Interfor Pacific in Gilchrist, and to Malheur Lumber Company in

John Day. Further numerous criteria are associated with the vegetative operations on the project

including but not limited to:

All heavy equipment would be cleaned prior to entering National Forest System Lands.

Seed, straw, and other materials used for road decommission and erosion control would

be certified to be free of noxious weed seed.

Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by District weed

specialists if needed for the project.



―50 foot area to protect (ATP) around documented/mapped sensitive plant sites‖

requiring directional felling around these areas.

Range resources require identified gates be closed May through October.

Slash pull back from roads, fences, and other improvements must be ongoing with

vegetation activities regardless of eventual slash treatment in range areas.

Borax applications on pine stumps with diameters ≥ 12 inches.

Various potential seasonal restrictions for avian species and big game hunting.

While none of these restrictions are overly onerous individually, the cumulative effects can be

paralyzing if coupled with a project of marginal economic value.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Dairy EA.

Sincerely,

Irene K. Jerome

AFRC Representative, Eastern Oregon/Southwest Idaho




Comment 3-1: The EA, Chapter 3, page 3-3 states that ―6,900 acres have been harvested since

1970, 3,000 acres have been precommercially thinned in the last 10 years, 2,200 acres have been

prescribed burned and prescribed burning will occur in the near future on about 13,400 acres.‖

The EA, Chapter 2, page 2-2 states that an ―alternative (Alternative C) that proposed to treat the

maximum allowable acres was brought forward in response to scoping. This proposal was

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because there were no additional acres that

were economical.‖

Comment 3-2: The EA, page 3-24 states ―Closure of roads would limit access for fire

suppression personnel. This effect may be negligible as fuels treatments would reduce fire

intensity, thus enabling suppression activities (Agee et al. 2005).‖ The EA, page 3-6 also states

―The distance between open roads after the planned closures or decommissioning is generally

not more than one mile. The cumulative effects of the action alternative combined with past road

closures and decommissions would be fewer roads to maintain, less money needed for

maintenance, increased response time for fire crews, less disturbance to wildlife and reduced

motorized access for all users.‖

Comment 3-3: The EA, page 2-6 states ―Design criteria would be implemented to avoid,

minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts caused by implementation of the Proposed Action.‖

Similar design criteria have been implemented for over ten years on the Emigrant Creek Ranger

District.

Comment 3-4: The EA, page 2-4 states ―Year long road closures may be implemented on the

ground with an earth berm, sign, gate or no physical closure. Seasonal closures may be

implemented on the ground with a sign, gate, or no physical closure. Roads closed with no

physical closure would be implemented thru the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) when it is

published.‖ Some roads may be closed by the purchaser and some roads may not.

Comment 3-5: The EA, page 2-11 describes the weed prevention plan for the project. Currently,

only those activities regulated by contract or permit have weed prevention strategies applied.

Only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by District weed specialists

would be used for the project (EA page 2-11).

Comment 3-6: The EA, page 2-16 states that ―Activities would move condition class from 3 and

2 towards condition class 1 on about 1,296 acres.‖ See also the response to comment 3-1.

Dairy Project Comment Analysisa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Dear Ranger Jones, I ... Please review Attachment #1 and Attachment #13. Comment:

Documents