BARK PO Box 12065 Portland, OR 97212bark-out.org/sites/default/files/bark-docs/Hunter Integrated... · PO Box 12065 Portland, OR 97212 ... canopy well below 60% and ... These treatments

1 – Bark’s Objection to the Hunter Timber Sale

BARK 12/14/2017

PO Box 12065

Portland, OR 97212

In accordance with 36 CFR §218, Bark hereby objects to the

Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and draft Decision for the Hunter

Timber Sale.

To: Forest Supervisor Lisa Northrop

Objection Reviewing Officer

Mt. Hood National Forest (MHNF)

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, OR 97055

Submitted via email to: [email protected]

Location: Upper Clackamas River Watershed, Clackamas River Ranger District,

MHNF

Objector’s Interests: Bark is a non-profit organization based in Portland, Oregon

and has worked to monitor proposed timber sales in the MHNF since 1999. Staff,

members, volunteers, supporters, and board members of Bark live in the

communities surrounding the MHNF and use the Forest extensively for

recreation, education, drinking water, hunting, fishing, general aesthetic

enjoyment, family gatherings, viewing flora and fauna, gathering forest products,

and other purposes.

Bark participated in the Clackamas Stewardship Partners (CSP), the

Collaborative Working Group that submitted recommendations for the Hunter

Timber Sale. We have reviewed and provided detailed comments on the Scoping

letter and Preliminary Assessment of the Hunter Timber Sale.

Requested Relief

In recognition that this project’s fails to comply with multiple standards in the

Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, and MHNF

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); ignores or misrepresents

significant information that questions the project’s ability to meet the purpose

mailto:[email protected]


and need; and has potentially significant environmental impacts, we request that

the Forest Service (FS) alter its decision, resulting in a project that will better

lead to the short and long-term restoration of the Upper Clackamas. Proposed

changes to the project include:

1. Modification of treatment(s) in “fire origin” units:

• Retain average canopy cover of at least 40% to maintain dispersal

owl habitat.

• Limit gaps to 1/4 acre in size with 3 to 10% of the total stand area

in gaps.

• Prohibit cutting of trees larger than 20 inches in diameter (at a

height of 4.5 feet) unless necessary for skyline corridors, skid trails,

landings or temporary roads, in which case these trees are to be left

on site as downed wood.

• Remove all 20 acres of Riparian Reserve logging in Fire-Origin

stands.

2. Drop units 108a & b. Remove the associated rebuilding of 0.41 miles of

FSR 4660-140 and 0.5 miles of new temporary road proposed to access

these units.

3. Write and implement site specific Project Design Criteria (PDCs) for all

roads used for haul as part of Hunter that have existing breached

closures. These should include implementing Entrance Management

techniques on 4660-120, 4660-140, 4660-170, and 5731-120 until they

are decommissioned fully as directed by Increment 2.

4. Accurately map and buffer all riparian areas previously identified by Bark

in our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) comments the Hunter

project in the Final Decision Maps.

Bark submits this Objection for the following reasons:

1) Logging in “fire origin” stands will negatively impact northern

spotted owls and aquatic habitat

“The northern spotted owl recovery plan encourages active management in

critical habitat to restore the species.” Hunter Response to Comments, B-13

“[L]and managers should not be so conservative that, to avoid risk, they forego

actions that are necessary to conserve the forest ecosystems that are necessary


to the long-term conservation of the spotted owl. But they should also not be so

aggressive that they subject spotted owls and their habitat to treatments where

the long-term benefits do not clearly outweigh the short-term risks.”

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery

Plan, II-11.

There are currently 33 known owl sites that have suitable habitat present

within 1.2 miles of proposed project activities in the Hunter Timber Sale.

Several of the proposed “fire origin” units have a multi-storied structure, large

diameter trees and are close to having appropriate levels of snags and down wood

required for northern spotted owl habitat. The proposed project would adversely

modify this future owl habitat in the short and long-term by reducing the forest

canopy well below 60% and removing down wood, shrubs and snags which

provide habitat for important prey species.

In addition, the Hunter project area overall includes 54,890 acres (over half the

watershed) of spotted owl critical habitat. FS regulations require measures for

preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 36 CFR §

219.27 (a)(8). “Critical habitat” is defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

as “[t]he specific area within the geographic area occupied by a species . . . on

which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species, and (II) that may require special management

considerations or protections.” Id. § 1532(5)(A)(i). “Destruction or adverse

modification” of critical habitat is defined as “direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat[,] . . . includ[ing], but . . . not

limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological

features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.” 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.02. “Conservation” is further defined as “to use and the use of all methods

and procedures necessary to bring an endangered species to the point at which

measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” 16 U.S.C. §

1533(3).

These statutes and regulations provide strict requirements for habitat protection

that must not be violated by the proposed action. In addition, the MHNF LRMP

requires that habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and

animals shall be protected and/or improved. FW-175 (emphasis added).

Under the ESA, the FS has the responsibility to “insure that any action

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in


the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. §

1536. Hunter, along with other thinning projects in the CRRD, could

immediately exacerbate degraded habitat conditions for northern spotted owls

which currently exist in the watershed. The near absence of any recent

information from surveys or monitoring of this listed species makes a reasonable

analysis of the cumulative impact of this project, and others proposed, on the

owl, uncertain.

The Hunter EA and draft Decision Notice violate both procedural and

substantive law, policy & regulation related to management of threatened

species habitat.

a) Analysis in the EA finding No Significant Impact does not comply with

NEPA

The NEPA process is intended to help public officials base decisions on an

understanding of the environmental consequences, so as to take actions that

protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(c).

Additionally, the purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of relevant

environmental considerations that were given a “hard look” by the agency, and

thereby to permit informed public comment on proposed action and any choices

or alternatives that might be pursued with less environmental harm. Lands

Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2005).

To ensure this level of detailed analysis, an EA must provide sufficient

information for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact

statement or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a).

Information presented in the EA must be of “high quality,” and include “accurate

scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. §1500.1(b). If the agency decides not to prepare an

EIS, the agency must supply a “convincing statement of reasons” to explain why

the action will not significantly impact on the environment. Blue Mountains, 161

F.3d at 1212.

The Effects Analysis for spotted owls does not comply with NEPA standards. It

does not include the data used to support the agency’s finding; that the project

would not have a significant impact on this threatened species. Specifically, the

EA fails to provide data about the amount of dispersal habitat that would be

affected, and the length of time it would no longer act as dispersal habitat. EA at

134. These are discrete numbers that must be considered when assessing the


impact of the project, but were not included in the EA.1 The FS also states that

there “would be some loss of dispersal habitat but there would remain sufficient

dispersal habitat across the planning area to allow owls to move through the

area”. EA at 135. However, the FS provides no information to describe how much

dispersal habitat would remain as sufficient. Generalized, conclusory

assertions from agency staff are not sufficient to avoid an EIS—the agency

must provide the underlying data supporting the assertion in language

intelligible to the public. Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. BLM, 387 F.3d

989, 996 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly explained that “[w]hile

the conclusions of agency experts are surely entitled to deference, NEPA

documents are inadequate if they contain only narratives of expert opinions.” Or.

Natural Res. Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 893 (9th Cir. 2007).

In addition, the EA neither provides substantive data for the disturbance zone

nor addresses Bark’s comments regarding the size of the appropriate

disturbance zone for forest roads, which cited a peer-reviewed scientific article

which concluded that northern spotted owls create an avoidance buffer of an

average of 1,312 feet (437 yards) from forest roads. Bark comments at 12. To

comply with NEPA, the final decision must specify how large the FS proposes for

a disturbance buffer, address the discrepancy between the two buffers, and

demonstrate that the best available science supports the buffer size chosen by

the FS. The EA also makes the ambiguous statement, “since some actions may

occur within the disturbance distance of known owl sites, such actions may

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, nesting spotted owls.” EA at 135.

Again, this assertion lacks supporting data and is distinctly equivocal. These

“conclusory assertions” with no factual justification are not sufficient to support

a Finding of No Significant Impact.

As mentioned in Bark’s PA comments, several recent court cases from the

Federal District Court for Oregon have confirmed that adverse impacts to

northern spotted owls and critical habitat is indeed significant under NEPA

and requires analysis with an EIS. See Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

1 Contrast with data provided in recent Polallie Cooper EA on Hood River District: The proposed thinning would remove 98 acres of dispersal habitat, 29 acres of foraging, and 2 acres of nesting and roosting habitat. These treatments would also downgrade 126 acres of foraging to dispersal and downgrade 119 acres of nesting and roosting habitat. EA at 241. It is estimated that these units would again provide quality suitable habitat in 75-100 years after treatments, depending on the site conditions. EA at 241.


937 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274, 1283–84 (D. Or. 2013), Or. Wild v. Bureau of Land

Mgmt., 2015 WL 1190131, *9-10 (D. Or. 2015).

b) The Hunter sale does not comply with Recovery Plan, ESA, or Mt. Hood

LRMP

The EA states that “The proposed action is consistent with all relevant standards

and guidelines.” EA at 137. However, the proposed action is clearly inconsistent

with FW-175, which requires that habitat for threatened, endangered and

sensitive plants and animals shall be protected and/or improved? LRMP, FW-

175. There has been no standard-by-standard review to support the

determination of consistency. Bark specifically raised the issue of non-

compliance with FW-175 in our PA comments. Neither the Response to

Comments nor the EA make a case to support the determination that the Hunter

Project does, in fact, comply with FW-175. Bark interprets removing &

downgrading habitat for threatened species from this project as being

inconsistent with the LRMP standard.

Additionally, the project does not comply with the FS’s responsibilities under the

ESA to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 36 CFR

§ 219.27 (a)(8).

The Hunter Sale would log approximately 1,813 acres of critical habitat. EA at

136. Again, under the ESA, the FS has the responsibility to “insure that any

action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such

species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536.

The Hunter EA provides conflicting information as to extent of impact, when

compared to the Draft Decision Notice. The “threshold question” is: Does the

project destroy or adversely modifies critical habitat? “Destruction or adverse

modification” of critical habitat is defined as “direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat[,] . . . includ[ing], but . . . not

limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological

features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.” 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.02.

The EA concludes that “the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to

adversely affect northern spotted owl Critical Habitat.” EA at 136. However, the


DN explicitly contradicts the EA: the project may affect and is likely to adversely

affect critical habitat.” DN at 15.

Finally, the proposed action does not comply with the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan,

especially Recovery Actions 10 & 32.

Recovery Action 10: Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl

habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl

populations.

Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older

and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-

federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service to

maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire

and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high-

quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter

trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as

broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.

To comply with this Recovery Action, the FS must only log in areas that have a

scientifically supported basis for restoration through logging. This means

excluding logging in all areas that currently have “large diameter trees, high

amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped

live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.” As noted in our

comments, and below, many of the fire origin stands have the legacy trees and

other features that already provide habitat, or will soon:

Ecological Conditions in “fire origin” Stands

The Hunter project includes the Purpose and Need: “Improve Forest Health and

Diversity in Fire-Originated Stands”. EA at 8

“The desired condition is a multi-layer canopy with large diameter trees, well-

developed understory, more than one age class, and sufficient quantities of snags

and down woody debris.” These desired conditions are described in the LRMP on

page Four-67 and in the NFP on pages B-5, B-6 and C-32. The desired condition

for spotted owl critical habitat is to have stands that contribute to dispersal and

suitable habitat. These desired conditions are described in the owl recovery plan

(USDI 2011) at III-19.” EA at 10.


Bark visited the fire origin units of the Hunter project and found that tree

species, as well as ages and sizes, vary, and that legacy trees are common

in units 203, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 217, 219, 220, and 221. These site-

specific findings differ significantly from what the EA described as “trees of

mostly the same age class and with a single canopy layer,” and what the Draft

Decision describes as “Only a few of the fire origin stands have legacy trees”. EA

at 29

While, the FS states that these fire origin stands “are not currently considered

suitable owl habitat and the prescription would move the stands to develop in

that desired direction.” EA at 68, Bark has demonstrated that these stands, in

fact, already include the building blocks of what would soon become suitable

habitat under No Action. Furthermore, the agency actually acknowledges this

under the No Action Alternative, stating, “The fire-originated stands would likely

develop into suitable habitat sooner (than plantations) due to the legacy tree

component within many of the stands.” EA at 114. Additionally, the agency

recognizes that any commercial logging, including thinning mature stands

and/or removing mature trees, can reduce the quality of habitat and delay

attainment of defining old-growth characteristics such as snags and dead wood.

In 2016, the FS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released an

annotated bibliography compiling studies that examined the impacts of thinning

in mature forest stands2 which was recently reviewed by Paul Reed, a PhD

student at the University of Oregon.3 Overall, the bibliography addressed a

variety of characteristics of old-growth forest structure. While there is some

evidence that thinning could positively affect aspects of late-successional

development, significant and consistent evidence of this type is generally lacking.

This is especially true regarding the mid & long-term impacts of thinning on the

abundance and size of snags and downed wood. These old-growth structural

features are largely overlooked though available data suggests that thinning does

not do an adequate job managing for these features. According to Reed, because

of the lack of compelling evidence, it is appropriate to implement a precautionary

approach towards managing and thinning mature forest stands.

2 Powers, M., and S. Wessell. 2016. Management impacts and developmental patterns in mature Douglas-fir forests

of the Pacific Northwest: An Annotated Bibliography. 3 Reed, P. 2016. Reviewing the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management’s “mature stand thinning”

bibliography.


The FS asserts that thinning improves residual tree health and it that may take

longer for these residual trees to die (reducing snag density) in the Proposed

Action scenarios than with No Action. Many other studies show that thinning

lowers snag density relative to un-harvested stands.4 Confusingly, while the

agency recognizes that timber harvest has undisputed negative effects on snag

density, it also often claims that thinning will produce more structural diversity

in the future. These claims are indicate the agency is unclear on ecological

processes regarding future snag recruitment, especially in native forest.

Large snags (as well as dense forest surrounding them) are critical habitat

requirements of Westside indicator species like flying squirrels and spotted

owls5, and are currently in short supply due to past and present management.

In comments, Bark

emphasized that fire origin

Units 209 & 210 display

significant characteristics

of healthy mature, multi-

aged stands. As in other

units we visited, there are

several large legacy trees

and snags mixed in (Fig. 1),

and substantial down

woody debris within the

Granite Creek tributary

stream channel. Yew and

Western red cedar grow in

this riparian area which

exemplifies the most

structural diversity within the units. As in several of the other native stands,

Bark volunteers found individuals of Hemitomes congestum, which specializes

in, and is adapted to, closed-canopy forests with healthy soils and mycorrhizal

network connectivity. These characteristics: deep organic soils, a closed canopy,

and down wood are especially important in these stands since they include some

of the steepest units within the Hunter Timber Sale (in some areas >45%).

4 Windom, M. and Bates, L. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and human access. Forest

Ecology and Management 255(7) pp. 2085-2093.

Fig. 1: Legacy snag within fire origin Unit 209


Bark also referenced

fire origin Units 219,

220, and 221 in

comments. These units

contain legacy trees

and snags, as well as

diversity of tree ages

(Fig. 2), abundant

down wood and healthy

soils containing several

species of Ramaria

(indicator of old forest).

This grouping of fire

origin stands is mostly

surrounded by young

plantations or recent

thins, making these

areas of older, closed-canopy structure essential to the landscape.

In several other units, signs of past fire are evident on older snags and on

surviving Douglas firs and Western red

cedars (Fig. 3), some of which were

between 50-60 inches DBH. There are

numerous smaller down trees between

10-15 inches in diameter, evidence that

these stands are in the process of self-

thinning. Beneficial large-diameter

down wood exists in several of these

stands, amongst large old conifers (Fig.

4) which illustrates the age of the stand

at the time of the last disturbance. Units

206 and 215 also contained notable

amounts of large standing and dead

wood, some individuals of which were

nearly 60 inches in diameter.

Fig. 2: Stand conditions within “fire origin” Unit 221


Fig. 4 (above): Large diameter trees in fire origin Unit 204; large diameter down wood in Unit 206 (below)

Fire origin Units 203 &

204 contain numerous

mammal burrows,

signs of pileated

woodpecker and

sapsucker foraging,

natural canopy gaps,

with heavily thinned

forest (“Y Thin”) to the

south & east, and

suitable old forest

habitat to the north.

Abundant and well

used wildlife habitat

exists within these

stands, which have concentrations of standing and down wood. Flagged arboreal

nests were found by Bark volunteers in Unit 204.

Units 203, 204 and several other fire origin stands, contain a mid-story of

smaller hemlocks (important structural occlusion for arboreal mammals), and

an understory that contains few herbaceous plants except in gaps where trees


have fallen. We would expect more gaps like these to form stochastically, adding

to the complexity of the stands and diversifying the understory. As the FS

knows, the natural cycle of falling trees achieves a higher quality of structural

complexity than commercial logging.

Impacts to northern flying squirrels

Bark expressed concern about impacts to northern flying squirrels (a principle

spotted-owl prey) in both Scoping and PA comments. The owl recovery plan

recommends active management in critical habitat to improve conditions for the

long term (USDI 2011 at III-19). EA at 29. According to agency cited research,

variable-density thinning of stands within Hunter could reduce the suitability

of the site for the northern flying squirrels for 30 to 100 years, until long-term

ecological processes (often also suppressed by thinning) provide sufficient

structural complexity in the mid-story and over-story favorable to squirrels.

Northern flying squirrel populations in mature and second growth forests decline

after the stands are thinned and remain at low levels. Research has found that

squirrel populations in un-thinned patches are larger than in thinned, and even

those decline when adjacent areas are thinned.6 Predation seems to be the most

limiting factor – thinning opens the stands and results in a period of several

decades when squirrels are too vulnerable to predation, so the population

remains very low. Prescriptions that retain visual occlusion in the mid-story

layers are best suited for maintaining squirrel populations.

Since recommendations for managing forest include retaining some areas of high

stem density, retaining the mid-story, and retaining a contiguous closed canopy,

Bark has expressed concern about the impact of thinning, especially in native

stands, on retaining these key features. A strategy of maintaining adequate area

and connectivity of dense, closed-canopy forests within managed landscapes by

leaving areas of young forest un-thinned has been recommended by researchers

to maintain northern flying squirrel populations7.

In a 2013 paper by Todd M. Wilson and Eric D. Forsman, the Management

Considerations includes the idea that: “It may be possible to develop new

thinning prescriptions that keep moderately high populations of arboreal

rodents in young forests while still achieving long-term management objectives

for the stand.” In the case of Hunter, one long-term objective is the viability of

6 Wilson, T.M. 2010. Limiting factors for northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) in the Pacific

Northwest: a spatio-temporal analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: Union Institute & University. 7 Manning, T.; Hagar, J.C.; McComb, B.C. 2012. Thinning of young Douglas-fir forests decreases density of

northern flying squirrels in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 264: 115 –124.


spotted owls in Critical Habitat. We suggested one such approach in our

comments which includes developing prescriptions in plantation stands that

focus solely on skips (patches of trees left un-thinned) and gaps (removal

of patches of trees). This strategy is in marked contrast with most current

prescriptions that typically thin throughout a stand (with or without

delineated skips or gaps).” For this, Wilson and Forsman’s research recommends

keeping gaps small (100-400 m2).8

Logging in the fire origin stands could increase interactions with barred owls

Bark raised the issue of barred owl interactions in PA comments. The owl’s

Revised Recovery Plan identifies competition from the barred owl as an important

threat to the spotted owl9. “Vegetation management activities can also benefit

barred owls indirectly by providing habitat and prey species that are not

necessarily preferred by the northern spotted owl.” EA at 133. Other than this

statement, the Hunter EA made very little mention of combined impacts of

logging with the known effects of competition and trophic cascades associated

with the barred owl. In the Pacific Northwest, the recent invasion of barred owls

with loss and fragmentation of intact forest are combining to reduce population

sizes of native species with limited adaptive responses to novel and fast-acting

threats. As noted in the comprehensive work, Population Demography of

Northern Spotted Owls10, the fact that barred owls are increasing and

becoming an escalating threat to the persistence of spotted owls does not

diminish the importance of habitat conservation for spotted owls and their prey.

In fact, the existence of a new and potential competitor like the barred owl

makes the protection of habitat even more important, since any loss of habitat

will likely increase competitive pressure and result in further reductions in

spotted owl populations.

The Population Demography found that, “[o]ur results and those of others

referenced above consistently identify loss of habitat and barred owls as

important stressors on populations of northern spotted owls. In view of the

continued decline of spotted owls in most study areas, it would be wise to

8 Wilson, Todd M.; Forsman, Eric D. 2013. Thinning effects on spotted owl prey and other forest-dwelling small

mammals. In: Anderson, Paul D.; Ronnenberg, Kathryn L., eds. Density management for the 21st century: west side

story. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station: 79–90 9 USDI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 2011. Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities

That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls. Region One U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 10 Forsman, et.al, 2011, published for Cooper Ornithological Society.


preserve as much high-quality habitat in late-successional forests for spotted

owls as possible, distributed over as large an area as possible.”

Dugger et al. modeled extinction and colonization rates for spotted owl pairs in

the South Cascade Demographic Study area where barred owls were detected on

some home ranges11. They found that extinction rates for spotted owls increased

with decreasing amounts of old forest in the core area, and that the effect was 2

to 3 times greater when barred owls were detected. They found that colonization

rates for spotted owls decreased as the distance between patches of old forest

increased (i.e., increased habitat loss and fragmentation) and that barred owl

presence similarly decreased the rate of colonization of spotted owl pairs. They

concluded that conserving large blocks of contiguous old-forest habitat was

important for reducing interference competition between the owl species.

In a recently published report, Holm et al. describe the potential trophic cascades

triggered by the range expansion of the barred owl in our region. The authors

suggest that the addition of the barred owl to PNW ecosystems may result in

restructuring of communities or even potential local extinctions. If the rate of

increase barred owl population continues, forests could experience a loss of prey

species as well as loss of important ecological processes.12 Increased predation

pressure on traditional prey of the northern spotted owl by the barred owl could

indeed result in a local decline of species present in the Hunter project such as

northern flying squirrels and red tree voles.

Holm et al. discuss several potential indirect effects on ecosystem processes,

which include a decline in tree and shrub growth and establishment through

increased predation pressure on seed dispersing species because of barred owl

predation. Increases in barred owls could also result in a decline in tree squirrel

abundance, which could indirectly lead to reduced recruitment and growth of

these forests that rely on spore dispersal. A potential decrease in soil processing

may also occur with the expansion of barred owls, since reduced numbers of

burrowing small mammals would lead to subsequent declines in the rates of

decomposition of organic matter and litter, and mixing of forest soil.13

11 Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls,

spotted owls, habitat composition and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications 21(7): 2459-

2468. 12 Holm, S.R., B.R. Noon, J.D. Wiens and W. J. Ripple. 2016. Potential Trophic Cascades Triggered by the

Barred Owl Range Expansion. Wildlife Society Bulletin; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.714 13 Pearce, J., and L. Venier. 2005. Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management. Forest

Ecology and Management 208:153–175.


Logging in fire origin Riparian Reserves does not comply with the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy

Riparian Reserves are a part of the NFP’s broad Aquatic Conservation Strategy

(ACS). Riparian Reserves generally parallel water bodies and streams and are

portions of watersheds where riparian dependent resources receive primary

emphasis and where specific standards and guidelines apply. Id. This system

was established to “restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and

aquatic ecosystems.” Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 373 F.

Supp. 2d 1069, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2004).

The FS asserts that logging is needed in Riparian Reserves within the Hunter

proposal because they are overstocked with relatively uniform trees with low

levels of diversity, and that they do not have mature and late-successional

stand conditions. EA at 105. Bark’s extensive experience groundtruthing the

timber sale units demands we assert that this is a drastic oversimplification

of the site conditions, especially regarding Riparian Reserves in fire origin

stands. As raised in Bark’s PA comments, many Riparian Reserves in the fire

origin stands are in healthy, functioning condition, currently meeting the ACS

objectives:

Fire origin Units 209 & 210 display several characteristics of a healthy

mature multi-aged stand. . . .there are several large legacy trees and snags mixed

in, and a gathering of down woody debris within the Granite Creek tributary

stream channel (Fig. 5). Yew and Western red cedar grow in this riparian area

which houses the most structural diversity within the units. . .A logging

prescription that removes existing canopy, decreases structural complexity, and

adversely impacts soil stability does not meet the purpose and need of this

project.


Fire origin Units

219, 220, and 221

include legacy trees and

snags, as well as an

abundance of tree ages,

down wood and healthy

soils containing several

species of Ramaria

(indicator of old forests).

Unit 220 contains an

unmapped riparian area

with a distinctly different

plant community, which

then channelizes and

flows into the mapped

Granite Creek tributary. .

. Much of these units are within functional Riparian Reserves. PA comments at

3-4.

Indeed, even if the FS’s blanket characterization of the riparian areas as

universally overstocked was accurate, the EA still fails to explain why logging

in Riparian Reserves is necessary to attain ACSOs. Indeed, many, if not most,

ACSOs would be better met through the “no action” alternative. For example, the

Riparian Reserves are currently far under the Forest Plan standards for woody

debris in streams (which correlates to ACSO #3 and #8). Given that these forests

are entering the stem-exclusion phase, where trees naturally begin to die, and

structural diversity increases, No-Action would lead to more available LWD.

However, the FS typically characterizes the “no-action alternative” as though it

is stuck in time, in contrast to the action, in which time moves; not fully

acknowledging that no-action is effectively allowing natural processes to prevail.

Compare the statement, “The no action alternative would maintain the current

conditions and would result in stands that are overstocked with relatively

uniform trees with low levels of diversity. They do not have mature and late

successional stand conditions” with the statement, “Over time as late-

successional conditions are restored in riparian reserves [through logging]

missing elements such as large woody debris, complexity both at the stream and

landscape scales, would be restored.” EA at 105. Obviously, late-successional

conditions will be achieved over time in the no-action alternative, yet the tone of

the EA skews in favor of human intervention. Curiously, these two sentences are

Fig. 5: Down woody debris and snags within Riparian Reserve in Unit 209

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barkformthood/29973285584/in/dateposted-public/





copied verbatim from the Jazz EA14 confirming our concern that these

conclusions are not based on site specific analysis.

Finally, even if the FS could adequately answer the threshold question by

demonstrating how commercial logging in fire-origin riparian reserves is

necessary, the action still must comply with all nine of the ACSOs, on both

short- and long-term timeframes. Complying with the ACSOs means that the FS

must manage riparian-dependent resources to maintain the existing condition

or implement actions to restore the conditions. While some aquatic

degradation, standing alone, does not constitute ACS noncompliance, the FS

must avoid degradation that leads to the non-attainment of ACS objectives at

both the short-term, localized scale and the long-term, watershed scale. Pac.

Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. NMFS, 265 F.3d 1028, 1037 (9th Cir. 2001).

To make a finding that the logging “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of

the ACSOs, the NFP requires the FS to describe the existing conditions of the

watersheds within the project area, the natural variability of important physical

and biological components, and explain how the proposed logging would

maintain or restore the conditions of the watershed. Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands

v Forest Service, 373 F. Supp. 2d. Rather than providing these very specific

details, the Hunter EA simply includes general statements of compliance for each

ACSO, which lack specificity and are not supported by site-specifics. See EA at

105-111.EA at 105-111.

Specifically, the EA fails to distinguish between the Riparian Reserves in

plantations and those in fire origin stands. Early in the EA, the FS fails to

acknowledge the Riparian Reserves in the fire origin stands, erroneously

asserting that “[t]he fire-origin stands are not in land allocations that emphasize

natural process of self-thinning,” EA at 29. Later it appears that the entirety of

the EA’s analysis about ACS compliance is focused on plantation scenarios. For

example, when assessing compliance with ACSOs, the EA asserts that the

riparian areas are “overstocked with relatively uniform trees with low levels of

diversity.” EA at 105. As noted in our scoping comments and PA comments –

this uniform description of the Riparian Reserves is inaccurate. The rationale

giving for logging in Riparian Reserves simply does not apply in these areas. As

we work to resolve this objection, we invite the FS to do a site visit with Bark

to the Riparian Areas in the fire-originated stands.

14 With the slight change of “plantations” to “stands.”


An honest interpretation of ACS Objective #8 recognizes that logging in the

Riparian Reserves will actually retard compliance, not improve it.

ACSO #8: Species Composition and Structural Diversity:

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural

diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to

provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient

filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion and

channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of

coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and

stability. AR 4147.

Large wood plays an important role in stream ecosystems modifiying both

hydrologic sediment and nutrient transport by slowing, storing and redirecting

stream water sediments and particulate organic matter. Additionally, large wood

enhances stream habitat for fish, other vertebrates, and invertebrates by

providing physical cover, enhancing habitat features such as pools, backwaters

and secondary channels, and creating flow velocity refugia. Having adequate

levels of large woody debris (LWD) is critical for healthy streams in forested

ecosystems.

The EA states that thinning in “uniform mid-aged Douglas-fir stands in Riparian

Reserves would diversify and restore native tree composition including retention

of minor tree species. . .” Public comments have suggested that the maximization

of dead trees by allowing stands to self-thin through natural mortality would be

the best way to meet this objective. This project has focused on creating a

sufficient quantity of snags balanced with treatments for accelerating the

development of large live trees, diversifying and restoring native tree

composition, and creating horizontal and vertical diversity through skips and

gaps. For these reasons, the objective of maintaining and restoring species

composition and structural diversity of plant communities would be met for this

project because it would lead to improved conditions in the long term.” EA at

110.

Contrary to this determination, the EA acknowledges that wood quantities in

most streams are already below the current standards, and that logging in

Riparian Reserves would reduce levels of down wood. EA at 99, 100. In the

context of already degraded aquatic habitat and a lack of in-stream woody debris,

any decrease in the amount of woody debris will retard attainment of ACSO #8.

By removing most of the trees that would naturally die and create LWD, the

Hunter Timber Sale will decrease the amount of available large wood, in both the

short and long term, and does not comply with ACSO #8.


Because commercial logging in Riparian Reserves is prohibited the FS has the

affirmative burden to demonstrate that commercial logging is necessary to meet

the ACSOs. The FS provides no compelling rationale for its need to speed up

natural processes in fire origin Riparian Reserves, especially as this action

retards compliance with the ACSOs.15

In sum, the Hunter EA and DN fail to show commercial logging is needed to

meet ACSOs, fail to provide baseline data and analysis required to determine

compliance with ACSOs, yet still propose action that would move this watershed

farther out of compliance with at least ACSO #8.

Bark has raised several points to supplement our argument against logging in

fire origin stands within the Hunter Project, and bring these forward into this

objection. To resolve this objection, Bark requests that the FS align their

Proposed Action with the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, LRMP and ACS by

implementing the following within Fire-Origin stands:

• Retaining average canopy cover of at least 40% to maintain dispersal owl

habitat

• Limiting gaps to 1/4 acre in size with 3 to 10% of the total stand area in

gaps

• Prohibit cutting of trees larger than 20 inches in diameter (at a height of

4.5 feet) unless necessary for skyline corridors, skid trails, landings or

temporary roads, in which case these trees are to be left on site as downed

wood.

• Remove all 20 acres of Riparian Reserve logging in Fire-Origin stands.

2) Logging Plantation Unit 108A/108B is inconsistent with the Hunter

Project’s Purpose and Need

In PA comments, Bark recommended that the FS drop Plantation Unit

108a/108b from the Hunter proposal for multiple reasons re-expanded upon

here:

• The unit’s structure is diverse, with canopy cover varying tremendously,

pockets of conifer mortality creating openings (Fig. 6), and vigorously

growing trees (volunteers commonly measured 25-inch diameter Douglas

firs, Fig. 7)).


• Access to this unit would require extending the closed 4660-140 by 0.41

miles, and building a new 0.5-mile road alignment south. The 4660-140

road closure has already been breached, so both rebuilding and extending

this road terminating in the already structurally diverse, steep Unit 108a

is concerning given our experience with unauthorized, opportunistic use

of roads reopened or built for timber sales in the CRRD.

• Unit 108a is adjacent to and contains one additional tributary into Last

Creek which contains federally listed fish species. The creek within the

unit is smaller, flowing in early September, and to the east of the mapped

tributary on unit map.

• The unit is situated on steep slopes and contains thin, erosive soils

which volunteers observed moving, even under foot.

• The overlying NFP land allocation is Late Successional Reserve (LSR), as

well as being within Critical Habitat for northern spotted owls.

Fig. 6: Existing canopy gap within Unit 108a, promoting understory diversity


Fig. 7: Vigorous Douglas fir growth within Unit 108a

According to the NFP, Late-Successional Reserves are to be managed to protect

and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems,

which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth reacted species,

including the northern spotted owl. NWFP Standards & Guidelines, C-11.

Thinning and other silvicultural treatments inside reserves are subject to review

by the Regional Ecosystem Office to ensure that the treatments are beneficial to

the creation of late-successional forest conditions. NWFP Standards &

Guidelines, C-13.

The purpose of any silvicultural treatment within a LSR must be to benefit the

creation and maintenance of these late-successional forest conditions. NWFP at

C-12. The Hunter Response to Comments acknowledges that “some elements of

diversity may be present in parts of the unit” but concludes “[t]he analysis found

that the thinning prescription in this plantation would move the area toward

desired conditions.” Response to comments, B-35. As there is a general

prohibition on commercial logging in LSRs, it is the burden of the agency

to show that the proposed actions are clearly needed, and will not prevent

the LSR from providing the habitat for which it was created. In the EA, there

is no specific reference to stand structure in unit 108a/108b.

The FS further states in Response to comments that the “purpose and need

statements are broader” than simply enhancing diversity. The FS states in the


EA however that the desired condition in LSRs is a “multi-layer canopy with large

diameter trees, well-developed understory, more than one age class, and

sufficient quantities of snags and down woody debris,” and that the desired

condition for spotted owl critical habitat is to have “stands that contribute to

dispersal and suitable habitat.” While it’s true that the FS could interpret these

conditions being more than just “diversity”, we have clearly shown that this unit

is already on a trajectory to fully displaying these conditions, and that it does

not require active management to achieve them. The burden of showing that

logging is needed to achieve late-successional stand conditions has not

been met by the FS, which violates NFP Standards and Guidelines.

The FS acknowledges that the North Willamette LSR Assessment (USDA USDI

1998), which covers the Hunter Project Area, recommended retaining down wood

cover at a rate of 10 to 15%. To achieve this, most of the trees that need to be

cut to achieve thinning objectives would need to be left on the ground. The cost

of creating down wood at these rates would not allow for an economically viable

timber sale. While another primary purpose of the Hunter project is “to keep

forests productive to sustainably provide forest products now and in the future.”

this is a purpose statement for the Matrix, not for LSRs. Removing commercially

valuable trees will put the stand at a long-term deficit for down wood. The LSR

assessment stresses the importance of promoting large trees, snags and coarse

woody debris, multiple canopy layers, and development of patchy understory;

the building blocks for these already exist within units 108a & 108b.

Bark believes that the extending of 4660-140 by 0.41 miles, and the building of

a new 0.5-mile road alignment along with commercial logging as proposed in

Units 108a & 108b are inconsistent with the Hunter project’s Purpose and Need,

and are not required to meet the desired future conditions for LSRs and Critical

Habitat. Approving a project that does not meet the purpose and need of that

project is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We therefore request

that the FS remove these units and associated extending of 4660-140 by

0.41 miles, and 0.5 mile of temporary road from the Final Decision.

3) Site-specific PDCs are needed for all roads with existing breached

closures, and used for haul as part of Hunter

In both scoping and PA comments, as well as in multiple Clackamas Stewardship

Partners (CSP) meetings, Bark brought up the issue of breached road closures,

several of which were on routes needed to implement logging as part of the

Hunter Timber Sale. Some of these roads had completed analysis to


decommission as part of Increment 2. Bark provided to the FS written

information and photos of each of these breached road closures, and requested

that special attention be given to these roads to prevent additional unauthorized

access from occurring during and after Hunter’s implementation. While Hunter

is under contract, roads constructed for the project could provide unregulated

motorized access over the course of multiple years, as roads may be needed for

more than one season. We are especially concerned about unauthorized access

in the Peavine area (4660, 4661, 5731, 5720 & surrounding). This part of the

forest experiences more unauthorized trail building and road closure breaches

than the surrounding project area.

Fig. 8: Breached berm at FSR 4660-140

4660-140 was meant to be “Decommissioned” as part of Increment 2, but is

labeled on Hunter maps as “open”. Currently this road has a breached berm (Fig.

8), and accesses an area where Bark notified Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs)

of an illegal hunting perch installed directly over bait. This road, if left as is,

would also provide access to areas in which new roadbuilding is proposed in

Hunter. Since the berm has been pushed in (and insufficient flat areas surround

the berm for circumvention), we ask that “Entrance Management” (installing

water bars along the used portion of the road with spacing based on gradient

and topography, roughing up the first part of the road, and installing large berms


at the road entrance) be implemented to block access during the time between

Hunter project implementation and when this road is decommissioned.


currently labeled on Hunter maps as “open”. Currently this road has

circumvented berm, with a user-created route accessing the main system road

(Fig. 9). The terrain around this closure is flat and open, making it difficult to

block access to this road. However, reconstructing a larger berm and placing an

additional berm (on unauthorized entrance) with boulder placement along the

adjacent dispersed campground, and Entrance Management would suffice to

block access around the original berm during the time between Hunter project

implementation and when this road is decommissioned.

Fig. 9: Circumvented berm at FSR 4660-170


currently labeled on Hunter maps as “closed”. The road would need a larger berm

or other barricade to prevent further attempts at breaching (Fig. 10). The

Increment 2 Decision Notice reads that “No need was identified for delaying

decommissioning” on this road. We ask that Entrance Management (installing

water bars along the used portion of the road with spacing based on gradient

and topography, roughing up the first part of the road, and installing large berms

at the road entrance) be implemented until this road is decommissioned.


Fig. 10: Berm at FSR 4660-120

Fig. 11: Circumvented berm at FSR 5731-120


Fig 12: Road closure breach and unauthorized trail through Unit 86

On September 19, 2016 Bark notified USFS

Law Enforcement Officers of a user-created

trail we found starting at the intersection of

FSR 4660 and 4661. The trail goes through

the Unit 88 then connects with 5731-120,

which is closed with a berm that has been

circumvented from the side (Reported on

August 20, 2015, Fig 11). One could guess

that individuals take the trail and then loop

back past Devil’s Ridge and back down the

4661 (Fig 12 & 13).

Fig. 13: Unauthorized trail in Unit 86

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barkformthood/29507342530/in/album-72157664235707474/





The 5731-120 road was slated to be “decommissioned” as part of Increment 2,

and is currently labeled on Hunter maps as “closed”. The Increment 2 Decision

Notice reads that “No need was identified for keeping this road on the Forest's

transportation system”. It has been circumvented by OHVs, and needs additional

barricades for the closure to be effective until the road is decommissioned.

We expressed our concern that if this illegal trail and road closure breach are

not addressed, this activity may increase within this area. We have noticed a

pattern of temporary road closures not being implemented by contractors in a

timely fashion (as determined by project contracts), leaving motorized access

open to forests in units otherwise unreachable by the public. Since there is an

unauthorized trail network already in existence within this unit, we

recommended that utmost care be given to prevent more illegal trail building

from occurring after this trail is obliterated.

A similar situation exists nearby on FSR 5731-116 accessing Unit 68, where a

closure has been breached at its junction with roads 5731 & 5720 (Fig. 14). If

additional road re-opening and roadbuilding occurs off the 5731-116, we would

expect these associated areas to be explored further if effective and timely

closures are not implemented.

Fig 14: Breached road closure on FSR 5731-116, accessing Unit 68

In our PA comments we brought up a relatable instance in 2015, where FSR

6311-130 was rebuilt as a temporary road to access Bass Timber Sale Units 6,

8, 12, & 14. We have seen these types of circumstances in other projects

proposed by the FS across the district. The original metal barricade in this case

http://bark-out.org/sites/default/files/bark-docs/2016%20Jazz%20Road%20Monitoring%20-%20Bark.pdf

http://bark-out.org/sites/default/files/bark-docs/2016%20Jazz%20Road%20Monitoring%20-%20Bark.pdf





was not replaced with an effective substitute (the aluminum guardrail was

simply laid across the road entrance). In early fall 2015, Bark observed that it

had been removed, and the units had already been accessed by motorized

vehicles (NONE of the temporary roads into the units off the -130 road itself were

closed). After being made aware of situations like these, we expected the agency

to acknowledge what to likely expect with and without barriers to access on roads

that are not intended to be accessed by the public during NEPA projects.

The FS responded by saying that the “Bass and Drum projects are not yet

completed, but proper winterizing was conducted during periods of inactivity”.

This is not accurate.

From Bass contract:

“Over wintering: Spur roads and/or landings will normally be constructed,

used, and obliterated in the same operating season. If it is not possible to do

this, due to fire season or similar reason, road will be out-sloped, water-barred,

have the entrance effectively blocked; and the entire road will be seeded,

mulched, and fertilized in accordance with K-G. 6.0#, prior to end of Normal

Operating Season, or as designed by the Forest Service.”

Some road closure and trail rehabilitation projects completed recently within the

District’s Goat Mountain project area have been effective in reducing

unauthorized target shooting, OHV use, and garbage dumping in stands

proposed for thinning. Restoration actions have included boulders and slash

being placed along the road, berms, obliteration, re-contouring/de-compacting,

re-vegetating, and the removal of trash. We believe these actions where

implemented have been mostly effective, and we encouraged the FS in our PA

comments to employ these types of strategies within the Hunter project.

Bark requested a commitment from the agency to enforce effective barricades on

roads built or rebuilt for this project when operations are not occurring. This

includes time when the area is still under contract but outside the normal

operating season. We provided specific recommendations on how to make this

possible.

The FS responded to the information we provided on existing breached road

closures and the recommendations we made by saying:

“These breached road closures are on flat ground or ridgetops and are a low

aquatic risk. For these reasons, the roads were specifically closed to reduce road

maintenance costs on the Forest. Since the roads are not being maintained, that


objective is being met even though some closures are breached by unauthorized

users. Although new berms would be installed upon completion of project

activities, there is still a chance that an unauthorized user could breach a berm

by going around it and it is not likely that a bigger berm would deter all

unauthorized users…. Because these roads pose a low risk to aquatic resources,

the berms proposed in this project would be similar to the berms previously

constructed on these roads.” EA at 66, 67.

The FS appears to be asserting that the purpose of a closure is not to close a

road to public access and that they tolerate existing and future illegal activity

occurring on the lands they manage. Because of this non-commitment to

effectively close roads and reduce illegal access, the FS is certainly inviting

increased impacts from future illegal activity which is not acknowledged in the

EA.

The information we provided in Scoping and PA comments should compel the FS

to include a recognition of impacts occurring on roads slated for eventual

decommissioning or closure and the necessity of identifying site-specific PDCs

for the Hunter project. These road closure breaches and associated impacts were

not included in the Effects Analysis in Increment 2. NEPA’s regulations explicitly

require that agencies state in a NEPA decision whether all practicable means to

avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted and, if not, why. 40

C.F.R. § 1505.2(2). As these roads are not yet fully decommissioned with effective

structures put in place to deter illegal access, the FS should do what they can in

the meantime to at least prevent illegal activities from occurring (activities which

are at odds with the FS’s definitions of the roads’ current Maintenance Levels,

stated below).

When planning Hunter, the FS needs to comply with the following Forest Wide

Standards & Guidelines:

If the FS’s Road Management Objectives for these roads are “closed” until they’re

decommissioned, and they know what Bark does about the status of these roads,

they must identify additional PDCs to comply with FW-418.


Much of the forest that the roads mentioned here already access are in the B-

2/Scenic Viewshed LRMP Land Allocation, which includes:

Again, the FS has not adequately identified PDCs which make compliance with

B2-029 and B2-030 possible.

MH-266-20-99 addresses violating trail or road closures:

The FS defines closed roads as “Road Management Level 1” below:

“Road Management Level 1

Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to

vehicular traffic. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to

adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate

future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining

drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at

this level. Roads are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable

for nonmotorized uses. Vehicular traffic is eliminated, including

administrative traffic. Roads are physically blocked, or entrance is disguised.”

In response to both the CSP and Bark’s concern of the existence of inadequate

closures and illegal activity, the FS replied that “New NEPA documentation is not

needed to deal with closures that were authorized by other decisions.” Hunter

Appendix B-2.

Further: “Many of these roads already have NEPA decisions for

decommissioning. This planning effort is not revisiting previous decisions nor is

it making decisions about the timing or funding of projects with previous

decisions.” Hunter Appendix B-10.

According to the FS Handbook, new information about these roads can and

should necessitate additional action by the agency:

https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_036476.pdf


1909.15_10.18 - CORRECTION, SUPPLEMENTATION, OR REVISION OF

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND RECONSIDERATION OF DECISIONS TO

TAKE ACTION requires the FS to be “alert for new information and changed

circumstances that might affect decisions for actions that are awaiting

implementation and for ongoing programs or projects to determine if the

environmental analysis and documentation needs to be corrected,

supplemented, or revised.”

Bark has brought several pieces of new information about roads slated for

closure or decommissioning through past analyses, and has then combined this

with our estimate of what the overlay of impacts from the timber sale will be.

This information has since been disregarded by the agency.

Further from the Handbook: “If new information or changed circumstances

relating to the environmental impacts of a proposed action come to the attention

of the responsible official after a decision has been made and prior to completion

of the approved program or project, the responsible official should review the

information carefully to determine its importance. Consideration should be

given to whether or not the new information or changed circumstances are within

the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis.” 18.1 - Review

and Documentation of New Information Received After Decision Has Been Made

The FS did not disclose in their analysis the combined effects of proposed logging

and roadbuilding as they interact with existing unauthorized activity relating to

road closures. This was masked by labeling breached roads as “closed” – which

assumes that if these roads are to be re-opened and then re-closed to the degree

that they are now, no additional impacts will result. To comply with NEPA's

"hard look" mandate, courts have held that agencies are obligated to maintain a

current inventory of resources so that an adequate baseline exists to evaluate

the environmental impacts of a proposed action. Ctr. for Biol. Diversity v. Bureau

of Land Mgmt., 422 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Or. Natural

Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F.Supp.2d. 1202, 1212-13 (D. Or. 2006). The

environmental baseline is an integral part of an EA, because it is against this

information that environmental impacts are measured and evaluated; therefore,

it is critical that the baseline be accurate and complete. Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy

Regulatory Comm'n, 201 F.3d 1186, 1195 & n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000); Ctr. for Biol.

Diversity, 422 F.Supp.2d at 1163.16

16 To comply with NEPA's "hard look" mandate, courts have held that agencies are obligated to maintain a current

inventory of resources so that an adequate baseline exists to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed


NEPA mandates that an agency “shall to the fullest extent possible: use the NEPA

process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions

that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of

the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(e). Bark believes that to remedy

our objection to the agency's disregard to the existence of damaging,

unauthorized activity in the Hunter project area, the FS should develop site

specific PDCs for all roads used for haul as part of Hunter with existing

breached closures. These should include implementing Entrance Management

techniques on 4660-120, 4660-140, 4660-170, and 5731-120 until they are

decommissioned fully as decided with Increment 2. Bark is willing to work with

the agency to develop these criteria as we believe that if it is not developed,

unnecessary harm to the environment through illegal activity will occur.

4) Riparian information is not represented in analysis

In PA comments, Bark submitted site-specific information on the presence of

riparian areas inside of proposed units. We were told by the agency that all

riparian areas would be buffered from logging activities. We expected the unit

boundaries to change in the final analysis. However, there is no difference in

these unit boundaries or streams on maps included with the EA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that informed public participation

in reviewing environmental impacts is essential to the proper functioning of the

NEPA. League of Wilderness Defenders v. Connaughton, No. 13-35653, May 8,

2014, citing Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004) (which

describes one of the purposes of NEPA as ensuring “that the relevant information

will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both

the decision making process and the implementation of that decision” and

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 449 F.3d

1016,1034 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that one of the purposes of NEPA is

“ensuring that the public can both contribute to that body of information, and

can access the information that is made public”).

action. Ctr. for Biol. Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 422 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Or.

Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F.Supp.2d. 1202, 1212-13 (D. Or. 2006). The environmental baseline is an

integral part of an EA, because it is against this information that environmental impacts are measured and evaluated;

therefore, it is critical that the baseline be accurate and complete. Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n,

201 F.3d 1186, 1195 & n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000); Ctr. for Biol. Diversity, 422 F.Supp.2d at 1163.


We shared with the FS

in PA comments that

Unit 220 contains an

unmapped riparian

area with a distinctly

different plant

community (Fig 15),

which then channelizes

and flows into the

mapped Granite Creek

tributary. Additionally,

at the northwestern

section of Unit 221

Bark volunteers found

an additional

unmapped wet area

feeding into the main

channel of the same Granite Creek tributary from the opposite direction (Fig 16,

Fig. 17).

Fig. 16: Unmapped riparian area in Unit 221 Fig 17: Map showing unmapped riparian in Units 220 &221

Fig. 15: Unmapped riparian area in Unit 220


Plantation Unit 136, placed above Berry Creek (containing listed fish), is another

unit where we identified unmapped

riparian areas. Where 136b meets the

4600-330 road, Bark volunteers found

several wetland plants including Drosera

within diverse, open areas inside the

unit that contained completely saturated

soils in early September (of 2016 – a very

dry year). Fig. 18 marks the wetland

complex (green circle) and the specific

location where Drosera (Fig 19) was

found (orange star). The wet area

extends beyond the green circle however.

Bark submitted this information to the

USFS Westside botanist during the

summer of 2016. These wetlands

extended on both sides of the road and

were marked by cottonwood trees and

openings in the forest canopy (Fig. 20). We wrote in our comments that this wet

area in Unit 136 should be excluded from the Hunter proposal, as it is restricted

in its purpose and need to specific actions, none of which relate to wetland

management. Approving a project that does not meet the purpose and need of

that project is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Fig. 19: Drosera in Unit 136b

Fig. 18: Unmapped wetland in Unit 136a/136b


Fig. 20: Unmapped wetland within Unit 136a/136b

North of the wetland, Bark volunteers noted two additional stream crossings,

pictured in Fig. 21. We expressed in PA comments that these streams should be

buffered from any future management proposal in this area due to the unit's

proximity to listed fish habitat, but they were not mapped or buffered on the final

project maps.

Fig. 21 (right and left): stream crossings off 4600-330 within Unit 136b


“If an EA does not reasonably compile adequate information and sets forth

statements that are materially false or inaccurate the Court may find that

the document does not satisfy the requirements of NEPA, in that it cannot

provide the basis for an informed evaluation or a reasoned decision.” Western

North Carolina Alliance v. N. Carolina Dept. of Transp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 765,

776- 77 (E.D.N.C. 2003), citing Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of

Eng’rs, 701 F.2d 1011, 1030 (2d Cir.1983). “A material misapprehension of the

baseline conditions existing in advance of an agency action can lay the

groundwork for an arbitrary and capricious decision.” Friends of Back Bay v.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 681 F.3d 581, 588 (4th Cir. 2012).

The FS asserts that

“During project layout,

the field crew applies

the appropriate buffer

to wet areas and

streams”. Hunter

Appendix B-36.

However, Bark has

observed instances

where sale contract

maps did not reflect all

wet areas within

proposed units, which

resulted in ground-

based logging occurring

over areas with riparian

components. In Mag

Unit 212, a wet area was excluded from a no-cut buffer, resulting in ground

disturbance (Fig. 22). The plant community in this section (which was a mapped

Riparian Reserve) indicated the presence of water (several western redcedars

present). The agency’s refusal to include wet areas that the public has identified

in the Proposed Action maps does not inspire confidence that these areas will

not be impacted through the implementation of this project.

Bark has demonstrated that through not acknowledging or mapping

riparian areas identified by Bark, the FS is circumventing meaningful public

participation with NEPA, and failing to provide accurate baseline

conditions. In a recent objection resolution meeting with the FS over Polallie

Cooper, the FS agreed to map and manage a Bark-identified wet area as a

Riparian Reserve, if confirmed by a FS Hydrologist. This was an area that Bark

Fig. 22: Wet area excluded from no-cut buffer in Mag Unit 212


alerted the FS to in our NEPA comments, which received no response in the Draft

Decision. An objection resolution meeting is not an appropriate place for the FS

to finally agree to engage with site specific information. Despite this, we now ask

the FS to accurately map and buffer all riparian areas identified by Bark in

the Hunter project. We are more than happy to revisit these areas in the spring

to provide more accurate GPS locations.

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED REMEDIES:

1. Modify “fire origin” units:

• Retain average canopy cover of at least 40% to maintain dispersal

owl habitat

• Limit gaps to 1/4 acre in size with 3 to 10% of the total stand area

in gaps

• Prohibit trees being cut if they are greater than 20 inches in diameter

(at a height of 4.5 feet) unless they need to be cut for skyline

corridors, skid trails, landings or temporary roads, in which case

they would be left on the ground.

• Remove the 20 acres of Riparian Reserve logging in Fire-Origin

stands.

2. Drop Unit 108a & b, and remove the associated rebuilding of 4660-140 by

0.41 miles, and 0.5 mile of new temporary road used to access these units.

3. Write and implement site specific PDCs for all roads used for haul as

part of Hunter that have existing breached closures. These should

include implementing Entrance Management techniques on 4660-120,

4660-140, 4660-170, and 5731-120 until they are decommissioned fully

as decided with Increment 2.

4. Accurately map and buffer all riparian areas identified by Bark in the

Hunter project in the Final Decision Maps.

We would welcome a productive pre-decisional objection resolution meeting with

the Regional Office and MHNF staff. If you have any clarifying questions about

this objection, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Michael Krochta

Forest Watch Coordinator, Bark

Documents

BARK PO Box 12065 Portland, OR 97212bark-out.org/sites/default/files/bark-docs/Hunter Integrated... · PO Box 12065 Portland, OR 97212 ... canopy well below 60% and ... These treatments