Chad T. Hanson
P. O. Box 697
Cedar Ridge, CA 95924

Dear Mr. Hanson:

On July 12, 2002, you filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and Christians Caring for Creation pursuant to 36 CFR 215 of the Lassen National Forest Supervisor's Decision Notice (DN) approving Modified Alternative 5 of the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA) that was signed on May 23, 2002.

I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including the Appellant's written notice of appeal (NOA), the Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer's recommendation is enclosed. This letter constitutes my decision on the appeal and on the specific relief requested.

I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement Modified Alternative 5, with instructions. Implementation of the project must be consistent with the Regional Forester’s August 1, 2002, letter clarifying removal of standing dead trees after a stand-replacing event in old forest emphasis areas which is enclosed. The Forest Supervisor may proceed to implement the decision 15 days following the date of my last decision on the three appeals filed on this project.

The Storrie Post-Fire Restoration project involves the removal of trees killed as a result of the Storrie Fire. In August and September 2000 approximately 56,000 acres were burned as a result of a catastrophic wildfire on the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and adjacent private lands. Of this, 27,000 acres is on the Lassen National Forest. The majority of the wildfire area on the Lassen National Forest, 21,000 acres, is protected in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Off-Base area and was not considered for restoration activities. The Plumas National Forest has confirmed that they do not intend to propose commercial removal of dead trees from their portion of the Storrie Fire.

The project will restore plant communities on the Lassen National Forest that were burned over by the fire, stabilize the watershed, and restore wildlife habitat on lands now void of pre-existing vegetation. The project will reduce the risk of a subsequent catastrophic fire by removing fire-killed standing dead fuel before it falls to the ground, thus reducing future fuel loads. The project will also contribute to community stability by marketing the fire-killed forest products.

Approximately 1,126 acres will be treated to remove fire-killed dead and dying trees that would fall and increase surface fuel loadings utilizing primarily ground-based logging systems, with a limited amount of helicopter logging. There is no new road construction or treatment in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, California spotted owl or Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers, or Forest Carnivore Habitat Management areas.

See the enclosed Appeal Review Letter for a complete discussion of the Appellant’s participation in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, results of informal disposition efforts, and a discussion of interested party comments. In summary, all appellants listed in the NOA have established standing to appeal this decision. There were no interested party comments submitted.

You have requested that the Forest Service:

1. Withdraw the Storrie project.
2. Prepare an EIS including a detailed cumulative effects analysis of the proposed hazard tree component.

Issue 1: "The Biological Evaluation (BE) was not available at the time comments were due on the Storrie Project EA." (NOA, p.4)

Response: Neither the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or its implementing regulations require a comment period for environmental assessments. Forest Service appeal regulations at 36 CFR 215.5 provide for notice and comment on proposed actions for which an environmental assessment has been prepared. The comment period for the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration project closed April 25, 2002. The appellant is correct that both the final Wildlife and Amphibians BE/BA and the final Sensitive Plant BE were not available to the public prior to the close of the comment period as both were signed on May 20, 2002. The standard for biological evaluations is established by Forest Service Manual 2671.2 and 2672.4. The Forest Service appeal regulations require only that the EA be mailed at the start of the comment period. (36 CFR 215.5(b)(2)(i)). Wildlife information contained in the EA and Wildlife Report (which was available to the public during the comment period) is consistent with information in the BE/BA.

I find that the appellants had access to relevant wildlife information during the public comment period and that there is no violation of NEPA, the Appeals Reform Act, or Forest Service Manual Directives.

Issue 2: "The Storrie project decision notice violates the Framework Record of Decision (ROD) by removing large trees from an old forest emphasis area…It is also a violation of the Framework ROD and NFMA for the Forest Service to mark trees as ‘dead’ for salvage logging purposes before such trees actually are dead. The Framework ROD’s provisions on post-fire salvage logging only apply to ‘dead’ trees." (NOA, pp. 5-7) "…the Framework ROD’s provisions regarding ‘stand-replacing events’ apply ONLY to trees that are actually ‘dead’, not supposedly dying." (NOA, p. 21)

Response: The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), which amended the Lassen LRMP, clearly states that snags greater than 20" DBH can be removed subsequent to catastrophic fire event, if local analysis is completed that demonstrates that the removal of such material would benefit the area. Information contained within the EA (pp.9-10, 13-18), the FONSI (pp.3-4) and the Fire and Fuels Report (pp.3-11) demonstrates in a logical fashion the need to remove large material, including the removal of snags greater than 20" DBH, as well as the smaller fuels. The EA is considered to be the "local analysis" required under the SNFPA.

EA Appendix D, page 3, specifically states that all live trees would be retained in both the Low/Moderate and High Intensity burned areas. Clarification contained in the Regional Forester’s letter of August 1, 2002, "SNFPA Implementation Clarification for Dead Tree Removal after Stand-Replacing Wildfires in Old Forest Emphasis Areas," provides a clear definition of a "dead tree," in the context of implementing marking provisions for removal of dead trees.

Based on policy clarification made after the decision notice was signed by the Forest Supervisor, I have determined it is not appropriate to remove fire killed trees in a stand-replacing event in old forest land allocation until trees meet the definition of dead as described in the Regional Forester’s letter dated August 1, 2002.

Issue 3: "The Storrie Project EA does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of proposed hazard tree removal in the project area, adjacent salvage logging on private lands, or the Plumas National Forest’s Storrie Fire salvage logging proposal." (NOA, pp. 7-9)

Response: The selected alternative, modified alternative 5, does not specify hazard tree removal but does include removal of trees killed as a result of the Storrie Fire. The cumulative effects analysis completed for all the alternatives considered in detail is contained in Chapter 3 of the EA. Contrary to the appellants’ assertion, the cumulative effects analysis consistently included the consideration of both the project and adjacent private lands. (EA, pp. 19, 21, 30, 61, 69, 95, 97, 100) I am satisfied that the Plumas Forest Supervisor does not intend to propose commercial removal of dead trees from their portion of the Storrie Fire. The Lassen Forest Supervisor adequately addressed this issue in EA Appendix G, Response to Comments, page 25, comment 4-11.

Response: The EA considers seven alternatives, three in detail. The requirements for consideration of alternatives are found in FSH 1905.15 part 14. The EA (pages 10-11) provides a clear explanation of why alternatives 3,4, 6 and 7 were not considered in detail. The Forest Supervisor addressed this issue in Appendix G, Response to Comments, pg. 39, comment 5-3.

I find that the Forest Supervisor did consider a range of reasonable alternatives as required by NEPA.

Issue 5: An EIS must be prepared. (NOA, pp. 11-14)

Response: The Forest Supervisor analyzed the significance of the project in terms of both context and the ten intensity factors outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27. (DN/FONSI pp. 5-9) All watersheds scheduled for treatment are below the threshold of concern. There are no salvage activities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, California spotted owl or Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers, or Forest Carnivore Habitat Management Areas. Only three acres of suitable spotted owl habitat will be entered. Treatment will not result in an incremental loss or reduction of suitable habitat, will not increase habitat fragmentation or affect existing habitat connectivity on National Forest lands. The "may affect" determinations in the BE are well supported by the analysis. The rational for not considering threatened or endangered wildlife species to be affected by the project is documented in the EA. (EA, p. 24, Table 24) The rationale for not considering California red-legged frog to be affected by the project is also documented in the EA. (EA, p. 72)

While the appellant raises the issue about controversy amongst scientists, the evidence provided focuses on experiences and ecological types not associated with the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Project. Beschta, Bonds, and Royce do not provide site-specific analysis to the project area or the Sierra Nevada ecoregion. The results of the Forest Supervisor’s site-specific review in regards to scientific literature is supported in Appendix F, Analysis of Post-Fire Logging Literature.

I find the Forest Supervisor’s Finding of No Significant Impact is supported by the analysis in the EA.

Issue 6: "Due to significant new information that has arisen since the publication of the current Storrie EA, a supplemental EA must now be prepared." (NOA, pp. 15-19)

Response: The Forest Supervisor’s Response to Comments (Appendix G page 48) adequately responds to the issue of "new" information about spotted owls. Much of the "new information" brought forward by Bond was "based on studies of the Mexican spotted owl, which nests in habitat substantially different than the California spotted owl and has very different habitat needs, therefore those studies hold little relevance to analysis for the Storrie fire area."

As stated in the Forest Response to Comments (Appendix G page 48); "There is no evidence to suggest that spotted owls will continue to nest or will be reproductively successful over time in severely burned areas where habitat has been degraded to such an extent that suitable spotted owl habitat no longer exists." The BE/BA states that there is 1462 acres of suitable habitat present in the project treatment area post fire, and that approximately 1049 acres of suitable habitat are protected in spotted owl PACs (page 17). No owls were detected in or near the proposed project area in 2001. In 2002, surveys detected nesting spotted owls in the Miller Ravine PAC, which will be excluded from the proposed project activity.

Appellants comment about new information from Dr. Royce regarding tree mortality is addressed in Appendix G, Response to Comments, pg. 49, comment 5-23 and 5-24.

I find that the Forest Supervisor considered and addressed the information that the appellant presents as "new". The BE/BA demonstrate that suitable habitat is still present in the area and PACs are excluded from activities.

Issue 7: Sierra Nevada Framework Violations.

Response: The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) clearly states that snags greater than 20" DBH can be removed subsequent to catastrophic fire event, if local analysis is completed that demonstrates that the removal of such material would benefit the area. Information contained within the EA (pp. 9-10, 13-18), the FONSI (pp. 3-4) and the Fire and Fuels Report (pp. 3-11) demonstrates in a logical fashion the need to remove large material, including the removal of snags greater than 20" DBH, as well as the smaller fuels. The EA would be considered the "local analysis

Response: Disclosing the fact that selling salvage would probably benefit the local community is not a violation of the SNFPA. In the ROD for the SNFPA, on page 7, under the heading of "Management Direction and Goals", the Regional Forester stated, "The first priority for stewardship of the national forests is to maintain and restore ecological sustainability to provide a sustainable flow of uses, values, products (emphasis added), and services from these lands". Because of this direction, it is clear that the economic situation surrounding the removal of products should be disclosed.

Response: The Forest Supervisor’s Response to Comments (EA Appendix G, page 56-57) adequately responds to this issue. The standard and guideline for snags within the SNFPA ROD, Appendix A-28, falls under the "Forest Wide" heading, which "apply to all land allocations (other than wilderness and wild and scenic areas), unless otherwise stated in these standards and guidelines." (SNFPA ROD Appendix A-25). The only addition to snag retention standard and guideline in the Old Forest Emphasis Area allocation can be found in the exception statement on page A-42, which has been corrected to read:

"Retain all snags 15 inches or greater except following stand-replacing events and except to address imminent hazards to human safety. Following stand replacing events, dead trees may be removed to the extent that project analysis recommends removal to benefit landscape conditions for old forest structure and function. Conduct the project analysis to determine varying snag retention levels, considering landscape position and site conditions (such as riparian areas and ridgetops), avoiding uniformity across large areas."

Old forest desired conditions are described in the SNFPA FEIS, Volume 1, Chapter 2, page 2, page 138. For productive moist sites in the Westside mixed conifer forest type the desired condition for snags states: "Snags and large, down logs are common but irregularly distributed or occur in clumps. Snag densities average 4 per acre, but range from 0 to 8 snags on any acre. Very large snags (greater than 30 inches in diameter) are common, averaging 2 per acre."

An average of 4 of the largest dead trees per ace (6 in red fir stands) would be retained by the project to meet snag retention guidelines. (BE/BA p. 4) On any given acre, snag density would range from 0 to 8 per acre and would be distributed unevenly across the landscape. The project will retain an average of 4 of the largest snags per acre maintained across the landscape and clumped along meadows and other sensitive areas. (EA, p. 4) Integrated design features for each resource that would be applied as needed to each treatment area are provided for the project, including "Retain four of the largest snags per acre in westside mixed conifer and 6 of the largest snags per acre in the red fir forest type." (EA Appendix D)

The snag retention levels stated on page 8 of the EA are designed to meet the desired conditions in the stands proposed for treatment under Alternative 5. Project analysis clearly shows that snag densities would be varied across the landscape in both burned and unburned areas. For instance fuels reduction is not scheduled in any PACs, GMAs, HMAs or RHCAs (EA pp. 3, 4, 8). These untreated areas did experience some tree mortality, and all snags are being retained in these areas. Varying levels of snags would be retained under Alternative 5 in the other untreated portions of the project area that experienced tree mortality rates ranging from 0-70%.

Conclusion: I find that the Forest Supervisor’s decision complies with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment contrary to the contentions brought forward by the appellant.

Issue 8: "The EA violates NEPA by failing to adequately analyze cumulative impacts to watersheds. The EA indicates that a qualitative analysis…of the cumulative watershed impacts ‘would require an additional level of analysis that involves field studies and numerical modeling of sediment.’ EA, p. 69." (NOA, p. 23)

Response: The watershed analysis followed cumulative watershed analysis modeling procedures outlined in FSH 2509.22. The results of that modeling are well displayed in graphics on pages 63-68. Field verification of stream condition is documented based on surveys by Roby 2002 (page 56) and as documented in photos (Figure 3, page 9, Storrie Post-Fire Project Watershed Analysis, Appendix B12, Project Record). Appendix F, Analysis of Post-Fire Logging Literature, pages 9-13, respond to specific design features in the project as it relates to watershed concerns. And, the final decision was modified by the results of the analysis that showed the Middle Yellow Creek sub watershed to be over the threshold of concern.

Issue 9:"The EA is totally inadequate due to its failure to analyze relevant studies [Beschta], including a Forest Service study [McIver and Starr], which state that there is no scientific evidence to support the Forest Service’s use of the ‘reburn’ hypothesis to justify salvage logging large trees." (NOA, pp. 27-29, p. 32)

Response: The Forest Supervisor identified the level of fuel loading from fire killed-trees and the associated risk of adverse effects from subsequent forest fires as a significant issue. (EA, p. 5) This issue is then discussed throughout the EA. Contrary to the allegation that the Forest Service did not analyze the Beschta Report or reports by Everett or McIver and Star, EA Appendix F contains a review and analysis of post fire logging literature. EA Appendix F specifically discusses the four Post–fire Principles and eight Post-fire Practices recommended by Beschta as they relate to the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Project.

The appellants contention that the EA fails to consider the SNFPA FEIS, which specifically states that reduction of canopy closure actually INCREASES the severity of fires by increasing the velocity of ‘mid-flame’ winds was addressed in the EA, Appendix G, Response to Comments Section (pp. 16-17; 3-23). The main point behind the response is that the material to be removed will be fire-killed and a major reduction in crown closure has already occurred, "hence the need to take an active approach at managing surface fuels".

I find that the Forest Supervisor adequately considered scientific material and that post-fire logging was adequately addressed.

Issue 10: "The EA fails to include an adequate analysis regarding soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation caused by post-fire salvage logging, particularly where tractor logging and ground-based skidding are being employed…" (NOA, pp. 29-33)

Response: Compaction affects soil porosity and the hydrologic function of the soil. Direction and standards for this resource are found in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FEIS, Vol. 4, Appendix F-3, Regional Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines. That direction states "The size or extent of detrimental soil disturbance allowable that affects soil hydrologic function is determined by the Region 5 Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (R-5 FSH 2509.22, Ch. 20) and or the California Soil Survey Committee Soil Erosion Hazard Rating system (R5 FSH 2509.22, Ch. 50, ex 2, IIC) and/or Water Erosion Prediction Project technology depending on which method is sensitive to the size of area being analyzed.

The EA discloses on page 22 that "[i]mpacts that could result from soil compaction are considered in the calculations of Equivalent Road Acres (ERA) in the Watershed Resources section of this document." Based on Appendix F direction in the SNFPA it is acceptable to use the R-5 Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis process to assess soil hydrologic function (soil compaction). The CWE process is used to determine the size or extent of detrimental soil disturbance allowable that affects soil hydrologic function.

Detrimental soil disturbance is the resulting condition when threshold values are exceeded for changes in certain soil properties. The assumption is that detectable losses of soil productivity and soil hydrologic function are likely to occur if detrimental soil disturbances exceed the guidelines. (SNFPA, Volume 4, Appendix F, page F-1) Hydrologic function is not considered to be detrimental until 10 percent or more of the soil porosity is affected.

The analysis, as documented in the graphs on EA pages 63-66, demonstrates that detrimental soil disturbance guidelines are not exceeded. All watersheds, under the No Action Alternative (equivalent of existing condition), except for the Middle Yellow Creek Watershed which was deferred in the decision for Modified Alternative 5, are at 6 percent ERA or less. (EA, p. 63 Figure 1) The EA on page 63 in Figure 2 shows the ERAs once private land logging impacts are added in. This demonstrates that the Threshold of Concern is not exceeded for any of the watersheds. Figures 7 and 8 on EA page 66 demonstrate the detrimental compaction (as measured by ERA) that Modified Alternative 5 contributes to the total ERA. The restoration activities will not add more than 2% to the ERA’s, which shows that compaction is not a major factor in the disturbances in the watershed.

Further, Soil Quality Standards are integrated into the project (EA Appendix D, page 6, BMPs 1.10, 1.13, 1.16, 1.17 and page 10 -11). The additional soil quality standards applied to the project area limit skid trails to 15% of the "activity" area. All but secondary skid trails are to be tilled to reduce compaction. Although the secondary skid trails would not be tilled, soil operations are limited until the soil is dry to a depth of 8 inches when detrimental soil compaction would not occur (page 11, Appendix C). Expected impacts are disclosed in the EA on pages 22-23. Based on the sub-watershed analysis, which was used to establish thresholds for the activity area and the soil quality standards adopted into the design of the project, the analysis demonstrates that the project meets soil quality standards. Field reconnaissance of the project area occurred with the preparation of the Burned Area Report (9/2002). (EA, p. 2).

The effects criteria for measuring potential soil erosion are documented on page 20 of the EA. EA pages 56 - 59 documents the potential for sediment delivery and evaluates water quality impacts. Potential soils impacts and erosion are modeled through the Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis. (EA, pp. 61–70)

I find that soils compaction, erosion and sedimentation analysis was adequately conducted for the project.

Issue 11: The EA fails to identify a maintenance strategy and analyze impacts of maintenance including potential herbicide spraying. (NOA, p. 34)

Response: It is not entirely clear what the appellant is referring to by maintenance. Neither the proposed action or selected alternative require the site be maintained in a particular vegetative state over time as might be the case with the creation of a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ). However, it is anticipated that vegetative control (method: manual release and vegetative barriers) and animal damage control (method: physical barriers) will become necessary. (EA, p. 8) These control methods were included as part of the analysis for this project. (EA Appendix G, Response to Comment 5-59, page 68)

I find that the Forest Supervisor documented the anticipated need for future vegetative and animal damage control including what methods would be used and disclosed the effects in the EA.

Issue 12: The Forest Service’s proposed action may threaten the viability of the spotted owl, fisher, and goshawk in the analysis area. The true impacts to the California spotted owl and other old forest species have not been discussed. The Forest misled the public about the extent of the impacts of salvage logging in Table 14 (EA pp. 52-53). The Table displays hundreds of acres of CWHR 4 and 5 timber strata after the fire then claims that there will be zero change in these timber strata after the salvage logging.

Response: Removal of dead and dying trees, as described within the EA, will not result in a change in CWHR type displayed in Table 14 of the EA for the 1,126 acres that will be treated with Modified Alternative 5. (BE/BA, p. 31) Removal of dead and dying trees will not be so extensive as to result in a reclassification of the CWHR type at the stand scale. For example, M4P will remain M4P, as canopy cover will continue to be <40%; M4M will continue to provide 40-70% canopy cover after dead and dying trees are removed. This premise was carried through the effects analysis for habitat for spotted owl, fisher, marten and goshawk, and synopsized within the EA on page 32: "Under Alternatives 2 and 5, primarily dead and dying trees would be removed. The removal of live trees would be incidental and the amount removed would be insufficient to alter the composition of the landscape. Although this may have direct or indirect impacts on some individual sensitive species, since these activities would generally be located in unsuitable habitat, they are not likely to add cumulatively to the loss of suitable habitat caused by the Storrie Fire."

I find that the effects analysis is based on using marking guidelines for dead and dying trees. This action has been carried forward throughout the analysis for all sensitive species and the effects determination is based on this action. These actions, under Modified Alternative 5, will not result in an incremental loss or reduction of suitable habitat, and will not increase habitat fragmentation on National Forest lands.

The Appeal Reviewing Officer found that the purpose and need was clear, that public involvement was complete and that the Forest Supervisor incorporated several issues raised by the appellants in the design of alternatives and in making his decision. However, the decision does not reflect recent policy clarifying the definition of a dead tree for purposes of removal under stand-replacing event guidelines in old forest allocation. He recommended affirming the decision with the provision that the project be implemented to reflect that policy direction.

I have considered all the appeal issues raised in making my decision. I have determined that the Forest Supervisor adequately addressed all issues in the EA and DN/FONSI and in the record.

I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement Modified Alternative 5 with instructions to implement the project to conform to the Regional Forester’s letter dated August 1, 2002 titled "SNFPA Implementation Clarification for Dead Tree Removal after Stand Replacing Wildfires in Old Forest Emphasis Areas".

My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR 215.18(c)].

Sincerely,

/s/ Bernard Weingardt

BERNARD WEINGARDT
Appeal Deciding Officer
Deputy Regional Forester

Enclosures

File Code: 1570-1

Date: August 21, 2002

Subject:
Storrie Post-Fire Restoration (II) Project, Appeal Nos. 02-05-00-0040-A215, 02-05-00-0041-A215 and 02-05-00-0042-A215, Lassen National Forest

To: Appeal Deciding Officer

I am the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer for the above appeals. This is my recommendation on disposition of the appeals filed by the following appellants: 1) Leigh Ann Kern and Bryan Bird (Forest Conservation Council), 2) Lassen Forest Preservation Group (Yahi Group, Sierra Club) and, 3) John Muir Project of Earth Island Institue, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, and Christians Caring for Creation; of Lassen National Forest Supervisor Edward C. Cole’s Decision Notice (DN) for the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (EA).

Decision – In August and September 2000 approximately 56,000 acres were burned as a result of a catastrophic wildfire on the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and adjacent private lands. Of this, 27,000 acres is on the Lassen National Forest. The majority of the wildfire area on the Lassen National Forest (21,000 acres) is in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Off-Base area and was not considered for restoration activities. The Plumas National Forest has confirmed that they will not propose commercial removal of dead trees from their portion of the Storrie Fire (EA Appendix G, p. 25, comment 4-11).

The purpose and need for the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Project is to:

1. Restore plant communities, watershed stability, and wildlife habitat by quickly reestablishing forest vegetation on lands on which existing vegetation has been killed by fire.
2. Reduce the risk of subsequent catastrophic fire in the project area by removing the fire-killed standing dead fuel before it falls to the ground, creating an excessive fuel loading.
3. Contribute to community stability by marketing fire-killed forest products.

The decision is to remove dead and dying trees from approximately 1126 acres (Modified Alternative 5 – defers management on 337 acres in the Middle Yellow Creek sub-watershed). This action removes fire-killed dead and dying trees that would fall and increase surface fuel loadings on: (1) approximately 28 acres (reduced as modifed by defering activities in the Middle Yellow Creek sub-watershed) within the General Forest land, (2) approximately 232 acres of dead and dying trees up to 15 inches in diameter in stands with less than 75% stand mortality in Old Forest allocation, and (3) approximately 866 acres (reduced as modifed by defering activities in the Middle Yellow Creek sub-watershed) of dead and dying trees from stands where mortality is 75% or greater.

Modified Alternative 5 would remove approximately 16.2 mmbf of fire killed trees (based on the average volume per acre) to be utilized as forest product. This includes both sawlog (10 inch dbh and larger) and biomass (3.0 inches to 9.9 inches dbh). (Appendix G, pg.13, comment 3-15). There is no new road construction or treatment proposed in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, California spotted owl or Northrn Goshawk Protected Activity Centers, or Forest Carnivore Habitat Mangement areas.

Scoping – The Forest Supervisor’s May 23, 2002 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact is a result of the re-analysis of the April 2001 Storrie Post-Fire Restoration Project EA after the decision based on that analysis was appealed and subsequently reversed by the Regional Forester due to deficiencies in the determination of effects in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE) and in the fire and fuels cumulative effects analyses. Scoping was not reinitiated for this analysis because the Purpose and Need and the Proposed Action for the project remain the same.

This project was listed in the October 2000 edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Lassen National Forest as well as subsequent editions of the SOPA through December 2001. A scoping notice was published in the local newspaper and scoping letters describing the proposed action were mailed to 151 potentially interested and affected persons in November 2000.

How Appellants Participated in Scoping:

Leigh Ann Kern and Bryan Bird (Forest Conservation Council): Leigh Ann Kern did not provide scoping comments prior to issuance of the EA. She was not on the scoping contact list. The scoping response letter dated December 12, 2000 from Bryan Bird representing the Forest Conservation Council (FCC) and the National Forest Protection Alliance (NFPA) raised several issues regarding the proposal. Issues raised during the initial scoping for the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration were: (1) viability of species, (2) damage to social and economic uses and values, (3) and cumulative effects in regards to soils, water quality, fragmentation, and old growth. FCC/NFPA requested that a restoration only alternative be developed and given adequate consideration. The appeal raises additional issues not raised in scoping comments and issues not covered in their appeal of the July 9, 2001 decision for the Storrie Post-Fire Restoration project.

The Lassen Forest Preservation Group (Yahi Group, Sierra Club) provided scoping comments. Their letter dated December 11, 2000, questioned the accuracy of the scoping maps in relation to how the stands were identified according to burn intensity. They also expressed concern over the proposal to treat Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), soil compaction from the use of heavy equipment to treat areas, and the retention of large down logs. They requested information on what type of maintenance treatment will be proposed to keep brush down and allow trees to grow. Their appeal addressed comments not covered in scoping comments.

The project record shows that John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute (JMP) was a recipient of the project-scoping letter. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs) and Christians Caring For Creation (CCF) were not. None of these groups provided scoping comments to the March 2000 analysis. JMP provided comments 12/1/01 and 12/17/01. In scoping, JMP raised three issues: 1) concern over mortality guidelines and removing trees larger than 15 inches dbh in old forest emphasis areas, 2) logging near the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, and 3) the need to prepare an EIS.

Comments to the EA: Six letters were received during the EA comment period (Appendix G). The appellants represent four of the six responders.

How Appellants Commented on the EA: The following are comments to the EA common amongst more than one appellant (Appendix K, planning record):

Many of the EA comments raised by Leigh Ann Kern and Bryan Bird (Forest Conservation Council were carried forward in their appeal, but not all. The Lassen Forest Preservation Group commented on the EA in a letter dated April 22, 2002. Some of those comments are carried forward as issues in the appeal. Their appeal contains some additional issues not previously raised in their response to the EA. Chad Hanson, John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, and Christians Caring for Creation commented on the EA in a letter dated April 22, 2002.

All of the appeals were timely. Although not all of the appellants participated in scoping, they did all provide comments to the EA. The Forest made offers to the appellants to hold disposition meetings but none took place. All appeals are to move forward for formal review.

1. Leigh Ann Kern and Bryan Bird (Forest Conservation Council (02-05-0040-A215) and John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, and Christians Caring for Creation (02-05-00-0042-A215)

2. Lassen Forest Preservation Group (02-05-00-0041-A215)

1. Institue an upper limit on the entire project of 20" on dead trees unless they are an imminent safety hazard. Document safety hazards on a site-specific basis.
2. Mark and keep all trees with heavy seed sets.
3. No helicopter logging or road building in Grizzly and Middle Yellow Creek watersheds.
4. No helicopter logging on slopes greater than 65% on slopes with high or moderate erosion potential.
5. No logging or road building in HMAs, GMs or Spotted owl PACs.
6. 300 ft. no-cut buffers around all PACs unless immediately adjacent to FS roads.
7. Institute an upper diameter limit of 12 inches on all green trees and burned trees that are currently still alive. Consider reentering the project area in 3 years to remove trees up to 20" that are dead.
8. Do surveys for spotted owl, goshawk and marten before salvage commences to determine if new PACs are appropriately located.
9. No logging in RCHAs
10. Revise all maps to be consistent with planned treatments.

My review was conducted pursuant to and in accordance with 36 CFR 215.19 to ensure the analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy and orders. I reviewed the appeal record, including the comments received during the comment period and how the Forest Supervisor used this information, the Appellant's objections and recommended changes.

Based on my review of the record, I recommend the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed with the provisio that implementation of the decision conform to the Regional Forester’s August 1, 2002 letter on SNFPA Implementation Clarification for Dead Treee Removal After Stand-Replacing Wildfire in Old Forest Emphasis Areas. The Storrie project should be implemented using the criterion of "No Visible Living Leaves" for designating trees for removal. The effects of this course of action would be within or less than the effects described in the Decision Notice and EA. This decision would implement the major relief requested by all appellants. I recommend that the Appellants' other requested relief be denied.

I have reviewed the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI). The Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement Modified Alternative 5 is clear, management actions are described and the logic behind the decision is well displayed. The proposed project is an appropriate and reasonable response to the direction in the Lassen LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Framework Record of Decision, and public involvement in the project was incorporated appropriately. The Purpose and Need is clearly tracked throughout the document, as are the issues and alternatives. Extensive comments were raised in response to the EA regarding mortality guidelines. The EA has conflicting definitions in that it states, "all live trees will be retained,"however, it includes dying trees in the definition of dead trees available for removal in old forest allocation where a stand-replacing event has occurred. The Decision Notice is silent on the issue of appropriate mortality guidelines to use, even though it is clearly of public concern. The difference in size and scope of the project between Alternative 5 and the selected Modified Alternative 5 could have been laid out more specifically.

The purpose of this project is to restore plant communities, watershed stability and wildlife habitat as quickly as possible and to reduce the potential for future catastrophic fires. The project was also designed to contribute to community stability by marketing fire-killed forest products. The chapter on environmental effects provides enough information to track how the various alternatives respond to the Purpose and Need, and how the selected alternative best addresses each purpose. The Responsible Official was provided with enough information to understand the benefits of each alternative, in order to weigh the effects in terms of how they met the purpose of the proposal.

The appellants raise an issue about unknown risks based on controversery amongst scientists and the need to prepare an EIS, however, references cited by the appellants (Beschta, Bond, and/or Royce) are non site specific comments about the effects of salvage logging. EA, Appendix F reviews the effects of salvage logging and risks implied by Beshchta to the site specific conditions of this project. Also, as described in EA Appendix G "Response to Comments," the Forest Supervisor clearly describes that scientific controversy implied by Bonds or Royce is not applicable given the lack of site specificity to conditions at the Storrie Fire.

None of the alternatives considered by the Forest Supervisor are consistent with recent regional clarification of a dead tree for a stand-replacing event in old forest land allocation. The Forest Supervisor’s decision was made prior to the issuance of this August 1, 2002 letter. Therefore, the Forest Supervisor should be instructed to implement his decision consistent with this definition.

The Forest Supervisor directly responded to several concerns raised by the appellants.

1. His decision modified Alternative 5 to defer harvest activities on 337 acres in the Middle Yellow Creek sub watershed that was over threshold of concern.
2. Alternative 5 was designed to avoid activites in the Riparian Conservation Habitat Areas (RCHAs).
3. Concerns about adequacy of impacts to sensitive plant Monardella follettii while raised as comments to the EA were apparently resolved in the Response to Comments (EA Appendix G, p. 24 Comment 4-9) as that issue was not raised as an appeal issue.

There was some public concern that the proposed action documented in the 2002 EA was not rescoped, however, I believe the issues were well identified based on the original scoping and the appeal of the first decision and that additional scoping would not have surfaced new issues.

It is clear that the appellants disagree with the purpose and need of the project and utilizing a commercial timber sale to achieve resource objectives. However, if the decision is implemented in conformance with regional clarification by using the criteria "No Visible Living Leaves" to designate trees for removal, this would substantially move the scope of the decision in line with the appellants’ request for change. This is an issue common to all three appellants.

I recommend that the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed with the stipulation that implementation of the decision is to conform with the Regional Forester’s August 1, 2002 letter regarding SNFPA Implementation Clarification for Dead Tree Removal After Stand-Replacing Wildfire in Old Forest Emphasis Areas. The Forest Supervisor should use the citerion "No Visible Living Leaves" to designate trees for removal. The effects of this course of action would be within or less than the effects described in the EA.

/s/ George A. Lottritz

GEORGE A. LOTTRITZ
Appeal Reviewing Officer
Deputy Director, Ecosystem Planning

File Code: 2400

Date: August 1, 2002

Route To: (1920/2400/2600/5100)

Subject: SNFPA Implementation Clarification for Dead Tree Removal After Stand-Replacing  Wildfire in Old Forest Emphasis Areas

To: Forest Supervisors: Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sequoia, Inyo, Lake Tahoe Basin, And Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests

To provide clarity and consistency, I am issuing these guidelines on how to plan and implement projects for the removal of standing dead trees after a stand-replacing event in Old Forest Emphasis Areas. These guidelines apply only to Old Forest Emphasis Areas on the Forests included in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. They do not apply to trees regarded as imminent hazards to human safety.

The implementation of projects for the removal of standing dead trees after a stand–replacing event in Old Forest Emphasis Areas occurs in two phases:

1. The first phase is the project-planning phase, which involves defining what a stand-replacing event is. As stated in my letter of February 12, 2002, "stand-replacing event occurs when 75 percent of a stand…within a fire is killed." As further clarification of this definition, a stand-replacing event has occurred when 75 percent or more of the basal area of a stand in stems larger than 6 inches dbh have been killed. Whether a particular tree has been "killed" within this definition will be based on the tree designation guidelines prepared by Sheri Smith and others dated March 8, 2002, or later. Many trees critically injured by a stand-replacing fire may not be dead at the time the stand analysis pursuant to the Smith guidelines is conducted; nonetheless, such trees will be considered "killed" if they meet the standards set forth in those guidelines. Because trees may take months, or even a couple of years, to die as a result of a fire, determining whether a stand-replacing fire has occurred by only considering the percentage of trees actually dead at the time of project planning would fail to recognize the true number of trees killed by fire.
2. The second phase is the project implementation phase where the intent is to remove the standing dead trees. Use the criterion of "No Visible Living Leaves" to designate trees for removal. An ocular estimate will be used to survey trees prior to cutting and determine if living/needles (green) are visible.

These guidelines are effective immediately for the purpose of project planning. Additional direction may be provided as the regional team completes its review of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

/s/ Jack A. Blackwell

JACK A. BLACKWELL
Regional Forester