Source: https://www.bark-out.org/sites/default/files/bark-docs/Collawash_Appeal_DN_2%2C_without_photos.htm
Timestamp: 2020-04-07 22:37:48
Document Index: 394865500

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 215', '§ 1536', '§ 219', '§ 1532', '§ 402', '§ 1533']

Collawash Appeal
APPELLANT ) Notice #2, for the Collawash
In accordance with 36 CFR 215, Bark hereby appeals the Decision Notice #2 and Finding of No Significant Impact to implement Alternative B of the Environmental Assessment (“Collawash Thinning EA”), signed by the Mt. Hood National Forest (“MHNF”) Forest Supervisor, Gary L. Larsen on September 5, 2005.
Decision Document: Collawash Thinning Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice #2, and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Bark has a specific interest in this sale, and that interest will be adversely affected by this timber sale. We have previously expressed our interest in this specific sale, and have standing to appeal this decision according to 36 CFR § 215.11 (a)(2). Bark is a non-profit organization based in Portland, Oregon and has worked to protect the Mt. Hood National Forest since 1999. Members and staff of Bark live in the communities surrounding the Mt. Hood National Forest and use the Forest extensively for recreation, viewing wildlife and wildflowers, municipal water, hunting, fishing, overall aesthetic enjoyment, and other purposes. Specifically, members and/or staff of Bark have used the Collawash Project area for recreation, non-timber forest products (in this case mushroom collecting), and for drinking water. The value of the activities engaged in by Bark members and staff will be irreparably damaged by this project. We have a long-standing interest in the sound management of this area, and the right to request agency compliance with applicable environmental laws.
Although an automatic stay is in effect for this sale as per 36 CFR 215.10(b), we formally request a stay of all action on this project, including sale preparation, layout, road planning, any advertising, offering for bids, auctioning, logging, road construction, or other site preparation by a purchaser pending the final decision on this appeal.
1. Withdraw the Decision Notice and/or prepare an adequate Environmental Analysis that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act or
The Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the Collawash Thinning project analyzed four alternatives: Alternative A (no action), Alternative B (thin 204 acres of matrix land and 88 acres of riparian reserve, the Proposed Action, subject to this appeal), Alternative C (thins 204 acres of matrix land, reopens but does not build roads), and Alternative D (thins 149 acres of matrix land, reopens roads but does not build roads, eliminates thinning of natural second-growth stands).
The EA has been divided into two different Decision Notices and FONSIs. The Appellant has submitted a separate Notice of Appeal for the “Decision Notice #1 and FONSI.” When the Appellant refers to the “Proposed Action” in this document, we are referring to the Decision as outlined in the “Decision Notice #2 and FONSI.” The alternatives analyzed in the EA, therefore, include the following as it pertains to the Decision Notice #2 and FONSI: Alternative A (no action), Alternative B (log 55 acres of matrix land, the Proposed Action, subject to this appeal), Alternative C and D are the same for Decision Notice #2.
Value of Native Stands in Heavily Managed Area
The 55 acres of thinning units (9A, 9B and 10) that are natural second growth are of primary concern. These stands are some of the last intact forests in the area, particularly along road 4620, which is very fragmented from past management. These few intact stands need to stay undisturbed. Most of the surrounding area is in the form of young plantations or recent clearcuts. Not only do they contain nesting/roosting/foraging and dispersal habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl, but also provide valuable habitat for other wildlife as well. According to the EA, “Approximately 55 acres of optimal cover within SR39 would be downgraded to thermal cover” (p. 52). At least seven migratory bird species (Vaux’s swift, brown creeper, red crossbill, pileated woodpecker, varied thrush, hermit warbler, Hammond’s flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, and winter wren) using the 55 acres of late-seral stands would be forced to relocate in an already fragmented habitat (EA, p. 56). Currently healthy soil in these 55 acres would be brought to unhealthy conditions (EA, p. 59-60). The natural second-growth stands provide good potential habitat for the pine marten and pileated woodpecker, but thinning would cause significant habitat deterioration, primarily due to the removal of snags. (EA, p. 55)
Snags provide essential habitat for wildlife, and the natural second-growth stands are abundant with them. The EA states that “unmanaged stands similar to the Collawash natural second-growth units have approximately 5 medium snags per acre and approximately 2.9 large snags per acre.” However, “Managed stands similar to the Collawash plantations have approximately 0.1 medium and 0.1 large snags per acres” (EA, p. 41). These numbers demonstrate the significant detrimental impact thinning has on snag habitat. According to the CHSWA, a key objective is to “Restore and retain habitat for late seral associated species in Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves and key connectivity areas important to flows across the landscape” (CHSWA, 1-3). These areas include Riparian Reserves that need to be managed for this objective. Steps to restore and retain this habitat include the creation and maintenance of snags and down logs. These habitat features are relatively abundant in the Collawash native second growth stands, and snag density will be significantly reduced as a result of logging.
While we have concerns about any logging proposed in naturally regrown stands, Unit 9A (428 A), is a particularly poor choice. This stand is a healthy, intact native forest with very large Doug firs scattered throughout the unit. See PHOTO 1. These trees are well beyond the age that could benefit from any “release.” There was large woody debris on ground and several large snags present throughout unit. The planned new road appears (orange flagging?) to be punched through some large downed woody debris and right next to (or possibly including) several very large remnant trees. Such a road would adversely affect adjacent trees by compacting roots and demolishing downed woody debris which is in very short supply in the project area. Downed wood is a critical feature of a healthy habitat and any remnant logs must be protected in both native and plantation stands (such as unit 8) where they are present. Logging in native stands would jeopardize this important characteristic.
PHOTO 1: Example of large Douglas-firs scattered throughout unit 9A
The Collawash Watershed is the most unstable watershed in Mount Hood National Forest and constitutes a Tier 1 watershed, meaning it is habitat to a wide variety of threatened anadromous fish. Further, the sites selected for commercial thinning under this project are the most unstable within the watershed. The Collawash Watershed, especially the specifically selected area, is inappropriate for the Proposed Alternative.
The Forest Service is acting arbitrarily in their decision choices and providing false justifications for unsound conclusions. One major inconsistency is clear in the DN #2 for the natural second growth forests. In order to reduce constructed and re-opened road mileage, the Forest Service decided to utilize helicopter logging methods. But the new roads, because of their specifically selected location, were predicted to have negligible impact on the watershed. The DN explains that “while these roads would have been located on gentle terrain and would not have crossed any streams or unstable areas, I have decided not to build these roads at this time…” (DN#2, p. 1). Why has the Forest Service chosen to reduce project revenue, and in doing so increase continued deficits, by employing a more costly logging method if the same outcome is to be expected from the cheaper technique? Further confusion arises from a comparison to the first DN (for plantations), which has not declared any change in logging methods. The plantation sites are just as, if not more, unstable than the natural second growth sites and will therefore experience the same, if not worse, adverse impacts from additional road building. The Forest Service decisions are arbitrary and ill-justified and must be modified in order to appropriately underline all the impacts that may result from the project, and indicate how these impacts are directing the decisions made. Hypothesized impacts and resulting decisions should be in accordance with the CHSWA.
There are active landslides near units 9A, 9B, and 10 that, according to the EA, are associated with previous logging activity (p. 63). If these sites are harvested, there is a high probability for increased landslides in the future. Any sediment produced as a result of timber harvesting flows directly into the Collawash River from perennial and intermittent streams. Dutch Creek, for example, which is at the base of the units 9 and 10 drains directly into the Collawash River. Additionally, most of the units fall under an “Ancient Landslide (Dormant)” categorization in the Landform Type Map (CHSWA, 2-20), which has a medium to high relative hazard rating. The relative hazard rating is based on (1) susceptibility of landform type to mass-wasting events and (2) likelihood of sediment from that event reaching a defined channel. This indicates that not only is the sediment production rate abnormally high in the units, but also, there is a high probability that nearby streams will be impacted by this sediment production. The information provided in the CHSWA, therefore, directly contradicts the EA’s speculation that threatened fish species and overall water quality will not be adversely influenced by the project.
The Flows Map (CHSWA, 3-41) indicates that units 1-4 are in a “Mass Wasting / Sediment Area” flowing directly into the Collawash River, while units 9 and 10 occupy the same type of area, instead flowing into Dutch Creek, which then flows into the Collawash River. While mass wasting and sediment production is a problem under normal conditions, the CHSWA admits to the escalation of this hazard as a result of forest management activities such as Alternative B. “Management activities on these landforms [those with an inherent risk of mass wasting, including the majority of Collawash thinning units],” the CHSWA states, “increase the relative hazard for inducing landslides and mass wasting occurrence” (CHSWA, 2-21). The CHSWA further recommends that roads built on unstable topography be removed in order to “maintain or restore natural flows” (CHSWA, 1-7). What will be done to prevent landslides as a consequence of this project?
The Collawash River is especially prone to sediment production and delivery due to its “flashy” nature; this characteristic is a direct result of the dense road network in the Collawash watershed. As indicated by the Mean Monthly Flow Chart (CHSWA, 3-12), the Collawash River is much flashier than the Upper Clackamas River and Fish Creek, which are highly comparable in other regards. The Mean Daily Stream Discharge Chart (CHSWA, 3-13) indicates a significantly higher winter discharge for Collawash River than for the Clackamas River. Because of this increased winter discharge, summer flow is kept at a minimum. This is critical to “sustaining habitat for riparian flora and fauna, maintaining cover, forage and travel corridors for other terrestrial wildlife, and providing water for human uses…affecting not only the amount of water available for these beneficial uses, but also the quality of water” (CHSWA, 3-15). Collawash’s tendency for flash flooding, elevated sediment production, and summer low flows are a direct result of the already extensive road system veining the watershed. The CHSWA claims, “Currently, there is a greater amount of sediment production and delivery sites than what existed under the reference sediment regime. Many upland forested sites that were not sediment sources in the past are now sites of chronic production; most can be directly attributed to roads” (CHWSA, 3-8). The Collawash watershed is a particularly poor area for road construction, especially considering it has the highest road density of the entire National Forest (CHSWA, 3-14).
The Collawash watershed hosts 3.5 miles of roads per square mile; the Fan Creek subwatershed hosts an astounding 6.2 miles of roads per square mile. The impact of the existing roads should be the primary objective addressed in any project proposed in the watershed. Considering that there are 6.2 miles of roads per square mile within the Fan Creek subwatershed alone, the Forest Service should be focusing on reducing that density.
We are concerned about the large amount of Riparian Reserve logging included in this project under Alternative B. Not only is the Collawash watershed very susceptible to landslides, but the Riparian Reserves in these units are recovering quite well. All the streams we have seen were covered in healthy riparian plant species (hardwoods, devil’s club, skunk cabbage, etc.) and most units had a vibrant understory including western red cedar, a riparian-dependent tree species. The Collawash units appear to be a perfect example of an area that is capable of recovering on its own. This observation is supported by the CHSWA, which affirms that "along many of these affected streams [those affected by past management], deciduous vegetation has reestablished and now provides sufficient shading" (CHSWA, 3-20). The proposed logging will have a detrimental impact on the riparian areas.
The small seeps, streams, and intermittent streams that are apparently too small or numerous to mark on the maps provided in the EA should be marked for clarity, and to ensure that riparian zones serving critical wildlife needs are not inappropriately logged and are afforded adequate protection. There are some areas that even if not logged would be impacted by the edge effect of nearby logging. Unit 8, for instance, had two creeks running through it (NE corner of Unit) that were significant enough to have culverts built for them on road 6320, but these are not marked on the map. This is not acknowledged in the Environmental Assessment. What measures are being taken to protect this area from possible adverse effects?
Soil is not a renewable resource. All road building and logging, especially adjacent to riparian areas increases erosion. Sedimentation of streams is a concern for all watersheds but of particular concern within a Tier 1 Watershed. Soil compaction caused by road building (in this case there is no difference between temporary and open roads since the soil compaction is the same) and soil compaction due to heavy machinery such as tractors significantly reduce an area’s growth and re-growth (See Barstool EA). We are particularly concerned about the impacts to soil in the Collawash sale.
According to the EA’s soil analysis (p. 55), in all but one of the units, detrimental soil conditions will worsen after the implementation of Alternative B. This is unacceptable for soil that is already highly erosive and unstable (see Steep Slopes and High Risk of Landslide section). The CHSWA indicates that two thirds of the watershed’s soil is sensitive and “particularly susceptible to detrimental impacts from management activities” (CHSWA, 2-14). The placement of project units for Collawash thinning was ill-conceived and should be reevaluated in light of the CHSWA recommendation for the termination of management activities on highly sensitive soils.
The costs associated with the treatment of invasive plants ranges from $40-$340 and annually costs Region 6 $4.8 million (Invasive EIS, 4-94). Furthermore, the treatment of invasive plants requires measures that themselves have significant impacts on the human and natural environment. The Proposed Action referred to in the Update Letter from Gary Larsen includes the treatment of 13,000 acres in the Mt. Hood National Forest, all but 125 of which will be done with the use of herbicides. “The proposed use of herbicides could result in cumulative doses of herbicides to workers, the general public, non-target plant species, and/or wildlife” (Invasive EIS, 4-2). These impacts are very real, and are the direct result of an increase in invasive plants in the National Forest due to activities such as those proposed in the Collawash Decision. The EA clearly states that the actions outlined in the decision would increase the risk of invasive plants establishing, “The action alternatives would have a risk ranking of high but the design criteria (#7 and 11) would be followed to reduce the chances of these weeds spreading to new areas” (4.9). “Reducing the chances…” does not reduce the risk. The impacts of increased invasive plants in the Collawash watershed are significant and directly linked to the road-building and harvest activities proposed in the Decision.
The EA and DN maintain that the Collawash thinning project will meet the objective to “Provide forest products consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan goal of maintaining the stability of local and regional economies” (DN#1 and #2, p. 1). However, this objective is only considered in terms of the commercial value of timber, excluding all other harvestable forest products. The EA fails to disclose the full range of adverse economic impacts associated with commercial thinning. For example, forest mushroom harvest is a burgeoning market, offering substantial financial gains to local economies. The Collawash area is home to large amounts of chanterelle mushrooms that will suffer undisclosed impacts from logging activities. See PHOTO 2. Our time at the Collawash sites yielded a five-pound harvest, which easily could have approached fifty. The effect of thinning on local mushroom supply is not addressed or even acknowledged in the EA. In terms of harvestable mushrooms, will the project meet its objective to provide forest products for the sustenance of local and regional economies?
PHOTO 2: A perfect specimen of a white chanterelle found in Unit 3.
What is the scientific basis for the blowdown concern outlined in the Decision? The DN identitifies one of the project’s purposes is to “enhance growth resulting in larger wind firm trees” (DN, p. 1). What kind of science do you have that shows that thinning will reduce wind-damage? The impacts to the Eagle Creek Timber Sales that were logged illustrated the link between logging and blow-down of adjacent trees, and we’ve seen inumerable instances of thinning projects affecting the blow-down potential of valuable habitat adjacent to the units. If trees blowdown due to short-term increased wind-damage susceptibility, they will be unable to garner the assumed long-term benefits. Moreover, natural blow down taking place is already creating variable density with natural openings that allow more light to reach some trees.
The PA states that as a result of precommercial thinning the plantations proposed for thinning in the project “have strong stems and root systems at this time” (EA, p. 32) and the CHSWA confirms that windthrow is not a problem in the area (CHSWA, 2-10). It is not acceptable to manage for blowdown resistance in already substantially resistant stands at the expense of water quality, snag and down log density and Northern spotted owl and other threatened or sensitive wildlife habitat. On top of all this, how can we be assured that the smallest trees will be removed and the larger wind firm trees will be left?
In the Decision Notice, the Forest Service indicates that “thinning will leave approximately 80 to 140 variably spaced trees per acre” (EA, p. 11). However, during a recent visit to the area, Bark members noticed that very few trees were marked and in Unit 9b not even the unit boundaries were clearly marked. What process will the Forest Service use to determine which trees will not be thinned? How will the Forest Service ensure that the remaining trees are variably spaced if trees are not marked? Currently it is impossible to determine this through analysis of the EA or by looking at the proposed units.
The Collawash thinning project, as proposed, will degrade Northern spotted owl critical habitat, contributing to the regression, not recovery, of the threatened Northern spotted owl. Unit 10 and a portion of Units 9A and 9 B, totaling 55 acres, are in land federally designated as Critical Habitat for the Northern spotted owl (Critical Habitat Unit OR-12). One of the FWS’ consultation duties is to ensure that other federal agency actions do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In addition, Forest Service 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 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).
According to the CHSWA, “Many species in the Pacific /Northwest evolved to use the large snags and logs that were historically abundant in the landscape. As referred to earlier, twenty-seven neotropical migratory bird species occurring within the watershed have significantly declined over the last two decades, based on Breeding Bird Survey data (Sharp, 1992). Of these 27 species, half are snag dependents and insectivorous or birds of prey feeding on forest birds.” (CHSWA, 3-3) When Bark members visited the Collawash area on October 14, 2005, the snags and the trees surrounding snags (in both the plantations and the natural second growth stands) were not marked in any way to indicate they would be saved from logging. Logging activities in the proposed unit will necessarily decrease snag and down log densities. Employing BMPs, the Environmental Assessment aims at the retention of snags “where safety permits” (EA, pp.14-15), but, for most logging activity, safety does not permit the retention of snags, unless the snags are buffered through intentional marking of save trees surrounding them. Whether this method of snag creation actually works is still under scrutiny, yet it is unclear that the Forest Service will even provide this amount of protection for snags, which many species rely on for habitat.
Disturbing deer and elk during winter months when food supplies and nutrient reserves are low may have critical results. Human and mechanical encounters elevate stress levels causing increased metabolic rates and lessen the already limited foraging areas. The Forest Service plans to deal with this by prohibiting harvest operations from December 1 – March 31 (EA, p. 14). However, this prohibition is waived when snow accumulation is less than 12 inches or if elk are determined not to be present in the area. There are a number of problems with this conditional protection of deer and elk during critical winter months. First, weather conditions on Mt. Hood are such in this era of global climate change that there is great variation of snow levels. Snow will accumulate only to suddenly melt during a warm spell, which will then be followed by severe winter conditions lasting well into spring. Warm interludes during long winter months allow for a brief period of lipid buildup necessary for deer and elk survival. Under the proposed waiver, a restriction would be raised during a warm spell, allowing for the harassment of deer and elk in the vicinity and the lipid depletion that results. Fat reserves that should receive a boost during that time, will instead suffer the opposite, decreasing deer and elk viability during long winters. Second, the waiver falsely assumes that disturbance will only occur if snow levels are high. If the snow melts, the animals present will still likely use the area, and not go to another area. Lipid depletion will result both when snowfall is over and under the decided 12 inches. This waiver is clearly designed to favor logging at the expense of deer and elk. The Forest Service seems to be selectively advocating the protection of deer and elk only when such protection strategies do not conflict with timber harvest opportunities.