Opinion ID: 153019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Text: As required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., the Forest Service prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project that describes its expected environmental impacts. Id. § 4332(2)(C). The Forest Service circulated a draft EIS, received comments from the public, and eventually issued a final EIS and a record of decision (ROD). In creating the EIS, the Forest Service conducted computerized simulations to determine the effects of wildfires on the Project area under three different treatment scenarios (A, B, and C) and to evaluate what level of treatment, if any, was needed to protect and preserve the Davis LSR. Alternative A, or No Action, described the expected effects of fire and disease on the Project area if no additional thinning or fuels treatments are implemented. In other words, it modeled the effects of allow[ing] current processes to continue, along with associated risks and benefits, in the [Project] area. Alternative B involved the most intensive treatments. It called for management activities across 5,522 acres and commercial harvesting of around 18.9 million board feet of lumber. This alternative proposed the greatest amount of commercial thinning within spotted owl NRF habitat (2,822 acres). The Forest Service ultimately adopted Alternative C, which includes some treatments within the Davis LSR. Alternative C was developed to address landscape-scale fire prevention and retention of spotted owl habitat. It would strategically place fuels treatments on the landscape to coordinate with past treatments to create and maintain fuel modifications around identified habitats. This alternative calls for management of 7,798 acres and would harvest around 14.4 million board feet of lumber. It proposes commercial thinning on 2,023 acres of NRF habitat and would not involve treatment within any occupied spotted owl territory, but habit modification would occur within unoccupied home ranges and could affect the ability of new owls to locate and establish a territory. Under this alternative, thinning would generally only remove trees less than 21 inches in diameter and less than 5 percent of all trees removed would exceed 21 inches in diameter. Harvesting of trees larger than twenty-one inches would only occur to meet basal area objectives or to lessen disease spread. The EIS states that Alternative C would reduce average burn probability by 40 percent over Alternative A, and that it protects owl home ranges the best. The Forest Service estimates that, if no preventative action is taken, the risk of largescale loss of late-structure forest is extremely high, and the risk of a Davis-like problem fire is moderate to high. EIS 84 (Due to current fuel loadings ... much of the landscape is classified as moderate to high risk of experiencing a Problem Fire similar to the Davis Fire.); see also EIS 359(describing the risk of large-scale loss of large trees and late structure forest as extremely high). [2] On appeal, the Conservation Groups contest this characterization, stating that when the Forest Service considered all relevant factors, including ignition sources and location, it concluded that another large fire in the Five Buttes Project area was highly unlikely. They cite the Ager study, see infra pages 1133-34, for evidence that conditions for a large wildfire event are rare within the study area. [3] In response to public concerns regarding the long-term effects on spotted owl habitat, the Forest Service stated that [b]ased on modeling, the return to NRF conditions will take 2-5 decades depending on the thinning intensity prescribed. ... There is no commercial thinning of NRF habitat proposed within an occupied spotted owl home range; all other thinning within these areas would be small-diameter (3 inches or less) and stands would remain in NRF condition following activities. In response to comments opposing the harvest of larger trees, the Forest Service stated that the modeling had determined that small-diameter thinning alone ... in most places, would not change the vegetation and fuels structure enough to reduce fire risk, and would not solve the problem of overcompetition among larger trees. Also, limited harvest of larger trees would only take place outside NRF habitat, so that these areas would remain in NRF condition. The EIS also contains a table and description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in an effort to analyze the cumulative impact of the Project. Additionally, cumulative impacts are discussed in detail throughout the EIS in relation to each affected area, type of vegetation, or animal. See, e.g., EIS 66-70(discussing the existing conditions of vegetation to create baseline); EIS 90 (discussing the cumulative effects of past fires and past and future fuels treatments); EIS 117 (discussing cumulative impacts on spotted owls). On June 8, 2007, the Forest Supervisor for the Deschutes National Forest signed the ROD, which adopted Alternative C with minor modifications and incorporated the EIS analysis. The ROD incorporates and responds to public concerns, and outlines the Forest Service's final decision on the Project. It also reports the results of the computerized simulations and explains the Forest Service's decision to adopt Alternative C.