Scoping Summary and Issue IdentificationProject Name: Smokey

Scoping Notice Publication Date: 12-06-2009

Other Scoping Activities:

10-2009 Smokey 1st listed in the SOPA12-1-2009 e-mailed out notices to several publics informing & inviting

them to public meeting on 12-10-0912-6-2009 Notice in Chico Enterprise requesting public comments12-7-2009Notice in Chico Enterprise concerning Smokey public meeting12-8-2009 Letter mailed to 30 publics with scoping documents12-10-2009 Public meeting held in Willows3-12-2010 Scoping letter mailed to Denise Boggs of ConservationCongress following an e-mail request.4-7-2010 Letter sent to Denise Boggs to send information requested4-19-2010 letter received from Denise Boggs4-20-2010 Email sent to Denise Boggs with response to her request forthe MNF program of work for HFRA projects.

• 4-21-2010 Email from Denise Boggs

Table 1 - Summary of Commenter Statistics

Number of Individuals 0

Number of Organizations 5

Number of Government Entities 1

Total Number of Respondents 6

Table 2 - Commenters

Name Representing Comment

#'s

Rich Fairbanks The Wilderness Society 1

Lynn Hollenbeck

Snow Basin Homeowners

Association2

Glenn County Planning & PublicWorks Agency

3

Ryan Henson CA Wilderness Coalition 4-7

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 1 of 11

Rick Svilich American Forest Resource

Council

8-16

Ryan Hadley Sierra Pacific Industries 17

Denise Boggs Conservation Congress 18-47

Comment Analysis

The comments received during the scoping period were assessed todetermine which raised issues, which did not, and which of the issuesraised were significant. This is required by NEPA regulations in order to"emphasize real environmental issues" [40 CFR 1500.2(b)], "identifysignificant environmental issues deserving of study" and "de-emphasizeinsignificant issues" [40 CFR 1500.4(g)].

The comments listed in below do not raise issues, because they do notconcern a point of disagreement, debate or dispute about the environmentaleffects of the proposed action.

Non-Issue Comments

Rich Fairbanks-California Wilderness Coalition.

Comment #1 : Important to maintain inventoried roadless areas in acondition that would allow them to be designated someday as wilderness.Use fuel treatments that would not "trammel" the ground (ie: underbumsverses mastication, hose lines instead of cut fire line)

Lynn Hollenbeck, Snow Basin Homeowners Association:

Comment # 2: We are supportive of project and the continued use ofSPLATs. SPLATs may provide additional protection for the Snow Basinarea.

Glenn County Planning & Public Works Agency

Comment #3: Because project is on the Mendocino NF (not in, or adjacentto the county), we have no comments at this time.

Ryan Henson, California Wilderness Coalition

Comment #4 : The Smokey Project scoping document states that theproject is subject to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) becausethe affected watershed drains into the Sacramento River. This is a rather

tenuous link. By that logic every timber sale on the Mendocino could becovered by HFRA because both the Sacramento and Eel are municipalwatersheds.

Response: HFRA can be used in "areas where wildland fire poses a threatto, and where the natural fire regimes are important for, threatened andendangered species or their habitat. This project is designed to protecthabitat for NSO a T&E species.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 2 of 11

Comment # 7 : Two of the "Fuel SPLATs" shown on the Smokey Projectmaps are within the Grindstone Inventoried Roadless Area. Please notethat the Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibits road construction at §294.12 and logging at § 294.13.

Comment #5: We are concerned about the amount of large trees thatwould be removed under your proposal. On page 5 of the draft SmokeySilviculture Report it states: "The stand [in a model] is thinned from below,removing the smaller trees in the stand that serve as fuel ladders to carryfire from the ground up into the canopy of overstory trees, and alsoremoving about one third of the larger trees in the stand... [emphasisadded]." The failure to define the word "larger" causes us a great deal ofconcern, especially for the LSR units. Please let me know when thecommercial thinning units have been marked so that I can inspect them.

Rick Svilich, American Forest Resource Council

Comment #8 : Please include how long proposed treatments will beeffective and when the next entry into the stands will be needed to meetlong term objectives. When developing the prescriptions we ask that youidentify the long range desired condition, how long you want the proposedtreatments to be effective, and then design the Rx to meet the desiredcondition and time frame. We all realistically know these stands willprobably not be entered again for at least 30-40 years. Design thetreatment that allows for fire effectiveness and stand health for at least that

time frame.

Comment #9 : Please state what the long-range objectives within the LSRare and if the proposed treatments will achieve the long range desiredconditions or if future treatments will be necessary to meet the statedgoals. If additional treatments are necessary we ask that the analysisdisplay when those treatments will be needed.

Comment # 10 : In order to promote long-term fire protection for the LSRand the SPLATS, post project canopy closures should be no greater than40-45% (use a proxy measurement guide for canopy closure; i.e., basalarea, spacing, trees per acre, etc).

Comment #11 : Project prescriptions should address long-term needs ofhardwood stands. In order to promote long-term fire protection for the LSRand the SPLATS, post project canopy closures should be no greater than40-45% (use a proxy measurement guide for canopy closure; i.e., basalarea, spacing, trees per acre, etc).

Comment # 12 : An economic analysis should be done for the project thatincludes the latest costs and expenses. Also take into consideration when

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 3 of 11

factors such as LOP's limit the days when actual harvesting operations cantake place and the impacts to project costs.

Comment # 13 : The project should carefully look at fuels reductionoptions. Hand piling should be the last option as it is very expensive andcan lead to a non-viable project. Maintain machine piling options unless itcan be well justified for dropping.

Comment # 14 : Consider using temporary roads and also make sureroad systems are adequate for the proposal. Poorly designed and/orinadequate road systems can be costly. Also make sure landings areadequate size for the proposal. If the proposal calls for whole tree yarding,make sure landings are large enough to accommodate the volume.

Comment #15: AFRC wants to go on record of not supportingalternatives that set diameter limits within any land allocation. Diameterlimits are arbitrary designations that do not have any silvicultural merit.They are counterproductive to meeting your identified purpose and needstatements. AFRC does not and will not support diameter limits as they arenot compatible with your current land management goals for this projectarea.

Comment #16: When developing measurement standards for NEPAimplementation do not use crown closure. There is no one set way tomeasure crown closure before or following treatment. No method hasbeen developed that gives the same or an accurate measurement. Themeasurement standards need to be something that can be measuredcorrectly before and following treatment; basal area, trees per acre, standdensity index, spacing, etc.

Ryan Hadlev, Sierra Pacific Industries

Comment #17: I am in support of the proposed project. Please considerusing Stewardship Contracting when implementing projects, these tend tobe less controversial, and due to the locations and types of work oftenrequired can lend themselves to being more salable projects

Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress

Comment # 18: The majority of the project is in the Buttermilk LSR and iscritical habitat for the NSO. An EIS should be prepared for this project thatinvolves extensive vegetation manipulation, fuels management, skylinecable logging, temporary road construction and road maintenance.Response: The significance of effects determines if an EIS is needed forthe project.

Comment # 19: The LSR does not need protection from natural endemicprocesses the forest has evolved with over time.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 4 of 11

Response: The project is designed to protect the LSR from catastrophicdisturbances not endemic processes

Comment #20: We don't believe the project as designed should beanalyzed using the HFRA.Response: HFRA can be used in "areas where wildland fire poses athreat to, and where the natural fire regimes are important for, threatenedand endangered species or their habitat. This project is designed toprotect habitat for NSO an T&E species.

Comment # 21: LSR's have their own prescriptions, and managementdirection states roads should be avoided in LSRs and vegetationmanagement should focus on early serai stage habitat and prescribedburning.Response: Any new roads proposed for this project are temporary andwill be decommissioned or returned to original condition at the end of theproject.

Comment # 22: The HFRA also has very strong direction regarding themaintenance of old growth and "Large" diameter trees.Response: Section 102(e)3 provides that the old-growth direction inresource management plans establish on or after December 15, 1993 issufficient to meet the requirements of Section 102(e)(2) and will be usedby agencies carrying out projects under the HFRA. For example, old-growth direction would not need to be revised in plans encompassed bythe Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, because these planscontain old-growth standards adopted after December 15, 1993. (HFRAInterim Field Guide) This project follows direction contained in the NWFP,Mendocino LRMP and LSR Assessment.

Comment # 23: The Best Available Science (BAS) demonstrates thatforests of northern California are not out of the range of normal variabilityfor wildfire risk and by the Mendocino NFs own analysis, states the risk ofignition is low based on historic fire patterns.Response: Requested a copy of the BAS reference that is being cited.Denise mailed 3 references to use as BAS in regards to this comment.

Comment # 24: If the Mendocino NF is going to propose HFRA projects itmust have an Annual Program of Work as defined under the Act. Thisprogram is an annual list of projects that prioritize projects in the WUI -which this project is not - as well as the other three conditions. The ForestService can't simply decide to analyze a project under the HFRA. It mustfollow the legal steps under the Act; have an Annual Program of Work;and it must be submitted to the WO. If the Mendocino NF has this Annual

program of Work in place we request a copy of it ASAP.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 5 of 11

Response: The requirement in Section 103 of the HFRA applies to theSecretary of Agriculture level. A forest level program of work is notrequired for an HFRA project.

Comment # 25: The scoping notice then states the objectives of theproject are old growth habitat, protection of firefighters and publics, fuelsmanagement, and timber production. The only one of these objectivespertinent to the project area under the HFRA is old growth.Response: HFRA does not state that other project objectives cannot beincluded in the project.

Comment # 26: The scoping notice states over the past decade theMountain pine beetle has killed trees within the LSR typically in smallclumps scattered over a large area. This is perfect habitat and not in needof management.

Comment # 28: The scoping notice also describes the types of vegetationmanagement including "commercial harvest". As already stated, LSRs arenot to be managed for timber production including commercial harvest.This is a violation of the NWFP.

Response: NWFP and Mendocino LMP allow commercial harvest oftimber in an LSR. RX 6 - Late Successional Reserves of the LRMP

allows commercial timber harvest. See LRMP Page IV-63.

Comment # 29: Then it states young stands less than 100 years oldshould be thinned. How was the 100 year age cut off determined? Manyforests under the NWFP use 80 years as the cutoff. Please include thedocumentation that permits trees up to 100 years of age being thinned inLSRs.

Response: The Mendocino LSR assessment and memorandum from theRegional Ecosystem Office dated May 9, 2000 allows thinning in LSR forrisk reduction treatments. No age limitation was placed on stands for riskreduction thinning.

Comment # 30: Under fuels management, the scoping notice states therisk of ignition within the Buttermilk LSR is considered low based on firehistory - therefore no type of emergency exists and the projections madefor potential ignition are purely subjective.Response: The scoping notice did not make projections on potentialignitions. The scoping notice referenced the potential for lethal damage totrees if a fire did occur.

Comment # 32: A full economic analysis must be conducted for thisproject that looks at the cost effectiveness of logging by skyline cablemethods. We would also assert that this is not an ecologically appropriatemethod for an LSR.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 6 of 11

Response: The scoping document does not state economics as part ofthe purpose and need. The document does not state that revenue fromthe sale of timber is needed to complete project work.

Comment #33: We are also opposed to any additional roads, temporary orotherwise, in LSRs. What is the current open road density in the projectarea, as well as the LSR itself?Response: This will be discussed in the EA.

Comment #34: There is no mention in the scoping notice regarding whattype of shape the watershed is in. While the Grindstone watershed islisted as the project level for analysis, what watershed will cumulativeeffects and TOC be analyzed at? This needs to be a 5th field watershed.Response: This will be discussed in the EA.

Comment #35: We have general concerns regarding wildlife, includingTES and MIS, fish and aquatic species, ACSO compliance, botany, waterquality and soils. Please include all the specialist reports for theseresources with the draft document so that we can better understand the

project and provide meaningful public input.Response: Documents will be provided when completed.

Comment # 37: How will the Best Available Science be used in the

development of this project? It doesn't appear to have been used at all inthe initial design of the project, for example LSR vegetation management,snag retention, down log retention, etc. How was the snag retentionguidelines developed on page 13? Keep in mind this is an LSR.Response: LRMP and LSRA standards and guidelines are beingfollowed.

Comment #38: Finally, we have significant objections to this type ofvegetation management in LSR when the Mendocino NF has violated itsmonitoring reporting requirements to the FWS for NSO for the life of theLRMP. According to FOIA results, the Mendocino NF has never submittedthe mandatory monitoring reports required in each BO for activitiesaffecting the NSO and its habitat. The Forest can't demonstrate what theenvironmental baseline actually is or ensure sustainable populations ofowls since these reporting requirements are in violation. FOIA results alsodemonstrate the tracking system for NSO take is also invalid. Until theMendocino NF can ensure it is meeting its obligations to protect andpreserve the habitat of the NSO it should not be conducting commercialtimber sales in LSR - in fact it shouldn't be doing that anyway.Response: The forest has not done the monitoring.

Comment #39: The Mendocino NF needs to conduct an EIS for this

project and formally consult with the USFWS and NMFS at a minimum.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 7 of 11

The 12 pages of Design Criteria and BMPs strongly suggest an EIS isrequired for this project. HFRA projects can be analyzed in either an EA oran EIS. We don't believe the HFRA is the appropriate document for theanalysis and we are well versed in its implementation. If the Forest insistson taking this route then an EIS is the only legally viable level of analysis.Response: The DN/FONSI and analysis done to prepare the EA willdetermine if an EIS is needed for this project. There is no need to consultwith NMFS because the project is in the Grindstone watershed andoutside of anadromy, and thus would have no effect on ESA listedanadromous fish. Consultation with USFWS is ongoing and will becompleted before the decision document is signed.

Comment #40: The information provided by the Mendocino on the rangeof normal variation for wildfire risk is outdated. I am including severaldocuments for your review.Response: Denise mailed 3 references to use as BAS in regards to thiscomment.

Comment #42: The Buttermilk LSR provides linkage between the YollaBolly wilderness and the Grizzly and Refuge LSRs.Response: See Wildlife report and BE/BA.

Comment #43: The LSR assessment states fuel treatment in the northern

LSR should be a low priority because the predicted effects of fire are lesssevere and not likely to prevent the attainment of desired conditions.Response: LSRA page A1-16, The results of this analysis should not beused to say that there will never be a need to treat fuels in the northernLSR.

Comment #44: I am requesting a response to my inquiry as to whether theMendocino NF has an Annual Program of Work for HFRA projects.Response: RO response from Craig Snyder, R5 RO Planner "In myreading of the entire section 103, it is apparent that paragraph (a), whichrefers to the "Implementation Plan" is referring to the Secretary level. Theimplementation plan is a very broad 10-year national strategy that merelyemphasizes fuel treatment with a heavy dose of collaboration. Furtherdown, at Sec. 103 (d)(1)(B) it is clarified that for funding, the requirementto spend 1/2 the funds on WUI only applies at the National scale and doesnot apply at the unit level. -C-"

Comment # 45: We reiterate our strong advice to conduct an EIS for thisproject.Response: The significance of effects determines if an EIS is needed forthe project.

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 8 of 11

Comment #46: Section 103 of the HFRA states that in accordance withthe Implementation Plan the Sec. shall develop an annual program ofwork. The Annual Program of Work is a is a separate document from theImplementation Plan. The Annual Program of work is a specific documentto authorize fuel reduction projects under the Act that must meet specificcriteria. Individual forests can't simply decide to analyze and HFfRAproject without following the steps outlined in the Act.Response: The Smokey Project meets the requirements of the HFF*A.The program of work applies to the Secretary of Agriculture and not eachforest. A forest does have the authority to use HFF*A authority withoutapproval from the Secretary of Agriculture.

Comment #47: The Act states that not more than 20 million acres of forest

land may be treated under authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.We assume the Implementation Plan is keeping track of all such projectsnationally and we request how many acres have been treated underHFRA since the Act was passed in 2003 and how the Smokey project fitsinto the overall total.

Response: The Mendocino sent a request for this information to the ROwho sent a request to the WO for this information. The WO Gary Jarvis,provided the information and itwas emailed to Denise Boggs on May 3,2010

Table: Healthy Forests Restoration Act Activities (acres

**FY

2004

*FY

2005

*FY

2006

*FY

2007

*FY

2008

**FY

2009 TOTAL

HFRA Title I

Authorities1,610 33,000 99,000

163,000

192,000

242,211 730,821

*Source: Healthy Forests Report 2008** Source: FS and DOI database of record

This data includes DOI and Forest Service HFRA accomplishments

Non-Significant Issues

The comments listed below in # 4 raise issues that are not significant. An issueis not significant if:

a) The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action.b) The issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other

higher level decision.c) The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made.d) The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual

evidence.

Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 9 of 11

Comment # 27: The project as described will eliminate desirable LSRhabitat and make it into early/mid serai. This is an LSR not an areasuited for timber production.Response: The project is not proposing to eliminate LSR habitat bycreating early/mid serai stage habitat. See Silviculture and Wildlifereport. The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factualevidence.

Comment # 31: We also object to the logging methods proposed.Masticators and bull dozers are inappropriate in a LSR, as is skylinecable logging that is only required on very steep slopes.Response: LRMP, LSR assessment, NWFP and HFRA do not limit thetype of machinery that can be used in an LSR. The issue is conjecturaland not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

Comment # 36: We also object to LOPs being lifted in NSO habitat forany reason due to the presence of Barred owls. NSO won't respond ifBarred owls are present therefore LOPs should not be lifted and NSOoccupancy should be assumed constant.Response: Page 12 of the Scoping document states that the forest willdo the recommended survey protocol for NSO/Barred owls before theLOP is lifted. The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific orfactual evidence.

Comment #41: LSRs were never intended for timber production,particularly skyline logging on steep slopes. This logging method causesexcessive erosion, disturbance to non-target vegetation, is expensive,and requires temp roads.Response: The Mendocino LSRA allows timber harvesting in the LSRfor risk reduction projects like the Smokey Project. The Smokey projectis not expected to cause excessive erosion or disturbance to non-targetvegetation. See Soils report. The temp roads used in the timber sale willbe closed by putting a clause in the timber sale contract which requiresthe purchaser to close the roads after use. Cable logging causes less ofthese effects than ground based logging.The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual

evidence.

Significant Issues

None Received

Scope Summary/ Issue IDPage 10 of 11

.-

r

r

r

~ ->

As the Responsible Official, I have determined that no significant issueswere raised during scoping. Therefore, no alternative to the proposedaction need be developed, and only the proposed action and the no-actionalternatives need to be analysed in detail. Also, the effects section of theassessment need only focus on information needed to support adetermination of the significance of the environmental effects.

sMkoioThomas A Contreras Date

Forest Supervisor

Scope Summary / Issue IDPage 11 of 11