August 7, 2000

Plumas Forest Project (PFP)

P.O. Box 903

Blairsden, CA 96103-0903

Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, PSW Region 5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, this is to appeal the Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment on the Red Clover DFPZ Project that was issued by Plumas National Forest District Ranger Kathryn Axton and signed on June 15, 2000. Public notice appeared on June 21, 2000. The Red Clover DFPZ Project is located on the Beckwourth Ranger District.

The substantial portion of the District Ranger's Response to Comments covering PFP's Red Clover DFPZ DEA comments and Scoping comments either ignores entirely our concerns, incorrectly identifies our issues or fails to adequately explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, thus violating NEPA requirements at 1503.4. Outlined below is a case-by-case explanation that includes, where appropriate, matters related to inadequate analysis and violation of NEPA and other federal regulations.

1.) In our DEA comments, PFP raised the substantive concern regarding the potential negative impacts associated with applying DFPZs on eastside forest types, and referenced that concern to portions of our appeal of the HFQLG FEIS and ROD (Included herein as Appendix A). The reference was made as part-and-parcel of the DEA comments. The appeal provided a lengthy argument that applying DFPZs on eastside forests would have substantial immediate and long-term negative impacts to existing LS/OG forests and the recruitment of LS/OG forests. PFP made substantial citations from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report and cited how failing to consider SNEP within the HFQLG EIS violated NEPA at 1500.1(b), 1502.16, 1502.24.

In response to PFP's DEA comments, the District Ranger merely states, "Revisiting appeal points of the HFQLG EIS and ROD is outside the scope of this analysis." It was not specifically PFP's request that the District "revisit" appeal points of the HFQLG EIS and ROD. Rather, it was PFP's request that the District consider SNEP and the substantive concerns raised therein relative to the potential negative impacts associated with applying DFPZs in eastside forests, and that NEPA requires the District to do so.

Notwithstanding the above, in our scoping comments on the Red Clover DFPZ project, comments that were referenced as part and parcel of the our DEA comments, PFP specifically challenged the District's scoping level statement that, "This is not the time to revisit issues or disputes with the EIS Record of Decision." We stated in those scoping comments that in fact the project level is precisely the time to revisit Forest Plan issues, and cited Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir.1999) wherein the Eleventh Circuit stated:

It is clear from Sierra Club v. Martin that the Forest Service is compelled to revisit Forest Plan direction. In this regard, it is wholly appropriate for the District Ranger to have considered our concerns as they relate to the HFQLG ROD and FEIS and the subsequent project level analyses such as the Red Clover DFPZ analysis.

Relief Requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to prepare a new DEA that adequately considers PFP's and SNEP's concerns regarding DFPZs as they relate to existing LS/OG forests, and the long-term recruitment of LS/OG forests, throughout the eastside.

2.) In our comments on the DEA, PFP raised the concern that the Red Clover DFPZ project must comply with the mitigation measure to protect the California spotted owl as set forth in the ROD for the HFQLG FEIS. That mitigation is noted on page 6 of the ROD and requires that at the site-specific project level, DFPZ cutting areas "will be designed and implemented to completely avoid" suitable owl habitat. PFP noted in its DEA comments that nothing in that ROD indicated that the mitigation was intended to apply to the westside and transition zone exclusively, and that the mitigation must be followed in those eastside areas with suitable mixed-conifer owl habitat.

In response, the District Ranger cited the ROD's notation that "Eastside pine is not suitable habitat for the owl." The Ranger also cited an August 16, 1999, supplement to the HFQLG EIS BA/BE that suggests the mitigation is not intended to apply to eastside forests generally. Consequently, the Ranger states that the mitigation "was intended for use in the westside and transitions zones, not the eastside."

The District Ranger's assertion is unfounded. There is nothing in the language of the HFQLG ROD, nor specifically within the language of the mitigation noted therein, that suggests eastside mixed conifer is exempt from the mitigation. In fact, the only language that addresses eastside forests in this regard is where the ROD states, "Of the 43,500 acres of group selection harvest, approximately half of the acreage would be located in eastside pine. Eastside pine is not suitable habitat for the owl" (ROD, page 8). It is evident from this language that the ROD intended to keep projects in eastside pine and out of suitable mixed-conifer habitat. If the ROD intended to exempt eastside mixed conifer forests from the mitigation, then the language would necessarily read something like, "Nothing in this mitigation is intended to apply to any eastside forest." In other words, the ROD would not have qualified that only eastside pine is the forest type not suitable for owl habitat. We contend that there is no other way to read the ROD and mitigation, and that if the Forest Service desires to change the mitigation to exempt suitable eastside mixed-conifer forests, then it must do so through the NEPA process with a new ROD and a new appeal period.

Relief Requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to prepare a new DEA that analyzes only alternatives that comply with the ROD for the HFQLG FEIS and the mitigation therein; and require that any timber cutting under such alternatives completely avoids suitable mixed-conifer eastside forests. Subsequently, the planning process should be reopened at the DEA stage in order to allow the public an opportunity to comment.

3.) In our DEA comments, PFP noted that a SAT Level II watershed analysis had not been completed as required by the HFQLG Act, and that plans for relocating Forest Service Road 25N05 should be abandoned. Further, in our March 17, 2000, scoping level comments we provided 19 substantive reasons as to why FS 25N05 should be decommissioned instead of relocated, including matters related to SNEP concerns about upslope roads, the very high risk of negative cumulative watershed effects within the Last Chance and Spanish creeks watersheds, and the inability of the Forest Service to adequately maintain exiting system roads. Those scoping comments were submitted as part and parcel of our DEA comments.

In response, the District Ranger merely states that, "A Level II watershed analysis is expected by the end of June. Preliminary analysis indicates that removal of this road from the RHCA would benefit riparian resources."

Failing to complete the Level II analysis prior to issuing the DEA flies in the face of responsible decision making and clearly violates the letter, spirit and intent of NEPA to provide for meaningful input from the public and to provide the Ranger high quality, science-based information with which to make a decision. That is, NEPA requires that any decision to decommission or move a road, which requires a SAT Level II watershed analysis, must come after completion of the analysis and after the public has had the opportunity to comment on the SAT analysis.

Further, the Ranger's response in no way addresses PFP's substantive DEA and scoping comments and fails to adequately explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, thus violating NEPA requirements at 1503.4

Request for Relief: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to issue a new DEA that includes both a SAT Level II analysis and a corresponding analysis that determines whether to decommission or relocate FS 25N05 or whether to do nothing about the road at all. Further, and notwithstanding the immediately foregoing, PFP requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to provide reasoned responses to all the substantive comments provided by PFP at the scoping and DEA stages of project planning.

4.) In our comments on the Red Clover DEA under Fire and Fuels, PFP specifically requested that the Red Clover DFPZ "final" EA (FEA) provide "a complete analysis that complies with the direction of Appendix J of the HFQLG FEIS, relative to the siting and layout of DFPZs. In this regard, Appendix J states:

Our request, then, was for specific analyses showing why certain cutting prescriptions were chosen for the various DFPZ cutting units throughout the project area, and Appendix J underscores the need for site-specific analysis, not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In response to our request for written analyses, the Ranger responded that "These items were considered when delineating final DFPZ boundaries and determining prescriptions in the Proposed Action." However, the Red Clover FEA in fact provides no analysis whatsoever that shows how cutting prescriptions were determined. Both the Fire and Fuels section of the FEA and the specialist report simply provide cursory factual information on fire history of the general area, existing fuel loadings and that "Within the project area forest fuel beds have a potential fire spread and intensity rating in the moderate to high category."

In addition, nowhere in the FEA Fire and Fuels section or within the fire-specialist report is there any site-specific discussion of topographic position, exposure to predominant wind, stand structure, or fuel loadings, as required by Appendix J. Nor is there analysis that assures the proposed cutting prescriptions "will meet the fire behavior objectives of the DFPZ for weather conditions under which most large fires occur" (Appendix J).

Request for Relief: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to prepare an adequate fire and fuels analysis that meets the objectives and requirements of Appendix J, and provides specific analysis to support specific DFPZ cutting prescriptions. Subsequently, the Ranger should reopen the planning process to the DEA stage and allow the public to provide comments on the new document.

5.) In our DEA comments, we noted that the Red Clover DFPZ analysis did not contain an adequate comprehensive cumulative effects analysis within the botany and fire and fuels reports, and that the Wildlife BE/BA was also deficient in this regard. We requested that such an analysis be completed and that the planning process be reopened at the DEA stage. Further, NEPA requires that such an analysis include an evaluation of the cumulative effects of the current project's effects with reasonably foreseeable future actions. In this instance, the most obvious reasonably foreseeable future action is the Red Clover Group Selection Project proposed for the same area and in the near future. Cumulative effects are especially important in this case because the Red Clover DFPZ Project takes place within the boundaries of the Red Clover Group Selection Project.

The District Ranger responds to our concern by pointing us to page 17 of the FEA where a single paragraph statement merely acknowledges that the proposed Red Clover Group Selection Project "would reverse the seral stage development in several group selection stands."

In contrast, except for the seral-stage section of the FEA, there is no analysis in any of the specialist reports noted above that evaluates the impacts of this project when considered cumulatively with the Red Clover Group Selection Project. The only location in the specialist reports where future actions are even discussed is in the Wildlife BE/BA where it states:

This states the nature of the upcoming Red Clover Group Selection project and that other similar projects are being planned for the area in the near future. However, it is self-evident that the BE/BA does not provide even a cursory analysis of the cumulative effects of this DFPZ project in conjunction with other near-future group selection and DFPZ projects. And again, such analysis is inadequate in the botany report and entirely lacking and fire and fuels report. Consequently NEPA requirements have not been met.

Relief Requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to conduct NEPA-required cumulative effects analyses that consider reasonably foreseeable future actions such as the Red Clover Group Selection project, and then to reopen the planning process to the DEA stage. (Also, see section C below, Cumulative Effects.)

6.) In our comments at the scoping stage of project planning, PFP raised substantive issues that were not addressed in the DEA. Consequently, we referenced those scoping comments as part and parcel of our comments on the DEA and specifically requested that the District Ranger address those issues in the FEA. Some scoping issues were partially addressed by the Ranger in the FEA's response to public comments, but largely as a result of our raising the same issues in our comments on the DEA. Other issues raised in our coping comments were mostly or entirely ignored in the Ranger's response to public comments, thus violating NEPA. Outlined in a.) and b.) below are appeal points related to the scoping comments not adequately addressed in the FEA's response to public comments and inadequate analysis. (PFP's scoping comments as well as our DEA comments for this project are attached as part and parcel of this appeal as Appendix B and Appendix C respectively.)

a.) Our assertion that the District needed to produce an adequate SAT Level I watershed analysis for the project was ignored by the Ranger and nowhere in the planning file or FEA is there any indication such an adequate analysis has been completed, thus violating NEPA requirements for high quality scientific analysis and adequate environmental information. The Forest Service has asserted that the HFQLG EIS Level I analysis was adequate. In contrast, our scoping comments provided substantive information showing that the Forest Service's position is unfounded. Our assertion is founded partially on a wholly inadequate time frame during which the Forest Service could have completed such an analysis pursuant to the requirements of the HFQLG Act. For example, a Level I watershed analysis for the 1.6 million acre Pilot Project area would require a 4-person inter-disciplinary (ID) team working eight hours a day every workday for two and one half years to complete the task (SAT Report, page 457). Additionally, it would be chronologically impossible, given the less than one -year time frame for the entire EIS.

Further, the HFQLG EIS Level I watershed analysis contains no evidence that a fish and terrestrial ecology analysis, a primary requirement of a SAT watershed analysis, was part of the EIS Level I analysis. Other detailed matters related to the inadequacy of the HFQLG EIS Level I watershed analysis is contained in Appendix b and should be considered as part of this appeal point.

Relief requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to conduct an adequate SAT Level I watershed analysis and reopen the planning process to the DEA stage in order to allow the public an opportunity to comment.

b.) In our scoping comments we pointed out the inadequate analysis time period for this project. Generally, our concerns focused on the fact that the Forest had directed the District to complete the entire analysis-through-sale process before the end of the fiscal year, even though the project area was not identified until mid-fall 1999. Consequently, the analysis and scoping and DEA comments periods took place largely during the snowy season when the project area was accessible to neither the public nor the Forest Service.

Further, PFP noted that, "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken. The information must be high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA."

In this case, basic environmental information was not available to the Forest Service or the public. For example, the Decision Notice states that, "Since the EA was prepared, additional field reconnaissance has been completed. This reconnaissance has shown that most of the hillside around EA units 48 and 49 does not need handthinning treatment to meet the objectives of the DFPZ. Most of this hillside is quite open with small timber stringers associated with riparian areas." In other words, not until the Decision Notice was it apparent to the Ranger that nearly 500 acres (18 percent) of the project area was unsuitable for handthinning treatment. This points to the overall failure of the Forest Service to provide accurate, high quality environmental information to the public or itself prior to making a decision and that the inadequate analysis time period was at least partially to blame. Further, the Decision Notice states, "I realize that, due to the timing of the analysis, I am making my decision without adequate field surveys for threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) wildlife and plant species" (emphasis added). (Making decisions without adequate field surveys for TES wildlife and plant species is a violation of FSM 2672.4 and NFMA 36 CFR 219.19.)

In her response to our comments, the Ranger entirely ignored PFP's concerns and entirely failed to address the matter in both the DEA and the FEA.

Request for Relief: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to open the planning process back to the DEA stage in order to allow District personnel to conduct adequate analysis and to provide the public the opportunity to review that environmental information.

The final EA fails to adequately address the issue of what comprises an appropriate DFPZ prescription, particularly in this site-specific, eastside landscape. This can be divided into two sub-issues. First, contrary to specific direction provided in the Proposed Action Notice, the silvicultural prescription does not comply with the DFPZ prescription set forth in Appendix J of the HFQLG EIS. (We did not fully raise this issue at the DEA stage because the marking guidelines were not available and the resultant cut mark was not completed at that time.) Second, because one of the ways that the silvicultural prescription violates the Appendix J DFPZ prescription is by removing larger fire resistant trees and reducing large-tree canopy closure, in many cases to below 40 percent, it has a significant negative effect on seral stage diversity.

Regarding the first issue, Plumas Forest Project has had a long history with the Plumas National Forest in developing the "clumping" or variable-density spacing DFPZ prescription (see PFP's comments on the HFQLG Notice of Intent regarding DFPZ cutting prescription at Appendix D). Therefore, as noted in our scoping comments, we were gratified to see the description of this prescription taken from Appendix J included as the main tenet of the Red Clover DFPZ Project Proposed Action as follows:

However, at this stage of implementation it has become clear that the Beckwourth District does not recognize the Appendix J prescription as a new fuel reduction prescription, different from past practices in this area (as pointed out in our scoping comments). Instead, it continues to provide marking direction that removes significant numbers of larger fire-resistant trees while retaining smaller fire-prone trees and encourages "uniform spacing of the residual trees." In a field discussion with District personnel, they indicated that the silvicultural prescription and resultant marking guidelines represented no change from nearby recently completed pre-HFQLG projects.

To facilitate the following discussion we are submitting material from the current Antelope/Border DFPZ Project (Mt. Hough District, PNF) including the Silvicultural Input and Marking Guidelines (Appendix E), excerpts from PFP's comments on the Antelope/Border DEA (Appendix F) and an excerpt from Antelope/Border BA/BE (Appendix G).

The Antelope/Border silvicultural input does an excellent job of describing the difference between even spacing and variable-density spacing (clumping). It also plainly acknowledges that most recent, previous "thin-from-below" fuel reduction projects on the Mt. Hough District were even spacing thinnings. The Camp Project, given as an example of variable-density spacing thinning, was the project on which PFP worked with the Mt. Hough District to develop the original clumping prescription. To date, it is the only project on the Plumas National Forest (except for a portion of the Antelope/Border Project) that specifically employs a clumping prescription. (The Antelope DEA contends that even-spacing in addition to variable-density spacing complies with Appendix J direction. However, we soundly refute that contention in our comments on that DEA.)

The Red Clover DFPZ Project, nevertheless, puts itself firmly in the camp of variable-density spacing when it cites the previously quoted direction from Appendix J, 1st on its list of 21 proposed actions. This direction's obvious reference to "clumps" and "intermingled openings" points to variable-density spacing (our comments on the Antelope/Border Project contains a detailed argument to the same effect). At no other location in the EA or planning documents was information presented that qualified or expanded on this direction. Therefore, at the DEA stage, by virtue of this direction, we were led to believe that the "new" variable-density spacing prescription would be employed on this project.

There was no silvicultural input in the DEA and the silvicultural input included in the final EA, while commenting in several instances on DFPZs and their requirements, does not reference or acknowledge the variable-density or clumping aspect of those requirements. The Red Clover marking guidelines (Appendix H), as opposed to the Antelope/Border marking guidelines, also do little to inform the marking crew of the variable-density spacing prescription. Its introduction contains only one essential statement regarding DFPZ requirements as follows: "To meet DFPZ objective, canopy cover should generally be 40% unless otherwise specified."

Some residual natural clumping will occur as a result of direction in the marking guidelines under "Live Trees." This is consistent with some recent past fuel reduction projects, but this clumping is a by-product that may or may not happen based on the location of the "best trees." Our experience is that as a result of this guideline on these projects the residual clumps are few and far between. There are a few other off-hand references to clumps and clumpiness in the marking guidelines, however, the thrust of these guidelines will result in a largely even spaced forest. This contrasts with the variable-density, clumping prescription of Appendix J and this project EA which sets forth the clumping of larger trees as its very first order of business.

In the end, there are a number of things that point to the employment of an even-spacing prescription on this project:

2.) The provision in the marking guidelines under "Stocking/Spacing" of an individual tree-spacing chart and direction that, "In general, the minimum spacing in thinning is 16' to allow for equipment operation."

3.) The cut mark, as it has currently been applied on the ground and represented by the photographs and accompanying narrative (Appendix I).

4.) The absence of an upper-diameter cut-limit of any size for this project.

As noted above, the second sub-issue regarding the inadequate DFPZ prescription is its negative effect on seral stage diversity. The following statement regarding Alternative 2 found in the seral stage analysis portion of the EA is key to understanding why the DFPZ prescription as implemented through the marking guidelines will negatively effect seral stage diversity and development:

The reason for this concern is that both large tree density and 40 percent minimum canopy-cover parameters listed are in danger of being violated. First, canopy cover is already near 40 percent on most stands and there has been no on-site, pre- or post-mark plot data collected to assure that large tree density does not fall below this percentage. The marking guidelines do recommend that markers periodically check with their angle gauge to maintain the correct basal area but this merely measures the basal area of remaining trees of any size. Second, the stands are not being strictly thinned from below, allowing removal of trees of any size, thereby impacting "large tree density" and the "movement of the project area to the deficient later seral stages." A combination of the marking guidelines and resultant mark as represented in the photographs show this to clearly be the case.

The marking guidelines, while giving lip service to the thin from below concept, actually describe a sanitation prescription. Even within the "Thin from Below" section of the guidelines, the greatest portion is taken up by a description of why larger trees can be taken. It states, in part, as follows: "Also consider the stand history. A tree may be the largest tree in the vicinity, but still look poor because it was an intermediate tree most of its life until a neighboring tree was harvested or died" (emphasis added). The problem is that these currently dominant trees (but formerly intermediate trees) targeted for removal are part of the large-tree density of that stand.

Under "Quality/Health" the guidelines state: "Leave healthy trees free of defect or deformity." Conversely, unhealthy, defective or deformed trees regardless of size are removed. Mistletoe infection is also considered in this section, with the largest trees with an infection rating of 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 6 scheduled for removal. The final category in this section is white fir, with only perfect "radiant" trees being retained. The result is that few individuals of this species are retained and many large white firs are removed.

The removal of significant numbers of larger trees in all of the above categories is documented in the accompanying photographs.

Secondary to this issue is that the project's sanitation guideline mark, as described above, takes precedent over but works against the letter and spirit of the mandated, critical Appendix J prescription and the Forest Plan seral stage requirements. Yet the actions that the sanitation guideline directs, such as removal of large stagnant trees, large defective trees, large mistletoe tees, and large non-"radiant" white firs are not at all listed as critical in the same fashion in the HFQLG EIS, the Forest Plan or the project EA.

The cutting prescription as reflected in the marking guidelines and the mark on the ground violates diversity requirements of NFMA CFR 219.27 and the Plumas Forest Plan at 4-29 and 30.

Relief Requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester require the Ranger to reformulate the cutting prescription marking guidelines such that the residual forest will be comprised of clumps of the largest fire-tolerant trees with a network of intermingled openings between the clumps, not uniform spacing between trees, and require the Ranger to establish an upper-diameter cut limit that leaves virtually all dominant and co-dominant trees. Such marking guidelines will comply with Appendix J of the HFQLG EIS as well as the original proposed action. Such guidelines will also better meet short- and long-term seral stage diversity needs and requirements. As an example of a thin-from-below fuel reduction prescription that employs an upper diameter cut limit, we attach herein as Appendix J the Camp Project marking guidelines.

The seral stage analysis and the wildlife biological evaluation for the FEA are inadequate and concluding statements are flawed regarding cumulative effects. This is the case due to the following: there was inadequate site-specific information from which to develop analyses; because of the generic nature of the proposed action (cutting prescriptions); because of the post-DEA and post-FEA changes (see EA map versus the project map of June 23rd, 2000, Appendix K) and; total cumulative effects were not addressed.

Specifically, the cumulative effects analyses are inadequate in the following ways:

1.) The seral stage analysis (page 4) discloses that stand condition information had been pulled from non-current photographs and had not been ground verified. Since the current conditions of the stands are unknown, the analysis of effects for the proposed action is arbitrary. The DEA, therefore, needs to be re-written considering current forest conditions.

2.) The DEA and FEA and the specialist reports do not contain cutting prescriptions on a per-unit basis. Consequently, personnel that provided the wildlife biology and seral stage analysis could not have been able to calculate site-specific effects on the project area. The vague nature of the proposed action would allow only for uncertain indirect, direct and cumulative effects to the area. To be uncertain as to the existing condition of canopy cover, large-tree density and size class, and then attempt to analyze the effects of the generic proposed action on wildlife species and seral status could only result in uncertainty regarding significant impacts of the proposed action. Consequently, the FEA is inadequate in determining significant impact (for example, see page 28 of wildlife biological evaluation regarding goshawks).

3.) After release of the FEA, unit size, shape and treatment type changed for a considerable portion of the project area (see FEA map versus project map dated 6/23/00). The wildlife BA/BE and the seral stage analysis do not address changes shown on the June 23 map. Consequently, any indirect, direct or cumulative effects analyses in the FEA do not reflect the proposed action as it is being applied on the ground.

4.) The seral stage analysis in the botany report (page 9) states that since Alternative 2, "prescribes either hand treatment or underburn for these stands [Late Seral Emphasis Areas], it is likely to provide for the retention of and/or a trend toward late seral status while meeting DFPZ objectives." The June 23 map, however, shows no late-seral emphasis areas and shows that mechanical treatment will occur where the late-seral emphasis areas were on the FEA map. Consequently, the botany analysis of effects on seral stage regarding the late-seral emphasis areas is necessarily flawed and the conclusion contained therein is unfounded.

5.) At a public field meeting for this project and subsequent visits to the project area, PFP reviewed the marking guidelines and some marked units. It was evident that the marking guidelines (not found in the DEA or FEA, or in specialist reports) did not match the assumptions made within the wildlife BA/BE and seral stage analysis. (See appendix of photos for more details.) Those assumptions are that units will be retained at approximately 40 percent canopy cover, where available, and that a "thin from below" prescription will be utilized (pages 8 and 9 botany report, and pages 28 and 29 of the Wildlife BE/BA). The analysis of effects for the Northern Goshawk (page 28, Wildlife BE/BA) does not mention the potential reduction in large trees as a possible effect to habitat even though the existing environment section on goshawks (page 17) indicates that mature forests are preferred for nesting.

Consequently, it appears that the Wildlife BA/BE assumed that large trees are not going to be cut and that the stands are assumed to stay at approximately 40 percent canopy cover. However, the marked stands contain a heavy sanitation mark with dominant large trees marked for removal, which would lower the canopy cover below 40 percent. Because the assumptions in the analyses are incorrect relative to the marking guidelines, the indirect, direct and cumulative effects analyses are necessarily inadequate and flawed. Furthermore, the effects analysis is incomplete for goshawks since reduction in large tree density is not addressed in the Wildlife BA/BE making the determination of significant impact impossible.

6.) We consider the Siegfried and the Spike projects to be in the "vicinity" and are past connected and cumulative actions when considered with this project. The effects to wildlife habitat and seral status from these two projects should be considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project. This has not been done.

7.) Other cumulative effects information that is required in order to determine the significance of impacts are missing from the Wildlife BA/BE and the seral stage analysis, namely unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitments. NEPA requires such information.

Overall, this inadequate cumulative effects analysis violates NEPA 40 CFR 1508.7.

Request for Relief: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to: utilize in all relevant analyses current photographic information and current field verification data relative to seral stages; conduct all relevant analyses such that unit-specific cutting prescriptions are the basis for analysis; conduct all necessary cumulative effects analyses that reflect the actual on-the-ground Red Clover DFPZ project, as shown in the June 23, 2000 map noted above, and to include all the necessary analysis noted in number 1-7 immediately above. Subsequently, the Ranger should be required to open the planning process to the DEA stage in order to allow the public an opportunity to comment.

The Ranger's decision was based on faulty analysis and was, therefore, inadequate. Specifically, on page 2 of the Decision Notice (DN) it states, "Regardless of the final decision on the group selection project, however, Alternative 2 of the DFPZ project itself is likely to have little negative impact on movement toward later seral stages (EA at 16); therefore, I am comfortable proceeding with the DFPZ project as described in the EA."

The FEA at page 16 states:

In contrast to the analysis on page 16, the Ranger's decision, and the original maps contained in the FEA, however, the Late Seral Emphasis Areas originally slated for hand thinning and/or under burning in the FEA are now going to be biomass thinned as noted on the new June 23, 2000, project map showing substantial post-FEA changes to cut unit boundaries and cutting prescriptions. Additionally, as explained in detail in the "DFPZ Prescription" and "Cumulative Effects" sections of this appeal, and shown in the photographs in Appendix I, stands are not being maintained at 40 percent canopy cover and strictly thinned from below.

Consequently, the Ranger's decision is arbitrary and not based on adequate analysis.

Relief Requested: Appellant hereby requests that the Regional Forester reverse the decision of the District Ranger and require the Ranger to issue a new decision based on adequate analysis contained within the FEA which is in turn based on the actual planned on-the-ground application of the proposed project as noted in the marking guidelines and the June 23 map noted above.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of August 2000.

John Preschutti Neil G. Dion