June 22, 1999
Julie King, District Ranger
Heber Ranger District
2460 S. Highway 40
Heber, UT 84032
Dear Julie:
The Utah Environmental Congress (UEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Revised Predecisional EA for the proposed Dry Hollow Timber Sales.
Purpose and Need:
The EA states the "primary purpose for the proposed action is to act in a timely manner to reduce the risk of epidemic spruce beetle activity, and to regenerate Engelmann spruce within the analysis area." The EA further states that treatment is needed to improve the health and vigor of trees and reduce their risk to beetle attack…. Treatment is also needed to establish additional Engelmann spruce regeneration before widespread loss of the overstory trees and associated seed source eliminates the opportunity for natural regeneration. The UEC disagrees with these assertions and according to the EA, the DFC for the analysis area includes an "emphasis on maintaining and improving water quality, recreation opportunities, and visual resources (LRMP page 3-186). In addition, the EA states the sub-regional assessment of PFC for the Uinta Mountains indicates that the distribution of the vegetation types for this area are within historic ranges and that risk of losing the spruce-fir type is low for the entire Uinta Mountain range (EA page 5).
The preferred alternative is identified as Alternative B and the application of prescribed fire to regenerate about 196 acres of aspen (part of Alternative E). The UEC strongly objects to the proposed prescribed fire and suggests the Uinta delete this portion of the alternative from further consideration. The UEC will go into detailed comments regarding the prescribed fire later on in these comments, however, the proposed fire will violate the DFC for the area, as well as violate the goals and objectives associated with other resource values. For example, the Silviculture standards and guidelines in the LRMP state that "Reforested areas are to be protected from fire……until regeneration is fully established." The EA acknowledges that current regeneration of 40 years will be destroyed by the prescribed fire (EA page 27).
The UEC notes here that is strongly objects to "certain road management objectives could be accomplished using funding generated by a commercial timber sale." The UEC encourages the Uinta National Forest to enforce the LRMP when road violations occur and to close roads that are causing resource damage or being used illegally, because it is the right thing to do. These activities should not be tied to or relied upon by commercial timber harvest. The Uinta NF needs to budget accordingly and request appropriations for road closure activities and quit tying them into timber harvest plans.
Location:
The legal description of the proposed area is Sections 25-28 & 33-36 T3S, R9E of the Salt Lake Meridian. The EA states the project does not occur in an identified roadless area, however, Sections 28 and 33 are included in the Wild Utah Forest Campaign's roadless area inventory for the Uinta NF. Although the maps in the EA (which are lousy at best) imply that actual logging will not occur in sections 28 and 33, the UEC requests that the final EA acknowledge these sections in WUFC's survey.
Affected Environment:
The UEC is still confused about the area in question. The EA is contradictory and we request that the final EA include percentages of the affected area in question. For example, on page 4 the EA states that stands are primarily multi-ages with many age classes present. Ages range from new germinants to trees in excess of 200 years. Then page 5 states that "most" of the coniferous stands in the analysis area have been logged over, and much of the area has been logged more than once. The most recent harvest occurred during the mid 1970's and the heaviest cutting occurred during the post WW II building boom of the 1940's and 1950's. Then page 24 states that harvest activities have altered "some" stand conditions and "reducing overall risk of insect outbreaks" and….. "despite harvest activities, the project and surrounding areas are composed primarily of mature trees, and there is a general lack of immature stands." In the old growth section of the EA on page 32, it states that the 10% old growth structure is being met presumably for the analysis area. It further states that 44% of the mature spruce-fir timber type on the Heber District has been logged. The UEC requests the final EA include percentages for the remaining old growth habitat structure in the Heber District, analysis area and project area. We also request percentages of the spruce-fir component that has been logged for the District, analysis area and project area. The UEC also requests that the insect susceptibility and risk ratings for the project area be contained in the final EA.
ISSUES:
Protection of Regeneration:
According to the EA, under all action alternatives, protection of regeneration would be funded using timber receipts from the KV program (EA page 13). Are these KV funds currently secured from other projects, or are they contingent upon the timber sale receipts from the Dry Hollow sales? The UEC requests this information be included in the final EA.
The UEC also requests clarification on the following statement found on page 31 of the EA: "The necessary regeneration protection fences, road closure fences or gates, or any meadow protection fences would not be a barrier to wildlife migration through the area. The fences would not be tied into existing fences and they would be constructed to allow wildlife passage around or over them." Just exactly how will these fences keep cows out but allow wildlife through?
Wetland Site Protection:
The project to protect one wetland site just SE of the junctions of roads 70089 and 70566 does not appear to be guaranteed. The EA states "should sufficient funds be available, this project would be funded using timber receipts allocated to it through the KV program" (page 14). Again, the UEC is opposed to any mitigation measures offered without a guarantee that it will actually be implemented. If funds are not available for protection, no activities should occur that will jeopardize this wetland site.
Furthermore, the UEC strongly objects to the continued degradation of the wet meadow complex by road 70551 and the Uinta NF's unwillingness to correct the problem on its own merits, rather than tying it in with a commercial logging project. This is a clear violation of the wetland standards in the LRMP.
Riparian Protection:
The EA states on page 19 that Streamside management zones would be implemented with no ground disturbance occurring within 35 to 50 feet of intermittent streams depending on slopes. The UEC suggests the distance should be no less than 100 feet. According to the LRMP "Riparian areas are defined "to include a 100-foot strip (measured from water's edge) on each side of all perennial streams and a 100-foot strip around the perimeter of lakes" (page 3-66).
In addition, the EA states "wetlands would be avoided with the exception of several intermittent drainage crossings" (page 19). However, the LRMP states "Avoid undertaking new construction in flood plains, wetlands, and riparian habitats unless adequate mitigating measures can be accomplished which will maintain or improve existing undeveloped flood plains, wetlands, and riparian habitats" (page 3-62). There is no mention in the EA of maintaining or improving additional existing wetlands in exchange for the proposed impact to the intermittent drainage crossings.
Gopher Control:
The UEC is opposed to using poison for gopher control. Although we appreciate the requirements to protect non-target wildlife species and prevent leaching into stream courses, pocket gophers are a native species. In addition, cattle grazing (which we will address later in these comments) is more of a threat to regeneration than gophers, and cattle are not a native species. The UEC requests that the final EA look at alternatives to poisoning.
Alternatives Under Consideration:
The UEC is opposed to all of the action alternatives at this time. The sheer volume of this sale is not consistent with the Uinta NF LRMP. On page 2-18 of the Plan, it states that "Production [timber and wood fiber] levels will be reduced from the current 2.5 MMBF to 1.9 MMBF annually. See also Table 3-1 (Correction #1, 8/95) 3-3 of the LRMP. Even with the original 2.5 MMBF figure, the Dry Hollow sales at 6 MMBF is more than double the ASQ. In addition, until the UEC receives the information requested under "Affected Environment", we cannot be assured that this large scale timber sale will not significantly affect the environment.
Wildlife Protection:
Habitat:
The EA repeatedly states that wildlife can rely on the many steeper slopes and more remote areas (roadless and wilderness) that have not been harvested (pages 25,34). However, in the discussion on three-toed woodpeckers, the EA concedes that habitat (snags) and prey (beetles) will be limited by the proposed action alternatives. Page 32 states "Over 10% of the mature timber in the analysis area would not be harvested due to steeper slopes, thereby retaining adequate habitat within the area." The EA then states that "Neighboring project areas and areas with steep slopes within the project area would all continue to provide adequate levels of prey for the woodpecker" (page 34). This statement infers that these areas are infested with beetles. Considering the EA predicts dire consequences if salvage logging does not occur in the area, how can the Uinta NF expect to maintain viable populations of TES and MIS and their habitat, if relying upon beetle infested areas to provide for their needs? It appears the only reason the Uinta NF is not logging these areas is because of the steep slopes. Since they are "useless" for commercial timber, they are allowed to exist for wildlife habitat. Indeed, the EA states on page 32 and 33 "The majority of this habitat type occurs in wilderness or roadless areas, or is on too steep of slopes to conduct management activities on." The Uinta NF cannot have it both ways. This issue must be exhaustively addressed in the final EA.
Habitat Fragmentation:
According to the EA, all action alternatives will increase the level of habitat fragmentation and will create a greater amount of edge habitat along openings. This will increase 'edge species' such as coyotes and brown-headed cowbirds and reduce habitat use by species preferring a more dense forest (page 31). The EA states that effects on T,E, and S species under all action alternatives will be a sufficiently reduced forest canopy rendering some project areas as unsuitable for denning habitat and that prey availability for lynx may be interrupted should hares be displaced. Considering the vast majority of TES and MIS species in the area require a more dense interior forest and the Wildlife Land Management Plan Direction for the area states "Manage Forest habitat to provide and maintain viable and well distributed fish and wildlife populations to avoid or eliminate threatened, endangered, and sensitive classifications", the UEC again questions the rationale for this project.
Song Birds:
Page 29 of the EA states "Some song bird nests may be removed by harvest activities in the summer season." We believe this to be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Boise National Forest in Idaho, which is also in Region 4 of the USFS, has dealt with the situation in the past. In USFWS comments (May 1997) on the proposed Deadwood timber sale on the Boise NF, it stated:
"Federal Agencies are required to ensure that their decisions comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat 755, as amended). The MBTA prohibits the take of migratory birds, nests, eggs and nestlings. The Federal list of migratory birds (50CRF10 April 15, 1985) includes nearly every native bird species found in the State of Idaho, including Northern flicker. The DEIS does not accurately represent MBTA requirements.
The UEC requests that this issue be examined in the final EA.
Elk and Mule Deer:
The EA failed to include current Habitat Effectiveness Ratings for hiding and thermal cover in the area for these species. The EA does state that summer cooling areas would be maintained particularly in non-harvested areas. Does this mean that summer cooling areas will be logged in the project area? The EA also states that hiding cover would be protected by leaving buffer strips, but both hiding cover and thermal cover would further be reduced if the prescribed fire occurred. The UEC requests that the final EA include habitat effectiveness ratings for hiding and thermal cover, for current conditions and projections if Alternatives B and/or E are implemented. We also request percentage figures for open areas versus interior forest. The EA states that an increase in forage will result for big game across all action alternatives but fails to demonstrate that forage is a limiting factor in the area.
Lynx:
The UEC requests that the informal consultation results with the USFWS be included in the final EA. In addition, the BE/BA states "The proposed project may affect the lynx in terms of potential habitat and continue the likelihood that lynx individuals would not immigrate to the project area, however the project is not likely to adversely affect the lynx in its current populations or habitat." How does the Uinta NF know this if the research effort to document lynx use in the Uinta Mountains to assess logging activity effects and presence/absence of lynx has not even begun yet? The UEC requests a full explanation in the final EA.
Boreal Owls:
The UEC requests the results of nest protection efforts that are ongoing in other active timber sales (EA page 34) be displayed in the final EA. The UEC strongly objects to nest stands associated with the boreal owl and other bird species not receiving preferential treatment due to cost. Considering the Forest Service timber sale program lost $1 Billion overall in 1997, it's not too much to ask the Forest Service to provide adequate protection for a public resource. Furthermore, the mitigation for Alternative E, if selected, states "protect known sensitive species nests to the extent practicable by lining the tree or trees to prevent ignition in advance of lighting any areas." The EA states that surveys will be conducted so this nest information should be known prior to implementation of any action alternative. As mentioned previously, all action alternatives will impact habitat requirements for boreal owls and other old growth dependent species. The BA/BE (page 8) states "Cumulative effects may be higher [for the boreal owl] than for other species as dense mature forest structure would be altered toward a younger age stand." And, "indirect effects to prey species may also occur as fewer voles would likely be in harvested areas" - the red-backed vole being the primary prey of the boreal owl. The landscape assessment to assess habitat connectivity and old growth habitat for the district is not scheduled for completion until the summer of 1999. The UEC suggests the "no affect" rubber stamped for this species and all others is arbitrary and capricious.
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout:
The BA/BE states on page 10 that there will be a short term increase in sediment generated directly in the project area due to harvesting activities, and it would be more pronounced is the prescribed burn is implemented. The UEC requests the current sediment percentage rate and the projected sediment rate if the project is implemented under Alternative B and/or E be displayed in the final EA.
Rangeland:
According to the EA, the Wolf Creek and Soapstone allotment permittees would have to switch to a deferred grazing system from the current rest-rotation system. Would a new EA be written for these allotments? The UEC requests the final EA explain the difference between a deferred and rest-rotation grazing system, and how a deferred system will affect the area.
Objections to Alternative E - Prescribed Fire
The UEC is opposed to Alternative E for a variety of reasons. First of all, this is not a prescribed fire in the context of mimicking a natural fire, rather it is prefaced with a commercial timber harvest. As mentioned previously, the fire would destroy current regeneration which is a LRMP violation. The EA states that effects to insects and disease from fire are "less certain" (page 27) which hardly meets the criteria for meeting the purpose and need for the project. Indeed, the EA states that "there may be some need for additional salvage harvest after the prescribed fire. Furthermore, according to the Jenkins (1998) citation in the EA, "Silvicultural treatments involving timber harvest alone have also been identifiable as acceptable means of achieving sustainable stand dynamics for the spruce-fir type" (page 27).
The prescribed fire would remove some of the microsites needed to ensure spruce-fir regeneration in the short-term and long-term, thereby more reforestation planting would be necessary with this alternative increasing costs over the other alternatives and requiring further gopher control measures. The burn would displace more wildlife and bird nest stands would not be protected. In addition, potential denning and nesting habitat for cavity nesters would be further removed, and foraging habitat would likely be modified to the extent that birds would not return to the area in the short-term and possibly the long-term (page 34).
The prescribed burning would increase sediment transported off the project area into downstream sources (page 35) and cultural resources may be lost if the burn got out of control (page 37). Finally, the EA concedes that if prescribed burning occurs, effects could be expected to continue for the next 200 years. The cumulative effects analysis does not address any resource value for the next 200 years. It is clear that if a prescribed fire is proposed for this area, significant impacts to the environment will occur requiring the completion of a full scale EIS.
ATV Trail:
The UEC fully supports the closure of all interior roads in the area reducing the road densities from 3.57 miles per square mile to 0.62 miles per square mile. The BE for the project supports this option. "It would be preferable from a wildlife perspective to close all interior roads to any motorized use" (BA/BE page 3). The UEC will state again it is opposed to rewarding illegal activity. The EA states that 12 miles of road have been illegally used by ATV's and an open ATV trail will become of greatest concern as populations increase and more people use the area, displacing more wildlife. The EA further states that it should be noted that ATV disturbances have occurred for the past 5-10 years and many species have adjusted or sought habitat elsewhere (page 30). The UEC notes here that the Heber District has allowed ATV violations for 5-10 years and has violated its mandate to protect TES and MIS populations and habitat, by deferring to illegal activity.
The UEC believes the creation of the proposed ATV trail is a violation of 36 CFR 295.2(a) which states:
On National Forest system lands, the continuing land management planning process will be used to allow, restrict, or prohibit use by specific vehicle types off roads. This process will include coordination with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. The planning process will analyze and evaluate current and potential impacts arising from operation of specific vehicle types on soil, water, vegetation, fish and wildlife, forest visitors and cultural and historic resources. If the analysis indicates that the use of one or more vehicle types off roads will cause considerable adverse effects on the resources or other forest visitors, use of the affected areas and trails by the vehicle type or types likely to cause such adverse effects will be restricted or prohibited until such time as the adverse effects can be eliminated as provided in 36CFR 261.
Furthermore, sub-section (b) (2) states:
Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.
The proposed ATV trail will cause considerable adverse effects to wildlife populations and use of the area. It will contribute to wildlife harassment, particularly during the hunting season for big game species, as well as impact potential use as a wildlife corridor for lynx. This trail should be prohibited and all interior roads should be closed.
Economics:
The EA states on page 39 "This level of proposed timber harvesting would not have any cumulative effects on the economics of the local economies. The proposed level does not increase or decrease the average amount of timber available to local companies." Under the purpose and need section of the EA, a secondary purpose of the project is to provide a supply of sawtimber needed by dependent timber industry (page 2). It is clear that the proposed project will not meet this purpose either. From an economic and environmental standpoint, the Dry Hollow timber sales are not warranted.
Conclusion:
The Utah Environmental Congress is opposed to the proposed Dry Hollow timber sales for the reasons stated. We recommend this short-sighted project be dropped from further consideration as it fails to meet the purpose and need, will cause significant environmental impacts, and is economically challenged and unwarranted. Sufficient information exists to require the development of a full scale EIS if this project is to proceed. In addition, the proposed ATV trail is a clear violation of NEPA. Please forward the final decision and associated documents to our office.
Sincerely,
Denise Boggs, Executive Director
