Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Response and Concern Status Report Generated: 6/22/2018 12:48 PM Project: Chetco Fire Salvage Project (53150) Comment Period: Other - 30-Day Comment and ESD Comment Period Period Dates: 4/16/2018 - 5/16/2018 and 5/18/2018 - 6/18/2018 Name Comment Text Response Text Comment # ESD Comments Received 5/18/2018 - 6/18/2018 Vaile, Joseph 1-2 An ESD may prove counterproductive to the goals of the agency, if it The Forest Service has been engaging the public in a robust and thorough process since the prevents meaningful mitigation measures to the proposed action. The Chetco Bar fire began. Refer also to the response to comment 1-1 for more information on use of the ESD may prevent the Forest Service from engaging the public design criteria and evaluation for feasibility. in a robust and thorough planning process that could be accomplished through an objection process. Page 1 of 341 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Name Comment Text Response Text 1-5 Please note that the discussion of the agency's desire for an ESD at page The EA states "An additional consideration is the health and safety of forest visitors and 2-6 of the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage EA makes reference to a concern for nearby private landowners due to numerous dead trees, as well as Forest Service staff and "the health and safety of forest visitors." We wholeheartedly agree that forest industry workers working in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project area. Traveling or this is a legitimate concern. Yet, the roadside hazard tree projects working in forests where the majority of trees have been killed by fire is inherently addressing health and safety concerns have already been approved and dangerous. By delaying the sale date until late October of 2018 or later, there would be an are currently being implemented in the fire area. The pending ESD increased risk to forest visitors, nearby private landowners, Forest Service staff, timber request deals specifically with unit salvage logging, not with safe fallers and/or equipment operators in the project area. This is due to the ongoing ingress, or travel in the planning area. deterioration of snags because of increased defect, weathering agents, over-wintering, and other environmental factors. Snags that would be felled in the summer of 2018 for timber harvest would have fewer defects and provide less relative risk to forest workers." Additionally the ESD describes that "high densities of standing snag hazards would pose a safety risk to forest users, nearby private landowners, and fire fighters in the future. Snags can fall at any time, posing a continued threat to people working and recreating in the forest. Hazards to crews working to reforest burned areas and crews conducting future fire suppression are also a concern. While not all dead trees would be salvaged within the proposed units, safety hazards to work crews conducting tree planting and fire suppression would be substantially mitigated by salvage tree removal. Areas not treated along private land boundaries would leave high densities of standing snag hazards which could pose a safety risk to private land owners. Future fire starts may occur in the area and suppression activities would be dictated by the snag loading of the area and safety risks to fire fighters working in the area. Areas not treated along private land boundaries would increase these safety risks and make suppression activities along private land boundaries problematic in the future." 1-4 Specifically, we remain concerned with streamside protection and the The EA found that the action alternatives evaluated in Chapter 3 had no effect to critical need for input from the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop habitat for SONCC coho salmon. If no direct or indirect effects are anticipated from the meaningful avoidance and mitigation strategies. Our desire is to ensure action alternatives, then no cumulative effects can occur from the proposed activities. protection for clean water and salmonids. Likewise, we urge the Forest 1-1 We appreciate the Forest Service focusing some of the post fire logging Thank you for your comment, we understand your concerns. We are confident the proposed in this project in previously managed plantations and in areas evaluation for feasibility described in the EA, Chapter 1 and the design criteria described in outside of roadless areas. We also look forward to more management the EA, Appendix A for the project will minimize or avoid potential adverse effects of the in the Chetco watershed that focuses on watershed health and action alternatives. Page 2 of 341 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Name Comment Text Response Text 1-3 With the ESD, we are concerned that the agency will be unable to All substantive comments raised during the scoping period and the 30-day comment period integrate site-specific, substantive concerns raised in the planning on the Draft EA have been addressed appropriately. In fact, the January 2018 scoping letter process into project layout and implementation. We hope that this is described the need to capture timber value in the matrix land allocations that experienced not the case, and stand ready to work with the Forest to address these 50-100 percent basal area loss, about 13,626 acres. The letter stated these areas would be concerns before a final decision is made. evaluated for feasibility of treatment and that the treatment acreage would be reduced further, due to a combination of factors. The evaluation for feasibility has been ongoing and has reduced acres to 4,090 due to removing inventoried roadless areas (IRA), removing units lacking economically viable products, logging systems operability and accessibility, locating and avoiding unmapped riparian reserves, and considerations for post-fire wildlife habitat and other resources. (EA at 1-1) Additionally, project specific design criteria have been developed to minimize or avoid potential adverse effects of the action alternatives. (EA, Appendix A) All applicable best management practices (BMPs) for watershed and vegetative management would be used to enable the achievement of water quality standards (General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service 2011). (EA at 2-7) 30-Day Comments Received 4/16/2018 - 5/16/2018 Avritt, Carrie 8-4 I understand that some logging may be necessary for safety reasons As of May 25, Oregon Department of Forestry has received notification of operations on such as along roads, but elsewhere the forest should be left alone, 6,421 acres from private land owners. The Draft EA at page 3-3 estimated private land especially in light of the thousands of acres of private lands nearby that salvage on about 9,455 acres for cumulative effects analysis. are already being clearcut. 8-3 If left alone, the post-fire landscape here will provide essential habitat The effects to northern spotted owl and coho salmon are displayed in the EA, Chapter 3 for imperiled wildlife like northern spotted owls and coho salmon -- two Fisheries and Aquatic Biota section. Specifically, the Proposed Action would likely adversely species that are barely hanging on. affect habitat and by disturbance, Alternative 3 would not likely adversely affect habitat but would likely adversely affect by disturbance. Both action alternatives would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to coho salmon. Refer to the EA, Chapter 3 Fisheries and Aquatic Biota section for the entire effects analysis. 8-1 I'm writing to urge you to reconsider your plan to log more than 4,000 The No Action alternative addresses your concerns. acres of public lands in the Chetco River region of the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Page 3 of 341 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Name Comment Text Response Text Anthony, Hal 45-1 The logging will, as usual, simply create more fire danger in a time of The effects to fuel loads is described in the EA, Chapter 3 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality section. climate temperature change that is already, as you well know, more than devastating communities. Letting in more sunlight so a weensy few people make millions is wrong, and you kinow that. Fronce, Linnea 91-1 Birds and animals need dead trees for homes. And last time I read The purpose of the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project is to capture timber value in the matrix about logging the fire ravaged areas in CA they were cutting down live land allocations by harvesting dead, dying and/or damaged trees resulting from the 2017 trees as well. Basically clear cutting everything. That doesn't sound like Chetco Bar fire. (EA at 1-4) Additionally, the No Action alternative addresses your concerns. safety measures. Anderson Kathleen 104-1 This is a treasured wild area. Let the recovery happen naturally. Logging The No Action alternative addresses your concerns. machinery disrupts the soil and recovery of the forest. Oliveria sheelagh 126-1 Clearcutting in Oregon is archaic and totally irresponsible. Foresters The effects to soils are described in the EA, Chapter 3 Soils section. say, "it comes back". It never comes back. This is pure ignorance. I am a botanist who pays attention. The forests on Mt Hood have at the most 3" of topsoil/duff as compared to 3' deep soils that were here before white people. You are damning your children to an earth without oxygen. perreault herve 147-1 I urge Forest Service decision makers to bring communities and The No action alternative addresses your concerns about " avoiding post-fire clearcut stakeholders together by avoiding post-fire clearcut logging and new logging and new road construction in the Chetco River Watershed ".