Kevin Elliott, Forest Supervisor 6750 Navigator Dr #150, Goleta, CA 93117 [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
August 14, 2020 Los Padres National Forest Attn: Kevin Elliott, Forest Supervisor 6750 Navigator Dr #150, Goleta, CA 93117 [email protected] Re: Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project Dear Mr. Elliott: Thank you for this opportunity to provide our initial comments on the Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project (“Project”) on Pine Mountain Ridge in the Mt. Pinos and Ojai Ranger Districts. The Project entails constructing a six-mile-long fuel break (755 acres total) along the ridge by masticating or clearing chaparral and by logging conifer trees up to 24” in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) as well as up to 64” DBH with some stipulations. The Project would potentially be accomplished through a timber sale or stewardship contract, either of which could involve commercial logging of large trees. The undersigned organizations support efforts to improve ecosystem health and protect communities from wildfires, and we work to ensure that vegetation treatment activities are undertaken with minimal impacts to wildlife, roadless areas, water supplies, and other forest resources. We also support the maintenance of defensible space immediately around structures along with programs to promote the construction and retrofitting of homes with fire- safe materials and design as the most effective ways to protect communities from wildfire. We have reviewed the Project Description in full, and we have several concerns about the Proposed Action and the potential lack of further documentation in an environmental assessment (“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”). We are deeply troubled by the fact that this is the third such project proposed within approximately two years using such a flawed approach to environmental review and public input, especially considering the overwhelming public outcry over the Project, including by several Chumash tribal organizations to whom the ancestral land of Pine Mountain (‘Opnow) is sacred. In addition, the Project constitutes yet another departure from previous commitments made by the U.S. Forest Service to prepare EAs. The agency even proposed a similar project for the Pine Mountain area in 20051 and, as a result of discussions with conservation groups2, committed to preparing an EA3 even though it was nearly one-quarter the size of the current Project. The former Pine Mountain Recreation Area Project was eventually cancelled in 20124, for unknown reasons, without an EA ever being prepared. Furthermore, the Project has been proposed in the wake of President Trump’s December 2018 Executive Order (13855)5, which directed the U.S. Forest Service to sell 3.8 billion board feet of timber by conducting such projects. An internal memo6 sent to Regional Foresters from the agency’s Acting Deputy Chief on May 30, 2019 and another internal memo7 sent from the Acting Deputy Chief on June 5, 2019 indicate that the Project may be intended to meet timber quotas with minimal environmental review rather than improving forest health. And the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture’s recent memo8 sent to Regional Foresters on August 10, 2020 further supports this view. We hereby submit the following comments regarding the Project. 1 U.S. Forest Service. June 3, 2005. Scoping letter, Pine Mountain Recreation Area Project. 2 Los Padres ForestWatch. July 6, 2005. Scoping comment letter, Pine Mountain Recreation Area Project. 3 U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Schedule of Proposed Actions (October). 4 U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Schedule of Proposed Actions (October). 5 President Donald J. Trump. December 21, 2018. EO on Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk. 6 U.S. Forest Service Acting Deputy Chief Christopher B. French. May 30, 2019. Internal memo to Regional Foresters regarding EO 13855. 7 U.S. Forest Service Acting Deputy Chief Christopher B. French. May 30, 2019. Internal memo to Regional Foresters regarding 2430 Rates (Low Value Forest Products). 8 U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. August 10, 2020. Internal memo to Regional Foresters. 2 1. THE FOREST SERVICE MUST PREPARE AN EA OR EIS BECAUSE THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. The scoping letter issued by the U.S. Forest Service states that the agency intends to approve the Proposed Action using two categorical exclusions (“CE”) under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (“HFRA”). These CEs are listed as: • Section 603 of HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591b), Insect and Disease Infestation • Section 605 of HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591d), Wildfire Resilience These CEs will henceforth be referred to as “CE 603” and “CE 605,” respectively. It is important to note that for a project to be carried out under CE 603, it must be one that: (b) Collaborative Restoration Project.— (1) In General.—A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project to carry out forest restoration treatments that— (A) maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease; (B) considers the best available scientific information to maintain or restore the ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring structure, function, composition, and connectivity; and (C) is developed and implemented through a collaborative process that— (i) includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests; and (ii)(I) is transparent and nonexclusive; or (II) meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125)…. (c) Limitations…. (2) Location.—A project under this section shall be limited to areas— (A) in the wildland-urban interface; or (B) Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban interface…. 3 (e) Forest Management Plans.—All projects and activities carried out under this section shall be consistent with the land and resource management plan established under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) for the unit of the National Forest System containing the projects and activities.9 The requirements for a project carried out under CE 605 are similar: (b) Collaborative Restoration Project.— (1) In General.—A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project to carry out forest restoration treatments that— (A) maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease, and reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, wildfires; (B) considers the best available scientific information to maintain or restore the ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring structure, function, composition, and connectivity; and (C) is developed and implemented through a collaborative process that— (i) includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests; and (ii)(I) is transparent and nonexclusive; or (II) meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125)…. (c) Limitations…. (2) Location.—A project under this section shall be— (A) Prioritized within the wildland-urban interface; 9 16 U.S.C. 6591b (emphasis added). 4 (B) If located outside the wildland-urban interface, limited to areas within Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III that contain very high wildfire hazard potential; and (C) Limited to areas designated under section 602(b) as of the date of enactment of this Act…. (e) Forest Management Plans.—All projects and activities carried out under this section shall be consistent with the land and resource management plan established under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) for the unit of the National Forest System containing the projects and activities.10 The Project does not meet the requirements under the above statutes for the reasons detailed below. A. The Project is not one that would maximize the retention of old-growth and large trees or promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease or wildfire. The Proposed Action would include the removal of trees up to 24” diameter at breast height (“DBH”) without stipulation and trees between 24” and 64” DBH for “safety reasons or dwarf mistletoe infestations” (also worded elsewhere in the Project Description as “if the trees are impacted by dwarf mistletoe”).11 We dispute that notion that only trees greater than 24” DBH should be considered “large” as the agency states in the Project Description. Our reasoning is explained in more detail in Section 3 of this letter. In short, previous projects in the Los Padres National Forest that involved tree removal for similarly stated purposes, and at least one that occurred in an IRA, imposed stricter size limits on the trees that could be removed. These limits were less than half of the limit being used for the Project, and they have vague exceptions that can allow for trees larger than the limit can easily be removed in the IRA. It is also important to note that conifers close to 24” may very well be “old-growth.” Hanson and Odion (2016)12 analyzed the diameter and age of dominant and codominant trees in yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests on the west side of the central and southern Sierra Nevada in areas that had been unlogged. Trees approximately 24” DBH (about 60 cm, which is the unit used by the researchers) were often 100 – 200 years old or more (Figure 1). Because these were dominant and codominant trees in similar forest types, they likely included species that are found in the Project Area.