PUBLIC COMMENT

Swa

Informations

• Publié par: Endre
• Nombre de lectures: 169
• Langue: English

Extrait

CLEAR CREEK FOREST HEALTH IMPROVEMENT AND
FUEL REDUCTION PROJECT

Response to Comments


GENERAL
PUBLIC COMMENT FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE
COMMENT #1 Thank you for this recommendation. The EA
[There is no definition on what constitutes “forest health” or the has been edited to clarify this point.
intent of the project until page 34 of the EA. This information
needs to be put in the front of the document.] (C-1)
Thank you for this recommendation. The EA COMMENT #2
[There are no definitions or explanations of the terms: activity has been edited to clarify these terms.
fuels, jackpot burning, or whole tree yarding. These terms need to
be explained in the document.] (C-1)
COMMENT #3 A table showing design feature implementation
[Is there really follow-up on the monitoring plans outlined in the and monitoring has been added to the EA
EA? Is there a progress-report on the monitoring that can be Appendices. Past monitoring results are
reviewed by the interested public?] (C-1) available upon request.
This comment is outside the scope of the COMMENT #4
[For trails that would not be planned for use within the next two proposed action. This concern can be better
years.] “…trails on steep slopes and those crossing sensitive areas addressed through the Forest’s Travel
be closed to off highway vehicles and stabilized to prevent further Management decision process.
soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses.” (C-4)
This comment is irrelevant to the proposed COMMENT #5
“The private property areas near the Project area are not in any action. Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI)
great threat from wildfires. It appears that the residents have Defense Zone treatments are addressed in the
adequately cleared around their property to provide maximum Valley View Fuels Reduction Project decision
protection.” (C-5) process.
As noted in the Proposed Action and throughout COMMENT #6
“Most trees I saw which are marked for killing (blue paint), the EA, thinning occurs for more than fire alone.
especially the larger ones, are not very vulnerable to fire.” (C-5)
This comment is a general expression of opinion COMMENT #7
“…I find the Project proposal to be unnecessary and ineffective for for which we have no technical reply.
fire prevention and, in fact, detrimental to the forest ecosystem.”
(C-5)
COMMENT #8 Comments that state a position for or against a
“Thinning to a maximum of 19.9 inches dbh [in Alternative A] will specific alternative are appreciated as this gives
not accomplish the residual spacing desired for forest health and the Forest Service a sense of the public’s feeling
fuel reduction. The requirement of helicopter logging on part of and beliefs about a proposed course of action.
the sale is not economically feasible”. (C-6, C-8) Alternative B was developed to respond to these
significant issues.
As noted in the EA (pg 41) natural wildfires in COMMENT #9
“You propose to reduce the forest cover by [to] a minimum of the southern Sierra thin trees and reduce fuels on
40%, to control the location and proportion of forest species, and to a 10-25 year cycle. One of the objectives of the
simulate the natural burn cycles in a hopefully modified form. The project is to begin the process of restoring fire to
implications of this are that this would be the first of an ongoing its natural role in the ecology. The project is
series of such projects to be continued for as long as the forest and anticipated to take 15 years to complete at which
the funding endure.” (C-9) time naturally caused fires could be allowed to
burn under certain conditions (Wildland Use
Fire).

Clear Creek Forest Health Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Page 1 of 22
Appendix C: Response to Public Comments GENERAL
PUBLIC COMMENT FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE
COMMENT #10 No new roads are to be constructed or
“Your proposal also sadly includes the building of additional reconstructed Preliminary EA (pg 8). Some
temporary roads in the area. There are already far too many roads temporary roads will be constructed as
in the forest and unless the new roads were completely obliterated necessary but will be obliterated and returned to
after use, they would likely become yet more user-created pre-existing condition after use.
motorcycle routes.” Any new roads need to be identified in the
EA. (C-7, C-9)
COMMENT #11 While trail use may be mostly by motorcyclists,
“I would also take exception to your observation (p. 48) that trails the trails in the project area are available to all
in the area serve a “diverse group of recreation users.” … “In truth, single-track trail users.
over 90% of trail use is by motorcyclists.” (C-9)
COMMENT #12 This comment is outside scope of this analysis,
“If you really want to know how people feel, why not ask the thank you for your concern.
homeowners in Alta Sierra where your fuels reduction project is
now complete? I understand that some of them are planning on
selling their homes and moving out because of the deforestation.”
(C-9)
COMMENT #13 Flight distance may be the primary factor
“… helicopter logging of the steep slopes might not be influencing cost for aerial logging systems.
‘economically feasible,’ and that you might not keep these in the Distance is directly proportional to cost.
final decision. … the north-facing white fir forests are in desperate Therefore you need to locate landings as close to
need of thinning. I would propose even 11-29 inch logs be the harvest unit as possible. A medium-sized
included… … would it not make more sense to allow the helicopter has an operating cost of $4,300/hour,
helicopters to take those logs down the west-facing slopes to a so minimizing flight time and maximizing
landing somewhere on the Bodfish-Havilah road… This is one productivity is crucial. A general rule is that the
place where cutting up to 29” trees would benefit the groves and center of your harvest unit must be less than 0.5
‘sweeten the pot’ for the logging contract. Let the lumber mill miles from your landing with a vertical flight
decide whether they want the trees – make that a separate bid, but grade less than 28%. Power lines, roads,
give them a chance.” (C-7) railroads, and structures also affect the flight
path of a loaded helicopter. The Bodfish-
Havilah road is approximately 7-8 miles from
the south end of the project area (Piute Peak).
Locating a landing there would be too far, too
steep, and too costly.
COMMENT #14 The Preliminary EA page 5, describes the
“You mention protecting communities – yet the project area really project area including a portion of the Valley
isn’t very near Claraville at all, and really not that close to Valley View Wildland-Urban Intermix Threat Zone.
View. How does this project protect them”? (C-7) Treatments in the Threat Zone are designed to
provide a buffer and augment the proposed
treatments in the Defense Zone adjacent to the
homes at Valley View.
Claraville is too far removed from the Clear
Creek Project area to be affected by fuels
treatments.
COMMENT #15 The FlamMap fire prediction model was used to
“The Clear Creek Forest Health Fuels Reduction Project EA fails predict fire behavior in the project area
to provide scientific evidence to prove that implementing the (Preliminary EA, pages 41-47). The
project would contribute to human safety.” (C-11) relationship between fire behavior and human
safety is discussed in the EA and Fuels Analysis
Working Paper (Chambers 2006).



Clear Creek Forest Health Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Page 2 of 22
Appendix C: Response to Public Comments GENERAL
PUBLIC COMMENT FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE
COMMENT #16 See Preliminary working document pages 21-23
“The Clear Creek Forest Health Fuels Reduction Project EA fails & 49-67; final BA/BE.
to protect wildlife habitat and could cost taxpayers millions to
damage forest habitat so that trees could be shipped to the
sawmill.” (C-11)
COMMENT #17 The purpose and need for this project is two-fold
The analysis should “consider the effectiveness of achieving the as described on pages 5-7 of the EA. The
desired fuels reduction outcome of the lowest impact treatments alternative suggested does not meet both the
first, before considering the use of treatments with a higher impact fuels reduction ad the forest health objectives.
on the ecosystem. For example, if removing only the brush, lower As described on pages 15-16 of the EA, only
limbs, and some small diameter trees less than 4 inches in diameter thinning small trees would not provide enough
would achieve the required live crown base height and flame growing space for residual trees to remain
length, while retaining the most crown cover, then this treatment healthy into the future. Thinning some of the
should be implemented. If this treatment is insufficient …then larger live trees is needed to do this.
removing more limbs should be implemented before considering
removing larger trees and their canopy cover.” (C-11)


FOREST HEALTH/SILVICULTURE
PUBLIC COMMENT FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE
Fifty percent overstory and fifty percent COMMENT #18
“…riparian vegetation should be protected by no-operation understory does not cu