Wild Watershed et. al. v. Hurlocker et. al.
January 15, 2019
Summary:
A programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
address the potentially significant impacts of mechanical clearing and
burning on potential wilderness (roadless areas), old growth habitat,
wildlife diversity, recreation and human health. The Hyde Park and
Pacheco Canyon projects must be permanently enjoined until NEPA is
fully complied with. pp. 1-2 and 27
NEPA and the 2014 Farm Bill:
Congress did not create an exception from NEPA for projects that
qualify for insect and disease treatment under the 2014 Farm bill.
Instead it set up a process in which projects could be categorically
excluded from detailed analysis under NEPA. These projects, including
Hyde Park and Pacheco Canyon, must still be given a hard look under
NEPA. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill requires that categorically
excluded projects be limited to 3000 acres, must maximize the retention
of old growth and large trees and consider the best available science.
The Forest Service cannot split these two projects apart under cover of
the 2014 Farm Bill in order to avoid doing a programmatic analysis of
impacts to the surrounding 100,000 acre Headwaters forest. Together the
Hyde Park and Pacheco Canyon projects total 4,383 acres. On-going and
planned projects in the surrounding forest cover nearly 22,000 acres of
largely potential wilderness. NEPA requires that the Forest Service
consider the potential cumulative effects of extensive mechanical
clearing and burning in the larger forested landscape. pp. 8-14
The public could not effectively comment on the projects because
supporting documents from Forest Service experts were not made
available. p. 6
Potential Wilderness (roadless areas):
Sixty-six percent of the two projects is within inventoried roadless areas
that have been proposed as additions to the Pecos Wilderness. The Forest
Service did not disclose the impacts to the wilderness character of
aggressive tree removal and burning or whether such actions would
preclude these areas from being protected as wilderness in the future.
The courts have consistently found that timber harvest would have
serious environmental consequences in roadless areas. Removing up to
90 percent of trees to reduce fuels would have similar impacts.
According to Forest Service reports, approximately 65% of trees over 9
inches diameter would be removed in mixed conifer forest and 75-90%
trees over 9 inches from ponderosa pine.
Old Growth Forests:
The Santa Fe forest plan establishes a minimum age of 180 years for old
growth ponderosa pine forests. There are “many” 180 year old
ponderosas in Hyde Park roadless areas according to the Forest Service.
Yet no old growth analysis was done. pp. 16 and 17
Former Forest Service planner Rich Fairbanks found that the
requirements of the forest plan to identify and protect old growth were
ignored. Also, ignored were the requirements of the 2014 Farm bill to
maximize the retention of old growth and large trees. pp. 19, 20
It is unlikely old growth will ever develop. The Forest Service
acknowledges that repeated treatments would preclude the development
of the late seral stages (old growth) and the warming climate could
prevent regeneration of future old growth. There is no strategy for
protecting existing or potential old growth or discussion of treatment
effects on old growth. p. 22
Northern goshawk and its prey, the tassel eared squirrel, depend on
mature and old growth forests. This coevolved relationship is key to the
continued existence of ponderosa pine forests. The status of their
populations is unknown because they are not monitored. Reducing
canopy cover below 40 percent will harm both species. The Forest
Service failed to address this concern during public comments or
consider the impacts of extensive habitat manipulation. pp. 22-24
Public Health:
The Headwaters forests would be burned annually for years to come. In
contrast, natural mixed severity wildfires happen once or twice in a
person’s lifetime. Annual low-intensity prescribed burning emits large
amounts of fine particulate matter and heavy metals, including mercury,
into the atmosphere causing adverse health effects even when complying
with air quality standards. According to health professionals, there is no
safe level of exposure below which adverse impacts are not observed.
The Forest Service failed to respond to these public health issues, saying
only that air quality standards will be complied with. pp. 24-26