Each issue against the decision not yet reviewed

• PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe fire behavior modeling in Table 14 shows a dramatic post-treatment result - 100% surface fire, zero crown fire, zero flame lengths above 4 feet - but the EA never explains whether this modeled outcome assumes all 23 units are fully implemented simultaneously or sequentially, or what the fire behavior would be during the multi-year implementation window.

  The fire behavior modeling in Table 14 shows a dramatic post-treatment result - 100% surface fire, zero crown fire, zero flame lengths above 4 feet - but the EA never explains whether this modeled outcome assumes all 23 units are fully implemented simultaneously or sequentially, or what the fire behavior would be during the multi-year implementation window.

  The document states short-term effects cover '0 to 10 years' and the most disturbance-intensive activities will take 'about five years,' meaning the landscape will be in a transitional, slash-laden condition for years. The agency should disclose modeled fire behavior during implementation, not only post-treatment, before concluding no significant impact.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe hydrology section acknowledges that White Pine Creek has an approved TMDL for both sedimentation/siltation and temperature, yet Table 15 shows a 192% increase in average annual sediment leaving the buffer at the Middle Fork of Set Creek crossing and a 236% increase at the West Fork of Larch Creek crossing during implementation.

  The hydrology section acknowledges that White Pine Creek has an approved TMDL for both sedimentation/siltation and temperature, yet Table 15 shows a 192% increase in average annual sediment leaving the buffer at the Middle Fork of Set Creek crossing and a 236% increase at the West Fork of Larch Creek crossing during implementation.

  The EA dismisses these increases by saying the model 'does not consider road upgrades' and the sediment is 'unlikely' to reach White Pine Creek, but offers no quantitative demonstration that these sediment loads stay below TMDL thresholds. The agency should provide a TMDL consistency analysis with actual load numbers before signing a FONSI.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis

  “Increased traffic is expected to cause an increase of sediment delivery to streams during implementation but is expected to recover to pre-project levels within one to two years after implementation has concluded.”

  The agency’s own words, Flat Tail Project Final FONSI ↗, Water Resources and Aquatic Habitat · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe noxious weeds section rates both the likelihood of weed spread and the consequence of establishment as 'Moderate,' yielding a 'Moderate' overall risk, and acknowledges that approximately 626 acres of regeneration harvest will remove the most overstory canopy and create the greatest solar insolation for weed establishment.

  The noxious weeds section rates both the likelihood of weed spread and the consequence of establishment as 'Moderate,' yielding a 'Moderate' overall risk, and acknowledges that approximately 626 acres of regeneration harvest will remove the most overstory canopy and create the greatest solar insolation for weed establishment.

  Yet Table 17 offers no quantitative post-treatment monitoring commitment - only a general statement to 'monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years.' The design features require herbicide treatment of haul routes but contain no requirement to survey regeneration units for new infestations before declaring the project complete. The agency should require documented pre- and post-treatment weed surveys in all regeneration units and bind the purchaser to treatment if new infestations are detected within a defined timeframe.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis

  “Soil disturbance increases short‑term risk of weed introduction, an irretrievable impact, mitigated through prevention, monitoring, and treatment.”

  The agency’s own words, Flat Tail Project Final FONSI ↗, Noxious Weeds · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe scenery section discloses in Table 19 that 20 of the project's harvest units currently do not meet the Scenic Integrity Objective of 'High' as seen from identified viewpoints, meaning the baseline is already degraded.

  The scenery section discloses in Table 19 that 20 of the project's harvest units currently do not meet the Scenic Integrity Objective of 'High' as seen from identified viewpoints, meaning the baseline is already degraded.

  The EA then proposes regeneration harvest - including three openings over 40 acres - in units that are visible from Highway 200 and the Big Beaver Creek and White Pine Creek Roads, and concludes only that effects 'may be noticeable' and will recover in the 'mid and long-term.' No quantitative visual contrast rating or simulation is provided to demonstrate that post-harvest conditions will remain subordinate to scenic character as required under the SIO 'High' standard. The agency should provide visual simulations or contrast ratings for the units visible from concern-level viewpoints before concluding the project meets Forest Plan scenic standards.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis

  “Although management actions would be noticeable in the short term because of the proposed action, as vegetation begins to re-establish, and through application of design features, scenic resources would trend towards Forest Plan desired conditions (Scenic Report, pages 6-7 and 10).”

  The agency’s own words, Flat Tail Project Final FONSI ↗, Determination of No Significant Impacts · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part