United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region One Northern Region 200 East Broadway Missoula, MT 59802 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper File Code: 1570 (215) #11-01-00-0006 Date: April 7, 2011 Richard Artley 415 NE 2nd Street Grangeville, ID 83530 Dear Mr. Artley: This is my decision on disposition of the appeal you filed on the Preacher Dewey Decision Notice (DN) on the Clearwater National Forest. My review of your appeal was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.18 to ensure the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I have reviewed the appeal record, including your arguments, the information referenced in the Forest Supervisor’s March 15, 2011, transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and recommendation (copy enclosed). The transmittal letter provides the specific page references to discussions in the DN, Environmental Assessment, and project file, which bear upon your objections. I specifically incorporate into this decision the appeal record, the references and citations contained in the transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and recommendation. The Appeal Reviewing Officer has considered your arguments, the appeal record, and the transmittal letter and recommends the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed and your requested relief be denied. Based upon a review of the references and citations provided by the Forest Supervisor, I find the objections were adequately considered in the DN. I agree with the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and conclusions in regard to your appeal objections. I find the Forest Supervisor has made a reasoned decision and has complied with all laws, regulations, and policy. After careful consideration of the above factors, I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement the Preacher Dewey project. Your requested relief is denied. My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR 215.18(c)]. Sincerely, /s/ Paul Bradford PAUL BRADFORD Appeal Deciding Officer cc: Ranotta McNair
12
Embed
File Code: 1570 (215) Datea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Supervisor’s March 15, 2011, transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region One
Northern Region
200 East Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
File Code: 1570 (215)
#11-01-00-0006
Date: April 7, 2011
Richard Artley
415 NE 2nd Street
Grangeville, ID 83530
Dear Mr. Artley:
This is my decision on disposition of the appeal you filed on the Preacher Dewey Decision Notice (DN)
on the Clearwater National Forest.
My review of your appeal was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.18 to ensure
the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I have
reviewed the appeal record, including your arguments, the information referenced in the Forest
Supervisor’s March 15, 2011, transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and
recommendation (copy enclosed). The transmittal letter provides the specific page references to
discussions in the DN, Environmental Assessment, and project file, which bear upon your objections. I
specifically incorporate into this decision the appeal record, the references and citations contained in the
transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and recommendation.
The Appeal Reviewing Officer has considered your arguments, the appeal record, and the transmittal
letter and recommends the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed and your requested relief be denied.
Based upon a review of the references and citations provided by the Forest Supervisor, I find the
objections were adequately considered in the DN. I agree with the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis
and conclusions in regard to your appeal objections. I find the Forest Supervisor has made a reasoned
decision and has complied with all laws, regulations, and policy.
After careful consideration of the above factors, I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement
the Preacher Dewey project. Your requested relief is denied.
My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR
215.18(c)].
Sincerely,
/s/ Paul Bradford
PAUL BRADFORD
Appeal Deciding Officer
cc: Ranotta McNair
Rick Brazell
Marty J Gardner
Ray G Smith
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region One 200 East Broadway
P.O. Box 7669
Missoula, MT 59807
America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper
File Code: 1570 Date: April 1, 2011 Route To:
Subject: 1570 (215) A&L - ARO Letter - Preacher Dewey DN - Clearwater NF - Richard
Artley - #11-01-00-0006
To: Appeal Deciding Officer
This is my recommendation on disposition of the appeal filed by Richard Artley of the Preacher
Dewey Decision Notice on the Clearwater National Forest. Mr. Artley is only appealing the
timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction portion of the decision. He is not appealing
the aquatic restoration portion of the decision.
The Forest Supervisor’s decision adopts Alternative 3, which includes timber harvesting, post-
harvest broadcast burning, and reforestation on 757 acres; precommercial thinning on 272 acres;
reducing road-side hazardous fuels along 23 miles of road; construction of 0.9 miles of
permanent road; reconstruction of less than 0.1 miles of road; decommissioning 33 miles of road,
and placing 8 miles of existing road into intermittent stored or term service. The decision also
approves 8 stream improvement projects, decompaction of up to 75 acres of skid trails,
development of 4.4 miles of interpretive trail, development of OHV access and trails, and raising
the Forest Plan water quality standard for Clearwater Gulch Creek.
My review was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.19 to ensure the
analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. The
appeal record, including the appellant’s objections and recommended changes, has been
thoroughly reviewed. Although I may not have listed each specific issue, I have considered all
the issues raised in the appeal and believe they are adequately addressed below.
The appellant alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
implementing regulations. The appellant requests the Regional Forester withdraw the decision
and remand it back to the Forest Supervisor to conduct a complete analysis that evaluates the
issues raised in the appeal. Specifically he requests: 1) the project be redesigned to eliminate the
adverse ecological effects; 2) the Responsible Official to allow fire to benefit the forest resources
by omitting the fuel reduction portion; 3) the Responsible Official to respond to Dr. Cohen’s
opposing science; and 4) the District to not treat noxious weeds with chemicals. An informal
meeting was offered, but the appellant declined the offer. Therefore, no appeal issues were
resolved.
ISSUE REVIEW
Issue 1. The appellant alleges the Responsible Official does not respond to all opposing
views, in violation of NEPA. He states 40 CFR 1502.9(b) requires Federal agencies to
respond in the final statement to opposing views submitted by the public.
Preacher Dewey DN, Artley appeal #11-01-00-0006 2
Issue 1, Contention A: The Responsible Official did not respond to the appellant’s citations
discussed in the appeal as Science Attachment #3—Weather and Climate (not fuel buildup)
are the Real Reason for Wildfire Severity. Nothing in 40 CFR 1502.9(b) indicates that the
responsible official need not respond to opposing views because the NEPA document did
not use the information in the documents containing the opposing views.
Response: Even though 40 CFR 1502.9 clearly is discussing the requirements of Environmental
Impacts Statements, not EAs as is the case with this project analysis, the intent of the NEPA
regulations is for the agency to respond to opposing scientific viewpoints. In this case, the
literature the appellant cites and the literature the Forest used are not in opposition, but are
saying the same thing. The appellant quotes J.K. Agee (1997) as stating “large, severe wildfires
are more weather-dependent than fuel-dependent,” (PF, Doc. D2008, p.1) and the rest of the
literature supplied by the appellant in Attachment #3 to his appeal has similar statements (PF,
Doc. D2008, pp. 2 to 10).
The EA (p. 42) and the Fire/Fuels Report (PF, Doc. K1001, pp. 4 and 5) also point to weather
and climate as playing a more important role than fuels in governing fire behavior. The analysis
then points out the Forest has virtually no control over the climate, weather, or the topography of
the project area, so in order to moderate fire behavior the project endeavors to change what can
be changed: the fuel load in the project area. The EA also cites scientific literature that supports
the management of fuel loads to moderate fire behavior.
The ID Team did consider the references the appellant and other members of the public supplied
to the Forest (DN, Appendix C, pp. C13 to C21). The ID Team used two of the appellant’s
documents from his Attachment #3 (Agee, 1997 and Bessie & Johnson, 1995 [PF, Doc. B2010,
pp. 1 and 2]) in the discussion of fire behavior, but did not list the others in the EA and
Fire/Fuels Report because they supported the same thing—that weather and climate greatly
contribute to wildfire severity (DN, Appendix C, p. C16). There is no opposing viewpoint here,
just a disagreement as to what scientific paper to list as the citation. The analysis and the use of
the scientific literature are in compliance with NEPA.
Issue 1, Contention B: The Responsible Official did not respond to the appellant’s
citations discussed in the appeal as Science Attachment #9—The forest’s Natural Resources
Benefit from Wildfire. Whether or not the project proposes any wildland fire use has
nothing to do with the whether the Responsible official should or not should respond to
opposing views. The Responsible Official does not respond to any opposing views
contained in the 25 source documents of Attachment #9. Therefore, the Preacher Dewey
DN violates 40 CFR 1502.9(b).
Response: In his letter commenting on the EA the appellant takes issue with the purpose and
need statement having to do with hazardous fuel reduction and control of wildfire. He says this
is counter to the agency’s goal of letting wildfire play its natural role. He also states, “best
science tells us that wildfire creates a unique habitat that benefits the majority of the natural
resources of the forest. See Opposing Science Attachment #9. Thus there is no reason to limit
fire in the general forest area…”
Preacher Dewey DN, Artley appeal #11-01-00-0006 3
In fact, there is good reason to limit wildfire in the project area. The Forest Plan goal for
Management Area (MA) E1 (Plan, p. III-59) is to limit individual wildfires to 40 acres or less in
mature timber. The Standard for MA E1 is to “Confine, contain, or control wildfires.” The
purpose and need is, in part, to reduce fuels so as to control wildfire in this MA. Limiting
wildfire in the project area is in complete compliance with the Forest Plan (EA, p. 3).
In support of allowing wildfire to play its natural role the appellant submitted Science
Attachment #9—The forest’s Natural Resources Benefit from Wildfire, which is a listing of 25
quotes from various sources concerning the beneficial impacts that fire has on forests. Nowhere
in the EA, DN, or project file was there any discussion or assumption by the ID Team or the
Responsible Official that fire does not have beneficial impacts. The ID Team reviewed the
citations and determined they were not applicable to the project because the Forest Plan MA E1
requires the Clearwater NF personnel to confine, contain, or control wildfire in the project area.
The DN (Consideration of other Science/Literature Submitted by the Public, p. C20; and
Response to Comments, p. C4) states Attachment 9 supports the Clearwater NF fire use policy
in certain MAs, but Attachment #9 does not apply to this project because of the Forest Plan
direction for the Preacher Dewey project area is to confine, contain, or control wildfires. The
literature is not really presenting an opposing viewpoint to the analysis and decision. It is just
not applicable in the Preacher Dewey area due to a Forest Plan standard. The Responsible
Official did consider the submitted citations (DN, p. C20) and explained why they were not
applicable (DN, p. C4), in compliance with NEPA.
Appeal Point 1, Contention C: The Responsible Official did respond to the appellant’s list
of 13 publications found in the appeal as Science Attachment #12—Excerpts of Publications
Authored by Dr. Jack Cohen showing that most US Forest Service Line-Officers are willing to
Sacrifice Homes Located in the WUI to Get the Cut Out, but did not respond to the 51
opposing views statements by Dr. Cohen that follow the list of 13 publications. Therefore,
the Preacher Dewey DN violates 40 CFR 1502.9(b).
Response: Actually, the appellant’s Attachment #12 contains 12 different Cohen publications
and 53 quotes from those 12 publications. The Forest added an additional Cohen citation to the
list in the DN (Appendix C, p. 20), which is Dr. Cohen’s presentation at the Fire Economics
Symposium in San Diego, CA, April 12, 1999. The DN (Appendix C, pp. 20 to 21) shows how
each publication was considered, why it was or was not used, and if it was used for what
purpose. In the Transmittal Letter to the Regional Forester the Responsible Official indicated
that each publication was considered as a whole, rather than considering each of the 53
individual quotes out of relation to the whole publication. The Forest also responded to the
appellant’s comments about fuel treatments and structures (DN, Response to Comments, pp. C4
to C5). The Responsible Official did consider the submitted citations and the appellant’s
concerns and comments on fuel treatment near to and far from structures, in compliance with
NEPA.
Issue 2. The appellant alleges Appendix G of the EA does not contain adequate noxious
weed treatment disclosures. This violates NEPA (40 CFR 1500.1(b)).
Preacher Dewey DN, Artley appeal #11-01-00-0006 4
Response: Apparently, the appellant has misinterpreted EA Appendix G, which lists Best
Management Practices for weed control, and assumes the Responsible Official is making a
decision on herbicide application. The Preacher Dewey project does not propose to conduct
weed spraying (EA, p. 5), and the Decision does not include spraying weeds (DN, pp. 2 to 3).
The District is just going to continue using the Best Management Practices they have been using
on all North Fork projects to control weeds. The North Fork Ranger District completed a
separate weed spraying EA and DN/FONSI, which analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects of herbicide use. The DN/FONSI for the North Fork Noxious Weed Environmental
Assessment is included in the Preacher Dewey project file (PF, Doc. N003). The Noxious Weed
EA is located at the Ranger District Office.
The Preacher Dewey EA (pp. 60 to 62 and 112 to 113) analyzed the impacts on and to noxious
weeds from the project. Past, present, and future spraying of noxious weeds was considered as
one of the potential cumulative effects (EA, Appendix D, p. D5). The cumulative effects
discussion in the Noxious Weeds section of the EA (p. 113) states, “Cumulative effects considers
the impact of weed spraying on surrounding roads and roads within the project area. The North
Fork District weed spraying program proposes to continue spraying all open roads in and around
the project area, which would help curtail the influx of weed seed into disturbed soil created by
the proposed Preacher Dewey activities. The District weed spraying would continue even if
alternative 1, no action, is selected, because the decision to treat weeds in this area was made
under a (sic) The North Fork Noxious Weed Decision Notice of May 20, 2005. Cumulatively
there would be a reduction in weeds as BMPs are implemented and the spraying program
continues.”
Continuing to use the on-going Best Management Practices to manage noxious weeds in the
Preacher Dewey area is in compliance with NEPA. The use of a separate EA for treatment of
noxious weeds in the Preacher Dewey area is in compliance with NEPA. The Preacher Dewey
EA and DN/FONSI are in compliance with NEPA.
RECOMMENDATION
I have reviewed the record for each of the contentions addressed above and have found that the
analysis and decision adequately address the issues raised by the appellants. I recommend the
Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed and the appellant’s requested relief be denied.
/s/ Ranotta McNair
RANOTTA MCNAIR
Appeal Reviewing Officer
cc: Rick Brazell
Marty J Gardner
Preacher Dewey DN, Artley appeal #11-01-00-0006 5
Ray G Smith
Forest
Service
Clearwater National Forest
12730 Highway 12
Orofino, ID 83544-4541
Nez Perce National Forest
104 Airport Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper
File Code: 1570/2430 Date: March 15, 2011 Route To: (R.O. Appeals Coordinator)