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)

Subject: Preacher Dewey Transmittal Letter; Appeal #11-01-00-0006

To: Regional Forester

In accordance with CFR 215.13(f)(1), I am here by submitting the decision documentation for

the appeal (#11-01-00-0006) filed by Dick Artley of the Preacher Dewey project decision on the

North Fork Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest (Clearwater NF).

The project record is contained in four, 3-ring binders. All documents are numbered and

referenced by document number located on the bottom right corner of each page of the

document. An index of the project file is included in the front of each binder. The project file

and five paper copies of the DN, EA and project record index will be delivered to your office by

March 21, 2011. References are made throughout this letter to the decision documentation.

Example references are shown below:

Reference To Example Reference

Decision Notice and Finding of No

Significant Impact, January 13, 2011, Page 2

DN, p. 2

Environmental Assessment, May 2010, page

26

EA, p. 26

Project Record, Document Number B1007,

page 4

PR, Doc. B1007, p.4

Notice of Appeal, Page 3 NOA, p. 3

Forest Plan, Chapter I, Page 10 FP, Ch. I, p. 10

Decision Being Appealed

Forest Supervisor Rick Brazell signed the Preacher Dewey Decision Notice selecting Alternative

3 on January 13, 2011. A legal notice announcing the decision was published in the newspaper

of record, the Lewiston Tribune, on January 21, 2011 (PR, Doc. D3005).

Appellants’ Participation in the NEPA Process

The appellant provided written comment to both the Scoping and EA announcements (PR, Doc.

C2002 and D1003). A summary of appellants' comments and Forest Service responses can be

found in Appendix C of the DN and in the Project Record (PR, Doc.B10011). Appellant’s

comment letters are located in the project record (PR, Doc.C2004, D2006-D2013). The

appellant did not review the project file.

Informal Resolution Meeting

Tam White, Project Leader, contacted Dick Artley on March 10, 2011, in regards to having an

Informal Resolution Meeting between the appellant and the Forest Service. Dick declined to

have a meeting.

Interested Parties

No requests for interested party status have been received to date.

Decision Documentation Responding to Points of Appeal

APPEAL POINT 1 (NOA, p.3-7): The Responsible Official does not Respond to all

Opposing Views Citations Submitted by the Appellant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b) requires

Federal agencies to respond in the draft NEPA document to opposing views submitted by

the public.

Appeal Point 1; Contention A: Attachment #3 contained 8 documents. The Responsible

Official did not respond to the appellant’s attachment #3 citations because “The Preacher Dewey

EA used Bessie and Johnson, plus others to emphasis the same information (EA, p.42-43), but

did not use the following documents.” Nothing in 40 C.F.R. § 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.

Clarification: The attachments submitted were reviewed per the internet links provided and

found to contain the same analysis conclusions derived from similar research used in the

Preacher Dewey Fuels analysis. Thus; they were summarized as a group instead of individually

as having been considered and supporting the Preacher Dewey analysis.

Decision Documentation Addressing Appeal Point 1; Contention A:

REFERENCE SUBJECT MATTER

DN Appendix C, p.C16-C17 Review of Dick Artley attachment 3.

EA p. 40-46, 91-94 EA Fire/Fuels Chapters 3 and 4

PR, Doc.D2008 Dick Artley attachment 3.

PR, Doc.B1011, p.14, 17-18 IDT review of Attachment 3

PR, Doc. B2010, p.1-5 Fire reference documents used for Preacher Dewey Analysis

PR, Doc. K1001 Preacher Dewey Fire/Fuels Report

Appeal Point 1; Contention B: 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 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b).

Clarification: The documents submitted as attachment #9 all relate to an alternative considered,

but eliminated in the EA.

Decision Documentation Addressing Appeal Point 1; Contention B:

REFERENCE SUBJECT MATTER

FP, Ch.III, p.III57-III61 Forest Plan E1 management area requirements

DN, p.1-2 DN Purpose and Need discussion

DN, p.7-8 DN discussion of prescribed fire alternative consideration.

DN Appendix C, p.C20 DN Review of Dick Artley attachment 9.

EA, p.3-4 EA Purpose and Need discussion

EA, p.15-16 EA alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed

study

PR, Doc.D2010 Dick Artley attachment 9.

PR, Doc.B1011, p.14 and 21 IDT review of Attachment #9

PR, Doc. B2010, p.1-5 Fire reference documents used for Preacher Dewey Analysis

PR, Doc. K1001 Preacher Dewey Fire/Fuels Report

Appeal Point 1; Contention C: The Responsible Official responds to none of the 51 of Dr.

Cohen’s opposing view statements in Attachment #12. Therefore, the Preacher Dewey DN

violates 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b).

Clarification: The Dick Artley Attachment #12 contains 12 different Cohen publications. Mr.

Artley cited about 54 quotes from those 12 publications in his attachment #12 document. Each

quote was reviewed in relation to the whole research publication and not as individual quotes

taken out of context.

Decision Documentation Addressing Appeal Point 1; Contention B:

REFERENCE SUBJECT MATTER

DN Appendix C, p.C20-C21 DN Review of Dick Artley attachment #12.

EA p. 40-46, 91-94 EA Fire/Fuels Chapters 3 and 4

PR, Doc.D2011 Dick Artley attachment #12.

PR, Doc.B1011, p.14, 21,22 IDT review of Attachment #12

PR, Doc. B2010, p.1-5 Fire reference documents used for Preacher Dewey Analysis

PR, Doc. K1001 Preacher Dewey Fire/Fuels Report

APPEAL POINT 2 (NOA, p.7-8): Appendix G does not contain Adequate Noxious Weed

Treatment Disclosures; this violates NEPA Sec.1500.1 (b).

Clarification: The Preacher Dewey project does not propose to conduct weed spraying. The

Appellant has misinterpreted EA Appendix G, which lists best management practices for weed

control. The North Fork Ranger District has completed a separate weed spraying EA/DN, which

covers spraying.

Decision Documentation Addressing Appeal Point 2:

REFERENCE SUBJECT MATTER

DN, p.2-3 DN list of activities for the selected Alternative 3

DN, p.5 DN weed control design measures

REFERENCE SUBJECT MATTER

EA, p.61and p.113 EA discussion of weed spraying to be done under North Fork RD

Weed Treatment DN.

EA, Appendix D p.D2-

D9

EA cumulative effect analysis of weed spraying in conjunction

with weed control measures proposed under Preacher Dewey.

I value the opportunity to present the documentation supporting the Preacher Dewey Project and

appreciate your consideration of this information during your appeal review.

Should you have questions regarding the information presented in this letter please contact Doug

Gober, North Fork District Ranger, (208) 476-4541; or Tam White, Project Leader, at (208) 476-

4541.

/s/ Rick Brazell

RICK BRAZELL

Forest Supervisor

Enclosures

cc: Ray G Smith

Marty J Gardner

Doug Gober

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: February 1, 2011

Richard Artley

415 NE 2nd

Grangeville, ID 83530

Dear Mr. Artley:

I have received your appeal of the Preacher Dewey Decision Notice, signed by the Clearwater

National Forest Supervisor. The decision was published January 21, 2011. Your appeal is

timely and will be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 215. I will be the

Appeal Deciding Officer for your appeal.

The Responsible Official will contact you and offer to meet in an attempt to informally resolve

the issues raised in your appeal. The Responsible Official must provide the Appeal Reviewing

Officer with a letter documenting whether or not any issues in the appeal were resolved.

The Appeal Reviewing Officer is to review the appeal record and forward a written

recommendation to me. I will issue a written decision or otherwise give notice to you

concerning the formal disposition of your appeal by April 21, 2011.

Questions regarding the processing of your appeal should be directed to Raymond Smith,

Regional Appeals Coordinator, telephone number (406) 329-3381.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond G. Smith (for)

PAUL BRADFORD

Acting Deputy Regional Forester

cc: Rick Brazell

Marty J Gardner

Ray G Smith

Tam White