Appeal Reviewing Officer’s review focused on the decision...

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Chippewa National Forest

Supervisor’s Office

200 Ash Avenue NW

Cass Lake, MN 56633-3089

Phone: 218-335-8600

Fax: 218-335-8637

TTY: 218-335-8632

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: November 28, 2012

Mr. Dick Artley

415 NE 2nd Street

Grangeville, ID 83530-2257

RE: Appeal of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Talmoon

Vegetation Management Project, Deer River Ranger District, Chippewa National Forest,

Appeal # 12-09-03-0048 A215

Dear Mr. Artley:

On September 28, 2012, you filed a notice of appeal pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 215 for the

Talmoon Vegetation Management Project, Chippewa National Forest. The Decision Notice was

signed by District Ranger Jason J. Kuiken August 29, 2012. The legal notice for the decision was

published in the Western Itasca Review (Deer River, Minnesota) August 30, 2012.

I have reviewed the Project Record and considered the recommendation of District Ranger

Harv Skjerven, the Appeal Reviewing Officer, regarding the disposition of your appeal. The

Appeal Reviewing Officer’s review focused on the decision documentation developed by the

Responsible Official for this project and the issues in your appeal. The Appeal Reviewing Officer’s

recommendation is enclosed and incorporated by reference. This letter constitutes my decision on

your appeal and on the specific relief that you requested.

FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED

The Talmoon Vegetation Management Project consists of timber harvesting, planting, road

decommissioning, impoundment management, and wildlife and recreation enhancements. The

project area encompasses approximately 73,770 acres and the Forest Service ownership within

the project area is roughly 37, 766 acres. The proposed activities analyzed in the environmental

assessment were designed to implement the management direction contained in the Revised

Forest Plan (2004 Chippewa National Forest Land and Resource management Plan).

Mr. Dick Artley 2

APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The Appeal Reviewing Officer found no evidence the Responsible Official’s decision violated law,

regulation, or policy. He found the decision responded to the comments raised during the decision-

making process and public comment period. In addition, he found the issues in the appeal were

adequately addressed in the decision documentation. Based on this review, the Appeal Reviewing

Officer recommended the decision set forth in the Decision Notice for this project be affirmed. Please

refer to the enclosed recommendation letter, dated November 26, 2012, for further details.

DECISION

After careful review of the Project Record and your appeal, as well as the recommendation of the

Appeal Reviewing Officer, I have decided to affirm the decision for the Talmoon Vegetation

Management Project. I found no violation of law, regulation, or policy with respect to the issues

in your appeal. The Appeal Reviewing Officer’s recommendation is enclosed and incorporated

by reference.

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 215.18(c), this decision constitutes the final administrative determination

of the United States Department of Agriculture. This decision may be implemented on, but not

before, the 15th

business day following the date of this letter (See 36 C.F.R. § 215.9(b)).

Sincerely,

/s/ Darla Lenz

DARLA LENZ

Appeal Deciding Officer

Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Jason J Kuiken

Sharon Klinkhammer

Barb Knight

Patricia R Rowell

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Chequamegon-Nicolet

National Forest

Eagle River-Florence Ranger District Eagle River Office Florence Office

1247 E Wall Street 5638 Forestry Drive

Eagle River, WI 54521 Florence, WI 54121

715-479-2827 Voice 715-528-4464 Voice

715-479-6407 FAX 715-528-4497 FAX

TTY: 711 (National Relay System)

America’s Working Forests-Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: November 26, 2012 Route To:

Subject: Appeal of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the

Talmoon Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment, Deer River

Ranger District, Chippewa National Forest, Appeal # 12-09-03-0048 A215

To: Appeal Deciding Officer, Forest Supervisor Chippewa NF

This letter constitutes my recommendation for the above-referenced appeal by Mr. Dick Artley.

This appeal challenges the decision for the Talmoon Vegetation Management Project, Deer River

Ranger District of the Chippewa (CNF). District Ranger Jason Kuiken signed the Decision Notice

for this project on August 29, 2012, and the legal notice was published August 30, 2012, in the

Western Itasca Review (Deer River, Minnesota).

My review has been conducted pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 215 – “Notice, Comment, and Appeal

Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities.” To ensure that the analysis and

decision were completed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies, I

have considered the issues set forth by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal (NOA) and have

reviewed the decision documentation submitted by the CNF. My recommendation is based upon

a review of the Project Record (PR), including but not limited to the scoping letter, public

comments, Environmental Assessment (EA), the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant

Impact (DN/FONSI) and the Response to Comments (RTC).

Appeal Issues

Issue 1: The Responsible Official did not Respond to the Responsible Opposing Viewpoints

nor all of the Comments Submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant states, “(…)The

Responsible Official did not respond to all of the “opposing views” or “major points of view”

specifically related to the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed

action submitted by the appellant in his comments on the pre-decisional EA. Not responding to

an opposing view in the final EA is an option for the Responsible Official only if he can show

why the opposing view is not “responsible.” (...) Not only did the Responsible Official not

respond to the opposing views submitted by the appellant, but the opposing views attachments

are not mentioned in Appendix D.

The Responsible Official has violated [40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a)]” (NOA, p. 1-2)

Response: Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a) states an agency

preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both

individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating

its response in the final statement.

Appeal Deciding Officer, 2

Talmoon Project, Chippewa National Forest Appeal # 12-09-03-0048 A215

Possible responses are:

(1) Modify alternatives including the proposed action

(2) Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the

agency

(3) Supplement, improve, or modify its analysis

(4) Make factual corrections

(5) Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources,

authorities, or reasons which support the agency’s position and, if appropriate,

indicate those circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or further

response. (b) All substantive comments received on the draft statement (or summaries

thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to

the final statement whether or not the comment is thought to merit individual

discussion by the agency in the text of the statement.

The Forest responded to the Appellants initial scoping (DN, Appendix, p. 10-12), and comments

(PR, Opposing Views Responses) and (PR, Responses) with substantial documentation and

reference to the Chippewa Forest Plan and the EA.

The PR (Folder 6, documents 201 and 202) includes 68 pages of response to every comment

submitted by the Appellant. Every point was addressed as either relevant or irrelevant, with

references to support the relevancy or irrelevancy of all opposing views.

On reviewing the PR, especially the EA appendices related to public comments, I find the

Appellant’s opposing comments were all addressed. There are no violations of 40 C.F.R. §

1502.9(a). The Appellant’s claim is without merit.

Issue 2: The EA does not Disclose whether a NPDES Permit was Issued by the EPA. The

Appellant states, “(…)The Talmoon road construction activities will disturb at least 2.3 acres.

There will be other soil disturbance associated with the construction of landings and skid trails.

Since the disturbed area for the selected alternative is greater than 1 acre, the Responsible

Official is required to secure a NPDES permit from the EPA. The timber sale contract will

authorize the purchaser to disturb more ground with landing and skid trail construction.

Since the EA does not tell the public that a NPDES permit for the Talmoon timber sale was

obtained, Ranger Kuiken has violated 40 CFR 1500.1(b) and the Clean Water Act”. (NOA, p. 2-3)

Response: Although the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 C.F.R.

1502.25(b) require a draft environmental impact statement to disclose whether a Federal permit

is required to implement a proposed action, it does not make this same requirement for an EA. It

also does not require an agency to list any or all Federal permits determined NOT to be required

to implement an agency action. The CEQ has no requirement that a draft EA be circulated for

review and consultation, and therefore it would be irrelevant to extrapolate this requirement to

the EA.

In addition, at the time of the Talmoon Project, the Environmental Policy Act (EPA) was not

requiring any permits for silvicultural activities under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution



Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); Clean Water Act rider (Section 429) on the Conference Report on

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (House Report 112-331). The

temporary road construction activities in the Talmoon Project are “silvicultural activities.”

As such, no National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was required to

implement this agency action when the DN was signed. I therefore find there is no benefit in

providing needless detail in the NEPA document (1500.1(b)) by listing all permits not needed,

especially in a document intended to be “concise” and “brief” (1508.9).

SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES

SEC. 429. From the date of enactment of this Act until September 30, 2012, the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency shall not require a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly require any State

to require a permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the construction, use, or maintenance

of which are associated with silvicultural activities, or from other silvicultural activities involving nursery

operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning,

pest and fire control, harvesting operations, or surface drainage. (This language is on page 266 of this document:

http://www.doi.gov/budget/2012/data/pdf/summary_hr2055_Bill_Report.pdf)

On reviewing the PR, especially the EA and DN appendices related to public comments, I find

the Appellant’s concern regarding storm water discharge permits was not surfaced until after the

Talmoon Project Decision was made. The Appellant provided no pre-decisional opportunity for

the Responsible Official to respond the Appellant’s concern. There was no mention of NPDES

permits in the EA, DN or PR.

Upon my review of relevant regulations and Talmoon PR, I find there is no requirement that the

presumed need for a Federal Permit to implement the agency action be disclosed, nor is there an

indication in Talmoon PR that a NPDES permit will be required. I find the Appellant’s claims

are without merit.

Issue 3: The EA does not Analyze how the Project will affect Climate Change. The

Appellant states, “Two USFS Chiefs have provided field-level line officers with direction to

analyze how proposed projects will affect climate change. They have given the public the

expectation that when they read NEPA documents climate change will be addressed,

Not analyzing climate change does not serve the public. Saving a few dollars on NEPA costs is

an unethical response to one of the most important issues of our time,

Omitting an analysis of whether and how this timber sale affects climate change violates 40 CFR

1500.1(b).” (NOA, p. 3)

Response: Chief Kimball’s February 15, 2008, letter and other Forest Service information on

how to address climate change in the NEPA refer to scoping as an integral part to determine if

climate change issues are specifically related to the proposed action (Forest Service internal

paper, “Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis” January 13, 2009,

page 3). The CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA state

http://www.doi.gov/budget/2012/data/pdf/summary_hr2055_Bill_Report.pdf



[40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b)] “Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are

truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.”

The Talmoon Vegetation Management Project completed the appropriate scoping and public

involvement procedures (DN, pp. 3-4). During this process climate change did not surface as an

issue from the Appellant (PR, Folder: 136 and 184). The issue of climate change was raised by

the Sierra Club during the official scoping period and the comment was addressed as a comment

that did not debate the effects about the proposed activities (PR, Folder: 205Appendix G).

Although the EA did not specifically cover climate change as an issue in the body of the EA, a

detailed response to the Sierra Club comment is made available in Appendix G (page 8).

The CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA state [40 C.F.R.

1500.1(c)]….”NEPA’s purpose is not to generate paperwork – even excellent paperwork – but to

foster excellent action.” Also, 40 C.F.R. 1500.1 (b) states “NEPA procedures must insure that

environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made

and before actions are taken.” The CNF satisfied both of these CEQ regulations by not

formulating an issue that was not significant to the action in question, by responding to the Sierra

Club issue, by providing that response in Appendix G of the DN and by following their own

Forest and National Forest information during the NEPA process.

On reviewing the PR, especially the EA and DN appendices related to public comments, I find

the Appellant’s concern regarding climate change was not surfaced until after the Talmoon

Vegetation Management Project Decision was signed. The Appellant provided no pre-decisional

opportunity for the Responsible Official to respond the Appellant’s concern. The

interdisciplinary team (IDT) utilized climate change science available for the resource effects

analysis and information (effects analysis where appropriate (PR, Folder; 172 Soils References,

180, EA, p. 68, 167 Plants and Wildlife References (Management Indicator Habitats (MIH)

report p. 30 para. #5,p. 31 para. # 5 and 6). Also, the IDT responded accordingly to the comment

during the official scoping period regarding climate change from the Sierra Club and was

provided in Appendix G in the DN.

I find the Responsible Official considered the issue of climate change in the Talmoon Vegetation

Management Project analysis and decision by focusing on the need to provide resilient forest

conditions that are best adapted to a changing climate, and followed the NEPA by incorporating

relevant and best available information during the NEPA process. Based on my review, I find no

evidence to consider climate change as an issue and the Responsible Official did not violate 40

C.F.R. 1500. 1 (b).

Issue 4: The EA Contains an Overly Narrow Statement of Purpose & Need that Renders

ALL Alternatives that do not Harvest Trees Nonresponsive to the P&N and Ineligible to be

Analyzed in Detail. The Appellant states, “(…)The Purpose & Need in this EA has been written

in such a way that only an alternative that harvests timber is responsive to the Purpose & Need.

(…) The Purpose and Need for the Talmoon timber sale EA 1) is inconsistent with court

precedent, 2) violates 40 CFR 1506.6, and 3) violates Executive Order 13274.” (NOA, p. 4-5)



The Appellant states, “(…) The Purpose & Need in this EA has been written in such a way that

only an alternative that harvests timber is responsive to the Purpose & Need. (…) The Purpose

and Need for the Talmoon timber sale EA 1) is inconsistent with court precedent, 2) violates 40

CFR 1506.6, and 3) violates Executive Order 13274.” (NOA, p. 4-5)

Response: Although the Appellant cites violations of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6, this part of the

regulation concerns agency responsibilities to public involvement that are not relevant to his

concern over the narrow focus of the purpose and need. Instead I will focus on the Forest

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 11.21 that gives guidance for defining the Purpose and Need.

It states the following…

“The breadth or narrowness of the need for action has a substantial influence on the scope of the

subsequent analysis. A well-defined “need” or “purpose and need” statement narrows the

range of alternatives that may need to be considered. For example, a statement like “there is a

need for more developed recreation” would lead to a very broad analysis and consideration of

many different types of recreation. However, a statement like “there is a need for more

developed campsites along Clear Creek” would result in a more focused analysis with

consideration of a much narrower range of alternatives.”

The DN (p. 2-3) states the Purpose and Need for this project which tiers directly to the Forest

Plan (Forest Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-5). The purpose tiers directly to the Forest Plan and focuses on

five areas,

1. Move toward achieving landscape Ecosystem objectives for vegetation composition, age

class distribution, and tree diversity;

2. Move toward restoring conditions more representative of native vegetation communities;

3. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and

community uses;

4. Provide timber products in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan; and

5. Provide wildlife enhancement projects.

On review of these records, I found need components were based upon goals and objectives of

the Forest Plan pertaining to diversity of vegetation communities and forest age, not timber

products (DN, pp. 2-3). Of the need components of the Purpose and Need descriptions in the

EA, none except #4 (“provide commercial wood for mills in support to the local and regional

economy”) identifies “timber products” as a need. In other words, the Purpose and Need

statement is not so narrowly written to imply that each and every need component could only be

met through harvest of timber products.

FSH 1909.15, 14 states…Under the CEQ [note: Council of Environmental Quality] regulations,

the Agency is required to:

Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action

in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of

available resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the Act. (40 CFR § 1501.2(c))

For EAs:

The EA shall briefly describe the proposed action and alternative(s) that meet the need

for action. No specific number of alternates is required or prescribed.



When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources

(NEPA, section 102(2)(E)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed

without consideration of additional alternatives. (36 C.F.R. § 220.7(b)(2)(i))

The EA document, Chapter 2 (p. 17) provides further discussion on alternatives considered in

detail. The EA analyzed three alternatives; the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative and

Alternative C, an alternative that was development based on public scoping comments.

I also reviewed the Talmoon PR to determine if any alternative had been dismissed solely

because it could not supply timber products and not meet the Purpose and Need. In addition to

disclosures in the DN and EA, I also looked into public comments to determine if additional

alternatives had surfaced (EA, Appendix D, and DN, Appendix G), and again into the

interdisciplinary deliberations to determine if additional alternatives had been filtered. I found

no evidence in these records that additional non-harvest alternatives had been dismissed, let

alone dismissed for the sole reason they could not provide timber.

Based upon the above analysis of the Talmoon PR, I find that the Purpose and Need was

appropriately developed from Forest Plan goals. I also find no evidence that the Responsible

Official inappropriately dismissed any alternative because it did not harvest timber. In fact, the

Responsible Official opted to analyze in detail the No Action Alternative, a no timber harvest

alternative (EA, p. 17), even though that was not required. Merely because no other reasonable

non-timber harvest alternative was surfaced by the team or by the public is not adequate reason

to conclude the Purpose and Need was too restrictive. Based upon the PR, I find the Talmoon

situation had no important environmental effects (issues) to drive the need to study a non-harvest

alternative in detail. Therefore, I conclude that the Appellant’s claim is without merit.

I find the Purpose and Need for the project is well defined providing a focused analysis tiered

directly to the Forest Plan. In addition the Responsible Official adequately considered an

appropriate range of alternatives. I find no violation of any law, regulation or policy.

Issue 5: The EA is Inconsistent with CEQ Mitigation Guidance. The Public (and this

appellant) have the Expectation that the Responsible Official will Comply with this

Guidance. The Appellant states, “Absent such guidance compliance the public expects the

Responsible Official to explain why this project is so unique that following the CEQ guidance is

voluntary. Without information showing the public the mitigation was effective under similar

conditions in the past the public does not know if or how the mitigation will reduce the adverse

environmental impacts. (…) This EA does not offer the public any information assuring them that

the resources are available to perform the mitigation. (…) The EA does not “carefully specif[y]”

measurable performance standards or expected results of mitigation application so as to

establish clear performance expectations. (…) The EA does not explain the mitigation

monitoring process for the public. Neither does it tell the public how they might receive a

mitigation monitoring report specific to the mitigation effectiveness on this project. (…)

The EA does not mention that “enforcement clauses, including penalty clauses” have been

developed to assure purchaser mitigation measure compliance and where such enforcement and

penalty clauses can be found.



The Talmoon project is inconsistent with the CEQ NEPA Mitigation Guidance. The Responsible

Official does not offer the public an explanation for why he chose not to comply with the CEQ

mitigation guidance.

This omission of mitigation effectiveness information from the EA:

“does not provide the public with an accurate analysis” which violates [40 CFR 40

CFR 1500.1(b)]

“diminishes the “professional integrity, including scientific integrity of the

discussions and analyses” in the EA which violates (40 CFR 1502.24)

40 CFR 1505.2(c) Requires the Responsible Official to:

“(c) State whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from

the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not. A monitoring

and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any

mitigation.”

The EA does not indicate whether a “monitoring and enforcement program has been adopted”

to assure the required mitigation has been done and done correctly.

The EA does not indicate whether “all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental

harm from the alternative selected have been adopted.”

The Responsible Official violates 40 CFR 1505.2(c)..” (NOA, p. 5-8)

Response: The appellant asserts that the Forest did not follow the CEQ NEPA Mitigation

Guidance; thus it did not comply with the CEQ mitigation guidance putting the EA in violation

of 40 CFR § 1500.1(b) and (40 CFR § 1502.24). The appellant further asserts that the

Responsible Official failed to include information on a “monitoring and enforcement program”

and therefore is in violation of 40 CFR § 1505.2(c).

The January 14, 2011 CEQ memorandum to Federal departments and agencies, refer to by

the Appellant as the CEQ NEPA Mitigation Guidance, contains no guidance on providing the

public with information on the past effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

The memorandum does state that “an agency should….commit to mitigation monitoring in

important cases when relying upon an EA and mitigated FONSI. Monitoring is essential in those

important cases where the mitigation is necessary to support the FONSI and thus is part of the

justification for the agency’s determination not to prepare an EIS.” The memorandum further

states “In cases that are less important, the agency should exercise its discretion to determine

what level of monitoring, if any, is appropriate.”



The requirement cited from 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(c) is for decisions requiring environmental

impact statements. The EA for this project is tiered to the Chippewa Forest Plan which contains

a monitoring plan.

The mitigation measure and management requirements for this project are listed in the

Mitigation Measure Common to All Action Alternatives section of the EA (p. 30, section 2.3.8)

and the EA, Appendix C - Standards, Guidelines, and Mitigations. Information on the

effectiveness of past mitigation measures for resources such recreation (p. 85 and 97, Chapter 3,

section 3.5); soils (p. 110-110, Chapter 3, section 3.8); and Water (p. 118, Chapter 3, section 3.9)

are incorporated and analyzed in the EA.

I find that the Talmoon EA Project does not violate any law, policy or regulation. I find the

project to be consistent with the CEQ guidance related to mitigation and monitoring.

Issue 6: The EA/DN does not Respond to Appellant’s Comments According to the Law.

The Appellant states, “The Forest Service has an obligation under NEPA to respond to

comments both individually and collectively in the FEIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4. The Forest Service

must respond in one or more of the following manners: (1) by modifying alternatives, including

the proposed action; (2) by developing and evaluating alternatives not previously considered by

the agency; (3) supplement, improve, or modify its analysis; or (4) make factual corrections. If

the agency feels that no further response is necessary, it must “explain why the comments do not

warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the

agency's position . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4 (a)(1-5).

The appellant labeled the comments as “comment” so the Responsible Official would not forget

to respond to these comments. (…) The Talmoon Decision Notice violates 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4

(a)(1-5).” (NOA, p. 8-10) [NOTE: The Appellant lists two court cases, one comment that was

responded to, and several comments he claims were not responded to in the NOA. These have

not been listed here but are in the NOA.]

Response: The Appellant asserts that the EA and DN do not respond to his comments and

violate 40 C.F.R. 1503.4 (a1-a5). Also the Appellant asserts that best science and opposing

views were not taken into account. This response should be coupled with the response to Issue 1

related to opposing viewpoints.

TheCEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA state [40 C.F.R.

1503.4] “An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider

comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means

listed below, stating its response in the final statement.” The regulation goes on to give

examples such as making factual corrections or explain why the comments do not warrant further

agency response as possible response to comments.

Note that 40 C.F.R. 1503.4 applies only to the preparation of environmental impact statements.

The EA section on Public Involvement (EA, pg.14-16) and Appendix D (PR, Folder; 181

Appendix D) documents the response to comments for initial scoping for this project. The



DN/FONSI section on Public Involvement (DN, p. 4) and Appendix G (PR, Folder; 205 DN,

Appendix G) documents the response to comments for official scoping period for this project.

Appendix G provides responses to all issues raised by all the respondents during the official

comment period, including the Appellant’s comments (Appendix G, p.10–12).

The Appellant submitted opposing views, including literature, during the 30-day comment period

for the Talmoon Vegetation Management Project. As part of the PR two documents in response

to opposing science and roads were created by the IDT (PR; 201and 202). This response lists the

citations contained in the comment letter(s) and were evaluated for applicability to this project

proposal. The findings list the literature and responds to how we did or did not consider it, and

the rationale and comments based on the applicability to this project. Some of the literature

consisted of; opinion pieces, editorials, articles, press releases, testimony, quotations, or stories

from news outlets. They are not scientific, peer reviewed studies or literature. Peer review as

well as the strength and specificity of the relationship between ideas, data and inference

distinguish scientific insights from opinion.

The bibliography for the EA contains a number of scientific studies and reports relevant to the

project (PR; 181 Appendix E). There is no requirement to include opposing view literature in

the reference section of the EA.

All applicable science was considered, as required by law, regulation and policy. The citations

contained in the comment letter were evaluated for applicability to this project proposal. Refer

to attachments on opposing views on timber harvest and roads for more detailed information on

what was, and was not considered.

I find the Responsible Official adequately considered public comments and did not violate any

law, regulation or policy.

Recommendation

After reviewing the PR materials for the Talmoon Vegetation Management Project and after

reviewing and considering the concerns raised by the Appellant, I find no violation of law,

regulation, or policy with respect to the issues in this appeal. I recommend that the decision for

this project be upheld.

Sincerely,

/s/ Joel H. Skjerven

JOEL H. SKJERVEN

Appeal Reviewing Officer

District Ranger



cc: Patricia R Rowell

Appeal Reviewing Officer’s review focused on the decision...

Documents

Transcript of Appeal Reviewing Officer’s review focused on the decision...