In responding to Jon’s comment on 4FRI NEPA, I noted that the 4FRI Rim Country Project covered 1,240,000 acres, which seems like it might be one of the largest we have run across.
Sadly, I couldn’t get the story map to come up. Maybe others will have more luck. Below is a map of the 4FRI area and the different NEPA decisions.
Apparently, the Rim Country (2022) decision used condition-based NEPA and was not litigated.. (don’t know that for sure as that info wouldn’t be on the same page).
The objections were interesting.. I could spend days looking at CBD’s list of references in their objection letter. And the responses to objections were also interesting, including much discussion of why CBM is OK, that others may use.
From the response letter to the CBD objection, here’s the FS response to a proposed alternative with less mechanical treatment..
The project purpose and need includes objectives to restore forest structure, composition, and functions, to improve ecosystem functionality and multiple resource attributes beyond simple mitigation of uncharacteristic wildfire events. The absence of characteristic fire for 120+ years has resulted in forest structures and fuels accumulation in much of the project landscape which exceed levels that can be restored to desired comprehensive characteristics by fire alone. The response to Contention 3c addresses the dismissal of the STFU alternative from detailed consideration.
And here’s their rationale for using CBM:
As stated in the project record, the Rim Country EIS uses a CBM approach because (1) the diversity of landscapes and size of the project contribute to dynamic and variable conditions, with processes such as fire, insects, encroachment, and competition resulting in a changing environment; (2) project implementation is expected to span 20 or more years; and (3) it is not feasible to have completely up-to-date information about current conditions on every acre of the project area, which encompasses approximately one million acres [PR 646, p. 4].
NEPA’s “twin aims” are to ensure that an agency informs the public of a proposed action and considers environmental concerns in its decision-making process. In the Rim Country Project, the Forest Service has worked closely with the 4FRI Stakeholder Group (SHG) to develop the condition-based management process collaboratively [PR 688, pp. 191, 198]. Throughout the planning process, the Forest Service has been transparent about the use of CBM and provided opportunity for public comment on this approach. The proposed action provided for public review during scoping identified a “toolbox” approach for implementing treatments [PR 76, pp. 21-22] and acknowledged that, “we do not have complete information on the conditions found on every acre, but we do have enough data to make an informed decision about what types of treatments… would work best in certain conditions” [PR 76, p. 21]. The DEIS that was made available for public review and comment included a “Flexible Toolbox Approach” (FTA; essentially condition-based management) [PR 315, p. 30; PR 312, pp. 599-661] and included
maps of different types of treatments [PR 309, pp. 530-534]. The FTA process was renamed CBM in the FEIS [PR 686, p. 31] and the process was clarified in the FEIS based on public comment to make it more predictable, reliable, and repeatable [PR 688, pp. 187-195, 197, 202,
235, 237; see updated implementation plan at PR 687, pp. 313-383]. Further, the FEIS clarifies that stakeholder involvement will continue during project implementation under the CBM framework [PR 688, pp. 186-187].
The record clearly demonstrates that, throughout the planning process, the Forest Service was transparent about the use of CBM and, in accordance with NEPA, provided ample opportunity for the public to comment on the CBM approach and resulting effects. The Forest Service was responsive to public comment on CBM and made corresponding updates to project documents, and the agency demonstrates a continued commitment to a collaborative approach during project implementation.
In my quest to understand more about the utility of the objection process, it would have been handy to have the minutes to the objection meeting, but perhaps they weren’t taken or posted.
The ROD is very informative as well. Here’s a handy table that gives you an idea of the scope and scale across three forests. That’s 873,420 acres of MT and 991,060 acres of PF.
It sounds like it was a great deal of work to do this EIS, but not having to do more NEPA on these activities for twenty years seems like it might be worthwhile.
It’s the Collaborative! I’ve been around some NEPA in my time but I have never seen the relationships forged by the working group known as the 4-FRI Collaborative. They’ve been “a thing” for fifteen years; loggers sitting around the tables with the likes of CBD, Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and usually all four Forest Supervisors.
There were disagreements to be had, feelings hurt and such, but through it all the system worked! Usually Todd Shulkie was at the meetings, and was a good friend of the A-S and the Contractors of White Mountain Stew; we shared many meals together and even resolved an Objection over tacos! And that, my friends, was one of my proudest days as a Forest Sup! We had a 30,000 acre Forest project area (yes, under the 4-FRI umbrella) where we needed to start work on a very dangerous WUI. The A-S had burned over a million acres, in two wildfires, and everyone wanted to do better at managing forest landscapes!
That same cooperation spills both ways, and the Collaborative was a part of those efforts on everything except the Decisions. It would make a heck of a case study, but realize it took lots of work. Just before I left the A-S, I secured a several million dollar Grant from one of the major power utilities in the Valley, to be used in Planning Black River, and 4-FRI number 2! It was quite a thing to experience……
As a final thought, I contracted through the Arizona State Forester after retirement, to continue work in 4-FRI development….
Thanks for digging into this, Sharon. Condition-based NEPA can work in some places if done right, and maybe this is one of those. But having enough information now to not have to do NEPA for actions taken in 2040? I wouldn’t bet much on that. And when they make the case that “it is not feasible to have completely up-to-date information about current conditions on every acre of the project area,” that normally translates into not having an “action” yet with foreseeable effects that would trigger NEPA now.