United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Southern Region
1720 Peachtree Rd., NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
File Code:
1570-1
10-08-10-0008
Date: November 10, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL R.R.R.
Mr. Larry Treece
5330 W. Wheeler Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Re: Appeal 10-08-10-0008 of Forest Supervisor Judith Henry’s August 12, 2009,
Decision for Utility Corridor Vegetation Management on the Sylamore, Big Piney,
Pleasant Hill, Boston Mountain and Magazine Ranger Districts of the Ozark-St. Francis
National Forests
Dear Mr. Treece:
According to the authority granted to me by 36 CFR 215, this letter contains my appeal decision
on your appeal of the subject decision.
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2009, Forest Supervisor Judith Henry signed the Decision for this project with the
Notice of Decision being published in The Courier newspaper on August 18, 2009. It has been
verified that you provided comments during either of two 30-day Notice and Comment periods
of December 22, 2008, through January 20, 2009, and, February 12, 2009, through March 13,
2009, respectively, as required for standing to appeal in the proposed action. Therefore, you met
the regulatory requirements at 36 CFR 215.13 for eligibility to file your appeal which was
accepted on October 22, 2009.
The District Ranger notified us that several unsuccessful attempts were made to resolve the
issues in your appeal via the e-mail address you provided. Additionally, since there was no
telephone number provided, we proceeded with review of your appeal.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER (ARO)
I received the recommendation of the ARO that the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed.
The ARO’s recommendation is based on the appeal issues and a review of the project record. A
copy of the ARO recommendation is enclosed.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The appeal requests that the decision be withdrawn.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appeal 10-08-10-0008 Treece
Page
2
CONCLUSION
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 and the recommendation of the ARO, which includes
a discussion of the issues that were raised in your appeal. Therefore, I am affirming Forest
Supervisor Judith Henry’s August 12, 2009 decision.
This constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture.
Sincerely,
/s/Jerome Thomas
for
LIZ AGPAOA
Appeal Deciding Officer
Regional Forester
Enclosure (ARO Recommendation)
Appeal 10-08-10-0008 Treece
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
1570-1
Page
Date:
3
October 30, 2009
ARO Recommendation Treece Appeal 10-08-10-0008 Utility Corridor Vegetation
Management, Sylamore, Big Piney, Pleasant Hill, Boston Mountain and Magazine
Ranger Districts, Ozark-St. Francis NFs in Arkansas
Appeal Deciding Officer
This letter constitutes my recommendation for the subject appeal filed by Larry Treece for Utility
Corridor Vegetation Management on the Ozark-St. Francis NFs.
My review was conducted pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 215. To ensure the
analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies and orders, I
have reviewed and considered each of the points raised by the appellant and the decision
documentation submitted by the Forest Supervisor. My recommendation is based upon review
of the Appeal and Project File, including but not limited to the Decision Notice and Finding of
No Significant Impact (DN-FONSI), Environmental Assessment (EA) and Biological
Evaluation/Biological Assessment (BE/BA).
ISSUES
The Issues raised in this appeal that are within the scope of the review and meet the requirements
of 36 CFR 215.14 are:
Issue 1:
Whether herbicide application effects to wildlife and plant species were
adequately considered [Appeal, p. 1]; and
Issue 2:
Whether herbicide application effects to water quality were adequately addressed
[Appeal, p. 1].
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Issue 1:
Whether herbicide application effects to wildlife and plant species were
adequately considered.
The appellant contends that “…the herbicides will be detrimental to the wildlife as well as some
plants that will be killed by the over-spray.” (Appeal, p. 1)
The Decision Notice (p 5) addresses herbicide effects to wildlife by stating “9. The action is not
likely to adversely affect any endangered or threatened species…under the Endangered Species
act of 1973. No known significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects are expected to
proposed endangered threatened and sensitive species (PETS). (see EA pages 68-75).”
Appeal 10-08-10-0008 Treece
Page
4
The Environmental Assessment (pp. 65-95) addresses herbicide application effects on 6
Threatened and Endangered Species, 13 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, and 17
Management Indicator Species. “In summary, the Proposed Action of using approved herbicides
for ROW vegetation management, strictly following the Forest Service guidelines and applicable
BMPs, would have minimal direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects on PETS species
populations inhabiting the Ozark…National Forests” (EA, p. 74).
The Biological Evaluation dated July 25, 2009 made determinations for Protected, Endangered,
Threatened, and Sensitive species associated with the project and was sent to the USFWS for
informal consultation. The USFWS concurred with the effects determination in a letter dated
July 29, 2009 (Tab Index for Utility Corridor Vegetation Management # 35 & # 34).
Comments received during the initial comment period regarding this issue were responded to in
the Response to Comments on p 13. The specific comment: “Oppose chemical use due to effects
on animals”…FS Response: “Effects of the proposed herbicides are discussed on pages 99-113
of the EA. The article quoted in the EA adequately explains the toxicity table and comparisons
in a scientific manner. It also explains that those herbicides listed in the table are less toxic to
humans and animals because the processes that they interrupt are not found in animals.”
Finding
I find that herbicide application effects to wildlife species were adequately considered.
Issue 2:
Whether herbicide application effects to water quality were adequately
addressed.
The appellant contends “The chemicals could end up in our creeks, springs, and lakes”.
The Decision Notice (p. 2) cites mitigation measures to include herbicide application, water
quality-erosion/siltation, and health and human safety – toxic properties, and risk assessments
specifically, “Ensuring that herbicides are applied within National Forests only in ROWs” and
“Sampling of streams and water bodies adjoining the treatment areas, as provided in the Forest
Service approved Sampling and Analysis Plan (Appendix 4 of EA)” (Decision Notice/FONSI pp.
2-3).
Additionally, within the Finding of No Significant Impact (p. 4) it states “There will be no
significant effects on public health and safety, because the proposed herbicides target
biochemical pathways unique to plants, do not accumulate in human tissue and are passed
through the body without significant effect. Application methods and quantities proposed little,
if any, risk to the public. A minor adverse risk to applicators from overexposure is possible,
however, no significant immediate or cumulative adverse effects to workers or the general public
are anticipated. (see EA pages 101-113)”.
The Utility Corridor Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment, Water Quality
Section (pp. 41-47), addresses environmental effects from the use of the five proposed herbicides
Appeal 10-08-10-0008 Treece
Page
5
within the Ozark NF. The EA identifies each herbicide and the potential effects to drinking
water. The EA identifies mitigations including Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best
Management Practices and concludes the Hydrology and Water Quality Summary (p. 47) with
“If…all applicable label directions and…directives are followed, there are no significant
potential immediate or cumulative adverse effects on water quality from the proposed action”.
Comments received during the initial comment period regarding this issue were responded to in
the Response to Comments on p. 10. Specifically, “Comment: Use of chemicals will
contaminate water…FS Response: The effects of the proposed herbicides in this project are
discussed in the EA on pages 37-48”.
Finding
I find that herbicide application effects to water quality were adequately considered.
RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the project record and the issues raised by the appellant, I recommend that
Forest Supervisor Judith Henry’s August 12, 2009, Decision for Utility Corridor Vegetation
Management on the Sylamore, Big Piney, Pleasant Hill, Boston Mountain and Magazine Ranger
Districts, be affirmed.
/s/ Teri Cleeland
TERI CLEELAND
Appeal Reviewing Officer
Deputy Forest Supervisor
NFs in Florida