OBJECTIONS OF MARK DONHAM, CRAIG RHODES, AND RACE TO THE DRAFT ROD,
FEIS, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE CRETACEOUS HILLS RESTORATION
PROJECT
Mark Donham, Craig Rhodes, and RACE v. Shawnee National Forest
1. These are objections of and by Mark Donham, as an individual, and Craig Rhodes, as an
individual, and the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE) to the Draft
Record of Decision, FEIS, and supporting documents for the Cretaceous Hills Restoration
Project on the Hidden Springs Ranger Dist. of the Shawnee National Forest in south Pope
County, Illinois. Laura Lecher, Acting District Ranger of the Hidden Springs and Mississippi
Bluffs Ranger District of the Shawnee National Forest, is the Responsible Official Objector
Donham will serve as the lead objector.
2. The Objectors have lived in south Pope and Massac Counties and are landowners in the middle
of this large project area. Mark Donham as an individual resides and owns land at 365 Azotus
Road, Brookport, IL 62910, in Pope County, Illinois. Craig Rhodes, as an individual, resides at
3883 Mt. Pleasant Road, Brookport, IL 62910 in Massac County, Illinois. The objectors have
lived in this locations for + or - 4 decades. RACE is an environmental organization based in
southern Illinois. RACE has a long history of interest and involvement in Shawnee National
Forest issues, having involvement that can be traced back to the 1980s. The contact address for
RACE is 365 Azotus Road, Brookport, IL 62910. All Objectors use and enjoy the national
forest land in the project area as it is and has been for decades. Objectors will be adversely
impacted by the project.
3. All Objectors have submitted timely comments on the scoping and the draft EIS. Objectors
Donham and Rhodes submitted timely comments as individuals during the DEIS public
comment period, and RACE submitted timely comments during the scoping period. Those
comments are available for review on the project's public reading room. The legal notice for
the publication of the draft ROD and FEIS was published on April 22, 2018. (exhibit 1)
Therefore, the filing of these objections are timely.
INTRODUCTION
This project, the Cretaceous Hills restoration project is a major federal action with a significant impact
on the environment. The area from just north and west of Rosebud which the FS calls Robnett, down
to the Burke Branch roadless area and then southeast to what the FS calls the Dog Creek area
constitutes one of the largest forested areas in the state of Illinois, both in it's core interior areas and in
its percent of the landscape in the area. It is relatively wild, (with ORV and 4 wheel drive truck
damage) the forests are high quality older, mature hardwood forests with a mixed species component,
lots of oak and hickories, and generally with less of the “sugar maple” understory problem that occurs
in other stands.
There are numerous pine plantations. But that is a misleading description. Most of the “pine
plantations” were planted in the 30s and 40s and constitute some of the oldest pine stands on the forest.
In most of these areas, there are large pines mixed with smaller ones, and in many places it appears
more like a natural forest. Rows of planted trees are often not apparent. There is hardwoods coming up
in them, but they have enough canopy to keep the understory more open. In many of these, you can
walk through them easily. These are not young or middle aged pine plantations where all you see is
pines and they are in identifiable rows and obviously appear as a pine plantation. These stands have
passed that stage and have become incorporated into the forest environment.
The area is rich in forest interior birds. Objector Donham has participated for over a decade in the
Audubon spring and Christmas bird counts and his areas of counting is very much consistent with the
project boundaries. Objector has documented the occurrence of many forest interior birds within pine
plantations. They are clearly part of the forest and not interrupting it.
Objection 1:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH NEPA OR NFMA
The NFMA requires that the agency “foster public participation” in the review of national forest land
and management plans. “The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the development,
review, and revision of land management plans including, but not limited to, making the plans or
revisions available to the public at convenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit for a period
of at least three months before final adoption, during which period the Secretary shall publicize and
hold public meetings or comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in the review
of such plans or revisions.”
The Shawnee 2006 Forest plan revision did not foster public participation in the development, review
and revision of the plan, and did not foster public participation in the review of the revision.
The Shawnee National Forest prepared, as a vital component of it's 2006 plan revision, an “Ecological
Assessment,” titled the “Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment.” It was prepared in conjunction
with the Hoosier National Forest. The preparers of the document were hand-picked people by the
Forest Service both within and outside of governmental agency service. Some were state agency
employees in both Illinois and Indiana. There were private individuals also that contributed. (The
document is mentioned and cited in this project's NEPA and NFMA documents.)
These people met as a committee in the research and preparation of the assessment, and this document
is cited as a source in the Shawnee planning process and in this project record also. When the Shawnee
refused to release information generated by the committee, because they claimed it fell under the
deliberative process exemption of the FOIA, the Objectors appealed and filed suit. That suit claimed
that (1) the documents either were not deliberative and therefore subject to FOIA, or, if they were
deliberative, then the committee was making policy which was a violation of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. (FACA)
The U.S. D.C. District court ruled that the committee should have been run consistent with the
requirements of the FACA, and ordered the documents released. (Heartwood v. Forest Service, 431
F.Supp.2d 28 (2006)). Right at that time, the Shawnee revised plan was being released. The
Objectors raised this issue in detail in his appeal of the Shawnee plan, EIS and ROD. That appeal was
ignored – blown off – to use the vernacular. The Forest Service refuses to address it's illegal actions.
This issue was raised by Objector Donham as an individual in his 12/15/17 comment letter, in his
comments and appeal of the Shawnee forest plan and EIS, and on a number of other occasions.
Objector Rhodes as an individual raised it in his 12/19/17 comments on the DEIS. RACE raised the
issue in their 11/06/14 & 11/24/14 comments.
An arbitrary and capricious action by a federal agency is one that is not otherwise in accordance with
the law. The Shawnee plan is not in accordance with the law because meetings were held that should
have been publicly noticed and in those meetings policy was set that is highly controversial and which
is relevant to the current project challenge.
When an agency violates federal law to keep meetings secret that legally should have been open to the
public regarding the development of a forest plan revision, that is inconsistent with NFMA's mandate
that the planning process foster public participation.
But it doesn't stop there. The FACA violation has continued to this day and involving this project. In
fact, the committee of “experts” that prepared the EIS purported supporting the Cretaceous Hills
project includes non-agency personnel, which triggers the FACA requirement. This information was
not known until publication of the final FEIS for the project.
In addition, there were serious irregularities in the public participation actions for the preparation of the
EIS for the Cretaceous Hills project.
When the project was first proposed, the Forest Service and the IDNR held two field trips. The Forest
Service denies they had anything to do with planning this, but they had “experts” there, some of which
they flew in from far away specifically for this event, to give presentations. The significant fact is that
people from across the state were apparently privately invited to this event, but no notice was given to
any resident in the locality of this project, including the objectors. The way the objectors learned of it
was through emails obtained through the FOIA. These emails are Forest Service emails, are relevant to
the project, and should be on the project record. What is even more outrageous is that at that field trip,
the agency provided an extra week to comment during the scoping phase, to those attending the hike,
but did not make that extra week of commenting available to the public at large, including to the
Objectors.
The Shawnee required that public comments be submitted in an online public comment room. But one
of the Objector's primary comments was removed from the reading room, even though the FEIS has
acknowledged receipt of the comments. The Objector had to write the Shawnee and ask them why it
wasn't posted to get them to put it back up in the online reading room.
Then the Forest Service changed their webpages and previous links to common documents like the
Shawnee plan and EIS were not available through previous links. The same is true for the Cretaceous
Hills EIS and documents. This happened in the middle of the objection period and the Objectors had to
contact the Shawnee to clarify what the links were to these documents. And while the Shawnee
supervisor and Hidden Springs district ranger did meet with the objectors to discuss the project, this
was long after any official comment periods were over and these discussions are not part of the official
record.
This hardly fosters public involvement and raises all kinds of questions about constitutional rights as
well as statutory rights. It does signify a pattern of the agency not wanting to hear from citizens that
may have an opposing opinion to theirs about how public land, which belongs to everyone, not just the
agency, should be managed.
In addition, a number of the critical appendices and critical supplement information for the EIS were
not issued as drafts and were not available for comment during the comment period on the DEIS.
Those include (1) Botany Report; (2) Wildlife Biological Assessment; (3) Fuels report; (4) Soils report;
(5) Silviculture report; (6) Hydrology report; (7) Socio-economic report; (8) Visual resource report; (9)
Heritage report; (10) Transportation report (although there was a road construction report in the draft);
and (11) Climate Change Adaptation Worksheet, which were not included in the draft. The
Climate change report went from 6 pages in the draft to over 30 pages in the Final. These reports were
not subject to public scrutiny. The pesticide risk assessments have never been subject to public
scrutiny. This made it impossible to comment on the project in an informed way.
For example, the wildlife appendix with the DEIS is two pages and only talks about building ponds.
There are two wildlife appendices with the FEIS, hundreds of pages, with broad but more detailed
information regarding nests of Scarlet Tanagers, Worm Eating Warblers, and Wood Thrush, three of the
forest interior MIS of concern. Objectors have had no opportunity to question where those nests were
located, what the immediate habitat around the nests were, whether or not the breeding was successful,
and other issues raised by the finding. This is just one example, but there are others. The problem with
the white nosed syndrome is not mentioned in the DEIS nor the wildlife report. Yet, there is broad but
relatively detailed information in the FEIS about the white nosed syndrome, where it has been found in
the region, and what efforts, if any, the Shawnee is undertaking to address the problem. None of this
information has been subject to public review. The same is true of climate change. The DEIS gives a
cursory mention of the subject. The FEIS has a broad but more detailed discussion of the issue. But all
of these broad but more detailed discussions have ever been subject to public review. The objectors
have had no opportunity to raise comments regarding the socio-economic report, and exactly what
costs are being calculated, for how many years of action, and how are those costs being assigned. It is
common sense that if you haven't seen a document you can't benefit from the information contained in
that document.
But that is not all. The law does not allow it. An EIS requires a more intensive public involvement.
(NEPA requires a lesser degree of public involvement for EAs than EISs. See Bering Strait Citizens for
Responsible Res. Dev. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 524 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir.2008) 2014 WL
6977611
United States District Court, D. Oregon, LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS/BLUE
MOUNTAINS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kent P. CONNAUGHTON, et al.,
Defendants, and Baker County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, et al., Defendant–
Intervenors. No. 3:12–cv–02271–HZ. | Signed Dec. 9, 2014. In that case, the Forest Service failed to
make specialists' reports available during the draft EIS comment period.
“The Court finds that the Forest Service violated NEPA by
failing to make the Specialist Reports accessible to the public.
The Forest Service's failure to include the Specialist Reports in
the appendices of the draft EIS accompanied by its refusal
to disclose during the comment period material on which it
relied in the draft EIS is contrary to the spirit of NEPA and
the letter of the CEQ regulations. (ID)
Considering that the FS has a regulation that requires that an interested party raise an issue in written
comments to be eligible to file a written objection about it, how can one write a comment about
something that one hasn't seen? In other words, if this is allowed to stand, the FS can forever avoid any
objections by only issuing environmental reports as part of the final and rejecting specific issues raised
in objections because they weren't raised in the comment period. This is a violation of due process, of
the public participation expectations in the NEPA and NFMA, and of the simple rule of democracy.
FAILURE TO AMEND OR REVISE SHAWNEE LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Shawnee National Forest revised their 1992 amended plan in 2006. Even though the objector
commented extensively and provided scientific information to the Shawnee to support contentions that,
among other things, the Shawnee should consider climate change and the carbon cycle in their forest
plan revision. The Shawnee made a finding that climate change “was outside the scope of a forest
plan,” and did not give it a hard look forestwide in the EIS for the plan, and there are no guidelines or
policies in the plan to address climate change.
The 2006 Shawnee Land and Resource Management plan and EIS has not been amended and
supplemented to consider climate change. For the cretaceous hills project EIS, the Shawnee had what
they called a “supplemental” appendix prepared which purports to consider climate change. In fact, the
document points out that the agency is required to consider climate change now as the result of laws
passed in 2012. One of the purposes of NEPA is to help agencies consider the impact of new laws.
NFMA requires that the Forest Service keep up-to-date with its scientific information and foster public
involvement in its planning.
The Climate change appendices are deficient on their face, (as will be discussed later) but that isn't the
biggest issue. Those issues could be played out in the public forum through a public process prescribed
by the law. However, that hasn't been done. Thus, the biggest issue is that none of this information has
been incorporated into the Shawnee plan through amendment or revision. The NFMA Act itself
requires that plans “be amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption after public notice, and,
if such amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, in accordance with the provisions
of subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by
subsection (d) of this section; and "(5) be revised (A) from time to time when the secretary finds
conditions in a unit have significantly changed, but at least every fifteen years, and (B) in accordance
with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that
required by subsection (d) of this section.”
The key part of the amendment process is that public notice is required for any amendment, big or
small. And this would be a significant amendment if ever there was one. There has been no public
notice for amending the plan to incorporate any standards or information regarding climate change.
This is inconsistent with NFMA.
And such amendments need to be accompanied by a hard look through the NEPA analysis process.
That is what the law requires.
But there is no forestwide hard look given to the impacts of climate change in the Shawnee plan EIS.
If the EIS for Cretaceous Hills is a site specific EIS, then how can they consider how these impacts
contribute to forestwide impacts if there are no forestwide impacts to which to tier the site specific
analysis? This is a violation of NEPA.
When a broad environmental impact statement already exists, a subsequent
statement on an action included within the entire program or
policy may summarize the issues discussed in the broader
statement and incorporate discussions from the broader
statement by reference, rather than conducting a separate environmental
impact statement on the same issues. Id. However, the Forest
Service cannot tier its analysis to a forthcoming, uncompleted
NEPA document. See California ex rel. Imperial Cnty. Air
Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 12
55856, 2014 WL 3766720 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014)
(League of Wilderness Defenders ID)
Not having the forestwide analysis means the agency is uninformed. It also means that the agency has
not fulfilled the public informing aspect of NEPA. This is in violation of NEPA.
This issue was raised in Objector Donham's 12/8/17 comments as an individual. It was raised by
Objector Rhodes as an individual in his 12/19/17 comment letter. RACE raised the issue in this
11/06/14 letter during the scoping phase.
Similar situation with the white-nosed syndrome
In a similar situation, the Shawnee did not address directly the impact of white nosed syndrome on the
bat populations on the Shawnee in their 2006 revised plan. It admits this in the Cretaceous Hills
planning record. It has been a conscious decision to avoid the public.
As the wildlife assessment appendix states (p 55)
“White nosed syndrome was not known to occur at the time the Forest Plan was prepared and the
Shawnee National Forest reviewed new information related to WNS in 2008 and again in 2012. The
2012 review addressed the epidemiology, transmission, and spread of WNS, the documented bat
mortality rates, and actions the Forest has taken to monitor and minimize the introduction and spread of
WNS into southern Illinois (USDA Forest Service 2012c). This document satisfies the requirements of
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 18.1―Review and Documentation of New Information
Received after Decision Has Been Made. Also, based on the 2012 analysis and considering the
following, a determination was made that a Forest Plan amendment, supplemental EIS, or a reopening
of formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary at this time. “
In other words, the public has no role in this? But this is and should be an issue of great interest to the
public, because if bats go extinct what species will fill that ecological niche and what are the impacts
on the food cycle?
Since 2006, the impact of white nosed syndrome has intensified and expanded. (exhibit 2) It has been
documented on the Shawnee nearly to the west coast. The situation with the viability and survivability
of bat species in general is critical. The Shawnee prepared a supplemental appendix as part of this site
specific EIS to purport to address white nosed syndrome. But none of this information has been
incorporated into the Shawnee forestwide land and resource management plan through an amendment
or revision. Nor has the impacts been considered forestwide in the plan EIS.
Objectors have observed a significant reduction of bats flying in their yards in summer evenings in the
project area. There is a reduction in bats flying along roads in the forest in the last several years. It
used to be common to watch bats, but that is no longer the case. Why not involve the public and
develop standards and guidelines for trying to protect these species?
When you look at the totality of this section of the appeal, there is one thing common to every one of
these claims - public notice and involvement was bypassed, particularly for citizens that have
environmental concerns. Could it be that the Shawnee National Forest doesn't want to consult the
public because it fears its management decisions are unpopular and much of the public disagree with it?
That is not consistent with the laws the Shawnee must abide by.
In addition, by not giving these significant issues relevant to the forest but not addressed in the forest
plan or plan EIS a hard look through a forest-wide impact analysis, the agency is uninformed about
whether they are causing an impact that could affect the entire forest. This is a violation of NEPA and
NFMA.
Objector Donham raised this issue as an individual in his 12/19/17 comment letter. RACE raised the
issue in its 11/24/14 comments during the scoping phase.
PROJECT ROD AND EIS DOES NOT PROVIDE EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY AS TO
HOW KEY CONCLUSIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS WERE DEVELOPED
The FEIS violates NEPA because it does not disclose adequate information about the conclusory
assertions and assumptions made in the EIS.
One of the latest NEPA cases in the 7th circuit is Friends of the Wisconsin River v. DOT. The main
opinion was written in the district court, (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57413 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2016) and
that opinion stands because it was not appealed. (Well, it was, but too late, only the state of Wisconsin
appealed, and the appeal was dismissed). U.S. Court of Appeals 7 th Cir. Nos. 16 – 2321 – 2586) An
important finding in the District court was that:
The NEPA regulations require an agency to identify any methodologies used to arrive at conclusions
that appear in an impact statement. 40 C.F.R. ｧ 1502.24. This regulation has been interpreted to require
agencies to discuss their methodologies in a way that is 淘sufficient to enable those who did not have a
part in its compilation to understand and consider meaningfully the factors involved.樗 Izaak Walton
League of America v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v.
Corps of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1136 (5th Cir. 1974)). As the District of Columbia Circuit has
explained:
“NEPA clearly contemplates that the public should have an opportunity to
challenge the adequacy of environmental impact statements. But without full
disclosure the public would not be able to make independent judgments
about the agency's action. Moreover, disclosure is necessary if the courts are
to review environmental impact statements for compliance with NEPA.
Id. at 370 (citation omitted).'
There are a number of assumptions in the FEIS for the Cretaceous Hills project for which the agency
did not identify any methodologies used to arrive at the conclusion, particularly when the objector sent
credible information which is counter to the assumption. Here is a list, probably not complete, but
sufficient to make the point, of such assumptions.
One of the overriding assumptions guiding this project is that fragmenting some of the largest blocks of
forest interior and landscape forest area on the Shawnee is worth whatever they are going to get out of
the project.
What the agency claims it is going to get is very vague. Page 1 of the draft ROD proclaims the purpose
of the project is The purpose of this project is to... maintain a healthy and sustainable oak-hickory
hardwood-forest ecosystem in the project area” This is repeated over and over throughout the project
documents. This, the Shawnee claims is the pre-(European) settlement�condition of the forest, (FEIS
Vol. 1, p 1 and throughout) but that is not supported by data either, as will be explained later. But they
provide no evidence that the actions they are proposing to take actually promotes oak and hickory
forest. There is past history of the Shawnee taking similar actions to promote oak-hickory on the
Shawnee, but there is no monitoring data from any of these sites even though the Shawnee plan
requires monitoring and evaluation, and indicates it is key in planning. In fact, their own project
guidelines cut against the assertion that their logging and burning will increase oak and hickory.
While the FEIS and silvicultural report says that at least 150 oak or hickory “crop trees” are required
per acre for adequate regeneration, that statement has an asterisk by it. That asterisk reads, “*The
average diameter of potential crop trees must be at least 0.5 inches diameter at breast height. Potential
crop trees must also be well distributed over the regeneration area. In some units, prescriptions may call
for less oak and hickory due to the many factors that inhibit regeneration of the oak-hickory forest type.
In these units species other than oak and hickory (such as yellow-poplar, elm, sweetgum, maple, and
locust) will make up part of the 150 potential crop trees. “ (FEIS Vol. 2, 73) The number or location of
those stands is not provided. There is no limit in the planning record on the percent of the stands that
could be allowed to regenerate to other than oak, nor are there any specific restrictions on that.
In fact, in response to concerns about whether or not the action will result in increased oak-hickory
regeneration or perhaps more emphasis should be put on planting oaks, in the response to comments
section, the Shawnee states that they don't anticipate a problem with regeneration because “It is
anticipated that natural regeneration would meet this requirement under both alternatives, [one of those
being alt. 4] because any tree species would satisfy this legal requirement.” (FEIS Vol 2, 179) That
could even mean exotic species trees. Seems like the Shawnee is trying to have it both ways – say that
the goal is oak-hickory regeneration, but then, if that doesn't happen, (and there are plenty of examples
of it not happening) then it's ok to have other than oak hickory to meet your regeneration guidelines.
Yet the planning record is full of references to the need for oak hickory, and the justification for the
project hinges on that goal.
The Shawnee has done similar projects to this, logging and burning in pines. Where is the data from
the past projects that they have done on the Shawnee? For example, the Shawnee logged some pine
forests in Hardin County at Harris Branch in the recent past. Or Ramsey Branch near Eddyville, in
Pope County. That is in the Shawnee Hills side of the forest. Why isn't there data from the Shawnee's
own monitoring of their own projects? After all, the NFMA and the plan require monitoring, and
utilizing that data in planning, and it makes common sense. And let's not forget, this is not a
programmatic EIS where the Shawnee is going to come in later and do site specific analysis. This is
the site-specific analysis. The data should be there.
While the Shawnee repeats the mantra over and over through the project documents that this project
will increase oak and hickory, there is little data and little explanation as to how they come to this
conclusion. When you look carefully at the project requirements you begin to see that there is great
uncertainty regarding this conclusion. Yet, the agency has given itself
an out by allowing any species of tree to be counted in meeting their regeneration requirements.
There is plenty of research out there where such techniques didn't work. For example, a 2017 paper, by
Mary Arthur, David L. Loftisa, and Tara Keyser, (Forest Service) published in Forest Ecology and
Management Volume 393, 1 June 2017, repeated burning alters the structure and composition of
hardwood regeneration in oak-dominated forests of eastern Kentucky, USA,the researchers found that
burning increased faster growing competitors to oak hickory than it did the oak hickory. They found
that additional steps will be needed to save these stands as oak hickory. Of course, this significantly
increases the cost of the project. There are other studies that have made similar findings, enough so that
the agency should have given it a hard look. (Exhibit 3) In addition, it has been postulated that nitrogen
deposition has an affect on oak regeneration. This is not mentioned in the EIS. (exhibit 3.1)
By what methodology did the Shawnee determine that these logging and burning projects would in fact
lead to increased oak/hickory? This issue is raised by RACE in 11/06/14 and 11/24/14 comments. The
issue was raised by Objector Rhodes as an individual in his 12/19/17 comments. Objector Donham
raised the issue in his 11/26/17 and 12/08/17 comments.
The Shawnee claims that oak/hickory forests were the “pre-settlement condition” of the Shawnee. This
is not supported by science. First, in using the 1804-1805 surveyor's notes as the primary source to
support this contention, it is using grossly incomplete information. But even more important is that, as
the objector pointed out with supporting documentation, European settlement of this region dates back
to the 1600s. While there are no good existing census records for Illinois in 1800, there were thousands
of people here and a fast growing population. Those settlers were cutting trees and burning and
clearing land. The impacts of settlement were already beginning to be impacting the landscape. These
were not entirely “natural” landscapes, and the surveyor's notes from 1804-05 do not go into any detail
as to what potential reasons might be responsible for particular aspects of the landscape.
What methodology did the Shawnee use to determine that the presettlement forest type for the project
area is “oak-hickory” and that the landscape that was documented in the 1804-05 surveys was in fact
“pre-settlement?”
Also, earlier 20th century historic but credible scientific data does not point to the forests of southern
Illinois as being pure oak-hickory. Lucy Braun was a professor at University of Cincinnati. According
to Wikipedia, Her most famous work was the book Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America,
published in 1950. Francis Fosberg said of her book "one can only say that it is a definitive work, and
that it has reached a level of excellence seldom or never before attained in American ecology or
vegetation science.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lucy_Braun Braun, as does the Shawnee,
includes the Shawnee Hills, including the Cretaceous Hills project area, in the Interior Low Plateau
geological region. She identifies this area as the “western mesophytic,” which is a more mixed forest
and not a pure “oak-hickory” forest.
Her findings were reviewed recently in a paper by James Dwyer, Revisiting the Eastern Decidious
Forest BioScience, Volume 56, Issue 4, 1 April 2006, Pages 341 52, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2006)56[341:RTDFOE]2.0.CO;2. (Exhibit 4) Dwyer carefully reviews Braun's finding. He
adopts most of Braun's assumptions as to forest types. He keeps the project area in the western
mesophytic forest type, and states this about the oak-hickory forest: “ Thus, the oak–hickory region of
the new forest map is largely restricted to the interior highlands of Arkansas and Missouri. Ninetyseven
percent of its cells lie within Braun's oak–hickory forest region. Braun characterized this drier,
westernmost section of the deciduous forest as being dominated by oak and hickory species, and this
characterization still holds with the new forest region. Post oak (Quercus stellata), black oak, black
hickory (Carya texana), white oak, and mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) each occurs in more
than 90 percent of grid cells containing FIA plots, with average importance values above 10.0 for post
oak, white oak, and black oak.
The Shawnee is actually a transition forest between the Appalachian mixed mesophytic and the pur oak
hickory of Arkansas and Missouri. It is not a strictly “oak-hickory” forest and managing it for that
type is incorrect and not consistent with its forest type. It is not the best available science to identify it
as a pure oak-hickory forest type, and the Shawnee provides few if any scientific citation to support
their repeated mantra. I guess some believe that if they say it enough, it will be true. Doesn't always
work.
And while on very dry and rocky ridge tops in specific areas, there are oak hickory stands, overall, it is
a mixed forest, mesophytic, and managing large swaths for oak-hickory is simply unnatural. There is
no attempt in the planning record to identify which stands are mesophytic and the few which may be
pure oak hickory. But, as is explained elsewhere in this document, there is a significant difference in
the percentage of oak that even the Shawnee expects in a mesophytic forest compared to a pure oakhickory.
What methodology did the Shawnee use to determine that the Forest type for the project area is “oakhickory”
when the science does not support the assumption?
In summary, the Shawnee claims that by increasing oak-hickory forests they will be restoring “presettlement”
landscape condition from 1804-1805, and that logging and burning will produce the desired
results. But there is significant information that (1) impacts from settlement were already on the
landscape by 1804-05 as settlement goes back to the 1600s in our region; (2) our region is not an oakhickory
forest, but a mesophytic, or more mixed species forest, and (3) that logging and burning is a
very uncertain method for regenerating oak and hickory stands.
Yet, the entire trade-off for entering and fragmenting some of the largest and oldest blocks of forest on
the Shawnee, a significant impact as evidenced by the agency's own preparation of an EIS, is hinged
on all of these assumptions working together to build a house of cards that oak-hickory is presettlement
condition and the project is going to create that.. Yet, the agency does not do an adequate
job of explaining how they came to these conclusions. And they provide scant scientific evidence to
back up their conclusory assertions. These assumptions and conclusions were not explained in detail in
the DEIS.
This issue is raised in Mark Donham's 12/08/17 comments as an individual It is raised in Objector
Rhodes 12/19/17 comments as an individual. It is raised by RACE in their 11/06/14 and 11/24/14
comments.
Assumption that forest interior birds harmed by the project will be benefitted in the “long term.”
Another assertion that the agency makes, this one with scientific backing, is that the logging and
burning in the forest interior areas will harm the management indicator species scarlet tanager, wormeating
warbler, and wood thrush in the short term. But the harm is justified by stating, without any
supporting data, that the harm is only short term, and that in the long term, things will be better
insinuating that there will be a population increase in the future following a population decrease. There
is no explanation about how they come to that conclusion.
In fact, in Forest Service briefs during their motion to get the plan injunction lifted, the Shawnee
asserted to the court that there would be 36 Forest Interior areas. Forest Interior areas in the 2006 plan
are identified as Forest-interior blocks of about one mile in diameter and 500 acres in size are identified
as the best areas on the forest for forest-interior habitat. This is actually significantly smaller than the
areas proposed in the FIMUs in a previous plan, that was struck down through judicial review.
Nevertheless, even with these minimal standards, the Shawnee has not identified where these forest
interior areas are located across the Shawnee, although we know that at least two are in the project area.
Neither have they produced any information about the condition or ecological health regarding forest
interior bird species in these core areas, wherever they are. Yet, the agency claims that, for example,
although their management actions will further harm a species already in decline, that things will be
better in the long run.
The Shawnee doesn't define long run or short run, but if there is going to be re-population of areas that
are abandoned by scarlet tanagers, worm-eating warblers, and wood thrush, (and acadian flycatchers as
far as that goes, another MIS) it will be in the future years as the areas reforests to mature status –
decades at least. But if the Shawnee is harming populations in these core areas and rendering them less
reliable as population sources, are there other core areas nearby? Where is the re-population going to
come from? Where are the interior areas on the Shawnee where the agency knows there is a viable
population? If these species are MIS, the agency should be monitoring for them. The plan requires it.
(2006 Shawnee Plan, Table 6-1, p 97, and Monitoring Matrix, table 6-2, p 100) There should be data
from the forest. Where is the information generated by these projects? They have allowed similar pine
logging projects in the recent past. Are they monitoring the effects or not? If they are, then why aren't
the results included in this analysis?
The Shawnee's reliance that the species will recover in the “long run” to justify short term losses can
only be relied on if the agency has reliable and credible scientific data to indicate that there are
populations elsewhere that can produce enough of a surplus population for the years where there will
be a reduction in a key source, that there could still be recruitment. And, during the time when the
species will be harmed, will these areas become sinks? The agency makes a distinction between the
fragmentation impacts from forest land that is cleared for more permanent open land uses like farming,
pasture, or other permanent uses, and clearing a mature forest and replacing it with a new, or “seral”
forest, as the agency likes to call it.
But nowhere do they ever explain exactly what the differences are, and how the impacts differ. They
just, with no citations, state that the impacts aren't as bad if you remove the large trees and let them
grow back compared with clearing the trees and keeping it cleared. That may be true, but let's have
some empirical data that's at least fairly recent to back up such assertions. And it is likely that it is
shades of gray and not black and white. While the total tree clearing won't be permanent as in total
land conversion to farming, or other development, there will be months where the ground will lay bare,
and it will be several years before it gets the character of being tree covered. What happens in those
years? That isn't mentioned by the Shawnee. It's almost as if it will go from all the trees being
removed to a forest without transition. That's not credible.
The Shawnee admits that the worm eating warbler, a sensitive species identified in the plan, as well as
an MIS, and a ground nesting bird, is adversely impacted by their burning program. The 2006 plan for
the Shawnee calls for half of all the interior areas to be burned. We are 12 years into a 15 year max
plan. But there is no data about whether or not other interior areas have been burned in the EIS. There
is no population data for worm-eating warblers generated by the Shawnee in response to their plan
mandated monitoring requirements. Why is that?
In addition, although the Shawnee stated to the court that there are 36 forest interior areas they
identified on the Shawnee ( insufficient as they may be because all but a few are the minimum size,
which is not large enough to guarantee nesting success) there is no mention in the FEIS of any of these
areas and whether they have been impacted by logging or burning, nor is there any data from any
population or breeding bird surveys from these areas. The breeding bird survey data is currently not
easily available online. So just how can the Shawnee rely on an assumption that in the “long run” the
birds will recover, even though they are currently declining and the impact of the project is to harm
them in their best habitat?
Relying on a site-specific NEPA analysis that doesn't supply any localized data that they have been
required to gather over the last 12 years, but instead relies on conclusory assertions of no “long-term”
impact on the populations of MIS even though there will be immediate harm, is not a hard look, is not
detailed, does not comply with NEPA. Failing to monitor according to plan requirements is a violation
of NFMA. Detailed comments about this could not be made because the wildlife appendices were not
included with the draft EIS for public comment. Nevertheless, this has been an ongoing concern of the
Objectors for decades. Objector Donham raised this issue in his 12/15/17 comments as an individual.
Objector Rhodes raised this issue in his 12/19/17 comments as an individual. RACE raised the issue
their 11/06/14 and 11/24/14 comments.
Cumulative Impacts
The issue of whether or not the Shawnee has ever done a proper cumulative impacts analysis on either
the forestwide level or project level is an issue that dates back to the earliest days of planning on the
Shawnee. It also is related to the discussion above.
A federal agency is required to give a hard look at a proposed action that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
To accomplish the “hard look” requirement, NEPA requires
all agencies to prepare an EIS for “major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
42 U.S.C. ｧ 4332(2)(C). The EIS must include:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii)any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii)alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv)the relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity, and
(v)any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action
The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
require a federal agency to analyze the cumulative impacts
of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. ｧ 1508.25(c)(3). Cumulative
impacts are those “impact[s] on the environment which
result[ ] from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions.�40 C.F.R. ｧ 1508.7; see also Kern v. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir.2002).
League of Wilderness Defenders ID
The standard for a cumulative impact analysis has been decided by the Southern Dist. Of Illinois No.
94-CV-4061-JPG or 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21507 and upheld by the 7th circuit in Sierra Club and
RACE v. USDA. 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14635 As explained in the opinion,
“First, the discussion fails to include all of the effects of the various activities that would be allowed
under the ALRMP. For example, in discussing the impact that the proposed plan would have upon fish
and wildlife, the FSEIS explains in great detail the effects of timber harvests and artificial openings, but
only makes a brief passing reference to the minor effects of ATV use and contains no discussion
whatsoever of the impact of oil and gal; leasing or other minerals development. (FSEIS at 4-109 to 4-
118.)
Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, the discussion fails to analyze the effects of the various
activities in combination. For example, in discussing the impact that the proposed plan will have on
forest interior habitat, the Forest Service provides (as the Sierra Club points out) a laundry list of
adverse effects. (See FSEIS at 4-121.) However, there is no discussion whatsoever of whether these
incremental effects, when taken together, will have a more serious impact. In other words, the FSEIS
analysis acknowledges, one terse paragraph, that (1) timber harvest will lower nesting success of forest
interior birds by increasing the amount of edge habitat, (2) use of ATVs will increase disturbances to
nesting birds, and (3) minerals activity also could disturb nesting birds. (FSEIS at 4-121.) However,
this does nothing more than restate what the FSEIS has already discussed in the direct/indirect effects
analysis. The Forest Service never comes up with a cumulative assessment, i.e., there is no attempt to
analyze the effects of (1), (2), and (3) to determine whether the sum of these incremental disturbances
will create a significant detrimental effect.”
First, the Shawnee has continued to make the same mistake in it's cumulative impacts analysis, both in
the plan EIS and in the project EIS. They do not do a cumulative impact analysis of all proposed
actions. Road work, which can have a significant environmental impact, particularly when combined
with other actions, isn't even looked at for cumulative impacts in the project EIS. The Shawnee does
not even attempt to analyze the effects of all of the proposed actions as combined and accumulating in
the same location. They analyze the cumulative impacts of pesticides, the cumulative impact of
logging, the cumulative impact of burning. But they will be doing all of these actions in the same area
within a very close time frame. What will the impact on forest interior birds and other wildlife species
that prefer a more undisturbed habitat be?
The wildlife report appendix admits that forest interior MIS will be harmed. These are scarlet tanager,
worm eating warbler, and wood thrush. It admits that endangered and sensitive bat species are likely to
be adversely impacted. Even though these species have limited habitat on the Shawnee and elsewhere
in Illinois, the FEIS and appendices brush off the negative impact by claiming, with no supporting
documentation, that in the “long term” habitat will be improved for them.
Cumulative impacts analysis requires “some quantified
or detailed information. Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army
Corps. Of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846, 868 (9th Cir.2004).
Conclusory statements about “possible effects” or “some
risk” do not satisfy the “hard look” required under
NEPA. Klamath亡iskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land
Management, 387 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.2004). Defining
the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis,
however, is “a task assigned to the special competency of
the appropriate agenc[y]. Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 414; see also
Native Ecosystems, 304 F.3d at 894 (explaining that federal
agencies are given considerable discretion to define the scope
of NEPA review”).
A CEQ guidance document recognizes that “the most
devastating environmental effects may result not from the
direct effects of a particular action, but from the combination
of individually minor effects of multiple actions over time.7
CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act, at 1 (Jan.1997), http://energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.
pdf; see also Kern, 284 F.3d at 1078
(explaining that a limited cumulative impacts analysis
“impermissibly subject[s] the decisionmaking process
contemplated by NEPA to the tyranny of small decisions”).
When determining the geographic scope of the cumulative
impacts analysis, the CEQ recommends the following
process:
“The CEQ's interpretation of NEPA is entitled to
substantial deference.�Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442
U.S. 347, 358 (1979). See also League Of Wilderness
Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Allen,
615 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.2010).
1. Determine the area that will be affected by the action.
That area is the project impact zone.
2. Make a list of the resources within that zone that
could be affected by the proposed action.
3. Determine the geographic areas occupied by those
resources outside of the project impact zone. In
most cases, the largest of these areas will be
the appropriate area of the analysis of cumulative
effects.
Id. at 15.
But how can the agency make any cumulative impacts analysis about what the impact of significant
disturbance in some of the largest blocks of forest on the Shawnee will be without having data on what
the status of the species is, and how past and planned actions in areas that may be source areas for the
species would be.
If the agency is going to rely on a scenario whereby they can inflict additional harm on a species that is
on decline but be sure that they will recover in the long run, it has to be certain that there are areas
within the vicinity that will produce a surplus population that could possibly repopulate the area in the
future. Where are those surplus individuals going to come from?
The Shawnee's response to the Objector's concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of fragmentation
is a terse statement in the response to the comments section which states “Project-level cumulative
effects analysis consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that may have overlapping
effects with those of the project (see FEIS Vol. 2, pages 39 and 40). That is it.
If one goes to FEIS Vol. 1, 39 and 40 there is a general editorial section regarding the agency's view of
cumulative impact analysis. For example,
“Cumulative effects on the environment result from the incremental impacts of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-Federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). The baseline for the cumulative effects
analysis is the no-action alternative. Although it includes some consideration of past human actions, the
cumulative effects analysis does not fully quantify all effects of past human actions by adding up all
prior actions on an action-by-action basis. By looking at current conditions, we capture the residual
effects of past actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed to
those effects. (See table 13 for the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in
this analysis.)
“The Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005,
regarding analysis of past actions. It states that “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects
analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical
details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis in this FEIS is consistent with that
interpretation and Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)). For these reasons, while some
past actions are listed and considered, the focus of the cumulative analysis is based on current
environmental conditions, which are reflected in the no-action alternative.
“To result in cumulative effects, the effects of an activity must overlap in space and time with the
effects of the alternative analyzed. Though most of the project impacts would be limited to the project
area, some may influence, or be influenced by, resources or processes outside of the project area, for
example, hydrology. Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis may consider activities occurring within
adjacent areas for some resources. These actions may contribute effects to some or all of the affected
resources under analysis. In-progress or planned actions known as of this writing are also included,
compiled from the “Shawnee National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions” and input from the Forest
staff. “
These paragraphs are followed by Table 13, which purports to give a list of all the past, present, and
future actions in the project area. This is grossly deficient because it obviously is not looking at the
combined impact of all the actions within the project area to begin with. It totally leaves out that there
is a serious problem with unauthorized Off Road Vehicle use in this area, and FS law enforcement is
pretty helpless to do anything about it. This project authorizes repeated logging, burning, and pesticide
applications to thousands of acres. It improves roads, and bulldozes road-like paths through large
blocks of forest for firebreaks. You think the ORVers aren't going to use them? And yet your
hydrology and soils report don't go into that. That's just one example. It doesn't include the road
building and improvement actions in their list of individually analyzed actions.
And while the Shawnee admits that, as we contend, that limiting a cumulative impact analysis to the
project area would not be complete, it states that they “may” give a hard look only at activities
occurring within “adjacent” areas.
But, as Objectors point out, some of the impacts, particularly regarding viability of certain species that
require large blocks of forest interior, would require a hard look at all of the forest interior areas on the
forest, and those aren't necessarily “adjacent” to the project area. But if the nesting success of these
areas is questionable because they are too small, then more fragmented areas are going to have less
nesting success. If there are source areas on the Shawnee, they will come from the purportedly
protected interior areas. So how is it working? Are they of adequate size to harbor consistently
successful reproduction? Seems like that would be critical information to know when making
predictions about impacts. And the monitoring requirements in the plan previously cited demand that.
There should be data.
In any case, that response to the Objector's concerns about fragmentation is inadequate, and the
Shawnee's approach to considering cumulative impacts is not consistent with the standard set the by the
U.S. Dist. Court of the Southern District of Illinois and upheld by the 7th circuit court of appeals,
which is quoted earlier in this document. The cumulative impact analysis for this project, and for the
2006 Shawnee plan EIS is not consistent or in compliance with NEPA's requirements. This issue was
raised by Objector Donham in his 12/15/17 comments as an individual. Objector Rhodes raised this
issue in his 12/19/17 comments as an individual. RACE raised the issue in their 11/06/14 and 11/24/14
comments.
The Impact Analysis of the forest fragmentation which will be caused by project is grossly deficient
The FEIS makes this conclusion in regards to the impact of the forest fragmentation to be caused by the
project in regard to Alt. 4, the preferred alternative.
“Effects of new road construction would be the same as those described under alternative 2. While
acres of harvest are also the same as those under alternative 2, treatment under this alternative would
more than double the amount of early-seral habitat created, eliminate intermediate to closed-canopy
habitat on more acres and for a longer period of time, and increase the block size of early-seral habitat.
Collectively, for these reasons, harvest would have greater impacts to amphibian abundance,
movement, and dispersal.
Like alternative 2, harvest would not reduce forested block size or connectivity, so forested landscape
conditions preferred by interior species would be maintained (Robbins et al. 1989, Rosenberg et al.
1999, USDA Forest Service 2002). However, because of larger blocks of partial canopy habitat created,
mid-term effects to interior species would be greatest under this alternative.
In their analysis of alternative two, the FEIS states:
“Proposed activities that could result in forest fragmentation include new road construction and timber
harvest. Potential adverse effects from these activities include increased nest predation and brood
parasitism, reduced nest success, impacts to movement and dispersal, and a possible reduction in forest
connectivity or block size (USDA Forest Service 2002, King and Byers 2002, Paton 1993, Cornell Lab
of Ornithology 1999 and 2003). Under alternative 2, habitat preferred by some interior species would
be reduced on 1,200 acres, where harvest would result in more overstory removal. Based on the above
analysis and the following rationale, proposed harvest would not result in adverse, long-term
fragmentation effects, or reduce landscape-level suitability for interior-forest species: (1) over 80
percent of project area interior habitat would be unaffected by harvest, and reductions in canopy
closure would be restored within 10 to 15 years; (2) large blocks (over 1,000 acres) of closed-canopy
habitat would be available in all areas; and (3) in predominantly forested landscapes, effects of
disturbances similar to the harvest proposed, tend to have little or no long-term negative effects on rates
of nest predation and cowbird parasitism.
The Wildlife report admits that the forest interior MIS will be harmed. 20% of the forest interior areas
are going to be fragmented. Are those on the edge, or in the center? Are there nesting bird territories in
the logging areas? That information is missing.
And what is also missing from this analysis is information that has been generated regarding
fragmentation on the Shawnee, much of it groundbreaking at the time, by Dr. Scott Robinson and his
crew, and others.
For example, Dr. Robinson wrote to Objector Donham in 1994 (exhibit 5) (and this letter has been
shared innumerable times with the Shawnee) and addressed questions regarding Dr. Robinson's
findings on pine plantations in heavily forested areas. Robinson responded in part, stating, “We do
have data showing the following use of pines; Cerulean and yellow throated warblers, summer tanager,
cooper's hawks, and pine warblers have all been observed nesting in pine trees and Kentucky and
hooded warbler and ovenbirds defend territories in pine plantations. All of these are among species of
concern in the Shawnee region. This moderately extensive use of pine plantations is one reason I now
feel that they do not fragment the forest and can act as holding areas for forest birds.”
Robinson also wrote specifically to the Shawnee supervisor in 1988 (Exhibit 5.1) with comments
about plans to develop forest interior management units of 1100 acres. A couple key comments are
provided below:
“Management that forms edge and habitat heterogeneity can therefore decrease regional bird species
diversity by selecting against relatively rare, local forest interior specialists. The common observation
that habitat heterogeneity increases diversity is there an illusion―it increases local diversity by
bringing in many common, widespread weed species hat thrive in human-dominated landscapes.”
He goes on to write in regard to the 1100 acres Forest interior management units, that “there is now,
however, much new data to suggest that 1100 acres may be too small for some of the key forest species
to breed successfully...” In fact, it is common knowledge that even the largest areas on the Shawnee
are vulnerable to some impacts of fragmentation. The Shawnee can only provide what is there, but it
doesn't need to be degrading some of it's largest areas of forest.
This was 20 years ago. In those 20 years, the pines have gotten larger and become more a natural part
of the environment. Where is the up-to-date follow up data to the Robinson information? Why isn't
that information included in the EIS? Why is little or none of the Robinson information included in the
FEIS?
The project record is very deficient in its analysis of the impacts of fragmentation of the area. It tries to
brush off the consideration of the impacts. But this is not what NEPA or NFMA requires.
The 2006 revised Shawnee plan provides for forest interior areas. While these areas are not mapped,
according to the court's order lifting the injunction against implementing parts of the Shawnee plan,
The Forest Service points to the 2006 Forest Plan “forest-interior management
guidelines”... Those guidelines provide that forest-interior habitat should include areas of greater than
500 contiguous, forested acres. All areas that are at least one mile in diameter without powerlines,
paved roads, levees or lakes should be considered for forest-interior habitat management. Each of those
areas would contain a 100-acre forested core, the minimum area necessary for nesting habitat, and a
400-meter buffer from “hard edges” such as powerlines, roads, levees or lakes, the minimal edge buffer
that allows successful reproduction of forest-interior species in the forested core. Using these criteria
for interior-forest habitat, thirty-six forest-interior habitat areas exist in the Forest, sixteen of which
exceed 1,000 acres and three of which exceed 2,000 acres.2”
As is apparent, there is not a great deal of true forest interior habitat on the Shawnee. Even the largest
areas are not that large. The Shawnee reduced the size of interior areas from 1100 to 1000, even
though the 1100 acre areas couldn't pass muster. Nevertheless, as Robinson stated, it is a step in the
right direction. However, a more relevant question to ask is whether they are working?
The Shawnee FEIS for the plan predicts increases in populations for the forest interior birds both 10
years and 50 years out from the plan. (Table 3-19, Shawnee Plan FEIS) We are now more than 10
years out, yet the Cretaceous Hills documents don't point to any data from the Shawnee about the
population status of any MIS, let alone the forest interior birds. Nevertheless, the 2006 Shawnee plan
requires that population trends of the MIS will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes
determined. If the Shawnee has set concrete predictions about populations of MIS after 10 years, and is
required to monitor those populations, then where is the data to indicate whether or not things are going
according to plan?
But not only does the EIS not give this kind of site specific population data, it does not give any
information about how long they think “long term” will be, how climate change may impact things, or
how the area will evolve from forest interior to fragmented back to forest interior. This is a site specific
document, and an EIS is required to be detailed. It isn't asking too much for the agency to have it's own
data to back up many of its assertions.
The Shawnee too is limiting the geographic scope of it's cumulative impact analysis to the project area.
How can it do a proper cumulative impacts analysis on the impacts of a forest interior species unless it
has data knowing how the other forest interior areas on the Shawnee are functioning as predicted?
Have they logged in any of these interior areas? If so, which ones, and what has been the impact?
What about burning? The planning record for the Cretaceous Hills project indicates that 50% of the
interior areas have been burned since the implementation of the burn. That could be having a
significant impact on worm-eating warbler, an indicator species for ground nesting birds.
But the Shawnee should have known that there is a wide range of forest interior species that use the
pine plantations. In the 1994 letter from Dr. Scott Robinson, prominent ornithologist who was doing
landmark research on the Shawnee at the time, and Objector Donham (and this letter was shared with
the Shawnee immediately and repeatedly) that he had data showing that Cerulean warblers, yellowthroated
warblers, summer tanagers, cooper's hawks, and pine warblers had all been documented
nesting in the pine trees. Because of this, Dr. Robinson concluded, “this moderately extensive use of
pine plantations is one of the reasons why I now feel they do not fragment the forest and can act as
holding areas for forest birds.” Exhibit 5 None of this information is the EIS, and neither is any
current monitoring data.
In addition, their cumulative impact analysis is based on totally conclusory assertions. For example,
the cumulative impact analysis for all of the logging together is Considering all the actions listed in
table 9 together with the effects of any of the action alternatives, no adverse cumulative effects are
expected. Harvest combined with fire would begin to shift these stands toward historic conditions. The
overall cumulative effect would be the restoration of sustainable vegetative conditions characteristic of
natural fire regimes and the restoration of fire as an ecological component of the landscape. No
mention of fragmentation, no mention of carbon release, temperature change, soil erosion. Yet, there is
no citation to any data to support this conclusory assertion.
The cumulative impact analysis is not consistent with NEPA or standards established for this judicial
district.
IGNORING THE SIGNIFICANT YEAR AROUND RED SHOULDERED HAWK POPULATION
WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE SHAWNEE'S ATTENTION IS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS
The Shawnee failed to respond to comments that there is a robust nesting population of red-shouldered
hawks in the project area. The commentor, who has lived in the center of the project area, has
observed, annually, in very exciting and prominent wildlife viewing experiences, red shouldered
hawks, in late winter/early spring, red shouldered hawks going through mating behavior as they fly
right over his property. This often consists of three of more red shouldered hawks flying in large
circles screaming at each other, then encountering each other, and sometimes seeming to lock claws
and freefall for a few seconds before coming apart and resuming their circling and screaming at each
other, until one or more breaks off and leaves and a pair is left which circles and dances in the sky
together. This is consistent with scientific observations of red-shouldered hawk mating behavior
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red-shouldered_Hawk/lifehistory.
Also, red-shouldered hawks are seen frequently year around, and I have counted them virtually every
year in both the Christmas and spring bird counts in the project area. For the Shawnee to brush off any
protections for the bird, which is area sensitive and not present in less forested habitats, instead of
responding to the comments and making an effort to substantiate what the commentor stated is
arbitrary and capricious, and is not consistent with NEPA or NFMA.
Roadless rule
The Forest Service has a rule governing inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas meet the minimum
requirement for wilderness designation by congress. Such an area, Burke Branch, is located in the
project area. This area has not been released for other uses by congress, and the agency has an on
obligation not to destroy it's wilderness qualities until congress has a made a final determination on it's
status.
Under the roadless rule, no road work is permitted, except for a few very narrow exceptions, which do
not apply in this case. Nevertheless, the Shawnee is proposing to build a road in Burke Branch roadless
area. This violates the roadless rule.
FEIS fails to mention the failure at Dean Cemetery East
The FEIS mentions “barrens” habitat a number of times. There is no detailed definition of what a
barren is, although the Shawnee uses the term to identify areas on the forest which are open land or
open land with a few trees where more open land type plants are found.
There certainly are places like that in the project area. They aren't widespread, but they do occur. The
FEIS claims that they are “declining” because of lack of fire. This completely ignores the fact that
these areas were maintained by the Shawnee for decades by mowing, and were called “wildlife
openings.” It is likely that most of these areas were original cleared of forest for settlement and
agriculture. When the Forest Service acquired the land it kept the it in open land condition through
mowing. (A proper cumulative impact analysis would have mentioned this, by the way, as it requires a
hard look at “past” actions.)
It was only relatively lately, in the 80s, when these wildlife openings started to be called “barrens” and
the agency started replacing mowing with burning. At best, the results have been mixed.
The Shawnee's showcase barrens restoration project is called “Dean Cemetery East.” It is just south of
the Objector Donham's property about a mile or so, part of the project area. In fact, it is mentioned
throughout the FEIS in lists of barrens in the project area, but that's as far as the discussion of Dean
Cemetery goes. Dean Cemetery East is an old wildlife opening that was maintained for many decades
by mowing. That particular wildlife opening contained populations of plants that would typically be
associated with more prairie type habitat.
In the mid 1980s, the Shawnee decided to make this area their showcase barrens management area.
The area began to be burned. At first the burn was only in the opening, and at first, the results were
striking. The site was burned frequently, and the area of the burn was expanded into the surrounding
woods.
The more that the area was burned, a strange phenomenon began to occur which has completely
changed the character of the whole site – tulip trees (the Shawnee incorrectly refers to these as “yellowpoplar”
but they aren't poplars, they are in the magnolia family) started coming in everywhere and
growing at breakneck speed.
Whether the agency ran out of money or ran out of desire, Objectors don't know because none of this is
documented in the EIS although it is clearly relevant. But the agency ceased any kind of open land
management for a number of years at the same time that this forest of young tulip trees was growing
rapidly. The combination of these two factors has resulted in the area becoming forested and no longer
a large open land There are still remnants of the prairie plants scattered here and there in the area, but
the area is severely overgrown with trees that are now too large to be bushhogged or even hydroaxed.
It is going to be a very expensive undertaking to re-open this area.
Objectors took a field trip with the Shawnee supervisor Nicholas and fire officer Crist to view the site
two years ago. Even at that time, the supervisor admitted that the area was probably “lost.” This is the
showcase barrens, and the botanical report identifies a number of plants that are uncommon for the
region that have been documented there. Yet, nowhere in any of the documents does it mention how
the area is severely overgrown with rapidly growing tulip trees.
This raises a number of questions. First, it points to the fact that “barrens management” is a long term
endeavor, and just applying a management one time or two is meaningless in the long run. The agency
needs to demonstrate that it has the resources and the will to continue this management into perpetuity.
It also raises the question as to if the agency can't sustain proper management of this small area, less
than 20 acres, for 3 decades, how is it going to sustain management of 15,000 acres in perpetuity?
It also raises the question regarding the encroachment of rapidly growing tulip trees into frequently
burned areas. Is this happening because the frequent burning changed the soil and made it more
accommodating to tulip trees? None of this is discussed in the planning documents at all. This is a
huge oversight, and a detailed EIS would definitely be discussing this in detail, particularly because it
was raised by the Objector in comments.
DEER OVERPOPULATION
Increasing Deer population in the project area is not given a hard look. In fact, the word “deer” does
not even appear in the FEIS Vol. 1, and is only mentioned in passing in Vol. 2 except for the response to
comments section, where the Shawnee brushes off concerns about the fact that their management is
going to create 18,000 acres of increased favorable deer habitat.
Objectors have lived in project area for about 4 decades. There is no doubt that the deer populations
have grown significantly, even in the face of increased hunting opportunities. Deer impact gardens,
orchards, berry patches, and flower beds. They pose a significant risk when driving on local roads.
Deer have a significant impact on forest vegetation. This is well documented. The severity of this
impact is directly related to the population density. An area has a carrying capacity for deer (and other
species). The project analysis doesn't even begin to describe what the carrying capacity for deer of the
project area is, or whether or not the current population is approaching or exceeding that. The extent of
the impact analysis is in the wildlife report, where it states that other studies have documented shortterm
improvements in quantity and quality of forage for white-tailed deer (USDA Forest Service
2006d) (from burning).
In the response to the comments section, in response to objector's comments and concerns about
increasing the deer population in the project area and the impact of this on the Objector, the Shawnee
responded with basically a non-response:
“it seems to narrow down on white-tailed deer, when in reality the wildlife effects involve a much
broader spectrum of species. While hardwood restoration efforts would have both short-term and longterm
habitat benefits for white-tailed deer populations, the wildlife objectives for increasing the
distribution and abundance of the native, mature oak-hickory forest type are much broader than
beneficial effects on white-tailed deer. Oak and hickory mast benefits many species of wildlife other
than white-tailed deer, and provides a high-energy food source during the dormant seasons when green
growth is absent (Forest Plan FEIS, USDA Forest Service 2006a, page 129).
“Data received from Illinois Department of Natural Resources wildlife staff indicate that deer
populations in Pope County have been on the decline since 2006. Moreover, according to the state’s
deer vehicle collision data, deer vehicle accidents (DVA) in Pope County seemed to have peaked in the
late 1990s and early 2000s (85 DVA in 2002). Pope County DVA now appear to be on a relatively
steady decline, with 44 DVA recorded in 2016. After looking over deer vehicle collision data for the
nine southernmost counties in Illinois, Pope ranks sixth with regard to most reported deer vehicle
accidents from 1989 to 2016. Cumulatively, these data suggest that deer populations, along with deer
vehicle accidents, in Pope County have decreased over the past decade, to the contrary of what the
commenter alleges.
A short-term increase in the deer population would not result in a significant environmental effect
because there is a likelihood of increased hunter pressure and certain components of quality habitat for
deer – browse and cover – will diminish over time.“ Project FEIS Vol. 2 p 201)
This is a site specific EIS. Using general data from the entire county is meaningless because there is a
deer population spike in the project area. Using county-wide data to brush off having to do an impact
analysis is not a hard look.
There are certainly reasons to be concerned. What about the increase in disease born ticks? The more
deer, the more ticks. The more ticks the more lyme disease and/or other diseases associated with tick
bites.
Associated with that is the potential for the problem to get worse as the climate changes. A paper from
Penn State University https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/projects/deer/news/2015/weather-andclimate
looked at the potential effects of climate change on deer populations “ Higher temperatures lead
to faster development rates of all 3 life stages of the tick. Ticks are the most important ectoparasites
infesting white-tailed deer in North America. Eighteen species have been reported from white-tailed
deer in the United States. For deer, tick infestation and complications include local irritation, anemia,
secondary infections, and disease transmission. Will parasite load on deer increase with climate
change? And how might this affect tick-borne diseases in humans?” ( exhibit 6)
When the project is at its maximum, the deer population in the area will increase as will the impacts
from the increased deer population. But, as the young forests begin to grow up and habitat decreases,
there will be a population crash, which could result in diseases like Chronic wasting disease.
None of these impacts are addressed at all in the project EIS. This is not a hard look and violates
NEPA. This issue was raised by Objector Mark Donham in 11/26/17 and 12/19/17 comments as an
individual. Objector Rhodes raised it in his 12/19/17 comments as an individual. RACE raised it in
their 11/14/14 comments.
Invasive species analysis is not based on a hard look and is based on conclusory assertions.
The invasive species analysis is deficient. First, while this document purports to be site-specific, there
was no site specific analysis of the current condition of the project area regarding invasive species. In
fact, the invasive species report states:
“Non-native invasive plants were fairly prevalent throughout the project area. Data were collected for
multiple species at one time and tabular data indicated 100 percent cover for many of the polygons
(mapped area of the infestation of NNIS). While the entire polygon was infested with NNIS plants, a
value of 100 percent cover would not be possible because it indicates that the only species seen would
be the NNIS plant. Instead of trying to estimate the actual cover of the infestation, and therefore, the
actual amount of infested acres, the analysis assumes that the entire polygon would be effected by
disturbance and would also be treated. This conservative analysis method allows for a consideration of
maximum effect from project activities, whether they are from ground disturbance or NNIS plant
treatments. Additionally, in some instances small infestations were buffered from a single point to an
approximate 20-acre circle. These polygons were left at this size because it was not possible to
delineate the actual infestation boundary.”
In other words, their analysis assumes that the entire area is covered with invasive species even though
they know that isn't the case. This could have a significant effect on the treatments needed and the risk
imposed by the populations of non-native invasive species. But if you read through the invasive
species appendix, it does admit that roads are a conduit for invasive species. It admits that a number of
very invasive species are located through the area, although, as previously stated, it does not identify
where these populations are located, their proximity to logging or burning areas, and what steps are
being taken to insure that removing the duff layer and opening up the soil to air exposure isn't going to
end up making the situation worse?
There is a claim that burning will help control invasive species. But, there is a huge caveat which is
stated in the invasive species report:
“ The majority of the NNIS within the project area are expected to be negatively impacted with the use
of prescribed fire as long as the burning is repeated at least 3 times within the first 10 years to help
control re-sprouting and spread of seed.” Invasive species appendix p. 12
But the FEIS and the appendices only plan for one burn on18,000 plus acres. At best there is mention
of 3 burns within 20 years. There is no plan nor impact analysis of having to burn the area 3 times
within 10 years. The cost of that is not included in the economic analysis. If this is not followed, then
the spread of NNIS could be facilitated and enhanced.
The assignment of risk categories for the action compared to no action is unsupported and makes no
sense. Is the agency contending that no disturbance is a higher risk for invasive species spread than
widespread disturbance which the project will cause? Yet, the invasive species report assigns a higher
risk for invasive species spread for no action, which leaves the full canopy in place, does not create or
improve firelines and roads, does not lay thousands of acres of soil bare with sun exposure. In fact, the
invasive species report states, “Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the same relative effects with the
reduction of road reconstruction being offset by an increased amount of bulldozer fireline. Alternative 4
would require more entries into the vegetation management units, , which would result in a slightly
increased risk of NNIS spread relative to alternatives 2 and 3.” Note that there is no cite to any data.
Yet, there is an acknowledgment that the project does pose a risk of spread to invasive species.
But what is more puzzling and the biggest deficiency is the lack of data from the forest itself. Again,
there have been similar projects in the recent past. The plan requires that invasive species be monitored
annually. The below sections are the text from the 2006 Shawnee Forest Plan Monitoring Matrix.
(Table 6-2)
Requirement Purpose Activity/
Biological diversity and wildlife
and aquatic habitat: Invasive
species control
Output Monitored
To determine if standards and
guidelines for the control of invasive
species are effective
Reports from Forest Service,
researchers, cooperating
agencies and others
regarding habitat
condition and suitability
Unit of
Measure
Acres dominated by invasive species
Measure
Monitoring
Frequency
Annual
Precision/
Reliability
Moderate/
Moderate
_________________
Requirement Purpose Activity/
Forest ecosystem health and
sustainability: Invasive species
control
Output Monitored
To determine if invasive and
exotic species are adversely
affecting forest ecosystem
health and sustainability
Reports from Forest Service,
researchers, cooperating
agencies and others regarding
habitat condition and suitability
Acres dominated by
invasive species
Unit of
Measure
Various
Measure
Monitoring
Frequency
Annual
Precision/
Reliability
Moderate/
Moderate
________________________________
Requirement Purpose Activity/
Document effects of
implementing prescriptions,
including significant changes in
productivity of the land
Output Monitored
To determine effects of
implementing Plan prescribed
practices and standards and
guidelines
Unit of
Measure
Various Various
Monitoring
Frequency
Annual
Precision/
Reliability
Moderate/
Moderate
So in other words, there should be over 10 years of data, with moderate precision, regarding invasive
species management in timber cuts and burns. Are the standards and guidelines working and being
followed? Why wouldn't you look at your own forest, your own implementation of your own plan, to
see if what you are saying is true? But there's not one citation to any data from the Shawnee regarding
invasive species except to say that they are virtually everywhere.
This is not a site specific hard look. There is not adequate data to support the assumption by the
Shawnee that their proposed project will actually make the non-native invasive species situation worse,
and their own inadequate analysis points to this fact. Yet the final conclusion is that the situation is
going to be less bad by disturbing and laying soil bare on 18,000 acres, opening up the canopy, and
building roads and firelines, than if nothing was done. It is an absurd assumption/conclusion.
Endocrine disruption capabilities of chemicals proposed for project use is inadequate/out of date.
This objection will focus on the endocrine disrupting capability of Glyphosate, a commonly used
herbicide and one prescribed for this project. The Shawnee uses out of date data, that has never been
subject to public review, and concludes that glyphosate is not an endocrine disruptor, even though
objector brought forth counter information.
In the 2009 paper, “ Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell
lines,” the researchers state the following: “
Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in
different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these
herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these
compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed
human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different
formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We
measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue, MTT, ToxiLight), plus genotoxicity (comet
assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERalpha, ERbeta) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter
tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All
parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24h. These effects
were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a
human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for
the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen
receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10
ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA
damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the
environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is
discussed. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.
Toxicology, Aug. 21, 2009, 262(3) 184 91.Gasnier C1, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon
MC, alini GE. (exhibit 7)
The response to the comments section brushes these comments away, and that does not constitute a
hard look.
In addition, there are growing concerns about the impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals on
wildlife. These can have deleterious impacts, yet this isn't even considered in the EIS.
Clopyralid is persistent in the environment and the agency isn't properly considering this.
Clopyralid, another herbicide proposed for use in the project area, is persistent in the environment, and
the agency doesn't consider this. The same is true of Picloram, another project herbicide.
The US Council on Composting has identified 4 persistent herbicides, Clopyralid and Picloram being 2
of the 4. (exhibit 8)
“Herbicides are chemicals used to manipulate or control undesirable vegetation. Our industry has come
to understand that a few herbicides can persist on vegetation and in the soil for months or years and we
term these products, persistent herbicides. We are specifically concerned with a class of herbicides
from the picolinic acid family. These chemicals are marketed for use in hayfields, horse pastures, golf
courses, right-of-ways, grain crops, and lawns to kill unwanted broad-leaf weeds. These herbicides do
not normally impact grasses including such plants as corn, wheat, and oats. There are four known
persistent herbicides: Clopyralid (Dow AgroSciences, 1987), Aminopyralid (Dow AgroSciences,
2005), Aminocyclopyrachlor (DuPont, 2010), and Picloram (Dow AgroSciences, 1957). There are over
150 retail products in the U.S. but these chemicals may appear on labels in slightly different variations
making identification difficult.”
Considering that this usage is going to be on public land, and people and wildlife that could be hunted
and consumed by humans will be on this land, is it protective of human health and the environment to
approve this use with no hard look at it's persistence in the environment?
Clopyralid is so persistent that it has been banned from most municipal composting facilities in the
country. A resolution banning clopyralid from San Franciso documents many of the problems caused
by Clopyralid across the country. To not consider any of this is irresponsible and not in compliance
with NEPA of the Shawnee plan and is not protective of human health and the environment.
The project is not protective of the critically endangered Indiana bat nor any of the other forest bats.
Even though the data shows that the Indiana bat is in serious threat of extinction due to habitat loss and
white nosed syndrome, the Shawnee is going to be removing and damaging innumerable potential
summer and fall roost trees. It's guidelines for protecting hibernacula against smoke damage are totally
inadequate.
But more curious and with legal ramifications – where is the biological opinion for this major federal
action? The FWS is required to sign off on a “no jeopardy” opinion, with conservation
recommendations that are binding to protect the species. There is no such document included in the
documents on the project webpage. Why is that? Was one prepared and signed? What are the
conservation recommendations? This issue was raised by Objector Mark Donham in his 12/19/17
comments as an individual. The issue was raised by Objector Rhodes in his 12/19/17 comments as an
individual. The issue was raised by RACE in their 11/06 and 11/24/14 comments.
THE FEIS IS INADEQUATE WHEN IT CONSIDERS CLIMATE CHANGE
The response to concerns about the consideration of climate change or lack thereof in Appendix K, Vol
II, page 207 of the FEIS is inadequate and doesn’t fully address the issue raised.
Unfortunately, it seems that any consideration of the effects on or by climate change in the FEIS is an
after thought rather than be given the importance it requires. For instance, throughout the FEIS
there’s the claim that any effect on or by climate change by this project is insignificant especially in
regard to how the projected area serves as a carbon sink. And yet we have no statistical, scientific
evidence as to the actual numbers involved in the amount of carbon being discussed. Therefore
how are we to know what “insignificant” means?
Moreover, according to the source material that the FEIS cites from the FEIS Climate Report by Brad
Eckert: “There are no applicable legal or regulatory requirements or established thresholds
concerning natural forest project greenhouse gas emissions or management of forest carbon.“
While it’s true that there are few regs in place to address climate change in such proposals as the Hills
project, there are guidelines in place as well as formulas for measuring certain climate change effects
from both government and private sources. Those guidelines have been outlined by Forest Service
Chief Abigail R. Kimbell who characterized the Agency’s response to the challenges presented by
climate change as “one of the most urgent tasks facing the Forest Service” and stressed that “as a
science-based organization, we need to be aware of this information and to consider it any time we
make a decision regarding resource management, technical assistance, business operations, or any other
aspect of our mission.”1
1 Abigail R. Kimbell, Chief, USDA Forest Service, February 15, 2008, letter to Forest Service
National Leadership Team
2 USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan, FY 2007 - 2012
Moreover, the FS among other government agencies have been tasked with gathering data regarding
climate change under the US Global Change Research Program in order to include climate change in
agency plans and projects. I see no evidence that the FS is gathering such data in the SNF nor
plans to do so in Cretaceous Hills. For example, there are formulas in place such as those outlined
in “Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and
land management 1850–2000”, that allow for estimating the amount of carbon tonnage released or
sequestered by the hectare. Nowhere in the FEIS is there a description of how the FS has
estimated such carbon tonnage in order to support the claim of insignificant effects of the proposed
project on climate change.
“Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and
land management 1850–2000”
By R. A. HOUGHTON∗, The Woods Hole Research Center, PO Box 296, Woods Hole, MA 02543,
USA
Given the long period of time as well as the bigger picture alluded to in the FEIS, it would seem that
the guidelines designed to monitor changes from climate change would have been implemented in the
Hills project. Such monitoring is especially important given that the Central Hardwood Forest is
unique regarding climate change since it has been identified as one of the few warming holes in the
world. As the response to our earlier comment about climate change states: The 2014 Climate
Change Vulnerability Assessment concludes that further research is needed to understand the 努arming
hole and its implications for the region to determine if the warming hole will reverse, as projected by
modeling, or continue.
If further research is needed especially given that the proposed project is in just such a warming hole,
wouldn't such an opportunity demand further research in order to arrive at best practices in the future
especially given that such research is required under the US Global Change Research Program? So
far the anticipation of warming hole effects has been justified by ongoing research including much
higher rates of precipitation which have a direct bearing on areas the FEIS claims as fire dependent
such as the Hills project. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any such provisions discussed
nor offered in the FEIS.
While the Hills proposal anticipates no significant effect on climate change, it doesn’t adequately nor
seriously address the effect that climate change is anticipated to have on the proposed area in the future
nor offer any plan to monitor the area regarding effects of climate change. For example within a 4
yr period the proposed area has experienced catastrophic ice storms as well as increased precipitation
which has been predicted by climate scientists. The changes in the proposed area by these events
have had a major impact with more to be anticipated. However, the FEIS was written on the
assumption of climate stationarity and the concomitant decision to not only revert the Hills area to an
unproven past state but then to keep it in stasis afterwards thus denying the real possibility that what are
now considered invasive species will eventually become indigenous. This ignores the conclusions of
climate scientists that climate stationarity has come to an end.
Page 12 of “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
(exhibit 9)
Thus:
“ Instead of following standard practices, individuals and organizations
will have to consider whether practices that have helped them adapt in the
past will remain effective in the future and whether they need to replace
standards and practices that have been presumed permanent with ones that provide for reconsideration
and updating.”
“These observations imply that, increasingly, practices and decision routines that assume the
stability of historical patterns will be out of step with future climate, and so are likely to be
suboptimal.”
Page 14 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“ Conclusion 1: The end of climate stationarity requires that organizations
and individuals alter their standard practices and decision routines
to take climate change into account.”
Page 16 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“When long-term decisions must be made with limited knowledge of a
changing future, mistakes and unexpected consequences or surprises will be common. People and
organizations need to be prepared to learn from both. It is important to observe, document, and extract
lessons from experiences with long-term decisions around the world so the lessons can be adopted or
modified for use elsewhere.”
Page 16 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“Site-specific, sometimes unique, aspects of a place through
time may be more important than general future trends. For example, the
energy circumstances dominating the Ohio Valley create very different challenges and opportunities
than those facing decision makers in the Pacific Northwest. “
page 17 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“The nature of climate change and the incompleteness of scientific understanding of its consequences
mean that decision makers must expect to be surprised―probably with increasing frequency (e.g.,
“hundred-year”
storms may recur every decade).”
page 18 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“ Decision makers need to take the information into account, with its
attendant uncertainties, in assessing the potential future benefits of changing their policies, practices,
and decision rules against the costs of change, which are immediate and much easier to specify. For
example, the costs of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change are obvious and may be
considerable, but the costs of not making such changes in a changing climate, which could be much
greater, are rarely estimated.”
page 20 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“ Over the past few years, a significant change has been occurring in
thinking about climate change in the United States. More and more of the
decision makers already concerned with climate change, including those
in the federal government, have shifted their focus from the question of
whether anthropogenic climate change is happening to questions about
how to reduce the risks and take advantage of opportunities that climate
change presents. Along with this shift has come a rapid increase in demand
for climate-related decision support. Demand comes from federal government
agencies such as NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(evident by their request for this study), the National Park Service,
the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minerals Management
Service, and the nonresearch parts of the Department of Energy. Some of the
most urgently communicated needs stem from the recognition in federal agencies
that they may soon be unable to fulfill their legal and regulatory responsibilities
because of climate-related changes and from fear of litigation about those responsibilities.”
page 22 “Informing Decisions In A Changing Climate” by the National Academy of Sciences.
“ Conclusion 1: The end of climate stationarity requires that organizations
and individuals alter their standard practices and decision routines
to take climate change into account.”
Page 16 informing Decisions In A Changing Climateby the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition to the above conclusions and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, the
CEQ, in its draft guidance concerning climate change, calls on federal agencies to consider GHG
emissions and climate change in two respects: the effect of a proposed projected GHG emissions on
climate and the effect of climate change on the proposed project. It emphasizes that the aim is to
provide meaningful information to decision makers and the public and avoid[] useless bulk and
boilerplate documentation, so that the NEPA document may concentrate attention on important issues.
in analyzing direct effects, CEQ advises it would be appropriate to quantify cumulative emissions over
the life of the project; discuss measures to reduce GHG emissions, including consideration of
reasonable alternatives; and qualitatively discuss the link between such GHG emissions and climate
change.
http://briscoelaw.net/3-1-10/
“CEQ also recommends that where an agency discusses cumulative effects of GHG emissions related
to a proposed project, it should “do so in a manner that meaningfully informs decision makers and the
public regarding the potentially significant effects in the context of the proposed agency action, “…
which would most appropriately focus on an assessment of annual and cumulative emissions of
the proposed action and the difference in emissions associated with alternative actions. CEQ also
encourages federal agencies to consider particular climate change impacts on vulnerable
communities.
With respect to the effects of climate change on projects, CEQ observes that climate change may affect
a proposed project in a variety of ways, including exposing it to a greater risk of floods, storm surges,
or higher temperatures.
And lastly regarding the effect of climate change on/by the Hills project, the so-called “butterfly effect”
hasn’t been taken into account regarding the Hills FEIS claim of insignificant effect of climate change
resulting in the Hills project. Admittedly, the butterfly effect is an analogy but it is apt. It
describes how an insignificant act in one place can cascade into a significant effect elsewhere.
Therefore when it comes to climate change there is no insignificant act which is why it’s even more
crucial that a plan be in place to monitor the effects of climate change. This is the very reason
why the FEIS lack of addressing the cumulative effects of climate change is woefully lacking if not
non-existent.
In regard to our concerns about one of the main premises of the FEIS which is based upon the
controversial conclusion that the Hills area is a fire dependent ecosystem and needs intervention due to
“aggressive fire suppression” during the past 50 years.
In our earlier comments about this issue it was noted that objectors have lived here for = or - 40 yrs and
neither we nor our neighbors living around the project area have ever seen nor heard of such fires either
by wildfire or humans. Nor have we witnessed aggressive fire suppression given that there have been
no such fires.
The FS response to our comments was: “As disclosed in the project fuels report, fire has occurred on
the Shawnee National Forest in recent years. Most of the 906 fires that occurred have been less than 10
acres, but there have been large fires in excess of several hundred acres.”
“The Pope County Community Wildfire Protection Plan notes that modern fire frequency on the
Shawnee National Forest averaged 29 fires per year from 1981 to 1995, and 26 per year from 1981 to
2004 (USFS 2015). An approximately 100-acre fire occurs every 2 years across the Shawnee National
Forest as a whole.”
Please note that nowhere in the FS response is mention of such fires in the Hills project area even
though the FEIS claims such fires have happened there. It must be assumed that the FS has kept
track of and recorded such fires given the importance they’re given in the FEIS. But to date, the
FS still hasn’t been able to prove the claim of “aggressive fire suppression” during the past 50 yrs in
the project area. And considering that the area is in a warming hole with increased precipitation
it’s unlikely such fires will occur in the future. This issue was raised by Objector Donham in his
12/15/17 and 12/19/17 comments as an individual. Objector Rhodes raised the issue in his 12/19/17
comments as an individual. RACE raised the issue in it's 11/06/14 and 11/14/14 comments.
RELIEF SUGGESTED
This heavy handed, decades out, poorly planned project based on sketchy suppositions is best
withdraw. A new project involving long time local interested citizens, and regular users of the land
should be undertaken. That project should address roads, deer, Off Road Vehicle abuse, law
enforcement, climate change, forest data, the impacts of past actions and potential future actions for the
project area and funding.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Donham, as individual, lead Objector
365 Azotus Road
Brookport, IL 62910
618-309-2169
Craig Rhodes
3883 Mt. Pleasant Road
Brookport, IL 62910
618-564-2645
Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE)
c/o Mark Donham
365 Azotus Road
Brookport, IL 62910
618-309-2169
list of exhibits as they appear on disc:
1. legal notice file name starts with 99620 FSTLP3
2. white nose syndrome webpage file name Home White-Nose syndrome
3. repeated burning: file name aja_2017_ keyser
3.1 Nitrogen deposition: file name Nitrogen deposition potentially
4. Dwyer, revisiting the eastern forests: file name 56-4-341
5. Robinson to Donham letter: file name Dr. Robinson's Letter on Pine
5.1 Robinson comments on 92 Shawnee plan: file name Dr. Robinson's Comments on Forest
6. Could reducing deer populations... file name Could reducing deer populations
7. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic file name: Glyphosate-based
8. San Francisco city council resolution regarding clopyralid: file name sfe_th_clopyralid
9. Informing decisions in a changing climate: file name National Academy of Science
The other exhibits are also supportive of Objectors claims.