Ely Field Office

Bureau of Land Management
HC 33 P.O. Box 33500
Ely, Nevada 89301-9408

Phone 775-289-1800

Telefaxe 775-289-1910

August 16, 2001

Attn: Mike Main
 
 

AMMENDED COMMENTS ON THE MOUNT WILSON GUEST RANCH COMMUNITY URBAN INTERFACE PROJECT EA NV-040-01-067 and ELY URBAN INTERFACE PROJECT

Dear Mr. Main:

I would request a 30 day extension for comment, based on the procedural errors and deficiencies in this Environmental Assessment. These errors are such glaring abuses of the NEPA procedure, that litigation may be imminent.

The proposed action lacks professional integrity, especially scientific integrity, in its discussions and analyses of the environmental assessment. The lack scientific integrity in this plan is glaringly apparent. As a person trained in fire fighting, and having the resource of fire management personnel, I ask:

What happens when you place literally tons of small, dried up pieces of wood in an semiarid environment with a bimodal precipitation pattern ranging from 8 - 14 inches a year? What happens when green vegetation is converted into tiny pieces of deadfall? Can you think of any other action, which could possible enhance the risk of fire, more than putting tons of kindling chips, two inches deep on the desert floor? How in heavens name, can this project be implemented under the guise of fuel reduction?

The project converts green vegetation into fire starter. The list of 17 prepares includes 6 contributors from Argonne National Lab. I understand that Argonne was the BLM contractor on this project. It is unfathomable, that this many educated people could be involved in the preparation of a proposal seeking, "to restore ecological health to the treatment area" and "reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and protect human health and safety," through chipping up trees and leaving them in two inch deep piles of dead wood in middle of the desert. Such a proposal is utterly comical. The proposal greatly enhance the risk of catastrophic fire. It does absolutely nothing to "reduce hazardous fuel loads".
 
 

A. Wood Chip Dynamics
 
 

Organic materials require nitrogen to fuel the organisms that break down the fibers. Anyone who has delved in organic knows better than to spread raw chips or sawdust on our the earth or till them into the earth. Ground wood products purchased from a nursery are usually fortified with ammonium sulfate.
Raw wood shavings and fresh ground bark require a lot of added nitrogen or the decomposition process will take it from the soil, robbing roots of whatever nitrogen is available. One needs to add one pound of ammonium sulfate for each inch-deep layer of wood chips spread over 100 square feet for the first year. After that you need to decrease it by half for the same area for several years. (4 years = 1.875# per 100 sq.') In other words the BLM has not considered the impact of the chip, and other actions needed. Further treatment of the areas where the chips are spread would be required for at least four years, perhaps, longer as these sites are in dryer areas.
Wood chips or sawdust also lower the soil pH. In areas where soil is already neutral or acid this can result in a very acid soil. Depending on the type of trees, wood chips can also release tannins that may be toxic to some of the soil organisms. I see no consideration in the EA for the chemical released from the chips. Or, the potential impact on such releases into streams, creeks or upon sagebrush and other native vegetation.

Layers of chips and sawdust will help hold in moisture once it reaches the soil, but in low moisture areas they prevent dry site adapted plants with extensive surface roots from getting moisture through dew and light rains. The chips prevent new vegetation from regenerating and will further damage the ecological health of the region. The proposed action is in complete contradiction to 1.2 Need For The Proposal, "improve and protect public health and safety by reducing the fire threat and restoring ecological health to the proposed project area."

This propose action fails miserably to consider the its own impacts upon the environment. The reference list in the Environmental Assessment provides no indication that the prepares have any clue as to the impact of the wood chips, upon the soils, water or plants, in short the environment . There is no analysis of the biomass to be converted into fire starter, nor any indication of the area within each unit which will be covered in a 2 inch chips. The analysis clearly illustrates that the prepares focused singularly upon the action of removing the trees and not the consequences. A list of biomas question to be answered follows in this document.
 
 
 
 

B. Urban Interface Criteria:

The BLM and its contractor failed to document the need for this proposal. What is the human populations in the proposed project areas? How has that changed? How many homes are being built and from what materials. The prepares must revisit the basic criteria for an Urban Interface Project. Then document the urban aspect of their proposed action.

In Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: where and how much? A summary of home defensible space research by Jack D. Cohen, US Forest Service, one discovers:

Wildfire must be close enough for its flying brands or flames to contact the flammable parts of the structure.

Research indicates that effective residential fire loss mitigation must focus on the home and its immediate surroundings. This research indicates that home losses can be effectively reduced by focusing mitigation efforts on the structure and its immediate surroundings.

Home ignitability is defined by the characteristics of a structure's materials and design, and the surrounding flammables that determine the potential for a home to ignite during wildland fires (or any fires outside the home).

Research models indicate that large wildland flame fronts (e.g., forest crown fires) will not ignite wood surfaces (e.g., the typical variety of exterior wood walls) at distances greater than 130 feet. Case studies found that vegetation clearance of at least 30 feet was associated with a high occurrence of home survival

.

Given nonflammable roofs, Stanford Research Institute found a 95 percent survival with a clearance of 30-60 feet. During severe wildfires, firebrand ignitions are particularly evident for homes with flammable roofs. Often these houses ignite and burn without the surrounding vegetation also burning. This suggests that homes can be more flammable than the surrounding vegetation.

Extensive wildland vegetation management does not effectively change home ignitability. The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for several hundred meters or more around homes is greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames. Ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions.
 
 

Home ignitability ultimately implies the necessity for a change in the relationship between homeowners and the fire services. Instead of pre-suppression and fire protection responsibilities residing with fire agencies, homeowners take the principal responsibility for assuring adequately low home ignitability.

These EA’s have done nothing to explore the alternative of fire clearance codes, homeowner outreach, coordination with builders, insurance agents, building material suppliers and the public at large in education effort . This is a viable and fiscally sound alternative, which has not been explored. Likewise, the alternative of doing nothing is sorely under analyzed.

C. Failure to Consider Alternatives

NEPA mandates that an agency "shall to the fullest extent

possible: Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable

alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse

effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment."

40 CFR §1500.2(e). NEPA documents must discuss alternatives to the

proposed action in order to "provid(e) a clear basis for choice among

options by the decisionmaker and the public." 40 CFR §§1502.14,

1507.2(d), 1508.9(b); 42 USC §4332(e). The purpose of this

requirement is "to insist that no major federal project should be

undertaken without intense consideration of other more ecologically

sound courses of action, including shelving the entire project, or of accomplishing the same result by entirely different means." Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (5th Cir. 1974); Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional 833 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 490 US 332 (1989) (agency must consider alternative sites for a project). The court has ruled that:

The goal of [NEPA] is to ensure "that federal agencies infuse in project planning a thorough consideration of environmental values ... The consideration of alternatives requirements furthers that goal by guaranteeing that agency decision makers "[have] before [them] and take into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project (including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance.

There is an extensive body of case law available on the subject of alternatives which an agency must consider in the NEPA process. This EA fails miserably .

On August 14, 2001 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in a case with similar elements.U.S. Forest Service officials argued the logging was necessary to remove trees killed by insects and disease and to reduce fire hazards. The appeals court on Tuesday cited a government study that said the risk of fire during the first few years of timber harvesting was actually greater than if the damaged timber was left in the forest. It enjoined the sale.

This proposed action greatly increases the risk of fires to the project area. It is a woeful abuse of the public trust and tax payer money.

D. Other Unaddressed Issues

Current Status:

The EA provides no information about the existing conditions in the proposed area. How many trees are to be removed from each area:

What is the biomass of the felled trees?

The EA notes biomass as, beyond the scope of the proposal." The BLM may not dismiss such a critical element of the process by declaring it beyond the scope of the document. Marble Mountain Audubon Society v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1990). I would hereby request that the BLM utilize the biomass from the chips, and prepare the appriate separate NEPA analysis.
 
 

What area will the chips cover when spread out in a 2 inch layer?

What is the cost of the operation ?

What is the timeline of the operation?

The EA notes that this is a 5 year plan.

What areas are to be treated when?

There is no cost anyalsis or break down.

For example:

What if there were 10 trees per acre chipped: 300,000 trees

What if each of these immature tree produced 35 pounds of pine nuts during its 7 year cycle? 1.500,000 pounds

What if each pound of pine nuts were worth $5.oo per pound retail?

$7,500,000 per year of taxable sales

What if each tree averaged 14" diameter and 40' high ?

What if each tree produced 400 board feet of chipboard?

120,000,000 board feet

What if each tree produced 265 board feet of dimension lumber?

The EA notes the area is used for harvesting pinenuts. How many pounds are harvested in these areas, yearly and by whom? What is the value of these harvests to the general public? Are there illegal commercial harvests in these areas?

Who selects which trees to cut? There is no mention in the plan of a forester.
 
 
 
 
 
 

1.4 Issues

There has been a failure to document cultural and historical values prior to the plan. 2.1.5. Key Elements notes that a class III cultural inventory will be completed prior to the project implementation. How can you assess the impact if you have not yet completed an inventory? "It is anticipated that there should be no impacts to eligible cultural and historical resources", but the inventory is yet to be performed?
 
 

2.1.5 Key Elements

Reseeding - Native and non-native species would be used for reseeding areas as necessary. The EA states, "grass and shrub communities can develop soon after tree removal if the pinyon and juniper canopy has not displaced the understory of perennial grasses and herbaceouse species." How can anything grow in an area covered in two inches of wood chips? How do you determine when reseeding is necessary? What is the cost of reseeding? How do you reseed without removing the wood chips? What would be the cost of removing the chips to reseed?

Post 1950’s Cultural Manifestations and inventory-

Is this UXO’s, unexploded military ordinances? What is this???? If "cultural manifestations may need to be cleaned up and removed from their locations before project implementation", is there not the potential for hazardous and solid wastes which are identified in 4.1.1 as Environmental Receptors not Affected by the Proposed action. There is a conflict in this section of the document which must be fully explored and discussed before any member of the public comment may comment. This section of the document is complete and total double-speak. Let’s try a little more information here. Is the contractor suppose to go out and find these "cultural manifestations" with their 65,000 to 75,000 lb feller bunchers?

E. Migratory Birds

The relationship between pinyon nuts and migratory birds is well documented in Avian Impacts on Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Russel P. Balada. Pinyon- Juniper Conference, 1984 p. 525. Collectively 70 species are known to breed in these woodlands. The larger the pinyon seed available, the better health one sees in these bird communities. The relationship of the p.monophylla pinenut has not been fully taken into account in the planning process.

F. Threaten and Endangered Species

The Elko BLM has an extensive list of threatened and endangered species inhabiting the regions boarding the Ely district. Do you mean to tell the public, that those same species are not in Ely district? I would comment that one of the 17 people listed as prepares of this document, should reviewed it. The most recent copy, I have seen is incorporated into this Elko EA http://www.nv.blm.gov/Elko/nepa/minerals/cia/CIA_Summary.pdf Chapter 7 address the topic.

G. Other Plans and Area History:

There has been no review of the Mt. Wilson project for conforming with other land use plans, including the Mt. Wilson Forest Activity Plan. The EA fails to account for the fires and other vegititative conversion projects which have occurred in this area. The EA must provide historical overview of the Mt. Wilson area. The EA must contain an analysis of the region in 1970 and compare it with the current status of the this vegetation I would request that the prepares review the vegetation conversion projects, together with the fires in this area over the last 30 years prior to asserting as fact that p.j. species have expanded into sagebrush communities. Review of historical land inventory documents and maps will prove otherwise.

The entire NEPA process is being mocked by the BLM. The lack of professional competency in this process is grossly negligent and boarders on malicious interference with the public’s right to participate in public lands management. As a person with an economic interest in pinyon pinenuts, I have suffered continual and repeated damage as the result of the BLM’s failure to exercise its professional responsibilities in land management.

This EA is just incredulous. I wish to have a 30 day extension for the filing of additional comments. Please provide a written response to my comments and this request as soon as possible.
 
 
 
 

Thank you,
 
 
 
 

Penny Frazier

Please note that these comments include those faxed 8/15, and the letter faxed 8/15 is superseded by these comments.