The Hayes Creek fuels reduction project began this month and is concentrating on 440 acres of Forest Service land along the west edge of Steve Mills' property. The authority for the Forest Service to do the project comes from a provision reinstated by the Bush administration's Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

The Hayes Creek project was the first categorical exclusion approved by the Bitterroot National Forest since the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was passed.

Since Hayes Creek there have been at least eight more approved, said forest supervisor, Dave Bull.

And while the Forest Service sees categorical exclusions as a tool to implement small timber management projects on an over-crowded national forest, others say categorical exclusions cut out the public involvement required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

What is a categorical exclusion?

Under the NEPA the Forest Service is required to document the environmental effects of its projects. This includes an environmental assessment, environmental impact statement and rounds of public comment.

But from the beginning, the NEPA recognized certain projects weren't unique or impactive to the environment. These projects don't need full documentation. They were projects like painting picnic tables and regular trails maintenance, said Bull.

These types of projects were categorically excluded from the full NEPA process.

Eventually, small timber management projects were able to be categorically excluded, until the mid-1990s, when a federal court threw out categorical exclusions for timber management.

"The court determined that we didn't have the proper analysis to prove there weren't significant impacts," said Bull.

So the Forest Service went back to the drawing board and made the language for categorically excluded projects more specific.

The Bush administration's Healthy Forest Initiative, incorporated this new language and categorical exclusions back into the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

Under the new law there were four categories of categorical exclusions: the mechanical treatment of 1,000 acres for fuel reduction objectives, burned area emergency rehabilitation work, harvesting 50 acres of green trees without building any roads and harvesting 250 acres of dead or dying trees without building any permanent roads, said Bull.

The Hayes Creek project falls under the first category.

The process

To have a project categorically excluded, the Forest Service must still put it through an analysis, said Bull. The analysis looks for significant environmental effects the project might have.

"We're looking for extraordinary circumstances," he said.

These extraordinary circumstances fall under seven categories. If the project adversely affects federally protected species or critical habitat, flood plains and wetlands, inventoried roadless areas, historical or archeological sites, research areas, congressionally designated areas, or American Indian religious or cultural sites, then the Forest Service will have to either change the project or perform a full analysis as required by the NEPA, said Bull.

"If there's an effect on any of those then we ought to be using an EA (environmental assessment) to document this analysis rather than a categorical exclusion."

But if the project passes this screening, then it can move forward without an environmental analysis or environmental impact statement, he said.

However, there still is public involvement. But instead of having public comment periodically throughout the process, like what would happen under a full NEPA analysis, the public comment comes at the beginning of the process, said Bull.

"The public input is much more valuable at the front end of the process," he said. "From my perspective there's nothing different about the public involvement that we do with the categorical exclusion."

But not everyone agrees.

Under the NEPA there was the ability to do small hazardous fuels reduction projects with a streamlined environmental analysis, said Cameron Naficy, Northern Rockies coordinator with the Native Forest Network, an environmental organization in Missoula. This analysis was intended for projects like Hayes Creek, he said.

"The conservation community would not have opposed a couple of hundred acre project meant for community protection," said Naficy.

But Hayes Creek isn't the only kind of project being categorically excluded. It is the other categories of exclusions that he is concerned about.

Categorical exclusions have given the Forest Service too much power, he said.

"The Forest Service can propose a timber sale that goes through only limited review and analysis."

Though the Forest Service can say they went through an analysis, without the NEPA documentation, there isn't proof.

"We have no way of knowing what kind of analysis they really did," said Naficy.

The public comment period is also insufficient, he said. There is the initial comment and then the public doesn't hear anything from the Forest Service about a proposed project until it has been approved.

"What we've seen is it really has broken down the lines of communication between the public and the Forest Service," said Naficy. "While some people say that it may be a useful tool we see that there may be a lot of pit falls with the categorical exclusion authority."

If the project is approved by the Forest Service, the only chance the public has to stop it from happening is through the courts, he said. Categorical exclusions can not be appealed.

But in the courts the public is shut out and only the group appealing the Forest Service's decision is heard, said Bull. It is not a democratic process and doesn't take public interest into consideration.

"I'd make the counter argument that the appeal process and the litigation actually exclude the public," he said.

The Forest Service is structured to be able to listen to the public and consider their views and feelings on projects.

"Our decision makers are as close to the ground as possible," said Bull. "That we're here to serve the public, in my mind, forces us to be aware and cognizant of what public issues are in our proposals or projects. We're organized to consider and engage the public."

But the full environmental process under the NEPA legally ensures the public's opinions will be heard.

"We think that discussion is something that should take place," said Naficy. "It's part of that process that forms a healthy debate around a project."

Particularly when it comes to timber sales, he said.

"There is no reason for projects to be fast-tracked the way the categorical exclusion fast-tracks them," said Naficy.

But for fuels reduction projects like Hayes Creek, many people believe there should be a way to get them done in a timely fashion.

"If we're talking about community protection you'll find the environmental community has little opposition," said Naficy.

Cooperation

The Hayes Creek project is going to show how a private landowner can work with the Forest Service for fuels reduction, said Bonney. The landowner, Mills, has received a grant through the RC&D, the group Bonney works for.

"It really helps a lot of people out when the national forest can do something right adjacent to where we're doing something," he said.

It is important that the Forest Service coordinate their fuels reduction efforts in the national forest and private land interface, said Bonney.

"You have to treat them together is what the bottom line is and that's what we're doing in Hayes Creek," he said.

Mills has even allowed the Forest Service an easement to access their land to complete the fuels reduction work quickly.

"It's nice to see a private landowner allow access to the national forest through his land," said Bonney.

And for Mills the work has been a long time coming.

"I've been wanting this to happen for 10 or 15 years because of the fire hazard," he said.

The work at Hayes Creek has only been going for a couple of weeks, but there has already been some controversy.

A group of interested users, worried that there too much was being cut next to the Coyote Coulee Trail that traces through the Hayes Creek project area, toured the site with Darby District Ranger, Chuck Oliver, Tuesday.

Their general feeling was that too much timber was being cut near the trail. They wanted a buffer next to the trail because so many people recreate in the area.

Oliver listened to their comments and tried to answer their questions. He said that changes were already being made on how fuels were being treated next to the trail. A final decision on how to change the project would have to wait until he found out how much he could adjust the contract the Forest Service had with Pyramid Mountain Lumber, the contractor doing the work.

Oliver is also heading up another tour to look at a proposed timber sale near Rye Creek on October 9th. The Harlan Timber Sale is another categorical exclusion.

And tours, like the one Oliver gave Tuesday and the upcoming one, are good for the Forest Service to do, said Naficy.

"I think that, this is a great step toward accomplishing and maintaining lines of communication."

Reporter Greg Lemon can be reached at 363-3300 or at glemon@ravallirepublic.com

---

Reader's Comments >>

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)   

---