Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:45:32 -0800 From: Jon rhodes Subject: soil scientist required? X-Sender: swcpop7@biologicaldiversity.org To: Jeff Juel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Was this what you were looking for? Jon Rhodes > John Nesser > To: Antoinette Greene, Bill Basko, Dan Svoboda, Dave Ruppert, > 08/01/01 ddumroese@fs.fed.us, Gary Ford, Gerald Niehoff, Henry Shovic, Jim > 03:05 PM Mital, nesser2@msn.com, Ken McBride, Lou Kuennen, Lynne Dickman, > Marci Gerhardt, Pat Green/R1/USDAFS, Sharon Ross/R1/USDAFS, Susan > Farley/R1/USDAFS, Steve C Smith/R1/USDAFS, John R Lane/R1/USDAFS, > nesser2@msn.com, jerry freeouf, wayne robbie, penny luehring, jeff > bruggink, scott miles, steve howes, duane lammers, jerry ragus, > larry laing, terry brock, jim keys, Tim Sullivan/R2/USDAFS > cc: > Subject: Re: IPNF Appeal > > > > >Brief response from OGC Attorney. > > >John A. Nesser >Regional Soil Scientist >USDAFS, Northern Region >jnesser@fs.fed.us >406 329-3412 > >----- Forwarded by John Nesser/R1/USDAFS on 08/01/01 03:03 PM ----- > > Alan J > Campbell To: John Nesser/R1/USDAFS@FSNOTES > cc: > 08/01/01 02:38 Subject: Re: IPNF Appeal(Document link: John Nesser) > PM > > > > > >I think it means exactly what you say - that if you haven't gone out and >assessed the condition of each unit you better have a very good reason why >not. > >Alan J. Campbell >USDA - Office of the General Counsel >Missoula MT >Phone (406) 329-3072 >FAX (406) 329-3064 >ACampbell@fs.fed.us > > > > John Nesser > To: Antoinette Greene, Bill Basko, Dan Svoboda, Dave Ruppert, > 08/01/01 ddumroese@fs.fed.us, Gary Ford, Gerald Niehoff, Henry Shovic, Jim > 01:02 PM Mital, nesser2@msn.com, Ken McBride, Lou Kuennen, Lynne Dickman, > Marci Gerhardt, Pat Green/R1/USDAFS, Sharon Ross/R1/USDAFS, Susan > Farley/R1/USDAFS, Steve C Smith/R1/USDAFS, John R Lane/R1/USDAFS, > nesser2@msn.com, jerry freeouf, tim sullivan, wayne robbie, penny > luehring, jeff bruggink, scott miles, steve howes, duane lammers, > jerry ragus, larry laing, terry brock, jim keys > cc: Cindy S Swanson/R1/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Alan J > Campbell/R1/USDAFS@FSNOTES > Subject: IPNF Appeal > > > > >A project on the Idaho Panhandle NF was appealed on July 16, 2001 by the >Kootenai Environmental Alliance and three other environmental groups. >That, in and of itself, is not remarkable. What is remarkable is the fact >that one of the major appeal points is related to soils. In short, they >stated that the FS failed to disclose site specific impacts of the >proposal, as required by NEPA, NFMA, and the Handbook. > >The interesting part of this is that they cited the Memorandum Order and >Opinion of a case on the Colville NF which granted in part the plaintiffs' >(Kettle Range Conservation Group) motion for summary judgement based on the >same argument, ie., failure to disclose site specific impacts. Judge >Quackenbush stated in his opinion that "The shortcomings in the USFS >analysis are all directly tied to the fact that they did not take the time >to walk the areas that they planned to harvest. Instead, based on >assumptions, geological maps, and aerial photographs, they estimated the >condition of each unit, tried to determine which units might exceed >established standards, and projected potassium levels ... As the Ninth >Circuit has held, general statements about "possible" effects and "some >risk" do not constitute a "hard look" absent a justification regarding why >more definitive information could not be provided." > >What this means to our way of doing business is yet unclear. It could mean >that we need to actually go out and look at projects and assess past >effects rather than just estimate them. Our OGC attorneys are looking at >this and will hopefully be able to provide a more definitive interpretation >of this case. I will pass along any information that I receive. > > >John A. Nesser >Regional Soil Scientist >USDAFS, Northern Region >jnesser@fs.fed.us >406 329-3412 > > > > > > > >