Opinion ID: 170421
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fireline

Text: UEC also asserts the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider the environmental impact of proposed firelines. According to the EA, after a harvest of seventy-three acres of aspen, a prescribed fire would be ignited to reduce activity fuels and re-introduce fire disturbance while stimulating aspen suckering. Aplt. App., vol. 6 at 2543. Following discussion of the scope and purpose of the burn, the EA states [c]ontrol line preparation would utilize existing mechanical fuel breaks from logging. Id. In its discussion of the same prescribed burn, the EA also states: Approximately 110 chains (1 chain = 66') [or 7, 260 feet] of fireline would need to be constructed. Each unit, which is to be burned, will require a mechanical fireline to be constructed. The fireline would be approximately 72-96 inches wide, exposing bare mineral soil. After completion of the prescribed fire treatments, the fireline would be rehabilitated as necessary. These firelines would be installed around the perimeter of each small unit. Id. at 2544-45. Before wading into the merits of UEC's claim, we first address the parties' dispute over the extent to which fireline construction will overlap with existing forest breaks. The Forest Service contends the firelines that would need to be constructed, id. at 2544, are in fact the same control lines that would utilize existing logging fuel breaks, id. at 2543. See Aple. Br. at 28. According to the Forest Service, no additional fire lines will be created, because the roads and skid trails used for the timber harvest will subsequently serve as the fire lines. Id. UEC argues, to the contrary, that preexisting fuel breaks will be augmented by the additional 7,260 feet of perimeter fireline that will need to be constructed. As we have noted, the EA states the [f]ire control lines [will] be constructed around the perimeter, using mechanical equipment, Aplt. App., vol. 6 at 2383, to scrape the surface and expos[e] bare mineral soil. Id. at 2544. The reuse of existing cleared trails is arguably inconsistent with this direction to construct firelines and scrape soil using mechanical equipment. Even interpreting the EA to mandate the construction of firelines, however, we are persuaded the Forest Service adequately considered the environmental impacts of the prescribed burn. The EA discusses the effects of the prescribed burn on soil and water quality in accordance with burn plans, see id. at 2516 (These [erosion] effects [resulting from prescribed burning] would be minimized by conducting burning in accordance with burn plans.), and with prior forest service monitoring results, [7] see id. at 2524 (Watershed monitoring on the Dixie National Forest indicates that prescribed burning, when done within burn parameters, has no short term adverse effects to hydrologic function, and short term soil loss is minimal. (citing two Forest Service reports)). Furthermore, the EA states that fire control lines adjacent to Forest Road 132 will be rehabilitated upon completion of the prescribed fire. Id. at 2387. See also id. at 2545 ([T]he fireline would be rehabilitated as necessary.). Although the EA lacks an individualized analysis of the environmental impact of fireline construction, it is clear that the Forest Service broadly considered the effects of prescribed burning on soil and water resources. As such, we conclude the Forest Service did not fail to consider the environmental impacts of the prescribed burn and the effects of the fireline construction in reaching its conclusion that the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact.