Comment Log Display

8 August 2016

Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 2815 
Sacramento, CA 95812

RE Recommendations for Reducing Air Pollution to EJ Advisory
Committee

Dear Committee Members:

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (AB 32; Stats.
2006, chapter 488) calls for the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board)
to convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (Committee),
to advise the Board in developing the Scoping Plan, and any other
pertinent matter in implementing AB 32.  It requires that the
Committee be comprised of representatives from communities in the
State with the most significant exposure to air pollution,
including, but not limited to, communities with minority
populations or low-income populations, or both (AB 32; Part 7.
Miscellaneous Provisions Section 38591).  On January 25, 2007, the
Board appointed the first Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
to advise it on the Initial Scoping Plan and other climate change
programs.  To advise the Board on the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, ARB
solicited nominations and reconvened a new Committee on March 21,
2013.  Committee meetings are open to the public and include a
public comment period.

The California Supreme Court has written, “the Legislature declared
its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating
activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to
preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties.” 
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing
environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for
treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as
significant.”  

The ARB has an opportunity and an obligation to remedy this
egregious and life-threatening pollution condition that affects the
health of many residents.  The ARB should include strong policies
and performance standards that help to clean our dirty air.

On 28 July 2016, I attended the Environmental Justice Advisory
Committee (EJAC) local community meeting in Bakersfield. I provided
oral recommendations on the four areas of interest discussed at the
meeting by presenting three, brief oral comments.

On 28 July 2016, I attended the Environmental Justice Advisory
Committee (EJAC) local community meeting in Bakersfield. I provided
oral recommendations on the four areas of interest discussed at the
meeting by presenting three, brief oral comments. 

This written comment, in addition to documenting the
recommendations that were presented orally, also includes my
recommendations for solar panels for mobile homes and at RV parks
to benefit low-income people, concerns about bad air quality in the
San Joaquin Valley, the need for more meaningful farmland
conversion arrangements, and expanded recommendations related to
forest and land management practices to minimize impacts of
mechanized equipment, to retain insect-infected trees and other
biomass in place, and to generally manage forests according to
known science that fosters forest moisture, reduces wildfires, and
sequesters carbon to reverse global warming, which will benefit all
California residents.

First, my three oral comments at the workshop in Bakersfield

(1) In answer to the stated objective of EJAC is to determine how
to differently manage forests to reduce Greenhouse gasses (GHGs)
and increase carbon storage, I stated that forests must be managed
as closed canopy forests. Maintaining closed canopy forests, rather
than logging, will increase forest moisture, and decrease forest
temperature and surface winds, which will all reduce severe
wildfires and increase carbon sequestration. 

(2) In response to a presenter’s statement that the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is charged with considering
impacts, of its decisions, to individuals in disadvantaged
communities in order to not create barriers to the use of energy
efficiency, I stated that the CPUC’s decision to allow power
companies to charge customers who generate solar power a grid
connect fee that increases the minimum monthly charge for power to
$10, which would be a dis-incentive to invest in solar panels for
individuals in disadvantaged communities.

(3) Written and oral comment on Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
Reduction Strategy were submitted on behalf of Jan Dietrick, MPH,
Steering Committee, Ventura County Climate Hub, Ventura, CA
805.746.5365, Todd Shuman, Senior Analyst, Wasteful Unreasonable
Methane Uprising, Camarillo, CA 805.987.8203, and Sequoia
ForestKeeper, Kernville, CA, which included three recommended
actions for methane emissions reduction to achieve 80% reduction
below current levels by 2030:
(A) A robust fee or fine on unburnt, uncaptured methane emissions
of $4700/CH4 ton (in 2007 US dollars) paid by emitters,
(B) A rapidly decreasing mandatory cap on allowable methane
emissions from all sources, and 
(C) Discontinuation of subsidies on animal products. 

A more complete explanation of (A) the robust fee or fine on
unburnt, uncaptured methane emissions of $4700/CH4 ton is available
in a letter, dated November 23, 2015, to California Governor Jerry
Brown and Mary Nichols, Chair of California Air Resources Board,
which is attached and found along with other comment letters on the
Sequoia ForestKeeper website www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org and
directly at this link:  
http://www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org/pdfs/climate_change/151123-2_SFK_et_al_CARB_Methane_Fee_Based_on_Shindell_2015.pdf


We have submitted other comments and recommendations about methane
and water use to the State Water Resources Control Board and
California Air Resources Board. The links to locate and download
comments are pasted below.

The California Air Resources Board is attempting to regulate carbon
emission without addressing the methane contribution of the
livestock industry or the carbon emitted by burning biomass.
Sequoia ForestKeeper: Ara Marderosian, Wasteful Unreasonable
Methane Uprising: Todd Shuman, and Ventura County Climate Hub: Jan
Dietrick outline their concerns in this comment letter.
Attachments to the above letter:
Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time
scales and production methods without use of global warming
potentials. RT Pierrehumbert {Grass fed vs feedlot Eshel
Pierrehumbert 2015}
Letter from Center for Biological Diversity and Climate Change Law
Foundation to CARB on their Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
Reduction Strategy and Draft
Environmental Analysis, May 26, 2016. {16 05 26 Final CBD SLCP
Strategy comments}
New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and
short-lived climate pollutants. Myles R. Allen, et al. {Allen et al
on SLCP GWP 2016}
Offsetting methane emissions — An alternative to emission
equivalence metrics.
A.R. Lauder, et al. {Lauder et al 2012}
Short-Lived Climate Pollution. R.T. Pierrehumbert {Pierrehumbert on
SLCPs}
SFK letter from November 25, 2015 to California Governor Jerry
Brown and Mary Nichols, Director of the California Air Resources
Board, for a methane emissions fee or fine on uncaptured or
unburned methane.

http://www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org/comments_to_sqf_and_other_agencies.aspx
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/comments_tucp2015/
State Water Board Drought Year Water Actions
2015 Public Comments / Objections / Protests / Petitions for
Reconsideration
Comments / Objections / Protests Regarding January 23, 2015
Temporary Urgency Change Petition and Petitions for Reconsideration
of Order Approving Temporary Urgency Change for the Central Valley
and State Water Projects
Comments/Objections/Protest/Petitions for Reconsideration Submitted
After April 6, 2015
Sequoia ForestKeeper and Wasteful UnReasonable Use Ara Marderosian,
Todd Shuman, Mike Hudak, & Jan Dietrick 04/13/2016
Sequoia ForestKeeper and Wasteful UnReasonable Use Ara Marderosian,
Todd Shuman, Mike Hudak, & Megan Gallagher 10/14/2015
Sequoia ForestKeeper and Wasteful UnReasonable Use Ara Marderosian,
Todd Shuman Mike Hudak, & Megan Gallagher 08/16/2015
Sequoia ForestKeeper Ara Marderosian et al. 07/06/2015
Sequoia ForestKeeper Ara Marderosian et al 06/19/2015
WURU Press Release Todd Shuman 06/19/2015

Additional Recommendations Based on EJAC Presentations on
Transportation, Energy, Ag, and Working Lands, and Public Comments
made During the 28 July 2016 Meeting 

ARB Should Investigate PV Solar Distributed Generation and EV
Access Projects for Low-Income Households, Especially Over Mobile
Home and RV Parks in EJ Communities to Provide Shade for Cooling as
well as Power

Given the seriousness of the global warming issue, EJAC and the
California ARB should be addressing the issue with Plan objectives,
policies, performance criteria, and specific, feasible
implementation measures, measures that address criteria pollutant
emissions as well.  Here are a number of possible, feasible
implementation and mitigation measures:
•	In order to encourage the use of non-polluting electric vehicles
(EVs), the ARB should include a policy to require new projects to
include quick charge Level 3 EV charging facilities.  Projects
adjacent to highways should install multiple fast charge facilities
that could reduce pollution by encouraging intercity EV travel. See
http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3401&cHash=ae60686195244d8cb5d31cad14e4aa92.
•	In order to encourage the use of non-polluting electric vehicles,
the ARB should require new commercial projects and hotels to
include EV charging facilities.
•	In order to encourage the use of non-polluting electric vehicles,
the ARB should require parking lots in all communities to include
dedicated EV parking with solar panel covered parking spaces to
shade the vehicles while charging them.
•	Green building measures might include passive solar design and a
requirement that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient
than Title 24 standards current when permits are pulled. 
•	Satisfy LEED Silver standards on hotel and the commercial
buildings.  
•	Design features to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).  Such
features might include adjacent bus stops and/or other public
transportation and should include bicycle-friendly features.  The
ARB should commit to increased pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity.
•	A requirement that new structures contain solar photovoltaics
(PV) and solar water heating.  As a result of a settlement of a
recent Sierra Club lawsuit with Tulare County regarding their
General Plan Update, 20% of new housing in Tulare County will
contain solar PV.  The Rio Bravo Ranch project in Bakersfield will
build solar PV into 25% of the new residences.  Every kilowatt of
solar PV power offsets about a ton per year of global warming
gasses that would otherwise have been produced by a fossil
fuel-fired power plant (according to Environment California
Research and Policy Center in a publication entitled The Economics
of Solar Homes in California).
•	A requirement that residences, mobile homes, and manufactured
homes built without rooftop solar PV should be pre-wired for solar
PV.
•	A requirement that each new residence and manufactured home
contain a Level 2 EV charging station, relatively inexpensive when
wired during construction.  In order to reduce vehicle emissions,
the use of electric vehicles (EVs) should be encouraged.  
•	A requirement for partial funding of an area energy efficiency
program creating equivalent reductions in carbon emissions.
•	A requirement that new home or commercial projects partially
subsidize public transportation in order to reduce area VMT. 
•	A condition that parking lots be covered and that parking lot
roofs contain solar PV. 
•	Adopt a policy that funds covered roofs containing PV Solar
panels for residents in mobile home and RV parks in EJ
disadvantaged communities to provide these residents with power and
shade that would reduce trailer temperatures by 15 degree below
ambient. 
•	Stop the policy that requires residents in RV parks to move their
RV out onto the streets every six months for four days sometimes
jeopardizing stable tenancy in the park.
•	Parking management measures that promote walking and transit
use.
•	A requirement that developers and counties retrofit solar PV on
existing area buildings.  Retrofitting existing area buildings with
solar PV would effectively offset emissions associated with county
and project operations in much the same way as the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJAPCD) uses Indirect Source
Rule (ISR) funds to fund offsite projects to offset criteria
pollutants associated with development projects.
•	A requirement that developers contribute funding for area solar
PV incentives.  Most solar PV incentive programs use funding
rebates to encourage PV construction.  
•	A requirement that developers contribute a GHG fee to an air
pollution control district like the SJVAPCD to be used to fund
projects that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere.  This could be
built in to a criteria pollutant Voluntary Emission Reduction
Agreement (VERA) as the Air District has suggested in the past.
•	The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has
assembled a list of potential general plan policies and mitigation
measures that the ARB could incorporate in its plan.  These may be
found in the following document between pages 98 and 110 at the
website
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx.
 
The ARB should address each of these measures in order to determine
its feasibility and effectiveness in reducing or offsetting the GHG
and criteria pollutant emissions associated with setting standards
for Reducing Air Pollution.

Air Quality

The southern San Joaquin Valley fights it out every year with Los
Angeles for having the worst air pollution in the nation.  See the
American Lung Association report at
 http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html
.   Nearby Bakersfield is ranked either first or second for having
the dirtiest air in the nation.  Since our extreme air pollution
affects the health of many residents, the ARB should thoroughly and
seriously address the issue of air quality in all of its aspects.

Additionally, California has nonattainment designations for various
federal and state air quality standards, including extreme
nonattainment for the ozone 8-hour standard.  Existing regulatory
requirements at the federal, state, and local levels have been
lacking in addressing these very serious air quality issues.

The ARB should include a goal to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT).  Reducing VMT would have benefits to air quality, climate
change, and circulation impacts and would be consistent with AB 32
and SB 375 requirements. In order to help implement this goal, we
suggest adopting a graduated traffic impact fee for new residential
projects. It should be graduated in the sense that the fee is
directly proportional to the distance from the project to the
nearest major city, thus encouraging infill and lower VMT.
Ultimately, the ARB should consider allowing only in-fill
development – build up not out - to preserve open space, forest
wildlife habitats, chaparral wildlife habitats, desert wildlife
habitat, and food-growing farmlands.
While many projects in the San Joaquin Valley will be subject to
the Air District's ISR rule, we note that ISR offsets less than
half the air pollution associated with a new project.  Given the
very serious nature of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, air
pollution associated with projects should be required by the ARB to
be thoroughly and completely mitigated.  
A number of southern San Joaquin Valley developers (including the
West Ming project and the Old River Ranch project, both in
Bakersfield) have agreed to participate in an Emissions Reduction
Program (VERA) through the SJVAPCD.  The City of Bakersfield has
required a zero emissions agreement of a number of development
projects. Through this program, developers promise to completely
offset the emissions associated with their project through onsite
design features and offsite pollution reduction projects. 
Participation in such a program has, therefore, been shown to be
clearly feasible and effective in reducing air quality impacts to
zero, both project-specific impacts and, hence, cumulative impacts,
since zero project-specific impact could not add to the cumulative
impact. 
CEQA requires that “public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects.”  

FARMLAND CONVERSION

The ARB should require development projects on farmland to pay an
Agricultural Land Impact fee for use by a land conservancy entity
operating to conserve agricultural land. The fee should be set at
higher than one-to-one and perhaps as high as three times the value
of the developed farmland in order to first discourage farmland for
development and second to acquire similar quality farmland for
conservation easement. 
•	The ARB should include a performance standard that specifies the
ratio of preserved mitigation farmland to converted farmland.  In
order to ensure that CEQA requirements for future projects are met,
the Plan should include a policy that the ratio be higher than
one-to-one; i.e., that more than one acre of equally good, equally
at risk farmland be preserved via conservation easements for every
acre of farmland converted.
•	The ARB should include a performance standard that specifies the
quality of the preserved replacement mitigation land.  There is
little point in placing an unnecessary conservation easement on
farmland that is so far away from urban areas that there is little
or no development pressure on it.  Preserving farmland that does
not need to be preserved, that is under no development pressure and
will almost certainly remain farmland even without a conservation
easement, does not compensate for the loss of currently producing
farmland.  The ARB Plan should require that replacement land have
similar conservation easement value as that of the converted
farmland.  
•	The ARB should include a policy that requires that a need for a
new project be demonstrated and that substantial evidence for this
need demonstration be given before approval for farmland is
converted to urban use. i.e., if the surrounding urban area
contains high numbers of vacant or foreclosed homes, or there is no
available and uncommitted drinking water source to support more
development, or the air pollution levels in the area are already
high, then there would seem to be no need for further development.
•	The ARB should include a policy that requires converted farmland
to be contiguous to existing urban use and services.
•	In order to ensure that the mitigation is administered by a
competent organization, the ARB should include a policy that the
“land conservancy entity” be accredited by the Land Trust
Accreditation Commission.  See
http://www.landtrustaccreditation.org.
•	In order to reduce overall per capita land consumption, the ARB
should include goals, policies, and specific implementation
measures that would first focus development up in already developed
urban areas and second increase the efficiency of development and
thereby reduce the pressure to convert farmland to non-agricultural
uses.

Forest Biomass removed for Energy Pollutes, Prevents Sequestration,
and is Uneconomical 

Continuing to extract biomass from forests cannot sustain soil
because removing biomass removes soil nutrients for growing future
forests, removes the smaller materials and therefore causes
subsequent fires to burn larger materials, thus causing more
intense fires, and prevents the greatest levels of carbon
sequestration from taking place in the forests. Biomass removal
should not be enabled by the plan because the cumulative impact of
removing biomass has many environmental consequences.

Opening the forest canopy causes the sun to shine on the forest
floor, causes the forest to become hot and dry, causes brush to
grow where the trees once stood, and causes surface winds to
increase, which all increase, not decrease, fire risk, removes some
sequestered carbon from the forest, and jeopardize the trees that
are already struggling. Opening the forest canopy would also
jeopardize the old-growth species that are already on the brink of
extinction, including the Pacific fisher, California Spotted owl,
Northern goshawk, and a host of frog and salamanders, as well as
other reptiles.

North et al. (2009) is an unpublished and non-peer-reviewed report
often cited and relied upon by the Forest Service and other
agencies for most fuel reduction, ecosystem restoration, and forest
health actions, including biomass removal from forested areas.  But
the North et al. (2009) report did not mean to use the word
“remove” to suggest commercial logging of mature trees up to, or
over, 20 inches in diameter—as opposed to simply “removing” a given
mature live tree from competition with other larger trees by
turning it into a large snag or downed log.  

Indeed, the authors of North et al. (2009), on page 24 of that
report, specifically discuss the potential removal of trees over
10-16 inches in diameter “for socioeconomic purposes” such as
“generating revenue” or “providing merchantable wood for local
sawmills.”  Nowhere do the authors of North et al. (2009)
specifically recommend “removal” of mature trees (as opposed to
snag creation or downed log creation) for strictly ecological
purposes, or offer a single citation to any ecological study
concluding that some mature trees must be removed from the forest
ecosystem, as opposed to being left as live trees, converted into
large snags, or converted into large downed logs.

Forest Biomass Removal: The Environmental Analysis for all Forest
Treatments, including, but not limited to Biomass Removal, Fuels
Treatment, and Burning, Must Disclose the Effects On and
Contribution to Climate Change

The ARB should require that environmental analysis for all forest
management projects must discuss how proposed treatments will
potentially emit CO2, Methane, and other GHG’s, that may contribute
to climate change, including the carbon emitted from the vehicles
and equipment used for fuel reduction treatments, as well as
felling, stacking, slash treatments, and biomass collection,
hauling from the forest, and burning outside the forest in a power
or heat generating facility or prescribed burning. The
environmental analysis must disclose what efforts will be taken to
mitigate these emissions.

A recent article by Mitchell et al. (2009) describes tradeoffs for
managing for carbon storage (a valid goal in any forest management
action) versus fuels reduction.  That study suggests that, with the
exception of some xeric ecosystems (not present in the Sierra),
“fuel reduction treatments should be forgone if forest ecosystems
are to provide maximal amelioration of atmospheric CO2 over the
next 100 years.”  Id. at 653.  For that reason, each alternative
should discuss and analyze carbon emissions from implementation,
and the no-action alternative should also provide information about
the potential for carbon storage from foregoing project
implementation.  

Depro et al., 2007, found that eliminating logging would result in
massive increases in Carbon sequestration.  “Our analysis found
that a “no timber harvest” scenario eliminating harvests on public
lands would result in an annual increase of 17–29 million metric
tonnes of carbon (MMTC) per year between 2010 and 2050—as much as a
43% increase over current sequestration levels on public
timberlands and would offset up to 1.5% of total U.S. GHG
emissions.”  (Depro et al., 2007 abstract)

Moreover, Mitchell et al. (2009) found the amount of net carbon
released into the atmosphere, on an acreage basis with small
diameter thinning for fuel reduction (if used for biomass), puts
more carbon into the atmosphere than an average fire, on an acreage
basis:

Our simulations indicate that fuel reduction treatments in these
ecosystems consistently reduced fire severity.  However, reducing
the fraction by which C is lost in a wildfire requires the removal
of a much greater amount of C, since most of the C stored in forest
biomass (stem wood, branches, coarse woody debris) remains
unconsumed even by high-severity wildfires.  For this reason, all
of the fuel reduction treatments simulated for the west Cascades
and Coast Range ecosystems as well as most of the treatments
simulated for the east Cascades resulted in a reduced mean stand C
storage.  One suggested method of compensating for such losses in C
storage is to utilize C harvested in fuel reduction treatments as
biofuels.  Our analysis indicates that this will not be an
effective strategy in the west Cascades and Coast Range over the
next 100 years.

Mitchell et al., 2009 abstract.

In any case, the environmental analysis must disclose the emissions
from fuel reduction treatments, associated slash treatments, and
biomass collection, hauling, and burning/incineration or prescribed
burning for each action alternative.  For this, the Washington
Office of the Forest Service has generated specific direction on
how to discuss climate change effects in a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.  See Climate Change Considerations in
Project Level NEPA Analysis (Jan. 13, 2009)
(http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf).
 That document specifically mentions fuel reduction projects in the
types of projects that should disclose direct effects on climate
change:

•	The effect of a proposed project on climate change (GHG emissions
and carbon cycling).  Examples include: short-term GHG emissions
and alteration to the carbon cycle caused by hazardous fuels
reduction projects, GHG emissions from oil and gas field
development, and avoiding large GHG emissions pulses and effects to
the carbon cycle by thinning overstocked stands to increase forest
resilience and decrease the potential for large scale wildfire.

Id. at 2.  To assist in disclosing these effects, the Forest
Service provides tools that can help managers determine the direct
contributions of GHG emissions from project burning or treatments. 
Id. at 5 (FOFEM 5.5, Consume 3.0, and the Forest Vegetation
Simulator).  Because the Forest Service has tools or models to
effectively calculate emissions, it must disclose these emissions
for each of the action alternatives, and so should State and other
agencies operating in California in order to reduce GHG emissions
in California that are globally cumulative.  In addition, the
guidance document suggests that the NEPA document include a
qualitative effects analysis.  Id.  Such an analysis should include
the cumulative effects, quantified in an “individual, regional,
national, global” context.  Id. at 6.

Finally, the guidance suggests that NEPA provides direction on how
managers should respond to comments raised during project analysis
regarding climate change:

1.	Modify alternatives including the proposed action.
2.	Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious
consideration by the Agency.
3.	Supplement, improve, or modify the analysis.
4.	Make factual corrections.
5.	Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response,
citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the
Agency’s position and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances
that would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.

Id. at 8.  At the very least, because any project that proposes
biomass removal includes fuel reduction treatments and burning that
will contribute GHG emissions, the EIS must include an
acknowledgment of carbon emissions and must provide a response to
this issue.  

Moreover, the analysis should account for and quantify (as part of
the cumulative effects analysis) not only the emission from
prescribed burning on-site and the emissions from any biomass that
is removed from the project area and later burned or incinerated
off-site, but also the contribution of emissions from transporting
this material for off-site burning, and the contribution of
emissions from the off-site burning, planning, and implementing the
project by the agency, a contractor, and/or other agent that
implements such projects.

Our experience with projects proposed by the Forest Service in
Sequoia National Forest since 2009 is that no project analysis has
utilized these guidelines, despite their importance in determining
the impacts to climate change. 

This holistic approach to account for GHG emission is necessary to
provide managers and the public with the kind of information under
NEPA to make informed choices between alternatives and to mitigate
for climate change, and to consider and assess the larger picture
of GHG contributions from all projects on the national forests that
may contribute GHG emissions.

Disclose the Impact from Mechanical Equipment Use on Forest Soils,
Streams, and Watersheds

Mechanized fuel treatments and biomass removal treatments incur
ecological costs by damaging soils, vegetation, and hydrologic
processes, as proponents of fuel reduction treatments have
acknowledged (e.g., Allen et al., 2002; Graham et al., 1999; 2004;
Agee and Skinner, 2005).  Mechanical fuel reduction treatments
typically involve the same suite of activities as logging, with the
same set of impacts to soils, runoff, erosion, sedimentation, water
quality, and stream structure and function.  These effects, their
mechanisms, and their aquatic impacts have been extensively and
repeatedly documented across the West (e.g., Geppert et al., 1984;
Meehan, 1991; USFS et al., 1993; Rhodes et al., 1994; CWWR, 1996,
USFS and USBLM, 1997a; c; Beschta et al., 2004).  Watershed damage
ultimately translates into aquatic damage.

The collateral impacts of fuel treatments and biomass removal
actions are of considerable concern due to the existing aquatic
context.  Across the West, aquatic systems are significantly and
pervasively degraded (Rieman et al., 2003; Beschta et al., 2004). 
As a result, many populations of aquatic species, including most
native trout and salmonids, have undergone severe contractions in
their range and number and remaining populations are now imperiled
and highly fragmented (Frissell, 1993; USFS and USBLM, 1997a;
Kessler et al., 2001; Behnke, 2002; Bradford, 2005).  Additional
damage to watersheds and aquatic systems reduces the prospects for
the protection and restoration of imperiled aquatic species (USFS
and USBLM, 1997c; USFWS, 1998; Karr et al., 2004).

These impacts to soils, streams, and watersheds from these biomass
removal project must be added to the existing damage and
foreseeable future damage from past and future treatments in the
forest to provide an accurate assessment of the adverse effects of
biomass removal projects.

Science Does Not Support Removing Insect-Infected Trees to Reduce
Fire Danger

Biomass removal projects often claim insect-infected trees must be
removed from the forest to reduce the fire danger. Proposals of
this type must provide a scientific basis for the number of snags
to leave in the forest and the snag removal enabled by the project
must consider and be based on the ecological functions of snags.
There are many types of snags and each performs a different
function in an ecosystem. Snags can’t be counted as if they were
coke cans on a shelf. As biologists will know, snags can be
standing, down, large, small, of various species, and in various
stages of decomposition. They should not be uniformly spaced around
the forest like candles on a cake nor should they be all in one
corner of a survey plot and then averaged in with the other plots,
so it appears there are snags throughout the surveyed area.
Additionally, after a serious drought/insect infestation event, the
forest responds in positive ways – insectivorous species thrive.
Standing dead trees may be the tallest structure the forest will
have for many decades. Within a year, likely sooner than the highly
flammable slash a biomass removal project will create can be
burned, the dead needles and smaller branches of the dead trees
will shed and the dead trees will become less flammable. Science
indicates that most dead trees outside of the 200 feet surrounding
structures should be left standing in place. 

There is no evidence that removing a tree infected with beetles
after it has died will decrease the infection rate to other trees.
Additionally, logging dead and diseased trees can spread the insect
infection problem. Some beetles, such as Ips, can incubate in piles
of slash and spread more rapidly than had the tree been left
standing. Forest Service Botanists have recommended methods to
avoid spreading bark beetle. These include not cutting diseased
trees unless it is mid-summer, pulling slash away from any living
tree, and covering slash piles with black tarps to increase the
heat in the pile.

A recent compilation of data by leading scientist in the Pacific
Northwest has found that “By dampening subsequent burn severity,
native insects could buffer rather than exacerbate fire regime
changes expected due to land use and climate change. In light of
these findings, we recommend a precautionary approach when
designing and implementing forest management policies intended to
reduce wildfire hazard and increase resilience to global change.”
“In addition, by dampening subsequent burn severity, insect
outbreaks could buffer rather than exacerbate some fire regime
changes expected due to global change (e.g., climate warming,
drought, invasive species (Littell et al 2010, Ayres et al 2014))
and forest response to land use (e.g., fire exclusion, timber
harvest, livestock grazing (Hessburg et al 2000)).” See Miegs et
al. (2016).

All trees that must be removed should be surveyed for any active
nesting or dens the same season as the cutting will occur –
preferably just prior to the planned cutting. No cutting or
treatment should be allowed near meadows during fawning season.

When biomass removal projects propose to concurrently protect
communities in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), some of the
responsibility for protection of privately owned structures must be
borne by the private property owner. Just as those who build homes
on shorelines accept the risks of high seas eroding or undercutting
their structures because they love living by the ocean, so must
those who chose to live surrounded in Sierra forests accept the
risk that accompanies living in an ecosystem that not only burns
frequently, but must burn if it is to survive as a forest.

Science support treatments limited to the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ).
 The Forest Service’s own Jack Cohen (Jack D. Cohen, Research
Physical Scientist, Fire Sciences Laboratory, PO Box 8089,
Missoula, MT 59807 406-329-4821 (fax) 406-329-4825
jcohen@fs.fed.us), has shown that the Home Ignition Zone – the 200
to 300 feet immediately surrounding homes, is where mechanical fuel
treatments should be implemented to protect homes.  The Home
Ignition Zone treatments can be the mechanically-treated safezone
that anchors prescribed fire treatments that would then be
implemented beyond the HIZ and into the WUI to protect homes.

However, the Forest Service, County, and State should investigate
measures that would assist private property owners to not only be
aware of things they can do to make their homes less likely to
ignite in a fire, but also actively seek sources of funding such as
grants for property owners that would give financial assistance for
replacing flammable roofing and siding with flame resistant
materials. Many studies show that homes with these and other
fire-wise building methods often survive fire. The cost of
providing financial assistance to private property owners would be
more than offset by the costs of replacing homes and in providing
assistance to families after their homes and possessions have been
destroyed. See, also Safe At Home, Natural Resources Defense
Council’s study, conducted with a former California State Fire
Marshall, on preparing Sierran communities for wildfire, attached.


In summary, the ARB should require that community protection
projects should be scaled down to treat only the 200 feet
immediately adjacent to private structures as well as important
access routes, not miles from homes.

Biomass Removal Projects that Allow Any Additional Erosion are
Unacceptable

Biomass removal projects that use both commercial and
non-commercial activities to thin ladder fuels, restore species
composition to those present before fire suppression and logging,
and increase the resiliency of stands of trees to drought, insects,
and fire may release sediments downstream because heavy equipment
on slopes up to 35% and greater have a risk of soil erosion, and
loss of soil to erosion, which is unacceptable.

No additional erosion or sediment flow into down-stream watersheds
would be considered acceptable.  All sediment flows into streams is
cumulative and eventually contributes to causing reservoirs like
Isabella Reservoir to fill with sediment, as it has.  The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is now spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer
dollars to restore the Isabella Reservoir because the Forest
Service implements biomass removal projects, in the mountains above
the reservoir, which cause soil erosion and sedimentation that
cumulatively impact the Kern River watershed, and which the agency
considers to be “acceptable.”

Consider All Existing Water Uses and Water Resources 

Is the massive die-off of trees in the Sierra Nevada being caused
only by the drought and climate change, or is the die-off being
exacerbated by the limited water supply in the Sierra because of
the granitic structure of the mountains where water is found in
isolated fracture pockets where tree roots must penetrate to reach
the needed water supply when surface water flows are intermittent?
Water wells in the Sierra Nevada are located and placed using
fracture drilling techniques. Forest managers must consider the
anthropogenic uses of water in the forests, including, but not
limited to, water wells, water diversions, water withdrawals, and
water developments that serve people who have established in
forested areas of California. How are these anthropogenic uses of
water impacting the available water for growing forests and
maintaining the forest species? These human uses of forest water
must be identified, their flows determined and totaled, and the
cumulative extracted water volume considered along with drought and
climate change. Should these extractions be permitted to continue
at the expense of the needs of the forest which is California’s
major location for sequestering carbon?

Global climate change will likely lead to water resource
shortfalls.  According to the CEC document
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-014/CEC-500-2009-014-F.PDF,
“there is a disquieting preponderance of simulations that become
significantly drier during the twenty-first century.”  Also, “The
incidence of years with very low spring snowpack and associated low
soil moisture in late spring and early summer occur much more
frequently.”  According to the CEC document Using Future Climate
Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in
California at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-052/CEC-500-2009-052-F.PDF,
“The 30-year trend indicates that the fraction of annual runoff
occurring from April through July decreases from about 35% for the
historical base scenario (historical conditions with no increase in
air temperature) to about 15% for the +4°C scenario.” 

After thinning stands of mature trees, to increase heterogeneity
and resilience, and after hand thinning stands of smaller trees,
the temperature of forest fuels and forest air will increase, the
moisture level of forest fuels decreases, and the relative humidity
in the understory decreases, it stands to reason that surface and
groundwater resources could also be impacted by the removal of
these materials.  It therefore stands to reason that forest
managers should provide a comprehensive inventory of surface and
groundwater resources of water in the watersheds of any project
area where trees are proposed for removal as a way to establish a
baseline for assessing the impacts of the project on forest
resources.  These inventories and an analysis of water resources
must be considered in the environmental analysis, especially now
that we are in a prolonged drought period in California. This water
balance must be specified in order to be able to determine if
sufficient water is available to cope with the increased forest
temperatures that would result following tree removal.  

The ARB must therefore consider how unlogged forests retain water
before allowing forest management agencies in California to approve
tree removal.  The ARB must consider whether commercial logging is
an appropriate treatment since commercial logging would cause the
forest to become hot and dry and allow surface winds to increase,
all of which would exacerbate wildfire.

If a proposed project is to restore and maintain the forest
ecosystem so it is resilient to the effects of wildfire, drought,
disease, and other disturbances, the EIS must include an assessment
of and documentation to show all water diversions, withdrawals, and
developments that utilize water in the watersheds involved in the
project area in order to establish a baseline of available water
for making a decision as to what can be done to protect the forest
ecosystem from drought, and whether commercial thinning would be
effective, since thinning would cause the forest understory to
become hotter and dryer, and would allow moisture-robbing surface
winds to increase. 

Managing forest ecosystems and clearing fire prone vegetation runs
counter to common sense by exposing soils and understory vegetation
to desiccating conditions.  Removing forest biomass to supposedly
reduce fire danger runs counter to making the forest resilient to
climate change because opening the forest canopy to winds or the
drying heat of the sun results in drying out the layers of
moisture-holding duff, small trees, and down woody material. This
is especially true in the Sequoia National Forest, which receives
relatively little moisture due to its geographic location in the
Southern Sierra, essentially surrounded on three sides by desert,
and the prevailing weather patterns.

Water vapor in the air comes almost entirely from three sources:
Evaporation from any moist surface or body of water, evaporation
from soil, and transpiration from plants.  Plants have large
surfaces for transpiration; occasionally they have as much as 40
square yards for each square yard of ground area. Transpiration
from an area of dense vegetation can contribute up to eight times
as much moisture to the atmosphere as can an equal area of bare
ground.    

Relative humidity is most important as a fire-weather factor in the
layer near the ground, where it influences both fuels and fire
behavior.  The relative humidity that affects fuels on the forest
floor is often quite different from that in the instrument shelter,
particularly in unshaded areas where soil and surface fuels exposed
to the sun are heated intensely, and warm the air surrounding them.
This very warm air may have a dew point nearly the same or slightly
higher than the air in the instrument shelter, but because it is
much warmer, it has a much lower relative humidity.  Vegetation
moderates surface temperatures and contributes to air moisture
through transpiration and evaporation – both factors that affect
local relative humidity. A continuous forest canopy has the added
effect of decreasing surface wind speeds and the mixing that takes
place with air movement.  The differences in humidity between
forest stands and open areas generally vary with the density of the
crown canopy.  Under a closed canopy, humidity is normally higher
than outside (the closed canopy) during the day, and lower at
night.  The higher humilities are even more pronounced when there
is a green understory.  While temperature and moisture distribution
in the layer of air near the ground are important in fire weather
because of their influence on fuel moisture, the distribution of
temperature and moisture aloft can critically influence the
behavior of wildland fires.

Cumulative impacts that remove trees up to 30 inch diameter and
larger that results in opening the canopy and causes the sun to
shine where the trees once stood heats and dries forest materials
and soil and causes flammable brush to grow where the less
flammable tree trunks once stood.  Sequoia ForestKeeper’s teams of
environmental graduate summer interns have repeatedly observed and
documented in Sequoia the inverse relationship between canopy cover
and ground cover. When forest canopy increases, groundcover
decreases: when forest canopy decreases, groundcover increases.
(See Fire Weather and other research that indicates the same.)

Much of this is known and is discussed in the US Forest Service’s
Publication FIRE WEATHER . . . A Guide For Application Of
Meteorological Information To Forest Fire Control Operations, by
Mark J. Schroeder, Weather Bureau, Environmental Sciences
Administration, U.S. Commerce Department and Charles C. Buck,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Government
Printing Office: 0-244:923, first published in May 1970. Reviewed
and approved for reprinting August 1977, Stock No. 001-000-0193-0 /
Catalog No. A 1.76:360 (available at
http://gacc.nifc.gov/nwcc/content/products/intelligence/Fire_Weather_Agriculture_Handbook_360.pdf).


Congress recognized that managing natural resources in National
Forests was “highly complex” and enacted the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act.  The Act requires that the Forest
Service develop an inventory of “present and potential renewable
resources, and an evaluation of opportunities for improving their
yield of tangible and intangible goods and services.”  In addition
the Act requires that all forest management activities to be
preceded by a “comprehensive assessment” of environmental and
economic impacts in order to create a management plan that is
consistent with MUSYA and NEPA.  Congress emphasized the
“fundamental need” for the management plans to “protect and, where
appropriate, improve the quality of soil, air, and water
resources.”  Developing an inventory of surface and groundwater
resources and an assessment of the environmental impacts on surface
and groundwater including potential impacts of groundwater use on
surface water resources, is an integral step in ensuring that a
management plan protects the water quality in California’s forests.
 

Because much of the Sierra Nevada Forests are Habitat for Pacific
Fisher, the Thresholds for cumulative restorative treatments, like
Biomass removal, should not exceed, on average, 2.6% of Pacific
fisher habitat per year (or 13% over a 5-year period) to Prevent
Putting fisher habitat and fisher use of the areas at risk.

The types of treatments are referred to in Zielinski et al. (2013b)
(Exhibit E) as restorative, which include fuel reduction thinning,
prescribed fire, or pre-commercial (hand) thinning.  Zielinski et
al. (2013b) suggest that fishers occupy habitat at the highest
rates where restorative treatments “are applied at rates that do
not exceed about 13% of an area in 5 years ….” or 2.6 % per year. 
See p. 825.

Zielinski et al. (2013b) noted that although fishers showed no
aversion to including treated areas within their home ranges,
Garner (2013) (Exhibit F) found that “fishers avoided using treated
areas when resting and foraging.”  Id.

If cumulatively Project treatments are likely to exceed this 2.6%
average treatment acreage per year, proposed treatments “may put
fisher habitat and fisher use of these areas at risk.”  Id.  The
Forest Service must therefore rethink its course of treatments in
the fisher’s habitat.

Projects must be reconsidered where there is a constricted corridor
in the Fisher’s Core Habitat, and the proposed treatments in this
corridor may cut off fisher movement through the corridor. As
discussed above in Zielinski et al. (2013b), Garner (2013) (Exhibit
G) found that “fishers avoided using treated areas when resting and
foraging.”  When an entire corridor is proposed for treatment,
meaning there is a likelihood that fishers will completely avoid
use of this corridor after treatment, which will completely sever
the movement of fishers through the corridor for an extended period
of time, which would have a devastating effect on foraging,
reproductive behavior, and genetic diversity of the fishers, the
management agency must reconsider or rethink implementations of
such a project.  In essence, if movement through a corridor is
severed, it would cut-off and genetically isolate the fisher
population in the fisher’s already limited range.

Ecological Restoration Principles – Restoration Without Tree
Removal

The management agencies should not place too much reliance on
mechanical methods for ecological restoration and maintenance. 
Instead, fire should be used as the primary tool for restoration,
as suggested in both the California Spotted Owl and Fisher
Conservation Strategies.  Moreover, agencies should not overstate
the need for ecological restoration to create resiliency from
drought, and native insects and diseases, which are natural
processes that should be preserved rather than eliminated.

Thinning of medium and large diameter trees (12-30” dbh) should not
be permitted for the purpose of ecological restoration to prevent
natural stresses from competition.  Tree competition, caused
primarily by increases in stand density, is a natural process which
induces other natural process that deal with this density, such as
native insect- and disease-caused tree mortality.  These processes,
in turn, produce structural forest elements that are vital for
wildlife—snags.  While the removal of trees to reduce this natural
competition may prevent the death of a small number of large trees,
it would also prevent the creation of some of the most important
elements in the forest ecosystem—snags—for the perpetuation of
certain wildlife species, including California spotted owls,
various woodpeckers, and countless other species.  It is
well-documented that these species need abundant large snags at a
certain densities in order to thrive. Even the artificial method of
increasing the number of snags by girdling trees will not create as
diverse a variety of snags for these species as will natural snag
recruitment. And while the cutting or removal of trees to prevent
competition-induced stresses may be good for the remaining trees,
it prevents natural snag recruitment that helps perpetuate a number
of key wildlife species.

For proposed actions that promote resilience as a goal, it is
important to understand that resilience is not a process.  Instead,
it is a characteristic, which results from the continued
perpetuation of natural processes, including competition.  The
perpetuation of the forest ecosystem is not the same as the
perpetuation of the lives of all of the larger trees in that
ecosystem.  This means that we need some of these large trees to
die at a rate that can sustain certain wildlife species. 
Competition mortality will result in large snag recruitment beyond
what silviculturalists may want in a forest that is ‘managed’ to
produce maximum growth.

Even if the project allows tree cutting a few of the larger trees
for ecological restoration or to reduce safety hazards along roads,
these tree boles should be retained in the forest as large down
woody material.  Ecological restoration provides an opportunity to
restore forest areas with large down woody material for soil
nutrients, wildlife (especially for Pacific fishers), and to
maintain ecological functions.  

Leaving a large number of downed logs will not increase fire risk. 
The Forest Service’s own science clearly concludes that large logs
(defined by the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment as being
over 12 inches in diameter) are essentially irrelevant to fire
behavior.  And tree boles over 12 inches in diameter that the
agency says it needs to fell for ecological restoration would not
create any significant fire hazard if left standing.  Operability
for prescribed fire management should not be an issue when leaving
these large tree boles as down logs.  In fact, the 2004 Framework
standards takes large down logs into consideration, stating that
managers should design prescribed burn prescriptions and techniques
to minimize the loss of large down material.

Forest management agencies should use the reintroduction of fire as
the primary tool for ecological restoration and should prohibit the
thinning of larger trees to reduce fire risk, just as the National
Park Service has done with the use of natural process of prescribed
and fire use fires for the past 40 years managing the Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks.  Agencies should limit manual and
mechanical methods that prepare the forest for the reintroduction
of fire to the cutting of only some trees 8-10 inches dbh and
smaller.  As the adjacent Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
(“SEKI”) has found, “cutting trees up to and including 8” in
diameter has proven effective in fuels reduction in SEKI.” SEKI
demonstrated the effectiveness of their prescribed fire treatments
that showed dramatically different and beneficial burn result from
the Rough Fire compared to the devastating result of the fire in
Sequoia National Forest where thinning is the primary management
treatment. After fire is reintroduced into stands where only some
trees up to 8” in diameter were removed, natural processes can
perpetuate, making future thinning applications for ecological
maintenance unnecessary.

Human-caused Fires are Now the Norm – Lightning-caused Natural
Wildfires are infrequent 

Thousands of acres of forests and chaparral habitats were burned,
hundreds of people were displaced, several people were killed,
thousands of homes were incinerated with millions of dollars spent
in suppression costs, and countless environmental losses occurred
as a result of human-caused fires in 2015 and 2016. Heat sources,
whether from flames from a campfire, or embers from a tossed
cigarette, or sparks from an engine of a nonfunctional spark
arrestor, or sparks from a bullet that bounces off a rock, or
sparks from the rotating blade of a county-manned road clearance
weed cutter that strikes a rock – they are all examples of
human-caused fires that must be addressed.

Lightning-caused natural fires in forested habitats generally
ignite near the top of a tree and slowly burn down the tree because
heat rises, so the fire is not easily spread down to the ground
where most fires would eventually be extinguished due to the cool
environment below the trees where small fuels are less abundant.
Human-caused fires generally start at ground level and burn quickly
up because heat rises and rising heat creates wind conditions that
carry and accelerate the fire’s spread. 

The ARB research report from 18 April 2016 titled, Source
Speciation of Central Valley GHG Emissions using In-Situ
Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds, (Contract No. 11-315)
prepared by Principal Investigator Professor Allen H. Goldstein
from the University of California Berkeley, points to the air
pollution from forest fires as being a significant sources.  

Due to the changing climate, the drought, and the frequency of
expensive human-caused fires, California should place Public
Service Announcements (PSA’s) in multiple languages and in every
media outlet and through every organization that operates in
California to get the word out about ways to reduce GHG’s, climate
change, and forest fires. Preventing human-caused forest fires
would benefit every Californian, including residents of EJ
disadvantaged communities. Also, the ARB should prohibit all camp
fires and smoking in camping areas and impose severe financial
penalty for smoking and fires in forested areas. 

Distributed Clean PV Solar on Rooftops 

Distributed Clean Energy has six key energy efficiency measures
that are recommended for immediate action. The following specific
reasons are provided as to why: 
(1) Reduce the distance needed for transmission and distribution of
power to decrease transmission losses that will reduce the need for
fuel to generate power, improve air quality, and reduce impacts to
the global climate and (2) improve grid stability and reliability.
Distributed clean energy (3) involves the entire community in
energy solutions, and (4) reduces transmission impacts and (5)
reduces disruptive transmission bottlenecks.

Most of these benefits of Distributed Clean Energy reduce reliance
on transmission of electricity over long distances. The reduced
average distance needed for moving electricity over transmission
and distribution lines means that less infrastructure is needed to
move power around the grid. This can save a lot of money;
developing a single long-distance transmission project costs
hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Transmission can also
have significant environmental impact. It requires a cleared
corridor potentially extending for hundreds of miles. Transmission
lines can cause wildfires, and by one estimate may kill 130 to 170
million birds per year in the US. 

Large remote renewable energy projects may depend upon transmission
lines that can take a decade to permit and construct. Because
local, small-scale projects can be built relatively quickly, and
normally don’t need transmission, and Distributed Clean Energy can
speed up conversion to renewable energy. 

Distributed Clean Energy provides economic development
opportunities, inner city jobs, and increased urban tax
collections. It also supports grid reliability, which can be
important where natural disasters, such as earthquakes and ice
storms, disrupt long distance transmission lines.

One major advantage of Distributed Clean Energy is that it reduces
or avoids the energy losses that occur in the transmission and
distribution grid. Electrical resistance in wires and other grid
components converts electric energy into heat that escapes into the
atmosphere. In the US an average of 6.5% of electricity is “lost”
in the power grid; over a year that would amount to approximately
260 terawatt-hours—roughly the amount of electricity consumed by
the entire state of California.

This is the energy price we pay for generating electricity in one
place and sending it off to be consumed in another place. The
available and affordable way to avoid this energy loss in the power
grid is first to reduce the overall consumption of electricity, and
then to produce electric power where it is consumed. 

A paper called “Community Power” describes the benefits of
distributed power generation and the fallacy of unbalanced,
permissive favoritism towards centralized solar development in lieu
of more balanced, socially, technologically, economically and
democratically beneficial, distributed, localized renewable
resources.  The link to the “Community Power” paper that describes
the benefits of distributed power generation can be downloaded at:
http://www.localcleanenergy.org/Community-Power-Publication.

Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Ara Marderosian
Sequoia ForestKeeper®
P.O. Box 2134
Kernville, CA 93238
(760) 376-4434
ara@sequoiaforestkeeper.org


Attachment:
November 23, 2015, to California Governor Jerry Brown and Mary
Nichols, Chair of California Air Resources Board