Opinion ID: 793847
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Soil Cover

Text: 85 Both the Power and the Freds FEISs state that a goal of the restoration projects is to provide effective ground cover as a means of reducing erosion and stream sedimentation. Both FEISs specify that the average soil cover should be between 50% to 60%. The FEISs propose to achieve this amount of soil coverage by using debris from trees that are logged according to the mortality guidelines discussed above—in their words, by using tops and limbs of dead and dying trees. 86 According to the Power FEIS, there was an average of 11% to 30% ground cover in areas of moderate-severity burns after the fire. There was an average of 0% to 10% ground cover in areas of high-severity burns. The average projected ground cover after needles scorched by the fire had fallen to the ground was estimated to be 51% to 70% in moderate-severity burn areas, and 20% to 30% in high-severity burn areas. According to the Freds FEIS, there was an average of 17% ground cover in moderate-severity burn areas, and an average of 9% in high-severity burn areas. Following needlecast, the projected ground cover was 46% in moderate-severity burn areas, and 19% in high-severity burn areas. 87 Earth Island argues that these figures for soil coverage are based on information obtained in site visits immediately after the fire, and that more recent visits show that effective soil cover already exceeds 50% to 60% in severely burned areas. In support of this argument, Earth Island offers the declaration of Jonathan J. Rhodes. Rhodes has a B.S. in Hydrology and Water Resources from the University of Arizona, and an M.S. in Hydrology and Hydrogeology from the University of Nevada-Reno. He has also finished all required academic work toward a Ph.D. in forest hydrology at the University of Washington. He has had more than twenty-two years of experience as a hydrologist. 88 Rhodes visited what he described as six high-severity burn areas within the Power Fire area on August 11, 2005. He found that needles, twigs, and branches that had fallen since the fire, as well as new vegetative growth, had increased soil cover substantially. He stated in his declaration: 89 I measured soil cover in areas where my visual estimates indicated that soil cover was lowest. Thus, my measurements include those in areas with soil cover that is well below the average within the proposed Power project area as a whole. My measurements and evaluation of soil cover conditions within the areas of the proposed Power logging project unequivocally demonstrate that as of August 11, 2005, soil cover is well-distributed and greater than 60% in the overwhelming majority of areas burned at high severity. In the areas that I measured soil cover, the lowest level of soil cover that I measured was 59%; soil cover in the other five areas measured ranged from 66-91%. Even this lowest level of measured soil cover exceeds the 50% target that Power and Freds FEIS state should be exceeded. 90 Rhodes continued, [b]ased on conditions within the area, it is unquestionable that soil cover from [conifer regeneration, and needles, branches, and logs from burned trees] will continue to steadily increase over the next several years. He concluded, there is not a pressing need to try to increase soil cover via logging in order to reduce soil erosion. This is especially true because logging always causes increased soil damage and elevated erosion. (emphasis in original). 91 The USFS responded with a declaration by Jeffrey TenPas. TenPas has a M.S. in Soil Science from the University of California, Davis. He is an employee of the USFS. He has had more than fifteen years of experience in soil science. TenPas assessed soil cover immediately after the Power Fire. He then revisited the Power Fire area on August 19, 2005, after reading the Rhodes declaration. TenPas wrote, [c]ontrary to Mr. Rhodes findings, portions of the high severity burned areas in the Power Project area have existing ground cover much less than 50%. He suggested that Rhodes might have been examining a more moderately burned area that received significant needle cast, rather than a high-severity burn area. TenPas stated: 92 The pattern of recovery [in the Power Project area] was consistent with expectations. Needle cast had provided adequate ground cover in low and moderate severity burned areas. Bear clover, where it was present, covered an estimated 0 to 70% cover at the scale of 200 transects. In high severity burned areas, bear clover was the predominant component in vegetative recovery in areas I visited. Various forbs provided a trace to 5% cover. In high severity burned areas without bear clover, ground cover was as low as 1%, that from a trace of needles. 93 He concluded, [i]n sum, my observations indicate that there remain portions of high severity burned areas where soil cover is deficient.... Timber harvest can contribute additional cover in these areas. 94 As in Earth Island, we conclude that [a]t this stage, the record does not allow us to conclude that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in relying on its own data and discounting the alternative evidence offered by the Plaintiffs. Earth Island, 351 F.3d at 1302. This is especially so in light of the deference given to the reasonable opinions of [an agency's] own experts. Id. at 1301. 95