Conservation groups oppose South Shore fuel reduction project
Waiting until just before the comment period ended, opponents to the U.S. Forest Service’s plans to thin about 10,000 acres on the South Shore submitted letters questioning the validity of the environmental document.
The South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project would treat 10,112 acres; the intent being to target the wildland urban interface and prevent another Angora Fire.
As reported on Lake Tahoe News a month ago, an objection to the final EIS by the Oct. 28 deadline would trigger a 30-day resolution period. It’s been triggered by Earth Island Justice’s John Muir Project, and Echo Lakes Association. Anyone or any entity which had commented on the original environmental impact statement had the right to comment on the latest document.
The conservation groups want the Forest Service to do more analysis. The same woodpecker species that Earth Island said should prevent thinning of the Angora burn area is being cited as a concern with the larger project. With Angora, a judge sided with the Forest Service.
The Forest Service has until the end of the month to respond to the comments it received. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor Nancy Gibson will be the one decide to approve the project or not. If she signs the record of decision, it could end up in court. If she doesn’t sign it, the projects future is murky.
— Kathryn Reed
“Waiting until just before the comment period ended, opponents to the U.S. Forest Service’s plans…”
Sounds to me like your arguing against allowing adequate time to research and make conclusive and accurate analyses of the plan. It is not uncommon for these plans to require extensive time dedicated to just reading and studying them first.
I would rather have commenters first do their homework and have real facts instead of overly emotional opinions on a plan or project. Just saying…
Does anyone remember the Angora Fire? After that disaster the “environmental interest groups” (now called “conservation groups”) claimed they had done nothing to oppose fuels reduction.
The Forest Service is up against the same “enviromental” resistance again. When will our community say: “Enough!”?
I’m an environmentalist and a conservationist and a member of the community and as long as they leave the old growth trees alone I am strongly in favor of the fuel reduction project.
I DO remember the Angora fire and I definitely recognize that current conditions leave much of the South Shore ripe for a repeat performance, God forbid.
Know Bears-don’t know nothing-
You are the conservationist and environmentalist who we can blame the rapid spread of the Angora fire on. Go climb under a log for a few decades and let the realist get the forests healthy again!
I can’t believe it is the woodpecker again! Chad Hanson, give it up!
These so called conservation groups are extremist. I am an environmentalist and I think that forest thinning is good for fire safety and forest health. We have been supressing fire for 100 years and it is time to clean up.
The American Indians used burning EXTENSIVELY to control the environment before the Europeans ever showed up.
Read “1491”. Good book.