Save Upper Echo Lake

Plaintiff Dennis Murphy is seeking leave to file a supplemental complaint to add new claims that the Forest Service's decision to implement just the first phase of the Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project violates NEPA. Defendants moved to dismiss all plaintiff's existing claims as moot.  Their motion is based on their own action withdrawing the project authorization and the theory that federal agencies can violate the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct mandated environmental review of a project, implement the project, then declare the project authorization withdrawn to avoid a judicial determination that they have violated federal law.  Dr. Murphy filed an opposition to the motion. Meanwhile, Defendants have littered the project area with slash piles, creating new fire risk. In some cases, the Forest Service's has created fuel ladders where they did not exist before. At the same time, the Forest Service has yet ...

More than 250 scientists signed a letter (pdf) opposing a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives ( H.R. 2647 ) that would expedite logging on public lands by allowing the Forest Service to avoid the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA has often been referred to as the magna carta of U.S. environmental law. Phil Taylor of E&E reported on the letter and House bill on September 25 in E&E Daily.

One year ago today, Dr. Dennis Murphy filed a FOIA request with the Forest Service for e-mail sent by or received by the Forest Supervisor who approved the Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project pertaining to the project and by the lead biologist with respect to the project. Shortly after receiving the request, the Forest Service improperly denied Dr. Murphy's request for a fee waiver. Following an appeal by Dr. Murphy, on January 6, 2015, the agency granted the fee waiver. More than three months later (and more than six months after the initial request was filed), on April 7, 2015, the Forest Service issued its "response" composed primarily of hundreds of pages of redacted (i.e., blacked out) documents . On April 9, 2015, Dr. Murphy once again filed an administrative appeal from the agency's unlawful decision to withhold documents. More than five months since the appeal was filed, the agency has yet to respond. This was not a burdensome request; the...

The NEPA Lab , a blog published by Pennsylvania State University  Professor  Jamison E. Colburn, features a story entitled Mission Impossible: When the Pressure to do Something Exceeds the Knowledge of How to do it Right . Professor Colburn states: "the Service and others have tended toward “fuels treatments” of various kinds by a wide acreage margin.  But the science behind this approach—whether it is mechanical thinning, understory collection and incineration, or plain old logging to create “fire breaks”—is much less certain than fire planners would have you believe." The story features the Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project as a failed fuel reduction project that increased environmental risk.

In an  article  written by Scott Sonner, the AP described the decision of the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw the memo authorizing its Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project.  The article was picked up in hundreds of news outlets nationally, such as the San Francisco Chronicle .

In an article written by Jack Barnwell, the Tahoe Daily Tribune described the decision of the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw the memo authorizing its Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project.  The decision to halt the project comes at a time that politicians and agency officials prepare for the annual Lake Tahoe Summit .

In a one sentence memo dated July 20, 2015, the Forest Service withdrew its November 2012 decision to implement the Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. This marks an important milestone in the effort to address both the impacts of the Project and the agency mismanagement that led to its development in the first instance, including the effort to skirt required federal environmental review.