[APPENDICES] _______________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A: FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STRAWBERRY CANYON VICINITY AMPHIBIANS Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense Common Name: California tiger salamander Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Annual grasslands and grassy understory of valley-foothill hardwood habitats, need underground refuges, need vernal pools, stock ponds, or other seasonal water sources for breeding. The species persists in disjunct remnant vernal pool complexes in Sonoma and Santa Barbara counties, in vernal pool complexes and isolated ponds scattered mainly along narrow strips of rangeland on each side of the Central Valley from southern Colusa County south to northern Kern County, and in sag ponds and human- maintained stock ponds in the coast ranges from Suisun Bay south to the Temblor Range. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide suitable breeding or aestivation habitat for this species. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 6.9 miles south and is located in Alameda. Scientific Name: Rana aurora draytonii Common Name: California red-legged frog Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Dense, shrubby riparian vegetation associated with deep (> 0.7 meter), still or slow-moving water. Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergency riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development, must have access to aestivation habitat. Likelihood of Occurrence: Potential to occur. Ephemeral drainages in project area could provide suitable habitat. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 3.1 miles southeast and is located at Thornhill Pond, near Berkeley. REPTILES Scientific Name: Masticophis lateralis euryxantus Common Name: Alameda whipsnake Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Rock outcrops in association with chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Inhabits south-facing slopes and ravines where shrubs form a vegetative mosaic with oak trees and grasses. Restricted to valley-foothill hardwood habitat of the coast ranges between the Monterey vicinity and north of San Francisco Bay. Likelihood of Occurrence: Potential to occur. The closest known records of the Alameda whipsnake to the project area include captures of 6 Alameda whipsnakes in Claremont Canyon (which is located 1 mile southeast of the project area). These individuals were captured between 2002 and 2004 as part of an East Bay Regional Park District monitoring program (Klatt 2006). BIRDS Scientific Name: Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Common Name: Western snowy plover Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Habitats used by nesting and nonnesting birds include sandy coastal beaches, salt pans, coastal dredged spoils sites, dry salt ponds, salt pond levees, and gravel bars. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide sandy coastal beaches, salt pans, etc. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 9 miles south and is located at bay farmland, San Francisco Bay adjacent to Oakland. Scientific Name: Haliaeetus leucocephalus Common Name: Bald eagle Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Winters throughout most of California at lakes, reservoirs, river systems, and some rangelands and coastal wetlands on protected cliffs and ledges. Also nests on bridges and buildings in urban areas. Nests are normally built in the upper canopy of large trees, usually conifers. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide any lakes, reservoirs, large river systems, and/or cliffs and ledges. Scientific Name: Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Common Name: California brown pelican Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Found in estuarine, marine subtidal, and marine pelagic waters along the California coast. In Northern California, fairly common to uncommon June to November. Usually rests on water or inaccessible rocks (either offshore or on mainland), but also uses mudflats, sandy beaches, wharfs, and jetties. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area is not located near estuarine, marine subtidal, and pelagic waters. Scientific Name: Rallus longirostris obsoletus Common Name: California clapper rail Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Tidal salt marshes near tidal sloughs; perennial inhabitant of tidal salt marshes of the greater San Francisco Bay. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide tidal salt marshes. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 3.9 miles west and is located at Richmond inner harbor, between the University of California engineering field station and the breakwater, Richmond. Scientific Name: Sterna antillarum browni Common Name: California least tern Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Nests on beaches and estuaries near waters that produce small fish. Prefers open areas where visibility is good. Substrate choice is generally sand or fine gravel and can be mixed with shell fragments. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide beaches and estuaries. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 7.7 miles southwest and is located at Alameda County Air Station, southwest of Oakland. MAMMALS Scientific Name: Reithrodontomys raviventris Common Name: Salt marsh harvest mouse Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Pickleweed is the primary habitat. Inhabits only saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. Requires higher areas for flood escape. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide pickleweed habitat. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 4.0 miles southwest and is located at Emeryville Crescent Marsh, adjacent to a storm drain and Bay Bridge approach. INVERTERBRATES Scientific Name: Branchinecta lynchi Common Name: Vernal pool fairy shrimp Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Vernal pools; small swales, earth slumps, or basalt-flow depression basins with grassy or occasionally muddy bottom, in unplowed grassland. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide any vernal pools or seasonal swales appropriate for this species. Scientific Name: Euphydryas editha bayensis Common Name: Bay checkerspot butterfly Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Found in serpentine grasslands around San Francisco Bay. The host plant is dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta); also uses owl’s-clover (Castilleja spp.). Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide serpentine grasslands. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 4.4 miles southeast and is located at Joaquin Miller Park northeast of Oakland. Scientific Name: Speyeria callippe callippe Common Name: Callippe silverspot butterfly Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Historically this butterfly-inhabited grasslands ranges over much of the northern San Francisco Bay region. On the San Francisco peninsula, this butterfly is now only known from San Bruno Mountain (approximately 10 miles south of San Francisco). In the East Bay, it was known from Richmond in the north to the Castro Valley in Alameda County. The only remaining population of this butterfly in Alameda County occurs in an undisclosed city park. The host plant is violet (Viola pedunculata). Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide grasslands suitable for this butterfly species. No California Natural Diversity Database records exist of this species in the project vicinity. FISH Scientific Name: Acipenser medirostris Common Name: Green sturgeon Federal Status: Proposed for listing status Preferred Habitat: A demersal (bottom-dwelling) species, mostly seen from inshore waters to 60 meters (197 feet). Spawns in the mainstem of large river systems in relatively fast water flows and probably in depths greater than 3 meters. Preferred spawning substrate is large cobble, but can range from clean sand to bedrock. The only recently documented green sturgeon spawning locations are in the Klamath, Sacramento, and Rogue rivers along the west coast of North America. However, green sturgeon are known to range in nearshore marine waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea and are commonly observed in bays and estuaries along the coast with particularly large concentrations entering the Columbia River estuary, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor during the late summer. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Eucyclogobius newberryi Common Name: Tidewater goby Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Tidewater gobies are uniquely adapted to coastal lagoons and the uppermost brackish zone of larger estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater habitats. The species is typically found in water less than 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep and salinities of less than 12 parts per thousand. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near any coastal lagoons, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 3.94 miles west and is located at Berkeley Aquatic Park, west edge of Berkeley adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Scientific Name: Hypomesus transpacificus Common Name: Delta smelt Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, from the Suisun Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties. Euryhaline species, but for a large part of its life span, is associated with the freshwater edge of the mixing zone (saltwater-freshwater interface). Spawning habitats are side channels and sloughs in the middle reaches of the Delta. Spawns in shallow freshwater from December through July. Pelagic feeder. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus kisutch Common Name: Central California coast Coho salmon Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus mykiss Common Name: Central California coastal steelhead Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus mykiss Common Name: Central Valley steelhead Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Common Name: Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon Federal Status: Candidate for listing status Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Common Name: Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Common Name: Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Pacific Ocean, spawns in coastal streams and rivers, over gravel beds. Pool depth, volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel for spawning play key roles. Likelihood of Occurrence: No potential because the project area is not located near the ocean, nor does it have any aquatic habitat. PLANTS Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos pallida Common Name: Pallid manzanita Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Found in chaparral. Found only in the northern Diablo Range of California. Range into several distinct units: Contra Costa Hills, Mt. Diablo, Mt. Hamilton Range, Panoche Hills, San Carlos Range, and Estrella Hills. Prefers to grow in limited locations of the East Bay Hills on north- and east-facing slopes where bare, siliceous, mesic soils with low fertility exist. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area is located within species known range and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 0.5 mile north and is located on Dark Hill and Shasta roads, northeastern corner of Tilden Regional Park. Scientific Name: Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Common Name: Robust spineflower Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Sandy terraces and bluffs or in loose sand; elevation from 3–120 meters. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 6.9 miles south and is located in Alameda. Scientific Name: Clarkia franciscana Common Name: Presidio clarkia Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Restricted to grassland communities on serpentine soils in San Francisco and Alameda counties. Two populations are known from San Francisco Presidio. Three are known from the Oakland Hills in Alameda County, all from within 0.5 mile of each other. Total plant numbers fluctuate greatly; the upper limit reported in recent years is approximately 8,000 plants. Serpentine soils are formed from weathered volcanic (ultramafic) rocks such as serpentinite, dunite, and peridotite. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide grassland communities. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 6 miles southeast and is located at Redwood Regional Park, below East Bay Regional Park headquarters, northeast of Skyline Blvd. Scientific Name: Holocarpha macradenia Common Name: Santa Cruz tarplant Federal Status: Threatened Preferred Habitat: Grasslands and prairies found on coastal terraces below 100 meters (330 feet) in elevation, from Monterey County north to Marin County. In the Santa Cruz area, the gently sloping terrace platforms are separated by steep-sided "gulches," whereas in the Watsonville area (Monterey County) and on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay, the terraces are more extensively dissected, and Holocarpha macradenia populations occur on alluvium derived from the terrace deposits (Palmer 1986). Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide grasslands and prairies. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 2.7 miles north and is located in lower Sather Canyon, between San Pablo and Briones reservoirs 2.7 miles due north of Vollmer Peak. Scientific Name: Lasthenia conjugens Common Name: Contra Costa goldfields Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, cismontane woodland. Extirpated from most of its range. Found in vernal pools, swales, and low depressions in open grassy areas; elevation from 1–455 meters. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 17.1 miles south and is located at about 0.25 mile north of western end of Depot Road; adjacent to (just east of) the American Salt Company, along shore of San Francisco Bay. Scientific Name: Layia carnosa Common Name: Beach layia Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: The species is restricted to openings in coastal sand dunes ranging in elevation from 0-30 meters (0-100 feet), where it colonizes sparsely vegetated, partially stabilized dunes or relatively bare blowouts in secondary succession. In Northern California, it occurs in the northern fore dune community; in Monterey County, the species occurs in the central fore dune community described as the sand-verbena. It generally occupies sparsely vegetated open areas on semi-stabilized dunes. The fore dune community experiences some drifting sand and has low-growing herbaceous and perennial native species. The species also occurs in open areas, such as along trails and roads. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 9.0 miles southwest and is located at San Francisco Sand Dunes, San Francisco. Scientific Name: Suaeda californica Common Name: California seablite Federal Status: Endangered Preferred Habitat: Marshes and swamps. Margins of coastal salt marshes; elevation from 0–5 meters. Likelihood of Occurrence: Not likely to occur because the project area does not provide marshes and swamps. The closest occurrence to the project area is approximately 3.3 miles west and is located near Fleming along Southern Pacific Railroad. Federal Endangered Species Act E - Endangered T - Threatened C - Candidate for listing status P - Proposed for listing status Source: USFWS species list and California Natural Diversity Database search for five quadrangles surrounding the project area _______________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B: BIOLOGICAL OPINION FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE [Appendix B is not available as a .txt file. Please consult the .pdf file or contact Mr. Alessandro Amaglio, Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, California 94607, (510) 627-7284.] _______________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix C: RESPONSE FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 FEMA March 8, 2006 Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Regents of the University of California, Fire Mitigation Projects at Claremont Canyon and Strawberry Canyon, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-003 and -011 Dear Mr. Donaldson: The purpose of this letter is to transmit the enclosed technical report and summarize the results of an archaeological field review of lands potentially affected by two projects proposed in Alameda County, California. The Regents of the University of California (UC) have applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program grants to implement two vegetation management projects in Claremont and Strawberry Canyons (PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-003 and PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-011, respectively). The proposed effort is designed to mitigate future impacts associated with wildfires by reducing the available fuel load through a combination of hand clearing and mechanized removal of potential fuels from the project area. The attached report presents the results of a literature and archival review and an archaeological field survey of lands potentially affected by the proposed projects. This report was prepared by URS Corporation (URS), as a consultant to FEMA, to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among FEMA, the State Historic Preservation Officer, OES, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In summary, a field review of the project area was supplemented by a cultural resources records review conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System. In addition to the literature review, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of its Sacred Lands File as well as a list of Native American groups and individuals it believes should be contacted. The Sacred Lands File search was negative. FEMA sent letters to those groups and individuals listed by the NAHC. To date no responses have been received. An archaeological survey of the APE was undertaken on December 6 and 9, 2005, by URS. The results of the survey were negative. Project Description Within the wildlands, exotic vegetation will be selectively removed from approximately 45 acres of Claremont Canyon and 66 acres of Strawberry Canyon. The exotic vegetation would be cut by hand fellers (using chainsaws and wedges) and the mechanized feller-buncher (a tracked vehicle). Felled trees (up to approximately 24 inches in diameter) would be hauled along paths ("skid trails") to landings within the project areas. At the landings, trees would be chipped using a grapple fed chipper. The staging of vehicles would occur at landings within the project area. Additional landings may be created mid-slope within the project area as needed. Area of Potential Effects (APE) Determination The proposed APE consists of all areas (within the individual project boundaries) where vegetation will be removed, and are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 in the attached technical report (in Appendix A). Pursuant to Stipulation VILA. of the PA, FEMA seeks your concurrence with its determination of the APE. Literature Review Pursuant to Stipulation VII.B. of the PA, the project area was subject to a cultural resources literature review. The enclosed report provides a complete description of the literature review. Natural Setting The enclosed report provides a complete description of the natural setting. Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and History The enclosed report provides a complete description of the prehistory, ethnohistory, and history of the project area. Cultural Resources Inventory Methods and Results Mr. Brian W. Hatoff, M.A., RPA, of URS, qualified as an archaeologist under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, served as Principal Investigator for the cultural resources survey conducted in December 2005. The enclosed report provides a complete description of survey methods and results. Findings and Conclusions The results of the archaeological survey were negative for cultural resources within all areas surveyed. This letter and enclosed report provides a description of the undertaking, an APE determination, relevant maps, and a description of the steps FEMA has taken pursuant to Stipulation VII.C. of the PA to identify historic properties. As described above, no properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were identified through a literature review or pedestrian survey of the project area. Therefore, the proposed projects are not expected to have any on historic properties. There is always the possibility that previously recorded or previously unidentified archaeological resources could be discovered during project construction. In accordance with Stipulation X of the PA, FEMA will require UC to stop work in the event of an unexpected discovery and will comply with the steps outlined in Stipulation X. In accordance with Stipulation VII of the PA, FEMA has conducted the Standard Project Review. FEMA made a determination of "no historic properties affected" and, in accordance with the PA, is submitting for review the enclosed report supporting that determination. In accordance with Stipulation VII, FEMA may authorize funding for the project unless you object to this determination within 21 days of your receipt of this documentation. If you have any questions, you can contact me at (510) 627-7284 or Mr. Hatoff at (510) 874-3195. Sincerely, [Signed] Alessandro Amaglio, AIA Environmental Officer Enclosure cc: Dennis Castrillo, OES Marcia Rentschler, OES Tom Klatt, Regents of the University of California Greg Kenning, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (enclosure omitted) Mahvash Harms, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (enclosure omitted) John Hesler, David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. (enclosure omitted) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FEMA'S RESPONSES Hills Conservation Network 1305 Alvarado Road Berkeley, CA 94705 510-849-2601 6/30/07 Ms. Nancy Ward Regional Administrator FEMA Region 9 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 Ref: PDM05-PJ19,20 Cc: Robert McCord Dear Ms. Ward, We are residents of the Claremont Canyon area who are concerned over the vegetation removal projects in this area. Addressing our concerns, we have had extensive interactions with East Bay Regional Parks District and the University of California. UC has been tentatively awarded about $700k to complete two additional projects in Claremont and Strawberry Canyons. Our purpose in writing this letter is to ask that FEMA reconsider the approval of these projects. Our concern over UC Berkeley's vegetation management programs, and specifically with the planned projects for [approximately] 40 acres in Claremont Canyon and [approximately] 65 acres in Strawberry Canyon, is based on the following: 1. Does the removal of an additional 15,000 tall trees, added to the more than 10,000 that have already been removed make sense, given the trees' favorable effect on global warming? Since the areas being proposed for cutting have no history of wildfire, targeting these areas seems questionable. 2. The fire risk mitigation for homes and property resulting from these projects appears to be minimal, because any structures are well in excess of 1/4 mile away. 3. UC's specific methods are a significant issue. Unlike EBRPD and EBMUD, UC does not remove felled trees, instead grinds them on site, leaving up to 24" of chips on the ground. This practice, while inexpensive to implement, results in an area that will be unlikely to sustain any significant re-vegetation (either native or non-native) for many years. In addition, it is known that leaving that amount of chips on the ground creates a significant fire hazard, not only due to potential ignition, but also due to the difficulty in extinguishing smoldering below surface. EBRPD considers chipping on site an unacceptable practice due to the creation of a "dead zone" and the increased risk of fire. 4. UC failed to comply with EIR-stipulated mitigations these projects. In the recently completed Claremont Canyon project, the following concerns came to light: a. Until confronted by residents UC, had no written project plans in place b. Once pushed by local residents, UC elected to use the contractor bid request as the formal project plan c. Although UC committed to use 3rd party personnel to ensure d. The actual project was in flagrant violation of the "project plan" document in the following areas: i. The work proceeded in the rainy season while doing so was specifically prohibited ii. Tree stumps were to be cut to 6" or less above grade. In fact, the majority of the stumps are several feet above grade iii. Erosion control measures were supposed to have be erected immediately following cuts; none were erected e. Herbicides were applied directly to trees in a creek running through the property 5. UC, unlike EBRPD has made no effort to encourage public involvement and transparency in the implementation of their projects. In addition to refusing to provide public grant documents, UC has made claims in those documents that they were able to achieve the greatest amount of tree removal per dollar spent of any public agency as a result of "streamlined approval processes apart from municipal oversight and undue political meddling". The request that UC adopt EBRPDs practice of open community review of preliminary EIR documents has been met with silence. 6. While the designated purpose for the use of FEMA funding was for fire safety and mitigation, given that the vegetation removal projects in Claremont and Strawberry canyons are far away from structures, and given the fact that UC, unlike EBRPD employs a process whereby a dead zone is created at the site, one might question what the real motivation for these projects is. It has been suggested that what UC is really doing is using federal funding (FEMA pre-disaster mitigation funds in this case) to remove forested areas as a precursor to future development projects. While it would be politically difficult to justify cutting down a forest to build new structures, once the trees are gone (for "fire safety" reasons) and replaced by dead zones, it would be relatively easy to take the next step with minimal opposition. In summary, we believe that UCs use of FEMA vegetation management funds is a fraudulent use of federal funds. We see substantial evidence that UC is being disingenuous in their rationale for these projects. Finally, these projects have essentially no favorable impact in reducing fire danger. With these factors in mind, we ask that you reconsider the approval of these projects. Sincerely, Hills Conservation Network Directors Dan Grassetti Jerry Baer Mikki Baer Robbie Romano Madeleine Hovland Peter Gray Scott Teresa Ferguson Bob Sand [Attachment: Four site photos] U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 FEMA July 26, 2007 Hills Conservation Network Directors 1305 Alvarado Road Berkeley, California 94705 Re: Claremont and Strawberry Canyons Fuel Reduction Projects, University of California at Berkeley, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-003 and -011 This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 2007, to our agency's Regional Administrator, Ms. Nancy Ward. Your organization expressed concerns about proposed vegetation removal projects for which the University of California, Berkeley, has applied for funding under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, through the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. These projects are currently under environmental review; FEMA is consulting with the appropriate agencies for compliance with several statutes, as required, including Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Concurrently, we are performing these projects' review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the decision making process that ultimately will allow FEMA to determine the validity of the project. This review is inclusive of public participation and comments. I want to thank you for sharing your concerns, some of which have been already taken under due consideration during the review and consultation processes. Additionally, FEMA will provide you, and any other interested party, the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) when completed. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Sincerely, [Signed] Mr. Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer cc: Marcia Rentschler, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Dennis Castrillo, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Hills Conservation Network 1305 Alvarado Rd. Berkeley, CA 94705 8/10/07 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer FEMA Region 9 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 Cc: Marcia Rentschler, Dennis Castrillo, Hills Conservation Network Directors Ref: PDM05-P.119,20 Dear Mr. Amaglio, Thanks for your recent letter responding to our concerns over the awarding of these pre-disaster mitigation grants to UC Berkeley. While we greatly appreciate your consideration of the questions raised and information provided, and we plan to work on these issues as part of the formal NEPA and CEQA reviews, we do not believe this is a sufficient response to the concerns we raised. We are confident that the formal environmental reviews will cause the environmental issues to be considered, however, neither a NEPA nor CEQA review is intended to address our primary concern, that these grant proposals are fundamentally fraudulent. We ask that you consider the attached list of specific instances noted in our review of the PJ20 grant proposal. (the issues are identical in PJ19). We have highlighted some of the more egregious examples. There are undoubtedly many more. We also note that UC refused to provide us with copies of these public documents when requested. After reading these applications it became clear why they were reluctant to have this information made public. While we fully support the NEPA and CEQA process and plan to participate, the two grant proposals under question should not be seriously considered for funding. Not only do these projects have little to do with pre-disaster mitigation, UC, by using fraudulent statements throughout these documents, has diminished it's credibility and our statements need to be researched prior to allowing these proposed projects to move forward. As requested before, we would like to meet with your staff on this matter as soon as possible. Sincerely, [Signed] Peter Gray Scott, 1991 Fire Survivor, on behalf of the Directors of the Hills Conservation Network [Following list of significant errors and fraudulent claims is part of the above letter from Peter Gray Scott] Significant errors and fraudulent claims made in PJ20 (and PJ19) Page 8. The coordinates for the proposed project appear to be incorrect. Page 13. UC did not follow CEQA in the implementation of its prior projects. These projects were allegedly cleared for environmental reviews pursuant to a campus-wide EIR published in 2004 (2020 LRDP EIR) that barely touches on the subject of vegetation management. Per CEQA, tiered EIRs were to have been completed, but they were not, and mitigations were to have been followed, which were not. The statement that "based on previous reviews and consultations, no significant and/or cumulative negative impacts to aesthetics....." is patently false and completely unsubstantiated. The further statement that "UC has coordinated its efforts... with East Bay Regional Park District" is also a falsehood. The reality is that EBRPD has given up on attempting to work with UC due to UC's complete unwillingness to participate in a regional project. In fact, EBRPD, in planning for its measure CC projects is doing so without UC's participation, not because this is their desire, but as a result of UC's intractability. Finally, in the Claremont Canyon area where UC wants to use FEMA funds for more clear cutting, EBRPD (the largest landowner in Claremont Canyon) has determined that the fire potential in this area is so low that they will not use measure CC funds for any project in Claremont Canyon. EBRPD can demonstrate a scientifically rigorous process used to arrive at this conclusion while UC cannot. UC goes on to say that they are eradicating only eucalyptus forests when the reality is that they are removing not only eucalyptus trees, but pines, acacias, essentially all trees other than oaks and bays. The statement that this strategy has "won broad acceptance from the community" is a falsehood and unsubstantiated. There is a large segment of the community that finds UC's projects to be unnecessarily destructive and would prefer the approach taken by EBRPD. Over 200 signatures to this effect were delivered to UC and have been ignored. Page 17. While we will address the cost/benefit analysis in the NEPA review process, the economic analysis presented in this grant proposal is nonsense. Their basic assertion appears to be that clear cutting in Claremont and Strawberry canyons is justified as wildfire mitigation, in spite of the fact that virtually no wildfires of any significance have ever occurred in these canyons. UC should follow the lead of EBRPD in conducting professional fire risk analyses prior to implementing projects such as these...but they have not done so and show no plan of performing such analyses. The results would not justify the expenditure of these funds for this purpose. While EBRPD can provide scientifically defensible data as to why certain areas should be cut, UC cannot. Finally, in the official review of the '91 firestorm (available via a link at http://hillsconservationnetwork.org/Resources.html), there is no evidence that eucalyptus trees played any role in that disaster, yet UC continues to assert eucalyptus trees were a major cause of the fire. Page 18. UC's statements as to their qualifications and expertise are highly questionable in light of the fact the tactics employed by UC are specifically prohibited by other professional land managers at EBRPD. The further assertion that all projects are completed on time, on budget, and are compliant with environmental considerations is a complete falsehood. As an example, please consider the most recent project completed by UC on the South slope of Claremont Canyon. On time? The project was put out for bid in early July of 2006 with a targeted completion date PRIOR TO THE RAINY SEASON. The project slipped into the rainy season and was not completed until early February. The specific prohibition against implementing this project during the rainy season was completely ignored, as were the requirements for erosion control measures. On budget? While UC undoubtedly spent the money that they had for this project, the hallmark of UC's project was removing the maximum number of trees per dollar spent, irrespective of the environmental damage done. At one point in this project, felled trees were falling into the roadway while traffic was flowing with no traffic control... is this evidence of a well-managed project? If it was on budget it was only because the project ignored safety concerns and environmental mitigations specifically mandated, but which would have resulted in additional expense. In compliance with environmental law? The EIR used to justify this project contained almost nothing about this or similar projects, there was no tiered EIR, the work plan (which contained the EIR mandated mitigations) was not followed, and the project is still not in compliance with these mitigations six months after completion: - all stumps were to be no more than 4' above grade, yet the majority are in excess of 2 feet above grade - erosion control measures were never implemented Page 21. UC asserts their methods "have shown no environmental problems or community complaints". While the first part of this statement is a completely unfounded assertion, the second is an outright falsehood. UC has not reported the fact that there has been considerable local opposition to what they have been doing. In fact there have been specific, documented complaints since prior to the writing of these grants, yet these inputs were unreported. Page 27. UC goes on to assert that "no issues have arisen, and the work has been widely met with positive.....even by people who have an axe to grind with UC". Needless to say, this statement is simply not true. Various groups have expressed their opposition to what UC has been doing, and our group has provided UC with over 200 petition signatures demanding that they stop, yet they continue to make statements such as these in grant applications. CLAREMONT CANYON CONSERVANCY A COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION FORMED IN 2001 TO SUPPORT LONG TERM STEWARDSHIP OF CLAREMONT CANYON www.ClaremontCanyon.Org August 24, 2007 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer FEMA Region 9 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 Re: Support for FEMA grants PDMO5-PJ 19 and 20 Dear Mr. Amaglio, I am writing to you as President of the Claremont Canyon Conservancy, in support of the University of California's FEMA grants PDMO5-PJ 19 and 20. We are a nonprofit community-based membership organization, representing over 400 households in the immediate area of Claremont Canyon. The Conservancy works in close cooperation with all of the regional landholders, including the Cities of Oakland and Berkeley; the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); and the University of California. Our organization was formed to facilitate communication between these various agencies and municipalities, to provide volunteer support, and to contribute additional funding for vegetation management and restoration projects as necessary. This critical segment of Bay Area's wildland-urban interface is an important and diverse ecological corridor, but it is threatened by an ever-growing and unstable population of fire-prone, blue- and red-gum eucalyptus trees. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant approved awarded by FEMA to the University and its partners at the City of Oakland and EBRPD is a critical link in protecting the East Bay from yet another devastating Diablo Wind-driven firestorm, for which these trees are an otherwise inevitable fuel source. The work that this grant will facilitate is essential, responsible, and potentially represents a model for local community-Federal agency partnership. We feel that the University has been an exemplary steward of its portion of Claremont Canyon. Over the past six years, innovative approaches to wildfire fuel reduction, invasive weed control and habitat restoration have been implemented under the leadership of Tom Klatt of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. The Conservancy has been proud to partner with the University in this work, which has been widely publicized the local print and television media, as well as in our regular neighborhood meetings, quarterly newsletters, and website. We maintain a Memorandum of Understanding with the University to provide community volunteers on a monthly basis to assist in post-logging remediation and restoration projects. For its part, the University has supported complimentary work of the Conservancy on adjacent lands, including the removal of hundreds of blue gum eucalyptus and Monterey pines on EBRPD land in 2006. This work was funded by generous grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Grant numbers 04FWS0001, 04FWS0002, and 04FWS0003), funds from City of Oakland, and over $25,000 in private funds contributed by neighbors — a telling measure of community support for eucalyptus removal. Furthermore, the Conservancy polled its membership about this (and other topics) in 2006; over 90% firmly supported eucalyptus removal. In summary, I would encourage you to respond to the pressing needs of the East Bay community, and the expertise and experience of the wildland fire professionals who unanimously support the scope of work outlined in FEMA grants PDMO5-PJ 19 and 20. It is an excellent plan, and enjoys enormous community support. Please feel free to contact me for any elaboration or clarification of the issues raised in this letter. Kind regards, [Signed] Martin Holden, President The Claremont Canyon Conservancy August 26, 2007 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer FEMA Region 9 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 Re: FEMA grants PDMO5-PJ 19 and 20 Dear Mr. Amaglio, I have written to you previously in support of FEMA grants PDMO5-PJ 19 and 20, detailing other successful fuel-reduction projects in Claremont Canyon, and the overwhelming support that this kind of work enjoys in our community. This letter comes from myself as a concerned private citizen, and is intended to address some misconceptions that have recently been circulated by a group calling itself the "Hills Conservation Network". To the best of my knowledge, this group consists of less than a dozen individuals. You should be aware that it is not registered as a nonprofit with the California Attorney General's Office. Although it often refers to "directors" in its correspondence, it is not required to maintain a board of directors, appoint other officers, or post any financial reports with the state. It is also not subject to the Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004, which prohibits "committing unfair or deceptive acts, or engaging in fraudulent conduct." Since its formation last year, this group has devoted itself to opposing projects involving hazardous tree removal in our region — a position counter to the stated policies and goals of all local fire departments, land agencies, and conservation groups. One assertion often made by this group is that no significant wildfires have occurred in Claremont Canyon. In fact, the canyon has suffered several serious fires in recent decades. A partial list follows: * The 1946 Buckingham/Norfolk Fire burned approximately 1,000 acres. * According to the East bay Regional Parks District, two other large fires also occurred in Claremont Canyon between 1946 and 1956. * The 1970 Buckingham/Norfolk Fire burned 204 acres and 37 homes. * The 1991 Tunnel Fire or "Oakland-Berkeley Firestorm" burned 14 acres of wildlands in the Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve and dozens of homes along the southern ridge of the canyon. (In total, 1600 acres in the East Bay Hills were burned in this fire, 25 lives were lost, 3354 homes and 456 apartments destroyed, at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.) * The 1995 Claremont Avenue Fire burned several acres in the mid-canyon area, seriously injuring a firefighter. * The 1999 Stonewall Fire burned approximately 10 acres on the western edge of the canyon, adjacent to the University's Clark Kerr campus and the historic Claremont Hotel. Fortunately, this fire was successfully brought under control before Diablo wind conditions began the following day. You may also hear the claim that the East Bay Regional Parks District does not consider Claremont Canyon to pose a fire danger, and that it does not intend to use voter-approved (Measure CC) fuels-reduction funding there. In fact, the EBRPD has made Claremont Canyon a priority in the allocation of wildfire-prevention funding, based in part on the fire history outlined above. Though the EBRPD may also use some of its own anticipated FEMA funding in the canyon, I have been assured by EBRPD Chief of Planning & Stewardship Brian Wiese that "There are fuels (and eucalyptus) concerns in the Canyon which will be addressed in the [Measure CC] wildfire plan and EIR, and in resulting fuels management projects." (Personal communication, August 17, 2007.) Furthermore, I can attest that EBRPD and University staff work together cooperatively and respectfully in the management of their adjacent wildland properties. Finally, some claim that there is no evidence that eucalyptus trees contributed to the devastating 1991 Tunnel Fire. In fact, there is voluminous testimony from both firefighters and fire survivors about the role that eucalyptus played in increasing the flame height, intensity and spotting range of that fire. Australian researchers have authoritatively documented the role of eucalyptus in wildland fires there, and it has become increasingly clear to forestry scientists and public-safety professionals that eucalyptus plays a similar role in many California wildfires. According to the U.S. Fire Administration Report on the "East Bay Hills Fire" (Report 060 of the FEMA Major Fires Investigation Project), "the introduction of vegetative species which are not native to the area has dramatically impacted fuel loading. This is particularly true of the introduction of eucalyptus. Fuel accumulations in some areas under eucalyptus plantations have been estimated between 30 and 40 tons per acre." This is exactly the type of fuel loading that contributed to the Tunnel Fire, and exists today in Claremont Canyon. In summary, I would strongly encourage you to "consider the source" when reviewing public comments on this matter, and to give more weight to the considered opinions of firefighting and public-safety professionals than to those of impassioned amateurs, however well-intentioned they may be. Sincerely, [Signed] Martin Holden September 7, 2007 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer FEMA Region 9 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Alessandro, This letter is submitted by me as a private citizen in support of the University of California, Berkeley's FEMA grant PDMO5-PJ 19, & 20. Today's Claremont and Strawberry Canyon eucalyptus fire concerns are directly related to the type of tree planted in dense failed timber plantations at the beginning of the last century. For a number of reasons, the trees were not thinned when the privately owned plantations were young, and the current eucalyptus groves are now more like dense thickets than healthy, safe woodlands. These groves like may others in the hills have not been maintained for almost 100-years, and are increasingly being viewed by fire officials and homeowners as a major factor in the wildfire risks faced today by nearby residents. In March of 1973, H.H. Biswell, Professor of Forestry and Conservation at the University of California, Berkeley made this prophetic statement. "When eucalyptus waste catches fire, an updraft is created and strong winds may blow-flaming bark for a great distance. I think the eucalyptus is the worst tree anywhere as far as fire hazard is concerned. If some of that flaming bark should be blown on to shake roofs in the hills we might have a firestorm that would literally suck the roofs off the houses. People might be trapped". To be fair, the 1991 Tunnel Fire was not primarily a eucalyptus fire in origin. The destructiveness of the Tunnel Fire can be attributed to a number of conditions including extreme Diablo winds blowing over high ridge tops and down steep leeward slopes into residential areas, pine groves igniting, eucalyptus groves igniting, brush igniting, densely spaced unprepared homes igniting, narrow streets, and unsuccessful fire fighting efforts, etc. However, the issue that I would like to focus on in this letter is how the Universities eucalyptus trees along the ridge and hillsides of Claremont and Strawberry Canyons might contribute to a major fire today, and not just the role of trees during the 1991 Tunnel Fire or during the many other East Bay Hill fires where eucalyptus or pine were implicated. The debate about the value, appropriateness, and potential risks of having eucalyptus trees in dense groves has long been a hot topic. The 1995 Hills Emergency Forum (HEF) Fire Hazard Mitigation and Fuel Management Plan (which I worked on with UCB and other agency staff and consultant teams during the four years following the 1991 Tunnel Fire) determined that eucalyptus trees and the burning embers that they can produce in a wind driven wildfire are an important factor in the fire risks faced by Oakland and Berkeley Hill residents. The 1995 HEF Plan classified the Universities Groves in Claremont and Strawberry Canyons as 20-year old eucalyptus. The 20-year old label had nothing to do with age, but did relate to the structure of groves with too many trees per acre, too much flammable fuel, and a shrub understory with fuel ladders up to the crown. The Universities groves were also determined to have the potential for crown fire. The treatment recommendations for "20-year old" eucalyptus on page 16 of the HEF Plan's Technical Appendices covering Treatment Prescription Descriptions by Vegetation Type included a menu of options for land owners to consider including "Convert to more fire safe vegetation type, and Avoid moving towards second growth eucalyptus". These are the options that the University has wisely selected for its ridge top and hillside properties. It would be a serious mistake for those who want to keep eucalyptus and pine groves in the upper reaches of either canyon to conclude that minimum work needs to be done because trees are not the only potential source for burning embers. And, that it would be more efficient for homeowners on Panoramic Ridge and Claremont Canyon to retrofit their homes and maintain landscapes that would resist embers and firebrands coming from all sources in a major wildfire including eucalyptus and structures. Unfortunately, we have a history of assuming one level of wildfire behavior in places like Claremont and Strawberry Canyons, and then professing surprise when something much more spectacular and disastrous happens. After experiencing how pine, eucalyptus, brush, and homes burned during high winds in the 1991 Tunnel fire, the disastrous fires of 2003 in San Diego, and even the Tahoe Angora fire in 2007, we should expect flames during a Diablo wind fire in the hills well above 150' in eucalyptus and pine trees, and ember showers blowing far ahead of the moving flame front onto lower canyon brush lands and unprepared residential areas. This type of extreme fire behavior happened in all three of the fires mentioned above, leaving firefighters and homeowners in retreat until the winds died, and only then were traditional firefighting measures successful. Too much wind, too much fuel, lack of defensible space, unprepared homes, and heroic but unsuccessful fire fighting efforts have all been factors in home loss. Recent research into the major causes of structure loss during wind driven wildfire document the fact that many homes are lost because of burning embers and not just from the fires flaming front. Trying to predict the distance that burning embers and firebrands would travel and where will they land is like predicting where and how strong the wind will blow. In Australia, strips of burning eucalyptus bark and leaves have been reported to travel several miles ahead of a quick moving wind driven wildfire. Burning embers (some have speculated from the eucalyptus groves along the ridge) in the 1991 Tunnel Fire blew a cross highway 24 to ignite spot fires at Temescal Park, and then onto upper Rockridge Neighborhoods. Therefore, the distance between a eucalyptus or pine grove and its closest residential neighborhood will not be the limiting factor in home exposure to embers and firebrands. However, ember flight distance may be a very critical factor in how and were firefighting will occur as well as the evacuation time for homeowners. Extreme fire behavior is largely unpredictable. So, resident and landowner efforts in areas where exposure is predictable should be focused on reasoned and well thought out measures for wildland management, for strategically located fuelbreaks, and for homes and landscapes that are designed and maintained to meet state and city codes for residences in the Urban/Wildland Interface. The 1991 Tunnel wildfire demonstrated the futility of trying to stop a major wind-driven wildfire on windy ridge tops and steep hillsides covered by dense vegetation with unprepared homes in dense hillside residential areas. Public agencies (especially the University) and hill residents have made major improvements over the last 16 years, but there is still much to do. Over the past five years, I have observed the University working with the Claremont Conservancy in Claremont Canyon, the Regional Park District along Frowning Ridge, and with other HEF member agencies owning property along Grizzly Peak Boulevard. I have also met in the field with Tom Klatt many times, before and after retirement, to provide advice, comment on, and support the work of the University during their eucalyptus and pine conversion projects. I would be very reluctant to ask the University, as the recently formed Hills Conservancy Network has done, to manage its dense eucalyptus groves on ridge top and steep leeward slopes above residences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fire safe, and maintained eucalyptus woodlands that do not represent a potential threat to adjacent residential areas. There will be many such groves located away from homes on public and private lands east of the main ridge where fire risks are reduced and management is more feasible, and even in some locations where management is not required. However, after working with eucalyptus for more than 40-years, my personal opinion is that dense hillside blue gum eucalyptus plantations virtually defy reasonable management. Trees will sucker, resprout, and reseed at a rate that can't be contained without significant expenditures and repeated chemical, hand, and mechanical treatments making these groves maintenance and fire liabilities long into the future. If fire safety, reasonable economics, and native vegetation are important goals for University property, then the Universities ridge top and mid-slope eucalyptus groves in Claremont and Strawberry Canyons should be converted to more fire safe native vegetation that will do very well when the eucalyptus trees are removed. The University has made excellent progress in converting its eucalyptus dominated areas in the upper end of both canyons to native trees and shrubs, and I would expect they would be able to do the same with their remaining FEMA projects. I support the Universities on going conversion projects, and hope you will approve the use of the FEMA funding as requested. Sincerely, [Signed] Jerry U. Kent Retired August 31, 2003- East Bay Regional Park District Assistant General Manager _______________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E: LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES Marcia Rentschler Manager, Hazard Mitigation Program California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 Dennis Castrillo Environmental Officer California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 Tom Klatt Manager, Office of Emergency Preparedness University of California at Berkeley Room 1, Sproul Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1199 Directors Hills Conservation Network 1305 Alvarado Road Berkeley, CA 94705 Martin Holden President, The Claremont Canyon Conservancy P.O. Box 5551 Berkeley, CA 94705 Mr. David Kessler President, North Hills Phoenix Association 116 Vincente Road Berkeley, CA 94705-1606 Mr. Jerry Kent 3359 No. Lucille Lane Lafayette, CA 94510 Councilmember Jane Brunner Oakland City Council District 1 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd floor Oakland, CA 94612 Fire Chief Dan Farrell Oakland Fire Department 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd floor Oakland, CA 94612 Councilmember Jean Quan Oakland City Council District 4 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd floor Oakland, CA 94612 Fire Commissioner Gordon Piper 33 Hiller Drive Oakland, CA 94618 Councilmember Gordon Wozniak Berkeley City Council District 8 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Councilmember Betty Olds Berkeley City Council District 6 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Berkeley Fire and Disaster Commission President 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Cheryl Miller Amphion Environmental 1404 Franklin, Ste. 300 Oakland, CA 94612 _______________________________________________________________________________________