United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Pacific

Southwest

Region

Regional Office, R5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

(707) 562-8737 Voice

(707) 562-9240 Text (TDD)

America’s Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570-1 Appeal No.: 10-05-00-0102-A215

Date: October 7, 2010

Sarah Uhlemann

Staff Attorney

Center for Biological Diversity CERTIFIED-RETURN

P.O. Box 31001 RECEIPT REQUESTED

1329 47th Street N.

Seattle, WA 98103

Dear Ms. Uhlemann:

On August 23, 2010, you electronically filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) pursuant to 36 CFR 215

on the Angora Fire Restoration Project. Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor on the Lake Tahoe

Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) signed the Decision Notice (DN) approving the Angora Fire

Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (EA) on July 9, 2010.

I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including your written Notice of Appeal (NOA), the

DN, FONSI, Final EA, and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation

from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the Appeal

Reviewing Officer's recommendation is enclosed. This letter constitutes my decision on the

appeal and on the specific relief requested.

FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED

The LTBMU proposes to remove dead trees and thin live trees to reduce long‐term fuel loading

which will reduce future fire severity. The purpose of reducing tree density (thinning live trees)

is to increase the resiliency of the remaining live trees to insects, disease, and drought stress.

The project includes actions to restore wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and stream channel

restoration, noxious weed detection and treatment, and road and trail delineation.

The LTBMU Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 2, as modified, based upon her review of the

final EA and the response provided in the 30-day public comment period. Alternative 2 includes

activities on approximately 1,416 acres of the approximately 2,700 acres on National Forest

System lands. The modification included:

Hand thinning and piling/burning will be used instead of aerial logging approximately

447 acres where slopes are over 30%.

The prescription will change in Units 1, 3, 6, 8 and 11 to remove 16 inches and less live

trees and 20 inches and less dead standing and downed trees (See final EA Figure 2-2).

Piles would primarily include woody material 14 inches and less. The portion of tree

boles over 14 inches would be left on the ground.

Sarah Uhlemann 2

Alternative 2, as modified, includes the following activities:

Fuel removal of standing dead and downed wood and thinning of live trees on

approximately 1,411 acres.

Within the 1,411 acres:

o 6 acres of conifer removal for aspen stand enhancement;

o approximately 77 acres of treatment proposed in wildlife snag zones (39 acres in

SEZ; 38 ac Subdivision);

o 13 acres of conifer removal for meadow restoration/aspen enhancement in the

Gardner Mountain meadow.

A ground-based logging system on up to 964 acres (including 13 acres of Cut-to-Length

mechanical thinning in Gardner Mountain Meadow) located in areas with slopes under

30%.

New construction of new roads (up to 7.7 miles) and landings to facilitate fuel removal.

Reconstruction or opening of existing roads, trails, and landings to facilitate fuel removal.

Decommissioning/restoring 1.9 miles of road and 16.7 miles of trail.

Existing and new landings and staging areas would be utilized to facilitate removal of

fuels for ground-based operations.

Reconstruction of 1,200 feet of Angora Creek.

Treatment of the following noxious weeds: bull thistle, field bindweed, St. John’s wort,

tall whitetop, and oxeye daisy.

All activities will be implemented in compliance with the LTBMU Land and Resource

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004).

APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION

Documentation demonstrated compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in light

of the appeal issue raised by appellants.

The ARO, Kelly Russell, Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Klamath National Forest found that

the project is an appropriate and reasonable response to direction in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan.

The purpose and need for the project were clear. The Forest Supervisor’s decision logic and

rationale were clear and well documented. The Forest Supervisor was responsive to public

concerns.

ARO Kelly Russell recommended affirming of the Forest Supervisor’s decision with and denial

of all requested relief.

DECISION

I agree with the ARO’s analysis as presented in the recommendation letter. The issues were

similar to the comments made during the comment period. All appeal issues raised have been

Sarah Uhlemann 3

considered. I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement Modified Alternative 2. I

deny all requested relief.

The project may be implemented on, but not before, the 15th

business day following the date of

this letter (36 CFR 215.9(b)). My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of

the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR 215.18(c)].

Sincerely,

/s/ Daniel J. Jirón

DANIEL J. JIRÓN

Deputy Regional Forester

Appeal Deciding Officer

Enclosure

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Pacific

Southwest

Region

Regional Office, R5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

(707) 562-8737 Voice

(707) 562-9130 Text (TDD)

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

I am the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer for these appeals. This is my recommendation on

disposition of the appeals filed by (1) Sarah Uhlemann on behalf of the Center for Biological

Diversity, (2) Chad Hanson on behalf of the John Muir Project, and (3) Todd Hogenson, Dan and

Brenda Hewoorn, Anna-Marie Dixon, and Scott and Carina McConnughey representing other

property owners within the Lake Tahoe Basin, appealing the Angora Fire Restoration Project

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management

Unit (LTBMU). The decision was signed by Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron on July 9, 2010

and the legal notice of the decision was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on July 10, 2010.

DECISION BEING APPEALED

The LTBMU proposes to remove dead trees and thin live trees to reduce long‐term fuel loading

which will reduce future fire severity. The purpose of reducing tree density (thinning live trees)

is to increase the resiliency of the remaining live trees to insects, disease, and drought stress.

The project includes actions to restore wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and stream channel

restoration, noxious weed detection and treatment, and road and trail delineation.

The Angora Fire Restoration Project is located on the South Shore of Lake Tahoe. A

preliminary EA was available in March, 2010 with the final EA published in the newspaper of

record in July, 2010. Ten comments were received on the final EA. The LTBMU engaged the

local community and cooperating agencies immediately after the Angora Fire was extinguished.

A public meeting was held on March 3, 2009. The project was listed on the SOPA April 1, 2008

and was continuously available for public review throughout the NEPA process. Thirty‐nine

scoping letters were mailed or hand‐delivered to interested parties requesting comments for

consideration in the Angora Fire Restoration Project by March 13, 2009. Additionally, public

notices were placed in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on February 18, 2009, notifying readers of the

public meeting and where to go for more information. Copies of these notices are on file (Record

C1).

Additional meetings were held with representatives from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

(TRPA), Lahontan Water Board, League to Save Lake Tahoe, Sierra Forest Legacy, South Lake

Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, South Lake Tahoe City Council, and El Dorado County from

December, 2008 to April, 2009 to discuss the project proposal and address any specific

comments and concerns. A description of these meetings is included in the project file (Record

C2).

File Code: 1570-1 Date: October 7, 2010

Subject: Angora Fire Restoration Project

Appeal #s: 10-05-00-0102-A215 / 10-05-0101-A215 / 10-05-00-0096-A215

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

To: Appeal Deciding Officer

2

The human-caused Angora Fire began on National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the

LTBMU. The Angora Fire burned over 3,100 acres including approximately 2,700 acres of

National Forest System (NFS) lands, all within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Defense

Zone, and destroyed or damaged more than 250 structures on the South Shore of Lake Tahoe.

The fire killed thousands of trees and affected forest resources such as soil, riparian, and wildlife

habitat. In the areas of high burn severity and much of the areas that burned at moderate severity

(25–75% basal area mortality), the overall fuel loading is now low (average of less than 7 tons

per acre). However, as dead trees fall, surface fuels will increase over time (final EA, Section

1.3.1; Table 3.1-3). These trees will create a thick horizontal fuel loading that with the

understory grass, forbs, and shrub growth will increase fuel loading on the surface that would

increase probability of future wildland fires to burn at high severities and provide conditions that

would make suppression of wildfires more difficult and once again threaten local communities.

In order to respond to post-fire conditions, the LTBMU strategy for rehabilitation on NFS lands

included three phases. Phase 1 (fire suppression rehabilitation) and Phase 2 (Burned Area

Emergency Rehabilitation) are complete. The Angora Fire Restoration Project is Phase 3 of the

strategy and encompasses three stages: public safety; reforestation; and, restoration to meet

desired social and ecological conditions.

Desired conditions described in the LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan were

compared with the existing conditions in the project area. The comparison indicated a need for

change. These needs (purpose and need), provided the basis for the proposed action: restore

wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and stream channel restoration, noxious weed detection and

treatment, and road and trail delineation.

The LTBMU Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 2, as modified, based upon her review of the

final EA and the response provided in the 30-day public comment period. Alternative 2 includes

activities on approximately 1,416 acres of the approximately 2,700 acres on National Forest

System lands. The modification included:

Hand thinning and piling/burning will be used instead of aerial logging approximately

447 acres where slopes are over 30%.

The prescription will change in Units 1, 3, 6, 8 and 11 to remove 16 inches and less live

trees and 20 inches and less dead standing and downed trees (See final EA Figure 2-2).

Piles would primarily include woody material 14 inches and less. The portion of tree

boles over 14 inches would be left on the ground.

Alternative 2, as modified, includes the following activities:

Fuel removal of standing dead and downed wood and thinning of live trees on

approximately 1,411 acres.

Within the 1,411 acres:

o 6 acres of conifer removal for aspen stand enhancement;

o approximately 77 acres of treatment proposed in wildlife snag zones (39 acres in

SEZ; 38 ac Subdivision);

o 13 acres of conifer removal for meadow restoration/aspen enhancement in the

Gardner Mountain meadow.

3

A ground-based logging system on up to 964 acres (including 13 acres of Cut-to-Length

mechanical thinning in Gardner Mountain Meadow) located in areas with slopes under

30%.

New construction of new roads (up to 7.7 miles) and landings to facilitate fuel removal.

Reconstruction or opening of existing roads, trails, and landings to facilitate fuel removal.

Decommissioning/restoring 1.9 miles of road and 16.7 miles of trail.

Existing and new landings and staging areas would be utilized to facilitate removal of

fuels for ground-based operations.

Reconstruction of 1,200 feet of Angora Creek.

Treatment of the following noxious weeds: bull thistle, field bindweed, St. John‘s wort,

tall whitetop, and oxeye daisy.

All activities will be implemented in compliance with the LTBMU Land and Resource

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004).

APPEAL SUMMARY

The Angora Fire Restoration Project was listed on the SOPA April 1, 2008. Thirty‐nine scoping

letters were mailed or hand‐delivered to interested parties requesting comments for consideration

in the Angora Fire Restoration Project by March 13, 2009. Twenty-five comments were

received. The Forest response to those comments is in Record C3. Public notices were placed in

the Tahoe Daily Tribune on February 18, 2009, notifying readers of the public meeting and

where to go for more information. Copies of these notices are on file (Record C1). A public

meeting was held on March 3, 2009. Additional meetings were held with representatives from

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Lahontan Water Board, League to Save Lake

Tahoe, Sierra Forest Legacy, South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, South Lake Tahoe City

Council, and El Dorado County from December, 2008 to April, 2009 to discuss the project

proposal and address any specific comments and concerns. A description of these meetings is

included in the project file (Record C2).

A preliminary EA was published March 10, 2010. Thirteen comments were received. The

response to these comments is found in Appendix C of the DN. The final EA was published in

the newspaper of record in July, 2010. Ten comments were received on the final EA.

Kevin Bundy representing Center for Biological Diversity submitted timely comments to the

preliminary EA and is eligible to appeal this decision. Chad Hanson representing the John Muir

Project and Karen Higgins, representing landowners submitted timely comments and are eligible

to appeal this decision.

Appeal #10-05-00-0101-A215 filed by Chad Hanson, Director of the John Muir

Project, was filed August 22, 2010 and sought the following relief:

1. Withdraw the Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice and prepare a new

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

4

Appeal #10-05-00-0096-A215 filed by Todd Hogenson, representing 14 Lake

Tahoe Basin landowners (among them, Karen Higgins, who submitted timely comments),

was filed August 9, 2010 and sought the following relief:

1. Do not implement live tree thinning in Stand 12.

Appeal #10-05-00-0102-A215 was filed by Sarah Uhlemann, Staff Attorney for

the Center for Biological Diversity and sought the following relief:

1. Withdraw actions approved by the Angora Project DN that are subject to this

appeal and request for stay until violations of federal law described below are

remedied.

2. Modify the Angora Project by responding to significant issues described below.

3. Prepare an environmental impact statement to properly analyze and disclose

significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Angora Project.

Alternatively, prior to the preparation of an EIS, first prepare a new, supplemental

environmental assessment, providing the public an opportunity to comment on

controversial analysis, as described below.

4.

The Forest had meetings with local landowners (Appeal #10-05-0096-A215) in regards to the

issues surrounding the prescription for Stand 12. The Forest Supervisor and the local land

owners reached an agreement to the unmarked live trees in a designated area. The appellants for

Appeal #10-05-0096-A215 withdrew their appeal in an e-mail sent to the Regional Office on

October 5, 2010.

ISSUES AND RESPONSES

Issue 1: Inadequate Range of Alternatives. (Appeal #10-05-00-0101-A215, pp. 1-3)

Response: The appellant argues that the final EA fails to consider in detail a reasonable range of

alternatives, in particular, two alternatives that they proposed: a) an alternative with a 15-inch

(or 16-inch) upper diameter limit [for snags]; and b) an alternative that would retain the largest

number of large snags (snags over 15 inches in diameter) that would still allow the Forest

Service to meet its stated post-logging surface fuel tonnage objectives, especially within 300 feet

of homes (Hanson Appeal, pg. 1).

40 CFR 1502.14(a) requires rigorous, objective analysis of all reasonable alternatives, and a brief

discussion of reasons that any alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. Reasonable

alternatives are developed to meet the purpose and need and address significant issues related to

the proposed action (36 CFR 220.5(e)). NEPA does not require the consideration of every

conceivable alternative. Instead, the range of alternatives considered is determined by the

purpose and need for action.

With respect to the two snag retention alternatives suggested, the DN acknowledges that

concerns from the public were received during the comment period that the proposed action

5

would remove snags that are not necessary to meet the purpose and need (DN, pg.16). The DN

further states, ―to address that concern, an alternative was considered that: leaves all snags >16

inches in diameter (dbh) except where they pose an imminent health and safety hazard to forest

users and workers‖ (DN, pg. 16). The EA and DN provide an explanation on how this

alternative was analyzed and the results of this analysis (EA, Section 2.1, pp. 2-3; DN, pg. 16).

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it does not meet the purpose and need,

specifically the desired conditions for Wildland Urban Interface Defense Zones.

I find that the LTBMU did evaluate an adequate range of alternatives.

Issue 2: California Spotted Owl: Inadequacy of Analysis and Significant New

Information. (Appeal #10-05-00-0101-A215, pp. 3-4)

Response: The appellant argues that the Forest Service should have conducted a spotted owl

survey in the project area in 2010. The Forest Service made no statement about conducting a

spotted owl survey in 2010, therefore, the appellant assumed: 1) spotted owls were present in the

project area, and 2) the project would impact spotted owls. The appellant specifically states: ―I

have to assume, based upon this inexplicable evasiveness, that there has been a spotted owl

detection in 2010...‖ Based on those assumptions, the appellant further stated ―a 2010 spotted

owl detection…represents significant new information and changed circumstances, requiring the

preparation of an EIS, or supplemental EA.‖ (Hanson Appeal, page 4).

The appellant assumed that the Forest Service had detected spotted owls in 2010. As stated in

the Final EA: ―Protocol spotted owl surveys were conducted in 2006-2009 within the project

area, as well as 0.5 miles west of the project area. Within the project area, two call points were

located in high burn severity, five call points were located in moderate burn severity, and eight

call points were located in low burn severity. No owls were detected (Final EA, 3.6, pg. 20).

The appellant provides no proof that spotted owls are present in the project area.

EA Appendix C – Response to Comments (Record A2; page 28) indicates that the final EA

provided a ―thorough analysis of the impact to California Spotted Owl‖, which is based upon

appropriate and current scientific information. This analysis discussed habitat preferences,

management direction, home ranges, owl habitat existing in the project area, project effects on

habitat and owls by alternative, and cumulative effects. This analysis is located in the EA, pages

3.6 18-25.

I find that the final EA did consider and evaluate current scientific information and that the

LTBMU conducted the required surveys.

Issue 3: California Spotted Owl: Failure to respond to dissenting scientific opinion.

(Appeal #10-05-00-0101-A215, pg. 3)

Response: The appellant argues that the Forest Service did not consider an important study

(Clark 2007) that determined foraging spotted owls preferentially selected unlogged burned

dense forest, that burned at high intensity (Hanson Appeal, pg. 4).

6

While the Forest does not directly respond to Clark 2007 that unlogged, dense forest that burned

at high intensity is still preferred foraging habitat; the EA (pg. 3.6-23) acknowledges all project

activities could affect potential foraging habitat.

Following Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004) direction (pg. 37) for evaluating PACs

after a stand replacement event, a new PAC was mapped for the old Tahoe Mountain PAC (see

figure 3.6-2). This new PAC is located outside of the project area (see figure 3.6-3).

Immediately after the Angora Fire, an owl pair was detected adjacent to this newly mapped PAC

(Final EA, pg. 3.6-20). Protocol spotted owl surveys were conducted in 2006-2009 within the

project area, as well as 0.5 miles west of the project area. No owls were detected (Final EA, 3.6,

pg. 20).

The new Tahoe Mountain PAC location which is adjacent to the burned area, will provide

potential critical nest stand structure, and provide an opportunity for new territories to be

established (Final EA, pg. 1-5).

EA Appendix C – Response to Comments (Record A2, pg. 28) indicates that the final EA

provided a ―thorough analysis of the impact to California Spotted Owl‖, which is based upon

current scientific information.

I find the Forest Supervisor‘s analysis complies with NEPA by citing methodologies used, by

identifying references and other scientific sources, and using the available science.

Issue 4: (a) Black-backed Woodpecker: Failure to ensure scientific accuracy and integrity.

(Appeal pp. 4-8); and (b) Black-backed Woodpecker: Failure to respond to dissenting

scientific opinion. (Appeal #10-05-00-0101-A215, pg. 8)

Response: The DN provides an explanation of how the analysis addressed comments received

from the public in relation to habitat components for the black-backed woodpecker. The

information was considered during the design of Alternative 2 by incorporating snag and down

wood prescriptions (DN, pg. 18). The Forest considered the review of scientific literature and

assessed existing habitat conditions for the black-backed woodpecker in previously burned areas

(Angora Fire and Showers Fire).

Black-backed woodpeckers are a Management Indicator Species (MIS) and the 2007 Sierra

Nevada Forests (SNF) MIS Amendment ROD (Record E194) directs Forest Service to: (1) at

project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by

such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS

(SNF MIS Amendment; Record E194). The Angora Restoration Project final EA and MIS

Report meet this required project-level assessment by providing a thorough and rigorous analysis

of the current and projected status of the black-backed woodpecker habitats and their impacts

(Final EA, pp. 3.6-63-70). All of the references cited by the appellant were considered in the

Forest Service analysis of black-backed woodpeckers.

I find the Forest Supervisor‘s analysis complies with NEPA by citing methodologies used, by

identifying references and other scientific sources, and by accurately reflecting available science.

7

Issue 5: Failure to Ensure the Viability of the Black-backed Woodpecker. (Appeal #10-05-

00-0101-A215, pp. 8-12; Appeal Supplement, pp. 1-2)

Response: The appellant has asked that the Forest Service conduct a viability assessment for the

black-backed woodpecker. He disagrees with the Forest Service statement that the population is

stable (Hanson Appeal, pp. 8-10). A viability analysis for the black-backed woodpecker is

beyond the scope of this analysis for the EA (DN, Appendix C, Response to Comments for Issue

#9). However, the black-backed woodpecker is monitored at the Sierra Nevada bioregional scale

as part of the Forest Service Region 5 bioregional monitoring effort.

The Response to Comments for the preliminary EA, for Comment #8 stated: ―Monitoring data

indicate that black-backed woodpecker continue to be distributed across the Sierra Nevada;

current data at the range-wide, California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution

of black-backed woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable‖ (Appendix C, Response

to Comments for Comment #8). Detailed information about this bioregional monitoring can be

found in the 2008 USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management

Indicator Species (MIS) Report (Record E67).

I find that the Forest Supervisor complied with the monitoring requirements for the black-backed

woodpecker.

Issue 6: The Forest Service plans to construct/reconstruct logging roads and there is no

evidence in the record that the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits have been obtained – Clean Water Act violation. (Appeal #10-05-00-

0101-A215, pg. 12)

Response: The DN and FONSI (Appendix A, pp. 22-23, Appendix C Comment Letter G, pp.16-

17), final EA (pp. 1-22, 1-23), and the preliminary EA (pg. 1-21) acknowledge permitting

requirements for this project.

This project complies with the Clean Water Act through the use of ―Best Management Practices‖

designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point source pollutants from

Forest roads, developments, and activities. At this time, the Forest Service is working with the

RWQCB to secure any necessary permit(s) for this project.

I find that this decision is consistent with the Clean Water Act.

Issue 7: The record does not properly disclose and analyze the proposed action.

Specifically, the Environmental Assessment did not analyze removal of live trees in Stand

12. (Appeal #10-05-00-0096-A215)

Response: This issue has been resolved during appeal resolution meeting and the appellants for

this issue have withdrawn their appeal.

Issue 8: The agency failed to take a hard look at the climate implications of its project.

8

Contention A. The Agency failed to account for all sources of carbon from the Angora

Project and thus underestimates emissions. (Appeal #10-05-00-0102-A215, pp. 7-9)

Response: The final EA (Chapter 3.11) identifies sources of carbon release from Alternative 2

and discloses direct, indirect and cumulative effects from implementing project activities.

The final EA (Chapter 3.11 – Greenhouse Gases) quantifies and discloses the effects on

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The final EA (Chapter 3.11; pp. 4-6) gives the estimated

carbon release through fuels reduction and vegetation removal project activities. The final EA

(Chapter 3.11; pg. 3) cites the Washington Office document that provides the FS guidance on

how to document carbon emissions: ―all NEPA documentation needs to be relevant to informing

the decision maker and the public about pertinent environmental effects relevant to the decision

being made‖ (Final EA Chapter 3.11; pg. 3). It also references the 2010 Council for

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Preliminary guidance memo, which states: ―…for Federal actions

that require an EA or EIS the direct and indirect GHG emissions warrant consideration by the

decision maker, quantified and disclosed in the environmental document‖ (Chapter 3.11; pg. 3).

I find the final EA does make a substantial effort to quantify and disclose carbon emissions.

Contention B. The Agency failed to explain its methodology and failed to support its

assumptions in calculating carbon emissions. (Appeal #10-05-00-0102-A215, pp 9-11)

Response: The final EA (Chapter 3.11, pg. 4) states that ―GHG emissions and carbon

sequestration effects from individual fuel/vegetation projects in Region 5 are not significant

issues that merit detailed quantification in NEPA documents. This is due to such quantifications

not being available or known.‖

The final EA, (Chapter 3.11, pg. 5 ) explains the methodology used to calculate the emissions:

―Conversion of total cubic feet to bone dry tons (BDT) was done by multiplying cubic feet by

the specific gravity of each species or group of species. BDT was converted to carbon by

multiplying by 0.5 and to CO2e by multiplying carbon by 3.667. This method of estimation was

used for total cubic feet of aboveground biomass and does not include any downed wood or

underground biomass.‖

These assumptions are addressed in the final EA, Chapter 3.11, pg. 4, Analytical Conclusions

(pg. 3.11-7). ―Due to the small scale of carbon released from activities in the proposed action

when compared to the amount of carbon sequestered regionally and nationally on forest lands,

GHG emissions and carbon sequestration effects from the proposed action are not significant

issues.‖

The final EA, chapter 3.11.1 (pg. 3.11-3) cites the Washington Office guidance (January 2009)

that ―actions potentially having effects on climate change that are not discernible at the global

scale are unlikely to be determined significant from a climate change standpoint for that reason.

The determination is relative to the scope of the environmental effects described in an

environmental assessment. Because the context of individual projects and their effects cannot be

meaningful evaluated globally to inform individual project decisions, it is not possible and it is

not expected that climate change effects can be found to be ‗significant‘ under NEPA and,

therefore, require EIS preparation.‖

9

I find that the final EA adequately addresses the climate implications of this project and that the

Washington Office guidance paper and the CEQ guidance memo were incorporated fully.

Issue 9: The Agency failed to prepare an EIS despite significant climate change impacts

from the Angora project.

Contention A: The CO2 emissions from the Angora project will have a significant impact

on climate change. (Appeal #10-05-00-0102-A215, pp. 12-13)

Response: In the final EA (Chapter 3.11; pp. 2-3), the impacts from GHG are addressed:

―Although this project will release GHGs, it is impossible to correlate this release with a specific

effect on climate change. The only way to meaningfully address GHG emissions and carbon

sequestration effects from forest management practices is at the bioregional or global scale.

Project-scale analysis of GHG emissions and carbon sequestration is meaningless in terms of

detecting impacts on climate change because there is no direct linkage from the project scale to

the global scale‖.

Due to the small scale of carbon released from activities in the proposed action when compared

to the amount of carbon sequestered regionally and nationally on forest lands, GHG emissions

and carbon sequestration effects from the proposed action are not significant issues (Final EA,

chapter 3.11; pg. 7).

The appellant‘s contention that the CO2 emissions will have a significant effect are not

substantiated by any analysis and is speculative based on their opinion.

Contention B: The cumulative impacts of CO2 emissions from the Angora Project and

other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects will be significant. (Appeal

#10-05-00-0102-A21, pp. 13-15)

Response: The final EA, chapter 3.11.1 (pg. 3.11-3) cites the Washington Office guidance

(January 2009) that ―actions potentially having effects on climate change that are not discernible

at the global scale are unlikely to be determined significant from a climate change standpoint for

that reason. The determination is relative to the scope of the environmental effects described in

an environmental assessment. Because the context of individual projects and their effects cannot

be meaningful evaluated globally to inform individual project decisions, it is not possible and it

is not expected that climate change effects can be found to be ‗significant‘ under NEPA and,

therefore, require EIS preparation.‖

The appellant‘s contention that the CO2 emissions will have a significant effect are not

substantiated by any analysis and is speculative based on their opinion.

I find that the Agency adequately addressed all significant issues brought forward by the public

and I agree with the responsible official that the cumulative impacts from greenhouse gases is

not a significant issue for the Angora Fire Restoration Project. I find that the Forest Supervisor‘s

decision to not do an EIS was appropriate.

10

Issue 10: The Agency must fully analyze the impacts of the use and construction of logging

roads and ensure proper clean water act permitting before implementing the Angora

project. (Appeal #10-05-00-0102-A215, pp. 15-16)

Response: Alternative 2 reduces the impacts (i.e. sedimentation) from non-system (user-

created) roads and trails that currently impact water quality and establishes new road and trail

segments that adhere to current Best Management Practices (BMPs) further reducing risks and

impacts to aquatic ecosystems and water quality. The final EA and Hydrology/Soil Specialist

Reports summarize the potential impacts that could occur as a result of implementing the

Proposed Action. Most are BMPs from the Forest Service publication Water Quality

Management for National Forest System Lands in California (USDA Forest Service 2000). All

applicable water quality BMPs would be implemented. BMPs used within the Angora Fire

Restoration Project are listed in the Hydrology/Soil Specialist Report (pg. A-4). BMPs are based

on standard practices as described in the USFS Region 5 BMP Handbook (USFS 2000). For the

activities in the Proposed Action, applicable BMPs from the handbook are incorporated as are

the descriptions of project specific applications listed in (DN Appendix B). The project specific

application of some of these BMPs has been further defined and refined in the Proposed Action

and through the development of project design features (DN, Appendix A).

I find that the Forest Supervisor fully analyzed the impacts of the use and construction of logging

roads and followed Agency direction and will obtain NPDES permits if required.

Issue 11: The agency presented significant new information in its final EA. The agency’s

calculations regarding the project’s emissions are uncertain and highly controversial and

should have been made available for the public to consider at the draft EA stage. (Appeal

#10-05-00-0102-A215, pg. 16)

Response: Forest Service regulations require that the public be given an opportunity to

comment on Proposed Actions (36 CFR 215.3(a)). According to 36 CFR 215.1(a) the purpose of

the comment period is to provide notice of the proposed action and provide the public an

opportunity to provide meaningful input prior to making a decision on a project.

During the comment period the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit received several comments

from the Center for Biological Diversity regarding greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the

proposed action and the impacts to climate change. In consideration of the comments on the

preliminary EA, an effects analysis on greenhouse gases (GHG) was completed (final EA, 3.11,

pp 3.11-1—7). The effects analysis concluded that, ―due to the small scale of carbon released

from activities in the proposed action when compared to the amount of carbon sequestered

regionally and nationally on forest lands, GHG emissions and carbon sequestration effects from

the proposed action are not significant issues‖ (final EA, section 3.11.4, pg 3.11-7). The

response to Appeal Issue #8 in this letter provides additional rationale supporting the EA finding

of GHG non-significance. The GHG effects discussion does not present significant new

information relative to the scope and complexity of the project. Additionally, the effects are

clearly not significant according to current agency policy (USFS, Climate Change Consideration

in Project Level NEPA Analysis, 2009).

I find that NEPA laws and regulations have been followed and that the level of public

involvement was sufficient.

11

FINDINGS

Clarity of the Decision and Rationale - The Forest Supervisor‘s decision and supporting

rationale are presented in the Decision Notice. Her rationale for selecting Alternative 2,

modified, is very well presented in the Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice

and is consistent with direction contained in the LTBMU Unit Land and Resource Management

Plan as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (February,

2004).

Comprehension of the Benefits and Purpose of the Proposal - The purpose of the proposal as

stated above is clear and the benefits are displayed.

Effectiveness of Public Participation Activities and Use of Comments - Public participation

was well documented and extensive to both the public and to cooperating agencies. An

availability of the final EA was published in the newspaper of record. The project was added to

the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. The Forest mailed scoping letters, hosted public

meetings and several field trips, and distributed the Proposed Action and EA to interested groups

and individuals. Responses to the comments received are detailed and included as part of the

final EA.

RECOMMENDATION

My review was conducted pursuant to and in accordance with 36 CFR 215.19 to ensure the

analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I

reviewed the appeal record, including the comments received during the comment period and

how the Forest Supervisor used this information, the appellant's objections and recommended

changes.

Based on my review of the record, I recommend the Forest Supervisor's decision be affirmed. I

recommend the appellants requested relief be denied on all issues.

/s/ Kelly Russell Kelly Russell

Appeal Reviewing Officer

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest