united states forest pacific regional office, r5...
TRANSCRIPT
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.: 10-05-00-0101-A215
Date: October 7, 2010
Chad Hanson, Ph.D.
Director CERTIFIED-RETURN
John Muir Project RECEIPT REQUESTED
P.O. Box 697
Cedar Ridge, CA 95924
Dear Mr. Hanson:
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.
Chad Hanson, Ph.D. 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
Chad Hanson, Ph.D. 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,
DANIEL J. JIRON
Appeal Deciding Officer
Deputy Regional Forester
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