United States Department of Environmental Agriculture
Forest Service Assessment
May 2010 Forest-wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels
Reduction Project for the Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests
Hazard trees along the shoreline of Lake Granby in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests
Prepared By: JG Management Systems, Inc. For Information Contact: Dyce Gayton 336 Main Street, Suite 207 2150 Centre Avenue, Building E Grand Junction, CO 81501 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8119 970-254-1354 970-295-6600 [email protected] Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
–Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Assessment Organization
This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the Proposed Project determined by the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and Pawnee National Grassland necessary to implement hazard tree removal activities on its two national forests, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF), in central Colorado. The EA is written pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA, 42 USC §4321), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and 36 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 218 and 220. The EA is organized in the following fashion:
Section 1.0 – Project Overview summarizes the purpose of and need for the Proposed Project, provides relevant background information, and describes the scope of the EA.
Section 2.0 – Alternatives describes the No Action and the Proposed Action Alternatives.
Section 3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences identifies potential environmental, cultural and socioeconomic effects of implementing the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.
Section 4.0 – Consultation and Coordination provides a listing of agencies, organizations, and personnel that were involved in the Proposed Project.
Section 5.0 – References provides bibliographical information for cited sources.
______Page i Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
______Page ii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment (listed by page number) TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………….………………………………………………... iii Index of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… iv Index of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………. iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ……………………………………………………………. v Glossary …………………………………………………………………………………… vii 1.0 OVERVIEW……………….…………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project ……………………………………….…….. 1 1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project …..………………………………………………...... 1 1.3 Authority ……………..………………………………………………………………. 3 1.4 Public Involvement ……………………..……………………………...……………… 3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ……………………………………………………………………. 11 2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action ………………………………………………………………. 11 2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action .………...……………………………………………… 11 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ….……………………………………………………….… 21 2.4 Land and Resource Management Plan Project Guidance …………………………………. 25 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .. 27 3.1 Recreation …………………………………………………………………………….. 27 3.2 Hydrology …………………………………………………………………………….. 37 3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat …………….………………….…………………………. 42 3.4 Botany …………………………………………………………………………...…… 48 3.5 Forested Vegetation and Old Growth Stands.…………………………………………..... 62 3.6 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality …………………………………………………...………… 69 3.7 Heritage Resources ……………………………………………………..……………… 75 3.8 Engineering and Roads ………………………………………………………………… 79 3.9 Lands and Special Uses ………………………………………………………………… 82 3.10 Scenery Resources …………...……………………...……………………………….. 87 3.11 Soils and Geology ……...……………………………………………………………... 91 3.12 Wildlife ………………………...……………………………………………………. 96 3.13 Socioeconomics ………………………………….…………………………………… 104 3.14 Overall Cumulative Effects ………………..…………………………………………... 107 3.15 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ………………………………………………………….. 110 3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ……………………………….. 110 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ………………………………………. 111 5.0 REFERENCES CITED ……………………………………………………………… 115
______Page iii Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Index of Figures
Figure 1-1 Geographic Distribution of the ARNF Proposed Project Area 2 Figure 3-1 Recreational Use in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 28 Figure 3-2 Fuel Profile Hazard Associated with MPB Mortality 70
Index of Tables
Table 2.2-1 Proposed Project Acreage 11 Table 2.3-1 Quantity of the Total Area Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project 21 Table 2.3-2 Effectiveness of the Proposed Project in Meeting the Purpose and Need 21 Table 2.3-3 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project on Forest Resources 22 Table 3.1-1 Wilderness Areas within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 35 Table 3.2-1 Waterways within the Proposed Project Area by Feature Type 38 Table 3.2-2 Stream Crossings and Road Classes within the Proposed Project Area 38 Table 3.2-3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Roads within 500 Meters of Water 39 Bodies Table 3.3-1 Fish Species Likely to Occur Within the Proposed Project Area 43 Table 3.4-1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Considered for Analysis 49 Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Plant Species Considered for Analysis 51 Table 3.4-3 Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (PTES) Plant Species 56 Determinations Table 3.4-4 Sensitive Plant Species Determinations 56 Table 3.4-5 Species of Local Concern Evaluated for the Biological Evaluation 57 Table 3.5-1 Project Area Acreage by Dominant Cover Type 62 Table 3.5-2 General Cover Types Along Roads within the Proposed Project Area 63 Table 3.5-3 Dominant Tree Cover Types Along Roads within the Proposed Project Area 63 Table 3.5-4 General Cover Types Along Trails in the Proposed Project Area 63 Table 3.5-5 Dominant Tree Cover Types Along Trails in the Proposed Project Area 64 Table 3.5-6 General Cover Types in Administrative Areas within the Proposed Project 64 Area Table 3.5-7 Dominant Tree Cover Types in Administrative Areas within Proposed 64 Project Area Table 3.5-8 Old Growth Strategy Stands within the Proposed Project Area 67 Table 3.7-1 Cultural Resources by Historic Theme 75 Table 3.8-1 Miles and Classes of Roads within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National 79 Forests Table 3.8-2 Miles of Trails within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 79 Table 3.9-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Management Areas within the 82 Project Area Table 3.10-1 SMS Designated Areas within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests 88 and the Proposed Project Area Table 3.12-1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Arapaho and Roosevelt 95 National Forests and Relevance to the Proposed Project Table 3.12-2 Region 2 Sensitive Species within the Proposed Project Area and Potential 98 Effects Table 3.12-3 Federally Listed Species within the Proposed Project Area and Potential 102 Effects Table 3.13-1 Acreage within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests by County 105 Table 4-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Interdisciplinary (ID) Team 111 Table 4-2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Notified During the Scoping Period 111 Table 4-3 Native American Tribes Notified During the Scoping Period 113
______Page iv –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Abbreviations and Acronyms amsl Above mean sea level APE Area of potential effects ARNF Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests ATV All-terrain vehicle BA Biological Assessment BCPOS Boulder County Parks and Open Space BE Biological Evaluation BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices B.P. Before present (1950) CAPCD Colorado Air Pollution Control Division CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program CWD Coarse Woody Debris EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EIS Environmental Impact Statement GIS Geographic Information Systems HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003)
IRA Inventoried Roadless Area LAU Lynx Analysis Unit
LRMP Land and Resources Management Plan
MA Management Area MAII May Adversely Impact Individuals MPB Mountain pine beetle NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring OHV Off-highway vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement (see Section 2.2.1.10 for full title) PM Particulate matter PTES Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive RNA Research Natural Area SHPO Colorado State Historic Preservation Office
______Page v Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
SMS Scenery Management System SIA Special Interest Area SIO Scenic Integrity Objective T&E Threatened and Endangered USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook WIZ Water Influence Zone
______Page vi –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Glossary Abiotic: Characterized by the absence of living organisms such as air, rocks, soil, water, peat, and plant litter
Allocthonous: Describes flora or fauna found in a place other than where they or their constituents were formed
Bole: The trunk of a tree
Canopy: The continuous forest cover of branches and foliage formed by tree crowns
Coarse Woody Debris (CWD): Sound and rotting logs and stumps that provide habitat for plants, animals, and insects, and a source of nutrients for soil development
Cumulative effect: Impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
Debitage: Lithic debris and discards found at the sites where stone tools and weapons were made
Dominant trees: Trees that extend above surrounding individuals and capture sunlight from above and around the crown
Entisol: A fertile soil of recent origin that is distinguished by a lack of horizons and is found worldwide in all climates
Ephemeral: Lasting a very short time
Fell: To cut down
Fens: Peat-forming wetlands that receive nutrients from sources other than precipitation, usually from upslope sources through drainage from surrounding mineral soils and from groundwater movement
Fuel: Any living or dead material that will burn
Hydric: Of, pertaining to, or adapted to a wet or moist environment
Hydro axe: A specialized cutting head on a piece of equipment used to turn stumps, wood, or other organic material into mulch
Hydrophobicity: The characteristic of having a strong aversion to water
Inceptisol: A soil so young that horizons have just begun to form; especially prevalent in tundra areas
Landing: A cleared area within a timber harvest where harvested logs are processed, piled, and loaded for transport
Lopping: Cutting tree tops and branches to a maximum specified height above the ground after a tree is felled
Masticate: To reduce larger woody slash and surface fuels into smaller materials. Material is generally masticated in place with equipment.
Mesic: Of, pertaining to, or adapted to an environment having a balanced supply of moisture
______Page vii Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Overstory: The level of forest canopy that includes the crowns of dominant, codominant, and intermediate trees
Perennial: Lasting or continuing throughout the year, as in a stream
Regeneration: The process by which a forest is reseeded and renewed
Riparian: Of, pertaining to, or situated or dwelling on the bank of a river or other body of water
Road Maintenance Level: A classification system used by the USFS that defines the level of service provided by, and the maintenance required for specific roads. Factors considered in defining maintenance levels would be type of surface, width of clearance, volume of traffic, and expected type of vehicle.
Scalloped: Edged with a series of curved projections
Scarify: To loosen (the soil) with a type of cultivator
Silviculture: The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands. Silviculture entails the manipulation of forest and woodland vegetation in stands and on landscapes to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis.
Slash: Branches and other woody material left on a site after tree cutting
Snag: A standing dead tree or part of a dead tree from which at least the smaller branches have fallen
Stand: A continuous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit
Turbidity: Cloudiness or murkiness caused by stirred up sediment
Understory: The shrubs and plants growing beneath the main canopy of a forest
Water Influence Zone (WIZ): A minimum 100-foot horizontal width buffer measured from the top of each stream bank which protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems
Watershed: The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often a ridge.
Xeric: Of, pertaining to, or adapted to a dry environment
______Page viii –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
1.0 OVERVIEW
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
Due to the widespread mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic, the USFS has identified an imminent threat to public health and safety from falling trees. According to a study performed by the USFS, dead mature lodgepole pine trees will fall within 14 years and most begin to fall after being dead for three years (Mitchell and Preisler, 1998). The high percentage of dead trees also increases the amount of forest fuels in recreation and administrative sites and along roads where the risk of human caused fire ignition is greater. Additionally, trees falling across roadways and having to be cut out can affect public health and safety by increasing delays for emergency crews to respond to wildfire suppression as well as search and rescue operations.
Aerial surveys that have been conducted over the past 15 years have provided the USFS with an invaluable dataset to use in determining areas that have been impacted by the spread of bark beetles. These surveys have revealed that nearly 1.4 million acres within the ARNF administrative boundaries (which includes some acreage for other federal, state, and private lands) have experienced some level of bark beetle related mortality. This area increased by approximately 57,000 acres during 2008. The 2009 data that has been compiled shows similar increases, particularly on the east side of the ARNF.
The purpose of the Proposed Project (also referred to as “project” or “proposal”) is to reduce expected hazards from an increasing number of dead and dying trees caused by the current MPB epidemic on the ARNF.
The specific objectives of the Proposed Project are to: • Provide for public, firefighter, and agency personnel safety along road and trail corridors by keeping travel corridors open for public and emergency use. • Provide for public safety along roads and trails and within administrative and designated recreation sites by reducing risks associated with falling trees. • Reduce the existing and potential forest fuels hazards within treatment areas where ignition potential is highest – along open National Forest System (NFS) roads and within federal, state, county and permitted use road corridors that pass through NFS lands; and within recreation and administrative sites.
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project
The ARNF proposes to implement hazard tree removal activities within the Proposed Project area employing a concerted effort to reduce the possibility of injury to ARNF users and property from falling trees, as well as to reduce the potential hazard and impacts of forest fires within the project area.
The Proposed Project area includes a variable footprint for implementation of hazard tree removal activities. The footprint for implementation of the Proposed Project would vary as a factor of the height of the tallest hazard tree in any given location. The proposal is to remove hazard trees in potential treatment areas within a distance equal to 110% of the height of the tallest hazard tree from the edge of improvement for roads, trails, and administrative sites (as described in detail in Section 2.2).
The analysis area for the Proposed Project is defined as the ARNF in its entirety, but may extend beyond the forest boundary depending on the resource being analyzed. The potential treatment areas for the Proposed Project include portions of ARNF lands in Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jackson, Jefferson, Larimer, and Park Counties in north central Colorado. Refer to Figure 1-1 for a vicinity map of the ARNF.
______Page 1 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 1-1 Geographic Distribution of the ARNF Proposed Project Area
q ARNF Administrative Boundary The street and elevation/topographic data provided on this document were obtained from the ESRI Streetmap USA database. Forest boundary data provided on this map was ARNF Federally Owned Forest Lands obtained from the ARNF GIS database.
05 10 20 Miles ARNF - Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest
______Page 2 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
1.3 Authority
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the potential environmental effects of implementing a Proposed Action and alternatives to that action. This EA describes and compares the potential environmental effects of implementing a Proposed Action Alternative and a No Action Alternative. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). The Forest Supervisor considered the following criteria in making the determination that this project qualifies under the HFRA:
Insect and Disease Test:
• Is the project in an area of blowdown, wind throw, or damage by ice storms? NO • Is the project in an area with an insect and disease epidemic? YES • Is there an insect or disease epidemic on lands adjacent to the project area? YES • Is there a significant risk to ecosystem components or the forest or range resource? YES
The HFRA was signed by President Bush in 2003 and contains a variety of provisions to expedite environmental analysis and treatment of lands that are at risk of wildland fire, have experienced wind throw or blowdown, or are impacted by insect and disease epidemics. As an “authorized project” under HFRA Title I, Sec. 102(a)(1 and 4), the planning process is expedited in order to implement timely vegetation management on certain NFS lands that are experiencing disease or insect epidemics. There is no requirement to develop and analyze a range of alternatives beyond the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives; project decisions are not subject to appeal. However, the project is planned collaboratively and early public participation is a key component of project design.
Projects authorized under the HFRA are subject to a “Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process” (36 CFR 218) instead of the “Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities” (36 CFR 215). Under the Administrative Review process, individuals or agencies who commented on the proposal during the scoping period initiated on September 25, 2009 will have 30 days to submit written objections to the Proposed Action. The objection filing period will begin the day after publication of a legal notice in the Denver Post stating the EA is available for review.
The Forest Supervisor is the Responsible Official for this project. Given the purpose and need for the project, the Forest Supervisor will review the Proposed Action Alternative, the No Action Alternative, issues identified during the scoping process, and the potential environmental consequences associated with implementing each alternative. This information will form the basis for the Forest Supervisor to make the following determinations:
• Whether or not the information contained in this EA is sufficient to make an informed decision. • Whether or not to accept the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Action Alternative. • What, if any, additional actions should be required to better meet the purpose and need.
A Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for this project will not be issued by the Forest Supervisor of the ARNF until the USFS responds, in writing, to all objections. The DN/FONSI will specify which alternative is selected for implementation and the rationale for the decision.
1.4 Public Involvement
On September 25, 2009, the USFS mailed a scoping (40 CFR 1501.7) letter describing the Proposed Project and the purpose and need for the project to 579 individuals, organizations, and agencies. The scoping letter requested that comments pertaining to the proposal be submitted by November 4, 2009. Information concerning the Proposed Project was also posted on the official website for the ARNF. The USFS received 10 comment letters in response to the September 2009 scoping effort. On October 13, 2009, an additional
______Page 3 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
scoping letter was sent to interested individuals and organizations primarily in Boulder and Clear Creek Counties.
During the September-November 2009 scoping period, the USFS hosted four Open House meetings as promoted in the scoping letters and as posted on the ARNF website. The first Open House meeting was held in Evergreen, CO at the Quality Suites on October 14, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The second Open House meeting took place in Fort Collins, CO at the ARNF Forest Supervisor’s office on October 15, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The third Open House meeting was held in Granby, CO at the Snow Mountain Ranch on October 19, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and the fourth meeting was held in Boulder at the Boulder Ranger District Office on October 22, 2009. The public meetings had a total attendance of 20 individuals.
The comment letters were reviewed by the Responsible Official and the ARNF interdisciplinary (ID) team. Each comment was deliberated and discussed to result in cumulative incorporation of public concerns into the assessment. This information is available in the official record for the Proposed Project on file at the Forest Supervisor’s office in Fort Collins, CO.
The USFS separated the comments into two groups: key issues and public comments received during scoping. Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision-maker and public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider; but, due to the iterative nature of the NEPA process, additional issues may come to light at any time.
1) Key Issues: Environmental issues used to develop alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Project (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 12.4).
Key issues were identified by the USFS project ID team that was convened for the purpose of this project. The key issues that were identified are listed as objectives for the project are as follows:
• Provide for public, firefighter, and agency personnel safety along road and trail corridors by keeping travel corridors open for public and emergency use. • Provide for public safety along roads and trails and within administrative and designated recreation sites by reducing risks associated with falling trees. • Reduce the existing and potential forest fuels hazards within treatment areas where ignition potential is highest – along open NFS roads and within federal, state, county and permitted use road corridors that pass through NFS lands; and within recreation and administrative sites.
These key issues are analyzed to determine a) how well each alternative meets the purpose and need, and b) the associated potential effects of implementation of each alternative. Public comments related to this project were reviewed by USFS resource specialists and the Responsible Official.
After review of comments received during the public scoping period, the USFS did not identify any additional key issues that necessitated the modification to or the development of alternatives to the Proposed Project.
2) Listed below is a summary of the public comments received during scoping followed by a USFS response. These comments are addressed by using Best Management Practices (BMPs), alternative design features, LRMP standards and guidelines, or other mitigation measures.
A. HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL: 1) Prioritize which roads and trails would be treated first. Areas with highest public use or where trees could fall onto power lines should be considered high priority, as well as areas with trees that have been dead for the longest time. 2) Removing hazard trees from all open roads would result in a very large amount of acres being treated, with potentially major effects on wildlife habitat, riparian areas, scenery, motorized
______Page 4 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
use off roads, and other resources and activities. These effects must be disclosed; the USFS should estimate how much treatment is likely to be implemented. (Abbreviated.)
RESPONSE: The factors mentioned would be considered when identifying roads to be treated in a particular year. The amount of treatment would be limited by the availability of funds. The estimated amount of area that would potentially be treated as well as potential effects of treatment have been disclosed in this EA.
B. REFINE THE DEFINITION OF HAZARD TREES: The definition should not be so broad as to include almost every tree. Clearcuts along every road and trail should be avoided, if possible, because it would fragment wildlife habitat, degrade scenic integrity, and provide opportunities for illegal off-road motor vehicle use. Engelmann spruce trees, if sound, remain standing for 50 years or more. Trees that get attacked by ips beetles often get top kill, but do not die. The definition should be clarified to state that such trees must first be examined.
RESPONSE: The USFS does not believe the definition of hazard trees is overly broad. It is not the intent of this proposal to remove every dead tree, but rather reduce the substantially increased hazards from dead trees. Protecting trees that are not likely to fall within the next several years would be a consideration during implementation; however, it is not possible to inspect every tree for soundness. Focus would be on protecting groups of trees that would not likely become hazards. It should be kept in mind that the trees that would be treated would be expected to fall naturally within the next 15 years.
C. EXERCISE CAUTION IN RIPARIAN AREAS: Avoid disturbing soils and causing erosion and degradation of water quality. Heavy equipment should not be allowed in the WIZ, even if there is some upland vegetation growing there; Design Criterion [36a] under Riparian Area/Aquatic Protection needs to be changed. Some of the trees cut should be retained for coarse woody debris.
RESPONSE: The USFS has considered the potential effects of soil disturbing activities and water quality degradation. Soil and water resources were analyzed during the assessment for the project and heavy equipment usage would be limited to only occur outside of the Water Influence Zone (WIZ). The Design Criteria were developed to allow for tree removal from these areas, but to be limited such that the only trees that would be removed would be those that would add substantively to fuel loads. Trees would only be removed if they qualify as hazardous and coarse woody debris would be retained in compliance with LRMP standards .
D. PREVENT ILLEGAL OFF-ROAD USE BY MOTOR VEHICLES: Slash could be left along or near the edge of roads where treatment has occurred to deter motor vehicle use. Law enforcement patrols may need to be increased also.
RESPONSE: Preventing undesired increases in off-road use would be a consideration in identifying amounts of material to be left. It is not the intent of this project to change access off of roads.
E. DESIGN CRITERIA, WILDERNESS: “Trails in Congressional designated Wilderness Areas will not be part of this proposed action. Most Wilderness trails, unless identified by District Ranger or Forest Supervisor by specified exception, shall only have trees removed from the trail tread after they fall.”
1) This clearly states that trails are NOT part of the proposed action. This conflicts with page 2 of the [Proposed Action]. 2) This states that trees will only be removed after they fall which again conflicts with page 2 of the [Proposed Action]. 3) It says “most Wilderness trails”. My reading of that suggests: a) most trails only get attention after tree falls; b) some trails may also get attention; c) some trails may get attention if Forest Supervisor or District Ranger says
______Page 5 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
something should be different. It would be far clearer to remove the word “most” which then means there are two choices…if the tree falls…or if there is a Forest Supervisor/District Ranger exception. It is unclear what would cause the Forest Supervisor/[District Ranger] to make an exception. If they make an exception, it is unclear what the Forest Service will do. Is it that they will clear trees in imminent danger of falling as the [Proposed Action] suggests? 4) I am assuming all of this cutting is using primitive tools rather than chainsaws. Would you be willing to specify cutting trees using primitive tools? 5) Item 3- notification of tree cutting at trailhead, info stations, and permits. Put this information on your website. It is too late for visitors if they arrive at the trailhead to find out the trail/campsite is closed.
RESPONSE: This has been clarified that removing hazard trees along Wilderness trails is not part of this proposal. Hazard trees along Wilderness trails would continue to be treated as part of normal trail maintenance and would comply with Wilderness regulations. Trail closures will be posted on the ARNF website.
F. SCENERY: Mitigation measures should be identified to reduce the visual impacts from these activities near Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) properties. If any proposed activities are located adjacent to BCPOS developed recreation sites, damage to all retained trees should be minimized, and stumps cut as low to the ground as possible to protect current and future shade and screening, and to maintain a high quality recreational setting.
RESPONSE: The purpose of this proposal is to address safety hazards posed by falling trees and associated accumulating fuel loads. Visual impacts are a consideration; however, it should be kept in mind that trees that would be treated as a part of the Proposed Project would be expected to fall naturally within the next 15 years regardless of actions taken. The potential impacts to visual resources have been analyzed in this EA.
G. FIGHT NOXIOUS WEEDS: Prior to treatment in any area, a survey should first be conducted for weeds. Eradication should occur prior to any treatment or construction of any roads or skid trails. There must be follow-up surveys for at least two full growing seasons after treatment in each respective area.
RESPONSE: It would not be feasible to delay hazard tree removal to first eradicate noxious weeds, which often takes repeated treatments over a period of years. Design Criteria have been proposed as a part of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative to provide for follow-up monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds as necessary.
3) Other comments considered: These comments 1) consist of requests for information and other considerations, 2) pertain to matters that are outside of the scope of the Proposed Project, or 3) are otherwise covered under USFS policies.
A. SLASH DISPOSAL: 1) The USFS should also consider encouraging firewood gatherers to take material that is cut along open roads.
RESPONSE: Firewood gathering is permitted by the USFS and users would be allowed to acquire permission to collect firewood where appropriate.
2) Some wood in all size classes should be left on the ground for fine and coarse woody debris. We recommend using pile burning only for small diameter material. Piling and burning larger diameter material provides long, hot fires which damage the soil. Piles of any diameter material should be limited to a footprint of about 100 square feet and about five feet in height. Any hand piles burned should be much more than the 50 feet from streams specified in Design Criterion [48] under Silviculture.
______Page 6 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
RESPONSE: Retention of coarse woody debris and limitations for burning and soil sterilization are provided as LRMP standards; compliance with the LRMP would be required during implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
3) Material produced via chipping or masticating needs to be limited in depth and coverage because there would be a very long period of ground revegetation and tree regeneration. We recommend that chips cover not more than about 20 percent of any treatment unit to a depth of no more than two inches (three inches for mastication). The 40 percent coverage allowed by Design Criteria [50] and [51] under Silviculture and the 12-inch chunk depth are too high.
RESPONSE: The USFS believes that the proposed Design Criteria would provide for timely regeneration and re-vegetation.
B. COMMENTS ON DESIGN CRITERIA: 1) Design Criterion [15] says to plow roads four inches above the road surface. Won’t this create hazardous conditions?
RESPONSE: The USFS has reserved the right to retain four inches of snow depth on roads to minimize potential damage to road surfaces during treatment operations associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, specifically during above freezing conditions.
2) Design Criteria [61] and [62] under Developed Recreation Sites contradict. Design Criterion [61] states that “felled hazard trees and slash shall be removed from the interior boundary of the developed recreation site”. Design Criterion [62] states: “felled trees will be whole tree skidded to designated landings in or outside of the developed site”. We believe that felled trees and most slash should be removed from developed sites.
RESPONSE: No contradiction in the Design Criteria is recognized by the USFS. Both criteria require the removal of whole trees from the interior of a developed recreation site that would receive treatment. Design Criterion 62 allows for existing site conditions within developed sites to be utilized to avoid further resource damage through the development of landings in areas outside of developed sites where their construction may result in further effects to resources.
3) How would “felled hazard trees…be removed” from designated campsites in wilderness, per Design Criterion [66] under Designated Wilderness, since motorized equipment is not allowed [and] since this Design Criterion also states that felled trees shall “not be stacked in decks”?
RESPONSE: Project site treatments within Wilderness Areas would be required to be accomplished through the use of hand crews. No machinery would be allowed within Wilderness Areas and USFS policies pertaining to Wilderness Area management would require compliance. Design Criterion 68 also designates that no mechanized equipment would be used within congressionally designated Wilderness Areas. The USFS has also clarified that the treatment of Wilderness Trails is not the intention of this project. (See also the response to item 2E.)
C. ACCESS ROADS/DRIVEWAYS TO PRIVATE LANDS: We would like to know if the Proposed Project will include tree removal along private access roads/driveways running across ARNF lands and along access routes to private lands for which easements have been granted by the ARNF.
______Page 7 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
RESPONSE: Access for roads and driveways to private lands has been considered by the USFS for the Proposed Project; private access roads/driveways that cross NFS lands have been evaluated for treatment through the analysis of the Proposed Action Alternative.
D. PROPOSED ACTION: I’m not sure “normal trail maintenance” would cover a wilderness designated campsite…it would seem better to strike the word “trail” from that line. This seems to conflict with the language in the project Design Criteria.
RESPONSE: The proposed Design Criteria that are included as a portion of the Proposed Action Alternative indicate that trails within congressionally designated Wilderness Areas would not be treated in a uniform or coordinated manner, rather as a function of regular trail maintenance according to USFS resources and seasonal use. When individual camping sites within Wilderness Areas would be identified as containing large quantities of hazard trees, camping site treatment through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may be allowed.
E. TREE REMOVAL IN THE WILDERNESS: I would like to see more in the direction of tree removal in the Wilderness. At two times after WWII, at least two of the districts permitted themselves to go in and use chainsaws and cut dead Engelmann spruce 40 feet either side of the trail in the Flattops area. I would urge you to use this historical precedent in the Wilderness that over time has proven to be an excellent idea. I, along with others, spend time we don’t have cutting trees out of the trail.
RESPONSE: Use of mechanized equipment within Wilderness Areas can be approved by the Regional Forester and the need is analyzed on a case by case basis. The option of using chainsaws to cut hazard trees may be considered if the safety of felling crews or the public is jeopardized. The use of mechanized equipment within Wilderness Areas is not considered a portion of this Proposed Project and the assessment of the potential effects of actions of that type would require other analysis.
F. SCHEDULE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLANS : 1) Prior to felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations in areas adjacent to BCPOS properties, ARNF should notify BCPOS in writing, providing scope, plans, and timelines. Staging, equipment storage, and landing locations should be identified through a coordinated effort with BCPOS.
2) We would like to be provided with a calendar of activities and project management plan outlines, including plans for treatment/disposal/removal of the downed material for each of the project sites or corridors that area adjacent to county roads. We would like to be provided with the proposed traffic management and control plans for those roads well in advance…so [we] can review them and provide comment.
RESPONSE: The USFS intends to coordinate with local stakeholders and agencies in the event that the Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented.
G. RIPARIAN AREAS/AQUATIC PROTECTION: When performing proposed activities in or near streams and riparian areas in proximity to adjacent BCPOS lands, ARNF should consult with a BCPOS biologist before performing work in these areas.
RESPONSE: The USFS has fisheries biologists on staff and when projects are reviewed or considered, all biological effects are assessed. The USFS would continue to coordinate as needed to ensure that any detrimental effects on resources, on and off NFS lands, resulting from USFS activities would be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
______Page 8 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
H. SOILS: BCPOS requests ARNF perform regular site inspections during proposed activities to ensure that erosion control measures remain in place and that they are maintained and function properly. BCPOS encourages the ARNF to develop and implement a post-project site stabilization plan, including monitoring, for Proposed Project locations.
RESPONSE: Management of erosion control measures would be a function of the contracting mechanism that would be utilized through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
I. BOTANY: Prior to project implementation in areas adjacent to BCPOS lands, ARNF should consult with a BCPOS biologist to identify any sensitive and rare plants on BCPOS lands that may be affected. To reduce the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and re-establish permanent vegetation, disturbed areas should be seeded with desirable plant species. ARNF should consult with a BCPOS botanist when treatments are proposed near BCPOS properties.
RESPONSE: Design Criteria that have been proposed as a part of the Proposed Action Alternative would provide for involvement of a USFS botanist prior to treatment of individual project sites. The USFS intends to coordinate with local stakeholders and agencies.
J. PLAN FOR FUTURE FORESTS: First priority should be to retain any existing regeneration of any tree species; this may require careful routing of skid trails around existing regeneration. For new regeneration, cones will need to be retained for a seed source. This might mean retention of a higher level of woody debris. Whole tree skidding should not be used if regeneration is desired; whole tree skidding is appropriate for areas where only a very low level of slash retention is desired.
RESPONSE: The USFS considers and plans for future forests through project development, design, and implementation. USFS standards require that only minimal amounts of soil disturbing activities take place within project sites. Seed sources for regeneration would remain available even within the most disturbed proposed treatment sites where all trees would be removed. Due to the linear design of the Proposed Project along already existing linear features, the availability of seeds from surrounding timber stands would remain abundant.
K. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER NOTIFICATION: 1) Relying primarily on newspaper articles or notifications is not a very effective way to reach mountain residents. The county can provide the ARNF with mailing lists for private landowners within or near the project areas [to] facilitate a mail campaign. We have also developed several mountain listserv sites that we may be able to use to notify people. 2) Local fire protection districts and county Sheriff should also be provided direct advance notification about specific schedules and plans.
RESPONSE: The USFS uses mailing lists and e-mail distributions as well as posting information on agency websites.
L. COLORADO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM DATA: Boulder County has new (2007- 2008) information from the CNHP inventories of ecosystems and landscapes conducted. They have identified a number of large contiguous areas that are ranked as Potential Conservation Areas (two, in fact, are ranked as having Global Significance). This information would be worth review.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. This data has been consulted and has been considered throughout the Biological Evaluation and Species of Local Concern Reports and have been addressed within the EA.
______Page 9 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
M. RECREATION: 1) The Town [of Winter Park] remains concerned about closures of recreational areas and providing access to visitors, especially during high-usage seasons. 2) The Town is additionally concerned about aesthetic treatments that may affect the experience our visitors regularly expect.
RESPONSE: The USFS shares your concerns and will take actions to minimize detrimental effects on visitors and their experience on NFS lands. However, the need for this project is to address an increased hazard to the general public, specifically forest users. In some cases, timing of projects may result in some temporary closures.
______Page 10 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
This EA identifies two Proposed Project alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative and 2) the Proposed Action Alternative.
2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative 1 is not a true ‘no action’. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from existing management processes, excluding any limitations due to budgetary or time constraints of USFS personnel. Management practices would include the maintenance of roads, trails, developed recreation sites, and administrative sites (as defined in Section 2.2). Hazard tree removal would continue to be completed; however, at some point, the amount of hazard trees would likely exceed the existing capability of the ARNF to remove them. This removal would also not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Hazard trees will continue to fall and the associated risks will continue to be present. Potentially hazardous fuel conditions would be reduced in other ongoing and future fuel reduction projects; however, these projects do not typically target treatments along roads, trails, and administrative sites.
2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Alternative 2 consists of the implementation of hazard tree removal activities within a distance equal to 110% of the height of the tallest hazard tree from the edge of: 1) NFS roads open to motorized travel (maintenance levels two through five); 2) federal, state, county, or other permitted roads that cross the ARNF; 3) NFS trails outside of designated Wilderness areas; and 4) administrative sites (see below). The terminology “tallest hazard tree” is intended for the purpose of the Proposed Project to refer to the tallest tree qualifying as a hazard within the individual project sites that would result from implementation of this action.
The Proposed Project includes the removal of hazard trees within a distance equal to 110% of the tallest hazard tree in those areas surrounding and within the boundaries of ARNF administrative sites. For the purpose of this proposal, “administrative sites” shall include:
• Administrative sites (infrastructure and facilities occupied/utilized by USFS employees) • Developed recreation sites, namely 1) campgrounds, 2) picnic areas, 3) trailheads, 4) recreation residences, and 5) parking areas • Designated dispersed camping sites • Designated water facilities (i.e., diversion ditches, irrigation canals, etc.) • Designated reservoir and lake shorelines
The area analyzed for cutting hazard trees along roads, trails and other designated sites consists of approximately 56,309 acres out of a total of 1.5 million acres managed by the ARNF. Table 2.2-1 lists the acreage of land along trails, roads, and administrative sites within the project area.
Table 2.2-1 Proposed Project Acreage Site Type Acreage Trails † 17,960 Roads 33,189 Administrative Sites* 8,230 Total Acreage ** 56,309 † The acreage value that is provided for trails includes those trails that occur within Wilderness Areas. * Administrative Sites is a generic term that is used to refer to all features that are considered as a portion of the Proposed Project that do not qualify as roads or trails. Examples of such features are recreation residences, water facilities, reservoir shorelines, etc. ** The quantity is representative of a merged feature set in order to remove all areas that overlap with one another. Quantities provided for each individual site type (trails, roads or administrative sites) are not reflective of the removal of this overlap, however, no overlapping features exist within each of those data sources.
______Page 11 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Utilizing the data contained within Table 2.2-1 and information provided through the aforementioned aerial surveys, it has been approximated that 85% (48,000 acres) of the Proposed Project area has been infested by bark beetles. However, for the purposes of this document the resource assessments are not based solely upon the presence of the existing bark beetle infestation, but instead upon the presence of bark beetle susceptible tree species.
Treatments along roads, trails, and within administrative sites (as described above) may involve felling and possible removal of forest products such as saw logs, firewood and biomass. The majority of treatments would involve lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees, although small amounts of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen may also be felled and possibly removed. Depending on the severity of the beetle infestation and the resultant tree mortality, treatments may include removal of individual hazard trees, removal of the overstory, removal of groups of trees, or removal of all trees within a given area.
Slash resulting from tree cutting would be treated to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels, where necessary; treatments may include chipping, masticating, pile burning, or lopping and scattering.
Where uneven aged stands or stands containing a mix of tree species are encountered, healthy, stable, live trees or areas of advanced regeneration would be retained unless they pose a safety hazard during or as a result of felling operations.
This Proposed Action Alternative may include cutting and removal of all mature lodgepole pine trees in campgrounds dominated by lodgepole pine. Spraying of insecticide has been used to prevent trees from being infested by MPB in some locations throughout the ARNF. Although initially effective in keeping trees alive, spraying in lodgepole pine campgrounds is costly and not a long-term solution during insect epidemics that could last 10 to 15 years. Once preventative spraying is discontinued, trees are almost certain to become infested, resulting in further occurrences of hazard trees. If sprayed trees were allowed to go through this life cycle, they would become vulnerable to wind throw as the surrounding trees are removed. Alternatively, this project would allow preventive treatments to be implemented within lodgepole dominated campgrounds in a strategic manner so that user disruption is minimized within these campgrounds.
Within Wilderness Areas, hazard trees in designated camping sites could be treated as well. Trails in Wilderness Areas would not be included as a portion of this Proposed Action Alternative and any treatments required would be accomplished through normal trail maintenance. All treatments in Wilderness Areas would comply with existing Wilderness regulations.
Project implementation would be accomplished through a variety of resource applications and methods. Treatments could be accomplished by USFS personnel, contracting, forest product sales, stewardship projects, or any other applicable method. It is the intention of the USFS that implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would take place over the course of the next 10 years, beginning during the summer of 2010. It would be expected that construction of temporary roads would not be necessary during implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Design Criteria that would be used to guide implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative are provided in section 2.2.1.
Hazard Tree Definition
For the purpose of this analysis, a hazard tree is defined as any tree that may fail due to mortality or a structural defect or changed stand conditions and, as a result, may cause property damage or personal injury. Every tree will eventually fail; therefore, knowledge of tree species, site characteristics, and local weather conditions and patterns are essential when evaluating potentially hazardous trees. A defective tree is hazardous only when its failure could result in damage to something of value.
The following tree specific criteria (1 through 4) would be used to identify hazard trees in administrative sites and in those areas that qualify as designated recreation sites. Along roads and trails, only criteria 1
______Page 12 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project through 3 would be used to identify hazard trees. Any one or more of these criteria may qualify a tree as hazardous.
1. Dead trees of any species 2. Dying tree a. Foliage transparency 40% + (thin crown, off-color or dwarfed foliage) b. Borer attacks obvious and abundant - the presence of insect activity, such as bark beetles or ips, may indicate that a tree has been weakened by other agents. 3. Trees likely to be wind thrown after removal of adjacent dead and dying trees. (Removal of more than 1/3 of a stand’s basal area increases risk of wind throw to remaining trees.) 4. Trees with significant defects: a. Canker rots b. Root rots c. Trunk injuries (mechanical damage, stem decay, etc.) d. Crown defects (broken or damaged branches, forked tops, dead tops, etc.)
2.2.1 Design Criteria
For the purpose of developing the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project , the ARNF convened an ID team of USFS resource specialists in an effort to concisely state and assess the potential effects of the Proposed Action Alternative.
The ID team developed Design Criteria, consistent with the standards and guidelines of the LRMP, to be employed in the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Through the use of the Design Criteria within the Proposed Project area, the USFS would be able to incorporate LRMP standards and guidelines as well as other practices and regulations to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects to forest resources that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
2.2.1.1 Roads, Trails and Facilities in Administrative Sites
1. To minimize potential damage to existing infrastructure, contract maps and cutting guidelines shall list improvements and other features that require protection from tree felling operations.
2. Cutting guidelines for all trails shall consider leaving trees that exhibit the following characteristics:
a. tree species not susceptible to MPB infestation b. advanced regeneration within the trail corridor c. hazard trees leaning away from the trail tread d. uninfested trees with full crowns e. steepness of side slope
2.2.1.2 Roads and Public Safety
3. On Forest Service roads with Maintenance Level 3, 4, or 5, warning signs and traffic control shall be in accordance with the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices”.
4. Forest Service roads with Maintenance Level 3, 4, or 5 roads may be temporarily closed during tree felling operations. If roads are not closed, warning signs and traffic control:
a. Shall be maintained for through traffic during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations. Traffic delays may occur for a maximum of one half (½) hour. b. Shall be left in an operational condition that will adequately accommodate traffic at the end of each work day. c. Shall have barricades erected and/or proper signs placed at any traffic hazards in or adjacent to the road at the end of each workday. All felled trees shall be decked or
______Page 13 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
removed and slash piled or removed from the bladed, mowed, or brushed road corridor each day.
5. On county, state, and federal highways, warning signs and traffic control: a. Shall be in accordance with the “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.” b. Shall be maintained for through traffic during felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations. Traffic delays may occur for a maximum of one half (½) hour. c. Shall be left in an operational condition that will adequately accommodate traffic at the end of each work day. d. Shall have barricades erected and/or proper signs placed at any traffic hazards in or adjacent to the road at the end of each workday. All felled trees shall be decked or removed and slash piled or removed from the bladed, mowed, or brushed road corridor each day.
6. Maintenance Level 2 roads may be temporarily closed to general public access during felling and/or removal operations.
7. Hauling of materials and equipment on public roads will comply with all legal load restrictions.
8. Prior to tree cutting operations, all aboveground and underground utilities will be located and protected.
9. Decking and landing areas will be designated by the Forest Service.
10. When operating on or along the road prism, impacts to road surfaces and drainage ditches will be limited. When damage is unavoidable as a result of project implementation, reconstruction and/or replacement of road surfacing and/or drainage ditches will be completed as necessary. The Forest Service will determine post-operation/haul road maintenance, repair, reconditioning, or resurfacing needs on an individual basis.
11. Unless otherwise approved by the Forest Service, project implementation will honor existing seasonal road closures and other road restrictions during hazardous tree felling, slash treatment, and/or removal operations for species or resources that are sensitive to disturbance. Seasonally closed or restricted roads may be opened early upon consultation with appropriate specialists.
12. Felled hazard trees and slash will be removed from roadside ditches, lead-off ditches, and culvert inlets/outlets.
Winter Logging
13. Operating conditions will be closely monitored after consecutive nights of above freezing temperatures; use of equipment on roads will cease if damage begins to occur. When daytime temperatures are above freezing, but nighttime temperatures remain below freezing, operations will be allowed to continue during the morning only. Project area operations will cease when the ground temperature is above freezing.
14. Snow may be plowed or packed on roads and/or landings to minimize the insulation value and facilitate ground freezing.
15. When removing/plowing snow for winter operations, snow shall be removed from the entire width of the road. To protect road surfaces, snow removal/plowing equipment shall be equipped with shoes or runners to keep plow blades at a minimum of four inches above the road surface.
______Page 14 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
16. Snow berms shall be removed or holes provided in the berm to allow road drainage. Drainage holes shall be spaced as necessary to allow satisfactory surface drainage and shall not be discharged onto erodible slopes or into stream courses.
17. When hauling on constructed specified roads, hauling will only be allowed on roads that have been cleared, allowing the ground to freeze and compaction of fresh snow on top.
18. The project area will be revisited the following summer and drainage features will be built on skid trails that show signs of erosion.
2.2.1.3 Scenery
19. To protect current and future shade and screening, and to maintain a high quality recreational setting and desired scenic condition(s) in developed recreation sites, stumps will be cut as low to the ground as feasible and damage to all retained trees will be minimized.
2.2.1.4 Wildlife
20. Hazard trees within mapped and inventoried ponderosa pine old growth areas will be felled and left in place. No landings will be designated in these areas.
21. For any Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (PTES) species, and raptors, Line Officers, after consultation with Forest/District wildlife biologists, will determine site protection needs on an individual, as-needed basis as treatment locations are known.
22. Except in developed recreation sites, a minimum of 50 linear feet per acre of downed woody material (minimum 8-inch diameter and 8-foot length), will be retained and distributed randomly. If 8-inch material is not available, the largest diameter possible will be retained.
23. In streams containing Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) fish species, ground based equipment will not be permitted within 300 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation. Hand treatment of hazard trees would be allowed after consultation between Forest/District fish biologists and Line Officers has been completed to determine site specific protection needs.
Lynx
24. Within designated Lynx Linkage Areas, trees will be felled and left in place.
25. In lynx habitat where re-vegetation has established to the point that it provides suitable habitat for lynx foraging, avoid disturbance where possible. If unable to avoid the understory, protection is required.
Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse
26. Mechanical vegetation and slash treatments within any mapped Preble’s habitat (USFWS designated) will occur only during the Preble’s hibernation period (November 1 through April 30). Hand (chainsaw) treatments of vegetation and slash may occur at any time. Preble’s habitat includes riparian and upland vegetation below 7,600 feet and within 300 feet of the 100-year flood plain, or, where the 100-year floodplain is not clearly definable, within 300 feet from the outside edge of the riparian vegetation.
27. Impacts to shrubs in upland areas (300 feet from outside the riparian area) by vehicles and associated logging/slash/disposal equipment will be minimized.
______Page 15 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
28. No burn piles will be located within any USFWS designated Critical Habitat.
29. Stream crossings in Preble’s Critical Habitat are allowed only where they currently exist; no new crossings will be established.
2.2.1.5 Lands and Special Uses
30. All existing special use authorizations will be identified prior to project implementation to avoid conflicts.
31. Consultation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service will occur prior to cutting hazard trees within 400 feet of an authorized Sno-tel site.
2.2.1.6 Riparian Areas/Aquatic Protection
32. Prior to snowfall, wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and designated crossings will be identified and clearly marked by the Forest Service with indicators that will be visible above the depth of expected snow accumulations.
33. Equipment staging areas and refueling locations will be located at least 300 feet away from streams and wetlands.
34. Vehicles, including heavy equipment, trucks, and ATV’s will be allowed to cross perennial and intermittent streams, with defined beds and banks, at open channel crossings (without bridges or culverts) only at locations designated by the Forest Service. If the Forest Service determines that it is needed, open channel crossing locations will be restored following use to restore the channel to appropriate dimensions, stabilize stream banks and prevent erosion, and allow for vegetation recovery. For roads that cross streams where aquatic TES species are present, determination of the need for a culvert at open water crossings will be made by a Forest Service Line Officer in consultation with Forest Service fisheries and wildlife biologists.
35. Temporary stream crossing structures and other in-stream structures (e.g. culverts, bridges, etc.) will be designed to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. Temporary stream crossings structures will be removed following completion of vegetation management, unless written approval is obtained from the Forest Service.
36. Riparian buffers are defined as 100 feet from the edge of perennial and intermittent streams or wetlands that do not contain aquatic TES species, or 300 feet from the edge of perennial streams or wetlands that do contain aquatic TES species. For hazardous trees felled within riparian buffers, a. Ground based equipment will not be permitted within the buffer (located with GIS/GPS maps and/or marked on the ground during project implementation) except as noted below. For some streams, terrain may limit the extent of riparian vegetation, and upland vegetation may occur within the buffer. Where it is recommended by a Forest Service fisheries biologist or hydrologist that stream and riparian condition will be maintained or improved best by removing some or all of the felled trees, limited use of equipment within the buffer may be approved by a Forest Service Line Officer. b. Hand felling of hazardous trees is permitted in the 100-foot buffer. Trees should be directionally felled away from streams and wetlands. However, where roads (and hazard tree removal) run parallel to streams, and large wood recruitment into streams is desired, three to five trees per 100 feet of stream should be felled across or into the stream channel. These trees should be at least eight inches diameter at breast height or the
______Page 16 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
largest available on the site. Trees for large wood recruitment may also be identified and marked by a fish biologist or hydrologist. c. Any hazard tree and associated debris cut down or lying within 100 feet upstream of a perennial or intermittent stream/road culvert crossing and within the active channel, that has the potential to obstruct a bridge or culvert, will be moved at least 50 feet upslope away from the stream . d. Trees designated for removal shall be removed using at least one-end (partial) suspension. e. Trees shall not be skidded across perennial or intermittent stream courses.
2.2.1.7 Soils
37. Heavy equipment would be operated off road only when soil moisture in the upper six inches is below the plastic limit (a ball can be formed that holds together on gentle tossing or shaking) or protected by at least one foot of packed snow or two inches of frozen soil. Implement temporary restrictions on off road equipment operation in periods of heavy rains, when soils are wet, or when excessive soil damage is occurring due to unsuitable operating conditions.
38. Winter logging operations will be conducted when the ground is frozen to a depth of two inches or more or when snow cover is adequate to minimize site disturbance.
39. De-compact compacted landings, temporary roads, compacted portions of skid-trails (generally highly traveled primary skid-trails within 100 feet of landings) and machine burn pile locations. This project Design Criterion may be waived site specifically if on-site inspection by a soil scientist determines de-compaction is not required.
40. Unless otherwise determined through consultation with the soil scientist and botanist, effective ground cover will be established through seeding or mulching on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated on-site soil loss and sediment delivery to streams.
41. Land treatments will be managed to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area.
42. Skid-trails and landings will be designated prior to project implementation and existing skid- trails will be reused as much as practicable to minimize new disturbance.
43. To prevent resource damage to soils, limit skidding operations to slopes of less than 30%. Limit operation of other heavy equipment to slopes of less than 40%.
2.2.1.8 Silviculture
Slash Disposal/Fuels Treatments
44. Slash treatments will be implemented to reduce hazardous fuels increases along roads and to meet site management objectives at designated recreation sites and administrative sites.
45. To reduce hazardous fuels, the entire tree, including bole, tops and limbs will be removed if possible. Where possible, whole tree skidding should be employed and limbs and tops (up to a 4-inch diameter) cut off at designated landings and piled for later burning by the Forest Service.
46. Unless otherwise specified by the Forest Service, chips created from slash or trees that are chipped at administrative and designated recreation sites shall be hauled off-site for disposal.
______Page 17 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
47. Slash will be placed such that it will not fall, roll, or be blown into roadside ditches, lead-off ditches, and/or culvert inlets/outlets.
48. Burn piles will be located at least 50 feet for hand piles, and at least 200 feet for machine piles, from perennial streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, or riparian areas. All burn piles will be located at least 300 feet from the edge of perennial streams or wetlands containing aquatic TES species. All burn piles will be located 50 feet from or outside of the inner gorge, whichever is less, for intermittent or ephemeral streams. In cases where the riparian buffer extends across a road, burn piles may be constructed in the portion of the buffer on the uphill side of the road when approved by a Forest Service Line Officer after consultation with a Forest Service fisheries biologist or hydrologist to assure that riparian conditions will be maintained or improved.
49. After burning, blackened logs within 50 feet of roads may be scattered back into the project area.
50. Depth of wood chips shall not exceed three inches. Chips will be distributed in discontinuous patches that do not result in a continuous chip mat (<40% of surface covered by three inches of chips).
51. Masticated wood chunks will be distributed to avoid continuous ground coverage. The desired pattern is patchy, mosaic, and discontinuous. Chunks will cover no more than 40% of the area for any given acre of land. Maximum chunk depth shall not exceed 12 inches.
2.2.1.9 Rare Plants/Noxious Weeds
52. Prior to project implementation, the area will be surveyed, as necessary, to identify sensitive and rare plants. The District Ranger will determine appropriate protection measures in consultation with a botanist.
53. To minimize risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, all equipment used off road for this project (not including service trucks or other vehicles that remain on roadways) will be clean, i.e., free of mud, dirt, plant parts, seeds, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds, prior to initial entry to the project area. Equipment will be considered free of soil and other debris when a visual inspection does not disclose such material. Disassembly of equipment components is not required.
54. Project areas at highest risk for noxious weed infestation and/or spread will be inspected at least once during the first three growing seasons after ground-disturbing operations in order to determine treatment and further monitoring needs.
2.2.1.10 Heritage Resources
The management of cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties will be conducted in accordance with the “Programmatic Agreement Among The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest, Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Regarding the Implementation of Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and Hazard Tree Reduction Programs (PA)” (WR Agreement No. 07-MU-11021500-043). The PA stipulates forest inventory and reporting requirements to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for spruce bark beetle and mountain pine beetle management of hazardous fuel and tree reduction programs.
______Page 18 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
55. The PA outlines classes of undertakings that have little or no potential to adversely affect historic properties, and are exempt from further review and/or consultation. Classes of undertakings defined as exempt from further review are as follows:
a) Protective Chemical Spraying b) Individual Tree Sanitation c) Trap Tree d) Lethal Trap Tree e) Trap out (aggregate) Beetles f) Disaggregate Beetles g) Chainsaw Thinning h) Personal Firewood Sales i) Understory Removal j) Aspen Enhancement/Fir Removal k) Christmas Tree Harvest Area l) Branch Pruning m) Boundary Treatment
56. The PA requires that cultural resource inventories take place prior to implementation where hazardous tree removal treatments may adversely affect historic properties. Implementation will not begin until the SHPO has concurred with a determination of no historic properties adversely affected. Project implementation will not proceed with the Proposed Action until the Forest complies with Stipulations E (regarding the process of submitting cultural inventory reports to SHPO) and F (regarding the implementation of standard treatments for eligible sites) of the PA.
57. A 50-foot buffer surrounding all historic properties (cultural resources that are field eligible for inclusion or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places) within the area of potential effect (APE) will be marked on the ground and the exclusion area included in any contracts. No heavy equipment or mechanical vegetation removal will be allowed within these exclusion areas. If treatment is necessary, these sites and the 50-foot buffer will be hand-treated for hazard trees and accumulated fuel buildup. Slash pile burning will be allowed within these exclusions in areas reviewed by and approved by a qualified archaeologist prior to the implementation of the burn. Following this standard treatment will result in a finding of no adverse effect.
58. If additional cultural resources are found during the course of this project, work in that area will cease. Work in the area of the cultural resource will not resume until the site has been evaluated for cultural materials and potential effects. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer that compliance with Section 106 of the National Register of Historic Places has been completed.
59. If so requested by the SHPO or an Indian Tribe, the Forest will conduct additional consultation for the identification of properties of traditional cultural and religious significance to Indian Tribes or other interested parties. Additional Design Criteria may be required if areas or sites are determined to be of importance to an Indian Tribe.
2.2.1.11 Recreation
Designated Recreation Sites
60. Damage to developed infrastructure from tree felling operations will be avoided.
61. Felled hazard trees and slash shall be removed from the interior boundary of the developed recreation site.
______Page 19 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
62. Felled trees will be whole tree skidded to designated landings inside or outside of the developed site for later off-site removal.
63. All potential campground closures or delays expected from hazard tree felling operations will be coordinated with the Forest Concession Permit Administrator as early as practicable.
64. Tree regeneration needs in developed campgrounds will be determined in individual campground vegetation management plans.
Designated Wilderness
65. Damage to designated campsites and markers from tree felling operations will be avoided.
66. Felled hazard trees shall be removed from the immediate designated campsite areas and not stacked in decks.
67. For designated campsites in Wilderness Areas, notification of site closures shall include information at trailheads, Visitor/Wilderness Information Stations, in camping permit information for the Indian Peaks Wilderness permit system, and on the ARNF website.
68. Hazardous trees within designated campsites in Wilderness Areas shall be treated only by hand methods using no mechanized equipment.
______Page 20 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
This section is provided in order to summarize and compare the potential effects of implementation of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. Table 2.3-1 provides the total quantity of the potentially affected area; Table 2.3-2 describes the effectiveness of the alternatives in meeting the objectives for the Proposed Project. Table 2.3-3 provides a comparative assessment of the quality of the potential effects of implementation of the alternatives on forest resources as described in Chapter 3 of this EA.
It is important to note that the quantities provided in Table 2.3-1 are intended to estimate the potential area of implementation based on 110% of the height of the tallest tree as described in the Proposed Action. The figures are based on the use of a 166-foot-wide corridor (83 feet from centerline) along roads and a 150- foot-wide corridor (75 feet from centerline) along trails and a 75-foot-wide buffer around all administrative areas. This methodology for assessment of the forest resources that are discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences portion of this document was determined to be the most systematic method available for this purpose. In some cases, the area potentially affected may be overstated; however, the degree of overstatement cannot be determined until the specific sites would be treated through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Actual acreages and mileages treated could be less depending on the availability of funding for projects, personnel available to manage projects, contracting limitations, access to project sites, and the relative abundance of hazard trees at individual project sites.
Table 2.3-1 Quantity of the Total Area Potentially Affected by the Proposed Project Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Maximum Acreage Treated Roads Current management would continue* 33,189 acres Trail Areas Current management would continue 17,960 acres Admin. Areas** Current management would continue 8,230 acres Total 56,309 acres †
Maximum Road Miles Treated Roads Current management would continue* 1,681 miles Maximum Trail Miles Treated Trails Current management would continue 1,003 miles Maximum Admin. Areas** Treated Admin. Areas Current management would continue 314 sites * Although the No Action Alternative reflects no amount of area treated, an undetermined amount of hazard trees removal would continue under the current management of those areas; however, that amount was not quantified for the purpose of this comparison. ** ‘Admin. Areas’ is a generic term that is used to refer to all features that are considered as a portion of the Proposed Project that do not qualify as roads or trails. Examples of such features are campgrounds, recreation residences, water facilities, reservoir shorelines, etc. † The quantity is representative of a merged feature set in order to remove all areas that overlap with one another. Quantities provided for each individual feature type (roads, trails or administrative areas) are not reflective of the removal of this overlap, however, no overlapping features exist within each of those data sources when reviewed on an individualized basis.
Table 2.3-2 Effectiveness of the Proposed Project in Meeting the Objectives/Key Issues Objectives/Key Issues Alternative 1 - No Action* Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Provide for public, firefighter and Yes. The removal of hazard trees agency personnel safety along road near the edge of roadways would and trail corridors by keeping travel Very minimally help to prevent roadway corridors open for public and blockage to allow ingress and emergency use. egress. Provide for public safety along roads Yes. The removal of hazard trees and trails and within administrative within areas frequented by forest and designated recreation sites by Very minimally users would reduce the potential reducing risks associated with falling for personal or property injury. trees.
______Page 21 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Objectives/Key Issues Alternative 1 - No Action* Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Yes. In a relatively linear Reduce the existing and potential fashion in areas most affected by forest fuels hazards within treatment MPB infestation, the removal of areas where ignition potential is Very minimally aerial and ground fuels would highest (roads, recreation sites, and lower the risk of fire spread and administrative sites). create canopy gaps in those areas. * Effectiveness of the No Action Alternative takes into consideration that USFS management practices would continue.
In general, many of the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative would be similar. For example, the MPB-killed trees will fall eventually. The primary differences between the alternatives would be temporal, in that through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative tree felling would occur in a planned, prioritized, and concerted manner during a series of singular actions instead of over a number of years as would occur through degradation of their natural vertical structure. Also, mechanized equipment may be used to fell and remove trees through the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, the effects of which would be mitigated by resource-specific proposed Design Criteria. As described above, hazardous fuels would be reduced and safety of the public would be enhanced through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Table 2.3-3 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project on Forest Resources Forest Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Resource Some Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (PTES) Some Proposed, Threatened, species as well as Species of Local Endangered, and Sensitive (PTES) Concern (SOLC) may be adversely or species as well as Species of Local beneficially affected as a result of Botany Concern (SOLC) may be adversely or implementation of the Proposed Action beneficially affected as a result of Alternative. Utilization of the proposed implementation of the No Action Design Criteria would serve to allow Alternative. active protection for readily identifiable populations of at risk species. Access to sites containing high volumes Roads and trails may be closed as a result of hazard trees would be allowed and of an abundance of hazard trees. hazard trees would be removed from the Closures could be individual or affect edges of roads allowing more if not all Engineering multiple roads in a given area. Closures roads to remain open. Some short-term and Roads could be short- or long-term depending road closures may occur in accordance on the abundance of hazard trees in a to the abundance of hazard trees and the given location. availability of USFS resources for treatments. Fuels would increase and fire behavior Treatments may provide lines of defense could be severe. Ingress and egress to potential fire activity and would be through travel corridors would be expected to provide increased safety for expected to be limited over time as fire crews. Where slash is treated, fuel infested stands deteriorate and fall into loads and the risk of high intensity fires Fire, Fuels and travel corridors. Air quality could be within Proposed Project sites would be Air Quality lowered as increased potential for fire reduced. Increases in air quality would ignitions exist in the human wildland be expected to result as the potential for interface and fuel loads in these areas wildfire ignition/spread within proposed would be expected to increase releasing treatment areas would be expected to be increased smoke particles when burned. lowered.
______Page 22 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Forest Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Resource Some federally listed species as well as Management Indicator Species (MIS) Some federally listed species as well as may be adversely or beneficially affected Management Indicator Species (MIS) as a result of implementation of the Fisheries and may be adversely or beneficially affected Proposed Action Alternative. Utilization Aquatic Habitat as a result of implementation of the No of the proposed Design Criteria would Action Alternative. serve to allow active protection for readily identifiable populations of at risk species. Commercial sales of forest products Mineral soil would be exposed, which would not be utilized and biomass for would serve to improve success rates for energy production would be lost. Natural regeneration and reforestation and regeneration in infested stands would be Forested provide for more rapid establishment of expected to be limited due to excessive Vegetation future forests. Some commercial amounts of fine and coarse woody debris materials could be captured as a result of on the forest floor. timber sales that could take place.
Mature lodgepole pine stands (old Old Growth Effects to old growth timber would be growth) would be expected to be largely Strategy Stands minimal since most old growth timber absent from the forest after the would be expected to be infested as a infestation. Plant communities would result of the ongoing bark beetle change as sunlight and the availability of epidemic. water increase as trees die. Heritage structures and/or features would Certain types of heritage resource Heritage potentially be damaged as infested stands sites/features would benefit from the Resources would be expected to deteriorate and treatment of hazard trees and the hazardous fuel loads would increase. removal of overhead hazards. There may be increased risk of erosion and sedimentation from logging Increased in-stream loading of woody equipment in streamside zones and at debris upstream of road-stream crossings stream crossings. Effects would be may increase potential for culvert Hydrology limited through implementation of the blockage. This would potentially proposed Design Criteria. Risks of increase risk of culvert and road fill culvert blockage and sediment loading failure, and subsequent sediment loading. from culvert and road fill failure would be reduced. Treatment within RNAs and SIAs would be minimal and compliant with the LRMP. Treatments within RNAs would not include the use of heavy equipment RNAs would remain unmanaged. SIAs and no salvage operations would take would remain untreated and some place within those areas. SIAs may be Lands/Special occurrence of trees qualifying as hazards treated utilizing heavy equipment on an Uses would be allowed to persist. as-needed basis. Effects relating to treatment activities would not alter the purpose or intent of these areas as a whole, but may result in some noticeably managed areas on a temporary and localized basis.
______Page 23 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Forest Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Resource Closure of some developed and dispersed During treatment, some developed recreation sites would result annually recreation sites would potentially be from the deterioration of MPB infested closed temporarily for the removal of Recreation stands. Closures could be short- or long- hazard trees and reduction of fuel loads. term and would be expected to be Post treatment, all developed sites would accomplished through annual developed be expected to be free of hazard trees recreation site management, but would into the foreseeable future and would be not be expected to occur in a concerted unlikely to require any other closures as manner. a result of hazard trees or fuel loads. There would be no significant, adverse effects to those portions of IRAs specific There would be no significant, adverse to the proposed treatment areas for the impacts to IRAs. Treatments in these Proposed Project. The characteristics areas could be allowed if desired with Inventoried that are associated with IRAs would not minimal use of machinery. All debris Roadless Areas be affected or altered. All mature that would result from implementation of lodgepole pine trees/stands would be the Proposed Action Alternative would expected to deteriorate and fail. be scattered and would remain on site.
Scenery would change as a result of the Scenery would be expected to change as deterioration of MPB-infested timber a result of the removal of hazard trees. stands. The result in the short term Forest users would see fewer mature would be expected to be a continued trees that previously existed in treatment preponderance of unsightly standing areas. Treatments along roads/trails dead trees in all views where bark beetle would be obvious to the general forest Scenery susceptible trees exist. The long-term visitor. Many developed recreation sites result would be expected to be may be completely or mostly treeless “jackstrawed” fallen timber and mass and without shade or screening. A loading of woody debris throughout all potential beneficial effect may be the viewing perspectives, which would be opening (accomplished through hazard expected to lower the quality of tree removals) of views throughout the experience for forest users. proposed treatment areas. User/resident safety would be increased User/resident safety and user quality of through the removal of overhead hazards experience would decrease as trees are and through decreases in fuel loads in allowed to fall. Accessibility by forest Socioeconomics the human wildland interface. users and residents would be expected to Implementation of the Proposed Action decrease and delays specific to resource Alternative may result in short-term usage would be expected. increases in jobs. In the short term, ground disturbance and No direct changes to the soil resources or increased potential for erosion would be productivity would be expected. A expected to result from implementation preponderance of indirect effects would of the Proposed Action Alternati ve. be expected to result from However, through the implementation of implementation of this alternative. the proposed Design Criteria and Potential effects would include changes utilization of BMPs, LRMP compliance Soils to soil productivity and characteristics as would be accomplished. As a result, a result of high intensity forest fires due potential effects on soils resources to increased fuel loads and associated and/or soil productivity would be post-burn soil disturbances. Also soils minimized. Assuming compliance with would be expected to be displaced as a the proposed Design Criteria, BMPs, and result of wind thrown timber which approved ARNF management practices, would potentially uproot hazard trees. there would be no long-term effects to soils as a result of the Proposed Project.
______Page 24 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Forest Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Resource Some federally listed species as well as Management Indicator Species (MIS) Some federally listed species as well as may be affected as a result of Management Indicator Species (MIS) implementation of the Proposed Action Wildlife may be affected as a result of Alternative. Utilization of the proposed implementation of the No Action Design Criteria would serve to allow Alternative. active protection for readily identifiable populations of at risk species.
2.4 Land and Resource Management Plan Project Guidance
The USFS is responsible for implementing the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the ARNF by completing analysis and evaluation of site-specific project proposals. The LRMP contains direction to guide resource management activities and to provide the USFS, forest users, and the public with an overall strategy for managing the ARNF. Designing and implementing projects consistent with this direction helps move the forests toward the desired future condition as described in the LRMP. The Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project is one such project.
In order to maintain compliance with the standards and guidelines stated in the LRMP, measures would be taken to ensure the goals and objectives therein are achieved. ARNF resource specialists have been consulted to determine the most appropriate action in an effort to provide the most appropriate level of mitigation to avoid significant adverse effects to resource integrity, such as scenery, biodiversity, and/or a buildup of hazardous fuels. As such, the proposed Design Criteria have been developed by ARNF resources specialists to ensure that these requirements are met and LRMP compliance is maintained. Furthermore, post-project site treatments would be undertaken to ensure that erosion and soil loss is minimized and that species diversity is maintained.
______Page 25 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
______Page 26 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section summarizes the physical, biological and social environments of the project area and the estimated effects associated with the implementation of each alternative. The affected existing environmental condition for each resource is described as to baseline condition for comparison of stated alternatives, followed by an analysis of effects to the described resource. The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative are analyzed for each resource area of the ARNF.
3.1 Recreation
Affected Environment
Recreational use on the ARNF is assessed by the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM) (surveys of 2000 and 2005/2006). The reports estimate that the ARNF has a range of 4,553,600 to 6,639,550 national forest visits annually. A national forest visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits. A site visit refers to the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. Nearly 91% of the recreational users of ARNF planned the ARNF as their primary trip destination while 6.1% of the users participated in a forest activity en route to their final destination. During their national forest visits, 92% of the overnight guests in the ARNF stayed at a single site. In addition to the forest visits, there are 115,400 designated Wilderness visits where users stayed for an average of 8.1 hours. (February 2009 report for ARNF on data collected CY 2000 and FY 2005.)
A majority of the primary use on the forest is downhill skiing and snowboarding (28%) followed by hiking/walking (12.8%) and fishing (10.4%). A majority of the remaining primary use is distributed among cross-country skiing, hunting, snowmobiling and viewing scenery. Camping is another regular activity on the forest with 1.3% of the NVUM respondents, approximately 58,500 campers, staying at developed campgrounds as their primary activity for 35.1 hours on average. As a primary activity, primitive campsites drew 1.1% of the NVUM respondents, approximately 49,500 campers, for an average visit of 22.5 hours per visit. See Figure 3-1 for a percentage breakdown of primary recreational use activities on the forests.
A majority of the visitors (74.1%) traveled 100 miles or less to the forest; 35.5% were locals traveling less than 50 miles, another 8.1% of the users traveled between 100 and 500 miles, and the remaining 16.9% traveled over 500 miles to access the national forest activities.
There is one national recreational area located within the ARNF, the Arapaho National Recreation Area (ANRA). In addition, two major standard amenity fee areas on the ARNF are Mount Evans Recreational Area and the Brainard Lake Recreation Area (BLRA). The ANRA encompasses over 36,000 acres and is home to five lakes, including Lake Granby, which is the second largest body of water in Colorado. Lake Granby, Monarch Lake, Shadow Mountain Lake, Willow Creek Reservoir, and Meadow Creek Reservoir all provide visitors with an abundance of recreational opportunities. Motorized and non-motorized boating, fishing, camping, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ice fishing are all popular activities in this recreation area. Visitors can hike portions of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail within the recreation area.
The Mount Evans Recreational Area is developed around the Mount Evans Scenic Byway. The road, Colorado Highway 5, is the highest paved road in North America, climbing from 8,700 feet above sea level at the start in Idaho Springs to 14,230 feet above sea level within 14 miles. The byway includes several amenities such as the Dos Chappell Nature Center, Summit Lake Park and Mount Evans summit with panoramic views of the Continental Divide and hiking trails to the peak of Mount Evans. The byway is closed during the winter months but summer activities include driving for pleasure, photography, hiking, biking and viewing wildlife including bighorn sheep and mountain goats.
______Page 27 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
The BLRA contains approximately 3,531 acres and is a unique and very popular developed recreation resource on the Colorado's Front Range. The site receives over 100,000 visitors annually due to its close proximity to the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area. Motorized access on the Brainard Lake and Left Hand Lake Reservoir roads occurs during the summer and fall. Activities during these months include camping, hiking, biking, fishing, viewing scenery, birding and access to the Indian Peaks Wilderness. During winter and spring, the area is closed to all motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are the main winter recreation activities (USDA Forest Service, Recreation).
Figure 3-1 Recreational Use in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests
Developed Recreation
Developed recreation includes all recreational activities that take place on all sites with constructed facilities. Developed sites potentially affected by this project include 53 developed campgrounds, 1 rental cabin and 20 picnic areas. Of these sites, 50 campgrounds and all of the picnic areas have been affected by the bark beetle infestation. The USFS does an annual inspection on all developed sites to ensure that any trees that are identified as hazardous are removed to ensure public safety. In recent years, some developed recreational areas have been forced to close in order to conduct massive hazard tree mitigation.
Dispersed Recreation
Most recreational activities that occur on the forests that do not involve constructed facilities are considered dispersed recreation. Many motorized activities occur on the roads within the forests, ranging from scenic drives to ATV/Motorcycle group rides. Other examples of dispersed recreation include camping (outside of developed campgrounds), mountain biking, horseback riding, photography, wildlife viewing and sightseeing as well as hunting and fishing.
• Trails: The trail system within the ARNF consists of 161 trails totaling 1,388 miles in length. Most of the trails are used for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding and mountain biking while some of the trails are designated for motorized recreation such as ATVs, motorcycles and
______Page 28 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
snowmobiles. The ARNF has 118 trailheads, 87 of which have been impacted by the bark beetle infestation and have standing dead trees that would be deemed hazardous. • Winter Trails: The forests support a wide range of winter recreation including snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, sledding, snowshoeing and dog sledding. There are 49 trails that are marked and designated on maps and many are groomed for specific uses such as cross-country skiing or snowmobiling.
Recreation Special Uses
The ARNF has issued special use permits for activities including outfitters and guides, and non-commercial groups such as weddings, rallies or other events. Commercial permits are issued for such events as races, jeep rallies, wagon trains and concerts. Other permits are issued for activities that involve permanent and immobile structures such as recreation residences and ski areas and resorts. There were 97 special use permits issued covering a total of 776 acres; 467 of those acres have been impacted by the MPB epidemic. There are three ski areas (Eldora Mountain Resort, Loveland Ski Area, and Winter Park Resort/Mary Jane) operating under special use permits in the ARNF. These resorts draw a large majority of the winter users to the ARNF.
Environmental Consequences
3.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
3.1.1.1 Developed Recreation
The past and current management activities include an annual inspection and removal of hazard trees on campgrounds and other heavily used recreation areas. Under the No Action Alternative, annual removal of all documented hazard trees or tree limbs would continue at its current limited scope, with assistance from timber management, forest health management, and recreation specialists, or the sites would be closed. It is expected that the number of hazard trees would increase over time as the current bark beetle epidemic continues such that it would overwhelm the USFS’s capacity for mitigation under the current methodology and budget. This would cause certain campgrounds, picnic areas and administrative sites to delay opening, close access roads/trails, or even close the entire facility for several months or up to multiple seasons. Hazard trees would continue to fall within sites closed for any length of time, potentially damaging the infrastructure such as picnic tables, restrooms, roads and administrative buildings, which would be additive to the length of time the site would be closed, as well as the costs associated with reopening the sites. Closures of recreational sites would be expected to last as long as the standing dead trees would be present within the sites and may continue as long as necessary to prepare the sites for re-opening. Such conditions would be relative to concentrated fuel loads or damages to infrastructure within the boundaries of recreational areas.
3.1.1.2 Dispersed Recreation
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, the standing dead trees would retain an increased potential of falling across roads and trails, creating dangerous conditions for travelers and causing closures for indefinite periods of time. As the trees fall across roads and trails, they would continue to be cut under USFS management practices. Implementation of the No Action Alterative would be expected to result in large quantities of dead trees falling across roads and trails, and then it may become necessary to close them to the public as they would be deemed unsafe. Unauthorized routes around downed trees may be created, potentially causing soil compaction, erosion and damage to watersheds. Potential closures of
______Page 29 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
access roads to preferred sites would also affect recreational activities such as hiking, fishing, hunting and camping. There may also be public safety impacts, such as ARNF visitors becoming trapped or injured in remote regions due to trees falling, which may require USFS personnel and/or resources for removal or rescue operations.
3.1.1.3 Recreation Special Uses
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, effects would likely be realized at almost every recreational residence, cabin and ski resort within the ARNF. This alternative would potentially result in negative effects at these facilities. Bark beetle infested stands, consisting of trees experiencing increased to total mortality, will deteriorate and eventually fall. The fallen trees would potentially inundate all or portions of special use areas. Activities would continue to take place in response to fallen trees and debris when such instances occur, such as to restore access to or through these areas. This response would not prevent probable infrastructural damage that would occur as a direct effect of the fallen trees or as an indirect effect of accumulated fuel loads that may augment the transition of wildfires into these areas. Recreational residence permit holders are individually responsible for damage and repair to their structures, as well as for applying mitigation measures to protect their structures, with USFS approval.
Indirectly, such fallen trees would be expected to inundate portions of trails or areas that may be permitted for special uses. Such inundation may exceed the capacity of the ARNF’s ability for management and closures may be required. This would potentially result in cancellations of bookings and special events in the affected areas. The closure of such areas would cause a decrease in user satisfaction and lower the likelihood that those users may return to a given area. If closures of areas where events and guided activities normally occur were to take place, then relocation of those activities or events may occur, if possible. Special use permit holders such as outfitters would also be impacted since many would not be able to access the specific area they have under permit. Additionally, untreated but open roads, trails and areas would pose a potential safety risk to the permit holders and the public they guide.
Cumulative Effects
The No Action Alternative would add to an already existing problem throughout the region in that closures of facilities are being required for the safety of the users. This requirement comes as a result of acceptable risk levels being exceeded due to the abundance of hazard trees in a given area. The closures of areas as a result of this effect may be temporary or long-term, depending on the level of use and abundance of hazard trees. This effect has been consistent throughout recreation sites in the neighboring forests where the MPB epidemic exists and would be expected to occur within the ARNF as well. Given this effect, events or campsites may receive lower turnouts or usage as they are reopened. This would possibly cause users to relocate their events or usage to other areas during the closure and clean-up period. It is also possible that some of those users or events may not return to the area after closure and clean-up due to a variety of circumstances.
3.1.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
3.1.2.1 Developed Recreation Areas
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in effects on most recreational sites and facilities, including hiking trails, undeveloped campsites, backcountry roads, scenic byways, campgrounds, picnic areas and recreational residences. The effect on existing recreational activities may be as minimal as a temporary re-routing of a trail to a closure of a developed campground for several weeks to an entire season while hazard trees are cut and removed from the Proposed Project area.
The impact to these sites would vary depending on the extent of hazardous trees identified in the developed recreation areas. Most developed sites with predominantly lodgepole pine forest overstory would be virtually cleared of trees. The immediate effect to the public recreationist would be dramatic in terms of
______Page 30 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project lack of shade and screening, a changed environment that eliminates a forested experience, and altered foreground view. In many places, the middleground and background views from developed recreation sites may be improved. Over time, as developed recreation sites become reforested by obvious tree planting efforts or less obvious natural regeneration, some awareness of new forest growth would occur and presumably would improve the public’s recreational experience.
It may become necessary to close off part or the entire site during implementation. All closures would be coordinated with the Forest Concession Permit Administrator to minimize effects to the public and permitted users. The public would be informed of the purpose of the closure, the anticipated duration of the closure and directed to alternative recreation opportunities in the vicinity. The closure/partial closure of a site would affect users due to the additional personnel, machinery and noise on site and the loss of access to that particular developed recreational activity. As a result of past clearing projects in developed campgrounds, there may be an increase in travel trailers and motor homes; there also may be a decline in tent campers, most likely due to the reduced shade, increased wind and lack of privacy.
The removal of hazard trees and fuel loads would result in the mitigation of hazardous conditions and increased user safety within all treatment areas for the foreseeable future. Annual costs of assessing and treating hazard trees would be nearly eliminated, which would account for substantial savings for many years.
Another benefit that would be expected to result from a concerted effort to remove hazard trees would be that more roads, trails and developed recreation sites would remain open for public use. Also, since similar types of projects are and will be occurring in adjacent national forests, it would be expected that neighboring recreational closures would occur, which would be expected to increase the recreational usage of the ARNF, and conversely increase their usage if treatments were implemented on the ARNF.
Any implementation within developed recreation sites (trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds and recreational residences) would follow the necessary parameters for felling and/or removing trees defined by the USFS in the form of proposed Design Criteria. The Design Criteria would protect selected infrastructure and minimize potential damage caused by project implementation (see Section 2.2.1.).
3.1.2.2 Dispersed Recreation Areas and Trails
Dispersed recreational sites are not documented on the forests and, therefore, may be directly or indirectly affected by implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, depending on their proximity to the project area. Many dispersed campsites are directly adjacent to NFS roads, and those that fall within the Proposed Project area would potentially be temporarily affected by activities such as the sights and sounds associated with the operation of heavy equipment, as well as increased traffic and personnel. After the hazard trees would be removed, however, these sites would more than likely see an increase in use since sites outside of the proposed treatment areas would potentially be blocked by falling trees or become high risk areas due to the public safety issues caused by the remaining hazard trees. The closure of existing sites could have the additional consequence of the public creating new dispersed locations, resulting in altered traffic patterns and campsites.
The clearing of hazard trees in the project area would improve the safety of the public who use the trails for hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and other activities. By felling and removing hazard trees adjacent to roads and trails, long-term closures would be minimized and visitors would continue to be able to access these activities. During project implementation these trails and roadways associated with dispersed sites could temporarily be closed and would see an increase in logging traffic and personnel activity. These activities may temporarily displace potential users of these sites and trails until the project is complete.
3.1.2.3 Recreation Special Uses
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would potentially affect almost every recreational residence, rental cabin and ski resort within the ARNF. This action would be expected to result in temporary negative effects at these facilities during project implementation since clearing would occur in
______Page 31 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
close proximity to the activities related to the special use permit such as skiing, cabin rentals, recreational residences and resort visitors. These effects would potentially include the sights and sounds of machinery and other activities required during project implementation. While these effects would be temporary, the visual impact created by the clearing would be a longer lasting effect. The visibility related to the effects of treatment activities would vary depending on the amount of bark beetle impacted trees within the proposed treatment areas, however, the effects would be expected to be mitigated or minimized through the utilization of the proposed Design Criteria.
Some special use permitted activities involve permanent structures that are not capable of relocation, therefore keeping the access roads clear and safe is imperative to these activities. Improvements of this nature would be expected to be achieved through implementation of this alternative.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have less of an effect on special use permitted activities that do not require immobile structures. These activities, such as outfitting and guiding, rendezvous, and concerts, may be temporarily displaced during project implementation; however, these events can often be relocated to prevent potential conflicts. There would likely be some permitted activities that would be reduced or eliminated during project implementation. The short-term effects of this would be expected to be less impactive in the long term than the continual natural falling of trees in special use permit areas over time and the recurring workloads and administrative resource commitments that would be expected to result from implementation of the No Action Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects to recreational resources would be limited for this project due to the fact that the activities that would be utilized to alleviate hazardous conditions would improve site safety conditions. This effect would be recognized in a shorter timeframe than would be allowed through implementation of the No Action Alternative. The cumulative effect is that all areas that would receive treatment under the Proposed Action Alternative would likely be closed for a shorter time period and would recover more quickly as well. This is the case throughout the region where a systematic and developed plan has been implemented. The result is a short-term negative effect through closures during treatments causing displacement of users, followed by a reopening upon the rehabilitation of the sites which would be beneficial for users.
Similar types of activities are likely to be scheduled on other public lands throughout the region as well. The net result for the region as a whole would be similar to those for the ARNF in that the short-term effects would be detrimental to the users of the areas, however the recovery of the sites/areas would allow for long-term usage.
Changes within recreation sites as a whole are constant factors that require maintenance and improvements or alterations. Most administrative types of activities within recreation areas are in response to USFS requirements to provide safe environments for users and result from the changing natural environment. Some examples of other projects to which the Proposed Action Alternative would add cumulatively are the projects to remove hazards trees and fuel loads along roads, trails, and administrative sites (such as recreation sites) within the Routt-Medicine Bow and White River National Forests, as well as other projects that have been proposed or approved within those forests as well as the ARNF and others. The expected end result of the treatments that are being implemented from projects collectively, locally and throughout the region, would be that recreation areas/sites comprised of tree species that are susceptible to the ongoing bark beetle epidemic would change for the short term.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives would comply with the ARNF standards and guidelines relevant to recreation in Section 2 of Chapter 1 of the LRMP.
______Page 32 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.1.3 Inventoried Roadless Areas
Affected Environment
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 contiguous acres that meet the minimum standards for Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
IRAs within the Proposed Project area consist of a potential affected area of approximately 4% of the ARNF’s IRAs as a whole.
Portions of the project area lie within IRAs across the forest. Trails pass through the IRAs and are included in this analysis. The IRAs have a total area of 348,000 acres of which approximately 11,700 acres (3.4%) are associated with trails and 2,500 acres (0.7%) are associated with administrative areas when compared to the Proposed Project area. (The term “administrative areas” encompasses developed recreation sites. Refer to the definition of administrative areas on page 11 of this document.) Of the combined 14,200 acres of project area, 9,200 acres are covered by trees. Approximately 5,400 acres of lodgepole pine dominant stands exist within the portions of the IRAs that are within the trails and administrative sites that are included as a portion of the Proposed Project.
As only approximately 4% of the Proposed Project area potentially lies within IRAs, long-term impacts from either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action Alternative would remain the same. Trees would fall and fuel loads would build up; the difference in the alternatives is primarily in the timing of potential fuel load buildup and the condition of the lands located within the Proposed Project area.
Environmental Consequences
3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Hazard trees within IRAs would not be felled and removed except for those occurring immediately adjacent to administrative areas and exhibiting imminent danger to the facility as consistent with the LRMP and FSM 2300 for Developed Recreation. Removal of individual trees which pose a safety hazard for the recreating public along trails would be felled. Dead trees may continue to stand for several years, but eventually would fall by natural processes, adding to fuel loads and fire intensities. It is expected that IRAs would retain very few, if any, large diameter (10+ inches) live trees of bark beetle susceptible species after the end of the epidemic.
Cumulative Effects
Though many projects for the management of hazard trees and general forest health have been planned or are being planned, very few of the projects include activities that will or would take place within IRAs in an effort to retain the characteristics that identify those areas. However, implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to add incrementally to the overall effects to IRAs.
Given the spread of the bark beetle epidemic, many trees (mostly lodgepole pine) have suffered high rates of mortality throughout the region. A large amount of the currently dead trees, as well as those that are likely to die as a result of the ongoing epidemic, are located within IRAs throughout the region. A variety of changes within IRAs would be expected to occur as a result of the ongoing epidemic. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would leave large numbers of dead trees standing along the edges of roads, administrative sites, and trails. IRAs are often bounded along their edges by roads or may be transected by trails. Implementation of this alternative would result in many of those roads and trails remaining untreated. The potential effects of not treating those areas would be expected to include increased rates of erosion due
______Page 33 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
to high numbers of wind thrown trees over the long term and increases in fire intensities where wind thrown trees accumulate.
Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.14.
3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Portions of the project area that occur within IRAs are calculated based on a 150-foot-wide corridor (75 feet from centerline) for trails and a 75-foot buffer around administrative sites in an effort to estimate the largest potentially affected area for analysis of the Proposed Project. In most cases, treatment areas would consist of trails that traverse within the boundaries of individual IRAs. Removal of individual trees which pose a safety hazard for the recreating public along trails and in administrative areas would be accomplished primarily by hand and occasionally by mechanical means. In all cases slash would be lopped and scattered to a height of no more than 24 inches and left in place. Use of the fell-lop-scatter-leave method reduces potential effects to other resources such as botany, cultural, hydrology, soils and threatened and endangered species due to the low level of ground disturbance. Utilization of the fell-lop-scatter-leave method would be expected to result in increases of ground fuel, which would be similar to the effects resulting from implementation of the No Action Alternative. The primary difference would be that the timing of fuel buildup under the Proposed Action Alternative would be shorter in duration as opposed to the natural processes involved through the No Action Alternative. To reduce fire danger after treatment, areas of heavy slash may be piled and burned at a later date.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not be expected to add appreciatively to the accumulation of effects resulting from activities taking place within IRAs. Though treatments within IRAs would be permitted through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be low expectation that any treatments within these areas would take place.
In general, projects to manage IRAs above normal or previously approved strategies (i.e. LRMPs, FSM Guidance, etc.) are not proposed. Within IRAs the pre-existing conditions (those that existed prior to IRA designation) would be allowed to persist. As such, some associated maintenance for those features would be required. Such exceptions may include permitted rights that would require the use of pre-existing roads or infrastructure. To a slight but unknown degree, the proposed treatment activities would add cumulatively to the effects associated with the maintenance of those pre-existing features.
Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.14.
3.1.4 Wilderness Areas
Affected Environment
Wilderness Areas are managed to protect and perpetuate their natural conditions while providing opportunities for solitude and self-reliance. (LRMP 1998)
The physical and biological attributes within Wilderness Areas are managed to allow natural processes to perpetuate the included ecosystems. The vegetation consists of a variety of plant community types and structural stages maintained primarily through ecological processes. Evidence of human activity, both past and present, is limited to the extent necessary to protect wilderness resources, features of historical significance or results from a prior existing right.
Fire is one of the primary natural processes serving an integral role in the maintenance of the wilderness ecosystem. The wilderness ecosystem is allowed to be highly dynamic, evolving naturally over time. The frequency of occurrence of fire disturbance over time is expected to resemble the historic range of
______Page 34 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project variability present prior to European settlement. Many plant communities indigenous to the Wilderness Areas are well represented and have evolved and are maintained with fire. However, the amount and location of various seral stages is very dynamic, changing with each fire and other natural ecological processes.
The areas are managed to provide opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, featuring solitude and cross-country travel in an environment where success or failure depends directly on ability, knowledge, and initiative. Unique non-motorized hunting, fishing, and wildlife-viewing opportunities may exist in these areas.
The setting appears natural. Areas with evidence of unacceptable levels of past use are restored to natural conditions. Contact with other users and evidence of use varies with opportunity class (e.g. Pristine, Primitive, Semi-primitive, and Transitional).
Administrative actions to maintain the desired condition of Wilderness Areas are to develop and implement limits of acceptable change programs and wilderness implementation schedules , as funding and resources allow. Other needed actions are to actively acquire inholdings, retain all lands within the designated area, acquire rights-of-way to meet resource management goals and objectives, and to allow compatible special uses.
The ARNF contains 10 congressionally designated Wilderness Areas summing to approximately 369,000 acres. Table 3.1-1 provides a listing of the ARNF Wilderness Areas. (ARNF 2009)
Table 3.1-1 Wilderness Areas Managed by the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Wilderness Area Name Acreage Byers Peak 8,795 Cache La Poudre 9,511 Comanche Peak 67,984 Indian Peaks 74,166 James Peak 17,088 Mt Evans 72,974 Neota 9,919 Never Summer 20,886 Rawah 74,592 Vasquez Peak 12,992 Total 368,907
No specific active treatments within Wilderness Areas have been proposed for inclusion as a portion of this project, however, the ARNF includes the consideration that designated camping sites warrant concerted effort for the removal of hazard trees to ensure a reasonable level of safety for users within those areas. Camping sites of this nature can be connected to trails, which would be identified for treatment during periods of “normal” wilderness trail maintenance.
Though trails provide notable connectivity to such camping sites, there is no program for the concerted hazard tree treatment of trails within Wilderness Areas; treatment of wilderness trails is specifically not included as a portion of this proposal, because of the management emphasis for natural conditions as described in the affected environment for Wilderness Areas.
Treatments within Wilderness Areas would be in compliance with wilderness regulations and policies and would be accomplished through the use of hand tools only. No mechanical or motorized equipment would be utilized for the treatment of features within Wilderness Areas.
______Page 35 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Consequences
3.1.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct effects to Wilderness Areas as result of implementation of the No Action Alternative would only occur with respect to designated camping sites within Wilderness Areas. Some non-designated camping sites within Wilderness Areas would not likely be used in areas that would be inundated by trees qualifying as hazards. Not treating hazard trees in designated campsites in Wilderness Areas would put the public at risk due to falling tree hazards, because the designated sites are typically the only sites where camping is allowed in specified designated camping zones.
Indirectly, the removal of the canopy cover through the deterioration of the overstory would allow for regeneration to gain sunlight and water resources to encourage the recovery of the stand. However, as dead trees would begin to fall, the forest floor would likely be inundated which would serve to slow or stop the growth of regenerating stands by breaking and crowding them as they fall. This long-term loss of canopy cover may result in lower usage by hikers and campers due to exposure.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effect of not actively treating non-designated sites within Wilderness Areas would be consistent with other forests’ management of wilderness throughout the region. Other projects in the region have been implemented to treat areas for the removal of hazard trees, however the majority of those projects did not target sites within Wilderness Areas. Under the No Action Alternative, the cumulative effect of not treating designated campsites within Wilderness Areas as a target for hazard tree management is limited to the forests currently experiencing bark beetle impacts in wilderness where designated campsites occur (ARNF, Medicine Bow-Routt, and White River National Forests).
The cumulative effects to Wilderness Areas through implementation of this alternative would be expected to be the slowed regeneration that would occur due to the abundance of fallen debris throughout infested areas. As the trees fall they would potentially cover the surface of many areas and would block the growth of the upcoming or developing understory. This effect would be exacerbated in the event of a high intensity forest fire, when an abundance of fuel may cause surface and/or soil temperatures to rise above the threshold of regenerating timber. Increased erosion resulting from wind thrown trees would also be expected to occur where hazard trees are not removed. A wildfire event would further increase this effect.
No other known or foreseeable projects relative to Wilderness Areas were planned or being planned at the time that this assessment was completed.
3.1.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative there would not be any active treatments along trails within the boundaries of designated Wilderness Areas. Trails of this nature that have areas of hazardous trees would be posted at the trailhead for user safety purposes. As hazardous trees fall across wilderness portions of trails, they would be cleared from the trail during “normal” trail maintenance activities, per USFS Manual direction.
The direct effects to Wilderness Areas as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be limited to those actions that are taken in treating designated camping sites within Wilderness Areas. These treatments would be accomplished through the use of non-mechanical hand tools only and would not adversely affect the overall character of the Wilderness Area.
______Page 36 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
In limited areas where large amounts of hazard trees would require treatment, the action would encourage regeneration and help the vegetative cover to recover from the cause of their mortality, thus encouraging the rehabilitation of those sites. The accumulation of slash and debris that would potentially result from treatments would be mitigated by removing the debris to an area outside of the camping sites. As a whole, the proposed treatments may lower the potential for wildfire ignitions where the treatments have occurred.
The only other activity that would be implemented within Wilderness Areas would be the continued maintenance of the trail system that currently exists within the ARNF. The level of maintenance may increase somewhat as a result of the growing mortality rates associated with the bark beetle infested trees.
Cumulative Effects
Through compliance with the existing regulations and guidance, there would be minimal cumulative effects to Wilderness Areas above those mentioned for the normal maintenance of trails and associated designated camping sites.
Since these areas are characterized by the naturalness of their setting and lack of human influence the presence of treated areas would be evident where treatments have occurred. This effect would add to the other influences of unnatural disturbance, such as the existence of well worn trails. However, this effect would be minimized through the use of non-mechanized equipment.
No other known or foreseeable projects relative to Wilderness Areas were planned or being planned at the time that this assessment was completed.
Forest Plan Consistency
The No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative are consistent with the management of Wilderness Areas for the ARNF. 3.2 Hydrology
Affected Environment
The analysis area encompasses the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, which falls within three major watersheds (Watershed Designation HUC3) including the Colorado River Headwaters, the North Platte River, and the South Platte River.
The goal of the Proposed Action is to cut hazard trees adjacent to roads, trails, designated recreational sites, and administrative sites. As many roads, trails, and recreational sites are located adjacent to streams, rivers, and lakes, both the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives have the potential to impact forest hydrology.
Based on available GIS data as provided by the USFS, there are over 13,768 miles of rivers, streams, canals, connectors, and runoff ditches within the ARNF. There are 2,472 miles of perennial streams; 2,296 miles of intermittent streams; and 8,999 miles of other water assets. Of these waterways, there are 269.2 miles of rivers/streams, including 192.3 miles of perennial streams and 76.9 miles of intermittent streams, in the project area. Table 3.2-1 displays the length of these waterway types within each of the project area features.
______Page 37 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.2-1 Waterways within the Proposed Project Area by Feature Type Length of Length of Waterway % of Waterway Waterway within within Feature Waterway in Type ARNF Project Area Project Area (Miles) (Miles) Perennial 2,472.1 93.1 3.8% Intermittent 2,296.4 52.3 2.3% Roads Other* 8,999.0 121.8 1.4% Total Length 267.3 Perennial 2,472.1 76.0 3.1% Intermittent 2,296.4 16.9 0.7% Trails Other* 8,999.0 51.1 0.6% Total Length 144.0 Perennial 2,472.1 34.7 1.4% Administrative Intermittent 2,296.4 9.4 0.4% Sites Other* 8,999.0 138.3 1.5% Total Length 182.4 Perennial 2,472.1 192.3 7.8% All Intermittent 2,296.4 76.9 3.3% (Overlapping) Other* 8,999.0 269.4 3.0% Total Length 538.7 *Refers to all other water assets such as ditches, pipelines, tunnels, dams, and connectors.
The total number of perennial stream crossings within the Proposed Project area is 537 and the total number of intermittent stream crossings within the Proposed Project area is 460. Table 3.2-2 further quantifies these crossings by waterway type and road class.
Table 3.2-2 Stream Crossings and Road Classes within the Proposed Project Area Road Class Perennial Stream Crossings Intermittent Stream Crossings 2 299 290 3 151 100 4 57 56 5 30 14 Totals 537 460 There are a number of large lakes and reservoirs in the ARNF. The project area is adjacent (within 500 meters) or connected to 329 lakes, reservoirs, or water bodies (composing approximately 14,759 acres of surface waters) within the administrative boundary of the ARNF (CDOT 2009). Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir are the largest water bodies (7,059 acres and 1,279 acres, respectively) within the administrative boundary and adjacent to the Proposed Project area. One hundred twenty-one of the 329 water bodies are un-named and cumulatively comprise approximately 1,247 acres of surface area. Of the lakes within the administrative boundary, there are 14 water bodies that are between approximately 100 and 1,000 acres of surface area, while 109 other water bodies cover between 10 and 100 acres, and 204 water bodies that comprise between 0 and 10 acres of surface area. There are 134 water bodies, which comprise approximately 1,493 acres of surface area, that occur within congressionally designated Wilderness Areas of the ARNF.
Specific to the components of the Proposed Project area (roads, trails, and administrative areas), there are 74 water bodies that occur within the modeled project area for administrative sites, 144 water bodies within modeled project area for trails, and 112 water bodies within modeled project area for roads. The modeled project area for roads composes the majority of the area targeted for treatment. The roads that would be treated utilizing the Proposed Action Alternative are existing maintenance category two through five roads. Table 3.2-3 provides a breakdown of the number of water bodies that exist within 500 meters of the modeled Proposed Project area for roads.
______Page 38 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.2-3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Roads within 500 Meters of Water Bodies Road Category Feature Type All* 5 4 3 2 Water Bodies in 112 20 31 44 73 Project Area * Number of water bodies (CDOT 2009) which occur directly within that portion of the modeled Proposed Project area that occurs along Category 2-5 roads within NFS lands. The sum of the water body features for each road category does not sum to the total number for all roadways due to overlapping features that occur within 500 meters of multiple road categories.
Wetlands and riparian areas exist throughout the ARNF, with approximately 50,019 acres of riparian areas and 24,821 acres of wetland areas. Riparian areas are associated with lands adjacent to perennial and some intermittent streams, while shrub lands and coniferous forests comprise the majority of wetlands. Approximately 1,955 acres of riparian areas and 1,316 acres of wetlands in the ARNF may be directly affected by project implementation. It is important to note that an accurate inventory of wetlands is not available for the ARNF. It is therefore reasonable to assume that unmapped wetlands would be discovered during field examinations.
Floodplains are associated with most perennial and intermittent streams, and are typically quite narrow. Floodplain widths are influenced by valley morphology as well as by stream size. Broad, low-gradient valleys tend to have a broader floodplain than steep, narrow valleys. Many of the affected stream reaches occur in steep, narrow valleys in the mountains. Therefore, many of the floodplains within the project area are of limited extent.
Environmental Consequences
3.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative on the hydrologic conditions are generally limited to sediment loading and bed and bank stability, which are potential effects resulting from hazard trees falling in the project area.
Through implementation of this alternative, access by the general public would continue at the current level along the existing access roads, including areas where the roads cross riparian areas and wetlands. There may be some increase in maintenance vehicle traffic to address increased numbers of fallen trees; however, the degree of increase would be dependent on factors such as resource availability and environmental site clearances. Sedimentation would likely occur at the existing rate due to regular operations and maintenance vehicles crossing streams. Thus there would be little to no direct effects on water quality from increased sedimentation or turbidity associated with these ground disturbing activities.
Ongoing accumulations of dead timber adjacent to roadways would result in a greater potential for large wood and debris from fallen trees to block culvert inlets. Culvert blockages could increase the risk of culvert failure, road fill erosion, and increased sediment loading to the stream network, which could affect community water supplies.
There would be little to no increase in direct effects to bed and bank stability under this alternative. Impacts to bed and bank stability would occur at the existing level due to regular operations and vehicles crossing streams. However, there may be a slight increase in the potential loss of bed and bank stability if
______Page 39 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
culvert blockages and failures were to occur. Such occurrences would redirect flows such that bed and bank stability may be affected.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects resulting from implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to occur through the incremental increases in the occurrence of fallen trees as time progresses. As trees fall, the soils surrounding their former locations would be loosened and would be expected to erode easily during rain events. Given that those trees being assessed are located along the edges of roads and trails or within administrative sites, they would also likely be relatively close to waterways or culverts. The accumulation of woody debris near crossing or culverts would be expected to increase as time progresses. Though normal maintenance would be expected to continue throughout the region, it would be expected that resource constraints may prohibit adequate inspections by maintenance crews and some infrastructural failures may result. Given that the bark beetle epidemic is a widespread event, this effect may occur throughout the entire area infested by bark beetles.
Relative to the increased rates of erosion may be the stability of roadside embankments that are currently forested. Erosion occurring at such locations may result in small scale and localized slides of soils into riparian or wetland areas or potentially directly into waterways.
Lastly, the retention of hazard trees within the Proposed Project area may result in increased post fire effects as well. Due to the proximity of the Proposed Project area to water features, a nearly direct conduit to water features for ash and other fire products would result. This effect may be persistent throughout the region affected by the bark beetle infestation.
However, other projects are known to be occurring throughout the region to alleviate some of these effects through the removal of hazard trees along roads and trails on neighboring National Forests (Routt and White River) as well as by some local municipalities, county and state agencies and on private lands.
Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.14.
3.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects on hydrologic resources may be expected.
Riparian Areas and Wetlands
Minor impacts to riparian areas and wetlands may occur as a result of the Proposed Action. These impacts could include increased erosion and sediment loading due to soil disturbance in proximity to the wetland or riparian areas, accidental compaction of soils by logging equipment and removal of wetland or riparian area plant species. These impacts can be mitigated by implementing the Proposed Action Alternative in accordance with specific proposed Design Criteria.
Treatment areas would be accessed by existing state, county, and NFS roads, therefore no additional impacts to riparian areas or wetlands along these routes would be expected. Equipment access along some access roads may result in minor impacts to riparian areas and wetlands because some roads are relatively primitive and may need to be improved to allow access for large equipment. Design Criteria have been designed to minimize or eliminate the potential impacts; however, these areas may be impacted if they cannot be avoided.
Indirect effects to wetlands would not be anticipated as a result of this project. Removal of some trees from the 100-foot wetland buffers, when it can be done without ground based equipment, would not have a negative effect on overall wetland function. Design Criteria would limit use of ground-based equipment in
______Page 40 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project and around riparian areas and wetlands, which would protect wetland function from physical damage such as vegetation removal or soil compaction.
Floodplains
Effects within floodplains include the potential for increased sediment delivery to streams resulting from equipment operation and removal of trees. Direct effects may result from ground disturbance associated with providing access to the project area as well as with cutting or removal of trees with ground based equipment. This would be especially apparent in areas where equipment may cross streams. Indirect effects may include a temporary increase in sediment loading until vegetation is re-established on disturbed soils.
Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Reservoirs
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may have effects on streambed or bank stability. Some roads and trails in the ARNF are located adjacent to streams and rivers. This can lead to detrimental effects to streams and rivers but can also provide a benefit to the forest as a whole. If trees are removed adjacent to streams and rivers, stumps and root masses providing stream bank stability should remain in place. Hazard trees are expected to fall down within the next decade, regardless of this project. Cutting a tree prior to its falling may actually retain the stump/root masses in place longer and provide more stream bank protection than if the tree were to fall over and pull the root mass away from the stream bank. Temporary use of motorized equipment across streams along the existing access roads during project implementation would be the primary mechanism by which streambeds and banks could be affected. The proposed Design Criteria and BMPs which limit the use of heavy equipment in and near streams would be employed during implementation to effectively protect streambed and bank stability.
Generally, hazard trees that are cut down adjacent to streams and rivers should be removed. If the hazard trees are cut down within 100 feet of a culvert, they must be removed to reduce the possibility of culvert blockage. However, hazard trees that are cut down and fall into a stream or river may be left if approved by the USFS, as the presence of some large dead wood in a river or stream is good for the health of the stream.
No new or temporary roads are anticipated to be constructed, and excavated skid trails would be limited. Existing state, county and USFS roads and trails would be used to access the proposed treatment areas. Little to no increase in sedimentation along these routes would be expected as a result of implementation because these roads generally have culverts at stream crossings. Equipment access along the more primitive existing access roads or trails may result in temporary increases in sedimentation, especially in areas where no culverts exist at crossings or in areas that would need to be improved for equipment crossings. While some erosion may occur and deliver sediment to some streams, the effects are expected to be minor, localized, and short-term and would be minimized by following the established Design Criteria, which have been shown to be effective in reducing erosion and sedimentation.
Removal of hazardous or fallen trees upstream of culverts and within 50 feet of a stream bank could minimize future culvert blockages and the potential for culvert failure. This would reduce the potential for increased sedimentation to the stream network which would help to maintain bed and bank stability, and minimize effects to community water supplies.
Cumulative Effects
Through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative some cumulative effects would be expected to occur through the long-term stabilization of soils within the Proposed Project area. Over the short term (until vegetation could be re-established in treated areas) some erosion would be expected to occur; however, such erosion would be expected to be minimized through the use of BMPs and through adherence to the USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH).
______Page 41 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
However, many other projects are planned or are being implemented for the removal of hazard trees along similar areas. Two such projects are known to be occurring on the Routt and White River National Forests. As such, implementation of those projects would be expected to experience similar effects as those listed above. Those projects that are not occurring on federal lands may not comply with all management practices that are required for the management of federal lands. On those lands increases in erosion may exceed that on federal lands.
Erosion related to this project would be expected to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to water features throughout the region. The potential effects listed above would be additive to all of those past, present and future activities described in Sec. 3.14, which includes projects occurring within the watersheds on the east and west sides of the Continental Divide. However, as stated above, through the use of BMPs and through adherence to the WCPH, the effects of the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to be minimal and short in duration.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives are consistent with the Guidelines and Standards of the LRMP for Water and Aquatics.
Consistency with Other Regulations
Both alternatives would comply with the Wetlands/Floodplains Executive Orders, the Clean Water Act and Colorado State Water Quality Standards with the use of BMPs planning and a compliance monitoring program.
3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitats
Affected Environment
Threatened and Endangered
The current Threatened and Endangered fish species list for the ARNF includes: humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), bonytail chub ( Gila elegans ), Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus lucius ), Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus ), razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ), and the greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias ). The greenback cutthroat trout is the only threatened or endangered fish species that occurs within the Proposed Project area; the other threatened and endangered fishes were excluded from further analysis due to no species or habitat occurring within the project area and no water depletions occurring as a result of this Proposed Project.
Sensitive Species
There are 17 fish species listed in the Region 2 Sensitive Species list. Among the 17 sensitive fish species in the Colorado region, the Colorado cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus ) lake chub ( Couesius plumbeus ), mountain sucker ( Catostomus platyrhynchus ), and Rocky Mountain capshell snail ( Acroloxus coloradensis ) are the only aquatic species known to occur in the project area.
There are a total of 15.0 miles of streams within the project area in which the Colorado River cutthroat trout are known to occur; 6.7 miles are conservation populations and 8.3 miles include current stream populations that are not considered conservation populations.
The lake chub occurs in mountain lakes and tributaries. They prefer to inhabit clear, cold bodies of water with a rocky substrate that are small and isolated where predatory fish are minimal. In Colorado, the lake chub distribution is in the southernmost limit of its range. Within the ARNF, this species has been known to occur in the Platte River drainage.
______Page 42 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
The mountain sucker inhabits small rivers and streams with many undercut banks and small gravelly pools. Within the Proposed Project area there are streams that would be suitable habitat and may potentially contain mountain sucker. Although the occurrence of this species has not been recorded, it is believed to occur within the ARNF.
Although this species is rare, occurrences of the Rocky Mountain capshell snail have been reported in a limited number of locations in the ARNF and on adjacent private and federal lands (Anderson 2005). It is likely that additional locations exist, however this species is difficult to view.
Management Indicator Species
The USFS (2002b, c) identified Management Indicator Species (MIS) to provide a means to monitor selected issues on the forests as required by regulation (36 CFR219.19, 1982). MIS species are selected species within the forests so that when management practices are being implemented, the USFS can monitor the effects of those management actions on those particular chosen species.
The ARNF has six fish species identified as MIS: greenback cutthroat trout, Colorado River cutthroat trout, brook trout, brown trout, plains topminnow, and plains killfish. The last two of these MIS are located within the Pawnee National Grasslands and are not within the project area. Although these two species were included in those selected to determine whether forest management activities improved and/or maintained aquatic habitats, the plains topminnow and plains killfish are not carried forward in this analysis since they do not occur within the project area. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have no influences on the populations of these two species.
Trout species have potential habitat within all perennial streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs within the forests. These bodies of water, that are preferable to trout, contain cold water with adequate flows, substrate for spawning, and deep pools. Trout species in general are sensitive to changes in flow and water quality.
Table 3.3-1 summarizes the above information, listing the fish species likely to occur within the Proposed Project area and identifying their primary habitat, category and the determination concerning potential effects.
Table 3.3-1 Fish Species Likely to Occur Within the Proposed Project Area Threatened Effects, Common Scientific Habitat Region 2 or MIS Determinations and Name Name Type Sensitive Endangered Evaluations May affect, not likely to Cold, clear, adversely affect Greenback Oncorhynchus gravely Implementation of cutthroat clarkii headwater Threatened No Yes Riparian/Aquatic Design trout stomias streams and Criteria would be utilized mountain lakes to minimize effects to habitat and water quality. *MAII - Implementation Isolated, Colorado of Riparian/Aquatic Oncorhynchus headwater River Design Criteria would be clarkii streams and No Yes Yes cutthroat utilized to minimize effects pleuriticus lakes with cold trout to habitat and water temperatures quality. Lakes and *MAII - Implementation tributary of Riparian/Aquatic Couesius streams and Design Criteria would be Lake chub No Yes No plumbeus rivers with clear utilized to minimize effects water and to habitat and water gravel bottoms quality.
______Page 43 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Threatened Effects, Common Scientific Habitat Region 2 or MIS Determinations and Name Name Type Sensitive Endangered Evaluations *MAII - Implementation Inhabits low- of Riparian/Aquatic gradient small Mountain Catostomus Design Criteria would be forested No Yes No sucker platyrhynchus utilized to minimize effects streams to large to habitat and water rivers. quality. *MAII - Implementation Cold mountain Rocky of Riparian/Aquatic lakes and Mountain Acroloxus Design Criteria would be portions of slow No Yes No capshell coloradensis utilized to minimize effects moving rivers snail to habitat and water and streams quality. Cold, clear, Implementation of gravely Riparian/Aquatic Design Salvelinus Brook trout headwater No No Yes Criteria would be utilized fontinalis streams and to minimize effects to mountain lakes habitat and water quality. Implementation of Cold and cool Riparian/Aquatic Design water streams, Brown trout Salmo trutta No No Yes Criteria would be utilized rivers, and to minimize effects to lakes habitat and water quality. *May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.
Environmental Consequences
3.3.1 General Effects for All Fish Species and Habitats
3.3.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct effects to aquatic biota and indirect effects would be minimal. One beneficial effect of the No Action Alternative would be the absence of ground disturbance associated with the proposed hazard tree removal and fuels treatments.
Under the No Action Alternative, the number of dead and dying trees would possibly increase as the current MPB epidemic continues. Over time, potential for a wind throw event may occur resulting in accumulations of trees that may have many detrimental influences on the landscape. Trees that have been involved in a wind throw event may be uprooted, removing the stumps and increasing erosion during snow melt and rain events. In addition, accumulations of timber on the ground would decrease re-growth of shrubs and herbaceous sized vegetation that provide bank stability and cover for fish.
There is potential for fuel loads to increase as a result of the No Action Alternative, creating conditions for large scale or high intensity wildfires. Wildfire can have a variety of impacts to aquatic ecosystems, including but not limited to decreased stream channel stability, greater and more variable discharge, altered woody debris delivery and storage, increased nutrient availability, higher sediment delivery and transport, and increased solar radiation and altered water temperature regimes (McMahon and deCalesta 1990; Young 1994; Reeves et al. 1995; Minshall et al. 1997, 2001; Benda et al. 1998; Gresswell 1999; Dunham et al. 2003). Studies indicate that generally fish populations are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire and recover more quickly in larger, interconnected systems and in systems that are less disturbed (Dunham et al. 2003).
______Page 44 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Over time, recruitment of coarse woody debris (CWD) in streams, rivers or wetland habitats from the progression of the MPB epidemic would be high. As the dead and dying trees along streams begin to deteriorate, there would be large quantities that would migrate into streams either by falling into or through lateral movement across the stream banks as a result of snow melt and rain events. This would potentially cause woody debris to clog drainage or in-stream infrastructure, resulting in flooding of areas that may not normally flood and could potentially cause stream bank scouring and erosion. USFS maintenance of these structures would continue as they currently do, however, maintenance may not be achieved until after some of the effects had already occurred. However, in the short term as trees die and fall, CWD may benefit some aquatic habitats. CWD is essential in aquatic habitats for pool formation, which influences a stream’s velocity, depth, and storage capacity. Pools are important to fish as a source of refugia. Large woody debris provides complex cover, protecting fish from predation, competition, and displacement. Additionally, wood may decrease the number of intra-species behavioral interactions, permitting greater numbers of fish to coexist (Dolloff 1993). The gravel trapped and stored behind wood can provide quality spawning habitat. Large woody debris influences sediment scour-fill patterns by deflecting flow, resulting in spawning habitat in the form of riffle areas located downstream of woody debris. Many macroinvertebrates (a food source for fish) depend on wood, both directly for specific habitat needs and indirectly for food (Dolloff 1993).
The timing of tree mortality, decay, wind, snowfall, avalanche, and individual tree degradation would play a considerable role in habitat quality for fish and is difficult to predict.
Cumulative Effects
Many situations occurred prior to the development of the Proposed Project which have impacted and continue to impact native trout and their habitats. These impacts include 1) altered natural flows and fragmentation resulting from water diversions and barriers to fish movement; 2) introduction of non-native trout species altering genetic purity; and 3) microbial invasion (whirling disease) that causes mortality in trout species. These factors contribute to population declines of native trout and will continue to create effects regardless of whether the No Action Alternative is implemented.
Implementation of this alternative would be expected to have minimal effects to aquatic species; however, the potential would persist for species to be affected through changes such as those mentioned in Section 3.2.1, as such species may experience changes in water temperatures as trees begin to fall and shade is removed. This effect would be expected to occur wherever large quantities of dead trees occur along the edges of water features throughout the region. It would also be expected that water chemistry could be affected as a result of large scale and/or high intensity wildfires in the future. The results may be detrimental to aquatic species.
The presence of the Proposed Project area near water features would be expected to provide some connectivity for falling trees to enter waterways. Due to the widespread distribution of the bark beetle epidemic it would be expected that waterways would receive higher loads of woody debris as the epidemic progresses and as trees begin to fall. The results may be beneficial in some areas and detrimental in others as water levels may increase or decrease due to the loading of the debris. This effect would be expected to be consistent throughout the region where bark beetle mortality occurs.
Though no concerted effort to remove hazard trees would be implemented with this alternative, other projects are expected to be implemented or are being implemented to remove hazard trees throughout the region. As such, some changes to aquatic ecosystems could result that would be additive to the current and past effects of other projects.
Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.14.
______Page 45 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.3.1.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of this alternative could temporarily increase minimal sediment delivery into streams from equipment crossing streams as well as from soil disturbance and slash pile burning associated with timber harvest treatments. Disturbance of hill slope and riparian soil can result in an increased sediment delivery to streams (Nakamoto 1998). This sediment may result in behavioral impacts, such as temporary disruption in territoriality and movements (Anderson 1996); physiological impacts, such as impaired growth and decreased resistance to disease and parasitism (Anderson 1996); population impacts, such as increased egg mortality, reduced egg hatches, and potential mortality to juveniles and adults if exposed to high suspended sediment concentrations) (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Anderson 1996, Argent and Flebbe 1999); and changes to associated aquatic habitats, such degraded water quality and decreased habitat complexity (Anderson 1996, Miller and Benda 2000). Implementation of the project Design Criteria would mitigate or minimize direct effects to riparian and aquatic habitats within the project area, as ground based equipment would not be permitted within 100 feet from the edge of the streams, riparian, wetlands/fens. Hazardous tree removal near streams would be limited to hand felling within a 100-foot buffer and trees are to be felled away from the streams and wetlands; however, where large woody debris recruitment in streams is desired, trees may be felled into the stream to provide habitat for aquatic species. Heavy equipment would be restricted within the water influence zone (WIZ), therefore reducing the potential for degradation of water resources from increased erosion and sediment loading from ground disturbance.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the potential for a wind throw event to occur. Hand treated trees within the WIZ would still allow for the stumps of trees to remain intact, creating less soil erosion into streams by providing for bank stability. In areas where tree removal occurs, reduction of the canopy may potentially create opportunities for re-growth of shrubs and riparian vegetation. This would eventually provide stream side cover, create soil retention, prevent erosion, and potentially provide an increase in aquatic productivity from solar radiation (Nakamoto 1998). The reduction of shade can have both adverse and beneficial effects on aquatic ecosystems. The reduction of shade can lead to higher water temperatures, which could have adverse biological effects for the species affected. In smaller watersheds like many of those in the analysis area that have less riparian vegetation, the loss of canopy cover may result in an increase in solar radiation reaching the streams leading to increased water temperatures (Johnson and Jones 2000). Increased water temperatures combined with greater solar radiation may increase primary productivity as area streams are primarily allochthonous.
In addition, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would mitigate the effects to aquatic habitats in the event of an intense wildfire. Potential for impacts from a wildfire to streams may still occur, however to a lesser degree.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include any past, current and future management planning activities that may include timber harvest, grazing, and other activities. In addition, effects have been known to occur as a result of the construction of water diversions, introduction of non-native fish invasions, and presence of disease.
Other effects that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative include some short- term increases in erosion and decreases in streamside shading resulting from implementation activities. Similar types of projects are being implemented throughout the region and on neighboring USFS lands as well. As such, some similar types of effects may be experienced where activities occur on those lands. It is also known that similar projects have been, are being, or will be implemented on state, county, and private lands. Due to the fact that management strategies for each entity are variable, the effects of such implementations could also be variable and increases or decreases to the mentioned effects would be dependent upon the management strategies implemented.
Other projects that may add cumulatively to these effects are listed and discussed in Section 3.14.
______Page 46 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.3.2 Effects to Federally Listed Fish
3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct or indirect effects other than what exists as a result of current USFS management activities. Effects on the greenback cutthroat trout would be the same as described under the general effects section. These effects would be minimal under this alternative, and would be susceptible to existing ecological processes as described previously.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects for federally listed fish would be the same as those described under Section 3.3.1.1.
3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect
The only federally listed fish that occurs within the project area is the greenback cutthroat trout. This species inhabits cold water streams, lakes and reservoirs on the ARNF. The greenback is known to occur within 8.4 miles of streams in the project area. Of the 8.4 miles of streams in which they occur, there are 4.0 miles that are conservation populations and 4.4 miles that are current stream populations and are not considered conservation populations. Due to the limited amount of potential streams that may be treated and proposed Design Criteria, the greenback is not likely to be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. However, water quality may be decreased temporarily from equipment and/or hand felling treatments adjacent to or within aquatic habitats. Potential for sediment delivery into streams may occur; however, these effects would be minimal and temporary. Wildfire mitigation would result from this action, ultimately decreasing the severity and intensity if a fire were to occur. In the long term, treatments would reduce the likelihood for wind throw events to occur, thereby reducing the potential for erosion and decreased bank stability.
In addition to the Design Criteria proposed for this project, the ARNF LRMP standards would be employed to ensure no direct effects to federally listed fish would occur. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects for federally listed fish would be the same as those described under Section 3.3.1.2.
3.3.3 Effects to USFS Region 2 Aquatic Sensitive Species
3.3.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The No Action Alternative would result in no additional direct impacts to aquatic sensitive species and their habitat. USFS management practices would continue to occur. Similar effects would occur as described above in the General Effects section 3.3.1.1. Wind throw and wildfires would potentially occur, creating many possible impacts to aquatic systems as mentioned previously. The timing of tree mortality, decay, wind, snowfall, avalanche, and individual tree degradation would play a considerable role in habitat quality for fish and is hard to predict.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects for sensitive fish species would be the same as those described under Section 3.3.1.1.
______Page 47 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The Colorado River cutthroat trout, lake chub, mountain sucker, and the Rocky Mountain capshell snail are Region 2 sensitive species that occur or may occur within the Proposed Project area. Potential impacts described in the general effects section would pertain to the cutthroat trout, lake chub, mountain sucker, and the Rocky Mountain capshell snail in respect to sediment delivery and bank stability.
In addition to the effects previously described, the mountain sucker and the Colorado River cutthroat trout are sensitive to changes in peak flows and water temperatures. Alterations in peak flows from land management practices may affect reproductive success by altering spawning habitats. Increased sediment delivery to streams from land management practices may result in less diverse physical habitat, a decrease in water quality, removal of spawning substrates, and a decrease in the availability of deep pools. In addition, removal of riparian vegetation may result in increased summer water temperatures in headwater streams and areas that contain colder water high mountain habitat (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). However, with the implementation of project Design Criteria, effects to these species and their habitat are expected to be minimal.
Since the lake chub is a sight-feeding predator, any disturbance that leads to erosion and sedimentation could reduce lake chub populations (Stasiak 2006). There is potential for shorelines of lakes and water bodies to be treated under the Proposed Action Alternative; however, effects to this species would be expected to be minimal due to employment of proposed Design Criteria reducing the potential for effects of erosion and sediment delivery.
Effects to the Rocky Mountain capshell snail would be minimal to negligible due to the limited amount of project influence on shorelines of lakes and water bodies that would potentially be treated under the Proposed Action Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects for sensitive fish species would be the same as those described under Section 3.3.1.2.
Biological Determination
Use of Design Criteria specific to aquatic habitats would reduce effects to these species. Minimal impacts to individuals may occur during hazard tree removal activities from temporary water quality issues, however there is not expected to be any measurable effects to populations within the ARNF. A determination of “May affect, not likely to adversely affect” is expected for the greenback cutthroat trout.
Determinations of “ May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Colorado River cutthroat trout, lake chub, mountain sucker, and Rocky Mountain capshell snail are expected.
Forest Plan Consistency
Implementation of either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action Alternative would comply with the ARNF LRMP standards and guidelines pertinent to fish and aquatic habitats.
3.4 Botany
The botany section is composed of text that discusses two categories of plants: 1) Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (PTES) plant species and 2) Plant Species of Local Concern (SOLC).
______Page 48 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.4.1 Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species (PTES)
Affected Environment
Federally Listed Species
According to habitat descriptions and element occurrence data provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and communication with the USFS botanist, there are no known Threatened and Endangered (T&E) botanical species occurrences that are located within the Proposed Project area.
Though there are no known occurrences of T&E plant species that occur within the Proposed Project area or on the ARNF, the potential still exists that there are species that could have habitat within or adjacent to the project area. There are seven T&E plant species that the ARNF has considered during the development of the Proposed Project. Table 3.4-1 lists the species, habitat, status, level of inclusion into the project and rationale for exclusion if excluded.
Table 3.4-1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Considered for Analysis Scientific Common Species Rationale for Status Habitat Name Name Excluded Exclusion Highly seleniferous soils derived from shales of the Astragalus Osterhout Niobrara, Pierre, and Endangered Not Excluded osterhoutii milkvetch Troublesome No formations between 7,400 and 7,900 ft. amsl No plants or Alpine tundra and suitable habitat Eutrema Penland’s fens between 12,300 exists within or edwardsii ssp. alpine fen Threatened and 13,100 ft. amsl Yes adjacent to the penlandii mustard Proposed Project area. Subirrigated, alluvial soils on level or Gaura Colorado slightly sloping neomexicana butterfly Threatened floodplains and Not Excluded ssp . No plant drainage bottoms at coloradensis elevations of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. amsl Highly seleniferous soils derived from shales of the Penstemon Penland’s Niobrara, Pierre, and Endangered Not Excluded penlandii beardtongue Troublesome No formations between 7,400 and 7,900 ft. amsl Sandy soil derived Phacelia North Park Endangered from the Coalmont No Not Excluded formosula phacelia Formation
______Page 49 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Scientific Common Species Rationale for Status Habitat Name Name Excluded Exclusion No water Calcareous prairie depletions to the Western and sedge meadow Platte River Plantanthera prairie along stream banks Watershed would Threatened praeclara fringed Yes result from orchid activities associated with the project. Seasonally moist soils and wet Spiranthes Ute ladies’- Threatened meadows of Not Excluded diluvialis tresses orchid No drainages, below 7,000 ft. amsl * Elevation ranges provided for each species are approximations only and are not intended to specifically limit the range of occurrence for each species, but are intended as a guide for species considered.
Two of the seven federally listed species were excluded from consideration for the project. Western prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera praeclara) was excluded from analysis because occupied/suitable habitat is not found, nor likely to occur, on the ARNF. The species is known to occur along the main stem of the Platte River downstream in Nebraska. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in any water depletions to the Platte River watershed, therefore no alterations to downstream habitats would occur due to activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Penland’s alpine fen mustard (Eutrema edwardsii ssp. penlandii) was excluded due to the fact that it occurs in alpine tundra above 12,300 feet. No effects to alpine areas would result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. No helispots, landings, or access roads would be constructed, and no tree removal would occur within alpine areas.
The remaining five federally listed species were carried through the analysis and analyzed for potential effects as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project.
A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for each of the federally listed plant species that occurs on or within the Proposed Project area. The BA is available as a portion of the administrative record at the Forest Supervisor’s office.
Sensitive Species
Of the plants appearing on the USFS Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Plant List (June 9, 2009 supplement), a total of 33 species are known to occur, suspected to occur, or have potential suitable habitat within the ARNF, as listed in Table 3.4-2. Seven of those species: Armeria maritima ssp. sibirica , Ascelpias uncialis , Chenopodium cycloides , Draba exunguiculata , Draba grayana , Primula egaliksensis and Ranunculus karelinii have been dropped from further analysis based on the following rationale:
1. Proposed Project area is outside the described geographic range of the species, or 2. Proposed Project area is outside the known elevation range of the species, or 3. No potential habitat exists for the species within the area of proposed management activities or areas potentially impacted by the Proposed Project.
A total of 26 species are known to occur, suspected to occur, or have potential suitable habitat within the Proposed Project area. These include 8 upland species and 18 riparian species.
______Page 50 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Plant Species Considered for Analysis Basic Habitat Reason for Latin Name Common Name Description Exclusion Alpine tundra Project area outside Armeria maritima ssp. Siberian sea thrift 11,900 to 13,000 ft known elevation sibirica (Spackman et al. 1997) range of species No known or In Colorado, low- suspected plants or Asclepias uncialis dwarf milkweed elevation prairies habitat in project area Riparian generalist or Astragalus leptaleus park milkvetch Not excluded transitional Riparian generalist or Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort Not excluded transitional Open, sparsely vegetated Botrychium campestre prairie moonwort Not excluded upland Open, sparsely vegetated Botrychium “ furcatum” forked-leaf moonwort Not excluded upland narrow-leaved Open, sparsely vegetated Botrychium lineare Not excluded moonwort upland Riparian to sparsely Botrychium paradoxum paradox moonwort Not excluded vegetated upland Riparian generalist or Carex diandra lesser panicled sedge Not excluded transitional Carex livida livid sedge Fen obligate Not excluded No known or Steppe and grasslands in suspected plants or Chenopodium cycloides sandhill goosefoot eastern Colorado habitat in project area Cypripedium yellow lady’s slipper Riparian to aspen glades Not excluded parviflorum No known or Talus, gravelly or sandy suspected plants or Draba exunguiculata Gray’s Peak draba slopes 11,500 to 14,000 ft habitat in project (Spackman et al. 1997) area No known or Rocky alpine areas 11,500 Gray’s Peak whitlow suspected plants or Draba grayana to 14,000 ft (Ladyman grass habitat in project 2004) area Drosera rotundifolia roundleaf sundew Fen obligate Not excluded Open, sparsely vegetated Eriogonum exilifolium dropleaf buckwheat Not excluded upland Eriophorum gracile slender cottongrass Fen obligate Not excluded Open, upper subalpine Festuca hallii Hall’s fescue Not excluded meadows Kobresia simpliciuscula simple bog sedge Fens and alpine meadows Not excluded Machaeranthera Open, sparsely vegetated Colorado tansy-aster Not excluded coloradoensis upland white adder’s mouth Malaxis brachypoda Riparian areas Not excluded orchid Rocky Mountain Mimulus gemmiparus Riparian areas, wet cliffs Not excluded monkeyflower Kotzebue’s grass-of - Parnassia kotzebuei Riparian areas Not excluded Parnassus
______Page 51 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Basic Habitat Reason for Latin Name Common Name Description Exclusion Open, sparsely vegetated Penstemon harringtonii Harrington beardtongue Not excluded upland Open, sparsely vegetated Potentilla rupincola Front Range cinquefoil Not excluded upland Fen obligate. Project area outside Primula egaliksensis Greenland primrose Endemic to South Park geographic range of (Coles 2002) species Talus, rocky alpine slopes No known or 10,000 to 14,100 ft suspected plants or Ranunculus karelinii ice cold buttercup (Spackman –Panjabi and habitat in project Anderson 2006) area Rubus arcticus ssp . Riparian generalist or dwarf raspberry Not excluded acaulis transitional Salix candida hoary willow Fens or carrs Not excluded Salix serissima autumn willow Fens or carrs Not excluded Sphagnum angustifolium narrow-leaf peat moss Fen obligate Not excluded Urticularia minor lesser bladderwort Fens or sluggish water Not excluded Riparian generalist or Viola selkirkii great-spurred violet Not excluded transitional
A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared for each of the sensitive plant species that occurs on or within the Proposed Project area. The BE is available as a portion of the administrative record at the Forest Supervisor’s office.
Environmental Consequences
No water depletions from the Platte River watershed would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Effects from dust resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to be minimal and short-term. Dust abatement measures would, therefore, not be used during implementation of the Proposed Project. In areas where T&E plants are a concern, a USFS botanist would be consulted in order to determine which roads may need to be avoided.
No impact to alpine areas would result from the Proposed Action Alternative. No helispots, landings, or access roads would be constructed, and no tree removal would occur within alpine areas. Sagebrush areas may be impacted and/or used for access routes. Additionally, riparian and riverine habitats may be impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. However, proposed Design Criteria require qualified personnel to perform field surveys prior to implementation and all areas occupied by PTES plant species would be avoided if encountered.
3.4.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
No new direct or indirect effects on PTES species would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative. There would be no change from existing USFS management processes, which include maintenance of roads, trails, developed recreation sites, and administrative sites. Hazard tree removal would continue to be completed on an as needed and site by site basis, based on recognized characteristics, but such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Potentially hazardous fuel conditions would be reduced in other ongoing and future fuel reduction projects. Such disturbance activities could potentially result in detrimental or beneficial effects to PTES plant species.
______Page 52 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
The vast majority of beetle-killed trees would eventually fall and be incorporated into forested stands as CWD, which could result in habitat degradation and plant mortality or, conversely, provide for diverse habitats and mycorrhizal associations. In general, sensitive plants associated with late succession forests would have decreased available habitat, and those species associated with open light-regimes would have increased available habitat. However, where mass quantities of down woody debris would occur, individuals of species may be negatively affected from limited availability of light.
Fen obligate plant species could benefit from the opening of habitats. However, large scale insect epidemics result in increased water runoff rates and the resulting hydrological changes could negatively affect these sensitive species and their habitats by elevating the levels of existing surface water and soil moisture.
As insect- and disease-killed trees continue to fall and become part of the fuel load, the potential for intense wildland fire would be expected to increase. High-intensity fires could change watershed conditions by increasing runoff and erosion rates, decreasing existing soil seed banks, and creating high ground temperatures that could sterilize the soil, thereby eliminating fungal species necessary for the survival of others. These potential negative effects are similar to those described for the Proposed Action Alternative, but differ in their causation and magnitude (deterioration of beetle-infected lodgepole pine stands versus prescribed treatment activities).
Cumulative Effects
Loss and alteration of occupied habitats and potentially suitable habitats are the primary effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on the forests. Reasonably foreseeable federal ongoing activities or management actions that may remove or alter sensitive plant species habitats include, but are not limited to, continued livestock grazing, timber harvest, winter recreation such as snowmobiling, summer recreation and fire suppression.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to add to the cumulative effects to PTES plant species primarily with respect to the expected erosion that would result from wind thrown trees. Such erosion could inhibit aquatic plant species by changing water levels or water chemistry. Furthermore, plant species may be affected by the occurrence of fallen trees accumulating in habitat, which may inhibit growth, regeneration, or other habitat conditions. As such, additional cumulative effects on PTES species above the existing conditions may occur.
There are also a variety of other projects that are known to have occurred, are being implemented, planned, or are reasonably foreseeable. The continuation of current management practices on private lands would be expected and similar hazard tree removals are expected to occur or are occurring on all other types of government lands (local and state).
Section 3.14 includes a list of proposed actions on the ARNF and a description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects.
3.4.1.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct impacts to these plant species may include trampling by machinery, covering by slash and debris, reduced site soil integrity from rutting or mechanical soil displacement, and potential of burning slash and debris piles on top of the species, or any other activity that would directly interact with the species. Potential indirect effects on these species include changes in local habitat suitability and availability, increased competition with invasive or other native plants and possible changes in the abundance and distribution of pollinating species, or any other effect that would not directly affect the individuals of the species themselves.
______Page 53 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Design Criteria have been developed by the USFS to avoid adverse effects to these species, and they would be implemented as a portion of the Proposed Action Alternative. These criteria are suitable to avoid adverse effects to the species by placing restrictions on site treatments within the Proposed Project area. Potential effects to species would be mitigated by requiring USFS approved surveys and site assessments to be conducted in areas where PTES plant species are known or have the potential to occur. These surveys and site assessments would minimize potential adverse effects to the species populations if encountered.
Utilization of the proposed Design Criteria pertaining to riparian areas would reduce the intensities and frequencies of potential negative effects to the fen/wetland, riparian, and riparian transitional habitats by requiring approval for road/landing construction and requiring a USFS approved site assessment specifically for the identification of PTES plant species occurring within the site-specific project boundaries. These criteria would establish buffer zones around riparian/wetland/fen habitats. These buffers would limit the types of treatments that would be allowed within treatment areas and would greatly reduce the potential for direct impacts to the PTES species in these habitats.
There are also proposed Design Criteria that have been developed to limit or avoid the introduction or spread of invasive/noxious plant species, which would further minimize or avoid effects to PTES plant species. These criteria were developed to reduce the potential for invasive species competition by requiring equipment to be cleaned of soils, seeds and plant parts before use on site. They also require each site to be inspected during the first three growing seasons after ground-disturbing operations in order to determine treatment and further monitoring needs.
While these criteria minimize the risk to the species, the potential would still exist for unmitigated negative effects.
Federally Listed Species
Three of the five assessed federally listed species are known to inhabit open, upland habitats. None of these species are currently known to inhabit portions of the Proposed Project area that are expected to be treated. However, Osterhout milkvetch, Penland beardtongue and North Park phacelia have been considered to be in close enough proximity to the Proposed Project area to warrant consideration, as they could be affected by implementation activities if plants were to be found present and not avoided. Potential effects to these species would be expected to be mostly indirect in nature; however, if these species were to be located within the boundary of a particular project site, then the potential effects could be direct as well. Through the use of the Rare Plants/Noxious Weeds Design Criteria, these effects would be mitigated.
The two remaining federally listed plant species are riparian/wetland species. Although very unlikely, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and Colorado butterfly plant could occur along streams that could potentially be treated through the Proposed Project. No water depletions would be expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, so there would be no impacts associated with water depletions. Potential effects to these species would therefore be limited to direct effects resulting from implementation activities where hazard trees may need to be removed. If these plants were encountered prior to or during project implementation, potential effects would be avoided by protecting the plants and by implementation of the Rare Plants/Noxious Weeds and Riparian Design Criteria. There is a remote chance that these species could occur and remain undetected and unintentionally be impacted by project activities. Due to the highly unlikely probability of their presence in areas potentially impacted by project activities, however, impacts would be considered discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur).
Sensitive Species
Of the 26 sensitive species analyzed in this document (Table 3.4-2), eight are identified as occurring in upland or open areas such as old mine sites, roadsides, dams or xeric sites with sparse vegetation and no significant tree overstory. A potentially negative impact would result from the utilization of existing openings as landings; however, through the use of Design Criterion 52, which requires qualified personnel
______Page 54 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project to conduct field surveys prior to implementation, sensitive species within specific project area boundaries would be avoided unless undetected.
Seven of the listed sensitive species occur in riparian areas, wetlands, or fens. These wet areas are subject to Riparian Area/Aquatic Protection Design Criteria to eliminate the use of machinery within buffered zones around riparian areas, wetlands, and fens as well as limiting the methods used to remove hazardous trees within those sites. To avoid negative impacts to the wetland species, any specific project implementation activities would be subject to Design Criterion 52 which requires qualified personnel to conduct field surveys prior to implementation. Areas occupied by PTES plant species would be avoided through consultation with a USFS botanist.
Despite survey efforts, it is possible that some sensitive plants could remain undetected, especially with moonworts. It is unlikely, but possible, that adverse impacts could occur to a few such individuals. In these cases, adverse impacts, if realized, would not be anticipated to lead to a loss of population viability because there would likely be additional plants that would remain unimpacted.
Lastly, eleven of the sensitive species have been identified as transitional or wetland generalist. These plants and their habitats could potentially be exposed to treatment activities near the edges of moist forested areas. These species would be protected, if encountered, through the utilization of Design Criterion 52, which requires qualified personnel to conduct field surveys prior to implementation. Areas occupied by PTES plant species would be avoided, if possible, or treatment types modified through consultation with a USFS botanist to minimize impacts to individual plants.
Indirect impacts to sensitive species would be related to changes in soil temperatures, moisture levels, and direct sunlight intensity and duration. The extent of potential impacts is unknown as it would be dependent upon the amount of slash deposited, as well as the needs of specific sensitive plant species involved.
Cumulative Effects
Past and current activities have altered sensitive plant species occurrences and their habitats. Such activities have the potential to cumulatively affect sensitive plant species in the vicinity of the identified treatment areas. Assuming presence, past actions including livestock grazing, timber harvest and thinning, motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road/trail construction and maintenance, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, prescribed fire, mining, land exchanges, urban development, noxious weed infestation and ditching are likely to have had the greatest negative impacts on R2 sensitive plant species and their habitats.
The actions and effects described above can be additive and interactive to each other. Because there are policies, standards, and guidelines that mitigate effects to sensitive plant habitat, the cumulative effects would not be expected to contribute to changes in status or viability. Also, the cumulative effects would not be expected to contribute to increases in any current, or predicted, downward trend in population numbers or densities across the project area. They also would not be expected to increase any current, or predicted, downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce the overall viability of any of the R2 sensitive plant species carried forward into this analysis.
Section 3.14 includes a list of proposed actions on the ARNF and a description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects.
Biological Determination
Table 3.4-3 provides a listing of the Federally Listed Plant Species Determinations and the rationale for the determination of “ may affect, not likely to adversely affect ” or “ no effect ” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
______Page 55 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.4-3 Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (PTES) Plant Species Determinations Common Scientific Name Determination* Rationale Name This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Project area. Astragalus Osterhout However, it is only known to exist at NE osterhoutii milkvetch specific habitats, which would be surveyed prior to implementation and avoided if located. This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Project area. Gaura However, there would be no water Colorado neomexicana ssp . MA, NLAA depletions and plants are very unlikely to butterfly plant coloradensis occur in potentially impacted area; potential effects are therefore discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Project area. Penstemon Penland’s However, it is only known to exist at NE penlandii beardtongue specific locations, which would be surveyed prior to implementation and avoided if located. This species is known to occur along secondary gravel roads outside the forest boundary, which may be used as access routes for the Proposed Project. Plants are Phacelia North Park very unlikely to occur in potentially MA, NLAA formosula phacelia impacted areas; potential direct effects are therefore discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). Indirect effects from dust to potentially occurring nearby plants would be insignificant. This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Project area. However, there would be no water Spiranthes Ute ladies- MA, NLAA depletions and plants are very unlikely to diluvialis tresses orchid occur in potentially impacted area; potential effects are therefore discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). * Determinations are MA, NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect and NE = No Effect. Determinations are descriptive of expected species effects for both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives and are based upon the requirement that the proposed Design Criteria would be implemented to the fullest extent.
Table 3.4-4 provides a listing of the sensitive plant species determinations and the rationale for determination of “ may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing ” as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.
Table 3.4-4 Sensitive Plant Species Determinations Latin Name Common Name Determination Astragalus leptaleus park milkvetch MAII Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort MAII Botrychium campestre prairie moonwort MAII Botrychium “ furcatum” forked-leaf moonwort MAII
______Page 56 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Latin Name Common Name Determination Botrychium lineare narrow-leaved moonwort MAII Botrychium paradoxum paradox moonwort MAII Carex diandra lesser panicled sedge MAII Carex livida livid sedge MAII Cypripedium parviflorum yellow lady’s slipper MAII Drosera rotundifolia roundleaf sundew MAII Eriogonum exilifolium dropleaf buckwheat MAII Eriophorum gracile slender cottongrass MAII Festuca hallii Hall’s fescue MAII Kobresia simpliciuscula simple bog sedge MAII Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansy-aster MAII Malaxis brachypoda white adder’s mouth orchid MAII Mimulus gemmiparus Rocky Mountain monkeyflower MAII Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebue’s grass-of -Parnassus MAII Penstemon harringtonii Harrington beardtongue MAII Potentilla rupincola Front Range cinquefoil MAII Rubus arcticus ssp . acaulis dwarf raspberry MAII Salix candida hoary willow MAII Salix serissima autumn willow MAII Sphagnum angustifolium narrow-leaf peat moss MAII Urticularia minor lesser bladderwort MAII Viola selkirkii great-spurred violet MAII * Determinations are MAII = May Adversely Impact Individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Determinations are descriptive of expected species effects for both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives and are based upon the requirement that the proposed Design Criteria would be implemented to the fullest extent.
The appropriate use of Design Criteria, forest policies, and guidelines would mitigate effects to PTES plant species.
Forest Plan Consistency
All Design Criteria and rationale specific to sensitive species are consistent and/or directly quoted from standards 49-51 on page 18 in Chapter 1, Part 2 in the LRMP. Compliance to the LRMP is based on the appropriate employment of the project Design Criteria.
3.4.2 Species of Local Concern
Affected Environment
Species of local concern (SOLC) are plants for which there may be a viability issue on the forest, but may not be warranted to be considered sensitive at a regional level. These species do not meet the criteria for regional Sensitive Species designation because their populations are reasonably secure or stable within portions of Region 2 of the USFS, or they only occur on a few national forests within Region 2. According to the SOLC plant list for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, a total of 34 species (Table 3.4-5) are known to occur, suspected to occur, or have potential suitable habitat within the ARNF. Four of those species: Aquilegia saximontana , Draba fladnizensis , Draba porsildii , and Parthenium alpinum have been dropped from further analysis based on the following rationale:
1. Proposed Project area is outside the described geographic range of the species, or 2. Proposed Project area is outside the known elevation range of the species, or 3. No potential habitat exists for the species within the Proposed Project area.
______Page 57 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
A total of 30 species are known to occur, suspected to occur, or have potential, suitable habitat within the Proposed Project area. These include 6 upland species, 20 riparian species, and 4 habitat generalists, which have potential to occur in upland or riparian habitats.
Table 3.4-5 Species of Local Concern Evaluated for the Biological Evaluation Status Common Latin Name Global Habitat Reason for Exclusion Name (Colorado) Rocky outcrops in Colorado sparsely vegetated, north Aletes humilis Not Excluded aletes G2 (S2S3) or west-facing, steep slopes. 6,500 to 8,700 ft Rocky Rocky slopes in alpine Project area outside Aquilegia Mountain G3 (S3) and subalpine areas known elevation range saximontana columbine 10,800 to 13,100 ft of species. Botrychium triangle Shaded woods with acid G5 (SNR) Not Excluded lanceolatum grapefern soils Wetlands and open upland Botrychium leathery G5 (S1) areas Not Excluded multifidum grapefern 3,000 to 10,000 ft Montane, wet/moist
Botrychium grassy slopes, mossy northern G4 (S1) Not Excluded pinnatum woods, streambanks, and moonwort roadsides Botrychium tax. “redbank” Subalpine open upland SNR Not Excluded nov. “ redbank ” moonwort areas in Colorado Wetlands and transitional Botrychium least G5 (S1) upland areas 5,000 to Not Excluded simplex grapefern 10,500 ft Open/partially open Botrychium spoonleaf montane and lakeshore G3 Not Excluded spathulatum moonwort areas; 0 to 6,500 ft to subalpine in Colorado Botrychium rattlesnake Moist to dry, rich wooded G5 (S1) Not Excluded virginianum fern habitats Calypso Oakes Open, well-drained G5 (S4?) Not Excluded bulbosa fairy slipper coniferous slopes Carex slender sedge G5 (S1) Fen obligate Not Excluded lasiocarpa Carex limosa mud sedge G5 (S2) Fen obligate Not Excluded Chrysosplenium northern Open, wet habitats at G5 (SNR) Not Excluded tetandrum golden carpet lower to mid-elevations Dry, rock crevices, cliffs Conimitella William's G3 (SH) and mountain slopes Not Excluded williamsii conimitella 1,650 to 8,000 ft Shaded forest habitats, Corallorhiza early G5 (SNR) thickets, fens, and Not Excluded trifida coralroot streambanks Corallorhiza spring Semi-shaded, mesic G5 (SNR) Not Excluded wisteriana coralroot forests Cyprepidium clustered G4(S3) Shaded woods Not Excluded fasciculatum lady’s slipper
______Page 58 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Status Common Latin Name Global Habitat Reason for Exclusion Name (Colorado) Moist or dry, rocky/gravelly sites in the Project area outside Porsild's subalpine and alpine known elevation range Draba porsildii whitlow- zones on ridges, slopes, G3 (S1) for species. grass cliffs, ledges, and summits. white arctic Alpine tundra/dry, open, Project area outside Draba whitlow- rocky slopes and ridges. known elevation range fladnizensis G4 (S2S3) grass 10,700 to 14,000 ft for species. Sandy to loamy, well- Fritillaria drained soil often purple atropurpurea associated with conifer Not Excluded mission-bells G5 (S3) forests between 6,000 and 10,500 ft
dwarf Goodyera Moist to dry, cold, rattlesnake- G5 (S3S4) Not Excluded repens coniferous forests plantain
Gravelly, dry soil in Lewisia Oregon G5 (S2) sagebrush plains or lower Not Excluded rediviva bitterroot mountain areas
Montane meadows, Lilium wood lily streamsides and aspen Not Excluded philadelphicum G5 (S3S4) glades Listera borealis northern Moist meadows, G4 (S2) Not Excluded twayblade woodlands and seeps Listera cordata heartleaf Dry/wet woods, thickets, G5 (SNR) Not Excluded twayblade and seeps Listera broadleaf Wetland and upland areas G5 (S2) Not Excluded convallarioides twayblade 0 and 8,000 ft, seeps Lomatogonium broadleaf G5 (S2) Fens and fen-like areas Not Excluded rotatum twayblade
Cool, shaded, moist Lycopodium Alpine G5 (S4) woods, thickets, bogs, and Not Excluded annotinum clubmoss meadows, 0 to 11,000 ft
Parthenium alpine fever- Low-elevation prairies No potential habitat G3 (S3) alpinum few and bluffs in Colorado within project area Rocky Rocky clay/loam soils of Penstemon Mountain G3 (S3S4) sagebrush hills and flats, Not Excluded cyathophorus beardtongue 7,000 to 8,500 ft arrowleaf Petasites sweet G5 (SNR) Fen and fen-like meadows Not Excluded sagitattus coltsfoot Jones Primula incana G4 (SNR) Moist open areas Not Excluded primrose Slopes of ponderosa pine white-vein Pyrola picta G4 (S3S4) or mixed conifer forests Not Excluded wintergreen 1,000 to 10,000 ft
______Page 59 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Status Common Latin Name Global Habitat Reason for Exclusion Name (Colorado) Subalpine fens, alpine Thalictrum alpine G5 (SNR) meadows, and stony Not Excluded alpinum meadowrue slopes 0 to 7,000 ft
Environmental Consequences
3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementation of the No Action Alternative on SOLC species would be expected to be the same as the effects described for PTES and Sensitive species in section 3.4.1.1.
3.4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct effects to plant SOLC could include trampling, smothering, or being burned under slash piles. Affected individuals may experience reduced growth and development as well as reduced rates of reproduction. Treatments occurring on sites containing SOLC could affect species diversity and reproduction as a result of the effects of disturbances during flowering or seeding. As a result, changes to meta-population structure and species viability on the project site could occur. The greatest risk of direct effects would be to those species occurring in upland habitat due to the likelihood of treatment activities taking place in those types of habitats.
Indirect effects to SOLC could take place through the overall changes in habitat structure as a result of the removal of the overstory in treatment areas. Changes to sunlight, nutrient, and water availability could positively or negatively affect life supporting processes of any of these species, depending upon the requirements for those species.
Invasive competition from species could also indirectly affect SOLC. However, Design Criteria have been developed to minimize or avoid this potential effect to the greatest extent practicable.
Through the use of the Design Criteria that were developed for use through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, the potential effects to SOLC would be minimal or avoided when practicable. Though some individuals or populations of these species may be affected in the short term, there is no expectation that activities related to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would contribute to a decline of these species or their habitats.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to plant SOLC would be expected to be similar to those described in Section 3.4.1.2.
Forest Plan Consistency All Design Criteria and rationale specific to sensitive species are consistent and/or directly quoted from standards 49-51 on page 18 in Chapter 1, Part 2 in the LRMP. Compliance to the LRMP is based on compliance with the appropriate employment of the project Design Criteria.
______Page 60 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.4.3 Rationale for Biological Determinations (includes consideration for plant PTES and SOLC)
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have a negative effect or impact on PTES species or plant SOLC addressed in this assessment based on the absence of new direct or indirect effects or for a lack of a contribution to cumulative effects. It is noteworthy to indicate that under this alternative, the MPB epidemic would continue to affect lodgepole pine stands across the forests with subsequent potential effects on plant species considered through the loss of shade and subsequent changes in soil moisture regimes associated with defoliation and death of beetle-infected trees and the potential for dead and dying trees and limbs to fall, crushing or burying the species. Although the cause for these potential effects would differ from those associated with the similar effects described under the Proposed Action Alternative, the long- term effects on the plant species considered that may occur in the proposed treatment units would be similar.
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have the potential to affect or impact individuals, but would not result in a loss of viability of the species. This determination is based on the effective application of Design Criteria included as part of the Proposed Action Alternative that would reduce the potential for meaningful effects on individuals and populations of these species.
Riparian/Wetland/Fen and Riparian Transitional Species
• Suitable habitats occur in the analysis area.
• Implementation of the Riparian Areas/Aquatic Protection Design Criteria would buffer known or potential habitat to restrict the types of activities that would be allowed within the riparian/wetland/fen habitats. These criteria would require USFS specialist review for all sites prior to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative and help ensure PTES species and plant SOLC are avoided. Additionally, the Rare Plants/Noxious Weeds Design Criteria would provide further direction for the protection of considered plant species. These criteria would allow USFS biologists/botanists to reduce the potential effects to suitable habitats and occurrences by evaluating occurrence and habitat information associated with each proposed treatment unit; determination of consultation and site protection requirements to reduce issues associated with species viability; and identification of activity restrictions based on site conditions and species-specific information so that the Proposed Project would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.
• Implementation of the Design Criteria for Invasive Species would ensure measures would be taken to prevent or reduce the potential for invasive species introduction, which would potentially have a detrimental effect on PTES plant species and SOLC.
• The proposed treatments are designed to treat forested habitats and would likely have little impact on other habitats that may support considered plant species including riparian/riparian transitions (streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, and fens), grasslands, sagebrush, and barren.
Upland Species
• The majority of treatments would be located in areas associated with the ongoing bark beetle epidemic. This would primarily limit treatments to areas of lodgepole pine forests; however, it may include other tree species that exhibit mortality or hazardous tree conditions.
• Implementation of the Rare Plants/Noxious Weeds Design Criteria would require USFS involvement to ensure surveys for PTES and SOLC plant species are completed. Design Criteria also require the District Ranger to consult with the USFS botanist to ensure project implementation does not adversely affect these species.
______Page 61 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.5 Forested Vegetation and Old Growth Stands
3.5.1 Forested Vegetation
Affected Environment
Bark beetles, particularly the MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae, are native to North America. The MPB alone is not solely responsible for tree mortality, but mostly a vector of blue-stain fungus. The fungus is spread from the mouthparts of the beetle as it bores into the inner bark feeding on the phloem and creating cavities for egg laying. The fungus quickly moves through the sapwood discoloring it and creating diminished potential lumber value.
MPB are always present in relatively low numbers, but over the last 10 to 12 years beetle activity has dramatically increased. A combination of contiguous overly mature, overly stocked stands and cyclical drought has created conditions ideal for large scale epidemic MPB infestations to occur on the ARNF and other mountain forests. Both public and private lands are affected as beetle numbers rise and spread from tree to tree regardless of ownership. MPB typically experience a one-year lifecycle overwintering in larval- pupal stages under the bark of infested host trees. Lodgepole, ponderosa, limber, bristlecone, and sugar pines are major hosts of the beetle. All pine species are susceptible to infestations, particularly during drought when trees are stressed for water. The one lifecycle per year has gradually expanded to more than one lifecycle per year and exponential infestation has occurred. Severe cold weather (< -30° F) in late fall- winter through early spring is a predominant controlling factor. Such low temperatures have not occurred for sustained periods in recent years as in years past. Other factors that can control and/or prevent widespread epidemic MPB outbreaks include disturbance events such as intensive fire, silvicultural harvesting, wind throw, or other events that alter the stocking levels and age relationships, thereby “breaking up” stand continuity and giving rise to new stand creation.
For this assessment, the Proposed Project area is divided by infrastructure type. Areas along roads, trails, and administrative areas are divided and listed in the following tables illustrating dominant land cover types, including barren ground, grass, forbs, shrubs, and trees. As shown in Table 3.5-1, of the dominant land cover types existing in the proposed implementation area, approximately 44,447 acres, or 75.2% of the total acreage, is determined to be tree species.
Table 3.5-1 Proposed Project Area Acreage by Dominant Cover Type Cover Type Acres % of Project Area Trees 44,447 75.2% Shrubs 3,326 5.6% Grass 5,448 9.2% Forbs 3,431 5.8% Barren 1,819 3.1% Water 432 0.7% Unclassified 203 0.3% Totals 59,106 100.00%
The Proposed Project area consists of three components: the roads footprint, the trails footprint, and the administrative areas footprint. The roads footprint is by far the largest of the three at approximately 33,179 acres, or 56.1% of the entire project area. The trails footprint is approximately 17,822 acres or 30.2% of the entire project area. Administrative areas make up the remaining 13.7% of the entire project area with approximately 8,103 acres.
The roads footprint consists of six major land cover types including a small percentage of “unclassified” cover type. Table 3.5-2 illustrates the major cover types in the roads footprint.
______Page 62 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.5-2 General Cover Types Along Roads within the Proposed Project Area Cover Type Polygons Acres % of Roads Area Trees 7,284 25,892 78.0% Shrubs 516 1,797 5.4% Grass 1,087 3,040 9.2% Forbs 768 1,372 4.1% Barren 225 870 2.6% Water 105 46 0.1% Unclassified 37 162 0.5% Totals 10,022 33,179 100.0%
It is important to note that nearly 80% of the roads footprint is classified as “trees” cover type. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project, trees become the controlling factor in specific project implementation areas. A closer look at the tree cover by dominant species is illustrated below in Table 3.5-3. It is important to note that dominant stands often include several other species within the stand, and the stand may be made up of less than 50% of the dominant species.
Table 3.5-3 Dominant Tree Cover Types Along Roads within the Proposed Project Area USDA Symbols Common Name Acres % of Tree Area ABLA Subalpine fir 593 2.3% PIAR* Bristlecone pine 93 0.4% PICO* Lodgepole pine 15,038 58.1% PIEN Engelmann spruce 3,616 14.0% PIFL2* Limber pine 162 0.6% PIPO* Ponderosa pine 3,494 13.5% PIPU Blue spruce 5 0.02% POAN3 Narrowleaf cottonwood 8 0.03% POTR5 Quaking aspen 1,959 7.6% PSME* Douglas-fir 924 3.6% Totals 25,892 100.00% *Species susceptible to MPB.
The second largest division of the project areas is the trails footprint. Tables 3.5-4 and 3.5-5 illustrate the general cover types along trails, as well as the dominant species specific cover types. It is notable that 72.1% of the trails footprint exists in “tree” cover types and of that area 56.9% consists of MPB susceptible species. The tables for trails are divided into two landscape settings: those outside IRAs and those inside IRAs.
Table 3.5-4 General Cover Types Along Trails in the Proposed Project Area Cover Acres Acres % Inside % Outside % of Total Total Acres Type Inside IRA Outside IRA IRA IRA Trails Area Trees 8,003 4,847 12,850 68.3% 79.5% 72.1% Shrubs 652 247 899 5.6% 4.1% 5.0% Grass 1,285 360 1,645 11.0% 5.9% 9.2% Forbs 1,177 460 1,637 10.0% 7.5% 9.2% Barren 534 167 701 4.6% 2.7% 3.9% Water 55 11 66 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% Unclassified 17 7 24 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Totals 11,723 6,099 17,822 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
______Page 63 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3.5-5 Dominant Tree Cover Types Along Trails in the Proposed Project Area Acres Acres % % % of USDA Total Common Name Inside Outside Inside Outside Trails Symbols Acres IRA IRA IRA IRA Area ABLA Subalpine fir 650 160 810 8.1% 3.3% 6.3% PIAR* Bristlecone pine 70 9 79 0.9% 0.2% 0.6% PICO* Lodgepole pine 3,220 2,807 6,027 40.2% 57.9% 46.9% PIEN Engelmann spruce 3,275 959 4,234 40.9% 19.8% 32.9% PIFL2* Limber pine 8 32 40 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% PIPO* Ponderosa pine 317 527 844 4.0% 10.9% 6.6% POAN3 Narrowleaf cottonwood 0 18 18 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% POTR5 Quaking aspen 283 195 478 3.5% 4.0% 3.7% PSME* Douglas-fir 181 141 322 2.3% 2.9% 2.5% Totals 8,004 4,848 12,852 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Species susceptible to MPB.
The third footprint is made up of administrative areas. Administrative areas include campgrounds, day-use areas, trailheads and USFS administrative buildings, as well as designated dispersed campsites, water facilities, and lake/reservoir shorelines. It is notable that this footprint contains 70.4% “tree” general cover types and 69.1% of “tree” cover types are stands dominated by susceptible species. Tables 3.5-6 and 3.5-7 illustrate the general cover types and the specific dominant tree species for the administrative areas footprint, including the areas inside IRAs and those areas outside IRAs.
Table 3.5-6 General Cover Types in Administrative Areas within the Proposed Project Area Cover Acres Acres Total % Inside % Outside % of Total Type Inside IRA Outside IRA Acres IRA IRA Admin. Area Trees 1,293 4,411 5,704 52.6% 78.1% 70.4% Shrubs 237 392 629 9.7% 7.0% 7.8% Grass 373 389 762 15.2% 6.9% 9.4% Forbs 261 161 422 10.6% 2.8% 5.2% Barren 110 139 249 4.5% 2.5% 3.1% Water 181 139 320 7.4% 2.5% 4.0% Unclassified 2 15 17 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% Totals 2,457 5,646 8,103 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 3.5-7 Dominant Tree Cover Types in Administrative Areas within Proposed Project Area Acres Acres % % % of USDA Total Common Name Inside Outside Inside Outside Trails Symbols Acres IRA IRA IRA IRA Area ABLA Subalpine fir 38 130 168 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% PIAR* Bristlecone pine 0 6 6 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% PICO* Lodgepole pine 673 2,217 2,890 52.0% 50.3% 50.7% PIEN Engelmann spruce 186 806 992 14.4% 18.3% 17.4% PIFL2* Limber pine 12 56 68 0.9% 1.3% 1.2% PIPO* Ponderosa pine 163 553 716 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% POAN3 Narrowleaf cottonwood 8 1 9 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% POTR5 Quaking aspen 114 480 594 8.8% 10.9% 10.4% PSME* Douglas-fir 99 159 258 7.7% 3.6% 4.5% Totals 1,293 4,411 5,704 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Species susceptible to MPB.
Species dominating a particular stand correlates to the number of potential hazard trees existing in that stand. Tree species that are susceptible to MPB attack are of particular concern. Many stands dominated by species of lesser concern have components of these susceptible species and will need evaluation on a
______Page 64 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project stand by stand basis as specific projects are developed in the ARNF. For example, in a field survey during 2008, it was observed that aspen dominant stands containing lodgepole pine exhibited a lodgepole MPB infestation/mortality rate approaching 100%. Susceptible species are present in nearly all general cover types and species specific cover types, and relatively high percentages of infestation and mortality exist in all of these cover types, regardless of dominant species designation or life form designation.
Natural regeneration is occurring, seemingly uninhibited by MPB infestation in the tree species listed above. Younger, faster growing seedlings and saplings with heavy resin flows are often capable of “pitching out” beetles as they bore into trees. Natural regeneration represents the future forest when the MPB infested trees are no longer in place.
The species composition will change as the overstory begins to degrade, opening up the forest floor to more sunlight. Grasses and forbs, as well as a soil seed bank with additional tree species, will begin to germinate and add to the future forest. Factors such as fire intensity, fire frequency, drought, snowpack, and the rate of overstory collapse will determine the actual composition of the future forest. In October 2009, a few scattered soil seed bank seed counts were made in pure lodgepole stands with 90 to 100% mortality in the overstory to determine if enough seeds exist in the “duff” layer to provide natural regeneration in the future. The samples indicated that seeds, mostly lodgepole pine, were present and inconsistent in distribution. Seed counts ranged from 75 seeds per acre to 4,000 seeds per acre. The forest-wide standard for adequate regeneration of lodgepole pine, on lands identified as suitable timber base, is 150 seedlings per acre, five years after final harvest. Assuming that the existing seeds germinate, the resulting regeneration will be “patchy” dog-hair stands of lodgepole. Other stand types were not sampled nor were germination rates checked to determine viability of the seeds. Factors controlling the germination of these seeds include a disturbance event (to expose the seeds to mineral soil), adequate moisture, and the viability of the seeds.
Environmental Consequences
3.5.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, current management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would allow currently dead and dying trees to fall at natural rates, postponing regeneration, and potentially changing current forest cover types to other vegetative cover types, while creating a heavy fuel load mixed with natural regeneration. Increased surface intensity for wildland fire would be an imminent threat for many years. Wildfire, when it occurs, would likely change the forest cover type by removing a majority of the accumulated natural regeneration. With implementation of the No Action Alternative, there would be no utilization of forest products such as lumber, posts, poles, or biomass for energy.
Indirect effects of implementation of the No Action Alternative could be the temporary closure of some roads for public safety. Trails, administrative sites, and all other features included within the project area could be affected by access restrictions as well. These closures, any of which could be long-term, would occur as a result of the abundant retention of snags near the edges of the features where they pose the greatest overhead hazard.
Specifically, within the Proposed Project area, the timber species composition would be expected to change; the change would be expected to be at least minimally dependent upon the quantity of CWD that would result from the deterioration of dead trees within a given location. Should quantities of downed trees be excessively high, then regeneration of forested vegetation would be expected to be inhibited. This inhibition would likely prolong the recovery of the vegetation that is currently associated with the Proposed Project area.
______Page 65 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to add to the already existing and increasing risks associated with the retention of mass quantities of hazard trees. While implementation of this alternative would not be expected to add to the regional conditions that are facilitating the growth of the bark beetle epidemic, the result of the epidemic itself would add cumulatively to the effects of timber species compositions both locally and throughout the region. These effects would be dynamic and dependent upon the environmental characteristics of the individual areas that have been affected. As a whole, some change to the vegetative cover would be expected when compared to current and previously existing vegetative cover.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to forested vegetation.
3.5.1.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would allow for removal of overhead hazards, the effective release of natural regeneration and soil seed bank, mitigation of severe wildfire hazard, and some removal of forest products. Regeneration of sites would be accomplished as per LRMP with natural regeneration. Artificial regeneration would likely only be used in high value sites such as campgrounds.
The proposed Design Criteria would be applied to ensure adequate levels of snags and down woody debris are retained within or immediately adjacent to the project area, consistent with the LRMP. Due to the widespread MPB outbreak, sufficient numbers of snags and down woody debris would occur forest-wide as well.
A beneficial indirect effect of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to occur with respect to regeneration within treated areas. Given the near linear and/or centralized delineation that is expected to occur along the edges of roads, trails (where treated), and administrative sites, there would be limited, or possibly no, seclusion of treated sites from adjacent seed sources. Treatment areas would be likely to receive superficial and temporary disturbance, which would provide a loosened and scarified soil surface under an open or completely vacant canopy cover type. With an immediately available adjacent seed source the circumstance of post treatment site conditions would provide nearly perfect conditions to promote regeneration of timber resources.
The above mentioned regeneration promotion would also play an important role for visuals and scenery resources as an indirect beneficial effect to help re-establish vegetative cover within treated sites, thus improving the scenic attractiveness of treated sites. However, the USFS recognizes that these regeneration effects would be slow to materialize and would be expected to take 10 to 20 years before regeneration would be effectively noticeable.
Cumulative Effects
Given the widespread and highly effective spread of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, the cumulative effects of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative are extensive and connected to nearly all current projects being implemented by the USFS and other government agencies, as well as with state and private landholdings throughout the Southern Rocky Mountains.
Other similar types of projects are currently being implemented in neighboring forests and locally within the ARNF. Though implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative does add cumulatively to the other projects currently being undertaken, the qualitative and quantitative effects to the timber resources within the ARNF are beneficial though minimal. In total, the effects of the treatments that are being implemented throughout the region are serving to introduce stand and age class diversity.
______Page 66 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to forested vegetation.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives are consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Silviculture/Timber in the LRMP.
Consistency with Other Regulations
The Proposed Action Alternative would comply with applicable portions of the Highway Safety Act, portions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and USFS Manual 7700.
3.5.2 Old Growth Strategy – Late Succession Forest
Affected Environment
Old Growth Strategy management includes delineated stands of trees with characteristics related to late succession of the dominant forest type. Late succession is defined as mature and old growth forest with moderate to dense canopy closure, defined in structural stages being distinguished by old trees and their related structures such as accumulations of large dead woody material, number of crown layers, species composition, and ecological function.
There are approximately 2,544 acres of timber stands that have been identified as Old Growth Strategy stands occurring in the Proposed Project area. This quantity composes approximately 5% of the Proposed Project area. Table 3.5-8, Old Growth Stands within the Proposed Project Area, lists the approximate acreages of Old Growth Strategy stands that have been identified within the Proposed Project area as they are related to the features that compose the area.
Table 3.5-8 Old Growth Strategy Stands within the Proposed Project Area % of Old Growth in the Proposed Feature Type Acreage of Old Growth** Project Area Category 2 Roads 813 32% Category 3 Roads 305 12% Category 4 Roads 80 3% Category 5 Roads 76 3% Trails* 845 33% Administrative Areas 425 17% Totals 2544 100% * The quantity provided for trails includes that portion of the Trails Project Area that exists within Wilderness Areas. Wilderness Area trails are not included as a part of the Proposed Project, however inclusion of these acres provides a better understanding of where the Old Growth Strategy stands occur within the ARNF. Of the 845 acres provided for trails in this table, approximately 537 acres occurs within Wilderness Areas. ** Acreages for this section were derived from attributes found in the ARNF R2Veg GIS database. Old Growth Strategy stands were identified utilizing the “FSSDE_R2VEG_POLY_LOCAL” dataset by identifying those polygons in the attributes column “Old_Growth” indicated with the letter “Y”.
Environmental Consequences
3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
______Page 67 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Through implementation of this alternative, little would change with the condition of most of the designated and mapped Old Growth Strategy stands. Trees would die and fall over time in patterns similar to the other portions of the ARNF. Lodgepole pine components of these stands would likely succumb to mortality first with some incidental mortality of adjacent spruce and fir species by falling trees. The presence of dead and dying trees and small openings created from loss of lodgepole pines would not likely cause removal of the stand from Old Growth Strategy status. Trails and roads passing through lodgepole pine dominant timber stands may experience blockages from fallen trees and subsequently require increased levels of maintenance when available.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to add minimally to the cumulative effects to Old Growth Strategy stands. Due to the characteristics of these stands there would be an expectation that most Old Growth Strategy stands consisting of bark beetle susceptible species would be minimized or potentially destroyed as the bark beetle epidemic progresses. The short-term effect throughout the region would be that the majority of these stands would be removed from the landscape until regeneration would be able to replace the previous stands.
As a result of the fallen trees that may accumulate on the forest floor regeneration may be inhibited and re- establishment of future stands may be delayed until the next generation of trees can begin grow. This effect would be persistent throughout the region where Old Growth Strategy stands occur and bark beetle infestations are present. Though none of the Old Growth Strategy stands are located wholly within the Proposed Project area some evidence from the effects previously mentioned may be exhibited.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to Old Growth Strategy stands.
3.5.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Stands designated as old growth should be evaluated for any specific treatment projects as they would be developed. Factors such as future viability as Old Growth Strategy and specific treatment options should be evaluated as needed.
Approximately 537 acres, 22.5% of the Old Growth Strategy stands within the Proposed Project area, occur along trails in designated Wilderness Areas. Active treatments along Wilderness trails are not included as a portion of the Proposed Action Alternative; however this figure signifies that large portions of the Old Growth Strategy stands within the ARNF exist within the Wilderness Areas. Treatments along Wilderness trails would be accomplished as a portion of “normal” trail maintenance.
Though no treatments along trails within Wilderness Areas would occur through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, some treatments at undetermined camping sites may occur. Design Criteria have been proposed for treatments in Wilderness Area camping sites, which include provisions for clearing hazard trees from the sites, but they disallow piling slash and debris in deck form.
The remaining 2,007 acres of Old Growth Strategy stands that are associated with roads, trails and administrative areas outside of Wilderness Areas would be available for treatments through specific projects undertaken as a portion of the Proposed Project. Proposed Design Criteria are in place to guide all implementation plans as those specific implementation plans are developed.
As a result of the removal of hazard trees inside areas mapped as Old Growth Strategy, it is likely that changes in age class diversity would occur indirectly, as regeneration would be expected to occur. Any changes in age diversity would be expected to occur primarily within the areas that experience soil disturbance and receive increased levels of sunlight at the soil surface. Due to the linear distribution of most areas that would be treated through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, the changes
______Page 68 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project in age class diversity would be expected to occur primarily along the edge of the remaining Old Growth Strategy stands. The Timber/Silviculture section of the LRMP includes a standard for the uncut areas of late-successional species to be large enough to function as an ecological system not overly influenced by the edge. Conformance to this standard would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The LRMP also includes goals for late-successional stands to protect aspen even at the expense of other late- successional species.
Other indirect effects would be the same as those mentioned in section 3.5.1.2.
Cumulative Effects
Some cumulative effects to Old Growth Strategy stands would be expected to occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. As a whole, these stands are expected to be impacted heavily as a result of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic. Due to the fact that bark beetles tend to infest large diameter trees, large portions of Old Growth Strategy stands composed of susceptible species would be likely to suffer high rates of mortality. As a result of implementation of this alternative of the Proposed Project and similar types of projects throughout the region the treated portions of these stands would be provided with an increased opportunity for regeneration. This effect would provide a faster recovery for treated portions of Old Growth Strategy stands.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to Old Growth Strategy stands.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives are consistent with goals, standards and guidelines associated with late-successional stands as found in the Composition and Special Habitats sections of the LRMP.
3.6 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality
3.6.1 Fire and Fuels
Affected Environment
As bark beetle infestations progress through lodgepole pine stands, fuels loads and fire hazard levels change. Healthy forest stands (endemic stands), stands experiencing current infestations (epidemic), and stands that have already experienced infestations (post-epidemic) vary in their possible fire hazards, such as spread rate, fire line intensity, and flame length. Such hazards can vary considerably throughout the stages of bark beetle infestations. In a USFS study performed in portions of Utah and Idaho that are similar to those occurring within the Proposed Project area, it was estimated that the average potential rate of spread could increase approximately three to six times in epidemic stands when compared to endemic stands. (Page and Jenkins, 2007)
Due to the low moisture content of needles during the earliest stages of an infestation, there is more potential for a fire to move into and throughout the tree canopy. However, as infestations progress, needles fall from the canopy to the forest floor which decreases the potential for canopy fire transition. As a result of the fallen needles and eventual fallen woody debris accumulation, fuel loads on the forest floor increase and related surface fire intensity is expected to increase as well.
Within three to fourteen years it is possible that many dead trees that have resulted from the earlier portions of the current infestation will fall. (Mitchell and Preisler, 1998) During the stand degradation process and as canopies begin to open, the stand will begin to redevelop. The composition of the fallen woody debris and new generation of trees will also add a component of change and variability into fire behavior. The presence of the regeneration could contribute significantly to the potential intensity of surface fires when coupled with the abundant availability of woody debris on the forest floor. Figure 3-2 illustrates fuel profile hazards associated with MPB mortality in terms of hazard over time.
______Page 69 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 3-2 Fuel Profile Hazard Associated with MPB Mortality
Fuel Profile Hazard Associated with MPB Mortality
Greatest
Tree Crown in “Red and Dead” Stage Surface Fuel Loadings Increase with Tree Fall
Needle Fall Leading to Hazard Snag Condition
Snag Stage Lowest
3 - 4 4 - 6 6 – 20 50+ Years Since Beetle Attack (Approximate)
Research conducted in Utah (Page, et. al. 2006) measured changes in the fuels profile with endemic, epidemic, and post-epidemic bark beetle populations. The research also compared the quantity and quality of fuels and predicted the potential fire behavior based on average worst case fire weather. Some general conclusions about relationships between the MPB, fuels, and fire behavior in the lodgepole pine forest type were made.
In general, epidemic versus endemic stands had greater chances for crown fire initiation due to large amounts of dead aerial fuels in the overstory. The current epidemic stands had higher rates of spread and fire line intensity than the endemic stands. The only significant difference detected for aerial fuels were the amounts of dead foliage in the overstory. Also, dead and down, woody, fine fuel loadings (litter and one- hour fuels) were significantly greater in current epidemic stands.
The post-epidemic versus endemic stands exhibited that stands experiencing greater than 80% MPB mortality produced significant increases in dead and down woody fuels in all but the smallest size classes. Small fuels decayed over time and returned to background levels after about 20 years. Post-epidemic stands had significantly lower available canopy fuels, crown base heights, and crown bulk densities than endemic stands. The live shrubs, total live understory fuels, and subalpine fir regeneration were significantly greater in the post-epidemic stands. Post-epidemic stands also had increased rates of surface fire spread, fire line intensity, and total heat release. Lastly, the post-epidemic stands had increased chances for crown fire initiation, but decreased chances for active crown fire spread.
Environmental Consequences
3.6.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, there would be no coordinated effort to remove dead and dying trees along roads, trails and administrative areas. Fuel loads would continue to increase, creating conditions for a more intense forest fire that would generate levels of heat that could potentially be
______Page 70 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project injurious to the forest ecosystem. Dead and falling trees may prevent access for fire-fighting efforts and potentially increase size and duration of wildland fire events.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not be expected to add cumulatively to the existing and potential fuel loads throughout the region and on neighboring lands. Though not additive to the fuel loading that would be expected to occur, implementation of this alternative would be expected to add cumulatively to the access and safety constraints that are developing across the region. As the bark beetle infested trees begin to fall, these constraints would be exacerbated.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to fuels.
3.6.1.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the removal of dead and dying trees, reducing fuels loads in treated areas. Action requiring mechanical felling and/or removal of trees would break up existing fuel beds and create breaks in continuous fuel loads, thereby causing potential wildland fire to have a lower intensity. The removal of dead and dying trees in a linear fashion along roads, trails, and administrative areas would create lines of only marginal defensible spaces for firefighters to perform initial-attack firefighting tactics. The proposed size/width of the areas to be potentially treated would be too small for very effective defensible space but would provide, at a minimum, breaks in heavy fuel loads. Where large concentrations of larger diameter trees are available in existing public access areas, supervised firewood gathering may be a viable option for removal of such material. Slash and debris treatment methods would include lop and scatter treatment where appropriate.
Broadcast burning of slash is often ecologically appropriate; however, broadcast burning would be difficult to implement due to the narrow linear corridor. Broadcast burning would require high expense in fire line construction, manpower for holding control lines and mop-up activities. Burned slash pile sites would be rehabilitated as needed after burning to scatter and remove large chunks and mitigate detrimental impacts to soil. Burning of hand piles does not usually require mitigation, as this method does not typically result in unacceptable levels of soil damage.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to add cumulatively to the mitigation of fuel loads throughout the forests and region, including that on neighboring federal, state, and private lands. In reaction to the increased levels of forest fuels that are resulting from the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, a variety of fuels reduction treatments are known to be occurring or are being planned throughout the region. When considered as a whole, these projects would be expected to increase the safety of the public and forest users through the mitigation of fuels and development of more manageable fire behavior where treatments occur.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to fuels.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives would comply with guidelines listed in the LRMP concerning Disturbance Processes, Fire. Specific Design Criteria related to fuel management would be used in preplanning as well as planning any activities related to fuels management.
______Page 71 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.6.2 Air Quality
Affected Environment
Air quality is affected by sources such as prescribed fire, wildfire, developed recreation, grazing, mining, oil and gas development, and motorized vehicles on both paved and unpaved roads. The term particulate matter (PM) is used to measure the particles found in the air such as dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets. Particulate matter is usually classified in two size categories: PM10 (less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (less than 2.5 microns in diameter). PM10 can be seen on surfaces while PM2.5 is visible by microscope only.
Counties in Colorado collect and record data on air pollution in the PM10 range. The top three activities that produce the greatest tonnages of PM10 per year are generally construction, road dust and agriculture. Front Range counties have more agricultural activities contributing, while smoke from prescribed fire contributes only +/- 1% of the total tonnage of PM10 to the air.
Particulate Matter Greater than 2.5 Microns
As stated above, the particulate matter that is larger than 2.5 microns can be seen on surfaces. Examples of this type of matter include soils related dust and organic dust.
In general, soils related dust is a result of the exposure of mineral soil such that the soils are able to dry out completely or almost completely, losing their plasticity and are then physically disturbed through interactions with biotic, abiotic, or human influences (i.e. animals, wind or water, or vehicle/equipment usage). The wind component is the universal vector of the dust creation process. Soils dust is generally accepted as being extremely small in size; however any soil particles that can become suspended in the air could be considered dust regardless of size. The suspension of dust is a factor of the power of the air movements that cause its displacement and the size of the soil particles displaced. The slower the air movement and the larger (heavier) the soil particles, the faster they will fall out of suspension.
Dust is not created by the disturbance of soils alone and can be created as a result of cutting or felling of trees (or other similar activities) and may be considered as the creation of organic dust. The organic dust that is created as a result of this type of activity is usually much larger in comparison to soils dust and, as such, generally falls out of suspension from the air column quickly and near its point of origin.
Particulate Matter Smaller than 2.5 Microns
Particulate matter of this size is the type of matter that can become suspended in the air column for extended periods of time. These types of matter generally include that which is created as a function of burning or evaporation where chemical compounds are broken down through the release of energy. Examples of these types of functions are the consumption of fuel in vehicles and equipment resulting in exhaust and the burning of forest fuels which results in smoke; however, these types of functions are not the only sources of PM less than 2.5 microns.
Environmental Consequences
3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative, nor would they be expected to occur more frequently than current management practices allow. No direct or indirect effects on air quality would be expected under the No Action Alternative within the Proposed Project area.
______Page 72 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Cumulative Effects
No effects to air quality would be expected to occur through implementation of the No Action Alternative. The lack of cumulative effects to the air quality is reflective of the known existence of wildfires within the ARNF and other neighboring lands as well. In consideration of the known existence, the persistence of wildfire ignition (e.g. smoke production and air quality reduction) would not be increased as a result implementation of the No Action Alternative. As such, there would not be cumulative effects that would result from implementation of this alternative.
However, other projects are being implemented throughout the region on neighboring private, state, and federal lands. Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects on air quality.
3.6.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct and indirect effects related to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative on air quality would be related to: 1) burning of slash piles (smoke), 2) use of mechanized equipment, and increases in dust generated by operations (dust).
Smoke
In some cases, slash generated from tree removal operations would be piled for later burning. Potential short-term effects would include increased and concentrated smoke emissions. Effects of burning could be mitigated by a combination of utilizing permitted burn days that include good-excellent smoke dispersion ratings and monitoring and limiting individual slash pile sizes. Concentrated smoke emissions may be mildly irritating to the public, but the effects would not be long-term or necessarily negative.
Regulations enforced by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (CAPCD) limit the size and number of piles that can be burned at any one time. CAPCD uses the Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model to evaluate emission production for various sized piles ranging from under 300 cubic feet to 10,000 cubic feet. A greater number of smaller sized piles can be burned on a given day under this modeling program. By limiting the size of individual piles and following the burn limits set forth by the CAPCD, activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would remain in compliance with applicable regulations and within the limits of a significant user’s permit.
A permit would be secured from the CAPCD prior to prescribed fire activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Stakeholders, smoke-sensitive individuals, and the media would be notified by information signs near the Proposed Project area, as well as other oral and written communication as needed.
Dust
An expected direct effect of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be dust. Dust would be expected to be generated by heavy equipment and service vehicles in the treatment units and roads serving treatment areas. However, large quantities of dust would not be expected to occur as a result of the proposed treatment activities, due to the limited size of the expected treatment areas.
The soil related dust that would be expected to be created would be the result of the use of vehicles and equipment along already existing and frequently utilized roadways, trails or administrative sites. The direct effect would be that utilization of these areas relative to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would only be expected to increase minimally during treatment activities and, as such, increased levels of soils dust would exist only during those activities. Soil dust creation would be further minimized by the fact that the equipment that would be expected to create the dust are slow moving, which relates to low powered air movements and minimal dust displacement.
______Page 73 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Timing of the proposed treatment activities would also factor into the amount of soils dust created. When soils are moist there would be almost no dust created from the usage of the existing infrastructure. However, if proposed treatments were to occur when soils are dry, then the amount of dust created would be expected to occur relative to the dryness of the soils and the duration of the disturbance.
Similarly, another type of dust that would result from the proposed treatments is that which would be created as a result of hazard tree cutting and/or removal. When the trees would be cut and/or removed, the equipment that would be used to cut and/or remove the trees would be expected to create organic dust particles that would vary in size and composition. In general, the dust particles would be expected to be larger than the soils dust and, as such, they would not travel far and would remain nearer their points of origin.
All soils and organic dusts eventually fall out of the air column and, therefore, their temporal extents would be expected to be short when the Proposed Project is considered. The expected end result of dust creation as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be that slight increases in composite dust would be created over the short term, but then would return to their normal levels as proposed treatments are completed.
Lastly, the use of equipment and machinery for the purpose of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to result in slight increases in exhaust fumes released from the equipment. These effects would be expected to be short-term and relative to the size of the areas being treated. The effects of these activities would not be expected to be noticeable to forest users due to the fact that mechanized treatments would involve potential physical safety hazards that would limit their exposure.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to add cumulatively to the effects on air quality within the Proposed Project area. Though treatments within specific areas would be short-term and limited in size, they would be spread out across a broad area. This geographic distribution would provide some level of connectivity with the other projects or activities that are either being implemented or being proposed within the region and within the ARNF or other neighboring national forests, as well as on other neighboring federal, state, and private lands.
The Proposed Project area is inclusive of all regularly used roads that occur within the forests and are connected to many other roadways that are utilized for various reasons throughout the region. As such, implementation of this alternative would certainly result in increases to the current levels of use. Those increases would be expected to be short in their duration and limited in size; however, the overall extent to which they would result within the Proposed Project area can only be estimated with respect the total area expected to be treated through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
It is also presumable that wildfires and/or slash burning (prescribed fires, etc.) will likely occur given the extent of the current and ongoing bark beetle epidemic. In consideration of the burning that is expected to occur on neighboring lands (federal, state, and private), there would be an expected accumulation of effects to the air quality of localized, and possibly broader, areas where slash is treated through burning in connection to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. The extent to which burning may occur on those neighboring lands is unknown, but is considered a reasonably certain occurrence. However, the accumulation of those effects would be limited to the extent allowable and permitted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects on air quality.
______Page 74 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.7 Heritage Resources
Affected Environment
The USFS is required by the following laws to assess the effects of its proposed actions on cultural resources - Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-467 ); National Historic Preservation Act, 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C.470 et seq.); National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321- 4346); Archaeological and Historic Data Preservation Act, 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C. 469-469c-2); American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 1978, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990, as amended (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq); Executive Order 11593 - Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 1971; Executive Order 13007 - Indian Sacred Sites, 1996; Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 2000; Executive Order 13287 – Preserve America, 2003.
The proposed undertaking consists of cutting hazard trees adjacent to roads, trails, and administrative sites. All tree cutting would take place on NFS lands or on lands where the USFS has acquired a property interest. For the purpose of cultural resource evaluation, the Proposed Project’s area of potential effect (APE) is a 200-foot corridor on either side of roads and trails that will be treated. The APE for developed recreation, administrative sites, summer home tracts and all other buildings or structures that may be under special use permits by the USFS is defined as the administrative boundaries of the site plus a 100-foot buffer zone.
A Class I literature search was performed in December of 2009. The search utilized the records of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the cultural resource atlas of the ARNF, and all relevant CRM reports, GLO plat maps, and aerial photographs. Results of the search indicate that there have been 435 systematic project surveys within or crossing the project area, in which a total of 838 cultural resources have been previously recorded. Of these sites, 10 have been listed on either the Colorado State Register of Historic Places or on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Another 166 sites are eligible, 466 are not eligible and 109 sites have not been evaluated for their eligibility for the NRHP. Eighty-seven of these resources are isolated historic or prehistoric isolated artifacts. The project area includes a broad range of cultural resources that represent the complete span of time from the Prehistoric PaleoIndian era to recent historic events. The known cultural resources in the project area are identified in Table 3.7-1 by historic theme.
Table 3.7-1 Cultural Resources by Historic Theme Total Number of Cultural Cultural On the On the Determination Not Not Resources Theme NRHP SRHP of Eligibility Eligible Evaluated Isolated Sites Finds Prehistoric 175 51 23 73 28 Mining 181 20 153 8
Agriculture and 75 2 12 54 7 Settlement Roads and 49 2 19 28 Transportation Water Storage 38 1 7 29 1 and Control CCC* 2 1 1
USFS Admin 14 1 1 7 4 1 sites Logging 13 3 9 1
______Page 75 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Total Number of Cultural Cultural On the On the Determination Not Not Resources Theme NRHP SRHP of Eligibility Eligible Evaluated Isolated Sites Finds Recreation 83 3 15 4 61
Recreation lots 164 56 108
Power lines and 8 3 3 2 radio site
Isolated historic 36 36 artifacts
TOTAL 838 87 9 1 166 466 109 *Civilian Conservation Corps
Prehistoric Resources
The prehistoric occupation of the ARNF appears to have been fairly continuous if not intensive from at least 11,000 years B.P. until historic contact with the Ute and Arapaho. Until very recently, the prehistoric cultures of the Colorado Mountains have been viewed as marginal to adjacent, more well-defined, culture areas in the Great Plains, the Great Basin, or the Southwest. Recently, however, researchers have begun to think of the cultures of the Rocky Mountain region as being uniquely adapted to the unique environmental conditions of higher elevations.
In general, it has been found that for the ARNF, base camps are frequently located at lower elevations along the major river valleys and basins of the forest, close to a water source and abundant plant and animal resources. Specialized activity sites (e.g. temporary hunting camps, ceremonial/religious sites, lithic procurement areas) are generally located at higher elevations and farther from water. Within the project area the sites located consist of high altitude animal drives, stone circle sites, campsites and, most commonly, lithic debitage scatters.
Historic Resources
Historic research themes include early exploration and the fur trade, Euroamerican-Native American contact and conflict, precious metal mining, early transportation, commercial timber operations, high country agriculture, and recreation and tourism.
For the mountains of north-central Colorado, the historic period begins in the early to mid-1800’s, when Euroamerican explorers first began to venture into the area. Unfortunately, most of the earliest Euroamericans in the area, who were explorers and trappers, left little trace of their visits. The most visible historic activities on the ARNF relate to the early mining, water control, recreation government administration and timber industries.
American Indian Historic Period
Information from various sources indicates that areas of the ARNF were occupied or visited by several historic tribes including the Ute, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Shoshone, Lakota, and Crow. The latter two groups apparently visited the area less frequently, and then only in the company of the Arapaho and Cheyenne.
The majority of central and western Colorado was considered to be traditional Ute territory. While other tribes came and went during the historic period, the Ute remained until they were forcibly removed to Utah in 1880.
______Page 76 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Trapping and Early Exploration
Some of the earliest Euroamerican exploration in Colorado was conducted by trappers. Because of the demand for pelts in the early 1800’s, several men explored the mountain river valleys and basins in search of beaver and game.
Exploration and mapping for the U.S. government, in connection with the Louisiana Purchase or simply for adventure, brought a wider range of people to the west. Although the region was opened for exploration after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, many of the earliest explorers in northwestern Colorado did not arrive until the early 1830’s.
Mining
Although the fur trade did little to encourage permanent settlement in Colorado, the discovery of gold at the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek during the spring and summer of 1858 brought large numbers of immigrants to Colorado. The Territory of Colorado was established in 1861, and by 1870 the population of Denver had grown to nearly 5,000.
The placer deposits located along the streams emptying from the Front Range were soon depleted and miners began to explore the foothills of the Front Range for both placer and underground deposits. Indeed, mineral mining has been a major factor in the location and importance of various towns throughout northern Colorado in general and on the ARNF in particular. The economic activity generated by the pursuit of precious metal ores along the Front Range has arguably been the most important theme in the history of Colorado and the western United States, and continues to influence political and social patterns in the region.
Agriculture and Settlement
Early settlement/pioneer agriculture began around 1859 when gold was discovered in Colorado. Settlers, ranchers and farmers followed the miners into the Front Range and mountains where they established farms and ranches. The early mining camps created a demand for locally produced food to feed the masses of miners in the camps. Livestock ranching proved to be the most important long-term economic activity in the north-central portion of Colorado. Although ranching continues to be an important sector of the high- country economy, farming and ranching activity reached a peak about 1910.
Roads and Transportation
Lack of easy access across the Front Range was the primary "roadblock" to development and increased settlement. When the first trappers and explorers arrived trails were established, some of which followed previously established Native American routes. The construction of toll roads began as soon as Colorado became a Territory.
By 1868, the Union Pacific Railroad had reached as far west as Fort Bridger in Wyoming. At that time, shipments of hay and coal still had to be transported by wagon up to Wyoming from North Park and the Yampa Valley. Even by the 1890’s, the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad was pushing its way west along the Colorado River, but there were still no proposed spurs from the Union Pacific or the Denver and Rio Grande lines. In 1923 construction started on the Moffat Tunnel through the Front Range. The tunnel housed the rerouted tracks as well as waterlines for water-hungry Denver. The Denver and Salt Lake Railroad was eventually absorbed by the Denver and Rio Grande line which continues to operate it today.
Water Storage and Control
Efforts to control and store water in the mountains of Colorado started with the Gold Rush period; the first ditches and dams were constructed as part of the placer mining industry. Flumes, ditches and reservoirs were constructed to harness the power of water to dissolve sediments away from precious ore and to provide power for mining complexes. Pioneer ditches (the first constructed ditches in a specific area) were
______Page 77 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
generally constructed as soon as areas were settled, generally between 1860 and the early 1900’s. These pioneer ditches were typically earthen ditches that supplied water for settlements and agricultural purposes. Agriculture east of the Continental Divide is dependent on water supplied solely from snow melt from the mountains. Very early on farmers and towns on the east side of Colorado began to apply for water rights in the mountains and plan to divert water from the Western Slope to the thirsty Front Range.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was established in 1933 to create jobs in order to alleviate unemployment and benefit the public during the Great Depression. The activities of the CCC were critical to the USFS’s conservation and recreation goals. CCC projects included the construction of administrative facilities, campgrounds, and trails. CCC companies were also involved in conservation projects which included tree planting, weed removal, dam construction, and fire break construction.
CCC camps were established at several towns near the ARNF, including Ward, Red Feather Lakes, Idaho Springs and Grand Lake. The camps were abandoned by 1942 when the men were called to duty in the Second World War.
Establishment of the National Forests
Under the act of March 3, 1891, Congress gave the President authority to "set apart and reserve in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations..." In 1906 the Arapaho National Forest was established. National forest boundaries were constantly shifting in their early days. Major land acquisitions also took place in conjunction with Depression era CCC activities.
Logging within the National Forests
Timber harvesting on national forest land began as soon as the reserves were set aside. The job of the early rangers was to prevent further trespassing, to monitor the timber cutting, and to promote conservation. The majority of the sites associated with logging on the ARNF are associated with temporary, portable sawmills that are difficult to locate; therefore, very few cultural remains have been retained.
Recreation within the National Forests
From the time the national forests were established, people began to use their public lands for recreation such as camping and hiking. The first campgrounds were very rudimentary and were often created by the users. With the creation of the CCC, the USFS worked with the CCC to plan and construct the majority of the campgrounds, roads and administrative sites on the ARNF.
Recreation Residences within the National Forests
Recreation residences are individually owned cabins that are permitted to occupy NFS lands and used seasonally for recreational purposes. The recreation residence program within the national forests began in 1905. Recreation residence tracts were platted on NFS lands with individual lots, each with a privately constructed cabin. In the 1950’s the USFS began to de-emphasize the recreation residence program and in 1968 it directed that no new tracts would be located and no new permits would be issued.
Isolated Finds
Several cultural resources have been recorded that are isolated historic artifacts that are not clearly associated with a single historic context or that are not associated with a historic context that is significant to the history of the ARNF. Thirty-six isolated historic artifacts have been located and recorded within the project area.
______Page 78 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Consequences
3.7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. The resulting heavy fuel accumulations would likely endanger some cultural resources. Sites with high levels of MPB infestation would be vulnerable to falling trees for many years to come and have an increasing likelihood of destruction in a catastrophic wildfire event. Hazards to actual structures, personnel, and visitors would increase as standing dead and dying trees degrade and fall.
Cumulative Effects
Through implementation of this alternative there would be an expected cumulative effect to heritage resources of all types. This effect would be accomplished as hazard trees fall, potentially damaging resources of all types. Due to the widespread occurrence of bark beetle susceptible species and their past uses, the potential exists for many resources to be located within damaged stands and potentially within the Proposed Project area.
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to heritage resources.
3.7.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Several activities within the proposed undertaking have the potential to impact cultural resources within the project area. The most important question, however, is whether or not the effects of tree felling and removal activities on cultural resources are adverse, as defined in 36 CFR 800.9.
Hand felling activities can have the potential to adversely affect constructed cultural features by dropping trees on buildings and structures causing structural damage. These effects can be avoided by directional felling away from buildings and structures. The use of heavy equipment can disturb soils and subsurface cultural deposits. Primary impacts to cultural resources from mechanical treatment may include the displacement, alteration, and destruction of surface artifacts and cultural features, as well as disturbance to site soil deposition and site stability. In addition, architectural components such as standing wooden or stone walls may be knocked down by heavy equipment. Specific Design Criteria have been established to protect cultural resources and mitigate any potentially adverse effects.
In compliance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA), the SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have agreed that the determination for the Proposed Action Alternative is no historic properties will be adversely affected, provided the USFS follows all of the stipulations of the PA.
Cumulative Effects
Though no cumulative effects would be expected to occur with respect to heritage resources through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, other projects are proposed or are ongoing throughout the region to remove hazardous timber. Treatments proposed on privately owned lands may not occur with the protections provided by state and federal lands management. As such, some resources may be negatively affected, damaged, or destroyed.
Similarly, the ongoing deterioration of bark beetle susceptible timber stands would be expected to result in the damage or loss of resources located within those stands.
______Page 79 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Section 3.14 provides a list and description of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to Heritage Resources.
Forest Plan Consistency
The ARNF Forest Plan requires that Section 106 of the NHPA be met for all proposed actions. Implementation in accordance with the PA ensures that the USFS meets the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, 1966, as amended.
3.8 Engineering and Roads
Affected Environment
The National Forest Transportation System consists of roads and trails that are on, or provide access to, National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.2). Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks and the Highway Safety Act of 1966 are clear that the USFS has a responsibility to maintain the safety of its roads and trails. These documents “Authorize State and local governments and participating Federal agencies to identify and survey accident locations; to design, construct and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; and promote pedestrian safety.” Forest Service Manual 7731.1 states, “Manage forest development roads that are not subject to the Highway Safety Act (those not suitable for passenger car traffic) so they are safe for the planned use.” Tables 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 show the miles of roads and trails that could be impacted by the Proposed Project.
Table 3.8-1 Miles and Classes of Roads within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Length of Roads within Maintenance Identifier the ARNF (Miles) Level 2 – High clearance vehicles 1,159.5 Level 3 – Suitable for passenger cars 332.1 Level 4 – Moderate degree of user comfort 123.7 Level 5 – High degree of user comfort 65.5 Total Length of Roads (Miles): 1680.7
Table 3.8-2 Miles of System Trails within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Length of Trails Trail Type Designated Use within the ARNF (Miles) Non-motorized Trail Not indicated 1,282.32 Motorized Trail ATV/Motorcycle 105.54 Total Length of Trails (Miles)*: 1,387.86 * This figure was obtained from the “trail_core_02JUL07” geodatabase, which includes certain trails that would not be affected by this project, such as decommissioned trails. It should also be noted that there are approximately 400 miles of trails within Wilderness Areas in the ARNF.
Environmental Consequences
3.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites as funding permits. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Through implementation of this alternative, roads and trails deemed unsafe may require temporary closure due to the presence of excess standing hazardous trees
______Page 80 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project and/or fallen trees blocking use. Closures would be expected to range from a single road or trail to entire systems of roads and/or trails. The closures could cause several negative impacts including illegal/unauthorized use and/or creation of roads and trails creating unsafe situations, increased use of open routes creating increased traffic situations and restricted access to recreational users.
Through implementation of this alternative, a few existing roads would be impacted annually by hauling activities or equipment ingress or egress. However, diseased trees would eventually fall over large areas, creating roadblocks and safety issues for the public that would result in temporary road closures with no immediate way to open them.
Cumulative Effects
As a cumulative effect, the public could temporarily lose use of many miles of roads and trails that are currently used regularly for recreational, commuter, or other travel and access reasons. This effect may be compounded by any other types of occurrences on neighboring lands (federal, state, and/or private) where bark beetle infested trees may exist, but not receive treatment and could eventually result in road blockages. These effects could be detrimental over the long term by limiting internal and external access through NFS and non-NFS lands that may be required by USFS or other personnel as well as forest users. An example could be the blockage of a road that would potentially be used as access for wildfire management activities.
Other projects that would potentially add to the cumulative effects to engineering and roads are described in Section 3.14.
3.8.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are approximately 1,681 miles or roads, and 1,388 miles of trails that are included within the Proposed Project area. In areas where the impact would be too great, the trees may be felled by hand and left in place. Some areas, which currently or may in the future exhibit MPB infestations within the Proposed Project area, may be left untreated due to unacceptable risk to ARNF resources and/or due to access restraints to the location.
Use of timber sales, service contracts, and other methods of hazard tree felling and removal would allow removal of hazardous trees along transportation corridors. Roads and trails would remain open to the public, for the most part, during the removal along roads and trails as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. This implementation may require intermittent and/or temporary NFS road and trail closures to facilitate safe felling and removal operations; however, these closures are expected to be kept to a minimum. These closures could result in increased traffic on other forest roads and trails and/or the use of unauthorized routes. Proposed Design Criteria have been developed by the USFS to limit the extent of road closures in order to minimize the disruption to the public.
Prior to any work beginning, all aboveground and underground utilities would be identified and protected. Road and drainage work would follow the proposed Design Criteria. Design Criteria would also be used to mitigate the potential impacts to the transportation system from tree felling and hauling operations. Post- use maintenance would be analyzed on a case by case basis and any necessary repairs would be performed.
The Proposed Action Alternative, in this context, would not change the existing transportation system. No new permanent system roads or trails would be created, no roads or trails would be decommissioned, and no temporary roads are expected to be created as a result of implementation of this alternative.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would add cumulatively to the changes to access routes throughout neighboring forests and on other non-NFS federal, state, and private lands. In particular, on two of the neighboring national forests (Routt and White River), similar types of projects are being
______Page 81 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
implemented, as well as along many of the non-NFS roads within localized areas. Though the full extent of the area that would be affected by the previously mentioned projects is yet to be determined, the effects are generally consistent in that most areas where hazardous trees occur along the edges of roads and trails are being treated or will be treated in the foreseeable future. The end result will be that access routes would not require closures due to the presence of hazard trees.
Other projects that would potentially add to the cumulative effects to engineering and roads are described in Section 3.14.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives would comply with Standards and Guidelines listed in the LRMP based on use of specific Design Criteria.
3.9 Lands and Special Uses
Affected Environment
As the ARNF is located within a one-hour drive of the heavily populated Denver metropolitan area and the other heavily populated areas along the northern Front Range, it is considered to be one of the 14 Urban National Forests nationwide. The land ownership pattern of the ARNF contains approximately 750,000 acres of small private parcels intermixed with federal lands.
The ARNF ranks as one of the most visited national forests for recreation in the nation, drawing over 6 million visitors every year, due to the abundance of year-round recreational opportunities including hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, skiing and other winter activities. The Arapaho National Recreation Area, a 36,000-acre scenic territory in the upper reaches of the Colorado River Valley, the Mount Evans Recreational Area and the Brainard Lake Recreation Area are popular sites for visitors (National Forest Foundation, 2008).
According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) results from FY 2005, the majority of visitors (90.9%) to the ARNF came for recreational purposes, with the forest being the primary destination.
3.9.1 Management Areas
The forests contain areas identified as developed and non-developed recreation and recreational rivers, as well as ski-based resorts, backcountry recreation, Special Interest Areas (SIAs), Research Natural Areas (RNAs), scenery, eligible wild rivers, resource production for range vegetation and forest products, wildlife habitat including floral and faunal biota, and utility corridors, which are each identified as Management Areas (MAs). Table 3.9-1 provides a list of the MAs, as well as acreages along roads, trails and administrative areas within each MA.
Table 3.9-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Management Areas* within the Project Area Proposed Project Area Total in Administrative Management Area Roads Trails ID ARNF Sites Type (Acres) % of % of % of Acres Acres Acres MA MA MA 1.1 Wilderness 327,387 0 0 0 0 261 0.1% Recommended 1.2 5,608 4 0.1% 176 3.1% 33 0.6% Wilderness 1.3 Backcountry Recreation 173,612 547 0.3% 2,436 1.4% 340 0.2% 1.41 Core Area Habitat 11,784 35 0.3% 64 0.5% 0 0%
______Page 82 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Proposed Project Area Total in Administrative Management Area Roads Trails ID ARNF Sites Type (Acres) % of % of % of Acres Acres Acres MA MA MA Wild Rivers – designated 1.5 4,654 14 0.3% 8 0.2% 0 0% eligible 2.2 Research Natural Areas 11,173 25 0.2% 117 1.0% 17 0.2% Special Interest Areas, 3.1 79,309 1,252 1.6% 1,473 1.9% 963 1.2% Emphasis on Use Backcountry Motorized 3.3 33,285 1,019 3.1% 423 1.3% 254 0.8% Recreation Forested Flora and 3.5 Fauna Habitats-Limited 437,089 8,650 2.0% 1,554 0.4% 1,020 0.2% Management Corridors Connecting 3.55 863 39 4.5% 17 1.9% 11 1.3% Core Areas 4.2 Scenic Areas 57,276 1,304 2.3% 332 0.6% 881 1.5% 4.3 Dispersed Recreation 137,442 6,997 5.1% 1,624 1.2% 1,856 1.4% Recreation Rivers, 4.4 23,468 276 1.2% 89 0.4% 913 3.9% Designated and Eligible General Forest and 5.11 Rangelands – Forest 69,838 1,804 2.6% 627 0.9% 119 0.2% Vegetation Emphasis 5.13 Forest Products 9,227 588 6.4% 16 0.2% 0 0% Fraser Experimental 5.31 22,501 632 2.8% 309 1.4% 254 1.1% Forest Deer and Elk Winter 5.41 3,165 65 2.1% 0 0% 3 0.1% Range Forest Products and 5.5 155,857 6,767 4.3% 1,097 0.7% 554 0.4% Dispersed Recreation National Forest- 7.1 128,783 2,166 1.7% 145 0.1% 165 0.1% Residential Intermix Developed Recreation 8.21 3,248 257 7.9% 203 6.3% 331 10.2% Complexes Ski-Based Resorts, 8.22 14,406 560 3.9% 190 1.3% 144 1.0% Existing and Potential 8.3 Designated Utilities 4 2 42.1% 0 0% 0 0% Total Acreage of Management 1,709,978 7,965 26,233 17,821 Areas * The quantities provided in this table for Management Areas (MAs) were obtained from the ARNF “management_areas” GIS dataset and are provided with respect to the Proposed Project area.
3.9.2 Research Natural Areas (RNAs)
Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are areas reserved as ecological reserves, designated for non-manipulative research, education, and to maintain biodiversity levels. RNAs are usually selected for their pristine or pre- settlement conditions.
There are a total of 159 acres of RNAs that lie within the Proposed Project area. This number represents approximately 1.4% of the total area for all RNAs on the ARNF. There are approximately 27 acres of vegetative cover that is dominated by bark beetle susceptible species located within the RNA portions of the Proposed Project area, which represents approximately 0.2% of the total RNAs for the ARNF and 17% of that portion of RNAs within the Proposed Project area.
______Page 83 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Consequences
3.9.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Implementation of this alternative would be expected to result in the same conditions over time as implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, due to the fact that the areas that are proposed for treatment as a portion of the Proposed Project would only include those locations where hazard trees exist. It is expected that over time the hazard trees will deteriorate and fall, in which case the effects would be the same.
The uncontrolled falling of hazard trees could potentially have adverse effects on individuals of at risk species. It would not be expected that there would be many direct effects to these species, however, through implementation of this alternative there would be no protections provided for those individuals or occurrences.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative effects would be expected to result through implementation of the No Action Alternative.
3.9.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to result in minimal, if any, noticeable effects within RNAs. The greatest potential expected effect would be the enhancement of the corridor type of characteristic that would result from the proposed treatments. However, Design Criteria have been proposed to limit the degree to which these types of characteristics would result from treatment activities.
There are no potential treatments within RNAs that would be associated with roads. Treatments within RNAs would only include those that may be implemented along trails and potentially some administrative types of sites as well.
There would also be no expected effects to biota of the natural environment that helps to characterize these areas. Proposed Design Criteria have been developed to ensure that USFS specialists would review sites prior to implementation in order to avoid potential adverse effects to species at risk.
Potential treatment methods would be limited within RNAs due to the management restrictions that exist pertaining to RNAs. As such, ground based equipment and machinery would not be utilized for treatments within these areas. Similarly, as designated by the LRMP, wood gathering would not be permitted within RNAs or accepted as suitable management strategies through implementation of this alternative. Though firewood collection related to the Proposed Project would be permitted in areas outside of RNAs, no gathering would be allowed within RNAs. In general, fuels would be left in place.
Cumulative Effects
The only cumulative effects that would occur relative to RNAs would be those connected to projects that are being implemented, proposed or foreseeable along NFS trails. In general, these types of projects are minimal and consist of normal trail maintenance types of activities.
______Page 84 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Forest Plan Consistency
The Proposed Project would remain consistent with the standards and guidelines provided in chapter three on pages 346 & 347 of the LRMP.
3.9.3 Special Interest Areas (SIAs)
Special Interest Areas (SIAs) are normally managed to protect or enhance areas with unusual or unique ecological, zoological, geological, scenic, paleontological, historic, or prehistoric characteristics. All management activities for SIAs center on maintaining the values that make these areas special. Other resource values and uses are deemed secondary to the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the designated special interest of the identified area.
There are a total of 3,688 acres of SIAs that lie within the Proposed Project area. This number represents approximately 5% of the total area for all SIAs on the ARNF. There are approximately 497 acres of vegetative cover that are dominated by bark beetle susceptible trees located within the SIA portions of the Proposed Project area, which represents approximately 0.6% of the total SIAs for the ARNF and 13.6% of that portion of SIAs within the Proposed Project area.
Environmental Consequences
3.9.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Implementation of this alternative would be expected to result in the same conditions over time as implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, due to the fact that the areas that are proposed for treatment as a portion of the Proposed Project would only include those locations where hazard trees exist. It is expected that over time the hazard trees will deteriorate and fall, in which case the effects would be the same.
The uncontrolled falling of hazard trees could potentially have detrimental effects on individuals of at risk species, which help to characterize some SIAs. It would not be expected that there would be many direct effects to these species, however, through implementation of this alternative there would be no protections provided for those individuals or occurrences.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative effects would be expected to result through implementation of the No Action Alternative.
3.9.3.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Effects to SIAs as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to occur mostly in the form of changes to the natural character of the areas potentially affected, such that the corridor effect along the travel or recreational routes proposed for treatment would be enhanced. However, the degree to which the enhancement would take place would be dependent upon the implementation of the proposed Design Criteria. This potential effect would also be minimized due to the fact that only a small portion of SIAs would be expected to be treated as a portion of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative.
______Page 85 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Some slight indirect effects relative to the structural state of the vegetative cover would also be expected to occur, however, this would be expected as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative as well.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to add to the cumulative effects to SIAs. SIAs on other NFS lands may be affected similarly to those on the ARNF as a result of the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, specifically those focused on emphasizing the floral characteristics of the areas. As is the case with the other forests in the region, it would be expected that some effect to the natural character of the areas would result from implementation of this alternative. The corridor effect that already exists along roads and trails within these areas would be enhanced through implementation of this alternative, however, the end result as bark beetle infested trees continue to die and eventually fall across the landscape would be achieved through either alternative. The only difference between the two alternatives would be the method used and timing of tree felling. It is also reasonable to assume that proposed treatments within SIAs would be coordinated with other projects in the foreseeable future as well.
Forest Plan Consistency
The Proposed Project would remain consistent with the standard provided in chapter three on pages 351 of the LRMP.
3.9.4 Special Uses
Special use areas are those areas where ecological conditions, including processes, are likely to be permanently altered by human activities to levels beyond those needed to maintain natural-appearing landscapes and ecological processes. These areas are generally small. Ecological values are protected where they affect the health and welfare of human occupancy. Areas such as mines or other concentrated uses are included in this category of management area. Human activities are generally commercial in nature, and directly or indirectly provide jobs and income. Motorized transportation is common. (USDA Forest Service 1997)
For the purposes of the Proposed Project, Special Uses refers to diversion ditches that are included as a portion of the administrative areas described on page 11 in Chapter 1. These ditches require permits that are administered by the ARNF and renewed as appropriate.
3.9.4.2 Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
The implementation of this alternative would be expected to result in an abundance of hazard trees remaining along diversion ditches throughout the portions of the forest where both susceptible species and diversion ditches exist. Over time, the hazard trees would be expected to fall across or into the ditches, potentially causing ditch bank instability that would result in increased rates of erosion beyond those currently exhibited. This may cause increased costs for maintenance of the ditches and potentially may result in some closures. Closures could result in localized flooding during rain events and snow melt and would add to the erosion rates that currently exist.
Falling trees could also cause ditches and drainage structures to back-up which may cause bank failures from increased flooding during rain events and snow melt, which would be expected to cause increased rates of erosion. This effect would also result in increased requirements for maintenance.
______Page 86 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of this alternative would be expected to add to the cumulative effects on diversion ditches. Due to the widespread occurrence of hazard trees throughout the region and locally, diversion ditch failures associated with the effects discussed above would be expected to increase. The overall result of the accumulation of these effects would be an expected increase in erosion and requisite maintenance costs to repair ditches.
Section 3.14 provides a description of the past, current, and foreseeable future projects that may affect diversion ditches in the region.
3.9.4.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to result in the removal of hazard trees along diversion ditches within the Proposed Project area. Direct effects could include short-term increases in bank instability resulting in increased erosion. However, through implementation of the proposed Design Criteria, measures would be taken to ensure that erosion would be minimized and bank stability would be re-established with vegetation.
Through the implementation of this alternative, ditches would be kept cleared of hazard trees which may otherwise cause drainage failures and increased flooding and erosion during rain events and snow melt.
The direct and indirect effects to these areas would be expected to be minimized through the implementation of BMPs and compliance with the WCPH.
Cumulative Effects
Although the Proposed Action Alternative has been proposed in an effort to minimize the effects of erosion and sediment, some short term erosion would be expected to occur as a result of implementation. Due to the connectivity of the diversion ditches to other water features throughout the ARNF watersheds, some cumulative effects to water quality may result. However, erosion and sedimentation would be managed through the use of BMPs and through compliance with the WCPH, such that those effects would be minimized to the greatest degree possible.
Other past projects and land developments has necessitated the development of diversion ditches throughout the region in order to facilitate the management of water relative to those developments. Section 3.14 provides a description of those past developments and projects as well as those that may occur within the foreseeable future that may add to cumulative effects for diversion ditches.
3.10 Scenery Resources
Affected Environment
The ARNF use the Scenery Management System (SMS) to identify the scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) within each of the geographic areas of the forests. The SMS provides an overall framework for the orderly inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. (Landscape Aesthetics 1995)
Table 3.10-1 shows a comparison of SIO acreage within the ARNF and the Proposed Project area. The acreage provided for each item has been calculated from GIS files provided by the ARNF geodatabase. A specific dataset that quantifies the extent of the developed recreation sites on the ARNF does not exist; however the number of developed recreation sites is known. In an effort to estimate such a quantity, the average size of developed recreation sites was calculated from neighboring national forests and applied to the number of sites existing on the ARNF. Road and trail acreage was calculated by offsetting the
______Page 87 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
centerline a predetermined distance for all trails and roads that would be impacted by this project. The ARNF developed the acreage for the designated reservoir and lake shorelines as well as canals (that are considered a portion of the administrative sites for this proposal {see Chapter 1}); however, not all water facilities in the ARNF are proposed for treatment as a portion of the Proposed Project.
Table 3.10-1 SMS Designated Areas within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and the Proposed Project Area Very High SIO High SIO Moderate SIO Low SIO Area % of % of % of % of Acres Acres Acres Acres SIO SIO SIO SIO Total Area in SIO 352,468 100.0 453,997 100.0 769,682 100 142,476 100 Project Area 7,198 2.0 13,959 3.1 28,562 3.7 6,414 4.5 Project Area Infested 1,399 0.4 4,515 1.0 10,676 1.4 2,856 2.0 with MPB The acreage values of the “Total Area in SIO” are based upon the acreage of that SIO within the administrative boundary of the forest. The acreage of the “Project Area” is that portion of the forest that is located within the area included as a portion of the Proposed Project. The “Project Area Infested with Bark Beetles” was calculated by identifying through the use of aerial photographs all portions of the Proposed Project area that are infested with bark beetles. “Percentages (%) of SIOs” were calculated by dividing the acreage of “Project Area” or “Project Area Infested with Bark Beetles” by the “Total Area in SIO” and multiplying by 100.
SIO descriptions are as follows: • Very High SIO - Refers to landscapes where the landscape character “is” intact with only minute if any deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level. • High SIO - Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. • Moderate SIO - Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. • Low SIO - Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. (Landscape Aesthetics 1995)
The ARNF is located within an area encompassing 1.7 million acres. There are six scenic byways, including the oldest scenic byway in Colorado, the Peak-to-Peak Byway, and eleven designated scenic drives throughout the ARNF. The area assessed for the Proposed Project would include 3.3% of the ARNF (56,309 acres) of which 19,446 acres within the Proposed Project area (1.1% of the ARNF) have been identified as having trees infested with the bark beetle.
The Proposed Project would involve clearing hazard trees along trails, roads, designated recreation sites, and administrative sites, as well as designated water facilities such as lake and reservoir shorelines, throughout the ARNF. At some point in the project, this action would traverse every SIO identified by the USFS.
Environmental Consequences
3.10.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites.
______Page 88 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. The trees left standing would fall naturally from high wind events, forest fires, or snow accumulation; eventually the remaining trees would fall as the supporting roots rot away. These trees would fall across trails, roads and administrative sites during natural events or one at a time over the next several years. A direct effect of this alternative would be the potential of falling trees, causing a continuous hazard to forest visitors and employees for the next five to ten years.
Indirect effects resulting from implementation of the No Action Alternative would be a continual buildup of the falling trees as well as persistent standing dead trees. The hazardous trees that would be cut for safety as well as downed trees cleared from the roadways would remain on site and would have a negative impact to the scenic quality of travel corridors by adding to the already heavy deadfall. The fallen trees would also cause a buildup of potential fuels for wildfires that if ignited would have a long-term negative effect on the scenic quality due to the charred remains of standing and fallen trees and the scorched terrain. A fire with a heavy fuel load would burn any existing live trees that have not been damaged by the current bark beetle epidemic, leaving the landscape barren of any tree canopy.
Further indirect effects may result in the form of extended recovery times for regeneration of forested cover due to the large quantity of fallen debris on the forest floor. This debris may take a long time to decay or could cause significant damages to soils in the event a fire would occur. If soils should become damaged, regeneration and recovery periods may become even lengthier. This could have a major impact to scenery as well due to the fact that regeneration of forested vegetation would be desirable in the recovery of the scenery.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected to add cumulatively to the effects to scenery throughout the region. Due to the widespread occurrence of bark beetle mortality throughout pine and spruce dominant forest stands, the scenery that has characterized the Southern Rocky Mountains has been changing. Few sub-alpine areas remain unaffected by the epidemic, specifically those populated by lodgepole pine dominant stands. Lodgepole pine stands have been suffering epidemic levels of infestation over the last 10 years and the progression of bark beetles has affected many lodgepole stands throughout the ARNF.
The cumulative effect of the widespread occurrence of the bark beetle mortality has been that many landholdings (federal, state, county, and private) have been managed to mitigate the effects of the epidemic. The results have been that some portions of lands have been clearcut in an effort to remove overhead hazards and/or fuel loads.
This alternative would add to the degradation of the scenery by allowing the dead or dying hazard trees to persist along roadways, trails, and within administrative areas. Eventually these trees will begin to fall and the long-term effect would be that many areas throughout the region will be inundated with jack-straw piles of trees.
Section 3.14 provides a description and list of other past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects for Scenery Resources.
3.10.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
A direct effect of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be the widening of travel corridors caused by clearing hazard trees adjacent to the roads and trails. All hazard trees would be cut within a distance equal to 110% of the tallest hazard tree at a particular site. This alternative would have a short term negative effect on scenic value of the treatment site because the openings would be obvious immediately following the action due to the absence of mature trees, loss of shade, and the visibility of the forest floor along treated roads, trails and designated sites. Buildings and other infrastructure may become
______Page 89 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
more visible until younger trees are established and provide screening once again. The clearing would affect the immediate foreground (0 to 300 feet from the observer) and the foreground (300 feet to 0.5 miles from the observer) when viewed from the trails, roads and administrative sites being treated. Since these areas are adjacent to main access routes and destinations within the forests, they would be subject to more visual scrutiny than other, less traveled locations. The middleground (0.5 to 4 miles from the observer) would be negatively affected due to the reduced canopy around the proposed treatment sites making them more apparent from this viewing distance.
Design guidelines would be followed such that treatments would appear to be a meandering area cut through the forest canopy but may still look unnatural in places because areas treated, though fragmented across the landscape, would likely be continuous for some lengths along the roads and trails. The middleground would only be affected from locations where openings allow distant views overlooking treated sites, which may be perceived as a beneficial effect because of the opened viewsheds.
Slash, wood chips and burn piles would remain visible for the first few years but would not be expected to have a long-term effect on the scenery resource.
All existing trees that are healthy, as well as young trees that are unaffected by the bark beetle infestation, would be protected as much as possible from damage by the clearing operations, minimizing the negative effects on regeneration and retaining some live vegetation, shade and screening.
As a positive effect, the openings created through implementation of this alternative would allow the remaining trees, seedlings, as well as grasses and shrubs, to fill in faster than the uncleared forest due to increased sunlight and less competition for soil moisture. The contrast to the surrounding forest would be stark initially because the treated areas would contain less, or possibly no, timber. This contrast would vary with the seasons from the bright green grasses in the summer to the unbroken white, snow covered ground in the winter. The treatment areas would be apparent for the short term, 25 to 30 years, depending on growth conditions. The visual difference would fade away over time as the forest regenerates, particularly once new growth has exceeded approximately 15 feet in height.
An indirect effect of the clearing would be exposing the remaining standing trees to a wind pattern different than when the trees would have been protected by the surrounding stand. These trees’ root systems are not as developed as the trees that matured at the edge of the stand and are more prone to blow over in a strong wind event. If the trees do blow down, the fallen trees and exposed roots would also affect the scenic integrity.
The ARNF Land Resource Management Plan has set standards and guidelines that address the SIOs for all regions of the forests as identified on the SIO Map. These standards and guidelines would have to be addressed on a per project basis as tree removal plans are conceived for individual trails, roads, designated recreation sites, designated water facilities, and administrative sites. Some general guidelines that apply to the whole project in accordance to the SMS would be to repeat form, line, color, texture, pattern and scale common to the valued landscape character being viewed. At implementation, the Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to remain consistent with SIOs by adhering to certain design guidelines intended to give treated areas a more natural appearance. Units located in areas where not all trees are susceptible to MPB would have feathered and tapered edges to maintain natural appearance. Clumps and/or islands of non-hazard trees would be left within openings of hazard tree removal to break sight distance and to maintain a natural appearing landscape mosaic pattern.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would add cumulatively to the effects on scenery resources resulting from projects that are ongoing throughout the region. Many projects have been implemented throughout the years that have had an effect on the scenery throughout the ARNF region. The development of towns, infrastructure, mines, and timber management operations are examples of the types of past and present projects that have affected the scenery associated with the ARNF.
______Page 90 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Through implementation of this alternative, hazard trees would be cleared along the edges of roadways, trails, and administrative sites. Similar types of activities have been undertaken throughout the region on neighboring National Forests (Routt and White River), as well as on the ARNF where fuel loads have exceeded acceptable limits. Other projects that are similar have also been undertaken or are planned to be implemented on neighboring state, county and privates lands as well.
The areas expected to be affected to the greatest extent are those that have been identified as being the most hazardous for forest users and the general public.
A comprehensive description of the past, present, and foreseeable future projects that would add cumulatively to the effects on scenery resources is provided in Section 3.14.
Forest Plan Consistency
Any activity that is inconsistent with the SIO is prohibited unless a separate analysis and decision is made and documented to change the value in the affected area. All management activities are to be planned and designed to meet the level of SIO identified. Scenic Integrity Objectives are long-term management goals used to design and implement management activities that will adhere to the area’s designated SIO. Natural events, such as the ongoing bark beetle epidemic, may alter the existing scenic integrity, but will not change the long-term SIO. The vegetative cover of the landscape would be important for short-term, detailed management practices as well as long-term, broad-scale forest planning and management objectives, therefore an impacted area’s SIO would determine how the USFS responds to the loss of vegetative cover. The mature vegetation in this area consists of large trees that have a growth rate of 2 to 8 inches per year depending on the aspect of the slope, age, elevation and which side of the Continental Divide they inhabit. It would take approximately 25 to 50 years for the vegetation to regenerate to a point that the average visitor would view the forest as being intact.
3.11 Soils and Geology
3.11.1 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources (plant and animals fossils), are the remains and traces of once-living organisms, now preserved in rocks of the Earth’s crust. They convey the story of origins and endings of extraordinary varieties of ocean-dwelling, fresh-water, and terrestrial creatures that have lived on the Earth.
Paleontological (fossil) resources are natural resources that occur on public lands; therefore, they are managed in accordance with the requirements of several Federal laws, primarily the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Fossils are located in the bedrock which would not be affected by the Proposed Action. Therefore, these resources were not analyzed due to there being “no effect”.
3.11.2 Soils
Affected Environment
The analysis area for the Proposed Project covers a large area within the north-central mountainous portion of Colorado. Generally, soils in mountainous regions (including, but not limited to forested slopes, ridge- tops, mountain peaks, and valley bottoms) are shallow, rocky, and coarse textured. Most soils are characterized by thin surface layers, low water-holding capacity, and low nutrient cycling. Typical soils in mountainous areas are classified under the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Taxonomy as entisols and inceptisols, being that they are basically unaltered parent material (unconsolidated sediment or rock). Entisols and inceptisols are generally characterized by thin organic layers, but do range from mountain peak soils that have virtually no organic layers, to valley bottom soils that can have thicker organic layers. These soils are relatively young in age as erosional forces in mountainous regions are very active. Constant deposition of parent material and erosion of existing material causes these soils to have no
______Page 91 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
distinguishable soil horizons; although, in valley bottoms, a distinguishable mollic horizon (dark-colored surface horizon rich in organic matter) is sometimes present.
Riparian, wetland, and hydric soils can also be present in mountainous areas. A riparian soil is found in an area that is the interface between land and stream. Hydric soils are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding. These conditions must be maintained for a period long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions just below the ground surface. Wetland soils are soils that are saturated either permanently or seasonally.
Road cuts, fills, and ditches are also part of the affected environment. These areas are inherently artificially over-steepened, un-vegetated, and unstable. Surface erosion (rilling) and mass failure (slumping and sloughing) are commonly observed on road cuts and fills within the ARNF. The potential for soil eroded from roads and road adjacent areas to reach stream channels is often high. On the ARNF, soil erosion from roads and road adjacent areas generally occurs in response to runoff generated from snowmelt and/or high intensity thundershower events.
Environmental Consequences
3.11.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Implementing this alternative would result in no direct effects such as compaction and displacement, removal of forest floor and increased erosion, and burn pile effects. Indirect effects include eventual incorporation of beetle-killed trees into the stand as coarse woody debris (CWD), resulting in above-normal fuel loads. If a wildfire were to occur, the indirect effect of increased soil burn severity within the activity areas is possible where ground fuel loading is high. High soil burn severity is associated with physical, chemical, and biological changes to the soil and increased potential for soil erosion. On a watershed scale, these effects would likely occur in response to wildfire regardless of which alternative is selected.
Soils in the Proposed Project area are also highly susceptible to loss of productivity (reduced nutrient concentrations) if the surface organic horizon is displaced, removed, or consumed by fire. High soil burn severity, loss of productivity, and destruction of surface organic horizon all result in loss of vegetative cover. Many of the soils within the project area are prone to erosion when the vegetative cover is lost.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effect of implementation of this alternative may be that soils throughout those areas that are not treated would be damaged over the long term. This effect would be expected to occur specifically in the event of a large scale wildfire after hazard trees have begun to fall. As trees across the infested region begin to fall, they would be expected to fall in a jackstraw manner and their root systems would be expected to become exposed. By falling, their parent soil will be loosened and erosion rates would be expected to increase. Similarly, erosion rates following a large scale fire would increase as well.
Other effects are those that would result from projects and events that are known to cause erosion and compaction. Examples of the past, present, and future activities that may add to these effects include mining, agriculture and construction.
Section 3.14 provides a description of the past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add cumulatively to the effects on soils.
______Page 92 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.11.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct and indirect effects of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative include increased rates of soil erosion, soil compaction and exposure, detrimental effects from burning, damage to sensitive soils, disturbances in nutrient cycling, as well as other effects detailed below.
Erosion
Removal of vegetative cover (canopy and surface) would reduce precipitation interception, and expose the soil to the erosive forces of rainfall. Ground-disturbing activities associated with mechanized timber harvesting increase soil surface exposure, which may also result in the erosive mechanisms of soil displacement and rutting.
Treatments in the project area with steep slopes, where stand density is high, and where all trees would be removed would have the highest probability for soil erosion. However, these areas are mainly confined to where beetle kill is extensive.
The risk of detrimental soil erosion in the proposed treatment sites can be minimized by ensuring acceptable amounts of ground cover. Ground cover is very effective in reducing post-harvest erosion. In addition, in areas where detrimental erosion occurs, a soil scientist would be consulted per the proposed Design Criteria. The desired outcome of the consultation would be to identify mitigative measures to be incorporated into field activities. Adherence to the general specifications of the LRMP standards would minimize effects. Medicine Bow and Routt National Forest(s) soil monitoring has previously shown that after harvesting activities (in accordance with the standards), ground cover densities met or exceeded targeted standards, resulting in no accelerated soil erosion (Tepler, 2009). However, ARNF soil monitoring has shown a high degree of variability of ground cover following implementation. In any case, no accelerated soil erosion should occur if ground cover requirements as set forth in the Design Criteria are met post treatment.
Mechanical methods of treatments would include tree shearing, use of a hydro axe, chipping, masticating, and lopping and scattering harvest-generated slash. Along trails slash may be lopped and scattered, while the majority of slash in the other proposed treatment areas would be piled and burned or chipped and masticated. These mechanical methods would be implemented in a manner to prevent detrimental erosion. A hydro axe treatment creates fine litter, or mulch. This mulch provides a protective layer for rubber-tired equipment to travel over, thus reducing surface disturbance and preventing erosion after treatment (Zachman, 2003). Lopping and scattering harvest-generated slash in treatment areas provide post-harvest ground cover, as well as generating woody debris and organic material. Such ground cover is very effective in reducing post-treatment erosion.
Compaction and Exposure
Mechanized timber harvest methods increase soil bulk density, and may cause soil compaction within treatment areas. Concentrated landing activities also create soil compaction. Soils are considered detrimentally compacted if there is a 15% increase in bulk density.
Ground-based skidding can result in 20 to 40% exposed soil area in the treatment areas. To reduce this soil exposure, skid trails, if necessary, would be designated by the USFS before beginning any treatment activities. Minimizing passes and turns with heavy equipment, proper planning and use of designated skid trails can reduce ground disturbance within the unit.
Indirect effects include probable decreases in soil productivity within the treatment areas, most significantly in association with skid trails and landings. However, to minimize these effects, skid trails and landings would be subsoiled or scarified, and the areal extent of soil disturbances would not exceed 15% of the total treatment area acreage. At this density, these disturbances are not considered to be
______Page 93 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
detrimental. In areas where detrimental impacts are greater than 15%, de-compaction measures would be implemented to mitigate these detrimental effects and adhere to LRMP standards.
Burning
Slash/logs may be hand or machine piled and later burned. The preferred method for mechanical or machine piling would be through the use of grapple machines or those methods capable of lifting and piling material with little or no soil surface disruption.
Burn pile effects on soil productivity range from moderate to severe, depending on burn severity, soil type, and site history. Typical effects on soils would be loss of litter layer, soil organic matter, soil structure and introduction of hydrophobicity. In the short term, fire may sterilize soils; however, natural recovery is expected over time. The potential burn pile footprint within activity areas is variable because it depends on stand density, implementation method, and a variety of slash disposal methods employed. Within mechanically treated units, the burn pile footprint would probably be between 0.5 to 3% of the activity area. Within manually treated activity areas, the burn pile footprint would probably be between 3 to 5% of the activity area but could be as high as 15% of the activity area.
Sensitive Areas
Most soils in the project area have high potential for erosion if protective ground cover is removed. Entisols and Inceptisols are not usually susceptible to deep compaction, but compaction can occur in high traffic areas such as roads or skid trails, as a result of operation of heavy equipment or other vehicular traffic.
Riparian, wetland, and hydric soil are very susceptible to detrimental compaction and erosion. Permanent damage to these soils can occur if mechanical treatments are conducted on them. Compaction can lead to loss of productivity, and removal of ground cover can lead to detrimental erosion.
As specified by the proposed Design Criteria and LRMP standards, no mechanical treatments would occur within 100 feet of riparian areas, within 200 feet of wetland areas, or on hydric soils. Instead, tree removal would be accomplished by hand crews with chainsaws. Minimal ground disturbance would be associated these hand treatments. Winching of cut logs may be allowed for this project in sensitive areas. This method is prone to causing detrimental disturbance; however, winching activities would be planned out in advance, and felled trees would be partially suspended when winching, to ensure as little disturbance as possible.
Nutrient Cycling
The long-term nutrient cycling in the proposed activity areas is dependent on a continual supply of slash and large downed wood for decomposition. The soils within the proposed treatment areas are relatively sensitive to ground disturbance and other impacts to nutrient cycling because a high proportion of their productive capacity is based on the nutrient rich surface layer. Decomposition of slash and large downed wood is relatively slow due to cold winter temperatures and limited moisture availability over much of the year. The proposed activities have low potential to detrimentally impact long-term nutrient cycling processes because many trees would remain following treatment, providing material for recruitment of large downed wood, fine slash, or needle cast. Recruitment of material for decomposition is expected to occur naturally over time in these activity areas.
Other Effects
The use of existing access and maintenance roads for project implementation may cause additional short- term ground disturbance and sediment production. Road stability conditions would determine the degree of the impact. Use of roads that were previously only lightly used, well vegetated, and stable would generate additional watershed impacts such as sediment production and soil runoff. On heavily-used, poorly
______Page 94 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project maintained, and/or unstable roads, the activities associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would likely benefit the watershed by reducing runoff and sediment production.
Additional indirect effects include probable decreases in soil productivity within the treatment areas; most significantly in association with skid trails and landings. However, to minimize this effect, skid trails and landings would be subsoiled or scarified, and the areal extent of detrimental soil disturbances would not exceed 15% of the total treatment area acreage. At this density, these disturbances are not considered to be detrimental.
Currently, OHV use within the analysis area is restricted to the NFS road system; these restrictions are expected to continue in the future. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that OHVs will occasionally operate outside of permitted areas. Removing stands and vegetation along roadways has the potential to attract OHV use. OHV use off designated trails causes soil displacement, soil compaction, removal of ground cover, and accelerated erosion.
Winter logging may also occur through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. With proper implementation of the Design Criteria for winter logging, impacts to the soils may be less than those resulting from activities during the summer and fall months.
Cumulative Effects
It is reasonably foreseeable that cumulative effects on soil resources would occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Other types of projects are being implemented, planned, or proposed across the ARNF, some of which are similar in nature and may occur geographically connected to the Proposed Project area. It is also reasonably foreseeable that similar types of activities would occur on neighboring non-NFS federal, state, and local lands.
The cumulative effect of these types of projects may be that increased levels of erosion, soil compaction, and disturbance would occur throughout the area in and around the ARNF. However, through the implementation of these types of projects, potential adverse effects on soils resulting from high intensity fires would be avoided.
Section 3.14 provides a description of past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to Soil Resources.
Forest Plan Consistency
Both alternatives would comply with all LRMP standards and guidelines pertinent to soil resources. Compliance in the context of the Proposed Action is based on implementation of pertinent project Design Criteria.
3.12 Wildlife
The ARNF propose to remove all hazardous trees located along roads and trails, and in or around administrative sites. Wildlife species are mobile and utilize a wide variety and range of habitats, and there are many acres of adequate habitat available for wildlife within or adjacent to the project area for the Proposed Action.
3.12.1 Management Indicator Species
Affected Environment
The USFS (2002b, c) identified Management Indicator Species (MIS) to provide a means to monitor selected issues on the forest as required by regulation (36 CFR219.19, 1982). MIS species are selected
______Page 95 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
species within the forests that when management practices are being implemented the USFS can monitor the effects of those management actions on particular chosen species.
An assessment of potential effects to the ARNF MIS species was conducted and summarized within the MIS report that is part of the Biological Evaluation (BE) found within the project file. This assessment describes distribution and status, habitat associations, potential effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative), as well as the rationale for the conclusions for each species that could be affected by this project. Table 3.12-1 lists the selected MIS on the ARNF and the relevance of these species to the analysis.
Table 3.12-1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Relevance to the Proposed Project Species Analyzed Common Scientific Habitat Within Conclusions/Evaluations Name Name Characteristics Project Area? This species generally inhabits rocky Rocky Ovis Rocky outcrops, outcrops and cliff areas, however, it is cliffs, slopes, thought to utilize forest edges and adjacent Mountain canadensis canyons adjacent to YES meadows on occasion. The Proposed bighorn sheep canadensis rivers Action may have minimal influence on this species. The Proposed Action would have a short- term negative effect on elk habitat and Woodland habitats displacement of individuals or groups. Cervus and meadows MPB infestation results in high percentage American elk adjacent to YES elephus of dead and dying trees essentially woodland areas affecting cover habitat. This effect is analyzed in detail in MIS report. Similar effects as above for the elk. Grasslands, open Individuals or groups may be affected in Odocoileus meadows, and the short term. Long-term benefits include Mule deer edges of woodland YES hemionus forest regeneration resulting in adequate habitats foraging habitat. Mature coniferous and deciduous The Proposed Action would impact forests, forest edges minimal amounts of habitat for this Hairy Picoides that have YES species. The amount of impact could woodpecker villosus disturbance from reduce some habitat in the long term, but fire/harvest, also considerable changes to the population are found in wetland not anticipated. habitats This species would have habitat available Spruce-fir, aspen, during and after implementation. Per Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old YES Design Criterion 21, USFS biologists goshawk gentilis growth mature and would ensure adequate surveys are even aged stands conducted prior to treatments; if nests occur they would be protected. Ponderosa pine, This species primarily inhabits lower pinyon-juniper, Pygmy elevation ponderosa pine forests, aspen mixed conifer- Sitta pygmaea NO and riparian areas that are not within nuthatch aspen, montane project area. riparian areas Mostly abundant in spruce-fir forests; effects to this species would be minimal Golden- Regulus Dense spruce-fir since this species inhabits high elevation crowned forests with closed YES forests. The amount of impact could satrapa kinglet canopies reduce some habitat in the short and mid- term but considerable changes to population are not anticipated.
______Page 96 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Species Analyzed Common Scientific Habitat Within Conclusions/Evaluations Name Name Characteristics Project Area?
Forest edges with snags for foraging, This species primarily is found in pinyon- Mountain Sialia sagebrush, pinyon- NO juniper within Colorado. The type of bluebird currucoides juniper, shrubs habitat inhabited by this species would not adjacent to be affected by this project. grasslands
The type of habitat utilized by this species Riparian woodlands Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus NO would not be affected by this project. Riparian areas, edges of beaver ponds, lakes, bogs, Wilson's Wilsonia The type of habitat this species utilizes and over-grown NO would not be affected by this project. warbler pusilla clearcuts of montane and boreal forests Marshes, wet Per Design Criterion 36, protection of meadows, streams, riparian, wetland, and upland habitats Anaxyrus edges of beaver would be required. A USFS biologist Boreal toad ponds and lakes YES boreas boreas would assess habitat before hazard tree interspersed with treatments. subalpine forests
Environmental Consequences
3.12.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative would provide habitat for MIS. The No Action Alternative would have the same effects as stated in section 3.12.2 for the Region 2 Sensitive Species.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to all wildlife species potentially affected by either the Proposed Project or the bark beetle epidemic itself would be expected to occur. It is also known that similar types of projects are currently being implemented on neighboring USFS lands, specifically the Routt and White River National Forests. It is also reasonably foreseeable that future, similar projects would occur on other regional USFS lands and non-NFS federal, state, and private lands.
As a whole for wildlife species, as vegetative compositions change within a given location, then so do the faunal species compositions that are associated with those locations. As the bark beetle epidemic changes the vegetative cover of the landscape (where bark beetle susceptible, mature timber exists), changes in the faunal species compositions will occur as well. Through implementation of either the No Action or Proposed Action Alternative, the cumulative effects would be the same for all three groups of species considered (MIS, Sensitive, and T&E).
Past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects to wildlife are described in Section 3.14.
______Page 97 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.12.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Heavy equipment that is used outside of the 100-foot buffer near riparian and wetland areas would have the potential to impact amphibians and their dispersal patterns. Direct effects to amphibians would be the potential of crushing individuals with equipment or falling trees and debris during implementation. Application of Design Criterion 36 would protect these riparian areas.
The Proposed Action Alternative must follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines for biological diversity wildlife and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species. (ARNF LRMP 1997). These requirements would provide water, foraging, roosting, breeding/nesting habitats, and prey animals to support populations of MIS. This would support the LRMP objectives for MIS species.
Cumulative Effects
See the Cumulative Effects section for 3.12.1.1.
3.12.2 Region 2 Sensitive Species
Affected Environment
The USFS Rocky Mountain Region (R2) has updated the Sensitive Species list as of June 12, 2009. The R2 Sensitive Species list was considered with respect to those species that occur on the ARNF that are relevant for this analysis. A BE is prepared for each project authorized, funded, or conducted on national forest land to determine the possible effects the proposed activity may have on sensitive species (FSM 2672.43). The BE process is intended to analyze and document those activities necessary to ensure management actions would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The BE for the Proposed Project is available in the project record.
The R2 Sensitive Species list was reviewed by the wildlife program manager for the ARNF and the species that did not have habitat within, or were not known to occur, nor have ranges that overlapped the Proposed Project area were excluded from consideration as sensitive species for this proposal and are not discussed further in this document. These species that did not have habitat in or were not located within the Proposed Project area were determined to have no impact and are discussed in detail within the BE document. Species that may have habitat within or occur in the Proposed Project area are included in this analysis.
The following species have the potential to be impacted by this project: North American wolverine, American marten, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pygmy shrew, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, boreal owl, flammulated owl, American three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, and wood frog. A determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” (MAII) was made for these species. Table 3.12-2 describes the rationale supporting this determination for each species.
Table 3.12-2 Region 2 Sensitive Species within the Proposed Project Area and Potential Effects Common Scientific Primary Habitat Rationale for Determination Name Name • The Proposed Action would affect only a small percentage of available habitats. Secluded spruce- North • Limited potential of treatment occurring in high fir/lodgepole pine and American Gulo gulo elevation suitable habitat. heavy timber areas, • LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be met wolverine high elevation through the Design Criteria. • Forest Plan guidelines for maintaining interior forests with CWD for habitat would be provided.
______Page 98 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Common Scientific Primary Habitat Rationale for Determination Name Name • Temporary dispersal of individuals, until forest regeneration occurs. • Abundant suitable habitat is adjacent to project Mature dense forests area. American Martes • of mixed Doug-fir, LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be met marten americana through Design Criterion 21 which calls for review lodgepole and spruce of habitats for the proposed treatment areas before implementation. • Design Criterion 22 would allow for CWD and snag retention to restore marten habitat. Rocky outcrops, cliffs, • This species may experience disturbance or Rocky Ovis slopes, canyons displacement of individuals during Mountain canadensis implementation. adjacent to rivers and bighorn sheep canadensis • LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be met forests through the Design Criteria. • Conversion of mesic habitats to drier habitats from timber harvest and removal of large wood debris on forest floors result in species decline. Wet conifer forests, • Potential for the proposed activities to harm local bogs, marshes, dense shrews and removal of suitable habitat. Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi stream networks- • LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be met wetlands, elevations when following pertinent Design Criteria for above 9,000 ft. wetlands and wildlife that limit disturbance of highly suitable habitat. • District biologist would make assessment prior to implementation (Design Criterion 21). Old abandoned mines, • This species may experience disturbance or Townsend’s Plecotus caves, structures in displacement of individuals during implementation. big-eared bat townsendii forests and woodlands • Proposed Action may result in removal or above 9,500 ft. reduction in foraging and roosting habitat. • LRMP standards for snags and CWD are included in Design Criteria, thus providing prey habitat. Spruce-fir, aspen, and • Abundant suitable habitat is adjacent to project Northern Accipiter lodgepole pine, old area. goshawk gentilis growth mature and • Design Criterion 21 would ensure that adequate even aged stands protection to raptors would be provided prior to any treatments. If nests are discovered, they would be protected in accordance with LRMP standards. • LRMP Standards for snags and CWD are included in Design Criteria, thus providing prey habitat. Sub-alpine forests of • Abundant suitable habitat is adjacent to project Aegolius fir and spruce, mixed Boreal owl area. funereus conifer and lodgepole • Design Criterion 21 would ensure that adequate pine protection would be provided prior to any treatments. If nests are discovered, they would be protected in accordance with LRMP standards. • Species primarily nests in Aspen; felling of aspen trees would be expected to minimal. Aspen regenerates relatively quickly, allowing for habitat Coniferous mountain to recover. forest mixed with • LRMP Standards for snags and CWD are included Flammulated (Otus Douglas-fir, aspen or in Design Criteria, thus providing prey habitat. owl flammeolus ) • Abundant suitable habitat is adjacent to project oak, 400-3000m (up to area. 9,300ft) • Design Criterion 21 would ensure that adequate protection would be provided prior to any treatments; if nests are discovered, they would be protected in accordance with LRMP Standards.
______Page 99 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Common Scientific Primary Habitat Rationale for Determination Name Name • With either alternative, over time stands will have high densities of snags from beetle killed trees providing habitat for this cavity nesting bird. • Species may be displaced at first but would Old growth spruce-fir American relocate where prey is abundant. Picoides and lodgepole pine • three-toed LRMP Standards for snags and CWD are included dorsalis with recent fire in Design Criteria, thus providing woodpecker and woodpecker disturbance prey habitat. • Design Criterion 21 would ensure that adequate protection would be provided prior to any treatments; if nests are discovered, they would be protected. • LRMP Standards for snags and CWD are included in Design Criteria, thus providing prey habitat. • Benefits to flycatchers would likely accrue because Mixed-coniferous reduced canopy cover (from beetle mortality, Olive-sided Contopus forests, and forest logging or both) would improve breeding habitat flycatcher cooperi edges, especially suitability. disturbed forest edges • In areas where all trees are to be removed, single trees and groups of trees that are reserved may provide foraging and perching habitats preferable to the flycatcher. • This species inhabits a wide variety of wetland and Marshes, wet riparian areas and are known to disperse through Anaxyrus meadows, streams, upland habitats throughout their range. Boreal toad boreas edges of beaver ponds • Per Design Criterion 36, protection of riparian, boreas and lakes interspersed wetland, and upland habitats would be required. • with subalpine forests USFS biologist would assess habitat before hazard tree treatments. Wet meadows, banks and • This species inhabits a wide variety of wetland and seasonally flooded areas riparian areas and are known to disperse through Northern Lithobates near streams and lakes, upland habitats throughout their range. • Per Design Criterion 36, protection of riparian, leopard frog pipiens marshes, ponds, beaver wetland, and upland habitats would be required. ponds, lakes rivers, and • USFS biologist would assess habitat before hazard irrigation ditches tree treatments. Sedge wetlands, • This species inhabits a wide variety of wetland and adjoining grassy riparian areas and are known to disperse through Lithobates meadows, willow bogs, upland habitats throughout their range. Wood frog • Per Design Criterion 36, protection of riparian, sylvatica moist and humid wetland, and upland habitats would be required. coniferous forests, and • USFS biologist would assess habitat before hazard aspen groves tree treatments.
Environmental Consequences
3.12.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative. Through implementation of this alternative, no new direct or indirect effects would occur. Ecological processes would continue in the absence of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Fire behavior and fuel loads would be left to be managed through their natural disturbance regimes. The short- and long-term effects of the current bark beetle epidemic would drastically alter the forest and stand characteristics within the foreseeable future. There is great potential for the degradation of habitat for the forests’ sensitive species due to possible wind throw or wildfire
______Page 100 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project events. This would be disadvantageous to most species; habitat alteration is one of the primary impacts leading to species decline.
Beneficial effects may occur for certain species from recruitment of CWD by providing cover and foraging habitat.
Cumulative Effects
See the Cumulative Effects for section 3.12.1.1.
3.12.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, actions would be taken to remove hazard trees near roads, trails, and administrative sites. Although most species do not generally occur where high volumes of disturbance take place, they still utilize these areas for movement in and out of habitats. Connectivity between habitats or an adequate amount of cover for most species is important for survival against predators. Proposed Design Criteria 20 and 22 would serve to benefit habitats by leaving felled trees and slash in place to provide such cover and protection. Other than short-term disturbance, effects would be similar to the No Action Alternative, as trees would fall over the next several years regardless of treatment.
Forest management projects can have the potential to eliminate habitat directly or reduce the quality of habitat for some sensitive species. In these cases some species may require larger territories or home ranges in order to meet individual survival needs. As a result of this, densities of individuals may decrease in these reduced quality habitats temporarily. During the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative there is potential for some species to be displaced from treatment areas as well as areas adjacent to treatments. After treatment operations species may return to these areas after harvest has occurred. The temporary disturbance and displacement in areas adjacent to treated areas is not expected to cause any decrease in reproductive success, decreased survival, or increased territory size for any individual sensitive species. Treatments would occur in narrow corridors adjacent to roads, trails, and administrative areas thereby minimizing overall disturbance and displacement. The proposed Design Criteria would also serve to protect sensitive species by determining site protection needs on an individual as needed basis as treatment locations are known.
Indirectly, species may be impacted by habitat alteration and natural processes of forest succession. Some impacts as a result of this project may be beneficial to certain species from canopy removal, creating forest regeneration and potential increase in prey availability.
Amphibians
Sensitive amphibian species and their preferred habitat are primarily limited to riparian and wetland habitats and other aquatic systems, however they are known to disperse to upland forest habitats. Direct effects to sensitive amphibian species may include crushing from falling trees and/or mechanical equipment. Direct effects to these species and their preferred habitats would be minimized by implementation of the proposed Design Criteria, as USFS specialists would be required to review project sites with known populations or preferred habitat in order to assess the presence of or possible effects to the sensitive species. Prior to implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, a USFS specialist would need to assess the known treatment areas for upland habitat use of amphibians and work closely with the timber sale or contract administrator to limit equipment and hand felling operations in upland habitat where known populations exist.
Generally, trees located near wetland and riparian areas have less stress than those in upland areas due to adequate water supplies. Therefore, some may not be designated as hazardous and potentially no treatments would be necessary within the WIZ. However, as the MPB infestations spread and drought situations
______Page 101 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
continue, this could potentially change in the foreseeable future. If there were to be hazardous trees within wetland and riparian areas, specific Design Criteria would be utilized to minimize impacts to these habitats.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects may result from other projects including timber sales, fuels reduction projects, development and other vegetation removal projects within the ARNF. A detailed list of these projects are located within the BE and BA for this project as well as Section 3.14 of this document. This project would further contribute to the cumulative effects from these past, present and future projects listed above.
Design Criteria and the LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be implemented to minimize negative effects to species and habitats.
3.12.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Affected Environment
A detailed review and determination of effects of the Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species for the ARNF can be found within the BA prepared for ARNF for this EA, located within the project file. The species on the Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species list for the ARNF that have potential to be affected by the alternatives analyzed in this EA are the Canada lynx and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The Mexican spotted owl was removed from further consideration in the BA due to lack of habitat within the project area and no known species occurring in the ARNF. The greenback cutthroat trout is discussed in Section 3.3 of this document.
There are no threatened or endangered amphibian species known to occur within the ARNF.
Table 3.12-3 summarizes habitat information for each of these species known to be found within the project area and the potential effects that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Table 3.12-3 Federally Listed Species within the Proposed Project Area and Potential Effects Designated Common Scientific Primary Critical Determination of Effects Name Name Habitat Habitat Present† “May affect but not likely to adversely affect ” • Low number of acres being converted to unsuitable or other habitat. • Low population numbers within forest habitats. Lodgepole • Project follows all SRLA* VEG Standards and pine, Guidelines VEG: S1, S2, S5, S6; G1, G4, G5, Lynx subalpine fir, G10, G11. Canada lynx Yes • Proposed Actions follow guidance from LCAS** canadensis and as well. Engelmann • Low potential for dispersal disturbance. spruce • Lynx connectivity, foraging, and other suitable habitats would regenerate over time through implementation of Design Criteria and LRMP standards and guidelines. Regeneration allows for increased optimum habitat for snowshoe hare. “May affect but not likely to adversely affect ” Preble’s Riparian • Low potential for disturbance to habitat. meadow Zapus areas, jumping • Design Criteria and LRMP would protect riparian hudsonius wetlands, Yes and wetland areas. mouse, preblei moist-shrub (Colorado SPR – dominant Species) * SRLA – Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ** LCAS – Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy † Present or could be affected
______Page 102 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Consequences
3.12.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of this alternative there would be no treatment within the Proposed Project area other than what is completed through standard USFS management practices, and ecological processes would continue. The same rates of disturbance would continue to occur naturally. The bark beetle epidemic is a factor affecting lynx populations directly, indirectly and cumulatively by altering the foraging, denning, and linkage habitats. Insect and disease-killed trees would continue to fall and become part of the fuel load and potential wildland fire intensity would continue to increase. However, beneficial impacts may occur from limited recruitment of CWD by increasing foraging and denning habitats.
Under this alternative there would be no direct effects, however within 5 to 15 years a blowdown event may occur within the lynx habitat, creating many open areas of unsuitable habitat. If a large blowdown event were to occur, vast open areas would be naturally created that may have an adverse effect on lynx habitat. As discussed in detail in the BA, disturbance such as blowdown events and insect infestations may decrease habitat for snowshoe hare, therefore limiting suitable foraging habitat for the lynx. The No Action Alternative would also increase the potential for a very severe wildland fire resulting in unsuitable habitat as well.
Effects to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse would be expected to be minimal due to the elevation ranges this species inhabits. This species is primarily found on the eastern edge of the Front Range of Colorado in well developed plains riparian areas with abundant vegetation adjacent to grassland and upland forest habitats. The majority of the MPB-killed trees occurs in elevations that the Preble’s do not normally inhabit. Therefore, the potential for the mouse to be in areas where lodgepole pine exists is minimal.
In the unlikely presence of this species in these areas, effects under this alternative may be environmental impacts from wildfire or other events that would potentially destroy wetland and riparian habitats. There is long-term potential for all dead and dying trees to be involved in a wind throw event, fire, or other natural disturbance that may result in an alteration of the hydrology of the waterway which would have detrimental impacts to the Preble’s. Changes to water flows, whether naturally or human-induced, may alter the channel structure, riparian vegetation and adjacent floodplains, leading to substantially increased potential for flooding of these habitats, which would have detrimental effects on this species. (USFWS Final EA)
Cumulative Effects
The No Action Alternative would not be expected to add cumulatively to the effects to the Canada lynx beyond those that have created the existing conditions for the species. See also the Cumulative Effects for Section 3.12.1.1 and Section 3.14.
3.12.3.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are 11 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) covering 1,561,545 total acres that occur within portions of the ARNF, as well as the Rocky Mountain National Park. Of these LAUs, 1,330,309 acres occur within the ARNF, and 35,401 acres lie within the project area. The expected treatment area amounts to approximately 4% of the total LAU acres. This would be a minimal change for the lynx or lynx habitat relative to the hundreds of thousands of acres of lynx habitat that could be altered by the beetle infestation. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would temporarily reduce suitable (other) habitat for the lynx due to the possibility of a high proportion of existing vegetation that would be completely removed within any given treatment area. Some benefits may occur from the regeneration of forests after timber harvest or natural processes by providing newly regenerated vegetation for snowshoe hare habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). The interior of newly created openings from timber harvest and salvage are
______Page 103 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
unsuitable for lynx because vegetative cover is important for optimum foraging (Koehler and Aubry 1994). The determination for the lynx is “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect” for the Proposed Action Alternative. The rationale for this determination is located in Table 3.12-1 above.
The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse may be directly affected as equipment or falling trees may crush individuals or disrupt habitat. Design Criteria would prevent any equipment from entering wetland and riparian areas; however, where terrain may limit the extent of riparian vegetation, and upland vegetation may occur within the WIZ, logging equipment may be used within the WIZ with USFS approval (Design Criterion 36a). A USFS biologist would provide approval of this action to ensure that no Preble’s meadow jumping mice are present and that no habitat will be destroyed. A determination of “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect” is made for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Table 3.12-1).
Implementation of this alternative may have positive and negative effects. The existing habitat is changing as trees die and are replaced by combinations of young trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs. The Proposed Action Alternative may provide stabilization and control of critical habitat by improving and creating an edge along forests, piles of slash and debris creating cover for species and their prey, and by reducing the fuel load that would contribute to a catastrophic wildfire. Manipulation of habitats and fuels may serve as a vehicle to strengthen and rehabilitate the optimum habitat for many of these species in a shorter time interval than the natural processes that are currently at work in the degrading forest and associated ecosystems.
Design Criteria would be implemented, as well as LRMP Standards and Guidelines, in order to minimize any negative effects.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects may result from other projects including timber sales, fuels reduction projects, development and other vegetation removal projects within the ARNF. A detailed list of these projects are located within the BE and BA for this project as well as in Sec. 3.14 of this document. This project would further contribute to the cumulative effects from these past, present and future projects listed above.
Design Criteria and the LRMP Standards and Guidelines would be implemented to minimize negative effects to species and habitats and to avoid adding cumulatively to the effects to the species throughout the region.
Forest Plan Consistency
Implementation of either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action Alternative would comply with the LRMP Standards and Guidelines pertinent to terrestrial species. Consistency with the Forest Plan is based on effective implementation of the pertinent Design Criteria.
Consistency with Other Regulation
All compliance would be met in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act Section 7, and the HFRA.
3.13 Socioeconomics
In meeting the requirements of NEPA the USFS seeks to fully consider the impacts of the Proposed Project on the physical, biological, social, and economic aspects of the human environment. (40 CFR 1507.2 (a), 40 CFR 1508.14). It is considered whether or not the Proposed Project would change the lives of current and future residents, and in the view of environmental justice (Executive Order 12898), change disproportionately the lives of minority or low income populations. Public perception of the Proposed Project is also important and efforts have been made to understand these perceptions by communicating with the public and affected stakeholders early on in the assessment process.
______Page 104 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Affected Environment
As one of the most visited national forests in the nation, the 1.5 million acres of the ARNF touches the lives of millions of people who live in and around, or visit the national forests annually. The ARNF interfaces directly with Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Larimer, and Park counties. Table 3.13.-1 identifies the number of acres of forest that lie within each county. (Figures acquired from 2007 Secure Rural Schools Act Report, as provided by ARNF Public Affairs Specialist.)
Table 3.13-1 Acreage within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests by County County Acres of ARNF Boulder 138,070 Clear Creek 161,085 Gilpin 40,580 Grand 531,321 Jefferson 2,077 Larimer 648,002 Park 6,176
According to most recent census figures, the average median age of the populations in these counties is 37. Poverty levels in affected counties range from 4 to 9.5% with the state average at 9.3%. Minority populations range from 6 to 16.4% with the state average of 25.5%. Of the seven counties, Boulder, Jefferson and Larimer have higher percentages of urban populations.
Resources
Recreational attractions, driven by access to public lands, support the tourism economy by bringing millions of dollars and jobs to communities within and adjacent to the ARNF. The continued health of the ARNF is critical to the many current and future populations it serves. As populations increase, the demand for multiple-use recreation in the national forest increases. While the ARNF is an important year-round public recreation destination for nearly 6.7 million visitors, there are also thousands of private residences within the exterior boundary of the forests (ARNF Visitor Guide). Some resident livelihoods depend on timber, grazing, and other products and services that are provided to residents and visitors. Roadways provide important travel passages and scenic byways, and right-of-way corridors provide avenues for critical utilities. The ARNF hosts ten designated Wilderness Areas, Colorado’s first designated Wild and Scenic River, and surrounds Rocky Mountain National Park. Watersheds in areas of the ARNF provide municipal water sources for the local communities as well as for many of the large urban areas along the Front Range.
Changes in social or economic conditions affect the human environment. These changes are reflected in community demographics, retail/service and housing market analyses, demand for public services, changes in employment and income levels, and changes to the aesthetic qualities of the community.
The communities affected by the ARNF are numerous and distinctly different demographically. Impacts that this Proposed Project would have on each individual community, the visiting community at large, and any disadvantaged populations is dependent on many factors such as actual implementation areas, timing and intensity of treatment, and duration. Therefore, clear communication between the ARNF and the affected populations is highly important. Input received from the public helps delineate their most important social and economic priorities. Prioritization of the treatments based on highest public use is of particular community concern, as are potential closures of recreational areas, and a decreased aesthetic experience.
______Page 105 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Environmental Consequences
3.13.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Through implementation of the No Action Alternative, management practices would continue, including hazard tree removal along roads and trails and within developed recreation and administrative sites. However, such removal would not be managed in a concerted effort or within the scope and timeframe of the Proposed Action Alternative.
Implementation of this alternative would result in increased risk of wildfire, which can ultimately affect any or all of the resources discussed above. These potential effects include increased public and fire fighter danger, reduced economic viability of forest resources, interruption of activities and subsequent services provided to recreationalists, and a severe aesthetic impact.
Increased numbers of hazard trees would increase the likelihood of recreational areas being closed for indefinite periods of time for maintenance and safety precautions. Further, by not removing trees from the edges of roads and in campgrounds, the eventual response from the public would be to discontinue using those roads and campgrounds. A decline in recreational use and visitors to this area would have detrimental economic effects.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of this alternative would be expected to add to the cumulative effects on the socioeconomics associated with the ARNF region. This alternative would be expected to result in an abundance of hazard trees falling across roads and trails and within administrative sites. The cumulative effect would be access issues to and from some locations within the ARNF.
As the bark beetle epidemic progresses, the occurrence of resource closures would be expected to increase. This effect would be expected to occur throughout the region where hazard trees are allowed to persist. As a cumulative effect, travel for citizens that need to use roads that transect portions of the ARNF may be delayed or eliminated. Furthermore, where trails become inundated by downed trees, forest users would be likely to relocate their activities to areas that may not be as hazardous. The overall economic effect may be the relocation of tax funds to other areas.
The relocation of the tax base can also add cumulatively to an area’s ability to respond to the epidemic. As the tax base decreases for particular areas, so would the availability of funds for local resource managers to maintain necessary infrastructure such as diversion ditches.
Section 3.14 provides a description of the past, present, and foreseeable future projects that may add to the cumulative effects on the socioeconomics of the region associated with the ARNF.
3.13.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be short-term economic effects from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative in order to accomplish the long-term objective of balanced forest and community health. Some of those effects would be negative in the case of logging damage, a glut of beetle kill wood with a fluctuating market and complicated supply chain, temporary area closures, and decreased aesthetics. There may be a perception among property owners that property values have been affected.
Some effects would be positive in terms of jobs and increased economic activity for communities associated with the implementation routes. Implementation of this alternative would also facilitate continued use of roads and recreational areas by ensuring they remain clear of fallen trees and by
______Page 106 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project improving the aesthetics in those areas. Further, with the treatment of each area public safety would improve.
Cumulative Effects
A cumulative effect of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be that safety would increase and fire hazards would become more manageable. When those obstacles are mitigated, it enables recreation to continue. On a grander scale, the protection of important water sources and utilities would be fortified. These effects would be managed as a whole in consideration of the other similar types of projects that are currently being undertaken or are being planned or proposed within the foreseeable future on other non-NFS federal, state, and private lands.
3.14 Overall Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are generally considered as all of those effects that may accumulate incrementally to a greater degree than those that are specifically discussed as direct or indirect effects. Cumulative effects are in essence a summary of the direct and indirect effects that may occur as a result of a series of projects. Also, cumulative effects are not only assessed with respect to the geographic distribution of the project considered, but are inclusive of all projects within the greater area in which the project is located. This area is often referred to as the analysis area for the project. However, the analysis area for each resource that is assessed for a given project may vary in size and scope (i.e., a watershed may be considered for effects to hydrology and an entire forest ecosystem may be considered for effects to changes in vegetation).
3.14.1 Other Projects - Past
When cumulative effects are considered, the past activities that have occurred within and connected to a proposed project are included to set a baseline understanding of the existing conditions to which the potential effects may accumulate. Given the size and scope of this Proposed Project, a vast array of past activities have taken place. Virtually every resource within the ARNF has been altered in some degree due to the past activities that have taken place in the region.
In general, the past actions that have occurred in the region include but are not limited to livestock grazing, timber harvest and thinning, motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road/trail construction, road/trail maintenance, road and trail usage, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, fire (prescribed and wildfire), mining, urban development (including sub-dividing and development of private land), development of recreation areas, creation of water diversions altering the natural flow of waters, noxious weed infestation, and hunting.
Most past activities that have occurred on the lands assessed as a portion of this Proposed Project have been occurring for an extended period of time, many of which have been occurring for more than 100 years. There is no expectation that these activities would cease to take place; however the management of all of these activities has improved over the years and their current effects are understood to be much less in comparison to their past effects. For example, urban development projects normally follow through a series of reviews prior to implementation, whereas in the distant past no such reviews were completed.
It is also appropriate to include ongoing climate changes when considering the baseline conditions of the forest. Though the extent of the changes that have occurred and are directly attributable to the current conditions of the landscape is unknown, it is certain that changes in climatic conditions have also caused changes to the natural environment.
3.14.2 Other Projects - Current and Future
Though effects are known to accumulate across a given analysis area, the various effects of all actions are known to vary also in their temporal extents. This Proposed Project has been proposed to be implemented over the course of approximately 10 years. As such, the cumulative effects analysis for each resource has been developed in consideration of the potential projects that may occur over that time period. However,
______Page 107 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
assessing the cumulative effects (effects assessments with consideration of all projects on all lands) of projects that may occur over a 10-year period is limited with consideration to the change agents that are the driving force behind the purpose for the current and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the analysis area for this Proposed Project. This has become evident over the last few years as the spread of the bark beetle epidemic has continued throughout the region. As such, the focus of current and foreseeable projects across the forested landscape in which the Proposed Project is located has shifted from the previous variety to concentrate mostly on reducing forest fuel loads and hazard tree occurrences. This change in projects is characteristic of projects (present and future) that would be expected to occur on other NFS and non-NFS federal, state, and private lands as well.
According to the most recent Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the ARNF (USDA Forest Service 2010), there are a total of 112 actions that are being planned (proposed), placed on hold, or completed and ready for implementation within the forests. There are 23 of those projects that have been identified as potentially being connected either physically or characteristically to this Proposed Project. Those projects include (proposed actions are listed by Proposed Project Name Type of Assessment Performed (Project Status) – Project Location and/or Project Purpose):
Projects Proposed and Included in More Than One Region:
1. Geothermal Leasing Programmatic Environment Impact Statement (Planning) – 11 western states and including all BLM and USFS administered lands – Regulations, Directives, Orders 2. Western Area Power Administration Right-of-Way Maintenance and Reauthorization Project Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – All agency administered lines within USFS Region 2 – Special Use Management
Projects Proposed and Included Regionwide:
3. Emergency Power Line Clearing Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – All above- ground power lines within the Arapaho & Roosevelt, Routt, and White River National Forests - Vegetation Management
Projects Proposed within the ARNF:
Boulder Ranger District: 4. Colorado Natural Gas Proposal Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Special Use Management 5. Colorado State Highway 7 Recreation Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation Management 6. Como Creek Wildlife Habitat Improvement Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants 7. Emma J and Bessie B Road Association Easement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 8. Forsythe Fuel Treatment Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 9. Gold Hill Fuel Treatment Project Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Fuels Management 10. Jenny Creek Road Reroute and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Recreation, Road, and Watershed Management as well as Wildlife, Fish, Rare Plants 11. Lefthand Ditch Company – Lake Isabelle Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management 12. North Middle Fork Road Association Easement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 13. Poryphyry Mountain Road Association Easement Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Roads Management
Canyon Lakes District:
14. Barnes Meadow Reciprocal Easement Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Special Use Management
______Page 108 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
15. Cedar Park Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels and Vegetation Management 16. Glen Haven Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management 17. Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (Planning) – Special Use Management 18. Magic Sky Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels and Vegetation Management 19. Water Facility Easement for Twin lake Reservoir Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management
Clear Creek District:
20. Fairburn Mining and Exploration Plan of Operations Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Minerals and Geology 21. Loveland Ski Area Culvert Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Special Use Management 22. Mad Creek Project Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Fuels Management and Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants 23. Wyatt Right-of-Way Special Use Permit Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management
Sulphur District:
24. Fraser River Settling Pond Upgrade Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Watershed Management 25. Grand County Irrigated Land Company Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Special Use Management 26. Morton Ditch Categorical Exclusion (Completed) – Special Use Management 27. Public Service Company of Colorado Gas Line Extension Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Special Use Management 28. View Point Trail Categorical Exclusion (Planning) – Recreation Management 29. Williams Fork Forest Plan Amendment Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Land Management Planning 30. Willow Creek Salvage and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Forest Products, Fuels, and Vegetation Management 31. Winter Park Resort Vegetation Project – Response to Mountain Pine Beetle Environmental Assessment (Planning) – Fuels Management
The remaining projects that are included within the current SOPA for the ARNF but not listed above are those that are specifically associated with the issuance of special use permits or similar types of activities and generally not considered to add cumulatively to the potential effects of actions related to this Proposed Project.
3.14.3 Temporal Extents
Cumulative effects analysis for the purpose of this Proposed Project is based upon the appropriate scale for each of the resource areas considered. Due to the interconnectivity of the Proposed Project with other projects throughout the analysis area (sometimes referred to as the area of potential effect) for the resources considered, the cumulative effects assessed have been developed in consideration of all other types of projects that may affect those resources. In general, the effects that would be expected to occur to each resource area are the same as those that would be expected to occur as a result of other projects that are being implemented or planned within the analysis area.
______Page 109 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
3.15 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
The application of the LRMP standards and guidelines and the listed proposed Design Criteria would limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental effects as a result of this project. However, it is impossible to avoid all potential impacts completely. Refer to the discussion of Environmental Consequences for each resource in the preceding sections of this document for the disclosure of all the environmental effects.
3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The irreversible commitment of resources means that non-renewable resources are consumed or eliminated. An example of the irreversible commitment of resources would be the implementation of an alternative that would involve mining or possibly a project that would result in the extinction of a species.
No irreversible commitments of resources have been identified in this EA due to the fact that none of these types of activities have been included as part of this Proposed Project.
The irretrievable commitment of a resource is an opportunity that is foregone as a result of implementing some activity. They often represent a trade-off in the use and management of forest resources. Examples of this would be the loss of wood production or a permanent restriction on the use of a resource.
No irretrievable commitments of resources have been identified in this EA due to the fact that none of the expected effects would be permanent and that resources such as wood products have almost no market value (because of marketplace dynamics and poor quality characteristics of the beetle infested trees).
______Page 110 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The USFS consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EA.
Table 4-1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members* First Name Last Name Discipline Geoff Bell Fire/Fuels Mike Black Recreation/Scenery - JGMS Mike Caylor Fire/Fuels, Forested Vegetation/Old Growth, IRAs - JGMS Carl Chambers Hydrology Carol Coates Botany - JGMS Paul Cruz Recreation/Travel Management Lynne Deibel Wildlife Dyce Gayton Project Coordinator Mary Hattis GIS Dan Len Timber Cinnamon Levi Fisheries/Wildlife - JGMS Scott Mai Hydrology - JGMS Liz Moncrief Lands/Non-Recreational Special Uses Kevin O’Connell Engineering and Roads - JGMS Michael Piontkowski Cultural Resources - JGMS Steve Popovich Botany Jeff Rickard Soils - JGMS Erich Roeber Scenery Karen Roth COR Tim Sansom Natural Resources Manager – JGMS Eric Schroder Soils Kris Sexton Fisheries/Aquatics Sue Struthers Cultural Resources Michele White Transportation * ID team members include JG Management Systems, Inc. (JGMS) personnel.
Table 4-2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Notified During the Scoping Period First Name Last Name Agency Government Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Field Office Federal Joseph Vieira Bureau of Land Management Federal Larry Gamble National Park Service Federal Theresa Johnson National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park Federal Tim Carney Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal US Dept. of Interior/Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado Federal River District US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rodney Jones Western Area Power Administration Federal Colorado Department of Transportation, Environmental Robin Geddy State Coordinator Colorado Department of Transportation, Regional Environmental Tamara Smith State Planning Manager Jerry Classen Colorado Division of Wildlife, District Wildlife Manager State James Goodyear Colorado Division of Wildlife, Assistant Regional Manager State Andy Holland Colorado Division of Wildlife, Terrestrial Biologist State Tom Howard Colorado Division of Wildlife, District Wildlife Manager State Tina Jungwirth Colorado Division of Wildlife, District Wildlife Manager State Mark Leslie Colorado Division of Wildlife, Area Wildlife Manager State Eric Odell Colorado Division of Wildlife, Habitat Biologist State Mike Sherman Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Biologist State Jay Skinner Colorado Division of Wildlife, ISF Coordinator State Suzanne Turner-Kloster Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Manager State Colorado Historical Society, State Historical Preservation Officer State Colorado Natural Heritage Program, ER Coordinator State Tom Kenyon Colorado State Parks State Jack Placchi Colorado State Parks State Bob Bundy Colorado State Forest Service State
______Page 111 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
First Name Last Name Agency Government Allen Owen Colorado State Forest Service – Boulder, District Forester State Micke Harvey Colorado State University, District Forester State Robert Ward Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, CSU State Curtis Talley State Land Board, District Manager State Richard Parachini Water Quality Control Division, O&A Unit Manager State Rich Koopman Boulder County, Resource Planner County Barb Halpin Boulder County Commissioner’s Office County Kristopher Larsen Boulder County Intergovernmental, Trustee County Peter Fogg Boulder County Land Use Department, Manager County Eric Folwell Boulder County Parks & Open Space County Theresa Glowacki Boulder County Parks & Open Space County Gary Jones Boulder County Parks & Open Space, Planning & Zoning County Chad Julian Boulder County Parks & Open Space County Ron West Boulder County Parks & Open Space County Clear Creek County, Board of County Commissioners County Jennifer Murray Grand County Department of Natural Resources County Debra Campbell Grand County Department of Planning and Zoning County William Crowder Jackson County, County Administrator County Jim Congrove Jefferson County, Planner County Drew Davis Larimer County Road and Bridge County Frank Lancaster Larimer County, County Manager County Tony Simons Larimer County, Wildfire Safety Specialist County Don Whittemore Boulder Mountain Fire Authority, Chief Local Brook Svoboda City of Black Hawk, Planning Director Local Frank Bruno City of Boulder, City Manager Local Peter Pollack City of Boulder, Director Local J. Scholl City of Boulder, Mountain Parks Local Amy Mueller City of Boulder, Open Space, Coordinator Local Jan Geden City of Boulder, Parks & Recreation, Director Local Mike Patton City of Boulder, Planning Director Local Robert Williams City of Boulder, Public Works Department, Director Local Dennis Bode City of Fort Collins Local John Kolanz City of Greeley Local John McCutchan City of Greeley Local Dennis Fisher City of Longmont Local Larry Howard City of Loveland Water and Power Dept., Sr. Civil Engineer Local Dale Kralicek City of Northglenn Local Eldora Civic Association Local Fort Collins Conservation District Local Bryan Huseboe Grand Lake Metro Recreation District Local Margaret Hanson Historic Boulder Local Ed Raines Historic Preservation Advisory Board Local William Eliason Lyons Fire Protection, Chief Local Brian Werner Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Local Robert Ray Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Watershed Services Local Sally Stoffel Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Local Eric Bader Sunshine Fire Protection District, Chief Local Town of Empire, Mayor Local Bob Joseph Town of Estes Park, Community Development Director Local Jeff Durbin Town of Fraser, Planner Local Chuck Reid Town of Fraser Local Cynthia Neely Town of Georgetown Local James Cervanka Town of Grand Lake, Town Manager Local Debbie Babler Town of Lyons, Town Clerk Local Gary Cinnamon Town of Lyons, Town Administrator Local Janice Saeger Town of Lyons, Finance Director Local Town of Nederland, Planning Department Local Christi Icenogle Town of Nederland, Town Clerk Local James Stevens Town of Nederland, Town Administrator Local Janine Weeds Town of Silver Plume, Town Clerk Local Town of Ward, Planning Department Local George Lutz Town of Wellington, Mayor Local Daryl Shrum Town of Winter Park, Town Manager Local
______Page 112 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Table 4-3 Native American Tribes Notified During the Scoping Period First Name Last Name Affiliation Darrell Flyingman Cheyenne & Arapaho, Business Committee V.C Richard Brannan Northern Arapaho Business Council, Chairman JoAnn White Northern Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Eugene Little Coyote Northern Cheyenne Tribe, President Alonzo Sankey Southern Arapaho NAGPRA Representative Gordon Yellowman Southern Cheyenne NAGPRA Representative Clement Frost Southern Ute Indian Tribe Maxine Natchees Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee, Chair
______Page 113 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
(THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
______Page 114 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
5.0 REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, Duane C., 1966 . The Gordon Creek Burial. Southwestern Lore 32(1):19.
Anderson, P. G. 1996. Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on aquatic ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, Calgary, Alberta.
Anderson, T. (2005, January 20). Rocky Mountain Capshell Snail ( Acroloxus coloradensis ): a technical conservation assessment. Web Published. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
Andrews, J.T., P.E. Carrara, F. B. King and R. Stuckenrath, 1975. Holocene Environmental Changes in the Alpine Zone, Northern San Juan Mountains Colorado. Evidence from a Bog Stratigraphy and Palynology. Quaternary Research 5:173-197.
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest GIS Database.
Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest Website
Argent, D. G., and P. A. Flebbe. 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory streams. Fisheries Research 39:253-262.
Athearn, Frederic J., 1982. An Isolated Empire: A History of Northwest Colorado. Bureau of Land Management-Colorado. Cultural Resource Series No. 2, Second Edition. Denver.
Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. (2006, August 23). Mountain Sucker ( Catostomus platyrhynchus ): a technical conservation assessment. Web Published. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: < http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf >
Benda, L.E., Miller, D.J., Dunne, T., Reeves, G.H., Agee, J.K. 1998. Dynamic landscape Systems, In : Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E. (Eds.). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer, New York, pp. 261-288.
Benedict, James B. and Byron L. Olson, 1978. The Mount Albion Complex. Research Report No. 1, Center for Mountain Archaeology. Ward, Colorado.
Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Bisson, P. A., and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374.
Black, Kevin D., 1991. Archaic Continuity on the Colorado Rockies: The Mountain Tradition. Plains Anthropologist 36(133):1-29.
Burney, Michael S., 1986. The Results of Resurvey and Limited Testing of Site 5GA844 East of the Winter Park Ski Area, Grand County, Colorado . Burney & Associates, Inc., Boulder, Colorado. Report on file at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Burney, Michael S., Carol Coe, Collette Colle, Thomas J. Lennon, 1979. An Archaeological Study of Aboriginal Sites within the Windy Gap Dam, Reservoir and Pipeline Project near Granby, Grand County, Colorado. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. Submitted to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Contract No. 78-CO-124. Ms. available at the Routt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
______Page 115 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Butler, William B., 2005. “The Historic Archeology of Rocky Mountain National Park ”. Report on file Rocky Mountain National Park and Colorado State Historical Society, Denver.
Clapper, Jamie, Sheila McCarthy, Elicia Ratajczyk, Terri Liestman, Matthew Miller, Jeff Overturf, Anthony King, Doug Stephens, Miles Friend, Dave Spildie, John Hamilton, Linda Lux, Judy Rose, Dana Supernowicz, Mike McIntyre, Jon Brady, Jan Cutts, Joann Brandoff-Kerr and Steven McNeil, 2008. Inventory and Evaluation of Recreation Residences, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Colorado . Ms. on file with the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Colorado Sportsmen Wildlife Fund Inc., 2009.
Colorado State Demography Office.
Colorado State Demography Office.
CSU Lory Student Center, Fort Collins, CO. March 17, 2006. Roadless Area Review Task Force, Fort Collins Public Comment Meeting.
Daab Michael, Qin Hua, Flint Courtney (Dr.) Mountain Pine Beetles and Invasive Plant Species: Findings from a survey of Colorado Community Residents . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences.
Dolloff, C.A. 1993. Large woody debris, fish habitat, and historical land use. In Biodiversity and coarse woody debris in southern forests. Southern Research Station GTR-SE-94.
Dunham, J.B., M.K. Young, R.E. Gresswell, B.E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of Fire on Fish Populations: Landscape Perspectives on Persistence of Native Fishes and Nonnative Fish Invasions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 183-196.
Eggan, F. R., 1955. Cheyenne and Arapaho Kinship Systems. In Social Anthropology of North American Tribes, Fred Eggan ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ellis, Erhl, and Carrie Scott Ellis, 1983. The Saga of Upper Clear Creek – A Detailed History of An Old Mining Area: Its Past and Present. Jende-Hagen Book Corporation, Frederick, CO 80530
Fall, Patrica, 1980. Holocene Dynamics of the Subalpine Forest in Central Colorado. AASP Contribution Series 16:31-46.
Feiler, Eric J. and R. Scott Anderson, 1993. The Paleoecology of the Dome Creek Meadow, Bear River Corridor, Garfield County, Colorado. Ms. on file with the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Frison, G. C., 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains . Academic Press, New York.
Garland, J.J; 1997. Designated Skid Trails Minimize Soil Compaction, EC1110, The Woodland Workbook, Oregon State University Extension Service.
Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 128, pp. 193-221.
______Page 116 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Goble, Dale D., 2000. Law in the Western United States , by Gordon Morris Bakken (editor), Contributor Dale D. Goble Published by University of Oklahoma Press.
Guthrie, Mark R., Powys Gadd, Renee Johnson and Joseph J. Lischka, 1984. Colorado Mountains Prehistoric Context . State Historical Society of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.
Halloran, Michael, 2005. Historic Context for Irrigation and Water Supply Ditches and Canals in Colorado . Colorado Center for Preservation Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Services Center. Ms available at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado History Museum, Denver, Colorado.
Hilger, M. Inez, 1952. Arapaho Child Life and Its Cultural Background. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 148. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hoefer, Ted and Kevin W. Thompson, 1984. Archaeological Survey of 89 Miles of Seismic Lines in Sand Wash Basin and Adjacent Areas, Moffat County, Colorado . Cultural Resource Management Report No. 12. Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs.
Howell, P.J. 2001. Effects of Distribution and Management of Forest Health on Fish and Fish Habitat in Eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science. Vol. 75, Special Issue. 157-165.
Hughes, J. Donald, 1977. American Indians of Colorado. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado (2nd Edition, 1987).
Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence, 1970. The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont, Vol. 1: Travels From 1838-1844. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Johnson, S. L., and J. A. Jones. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in Western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:30-39.
Kindig, Jean, 1996. Excavations at the Devil's Thumb Ceramic Site, 5BL102, Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, Colorado. Ms. on file with the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest Supervisor's Office, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx Chapter 4 pages 74-98 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Ziellinski (tech eds.), The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO 184 pp.
Kornfeld, Marcel. J. Miller, L.C. Todd, J. Saysette and G.C. Frison, 1992. Paleo-Indian Occupation in a Portion of Colorado's Middle Park: Preliminary Report on Several Sites with Goshen Complex Manifestations. University of Wyoming. Paper presented at the 1992 Plains Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska.
La Point, Halcyon, 1987. A Class I Overview of the Prehistoric Cultural Resources, Little Snake Resource Area, Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 20, Denver, Colorado.
Markgraf, Vera and Louis Scott, 1981.Lower Timberline in Central Colorado during the Past 15,000 Yr. Geology 9:231-234. . McMahon, T.E. and deCalesta, D.S. 1990. Effects of fire on fish and wildlife. In : Walstad, J.D. Radosevich, S.R. Sandberg, D.V. (Eds.). Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Pp 233-250.
______Page 117 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
McWilliams, Carl, 1998. Site Forms for 5BL7231. Forms available at the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Supervisor’s Office, Fort Collins, Colorado.
McWilliams, Carl and Karen McWilliams, 1987. “Multiple Resource Nomination for Rocky Mountain National Park”. MS on file at the Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado.
Mehls, Steven F., 1984a. Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado.
Mehls, Steven F., 1984b. Colorado Plains Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado.
Metcalf, Michael D., and Kevin D. Black, 1991. Archaeological Excavations at the Yarmony Pit House Site, Eagle County, Colorado. Bureau of Land Management-Colorado, Cultural Resources Series No.31, Denver.
Miller, D. J., and L. E. Benda. 2000. Effects of punctuated sediment supply on valley-floor landforms and sediment transport. GSA Bulletin 112:1814-1824.
Miller, Wick R., 1986. Numic Languages. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp. 98-106. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, edited by William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Minshall, G.W., Brock, J.T., Andrews, D.A. and Robinson, C.T. 2001. Water quality substratum and biotic responses of five central Idaho (USA) streams during the first year following the Mortar creek fire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 10. pp 185-199.
Minshall, G.W., Robinson, C.T., and Lawrence, D.E. 1997. Postfire responses of lotic ecosystems in Yellowstone National Park. USA. Can. J. Fisheries Aquat. Sci. 54, 2509-2525.
Mitchell, R.G. and H.K. Preisler, 1998. Fall rate of lodgepole pine killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle in Central Oregon. Western Journal of Applied forestry 13(1): 23-26.
Murphey, R. F. and Yolanda Murphey, 1960. Shoshone-Bannock Subsistence and Society. University of California Anthropological Records 16(7):293-338. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Nakamoto, R.J. 1998. Effects of Timber Harvest on Aquatic Vertebrates and Habitat in the North Fork Casper Creek. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168.
Naze, Brian, 1986. The Folsom Occupation of Middle Park, Colorado. Southwestern Lore 52(4):1-32.
Ochs, Alice S., 1996. Water: Basis for Success. Left Hand Ditch Company History, The First 130 Years. Longmont, Colorado.
Outdoor Industry Foundation.
Page, W.G., Jenkins, M.J.; Hebertson, E.G., 2006. “Mountain Pine Beetle Lodgepole Pine Fuel Complexes.”
Page, W.G., Jenkins, M.J., “Predicted Fire Behavior in Selected Mountain Pine Beetle Infested Lodgepole Pine Stands within the Intermountain Region.” Forest Science. Vol. 53 No. 6. 2007: 662-74
______Page 118 –Final – Environmental Assessment of the Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. 2006b. Ranunculus karelinii Czern. (ice cold buttercup): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ranunculuskarelinii.pdf [Accessed 2010].
Reeves, G.H., Benda, L.E., Burnett, K.M., Bisson, P.A. Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest , In : Nielsen, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Symposium on Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem, vol. 17 Bethesda, MD, pp334- 349.
Retzlaff, Michael. Economic Values at Risk: Economic Indicators for Five Bark Beetle Infested Counties of Colorado . RMC Consultants, Inc. Lakewood, CO. and Economic Insights of Colorado, LLC. Lone Tree, CO. July 2008
Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (2 nd . Edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.
Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.
Suttle, K.B., M.E. Power, J.M. Levine, C. McNeely. 2004. How Fine sediment in Riverbeds Impairs Growth and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids. Ecological Applications. 14(4). pp. 969-974.
USDA Forest Service. Environmental Assessment: Forest-wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests
USDA Forest Service. Environmental Assessment: Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project Portions of the White River National Forest
USDA Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management. s.l. Agricultural Handbook 701.
USDA Forest Service, 2006. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results - Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest. s.l.
USDA Forest Service, 2009. Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests, Pawnee National Grassland . - Recreation [Online] December 31, 2009.
USDA Forest Service – Rocky Mountain Region, 1997. 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan – Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland.
USFS Website. Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Epidemic in Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming.
USFS-DOA, 2006. Forest Service Manual - FSM 2300-Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities. Washington, DC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. Final Environmental Assessment Designation of Critical Habitat for Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. U.S. FWS Ecological Services Field Offices, Cheyenne, WY. June 10, 2003.
______Page 119 Environmental Assessment of the -Final- Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
Wheeler, C. W. and G. Martin, 1984. Windy Gap: Aboriginal Adaptation to Middle Park, Grand County, Colorado. Bureau of Land Management.
Winter, Nore V., James S. Kane, Ellen Beasley, Kathy London, and Liston E. Leyendecker, n.d. Level I Historic Cultural Resource Survey of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and the Pawnee National Grassland. Downing Leach Architects and Planners. Ms. on file with the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Wolfenbarger, Deon, 2006.Agricultural Resources of Boulder County, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Nomination . Ms. on file with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado.
Young, M.K. 1994. Movement and characteristics of stream-borne coarse woody debris in adjacent burned and undisturbed watersheds in Wyoming. Can. J. Forest Res. 24, 1933-1938.
Zachman, Dennis; 2003. Mechanical Treatments to Meet Resource Needs. BLM Resource Notes No. 67.
______Page 120